Stadium Discussion

[Fantazma]

Soooo damn complicated

is that the tl;dr?

 

[COLINMOUTH]

is that the tl;dr?

Lol wut

 

[sbrylski]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1025077303087378432

This is the key bit, the last paragraph:

And there’s one final twist to the NYCFC plan: The garages only become available if the Yankees agree to lift the requirement, agreed to in 2006, that the city provide a minimum of 9,500 parking spaces for fans — a provision that even the team owners no longer care about, but which they can decline to do away with unless the city agrees to use the garage property for a project of their liking. In effect, the Yankees and NYCFC can say: Yes, that’s a valuable site you have there — now give it to us for a stadium, or else we’re going to make you keep it a parking garage until long after cars are a thing of the past.

That's pretty good leverage.

 

[JayH]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1025077303087378432

Fire the photo editor.

 

[The Toe]

This is the key bit, the last paragraph:



That's pretty good leverage.

I wonder if we can convince the Yankees, though. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[sbrylski]

I wonder if we can convince the Yankees, though. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

*Villa digs cleat into grass repeatedly while staring down the owners suite*

 

[Ulrich]

I love how the article tries to saddle a potential stadium with $100m of bond payments (as a de facto subsidy) that the city would have to eat..... when in reality that money is never gonna be seen from the parking garage owners. It’s sunk and lost money already.

 

[SoupInNYC]

I love how the article tries to saddle a potential stadium with $100m of bond payments (as a de facto subsidy) that the city would have to eat..... when in reality that money is never gonna be seen from the parking garage owners. It’s sunk and lost money already.

Let's break this down further:

"the new Bronx plan involves a rabbit hole of leases and subleases, public land and private operators, and creative bookkeeping that makes the final price tag difficult if not impossible to calculate."

• "Rabbit hole of leases and subleases"
  • "Instead of giving the land to the team, the city would sell or lease it to a private developer, the exquisitely named Maddd Equities, which was already looking to build housing in the area. Maddd would, in turn, sublease the garage site to NYCFC, which would erect on it a 26,000-seat, $400 million soccer stadium."
  • The author also floats the idea of the city leasing the site to Maddd, who in turn, leases to NYCFC
  • Rabbit hole seems like quite an exaggeration here IMO
• "Public land and private operators"
  • Ummmm, ok. There are tons of instances of public land and private operators. This isn't anything new at all.
• "Creative bookkeeping"
  • "With a little creative financial thought, it’s easy enough to see how NYCFC’s arrangement could be used to sneak in public subsidies as well. The market value for just the 4.5-acre triangle garage site is $31.5 million, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. Let’s say EDC were to offer it up for sale to Maddd for, say, $10 million, and the developer then turned around and leased the site to NYCFC for the same price. Even though the city still wouldn’t be giving any cash to the soccer club, suddenly — presto chango — the Steinbrenners and Sheikh Mansour would be getting a $21.5 million discount on their land costs, courtesy of taxpayers."
  • So basically, his whole creative bookkeeping claim earlier is all presumptious
  • Perhaps I'm the only one, but his assertion near the beginning of the article is that creative bookkeeping is already occurring here, yet, his basis later on is that, this could happen.
  • Additionally, I'm not really certain this guy understands how sales and leases work. He says "sale to Maddd for $10 million" and then in the same sentence says "leased the site to NYCFC for the same price". Ummmm, this ain't going to be leased out at $10m. This appears to be a lazy attempt at trying to explain this away
  • And then he gets into something that was much discussed at the South Bronx site as well: "And if EDC leased the land to Maddd, the deal could be even worse for the city, because the site would then remain exempt from paying city property taxes. The current assessed value of the garage site, per IBO, is $14,165,100; forgoing property taxes on that would cost the city just over $1.4 million a year."
    • But now the city still owns the property in this instance!!!!!

Oh, and how about when the author puts this article in there:
"The worry, obviously, is that somewhere in all that fine print are hidden costs that will end up on the city’s tab. This wouldn’t be at all unusual: When University of Michigan sport management professor Judith Grant Long compiled a database of sports venue deals in 2012, she determined that such under-the-table goodies as free land and tax breaks added an average of 40 percent to the public cost of each stadium and arena."

This, of course, coming after he already alludes to the team not receiving any free land, nor receiving any tax breaks. But he does so in a way, that doesn't specifically point those out.

"Five years ago, NYCFC’s owners planned on having the city let them use the land free of charge — and also free of property and other taxes, for a total public gift on the order of $106 million."

"In this latest iteration, the team owners would do away with the need for public cash by means of a new gimmick."

Note how he doesn't bring back up that it would be free of property and other taxes, except when talking about the city potentially leasing the land out.

 

[LionNYC]

Let's break this down further:

"the new Bronx plan involves a rabbit hole of leases and subleases, public land and private operators, and creative bookkeeping that makes the final price tag difficult if not impossible to calculate."

