Main Sections:
Main Site
Discussion Forum
    All Topics
    New Messages
    Search
    Last Day
    Last Week
    Tree View
    Edit Profile
    Create Login
    Guidelines
    Help
Game Chat
Fund Raiser:
Order Merchandise!

Suggested Reading:
(click cover for info)

cover

NEW STADIUMS

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: NEW STADIUMS
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By sactodavey on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 09:30 am:

interesting article by Ray Ratto in today's chron on Giants new stadiums he says:

That is, if you actually believe the Giants are losing money, after another year of 3 million-plus attendance, after another year of all-the- market-will-bear concessions, after another year of we-get-all-the-parking, after another year of if-we-can-squeeze-a-quarter-out-of-it-we"

If the Giants are losing money filling their building night after night, getting top-buck-and-then-some across the full spectrum of money-generating enterprises, then you know what? The ballpark, financed as it was, was a really bad idea.

Well, it has sold out regularly, unless we've been lied to. And it has moved the Giants into the upper 10 percent of revenue generators in all of baseball, unless we've been lied to. And it has grown and sold as much as it can be grown and sold, unless we've been lied to.

And it's still losing money?

Now I don't know what taxi stand you got your business degree at, but I know this: If you're wildly successful, if you've sold all your tickets (sometimes more than once, even), if you're charging and getting the maximum allowed by law for everything down to the bricks in front of the building, and you're still losing money, well, your cipherin's been a mite off there, Jethro.

So we can either assume the Giants are making money they don't want to admit to making, or we can assume they never can make money even given all the advantages they have built into their park, whatever they decide to call it.

WELL IF THEY GIANTS)ARE LOSING 10 MILL WITH THIS PARK AND 3 MILL ATTENDANCE AND THEN WE WILL NEVER SEE A NEW PARK FOR THE A'S, I MEAN SCHOTT HAS BEEN ABSOLUTLY SILENT ON A NEW PARK NOW FOR MORE THEN A YR BECAUSE NEW PARKS UNLESS GIVEN TO TEAMS BY CITIES DO NOT MAKE $$$$$ , SCHOTT ONLY PAYS 500K$ INSTEAD OF 20 MILL YRLY FOR RENT AT THE NET HE IS MAKING A FORTUNE WITH OUT THE DEBT AND HE KNOWS IT. NO MATTER WHAT W DO AS ANS OR WISHFULLS THINKING WE HA WE WILL NOT GET A NEW PARK KEEP WISHING CAUSE SANTA AIN'T REAL AND NEITHER ARE THE ECONOMICS OF A NEW PARK HE GIANTS TIGERS, BREWERS AND PIRATES ARE PROVING THAT TO BASEBALL AND THE WORLD.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 09:40 am:

Well, let's face it. The Oakland politicos totally screwed up letting the Raiders return. The Coli could have been updated as a baseball only facility (see Anaheim) including additional seats (see large field area), etc., etc. Instead, within about 4 years they will be left with a football team being run by a senile old man everyone loves to hate. And when he walks (if he still can at that point) the County will implode the Coli and free up more development land. Gee, maybe then they can have the Indian nation move down there and swoop up the land for yet another casino (see Rohnert Park).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By tekgraf on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 11:34 am:

I agree. The city of Oakland and county of Alameda should have built a new football facility for the Raiders. Instead, they screwed up a perfectly good park.

If I remember correctly, the A's were planning on remodeling the coliseum to accommondate baseball; you know, turn it into a nicer park with more ammenities and such. But, instead, these idiots only made Schott upset. This set the whole scheme to wriggle out of their lease obligation, which was up in 2010? With Ignacios and Jerry probably irrating the hell out of Schott. Have you heard Ignacios with that overly emphasis spanish accent? My mother says he sounds like a pochuco (punk).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 11:54 am:

Actually, the city of Oakland should have let the Raiders remain where they were and taken care of business at hand. No way should they have built them a new facility. If senile Al really wanted to come back it should have been with the proviso he would have to finance the facility. Oakland should not have paid ONE DIME to bring that team back. And, yes, I was once a very avid Raiders' fan. But when someone basically tells you to go to hell then turns their back, you shake it off and move on. Unless you're stupid enough to act the jilted lover by begging and making them an offer they can't refuse ... especially when senile Davis found that LaLa Land wasn't so LaLa over the Raiders, after all. Seems people up here no longer are, either. So the city has to keep paying and paying? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By tekgraf on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 04:55 pm:

You're right. Al should have paid for a new stadium. Just like Schott and every other ball club owner should pay their way through life.

