By DAN KARELL
While Philadelphia Union fans await the formal announcement of the acquisition of Maurice Edu, new details have emerged on the deal to bring the U.S. Men’s National Team midfielder back to MLS.
Having first reported the completion of Edu’s move to the Union on Friday, Goal.com followed up on Monday with a report offering more details on the move, which will be a 12-month loan deal with a purchase option.
The Union have yet to formally announce the signing, but an announcement is expected to take place this week.
With plenty of uncertainty around his playing time at Stoke, Edu reportedly turned down offers in England, France, and Spain to return to MLS. Edu starred for Toronto FC in 2007 and half of the 2008 season after being selected first overall in the 2007 MLS SuperDraft.
The 27-year-old midfielder has played just once for Stoke since moving to the English Premier League club in August 2012 from Scottish club Rangers. This season under manager Mark Hughes, the USMNT midfielder hasn’t even made the game-day squad for a single match. If Edu does join the Union, he’ll join Argentine winger Cristian Maidana, with French winger Vincent Nogueira reportedly nearing a deal with the Union as well.
Here are some more stories from around MLS:
D.C. STADIUM PROPOSAL FACING PUBLIC OPPOSITION
D.C. United’s hopes for a soccer-specific stadium of their own took a hit.
With an agreement between the District of Columbia city council and land owners still waiting to be reached, a recent poll conducted by the Washington Post shows that nearly 60 percent of D.C. residents oppose public funding on a soccer stadium.
D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray pledged last July to provide $150 million in land swaps and other infrastructure to help D.C. United owners Erick Thohir and Jason Levien build a new stadium in Buzzard Point. However, with Gray’s mayoral post up for re-election this November, plenty of his opponents are pointing to the soccer stadium project as a key talking point.
The poll, which interviewed 1,003 D.C. residents across multiple demographics found that 59 percent opposed the stadium project and that just 35 percent supported it. The results aren’t much different from the last time D.C. United tried to build a stadium of their own in 2008, when 60 percent of residents opposed it.
Since the Washington Post published the poll, the Mayor Gray’s office has responded by claiming that the question posed in the poll was too general, and reminding fans that the the current plan is for D.C. United’s ownership to solely pay for the stadium.
BEITASHOUR ON VERGE OF WHITECAPS MOVE
Steven Beitashour is unlikely to return to the San Jose Earthquakes this season but his next destination may not be Europe after all.
According to a report in ESPN FC, the 26-year-old right back is on the verge of signing for the Vancouver Whitecaps pending a physical. In return for Beitashour, the Earthquakes would receive an undisclosed amount of allocation money.
The Whitecaps and Earthquakes have not yet commented on the report.
Beitashour would help fill the loss of former South Korea international Young-Pyo Lee after he announced his retirement towards the end of last season.
Beitashour’s move could also help him make the Iran World Cup squad. Born in the U.S. to Iranian parents, Beitashour originally accepted a call up to the U.S. Men’s National Team in August 2012, but after not playing or being included in the next few squads, decided to pledge his future to Iran’s National Team last October. He’s since made three appearances.
GONCALVES NOT APOLOGIZING FOR COMMENTS
Fresh off winning MLS Defender of the Year, Jose Goncalves hasn’t been shy about his request for an improved contract.
The 28-year-old centerback helped turn the New England Revolution into a playoff contender last season but instead of re-negotiating his contract the Revolution exercised their team option in his current deal to keep Goncalves around for the 2014 season. In an interview with a blog “A Minute in Sports!” last week, Goncalves stated that ownership had broken certain promises and Goncalves didn’t back down from those statements last Saturday after the team’s first preseason training and media session of the season.
“I don’t really need to say (what) kinds of promises have been made,” Goncalves told reporters. “I think it’s something that stays between me and the club. Of course, they know exactly what I am talking about. It’s a situation we tried, in the past, to find a solution (to).”
“It’s very important that I feel that I am welcome here. I am worth it, what I am doing on the field, and also outside the field. That’s something I take very personally, and it’s very important as a player, and as the captain of the club, to feel that.”
Goncalves added that regardless of the situation, he would remain professional and continue to work hard ahead of the upcoming season. Revolution head coach Jay Heaps said he’s had a few conversations with Goncalves about the incident and he’s hoping the situation can be resolved.
