Jump to content

2028 US City Options


LDM
 Share

Recommended Posts

The challenges facing the IOC are only going to compound. I would rather see them disgraced than play into their stupid politics and games, a 2024 failure, and a 2028 capitulation by the USOC is only playing into their game. I'd rather wait until they are desperate then hold a US hosted games on our terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC really doesn't care for Los Angeles. They never have. The ONLY reason Los Angeles hosted the games in 1932 and in 1984 was because they had to, not because they wanted to. L.A. is actually a very unattractive, dare I say ugly, city with it's sprawl, freeways, smog, billboards...and more. One of the things the IOC likes are attractive, scenic cities that look amazing on television. There's only one city in the U.S. that would really be attractive to the IOC (and the USOC) IF the population of the city, and surrounding area and it's central industry would support it.

That city is San Francisco.

Cycling road races and marathons across the Golden Gate Bridge, sailing and marathon swimming on/in San Francisco Bay, stunning city scenery, the proximity of Napa and Sonoma, Marin County, the bay, the bridges, Golden Gate Park, clanging cable cars, Lombard Street, the victorian architecture and breathtaking vistas from the cities many hills - an internationally famous iconic and beautiful tourist destination, that would bring amazing television images to the games and the world. Most of the events could be held between the core of San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland (including the peninsula) all connected by BART and CalTrain. The new Transbay Transit Center rail and bus station will be finished soon, as well as the new addition to MUNI Metro, the Central Subway. Tech would also obviously play a large role as San Francisco is the centerpiece of the tech capital of the world: the San Francisco Bay Area. I think one of the keys would be to get the SF Bay area tech companies on board as sponsors/supporters.

San Francisco is the USA's prime Olympic city choice IF all the pieces can fall into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

The IOC really doesn't care for Los Angeles. They never have. The ONLY reason Los Angeles hosted the games in 1932 and in 1984 was because they had to, not because they wanted to. L.A. is actually a very unattractive, dare I say ugly, city with it's sprawl, freeways, smog, billboards...and more. One of the things the IOC likes are attractive, scenic cities that look amazing on television. There's only one city in the U.S. that would really be attractive to the IOC (and the USOC) IF the population of the city, and surrounding area and it's central industry would support it.

That city is San Francisco.

Cycling road races and marathons across the Golden Gate Bridge, sailing and marathon swimming on/in San Francisco Bay, stunning city scenery, the proximity of Napa and Sonoma, Marin County, the bay, the bridges, Golden Gate Park, clanging cable cars, Lombard Street, the victorian architecture and breathtaking vistas from the cities many hills - an internationally famous iconic and beautiful tourist destination, that would bring amazing television images to the games and the world. Most of the events could be held between the core of San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland (including the peninsula) all connected by BART and CalTrain. The new Transbay Transit Center rail and bus station will be finished soon, as well as the new addition to MUNI Metro, the Central Subway. Tech would also obviously play a large role as San Francisco is the centerpiece of the tech capital of the world: the San Francisco Bay Area. I think one of the keys would be to get the SF Bay area tech companies on board as sponsors/supporters.

San Francisco is the USA's prime Olympic city choice IF all the pieces can fall into place.

Can you please post all this in the LA thread just to get all those guys riled up?  Would love to see that!

That "IF" you speak of is all that matters in these things.  Even if San Francisco is the most scenic and awe-inspiring city out there, if they can't come up with a workable plan to host an Olympics, then it's a moot point.  The Olympics do not require scenic vistas that look good on TV.  They require stadiums and infrastructure and funding to back those efforts.  In the fallout after the Boston debacle, the USOC had a choice between LA and the Bay Area.  They chose LA.  That's what the USOC decided gives them their best chance to land the 2024 Olympics.  You can wax poetic all you want about the prospect of an Olympics in the Bay Area, but keep in mind they have had 3 opportunities to secure the USOC nomination (technically you could almost say 4 if you consider the 2024 re-do separately).  And every single time another city has been chosen ahead of them.

Los Angeles may be all of the things you say they are, but I don't think the IOC is complaining about how 1984 turned out.  And less you forget, there's been another Summer Olympics in the United States since then, and the irony there is that they did have a choice and somehow still wound up with Atlanta.  Think about that for a sec.  The IOC doesn't have the benefit only date the attractive girls.  They can only choose from what's presented in front of them and look what that got them for 2022.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Can you please post all this in the LA thread just to get all those guys riled up?  Would love to see that!

I was thinking about posting the exact same thing when I first read it! Get Truff & Co's panties all in a bind!! So why don't we post it over there for them!!! :lol:

35 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

The Olympics do not require scenic vistas that look good on TV.  They require stadiums and infrastructure and funding to back those efforts.  In the fallout after the Boston debacle, the USOC had a choice between LA and the Bay Area.  They chose LA.  That's what the USOC decided gives them their best chance to land the 2024 Olympics.  You can wax poetic all you want about the prospect of an Olympics in the Bay Area, but keep in mind they have had 3 opportunities to secure the USOC nomination (technically you could almost say 4 if you consider the 2024 re-do separately).  And every single time another city has been chosen ahead of them.  

