Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[McCall]

5 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I was being facetious. The A’s can’t demand anything from MGM. They were there first.

You asked how much MGM would demand FROM the A’s.

[Maz]

11 hours ago, McCall said:

I don't believe MGM, or any business for that matter, demand compensation for their building being simply in view from the ballpark.

 

If they did then this would definitely explain why the Pirates have such a low payroll.

 

[McCall]

6 minutes ago, maz said:

 

If they did then this would definitely explain why the Pirates have such a low payroll.

Money well spent.

 

Signed,

A grateful Cardinals fan.

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, McCall said:

You asked how much MGM would demand FROM the A’s.

 

Yes and you suggested the A’s would even think they’d have some grounds to demand payment from MGM for being in view from the ballpark… which is ridiculous (I was mocking the very idea in reverse). Then again so is the whole A’s organization is ridiculous so they may just be dumb enough to try something like that. 

[VampyrRabbit]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Yes and you suggested the A’s would even think they’d have some grounds to demand payment from MGM for being in view from the ballpark… which is ridiculous (I was mocking the very idea in reverse). Then again so is the whole A’s organization is ridiculous so they may just be dumb enough to try something like that. 

So expect an announcement from the A's threatening MGM with legal action in the next few weeks.

[The_Admiral]

ITT: two people who forgot they were riffing

[McCall]

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Yes and you suggested the A’s would even think they’d have some grounds to demand payment from MGM for being in view from the ballpark… which is ridiculous (I was mocking the very idea in reverse). Then again so is the whole A’s organization is ridiculous so they may just be dumb enough to try something like that. 

What? I didn't suggest anything. I pointed out that MGM could NOT demand compensation from anyone simply for their building being in view from another building, as implied by you per your original post.

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

What? I didn't suggest anything. I pointed out that MGM could NOT demand compensation from anyone simply for their building being in view from another building, as implied by you per your original post.

 

Ah, yeah you had to see the post my post was responding to which said:

 

“Funny thing about that mock-up is... how much do you think the A's would demand from MGM for advertising to face it that direction?”

 

 

[BBTV]

It’s like people don’t know it’s a work and then work themselves into a shoot, BROTHER. 

[TBGKon]

Interesting caveat for the A's

 

Ballpark Digest: Legislators debate new Las Vegas ballpark; Sacramento to host A’s?

[bosrs1]

32 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

Interesting caveat for the A's

 

Ballpark Digest: Legislators debate new Las Vegas ballpark; Sacramento to host A’s?

 

After the Legislative session last night and the suggestion that if Vegas falls through they’re still done in Oakland, this doesn’t surprise me. The A’s have figuratively nuked the bridge in Oakland and then pissed on the ashes. Even the most ardent fans are done with them, to the point it’s hard to see how they recover even if the come crawling back to the Bay Area. Far more likely they’ll go shopping elsewhere, and Sac does have site they’d earmarked for a soccer stadium downtown that would work just as well for baseball. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

4 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

After the Legislative session last night and the suggestion that if Vegas falls through they’re still done in Oakland, this doesn’t surprise me. The A’s have figuratively nuked the bridge in Oakland and then pissed on the ashes. Even the most ardent fans are done with them, to the point it’s hard to see how they recover even if the come crawling back to the Bay Area. Far more likely they’ll go shopping elsewhere, and Sac does have site they’d earmarked for a soccer stadium downtown that would work just as well for baseball. 

 

This ownership is done in Oakland.

 

This ownership has figuratively nuked the bridge in Oakland.

 

Even the most ardent A's fans are done with this ownership.

 

As of this moment the team is not for sale.  But, if the Vegas thing falls through, that could change very quickly.

 

If Fisher sold right now, he'd come away with almost a billion in profit.  And Lacob has already stated his willingness to buy the team at its current valuation.  If Fisher didn't sell after a failed attempt at Las Vegas, the value of the team would plummet.  I'm no capitalist, but the incentives seem clear here.

 

[bosrs1]

8 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This ownership is done in Oakland.

