I feel that both the new and old should be preserved, thus I combined the two to give the maximum respect to each and the team they serve: Shiti Field.
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
I feel that both the new and old should be preserved, thus I combined the two to give the maximum respect to each and the team they serve: Shiti Field.
Bill de Never Going to Give NYCFC a Stadium is currently spewing his national progressive ideas on income inequality on The Daily Show right now. How about he talks about giving us a stadium. Can't wait to vote him out in 2017.
EDIT: Also brought up wanting more affordable housing. Bill de Blasio is the Stadium Nazi. No stadium for you.
The guy is from Italy and spent taxpayer money on a trip there with his family. Wonder if we get Pirlo if that would change his mind.
EDIT: Also brought up wanting more affordable housing. Bill de Blasio is the Stadium Nazi. No stadium for you.
The guy is from Italy and spent taxpayer money on a trip there with his family. Wonder if we get Pirlo if that would change his mind.
The older I get and the more I deal with people in power, the less crazy this thought sounds. It actually might help.
de Blasio's not from Italy his maternal grandparents were. He might have been born in Manhattan, but he was raised in Cambridge, Mass. de Blasio was actually born Warren Wilhelm, Jr. and didn't change his name to Bill de Blasio until he was 22.
He also eats pizza with a fork!
yeah because using tax payers money on a soccer stadium very few new yorkers care about is of more importance than income inequality. get a hold of yourself. the team is owned by an oil tycoon, he can pay for 10 stadiums if he wanted to. blame him.
Last edited:
Even if "only" 25,000 people go to 17 regular season matches a year (not counting potential concerts, other uses, etc.) it would still potentially benefit the city greatly. There's the hundreds of construction jobs for a year or two, there's the material suppliers (concrete, steel, glass, etc.), there's the employees (vendors, concessions, etc.), taxes paid to the city, and probably a ton of other things I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. What about the income from a number of World Cup matches at some point in the future, for example, or college matches (not counting other sports besides soccer).
A good stadium in a good location could definitely greatly benefit the whole city, not just the fans who would go to matches.
Whether the oil tycoon could pay for it 10 times over is of course a separate discussion.
Is there benefits, sure.. but I'm not sure NYC or the tri-state area really need another venue for converts or other events. We can talk about the pros and cons of publicly financed stadiums all day (I'd argue theres far more cons) but my issue was the idea that it would be more wise for the mayor to talk about "giving soccer fans a soccer stadium" than a serious issue like income inequality.
How do you think public will react if they learned the city was paying for a stadium for a team owned by an oil tycoon from the UAE. Fox News will run a week of shows on that.
Also, there is no way a proposed NYCFC stadium will host a World Cup game, unless it's going to have 50k+ seats.
Last edited:
The best thing, and I think all we can hope for from the city given the political ramifications, would be for the city to help negotiate a land deal and push through building permits. If we can finagle a sweet deal on the land cost by doing what they did in Manchester (affordable housing), then even better. But this stadium will be paid for with private dollars.
How many times do taxpayers have to get screwed over by politicians and wealthy team owners to build stadiums for people to finally fucking get it.
We New Yorkers should not have one penny given in the name of a mult-billionaires pet project. Fuck that.
We New Yorkers should not have one penny given in the name of a mult-billionaires pet project. Fuck that.
If the owners Orlando City can fund their own stadium, I do not see why CFG can't do it either.
Its well documented that the "jobs and local commercial boost" doesn't outweigh the downside of what the taxpayers have to shoulder.
This is essentially correct. We do not need De Blasio to pledge public funds. We do need him to negotiate the myriad political traps that can foil even the best plans. NYC is run by giving politicians the right to hold up pretty much anything they want. We need the Mayor's office to keep that from happening.
Problem is - this mayor doesn't have that type of power - or possibly any power to do that.
But typically, the best thing the government could do would be to get the heck out of the way and clear the road for us to do business.
