|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 4, 2014 19:39:09 GMT -6
Oh I agree you don't sell out other than a few rare occasions(a huge market wins the world series, or the 1st year a park opens in some cases, or you have a real tiny capacity like fenway) Blue Jays especially don't sell out because the park is mediocre and the capacity is too big 49,282. League average is around 43,000. You know the Cubs didn't sellout opening day today(only 38,000 some about 2000-3000 short). Yankees failed to sell out opening day last season against the hated red sox. Key thing with attendance is avoid the teens on average for the year. You perpetually finish in the teens year after year(Tampa) and you will be in trouble. Montreal is the ONLY realistic option if it doesn't work in tampa/oakland. John McHale Jr. who Selig sent to the game was VERY impressed with the turn out and said he would give Selig a very favorite report. www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/top-mlb-executive-sees-fire-the-burns-brightly-for-baseball-in-montreal/article17728943/
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 5, 2014 20:59:55 GMT -6
In the end i see the A's in San jose or somewhere in the west. Oakland obviously isnt happening and the a's already share a media market with the giants, it makes zero sense to not let them move to san jose. If there is even a threat of losing the anti trust exemption the mLB will crack down on the giants.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 5, 2014 21:03:52 GMT -6
montreal could easily bang out a 37.5- 40k retro jewel box stadium. MLB needs the threat anyway. Tampa plays in a shanty. But i dont think oakland can be solved going east. Not really. The stadium will seat only 36,000. LOL You'd need massive amounts of standing room or have people sit on other peoples laps to achieve that. Try to be realistic with your projections even if you are pro Montreal. Cromartie's/Quebecs feasibility study had lower 20,000s to 28,500. That would certainly still be viable but a small market especially when you factor in stuff like TV deals and the 90 cent dollar. Remember according to Cromatie the Expos will receive revenue sharing. One of the things I like most about Cromartie and his efforts is they don't use unrealistic figures like a lot of places do when trying to get teams or build new stadiums/arenas for the current team(hello Glendale). This effort is honest and 1st class. Also remember is took until last week to sell out the 2 preseason games after they had an absence for 10 years. It was impressive but that don't mean they are going to draw that season after season for the full 81 games especially during the rebuilds that small markets usually have to do. Oakland can be solved going east if they can't build a new stadium. You can always do realignment. realignment in baseball is a bitch. It doesnt work as well as other sport.s The schedule is so finite. I didnt say they wil bang ot the stadium everynight, but im not sure where you get the 36 figure, 37.5 isnt that far off so im being pretty realistic. You ike to pick littele fights on this crap. you are wrong on realignment. It needs to be balanced easily for mlb owners to think of acting. Montreal needs to be with toronto for this thing to work. I dont see the a's moving east. We will know when the raiders decide what they are going to do, to see if oakland gets into save one last team mode and caves to the a's. IMO raiders are gonzo.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 6, 2014 0:52:12 GMT -6
In the end i see the A's in San jose or somewhere in the west. Oakland obviously isnt happening and the a's already share a media market with the giants, it makes zero sense to not let them move to san jose. If there is even a threat of losing the anti trust exemption the mLB will crack down on the giants. There is no place to go out west. It's build in Oakland or get permission to move to San Jose. I think the threat of losing the anti trust exemption is what will get the A's to San Jose someday. Selig won't deal with this at all even though he promised too. He will push it off on the next guy because that's how Bud deals with tough decisions. Wouldn't surprise me if it's announced in the distant future the A's are moving to Montreal, congress throws a fit, MLB then forces the Giants to compromise.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 6, 2014 1:01:51 GMT -6
