OT: Washington Commanders 2025-26 thread | Football is fun again Edition

[max21]

It’s so nice being excited about this team again, I’ve never read so much into our draftees as I have the last 2 years. Amos looks like a straight beast

 

[John Price]

the deal has already been sweetened enough as is

75% private funding is outrageously generous for an owner who already spent 6 billion to buy the team, a record purchase at the time

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

the deal has already been sweetened enough as is

75% private funding is outrageously generous for an owner who already spent 6 billion to buy the team, a record purchase at the time

Outrageously generous would be 100%.

The more private $, the more profit for the owners. 50% financing takes away from that bottom line. Just seems like good business if you can bankroll it.

 

[Beef Invictus]

the deal has already been sweetened enough as is

75% private funding is outrageously generous for an owner who already spent 6 billion to buy the team, a record purchase at the time

An owner who is probably also about to leverage the lobbying power of the NFL to fix the budget crisis Congress is currently forcing upon the District, too. I mean, I assume that's gonna happen otherwise DC literally can't afford their end.



On the draft: I've been too busy with life to be as plugged in. I've got few specific thoughts and this year they drafted seemingly only guys I didn't pay direct attention to, except one. I like Conerly, as an idea at least; I'm not familiar with him, but Oregon's offense strikes me as being close enough to us that his skillset should mesh? Lane I am quite pleased with. VT is not a place right now to showcase talent, but Lane stuck out to me as someone who could be a darkhorse NFL slot WR candidate.

I've got research to catch up on I guess

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

…do the council members fighting against this deal know they won’t have control of the land if they don’t say yes, thus they’re just voting for the status quo? The lease to DC is contingent on building a stadium on that land. If they don’t build a stadium the land reverts back to federal control and we’ll have what we’ve had the last 25 years there - a dump of an area that provides no economic benefit to the city and limited housing to its residents.

Not normally one to use this phrase, but this is virtue signaling at its worst. Hitting the buzzwords and phrases around not funding billionaire playgrounds and needing to prioritize affordable housing in the city and not wanting to use the land for eight games and needing to invest in infrastructure and affordable transportation doesn’t accomplish anything here. This is not Ted trying to squeeze the city for more money.

 

[John Price]

…do the council members fighting against this deal know they won’t have control of the land if they don’t say yes, thus they’re just voting for the status quo? The lease to DC is contingent on building a stadium on that land. If they don’t build a stadium the land reverts back to federal control and we’ll have what we’ve had the last 25 years there - a dump of an area that provides no economic benefit to the city and limited housing to its residents.

Not normally one to use this phrase, but this is virtue signaling at its worst. Hitting the buzzwords and phrases around not funding billionaire playgrounds and needing to prioritize affordable housing in the city and not wanting to use the land for eight games and needing to invest in infrastructure and affordable transportation doesn’t accomplish anything here. This is not Ted trying to squeeze the city for more money.

it's all local politics.i read they have 5 of the 7 votes. two holdouts talking about taxpayer money but they can be greased

 

[qcal1427]

…do the council members fighting against this deal know they won’t have control of the land if they don’t say yes, thus they’re just voting for the status quo? The lease to DC is contingent on building a stadium on that land. If they don’t build a stadium the land reverts back to federal control and we’ll have what we’ve had the last 25 years there - a dump of an area that provides no economic benefit to the city and limited housing to its residents.

Not normally one to use this phrase, but this is virtue signaling at its worst. Hitting the buzzwords and phrases around not funding billionaire playgrounds and needing to prioritize affordable housing in the city and not wanting to use the land for eight games and needing to invest in infrastructure and affordable transportation doesn’t accomplish anything here. This is not Ted trying to squeeze the city for more money.

Yep. My favorite are the quotes about how "residents are concerned about construction and increased traffic." You live in a city!

Nats Park has been a massive success for the Navy Yard area and the city as a whole. Why would they not want to do that again?

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

Yep. My favorite are the quotes about how "residents are concerned about construction and increased traffic." You live in a city!

Nats Park has been a massive success for the Navy Yard area and the city as a whole. Why would they not want to do that again?