And this is precisely why I keep saying that if the USOC needs to bid again for 2028, all roads will very likely lead back to L.A. All the other Alpha U.S. cities still have too much baggage to even consider (Chicago), or be considered (San Fran), for an Olympic bid anywhere in the near-term. And New York probably falls somewhere in the middle of all that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York City

The MetLife has a 25 year lease agreement but one team can leave after 15years and then after every subsequent 5 years if they given 12months notice .. the other team would have to stay for the duration but of course have the benefit of exclusivity. Apparently this arrangement was at the request of the Jets.

Therefore the earliest date would be 2026 and then 2031. If you consider the London Stadium it took about 3 years to convert for football (2013-2016) we are looking at 2028 Olympic Stadium likely to be available for an NFL Team in 2031,

Unlike London, if the stadium was designed to be converted from the start with movable stands and in 15 years this technology would likely be further advanced, then NYC will have a central stadium, post games usage (Jets or Giants) and the warm-up track could easily be converted into a permanent 15-20,000 stadium as a legacy

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gromit said:

New York City

The MetLife has a 25 year lease agreement but one team can leave after 15years and then after every subsequent 5 years if they given 12months notice .. the other team would have to stay for the duration but of course have the benefit of exclusivity. Apparently this arrangement was at the request of the Jets.

Therefore the earliest date would be 2026 and then 2031. If you consider the London Stadium it took about 3 years to convert for football (2013-2016) we are looking at 2028 Olympic Stadium likely to be available for an NFL Team in 2031,

Unlike London, if the stadium was designed to be converted from the start with movable stands and in 15 years this technology would likely be further advanced, then NYC will have a central stadium, post games usage (Jets or Giants) and the warm-up track could easily be converted into a permanent 15-20,000 stadium as a legacy

Ugh, not this nonsense again.  Just because the technology exists to build something doesn't mean it's a smart and sensible idea to build it.  We've been over this before.  The Olympics are going to be a one-time event for this stadium.  There's no need to design and build it to be convertible after the Olympics.  If you'll recall, the original 2012 stadium design was to allow for the stadium to be an extension of the Javits Convention Center.  But obviously that fell apart.

So again, the question is still.. why would the Jets leave a stadium (after just 20 years) that they were a 50/50 partner in terms of the design, construction, payment, and ownership to go somewhere else where the stadium was built by and for another entity and that they might need to spend 3 years retro-fitting to work for them.  Let alone what the ownership situation with that new stadium might be.  Go over all that and then tell me this makes any sense beyond the idea of figuring out some way to make an Olympics work for NYC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 3:02 AM, thatsnotmypuppy said:

I'm pretty certain that the LA bid team already know they have the 2028 nomination if needed. 

They've helped the USOC (and the IOC) by stepping in after the Boston clusterfuck.  With the 2022 fiasco fresh in everyone's memories - having the US drop out of 2024 would have been disastrous.

Like they did for 2016, or 2024?

 

Doubtful.

 

LA 2024 only happened after Boston crashed and burned.

The city had already shelved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re read what you just quoted - ' They've (LA24) helped the USOC (and the IOC) by stepping in after the Boston clusterfuck. '

There was no need for LA to step in for 2016 as Chicago was able to complete the bid cycle.

The IOC is a position now where they need to keep the bidders in the race.  Boston withdrawing and the USOC giving up would have been another international black eye after the exodus in the 2022 bid cycle.  If the LA24 team had any brains (which they do) the condition for stepping up after Boston should be a clear run for 2028 if necessary.  It's just good business.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

If the LA24 team had any brains (which they do) the condition for stepping up after Boston should be a clear run for 2028 if necessary.  It's just good business.

I would tend to agree (especially when the other top U.S. cities  would likely still face the same issues that kept them away in the first place). But try telling that to the one that enjoys to play devils advocate on here & says that "we just don't know, etc". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

The IOC is a position now where they need to keep the bidders in the race.  Boston withdrawing and the USOC giving up would have been another international black eye after the exodus in the 2022 bid cycle.  If the LA24 team had any brains (which they do) the condition for stepping up after Boston should be a clear run for 2028 if necessary.  It's just good business.

The IOC doesn't get to make that choice though, and even if it is in their best interests to do so, I'm not sure I trust them to make the right decisions to make that so.  The USOC was scrambling to replace Boston and had to make a quick decision who that city would be.  I doubt the LA folks were in a position to leverage the USOC to impose a condition on them.  That said, I think they should have the right to first refusal with regard to 2028 and the USOC should probably give it to them.  But that's something to think about next October.

