User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4616 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Damon Rutherford Posted: February 25, 2009 at 05:28 AM (#3085518)I propose sunny San Juan instead!
They haven't knocked down the "old" Yankee Stadium yet. How about two clubs within one block of each other?
A Portland team won't do well in merchandising. The Indianapolis Clowns rule the area.
And who is he feeling sorry for? We still have our team and I think something will get worked out eventually. All Lew has to do is look across the bay to see what the answer is. Not to mention that MLB pulled in 6 billion in revenue last year. They could just loan the A's the money to build a stadium if they can't get tradtitional financing in this market. So, seriously, all the vultures in all the quaint little towns from North Carolina to Portland, Oregon should just go build a sprint car track or try to get some third rate WTA tennis event in their town if their so hard up for sports entertainment. And again, at the risk of repeating myself, #### off.
If Portland would not need this loan (source of repayment from the A's who do not draw?), doesn't this make them more compelling? It is hard to see why the other owners (say, KC) would want to loan money from their business to support a city that won't support a team as well as other cities. Why wouldn't they be more interested in finding a city that WILL support a team?
Rob has also advocated draining Lake Merritt, tossing the Tribune Tower into the Willamette River, and pelting Jerry Brown with rocks and garbage.
Not really. There's a legit question whether they would be there if it wasn't for Paul Allen. Portland has no corporate base worth speaking of except Nike, which really hurts their ability to support a team. And as crappy as the Coliseum is, the Portland Beavers are playing in a 1920s football stadium.
1. They would make money on the loan. It's an investment.
2. The East/South Bay is a much better market than Portland and is better for MLB in the long run.
But they shouldn't move at all.
I am guessing that means they would charge interest on the loan at a rate to give them a healthy return, and factor in the underwriting risk of non-payment (it isn't as if this asset, if the A's fail, could have much of an other use). Let's just say 8% on a $200,000,000.00 loan. That is $16,000,000.00 in interest a year alone (not including any amortization of that loan). Is there anythin in the operation of the A's to suggest that they could take on the burden of an extra $16,000,000.00 per year from their cash flow? That's one Matt Holliday, or 2/3rds of a Manny Ramirez.
I cannot speak to your point 2. I always thought of the Bay area as one market, which could be covered by the Giants, but if there are separate markets there, that could be a point for staying put in Oakland.
Don't forget that from MLB's stanpoint, moving the A's strengthens the Giants market to some extent, also.
Why would they charge 8%? I would guess they would charge 5% tops and maybe slightly less than that. And yeah, I think the A's ownership could swallow that interest charge.
I cannot speak to your point 2. I always thought of the Bay area as one market, which could be covered by the Giants, but if there are separate markets there, that could be a point for staying put in Oakland.
The Bay is plenty big enough for two teams. The Giants would be gain only very marginally if the A's left town. I remember the days when the Giants were hopeless and could only survive by moving to a new city. In retrospect, moving the Giants to St. Pete would have been monumentally stupid. This situation is remarkably similar.
This is kind of what got our wonderful banking system in the shape it is in. Loans have to also bear a risk of non-payment and loss factor, and again, I would guess that such a specialty use (a stadium) loses a boatload of value if the original tenant fails to operate, so the risk premium would be higher than other uses. Since no loans are being made, it is hard to price what a conventional loan would cost now, but this isn't your residential home loan type of deal.
Great. How many of those are cheap seats? How many luxury boxes are they selling and at what price? Portland's below average in NBA revenue, and in the bottom third in team valuations according to Forbes. It's not a big market, and it's easier to support an NBA team than an MLB team. Again, where are the businesses required to fund 50 luxury boxes and club seats?
Why would MLB treat a loan to one of its partners the way a bank would treat a standard mortgage? They know the business and can be reasonably sure the team is going to go bankrupt so their principal and interest are almost guaranteed. A 5% yield with the kind of safety the A's would afford is a pretty decent deal for MLB. Not to mention the ancillary benefits they get for strengthening the franchise. A new, shiny stadium in that market and the A's could easily get off the revenue sharing gravy train. Of course, MLB has had so much success milking public funds, private financing is only a nuclear option, much like it was in Ess Eff.
Agreed, and whether you think it is wise or fair or prudent for the municipalities to fund these stadiums, from MLB's perspective, it is a no-brainer; as long as there is a city aspiring to be a player on the national scene that thinks having the name of the city in the standings and on tv and with the goodyear blimp overhead, and is willing to ante up a stadium for that privilege, that is at the very-least a tie-breaker.