JOSEPH NOT IN SCHMID’S SOUNDERS PLANS
Twelve months ago Shalrie Joseph was a Designated Player. Now, he’s unlikely to see the field in a Seattle Sounders jersey again.
Following their first day of preseason training in Seattle, Sounders head coach Sigi Schmid took some time to speak with the local media. Among other subjects discussed, Schmid confirmed that while Joseph was still on the roster, he isn’t in Schmid’s plans for the upcoming season.
“Shalrie is still a member of our team, but right now he’s not really in our plans,” Schmid told reporters. “As we move forward, we’ll see how that resolves itself. I’m not sure what the ultimate resolution will be, but right now he’s not in our plans for this season.”
GALAXY DENY FERDINAND LINK
Rio Ferdinand may continue playing beyond this season but it looks as though it won’t be with the Los Angeles Galaxy.
Galaxy president Chris Klein denied recent reports linking the former England international to the Galaxy, telling ESPN FC that there is “no truth” to the reports. Ferdinand is expected to leave Manchester United this summer on a free transfer after losing his starting place in the squad.
“Rio is a great player but we do not have an interest and there have been no discussions between LA Galaxy and Rio Ferdinand,” Klein told ESPN FC.
What do you think of these reports? Think that Edu can turn the Union into a playoff team? Do you see D.C. United’s stadium plan falling apart? How do you see Beitashour fitting in with the Whitecaps?
Share your thoughts below.
What is the idea of Stoke signing so many US players only having them not play and just rot? Avoid that team USMNT.
Is Beita’s potential move to the Caps for anything besides $$$? He got plenty of PT after returning from his injury last season (unlike Morrow) and seemed like he was still a part of the team fabric (unlike Chavez) and had much to contribute (unlike Baca).
I am fine with Morrow going, at least the Morrow of 2013…but Beita? This sucks for the Quakes fans and I guess we need to see what they do with the allocation cash.
This stadium is never getting built. DC will eventually move to DC. Watch.
This is the first thing on this topic you’ve said that has ever made any sense. And, I say this loosely:
January 27, 2014 at 2:37 PM
This stadium is never getting built. DC will eventually move to DC. Watch.
Agreed, this would solve everything………………………………………………………………….
Am I right in thinking that DCU would pay for the stadium? If it’s just infrastructutre, I don’t see what the problem is. It’s not like DCU can build a metro stop or roads or whatever.
But that’s still money the government doesn’t need to otherwise spend. It likely has much better uses for that money.
I live a half mile from the proposed stadium site. That area west of South Cap and south of M needs massive development. I assure you, DC does not have better things to invest it’s money in than infrastructure to fuel development in that neighborhood. On the flip side, nobody is going to invest any private money into that hood unless the district is going to improve infrastructure — with or without a DCU stadium.
Here’s the deal: the only way that plot of land is every going to have businesses and houses on it is if the city puts in water and sewer and roads. That’s at the very basis, the core of what city governments do–put in water and sewer and roads. For you to say that the city has better uses for it’s money is like saying that the city has better uses for its money than to have a police force or to actually govern. Creating infrastructure in urban environments is one of the core responsibilities of any city government.
Time for Barra Brava and Screaming Eagles to cash-in sick time & pack city hall with drums and chants.
Soccer Biz 101
Why doesn’t DC United just play at RFK? DC U does not own it, it rents, it pays for the rent and doesn’t make money on concessions, parking, etc.RFK is too big, DC United are not yet good enough to make RFK a filled stadium.
A smaller stadium filled at 20,000 with the corresponding concession. parking and other revenues, Makes more money to the ownership group than playing in RFK which it does not own.. The other reason is that MLS teams with new stadiums see the worth of the club triple and in some instance quadruple. If you sell of your team, this is the only money you can take out, as you have floated the team that do not break even most of the time. This is changing, a majority of the teams in the MLS are now making money, thank mainly to newly constructed and owned soccer specific stadiums. The less the stadium costs to you, the more money you will make from the revenue stream and the more your team is worth. Get public financing and you make more money for the team and for yourself.
What bothers me is that why public funding? If it’s free money then yeah. BUT, with the economy the way it is and the prime rate so low, it seems to me a savvy ownership group can look for money at a real low rate. These are often associated with public/private funding groups that offer a reduced rate for some public consideration. This is NOT money coming from the coffers of a city, which is what is proposed, but a public/private money source.