49 minutes ago, FYI said:

I would tend to agree (especially when the other top U.S. cities  would likely still face the same issues that kept them away in the first place). But try telling that to the one that enjoys to play devils advocate on here & says that "we just don't know, etc". 

61824596.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2016 at 6:23 AM, Quaker2001 said:

Ugh, not this nonsense again.  Just because the technology exists to build something doesn't mean it's a smart and sensible idea to build it.  We've been over this before.  The Olympics are going to be a one-time event for this stadium.  There's no need to design and build it to be convertible after the Olympics.  If you'll recall, the original 2012 stadium design was to allow for the stadium to be an extension of the Javits Convention Center.  But obviously that fell apart.

So again, the question is still.. why would the Jets leave a stadium (after just 20 years) that they were a 50/50 partner in terms of the design, construction, payment, and ownership to go somewhere else where the stadium was built by and for another entity and that they might need to spend 3 years retro-fitting to work for them.  Let alone what the ownership situation with that new stadium might be.  Go over all that and then tell me this makes any sense beyond the idea of figuring out some way to make an Olympics work for NYC.

Nonsense?

The technology has existed since 1998 with the Stade de France. It has since been further developed with the Singapore National Stadium. These have been built from the start to have this flexibility.

The London Stadium and ANZ Stadium have suffered from trying to retrofit the stadiums not originally designed for this purpose.

Far more likely than building a massive temporary stadium

Why would the Jets move?

Lets consider the LA (formerly St Louis) Rams ... the Dome in St Louis was only opened in 1995, had to be renovated in 2010 yet to get to the Rams standards if they stayed required $700m in improvements.

Or the Falcons ... the Georgia Dome was only opened in 1992 yet they are moving to the Mercedes Benz Stadium for 2017 ... so the Dome will be demolished after 25 years

By 2028, the Metlife will be 18 years old so beyond the point where substantial renovations would be required to be made. By 2031 ... it would be the same duration the Rams waited before moving.

Sharing a stadium always makes the Jets the young brother, the 2nd team .... a new stadium mostly funded by others with a city desperate for a legacy tenant would make the Jets a very attractive partner, likely to move the team back to their historic territory between JFK and LaGuardia and the advantage for NY2028 bid team is they can immediately say the biggest facility constructive suffers no chance of being a white elephant

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, gromit said:

Nonsense?

The technology has existed since 1998 with the Stade de France. It has since been further developed with the Singapore National Stadium. These have been built from the start to have this flexibility.

The London Stadium and ANZ Stadium have suffered from trying to retrofit the stadiums not originally designed for this purpose.

Far more likely than building a massive temporary stadium

Yes, nonsense.  Complete and utter frickin nonsense.  Good for Singapore that made use of technology.  This is what they produced..

75_big.jpg

No NFL team is playing in building where that many fans are so far away from playing surface.  Stade de France is a little better, but not by much.  Thank you for making the argument AGAINST this for any NFL team.  If this is what they wound up with, they wouldn't build it in the first place.

1 hour ago, gromit said:

Why would the Jets move?

Lets consider the LA (formerly St Louis) Rams ... the Dome in St Louis was only opened in 1995, had to be renovated in 2010 yet to get to the Rams standards if they stayed required $700m in improvements.

Or the Falcons ... the Georgia Dome was only opened in 1992 yet they are moving to the Mercedes Benz Stadium for 2017 ... so the Dome will be demolished after 25 years

By 2028, the Metlife will be 18 years old so beyond the point where substantial renovations would be required to be made. By 2031 ... it would be the same duration the Rams waited before moving.

Sharing a stadium always makes the Jets the young brother, the 2nd team .... a new stadium mostly funded by others with a city desperate for a legacy tenant would make the Jets a very attractive partner, likely to move the team back to their historic territory between JFK and LaGuardia and the advantage for NY2028 bid team is they can immediately say the biggest facility constructive suffers no chance of being a white elephant

Should I create a list of reasons the Jets wouldn't move?  Because it's going to be a lot longer and a lot less ridiculous than this one.

The Dome in St. Louis did not NEED renovations.  Let alone with a $700 million price tag.  That was simply the proposal they offered to try and fight for public funding under the threat of moving somewhere else.  Well, they weren't bluffing.  The fact they're moving from a smallish market in St. Louis to a much larger market in LA is less about the viability of the stadium and more about an opportunity on the part of ownership that they see to make more money.  Little of this is applicable to the Jets.

The Georgia Dome.. perfectly capable of holding football going forward.  But the Falcons and the city decided they wanted to invest the money (including public funds) to build a brand new stadium in order to attract a Super Bowl (which they're now already scheduled for).  The soon-to-be old stadium is not being demolished out of need, but out of want.  Just like the Braves moving out to the suburbs.  Little of this is applicable to the Jets.

