The Strange Perils of Collective Action

Over at Match Fit USA, Jason posits an intriguing idea, but is it a good one?

"Keep United in DC" Day would work like this: fans attending matches all over MLS, in that aforementioned spirit of solidarity, would display signs or banners showing their support for the march efforts in DC. No matter if you're attending a match in Columbus, Chicago, or Houston, show your support for Barra Brava and all of the other United fans as they rally for their club. If it was your club being threatened, wouldn't you feel better knowing that fans around the league have your back?

...

Let's be clear: I realize that what people in other cities do will have no effect on DC and their stadium issues. Local politicians aren't really going to care if a few fans in Columbus wave around "Keep United in DC" signs.

But that's not the point. Attention needs to be paid to the United's plight, and the wider the message goes, the better. Don Garber has made statements indicating that the team could be moved, and while many people believe those statements were idle threats (for the time being), the fact remains that United supporters feel the need to rally in support of their club.

Now this tends to be the sort of independent minded call to action I normally would wholeheartedly endorse, but I do have misgivings. As Jason rightly notes, this action would not place any pressure on local leaders, but it might indicate a certain collective voice to MLS and DC ownership. Which is my concern. We've written before that the only real leverage either the league or United ownership has is team relocation. That's it. And so if this action has any positive outcome other than fostering fandom solidarity (which is a useful thing in and of itself), it will be to undercut the bargaining power of V-Mac, Will Chang, and Don Garber. In other words, there's a bit of a zero-sum game at work here. Any power taken away from the owners means that localities have an incentive to be more intransigent, to dare to call a perceived bluff. And I, for one, think that bluff would eventually get called. Maybe not this year, or next, but within five years? Certainly. So the threat of relocation must be real, and perceived as real, a process that Garber just began.

Given that a long term viability plan for United must involve a stadium, we now have a strange paradox: The only way to ensure United's survival is to threaten United's survival.

QUICK UPDATE: This logic, applied the same way, explains why I do support the May 9 rally to keep United in DC. In this case, the pressure would be applied at least to both the ownership and local political power, in a way that a collective league wide action might not.

Proxy

Sometimes you face the principled opposition. Certainly there are and will be principled opponents to whatever stadium deal comes forward. But it is also a useful reminder that some stadium opposition will simply be "We're against it because they are for it" people. Citizens whose anger searches for an issue, the same way I simply search for a drink when I'm thirsty. It's not about the particulars, it's about generalities. It's worth remembering because there will no doubt be opposition to whatever stadium deal United arrives at next, and politicians may fear a grass-roots backlash of some sort. But the people lining up at the microphones may not hate the deal so much as the politicians, and without a stadium to complain about, they're still going to line up.

Just a reminder.

Everybody Talking to Their Pockets, Everybody Wants a Box of Chocolates and a Long Stemmed Rose

The question is not whether you are cynical, the question is "are you cynical enough?" In revisiting Don Garber's exclusive interview to Steve Goff, the natural cynical reaction is to start the countdown clock to St. Louis United. However, if you move your cynicism from a detached worldview in which the Laws of Man are dominated by the Law of Murphy to a more bitter one where the world is one where those of power have all been handed a script, and play their parts, and no one bothered to let you know that you were an extra, then the Garber interview takes a new perspective. The Don has come forward, in media res, and performed his role as the exposition fairy to try and bolster MacFarlane and Co.

Now, some people are calling this sort of thing "extortion." I disagree with the word choice, but the point is well made. What Mr. Garber has done can best be understood by considering what would happen if he had said, well, the opposite. If Garber comes out and says "Well, we're disappointed in the progress on the stadium front, and if something can't be worked out, we'll just have to keep United in D.C. anyways," can you imagine how MacFarlane and Chang and all would react? Garber would have completley cut them off at the knees. Instead, he says the only thing he can say to plausibly bolster United's posiiton: That the league thinks relocation is a viable option. But the relocation is theoretical, not actual. In essence, Garber has produced his firearm of choice, but left it conspicously unloaded. There are no good relocation options, even in St. Louis at the moment. For Garber to really make this a reality, he needs to have one of two things -- Either another city proposing a stadium deal acceptable to ownership on the table, or a new ownership group with a stadium deal in another city who would be willing to take United instead of an expansion team.

Both couses of actions face problems. The first would be negotiating a stadium deal for a team that does not necessarily exist. In essence, these would be contingent negotiations, which is an awkward situation to be in. So it seems that having an ownership group that has their own stadium deal would be an easier position, but this too has a problem. MacFarlane paid $33M for the rights to United as an IO team, and an expansion fee is around $15M to $20M. So any ownership group might face an addition 50% more in costs to get into the door than otherwise, assuming MacFarlane simply would sell at a break-even point (a dubious proposition at best).

So, while you may panic at Garber's comments, to me they change nothing other than making explicit the only leverage MacFarlane has, and only when you don't really think about it. For us to really panic, we need to see the depleted uranium bullets laid on the table. Otherwise, all Garber has done is state what everybody knows already.

Am I optimistic? No, not hardly, but I am far from pessimistic. Either a new stadium deal gets worked, or it doesn't. But if it doesn't, MLS needs a good option on how to deal with the team in another city, and I don't see that yet.

