Tampa Giants?
Chuq Von Rospach
seriously look at either relocating or sale of the franchise. Lurie, Al
Rosen (and according to one report Corey Busch, who's VP in charge of failed
ballpark proposals for S.F. and rumored to be working with the Shorensteins
about a local group buyout) met today with Fay Vincent and Bill White to
discuss issues relating to relocation and sale.
Lurie's letter stated he had no interest in DeBartolo's proposed 72,000 seat
downtown multi-purpose stadium, even if it could be built, and that he has
no interest in getting involved in any new project that requires months of
planning and another ballot.
What the letter does is effectively kill any plan for a San Francisco
stadium, because it'd require a vote. That includes, last I looked, the
DeBartolo multi-use stadium, the Alioto 7th&Townsend plan, the Agnos airport
plan, and the Jordan "We'll put together a committee to study it" plan.
Nothing like a city rallying together around a common cause.
Lurie hasn't responded to the proposed Santa Clara stadium, which has passed
the ballot but has other problems (among other things, really shakey
financing). As they say, "operators are standing by".
With the Mariner's sale being approved, the final piece that was holding
non-local interests at bay is gone. There are now likely four or five
locations that are going to be courting the Giants with varying levels of
advatage and disadvantage. About all that's clear right now is that the
Giants are gone, sooner or later, unless Lurie gets bought out. Now, who
would buy the Giants and keep them in Candlestick? I don't know anyone quite
that stupid, and buying them in the hopes of a future proposal isn't much
smarter.
The current Giants reality looks to be:
o Tampa: with the M's settled down in Seattle again, the AL gives up the
potential to shift into Florida, since nobody else is moving soon. Tampa
St. Pete will kill for a franchise, and the Giants are on the market.
Watch for them to be agressive (and if it doesn't work, watch them go for
the Expos. But the Giants will be the first choice)
o DC: Senators 3: Your Worst Nightmare. A great place for an NL team,
too close for another AL team.
o Buffalo: Too small a market, which is too bad.
o Vancouver: dark horse, especially with Seattle staying.
o Phoenix: hey, maybe we can get a AAA team! That's what we seem to
deserve. But they'd need a domed stadium.
o Santa Clara: Who knows? Is it a real proposal? is the financial
situation ok? Is Lurie willing? Who knows?
o Sacramento: Ditto. Wouldn't be considered the Bay Area as far as
market is concerned, so I'd say it's got all of the disadvantages
of Buffalo without the minor league history of fan support.
(and for the ringer:)
o New York City: The San Fracisco Giants make a triumphant return to
new york (sort of), playing in a stadium in the Meadowlands financed
by Donald Trump and friends, who also pay massive blackmail to
Steinbrenner to get his permission to let another team into his
domain.
About the only thing that's clear right now is that the status quo has
changed from "If we don't get a stadium..." to "It was nice knowing you."
--
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= Member, SFWA
ch...@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ =+= Editor, OtherRealms
Official fan: San Jose Sharks, San Jose Giants.
Minor league: it's not just baseball, it's fun!
Fred Scott
>With the Mariner's sale being approved, the final piece that was holding
>non-local interests at bay is gone. There are now likely four or five
>locations that are going to be courting the Giants with varying levels of
>advatage and disadvantage. About all that's clear right now is that the
>Giants are gone, sooner or later, unless Lurie gets bought out. Now, who
>would buy the Giants and keep them in Candlestick? I don't know anyone quite
>that stupid, and buying them in the hopes of a future proposal isn't much
>smarter.
>
>The current Giants reality looks to be:
>
>o Tampa: with the M's settled down in Seattle again, the AL gives up the
> potential to shift into Florida, since nobody else is moving soon. Tampa
> St. Pete will kill for a franchise, and the Giants are on the market.
> Watch for them to be agressive (and if it doesn't work, watch them go for
> the Expos. But the Giants will be the first choice)
Just because the AL doesn't have a franchise ready to go there, doesn't mean
the AL owners would allow another NL team there. (And the AL does have to
approve an NL move by something like a 3/5 or a majority vote - I forget
which.) An NL team moving to that area would likely preclude the AL from
ever putting a team in Florida.
>o DC: Senators 3: Your Worst Nightmare. A great place for an NL team,
> too close for another AL team.
Too close to Baltimore, period - for a team in either league. (This has
been made clear by the commish.) Washington is extremely unlikely.
(BTW, I believe the name chosen for Washington's bid for an NL expansion
team was the "Nationals". I wonder if anybody would root for a team named
the "Senators" any more. You're right though, it does have it's *horror*
value. ;-)
>o Buffalo: Too small a market, which is too bad.
Also, already getting another franchise, or so the rumor goes. I read earlier
this year that the Expos are all but sold and moved there. Has anyone heard
otherwise?
>o Vancouver: dark horse, especially with Seattle staying.
See Washington above. The Vancouver/Seattle proximity is even worse in that
they probably comprise a much smaller market to share.
>o Phoenix: hey, maybe we can get a AAA team! That's what we seem to
> deserve. But they'd need a domed stadium.
A domed stadium? In Phoenix? Couldn't they just stick to evening games?
(Like the Rangers.)
It seems like the market would be big enough and too far any other
established franchise to be a problem. I've just never heard of Phoenix
having any real interest in a baseball team for some reason.
>o Santa Clara: Who knows? Is it a real proposal? is the financial
> situation ok? Is Lurie willing? Who knows?
Who knows? I guess we'll find out.
>o Sacramento: Ditto. Wouldn't be considered the Bay Area as far as
> market is concerned, so I'd say it's got all of the disadvantages
> of Buffalo without the minor league history of fan support.
Agreed. Maybe if some group of Sacremento interests *bought* the team
from Lurie, there'd be some possibility.
>(and for the ringer:)
>
>o New York City: The San Fracisco Giants make a triumphant return to
> new york (sort of), playing in a stadium in the Meadowlands financed
> by Donald Trump and friends, who also pay massive blackmail to
> Steinbrenner to get his permission to let another team into his
> domain.
Very funny.
Fred
David Vessell
>The current Giants reality looks to be:
>
>o Tampa: with the M's settled down in Seattle again, the AL gives up the
> potential to shift into Florida, since nobody else is moving soon. Tampa
> St. Pete will kill for a franchise, and the Giants are on the market.
> Watch for them to be agressive (and if it doesn't work, watch them go for
> the Expos. But the Giants will be the first choice)
....and I would gladly be a mercenary for them. I bear no ill tidings
towards San Francisco, nor did I wish bad luck on Seattle fans (I'm truly
happy that they get to keep their team....sorta), but if there's any chance
for Tampa Bay to get a team, I will do whatever I can to make that reality.
Even if that means becoming a (BLORTCH!) Expos fan. But I'd rather be a
Giants fan. That way I can remain a Cardinals fan at least some of the
time.
Tampa Bay deserves a pro team. They *should* have gotten the Marlins, but
what's done is done there. All they have now is the St. Petersberg (A)
Cardinals, and I doubt they can fill a dome.
Yours truly,
davE
Dedicated Buccaneers, Lightning, and (insert baseball team here) fan.
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(da...@bradley.edu)--
Chuq Von Rospach
>Just because the AL doesn't have a franchise ready to go there, doesn't mean
>the AL owners would allow another NL team there. (And the AL does have to
>approve an NL move by something like a 3/5 or a majority vote - I forget
>which.) An NL team moving to that area would likely preclude the AL from
>ever putting a team in Florida.
I don't buy that. I think the AL could get itself and the league in real
trouble trying to stop a move of a team ready to go just because they might
want it some day. Would they be willing to go to court to keep Lurie
out? Would they win if it got that far?
