D.C. United fans rallied on Saturday to express their displeasure with the team's continued struggles to secure a soccer stadium in the D.C. area. The fans, as well as D.C. United officials, came together to let local politicians know that enough was enough.
Here is footage of the event, courtesy of Behind the Badge, D.C. United's team blog:
Will scenes such as these help get the ball rolling on a stadium? D.C. United and MLS sure hope so because the traditional means to secure a stadium haven't worked for years in the D.C. area and maybe, just maybe, the mobilization of D.C. United fans will help let area politicians realize that D.C. United is important to a large number of area citizens.
What did you think of the march? Still have hope that United will find a stadium and stay in D.C.?
Share your thoughts below.
@Gdub: Dunno if you’re still reading here, but just to let you know, I do want to reply; but work is crazy busy and my video card on my machine at home borked out yesterday. Hopefully I’ll reply late today.
Please email Mayor Adrian Fenty and let him know your thoughts on the need for a deal to get going to keep D.C. United in D.C.
http://app.dc.gov/apps/about.asp?page=atd&type=dsf&referrer=%5B$DSF_SERVER_NAME$%5D&agency_id=1075&portal_link=hr
(What can you really say to a guy that’s only experience in sports is cross country…You should have seen him try to swing at some pitches for the opening of Nationals Park, it was worse than Obama bowling!)
Bootsy,
I don’t know what is so “ad hominem” about my argument. I’m simply laying out DC United’s case. Where am I wrong here?
A DCU ideal world would include:
1. An “75%” publicly built stadium, which really means 100% (see #2). This stadium would be soccer-only, and purpose built for DC United, with extremely limited use by outside parties (with DCU likely sharing in the profits).
1b. As a caveat, DC United might build (probably tax free at a minimum) a “free” stadium in exchange for millions of dollars of free land. Of course, our owner cannot be responsible for changes in the business cycle that would affect developers, so a government entity would probably have to back that deal too.
2. DCU’s “25 percent” contribution to be paid as rent into the stadium. rather than as an up-front contribution. (Normally, stadium rent would be paid to upkeep the stadium–where this money would come from is unclear.” Takes great advantage of expected future inflation too.
3. 100% of gameday revenues, although DC United did not build the stadium.
4. Limited liability on bond issues (meaning zero), so any revenue shortfalls in the politically-cooked “projections” would fall to the state/county (see the case of Indianapolis and their new Colts stadium on this one).
I don’t see why this is so offensive: its the exact argument as laid out in the Washington Post and other publications quite often. The “renter’s complaints” of the facility aren’t very convincing except as an argument to buy and build their own stadium.
If you, as a soccer fan, are willing to overlook the fleecing of the public so that a soccer team might be marginally better, I guess that is your prerogative. We’ll all have to endure DCU’s nonsense numbers, oddball economics, and ludicrous profit projections until a government finally says no: maybe that’s now.
If DC United wants to borrow some money and build a stadium, I say great–I look forward to visiting and grant that the team in that case has a full right to the revenues. That’s the European model–and it works.
@Those who say “there is no way DC United is leaving the DC area”:
I would like to know what facts you have to support that assertion.
A stadium in DC is DEAD. A stadium in Maryland is DEAD. And a stadium in Virginia is DEAD. There is NO realistic prospect of getting a stadium built in any of those jurisdictions. The very fact that the club has gone to the level of desperation by having this stadium march indicates pretty strongly to me that it is all over but the shouting — DC United is headed out of the DC area, sooner rather than later.
And DC fans have been endlessly annoying when they crow about their MLS success, as if they have been a truly dominant team in the last 10 years,
That sort of deliberate obtuseness and misplaced sense of greatness makes me feel like United is getting what it deserves.
Posted by: Haig | May 11, 2009 at 03:16 PM
—————————————————
Haig, what other team in the MLS has won 4 MLS Cups along with 8 other trophies?
DC United fans aren’t snobby like everyone thinks. If people would make a road trip out to DC and actually meet the fans they would change their minds. I’m sick of people bashing the fans based on what they see on message boards or have “heard” from people. If you have met a group of DC United fans or one fan who has treated you badly, maybe that person is a bad person, but don’t throw all DC United fans in the same boat.
We welcome all away fans to our pre-game tailgates (SE and Barra Brava). We are all about just having a good time, and supporting the hell out of your favorite team. We’re proud of our team just like every other fan is proud of their favorite team.
