Jump to content
Bottlecap

Austin FC

Recommended Posts

FWIW, based on today’s shenanigans, it’s not happening.

 

https://www.mystatesman.com/sports/soccer/psv-spokesman-mccalla-site-resolution-threatens-mls-move-austin/KYvSBC5bn3BNIBJkmJDGYK/

 

USL at COTA is definitely happening, though. Attended the Throw-In’s pick up game last week there. The COTA rep says they are announcing the coach this week or next and it’s happening, MLS or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to Flannigan, Kitchen, Casar just like it did before today. Could be a long night on the 28th. I’m planning to sign up to speak in favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck the USL.

So what about the other resolution asking for negotiations to begin? What kinda feeling do y'all have re: Flanigan, Kitchen, & Casar? Does either side have the votes they need to get their resolutions through? And of course, y'all know there's suddenly, conveniently, gonna be a competing official proposal for the site, right? After decades of non-use, suddenly someone "wants" it just when PSV wants it. Interesting coincidence.

Edited by wood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wood said:

Fuck the USL.

So what about the other resolution asking for negotiations to begin? What kinda feeling do y'all have re: Flanigan, Kitchen, & Casar? Does either side have the votes they need to get their resolutions through? And of course, y'all know there's suddenly, conveniently, gonna be a competing official proposal for the site, right? After decades of non-use, suddenly someone "wants" it just when PSV wants it. Interesting coincidence.

I think it’s super interesting that Code NEXT  and MLS both have 4-4 voting blocs but they aren’t the same.

For both - Adler, Renteria, Garza

For Code NEXT/anti MLS - Troxclair

For MLS/anti Code NEXT - Tovo

For Code NEXT/? MLS - Flannigan, Casar

?? Both - Kitchen

Anti both - Alter, Pool, Houston

I think Casar is good (b/c PSV will deal with Workers Defense Fund which is his base) and ultimately Flannigan is pro-business. Which is good, because we don’t want to leave this in the hands of Surly’s favorite taxi cab advocate.

A mayor with more political will could twist some arms and make both of these deals happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thursday is the big day gang. Positive sounding comments from Flannigan earlier this week about the proposal. It’s time to ignore the folks who never want to get anything done, ever and make a thing happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2018 at 6:54 AM, The Tres Leches said:

I'd guess that Kitchen will vote for the McKalla deal because her district if full of NIMBY, pro-MLS constituents.

How the fuck is she the only one running unopposed?  Is it a case of 20 strangers standing around a hit and run and nobody calls 9-1-1 because they assume the person next to them already did it?  I mean, she is a cunty emergency of the first order.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How the fuck is she the only one running unopposed?  Is it a case of 20 strangers standing around a hit and run and nobody calls 9-1-1 because they assume the person next to them already did it?  I mean, she is a cunty emergency of the first order.  

This should prob go on another thread but she is almost unbeatable. Has the pseudo liberal NIMBYs, Central auston crowd, ex leg network, and Austin Neighborhood Assn.

Running against her would be a fools game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gardner Barnes said:


This should prob go on another thread but she is almost unbeatable. Has the pseudo liberal NIMBYs, Central auston crowd, ex leg network, and Austin Neighborhood Assn.

Running against her would be a fools game.

She and Alter are the worst. And unbeatable in low turnout races like City Council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this shit out. These people have zero shame.

billiondollargiveaway.com

That's some seriously fuzzy math sandwiched in between a whole lotta bullshit. The people who are most likely behind this have received more undeserved public money than PSV likely ever would.

Quote

Dear <<insert council member's name>>,

I'm very upset that the City of Austin plans to give away land and benefits to a FOR-PROFIT sports team that are worth over $1 Billion. This is taxpayer money and it should not be freely given to a FOR-PROFIT company for this purpose.

By giving away these resources, Austin residents, like me, will be forced to give up important neighborhood improvements, or face a higher tax burden. This is unacceptable.

Public money should be used for public purposes, like improving our libraries, schools, roads, parks, homeless shelters, and more. This public money should not be given to a FOR-PROFIT corporation.

Please reconsider using these funds. Please vote NO on agenda Item #64 on Thursday, June 28th.

Sincerely,

<<insert your name>>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol at the columbus crew being worth $1 billion.

Forbes' 2017 most valuable club was Galaxy at $315 million. They have Columbus at 20th with a valuation of $130 million.

Edited by skipperj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, skipperj said:

Lol at the columbus crew being worth $1 billion.