I do not know how well the DC United ownership group is connected to money sources. It does not appear they do. But requiring public money in these times id perilous, fraught with traps and very unreliable.
Case in point. The NFL has been stuck in no mans land with an LA franchise. They have lost BILLIONS in marketing revenue as they do not have a team in the second largest market in the US It because the NFL refused to come down on its rights and franchise fee and ownership groups insist on public money or financial give backs.to put a stadium anywhere in the grater LA area as it is cost prohibitive. The NFL is actually using LA to help other MLS team in “build me a new stadium or I move to LA scenario. Except nobody it seems, ever moves to LA.
In step the Galaxy ownership group (AEG) which is in progress of building a 72000 seat stadium in the downtown area next to Staple Arena (Farmer Field) The stadium is privately financed except for infrastructure improvements (which are bonded) Should a NFL franchise be awarded the stadium can be finished in 2013. other wise 2016. AEG wouls sell the new team the stadium or become a partner.
As it looks now, no NFL franchise is on the horizon and in 2016 the Galaxy ownership will have a very modern brand new NFL stadium with no team! BUT it will also have an MLS Soccer stadium.that can be used by the Galaxy. While there has been no mention or plans to move the Galaxy there, the AEG group knows it has a hole card with it’s successful LA Franchise using it til an NFL team returns, which the way things are may be in twenty more years.
I meant …helping NFL teams,(not MLS teams)..use LA as leverage for improvements to their own stadiums.
The Minnesota Vikings use this ploy recently, and started the process by hinting that a move to LA was in the works should they not get a new stadium. Well, the City and State called their bluff and said no.
The Vikings will stay and use their own private money for the new stadium and this is the reason you see the MLS “in deep and advanced” talks with Minnesota for a MLS franchise. Hardy-har-har.!! The MLS would do better to not associated itself with a group that uses blackmail for a means to an end.
My questions is NOT:
Why doesn’t DC United just play at RFK?
My question is:
Why doesn’t DCU buy RFK and then play at RFK ?
I believe it is due to the land being owned by the park service and the facility being leased and operated by the DC Sports and Entertainment commission. So, it isn’t really something that could be sold – and is in such a state (as JoeW mentioned) to be repaired.
First, the US Govt. owns the lands and leases it to the DC Govt. The lease ends if RFK is taken down or there is other building on that site. So the idea of replacing RFK with something else isn’t realistic unless you’ve got a ton of clout and can find a way to get Congress to act together. They have trouble passing a budget or approving the debt ceiling, I think it’s slightly ambitious to assume such an act would be a done-deal.
Second, RFK is simply not going to be around that much longer. Trees are growing out of the concrete and asphalt. Major cracks within the stadium, big enough to put a man’s thigh through or drop a baby or child through. I’ve been in meetings and training sessions held in the stadium and it leaks continually b/c all of the pipes are rusted through. Sink holes appear in the playing field. It’s got feral raccoons who live in the stadium continuously. You see strands of rebar that have rusted through and snapped throughout the stadium. I’m going to be shocked if 8-10 years from now, RFK is still considered safe enough for public use for sporting events.
It’s not public funding to build the stadium. The proposal has the entire stadium being funded by private money. Here’s where the “public” comes in.
1. The DC govt needs to put in roads and water/sewer. Govt. does that all the time. It’s stupid not to do it….if a private land owner did that, you’d have no guarantee that the water/sewer pipes they put in would connect with the public system.
2. Some of the land is owned by the DC Govt.
3. Some of the land is owned by other private sector companies. They don’t want to sell it. But they’ll trade it for some land owned by the DC govt. that is more “developable” (i.e.: involves empty space that the DC Govt wants to tear down anyway that is in an area where office space is viable and profitable).
So the role of the “public” in this case is: provide water and sewer, provide the land, swap some space with another private entity so that the land is contiguous. No money. No involvement with the actual stadium.
MLS is starting to have this FIFA feel to it. The way they obscure the rules and change them as they go reminds me too much of Blatter and Co.
MLS is not a “REAL” soccer league, everything about it is unnatural. If they want to succeed and attract more fans there going to have to open up like the other major leagues in this country.
except for the fact that they play soccer. get over it. the product is improving dramatically every year.