Oh Give Me a Home

The news that United has lost its stadium suitor in PG County will no doubt be greeted with gnashing of teeth, a pre-millennial apocalyptic foreboding which, once descended, can not be lifted by any sort of rational thought. I can understand this frustration. United simply can not continue to pay the rent at RFK with MLS footing the bill, the other Investor/Operators/Owners-in-all-but-name won't simply let that continue. But, well, the absence of a good plan right now doesn't equate to doom and despair and St. Louis United. So when should we worry?

Quite simply, we worry when St. Louis or another non-expansion city announces they are putting a stadium deal on the table and backing it up with legislation. At that point, we can assume the back channel deals have gone down, the pieces are in position, the threat is real. While United can not stagnate in stadium limbo indefinately, MLS also can't risk alienating a reasonably faithful fanbase without a certain stadium deal in place somewhere else. In a way, expansion benefits United, as most potential locales are working with expansion groups for stadiums.

The other concern would, of course, be indications that Mr. MacFarlane intends to sell the team, perhaps to a consortium that thinks they can get a stadium deal together. Most believe V-Mac intended to use the United stadium deal as an entry point into a commercial real-estate development in the greater DC area, and I'm not sure he has an interest in real-estate development in, let's say, St. Louis. His focus is on this region. But he is, ultimately, a business man, and if this area is telling him "no deal that way" then we're a sunk cost, and he knows how to deal with sunk costs.

So, while I'm not concerned now, either of these developments would concern me. Significantly. And that's when I cover myself with a burlap sack and dust off my "THE END IS NEAR" sign.

Coming Clean on Everything

APOLOGY 1: To everyone who played along with the joke yesterday, my thanks. If there is some chance you didn't recognize this post for what it was, my apologies. I'd like to think that in misleading you, I pointed at a greater truth, a truth in spirit. Or not.

APOLOGY 2: I suppose I owe an explanation for my absence? Yes, I do. The truth is that my job overwhelmed me for several months, and by the time I started to surface for air I realized that the season was a few months away, and I wasn't sure if I wanted to continue writing. Bob kept things going, and perhaps it was time for me to move on? Then, well, I realized I needed to talk about this team, had to, would go crazy if I didn't. And thus...

APOLOGY 3: I have a hard time supporting the various efforts for the United Stadium in PG County. Not that I don't want United to get their stadium. I do, and if PG is the only place it can happen, then so be it. I spent much of my youth growing up in PG. But I feel in my bones that I want United in DC. Irrational as that may be. It's like this -- there's a hot friend of yours that you're interested in. You know that if things moved beyond friendship that there'd likely be too much drama and angst and things could very well end badly, but hey, you still have hope, right? Then the friend comes to you and asks you to set him or her up with someone else. You think that someone else is a pure "I'm settling" move, but you do it, because you're still friends with this person and you are smart enough to recognize all the potential pitfalls that are being avoided. But part of you is crushed, right?

That scenario, of course, has never happened to me.

Stadium Rally

Dear United supporters,

Earlier this week, Kevin Payne asked for your support in e-mailing and calling state and county lawmakers with messages of support for our stadium proposal in Prince George's County. You responded with a deluge of e-mails that has dwarfed anything Annapolis has ever witnessed. It is truly moving the needle for us and we'll forever appreciate the passion, the creativity and the effort you all continue to display in support of our organization on the field and off.

We're again asking for your support next Tuesday in Annapolis. While we know that many of you have work obligations, we're asking our supporters, that are able, to join us at hearings before the House Appropriations Committee and Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. Our fans will gather at 12 noon at Annapolis City Dock, which is the harbor front park at the end of the boardwalk in downtown Annapolis. People should park at meters or the city garage on Duke of Gloucester Street. Typing Susan Campbell Park, Annapolis, MD into google maps will give you the exact location.

The hearing mentioned is the first and, perhaps, most important step as the state legislature considers the bills that will enable D.C. United to contract with the Maryland Stadium Authority to build a new stadium in Prince George's County. The hearings begin at 1:00 p.m. Our collective presence is hugely important.

Those wishing to travel en masse to Annapolis may gather at RFK Stadium. A caravan will leave Lot 5 at 11:00 a.m. In the meantime, please click here to continue to send e-mails. They do make a difference. We're also encouraging fans to write and call Governor O'Malley, Lt. Governor Brown, and the Secretary of State's office.

What: D.C. United Stadium Rally
When: 12 noon, Tuesday, March 17
Where: Annapolis City Dock, 1 Dock St., Annapolis, MD
Who: D.C. United stadium supporters

Thanks again for all that you do. D.C. United's great strength is the collection of players, staff and fans that make up our family. Together, we achieve great things.

Sincerely,

Doug Hicks
Vice President, Communications

I've included this letter to DC United supporters (from dcunited.com) here in its entirety, for reference. The emphasis of bold and italics in the first paragraph is mine.

My legitimate question is this: What did these e-mails say? I need to understand this issue better and hence this post. I'm hoping The DCenters readers will sound off in the comments with what they think about the "stadium in PG Co." issue. For me, personally, a new stadium for its own sake is not as important as a stadium that makes sense. The "makes sense" part means different things for different people. For me, it is a stadium in DC; a stadium that bounces and prominently features the supporter's groups on the sideline.

So why would I go to a stadium rally in Annapolis? This makes no sense to me. If I were going to e-mail the organization about this, it would say something along the lines of "screw off". The rally has probably ended by now, so it will be interesting to hear from Goff or others about how many attended and what they had to say. It occurs to me that trying to organize football fans on St. Patrick's Day is a bad idea...

