Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[dfwabel]

 

Quote

DID STERNBERG JUST ADMIT TO VIOLATING HIS CONTRACT WITH ST. PETE?

 

Several Canadian journalists made the trip down to Tampa Bay, curious about the role MLB-to-Montreal booster Stephen Bronfman would play in the Rays’ proposed new venture.

 

“Stephen had asked us about relocation (years ago) and I immediately shot that down,” Sternberg said. “He talked about if the team would potentially be for sale; (that) didn’t go any further than about 12 seconds past that as well.”

 

But Sternberg said the two men “maintained a dialogue” because Bronfman was talking to other MLB owners about expansion.

 

“At some point, this idea of sharing (the Rays) came up,” Sternberg continued, saying he didn’t remember exactly when they first discussed the idea, but it was “a couple years ago.”

 

If Sternberg has already discussed playing home games in Montreal prior to 2027, it would be an apparent violation of his contract with St. Petersburg, which requires the Rays to obtain specific permission from the city to have any sort of discussion about playing home games outside of Tropicana Field.

 

Mayor Rick Kriseman‘s office apparently agreed, confirming Tuesday afternoon the city attorney is now reviewing the video of the press conference, specifically looking to see if Sternberg violated his contract with the city or if any Montreal parties committed tortious interference by trying to lure the team out of its contractual obligations.

 

According to Kriseman spokesperson Ben Kirby, “The City Attorney’s office has been in contact with the general counsel for the Tampa Bay Rays and received assurances that the Rays will not commence exploration of the shared city concept, or conduct any other activities related to a pre-2028 future stadium site, without an agreement with the City of St. Petersburg. The Rays’ general counsel also confirmed that all conversations related to Montreal were limited to the time period after expiration of the use agreement.”

More at Florida Politics

[rmc523]

12 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

Back around 2008, there were talks to build a stadium at this site.

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah, seeing the other views, I do remember that plan.  Didn't realize it was that same location.  I was also taking his "renovating/expanding" Al Lang Stadium at face value, though.  That proposal would necessitate tearing what's there down and starting over.  That said, any sort of major league ballpark would require getting rid of Bayshore Drive like that plan shows, as there's no room otherwise.

 

[BBTV]

6 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly! 

 

Problem is, ditching a brand as valuable as the A's brand (Which has survived several cities already) is, very much so, a bad take. No matter where you wanna put it. 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Right in your colon... or maybe even an intestine - whichever is the lower one. Maybe if we have a dr in the forum, he/she can advise. I’m not saying 100% to eliminate the brand, but it should be an option, and it shouldn’t be considered too sacred to retire it. 

 

5 hours ago, Maroon&Gold said:

The Athletics name and overall branding can fit with any city so changing it makes no sense to me

 

Is that true though? Do green and gold really mean anything to some city that’s known for some other distinct color scheme? Some other city might genuinely value the history of the franchise, and that’s great, but some other one may feel it’s easier to market a more local identity to their fans   

[FiddySicks]

14 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Right in your colon... or maybe even an intestine - whichever is the lower one. Maybe if we have a dr in the forum, he/she can advise. I’m not saying 100% to eliminate the brand, but it should be an option, and it shouldn’t be considered too sacred to retire it. 

 

This is how we're going to end up with the Portland Rosebuds and it'll be all your fault. 

[IceCap]

A’s jacked. 

 

Gotta admit, I admire the civic pride Vet’s showing, still salty about the A’s leaving Philly. That’s dedication. 

[SFGiants58]

13 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

A’s jacked. 

 

Gotta admit, I admire the civic pride Vet’s showing, still salty about the A’s leaving Philly. That’s dedication. 

 

Well, the A’s are the more successful AL franchise in California and they were the ones to screw up the “California Angels” name by moving there. Would now be a good time to remind you guys that we could be dealing with this same location name kerfuffle, but with the A’s instead of the Angels?

 

I apologize if I got rant-y in this thread. I’ve been dealing with some stress lately in moving apartments and I got a bit too incensed, dealing with it by taking it out over the internet instead of calmly handling it offline. I should also remind myself that posting in the early morning only leads to trouble. Now back to our scheduled programming!

[Wings]

Portland Athletics or A's would be fine plus the green & gold scheme fits perfectly in the Pacific Northwest. 

[The_Admiral]

God, just involving Montreal seems to bring NHL-calibre incompetence into the fold.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

God, just involving Montreal seems to bring NHL-calibre incompetence into the fold.

 

Didn’t need Montreal.  The Rays bring that all on their own.

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Didn’t need Montreal.  The Rays bring that all on their own.

 

Tampa Bay definitely shouldn’t be counted out for crazy. Remember how the Yakuza owned the Lightning for some time? How about the various infamous moments in the Bucs’ history? Stadium for Rent certainly didn’t shy away from the OITGDNHL-level shenanigans involved the baseball pursuit.

[LMU]

There's something about this that just screams loophole to the lease.  If Tampa Bay wasn't viable you wouldn't still keep a foot there... you'd bail.

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Tampa Bay definitely shouldn’t be counted out for crazy. Remember how the Yakuza owned the Lightning for some time? How about the various infamous moments in the Bucs’ history? Stadium for Rent certainly didn’t shy away from the OITGDNHL-level shenanigans involved the baseball pursuit.

It's the humidity. It drives people to do crazy things.

[SFGiants58]

5 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

It's the humidity. It drives people to do crazy things.