Allow the players free agency and not these crazy allocation rules.
I am sure these things will happen, but all in due time. If you really let those things bother you so much (and you are actually a fan of the game), don’t pay attention to them and just watch the games.
The Revs didnt honor a verbal promise? What a shocker. Didn’t give the defender of the year a better contract? Another shocker. Will Jose Goncalves be around in 2015? Doubtful.
The Revs won’t pay anybody, won’t sign any real talent and they simply go through the motions of fielding a team. Once a player gets kinda good (i.e., expensive), his days in New England are numbered. Now that he has openly complained… he’s history. Like so many before him, the Revs will lose him on a free transfer but don’t worry… there are plenty of college players available to backfill his position. 🙁
I think anyone with an open mind can figure out why public funding of stadiums is a terrible idea. The only reason it happens is that cities are held blackmail by team owners and fear losing their team. The NFL fired that shot across the now when they moved the Browns to Baltimore. I love soccer but could care less if my team played in a cookie cutter SSS or a dilapidated RFK. Let’s hope fans across the country keep the solidarity and fight the corporate welfare of tax funded stadiums.
Yes, I hope people in this country continue the fight. We have WAY more dire issues than stadiums and sports teams moving in the U.S. Especially with the economy struggling the way it is among other things.
Thanks bro. We get it. The US is broke and everything is horrible.
We did in Seattle after a while. Now my SuperSonics play in OK….but NBA gets less revenue and I believe that will not stand forever. Next proposal comes through, guess what ? 100% private funded ! What a shock….didn’t know they could do that.
That’s fine, but how long do you think that DCU will continue to play in RFK. It’s a craphole, and crapholes are expensive to maintain.
If “crapholes” are so hard to maintain how has the Brooklyn Bridge and Panam Canal endured the test of time. With proper maintainence buildings can last centuries. We don’t build new airports every 30 years why must we do that with stadiums.
Its hard to justify paying said maintenance on a stadium which you only half use and only rent so you can’t draw any revenue from, especially considering soccer’s current status.
Don’t get me wrong I find it hard to justify spending public funds as well but RFK isn’t an option. They need to work this deal out or move.
DC need their sss asap and a new logo or at least upgrade the recent logo. Also, DC would is great place for future DPs, imagine Dc United telling frank ribery, you will be playing in the capital of the United States and the best capital of the word.
Another point, everybody knows, once DC United move out of RFK, the redskins will make their 1 billion stadium in a snap with the district.
Ribery? haha, nope.
Great suggestion – forget the new stadium, just get a new logo.
Curious about the loan of Edu, does this still come through on the allocation rules making the Union use the first spot or does it use a different rule that MLS has stored somewhere?
If fans cannot understand league rules then that is a problem and MLS needs to change that. That is one of the reasons people are turned off by Major League Soccer, franchises don’t obtain players in a natural way
Yeah, wrong Human. You are saying that you actually love MLS, but…..
NO, not buying it. You are a whiner. There would always be something. Guarenteed there are around ten other things you whine about.
Says the guy who whines the most on this site. Do just enough whining for the both of us combined.
Call me out next time I whine like you…. I will do the same….BTW, your post below….
“MLS is NOT a real soccer league….wah, wah, wah….”
It qualifies, MLS does not function like normal soccer leagues around the globe and certainly not like other American sports leagues.
nor should it operate like other soccer leagues around the world. the challenges MLS faces are unique specifically to the US.
By the way, I am an MLS supporter but I do realize the system that they currently have in place is a major turn off to traditional soccer fans and other American sports fans. Not to mention it completely contradicts the other major sports in this country like the NFL, NBA, where things like free agency exist.
Speak for yourself.
If he get’s paid at DP salary, i don’t think so – they keep the spot.
MLS stated that since they (MLS) are not paying any or part of a transfer fee that it goes through allocation. That, of course, is different from their statement regarding Dempsey last year in that a player can only come in through one avenue either DP or allocation. Unfortunately the goal posts are always moving with MLS and even long time front office people get caught in confusion at some of the rules. Since this is ‘different’ in that the player is coming through on a loan instead of a signing or transfer I haven’t the foggiest clue as to what MLS rules are for this case. It could be that he goes through a weighted draft for all we know.