TIA for your comments.

Marc Fisher Takes the Bait

Someone should have seen this coming. Wait, someone did. The key graf:

It might be a tempting move to cut a stadium as a gesture to the anti-development side. It wouldn't really change anything, but it allows the city to remove the trojan horse argument of "Don't give away our land to evil sports owners!" that we're seeing employed. In reality, nothing changes, but the city might think it's an expedient PR move

And suddenly, on cue, comes Marc Fisher on his blog. Remember that we wrote that the goal of the anti-development forces is "No development of any sort." And frankly, they were at least refreshingly honest in their stated objectives. But we cautioned then that the stadium would always be the trojan horse in which the objections would be framed, and Marc Fisher decides to enter that horse through the predictable route. See how his article is framed:

"The battle over whether to build a soccer stadium for D.C. United at Poplar Point will today move beyond the rhetorical..."

"That does not bode well for a soccer stadium, at least not in the timeframe that D.C. United has been talking about."

Marc frames the entire issue in terms of the stadium, not in terms of the development as a whole. Marc then cynically insults his new environmental allies "Environmental claims are a developer's worst nightmare. Whether or not the most dire claims of the greens are correct, the process of finding out can take many years and many millions of dollars." In other words, it doesn't matter if the claims are true or not. Marc doesn't care. What Marc delights in is the political move of stalling and waging a social war of attrition. Marc's proposed solution "for the District to reconsider the privately held land immediately adjacent to the park" is a nice one that is, however, not on the table. That land is already privately held, and there's no guarantee that anyone can get at it to develop it. It's not on the table, it's merely the slight of hand distraction needed to allow Marc to deal all four aces to the bottom of his rhetorical deck.

I'd say this is shockingly cynical on Marc's part, but I would be lying. It is expected. Marc likes to deal in the faux-populism of Pat Buchanan circa 1991 in New Hampshire. He claims, disingenuously, that while he doesn't care for soccer, this isn't about his admitted antipathy, but instead about his love for the city. But when choosing between writing an honest column about the motives of the proposed lawsuit (that it is against all Poplar Point development) he instead chooses to clothe it once again as an anti-stadium screed.

American letters is full of curmudgeonly old men who are worth reading (H.L. Mencken, P.J. O'Rourke, and others come to mind). However, one thing those men couldn't stand was inauthentic representations of objection. Mr. Fisher embodies the worst posing, posturing, and demogoging tendencies of his profession as an opinion columnist. It's sad, pathetic, and disgusting simultaneously. The truth, which should be the most fixed point of navigation for anyone in the media, is simply a lesser constellation to that of Mr. Fisher's own agendas.

At least now we can dispense with the pretense that Mr. Fisher is a reasonable man championing the poor against evil judges with dry cleaning bills. We see him now as the mirror image of Roy Pearson, willing to use and misuse any platform he can find to advance his own opinions. And for that, perhaps, we can thank him.

False Objections Lead to Insincere Compromises

The Washington Business Journal runs a piece on Poplar Point development, which is worth reading by itself, though I am about to quote long pieces of it. The article is a remarkably one-sided story which is still useful for thinking about what's really going on. Let's take a look:

"The debate about whether Poplar Point should include a soccer stadium could take a back seat to whether Poplar Point should be developed at all."

This is one of those disingenously objective sentences that reporters like to use when they can't really do any fact checking. Sure, the debate could take a back seat, but this point is really argued anywhere else in the article, other than being a lede for anti-development forces to have their say. If I wanted to rewrite this with a pro-development slant, I could say "The debate about whether Poplar Point should include a soccer stadium could be over, with all remaining the question of resolving environmental concerns." Or "The debate about whether Poplar Point should include a soccer stadium could take a back seat to whether or not it was right for the Guardians to rewrite the Book of Oa to allow for lethal force against the Sinestro Corps." I mean, these things could happen, so there's no overt bias in saying any of them, right?

"A coalition of environmental groups wants to stop a $2.5 billion, 40-acre mixed-use project by Clark Realty Capital LLC and transform the 110 acres along the Anacostia River into an urban public park -- 'a Rock Creek Park for residents of Southeast,' one of the coalition's leaders calls it."

So the people saying that the soccer stadium debate is taking a back seat is... the people opposed to the development in the first place. Well, sure, it's a good thing this group has been so successful this far in moving the debate over the stadium to the back burner.

"The coalition plans a June 24 announcement to kick off its campaign to derail the development."

Except for the fact they haven't really tried to do this yet.

"The effort comes on the heels of a Government Accountability Office report that raises questions about how quickly the site, owned by the federal government, can be transferred to D.C. and how much environmental cleanup will be required. The June 13 report estimates it could take three years before the transfer, which was established by a 2006 law."

Yes, this is a problem. Poplar Point will need clean-up, and that may take time. And if we leave it as parkland, then the city would not clean it up? And if they did, they'd really see no new tax base as a return on that investment?

Agreements still must be reached on the scope and cost of the cleanup, who will pay for it and how and where facilities for the U.S. Park Police -- including a helicopter pad and a shooting range -- will be relocated. D.C. officials have cautioned that completing an environmental impact statement for Poplar Point, required by federal law before the property can be transferred to D.C., will take at least 18 months, but the GAO report says senior officials from the National Park Service and park police cautioned that the process will be complicated and "might affect the timeliness of the conveyance of Poplar Point which in turn will affect when development on the site begins."