• "Rabbit hole of leases and subleases"
  • "Instead of giving the land to the team, the city would sell or lease it to a private developer, the exquisitely named Maddd Equities, which was already looking to build housing in the area. Maddd would, in turn, sublease the garage site to NYCFC, which would erect on it a 26,000-seat, $400 million soccer stadium."
  • The author also floats the idea of the city leasing the site to Maddd, who in turn, leases to NYCFC
  • Rabbit hole seems like quite an exaggeration here IMO
• "Public land and private operators"
  • Ummmm, ok. There are tons of instances of public land and private operators. This isn't anything new at all.
• "Creative bookkeeping"
  • "With a little creative financial thought, it’s easy enough to see how NYCFC’s arrangement could be used to sneak in public subsidies as well. The market value for just the 4.5-acre triangle garage site is $31.5 million, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. Let’s say EDC were to offer it up for sale to Maddd for, say, $10 million, and the developer then turned around and leased the site to NYCFC for the same price. Even though the city still wouldn’t be giving any cash to the soccer club, suddenly — presto chango — the Steinbrenners and Sheikh Mansour would be getting a $21.5 million discount on their land costs, courtesy of taxpayers."
  • So basically, his whole creative bookkeeping claim earlier is all presumptious
  • Perhaps I'm the only one, but his assertion near the beginning of the article is that creative bookkeeping is already occurring here, yet, his basis later on is that, this could happen.
  • Additionally, I'm not really certain this guy understands how sales and leases work. He says "sale to Maddd for $10 million" and then in the same sentence says "leased the site to NYCFC for the same price". Ummmm, this ain't going to be leased out at $10m. This appears to be a lazy attempt at trying to explain this away
  • And then he gets into something that was much discussed at the South Bronx site as well: "And if EDC leased the land to Maddd, the deal could be even worse for the city, because the site would then remain exempt from paying city property taxes. The current assessed value of the garage site, per IBO, is $14,165,100; forgoing property taxes on that would cost the city just over $1.4 million a year."
    • But now the city still owns the property in this instance!!!!!

Oh, and how about when the author puts this article in there:
"The worry, obviously, is that somewhere in all that fine print are hidden costs that will end up on the city’s tab. This wouldn’t be at all unusual: When University of Michigan sport management professor Judith Grant Long compiled a database of sports venue deals in 2012, she determined that such under-the-table goodies as free land and tax breaks added an average of 40 percent to the public cost of each stadium and arena."

This, of course, coming after he already alludes to the team not receiving any free land, nor receiving any tax breaks. But he does so in a way, that doesn't specifically point those out.

"Five years ago, NYCFC’s owners planned on having the city let them use the land free of charge — and also free of property and other taxes, for a total public gift on the order of $106 million."

"In this latest iteration, the team owners would do away with the need for public cash by means of a new gimmick."

Note how he doesn't bring back up that it would be free of property and other taxes, except when talking about the city potentially leasing the land out.

I can't imagine the Village Voice would write anything positive about an NYCFC stadium anywhere in New York City.

 

[mgarbowski]

Let's break this down further:

"the new Bronx plan involves a rabbit hole of leases and subleases, public land and private operators, and creative bookkeeping that makes the final price tag difficult if not impossible to calculate."

• "Rabbit hole of leases and subleases"
  • "Instead of giving the land to the team, the city would sell or lease it to a private developer, the exquisitely named Maddd Equities, which was already looking to build housing in the area. Maddd would, in turn, sublease the garage site to NYCFC, which would erect on it a 26,000-seat, $400 million soccer stadium."
  • The author also floats the idea of the city leasing the site to Maddd, who in turn, leases to NYCFC
  • Rabbit hole seems like quite an exaggeration here IMO
• "Public land and private operators"
  • Ummmm, ok. There are tons of instances of public land and private operators. This isn't anything new at all.
• "Creative bookkeeping"
  • "With a little creative financial thought, it’s easy enough to see how NYCFC’s arrangement could be used to sneak in public subsidies as well. The market value for just the 4.5-acre triangle garage site is $31.5 million, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. Let’s say EDC were to offer it up for sale to Maddd for, say, $10 million, and the developer then turned around and leased the site to NYCFC for the same price. Even though the city still wouldn’t be giving any cash to the soccer club, suddenly — presto chango — the Steinbrenners and Sheikh Mansour would be getting a $21.5 million discount on their land costs, courtesy of taxpayers."
  • So basically, his whole creative bookkeeping claim earlier is all presumptious
  • Perhaps I'm the only one, but his assertion near the beginning of the article is that creative bookkeeping is already occurring here, yet, his basis later on is that, this could happen.
  • Additionally, I'm not really certain this guy understands how sales and leases work. He says "sale to Maddd for $10 million" and then in the same sentence says "leased the site to NYCFC for the same price". Ummmm, this ain't going to be leased out at $10m. This appears to be a lazy attempt at trying to explain this away
  • And then he gets into something that was much discussed at the South Bronx site as well: "And if EDC leased the land to Maddd, the deal could be even worse for the city, because the site would then remain exempt from paying city property taxes. The current assessed value of the garage site, per IBO, is $14,165,100; forgoing property taxes on that would cost the city just over $1.4 million a year."
    • But now the city still owns the property in this instance!!!!!