I understand the AL's position, but they have nobody close to moving and no
real wedge to keep the NL out of there if the NL calls their bluffs, and
Tampa/St. Pete is very interested (on the edge of desperate). I think when
push comes to shove the AL backs down.
>Too close to Baltimore, period - for a team in either league. (This has
>been made clear by the commish.) Washington is extremely unlikely.
Probably. The point was made today that culturally, Baltimore and DC are
different worlds, similar to, say, the LA Basin and San Diego. The Angels
are about as far away from the Padres as they are from the Dodgers, but you
didn't see those arguments down there. People call the LA area a two team
market, which is wrong. It's either a three team market or three one-team
markets, because they really don't mix significantly except in the mass
medias and cable. Fan bases don't mix.
>>o Buffalo
>Also, already getting another franchise, or so the rumor goes. I read earlier
>this year that the Expos are all but sold and moved there. Has anyone heard
>otherwise?
If two NL teams move, Buffalo gets the second. Buffalo would be a definite
step up from Montreal, which is, frankly, a real (but deserving) insult to
Montreal (specifically as a baseball city). I don't think the move is as
close as you think, but I wouldn't be against the Expos going somewhere.
>>o Vancouver: dark horse, especially with Seattle staying.
>See Washington above. The Vancouver/Seattle proximity is even worse in that
>they probably comprise a much smaller market to share.
Except they are two markets with very little overlap, and I don't think
Vancouver is as small as you think (the city itself is about 500,000 or so,
with a number of other towns in around it). I think it's close to the
population density you'd want even ignoring the U.S. side of the border.
>A domed stadium? In Phoenix? Couldn't they just stick to evening games?
>(Like the Rangers.)
That's what I keep hearing people talk about.
>Agreed. Maybe if some group of Sacremento interests *bought* the team
>from Lurie, there'd be some possibility.
I still think the ace in the hold is Busch buying the team using Shorenstein
money and moving to Sacramento. If THAT doesn't work, they're gone. I note,
by the way, that Busch was in the meetings with Rosen, Lurie, Vincent and
White today.
>>(and for the ringer:)
>>
>>o New York City
>Very funny.
don't laugh too much. Some folks are taking it very seriously, and if any
area can handle a third team, New York can. Trump wanted to do exactly this
a few years ago and build a stadium at the Meadowlands.
When you factor in the east coast mentality of the league, the long
traditions and rivalries it would echo and the east coast mentality of the
mass media (remember when "NBC Game of the Week" really meant "Yankees, or
Boston if they're out of town, or maybe if we have to the Mets, plus token
games from elsewhere."?), there'd be a lot of under-the-surface pressure for
it. Where are the league offices, anyway? Not Cooperstown.
And if you want real giggles, I've heard one person talk about moving the
Giants into Boston as a second team.
I don't think you'll see 'extra' teams moved into any city until Tampa and
Buffalo are resolved. D.C. is more problematic, though -- and if a NYC buyer
shows up with lots of money, all bets are off.
Brad Soe
I remember a few years back that the White Sox almost moved to Tampa.
What happened and how did they get a new stadium built?
Brad
Brad Soe
bra...@novell.com
Richard Casares
The governor did what no politician should do.
He pledged a truckload of state money to finance the
building of the stadium without the consent of his constituents.
In fact, the contract was so sleazy that if the White Sox
fail to sell a set amount of tickets in a season, the state
will make up the difference.
Politics at its worst.
--
+========================================================================+
| Rick Casares Silicon Graphics |
| cub...@wrigley.corp.sgi.com 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd |
| "Just wait till next year." Mountain View, CA 94039 |
+========================================================================+
Chuq Von Rospach
>Politics at its worst.
Either that, or a politician that realizes that sometimes you invest in a
civic resource that's good for the community, creates jobs and does
productive things for the people, region and economy even if it costs a
little money up front.
All depends on your point of view, I guess.
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>With the Mariner's sale being approved, the final piece that was holding
>non-local interests at bay is gone. There are now likely four or five
>locations that are going to be courting the Giants with varying levels of
>advatage and disadvantage. About all that's clear right now is that the
>Giants are gone, sooner or later, unless Lurie gets bought out. Now, who
>would buy the Giants and keep them in Candlestick? I don't know anyone quite
>that stupid, and buying them in the hopes of a future proposal isn't much
>smarter.
>The current Giants reality looks to be:
[Other possibilities]
>o Buffalo: Too small a market, which is too bad.
I actually don't think its so farfetched an idea. Bob Rich didn't go after
an expansion team because he felt the cost was too high for an expansion
product. But he's made it quite clear that he'd be willing to pay $120
million for an established franchise which would come to Buffalo. And since
the NL isn't judging what the best sites are in this case, I don't think that
the fact that Buffalo is such a small market will matter if Rich will put up
the cash.
>o New York City: The San Fracisco Giants make a triumphant return to
> new york (sort of), playing in a stadium in the Meadowlands financed
> by Donald Trump and friends, who also pay massive blackmail to
> Steinbrenner to get his permission to let another team into his
> domain.
They'd also have to pay the Mets. I'm not really convinced that the Mets
and Yanks would let another team into the area - whenever a minor league
franchise has sought to enter the area, both teams have said no go.
Greg
--
sp...@panix.com "The one-O delivery to Fisk. He swings. Long drive,
cmcl2!panix!spira left field! If it stays fair, it's gone! Home Run!"
158-17 Riverside Dr. Ned Martin, 10/22/75
Whitestone NY 11357 (Insert your favorite baseball moment here)
Uday Kurkure
>Either that, or a politician that realizes that sometimes you invest in a
>civic resource that's good for the community, creates jobs and does
>productive things for the people, region and economy even if it costs a
>little money up front.
>
If building a stadium creates jobs, does productive things for
the people, region and economy, why bother with ballot and politicians?
Just raise the private funds to build the stadium. If it is so wonderful,
there should be plenty of investors.
John Fereira
|In article <68...@apple.Apple.COM> ch...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
|>Either that, or a politician that realizes that sometimes you invest in a
|>civic resource that's good for the community, creates jobs and does
|>productive things for the people, region and economy even if it costs a
|>little money up front.
I politician may realize the benefits but the problem has been trying to
convince the tax paying public.
>
> If building a stadium creates jobs, does productive things for
> the people, region and economy, why bother with ballot and politicians?
> Just raise the private funds to build the stadium. If it is so wonderful,
> there should be plenty of investors.
You mean like the stadium in Toronto? The hotel and restaurants that are
part of the stadium contributed to the cost of the stadium. Art Agnos's
proposal suggested that that might be a better route. The best part about
private financing might be that the public wouldn't have to vote on whether
they want to dish out the equivalent of two large pizzas a year to pay for
the stadium.
--
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira "Is that all you ever think about?" |
| jo...@auspex.com |
+============================================================================++
Doug G. Huffer
>In article <1992Jun10....@novell.com>, bra...@novell.com (Brad
>Soe) writes:
>|>
>|> I remember a few years back that the White Sox almost moved to Tampa.
>|> What happened and how did they get a new stadium built?
>|>
>|> Brad
>|>
>|> Brad Soe
>|> bra...@novell.com
>
>The governor did what no politician should do.
>He pledged a truckload of state money to finance the
>building of the stadium without the consent of his constituents.
With the help of the state legislature. They approved the money
about an hour after the deadline. (Not sure who's though).
>
>In fact, the contract was so sleazy that if the White Sox
>fail to sell a set amount of tickets in a season, the state
>will make up the difference.
Here are the things thet bug me most about the deal:
1. They raised ticket prices in mid-season last year. Sure, they
were selling out games (although they still don't stand general
admission / SRO tickets), but the state just gave them the stadium.
