New Stadium for the Redskins being planned . . .

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

He actually said the word Redskins several times, but kept referring to the team as the Washington football team. It was weird. I've come to the conclusion that it's just not racist enough. Even guys like Simms, who won't say it, will condone someone sitting right next to him saying it over and over again. If he truly thought it was racist, he wouldn't tolerate a work environment where he was surrounded by it. Wake me up when he actually turns to his broadcast partner and calls him a racist to his face.

I'm stealing this post, and using it for conversations I have about the name

[Hog1]

Gary Clark says if Native Americans cared about the Redskins name they would march on Washington - The Washington Post
I thought I heard that GC was working with the Skins....Ehhrrr Redskins on the Name......thing

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

Isn't DC a little different, since it doesn't reside within a state? It's a 10 x 10 square. Isn't DC somewhat dependent on residents of MD and VA? It would seem to me that 70K plus non-DC residents driving into DC to spend money would be a good thing.

The other stadiums cited in the video are in states where just about everyone attending the game already lives in the state in which the stadium resides. I guess NJ is the exception, but I imagine a lot of people attending Giants and Jets games live in NJ as well. Maybe I'm wrong.

1. I really doesn't matter where the stadium is (NY and NJ said no to public financing). There are finite number of seasonal jobs created and the tax revenue received from these job and the sale of any goods is insufficient to cover the amount of money taxpayers cough up before teams ask for a new stadium.

2. If the baseball team gets a stadium the football team will ask for one and vice verse. When owners ask for a new stadium it essentially amounts to asking for a ransom...Pay us or we will move and find someone else to pay us....I don't know about you but the idea of paying a ransom doesn't appeal to me, especially if I am not getting my money's worth.

3. People don't spend more money to go to games, they shift that money from other things like going out to dinner or the movies. This means the state isn't receiving tax revenue from these other businesses.

4. Studies after studies have shown the only people a new stadiums makes money for are the people building it, playing in it and team owners.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by saden1

1. I really doesn't matter where the stadium is (NY and NJ said no to public financing). There are finite number of seasonal jobs created and the tax revenue received from these job and the sale of any goods is insufficient to cover the amount of money taxpayers cough up before teams ask for a new stadium.

2. If the baseball team gets a stadium the football team will ask for one and vice verse. When owners ask for a new stadium it essentially amounts to asking for a ransom...Pay us or we will move and find someone else to pay us....I don't know about you but the idea of paying a ransom doesn't appeal to me, especially if I am not getting my money's worth.

3. People don't spend more money to go to games, they shift that money from other things like going out to dinner or the movies. This means the state isn't receiving tax revenue from these other businesses.

4. Studies after studies have shown the only people a new stadiums makes money for are the people building it, playing in it and team owners.

You're right and wrong .


Baseball has nothing to do with Football stadiums ,it didn't in NY/NJ.



AS for # 3 you are 100% dead wrong ,have you been to a parking lot at Fed Ex ,have you seen what these people spend on tailgating ???People who buy season tickets have the money or figure a way ...maybe sell a game or two or go in as a whole family (as we did in NY,7 of us) .You make it sound like people will starve first to see a game and it's just not so .

#4) Again you are wrong ,if you have a good stadium and a good marketing team they can make money .Scroll down and see ,NJ makes money at Met Life !MetLife Stadium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[irish]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I think it's going in NVA also. Not sure where but somewhere inside the 495 loop.

As for capacity, please, he is going to cram every seat he can in there. I would be surprised if it is less than 80K. Just b/c it would have a high capacity does not mean it has to be bad. FedEx is just a giant bowl - not much creativity in design. A little creative design work could enhance the experience and home field advantage even if the stadium has a high capacity.

Oh, and it will have a roof. Danny wants his Super Bowl.

I cant think of anywhere in NOVA inside the Beltway that has enough space to handle a stadium let alone adding in the parking lots. IMO if this stadium is built in NOVA its either going to be out near Redskins Park or somewhere down near Stafford or Fredericksburg.

In the end the place it really belongs is on the old RFK site but I dont see that happening easily especially with (I hate to even say it) the name controversy going on.

[KI Skins Fan]

The stupid politicians in the District of Columbia have once again put themselves in a bad position. Somehow, they felt the need to excoriate Dan Snyder over the "racist" name of his football team when they didn't need to say anything at all about it. They did it to enhance their liberal credentials, I assume. Now they find out that Snyder is looking to build a new stadium and they want it in D.C. Whoops!

What to do? It seems that they'd be willing to have an undeclared moratorium on protesting the Redskins name until the stadium contract is signed and the team is headed back to D.C. I suppose they think that once they get the deal signed they can jump right back on the name controversy bandwagon so they won't look like the hypocrites they actually are.

Wrong! Dan Snyder is not as stupid as they are. The D.C. politicians are going to have to agree to some sort of tacit, if not contractual, acceptance of the Redskins name in order to get the stadium deal.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Not for the Met Life Stadium in NJ .