I only think our team is the best team in the history of the MLS so far because we have the most championships/supporters shields. Once another team wins more, they will be the best. It’s a fact, not an opinion.
Well, it seems the district is a no-go. Nor are the suburbs.
So like it or not, DCU is going to move within 5 years.
I say move away as close as possible: Baltimore.
@Gdub: I’m starting to suspect you’re trolling; you’re selectively ignoring some of the points people have made to you.
I don’t know where you get the idea that DCU feels they’re “entitled to the economic activity from the surrounding area.” No one has said any such thing, and in fact it’s quite bizarre of you to say that. What *was* said is that revenue streams typically available to teams operating their own stadia — parking, concessions, etc. — are not available to DCU. Remove those streams from the teams in MLS that *are* currently profitable, and they wouldn’t be profitable anymore. Of course DCU doesn’t pay the folks handling the parking lot and the concessions; they’d be happy to do so, but the DCSEC has said no because the DCSEC wants the money from parking and concession sales.
RFK’s poor shape *does* affect DCU, in three ways:
1. falling concrete is a disincentive to coming to games (yes, it’s happened);
2. the spiraling cost of maintaining RFK is sensibly passed along by DCSEC to its tenant — which makes it still harder to actually run a profit;
3. as already said to you, DCSEC plans to tear the stadium down. It’s hard to play in a stadium that no longer exists.
Nearly all of the rest of your post came across as one big troll. Statements like “paid for by the taxpayer, only used by DCU, with all revenues reverting to the non-building team” are factually false right down the line. If you seriously want to discuss this stuff, that’s great. If you simply want to post unfounded ad hominem in an effort to get a rise out of people, well, I got better things to do.
Freamon: “Stringer Bell’s worse than a drug dealer.”
Prez: “He’s a developer.”
@Haig:
Re: #1, based solely on info publicly available, I agree with you.
Re: #2, I’m not sure there was any desire to compete with RBNY or anyone else. Maybe there was. But I don’t think this is really a significant issue. In the case of Poplar Point, at the time, the cost of the stadium itself was to be funded entirely privately; so it wasn’t a factor in the new administration’s decision. In the case of the recent collapse in Prince George’s, the fact that the County Council voted that they were not interested in even *studying* the kind of revenues a stadium could generate (with the study itself funded by the State and not the County) suggests to me that the details of the stadium were not the issue. Instead, it was about the very question of public financing itself. The stadium could have cost half as much, and the electorate would still have been opposed if it meant Prince George’s issuing bonds.
@Flip: anything within (or nearly within) the Beltway in Virginia is hard to imagine. Jack Kent Cooke tried for eons to get a stadium built there; and he had influence and public support that DC United can only fantasize about having.
Again, I’ll say:
If you are playing in a free building and you are complaining about “revenues” then the logical step would be: do something about it.
Again, Mr McFarlane will not front any of his own money. He proposes to pay his “25 percent” through rent, although many count this “rent” as a stadium revenue to the public–it actually is already spent on the bonds.
I have trouble understanding the case that DCU is somehow entitled to the economic activity that occurs around RFK, when they are renters, not owners. Is DC United paying the people who run the parking lot and the concessions? I doubt it.
RFK may be in poor shape, but because DCU are renters, this doesn’t impact them. They get good crowds and sell a good number of tickets to RFK. Its unclear to me how a poor electrical system has any significant impact on fans watching 2 hours of soccer. If you’ve ever been in most English soccer stadiums you wouldn’t believe how good RFK looks.
So we are left with three “needs” of DCU:
1. The “need” of Mr McFarlane for free land to develop. According to this blog, this land should be given to him, without reference to open competition or market value, because he might spend his own money on a stadium (as I’ve said before, this is very unlikely after other tax breaks are thrown in).
2. The “need” of DCU to have a stadium with a fancy scoreboard/video board, high-priced superboxes, and high-priced premium seating to “compete”. This should also be in a stadium paid for by the taxpayer, only used by DCU, with all revenues reverting to the non-building team.
3. As demonstrated by the PG proposal, DCU also needs a public backstop to pay off the bonds when and if stadium revenues fall short of the amount needed to service the bonds. DCU will not have any costs if their brilliant business idea does not result in the “40+” events per year or “millions of dollars” or “1000 jobs” often touted by stadium proponents.
The logical move is to demand these carnies build their own circus tent.
And of course, northern Virginia isn’t an option.
OK, agreed that the change in DC mayor screwed DCU, as did the economy.