By 2028, MetLife will not REQUIRE substantial renovations.  You can't look at the other stadiums as a precedent for what might happen here.  The Dome in St. Louis cost $280 million to build.  The Georgia Dome cost $214 million.  Even in today's dollars, that's still a fraction of what MetLife cost.  So don't give us this bullshit line that because the Rams and Falcons abandoned their stadiums after only about 2 decades that the Jets would make a similar decision after the same amount of time when they are playing in a $1.6 billion facility.  You can't create that equivalence just because you're trying to figure out how New York could host an Olympics.

And again, with the Jets.. for the first 50 years of their existence, they played in someone else's stadium.  For more than a quarter of a century, they played in the building named after the other team.  Now they're in a building where they are a full partner.  They're no longer someone else's tenant.  So do you really think they're about to leave that situation to go to a stadium where they don't have discretion over the design and where they are not the primary ownership?

The opportunity has come and gone for the Jets to do something other than what they did.  The West Side Stadium would have sufficed for them (in large part because the stadium would have seen other uses as a part of the convention center).  New York does not need another large scale stadium that would compete with the other stadiums in the area.  It's a bad investment that's not likely to happen, let alone under the cockamamie pretense that this whole sliding stands concept which would be for a 1-time event is the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes, nonsense.  Complete and utter frickin nonsense.  Good for Singapore that made use of technology.  This is what they produced..

75_big.jpg

No NFL team is playing in building where that many fans are so far away from playing surface.  Stade de France is a little better, but not by much.  Thank you for making the argument AGAINST this for any NFL team.  If this is what they wound up with, they wouldn't build it in the first place.

Should I create a list of reasons the Jets wouldn't move?  Because it's going to be a lot longer and a lot less ridiculous than this one.

The Dome in St. Louis did not NEED renovations.  Let alone with a $700 million price tag.  That was simply the proposal they offered to try and fight for public funding under the threat of moving somewhere else.  Well, they weren't bluffing.  The fact they're moving from a smallish market in St. Louis to a much larger market in LA is less about the viability of the stadium and more about an opportunity on the part of ownership that they see to make more money.  Little of this is applicable to the Jets.

The Georgia Dome.. perfectly capable of holding football going forward.  But the Falcons and the city decided they wanted to invest the money (including public funds) to build a brand new stadium in order to attract a Super Bowl (which they're now already scheduled for).  The soon-to-be old stadium is not being demolished out of need, but out of want.  Just like the Braves moving out to the suburbs.  Little of this is applicable to the Jets.

By 2028, MetLife will not REQUIRE substantial renovations.  You can't look at the other stadiums as a precedent for what might happen here.  The Dome in St. Louis cost $280 million to build.  The Georgia Dome cost $214 million.  Even in today's dollars, that's still a fraction of what MetLife cost.  So don't give us this bullshit line that because the Rams and Falcons abandoned their stadiums after only about 2 decades that the Jets would make a similar decision after the same amount of time when they are playing in a $1.6 billion facility.  You can't create that equivalence just because you're trying to figure out how New York could host an Olympics.

And again, with the Jets.. for the first 50 years of their existence, they played in someone else's stadium.  For more than a quarter of a century, they played in the building named after the other team.  Now they're in a building where they are a full partner.  They're no longer someone else's tenant.  So do you really think they're about to leave that situation to go to a stadium where they don't have discretion over the design and where they are not the primary ownership?

The opportunity has come and gone for the Jets to do something other than what they did.  The West Side Stadium would have sufficed for them (in large part because the stadium would have seen other uses as a part of the convention center).  New York does not need another large scale stadium that would compete with the other stadiums in the area.  It's a bad investment that's not likely to happen, let alone under the cockamamie pretense that this whole sliding stands concept which would be for a 1-time event is the solution.

The high price for the MetLife was because of where it wasn't being built ... it was because it was being built in the New York City Area.

Considering other stadium proposals and developments since .. US Bank Stadium, Mercedes Bank Stadium, nothing has come close.

To demonstrate you are losing the argument you use figures based on how much the Georgia Dome and Edward Jones Dome cost to build in 1992 and 1995 respectively - now how much they would cost to build now if adjusted for inflation - in fact the Edward Jones Dome HAD to be significantly upgraded as the terms of the contract stipulated a the Dome in the Top Tier in terms of facilities and amenities - even the 2010 renovations could not accomplish this

By 2028 we have no way of knowing if the MetLife will still fulfil the requirements of either the Jets or the Giants? or may need substantial updates to keep the stadium at a never either the Johnson or Mara families demand ...

Instead of using figures massively out of date suggest that the proposed St Louis NFL stadium to keep the Rams and not even to get a SuperBowl was budgeted at $1.01bn and you might be taken more seriously.