The newness of the park is starting to wear down as attendance is
below last years level. In five years Veeck Park (he he) will be about
as barren as the Old Comiskey was before 1990. Just the way I like it
though, but I don't know if I'll be around to enjoy it.
2. There is nothing left of Old Comiskey. Sure they're selling bricks
and seats, and what not, but there is no marking at all to identify the
former location of Old Comiskey. A brick outline in the parking lot
would of been nice.
3. Just this year Reinsdorf didn't give the Chicago Public League
permission to play their High School Baseball Championship at
Comiskey. I can understand the desire to keep the field playable
by the White Sox, but really, the stadium was given to them by the
state. At least they could give a little back. (I know they have
ChiSox charities, but most of that money is from outside sources).
This is the same club that once had a circus in their stadium, the
Beatles, and Michael Jackson, who's fleet of semis destroyed the
turf in mid-season. Not the same owner though, too bad ;-(.
4. Letting the Sox name the park. State should have had the right
to name the park, afterall they paid for it. Veeck Park would have
been much better. Although the New Comiskey Mall does have a nice
ring too it ;-).
>
>Politics at its worst.
>
No, baseball ownership ats its worst.
Oops, I forgot Steinbrenner's back ;-).
>
>--
>+========================================================================+
>| Rick Casares Silicon Graphics |
*************************************************************************
* Doug G. Huffer * 1992 Worst Series: *
* e-mail: dg...@quads.uchicago.edu * Royals over Cubs in 6 *
* The University of Chicago - * *
* Not just good, good for you! * Not just bad, *really* bad *
*************************************************************************
Fred Scott
>
>>Just because the AL doesn't have a franchise ready to go there, doesn't mean
>>the AL owners would allow another NL team there. (And the AL does have to
>>approve an NL move by something like a 3/5 or a majority vote - I forget
>>which.) An NL team moving to that area would likely preclude the AL from
>>ever putting a team in Florida.
>
>I don't buy that. I think the AL could get itself and the league in real
>trouble trying to stop a move of a team ready to go just because they might
>want it some day. Would they be willing to go to court to keep Lurie
>out?
Why should they have to go to court? All they have to do is to vote 'no'.
>Would they win if it got that far?
Of course, why not? What argument could Lurie possibly have?
>I understand the AL's position, but they have nobody close to moving and no
>real wedge to keep the NL out of there if the NL calls their bluffs, and
>Tampa/St. Pete is very interested (on the edge of desperate). I think when
>push comes to shove the AL backs down.
I don't think the NL as league would really care. They've already got
a franchise in Florida (which is what the other owners care about), why do
they need another? I don't see this as a league vs. league thing, except
that NL owners don't care one way or another but AL owners do.
>>Too close to Baltimore, period - for a team in either league. (This has
>>been made clear by the commish.) Washington is extremely unlikely.
>
>Probably. The point was made today that culturally, Baltimore and DC are
>different worlds, similar to, say, the LA Basin and San Diego. The Angels
>are about as far away from the Padres as they are from the Dodgers, but you
>didn't see those arguments down there.
First of all, get it straight that noone's going to throw a team out of
market where they already exist. There are no "arguments down there"
because the Angels are already there. It's only teams moving *into* markets
that matter because of the league approval question.
Secondly, I suspect LA is a much larger market than Washington and Baltimore
combined. Thus, it can support two teams. Also, add the fact that both
leagues probably want a franchise in the nations largest markets: New York,
Chicago, and Los Angeles. I'll bet that's why it didn't take long for the
National League to create the New York Mets after the Giants and Dodgers
moved out west.
>People call the LA area a two team market, which is wrong. It's either a
>three team market or three one-team markets, because they really don't mix
>significantly except in the mass medias and cable.
Wrong - it's a two team market. Two is the correct number because two is the
number of leagues which want to be represented in that market. Three is too
many because a league doesn't need a second team in a market to pick up
support there.
>Fan bases don't mix.
I can't imaging what this statement means. As far as Baltimore and DC being
different markets, I can sympathize with that, but appartently the Orioles
owner doesn't care and he seems to have won the other owners over to his side.
>>>(and for the ringer:)
>>>
>>>o New York City
>
>>Very funny.
>
>don't laugh too much. Some folks are taking it very seriously, and if any
>area can handle a third team, New York can. Trump wanted to do exactly this
>a few years ago and build a stadium at the Meadowlands.
Hey, if the Orioles wouldn't want to see a team in Washington, how do expect
the Mets would respond to this? NO WAY!
>And if you want real giggles, I've heard one person talk about moving the
>Giants into Boston as a second team.
Likewise, no way. Look, with the advent of TV and smaller cities like
Sacremento and Tampa competing for teams, the days of two-team cities -
except for NY-Chi-LA are history. You won't see the likes of the St. Louis
Browns or the Boston Braves ever again. Sorry.
Fred
Chuq Von Rospach
>Why should they have to go to court? All they have to do is to vote 'no'.
Wrong party going to court. the owners of the Giants and Tampa/St. Pete sue
major league baseball for restraint of trade, predatory business and various
other things. They use Al Davis' lawyers. They lose.
Without a point by point argument of the rest, you just don't have a strong
handle on the politics.
Chuq Von Rospach
> If building a stadium creates jobs, does productive things for
> the people, region and economy, why bother with ballot and politicians?
> Just raise the private funds to build the stadium. If it is so wonderful,
> there should be plenty of investors.
Because it's not done. Why is it not done? That's not my problem.
Governments build stadiums for the civic good, and lease them to teams that
bring revenue -- lots of revenue -- to the local area. The ONE exception to
that rule, Joe Robbie Stadium, happened 20+ years ago.
One would think that, in a free market, if private funds were such a great
idea as the anti-stadium forces claim, they wouldn't have to stand on a
single, 20 year old instance to prove their claim, when the last 30 or 40
stadium and arenas were all done differently.
Many of the jobs created are indirect ones: in the restaurants, hotels,
second-tier business and surrounding environment. None of which a private
entity can get their hands on, but which a government can, through local
taxes on the increased revenue generated by the stadium. The San Jose
stadium was targeted at about 2,000 construction jobs, followed by about 600
jobs in the stadium, plus all of the indirect stuff. That's not exactly
chickenfeed, but not something private ownership can use to leverage paying
off the stadium.
David Vessell
>I don't think the NL as league would really care. They've already got
>a franchise in Florida which is what the other owners care about, why do
>they need another?
California already has *FIVE* teams....they can spare one. (This isn't a
serious argument but I think it illustrates how silly the above statement
is, what with Florida being the 4th most populous state and all.)
>Likewise, no way. Look, with the advent of TV and smaller cities like
>Sacremento and Tampa competing for teams, the days of two-team cities -
>except for NY-Chi-LA are history. You won't see the likes of the St. Louis
>Browns or the Boston Braves ever again. Sorry.
Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I looked up the top metropolitan areas as
listed in the Hammond Metro Atlas. Below are the top 11 metro areas that
do not have major league baseball, along with the closest metro area that
does have a team....
8. Washington DC 45 miles to Baltimore #18
20.Phoenix 350 miles to San Diego #12
21.Tampa Bay 282 miles to Miami #11
26.Sacramento 95 miles to San Francisco-Oakland #4
27.Portland OR 174 miles to Seattle-Tacoma #15
28.Norfolk-Portsmouth VA 242 miles to Baltimore
29.Columbus 111 miles to Cincinnati #23
30.San Antonio 199 miles to Houston #10
31.Indianapolis 110 miles to Cincinnati
32.New Orleans 352 miles to Houston
33.Buffalo-Niagara Falls 191 miles to Cleveland #14
The smallest metro area with a team currently is Kansas City (#25).