Because if we go back to pre-Nats Park and pre-Wharf when the SE Waterfront was a bunch of abandoned warehouses that became drug dens and added no economic value to the city, we can talk in superlatives about using that space to create affordable housing, invest in transportation and infrastructure, and use that money towards helping DC residents instead of funding playgrounds for billionaires for likes and retweets on social media. Why would you want actual progress when it’s so much more effective to tweet about what someone else should be doing?

 

[kicksavedave]

News Flash: Politicians saying things they think will get them reelected. Details at 11.

I get there have been studies indicating the ROI on city financing big stadiums isn't really there, but how about the specific cost to the city of this project vs other 100% financed deals? They're supposedly paying 25% of this cost? I also get there could be more important stuff to spend money on, but this area around RFK is wallowing and this will reinvigorate the area. Will it pay for itself? Maybe not, but not every project has to be cost neutral for it to be a good value.

 

[Devil Dancer]

The lease to DC is contingent on building a stadium on that land. If they don’t build a stadium the land reverts back to federal control and we’ll have what we’ve had the last 25 years there - a dump of an area that provides no economic benefit to the city and limited housing to its residents.

…do the council members fighting against this deal know they won’t have control of the land if they don’t say yes, thus they’re just voting for the status quo? The lease to DC is contingent on building a stadium on that land. If they don’t build a stadium the land reverts back to federal control and we’ll have what we’ve had the last 25 years there - a dump of an area that provides no economic benefit to the city and limited housing to its residents.

That's not right about the stadium requirement. Finlay got it wrong.

The land transfer is not contingent on DC building a stadium on the site. A stadium is one of the approved uses, but DC doesn't have to build one to have the land.

DC can build and permit for stadium, commercial, and residential development, but there's no requirement that they do any of those things, and there's no reverter clause if there's no stadium.

You can read the text of the law yourself. Just Google "H.R.4984 - D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act".

 

[ahmedou]

 

[ynotcaps]

That's not right about the stadium requirement. Finlay got it wrong.

The land transfer is not contingent on DC building a stadium on the site. A stadium is one of the approved uses, but DC doesn't have to build one to have the land.

DC can build and permit for stadium, commercial, and residential development, but there's no requirement that they do any of those things, and there's no reverter clause if there's no stadium.

You can read the text of the law yourself. Just Google "H.R.4984 - D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act".

Thanks, I was just about to post this question.

I'm not a lawyer, but it struck me that the language was "may use" not "must use."

As to the merits of the public financing portion of the proposed deal, I think there's a nuance that some folks on the "no way" side of the argument (not on this board but in real life) are missing -- and that some others -- are lying about: the funding for the city's portion wouldn't come from the fund that's used to provide services to citizens, it would come from what I gather is a SEPARATE capital improvements budget. (I've probably got the names wrong, but I think the spirit is right.)

SW Waterfront and Nats stadium is a great example of a success story, but so is the downtown arena -- yes, I realize that was privately funded, but it stands as a great example of a sports facility that breathed entirely new life into a run-down, misused, disused chunk of a city that became an anchor around which a TON of new development was spawned. I used to take the Getro to Gallery Place every day before the arena was built and used that entrance, and I saw some STUFF in those days. Even with some of the issues that are there now, it's still light years beyond what it was prior.

Almost every one of those buildings is new or has been renovated, which provided jobs. Almost every business that's operating in that n'hood owes its existence to the life that the arena breathed into it -- and is provided jobs and tax revenue that didn't exist prior. There are restaurants and entertainment spots that draw customers on nights when the arena isn't in use, which wasn't happening prior. There are far more housing units than existed prior, increasing the local (n'hood) population which also supports the local business community on nights when there isn't an event. ALL of those economic benefits came out of that one decision to put a sports/entertainment venue there.

As others here have said, that land is not only doing nothing and adding nothing, it is actively TAKING value away when you consider the opportunity cost of so much usable land in a geographically small city sitting fallow, for essentially 2 decades.

Even if the stadium were only to be used one or two dozen times per year (which it won't -- not sure I believe the 200 times estimate, but I'd certainly buy a 100 times estimate), it would still provide far more economic benefit over the course of years well beyond the spending of stadium visitors, but by increasing housing (tax-base) and creating new business opportunities to draw further consumer spending and provide jobs -- and that's not even counting the new jobs that the initial development of the stadium and surrounding properties will create.

