Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[FrutigerAero]

Now for the non-emotional reaction to Oakland.

 

John Fisher is a liar and his mismanaged every step of this move.

 

However, both that can be true and the fact that Oakland has always been a troubled spot for Major League Baseball. This was probably an inevitability. An A's move within the bay had the cards stacked against it (because of NIMBYs), and the idea of just tearing down the Coliseum and rebuilding there probably only would have happened with a sentimental owner like Peter Seidler.

 

The Oakland fans who are mad about San Jose are kind of funny though. You can go to their SBnation website from back then and its full of comments about how they'll never root for the team again if they sell out to silicon valley.

[FiddySicks]

2 hours ago, GhostOfNormMacdonald said:

The idea that anti-trust can't apply to MLB because it predates anti-trust is absurd and has no basis in reality. The main reason it still applies is that in the 1922 case, Federal Baseball Club vs National League, SCOTUS ruled that sports can't be considered interstate commerce and so the Federal government can't apply anti trust laws to it. The justices that ruled in that case had no idea how big of an industry baseball would get, nor were they of an era that saw it as anything more than entertainment.  the ruling is fundamentally flawed and is nonsensical in the 21st century.

Using a ruling made in 1922 by judges with a 19th century view of both what interstate commerce means and what sports are is not a tenable situation. The idea that professional sports isn't interstate commerce in this day and age is wrong and only benefits the über wealthy.

John Fischer. the Pohlads. the cartel of soulless, faceless businessmen that have taken sport, one of the most human things, and squeezed every last penny out of it.

Our politicians are goddamned cowards for letting this keep happening

Yeah but I think that’s the main issue. From what I’ve read, the age of the league was taken into consideration when that ruling was made (at least in a sense). I don’t necessarily agree with it, but the league predating the law was part of the explanation for why they ruled the way they did. 
 

It’s sort of a situation where whenever it’s ever brought up the reaction is “Nope, already ruled on that one, next!” Or at least, that’s always been my interpretation of it. 
 

I don’t think any other league has these built in exceptions, and that’s in part due to the establishment of these leagues coming after the Anti Trust laws. 

[raz]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I would bet that 90% of similar rich guys would take the more than one billion dollars of profit by selling the team, and would then be perfectly happy with an expansion team.

That still wouldn't have fixed the stadium situation in Oakland. 

[LMU]

15 minutes ago, raz said:

That still wouldn't have fixed the stadium situation in Oakland. 

It also neglects the allure of rich guys owning teams.  It's not about flipping the team for a profit.  It's a status symbol.  And whereas some will throw every resource they have at it (see Ballmer, Steve), others do the bare minimum to stay in the club.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

50 minutes ago, raz said:

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I would bet that 90% of similar rich guys would take the more than one billion dollars of profit by selling the team, and would then be perfectly happy with an expansion team.

Expand  

That still wouldn't have fixed the stadium situation in Oakland. 

 

Yes, it would have. 

 

The Howard Terminal deal was all but completed.  The Oakland mayor expressed shock that Kaval called her to say that the team was walking away from a process that was nearly done. If Fisher had agreed to sell to Lacob, Lacob would surely have moved forward with that stadium plan.

 

 

36 minutes ago, LMU said:

It also neglects the allure of rich guys owning teams.  It's not about flipping the team for a profit.  It's a status symbol. 

 

In the scenario in which Fisher sells the A's, he'd still have a team, in the form of an expansion team in Las Vegas — a team that likely would be embraced much more readily by the fans of that area than the A's will be.

[LMU]

34 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

In the scenario in which Fisher sells the A's, he'd still have a team, in the form of an expansion team in Las Vegas — a team that likely would be embraced much more readily by the fans of that area than the A's will be.

You're making a big assumption that there'd be an expansion team guaranteed to Fisher here.  MLB is not the NHL.  Manfred doesn't strike me as wanting to give out a Meruelo deal here when selling the A's would still keep in place the roadblock that has prevented expansion to this point.

[McCall]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Yes, it would have. 