Forbes' 2017 most valuable club was Galaxy at $315 million.

It's poorly worded. I think they're saying the City is giving away land and benefits worth over $1B.

They aren't even giving any land in the first place, correct? This is the same line Gomez kept vomiting all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. Yes. It is very poorly worded.

Here's how they get their numbers.

 

By not selling the property, the City is foregoing approximately $25 to $30 million in revenue.6

The proposal puts residents on the hook for at least $28.9 million in infrastructure improvements.7

If the City leased the property at market value rather than $1 per year as proposed, an escalating ground lease could provide the City with $200 million in revenue over the life of the proposed lease.8

Since the proposal will not require the development to pay property taxes, the City (and other taxing entities) will forego more than $1.1 Billion in tax revenue over 80 years.9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah. Yes. It is very poorly worded.
Here's how they get their numbers.
 

By not selling the property, the City is foregoing approximately $25 to $30 million in revenue.6

The proposal puts residents on the hook for at least $28.9 million in infrastructure improvements.7

If the City leased the property at market value rather than $1 per year as proposed, an escalating ground lease could provide the City with $200 million in revenue over the life of the proposed lease.8

Since the proposal will not require the development to pay property taxes, the City (and other taxing entities) will forego more than $1.1 Billion in tax revenue over 80 years.9




Isn’t the fucking COTA team behind this? If so fuck them. Talk about subsidies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...The graphic presentation does look a lot like this from COTA's Economic Impact page, and it looks like maybe they hired the same mathematician to boot!

COTA-Economic-Impact-Infographic.jpg

Edited by wood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that math is patently absurd. It’s almost like COTA knows that a real pro soccer team and an outdoor music venue in the middle of town would be a serious blow to COTA. Serious enough to AstroTurf some local opposition.

In the end, overwhelming positive response from the populace will carry the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thursday is the big day gang. Positive sounding comments from Flannigan earlier this week about the proposal. It’s time to ignore the folks who never want to get anything done, ever and make a thing happen.

Based on the semi-retreat from Pool and Troxy I just read in a statesman opinion article they “authored” i think they know it’s a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be COTA.  Could also be any number of #savethecrew type folks at work spreading the FUD.

My guess--  futureman is the mastermind behind it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could be COTA.  Could also be any number of #savethecrew type folks at work spreading the FUD.
My guess--  futureman is the mastermind behind it all.


#savethecrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

PolitiFact: Claim of $1B giveaway on stadium gets a red card

It’s an alarming contention: The Austin City Council is poised to “give” more than $1 billion to a private company and receive nothing in return as it seeks to lure a Major League Soccer team here.

...

Clint Peinhardt, a University of Texas at Dallas political science professor, said such an analysis has many holes, not the least of which is that 80 years is simply too long a period to forecast accurately.

Who knows, for instance, if soccer will even be played in 80 years, or if it will become so huge in the United States that it tops football in terms of a loyal fan base? What’s more, the anti-stadium group’s analysis doesn’t factor in depreciation, which would have a major impact on the facility’s value and the tax calculation. Or the possibility that the lease would not be renewed by the team’s ownership. Or the potential for something more outlandish — such as a meteor destroying the site and rendering the entire exercise moot.

“Anything that far out in the future — 80 years — is a pretty crazy thing to try to guess,” Peinhardt said. “In general, that is just a huge time frame.”

As a result, Peinhardt and Nathan Jensen, a UT-Austin government professor, said it’s too much of a leap of logic to simply add up the value of property taxes that wouldn’t be due for decades and then contend city leaders are “giving them away” in the present if they approve the stadium plan. They said the “time value of money” — whereby a dollar today is worth much more than a theoretical dollar in the future — just doesn’t work that way.

The pair also noted that the anti-stadium group’s analysis assumes no benefits to the city — in terms of jobs, tourism or nearby development — to offset the purported $1 billion cost to taxpayers. While taxpayer incentives for a soccer stadium might not be the most “revenue-maximizing” path for the city to choose for the McKalla site — particularly since other plans recently have been proposed for the tract — they said the potential positives should be considered along with the negatives. There is also the detail that, as currently proposed, the city would still own the stadium outright if the team’s ownership didn’t renew the deal.

Jensen described himself as a critic of the current stadium plan, but he nonetheless dismissed the anti-stadium group’s number, saying it isn’t “a credible calculation” or a serious fiscal analysis.

Our ruling:

A video by an anti-stadium group claims the Austin City Council is poised to give more than $1 billion to a company and receive nothing in return.

While the City Council potentially could provide incentives worth millions of dollars as part of the soccer stadium deal, the video’s scary “$1 billion giveaway” language doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. The lengthy time frame invoked and the countless unknown events that could affect the deal make the math used in the video meaningless. Factor in that the video also doesn’t account for any return on the city’s investment, and it is clear the contentions are off-base — and ridiculous.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire!

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/local/politifact-claim-giveaway-stadium-gets-red-card/fzUU6QfcqKQKRe9nMpVExM/amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as long as they build the stadium outside of downtown and don't fuck up the Zilker/Barton Springs area, I'm totally down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Epstein tried to get PSV to locate at COTA...+ a pretty wild allegation.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2018/06/epstein-psv-held-soccer-meeting-prior-to-mckalla-proposals-release/

Quote

Epstein, PSV held soccer meeting prior to McKalla proposal’s release


A co-owner of the Circuit of the Americas met with representatives from Columbus Crew SC owners Precourt Sports Ventures about a possible deal to use the property as the team’s new home, just prior to the city receiving a proposal from the team’s owners seeking a $1-per-year lease on city property for a new stadium.

Bobby Epstein, one of the partners in the Austin racetrack and concert facility, told the Austin Monitor that the meeting didn’t result in any progress on a deal between the two sides, with PSV soon after releasing its proposal to use the 24-acre parcel near the Domain known as McKalla Place as the stadium site for the Major League Soccer franchise.

“We’d reached out many times, early on after they started exploring Austin, then it finally happened a month ago,” Epstein said. “They want a deal where they don’t have to pay property taxes, but out here they would have to pay property taxes. There’s no need for them to have further conversations if they get free land with no taxes.”

PSV President Dave Greeley confirmed the meeting with Epstein took place on May 23, saying, “While we did have a meeting on May 23 with Bobby Epstein, we did not discuss a permanent or temporary stadium at COTA as it does not fit the requirements set forth by MLS or PSV.”

Epstein is also a partner in a United Soccer League team expected to begin play in Austin in 2019 and admitted the USL team, which is below MLS in the pecking order of U.S. pro soccer leagues, would have a difficult time competing with another team with a 20,000-seat stadium in the same market.

“You don’t need to do a study. It’s certainly not helpful for the USL team, nor is the USL team helpful to them,” he said. “We’ve got lots of local owners, all local owners with the USL team, and we’re still doing it, and it’s going to be great.”

Epstein spoke to the Monitor in response to an allegation – made in a phone conversation with the Monitor – by the head of a local nonprofit who said he’d been approached by an Epstein intermediary who suggested the nonprofit could receive “several million dollars” from Epstein in return for disavowing financial support pledged to it by PSV.

As brokering between PSV and the city over a possible stadium site has moved forward since last fall, Epstein has been rumored to be a backer of community activists and developers who oppose the stadium or have other plans on how to use the property.

Epstein denies any knowledge of or involvement in the alleged offer to the nonprofit, and said he’s “hearing all over” claims that he’s connected to anti-PSV interests. He also denies those claims.

“There’s so many things people say and attribute to me that are so false, just because I have an interest in the USL,” he said. “If they have a great proposal, that should be obvious to everyone. But these guys are trying to distract from the fact they’ve got a terrible proposal, and anyone who points that out is made out as a bad guy. Anyone who buys land or owns a business and pays their own taxes should find their proposal offensive.”

Epstein has been rumored to be backing a mixed-use proposal for McKalla from developers John Chen and Marcus Whitfield that was presented at the beginning of the month to the Gracywoods Neighborhood Association. He denied that connection as well, and Chen said Epstein is not an investor or supporter of the project in any way, though an attorney working for the pair on the proposal has done legal work for COTA in the past.

City Council will take up two resolutions related to professional soccer at today’s meeting.

One of those would direct the city manager to begin negotiating with PSV on a possible stadium agreement at McKalla, while another would have the city formally consider other mixed-use development proposals for the same site. Economic Development Department staff at Tuesday’s Council work session said that evaluation process can take several months, a timeline that could possibly blow PSV’s need to begin planning to move the team to Austin by spring 2019.

Mark Littlefield, a lobbyist for PSV, said the group has remained focused on its potential deal with the city while other interests have tried to delay or stop that process.

“We are aware, and have been aware of for quite some time, of efforts to meddle or sabotage Austin’s chance at an MLS team by certain individuals doing it for their own personal benefit, because they would benefit financially if this deal failed to materialize,” he said. “We do not know all of the different things that have been done to try to sabotage Austin’s chance, but we are very aware.”

Littlefield said no legal actions have been taken or considered against groups who oppose the 20,000-seat stadium, which would be privately financed and given to the city after construction in a move that would prevent PSV from having to pay property taxes while using the property.

“We’ve been focused on engaging the community, talking to stakeholders and focusing on our deal,” he said. “The good news is that the decision-makers are also aware of what’s going on and why they’re doing it.”

Another form of opposition materialized on Tuesday when local attorney Bill Aleshire sent City Attorney Anne Morgan a letter outlining his intent to sue the city if it agrees to a stadium deal with PSV.

Download (PDF, 223KB)

PSV also released a rendering this week of the McKalla property that showed how the site could accommodate construction of a 130-unit affordable housing complex, with an accompanying parking garage. Affordable housing has been a component of the two alternate development proposals for the site, and Precourt’s release of the rendering highlights local affordable housing group Foundation Communities as its preferred partner in creating and managing the housing structure.

At Tuesday’s work session Council members weighed in with their feelings on the current state of the pre-negotiation process.

Council Member Jimmy Flannigan said he’d like city staff to give a rough comparison of what community and other benefits the city would be trading if it eventually reaches a deal to move forward with the stadium, rather than pursuing mixed-use development options.

While casting an eye toward executive session discussions with city staff to formulate the negotiation parameters, he urged residents and stakeholders to view the action decided on Thursday as a chance for progress rather than a final move.

“We are not making a final decision this week, which is good because the proposal that I received in my office is not one that I would approve on its face,” he said. “It is not a best and final offer, it is a first offer. I think it’s worth finding out what that final offer looks like. I’m hopeful that the community will not see Thursday as a final step over which to get frustrated or celebrate but as the next step to get all these important questions answered.”

Council Member Delia Garza shared some of her expectations on what the city would receive from PSV before she would consider voting in favor of a final stadium deal.

“I want to see the details of what PSV will bring forward,” she said. “I will not vote for something at the end that I do not think brings significant community benefits, significant, specific programs (such as) soccer programs that we have now for our youth. … You know, a scholarship fund for parks and rec to add capacity to our soccer programs. Very specific things – specific understanding of encouraging multimodal use … specific things to use it for when it’s not being used as a soccer stadium.”

 

Edited by wood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how big of a deal is it to (allegedly) bribe a non-profit (allegedly)?

Edited by wood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the actions for today:

 

60. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to solicit plans for the development of 10414 McKalla Place.
PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FLANNIGAN

64. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to analyze the proposal from Precourt Sports Ventures and to begin negotiations for a Major League Soccer stadium to be located at 10414 McKalla Place.
WITHDRAWN PER CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS

130. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to analyze the proposal from Precourt Sports Ventures, begin negotiations for a Major League Soccer stadium to be located at 10414 McKalla Place, and to solicit plans for the development of affordable housing on another City-owned tract. Sponsors: Mayor Pro Tem Kathie Tovo, Mayor Steve Adler, Council Member Sabino "Pio" Renteria, and Council Member Delia Garza
PULLED BY SPEAKERS

Any idea what Pulled by Speakers means?

Also, according to MLS in Austin, 64 was pulled to do item 130 instead.

Edited by skipperj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

64 is now 130 according to MLS2ATX on facebook.

You beat me to it. My bad.

Edited by wood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statesman reporting BOTH items will pass per Adler. So ... uh ... okay. Isnt that like another neutral decision? Goddam, amazing anything gets done in this city at all with these chucklefucks in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2018 at 6:17 PM, wood said:

Thought this was already posted here. SIAP if I missed it...

http://mls2atx.com/contactatxcouncil/

Follow the link to send your message to CC members.

 

Tomorrow's the big day...

 

Is MLS2 like Arena2?  I thought this was supposed to be a real MLS team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bottlecap said:

Statesman reporting BOTH items will pass per Adler. So ... uh ... okay. Isnt that like another neutral decision? Goddam, amazing anything gets done in this city at all with these chucklefucks in charge.

Yeah I dunno how you can do both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprise, Pool and Kitchen both being pain in the asses on item 27. At least theee hours now. Adler does not appear to believe in parliamentary procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...