Again, the turnover process is going to take time and planning! Screw that! DC never should do anything that involves those two processes. Let's just turn it into a park!

"That gives environmental groups a window to argue that the open space should be preserved. An alliance led by Our Park Coalition and Earth Conservation Corps has started an online petition to stop development, surveyed residents who live east of the Anacostia about their interest in preserving the land park, erected a 'Save Anacostia Park' billboard and submitted anti-development columns in newspapers, including a June 15 piece in The Washington Post."

So their effort consists of a billboard (which you've probably seen if you've ever gone from S295 to S395), a letter to the editor published in the esteemed Free for All section of the Post, and a petition which has signatures. More than the petition supporting D.C. United? Hard to say, since the petition site that the anti-development people have won't let you see who else has signed it.

"'To think that in our nation's capital we could lose precious parkland so people could make a dollar -- it's really obscene,' said Glen O'Gilvie, president of Earth Conservation Corps, an 18-year-old organization that has both Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Ethel Kennedy as board members."

Mr. O'Gilvie is no doubt sincere in his message here. But is it more obscene to lose parkland, or tell Ward 8 residents to be happy for what small economic development comes their way? Is it obscene ever to make a dollar? I am not exactly someone who believes Big Business is the greatest thing to happen to humanity or the environment. But the idea that parkland is always preferable to making a dollar is an oversimplification of the first rank. If you're like me, a renter, then I suppose I should want my apartment building rezoned into parkland so that those evil landlord developers don't make a dollar and we have more parkland, right? Except for that entire me not having a home thing...

"Although Clark Realty's plans must include 70 acres of parkland, that space is not required to be contiguous, he said. O'Gilvie acknowledged that Anacostia residents want new housing and amenities but said they should not come at the expense of an area where 35 species of birds had been counted."

Okay, this at least is an argument. I dig the idea of preserving environments for wildlife. Really. But until an environmental study is complete, do we have any evidence that the 35 species of birds would be endangered by the development? I'm sure the article would tell us if there was, right?

"The environmentalists face an uphill battle in part because Congress established the land transfer with the express purpose of increasing the District's tax base and shoring up its finances."

And here, quite simply, is where the entire article falls apart. Either DC Develops the land, or they never needed it in the first place. If they can't develop it, do you believe there will be any effort made at all to preserving it as decent parkland?

Clark's proposal for a large central park and 1.5 million square feet of office space to draw environmentally focused companies and jobs is of little solace, O'Gilvie said.

"I think we want all 110 acres to be national parkland," O'Gilvie said. "We want no commercial development on the park."

Keep this in mind. This is the true objection to development of any sort. They want nothing done. Now, in the next paragraph:

Earth Conservation Corps and four other nonprofits are getting pro bono legal help from the Institute for Public Representation at the Georgetown University Law Center. Erik Bluemel, an attorney at the institute who filed lawsuit to stop the Intercounty Connector in Maryland, said pollutants on Poplar Point include pesticides, metals, oil, PCBs and other toxins from its previous use for naval laundry facilities, greenhouses and a land mine research laboratory. He also represents the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Potomac River Keeper and D.C. Acorn.

"It is remarkable how many different types of pollutants are on the site that endanger human health and the environment, and it's incredibly depressing that they've been allowed to remain there for so long," Bluemel said.

Right. Why might pollutants be allowed to remain there for so long? Why? Because, quite simply, there was no reason for anyone to care enough to make the investment to clean it up. Setting aside parkland probably won't do it either, it will remain in the same state as the chemicals slowly march to through their half-lives.

On the other hand, if there is a development initiative, there's suddenly a very strong interest in cleaning this material up. If I wanted to engage in the same sort of faux objectivity, I might say "In fact, one could argue that developing the area is better for the environment and the health of the Anacostia." But the fact is that I really don't know. I'd want to see the evidence. But simply objecting to any development at all before we know these things is not an answer.

Now, the danger here is not really from the anti-development side, but from Clark and the City. It might be a tempting move to cut a stadium as a gesture to the anti-development side. It wouldn't really change anything, but it allows the city to remove the trojan horse argument of "Don't give away our land to evil sports owners!" that we're seeing employed. In reality, nothing changes, but the city might think it's an expedient PR move.

One that has no basis in reality. But this is, after all, DC.

Even as you attempt to win, please accept a list of our demands

Perhaps the news coverage of the Democratic Nominating Process has gotten to me, but even as it seems D.C. United has inching closer to making a deal with either DC or PG County for a stadium, now it seems time for me to present a list of what I would want to see in a new stadium. Yes, I realize that I have little clout in this matter, but if Barack Obama in Virginia can shamelessly steal from Star City Mayor Oliver Queen* in calling out the "corporate Fat Cats," then I can shamelessly steal from Hillary Clinton by enumerating my conditions when the other parties have most of the power.

The fact is, until now, we've pretty much been in complete lockstep with the entire stadium argument from DCU and Victor MacFarlane. We've tried to approach it with our best efforts at intellectual and public policy honesty, but ultimately we do believe that D.C. United needs a stadium, just as a matter of financial survival.