So just judging things from a size-to-distance perspective, Phoenix and
Tampa state the best cases. Sacramento seems too close to San Francisco,
and Buffalo just isn't big enough. And Washington seems to be an anomaly
of reality (not real surprising if you think about it =-).
Of course, numbers can say anything you want them to, so take these little
critters for what they're worth.
Greg Spira
Why on earth would you think that?
Investors only will invest where they are likely to make a good return on
their investment.
The stadium/club creates jobs and positively influences the economy and the
welfare of the region (or at least they're supposed to).
The benefit to the community goes to the community, not into the investors'
pockets. So the investors don't have any real impetus to invest.
Randy Peppler
>In article <1992Jun10.1...@odin.corp.sgi.com> ri...@wrigley.corp.sgi.com (Richard Casares) writes:
>>In article <1992Jun10....@novell.com>, bra...@novell.com (Brad
>>Soe) writes:
>>|>
>>|> I remember a few years back that the White Sox almost moved to Tampa.
>>|> What happened and how did they get a new stadium built?
>>
>>He pledged a truckload of state money to finance the
>>building of the stadium without the consent of his constituents.
C'mon Rick, if the Cubs had been in that predicament, you
would have granted sainthood to Big Jim by now... ;-)
>
>With the help of the state legislature. They approved the money
>about an hour after the deadline. (Not sure who's though).
No, more like a few minutes after the deadline (like 5 or
so). I think someone symbolically moved the clock back a
few minutes...
>>
>>In fact, the contract was so sleazy that if the White Sox
>>fail to sell a set amount of tickets in a season, the state
>>will make up the difference.
I think that has been taken care of by the fans. Almost
3 million last year, and this year the average is just
over 30,000/game... I'd say most (except the Cub supporters,
of course) would agree that keeping the Sox in Illinois has
greatly added to the coffers. All those fans in the seats,
visiting Chicago, buying the #1 selling souvenir logo in
pro sports...
>
>Here are the things thet bug me most about the deal:
>
>1. They raised ticket prices in mid-season last year. Sure, they
>were selling out games (although they still don't stand general
>admission / SRO tickets), but the state just gave them the stadium.
>The newness of the park is starting to wear down as attendance is
>below last years level. In five years Veeck Park (he he) will be about
>as barren as the Old Comiskey was before 1990. Just the way I like it
>though, but I don't know if I'll be around to enjoy it.
What? Mid-season? I don't think so. They *did raise* them
after the end of the season, on average $2 per seat. That
was a bit high, I thought. But, then again, the Indy 500
surprised all of us a few weeks ago by jacking their tickets
an incredible $10 a pop for next year, so nothing surprises
me anymore. Give it a rest - as I mentioned above, the Sox
are averaging over 30,000 a game for a team that has been
largely disappointing so far. If they ever get their shit
together this year, maybe we will see the 40,000 figures on
a consistent basis again. I believe all 3 of the recent Oakland
games drew in excess of 40,000. The stadium will not be empty
in 5 years. Quit hallucinating. The new ballpark is a much
greater attraction, win or lose, than the old place could have
ever aspired to...
>
>2. There is nothing left of Old Comiskey. Sure they're selling bricks
>and seats, and what not, but there is no marking at all to identify the
>former location of Old Comiskey. A brick outline in the parking lot
>would of been nice.
Good. More parking for us. I'd rather see that than a dying
structure...
>
>3. Just this year Reinsdorf didn't give the Chicago Public League
>permission to play their High School Baseball Championship at
>Comiskey. I can understand the desire to keep the field playable
>by the White Sox, but really, the stadium was given to them by the
>state. At least they could give a little back. (I know they have
>ChiSox charities, but most of that money is from outside sources).
>This is the same club that once had a circus in their stadium, the
>Beatles, and Michael Jackson, who's fleet of semis destroyed the
>turf in mid-season. Not the same owner though, too bad ;-(.
Everybody knows Reinsdorf is a jerk. Every Bulls fan should
agree...
>
>4. Letting the Sox name the park. State should have had the right
>to name the park, afterall they paid for it. Veeck Park would have
>been much better. Although the New Comiskey Mall does have a nice
>ring too it ;-).
I finally agree with you. Comiskey was a miser, and largely
responsible for the Black Sox scandal due to his tightness.
Veeck saved the Sox for us. He should have been honored...
>
>>
>>Politics at its worst.
No, at its best. You should see how poorly Illinois is doing
with Jim Edgar at the helm...
--
-------------------------------
| Randy Peppler |
| Illinois State Water Survey |
| pep...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu |
David Vessell
>fre...@sgi.com Fred Scott writes:
>
>>I don't think the NL as league would really care. They've already got
>>a franchise in Florida which is what the other owners care about, why do
>>they need another?
>
>California already has *FIVE* teams....they can spare one. (This isn't a
>serious argument but I think it illustrates how silly the above statement
>is, what with Florida being the 4th most populous state and all.)
Whoa! Before you flame me....I misread your post. But it doesn't matter
that much: California has 3 NL teams.
Richard Casares
writes:
|> ud...@adobe.com (Uday Kurkure) writes:
|>
|> > If building a stadium creates jobs, does productive things for
|> > the people, region and economy, why bother with ballot and
|> politicians?
|> > Just raise the private funds to build the stadium. If it is so
|> wonderful,
|> > there should be plenty of investors.
|>
|>
|> second-tier business and surrounding environment. None of which a
|> private
|> entity can get their hands on, but which a government can, through
|> local
|> taxes on the increased revenue generated by the stadium. The San Jose
|> stadium was targeted at about 2,000 construction jobs, followed by about
|> 600
|> jobs in the stadium, plus all of the indirect stuff. That's not exactly
|> chickenfeed, but not something private ownership can use to leverage
|> paying
|> off the stadium.
Yeah, like all that development that happened along the freeway
near Comiskey Park.
The major reasons politicians were pushing that SJ park was
to put San Jose on the map. If all the nonsense about "bringing
business to the community" were true, capitalists would have jumped on
the bandwagon with funding.
Face it, SJ will forever be the stepsister of San Francisco
because they're mired in small-town mentality.
Uday Kurkure
>Many of the jobs created are indirect ones: in the restaurants, hotels,
>second-tier business and surrounding environment. None of which a private
>entity can get their hands on, but which a government can, through local
>taxes on the increased revenue generated by the stadium. The San Jose
>stadium was targeted at about 2,000 construction jobs, followed by about 600
>jobs in the stadium, plus all of the indirect stuff. That's not exactly
>chickenfeed, but not something private ownership can use to leverage paying
>off the stadium.
To spend millions of upfront dollars to directly generate 600 long
term and 2000 short term jobs does not seem financial advisable. That
may be one of the reasons why private investors do not rush in.
Any estimate for indirect business?
Fred Scott
>
>>Why should they have to go to court? All they have to do is to vote 'no'.
>
>Wrong party going to court. the owners of the Giants and Tampa/St. Pete sue
>major league baseball for restraint of trade, predatory business and various
>other things. They use Al Davis' lawyers. They lose.
Wrong - they win. Were you aware of baseball's anti-trust exemption?
>Without a point by point argument of the rest, you just don't have a strong
>handle on the politics.
I think my opinions contained a lot more common sense than yours. Since
you're not going to bother to post yours, we'll have to leave it at that.
Fred
Doug G. Huffer
>
>The smallest metro area with a team currently is Kansas City (#25).
One thing to remember about KC is their overall market. Look at the
nearest major league teams: St Louis, Minnesota, Texas, and California(!)
(soon to be Denver). They basically draw from about 1/3 of the US
(size wiase not population wise). They also have one of, if not THE,
largest radio network.
