Good-bye Mr. MacFarlane, Congratulations Mr. Chang

The news that Mr. Will Chang has bought out Mr. Victor MacFarlane is, of course, being analyzed for any implication of stadium politics. That's healthy, and I can understand some people's optimism along those lines, but while a simplified stadium approach from Mr. Chang may make it easier, it may also make things more difficult. I'm not sure how this plays out. Yes, there's less of a specter of "look at that give-away of mixed use land to that rich guy" but there's also more of a question of "so what does this stadium actually do for the city/county/locality when it is built? What does it anchor? Why invest in any of this?"

If you had any hope of a more soccer-specific, less entertainment multipurpose stadium, you can shelve that right now, though to be honest, you probably should have shelved it a year or two ago. And by "you", I, of course, mean "me."

However, while I have the greatest regard for the engagement and enthusiasm of Mr. Chang, I am sad that United will no longer have an African-American majority owner. Perhaps we really all are post-racial now, and such concerns shouldn't bother me, but it felt good that MLS was able to be inclusive to the African-American community at the levels of players, coaching, and ownership without it having to be a major drama. And, the longer we go in professional sports in general, or MLS in particular, without African-American ownership, the more you sense the smell of cigars and leather chairs in the old boys room. We know that MacFarlane was in this primarily for the real-estate, and that is a fine motive for me, and that once that opportunity looked to dry up, he moved on. We know he wasn't forced out. But part of me mourns this passing anyway.

Yes, I realize that this is probably ridiculous nonsense, a sort of failed utopian vision of racial harmony, or perhaps the illusions thereof. And yes, I recognize that Mr. Chang, not to put too fine a point on it, is not exactly lily-white and that the Asian American community in D.C. is a vital constituency. So what am I missing then? I don't know, but I feel that something has passed on.

Still, to Mr. Chang, I congratulate you on your rise to majority ownership. You are a fan of the team, a man willing to dedicate your heart, your mind, and your hair to this club's success. Get us a stadium, and I could ask no more of you as an ideal owner. Good luck sir.

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.

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.

The Fenty Stadium Initiative: Does This Make Any Sense To Anyone?

The number one topic of conversation today must be the Washington Post's A1 article on Mayor Fenty's pending public support for development of a soccer stadium at Poplar Point. This development is, naturally, being hailed a huge one, even with everyone acknowledging that we are still years away from playing in a home of our own. Certainly there are reasons to hope, but also reasons to be concerned.

Let's start with the key grafs...

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has proposed using public funds to build a professional soccer stadium in Southeast Washington that would cost as much as $190 million, a drastic departure from his stance against public financing of the Nationals baseball stadium...Even if the council agreed to use public money for a soccer stadium, the larger Poplar Point development project is likely to cost much more in public funds. The Clark proposal could cost $200 million to $350 million for infrastructure, including roads, sewers, lights and the park. Some of those costs almost certainly would fall on the city.

There is one unambiguous fact: Mayor Fenty is sincere in his desire for a new stadium. How can we be sure? Because Fenty's plan manages to maximize his vulnerability to any charge of hypocrisy a political opponent would make. The original United initiative did not call for public funds to be used for the construction of the stadium, just infrastructure improvements (which Nakamura puts a $350 million tag on.) In a way, MacFarlane had provided Fenty perfect political cover for supporting a stadium, since public funds would not be used for the construction. Now Fenty has gone further -- the original infrastructure costs are still there, but we're adding $190 million on top of it. Fenty's opposition to the Nats stadium was well documented, and this represents a choice that seems to be in direct opposition with his earlier views. It represents a huge political move that Fenty, had he taken the original United deal, didn't have to necessarily take.

So let's be thankful for Mayor Fenty's support, even if I have no understanding of how he came to this decision. And, admittedly, even I am a little nervous about using public funds to finance the construction of a stadium. I enjoyed the idea that United would build it and that subsidies would be used for infrastructure which would not just benefit the stadium, but the entire development and area.

Which brings us to the following causes for concern: Why did Fenty abandon a way of pursuing the stadium that would have given him cover for a more politically risky (to him, at least) method? Who will own the stadium? How many people who were okay with infrastructure improvements suddenly rebel against public financing for the stadium itself, and will soccer prove an easier target to kick (hah!) than baseball? I don't know. This is not the development (in any sense of the word) that I expected a year ago. And while I'm happy to have Mayor Fenty on board, I'm more nervous than ever about how the city will respond to the stadium.