If NYC ever have a serious plan for the Olympics or even the SuperBowl again then joke of having a temporary main stadium is what needs to be forgotten so an alternative stadium which incorporates existing technology would need to be considered

Paris does not have a problem with the cockamamie pretense of sliding stands ... maybe once/twice a year it is used, but the stadium is still fantastic for both football and rugby ... NYC could easily do this, hold the Olympics, the World Athletics Championship, the annual Diamond League which laughably has been held at the 5,000 seat capacity Icahn stadium in the past and is currently held at Hayward Field whilst other countries offer significantly better venues.

the Stade de France holds an annual Diamond League meeting, 8-10 rugby games (similar to NFL games) and 10-15 football games and yet there is never any problems re: the fan experience ... the only reason the French Rugby Team is moving is for a commercial reason ... the deal they get means they miss out massively on commercial aspects of using the stadium. And if you put the Stade de France in any US city and you'd have NFL teams begging to be the tenant.

Why would the Jets and Giants have a lease of only 25 years and respectively a break clause of ONLY 15 years if this incredibly wonderful and perfect MetLife stadium could fulfill their requirements ad infinitum ...

Metlife sponsor the stadium .... for about $350m over 25years .... this is shared. Now a single team in control of the stadium would get that exclusively plus all money from amenities, concessions etc. A stadium build with a retractable roof would be able to gain additional revenue from indoor sports such as the Final Four basketball etc. 

There is always massive financial benefits to a sports team having exclusive use of a sports stadium

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my.  There is so much ridiculous bullshit in here and bad information, I almost don't know where to start.  Let's go in order then..

9 hours ago, gromit said:

The high price for the MetLife was because of where it wasn't being built ... it was because it was being built in the New York City Area.

Considering other stadium proposals and developments since .. US Bank Stadium, Mercedes Bank Stadium, nothing has come close.

To demonstrate you are losing the argument you use figures based on how much the Georgia Dome and Edward Jones Dome cost to build in 1992 and 1995 respectively - now how much they would cost to build now if adjusted for inflation - in fact the Edward Jones Dome HAD to be significantly upgraded as the terms of the contract stipulated a the Dome in the Top Tier in terms of facilities and amenities - even the 2010 renovations could not accomplish this

Pretty sure you lost the argument as soon as you started to make it in the first place.  Any particular reason you omitted City of Champions Stadium in LA?  You're right that's not even close to MetLife.  Price tag there is estimated to be $2.6 billion, much MORE than MetLife.  Also AT&T Stadium in Dallas which had a pretty high price tag.  That's okay though.  Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant though.  Even if you convert the Georgia Dome and Edward Jones Dome to 2016 dollars, they're still a fraction of what current stadiums cost.  New York does have a higher price tag for these things (as evidenced by Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, and the renovations to MSG), but the trend these days is for new NFL stadiums to cost over a billion dollars.  Adjusted for inflation relative to past stadiums, that's still a lot more than they cost.

10 hours ago, gromit said:

By 2028 we have no way of knowing if the MetLife will still fulfil the requirements of either the Jets or the Giants? or may need substantial updates to keep the stadium at a never either the Johnson or Mara families demand ...

Instead of using figures massively out of date suggest that the proposed St Louis NFL stadium to keep the Rams and not even to get a SuperBowl was budgeted at $1.01bn and you might be taken more seriously.

And how'd that stadium proposal work out for them?  Kroenke picked up the team and went to LA anyway.  When you have all these billionaire owners competing with each other in a giant ego stroking contest, of course many of them are going to want their stadiums to keep up with the times.  Don't give us this "we have no way of knowing" crap to try and satisfy your argument.  If you want to point to something in a contract, be my guest.  Plenty of teams have done that, including the aforementioned St. Louis Rams  Otherwise you're being extremely speculative.  May need substantial updates?  They didn't spend $1.6 billion (or whatever that translates to in today's dollars) to need "substantial updates" less than 2 decades into the stadium's life.  That's why you spend the money you do to build it in the first place.  That's why it's a big difference with a stadium that cost a fraction of the price in the first place.

10 hours ago, gromit said:

If NYC ever have a serious plan for the Olympics or even the SuperBowl again then joke of having a temporary main stadium is what needs to be forgotten so an alternative stadium which incorporates existing technology would need to be considered

Paris does not have a problem with the cockamamie pretense of sliding stands ... maybe once/twice a year it is used, but the stadium is still fantastic for both football and rugby ... NYC could easily do this, hold the Olympics, the World Athletics Championship, the annual Diamond League which laughably has been held at the 5,000 seat capacity Icahn stadium in the past and is currently held at Hayward Field whilst other countries offer significantly better venues.

the Stade de France holds an annual Diamond League meeting, 8-10 rugby games (similar to NFL games) and 10-15 football games and yet there is never any problems re: the fan experience ... the only reason the French Rugby Team is moving is for a commercial reason ... the deal they get means they miss out massively on commercial aspects of using the stadium. And if you put the Stade de France in any US city and you'd have NFL teams begging to be the tenant.