However, as we begin to move to a phase where the idea of a stadium plan moves to "there will be a stadium" (though yet to be geographically determined) let's start talking about what kind of stadium we want to see. I should, of course, note that some have started this conversation already, so I don't pretend to be a pioneer. Still, the point he makes is well made - United's home field atmosphere comes primarily from the loud side, and protecting a boisterous loud side is important. This means privileging the Supporter's groups even in a new stadium. Let's face it, supporter related ticket activity will still be a large percentage of ticket sales, so this is in United's interest as well.

These concerns are distinct from Geography, and distinct from other architectural concerns (I don't want a stage-end, but it's not a deal breaker. I like bouncy stands, but it's still not a deal breaker if we don't have them.) Atmosphere and game-day experience are what I am all about. I want that protected in a new stadium.

So how can we do that?:

1. Seating: I'm sure that United knows this, but having the main supporter's groups on the sideline in the middle of the field is a huge impact. Not just to TV cameras (though that helps) but also to the quiet side. When I sit on the quiet side, I still appreciate looking across the field and seeing the rowdies tear the place up. So don't stick them in the corner, away from lost lines of sight. Which leads to...
2. Unity: Here's where I may get into trouble. While I'm sure that both La Barra Brava and the Eagles both want good sideline seating, it's not clear to me that they want to sit next to each other. In fact, I know that some people in both groups would prefer a little more distance. This should be resisted, even if the Supporter's Groups themselves ask for it (and I hope they don't). On a macro level, even if the tifo isn't some beautifully orchestrated symphony, having the interaction between the two groups is more important to the United experience, and to the experience of the United fans. I know, and understand, the feelings on the separatists for both sides, but to my mind having two supporter's groups, different, but none-the-less in close proximity and occasionally in unison, is a wonderful thing.
   
3. Prices: I'm hoping that the biggest impact to United's bottom line with a new stadium is a reduction in day-to-day overhead costs. And while several of the loud United supporters are wealthy individuals, the fact that you can get a good ticket for $20 or less means that you get a good economic spectrum of support. That has to be protected, and should be in line with United's mission of "serving the community." While I can apprecaite the need to raise prices for some areas of the stadium to increase profit (or defray construction costs) I would hate if we say an across-the-board increase of 20% for most tickets. That's not going to fly with me. With a smaller stadium capacity and smaller costs for overhead, and the revenue that United will obtain from concessions, parking, and advertising, and with the new sponsor deals, I hope United will keep any price increase for most of the existing 100-level seating areas to no more than 5% in the first three years of the stadium.
4. Tailgating: You want atmosphere, you have to let us tailgate. Just that simple. There important... preparation... that needs to be done pregame.

For me, those are the important demands, but of course, I'm sure I'm missing some. Feel free to point out my oversights.

Stadium Announcement coming soon?

The intertubes have been leaking rumors of a proposed announcement soon and today's edition of the post states D.C. Council Crafting Plan to Pay $150 Million for Soccer Stadium.

The city would finance construction bonds with excess tax revenue being collected by the District to pay for the baseball stadium. D.C. United would be responsible for paying for any costs above $150 million, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan is still being finalized.

I'm hopeful that the deal can get done given the tight timetable it is now under. But, I'm also wondering if its the best deal that the team can get. How important is it to be in the city, as opposed to say, MD, if Maryland will give the team a better financial deal in the long run (chip in more money for construction, more favorable lease terms, etc).
David Nakamura covers Fenty's visit to the Anacostia Coordinating Council as well.

Fenty has reportedly been reluctant to take the lead on the project, considering he voted against the baseball stadium as a council member. He answered somewhat cryptically, saying he hoped a deal would be done soon, but adding: "We're not there yet, as of"-- he looked at his watch -- "7:15 p.m. tonight."

Stayed. Eee! Aaahhh!

The Washington Times has recently run two excellent pieces on the D.C. United Stadium situation. One is on the new stadium development, or lack thereof, but the other is a Tim Lemke blog entry on the lease negotiations regarding RFK. Now, we're all familiar with the stadium situation, so while that's arguable more important, I want to let that pass for now. Instead, a few key points from Lemke's blog:

The issue is this: The team really wants its own facility, where it can bring in all the money from naming rights, advertising, concessions, etc. But in the absence of that, it would at least like to get a bigger share of revenue, particularly since it is now the only tenant there.

The sports commission understands D.C. United's point view but is not about to give money away, especially since it recently had to turn to the D.C. Council for assistance in balancing its budget this last fiscal year.

And later:

"It is frustrating for us. We understand the [Nationals] stadium is a big deal, but that doesn't help us. We're getting a little tired of being told, 'We're too busy.' But Greg O'Dell has been responsive and has done his best to get us answers in a timely manner, and we're optimistic we can get to the finish line shortly."

What's interesting is that the city and DCSEC may have managed to get at cross-purposes with themselves. If United felt confident that the new stadium would be coming soon, perhaps they would be willing to accept a little less in terms of the lease since they knew what a limited time deal it would be. But with the uncertainty over the stadium situation, it makes all the sense in the world for United to try and dig in now and take what you can see.

While this is all likely to be resolved, the interesting thing is that we're also approaching the point where the City's good faith may start to come into question. They've messed around with Poplar Point. They're messing around with RFK. While the leaders consistently say "Yes, we want United to stay in the District" they seem unwilling to make concessions to that goal. Given their unwillingness to make any sort of positive action as far as I can see, I am almost ready to start checking the Metro fares to PG County. Which I will pay. Gladly.

