• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

The Stadium Thread

Maryland has ruled out the National Harbor site for the new site. Boom.
 
If it's the plan I've seen renderings of on Twitter, it looks a lot like The Star in Frisco which is the Cowboys' new-ish home from offices and practice space.
 
I would think that Virginia has got to be the front runner at the moment, proposal wise.
 
There will always be an economic benefit wherever it goes. But if social justice is the objective, it will be PG County.

  • Maryland and Prince George’s County have proposed a new stadium as part of a development along a 5-mile corridor that would advance team president Jason Wright’s social justice goals.
Click to expand...
 
Kel Varnsen said:
There will always be an economic benefit wherever it goes. But if social justice is the objective, it will be PG County.
Click to expand...

Im trying to wrap my head around the SJW angle. Like what in the actual F*** does that have to do with a stadium?

He’s NOT a good team president imho.
 
Win4us said:
Im trying to wrap my head around the SJW angle. Like what in the actual F*** does that have to do with a stadium?

He’s NOT a good team president imho.
Click to expand...

There is always an opportunity to improve the area around a stadium. Look at what the Orioles did for downtown Baltimore 30 years ago and what the Nationals did in Southeast more recently. I think it’s debatable if this actually helps the commmunity that lives there, or just contributes to gentrification and moves in a different group of people that then benefits from the improvements. So adding a stadium to areas that need improvement can be a consideration. But in my opinion, those decisions are made not so much about the community that lives there as much as it is about the community that will live there. So trying to say it’s about social justice goals is trying to influence where it goes more than anything else.

It was hard to tell if that was something that Wright said, or just something that PG county and MD are saying to try and influence the decision. I’m thinking it was PG and MD, but who knows.
 
I question the value of a football stadium though as compared to baseball or other sports' stadiums. The problem with football is you are only guaranteed eight events a year (plus preseason). That's not a lot of days to bring revenue into the community that flows into the local restaurants, hotels, etc. I mean I guess you have stadium concerts, too, but I think the prestige of having an NFL stadium is probably bigger than its economic benefit to the community.
 
burgold said:
I question the value of a football stadium though as compared to baseball or other sports' stadiums. The problem with football is you are only guaranteed eight events a year (plus preseason). That's not a lot of days to bring revenue into the community that flows into the local restaurants, hotels, etc. I mean I guess you have stadium concerts, too, but I think the prestige of having an NFL stadium is probably bigger than its economic benefit to the community.
Click to expand...


I imagine the goal is to get your hat in the ring for other events like national championships, ncaa men's basketball games, concerts, or any other things like WWE events... similar to Jerry world
 
SO.... in case you havent heard, the Commandes 'procured' land north of IKEA in the Woodbridge area (was originally reported as Dumfries but it's been reported since then that its in fact woodbridge).

Well, now VA is barking back...

 
I don't think the rationale of the 'Redskins fan' Senator makes a lot of sense. Regardless of how hapless and fraudulent Dan Snyder is, the idea that an NFL franchise - ANY NFL franchise - isn't going to be 'viable' is patently ridiculous. The NFL, and ALL it's franchises, are among the most profitable in the world. They share profits and any franchise is going to bring a shit-ton of commerce and business to any community. I think what this is about is Dan Snyder. If he's really a lifelong Redskins fan, we get that - and he should just say so. In fact, he's doing all of Dan Snyder's victims a serious disservice by not stating the real reason he doesn't support the new stadium. And we all know it's not because he's concerned the franchise won't be 'viable'.

Have some balls and speak the truth. Dan Snyder is a horrible human, a disgrace in the business world, and you don't want to do business with someone like him.
 
It seems clear to me that Maryland favors the Ravens and the Commanders are in line for a better deal in Virginia where a stadium can be built in a location that is easier to get to and where the state is likely willing to pay for a better infrastructure for the surrounding area.

DC to me is the least likely of the three, but obviously the marketing and location advantages of being back in the Nation's Capital are selling points.
 
Boone said:
I don't think the rationale of the 'Redskins fan' Senator makes a lot of sense. Regardless of how hapless and fraudulent Dan Snyder is, the idea that an NFL franchise - ANY NFL franchise - isn't going to be 'viable' is patently ridiculous. The NFL, and ALL it's franchises, are among the most profitable in the world. They share profits and any franchise is going to bring a shit-ton of commerce and business to any community. I think what this is about is Dan Snyder. If he's really a lifelong Redskins fan, we get that - and he should just say so. In fact, he's doing all of Dan Snyder's victims a serious disservice by not stating the real reason he doesn't support the new stadium. And we all know it's not because he's concerned the franchise won't be 'viable'.

