Pretty good article on the movement of pro sports out of Oakland (and other cities), and how teams no longer cater to traditional sports fans. To me, it's largely about what cities and counties are willing to cough up public financing for stadiums. Vegas is (so far) and so was Santa Clara, while Oakland/Alameda and San Diego aren't.
The comments are well worth reading, too, and they apply to football and basketball teams as well as baseball. Here are some:
"With the exception of the NY Yankees, cities only rent baseball teams."
"In 1957, Walter O’Malley owned the most profitable sports franchise in the nation-the Brooklyn Dodgers. Unable to get New York City to condemn, assemble and pay for for 85% of the land cost in downtown Brooklyn, O’Malley moved the team. Any belief that a team does nothing more than rent fans for a time of its choosing is naive. It’s time for baseball to lose its anti-trust exemption."
"Billy Witz is correct on all points but overlooks the fact that the working class fan has found a home in women’s sports. Here in LA we have great basketball and soccer teams whose tickets are affordable at every level and are a great day out for the family without breaking the bank. Just like men’s sports used to be."
"I wonder what Pete Rose is thinking right now. Banished from baseball for gambling, he is now seeing the MLB not only endorsing gambling through companies like Fan Duel, but moving a franchise to Las Vegas. Was Pete just a few decades ahead of his time?"
"Sports teams today have nothing to do with the city they happen to be parked in, except to the extent they can con its politicians and taxpayers into paying for their venues."
A’s Will Finally Turn Out the Lights on Pro Sports in Oakland - (
New Window )
Las Vegas is a pretty big city now with a lot of residents who don't have anything to do with the casinos. It was ripe to have its own teams. Oakland, in the meantime, has a lot of problems and its people and leaders are uninclined to divert public funds to supporting sports teams and billionaire owners. They can watch the Warriors just as easily whether the arena is in Oakland or San Francisco. They love their A's and loved the Raiders, but not enough to build those owners new venues.
Interesting to see that the $380 million the Nevada Senate approved for the A's relocation may end up on a ballot proposal at the next election.
Las Vegas is a pretty big city now with a lot of residents who don't have anything to do with the casinos. It was ripe to have its own teams. Oakland, in the meantime, has a lot of problems and its people and leaders are uninclined to divert public funds to supporting sports teams and billionaire owners. They can watch the Warriors just as easily whether the arena is in Oakland or San Francisco. They love their A's and loved the Raiders, but not enough to build those owners new venues.
Loved their A's? They sure have an odd way of showing it. Have you seen their attendance numbers for the last decade? They haven't averaged 25,00 a game since 2005. They have battled the Rays for the worst attendance for 20 years. The Royals out draw them. And they are constantly at the bottom of TV ratings by team.
So, as Telly would ask: Who loves them baby?
Quote:
Pete Rose knew the rules, broke the rules, and was punished within the rules. By the way, it's still against the rules for pro athletes to bet on their sport, among other things.
Las Vegas is a pretty big city now with a lot of residents who don't have anything to do with the casinos. It was ripe to have its own teams. Oakland, in the meantime, has a lot of problems and its people and leaders are uninclined to divert public funds to supporting sports teams and billionaire owners. They can watch the Warriors just as easily whether the arena is in Oakland or San Francisco. They love their A's and loved the Raiders, but not enough to build those owners new venues.
Loved their A's? They sure have an odd way of showing it. Have you seen their attendance numbers for the last decade? They haven't averaged 25,00 a game since 2005. They have battled the Rays for the worst attendance for 20 years. The Royals out draw them. And they are constantly at the bottom of TV ratings by team.
So, as Telly would ask: Who loves them baby?
Specious argument. The A's drew respectably until ownership starting liquidating each year and letting their top players sign elsewhere. Try being a fan when the team loses your favorite player after each season, and shows no sign of investing in building a winner. Oakland A's fans aren't disloyal, just completely beaten down.
Quote:
In comment 16292479 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
Pete Rose knew the rules, broke the rules, and was punished within the rules. By the way, it's still against the rules for pro athletes to bet on their sport, among other things.
Las Vegas is a pretty big city now with a lot of residents who don't have anything to do with the casinos. It was ripe to have its own teams. Oakland, in the meantime, has a lot of problems and its people and leaders are uninclined to divert public funds to supporting sports teams and billionaire owners. They can watch the Warriors just as easily whether the arena is in Oakland or San Francisco. They love their A's and loved the Raiders, but not enough to build those owners new venues.
Loved their A's? They sure have an odd way of showing it. Have you seen their attendance numbers for the last decade? They haven't averaged 25,00 a game since 2005. They have battled the Rays for the worst attendance for 20 years. The Royals out draw them. And they are constantly at the bottom of TV ratings by team.
So, as Telly would ask: Who loves them baby?
Specious argument. The A's drew respectably until ownership starting liquidating each year and letting their top players sign elsewhere. Try being a fan when the team loses your favorite player after each season, and shows no sign of investing in building a winner. Oakland A's fans aren't disloyal, just completely beaten down.
When was that? When they won the series in 1989 they average 33,000, almost 4K over the average attendance. In the WS years in the early '70s they topped out at 12,300, well below the league average. The fanbase has had exactly four years when they averaged over 30K. They have had six others over 25K.
Quote:
In comment 16292479 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
Pete Rose knew the rules, broke the rules, and was punished within the rules. By the way, it's still against the rules for pro athletes to bet on their sport, among other things.
Las Vegas is a pretty big city now with a lot of residents who don't have anything to do with the casinos. It was ripe to have its own teams. Oakland, in the meantime, has a lot of problems and its people and leaders are uninclined to divert public funds to supporting sports teams and billionaire owners. They can watch the Warriors just as easily whether the arena is in Oakland or San Francisco. They love their A's and loved the Raiders, but not enough to build those owners new venues.
