D
dummyrun
Guest
Player sales. Better, cheaper MLS talent. Cap space. Fan interest. Brand building. Community outreach. Growing soccer in your area. Long-term profits if USL succeeds.
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
Player sales. Better, cheaper MLS talent. Cap space. Fan interest. Brand building. Community outreach. Growing soccer in your area. Long-term profits if USL succeeds.
Hassam Ndam is 20 -- highly regarded -- and got almost all of his minutes in RB2 last year. If you cut off at U19 players like him have nowhere to go.
If you follow the NYCFC model so far, that guy is already playing for the Senior team.
The argument is that if you’re an Academy kid and by Age 19, they’re still on the fence about you, you’re probably not good enough.
Because they're discussing a 10k-25k stadium. As Fred notes, that range makes no sense. Well, except for one reason only, which is that this is a backup site to NYCFC's preferred site in the Bronx. If the Bronx plan succeeds, Queens is 10k. If not, Queens is 25k and shared by the two teams.
Or it makes sense because Villa and the elected officials have found funding for a 10k seater. Possibly financed by the Wilpons.
Your argument hinges on Villa being a secret negotiator for NYCFC. That’s outlandish. He’s made multiple claims that he wants to be a sports owner. This is Villa in competition with us for a possible site.
NYCFC clearly isn't doing something right or doesn't want the site. It's entirely conceivable that CFG has a terrible business strategy in private and is poorly negotiating or acting in bad faith. They can't even seem to find a developer to partner with. The positive inference to make is that the Bronx site is nearly wrapped up, but the smoke there has seemed to die down.
It's not inconceivable that Katz and Moya really don't care who brings soccer to Queens, and Villa found partners that came in with private investment and a large community involvement plan that CFG is too entitled to propose. A smaller scale proposal can absolutely be a better option than a 25k option depending on the details.
My speculation is that CFG are difficult to work with and want a lot of concessions. Villa and partners said "we'll build a 10k-seater, privately financed, and maintain the Flushing Meadows fields and provide community programs. Oh, and the stadium will be expandable to 25k if CFG ever get their head out their asses." Why wouldn't Queens jump on that? Worst case scenario, you have some new entertainment infrastructure and a "minor" league soccer team representing the borough in a fully-national league. Best case, you end up luring NYCFC over and bring those crowds to the borough without all the concessions CFG is requesting.
EDIT: Put another way, if we the fans think that NYCFC is "entitled" to Willet's Point, imagine how much entitlement CFG probably feels and brings to the negotiating table.
Last edited:
I'm not fully onboard with the CFG-owned USL team either. I actually like the affiliate model - just do block loans every year to Hartford Athletic or something. If we are just trying to get a handful of U23's game time against adults, do we need the operational costs of a full USL team?
Melinda Katz's interview from 2017 takes on a whole new light when you realize there was a 3rd player (Villa) involved in Stadium discussions. It's actually crazy how clear it becomes:
http://www.empireofsoccer.com/lets-...a-soccer-or-hockey-stadium-in-flushing-57719/
“It was important for someone to say, on a borough wide or city level, this discussion is worth having,” Katz tells EoS in an exclusive interview. “This was about responding to constituent needs … You cant walk through Flushing Meadow Park without seeing the thousands of families playing soccer today. It has become part of our culture, a beautiful part of our culture in Queens and it’s something I think we should respond to.”
"A soccer stadium there would respond to a lot of the constituents request, to have a first class, first rate soccer stadium in the borough of Queens,” she continues. “We have to think bigger, think out of the box more than we have been doing over the last few years and to allow us to have those discussions. Its not park property. It is city or private property and is well worth the discussion.”
“I’ve had discussions over the years with both (Cosmos and NYCFC) but it never focused on Willets Point,” Katz said. “This [address] was not about one organization. This was about the use of the property and whether Willets Point was the right place to continue the stadium like atmosphere of Flushing Meadow Park while continuing to be a place for families to go. Which organization is not what I am about right now.”
http://www.empireofsoccer.com/lets-...a-soccer-or-hockey-stadium-in-flushing-57719/
“It was important for someone to say, on a borough wide or city level, this discussion is worth having,” Katz tells EoS in an exclusive interview. “This was about responding to constituent needs … You cant walk through Flushing Meadow Park without seeing the thousands of families playing soccer today. It has become part of our culture, a beautiful part of our culture in Queens and it’s something I think we should respond to.”