 

This ownership has figuratively nuked the bridge in Oakland.

 

Even the most ardent A's fans are done with this ownership.

 

As of this moment the team is not for sale.  But, if the Vegas thing falls through, that could change very quickly.

 

If Fisher sold right now, he'd come away with almost a billion in profit.  And Lacob has already stated his willingness to buy the team at its current valuation.  If Fisher didn't sell after a failed attempt at Las Vegas, the value of the team would plummet.  I'm no capitalist, but the incentives seem clear here.

 

 

Nah I mean that I said. The ownership has done irrevocable damage to this franchise, even absent them it’ll take a decade plus to right the ship. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

19 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

The ownership has done irrevocable damage to this franchise, even absent them it’ll take a decade plus to right the ship. 

 

I think that new ownership would be embraced by exasperated fans, especially if new owners returned to the table with the city and got the new ballpark at Howard Terminal done.

[GDAWG]

4 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I think that new ownership would be embraced by exacerbated fans, especially if new owners returned to the table with the city and got the new ballpark at Howard Terminal done.

 

Casey Pratt said that new ownership could speed up the Howard Terminal Ballpark if the new ownership decided to focus only on the ballpark and then focus on the development of the rest of the land later.  

[Ridleylash]

If the A's think Oakland sucks, why the are they considering spending time in Sacramento, a place commonly agreed to be even worse lmfao

 

I feel like MLB will just force Fisher and co. to sell to local interests in Oakland long before letting the A's go to Sacramento.

[throwuascenario]

On 5/29/2023 at 2:51 PM, bosrs1 said:

 

Ah, yeah you had to see the post my post was responding to which said:

 

“Funny thing about that mock-up is... how much do you think the A's would demand from MGM for advertising to face it that direction?”

 

 

 

I mean, in theory they could threaten MGM to face the stadium another direction if they don't pay them. That's the only feasible way they could get money from them, if MGM even cared.

[bosrs1]

2 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

If the A's think Oakland sucks, why the are they considering spending time in Sacramento, a place commonly agreed to be even worse lmfao

 

I feel like MLB will just force Fisher and co. to sell to local interests in Oakland long before letting the A's go to Sacramento.

 Five years ago I’d have agreed or when Selig was commissioner I’d have definitely agreed. Manfred though, seems to have a hard on for getting out of Oakland, hence talking about waiving relocation fees and now using the A’s move as a de facto threat against other teams like Milwaukee. He’s seemingly done with Oakland. And after 30 years who can blame him. Fisher is an inept cheapskate boob of an owner, but Oakland is equally inept at the leadership level and has been for a very long time. Well run cities don’t lose 3 teams in 5 years among other failings. 

[The_Admiral]

Including the Warriors as a team Oakland lost is just gilding the lily. I don't think "an Oakland team" can exist without being in opposition to a San Francisco team; the Warriors were the Bay Area's NBA team wherein Oakland could fit an 18,000-seat arena and San Francisco couldn't. Once it could fit one, the team moved. It didn't represent any failure on Oakland's part that the Warriors moved, I think it was the plan from the day ownership changed hands, and frankly, I'm half-surprised they didn't move to San Jose once the Tank opened. (I wish they had collaborated on an arena in the Cow Palace parking lot; seems like it would have been best for all involved to have had the San Francisco Warriors and San Francisco Sharks by 1993.) 

 

Losing the Raiders, you can kind of hang on Oakland, but more so their idiot owner and the race-to-the-bottom state next door.

[FiddySicks]

8 hours ago, TBGKon said:

Interesting caveat for the A's

 

Ballpark Digest: Legislators debate new Las Vegas ballpark; Sacramento to host A’s?

I’ve been here for nearly two decades and from the very first few posts I made, I was pushing the A’s to Sacramento. It’s one of my oldest hills I’ve died on many times here before. 
 

 

Now, that being said, OH, COME ON. Even Sacramento, as shameless as it can be, isn’t willing to be a stopgap between a city with more crime and a city with less water. Ridiculous. They would draw about as well as the Oilers did in Memphis.