So.. Stade de France doesn't have a primary tenant, yet you think you would have NFL teams "begging to be the tenant?"  Where do you come up with this dumbassery.  Maybe once or twice a year it is used?  And that's worth the investment here?  Here's Stade de France..2043030_BIGLANDSCAPE.jpg

You know what an NFL team would say if they saw that?  Stands are too far away from the field.  They wouldn't like it.  You keep pushing that there's this wonderful arrangement they have there, but maybe the fact there's no permanent tenant tells you something about how well this concept would work elsewhere.

10 hours ago, gromit said:

Why would the Jets and Giants have a lease of only 25 years and respectively a break clause of ONLY 15 years if this incredibly wonderful and perfect MetLife stadium could fulfill their requirements ad infinitum ...

Metlife sponsor the stadium .... for about $350m over 25years .... this is shared. Now a single team in control of the stadium would get that exclusively plus all money from amenities, concessions etc. A stadium build with a retractable roof would be able to gain additional revenue from indoor sports such as the Final Four basketball etc. 

There is always massive financial benefits to a sports team having exclusive use of a sports stadium

That last line literally could not be further from the truth.  Are you actually that stupid?  Do you know how many studies have been done that talk about the economics of building stadiums as a losing proposition?

Plenty of stadium deals have break clauses in them.  MetLife is hardly alone in that regard.  Good for that $350 million naming rights deal.  Remind me how much the stadium cost to build again?  Look at the Yankees and all the events they've brought in there.  They did that to help pay back the financing.  Because they paid over a billion dollars to build the stadium in the first place.  The Jets would still have the same 10 home games, but how many events would they be able to attract, especially if they're in competition with MetLife

So who exactly is going to pay for this grand new Olympic Stadium (let alone where would they put it).  You seem to want to skip over the part of all this where someone has come up with a plan for a stadium and then found someone to back it.  Are we getting the taxpayers of New York to pay for it?  If it's the city's money building the stadium, would it really belong to the Jets.  Not to mention that they've moved a lot of their operations out to New Jersey.  

The Jets (and the Giants) used to have a waiting list for season tickets that was a mile long.  When they moved to the new stadium and started charging more for tickets with PSLs attached to them, they blew through that list pretty quickly.  For them, that was a necessary evil to help pay for the cost of the stadium.  Do you seriously think the Jets are going to propose to leave MetLife Stadium on the contingency of landing the Olympics (wouldn't that be extremely awkward if they attached themselves to a stadium plan, NYC didn't get the Olympics, and the Jets wound up staying in New Jersey after they tried to leave), spend another billion dollars (probably a lot more than that) on a stadium that they don't even have full control over the design of, tell all their fans who bought those PSLs at the old stadium that they're doing it all over again.

Yea, that's all really stupid.  I know you keep trying to invent a scenario where New York would figure out a way to bid for the Olympics.  This is not it.  And the more you repetitively try to sell this idea, the more insane it games.  But keep telling yourself about the benefits of building a stadium.  Plenty of economics professors out there who would love to laugh at you for making such a claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

...maybe the fact there's no permanent tenant [in the SdF] tells you something about how well this concept would work elsewhere.

Not really. There's no tenant because it's France's national stadium, like Wembley is for us. It hosts cup finals, rugby and football internationals and concerts as well as athletics. In truth, it's probably full to capacity more often than most NFL stadiums. It doesn't have a tenant because it already has a full calendar of events throughout the year.

But the rest of your post is spot on. It's about context. This kind of stadium - which works very well in France as a National Stadium, a stadium for big occasions, not a club stadium - wouldn't be built in the US. An NFL team wouldn't accept it because of its compromises, and the notion of a National Stadium isn't one that would get off the ground. Whether it would technically work, therefore, is a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, gromit said:

The high price for the MetLife was because of where it wasn't being built ... it was because it was being built in the New York City Area.

Considering other stadium proposals and developments since .. US Bank Stadium, Mercedes Bank Stadium, nothing has come close.

To demonstrate you are losing the argument you use figures based on how much the Georgia Dome and Edward Jones Dome cost to build in 1992 and 1995 respectively - now how much they would cost to build now if adjusted for inflation - in fact the Edward Jones Dome HAD to be significantly upgraded as the terms of the contract stipulated a the Dome in the Top Tier in terms of facilities and amenities - even the 2010 renovations could not accomplish this

By 2028 we have no way of knowing if the MetLife will still fulfil the requirements of either the Jets or the Giants? or may need substantial updates to keep the stadium at a never either the Johnson or Mara families demand ...