 

I blame Abudadein’s machinations. He used a Bostonian carpetbagger (that term gets thrown around A LOT with Stu) to bring his devilish machinations to Florida!

 

 

Florida Championship Wrestling was a fairly overlooked-yet-influential territory, BTW.

 

[Sodboy13]

This has all been so cosmically stupid, if Sternberg keeps it up, we won't be able to say OITGDNHL around here anymore.

[dfwabel]

14 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I blame Abudadein’s machinations. He used a Bostonian carpetbagger (that term gets thrown around A LOT with Stu) to bring his devilish machinations to Florida!

 

 

Florida Championship Wrestling was a fairly overlooked-yet-influential territory, BTW.

 

We chewed a lot of Betel Nut and Cosmic Cookies!

[AustinFromBoston]

So If I'm understanding this right; The Rays, a team that can't even get a new stadium built in 1 city, are demanding that 2 cities build them a new stadiums?

[GDAWG]

58 minutes ago, AustinFomBoston said:

So If I'm understanding this right; The Rays, a team that can't even get a new stadium built in 1 city, are demanding that 2 cities build them a new stadiums?

 

That is correct. 

[Red Wolf]

1 hour ago, AustinFomBoston said:

So If I'm understanding this right; The Rays, a team that can't even get a new stadium built in 1 city, are demanding that 2 cities build them a new stadiums?

 

It's so ridiculous that it's almost like it's some sort of negotiating gambit where they don't actually expect to get two stadiums.

[63Bulldogs63]

21 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

That’s because the Ravens’ identity was so well-crafted and they had so much success within the first few years. It was locally-flavored, handled period design conventions well, and the team was winning not long into their run. Let’s not kid ourselves by suggesting that a lack of success on both the Charlotte and New Orleans ends played at least a partial role in the Hornicans/Horncats’ branding fiasco. 

 

Also, Indy didn’t rebrand upon moving. If Indy had done that (as they probably should have), we wouldn’t have this discussion. We’d have the Baltimore Colts back (but probably no records continuation) and Indianapolis would have their own locally-relevant identity. Honestly, I don’t want that in this scenario, as the Ravens’ identity runs laps around that of the Colts for a Baltimore team. But I digress.

 

It’s making the best of a bad situation. I’d rather obviate the bad situation by adopting local names upon moving. San Francisco Seals, NL Los Angeles Angels, Oakland Oaks, Atlanta Firebirds/Phoenixes, and Kansas City Blues/Milwaukee Brewers MK I all sound good to me. 

 

How many people in Oakland genuinely give a damn about Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove? Do Giants fans, aside from a few (like me), really care about pre-1951 players and titles (especially now that the Giants have championships in San Francisco)? Are Atlanta Braves fans clamoring for statues of the 1914 team? Outside of Jackie Robinson and players that made the move from Brooklyn to LA, do Dodgers fans emphasize the importance of legendary Brooklyn players (e.g., Wilbert Robinson and Rube Marquand)?

 

This even applies to other sports. Do Lakers fans really give a crap about George Mikan? Are Atlanta Hawks fans ecstatic about St. Louis throwbacks? Should Arizona Cardinals fans pretend to care about the pre-Super Bowl titles won in Chicago? Do the majority of Dallas Stars followers genuinely care about pre-Barons merger North Stars? Are Colts fans really going to care about Baltimore players outside of maybe Unitas (who wouldn’t reciprocate the attention)? 

 

If you stuck by my rhetorical rambling, you’d get the sense that pre-relocation history is often only relevant when the team needs it to be for marketing purposes. The Giants chose to emphasize their New York history because there was extensive roster carryover between NY and SF, but also because the team had won zero titles since 1954 and wanted to assert a “championship legacy.” The O’Malleys were reticent to acknowledge Brooklyn outside of retired numbers, only really emphasizing it after companies like Mitchell & Ness and artists like Spike Lee made it commercially viable to do so. The Braves had a fairly similar look and extensive roster sharing between all three locations (as well as a successful Milwaukee stint) that enabled them to market their past while still being “on brand.” The A’s turned to their history as part of the Haas family’s branding efforts, to re-establish the team as a legacy club after Finley’s brand rejected the team’s pre-Finley history (outside of the name and basic uniform template) and after the A’s were in non-contention. Note how the only times they’ve thrown back to the terrible Kansas City stint have been in green/gold uniforms that might as well be 1969-71 kits.

 

It isn’t so much a noble commitment to history as it is a desire to optimally brand the team for merchandising and free agency purposes. A championship legacy sells tickets and gets free agents to sign.

 

The Giants fans I know all embrace the totality of the Giants history. But as you said, a lot of that probably has to do with the lack of titles during the SF run. Even with the 3 this decade, and honestly we should have 4 if Dusty doesnt blow it in Game 6, I still take pride in the fact that my team is one of the oldest in baseball history and has had 2 homes. NY and SF.

[63Bulldogs63]

8 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Right in your colon... or maybe even an intestine - whichever is the lower one. Maybe if we have a dr in the forum, he/she can advise. I’m not saying 100% to eliminate the brand, but it should be an option, and it shouldn’t be considered too sacred to retire it. 

 

 

Is that true though? Do green and gold really mean anything to some city that’s known for some other distinct color scheme? Some other city might genuinely value the history of the franchise, and that’s great, but some other one may feel it’s easier to market a more local identity to their fans   

 

Hell it doesn't even have to be green and gold that potentially moves. The name and logos really fit any color scheme. As long as they keep the elephant and white shoes theyre set.