Oh, and how about when the author puts this article in there:
"The worry, obviously, is that somewhere in all that fine print are hidden costs that will end up on the city’s tab. This wouldn’t be at all unusual: When University of Michigan sport management professor Judith Grant Long compiled a database of sports venue deals in 2012, she determined that such under-the-table goodies as free land and tax breaks added an average of 40 percent to the public cost of each stadium and arena."

This, of course, coming after he already alludes to the team not receiving any free land, nor receiving any tax breaks. But he does so in a way, that doesn't specifically point those out.

"Five years ago, NYCFC’s owners planned on having the city let them use the land free of charge — and also free of property and other taxes, for a total public gift on the order of $106 million."

"In this latest iteration, the team owners would do away with the need for public cash by means of a new gimmick."

Note how he doesn't bring back up that it would be free of property and other taxes, except when talking about the city potentially leasing the land out.

The entire article is built on the fact that there are no details of even a proposed deal, which allowed the author to say the deal might involve:
- below market sale price
- below market lease price
- tax breaks
- other subsidies.
And if any of these things happen -- and nobody can prove they won't right now -- then this is a bad deal.
Basically, this is as well sourced as that stupid Villa is holding out midseason for a new contract rumor yesterday.

 

[Ulrich]

I can't imagine the Village Voice would write anything positive about an NYCFC stadium anywhere in New York City.

I don’t mind criticism of the stadium if it’s legitimate and factual, but the VV piece completely distorts the situation and misrepresents the monetary considerations. That’s not neutral reporting, but rather an agenda-based hack job, or a writer that does not understand the material they’re writing about. Not sure which is worse.

 

[mgarbowski]

I don’t mind criticism of the stadium if it’s legitimate and factual, but the VV piece completely distorts the situation and misrepresents the monetary considerations. That’s not neutral reporting, but rather an agenda-based hack job, or a writer that does not understand the material they’re writing about. Not sure which is worse.

It's the same guy who wrote the article about the other Bronx proposal from a few months ago - I can't keep some of these names straight - Harlem River yards maybe?
Anyway, he has a website devoted to stadium subsidies, and I think he wrote a book. He knows his stuff, and I think this is an issue that deserves skepticism and investigative reporting. Unfortunately, it seems this guy believes that as long as he's on the side of the angels the basic rules of journalism, honesty, and such need not apply

 

[Ulrich]

It's the same guy who wrote the article about the other Bronx proposal from a few months ago - I can't keep some of these names straight - Harlem River yards maybe?
Anyway, he has a website devoted to stadium subsidies, and I think he wrote a book. He knows his stuff, and I think this is an issue that deserves skepticism and investigative reporting. Unfortunately, it seems this guy believes that as long as he's on the side of the angels the basic rules of journalism, honesty, and such need not apply

Sorry, but writing a book does not constitute being an expert, especially when he confuses/attaches the previous garage owner’s $100m debt with any new deal. It’s apples and oranges, and the city made their bed in the last deal and will never see the money whether a new deal happens or not. That’s shite writing and logic on his part.

He made enough gaffes covering the last one, and then this one, that his expertise doesn’t appear solid.

As I said, I have no issue with accurate and factual reporting, but this “expert” just published a hack/hatchet piece.

 

[Fantazma]

Lol wut

i was at work didnt read article, so asking if that was the "too long, didnt read" summary of the article.

 

[COLINMOUTH]

i was at work didnt read article, so asking if that was the "too long, didnt read" summary of the article.

Ohh gotcha. Caught up I’m assuming? If not, that sniveling dude basically tried hard to make it all negative but when it comes down to it, sure sounds like the club and the Yankees are in the power-chair to make the GAL site happen.

 

[The Toe]

Not specific to our stadium, but this is an interesting graph:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1025458757042487296

 

[Ulrich]

Not specific to our stadium, but this is an interesting graph:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1025458757042487296

That’s just motor injuries, but I’d be curious to see a graphic on staphylococcus infections per surface. I guarantee that the indoor fields & synthetic surfaces are bigger incubators than grass surfaces.

It was kinda nauseating watching the players spit during the Allstar game because it’ll never wash away and is just gonna collect.

 

[Fantazma]

That’s just motor injuries, but I’d be curious to see a graphic on staphylococcus infections per surface. I guarantee that the indoor fields & synthetic surfaces are bigger incubators than grass surfaces.

It was kinda nauseating watching the players spit during the Allstar game because it’ll never wash away and is just gonna collect.

lol eww really? there is no way to spray it out or something with water or something else ?

 

[Ulrich]

lol eww really? there is no way to spray it out or something with water or something else ?

Don't think so, because if there's a drain, then all those rubber pellets would wash away too. With no drain, any spray would collect & pool, plus, would you really want to be playing on a surface treated with antiseptic chemicals on a regular basis - there'd be a residual amount of it coming in contact with your skin???

 

[FredMertz]

You guys are probably wondering about my thoughts on the stadium financing issue.

I actually wrote a feature in the LA Times about it:

https://www.latlmes.com/sports/nycfc-latest-to-try-stadium-financing-scam-1