Let's Make a Deal

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post comes out with a tentative first discussion of the United Stadium Deal, and on balance I think this should be read encouragingly:

...The costs will have to be carefully analyzed, particularly since there is economic uncertainty. What will be harder to judge are the intangibles. Such as civic pride in retaining a popular and successful sports team. Or the spinoffs that soccer could provide to the boys and girls of the city. And what could perhaps be the most appealing argument for the stadium -- its potential to spark a revitalization of long-neglected communities east of the river. If soccer can help transform Ward 8 and Ward 7 the way basketball helped to change downtown, city dollars would be well spent.

Much of the discussion about these issues has, regrettably, been behind closed doors, as the mayor and council want to avoid the kind of debilitating battle that occurred over baseball. That desire must not rob the public of full and open discussion of the issues. Or of an answer to the question of what best serves the District of Columbia.

Perhaps some of these arguments sound familiar? Well, they should, as I'd say the Post is in agreement with this very blog from six months ago on many of these points. Now, I feel encouraged by this editorial, cautious as it is, for a number of reasons:

1. No false, but temptingly easy, comparison of the popularity and cash flows between baseball and soccer.
2. The willingness to consider, as the Post says, "intangibles." That's something we don't discuss, not because we don't feel it, but because I think they are so difficult to quantify. And the intangibles of keeping United in D.C. are, if considered at all, in our favor. We don't argue that because they are, as the post says, "harder to judge." And any deal that is bad will not be made better by intangibles. But a fair deal looks even better with them.
3. The openness to the idea of transformation of the Southeast neighborhoods.
4. The fact that using any public monies at all, even as part of the so-called "public-private" partnership,is not summarily dismissed by the Post, as they could all too easily take a position of "No money for greedy sports owners! Spend it on schools and libraries!" and then pat themselves on the back for their populist integrity.
   

The one place where I will critique the Post is its argument for transparency. Any deal must be openly vetted, we agree with that. Once, or if, a deal is reached all the details should be put out for view. But the discussions that lead to that deal should be handled in a mature, responsible, and quiet manner. Privacy can aid in that. The process of negotiation should not be unduly influenced by any outside agencies who might be all too quick to demagogue the issue, either for or against. This outside groups certainly include a few of the Post's own commentators.

No, I am content to let the negotiations be handled quietly, and then at that point, let's announce the proposed deal and have people take a look at it. I think this is the most likely way that an equitable, to all sides, deal can be formed.

Let's Guess at DC United's Budget Outlays

Perhaps this is a game that's fun only to me, but let's take a guess at what United is actually spending in a given year. We know from the article that Oscar linked yesterday that rent at RFK is $18K a game. Oscar hypothesizes that the $10M loss MacFarlane claims is a loss in opportunity cost (i.e., he's not making the $10M he could if he had a new stadium). Let's see if we can figure out a way that a $10M loss, if United were operated as its own team regardless of revenue sharing, could be explained in any other terms. In short, we stipulate to no revenues whatsoever, let's see how much we can run up in costs.

We start with salaries. Assume that in 2008 United ponies up salaries up to the Salary cap. That's $2.25M, but it likely doesn't include the cost of benefits. So we'll add 20% to salary costs to cover benefits and the like. We also have to assume some overhead costs for the players, including their lockers, meals at games, travel costs, uniforms, etc... Let's make that roughly 40% of the modified salary number. And we'll have to include stadium costs in addition to rent, such as security, I imagine DC pays for the lights at game time, so that's some more cash, plus they rent the auxiliary fields... And we'll need the Front Office salaries, as well as their equipment and office space rent... And the various fees to contractors for legal services, medical services, field management, etc...

Anyways, for your benefit, the spreadsheet below is what I've developed, and as a general rule it seems about right. I figure I may have slightly underestimated the cost of just doing business in DC, but it at least seems like a decent grounds-up estimation of DC United's spending:

Now, this has no accounting for revenues of any sort. So unless United is pulling in less than $1M a year (unlikely, given not just ticket sales but also corporate sponsorships and the like) then the $10M number seems like it almost has to be an opportunity cost number, and not an actual number. That seem right to everyone? Can we make this perhaps a bit more accurate? C'mon, I know we can.

From DC: Goodbye. To DC: Goodbye? For DC: Goodies.

CROWE, MUPIER, NORTH, AND WILLIS OUT: United waives four reservists. All of these were something of longshots to make the team, but this does represent another year in which many draft picks did not pan out for United. To recap: First draft pick Bryan Arguez is Generation Adidas, so there's no downside to keeping him. Second round pick Brad North is out now. Third round pick Jay Needham elected to play in USL. Third round pick Ricky Schramm was cut before the start of the season. Fourth round pick Luis Robles also failed to stay with the team.

The good news was the the dice rolled well in the supplemental draft. While Shawn Crowe will not be staying with DC, Kpene came from the supplemental round and at least has shown enough to earn continued looks as a potential first team contributor (In fact, his 626 minutes played mean that our third round supplemental pick had more minutes than the top 5 supplemental picks combined).

To those now leaving DC United, we wish them well in all geographical areas except New York City.

