Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[raz]

Update:

 

"According to the offer sheet obtained by ESPN and KGO-TV, the city has dropped previous requirements that called for MLB to keep the A's name and colors in Oakland, as well as a demand that MLB guarantee the city a future expansion team." 

 

[FiddySicks]

5 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

This is probably what should happen, though it would likely mean the permanent end of the line for the brand.  It's a shame that he has such little equity at this point, but it's time to retire "Athletics" and move on.  It's a lousy fit for Vegas anyway.

 

Has there been more of a "coming back with tail between their legs" situation than this in the past 30 - 40 years?  It was basically announced as "done", they had renderings, a welcome presser, and all that jazz, now they're in the awkwardest of awkward spots.

 

I can think of in-market moves that collapsed on the brink of construction (Sixers move to Camden, for ex) but nothing that was to a whole new market since the teams that played Tampa for fools and the SD>DC move that resulted in the actual "Washington NAT'L League" baseball cards.

Closest one I can think of I was involved with, and that was an expansion franchise falling apart. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

23 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

I still don't think the move is going to happen. Too many fragile moving parts.

 

Fisher had his chance to sell the team, to Joe Lacob, a sale that would have netted Fisher a profit of one billion dollars. Then he could have had an expansion team in Las Vegas, one which would have been more warmly received than the A's.  No one will ever be able to explain why he chose not to go that route.

 

 

12 hours ago, BBTV said:

I can think of in-market moves that collapsed on the brink of construction (Sixers move to Camden, for ex) but nothing that was to a whole new market since the teams that played Tampa for fools and the SD>DC move that resulted in the actual "Washington NAT'L League" baseball cards.

 

The White Sox' flirtation with Tampa-St. Pete might have been a ploy.  But the Giants were really going there, until Peter Magowan stepped up to buy the team from Bob Lurie.  And Lurie had bought the Giants in 1976, saving them from an already-announced move to Toronto.

 

A couple of years later, Charlie Finley agreed to sell the A's to Marvin Davis, who would have moved the team to Denver for the 1978 season. But that sale was contingent on the A's ability to get out of their lease at the Coliseum, which they ultimately could not do.

 

In the NHL, I believe that there were nearly-completed moves of the St. Louis Blues to Saskatoon and of the New Jersey Devils to Nashville.

 

 

12 hours ago, BBTV said:

but it's time to retire "Athletics" and move on.

 

No way.  The only times that a team nickname has been retired were when the two Washington Senators franchises (the original one and the expansion team) moved to other cities. Unlike the name "Senators", which would not make sense outside of Washington, the name "Athletics" can work anywhere. The move is going to be bad enough; to dump the historic name would compound the tragedy. The A's name has survived multiple moves. It deserves to live on.

 

[FrutigerAero]

Oakland does not own the "Athletics".  While the end result I'd like to see is Vegas getting expansion and A's org staying in Oakland, the A's name has survived three cities and goes back a century.  No reason it should stay in Oakland.

17 hours ago, BottomlessPitt said:

I really wonder how much it would cost to payoff the Giants for the San Jose/South Bay territory? 

A lot of money.  I think most of their corporate sponsors are from there.

[LMU]

6 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

No way.  The only times that a team nickname has been retired were when the two Washington Senators franchises (the original one and the expansion team) moved to other cities. Unlike the name "Senators", which would not make sense outside of Washington, the name "Athletics" can work anywhere. The move is going to be bad enough; to dump the historic name would compound the tragedy. The A's name has survived multiple moves. It deserves to live on.

Agreed.  This is apples and oranges to the Cleveland deal.  The Browns were born in Cleveland and were a symbol of Cleveland when the deal was made.  The A's are in their third stop.  Oakland demanding the name stay there is ignoring the history in KC and Philly and demanding that the colors stay is ignoring that the colors, granted starting out much brighter, were a KC product before the team moved into the Coliseum.

[The_Admiral]

All this is true, however, the Oakland A's have now existed as a discrete brand for as long as the San Diego Padres and Kansas City Royals, nearly half the club's existence, where they've won the World Series four times and inspired a movie. If it were the Padres or Royals trying and failing to move to America's worst city and the government tried to pass a leave-your-stuff law like the Twins have, or if it were the Giants finally moving to Florida for some reason, it wouldn't be wholly unjustified, and so it is here, the organization's vagabond nature notwithstanding.