DC United screwed themselves badly on the following:
1. All eggs in the Poplar Point basket, instead of open RFP solicitation from different localities, as Chicago and RB/Metro did.
2. Proposal was for best possible stadium (read: expensive), as if DC were trying to compete with Red Bull instead of making a case for an modest, but profitable, stadium.
And DC fans have been endlessly annoying when they crow about their MLS success, as if they have been a truly dominant team in the last 10 years, contrasting their relative success to other DC area teams. Reality check: net MLS league revenues are a small fraction of even the struggling NHL. Per game mean attendance, they outdraw the Nationals, but even the Nationals (one of the crappiest, most unwatchable teams in MLB) draw far more spectators than DC. If MLS played 81 home games, believe me, there wouldn’t be crowds over 15k paying that price every game.
That sort of deliberate obtuseness and misplaced sense of greatness makes me feel like United is getting what it deserves.
@Haig: OK, if you’re arguing that, in the current economic situation, it makes more sense for the District to do nothing with the land than to support development there (whether or not that development involves DCU), that’s a reasonable position to take. I may or may not agree with you; but it’s not a crazy or unfair point of view. What I object to is the characterization of the failed deal as a “sweetheart deal” when in fact it’s no different from any other deal that would have been done for that same land.
Furthermore, it’s worth remembering that DCU did not approach the District with the intent of building there: it was the other way around. DCU developed their plans there because the District came to them and said “hey, how about building your stadium *there*?” So DCU spent a tremendous amount of both time and money working in Ward 8 to develop a plan that respected the surrounding community and the desires of the people who lived there — something that didn’t happen in the subsequent competitive process (I was at community meetings and listened to residents and local leaders express their frustration to City Council members that folks hadn’t made any effort to interact with the surrounding neighborhoods).
Of course, it’s a bit weird to be debating so seriously about something that’s truly dead and buried. I can’t see any chance of DCU getting something done inside DC itself. It’d be nice, but I just don’t see it happening — and not for economic or business-related reasons.
“the District would need to do for any other developer working on that land.”
False choice. Not developing the land at all costs the District ZERO DOLLARS and NO CENTS—– an important consideration in the current economic environment.
Now is the time for DC United to build. Land is cheaper, labor is cheaper, materials are cheaper. But they would have to pay for it privately, so it’s a no go.
I don’t know the specifics, and I understand why arguments would be coming from both sides about the origin of financing for the project.
I am NOT a DCU fan, but I would be genuinely sad to see something not worked out and them having to leave.
At what point are all the jersey/red bull haters going to realize that the fans that visit this site are the ones that actually attend the games and even make the road trips, few as we may be.
Just like the Colts.
Haig: come on, please don’t troll. The infrastructure request which was part of the (now dead) Poplar Point proposal is, as the District itself agreed, no more or less than the District would need to do for any other developer working on that land. In the Clark proposal, the one accepted by the District through the subsequent competitive process, the infrastructure needs provided by the District were identical in cost. If and when anything gets built at Poplar Point by anyone (stadium or no stadium), you’re going to see the District spending money on environmental remediation, water and sewer, roads, etc.
as a red bull fan i would like dc united to have there own stadium..i like traveling down there to watch red bulls vs dc..hopefully they get there stadium
“the city would pay for infrastructure”
How noble that DC United wants the District to clean up the site, put in utilities and roads, pay for maintainance, etc.
The federal government pays directly for a third of the District of Columbia’s budget, so I have a say in whether my tax money should be wasted on a sweetheart deal for DC United’s greedy developer owner.
Man up and pay for your own stadium, you leeches.
RFK is falling apart, and has major electrical issues that would push costs of refurbishment way above what building a new stadium would.
Was not suprised to see more TFC fans show up at RFK than I’ve ever seen from Jersey. You would figure being sponsored by an energy drink would allow some of those classic Jersey couch indentions to breathe.
Gdub: Addressing only your comments about RFK . . .it’s completely false to say “you never really hear what’s wrong with RFK.”
Here’s what’s wrong with RFK: Structurally, RFK is in poor shape, and its continued maintenance is expensive. The DCSEC has publicly stated that their long-term plans do not involve paying for continued upkeep of RFK Stadium. They want to knock it down, and they want to knock it down within the next 10 years or so.
And in the interim, as long as RFK remains under the control of the DCSEC, DC United can’t make money there because too many of the revenue streams aren’t in their control. DC United gets no money from parking. Zero. They get no money from concessions. Zero. The *only* game-day revenue seen by the team are from ticket sales and people buying jerseys.