This is one of the excuses they use to keep the turf, in that with
the great distances poeple are going to travel to see them play,
they don't want games to be rained out. Of course modern grass
fields can drain about as fast as turf can nowdays anyway.
I'd personally like to see Montreal move to Buffalo, then we could
have Seattle move to Florida, and the Giants move to Seattle ;-).
AL team in Florida, Seattle's got a team, everybody's happy!
>
>--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(da...@bradley.edu)--
*************************************************************************
Doug G. Huffer
>In article <1992Jun11.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> dg...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Jun10.1...@odin.corp.sgi.com> ri...@wrigley.corp.sgi.com (Richard Casares) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jun10....@novell.com>, bra...@novell.com (Brad
>>>Soe) writes:
>>>|>
>>>|> I remember a few years back that the White Sox almost moved to Tampa.
>>>|> What happened and how did they get a new stadium built?
>>>
>>>The governor did what no politician should do.
>>>He pledged a truckload of state money to finance the
>>>building of the stadium without the consent of his constituents.
>
> C'mon Rick, if the Cubs had been in that predicament, you
> would have granted sainthood to Big Jim by now... ;-)
>
>>
>>With the help of the state legislature. They approved the money
>>about an hour after the deadline. (Not sure who's though).
>
> No, more like a few minutes after the deadline (like 5 or
> so). I think someone symbolically moved the clock back a
> few minutes...
>
Are you familiar with Chicago politics?? They symbolically
vote for dead people too. ;-)
>>>
>>>In fact, the contract was so sleazy that if the White Sox
>>>fail to sell a set amount of tickets in a season, the state
>>>will make up the difference.
>
> I think that has been taken care of by the fans. Almost
> 3 million last year, and this year the average is just
> over 30,000/game... I'd say most (except the Cub supporters,
> of course) would agree that keeping the Sox in Illinois has
> greatly added to the coffers. All those fans in the seats,
> visiting Chicago, buying the #1 selling souvenir logo in
> pro sports...
>
Why are you bringing the Bulls into this discussion anyways?
Yea, just think, without the Sox, McCormick place, the 3rd
airport, and all these other great things Chicago, would
be losing all their jobs to the suburbs, and be in all kinds
of mess. Ooops, too late.
Must admit their new logo is MUCH better then that cr*p they
had before. The script C, and before that the block letters.
>>
>>Here are the things thet bug me most about the deal:
>>
>>1. They raised ticket prices in mid-season last year. Sure, they
>>were selling out games (although they still don't stand general
>>admission / SRO tickets), but the state just gave them the stadium.
>>The newness of the park is starting to wear down as attendance is
>>below last years level. In five years Veeck Park (he he) will be about
>>as barren as the Old Comiskey was before 1990. Just the way I like it
>>though, but I don't know if I'll be around to enjoy it.
>
> What? Mid-season? I don't think so. They *did raise* them
> after the end of the season, on average $2 per seat. That
> was a bit high, I thought. But, then again, the Indy 500
> surprised all of us a few weeks ago by jacking their tickets
> an incredible $10 a pop for next year, so nothing surprises
> me anymore. Give it a rest - as I mentioned above, the Sox
> are averaging over 30,000 a game for a team that has been
> largely disappointing so far. If they ever get their shit
Disappointing? You don't get to win the division by 20 games every time.
Obviously the ticket prices are effecting attendance some, either that
or the park is begininng to get old. I know I go alot less. I went
to about 25 games a year at Comiskey the last two year, this year
maybe 10 -15. Only two so far, openening day and one KC game.
> together this year, maybe we will see the 40,000 figures on
> a consistent basis again. I believe all 3 of the recent Oakland
> games drew in excess of 40,000. The stadium will not be empty
> in 5 years. Quit hallucinating. The new ballpark is a much
> greater attraction, win or lose, than the old place could have
> ever aspired to...
>
Exactly my point, they seem to need a winning team to draw in fans.
Hey, Frank Thomas won't be around forever. Look at franchises like
Kansas City who continue to draw decent crowds without the top team
in the division (but we're waiting patiently ;-)). Basically
Comiskey has taken all of the yuppies from Wrigley and moved them to
the South Side. Fine, take 'em. They're yours. But if a third place
team causes this much disgruntlement, wait till they start finishing
in last again. Sure the new stadiums more comfortable for fans and
players both, but once the newness wears off the attendance there
won't be that much greater then it would have been with the Old Park.
>>
>>2. There is nothing left of Old Comiskey. Sure they're selling bricks
>>and seats, and what not, but there is no marking at all to identify the
>>former location of Old Comiskey. A brick outline in the parking lot
>>would of been nice.
>
> Good. More parking for us. I'd rather see that than a dying
> structure...
>
Fine, go to Brewers games (if only Chicago had tail gating like that
I wouldn't be complaining), or KC, or Houston. Heck, if you like
parking lots, the White Sox' parking situation is h*ll.
Oh, and they got rid of that drivel of a bar too. What was it,
McCudy's. No more drunken sloven ball players like Babe Ruth hangin
out after the ball games now! (:-))
>
> Everybody knows Reinsdorf is a jerk. Every Bulls fan should
> agree...
>
Hey! We agree! What about Krause, you hate him too, don't you!
(No reply necessary, I know the answer ;-))
>>
>>4. Letting the Sox name the park. State should have had the right
>>to name the park, afterall they paid for it. Veeck Park would have
>>been much better. Although the New Comiskey Mall does have a nice
>>ring too it ;-).
>
> I finally agree with you. Comiskey was a miser, and largely
> responsible for the Black Sox scandal due to his tightness.
> Veeck saved the Sox for us. He should have been honored...
>
Bill Veeck is my all-time hero. Got to get his books sometime.
>-------------------------------
>| Randy Peppler |
David Vessell
>da...@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>>
>>The smallest metro area with a team currently is Kansas City (#25).
>
>One thing to remember about KC is their overall market. Look at the
>nearest major league teams: St Louis, Minnesota, Texas, and California(!)
>(soon to be Denver). They basically draw from about 1/3 of the US
>(size wiase not population wise). They also have one of, if not THE,
>largest radio network.
An interesting point. St. Louis is in a similar situation. Most of the
Royals' fan base seems to be in the Great Plains, while the Cardinals is
easily the most popular team in the deep South. But I'd be willing to
argue that the Cards have a larger radio network.....
>I'd personally like to see Montreal move to Buffalo, then we could
>have Seattle move to Florida, and the Giants move to Seattle ;-).
>AL team in Florida, Seattle's got a team, everybody's happy!
Good....I'd hate to have to be an Expos fan.... =-)
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
Brad Soe
The papers here in the Bay Area are talking about Bob Lurie's meeting
with Fay Vincent. Lurie has been given permission entertain offers from
buyers and about moving the team elsewhere. The reasons that he gave
were a bad ballpark, loosing money and no new stadium. Meanwhile
there is small talk in SF and in the Santa Clara Valley about building
a stadium with private $$, but it looks a little too late and I don't
think Lurie wants to wait around to find out. After all he has been
waiting for 15 years!
Brad
Brad Soe
bra...@novell.com
Michael Hernandez
the process of forming private investment groups to do just what
you suggest. I do not know if they will come together fast enough
for BOB "Its my ball club and if I do not like the rules, I'm
going home" LURIE's liking, but if these groups are allowed to
form and make offerrings, maybe the Bay Area will get a privately
owned and privately financed major league franchise...By the way,
my check is waiting, I know a good deal when I see one!
michael
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|mich...@netcom.com At the still point.... |
|SYSTEM V - MicroUNIX There is the dance.... |
|(408) 241-0595 Voice ... And there is only the dance! |
|(408) 241-0371 Fax T.S. Elliot |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug G. Huffer
>dg...@quads.uchicago.edu (Doug G. Huffer) writes:
>
>>da...@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>>>
>>>The smallest metro area with a team currently is Kansas City (#25).
