Jump to content

Forbes presents...........


DarkJourney

Recommended Posts

I find the choice of the Tampa Bay Rays at No. 2 strange. Although the article gave no timeframe that I saw other than "ripe for a move" and "not likely to pull up the stakes anytime soon," I think it has been stated many times here that the Rays' lease is solid. Plus, didn't MLB put a team there to avoid legal hassles in the first place after handing a team to Miami?

Statements like this just seem lazy: "Even a Rays World Series title this year, which is entirely possible, is unlikely to keep the franchise from bolting if voters don't approve the team's public-private offer for a new waterfront home in St. Petersburg." Bolting when?

I understand that leases can be broken, but shouldn't it at least be referenced in the article? I'm not a reader of Forbes, but I envisioned them as more of an authority on such things. Or at least a little more thorough. Looks like they've just fallen victim to the magazine trend of being a "book of lists."

Even the Marlins seem more stable than some on the list with a stadium deal at least closer than it has been in years, not to mention the lack of a clearly ready market elsewhere. In terms of franchise moves, based on the slow process the Expos went through compared to the Oilers, Rams, Raiders, Browns/Ravens, etc., seems an NFL move would be so much easier that they'd almost have to top the list.

Again, they give no time frame, and just base it on "franchise valuations, revenue and attendance trends over the past few years" without mention of leases or the ability of an owner to escape it. So I say you can throw this out the window completely.

I've read better analysis (and thoughtful debate) right here (and I say that with no surprise whatsoever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the choice of the Tampa Bay Rays at No. 2 strange. Although the article gave no timeframe that I saw other than "ripe for a move" and "not likely to pull up the stakes anytime soon," I think it has been stated many times here that the Rays' lease is solid. Plus, didn't MLB put a team there to avoid legal hassles in the first place after handing a team to Miami?

Never heard that.

The Marlins are about to be taken off that list, as the stadium financing deal finally heads towards its final hurdle.

Still, the list is worthless without the Jaguars and Rams, two teams actually up for sale with serious problems in their current cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, they give no time frame, and just base it on "franchise valuations, revenue and attendance trends over the past few years" without mention of leases or the ability of an owner to escape it. So I say you can throw this out the window completely.

I've read better analysis (and thoughtful debate) right here (and I say that with no surprise whatsoever).

Seconded. This article was a pure-D piece of garbage. I don't know what it is; maybe it's because I perform studies and write reports for a living, and maybe it's just me growing older, but it seems like I can spot young, undisciplined writers and writing. And this is a prime example. It's not well researched; it's the print equivalent of a local TV news story or talk show radio piece.

One issue: the writer constantly seems to harp on teams that don't own their own venues, and thus don't "control their own revenue streams". Doesn't he understand that such a situation is the ANOMALY in sports-- that the established "model" is to have the public build you a 'Taj Mahal' facility and work out a lease agreement that provides a great revenue stream-- without having to maintain a stadium/arena debt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, they give no time frame, and just base it on "franchise valuations, revenue and attendance trends over the past few years" without mention of leases or the ability of an owner to escape it. So I say you can throw this out the window completely.

I've read better analysis (and thoughtful debate) right here (and I say that with no surprise whatsoever).

Seconded. This article was a pure-D piece of garbage.

You expected better from a magazine that tries to objectively rank the "drunkest" cities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the choice of the Tampa Bay Rays at No. 2 strange. Although the article gave no timeframe that I saw other than "ripe for a move" and "not likely to pull up the stakes anytime soon," I think it has been stated many times here that the Rays' lease is solid. Plus, didn't MLB put a team there to avoid legal hassles in the first place after handing a team to Miami?

Never heard that.

The Marlins are about to be taken off that list, as the stadium financing deal finally heads towards its final hurdle.

Still, the list is worthless without the Jaguars and Rams, two teams actually up for sale with serious problems in their current cities.

It seems I should have referenced a series of events, not just the Miami expansion, but Tampa Bay was looking into a lawsuit after building the stadium and failing to land a 1993 expansion team (in 1991), the Giants, the White Sox or the Mariners.

This is the closest I could find, a story about the NL voting down the Giants move in 1992:

NY Times article

Hunting through several Google News archives, it was interesting to find the first mentions of "unofficial" expansion talk in June 1993 turn into a March 1994 New York Times report that Phoenix and St. Pete were the choices even though the expansion committee had just been named:

Full NY Times story

Tampa Bay was awarded the expansion team in 1995. My memory may be off, but it was my understanding that the 1998 expansion was a little sooner than originally planned. I may have connected the dots in my own mind (or been a victim of a baseball columnist game of telephone), but I'm pretty sure I've read that explanation somewhere. I'm going to keep looking for something more concrete.

(EDIT: And illwauk, my impression of Forbes was way off, obviously.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the choice of the Tampa Bay Rays at No. 2 strange. Although the article gave no timeframe that I saw other than "ripe for a move" and "not likely to pull up the stakes anytime soon," I think it has been stated many times here that the Rays' lease is solid. Plus, didn't MLB put a team there to avoid legal hassles in the first place after handing a team to Miami?