[Walk-Off]

NewBallpark.org: SidewA’s and the 32nd Team

 

This blog article provides some salient opinions on the next round of negotiations among Oakland, the A's, and MLB.  I find the following point to be especially relevant:

 

"With no sign that John Fisher plans to reverse course on the Las Vegas move or sell, any pitch for an A’s sale can only be characterized as the kind of Hail Mary not even Al Davis would have loved. The expansion promise is pointless, as no one actually believes Oakland will be able to put together real deal terms in only a year, including a billionaire willing to subsidize an Oakland team indefinitely while all of the details for the elusive dream ballpark plan come together. Besides that, who would be crazy enough to ink an exclusive negotiating agreement with Oakland, whose track record on such agreements is downright dreadful."

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

      On 3/31/2024 at 6:53 PM, Dilbert said:  we really bout to put these guys in Mullett Arena for three seasons arent we ?             I'll have you know, Mullet is a great expirience for a close up game.  especially since the As will only able to fill up 1/5 of it

[FrutigerAero]

The KC Chiefs and Royals stadium tax is up for vote today.  Expected to be close as polling had either side within margin of error (+/- 6 apparently).  Chiefs want to renovate Arrowhead Stadium and the Royals want to build a new ballpark downtown.  When the Royals move, Chiefs have plans to demo Kaufman stadium and do If passed, it would simply implement the same tax they've had in the area since about 2006, a sales tax that was originally used for some renovations.

 

If the vote fails, you'll likely see Chiefs and Royals come back in two years or so with a different proposal.

 

As a fan of KC sports teams, I've been really impressed with the Royals' downtown stadiums plans.  I think it would be a good thing for the team and would help them be more successful as a small-market team.  Like it or not the suburban stadium they play in is just not very compatible with modern economics.

[GDAWG]

11 minutes ago, FrutigerAero said:

The KC Chiefs and Royals stadium tax is up for vote today.  Expected to be close as polling had either side within margin of error (+/- 6 apparently).  Chiefs want to renovate Arrowhead Stadium and the Royals want to build a new ballpark downtown.  When the Royals move, Chiefs have plans to demo Kaufman stadium and do If passed, it would simply implement the same tax they've had in the area since about 2006, a sales tax that was originally used for some renovations.

 

If the vote fails, you'll likely see Chiefs and Royals come back in two years or so with a different proposal.

 

As a fan of KC sports teams, I've been really impressed with the Royals' downtown stadiums plans.  I think it would be a good thing for the team and would help them be more successful as a small-market team.  Like it or not the suburban stadium they play in is just not very compatible with modern economics.

 

Mike Florio, the NFL Media's top conspiracy theorist thinks that if the vote fails, the Chiefs could legit move out of KC and doubts that they would be able to get a stadium in Kansas.  

[FrutigerAero]

3 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

Mike Florio, the NFL Media's top conspiracy theorist thinks that if the vote fails, the Chiefs could legit move out of KC and doubts that they would be able to get a stadium in Kansas.  

I don't believe this but hey he gets paid and I don't.

[Sec19Row53]

7 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

Mike Florio, the NFL Media's top conspiracy theorist thinks that if the vote fails, the Chiefs could legit move out of KC and doubts that they would be able to get a stadium in Kansas.  

I don't read his columns that way. He points out that it's possible, not that they could legit do it.

[GDAWG]

3 minutes ago, FrutigerAero said:

I don't believe this but hey he gets paid and I don't.

 

He's known for his conspiracy theories regarding the NFL.  He cast doubt on Aaron Donald's retirement which Chris Simms called him out for it, even mocking him for "Tom Brady is not retired and is going to play for either the Dolphins or 49ers"

[GDAWG]

1 minute ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I don't read his columns that way. He points out that it's possible, not that they could legit do it.

 

Of course it's possible, but it seems unlikely.  They will remain the Kansas City Chiefs.  Now whether or not they continue to play in Arrowhead or move across the border to Kansas or be in the suburbs is another story.  

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

 

Of course it's possible, but it seems unlikely.  They will remain the Kansas City Chiefs.  Now whether or not they continue to play in Arrowhead or move across the border to Kansas or be in the suburbs is another story.  

So he didn't say 'they could legit move' right?

ETA -  Here's the wording in the post:
 

The polling is close. The Chiefs have made their position clear. And they’ve made it obvious that, if they don’t get what they want, they could leave Kansas City.

Some Chiefs fans shrug at that prospect, assuming the team will simply find another venue in the area. Will they? Or will they uproot the team and move it to another state, the same way the Dallas Texans were uprooted in the 1960s to become the Kansas City Chiefs?

There’s always another municipality that is willing to do what a team’s current hometown might not. The Colts found that out 40 years ago, when Indianapolis gave them what Baltimore wouldn’t. The Browns found that out 29 years ago, when Baltimore gave them what Cleveland wouldn’t. Most recently, the Raiders found that out, when Las Vegas gave them what Oakland wouldn’t.

