PDA

View Full Version : Garber threatens to move DC United



Canary Canuck
04-09-2009, 08:02 PM
if something can't be resolved, we will move the team.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2009/04/garber_speaks_on_uniteds_futur.html#more

I think it's just posturing to pressure the District into being more cooperative.

DRock
04-09-2009, 08:09 PM
Hmmm, Joey, buy it UP!

Ottawa MLS Fan
04-09-2009, 08:10 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2009/04/garber_speaks_on_uniteds_futur.html#more

I think it's just posturing to pressure the District into being more cooperative.


I think you are right, but they would be welcome in Ottawa :canada:

el rojo fanatico
04-09-2009, 08:16 PM
This needs to get fixed! DC has a solid core of good football supporters and that is still not the norm in this league

werewolf
04-09-2009, 08:17 PM
Are you sure that wasn't Gary Bettman talking?

Wagner
04-09-2009, 08:18 PM
Montreal United Impact??

FluSH
04-09-2009, 08:21 PM
I saw these news on TV... forget which channel but I was impressed to see MLS news on TV in the first place! anyhow... really sad they can't get this new stadium going.

Batman
04-09-2009, 08:25 PM
Are you sure that wasn't Gary Bettman talking?

I'm not sure I understand the Bettman reference.

Bettman won't move a franchise if his life depends on it. There are countless current NHL teams that should move based upon lack of support, yet unlike all other North American leagues, he's adamant to stick it out wherever they are rather than look at alternatives.

Yet Garber says "We don't seem to be able to get a deal done and it could be that, if something can't be resolved, we will move the team."

So he doesn't sound much like Bettman to me.

Ossington Mental Youth
04-09-2009, 08:28 PM
I think you are right, but they would be welcome in Ottawa :canada:


Ottawa city council seems to think otherwise

werewolf
04-09-2009, 08:49 PM
I'm not sure I understand the Bettman reference.



Referring to the old bettman; Quebec, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Hartford, etc.

mighty_torontofc_2008
04-09-2009, 09:12 PM
If Utd move there are a few other good locations for the Club, Ottawa,Minnesota, New York (2), Rochester, St Louis, Tampa Bay,San Diego, just to name a few.Lets hope UTD saty in DC or DC area...they are a great franchise.

Ben Knight
04-09-2009, 09:14 PM
Mon-tre-al.

mighty_torontofc_2008
04-09-2009, 09:20 PM
Mon-tre-al.


sorry Ben, Montreal shot them selves in the foot in attempting to get a franchise...would a team be well supported..yes but so were the Expos
for a while till the losing became a tradition..The Impact are good in the USL and still help Canadian soccer...But United need to be somewhere
else, but preferred in DC

pepher
04-09-2009, 09:32 PM
From one 'capital' to another... seems to fit.

InTheCrowd
04-09-2009, 09:52 PM
sorry Ben, Montreal shot them selves in the foot in attempting to get a franchise...would a team be well supported..yes but so were the Expos
for a while till the losing became a tradition..The Impact are good in the USL and still help Canadian soccer...But United need to be somewhere
else, but preferred in DC

Then again, how good was Seattle last season? Didn't they go 10-10-10? Imagine the possibilities with Montreal. See where money can take you.

mighty_torontofc_2008
04-09-2009, 09:56 PM
Then again, how good was Seattle last season? Didn't they go 10-10-10? Imagine the possibilities with Montreal. See where money can take you.


Like i said Montreal would be supported decently,i just have too many questions on the Impacts owner? Seattle has a long history with the sounders from the NASL-USL-MLS they have a good soccer background.
Montreal? The Manic were supported go for a while then the support
fell off...The Impact have left the USL once for finanacial reasons,
so i would really think twice before putting a team there.

InTheCrowd
04-09-2009, 10:03 PM
Like i said Montreal would be supported decently,i just have too many questions on the Impacts owner? Seattle has a long history with the sounders from the NASL-USL-MLS they have a good soccer background.
Montreal? The Manic were supported go for a while then the support
fell off...The Impact have left the USL once for finanacial reasons,
so i would really think twice before putting a team there.

