Still no formal talks between Redskins and DC Mayor

by Skin Patrol on Feb 21, 2008 2:34 PM EST in News

Adrian Fenty said on Wednesday that he is going to present a proposal to Redskins owner Dan Snyder for a possible a 100,000-seat domed stadium that also could be used for Super Bowls and other major events. DC's Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi has gotten involved and will do a financial analysis of the impact that building this stadium and the return of the Redskins to town will have on the city.

I was hopeful of the proposition, not because I'm a DC area resident, but because I want the largest stadium in the NFL as a matter of bragging rights. Ben made the compelling case why this should happen way back last October, and I'm on board with him. (Even if he did expose me as an NFL fraud.) Unfortunately, it hasn't moved anywhere yet, per the Georgetown Voice:

Once the decrepit RFK Stadium is vacant, Fenty might look to build a new stadium in its place, in hopes of luring the Washington Redskins back into the city. The Redskins originally played at RFK before moving to the brand-new FedEx Field--the largest stadium in the National Football League--in Landover, Maryland, in 1997. However, Fenty spokesperson Dana Iverson said that as of yet there have been no formal discussions between the Mayor and the Redskins.

Fingers still crossed.

0 recs | Comment 4 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The problem with this

And all this is at the three part series Skin Patrol linked to above, the problem I see is the land and stadium ownership issue.

As I understand it, the city of DC has the spit of land that includes RFK, the Armory and its lots on longterm lease from the federal govt's Park Service.

Dan Snyder would never ever ever make a stadium deal where he did not own it from the dirt on up. There is zero percent chance Dan would ever go in for something like the Nationals baseball team where the new stadium is a municipal stadium with one tenant. The Nats get all the revenue but do not own the land or the physical stadium.

Therefore the total value of the stadium asset does not accrue to the team's value. I agree with Skin Patrol on this issue: the Redskins have a generational claim on three things:

longest streak of sellouts
most valuable franchise
largest stadium

Dan would need to own the stadium in order to support number two. After Halloween next season the Redskins will have the second largest stadium to the hated rival Cowboys.

To get around this land issue would mean the fed would have to turn over the land to the city and the city would then have to sell it to Dan.

Although the fed has been very generous lately returning parcels of land back to the city, I don't know if the fed would do this. A democratic administration (lol I just pwned my political leaning) would wonder if the public good to the city and the associated jobs and tax revenue would offset the consolidated gain, with Dan Snyder being the main benefactor. Not an expert economic analysis, just woolgathering.

And I will repeat once again, the Redskins WILL NOT play in a dome. I will divorce them and become a Ravens fan if this happens, I will be done with them.

=====Curly R: The Redskins Blog=====

by thatguyben on Feb 21, 2008 3:11 PM EST 0 recs

Although

There is some precedent for this however, the city did sorta give Abe Polin the land for the Verizon Center (i say sorta b/c its some crazy leased land that will revert to Abe in a certain amount of years deal) which he built mostly with his own cash. I'd rather have them do an Abe Polin type deal rather than a Nationals type deal.

I do agree with hating the dome idea, no way it'd be a retractable roof either, its not worth the expense for just 8 games.

"It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times!!!?? Stupid Monkeys!" ---Montgomery Burns

by Chimp Rage on Feb 21, 2008 3:25 PM EST 0 recs

Re:

Man that's a nice stadium, how much did that set you back?

Well I'm on this lease-to-own deal...

I support no domes. I want a Super Bowl and know that can't happen without a retractable roof, though. Choosing between Superbowl and dome (or some hybrid) and no Superbowl and open stadium, I'd take the latter.

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Feb 21, 2008 4:15 PM EST up 0 recs