NEW YORK | NYC FC Soccer Stadium | Willets Point
 

Wilpon wishes to put a soccer stadium in Queens and a true New York City soccer team in MLS. In your opinion can he realize this objective ?

Too see www. newyorkcityfc.net and to sign the petition to convince Wilpon to put a NYC soccer team in MLS in 2010 !!!!


______________________________




Fifteen years later, and a stadium shall appear…..



https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022...ale&width=1200
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/n...c-willets.html

they should. but to do so to all red bull new york people, if you get a team in NY, please change the red bulls to the New Jersey Red Bulls or Red Bull NJ or something. its quite ridiculous that its a new jersey team with NY name

Good new on soccertimes :

SoccerTimes was told off-the-record by an MLS official that the top candidate would be New York City with a soccer-specific stadium built adjacent to Citi Field, the Mets' new stadium, set to open next to Shea Stadium in Flushing, Queens, in 2009. The league envisions a bitter rivalry between this club and the New York Red Bulls, who are based in New Jersey.

Too see www. newyorkcityfc.net and to sign the petition to convince Wilpon to put a NYC soccer team in MLS in 2010 !!!!

GOOD YEAR !!!!!

I'd rather Philadelphia, St Louis, Portland, Vancouver, Montreal, etc etc etc....get in first.

Jan. 18, 2008

'WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS'
Garber on a NYC expansion team



Baltimore -- An MLS expansion team in New York City still is on the table, commissioner Don Garber said at the MLS SuperDraft Friday.

"New York continues to work towards putting together a right plan for a facility," Garber said at the Baltimore Convention Center. "We've had conversations with ownership groups. We announced at the all-star game that it was the Wilpon family and the Mets.

"We have been meeting with them over the last year and continue to work on their plan to construct and effectively finance a soccer stadium on the grounds in and around CitiField. We're making progress, but we really haven't put a timetable on that team."

philadelphia should have one team before new york has 2, and it looks like we're getting a leg up.
http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...MLS_race_.html

While I can understand you wanting a Philly team before NYC has two, a Queens team makes a lot more sense than a Philly team.

NYC is more than five times the size of Philly, and the NYC metro is almost four times the size of Philly metro, so, if anything, two NYC teams is too few compared to one Philly team. Now if you compare the recent Latin and European immigration populations in each city (the core market for MLS soccer), NYC probably has something like (I'm guessing) eight times Phily's population.

Given the giant immigrant population from soccer loving populations in Queens and Brooklyn, a Queens soccer stadium would be a huge success. I think it would immediately be among the most valuable franchises and would compete for best MLS attendance.

I do agree that it's important that Philly also get an MLS franchise. It's currently the second largest after the Bay Area without a team, and is much bigger and more sports-crazy than most of the MLS cities (won't name any names).

nothing like an entitled new yorker. by your logic, new york should have about 3 teams before ANY other market gets one. when I was growing up, my mother never let me have seconds until I had finished my first helping. moral: support the team you already have before you go for a second one. the red bulls are not supported the way a team in the largest market should be. and don't blame it on being in new jersey: the giants and jets do just fine there. if you were a real fan, you would travel there to support the team instead of insisting a team move closer to you. the location of philly's proposed stadium is farther from me than the meadowlands is from you, and I plan to support the team when (not if) we get one.

Your logic makes no sense. In fact, you seem to be the entitled person.

You are the one asking for four servings of ice cream for Philly, while NYC should only get one. You are saying that 5 million people should get one team, while 20 million people should also only have one team. How is that fair?

You are basically saying that if Philly gets a team, then Hartford (or even Albany or Harrisburg) automatically needs one team too, because they too are cities, and teams should be distributed equally regardless of population.

The fact is that a Queens franchise would be much more valuable and important for MLS than a Philly franchise. Now I fully agree that Philly also needs a franchise, but there's no reason to limit franchises to one per metro regardless of population.

As for the Red Bulls, they have previously not drawn because they are not anywhere near transit, and the NYC soccer demographic (immigrant and urban) needs transit more than any other metro (less than half of NYC households own a car, and for immigrants the number is much lower).

They are building a new stadium in Harrison, just four miles from Manhattan and directly adjacent to a PATH subway station. I guarantee they will draw in the new Red Bull Park.

just wanted to chime in. i dont think the MLS is going to follow the same path as the other major sports. i wouldn't doubt 4 or 5 teams in LA for example, with a new team in the valley, another in the inland empire and one in Anaheim and i think that New York will probably be the same way. Philly will get a team , but it makes more sense for a new league to go where the fans area.