I don't understand why a city entity has to pay for a ball park for a privately own team. When in the corporate world if a company wants an office building they usually build it themselves or a developer builds it for them. If I wanted to build my house up in the hills, I wouldn't expect the city of Oakland to build one for me.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By sactodavey on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 05:30 pm:

Because the plan was to redo the Net at season tix holder expense not going to charge the city and taxpayers right, it was to be without cost remember the PSL well it wa built on lies this is why Al sued.

oh well Anyway what i never cared for is they(ciy offficials) knew they would ruin the coliseium for football why did the city council do it if it wasn't for the A's the stadium would have been empty for yrs at tax payer loss they crewed the A's big time!!!!

And the took advantage of MR Hass's sickness i am sure Mr Hass would have never ave let them destroy the place for the Raider return but the organizaton was in a weak postion trying to sell and all.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By sparky on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 01:04 am:

"I don't understand why a city entity has to pay for a ball park for a privately own team. When in the corporate world if a company wants an office building they usually build it themselves or a developer builds it for them."

Tek, unfortunately it happens all the time that a city will give major tax breaks, or help building, etc. to companies that move to their town. It's corporate welfare, one of the biggest things our taxes go to...YAY!

That said, I agree with you, Davis should've paid.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By okplayer on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 05:44 pm:

maybe we can get someone to take the raiders and buy out the costs of blowing up mt. davis?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 03:25 pm:

Spaky, tax breaks for companies are a completely different thing than funding the building of a stadium. And how can our taxes go to tax breaks? That doesn't make sense.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By yc2578 on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 04:17 pm:

Anyone notice that Bud came out and said the Marlins need a new stadium now using the rain delay in Game 3 (okay I had no idea there was one since I' not watching) to extort the city of Miami into giving the Marlins a dome stadium because it rains too much there. The Marlins had ONE rain out all season.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 08:29 pm:

They only had a handful of delays during the season as well. Last night's was only about 35 minutes.

I'd see the heat as more of a problem than the rain, but that's me.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 09:49 pm:

They need a domed stadium more for the heat and humidity than the rain.

But, yes, Selig's history will show his biggest effort was to try to extort cities at the taxpayers' cost, of course.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 01:21 am:

NO MORE DOMED STADIUMS!

That goes for both baseball and football.

Both these sports should never be played on astro turf or indoors.

Maybe a retracable roof like Safeco but not a completely domed off park/stadium.

Safeco is the only one who got the it right when it comes to dealing with the weather issues. It has a roof that's retractable but it feels outdoors.

Parks like Miller Park, Minute Maid, Bank One, Reliant, Skydome, Tropicana and the Metrodome have done it all wrong.

I think the Metrodome is the worst.

Why have a football team indoors during the winter time especially in the Minn. area. Don't give me the excuse of the fans not like it cold or snowing during the game. If the fans of Green Bay, Chicago, New England, NYC can deal with it, so can the good people of Minnesota.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 11:22 am:

Miller, Minute Maid, Bank One, are all retractable roofs and have grass. I don't think any of the new "domed" stadiums are being built anymore without a retractable roof, allowing them to grow grass. That of course, is what I was referring to when I said domed stadium in Miami. The other thing I don't understand, is that since Toronto's is retractable, why do they not have a grass field?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 11:30 am:

I think Skydome was built before the more modern retractable domed roofs. I read somewhere that it would cost an enormous amount of money to re-do the ground base to grow natural grass there.
It also has something to do with what they built under their stadium. For lack of space where that ballpark was built, they have a huge structure underneath the park which also makes it difficult to convert to natural grass. I don't know how accurate this information is and it may be just bs.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 02:27 pm:

I know those parks were retractable, I have the problem that they don't feel like a outdoor park like Safeco does.

All those parks, Miller/MMF/BOB are all jokes when it comes to hrs.

Regarding Skydome, I think that venue attracts a lot of events and having natural grass being used or covered most of the year would destroy it.

Maybe field turf is the answer. It's not natural grass but it's a whole lot better than turf.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 09:48 pm:

"All those parks, Miller/MMF/BOB are all jokes when it comes to HRs"

Yeh, but none of them top Cinci's new park when it comes to HRs and they don't have a roof! I'm not so sure I'd agree that the BOB is a HR haven, either.

Thanks for the info, lil, on the Skydome. I guess that makes sense. And I can't think why a stadium wouldn't have grass, if they could.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 10:58 pm:

Safeco is built more like a "carport". It's actually not fully enclosed. The dome is like a canopy, and is open to the elements on the sides.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.


 

Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact info@oaklandfans.com.