He's a politician, if you dig deep enough he's probably done something that at least looks dirty.
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
He's a politician, if you dig deep enough he's probably done something that at least looks dirty.
Just give Billy his pay off and let's get rolling already!
Someone else will run. There's no freaking way this jamoke is going to be allowed to keep doing what he's doing (or more accurately, what he's not doing).
Well its 7 months to the election and I don't see anyone else in the picture besides deblasio and the lead brick. If he polls within 10 points at any point I will be genuenly surprised.
Whether deblasio gets indicted or not that's a whole different story. But those donations connected to the banning of horse and carriages in Central Park look rather suspicious.
Things won't heat up until June which is when you need to declare you're running. Wiener was the clear leader last election and his dick pics didn't show up until August. There's plenty of time for Bill to get indicted.
Listening to SITC, our orginal stadium plans were under 25k and now we looking at 30-35k because of our attendance success at Yankee Stadium. Theres concern that the parking garage site next to YS is too small for the stadium we need at that size.
Hmm. That's interesting. I guess you can't blame them for assuming under 25k when all they had as reference was across the Hudson. It's also interesting to hear they are now focused on 30-35k, which is what we talked about here for a while. After all the moves this off-season, and now this, maybe they are running the club based on what we say here on the Forums.
More evidence that they feel it's worth it to wait until the Willet's Point dust settles, perhaps...
Do the SITC folks offer evidence for this or is it just speculation. It makes sense, but I'm wondering if there's actual meat to it other than someone trying to make sense of the limited known facts. Is there more detail in the podcast on this point to make it worth listening to just for ths point? I'm not big on listening to people talk; I much prefer getting info in written form but I'm willing to make exceptions on occasion.
Definitely true. IF this is coming from an actual source it could be one more factor that supports the hypothesis that they're waiting on Willet's, rather than settling for being boxed in by the Metro-North, Deegan offamp, and actual park at GAL.
The info was presented by Rob Abramowitz. He just passed it along as if it were something that he knew was true. He didn't hedge by saying something like "it appears" but he also didn't say why he thought or knew it to be true.
My take on hearing it was that this is something he knows because his job has him hanging around the team and its execs a fair amount. It certainly makes sense. I don't think the Club expected such good attendance, and people here have pointed out that you can't fit RBA on that site without building over the tracks.
My take on hearing it was that this is something he knows because his job has him hanging around the team and its execs a fair amount. It certainly makes sense. I don't think the Club expected such good attendance, and people here have pointed out that you can't fit RBA on that site without building over the tracks.
Yup - that, or taking some of the Heritage Field area. Even if you only took some of the peripheral space there (let alone the field itself), you would be opening the door to a war with the community that is still upset over the way the original Macomb's Dam space was taken.
The original articles from 2013/14 indicated the GAL stadium could be 30K.
Maybe you could take a portion of the field in exchange for converting another useless parking lot into park space. You have to assume the lots that were built at the same time as the new stadium could handle all car traffic. Maybe they could turn the lots along the river and between 162nd/164th & River Ave into parks. In any case, I think 30k would be a minimum at this point.
That's a possibility - although I wonder how much of the parking over there (if any) is used for park and ride commuters on weekdays. How much of it would the MTA be willing to give up if it could interfere with that?
Anyway, if a space at Willet's Point is potentially opening up for them that has none of the logistical challenges that the GAL site has, I certainly can't blame them for holding out for it.
The only other detail that was interesting was that the owner is trying to sell the plot to the team at a very inflated price which could be the primary reason that we haven't made a move yet. Abramowitz mentioned something about eminent domain, but I couldn't tell if it was a tip or speculation.
It's worth mentioning that Abramowitz seemed also to have some of the public parts of the story all screwed up. He said that there was a holdout demanding lots of money, but according to him it was the owner of the failing parking garage, which doesn't make any sense. He did not mention the GAL Elevator company or the municipal bonds that would need to be paid off on the parking garages. Now, perhaps some of what contradicts the public record on this might be some inside knowledge he has, but much of it just didn't make sense. He also seems to be less than intimately familiar with the story and going somewhat off the cuff and on memory.
What if the "owner" of the garage is NYC and the "lots of money" covers the back taxes?