Why doesn’t DCU just try to buy RFK from the District? Legally, they can’t: the land it’s on is owned by the Federal Government, and use of that land is granted to the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission solely for the operation of RFK Stadium.
This isn’t stuff that’s been hidden from public record — it’s been out in the press zillions of times. You may not have seen it, but to say “you never really hear what’s wrong with RFK” is bunk.
I gotta say, for anyone that’s hoping/encouraging the idea of DC move, I just don’t get it. One thing all fans should be doing is supporting all the teams in getting their own stadiums. Teams that get a permanent home of their own make the league as a whole stronger.
My cheers are for the Bulls, my heart is for the game.
DC fans, good on you for continuing to push for what you want.
Toronto fans that showed up for DC, that’s how this sport will continue to grow. Keep it up.
Ha ha..You guys are very funny..THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that DC United leaves the DC metro area…DC United has the premier fan base in the league. A bankable high attendance at games. In a city that has an affluent, soccer knowledgeable, international mix that would be foolish to throw away..For St. Louis? HAHAHAHA
DC United is simply trying to create some leverage for negotiations. Thats it…You people in St. Louis can keep dreaming that you will get the flagship of the MLS moving to your hometown, but thats all it is..
Gdub, it’s irrelevant if the stadium is suitable for a soccer team or not. The problem is that they don’t own it and are losing money because of it. An MLS team can’t stay in a stadium that they don’t own and lose money every year. They have to move out
S.
1. I guess you are missing the point. If the land is “administered” by the national park service with title possessed by the city, it is “public parkland.” Public parkland, by nature, belongs to the taxpayer. If the government doesn’t sell it now, it can sell it in the future–which is still better than giving it away for free.
2. Somehow, Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, and other stadiums serve their purpose after many decades of service. So does the US Capitol and the White House.
You never really hear what’s wrong with RFK. The grass seems fine, it has parking, and its connected to Metro. Again, if the problem is that you can’t charge 250k a year to a luxury box, well–sounds like the business should take out a loan and invest in itself, like European soccer teams do.
3. To this point, Mr. McFarlane’s money is purely notional and highly contingent on getting free land. If past practice holds up, any money he does “spend” will be amply compensated, dollar for dollar, by property tax rebates.
As for MD’s “double tax”–its still a tax, no matter who pays for it. My preference would be that Mr. McFarlane and Mr. Chang “tax” themselves for this stadium.
This is part of a larger issue with all of sports, and I don’t know the exact specifics of what the DCU ownership is asking for from the local government…but, somebody has yet to explain to me why sports teams deserve taxpayer money for stadiums. It is honestly beyond me. So it will create jobs? Every business does. So they won’t move to another place? That goes for any other business. Why is it just the fat cats who get these handouts. That said, I hope DC gets their stadium
I guess it will go from the RBNY v DC rivalry to RBNY v St Louis rivalry cause there is now way the district is putting up money after the Nationals don’t pay there lease and fight with the city and fans dont show up.
Do what the Red Bulls do, build your own.
To Gdub,
1. Federal parkland, “blighted” or not, is the property of the people and, if not needed for public use, should be sold at maximum benefit to the taxpayer.
—————————-
It’s not “parkland,” it’s just owned by the National Park Service. It’s not a public park, though DC United’s proposal would have *created* one.
It’s also land DC United offered to buy, land that the District had not paid to get. What broke the deal down was that the District didn’t want to build roads and sewers and electric lines. That scotched a deal not only with United, but with the private developer they contracted to buy the land as well.
Governments can be greedy too.
2. your stadium is fine. Perhaps it is “too large” or lacking “amenities” or luxury boxes but from the standpoint of soccer it is just fine. Somehow this stadium did just fine for the World Cup.
——————————————-
Hey Rip Van Winkle, the World Cup was 15 years ago.
3. Since Mr. McFarlane doesn’t seem to have any of his own money to spend in Maryland, given the problems in the property market, what evidence is there he would have money to spend in DC, and not asking for a handout like others of his ilk.
———————————
DC United proposed to pay 25% of the stadium in cash, and finance the bulk of the rest through the double tax Maryland has on stadiums.
Could you please find out, and then tell, the truth here?
I wonder how we can reconcile this statement with “free”?
” United would have paid the costs of the stadium and gotten development rights to the surrounding land, and the city would pay for infrastructure and reap the increased revenue from the development.”