MetLife Stadium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Giants, Jets revise billion-dollar stadium plan - NFL - ESPN

Well, sort of.

Questions remain over whether the benefits of hosting the Super Bowl outweigh the costs. The New York Times' Charles Bagli took a look at the numbers for an article in Friday's paper. He reports that the stadium cost $1.6 billion to build, and although it was privately financed, New Jersey taxpayers did foot the bill for about $250 million in transportation and infrastructure improvements.

I know when municipalities annex areas, the homeowners in that area have to pay for the cost of utilities being run along their yards, to their neighborhood, even if they don't use them. The MetLife Giants/Jets stadium did get a pass on that.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

The stupid politicians in the District of Columbia have once again put themselves in a bad position. Somehow, they felt the need to excoriate Dan Snyder over the "racist" name of his football team when they didn't need to say anything at all about it. They did it to enhance their liberal credentials, I assume. Now they find out that Snyder is looking to build a new stadium and they want it in D.C. Whoops!

What to do? It seems that they'd be willing to have an undeclared moratorium on protesting the Redskins name until the stadium contract is signed and the team is headed back to D.C. I suppose they think that once they get the deal signed they can jump right back on the name controversy bandwagon so they won't look like the hypocrites they actually are.

Wrong! Dan Snyder is not as stupid as they are. The D.C. politicians are going to have to agree to some sort of tacit, if not contractual, acceptance of the Redskins name in order to get the stadium deal.

I would bet, not much cause I don't have much to lose , that if it came down to elections, and one candidate was running on bringing the Redskins, name and all, to the RFK site, and one candidate was running on the name change issue, barring any other obvious fatal flaws in either candidate, that the one who promised to get the Skins back would win the vote by a wide margin.

In fact it might be a way to bring the name issue to resolution, because both sides would probably be out in force, and if the DC electorate went one way or the other, it would give the politicians, media, and others a definitive outcome to hang their hat on.

[HailGreen28]

I would like to see Snyder build the stadium in NVA, and specifically call out the anti-Redskin PC crowd when he does so.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

I would like to see Snyder build the stadium in NVA, and specifically call out the anti-Redskin PC crowd when he does so.

What does the name issue have to do with Northern VA?

I hope they build the stadium in DC. Both No. VA and Maryland are terrible locations due to the horrible traffic.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

What does the name issue have to do with Northern VA?

I hope they build the stadium in DC. Both No. VA and Maryland are terrible locations due to the horrible traffic.

Out of curiosity, how exactly does horrible traffic make Md. and Va. terrible locations, but horrible traffic somehow counts as a plus for DC.?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

What does the name issue have to do with Northern VA?

I hope they build the stadium in DC. Both No. VA and Maryland are terrible locations due to the horrible traffic.

Thought it was clear I was talking about the PC crowd in DC, specifically elected leaders there. The onus should be on them if the new stadium isn't built in DC.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Out of curiosity, how exactly does horrible traffic make Md. and Va. terrible locations, but horrible traffic somehow counts as a plus for DC.?

I think Beltway traffic in Maryland and No. VA is the worst. I would imagine having the stadium in DC would likely mean more public transportation options compared to MD or No. VA.

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Thought it was clear I was talking about the PC crowd in DC, specifically elected leaders there. The onus should be on them if the new stadium isn't built in DC.

Last time I checked, No. VA is pretty liberal too.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

#4) Again you are wrong ,if you have a good stadium and a good marketing team they can make money .Scroll down and see ,NJ makes money at Met Life !MetLife Stadium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry. Exactly where in that link does it show NJ makes money from the stadium? Have you got a breakdown between the costs of maintenance vs the income they receive?

If you are pointing to the concerts as the revenue, I have to remind you that it's the artists/performer who nets most of that money, not the venue.

I'm almost 100% sure that NJ lost money during the Super Bowl.


In Stadium Building Spree, U.S. Taxpayers Lose $4 Billion - Bloomberg

As per norm, Giantone doesn't know what he's talking about. Most cities lose out with new stadiums. The studies have been done.


I can post many articles and reports saying the same thing. It's all contradictory to what the NFL promises.

http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp...nSuperbowl.pdf

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think Beltway traffic in Maryland and No. VA is the worst. I would imagine having the stadium in DC would likely mean more public transportation options compared to MD or No. VA.

But those public transportation options for DC tend to begin in Va. and Md. due to the amount of people from both states that work in DC. It also only matters if the public is willing to use public transportation as its main source of getting there. People who can afford the cost of season tickets tend to want to drive themselves and not be caught up in waiting for a train that only runs at certain times. While I did not go to a lot of games at RFK, I did go to a few, and traffic was terrible. With much less people attending than would now in a stadium that will hold probably 25-30k more people than RFK did. Also, Most of the people that attend RFK are usually on the beltway at some point of the drive.

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Last time I checked, No. VA is pretty liberal too.

While this is true, the majority of Va. state politicians, who have spoken on the subject, have come out in favor of keeping the name regardless of what side of the aisle they are on.