>>
>>One thing to remember about KC is their overall market. Look at the
>>nearest major league teams: St Louis, Minnesota, Texas, and California(!)
>>(soon to be Denver). They basically draw from about 1/3 of the US
>>(size wiase not population wise). They also have one of, if not THE,
>>largest radio network.
>
>An interesting point. St. Louis is in a similar situation. Most of the
>Royals' fan base seems to be in the Great Plains, while the Cardinals is
>easily the most popular team in the deep South. But I'd be willing to
>argue that the Cards have a larger radio network.....
Maybe, but KC still has to have one of the top two or three. I know
whenever I drive across Missouri during the summer I'll pick up the
Cardinals' game on almost every AM station there is until I get about half
way across the state. After that the Royals are on almost every AM
station. I may not get to hear all of any one game, but it beats having
to listen to country music for 6 hours ;-).
Do people out in Colorado pick up the Royals on the radio? I know they
cover Kansas, half of Missouri, Nebraska. Don't really know where else
they're strong though.
>=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
>--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(da...@bradley.edu)--
*************************************************************************
David Vessell
>da...@bradley.bradley.edu (Hey! That's me!) writes:
>>
>>An interesting point. St. Louis is in a similar situation. Most of the
>>Royals' fan base seems to be in the Great Plains, while the Cardinals is
>>easily the most popular team in the deep South. But I'd be willing to
>>argue that the Cards have a larger radio network.....
>
>Maybe, but KC still has to have one of the top two or three. I know
>whenever I drive across Missouri during the summer I'll pick up the
>Cardinals' game on almost every AM station there is until I get about half
>way across the state. After that the Royals are on almost every AM
>station. I may not get to hear all of any one game, but it beats having
>to listen to country music for 6 hours ;-).
Heh! Yeah, I found that phenomenon myself a few summers ago when I drove
to Cheyenne, although there is on Top 40 station in North Platte, Nebraska.
I've no ill will towards the Royals (just Don Denkinger =-), I'm just not
that crazy about AL baseball on the whole. Is it common for areas with
just one team to not really acknowledge the existence of the other league
until the World Series? I know that Cubs and White Sox fans don't get
along, but I never could figure out why. It's not like there's any big
rivalry going on, except to see who loses the most games....
>Do people out in Colorado pick up the Royals on the radio? I know they
>cover Kansas, half of Missouri, Nebraska. Don't really know where else
>they're strong though.
It's kinda interesting around here, because Peoria more or less sits in the
no-man's land between the Cardinals and the Cubs. I've heard Cards games
in Southern Illinois, Arkansas (AA Travelers), Kentucky (AAA Redbirds in
Louisville), Tennessee, Mississippi, and Florida (not really sure why;
either because of the St. Pete A league team [doubtful] or just because
all the Cards fans go to Florida when they retire). Where are the Royals'
farm teams? If they're all in that general Great Plains area, that might
have something to do with it.
As long as the subject has come up, what normally happens to minor league
teams when major league baseball comes to town? What's going to happen to
the Denver Zephyrs? Or the St. Pete Cardinals, if Tampa Bay ever lands a
team? And how long do you think it'll take for the Rockies and Marlins to
get farm systems up and running?
Far too many subjects for one article. I'll shut up now.
--
David G. Paschich
da...@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
As long as the subject has come up, what normally happens to minor league
teams when major league baseball comes to town? What's going to happen to
the Denver Zephyrs? Or the St. Pete Cardinals, if Tampa Bay ever lands a
team? And how long do you think it'll take for the Rockies and Marlins to
get farm systems up and running?
Well, the Zephyrs are currently negotiating to move to New Orleans.
And the Rockies have two farm teams this season, both in A
short-season leagues: the Bend, Oregon Rockies, and the Colorado
Rockies playing in Mesa, AZ.
David Paschich
Ken Bowers
> Is it common for areas with
>just one team to not really acknowledge the existence of the other league
>until the World Series? I know that Cubs and White Sox fans don't get
>along, but I never could figure out why. It's not like there's any big
>rivalry going on, except to see who loses the most games....
>
>
To listen to the Giants and A's radio broadcasters, you wouldn't know
there was another team within 400 miles of their boys. They run down
scores of the other league, and that's pretty much it. The Giants
announcers, especially, seem averse to mentioning the local competition.
(That's competition for your baseball dollar). I don't listen to A's
broadcasts nearly as much, but my sample shows them to be pretty
quiet about the Candlestick boys. Of course, CBS doesn't tell you
about upcoming shows on NBC, either.
Ken B.
Matt Telles
>
>>da...@bradley.bradley.edu (Hey! That's me!) writes:
>>>
>>Do people out in Colorado pick up the Royals on the radio? I know they
>>cover Kansas, half of Missouri, Nebraska. Don't really know where else
>>they're strong though.
Don't know about radio, but we get the occassional game on TV. Channel 2
(KWGN - independent) carries them from time to time. Haven't watched one in
a while though..
>As long as the subject has come up, what normally happens to minor league
>teams when major league baseball comes to town? What's going to happen to
>the Denver Zephyrs? Or the St. Pete Cardinals, if Tampa Bay ever lands a
The Zephs are leaving. Where seems to be a good question. The "gentleman" that owns
them wants a *lot* of money to move. New Orleans was mentioned, as was
Salt Lake City. We shall see...
>team? And how long do you think it'll take for the Rockies and Marlins to
>get farm systems up and running?
Too long, I'm sure :)
>
Matt
--
==============================================================================
Matt Telles mat...@auto-trol.COM
{...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!mattel
Auto-trol Technology 12500 N Washington Denver, CO 80241-2404 (303)252-2874
Bill Coleman
>
>Either that, or a politician that realizes that sometimes you invest in a
>civic resource that's good for the community, creates jobs and does
>productive things for the people, region and economy even if it costs a
>little money up front.
>
I'd like to see some elaboration on this. There is NO related development
in the neighborhood of Comiskey Park. Nothing but parking lots. Where are
the jobs and what are the productive things? Remember, entertainment dollars
are finite so a ballclub draws spending away from competing activities!
--
Bill Coleman
cl...@midway.uchicago.edu
Bill Coleman
>
>Investors, per se, are attracted by profitable *business* opportunities. This
>does not correlate exactly with what's good for the community.
>
>Although it's true that anything which attracts jobs is usually good for the
>community (other factors, such as pollution, overcrowding, etc. not
>withstanding). The reverse is not necessarily true. For instance, parks
>seem to me to be "good for the community", but they do not make a profitable
>investment opportunity.
>
>The question isn't whether a stadium (particularly one which would attract
>a major league team) was good for the community or not - it certainly would
>have been. The question was simply one of whether the benefit was worth the
>price tag to the taxpayers.
>
Look, folks, in a well-behaved market there's an easy way to tell whether an
investment project is socially desirable, and that is to compute its net
present value. If NPV>0 the project is desirable. Now this assumes that no
externalities are present, and some are in stadium projects. But the same
externalities are present in many commercial building proposals.
It just amazes me that people believe that a baseball club playing 81 dates
per year generates economic activity to justify hundreds of millions of
dollars in public investment. (Much less football teams playing 8 dates.)
--
Bill Coleman
cl...@midway.uchicago.edu
Bill Coleman
>
>1. They raised ticket prices in mid-season last year. Sure, they
>were selling out games (although they still don't stand general
>admission / SRO tickets), but the state just gave them the stadium.
