Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

I’m just irritated with how people act like the Browns went full Jack the Ripper on the history books.

 

Me, too.  Because they didn’t.  This wasn’t something that was retroactively decided on after the fact; the franchise continuity was established and well-documented at the time.  It’s silly, not to mention inapplicable, to lump that in with the Hornets.

[Atomic]

Ok - so I think we've had enough of the Phila A's discussion here. Let's get this back on to the woeful Angels and their upcoming stadium disaster-rama. 

[Ben in LA]

12 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Ok - so I think we've had enough of the Phila A's discussion here. Let's get this back on to the woeful Angels and their upcoming stadium disaster-rama. 

I feel you...but I will say Dodgers and Lakers fans DO care about players from the past.

 

As for the Angels? That spot in Long Beach looks nice, but it would be a traffic nightmare. AND it’s on landfill, which means if/when an earthquake occurs...just ask San Francisco residents about the Marina District back in 1989.

[MilSox]

On 6/26/2019 at 4:04 PM, CardsFan79 said:

After reading Bronfman's statements, I wonder if he/his group were told that they'd be given a team one way or another if they play along with this joke for the time being?  I can't believe that they've put in all this work to bring baseball back to Montreal to settle for a ridiculous team sharing plan, nor can I believe that they actually think it's a good idea.

 

That's what I'm thinking... this is far from the end game for them. I'll bet all they have to do is prove Montreal can draw more fans to their crappy stadium than Tampa Bay does to their crappy stadium, and MLB suddenly has all the legitimization they need to move the team north.

[mjrbaseball]

Th Angels aren't actually moving into the Dodgers territory because they're already there, but do the Dodgers have anything to say about the Angels' choice of site. This example is unrealistic, but say the Angels decided to put a new ballpark in Griffith Park. That's less than two miles from Dodger Stadium. Could the Dodgers block such a move?

 

[Still MIGHTY]

1 hour ago, mjrbaseball said:

Th Angels aren't actually moving into the Dodgers territory because they're already there, but do the Dodgers have anything to say about the Angels' choice of site. This example is unrealistic, but say the Angels decided to put a new ballpark in Griffith Park. That's less than two miles from Dodger Stadium. Could the Dodgers block such a move?

 

I don't believe they could. When the whole name change thing came to be, I remember the idea being put out of the Angels moving to downtown LA, and it being explained as much as the Dodgers would hate it, they wouldn't have any say.

 

I would imagine that maybe someone like MLB would try to intervene with a "good of the game" clause or whatever. I also don't think it's something the Angels would actually explore.

[Gothamite]

No, the Dodgers don’t.  The Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles markets are evenly shared by the two home clubs. Neither can veto a move within that market.  And baseball wouldn’t dare disturb those balances by trying to intervene.

 

Contrast that with the Bay Area, where the market has been carved up and the A’s can’t move to San Jose without the consent of (and therefore a very generous payment to) the Giants.

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

https://www.wfla.com/news/rays-offering-2-tickets-for-games-against-orioles/

 

Looks like $5 tickets aren't cheap enough to get people to actually go to the trop now that Stu pissed everyone off. Maybe he'll cite "lack of money from ticket sales" as another reason to split games/relocate

[PrimalCookie]

14 hours ago, Maroon&Gold said:

https://www.wfla.com/news/rays-offering-2-tickets-for-games-against-orioles/

 

Looks like $5 tickets aren't cheap enough to get people to actually go to the trop now that Stu pissed everyone off. Maybe he'll cite "lack of money from ticket sales" as another reason to split games/relocate

That’s exactly it. Now that the fanbase is alienated, even less people will show up. He’ll then use quickly dwindling attendance to justify getting out as fast as he can.

 

Me? I’m taking advantage of those $5 tickets while they last. I’ll go to a few games over the rest of the summer.

[Scrumptious Ham]

That might have been the plan the whole time with this split announcement. No real split was ever expected. But the leak may do its job. Now no one wants to go to the games. Giving more legal ammo to break lease. Meanwhile, Montreal is salivating over the news. It's like a new attractive girl at the workplace. Everyone is excited and buzz is thick in the air. Everyone wants to talk to her. Not thinking about how the glitter will fade, and one day she'll just be another annoying coworker.

[GDAWG]

Don't the Rays also own the USL's Tampa Bay Rowdies?  Wouldn't they have to sell the team if the Rays move permanently to Montreal?

[RichO]

The thing that always kills me about Rays attendance is that their local TV numbers are fine, so it's not like they're completely unsupported. 

[rmc523]

29 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Don't the Rays also own the USL's Tampa Bay Rowdies?  Wouldn't they have to sell the team if the Rays move permanently to Montreal?

 

I don't see why they'd have to sell the Rowdies if they move?

[colortv]

Rams and Chargers are both holding training camps within a 20 minute drive of Angel Stadium, with it being promoted as in the home market.

 

But they aren't Los Angeles teams right?

[Still MIGHTY]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

Rams and Chargers are both holding training camps within a 20 minute drive of Angel Stadium, with it being promoted as in the home market.

 

But they aren't Los Angeles teams right?

 

The Cowboys hold training camp in Oxnard, California, 20 miles from the Rams practice facility.

 

What's your point?

[kolob]

7 minutes ago, Still MIGHTY said:

 

The Cowboys hold training camp in Oxnard, California, 20 miles from the Rams practice facility.

 

What's your point?

 

That's a bad example because they're America's Team. 

[GDAWG]

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

I don't see why they'd have to sell the Rowdies if they move?

 

Because I don't think St. Petersburg wants to deal with Sternberg again if the Rays move out of the Tampa area. 

[dfwabel]

7 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

Because I don't think St. Petersburg wants to deal with Sternberg again if the Rays move out of the Tampa area. 

When they bought the Rowdies last October, terms of the sale included keeping the team at Al Lang for five seasons.  The city isn't going to kick them out and lose out on even more tax revenue.

[colortv]

1 hour ago, Still MIGHTY said:

 

The Cowboys hold training camp in Oxnard, California, 20 miles from the Rams practice facility.

 

What's your point?

 

Cowboys don't treat Oxnard as home market.

 

For media and sports purposes the Los Angeles market is LA+OC+Riverside+San Bernardino+Ventura counties.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles#Combined_Statistical_Area

 

It's common sense and anything else is nitpicking. 

 

 

 

[Marlins93]

It is starting to seem like the bizarre Montreal-St. Pete split proposal isn't a ploy to gain leverage for public financing of a new ballpark in the Tampa area, but rather to generate buzz and build momentum for a relocation to Montreal. Why else would Sternberg publicly question the viability of the Tampa market for baseball? How can you walk back on that and expect a deal to be made?

 

The Marlins were publicly exploring relocation circa 2005-2006 when ballpark financing reached a standstill, but I don't recall them throwing the market under the bus. If anything, they were denouncing the local and state governments for not being supportive enough.