"It was raining today, so NYCFC got Dave and Andrew to put out positive stadium tweets to distract people from the bad weather."
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
I know there's a lot of crap out there about how reporters are dishonest and liars, etc -- but that crap is being put out there by dishonest actors. 95% of reporters are honest, hard-working, earnest, and only looking for the truth. The NY Times is the most venerable paper in the country -- anyone who thinks they are going to risk their credibility at the feet of New York City Football Club is delusional.
This is separate from the whole NYCFC issue, but the NYTimes has had a horrendous record across the entire paper over the last few years, I won’t even go into the MaggieH/political reporting.
The NYTimes removed their Public Editor position, in 2017, who was the equivalent of an IG making sure the paper was ethically reporting factual information, and after backlash their statement was it wasn’t needed any more because in this digital age the masses on social media would keep the paper in check? That’s exactly what’s happening now.
Do they still do important reporting, no question about it, but the newspaper is not as clean as you're making it out to be. That belongs to the Washington Post.
But why should they have the right? Why would we let anyone else get involved? It sounds like a disaster
Everyone that is blasting NYCFC supporters for their cynicism is missing the point. They’re looking at it from the perspective of the NYT and not the Club.
NYCFC: We have to make this RBA Announcement (NYT is on line 1 for a comment Brad!)
NYT: We’re running a story on Friday about XYZ. Care to comment?
NYCFC: Comments shared
NYCFC: Time RBA info with NYT release
NYCFC: We have to make this RBA Announcement (NYT is on line 1 for a comment Brad!)
NYT: We’re running a story on Friday about XYZ. Care to comment?
NYCFC: Comments shared
NYCFC: Time RBA info with NYT release
We get that. We just don't see why it's so important that it has to be said over and over and over again. So they timed a good thing with a bad thing. And? It's better than sitting on a bad thing for three or four extra days before the good thing. I mean, think of it from personal situations - would you rather break bad news without any good news? Or would you rather have both to ease the situation?
I'm not saying they should have the right, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't the BID itself looking for part ownership, but the BID looking for part ownership for the local community.
The reason why they feel the local community should have the right, is so that any development that is held accountable to the local community's needs and doesn't shun them out. This has happened in many developments, a great example being Yankee Stadium.
Again, I'm not sure an actual part ownership by the local community is the way to go, but the developers/club really do need to be sure to involve the local community and incorporate their needs (to a reasonable degree) in this ordeal.
I would rather have a club that cared more about their fans than optics, but that's just me.
Why is this optics related? They don't want their fans sitting on bad news for more than they have to, and figured they could make it not as bad by doing both releases at the same time.
Secondly, for people saying 'I need time to plan to get to RBA' - it would take similar time from midtown to RBA and to MCU/St Johns, so idk.
What could/should the club have done differently here to demonstrate that they care about their fans? They certainly couldn't open a stadium in two weeks.
I'm not suggesting that they got this right, just curious about your thoughts. I have no major issues with the timing, or suspect any news release manipulation. I think that my only question/concern is whether YS truly was a non-starter. If it were just a matter of cost, or some coaxing/inconvenience to reverse the winterizing, I think they could have made the accommodation (event if costly) rather than hit what they should have known was a trigger point in an already long and painful road. My other question/concern was the viability of other options - but seeing above in real time that Crooks will address this FWIW.
I would also love to know the true reasons why ys was not prepared as a venue. Yes we can all speculate but did concacaf not approve it? Or was it a matter of money as you mentioned. If it's the latter, I'd have expected the club to suck it up and make it happen.
I suspect we won't know the truth even with crooks interviewing Sims. Crooks wouldn't risk his access just to dig into the truth.
How could Concacaf not approve of YS when Sims has said the next round would be at YS/Citi...... if they didn’t approve it for the 1st round, then they won’t approve it later. The club either didn’t put it up for consideration or Concacaf didn’t approve of it, and both clash with the FO’s dissemination of information.
Interesting to note: What wouldn't have met CONCACAF's standards? Some of the fields the federation allows are dreadful. It must be something really strange. What facilities wouldn't be up to code there?
In this case, it's the process not the results that is the issue.
Personally, I don't really care that RBA is being used. Compared to Belson, it's easier for travel by train, I can eat some Portuguese food in the Iron Bound, and can have a beer at the game.
We went from our CCL game at Yankee Stadium to MCU Park to Belson to RBA with very little transparency from the club. The club had to have known months ago that Yankee Stadium and Citifield were not going to be available. Where was the official comment? Where was the official comment on what venues they were considering and why?
Atlanta fans were told on Dec 10th the day after the draw that their CCL match was going to be at an alternative venue.
It's time to end this crisis management PR bullshit.
It's either the field dimensions, practice availability for the other team, or ad signage space. From what I recall reading the regs, concacaf requires exclusive ad space and doesn't want any other ads to be shown during their broadcast that isn't their own. Making the field available for practice may also be an issue too.
You are forgetting the key words in Sims email .. "pending approval". So yea Sims is saying they'd be available, which after crook's question and answer sounds like it means the Yankees are willing to dewinterize it if approved.
Correct. It's signage and practice and not the field. Yes, certain haters are going to assume it is field size, but that's not it.
Don’t assume it’s the Yankees approval that’s pending. It’s just as easily Concacaf’s. Sims is engaging in word salad and the duality of meanings/interpretation.