>The newness of the park is starting to wear down as attendance is
>below last years level. In five years Veeck Park (he he) will be about
>as barren as the Old Comiskey was before 1990. Just the way I like it
>though, but I don't know if I'll be around to enjoy it.
>
The increases didn't take effect until this season.
>2. There is nothing left of Old Comiskey. Sure they're selling bricks
>and seats, and what not, but there is no marking at all to identify the
>former location of Old Comiskey. A brick outline in the parking lot
>would of been nice.
>
Look again. There's a plaque at the site of home plate, and both foul lines
are painted across the parking lot.
--
Bill Coleman
cl...@midway.uchicago.edu
Bill Coleman
>bring revenue -- lots of revenue -- to the local area. The ONE exception to
>that rule, Joe Robbie Stadium, happened 20+ years ago.
>
Where in the heck did you come up with this statement? Joe Robbie Stadium
was built in 1988. Furthermore, it is NOT the only privately owned ballpark
of the modern era. The other is Dodger Stadium.
>
>Many of the jobs created are indirect ones: in the restaurants, hotels,
>second-tier business and surrounding environment. None of which a private
>entity can get their hands on, but which a government can, through local
>taxes on the increased revenue generated by the stadium. The San Jose
>stadium was targeted at about 2,000 construction jobs, followed by about 600
>jobs in the stadium, plus all of the indirect stuff. That's not exactly
>chickenfeed, but not something private ownership can use to leverage paying
>off the stadium.
>
Think about this. These projects are good for the construction industry, no
question about that. But your 600 stadium jobs are mostly vendors working
81 dates per year. And as for the increased employment in other industries,
it's minimal.
How does the average taxpayer benefit economically from a ballpark?
--
Bill Coleman
cl...@midway.uchicago.edu
Bill Coleman
> 3 million last year, and this year the average is just
> over 30,000/game... I'd say most (except the Cub supporters,
> of course) would agree that keeping the Sox in Illinois has
> greatly added to the coffers. All those fans in the seats,
> visiting Chicago, buying the #1 selling souvenir logo in
> pro sports...
Oh, Randy, I can't believe you are jumping on this stupid bandwagon! How many
of those 30,000 fans in the seats each night do you think are tourists? I've
never sat next to one!
> me anymore. Give it a rest - as I mentioned above, the Sox
> are averaging over 30,000 a game for a team that has been
> largely disappointing so far. If they ever get their shit
> together this year, maybe we will see the 40,000 figures on
> a consistent basis again. I believe all 3 of the recent Oakland
> games drew in excess of 40,000. The stadium will not be empty
> in 5 years. Quit hallucinating. The new ballpark is a much
> greater attraction, win or lose, than the old place could have
> ever aspired to...
Do you trust Reinsdorf to field a team worth watching in five years? And,
speaking as someone who DOES like the new park, I fail to see how it's more
of an attraction than the old park.
>
> Good. More parking for us. I'd rather see that than a dying
> structure...
>
Look again friend!
>
> No, at its best. You should see how poorly Illinois is doing
> with Jim Edgar at the helm...
>
Holy mackeral, Randy, how can you say this? Beyond being a vast improve-
ment on The Whale, consider the alternative. You really think Neil Hartigan
would have been anything other than a machine hack?
--
Bill Coleman
cl...@midway.uchicago.edu
Bill Coleman
>
>Listening to the scuttlebutt around Tampa Bay, there is a groudswell
>here to agressively go after the Giants (it's even being suggested
>that the New Florida Suncoast Dome be offered to Bob Lurie for $1.00
>a year) as the fear grows that the Dome could find itself without a
>major tenant. A lot of people here were banking on the Mariners and,
>admittedly, there seems to be some scrambling going on.
I can't resist saying that:
1. I think the politicians who built this thing should have to eat it.
2. Domes are for tractor pulls.
Sorry.
--
Bill Coleman
cl...@midway.uchicago.edu
Sullivan
cl...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman) writes:
>
>How does the average taxpayer benefit economically from a ballpark?
How does the average taxpayer benefit from:
Welfare, Nuclear Warheads, farm subsidies, Education spending, cost
of government/beaurocracy, highways/ public transport subsidy.
This doesn't include fine arts centers, museums, libraries.
It comes down to quality of life. You pay to have a choice for
yourself, your neighbors, your children.
Your implication is that pro sports shouldn't exist because public
funds were used to provide stadiums, etc. That is your taste. I
challenge you to name an activity you are interested in that does
not involve public funds/subsidy in some way.
Mike
Sullivan
>It just amazes me that people believe that a baseball club playing 81 dates
>per year generates economic activity to justify hundreds of millions of
>dollars in public investment. (Much less football teams playing 8 dates.)
What amazes you? Pro sports are highly profitable for everybody but
the rabid fan (who pays for it) and the advertisers/sponsors (who
pay considerably more). We all certainly get a lot more out of our
sports dollar than our tax dollar.
Local businesses reap great benefits in increased foot/car traffic.
Cities get money depending on the stadium arrangement with the team,
Concessions make dough, owners break even on the yearly bottom line
but the franchise value increases. Athletes make a buck, jobs are
generated locally in construction/maintenance. Millions of dollars
that the networks, fans, etc, pay for sports entertainment gets
pushed into local cash economy.
Are you merely amazed that public money can be spent somewhere that
doesn't go down the drain?
BTW, name a sports stadium that doesn't get rented out for a highly
profitable rock concert. Who DOESN'T profit from that?
Mike
Fred Scott
>In article <1992Jun10.2...@pei.com> fre...@sgi.com (Fred Scott) writes:
>>The question isn't whether a stadium (particularly one which would attract
>>a major league team) was good for the community or not - it certainly would
>>have been. The question was simply one of whether the benefit was worth the
>>price tag to the taxpayers.
>>
>
>Look, folks, in a well-behaved market there's an easy way to tell whether an
>investment project is socially desirable, and that is to compute its net
>present value. If NPV>0 the project is desirable. Now this assumes that no
>externalities are present, and some are in stadium projects. But the same
>externalities are present in many commercial building proposals.
Would you care to elaborate on this, some? I'd like to flame it for what
I consider to be some very good reasons, but I can't until I understand it.
What do you mean by "NPV>0". Please define "externalities" and explain how
they affect your model.
>It just amazes me that people believe that a baseball club playing 81 dates
>per year generates economic activity to justify hundreds of millions of
>dollars in public investment. (Much less football teams playing 8 dates.)
The trouble, as I see it, is that there are a *huge* number of intangibles
which are extremely difficult to ever put a price tag on. (Although you have
to try.) What is the fame of having a major league sports team based in your
city actually worth? How can you tell that it's not worth "X" dollars?
Fred
Doug G. Huffer
>>
>>Here are the things thet bug me most about the deal:
>>
>>1. They raised ticket prices in mid-season last year. Sure, they
>>were selling out games (although they still don't stand general
>>admission / SRO tickets), but the state just gave them the stadium.
>>The newness of the park is starting to wear down as attendance is
>>below last years level. In five years Veeck Park (he he) will be about
>>as barren as the Old Comiskey was before 1990. Just the way I like it
>>though, but I don't know if I'll be around to enjoy it.
>>
>
>The increases didn't take effect until this season.
>
Sorry, I bought the 20 game plan before the season ever started and
had received my information at our SABR regional meeting. Still, my
two qualms with this are as follows:
1. They raised ticket prices because of the demand. I accept this. But
they should have known that the demand would not have been as great in
the second year of the stadium just because some of the newness would
start to wear off.
2. They don't sell standing room / general admission tickets. This
would number about 2,000 or so, increasing supply. It was almost
impossible to get day of game tickets last year (haven't been much this
year), and releasing general admission tickets on the day of the game
would help alleviate the day of game rush for tickets, and cut down
on the scalpers (which is what indicates a greater demand for tickets).