I guess your definition of “free” is “give away taxpayer property for nothing so that a few soccer fans can watch a game.
1. Federal parkland, “blighted” or not, is the property of the people and, if not needed for public use, should be sold at maximum benefit to the taxpayer.
2. your stadium is fine. Perhaps it is “too large” or lacking “amenities” or luxury boxes but from the standpoint of soccer it is just fine. Somehow this stadium did just fine for the World Cup.
3. Since Mr. McFarlane doesn’t seem to have any of his own money to spend in Maryland, given the problems in the property market, what evidence is there he would have money to spend in DC, and not asking for a handout like others of his ilk.
4. Trading in a sleazy insider property deal a cheapo stadium like the Columbus Crew’s stadium for millions in free land is a lose-lose proposition to the taxpayer. Historical evidence has shown that taxpayers don’t “reap” much of anything after these deals, unless they happen to be soccer fans.
Also, instead of moving the team the owners should just sell the team if they can’t afford to build the stadium.
Smith, the stadium in St. Louis would either be in Collinsville, Ill., about 10 minutes across the river from downtown, or else down in Fenton or something. Neither is ideal at all though. Collinsville would be better, but the stigma of having to go to Illinois would draw people away, unfortunately.
Vnice – they got a sweetheart land deal from the city of San Jose, who I am guessing also is paying for infrastructure. Very similar to United’s original (and years-long) foray…
San Jose’s upcoming stadium is entirely privately funded.
United did offer to pay for the stadium in what is currently blighted federal parkland. In fact, the team led negotiations to transfer the park from the feds to the District government. United would have paid the costs of the stadium and gotten development rights to the surrounding land, and the city would pay for infrastructure and reap the increased revenue from the development. Fenty broke off negotiations suddenly the summer before last. He eventually opened it up to “competitive” bidding, with conditions that seemed to be set specifically to preclude the team from entering. The city got seven bids, and eventually picked one, which did include an option for a stadium. However, once the economy tanked, and credit dried up, the developer pulled out, leaving the city high and dry.
Even the PG County stadium proposal that died recently did not involve a straight handout to the team – the state of Maryland would have floated bonds, which would have been paid back through tax revenue generated at the stadium – ticket and concession taxes, e.g.
Please don’t just assume that anybody wanting a stadium must be asking for something completely at taxpayer expense. We’re not all the Washington Nationals.
Stay classy, FC energy drink
Classy folks at your site Ives
the bias has taken over
Red Bull fans do not represent well…in their stadium or on message boards…good luck hating and losing
Can’t wait till DC moves to St. Loo
It’s gonna be great
kpugs the grouch,
DCU getting its own stadium is important to the league — just like it was for the other teams. Grow up.
For DC United season ticket packages, please visit http://www.UHaul.com
“It is kinda disappointing that the D.C. owners led the march. The situation in D.C. is as much their fault as the local government and they deserve a kick in the butt just as much as the politicians.”
I was under the impression that the march was intended to do two things: (1) communicate to public officials that fans expect a good faith effort to develop a stadium plan, and (2) to communicate to DC United’s management that the team’s supporters are not supportive of the threats to relocate to another city.
Yet DC United front office and owners showed up, and the thing became basically a demand for public funding for a private stadium.
How did that happen? How did the grass roots organizers lost control of the message?
@ kpugs: What the hell are you talking about?
Yeah, there were a bunch of Toronto FC supporters at the game. They unfurled a banner saying “Keep United In DC” at the game too.
We all support our own teams, but we’ve got to have some solidarity when it comes to stuff like this.
– Scott
Let me guess, the fans demonstrated by acting like smug iceholes and throwing punches at anyone within arms reach, but if they were alone shied away like whiny little children? Sounds just like ’em.
Can we help you, can we help you…can we help you f**king pack ??
St.Louis United
Where exactly in St. Louis are they going to build the stadium?
The whole stadium issue is always a catch 22. Sports teams have set the precedent that the government pays for much of their stadium now, so if D.C. bites the bullet and pays for itself then other cities will say, “DC did it, why can’t you?”
can they get a stadium if they actually offer to pay for it?
It is kinda disappointing that the D.C. owners led the march. The situation in D.C. is as much their fault as the local government and they deserve a kick in the butt just as much as the politicians.
Cant wait to see St. Louis United games!!!
Toronto FC fans are have said to have joined the rally in support of the stadium project as well