SOCCER SPECIFIC STADIUMS IN LOCALES STARTING WITH "P": It's not Poplar Point, but it's Prince George's County. Metro accessible would make this more palatable, but not having United in DC is saddening. Still, the financial future of the team may make this the only option available (although part of me hopes that this is simply a Plan B bargaining position, it is starting to feel like leaving DC may become inevitable.) [NOTE: I'd simultaneously posted on the stadium while D was preparing this morning's round up - Oscar]

DO GOOD, GET STUFF: The legendary equipment sale made the Post today. Proceeds to United for DC. Good stuff.

Stadium Update - PG County?

The Post reports thsi morning that United has been talking with PG County about using land near Greenbelt and New Carrolton. Apparently, the team had looked at these areas years ago, and is actively looking at options outside the District.

Both of those areas are Metro-accessible and have land sufficient to accommodate a mixed-use development anchored by a stadium, Byrd said.

Metro-accesibility will be key to maintaining much of the fan base, if the team has to move out of the District. The owners should learn from Dallas' suburb experiment, which caused their attendance to tank. For that reason, Sterling/Dulles area in Virginia should be out of the question.

The other, and arguably more interesting tidbit, is that "United plays at 46-year-old RFK Stadium, where MacFarlane has said the franchise is losing $10 million a season." Its interesting to parse that wording, because on first read you get the impression that the $10 million could be the total net loss for operating the team. But, what I expect MacFarlane really is telling us, that playing at RFK costs them $10 million a season. It doesn't have to be actual operating costs such as leasing RFK, paying for security. In that sum, you can lump in the "cost" of not receiving any concession, beer, parking, and other ancillary money from game days.

Who isn't disappointed with stadium progress?

The first place I lived after coming back to the DC metro area wasn't the greatest apartment you could find. It wasn't a dump, but it was an older apartment building with its share of issues. The front door's lock was perennially busted, the 1960s heater was this giant thing that ran across the living room ceiling and twice filled with water that spilled onto the carpet. On another occasion the bathroom ceiling dripped water. Towards the end it developed a heinous roach infection, which I prefer to blame on other tenants.

But it was also in an awesome location, close to work, and near the metro too. I threw some insane parties while I was there, and watched the 2002 World Cup in the wee hours of the night. I was focused on growing up and figuring out what do with my adult life to really notice. When my parents would come visit, I'd clean up and make the place presentable, but I knew that somehow, these weren't the conditions they expected me to live in permanently.

Goff posted a piece up on the post tonight, which will be tomorrow's print edition about Garber's disappointment in the progress on getting our own stadium. Thanks, commish, you're disappointed that the city pulled the rug out from under us? Join the club. Yeah, we'd like to have our stadium situation sorted out, but the team's busy competing in the MLS Cup, Open Cup, Superliga, Champions Cup, and Copa Sudamericana. I'm sure there are people at United HQ working 24x7 on the stadium issue, so I'm not trying to say the FO has in some way not worked hard on this issue. But come on, should it be a shock that you're disappointed? The article at least serves to keep the issue in the public eye (hopefully). We should be glad we haven't heard any ultimatums to move or lose the team, but its probably too early for that.

For now we've still got RFK, and honestly I think if a deal could be worked out that kept United there in a way they could be profitable, 99% of fans would support it. Someday, United might have to move out to the suburbs, and we'll be telling the next generation of fans about the bouncy bleachers, huddling under the upper bowl during rainy games, and tailgating in Lot 8. Until then, find me when there's real progress on the stadium situation.

Poplar Pointless?

Yesterday, United released a letter to Mayor Fenty stating that they've begun talking with other jurisdictions for alternative stadium sites. They maintain they still prefer Poplar Point, but it seems the District's foot dragging, and opening up the land for competitive development has forced the team to consider all options as well.

“However, given the uncertainty around the [request for expressions of interest], the unhurried pace of the negotiations with the federal government on the land transfer, and the fact that our current situation is not financially feasible, we have begun discussions with surrounding jurisdictions about alternative stadium sites,” MacFarlane and Payne wrote.

The Sports Curmudgeon, not coincidentally I imagine, wonders why its so hard for United to get a stadium given its success relative to other local teams. He offers a very succinct explanation.

Meanwhile, there is a team in DC that averages over 20,000 fans per game and who plays in the same fetid sewer of a stadium that the Nationals play in and who wants to build its own stadium in the city and is willing to pay the lion's share of the construction costs. That would be DC United in MLS in case you don't know who plays where in the DC area. And somehow those same politicians who found a way to spend $600-700M of the public's money on a stadium for the Nats cannot find a way to dedicate the parcel of land that would accommodate this soccer-only facility for DC United.

For many, many fans, the team leaving the District for the suburbs would be disastrous. Given the rent, and minimal, if any, revenue from tickets and concession, staying at RFK is not a viable long term option. If a local stadium can't get done, the team's owners would have to seriously consider moving to another city altogether. Personally, I'd like them to stay nearby than leave altogether.

Morning Coffee

Noticed a pattern around this blog the last few months? Yeah, it's true, the first post of the day is typically the "links to stories I find interesting, and maybe a quick reaction" post, and the later posts are more analysis when I have time to really think them out and hopefully correct most of the embarrassing errors from the first draft. It works for me. Hopefully for you to.

STADIUM FINANCING AN ISSUE: David Nakamura in the Post has a must-read article for those trying to track Poplar Point's Progress towards a Soccer Specific Stadium (PPP2SSS?).