 

The Howard Terminal deal was all but completed.  The Oakland mayor expressed shock that Kaval called her to say that the team was walking away from a process that was nearly done. If Fisher had agreed to sell to Lacob, Lacob would surely have moved forward with that stadium plan.

Of course she's gonna say that and pin it all on the team for leaving. Look, acting like the city of Oakland played no part in this and it was completely out of the blue and all on the A's is just being ignorant. The A's have flirted with relocation for the better part of the last 20 years and most people never batted an eye at the notion of them leaving until Fisher finally said they were going to Vegas. Think of the destination what you will, but them leaving Oakland is no big shock.

[The_Admiral]

I saw that the Memphis Grizzlies' lease is up in 2029 and I must say that I do not feel great about them staying beyond it. Nothing but idle speculation on my part, but I just don't see the league nor Grizzlies ownership having any soft spot for Memphis if the going gets tough, which it probably will.

[McCall]

11 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

I saw that the Memphis Grizzlies' lease is up in 2029 and I must say that I do not feel great about them staying beyond it. Nothing but idle speculation on my part, but I just don't see the league nor Grizzlies ownership having any soft spot for Memphis if the going gets tough, which it probably will.

The state is working on a new 20-year lease along with possibly all of the potential $230M in state funds, expected to be allocated to stadium projects, going to FedEx Forum. Don't know the expectations of the deal being signed or falling apart.

[VampyrRabbit]

6 hours ago, FrutigerAero said:

The diamondbacks aren't leaving Arizona anytime soon IMO. This is just what negotiations look like, where you start out with a big ask and then whittle it down.

 

I am not defending the "public pays for stadiums" thing, but Chase Field's roof no longer works the way it originally did. They cannot move it during games anymore because it's too dangerous to open with people inside. So, they aren't just complaining about it being not-fancy.

The roof and the HVAC issues need to be sorted out, because you don't want to spend around 3 hours in Phoenix in a building in which the Aircon isn't cutting the mustard, and if it starts to piss down, the (leaking) roof can't be closed without everyone leaving the stadium. Hence why these are serious renovations that need to be done, otherwise it's going to really start to bite into the D - Backs attendance.

[Partycrasher]

2 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

I saw that the Memphis Grizzlies' lease is up in 2029 and I must say that I do not feel great about them staying beyond it. Nothing but idle speculation on my part, but I just don't see the league nor Grizzlies ownership having any soft spot for Memphis if the going gets tough, which it probably will.

 

yeah, from a purely socioeconomic perspective, I can't see the Grizzlies sticking around too much longer; Memphis' population has been declining since 2000, which is a particularly terrible sign considering it's in the sunbelt. I'm honestly kind of surprised they didn't just move from Vancouver to Nashville in the first place.

 

sometimes I wonder if the Spurs would ever consider heading up I-35 to Austin down the line for similar reasons, but San Antonio isn't in nearly as dire of a state; still, interesting to think about.

[The_Admiral]

Nah, San Antonio's fine. The Austin suburban sprawl will just meet them where they are.

 

I don't think the Perds would stand for a co-tenant unless they were in on it, which, ownership being a relatively cash-poor consortium of local businessmen versus an NBA hedgie, they wouldn't be. I can see the league kicking the tires on Tampa if Tennessee doesn't have the money to burn on the Grizz, especially if the dreaded cost overruns hit the Titans And Exactly One (1) Super Bowl stadium.

[VampyrRabbit]

 

2 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

Nah, San Antonio's fine. The Austin suburban sprawl will just meet them where they are.

 

I don't think the Perds would stand for a co-tenant unless they were in on it, which, ownership being a relatively cash-poor consortium of local businessmen versus an NBA hedgie, they wouldn't be. I can see the league kicking the tires on Tampa if Tennessee doesn't have the money to burn on the Grizz, especially if the dreaded cost overruns hit the Titans And Exactly One (1) Super Bowl stadium.

 

What about relocation to KC? 19,000 seat arena and no NHL team.