Instead of using figures massively out of date suggest that the proposed St Louis NFL stadium to keep the Rams and not even to get a SuperBowl was budgeted at $1.01bn and you might be taken more seriously.

If NYC ever have a serious plan for the Olympics or even the SuperBowl again then joke of having a temporary main stadium is what needs to be forgotten so an alternative stadium which incorporates existing technology would need to be considered

Paris does not have a problem with the cockamamie pretense of sliding stands ... maybe once/twice a year it is used, but the stadium is still fantastic for both football and rugby ... NYC could easily do this, hold the Olympics, the World Athletics Championship, the annual Diamond League which laughably has been held at the 5,000 seat capacity Icahn stadium in the past and is currently held at Hayward Field whilst other countries offer significantly better venues.

the Stade de France holds an annual Diamond League meeting, 8-10 rugby games (similar to NFL games) and 10-15 football games and yet there is never any problems re: the fan experience ... the only reason the French Rugby Team is moving is for a commercial reason ... the deal they get means they miss out massively on commercial aspects of using the stadium. And if you put the Stade de France in any US city and you'd have NFL teams begging to be the tenant.

Why would the Jets and Giants have a lease of only 25 years and respectively a break clause of ONLY 15 years if this incredibly wonderful and perfect MetLife stadium could fulfill their requirements ad infinitum ...

Metlife sponsor the stadium .... for about $350m over 25years .... this is shared. Now a single team in control of the stadium would get that exclusively plus all money from amenities, concessions etc. A stadium build with a retractable roof would be able to gain additional revenue from indoor sports such as the Final Four basketball etc. 

There is always massive financial benefits to a sports team having exclusive use of a sports stadium

 

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, gromit said:

The high price for the MetLife was because of where it wasn't being built ... it was because it was being built in the New York City Area.

Considering other stadium proposals and developments since .. US Bank Stadium, Mercedes Bank Stadium, nothing has come close.

To demonstrate you are losing the argument you use figures based on how much the Georgia Dome and Edward Jones Dome cost to build in 1992 and 1995 respectively - now how much they would cost to build now if adjusted for inflation - in fact the Edward Jones Dome HAD to be significantly upgraded as the terms of the contract stipulated a the Dome in the Top Tier in terms of facilities and amenities - even the 2010 renovations could not accomplish this

By 2028 we have no way of knowing if the MetLife will still fulfil the requirements of either the Jets or the Giants? or may need substantial updates to keep the stadium at a never either the Johnson or Mara families demand ...

Instead of using figures massively out of date suggest that the proposed St Louis NFL stadium to keep the Rams and not even to get a SuperBowl was budgeted at $1.01bn and you might be taken more seriously.

If NYC ever have a serious plan for the Olympics or even the SuperBowl again then joke of having a temporary main stadium is what needs to be forgotten so an alternative stadium which incorporates existing technology would need to be considered

Paris does not have a problem with the cockamamie pretense of sliding stands ... maybe once/twice a year it is used, but the stadium is still fantastic for both football and rugby ... NYC could easily do this, hold the Olympics, the World Athletics Championship, the annual Diamond League which laughably has been held at the 5,000 seat capacity Icahn stadium in the past and is currently held at Hayward Field whilst other countries offer significantly better venues.

the Stade de France holds an annual Diamond League meeting, 8-10 rugby games (similar to NFL games) and 10-15 football games and yet there is never any problems re: the fan experience ... the only reason the French Rugby Team is moving is for a commercial reason ... the deal they get means they miss out massively on commercial aspects of using the stadium. And if you put the Stade de France in any US city and you'd have NFL teams begging to be the tenant.

Why would the Jets and Giants have a lease of only 25 years and respectively a break clause of ONLY 15 years if this incredibly wonderful and perfect MetLife stadium could fulfill their requirements ad infinitum ...

Metlife sponsor the stadium .... for about $350m over 25years .... this is shared. Now a single team in control of the stadium would get that exclusively plus all money from amenities, concessions etc. A stadium build with a retractable roof would be able to gain additional revenue from indoor sports such as the Final Four basketball etc. 

There is always massive financial benefits to a sports team having exclusive use of a sports stadium

 

 

 

 

Well based on your comments we can never expect the Olympics in the USA again as they will always be offering an inferior product.

The State de France was built on host the 1998 world cup final but they still had the brains to future proof it for athletics. The sightlines are as good as  the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami which hosts your Suoerbowl.  Using the ancient LA coliseum and giving it a lick of paint no longer cuts the mustard..

All stadium have compromises.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gromit said:

Well based on your comments we can never expect the Olympics in the USA again as they will always be offering an inferior product.

The State de France was built on host the 1998 world cup final but they still had the brains to future proof it for athletics. The sightlines are as good as  the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami which hosts your Suoerbowl.  Using the ancient LA coliseum and giving it a lick of paint no longer cuts the mustard..