Have some balls and speak the truth. Dan Snyder is a horrible human, a disgrace in the business world, and you don't want to do business with someone like him.
Click to expand...

I think the Senator probably means that he has no faith the team will be good enough to draw crowds that could benefit the local economy. It's not 'viable' as a competitive team in the league, and there's no indication that it ever will be.

But yeah, if he said "Dan Snyder's a butt and we don't want to work with him" that would have made sense too.
 
I'm not sure that's a 'concern' based in reality though. Even last year, Fed Ex Field drew plenty of attendees - they just weren't Washington fans :) Yes - attendance is down (from weekly sell outs), but we already know that with the launch of the new name (and probably a better on the field product) that season ticket sales are going to improve. A new stadium area is going to spark major business growth and revenue, it's really not debatable imho. Whether folks in that region (or the elected reps who serve them) think that is a good thing or not is another question. But the NFL doesn't lose money. Not any franchise. Not ever. Communities that host NFL franchises are business and profit havens.

As I said in my rant, the 'Senator' is by his own admission a pissed off Redskins fan. My only beef with him is that he bitched about every possible thing except the one that needs to be bitched about, a morally defunct and despicable Dan Snyder. He could have used the opportunity to point out why he is morally defunct and despicable, but he chose to issue vagueries instead. That's because politicians almost never go out of their way to piss off powerful people. The irony is, he could be helping rid the franchise of the only real factor holding them back from the rampant success many NFL teams experience.

So basically, I don't have a problem with what he said, it's that he didn't say enough :)
 
The same senator voted yes to the billion dollar proposed bill January. Now he’s a supposed hard no to the $350 mil one.


Political winds blow. So do political blowhards.
 
Boone said:
I'm not sure that's a 'concern' based in reality though. Even last year, Fed Ex Field drew plenty of attendees - they just weren't Washington fans :) Yes - attendance is down (from weekly sell outs), but we already know that with the launch of the new name (and probably a better on the field product) that season ticket sales are going to improve. A new stadium area is going to spark major business growth and revenue, it's really not debatable imho. Whether folks in that region (or the elected reps who serve them) think that is a good thing or not is another question. But the NFL doesn't lose money. Not any franchise. Not ever. Communities that host NFL franchises are business and profit havens.

As I said in my rant, the 'Senator' is by his own admission a pissed off Redskins fan. My only beef with him is that he bitched about every possible thing except the one that needs to be bitched about, a morally defunct and despicable Dan Snyder. He could have used the opportunity to point out why he is morally defunct and despicable, but he chose to issue vagueries instead. That's because politicians almost never go out of their way to piss off powerful people. The irony is, he could be helping rid the franchise of the only real factor holding them back from the rampant success many NFL teams experience.

So basically, I don't have a problem with what he said, it's that he didn't say enough :)
Click to expand...

He was flat out asked in a different interview today that if Snyder was no longer owner, would that change things and he said "that would make me need to take another look at things.."

Regarding the 'viability' comment... he wasn't referencing the team itself, as much as the return on the investment. The TEAM gets revenue sharing from TV money... that money does not get funneled back into Virgina, or wherever the stadium is. The "viability' was talking about the return from the surrounding area. Bars, restaraunts, hotels, retail... etc. The team had THE WORST attendance in the NFL last year, and that's net ticket sales. THE WORST. The VA senator (and another one came out today in another radio interview echoing the sentiments of the other guy) basically said 'the metrics' aren't there to lead him to believe there would be that return. That there is not enough draw to support a flow of money to make it worth the state funding.

They both referenced the fact that when they voted in January to continue the conversation, it was because the new name launch hadn't happened... They both referenced the 'new' brand and how there is not a connection with the community like 'Redskins' had, causing concern in the direction of the brand. They both mentioned that they dont 'know' who is going to own the team in 10 years. They eluded to the fact that a new owner could then move the team causing the investment of a new stadium to be a bad one.

One of the senators clarified that the 'vote' back in January was to basically keep the conversation going. That if the vote had 'lost' at that point, then the whole process would be dead. The vote kept the option open, which is why the number was able to drop from $1Bil to $350Mil, and now they're saying LESS than $300Mil.

I freely understand that there's political agenda at play here, but more of 'this' only gets further under the skin of the NFL and the other owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 10)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top