Not really. The stadium will seat only 36,000. LOL You'd need massive amounts of standing room or have people sit on other peoples laps to achieve that. Try to be realistic with your projections even if you are pro Montreal. Cromartie's/Quebecs feasibility study had lower 20,000s to 28,500. That would certainly still be viable but a small market especially when you factor in stuff like TV deals and the 90 cent dollar. Remember according to Cromatie the Expos will receive revenue sharing. One of the things I like most about Cromartie and his efforts is they don't use unrealistic figures like a lot of places do when trying to get teams or build new stadiums/arenas for the current team(hello Glendale). This effort is honest and 1st class. Also remember is took until last week to sell out the 2 preseason games after they had an absence for 10 years. It was impressive but that don't mean they are going to draw that season after season for the full 81 games especially during the rebuilds that small markets usually have to do. Oakland can be solved going east if they can't build a new stadium. You can always do realignment. realignment in baseball is a bitch. It doesnt work as well as other sport.s The schedule is so finite. I didnt say they wil bang ot the stadium everynight, but im not sure where you get the 36 figure, 37.5 isnt that far off so im being pretty realistic. You ike to pick littele fights on this crap. you are wrong on realignment. It needs to be balanced easily for mlb owners to think of acting. Montreal needs to be with toronto for this thing to work. I dont see the a's moving east. We will know when the raiders decide what they are going to do, to see if oakland gets into save one last team mode and caves to the a's. IMO raiders are gonzo. Not trying to pick a fight, relax. Sorry if I misread your post. I thought you meant average by "bang out". My mistake and I apologize. That really would have been a fantastic claim that the Expos could have averaged that many people.(at least beyond the 1st season) The 36,000 was from the feasibility study Warren Cromartie and the Montreal baseball project did. I posted this a while back. Realignment has to be balanced 5 teams in 6 divisions but you can move things around though it's not ideal. If the decision was made Oakland can't make it and Montreal is better MLB is NOT going to say hey stay at the coliseum because of realignment. Just like the NHL is not going to not give Quebec City a team because of realignment. You can always do stuff like move the Royals to the AL west, move someone else to the AL central. I don't see Oakland moving though. I really hope you are right on the Raiders. I have a sinking feeling if they save 1 team it will be them. It don't make sense because if you are going to build housing/shops/development it would be smarter to have the team that has 81 home games vs. the 8 but this is Oakland so.... Baseball stadium would be cheaper than NFL too.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 6, 2014 11:16:18 GMT -6
The reason i think the raiders are going south is 2 fold
Fanbase is already in LA
Mark davis doesnt have the money of the other owners and instantly ups his value. i dont think they even want to consider staying. Oakland on the other hand doesnt really have a place to go but can cry montreal once the raiders leave
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 6, 2014 22:38:10 GMT -6
Unfortunately Mark Davis really does want to stay. He’s not too bright. The fact that they are talking about only a 58,000 seat stadium at most tells you how pathetic Oakland is. NFL should step in and tell him if that’s all Oakland can only support then he can’t stay in Oakland. There’s no logical reason to think the Raiders are staying(the city is broke) but I have an awful sinking feeling they will get a Raiders deal done and it will be announce this summer/fall. I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 7, 2014 8:47:40 GMT -6
The NFL needs to force a sale there. Let mark Davis Cash out and sell to AEG
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 8, 2014 22:26:00 GMT -6
If San Jose antitrust suit goes to Supreme Court, what would that mean for A’s?Posted on April 8, 2014 by Neil deMause The Wall Street Journal ran a long piece yesterday on San Jose’s antitrust suit against MLB for blocking the Oakland A’s from moving there, with the upshot being that while it’s still probably a longshot to overturn baseball’s 92-year-old blanket antitrust exemption, it’s not out of the question. And an appeals court could rule on the matter as soon as this summer, setting up a likely Supreme Court showdown soon after. The really short background on this: Back in 1914, a bunch of businessmen set up a rival to the American and National leagues called the Federal League, which aggressively stole both players and fans from the existing leagues. (The Chicago Whales franchise played in a brand-new ballpark that later became known as Wrigley Field.) The AL and NL owners retaliated, first driving the new league to the brink of financial ruin, then buying out enough owners that the new league collapsed. The owners of the Baltimore Terrapins FL franchise, who hadn’t gotten a cut of the boodle, sued saying that this