"A soccer stadium there would respond to a lot of the constituents request, to have a first class, first rate soccer stadium in the borough of Queens,” she continues. “We have to think bigger, think out of the box more than we have been doing over the last few years and to allow us to have those discussions. Its not park property. It is city or private property and is well worth the discussion.”
“I’ve had discussions over the years with both (Cosmos and NYCFC) but it never focused on Willets Point,” Katz said. “This [address] was not about one organization. This was about the use of the property and whether Willets Point was the right place to continue the stadium like atmosphere of Flushing Meadow Park while continuing to be a place for families to go. Which organization is not what I am about right now.”
Would expect Villa’s academy would also be build out there and probably use the fields, so upkeep is for community and for him.
D
dummyrun
Guest
The problem with this plan from a player development perspective is that it assumes Hartford—the only viable USL team for NYCFC high schoolers—is going to build its squad to leave room at the position we need to develop, sees our kid as its best option to win, will bring him along at the pace we think is best, is happy to let him go whenever NYCFC wants him, hires its coaching staff in part for their ability to develop teenagers, and plays a system and style compatible with ours.
It also assumes Hartford Athletic isn't already affiliated with the Revs: https://www.prosoccerusa.com/mls/new-england-revolution/revolution-hartford-athletic-affiliation/
While I appreciate that argument, isn't that how player development was done for most of the entire history of professional soccer though? Suddenly if we don't own the team we are loaning a young player to, we are doing it wrong?
D
dummyrun
Guest
Well yeah, this is why clubs have reserve teams. Loaning young players is risky for all the reasons above and often leads to bench time and stagnated development. The ideal path is always going to be through a fully integrated academy-reserve-first team pipeline. Most European clubs loan their kids only if they're ready for the top flight but the first team can't find room, and even then a sale with a buyback clause is usually a better option because it makes the player's new club more invested in his growth.
The middle ground is the hybrid model. NYCFC has techincal control (coaches, players). Separate ownership controls the business side
I spent a little time yesterday looking for obscure updates -- good or bad -- and there are none I can find. So while there's nothing positive there is also nothing to indicate that the developer is going forward at the site but without a stadium, or that a completely different proposal has been selected.
I also tried to get an update on the price of the garage bonds relative to what
Rimil reported herehttp://nycfcforums.com/index.php?threads/stadium-discussion.21/page-722#post-260684
As of late September, the price was $57, up from a low of $20 last December. It's hard to find without pro level access.
MunicipalBonds.com indicates the last trades for this thinly traded security was on December 3 for $66-67.
https://www.municipalbonds.com/bonds/issue/649438FN3/
But when I got a quote thru my brokerage account it said $32.
I'm inclined to believe the $67 price but would appreciate confirmation from someone with better access. If the $67 is correct, and the price has more than tripled in a year, then people are betting on a deal. Something is happening at that site, and the Maddd Equities proposal is the only one ever disclosed publicly.
Anyway, for me, the bond price is the smoke.
Anyone have a Bloomberg terminal want to tell us who is in those bonds now?
Bid 66.25 but as I said I'm not distressed debt trader, I don't know if there is real size behind that or its just a dummy quote. I don't see it as having any trade volume for a while. As far as pro-level access, bbg doesn't do much more then what you can research. Esoteric stuff is handled on dealer runs, and not being in this industry I am not privy to real markets.I spent a little time yesterday looking for obscure updates -- good or bad -- and there are none I can find. So while there's nothing positive there is also nothing to indicate that the developer is going forward at the site but without a stadium, or that a completely different proposal has been selected.
I also tried to get an update on the price of the garage bonds relative to what
http://nycfcforums.com/index.php?threads/stadium-discussion.21/page-722#post-260684
As of late September, the price was $57, up from a low of $20 last December. It's hard to find without pro level access.
MunicipalBonds.com indicates the last trades for this thinly traded security was on December 3 for $66-67.
https://www.municipalbonds.com/bonds/issue/649438FN3/
But when I got a quote thru my brokerage account it said $32.
I'm inclined to believe the $67 price but would appreciate confirmation from someone with better access. If the $67 is correct, and the price has more than tripled in a year, then people are betting on a deal. Something is happening at that site, and the Maddd Equities proposal is the only one ever disclosed publicly.
Anyway, for me, the bond price is the smoke.
Similar threads