Never heard that.

The Marlins are about to be taken off that list, as the stadium financing deal finally heads towards its final hurdle.

Still, the list is worthless without the Jaguars and Rams, two teams actually up for sale with serious problems in their current cities.

Take a look at this first before mentioning the Marlins.

"Some stadiums themselves are in jeopardy, opposed by taxpayers and public officials who don't think investments in sports facilities are justified in the current climate. In Florida, construction of a new ballpark for Major League Baseball's Marlins that was supposed to start this fall probably will have to wait for better economic times.

Katy Sorensen, one of the commissioners of Florida's Miami-Dade County, said she expects support for the $515 million Marlins ballpark to dissipate. Florida's real-estate market is one of the hotspots in a foreclosure crisis that helped to bring down several major banks and spark a selling frenzy in global markets."

Poor Economy and Sports

I agree with those who think this is a non-story. It would have been better in this economic time to list who is most likely to file for bankruptcy. In that pool, I will take about 5 NHL teams first. Come on, if the NBA downsizes the corporate offices by 9%, nobosy is likely to move even if there is a new facility waiting for them (Kansas City). there are some stories out last week which talked about teh lack of event bookings at Sprint Center (averaging 2 per month). Ugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Forbes story is full of inaccurate details.

Most notibly: Charlotte's arena does have a naming rights sponsor, Time Warner Cable.

Lack of events booked at the Sprint Center in KC porbably has more to do with the season. It has been one of the better booked facilities in the US in it's first year of operation.

I will tell you, I toured it Saturday and that place is just begging for an NHL or NBA team. Very nice facility, primed and ready for a team. the entertainment district they built across the street will be hopping if that day ever comes. Hell, it's hopping all ready....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rams are NOT up for sale.

And while they're a candidate for a move, they're really not all that likely for one.

Rosenbloom won't move them. He'll only sell if someone makes too good of an offer or if the inheritance tax (I don't know how all of that works) on his mother's estate is just too much.

If he does sell, he's totally committed to finding local ownership. (Recently Blues owner Dave Checkett's said he'd be interested if Chip decides to sell--it's doubtful Checkett's has the capital, but maybe he could find a way. That's of course in addition to Rush Limbaugh's mention of interest and Stan Kroenke's likely unsuccessful efforts to get a pass on the NFL's multi-market cross-ownership rules.)

The stadium issue is certainly on the radar, but it's not an issue yet. The Rams haven't made any threats. The city hasn't said anything either way.

I'm just not sure you can put the Rams in there when this won't even be an issue for the next 3 years. And hopefully things are trending up on the field...and that means a likelyhood for things to trend up off of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Forbes story is full of inaccurate details.

Most notibly: Charlotte's arena does have a naming rights sponsor, Time Warner Cable.

Lack of events booked at the Sprint Center in KC porbably has more to do with the season. It has been one of the better booked facilities in the US in it's first year of operation.

I will tell you, I toured it Saturday and that place is just begging for an NHL or NBA team. Very nice facility, primed and ready for a team. the entertainment district they built across the street will be hopping if that day ever comes. Hell, it's hopping all ready....

Really?

In an e-mail dated June 24, Cordish described the Sprint Center as a ?disaster? because it had failed to land a major professional sports tenant. The company executive estimated the arena would be host to only two events in July and two in August.

?The words gross negligence and pitiful come to mind,? he wrote Funkhouser.

Power & Light (Entertainment) District Issues in KC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cordish is just pushing AEG to get a team which in turn will bring more revenue to their project.

The Sprint Center is one of the more booked arenas in the country. I've seen a link to a site that had the rankings and I cannot find it to back up what I say.

If Cordish is losing money, perhaps they dropped the ball on the development.

I think that it's a little bit of both. Cordish is justified in being upset about a "promised" team that has not come to fruition. But, the Sprint Center is not dormant or lifeless.

AEG is going to really take some heat if they don't land a team within the next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rams are NOT up for sale.

And while they're a candidate for a move, they're really not all that likely for one.

Rosenbloom won't move them. He'll only sell if someone makes too good of an offer or if the inheritance tax (I don't know how all of that works) on his mother's estate is just too much.

If he does sell, he's totally committed to finding local ownership. (Recently Blues owner Dave Checkett's said he'd be interested if Chip decides to sell--it's doubtful Checkett's has the capital, but maybe he could find a way. That's of course in addition to Rush Limbaugh's mention of interest and Stan Kroenke's likely unsuccessful efforts to get a pass on the NFL's multi-market cross-ownership rules.)

The stadium issue is certainly on the radar, but it's not an issue yet. The Rams haven't made any threats. The city hasn't said anything either way.

I'm just not sure you can put the Rams in there when this won't even be an issue for the next 3 years. And hopefully things are trending up on the field...and that means a likelyhood for things to trend up off of it.

Would the NFL owners approve a sale to a Limbaugh ownership group?

No NFL team is going to move unless they get a deal like Art Modell got to move his franchise to Baltimore and with the current economic situation its doubtful LA or Toronto will put up the money for new stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.