It would be nice to have clear set rules that every team must adhere to and not special rules for special cases. Yes Dempsey, and to a lesser extent Bradley, is a special case but you have to have rules that everyone both knows and must abide by. Though I do think that 1.2 mil would have been too much for Edu, I also think the price TFC paid for Bradley was too high as well. Bradley is better than Edu but I don’t think the gap is that big. Edu is probably the best alternative to Bradley that the US has currently, though he has had very little playing time of late so he could be the 2nd best option. Of the potential CDMs in the US pool Edu is the better box to box player outside of Bradley. Some of the current MLS players like Beckerman are better defenders but not as good going forward. I do think it might be a little late to get Edu back in the Nat team picture before Brazil.
Ives, can you answer his question on this as it’s very important if on a loan we’d still need to use our allocation spot?plays a big part in othe to layers like Pappa coming in as well
sounds like a sensible way to get Mo to Philly.
While I don’t agree with the league blocking one team from overpaying for a US CM and allowing another it will be great to have him back in the league.
Hate to say it, time to move United. It’s obvious that a deal is never going to get done in DC. And to be quite frank, I’m sick of hearing failed bid after failed bid. It seems there’s another road block every time it gets brought up.
No, it sounds like DC finally got a workable deal and somebody in local politics is trying to put a hit on the mayor (who is up for election I believe).
All Gray needs to do is survive until the Democratic Primary in April.
Once he’s past that, he has another four years to work it out with the Council and DCU.
the gov’t doesn’t build office buildings for private companies and it shouldn’t be used for stadiums either. Infrastructure improvements and zoning changes is all they should be required to do. I hope that DCU are able to build a privately financed stadium in DC soon.
then again if its the federal government blocking the sale of RFK, then i guess there is no reasoning with them…
Although the infrastructure situation is less extreme in D.C., at leas not yet, this whole ordeal reminds of what is going on in Brazil. Brazilians are protesting the significant cost of the World Cup and how the government could be spending more money on improving transportation and overall quality of life.
Huge difference, as one who lives in Brasil people aren’t pissed about government money spent on stadiums in places like São Paulo where there is a big time team that will fill the stadium, the problem is the stadiums built in the middle of nowhere with no team to support it after the cup. That is not the case in DC.
I have noticed that the Brazilian protest have seemingly evolved from just the inititial disapproval of the stadiums. Now, citizens are fed up with a host of a variety of different grievances. If things aren’t handled appropriately a very dangerous situation could potentially unfold in Brazil this summer. Half of the stadiums are WAY behind schedule, workers are dying and the cost of this summer’s World Cup is more than the one in South Africa. Not to mention the government lied about improving infrastructure in the cities where matches are to be played.
People are just pissed in general here about how corrupt the government is and how things don’t work. Stadiums are just an easy target. But speaking as someone who lives in Brasil, people are more angry about politicians getting rich on corruption with stadiums than just the stadiums themselves.
Sounds like a problem the U.S. has as well.
Unfortunately worse here, something like 40% of congressman are facing charges of corruption. Lots of convicted people still in office, lots more obvious corruption, US has its problems but not as brash.
Every country has some level of corruption but I think comparing what we deal with in the US with what goes on in Brazil trivializes what a lot of Brazilians have to deal with. I don’t really think it’s comparable.
Yes. Not to be overly political, but I generally dislike public money for stadiums. Stadiums do not provide the “benefits” routinely touted during the public hearings. Love sports in generall, but it would be nice to spend public money on public infrastructure, let these billionaires pay for their own stadium. Then again, they didn’t become billionaires through uncautious spending…
You obviously didn’t read the article. DCU is paying for the stadium. The city would pay to revamp the neighborhood and will own the land under the stadium The city will do just fine on the deal.
That’s just semantics. It’s essentially still public funds for the stadium.
The government actually does a lot for private buildings. “Here’s utilities.” Police and fire come if you need them. Police enforce parking laws to clear the streets around buildings, easing access. The security guards who are allowed to stop traffic to let people out of parking lots — creating jams where there otherwise might not be them — are usually off duty police, allowed to take such jobs in uniform exercising quasi public powers.
Some skyscrapers are also public-owned. WTC, for example.
And this is not getting into tax breaks, etc. Even the heavily private Dynamo Stadium was funded in part by public bonds repaid by redirecting neighboring property taxes to debt service as opposed to other uses.