was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act barring monopolistic activities. But the Supreme Court ruled that baseball is exempt from antitrust laws because it’s not an interstate activity, a bizarre warping of logic that has nonetheless been reaffirmed through the years by other Supreme Court rulings. Baseball’s special antitrust exemption — other sports leagues have limited exemptions, but none that allows full control over franchise movement like MLB’s — has been widely disparaged over the years, but the courts have repeatedly kicked things back to Congress, ruling that if politicians want to clear this up, they should just go an make a new law that explicitly says how antitrust applies to baseball. Congress has rattled this saber on occasion to get MLB’s attention (including for such things as forcing testimony over steroid use), but has never seriously considered revoking baseball’s exemption, largely because everybody powerful is pretty content with the current system, so why rock the boat just for a little matter like legal doctrine that makes a damn bit of sense? Every time one of these cases comes up, though, there’s always the chance, slim though it may be, that the Supreme Court will actually overturn the 1922 ruling, which is why MLB usually tries to avoid letting things get to the Supreme Court. That hasn’t happened so far here, though, either because MLB is confident that the case will be dismissed (it was once already, by a lower federal court) or because it would rather roll the dice with the courts than figure out how to break open its 150-year-old territorial rights system. The WSJ cites University of Georgia law professor and baseball antitrust expert Nathaniel Grow as saying if it gets to the Supreme Court, “I’d be surprised if baseball wins”; sports economist Roger Noll, who has testified in past challenges to the antitrust exemption, has similarly told me he thinks this suit may have legs. If so, though, it’s puzzling why MLB seems willing to risk going to the top court on this, rather than hashing out an agreement between the A’s and San Francisco Giants over San Jose, which seemingly could be handled just by an exchange of the right amount of money. (Though finding an amount that both sides could live with might be impossible, especially if A’s owner Lew Wolff is hoping that a court will give him San Jose for free.) We’ll probably need to wait to see what the appeals court says this summer — if San Jose pulls off a hail mary (I know, I know, wrong sport) and wins this round, things could certainly get interesting. www.fieldofschemes.com/2014/04/08/7110/if-san-jose-antitrust-suit-goes-to-supreme-court-what-would-that-mean-for-as/#comments
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 9, 2014 14:00:04 GMT -6
Oh Bud Selig you dumb son of a bitch. If that anti trust suit is successful he absolutely blew it because he could have just let it happen and shut the giants up
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 10, 2014 1:21:17 GMT -6
If it's successful or looks like it will be a settlement will come real fast.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 10, 2014 1:22:39 GMT -6
Kawakami: Joe Lacob has interest in A's, sources sayThe A's are not for sale—that's what lead man Lew Wolff has said repeatedly in public and what principal owner John Fisher has told to at least one interested potential buyer recently. The recently interested party, according to multiple sources: Warriors co-owner Joe Lacob, who has reached out to see if Fisher might want to sell the A's at some point soon. I've heard that MLB has monitored this situation and was aware of Lacob's interest—and Fisher's non-interest in selling. There are signs that Lacob could be thinking about trying to build a new stadium for the A's on the Howard Terminal site, though obviously that scenario is based on many other moving parts (and that general interest was first reported by the East Bay Express back in December, and here's a December blog-post in which I asked Lacob specifically about his thoughts on the Howard Terminal site). But Fisher has given no indication that he's looking to sell. Therefore, Lacob's interest in the A's is now very much on the back-burner, the sources say. Still... Lacob is hardly the only big-money operator with proven sports credentials to check in with Fisher about the A's in the last year or so. There is some sense that the A's stadium frustrations will probably lead Fisher to at least explore the possibility of selling the team, which means there are potential buyers jockeying in the background in case Fisher suddenly changes his mind. And most of these interested parties, I'm told, would be interested in keeping the A's as the first and best option—if a stadium deal can be struck. The point is many potential owner-types believe the A's could be available soon and