I don't understand what crawford is talking about: he contradicts himself when he says that on one hand new york should get a second team before philly gets its first because ny is so much larger than philly, and then says that the league should be able to put more than one team in a market regardless of population. is population the determinant or not?
as far as LA getting 4 or 5 teams, and the same in new york, I suppose anything is possible but I doubt we'll see anything like that soon. what will probably happen is that a darwinian process will occur, where teams in markets such as salt lake city and kansas city will probably not survive very long, and those teams will be sold to owners in those cities. it probably won't happen strictly through expansion. but if it does happen that way, the top 10 markets will be the benficiaries and multiple teams will happen in LA (well you already have 2 teams), ny, chicago, and probably philly also. the stadium we have proposed is not in the city but in the city of Chester, which is about 10 miles outside Philadelphia. I would not be surprised to see, at some point, at least one other team take up residence in the city itself. but that's skipping ahead, let's get one team before we start coveting a second. Hey, where have I heard that before?
This will all take place at an accelerated rate when television starts to be the mack daddy of the sport, the way it is with all other major sports. teams will gravitate not to where there is better transit but where there are televisions.
crawford, I'm not being the entitled one, you are. philly is a major market, we have been strung along about getting a team since the league began, and they keep moving the goal line on us as to what we need to do to get a team. first, they didn't want to give us a team because we didn't have a stadium with natural grass. then we built lincoln financial filed, and the league said we needed a soccer specific stadium, not an nfl stadium.
it makes sense for the league to expand to different markets, not put all its eggs in the same few baskets. especially in philadelphia, where we are right in the middle of the northeast corridor, where we form natural rivalries with new york and washington. that is the type of synergy the league needs to create before it starts doubling up teams in markets, with the exception in LA because there was no natural rival for LA after the original quakes left san jose.
no, it's definitely the new york entitlement mentality at work here, not Philadelphia. we just want what we have been promised, which is a win-win for the league. I am not saying that new york will never and should never get another team, it's just that the league and the sport need to establish a critical mass throughout the country before it can really take off and really be a major league.
this is all academic anyway, because garber said at the draft yesterday that the next expansion team is either going to Philly or St Louis, if you read the article I originally posted. so no, the league does not necessarily agree that a second new york team is more important than a first team in philly right now. their opinion is what matters, not yours or mine. of course it is possible that they will grant the team to st louis and then move philly farther down the list, which they have threatened to do if we can't get this stadium deal done, which would put new york in a better position, but the league would rather put the team here, where it will be in a major market, one with a huge soccer fan base already, right in the middle of the ne corridor than in st louis and a second ny team right now.

Philly can get a team and New York can have a second, there's no cap on the number of teams the league can have.

Chicago Fire, FTW!

FIFA says otherwise.

^^^ That was a suggestion to the Eurpoean FA's by Sepp Blatter in 2003, it'll never happen there and definitely not in America, We're the same size as the EU...

Philly deserves the team more and they will get it first. Commissioner Garber has already said that St. Louis and Philly are the priorities and will join the MLS in '09 with Seattle or '10. The next level of priority cities are Miami, Montreal, Las Vegas, Portland, Atlanta and Queens.

Philly already has a plan in place which includes a stadium in Chester, PA that is supposed to be opened by '10...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...um_concept.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Stadium

And, IMO, one of the coolest names and logos in the MLS...

http://www.sonsofben.net/Home/Home_f...ans%20blue.png
www.sonsofben.net

Philly may get it first, but the "deserve it more" statement is not based on any sort of logical reasoning, especially if we are now talking about a stadium in Chester of all places.

Why does NYC "deserve" a second team more than a city with no team and a SSS plan w/ partial financing already in place?

Simply because NYC hasn't a soccer team !!!

There are great news about the chances of NYC to have a true soccer team in MLS by 2011. The Borough Boys group ( www. boroughboysnyc.com ) after the meeting with Bloomberg administration and Don Garber ( commissioner of the MLS ) in the last weeks, the July 17th had a meeting with FRED WILPON, who said to be very strongly interested to entry in MLS. I think that in the next weeks he will be a soccer plan in Willets Points.

To see : http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=720587

I hope that other NYC soccer fans will help us in this dream to have the New York City Football Club in MLS by 2011 !!!!!!!