Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
I read David's tweet as the same facts we already learned (thanks Soup) with a more dramatic delivery.
This wouldn't be the first delayed vote or negotiation prolonged as a result of attorneys and parties revisiting terms and/or catching an ambiguity or room for improvement at the last minute. The hurt feelings aren't helpful, but it doesn't mean anything is being irreparably derailed.
Sounds to me like a provision in the term sheet was ambiguous and now multiple parties are threatening as if they are willing to blow up the deal without one more concession. Most often something gets worked out. Not always, but mostly.
So how many games are we playing at RBA next year? All of them?
Yeah, I think David's tweet didn't include anything new, it just included better trigger words that were more "click-baity" IMO. Mentioning the deal has "fallen apart" is quite an overreach and I think with him adding at the front "The on-again, off-again" stadium project is his way of going back to saying that the fallen apart is just a temporary thing even though it reads much more sensationally than that.
A couple of other points:
- He said the City postponed an upcoming board meeting. I know what David is trying to say here, but this isn't quite right. The board meeting occurred, and there was plenty of discussion in that meeting about this whole mess. The vote on severing the lease that was supposed to occur during that meeting was postponed. I believe this last part is what David is referring to.
- "The City" was the one that postponed the vote. In this case, the EDC = "The City". EDC postponed the vote because of the last minute changes to the terms, which still are not final. EDC wanted to make sure that the board knew exactly what they were voting on, which is why there was 30 minutes of discussion on this item during the May CB4 board meeting. David tweeted out a statement from EDC on this and I'll link that in a separate post in a second since Twitter isn't working on my computer at the moment.
- David's tweet vaguely mentions the deal has fallen apart over "parking spaces" and doesn't provide any further context. A later tweet says it's about the number of parking spaces available to the Yankees on game days. I really didn't like the first vague mention because readers not previously following along probably think that it's NYCFC looking for more parking. I saw a few responses to David's tweet saying similar things. The second tweet wasn't quite right either as EDC mentioned several times that the number of spaces weren't changing, but how parking was designated as "attended" vs "unattended".
- And then, there was no mention of the Yankees. I get that because David covers baseball for the NYT, so he's likely not going to want to burn any bridges there. But they are the biggest player in all of this delay.
I want to add I'm somewhat sympathetic to both sides here. I have no idea whether one side misled the other to get to this point, but on the merits:
- The Yankees are saying even though we clearly had too many spaces, we still need some, and they are in terrible shape, so it is reasonable to get a guarantee of a lower figure that are maintained well.
- The City is saying we're only in this fiasco because we guaranteed parking spaces and we need to get out of that altogether.
Last edited:
I agree with your points here, but I think most of the frustrations towards the Yankees are due to:I want to add I'm somewhat sympathetic to both sides here. I have no idea whether one side misled the other to get to this point, but on the merits:
Those are both fair positions. But I'm not sure the city is the right entity to guarantee the parking. Like maybe MADD takes them over as part of the project, with a one time subsidy provided by CFG, the Yankees and the City in return for a guarantee that MADD maintains them for [20? 30?] years minimum. Then neither the Yankees or city are in the parking business and we move on from there. Give MADD enough money and
- The Yankees are saying even though we clearly had too many spaces, we still need some, and they are in terrible shape, so it is reasonable to get a guarantee of a lower figure that are maintained well.
- The City is saying we're only in this fiasco because we guaranteed parking spaces and we need to get out of that altogether.
- The terms that were originally provided to CB4 were drafted by Maddd and the Yankees so you'd hope that they would have included that to begin with. I do understand sometimes shit just gets missed, but these terms were originally provided back in December so there was plenty of time to figure that out. I'm assuming that someone just caught it very last second, which can happen and I think is somewhat reasonable, and it also sucks, but that is compounded way more due to....
- The Yankees forcing an earlier vote at CB4, threatening to pull out of the deal if the vote didn't happen in June. CB4 then did a bunch of work to make it happen and the last minute updates delaying that vote didn't sit well at all. I am of the thought that the frustration in the bullet above really wouldn't be all that bad if this item here didn't occur.
- Nobody from the Yankees attended the June CB4 meeting, or at least nobody spoke up from the Yankees. Levine making the comments but not having any representative attend the CB4 meeting and discussing any of it is a really shitty look IMO. Maddd provided a rep and while I still think some of the things she said weren't a great look or were conflicting, I think the fact that they made someone available to have those discussions was much better.
Hey
SoupInNYC, if you had to give in terms of percentage of confidence that this deal gets done based on your research, what percentage would you give that the stadium gets built?
SoupInNYC, if you had to give in terms of percentage of confidence that this deal gets done based on your research, what percentage would you give that the stadium gets built?Maybe it’s time CFG provided a rep for these meetings. Unless the Yankees are in charge of the franchise now.
I feel fairly confident it gets done there, just a matter of when. So in terms of percentage that the stadium is built up there, I'd say 80%. The only thing with that is, when does it happen and does the stadium and associated development tie into the community well that they aren't fucked over.Hey
I don't see anything that is a deal-breaker here except for possibly the Yankees. I think they are the ones capable of blowing it all up, but I don't get the sense that they will.
There really isn't any reason for CFG or NYCFC to be involved in these meetings at this point.
Once the lease is severed and they can start discussing development with the community, then yes, bring them in. But a NYCFC or CFG rep would have no reason to be involved in discussions around severing the parking garage leases. Except maybe only in a "listen only" capacity to get a pulse of the community and I can't say that the club isn't doing that (nor can I say that they are).
There does happen to be one board member who is a community assistant coach with NYCFC, but I doubt he's acting in the capacity of any kind of liaison and he definitely hasn't acted in any such manner during the public meetings.
you are super involved in this. It just feels like the Yankees aren’t doing us a ton of favors.
I guess your point is - the Yankees have to negotiate the garage stuff with the EDC, the City and the community. No need for CFG to show up just yet because there’s nothing CFG can do until the Yankees finalize a nee arrangement.
but man. It seems like they’re doing a less than stellar job here. Especially if they now are balking at how many garages are getting demolished. That has to be in conflict with us
My guess, based on the RBA attendance this year, is that they'd be better off financially playing games literally anywhere else.
The Yankees are run by A-holes (Randy Levine is one of the biggest), but they are F*in smart.
My guess here is that the Yankees know exactly when things need to get moving in order to have a legit chance of having the stadium open when they want it open. I'd bet that that date is attainable if it were approved last week and if it's approved at the next meeting. So they're going to do whatever they can to squeeze whatever they can out of whoever they can until that time.
Another question: Why is Waldstein writing and messing things up for the NYT and not
SoupInNYC actually getting it right?
SoupInNYC actually getting it right?
So the Yankees are worried about losing parking for events at Yankee Stadium, but isn't one of the major facets of the deal the fact that the parking garages are wildly underutilized right now?