Why treat (price) a loan to one of its partners the way a bank would treat (price) that loan? I guess the question back would be, "why would you subsidize one of your partners by charging them a below market interest rate on a loan (being a loan at a lower cost than what they would pay were it in the open market)." Maybe the answer it that the cheaper loan is no different than the other subsidies that MLB offers its members (luxury tax on salaries, to certain teams). But at the very least, if I am either a recipient or a donor to that fund, I would want the value of the loan subsidy counted in the A's take from the pot.
I will make this easy, though; let's settle on 6%, which I still believe is below market. With amortization, you are still paying out about $14,000,000.00 a year to service the debt, and if the A's can handle the extra cost burden and still be competitive, that is great for them.
Those are all fair questions, and I don't live or work in Portland, so I do not know. I will say this, though, at least on the seats. Right now, Portland is selling out its basketball games at over 102% of capacity (don't ask me how-I just get these figures from what the NBA reports). So if Portland is selling "cheap seats" for a product that is selling more than its available supply, they are not so very smart business people. I bet that is not the case.
I'm just not seeing a good argument. Portland's MSA is barely over 2 million, it really has no significant corporate base that can be counted on to buy tickets, it's probably a no-go in terms of getting a new stadium without significant hassle, and it doesn't support the baseball team it already has. I'd rather Buffalo get a team.
Yes, but those people are from Oregon, for God's sake. They don't count.
Divide the bay area's smsa population by 2, and you get just over 2,000,000 (and in fact less than Portland's). Look at the growth rates of the 2 areas; I have no idea whether they are sustainable, but the chart I saw had Portland growing almost 13% from 2000 to 2007, and the Bay area growing by about 2% over that same period. I cannot answer the corporate donor/citizen point; I have no idea, and that IS an important factor. But it seems clear from the Trailblazer's ticket sales and the population numbers, fannies in the seats wouldn't be the problem.
No one from North Carolina is even thinking about MLB in this state. The population centers are too small to support a team.
-- MWE
The Charlotte area usually gets touted in these situations as a possible relocation spot. I'm glad to hear that it's not anymore.
Yeah. Maybe now that the move is off, ownership will actually make a serious effort to try to get fans to watch, and also to make it easier for fans who want to, to watch on TV or listen on radio.
Do you know the way to San Jose?
We could call them the San JosA's!
Obviously there is a big difference between an MSA and a CSA, as it relates to California areas.
The A's are finally on a real radio station this year (KTRB - 50,000 watts!), so that's a start. The Coliseum's never going to be Fenway Park or Wrigley Field, but it's got some things going for it (fantastically easy to get to, for one). A's need to start doing $2 Wednesdays again to market the team.
Thank God.
And Sacramento, already a bastion of A's fandom?
I doubt the trailblazer's do $2 Wednesdays, but if that is what the A's have done, I can see why you raised the question earlier about how Portland's great attendance translated to revenues. At 102% of capacity in tickets sold, I bet Portland does not have to discount much at all.
Without knowing anything about the City itself, I can think of several reasons why it shouldn't. One big one to me would be that any city that has a major league franchise it one sport would have to have a pretty bad attitude about having a minor league franchise of another sport; that just seems to be an attitudinal thing that would be hard to overcome.
I think it does when more people per game go watch your minor league soccer team as compared to your minor league baseball team.
Did you know the Golden State Warriors--the team probably tied with the Clippers as the worst in the NBA over the last 30 years--outdrew the Blazers in 2007-08?
Excellent callback.
You actually are kind of making the case for Portland, my friend. Unlike baseball, the bay area has ONE basketball team. Since 2002 (that is how far back the chart I am looking at goes; I am not being selective in my starting point for some hidden reason), Portland outdraws the Bay Area more years than the Bay Area outdraws Portland. So Portland supports its ONE basketball team better than the Bay Area supports its ONE basketball team. And you want to make the case, based on fannies in the seats, that the Bay Area deserves 2 baseball teams and Portland none? None with these attendance numbers, you don't.
Also, I for one am glad the A's aren't moving. I loved going to the Coliseum to see the A's play when I lived in San Francisco, pre-PacBell. I think I probably stil would, due to the cost.
No. The Warriors are historically pathetic. They are an awful, awful franchise and the Trailblazers are actually competently run. Imagine if the Warriors were any good. Look, I don't know why you have such a bug up your ass to move the team to Portland. Are you offended by they early work of Too Short? Do you not like zucchini?
Good point. It will be tough to compete with 2 state colleges that go under the names "Beavers" and "Ducks".
Wow.