To piss on that in the name of "no public funding for stadiums, ever!" is short-sighted and irresponsible. It's not about today, it's about tomorrow and the next the next three-plus decades.

 

[g00n]

Luvu with Oshbabe energy

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

That's not right about the stadium requirement. Finlay got it wrong.

The land transfer is not contingent on DC building a stadium on the site. A stadium is one of the approved uses, but DC doesn't have to build one to have the land.

DC can build and permit for stadium, commercial, and residential development, but there's no requirement that they do any of those things, and there's no reverter clause if there's no stadium.

You can read the text of the law yourself. Just Google "H.R.4984 - D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act".

Thanks. Have a buddy in architecture and design who worked on the Caps plan for moving to Alexandria and he’s in the know about this stuff — he told me they had to use the land for a stadium or Congress could cancel the lease. Wouldn’t surprise me if the letter of the law said one thing and in reality Congress told DC that they have an understanding, albeit not in writing, that this deal is for a stadium and if they vote against using it for a stadium they’ll face issues.

 

[Devil Dancer]

Thanks. Have a buddy in architecture and design who worked on the Caps plan for moving to Alexandria and he’s in the know about this stuff — he told me they had to use the land for a stadium or Congress could cancel the lease. Wouldn’t surprise me if the letter of the law said one thing and in reality Congress told DC that they have an understanding, albeit not in writing, that this deal is for a stadium and if they won’t against it they’ll face issues.

Interesting. Congress could certainly pass another law taking the land back. Wouldn't that be a giant FU to DC.

Of course, we're used to those by now.

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

Interesting. Congress could certainly pass another law taking the land back. Wouldn't that be a giant FU to DC.

Of course, we're used to those by now.

“My way or the highway,” seems to be the mantra of the current Administration and Congress, right? Without getting political, it’s not hard to see someone in particular taking credit for getting a stadium built in DC.

I can’t hear it now…. “Nobody else could make that deal. They tried for 25 years to come back downtown and no one could do it — I did it in 60 days. I said, “get it done, get the stadium built here,” and the next day we had a land deal. I won’t get any credit of course because I never do, but without me they’re probably playing in Utah somewhere.”

 

[Jags]

Outrageously generous would be 100%.

Agreed, and not all that outrageous, but there'd be drama and similar conversations regardless cuz the privately funded ones get the tax breaks that drive locals nuts.

25% isn't bad, but it's misleading, and the tax breaks in the deal are pretty steep, too. With such a small tax base, DC being broke to start with, cash flow from the deal far off, and ROI debatable at best, there's plenty of reason to push back.

Sports reporters talking about the deal just read "25%" and think it's a cupcake deal for the city. Way more complicated than that.

Not normally one to use this phrase, but this is virtue signaling at its worst. Hitting the buzzwords and phrases around not funding billionaire playgrounds and needing to prioritize affordable housing in the city and not wanting to use the land for eight games and needing to invest in infrastructure and affordable transportation doesn’t accomplish anything here.

Yeah, the District being in business with this ownership group should be a big positive, especially given the current trajectory of the team and its corresponding earning potential. Buildup near and around the stadium site could be huge and bring in a lot of revenue. But there's certainly a lot of ifs and maybes in the overall plan.

I'm all for the team being at RFK, just wish the deal was better for DC, is all. Not the worst stadium deal, but not close to the best either. The land-use being such a unique case makes it tougher to figure, but it feels like DC could benefit from better negotiators, IMO.

Hope it works out for everyone...

 

[usiel]

I know we have already entrenched positions on dome/no dome but I did feel that this would best for DC to have it be used more throughout the year.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Gotta be a retractable roof….but I wonder how much that adds to the bill…275-500mil+ says AI.

 

[qcal1427]

I know we have already entrenched positions on dome/no dome but I did feel that this would best for DC to have it be used more throughout the year.

Yea I know dome is the logical way to go but it just feels so wrong for football

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Simms' No. 11 to stay retired amid Carter search

Phil Simms told longtime New York Daily News writer Gary Myers on Friday that he was "outvoted by his family" and his No. 11 will remain retired by the Giants and won't go to Abdul Carter.

www.espn.com

Why is this dude after retired player numbers?

 

[John Price]

 

[John Price]

 

[John Price]

 

[John Price]