I agree that they're financially not very stable. If they could get that sorted they'd be perfect candidates for expansion.

mighty_torontofc_2008
04-09-2009, 10:11 PM
I agree that they're financially not very stable. If they could get that sorted they'd be perfect candidates for expansion.

Its funny that Saputos name has been mentioned as a possible owner/part owner of the Canadians hockey team? He can find that
extra cash when he really wants to:rolleyes:

InTheCrowd
04-09-2009, 10:12 PM
Its funny that Saputos name has been mentioned as a possible owner/part owner of the Canadians hockey team? He can find that
extra cash when he really wants to:rolleyes:

Once again footy gets stepped upon by ice hockey. It hurts living in North America. :D

James Oliphant
04-09-2009, 10:44 PM
Uh-huh....Garber's looking at moving the team the same way the expansion fee for the most recent round was $40 million and no less.

Please let me play poker with this guy just once...

Bender
04-09-2009, 11:07 PM
moving them to montreal would make up for the loss of the expos to D.C. :D

Roogsy
04-09-2009, 11:12 PM
moving them to montreal would make up for the loss of the expos to D.C. :D

LOL! :lol:

I never thought of that!

But seriously...DC has a loyal, dedicated fanbase. DC has been a successful franchise. The fact that they can't get this resolved is very unfortunate.

jabbronies
04-09-2009, 11:30 PM
Well I hope Garber stays true to his word. SSS are key to a successful league. He has said it many times over himself. If DC can't get a deal done, then sorry folks, fans or not, it's time to move somewhere that will embrace it.

Cashcleaner
04-10-2009, 12:22 AM
^ What?! Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. You're saying that basically regardless of how many people are coming in through the gates, it doesn't count because it's not a SSS.

If a team can survive and thrive without the need for a dedicated facility, nobody is gonna force them to move. An SSS is a nice thing to have, but it's never been mandatory and in the case of DCU, I don't see the lack of one being an issue at all as long as people are attending the games in relatively high numbers.

troy1982
04-10-2009, 12:28 AM
^ What?! Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. You're saying that basically regardless of how many people are coming in through the gates, it doesn't count because it's not a SSS.

If a team can survive and thrive without the need for a dedicated facility, nobody is gonna force them to move. An SSS is a nice thing to have, but it's never been mandatory and in the case of DCU, I don't see the lack of one being an issue at all as long as people are attending the games in relatively high numbers.

They still losing money with an average attendance of 20K and have been the biggest drain on MLS. The league and all the owners have been subsiding DCU for 15 years. Garber is rightly stating that this will not continue. Plus RFK is falling apart. I say we bring on St. Louis United

LucaGol
04-10-2009, 07:38 AM
I dont want DC United to move ... theyre the most successful team in this league with very passionate fans.

Their ownership "gets" soccer and so do their fans.

I'd rather have a stadium built in some obscure suburb of D.C. (provided that public transit makes it easy to get there) than to have them removed from the league.

LucaGol
04-10-2009, 07:40 AM
They still losing money with an average attendance of 20K and have been the biggest drain on MLS. The league and all the owners have been subsiding DCU for 15 years. Garber is rightly stating that this will not continue. Plus RFK is falling apart. I say we bring on St. Louis United

Source?

jabbronies
04-10-2009, 09:03 AM
^ What?! Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. You're saying that basically regardless of how many people are coming in through the gates, it doesn't count because it's not a SSS.

If a team can survive and thrive without the need for a dedicated facility, nobody is gonna force them to move. An SSS is a nice thing to have, but it's never been mandatory and in the case of DCU, I don't see the lack of one being an issue at all as long as people are attending the games in relatively high numbers.

Yes, DC are thriving right now in this economic format that the MLS has setup. But what happens when the league grows - i.e bigger cap, bigger TV deals, etc.

DC are paying operating costs of the stadium that holds twice as many people as they draw. They don't run the building so I'm sure they don't control the revenue stream there. Are they the primary tenant of the building? Does the MLS schedule revolve around them or does it revolve around the dates available to them at the stadium?
Who controls security at the building? them or the DC gaming commish??

SSS bring alot more than just atmosphere to a game. In the end, it's a business and having a SSS makes the most business sense IMO.

torfchamilton
04-10-2009, 09:21 AM
I have read as well that DC is losing millions/year because of RFK. They have huge rent and control nothing. Garber I am sure is just putting pressure on local governments to get something done. He is doing the right thing.

Mark in Ottawa
04-10-2009, 11:22 AM
they would be welcome in Ottawa :canada:

And they would move to a city with no stadium because.... :noidea:

Cashcleaner
04-10-2009, 01:13 PM
Yes, DC are thriving right now in this economic format that the MLS has setup. But what happens when the league grows - i.e bigger cap, bigger TV deals, etc.

DC are paying operating costs of the stadium that holds twice as many people as they draw. They don't run the building so I'm sure they don't control the revenue stream there. Are they the primary tenant of the building? Does the MLS schedule revolve around them or does it revolve around the dates available to them at the stadium?
Who controls security at the building? them or the DC gaming commish??

SSS bring alot more than just atmosphere to a game. In the end, it's a business and having a SSS makes the most business sense IMO.

I'm pretty sure DCU are the primary tenants at RFK. I believe the only other club playing our of there is the Freedom (Women's soccer). With only two clubs playing out of the place, I'm wager they are getting a pretty good deal from the facility's owners/operators.

Right now I think the only forseeable option for DCU is to possibly groundshare with a local university which wouldn't likely be SSS either.

troy1982
04-10-2009, 04:06 PM
I'm pretty sure DCU are the primary tenants at RFK. I believe the only other club playing our of there is the Freedom (Women's soccer). With only two clubs playing out of the place, I'm wager they are getting a pretty good deal from the facility's owners/operators.

Right now I think the only forseeable option for DCU is to possibly groundshare with a local university which wouldn't likely be SSS either.

They have a horrible deal and DC loses the most money in the league.
If you're one of the other owners who have been helping to carry DC United for 14 years, who much longer do you give them, especially if you're AEG or HSG or Robert Kraft, who put their necks out there back in the early part of the decade when no one else would and kept the league alive and invested in stadiums for their teams? Apparently, the collective answer from league ownership, as expressed by their man Don Garber, is "not very much longer." If the other league owners weren't saying it behind closed doors, he wouldn't be saying it publicly.

kodiakTFC
04-10-2009, 06:42 PM
For some reason i read Gerber, as in Martin Gerber. I wouldn't of been too pissed off.

Brooker
04-11-2009, 02:27 AM
i just can't picture united moving.... we need teams like them.

dunno what Barra Brava and Screaming Eagles would do if they did move..... complete anarchy.

Dirk Diggler
04-11-2009, 02:40 AM
They have a horrible deal and DC loses the most money in the league.
If you're one of the other owners who have been helping to carry DC United for 14 years, who much longer do you give them, especially if you're AEG or HSG or Robert Kraft, who put their necks out there back in the early part of the decade when no one else would and kept the league alive and invested in stadiums for their teams? Apparently, the collective answer from league ownership, as expressed by their man Don Garber, is "not very much longer." If the other league owners weren't saying it behind closed doors, he wouldn't be saying it publicly.

When did Kraft invest in a stadium for his MLS team?

troy1982
04-11-2009, 12:21 PM
i just can't picture united moving.... we need teams like them.

dunno what Barra Brava and Screaming Eagles would do if they did move..... complete anarchy.

The NFL left the second largest TV market, the NBA left the 14 largest market and the NHL was leaving Canada. Basicly if DCU continue to lose a boat load of money as they do now at RFK they will leave. They have been rejected by Virgina,Maryland and DC. I guess they could try to get a stadium built in Delaware or Pennsylvania both are 100 Km away though.

rocker
04-11-2009, 01:17 PM
When did Kraft invest in a stadium for his MLS team?

apparently the NFL stadium they use is actually designed for MLS as well (at least internally. the big thing for MLS is not really SSS but stadiums owned or managed by the MLS owner. Kraft owns the stadium NE plays in.

and Kraft has probably put money into the league to help other teams, as guys like Hunt and Anschutz have done when times were tough.

If DC United owned RFK we probably wouldn't be having this discussion... they could probably make it work, or tear down the upper deck and turn it into an SSS.