That being said, some European teams handle their own stadia as you suggest.
D.C. having a tough time getting a stadium. Not exactly stunned considering that taxpayers are struggling as it is in the United States and everything isn’t so peachy.
Washington is not a wealthy city. You must remember that most of the city’s key downtown area, usually the hub of tax revenue, is composed of tax-exempt federal buildings and properties. To top it off, D.C requires an annual amount of operational money from the Federal Gov. In years past this has not been a problem, but as some lawmakers have labeled the amount given to DC as a “subsidy” which it is not, it’s an agreement reached long ago between the city and the federal government to take care of the inequitable tax situation, funding for DC has been a political football, facing cuts and severe crisis in city services. The revenues the City generates on it’s own must fund a variety of services, some which will face severe underfunding if DC pledges these funds.
Most of the residents opposed to the project do not oppose soccer, or do not oppose the MLS having a soccer stadium located anywhere in DC. They just oppose DC using public funds.
While the financial analysis shows there is to be a payback of the money through future revenues, the word is that the return on the city’s investment is lower than can be expected on a all private venture, In short. the citizens are upset that the subsidy given to the “wealthy” owners, is more of a gift and less than a sound business venture.
I have only seen a third party analysis of the deal and not the actual documents, but what I’ve seen. DC United will have to:
1. Sweeten the deal. Take less revenue and promise to put it back into deal to require less subsidy or work out a deal to put more back into the community through the parks and recreation budget, already a flogging horse for politico’s
2. Look for federal assistance. DC is a federally funded town. Just a federal loan guarantee is probably enough to peel some interest points off the project budget. This savings can go directly into the community projects.
3. Hire a better PR firm. DC is full of them. There has been NO movement in the opposition since the last polling. This is sign that either the project hasn’t changed enough to garner support OR the PR firm hasn’t done enough to underscore the benefits.
As a former federal worker in DC (I commuted every day from Virginia) and a s a former city planner*who has worked on stadium projects) and just a soccer fan. I do want DC United and Washington DC to have a new stadium, but there is something wrong here that need to be corrected.
RFK has no other tenant I am aware of, and has a recent history of hosting Gold Cup, qualifiers, and friendlies. Why can’t they work out a reasonable lease? Because if it otherwise is playing out as homeless United being folded or moved because they either can’t find land or won’t vote to fund it, then isn’t it in everyone’s interest locally to make the situation more tenant friendly? Otherwise RFK becomes a white elephant like the Astrodome, give or take an event once in a while.
1. RFK is not an option. Period. It is falling apart. It is probably going to be unsafe as a stadium within 5-8 years, maybe sooner. I was there for the USNT-Germany match in May and sat in the upper deck (that is closed during DCU games). There was a 25 foot long tear/crack in the concrete where the last row of seating connected with the stadium wall. At some points the crack was wide enough to get a thigh through. A baby or small child would easily fall through. I saw rebar that had rusted through and severed. When I did some work for the Nationals at RFK (when they were still tenants), the meeting room was leaking continually (no, it hadn’t been raining, that was from old piping that had rusted through). Another time, a giant 20 foot sink hole appeared (in what was a corner of the playing field). Even building on the RFK site isn’t feasible b/c the EPA reports on hazardous waste there indicate that no-one could get approval for a new construction of anything on that site without significant cleanup. RFK is NOT an option.
2. It’s more than just the lease issue. It’s a costly stadium to maintain. DCU gets no revenue from sponsorship or parking or concessions. Even if the city were to charge zero rent, the cost of upkeep plus the inability to gain any other money (naming rights plus the lack of income from other sources I mentioned) means DCU would still bleed money on this.
To add to JoeW’s point 2:
The only way RFK’s site gets redeveloped is to bring the Redskins back into the district. Only that kind of money would be sufficient to deal with the mess that is that site.
Why do you ask this question every time?
Have you ever bothered to read the responses?
Because RFK is a craphole that has small trees growing in the cracks in the concrete of the upper deck.
Almost every year someone in the supporters section “creates” a hole in the decking of the bleachers that compose that part of the stadium. How do they do this? Simply by jumping up and down. I don’t think anyone has fallen through in a while, but it’s only a matter of time before it happens again.
Excellent comment. Thanks.
Even better name.
