D.C. United fans click on team website a lot to support stadium, film at 11

More than 2,000 D.C. United fans, who, being fans of D.C. United, cheer for D.C. United, have clicked an average of more than 10 times apiece on a website set up by D.C. United to send emails to Mayor Vincent Gray and the city council in support of a new city-subsidized stadium for D.C. United, according to D.C. United, reports Tucker Echols of the Washington Business Journal’s People Clicking on Things Bureau. In unrelated news, most people in D.C. are actually against the stadium plan.

9 comments on “D.C. United fans click on team website a lot to support stadium, film at 11

  1. 2,000, small as it is, is highly inflated. I just signed up twice, as Mayor Gray and President Obama, and was happy to see that they accepted my word for it that I live in the city.

    From the press release:
    “This grassroots movement, made up of local residents, community groups, and businesses, has organized to make its voice heard in support of plans for a new D.C. United stadium”—Grassroots? Just the opposite, this whole thing was organized by team ownership that is based in Asia. The owner can’t even be bothered to travel to DC (much less the US) to ask for the $200 million in person.

    “The current details of the proposal pave the way for a partnership that will transform Southwest Washington in the same way that Verizon Center reshaped and revitalized the Gallery Place neighborhood.”—Big promise, of course it is more likely to result in development in the same way as the football stadium (none at all) or the baseball stadium (nothing at all within a block).

    “The proposal will generate $387 million in new tax revenue, create 870 construction jobs and 550 permanent jobs.”—Union construction jobs from Maryland, minimal from the city. The permanent jobs are certainly inflated, but are also being shifted down the street from RFK, not created.

    “The District, which will lease the stadium site to D.C. United, will retain ownership of the land at the end of the lease period, at which point the property will likely be worth more than $700 million.”—That’s the biggest lie in the whole release, if the United’s ownership thought that the land would increase that much in value they’d be insisting on purchasing it themselves.

    “The new stadium will have many other uses besides professional soccer. It will host more than fifty events each year, including headline concerts, cultural events, school-age sports, college soccer, football, lacrosse, and more.” 20 soccer games shifted over from RFK, some concerts poached from other local venues, and high school sports, where is the net gain for the city?

    What I love about the United fans is that they keep insisting that they want the stadium because it is a great deal for the city, meanwhile they all support the corrupt to the core mayor because his opponents are against the public funding.

  2. PB:

    Will Chang lives in D.C., not Asia, FYI. And he’s lived in the USA for a long time.

    Your other points are well made.

  3. I get that this website is against stadium funding and all, but if you’re going to criticize a press-release for being inaccurate, don’t cite opposing polls that are just as inaccurate. That “6 in 10 residents oppose the deal” poll is all kinds of wrong: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2014/03/03/presented-with-details-public-is-more-supportive-of-d-c-united-deal/


  4. Thanks for the City Paper link, but even their poll shows most people (or most people who have an opinion, anyway) as against the stadium plan. The Post poll wasn’t perfect, but it’s still more reliable data than how many people sent emails via a team website:


  5. If those 2,000 “people” would just put up $50k each, DCU would be 1/3rd of the way to having the stadium those “2,000 people” want so badly, and could likely float a mortgage for the rest… you know, like actual businesses do.

    Uh huh. Thought so. The real interest those 2,000 names have is in someone else paying for part of their discretionary spending.

    I thought the $700m “end” value was hogwash too. If this investment will grow that much, why, RFK must be worth $400m all on it’s own today… in fact, it’s a huge liability for the city – just as a 30yr old new DCU or Nats stadium will be.

  6. Tarry Tate claims that the Post poll was inaccurate, he is correct, it failed to mention that the United’s owner is not a US citizen, that the construction jobs will go to union workers who are primarily from Maryland, and that the cost is much higher than projected when the replacement of the Reeves Center is factored in. Given that information I doubt if 10% of DC voters would support this joke of a proposal.

  7. The latest from DC:

    @OConnellPostbiz 3h
    Mayor’s office claims FOIA exemption for appraisals re: Buzzard Point/Reeves Center #DCU stadium deal. Which, is nonsense. #transparency

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *.
NOTE: Both personal attacks on other commenters and trolling (posting inflammatory remarks solely to start a fight) are not allowed in comments, and will be deleted. Any commenters who repeatedly ignore these rules may be placed on moderation, or banned.

HTML tags are not allowed.

779,296 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments