The former Montreal Expos have relocated to DC and will be known as the Washington Nationals. They're currently working on stadium negotiations.

They will play at RFK until new riverfront stadiums are built for the Nationals and DC United arcoss the river from each other.

Gee. No. No I didn't! :o

They aren't really going to build a stadium for DC United, are they. What's wrong with RFK for that bunch?

The city didn't put squat into RFK from the time the 'Skins left until the Nationals arrived. Mix in United's desire for a right-sized stadium (25,000, with room to grow when necessary, and seats right on top of the pitch instead of the quasi-baseball alignment they've been stuck with), add waterfront, and it's gotta happen. Never mind the pain the next 2-3 seasons is going to cause for having to place and remove turf over the baseball infield at RFK. The NASL may have made do, but MLS won't stand for such field conditions, rightly.

You're probably better off getting me started on the Pro Sports forum rather than here.

Down, Pounder! Down! I don't think WW was trying to be derogitory to our dear friends. ;D

The real problem with RFK is the costs involved for United. That plot of land and that scale facility is expensive to manage and United cannot stay afloat as the only tenant. Ita age and condition limit it's use for other events; Most concerts or other similar designs would simply go to JKC a little further north. The best thing for the club would be a more tailored facility that demands less in taxes and maintenance costs while allowing the RFK site to be rehabbed for something else.

A baseball stadium, perhaps? ;)

Woof. Growwwwwllll.

I've gotten to the point where I skip over some things that I've discussed over and over again elsewhere. This includes things Gunners alludes to, such as a whopper of a rent payment DCU makes at RFK, and the Gunners' defense. This also includes basic principles like "I don't want to pay the rent and I do want ancilliary revenues," and since the MLS teams have all made substantive contributions to their stadium efforts (and Crew Stadium was ALL Lamar Hunt), DCU deserves it. They should not be burdened with the RFK rent OR second class status in a new baseball stadium.

Besides, with US Open Cup matches, with friendly matches planned 3-6 weeks in advance against foreign clubs (which reminds me, Sunderland is doing a Northwest tour this summer), with national team matches sometimes sited 3 weeks in advance (seemingly, since I'd love to know where USSF will place the June 4 or 5 WCQ against Costa Rica right now), a soccer stadium needs flexibility with dates. Sharing with baseball presents a minor problem with this.

Thing is, you mention concerts. How many concerts go to big stadia anymore? Heck, how many go to baseball parks? It is believed that one of the reasons Phil Anschutz and Lamar Hunt haven't hedged since beating the new stadium drum is that the 20-30K stadia are the right size for modern concert-going. Home Depot Center gets "some" of this business, even with a proliferation of amphitheaters in SoCal. I'm not sure how a DC stadium would fare... I suspect well.

Could the Washington Nationals please stop losing? I don't need the Atlanta Braves to win the National League East again. I need those anoing those Phillies fans to shut up.

are people in DC into baseball....it sounds cool...the security on that venue better be tight

http://www.maurybrown.com/

Keep a watch tonight on DC city council dealings. The linked blog will help.

DC appears to be ready to pass something that MLB refuses to stomach. This could be fun.

I should note that, by court judgment this week, the Minnesota Twins will no longer be held to their lease with the Metrodome as of the end of the 2006 season. 2006 also happens to be the designated year owners can revisit contraction options per their agreement with MLBPA. Look out!