Bisnow on Victor and Poplar Point

I recently received two e-mails from Bisnow on Business that may be of interest to DC United fans. Bisnow is in its own words, a "People's Magazine for various professional sets in the area." Its commercial real estate e-newsletter recently profiled Victor MacFarlane and his DC real estate ventures. The newsletter had a bunch of interesting factoids about Mr. MacFarlane and if anyone has keener eyes than I they might find the last picture very interesting. The next day Bisnow followed up with an overview of the four Poplar Point proposals. Nothing shockingly new, but it is good overview of the current Poplar Point situation for anyone not paying too much attention to DC United's stadium woes, and extra fodder for those of us following every move.

Why You Can Support the Stadium Initiative

When DC United and Victor MacFarlane decided to go public with its Poplar Point initiative, I wanted to make sure that I took the time to really think about whether this initiative is one we can support. The reason, as Kinney remarked to me recently, that this is coming out now is that future Poplar Point development plans will either be guided by the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation's (AWC) plans, or by an alternate vision. MacFarlane and United are offering that alternate vision, and the time for viewing development according to those two competing ideas is coming soon with the dissolution of the AWC.

It's tempting to just give in to the vision of a soccer specific stadium of our own, but there's more than just a nice place to play soccer going on here. Ward 8 needs investment, needs additional infrastructure, and deserves jobs and affordable housing. If the stadium plan simply offered a nice stadium for us to visit and didn't really improve the lives of Ward 8 residents, or didn't do as much as other plans, then I don't think that someone could in good faith support that effort. The proposal being advanced by DC United must now be evaluated against the proposals offered by the AWC,

In January of this year, I offered two key criteria for evaluating any proposed stadium deal: It had to offer the District a good return on investment (and that means a better ROI than competing plans) and it had to be inclusive of the existing Ward 8 residents. Those residents need to benefit from development, not be replaced by it. On both counts United has responded forcefully and, I think, correctly. United is emphasizing that they will privately finance the stadium construction and purchase the land at "fair market values." Now, that last phrase is a little fuzzy, since it can mean different things to different people, but if nothing else it represents that United will negotiate the price of the deal with some numbers to guide it, not simply expect either a giveaway or a sweetheart deal at below market value. That does not mean the city won't invest anything, as there will be infrastructure improvements, but this is true no matter what plan for developing Poplar Point is selected. On the second criteria, the development group has made it clear that 50% of the housing units will be designated for affordable housing, and that they are offering more units overall than the AWC proposal. In that sense, the United deal offers better housing opportunities than the AWC initiative, and given the higher jobs being offered with MacFarlane, the Ward 8 residents are likely to see better opportunities in the stadium initiative than in the AWC initiative.

However, those are my judgments, and I encourage you to read the AWC documents yourself (though I found a few broken links on their site). There are other points made in the proposal, but these are what are known as qualifying criteria. You must have a diverse investment group, you must be environmentally aware, you should try to incorporate green spaces into urban planning. Any and all plans will do that.

What MacFarlane and others have done is offered the District a competing vision for Poplar Point to the one offered by the outgoing AWC. One of these two visions will become the de-facto base point for future plans and negotiations, and the United vision offers the District a ready-made plan with strong benefit to the District and to Ward 8 residents in particular. The fact that there is a development group ready to do this makes it a lower risk option than simply putting the situation out for bids, as the District would be using known parties with track records of delivering on real estate development deals. The United vision is better than the AWC vision, but it may not be perfect. There may be arguments as to what "fair market value" means, but that can be negotiated. What is clear to me is that the opportunity and risk vs. reward ratios all favor the United deal. After the baseball stadium deal, I can honestly say I'm presently surprised. Again, this is really a debate about what the starting point moving forward will be, and on that basis I favor the United deal. More details will need to be worked out, but one can support the stadium initiative at this point without feeling like it's a give-away to business interests at the expense of the city. It isn't. If they were greedy, United could be asking for all sorts of things that they aren't. Instead, they're offering a comprehensive, well-thought out plan that can serve as the guideposts moving forward.