Ray Rattos' Ballpark Column
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Ray Rattos' Ballpark Column
| By bfriend on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:39 pm:|
Eyleenn post this link in another thread and I thought it deserved more notice:
My favorite part are the final two paragraphs:
"Thus, while they cast their eyes covetously southward with Woolf as their personal Lewis and Clark, they would do well to remember how well they've done right where they are -- artistically, economically and even as a persistent annoyance to the Giants, who frankly need the discomfort of the A's to prevent them from becoming even more smug and self-involved than they already are.
They'd actually be better off trying to find a 50,000-watt mouth organ to match the one the Giants have enjoyed all these years, to the point of taking that mouth organ for granted. And even big-voiced, baritone radio stations are easier to come by than free ballparks.
Even the free ballpark they already have."
| By jerryo1 on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 01:42 pm:|
What, no pictures?
| By bfriend on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 01:58 pm:|
I was going to post a picture of Ralph Barbieri with a Barry Bond nipple ring but I thought the FCC might shut down this site.
| By kevink on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 02:09 pm:|
Props to Ratto for NAILING the Schott/ballpark issue. Good to see someone in the press "gets it."
| By eyleenn on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 02:11 pm:|
Ralph is exactly right. The A's need the visibility that a "50,000-watt mouth organ" would bring them way more than they need a new park.
And I LOVE him calling the gnats "smug and self-involved."
| By sactodavey on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 03:18 pm:|
but it mention that both the owners are prob worth a billion each themelves and the A' prob made 8 mill so then why couldn't they sign Miggy and keep some players? this is just confirming what i have been saying all along , they are not baseall loovin guys just money hungy men who use us the fans to keep the cash cow going, its all about the $$$ and they mke way to much $$$ at the net to not keep the players and they personally have way to much $$$$$ anyway.
| By ronc on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 05:50 pm:|
Getting a good radio signal in Sacramento would be start.
| By eyleenn on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 07:58 pm:|
sactodavey, I have to admit I thought of you while I was reading that article.
| By asch on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 06:03 am:|
Okay - let's go over this again. Not defending the owners, but let's look at something.
Nobody buys a team to lose money. These guys are businessmen and have done a good job making money. They have had 4 great seasons in a row and made money and fielded very competitive teams. So, they KNOW they can win on a small budget. Why are they going to raise payroll to 75/mil when they have won with 50?? I don't know how important winning the WS is to them. But, I know that they have, I am sure, bought into the idea that you can win with very little money. And, if that's the case, they will not invest more money in this team. The scariest part is, we EASILY could have won the last 4 WS. Atleast 3 of 4. And that's with that shit payroll etc. That's what is truly sad!
On that note, a few questions.
*Do you think that, let's say the A's won the WS last year. First, do you think MORE fans would show up this year? Like, our attendance would dramatically increase? Or stay the same? Do you think the ownership would have raised payroll after a WS championship?
Maybe I am wrong, but I feel they would have cut payroll instead of raised BUT raised tix prices. If the Marlins did it like that, the A's ownership probably would have as well.
In any event, I am just pointing out the sad feeling I have that because S/H have had success with this team, making a profit while putting in very little, I can't see them all of a suddent, bumping payroll and picking up big time FA's. I wish I was wrong.
| By yc2578 on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:10 am:|
If your in the business of owning a professional sports franchise just to make money then your in it for the wrong reason. Most professional sports franchises don't turn a profit.
Of course the A's attendance would go up with a World Series win, or even just making the World Series, as it would at least double the A's season ticket base. The Angels drew over 3 million fans last year (700,000+ increase over 2002) despite being eight games under .500 because of their World Series win the previous year.
| By asch on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:13 am:|
that's the angles. and, I am not disagreeing with you, I am just saying, without looking at the Angles, do you think the a's crowd would go up 700k with a WS win, or even, just getting into the WS?
| By yc2578 on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:27 am:|
I don't know if it will go up that much but it will go up. 400k-500k increase would be a fair guess. Angels are similar to the A's in that they are treated and covered like a second class team in their market. The Dodgers get twice the coverage the Angels do in So Cal even after they won the World Series.
Everyone knows the Bay Area has a huge group of fickle sports fans. If the A's won the World Series they'd be flocking here because it would suddenly become the place to be again which it hasn't been since Schott bought the team and since the Giants opened SBC.
| By ronc on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:51 am:|
The A's have drawn 2.9 million before when the stadium capacity was smaller. It's possible that the A's could draw 3 million.
| By kevink on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 01:02 pm:|
The Dodger/Angel thing is different because the Dodgers had a winning tradition for many years while the Angels had like 2 division titles or something before 02. It's reverse in the Bay Area. The A's have the winning tradition and don't get DIDDLY for media attention.
| By sactodavey on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 01:22 pm:|
this is all jibberrish the key point is the owners are very wealthy men who make a big profit with the A's every year, they could have easily signed Foulk and Miggy and even if they took biz loss on the A's big deal they are worth close to billion a piece, schott even admitted the A's gross over 100 mill a yr, so the point is we do not need to support the A's its a joke to fall into the trap, these owners are greedy basterds who could have easily paid a little more money (since they have a ton of it ) and wons 2 WS no doubt, so why support these guys? if they would go out on a limb an put $$ into this tea and signd these guys i would have bought season tix and so would have a lot of folks.
If schott really needed or wanted a new stadium he would be doing what he does best DEVELOPE, but he is makes a killing payng little rent getting 75% lux boxes filled and getting 100% consssoins $$ this is a joke.
this is the real issue and these owners will Never sell people the A's are a great biz investment for them esp. when you have fans willing to go to games nomatter how many fan favorites you shit on and let go, so all of you keep going keep giving these owners more $$ to make and not spend on resiging your fave players ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!
that laugh at the end there is kinda scary
| By bubba69 on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 11:50 am:|
02/14/04 and I already have my 1st sacto post head ache!