that they are an under-valued asset given their profitability, baseball's booming economy, and the possibility of a giant revenue take-off if a new stadium can be built. Of course, Fisher and Wolff probably have many of these same thoughts, which would naturally lead them to be very careful about any thoughts of selling control of this franchise. For instance, every MLB team's digital media rights are worth a substantial amount—more than $20 million annually, maybe upwards of $40M annually pretty soon, I've heard—and that's before you start counting national and local broadcast revenue, ticket revenue, and all the rest. What would the A's sale price be right now, theoretically? I've heard it starts at $500-plus million and could go much higher than that... and this is with zero line on a new stadium and no clarity on what the next CBA might provide as far as revenue-sharing. If the proposed buyers thought they had a line on a new stadium... well... the number could get very, very high. One person I respect says $700 million is the realistic number, and again, that might be exceeded swiftly if there is a bidding process. Does Joe Lacob have that kind of buying power? As I always say: He outmaneuvered Larry Ellison for the Warriors when Ellison really wanted to buy the Warriors, so I never put anything beyond a guy who can do that. Again, here's what Lacob sent to me via email back in December when I asked specifically about his interest in the Howard Terminal site: "I am and have been very familiar with this site and I think it has interesting potential as a site for a new baseball stadium. "I believe that MLB might hold a similar view; I can't speak for them. "If I were the city of Oakland, I would be excited by the prospect of development of that site and the potentially revolutionary impact on the city of Oakland. Look at what the Giants ballpark did to stimulate development and positive change in the south of Market area of SF. "With that said, we are completely focused on Piers 30-32 for our new arena." www.mercurynews.com/tim-kawakami/ci_25525741/kawakami-joe-lacob-has-interest-sources-say
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 10, 2014 9:38:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 10, 2014 15:06:25 GMT -6
I was once a part of the Oregon Stadium campaign back in the early 2000s. I know(LOL). Portland is not going to work and it's not realistic. It's the pipe dream of a few local guys. Portland is borderline demographically when you consider they have another popular full time team(Trailblazers). Corporate Portland is a joke which makes it much smaller. Remember as popular attendance wise as the Blazers are they don't fill the luxury boxes because they only have 5 fortune 1000 companies. Only 50 of the 72 boxes were sold last season. Worst yet there is 0 political support for it. Portland is far a left town loaded with anti business hippies. Look at the % of how much smaller markets like Milwaukee, KC, Cincinnati, Cleveland etc... had to pay in stadium construction costs yet Portland is going to do it mostly private? Ya right. Other thing is these other smaller markets have no other full time teams other than Milwaukee(BUcks but they don't support them) and these places have double digit(around mid teens to 20 plus) fortune 1000 companies. There is also no temp facility as the article says. MLB would wait forever for a new stadium in Tampa/Oakland before they'd move either team to Portland. Montreal would be a hard enough sell. The 1st time around the plan was to take a good chunk club seat money and luxury box money away from the team owner to pay for the stadium. This would never be accepted by MLB. Portland would be shaky enough with a mostly publically funded stadium let alone going private. If Portland ever did get another team it would be NHL because of the ready made building. The other thing is Selig and the next commissioner whoever it will be are/will be both spineless. They would make a Portland team pay off Seattle because Seattle's TV deal.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Apr 10, 2014 16:48:03 GMT -6
Portland is a bad idea...it would really just take Nike Stepping up to buy themselves a team and stadium...which is slim to none.
it is interesting that portland has been brought up for both oakland team.s
they will get neither but you can tell both those teams in oakland are trying to wiggle out.
Selig is such a slimeball though. Him and the whole MLB. They are risking their anti trust exemption for giants tv rights
Fun fact
San Jose? 50 mins from down town san fran
Oakland? 45 mins.
NO DIFFERENCE whatsover. There are already 2 teams in the bay area and the giants are just being stubborn. Other leagues wouldnt put up with that crap. Owners dont fight amongst each other in the nfl, the NHL? PLEASE bettman would have this squared away
|
|