City leaders would, however, face tough choices if they sought additional large projects. Examples include a proposed soccer stadium for D.C. United in Southeast and a much-debated central library proposed for downtown at the site of the old convention center.

The problem here is that while I doubt that Council leaders would stop voting for capital improvements, the opening for people to demagogue this into "Library vs. Stadium: Which is better for the good of the people?" is there. That's a tough battle, and one that United could lose even before a plan is presented. Hell, even I'm not sure I could come out for a stadium over a library, even though I imagine the stadium would have more positive economic effects for the city than the library. I like books. I like people having access to books. That's a tough one. Of course, this could also be a negotiating tactic to get more of the infrastructure improvement costs for the stadium picked up by the Ownership/Development group. Thing is, I find it a damned effective one.

UNITED GET SARACHAN FIRED: Look, there are times when I will celebrate a coach getting fired, and times I'll just note it and pass on. This is the latter. Dave never struck me as a coach I could hate. To be honest, he never struck me as much of anything. He was simply the guy on the opposite bench. Robert Wagman says that Dave might have needed to go, but John Guppy should have gone. Over at Climbing the Ladder, ScaryIce disagrees:

I also noticed how he was defended by Stephen Goff on his blog, who immediately posted quotes from a call between the two. It really does remind me of how certain pundits, journalists, and politicians in Washington defend each other regardless of their beliefs. Chris Armas jumped to his defense as well.

I have to say, if I were a Fire fan, I think Dave and John should both be gone, but I don't think this is simply a case of the media protecting someone who was available. I think Dave was actually, from what I can tell, a guy whose players liked him. And the problem certainly in the last game was that he had nothing to work with. Sure, great coaches can still be competitive even missing half their starters, but it's problematic even for them. The fact is I think Dave Sarachan was an average coach, facing above average problems, and was found wanting. The fact that he had so little to work with is an indictment of AEG more than Dave. Which, by the way, is why it's a good thing we have new ownership. At least we know who's really running the ship here, so we can properly direct our outrage. If we had to.

SALT LAKE MEDIA LOWERS EXPECTATIONS FOR RSL: Man, this is just setting us up for disappointment, isn't it? I mean, if I believed in karma and all that. Which I don't. But man...

My Game is Turnabout, which is Fair Play

We'll talk about more fall-out from the Olimpia game in a sec, but first: A proposed exhibition between USA Baseball and China couldn't happen at RFK because of a scheduled DC United match. Why do I mention this? Because there's a lot of belly-aching over how DC United is treated as a second class tenant in the place they've been longer than the baseball team. It's strangely reassuring to see that baseball had to accommodate soccer, and that everyone (at least, the baseball fans I respect [partial list only, see the sidebar]) don't seem to have a problem with this. It's... refreshing. The dog didn't bark in the night.

On Pyhrric Victories

Hardcore DC United fans have been keeping an eye on the stadium situation Salt Lake. The results are... upsetting, at best. The State Legislature is about to pass legislation mandating a stadium in Salt Lake County (HT: Are You Loyal?). While feathers that are ruffled now will soon be soothed over, and this will all seem like an odd dream in about three years, it certainly doesn't strike me as a major PR coup for MLS, RSL, and could potentially serve as a straw-man argument for stadium opponents in DC.

Stadium dynamics now seem to boil down into one of two scenarios in modern America. Either the owner pays for the almost the entire thing himself (Jack Kent Cooke and Abe Polin in the DC Metro, Steinbrenner in New York, Jones in Dallas) or the teams use political pressure to leverage a huge subsidy leaving the city to foot most of the bill (Major League Baseball in DC, Benett in Seattle, and now Checketts in Salt Lake).

Amid these proposals are a set of "third-way" ideas being circulated, which combine stadiums, housing, and commercial development ideas. Poplar Point is one such proposal. Another similar (though with a few key differences) idea is being floated for the San Diego Chargers. These deals are not the all-or-nothing subsidies being demanded by other teams, but an attempt to find a reasonable, middle-ground where the stadium is a partial catalyst for a plan to offer the locality a real return on investment and bring about some positive benefits to the citizens already living in the area. The problem is that this idea, because it has a subsidy component, can all too easily be demagogued as "tax giveaways to the rich." I think we've all started to see that already. The idea that there could even be a situation where both the city and the stadium owners profit is completely foreign to most opponents of the stadium deals.

What's interesting is that you can expect to see a strange coalition of anti-Poplar Point people: Anti-tax-free trading libertarians, neighborhood NIMBYs, small government conservatives, and socialist/progressives concerned about income distribution. Expect that if the union of the city and DC owner Victor McFarlane continues you'll hear an argument along the lines of "When the State and Big Business agree, you know the taxpayer is getting the shaft." To be honest, being somewhat skeptical of the power of both the Free Market and the Government, I can sympathize with that argument. But I honestly believe that the plan, when advanced, will present a decent argument for a middle ground. The problem is that deals like the one going down in Sandy, Utah will make it easier for anti-stadium forces to construct horror stories. And while I am trying to be as intellectually honest as I can in monitoring the stadium debate, I don't know that the opposition will do the same.

I want a stadium. But I don't want it the way it happened in Utah. To be honest, while it would upset me if we got the stadium in that fashion, I would probably still go to games. But I would feel somewhat saddened by an opportunity lost.