It’s unfortunate, but it’s a reality of stadium politics. If a team’s current city won’t pay up, some other city will. Or if an owner is required to pay for his or her own stadium, maybe that stadium will be purchased in some other place.

If Kansas City won’t give the Chiefs what they want, will they move to a place that will? The first step is to see whether the voters will give them what they want.

Edited April 2 by Sec19Row53
added PFT post

[Sport]

On 3/9/2024 at 8:00 PM, BBTV said:

 

This is how I feel.  How many cities in the States would very few people have ever have a reason to hear about if not for pro sports?  Like Cincinnati for example.  Nothing at all against the fine people of Cincinnati, but if not for the Reds and Bengals, would >90% of Americans have any reason to know about it or even where it is? 

 

Probably true, but wouldn't that also be true of most cities, even large ones? Like if sports didn't exist I don't think I would need to know anything about Atlanta. 

 

  

On 3/9/2024 at 8:08 PM, The_Admiral said:

There's something kind of grounding about Kroger and Procter & Gamble being headquartered in li'l ol' Cincinnati and not somewhere back east, but also, Kroger is terrible.

 

 

Also GE Aerospace where a very handsome, smart, funny guy I know works. 

[Burmy]

I think it's time to replace Arrowhead...but not until a plan is in place.

Yes, the Chiefs need a  new stadium, and that stadium needs to have a convertible roof (like they were trying to add to Arrowhead a while back and had been granted a conditional Super Bowl upon that condition).  KCMO sounds like just the kind of place that would make a good host for the Super Bowl, Final Four, Wrestlemania and other such events of that nature.

 

Which kind of roof and where it would go (on the old Kaufmann site or elsewhere) would be decided later...but a franchise of the Chiefs' caliber can't go on playing in that same stadium they've had (with very minimal changes) for 52 years.

[Sec19Row53]

40 minutes ago, Burmy said:

I think it's time to replace Arrowhead...but not until a plan is in place.

Yes, the Chiefs need a  new stadium, and that stadium needs to have a convertible roof (like they were trying to add to Arrowhead a while back and had been granted a conditional Super Bowl upon that condition).  KCMO sounds like just the kind of place that would make a good host for the Super Bowl, Final Four, Wrestlemania and other such events of that nature.

 

Which kind of roof and where it would go (on the old Kaufmann site or elsewhere) would be decided later...but a franchise of the Chiefs' caliber can't go on playing in that same stadium they've had (with very minimal changes) for 52 years.

Why? What's wrong with the stadium? Parking is fantastic, as is the tailgating situation. The view of the game is great. Why must it be replaced?

[dont care]

58 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Why? What's wrong with the stadium? Parking is fantastic, as is the tailgating situation. The view of the game is great. Why must it be replaced?

Upgrade it with the new amenities that new stadiums have. Arrowhead is a historical stadium at this point. Acoustics are great making it one of the loudest stadiums in the world. It doesn’t need a roof, the NFL will have exactly 1 Super Bowl at most in KC if they built a new domed stadium. And the juice isn’t worth the squeeze there.

[schlim]

The vote failed 58-42, the location of the Royals proposed stadium was a disaster, tearing down blocks of existing businesses in a vibrant neighborhood that has taken 20 years to develop to this point. while a slew of empty parking lots with ample room by City Hall are vacant 6 blocks to the north.

 

The Chiefs proposed some milquetoast 'improvements' to Arrowhead that included better club levels and a few covered pathways in the cavernous parking lot.

 

The Chiefs arent leaving metro KC. If wonderrichboy Clark Hunt has the will to ask another county or state for money, that's possible, but there is no location anywhere in the US that would be more valuable to the Chiefs than KC.

 

The Royals are a bit more desperate. They put the Chiefs logo front and center on every press release throughout the entire process. They blamed bad batches of concrete that gave The K 'concrete cancer' (arrowhead, built in the same lot, at the same time, does not have 'concrete cancer', so apparently the Lord was watching over the Chiefs during that process.)

 

The Royals owner has been aching to build a downtown stadium since he bought the team, going so far as have the large construction company in town be a minority owner. The K is great, not in need of being replaced, but that boat has probably sailed.

 

Let Kansas pay for the stadiums. Sherman is from KC, so its not likely he'll move the team, but he could sell it to Nashville or some other similarly sized or less market, but really, he hasn't tried putting a winner together in four years.

 

The no vote, at the very least, forces the teams to regroup and come up with a better deal for KCMO for the 2 billion dollars they wanted for free.