Washington DC is becoming a wealthy city based on the fact that so many people have moved there in the past few years. The tax base has risen so much that last year the city had a budget surplus and they used that money to create a reserve fund for the city.
Washington is not a wealthy city.
You went wrong with your very first sentence.
Washington’s median household income is $64,000 and the median owner-occupied housing unit is about $443,000. On the flip side, 18% of the population lives below the poverty line, however those median statistics include those living in poverty.
Washington is a wealthy city… with many very poor residents.
As he said. The prime land for property taxes and business taxes is taken up by federal buildings which are tax exempt.
Also someone correct me if I’m wrong but I’m assuming the district itself is the only land that can generate revenues so big suburbs around it like Alexandria don’t count even though they are part of the metro area but are still probably counted in that median income you listed.
Add to that the fact that there are pretty severe restrictions on how high buildings can be in DC (I don’t think its a set limit but effectively its around 12 stories I think). There is debate but it likely drives people and companies to the suburbs for lack of space, which once again means DC cant take advantage of that tax base.
Considering the current state of MLS I think Rio coming to the US for anything in the DP range would be a step backwards, unless it’s to a bottom table team.
Rio to Chivas…? Grab the popcorn.
They’re pretty blunt, they don’t have an interest. LAG succeeded in recent years with 3 attacking DPs. I can’t see a team getting the same success out of 2 defensive DPs. Unless Omar is sold or Rio plays for peanuts, I can see where they don’t have an interest.
why did he join Stoke? There was interest from French/Turkish clubs back in 2012. But i guess Stoke offered him more and he wasn’t good enough to get on their bench.
So MLS does not want to pay “above-value wages” anymore?
I guess they’re a little tapped out after over-paying for Dempsey and Bradley.
Garber’s been the Bizzaro Vito Corleone, giving them both offers they couldn’t refused. This offer comes from an over-sized novelty check, not Luca Brasi’s gun.
The signings of Dempsey and Bradley carry huge marketing implications. Edu’s does not.
So if someone would offer to sell you something they don’t want or can’t use much for $1, you would pay that person $4 since you assign it a higher value?
Well, if there is a good chance that whatever it is that I am bidding on has other options, and those options are more prestigious and more in line with what that item has been doing, then I am going to have to really entice that item with a big offer, aren’t I?
Every item is different, however. Big ticket items (Dempsey and Bradley) have options and demand a bigger bid. Lower ticket items (Edu) don’t demand nearly as big of a bid.
If I REALLY want the item because I think it will make me much better, then I have no problem overpaying for it. If I want the item, but am a bit skeptical of how much it will actually benefit me, I am going to be more cautious with the money I spend on it.
MLS and the clubs are businesses. It’s not just about winning games but growing the revenue and increasing profits. You do that by attracting a larger tv audience. Bradley and Dempsey are high profile names while Edu isn’t.
I have a slightly different take on Edu. I think he probably wants to stay in an English speaking country (there might be a wages as well to a limited degree — I don’t how much better Stoke really pays above his other options). From my time in Europe, I do not think there is as a great a difference between British and American cultures as compared to the difference between France, Turkey, Spain etc cultures.
Additionally, I think he is pushing to make the World Cup squad. So he is going somewhere he is going to get guaranteed playing time (MLS). That being said, if his salary demands are not met, I expect he will go back to Europe. He impressed at Burasapor when he played almost every game on loan and they wanted to buy him. This is the second time Sochaux approached him (they did so last year as well), and he has interest from Nantes. The Goal article stated that he had options in Sochaux, Nantes and Real Betis. My guess is if this wasn’t a world cup year, he might have gone to France.
He needs to play to show European teams what he can do. And if this move gets him on the WC team then he has an even easier time marketing himself.
No resigning of Driver for the Houston Dynamo. Dynamic player last year.
I like him, he’s like a lefty Mullan, although his performance was uneven. More importantly with Davis and Boniek potentially on international duty, it’s almost necessary. Not unlike when Ching was out with a hamstring a few years back and Oduro got re-signed (then dumped two weeks later as a scapegoat).
I think he’s a player like Barnes that if he stays healthy and is shown faith, can contribute.
I remain concerned not enough attention is being paid to F and CB.
Lack of consistency had more to do with Achilles Tendonitis vs his ability or talent, but I think when he is healthy, he is dangerous.