I am just making the counterpoints that, quite candidly, are pretty easily made. The corporate stuff I cannot refute; i have no idea. The population and attendance stuff is pretty easy to find, and pretty clear in my mind. Otherwise, I really couldn't give a flip.
I just checked back as far as I could, and in the last 17 years, the warriors have been above .500 4 times, and below .500 13, not good at all. That does seem to be in line though, with a bunch of other NBA not so good NBA franchises (Atlanta; Minnesota; Clippers; Charlotte; and Cleveland (pre-Lebron, at least) come to mind). Portland does have a much better record over those 17 years, but it is interesting that over the last 5 (before this year), they have not been above .500 once. That is relevant because the attendance data easily available to me is over the shorter, but not longer, period.
I guess the conclusion is that when the blazers are better than the warriors, the Blazers ALWAYS outdraw the warriors, and when the warriors are better than the blazers, the warriors SOMETIMES outdraw the blazers, but both as the only NBA franchise in their area. And that makes the case for SF to have 2 baseball teams, and Portland none?
But that's the sadness of being a Warrior fan. Last season was a really great season for us. We have to take solace in the occasional individual greatness of the occasional player. Sleepy Floyd's quarter against the Lakers. Purvis Short's rainbow threes. Chris Mullin's slow-mo svengali-ism. Andris Biedrin's anti-missile defense free throw shooting. Joe Barry Carroll's scowl of boredom.
I apologize if I'm not taking your glibness about moving the team well. You're just lucky your not talking about the Pirates. Vlad has pipes and he's not afraid to use them!
No problem, and, based on your comment, let me propose this. Move the A's to Portland, and the Pirates to the Bay Area.
Well, if you get Paul Allen to own the baseball team in Portland, sure Portland should probably have a team.
I've always wondered why MLB teams don't make more of an effort to get minor-league teams closer to home. The Kane County Cougars would get a lot more attention if they were a White Sox or Cubs affiliate than they do as an A's affiliate.
The A's and Giants have their AAA and High A affiliates close by. There's no AA league on the west coast, so they're out of luck, there.
I would imagine. The theory is they're seting up a run to San Jose. We'll see. I just want the season to start so we can start talking about games. This has been a torturous offseason, IMO.
I said it before and I'll say it again - if the A's really want to move down there (and they can stop the Giants from ######## and moaning about it), they need to improve the infrastructure from the East Bay to the South Bay first. They can't afford to just write off the East Bay fan base.
CUB/WSX - It's debatable if they want to make the Kane County affiliate more palatable to local consumers (and possibly take away from their own business). I don't know the numbers - I can see it either way... The Cubs are in Peoria, which might help leverage their brand across the state. Not sure why the White Sox stay in Kannapolis (I'm not sure that team will stay in Kannapolis, frankly) - maybe they want warmer weather for guys' first full season exposure? I dunno...
Other - Pretty much everybody is relatively close to home. The White Sox are an exception, I guess. Florida has bounced around at the AAA level, but their next 2 teams are in Florida. Minnesota - not so much - but they don't have a lot of options - they at least have Beloit.
Hmmm - the White Sox may have made less of an effort here than anyone else in baseball.
Yes. Completion of the proposed BART extension from Fremont into San Jose would, at the least, be very important.
And the Giants aren't just idly p!ssing and moaning. The territorial rights granted to franchises by MLB are a serious deal. The only way the A's can move to San Jose is by arranging some manner of substantial buy-off to the Giants of their legitimate territorial rights to Santa Clara County. That can be done, but it isn't a small deal.
And as I've said a million times, if all a move of the A's to San Jose would accomplish is a re-slicing of the current Bay Area market between the A's and the Giants, what's the gain from the MLB standpoint? No new market would be cultivated.
That's the primary reason why the whole thing is dumb, based on no objective assessment, but instead just Wolff's ongoing desire to have someone, anyone, subsidize the development of a new stadium for him, and the San Jose Mercury's incessant boosterism to get some team, any team, to move to San Jose.
edit: And kind of off topic, but are we really about to legalize pot? Wouldn't that be ####### awesome?
As for why MLB should support the A's moving to San Jose, that should be obvious. It's not a 're-slicing' of the Bay Area, it's moving the Bay Area MLB franchise that currently plays in an unattractive multi-purpose venue in a bad part of the 3rd-largest city in the area into a newer, baseball-only stadium in the largest city in the area. Also, San Jose has quite a bit more money, both in terms of municipal funds and residents' disposable income, floating around.
And how are the three of you getting along these days?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main