>>2. There is nothing left of Old Comiskey. Sure they're selling bricks
>>and seats, and what not, but there is no marking at all to identify the
>>former location of Old Comiskey. A brick outline in the parking lot
>>would of been nice.
>>
>
>Look again. There's a plaque at the site of home plate, and both foul lines
>are painted across the parking lot.
Sorry again. But I haven't been to very many games this year, and when
I went I didn't have a chance to wonder around the parking lot looking
for remnants of the old stadium. I was basing this on the discussions
centered around this issue from last year, and the lack of any readily
available identification the several times I've been by there this year.
I still hold that they could have done a couple of things that would have
been relatively inexpensive. 1. Instead of painting the lines, how
about using bricks from the original stadium. Hey, I know that's
wasting $10 bills (They're selling bricks from the old stadium for $10 ea)
but it'd be nicer then some paint (although I haven't seen the painted lines
yet). 2. They could have kept a portion of the old stadium, like the center
field bleachers, and maybe even the old scoreboard. It would have taken
up minimul space, and would be a well visibile reminder of the old
park. The center field bleacher area was just about my favorite part of
Old Comiskey.
In general I just don't like the White Sox' transition to the new
stadium. Sure it's nice and all, but it just doesn't have that old
time feel. It's more like a mall (with the neon lights and tv screen)
then a ball park.
>--
>Bill Coleman
>cl...@midway.uchicago.edu
David Vessell
>l...@pdn.paradyne.com (Leo James) writes:
>>
>>Listening to the scuttlebutt around Tampa Bay, there is a groudswell
>>here to agressively go after the Giants (it's even being suggested
>>that the New Florida Suncoast Dome be offered to Bob Lurie for $1.00
>>a year) as the fear grows that the Dome could find itself without a
>>major tenant. A lot of people here were banking on the Mariners and,
>>admittedly, there seems to be some scrambling going on.
>
>I can't resist saying that:
>1. I think the politicians who built this thing should have to eat it.
>2. Domes are for tractor pulls.
>Sorry.
Spoken like a true White Sox fan....
--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
Bill Coleman
>
>Would you care to elaborate on this, some? I'd like to flame it for what
>I consider to be some very good reasons, but I can't until I understand it.
>
>What do you mean by "NPV>0". Please define "externalities" and explain how
>they affect your model.
By NPV>0, I meant "net present value greater than zero". In a nutshell, it
means the benefits of the project exceed its costs, over the lifetime of
the project and properly discounted for the time value of money. Externalities
refer to benefits (or costs) of the project which are not received by (or
imposed upon) the owner of the project. A negative externality would be smoke
emitted by a factory which pollutes the neighborhood. A positive externality
is generally felt to be exhibited by schools in that society benefits from
the education that the students receive, not merely the students themselves.
Ballpark projects are always justified in terms of the positive externalities
they are alleged to generate. Since these benefits accrue to society, not
the team, tax dollars are justified.
My claim is that these benefits are vastly exaggerated.
>The trouble, as I see it, is that there are a *huge* number of intangibles
>which are extremely difficult to ever put a price tag on. (Although you have
>to try.) What is the fame of having a major league sports team based in your
>city actually worth? How can you tell that it's not worth "X" dollars?
One certainly can try to quantify the intangibles. And, look, I'm a rabid
baseball fan, I'm thrilled to live in a city with TWO teams, and I know
what it's like to live without major league ball. The ballclubs, however,
did and still could exist without public subsidy. There's nothing intrinsic
to the baseball business which prevents them from operating as any other
entertainment business. The ONLY reason they get subsidies is by virtue of
their monopoly power which they exercise by threatening to move their fran-
chise. If society could prevent localities from bidding against each other
for teams, there would be no need to pass tax money to the owners.
--
Bill Coleman
cl...@midway.uchicago.edu
Fred Scott
>Ballpark projects are always justified in terms of the positive externalities
>they are alleged to generate. Since these benefits accrue to society, not
>the team, tax dollars are justified.
>
>My claim is that these benefits are vastly exaggerated.
A reasonable point of view, although I feel it's certainly a very subjective
assessment.
>>The trouble, as I see it, is that there are a *huge* number of intangibles
>>which are extremely difficult to ever put a price tag on. (Although you have
>>to try.) What is the fame of having a major league sports team based in your
>>city actually worth? How can you tell that it's not worth "X" dollars?
>
>One certainly can try to quantify the intangibles. And, look, I'm a rabid
>baseball fan, I'm thrilled to live in a city with TWO teams, and I know
>what it's like to live without major league ball. The ballclubs, however,
>did and still could exist without public subsidy. There's nothing intrinsic
>to the baseball business which prevents them from operating as any other
>entertainment business. The ONLY reason they get subsidies is by virtue of
>their monopoly power which they exercise by threatening to move their fran-
>chise. If society could prevent localities from bidding against each other
>for teams, there would be no need to pass tax money to the owners.
When it comes right down to it, the only segment of the population who can
usually feel certain that public subsidies to professional baseball (of any
sort) benefit them is the baseball fan. I fall into that category, as well,
but I'm not the least be ashamed of directing public money to such "non-
universal" goals. Personally, I feel that a lot of goverment money is spent
which benefits only a small part of society. For instance, public broad-
casting, opera houses, parks. Welfare is of direct value only to the poor.
Money spent on public education benefits mainly those who have children
and so forth. When it comes down to it, there isn't that much public money
that can be shown to be of "universal" benefit to everyone or nearly everyone.
So spending money subsidizing professional baseball is more than a question
of whether baseball can afford to exist without public money. You are
correct, it can. But this problem is not solved by campaigning against every
baseball subsidy which can be voted on by the general public. That only bene-
fits cities which have no referendum laws. (Chicago?) The only way to
address that problem is through a national prohibition against direct and
indirect public subsidies to professional sports teams. (Of course, you might
have to address the problems of Canadian cities starting to look good to
owners, unless Canada passed their own law).
In the meantime, whenever a public subsidy of baseball - or anything else
for that matter, be it bonds for public works or an education tax or whatever -
comes to public ballot, those of us who would benefit directly (the baseball
fans in this case), must muster our arguments (after deciding in our own mind,
of course, that we're not asking too much) to those who do not why they should
vote for "our" subsidy as well. The only way to do this is with the "indirect"
benefit argument, since you really don't grab many votes by crying that "we
baseball fans want our share of the pie, too". And you hope that a lot of
non-fans will take a larger view of things and realize that, to have a
"complete" city, you have to spend money on things which your city is large
enough to have but noticably lacks. They may have to make the same argument
themselves, the next time they want money for a park, a library, or a homeless
shelter.
Fred
kenton yee
in New Orleans which carry SF Giants and their AA-Shreveport
team broadcasts?
kenton yee
Chuq Von Rospach
Don't know if it reaches New Orleans, but the flagship station is KEEL 710.
You could call the team office or the station if you need the entire network
(it might be in the Giant media guide, but I don't have it handy)
--
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= Member, SFWA
ch...@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ =+= Editor, OtherRealms
A real SF writur with stories in ALTERNATE KENNEDYS and THE
FURTHER ADVENTURES OF BATMAN, in better bookstores now!
I think the word you're looking for is AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
r...@fico.uucp
> Hey! What's happening to the Giants?
>
>
No pitching, no hitting ... kind of hard to win when these two aren't working
together! But, fear not! June is over!!
**********************************
* Randy Wong *
* apple!fico!fico0!rbw *
* uunet!jandel!fico!rbw *
* c/o Fair, Isaac and Company *
* 120 North Redwood Drive *
* San Rafael, CA 94903-1996 *
**********************************