All stadium have compromises.

Using the ancient LA Coliseum (which is getting a lot more than a fresh coat of paint) has LA in the running for the 2024 Olympics and if they don't get that one, it's probably going to land them 2028.  So yea, we're probably going to see the Olympics in the United States within the next 12 years.

So, Hard Rock Stadium (LOL at calling it "your Super Bowl").  They'll have gone at least a decade without hosting a Super Bowl and they were told they weren't going to get another one until they made some serious renovations to the stadium.  Here's what the stadium looks like..

T0016220285--902531.JPG

Look how much closer those seats at the ends are to the playing field than they are at Stade de France.  It's not even close.  So don't tell use the sightlines are just as good when very clearly they are not.  Those seats are a lot more valuable to the Dolphins than similar seats at Stade de France would be.  Good for Stade de France that they can host athletics (how many times has that happened since the 2003 IAAF World Championships?)  It's not something that makes sense here.

As Rob noted, France and England have the luxury of building what is essentially a national stadium.  We don't have that luxury here.  Stade de France was built and designed AFTER France had already been awarded the 1998 World Cup.  You seem to want to reverse the process where a city like New York will come up with a plan for a stadium under the pretense that they can offer it to the Jets and they'll be perfect happy to move out of a building that cost $1.6 billion to move somewhere else that may once every few years host a major athletics event.  Not worth it.  It was one then for the 2012 bid when the Jets were looking for a new home and proposed something that would be modular and could be converted for different events.  That ship has sailed.  The Jets aren't moving into a stadium that is not built to their specifications, let alone the lead time that's involved just to put an Olympic bid on the table in the first place.  I know you're trying to invent a scenario where New York bids for the Olympics (and going way outside the box of what might actually play out), but specific to NYC, maybe the conclusion is that there won't be an Olympic bid that comes together until well into the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Using the ancient LA Coliseum (which is getting a lot more than a fresh coat of paint) has LA in the running for the 2024 Olympics and if they don't get that one, it's probably going to land them 2028.  So yea, we're probably going to see the Olympics in the United States within the next 12 years.

So, Hard Rock Stadium (LOL at calling it "your Super Bowl").  They'll have gone at least a decade without hosting a Super Bowl and they were told they weren't going to get another one until they made some serious renovations to the stadium.  Here's what the stadium looks like..

T0016220285--902531.JPG

Look how much closer those seats at the ends are to the playing field than they are at Stade de France.  It's not even close.  So don't tell use the sightlines are just as good when very clearly they are not.  Those seats are a lot more valuable to the Dolphins than similar seats at Stade de France would be.  Good for Stade de France that they can host athletics (how many times has that happened since the 2003 IAAF World Championships?)  It's not something that makes sense here.

As Rob noted, France and England have the luxury of building what is essentially a national stadium.  We don't have that luxury here.  Stade de France was built and designed AFTER France had already been awarded the 1998 World Cup.  You seem to want to reverse the process where a city like New York will come up with a plan for a stadium under the pretense that they can offer it to the Jets and they'll be perfect happy to move out of a building that cost $1.6 billion to move somewhere else that may once every few years host a major athletics event.  Not worth it.  It was one then for the 2012 bid when the Jets were looking for a new home and proposed something that would be modular and could be converted for different events.  That ship has sailed.  The Jets aren't moving into a stadium that is not built to their specifications, let alone the lead time that's involved just to put an Olympic bid on the table in the first place.  I know you're trying to invent a scenario where New York bids for the Olympics (and going way outside the box of what might actually play out), but specific to NYC, maybe the conclusion is that there won't be an Olympic bid that comes together until well into the future.

But the Stade de France was not built on host the final of an athletics event ... it was built to host the final of a Football event

And not only has the Stade to France held the 2003 World Athletics event, it hosts France's Diamond league fixture every year so another 60,000 event day with all that extra revenue. If an NFL team relies simply on 8 days of revenue as it's core stream a single meet adds maybe an extra 12% of revenue per year.

Anyone can post pictures taken from different angles ... plonk your backside on a seat and then comment

And Wembley wasn't built as a national stadium. It was built by the Football Association privately costing £947 million in today's money. No real tenant. England might play there about a dozen times a year, they hold some finals and semi finals so the FA looks at additional revenue streams

Oh and here is another angle of the Stade de France. Different angle different impression

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stade+de+france&biw=1366&bih=638&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjVppeozK3PAhVIBsAKHZIBBYoQ_AUICCgD#imgrc=IB8Eiq9P4WhrsM%3A

oh and another

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stade+de+france&biw=1366&bih=638&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjVppeozK3PAhVIBsAKHZIBBYoQ_AUICCgD#imgrc=hPIyRKPz_sLqhM%3A

 

 

 

.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...