Thursday Edition

The model for future success from Tom Peters Company


Get the Blog Feed
What is RSS?

dispatches from the new world of work

Talk About A Political Football

Reuters reports that New York is opening up the bidding for the Jets Stadium site.

New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Tuesday opened up the bidding for the West Side stadium site sought by the Jets football team and rival Madison Square Garden, which owns its own sports teams. (more here)

Whoever completes this project really deserves a big "WOW!"

Got any good ideas about how to pull off a very complicated, high visibility, many players, big money project like this?

Halley Suitt posted this on 02/16/05.

Comments

I think MSG is bidding $600M-$923 for this. ... and they just may get it-- if NYC2012 Olympic Committe ratifies it as the 'centerpeice' !!

Posted by /pd at February 16, 2005 10:26 AM


NYC can do anything and everything. Interesting how most would think there is no room left on the mid-West side of Manhattan for a football stadium.

Soon the old Polo grounds area near Harlem will be up for the Yankees perhaps?

Posted by John at February 16, 2005 10:41 AM


EVERYBODY WANTS TO GO TO HEAVEN, NOBEDY WANTS TO DIE...

One of the quotes gets us back to the issue from yesterday about the need to innovate products or merely innovate non-production methods. Tragedy of the Commons. If you do invest in technical innovation, others who don't make the investment copy your work for almost-free, putting you at a comparitive disadvantage. If no-one innovates product, the system collapses. Commons-ism, corporate style.

The quote that gets us back there is:
"Bloomberg, like ex-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, says a new stadium is needed to win back the convention business the city now loses to areas with bigger meeting halls."

A recent Brookings study indicates a 50%+ overcapacity in convention/meeting room nationally and aggressive build-up going on at the same time. Cities are addicted to these make-work projects which have an immediate benefit (middle-class employment and local spending, ergo, local economy stimulation) and a long-term sinkhole for most. (Not for NYC. They'll just be cannibalizing their own capacity. Let's face it, no self-respecting convention is going choose North Platte or Watertown or Tulsa or even Seattle if they can be in NYC or SF).

It's a losing proposition but one you can't refuse. City/regional govt.s with shrinking middle-class payrolls chase these convention/sports complexes to chase limited dollars. If they play, they (likely) lose because overcapacity guarantees difficult imbalance of supply to demand. If they don't play, they're guaranteed to not-win.

So, Halley, I suspect only way to put some graphite rods into this steaming uranium pile is to structure the deal so city takes bids to assess price, and takes half the price in cash and the rest as an equity position. Shared fate. Still a Commons, but the net-loss is lower over time. ¿What say YOU?

Posted by jeff angus at February 16, 2005 11:48 AM


You say it's a WOW project, I say who cares. I stopped being a fan of professional sports a long time ago. It's all about money, ego, self-interest, lack of integrity(refusal or leniency beyond reason regarding drug use policies)multitude of very poor to non-existent role models for children(even though they may not think they are or want to be role models). I say, show me again, what's in it for me(WIIFM)? Nothing that makes it worth spending my time on for sure. Maybe they will wake up and realize someday just how many people are turned off by all the hype and celebrity fixation. There are real problems in the world today which could use our attention as a nation, this is not one of them.
Steve

Posted by Steve at February 16, 2005 12:59 PM


This reminds me of the toe-mae-toe vs toe-mah-toe song. Some are calling this WOW! while others, specifically many residents and business owners in that area, are shouting "OW!" at the mere thought of such a structure and all of its unpleasant side effects including congested streets, pollution, etc.
Perhaps it is that I spent today touring a Fenway Redevelopment Project with the Fenway Community Development team, who took a significant role in working with the owners of our beloved Fenway Park to keep it Fenway Park.

The Fenway Community Development group engaged a village to build a village. I was WOW-ed by the structures and drawings completed by a genuinely innovative team of Wentworth undergrad engineers, who Fenway Community Development enlisted to design an "urban village" for the Fenway area. To me, that was innovation, well-considered growth, genuine teaming, and all-time design WOW! I am seeing the New York structure as more OW than WOW! Toe-mae-toe, toe-mah-toe, WOW! or OW--WOW, just like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

Posted by Pam Brill at February 16, 2005 6:32 PM


Peering out my window and looking a few miles to the south across the Hudson River, I can see the area where the proposed stadium is intended to be built. Needless to say, there is tons of uproar in these-here-parts about whether the stadium is a plus or a minus for the NYC metropolitan area. So, at this point, it seems more of "Whoever WINS THE NEXT ROUND OF this project really deserves a big 'WOW!'" than "Whoever completes this project really deserves a big 'WOW!'"

Some good ideas about "how to pull off a very complicated, high visibility, many players, big money, project like this": build those political connections (i.e. Mayor Mike, Rudy), disregard probable traffic snarls, market enough to make EVERYONE believe getting this thing built truly is in the public's best interests...

Posted by Lee H. Igel at February 16, 2005 7:58 PM



ARCHIVES

- May 2013

- April 2013

- March 2013

- February 2013

- January 2013

- December 2012

- November 2012

- October 2012

- September 2012

- August 2012

- July 2012

- June 2012

- May 2012

- April 2012

- March 2012

- February 2012

- January 2012

- December 2011

- November 2011

- October 2011

- September 2011

- August 2011

- July 2011

- June 2011

- May 2011

- April 2011

- March 2011

- February 2011

- January 2011

- December 2010

- November 2010

- October 2010

- September 2010

- August 2010

- July 2010

- June 2010

- May 2010

- April 2010

- March 2010

- February 2010

- January 2010

- December 2009

- November 2009

- October 2009

- September 2009

- August 2009

- July 2009

- June 2009

- May 2009

- April 2009

- March 2009

- February 2009

- January 2009

- December 2008

- November 2008

- October 2008

- September 2008

- August 2008

- July 2008

- June 2008

- May 2008

- April 2008

- March 2008

- February 2008

- January 2008

- December 2007

- November 2007

- October 2007

- September 2007

- August 2007

- July 2007

- June 2007

- May 2007

- April 2007

- March 2007

- February 2007

- January 2007

- December 2006

- November 2006

- October 2006

- September 2006

- August 2006

- July 2006

- June 2006

- May 2006

- April 2006

- March 2006

- February 2006

- January 2006

- December 2005

- November 2005

- October 2005

- September 2005

- August 2005

- July 2005

- June 2005

- May 2005

- April 2005

- March 2005

- February 2005

- January 2005

- December 2004

- November 2004

- October 2004

- September 2004

- August 2004

- July 2004

- June 2004

- May 2004

- April 2004

Before blogging became all the rage, Tom was posting book reviews and Observations (essentially early blog posts) to this site. You can find the archives below.

What Tom's Reading Archives

- February 2004

- August 2003

- March 2003

- September 2002

- March 2002

- September 2001

- April 2001

- March 2001

- June 2000

- September 1999

OBSERVATIONS ARCHIVES

- July 2004

- April 2004

- February 2004

- May 2003

- March 2003

- June 2002

- April 2002

- March 2002

- February 2002

- January 2002

- December 2001

- November 2001

- October 2001

- September 2001

- August 2001

- February 2001

- January 2001

- December 2000

- November 2000

- October 2000

- September 2000

- August 2000

- July 2000

- June 2000

- May 2000

- April 2000

- March 2000

- February 2000

- January 2000

- December 1999

- November 1999

- October 1999

- September 1999

right now

What we're talking about
on the front page.