Loved their A's? They sure have an odd way of showing it. Have you seen their attendance numbers for the last decade? They haven't averaged 25,00 a game since 2005. They have battled the Rays for the worst attendance for 20 years. The Royals out draw them. And they are constantly at the bottom of TV ratings by team.
So, as Telly would ask: Who loves them baby?
Specious argument. The A's drew respectably until ownership starting liquidating each year and letting their top players sign elsewhere. Try being a fan when the team loses your favorite player after each season, and shows no sign of investing in building a winner. Oakland A's fans aren't disloyal, just completely beaten down.
Ah bullshit. Charley Finley did that all the time for decades.
Fans didn't come so they couldn't afford high priced free agents or to re-sign their own stars. If you want a product you need to pay for it.
At least the Raiders drew fans. But the shithole they played in was a dump. Owners are in business to make money. That is just the way it is. Who is going to run a billion dollar business without a profit?
Owners want to go where thr wallet size grows. Shocking. Bills were moving or playing meaningful games to generate a business case in Toronto until Josh Allen made them good. Funny how that stopped for the time being. The minute they’re bad again we’ll start seeing those games happen again.
Jacksonville clearly waiting on the appropriate league approved time to push to move to London.
I
How many decades have we been listening to this stupid theory about "blue collar" sports fans being shut out ? Sports fans that went to games haven't been represented by the "working man" since the 1960's, possibly before that. Football and Basketball was always expensive. Baseball admission has traditionally been inexpensive but when you add in the cost of parking, transportation food and drink, even baseball has been out of reach to those who don't have a good deal of disposable income.
The idea that its cheaper to operate or build in Nevada is minimal. As for Nevada having internet gambling, what does that have to do as to whether a team plays there ? If anyone in America wants to place a bet on a team anywhere in America its easy enough to do.
Its too expensive to build venues in California ? Since I've been living in the Bay Area they've built PacBell Park (Giants ), the Chase Center ( Warriors ), Levi's Stadium ( 49'ers ) The San Jose Arena ( Sharks ) and PayPal stadium ( MLS Soccer ). I can't even keep track of what's being built in SoCal or the rest of the state.
As for the move from Oakland, the one thing the article got right is that the A's made multiple attempts to say local, in Fremont, San Jose and Oakland at Laney. It wasn't money or environmental standards that foiled those plans just as they did not prevent the previously listed venues from being built.
It was a total lack of cooperation from MLB, the City of Oakland and indifference from other California politicians.
The Oakland Colosseum I believe is the third oldest MLB stadium in existence behind Wrigley and Fenway. I can speak from personal experience that it is a depressing, poorly lit, drafty stadium located in a City thats on its way to becoming like the South Bronx in the 70's. They did the A's no favors when the built Mount Davis and tore out prime seats to build a club for the Raiders. Howard Terminal, if Oakland was even serious about that proposal was even a worse location.
RedSox have been in around since 1901, and have been playing at fenway since 1912! The cubs and white sox have been in Chicago forever. Same goes for the Reds. And I am sure many others that I can't quite think of right now because I've had a few!
None of those teams are rentals...
San Diego taxpayers funded one of the best ballparks in MLB, so not sure why they are even mentioned?
Interesting to see that the $380 million the Nevada Senate approved for the A's relocation may end up on a ballot proposal at the next election.
[quote] They can go watch the Giants 30 minutes away. [/quote
Oh that’s bullshit! Others than arc, who the fuck switches teams in the same area? No self respecting fan should. Especially A’s fans, given that SFG denied the A’s the right to move to San Jose.
A’s fans got fucked by an owner who wouldn’t invest in a shithole of a stadium and then blamed fans for not showing up in said shithole.
RedSox have been in around since 1901, and have been playing at fenway since 1912! The cubs and white sox have been in Chicago forever. Same goes for the Reds. And I am sure many others that I can't quite think of right now because I've had a few!
None of those teams are rentals...
San Diego taxpayers funded one of the best ballparks in MLB, so not sure why they are even mentioned?
Yes, the city of San Diego helped pay for Petco Park, and they remain part owners of the stadium, I believe majority owners. I was thinking more of the Chargers -- when they asked for a new stadium, the city couldn't or wouldn't provide funding, so the Chargers moved.
And yes, of course there are teams that seem solidly ensconced in their cities, but Boston lost the Braves, Chicago lost the Cardinals, etc. Why should these leagues have anti-trust exemption, and the league offices non-profit status?
As for the move from Oakland, the one thing the article got right is that the A's made multiple attempts to say local, in Fremont, San Jose and Oakland at Laney. It wasn't money or environmental standards that foiled those plans just as they did not prevent the previously listed venues from being built.
It was a total lack of cooperation from MLB, the City of Oakland and indifference from other California politicians.
The Oakland Colosseum I believe is the third oldest MLB stadium in existence behind Wrigley and Fenway. I can speak from personal experience that it is a depressing, poorly lit, drafty stadium located in a City thats on its way to becoming like the South Bronx in the 70's. They did the A's no favors when the built Mount Davis and tore out prime seats to build a club for the Raiders. Howard Terminal, if Oakland was even serious about that proposal was even a worse location.
Again with this nonsense?
The A's were offered three quarters of a billion dollars in public money and the rights to develop a a twelve billion dollar mixed used project at Howard Terminal. So, obviously it's the Oakland and California's fault that he decided to declare he was moving the team to Vegas to squeeze more money out of the deal and then had his bluff called.
The Vegas move is a bad deal for almost everyone.
Fisher will now have the opportunity to build a small stadium on an undersized lot. There will be no ancillary revenue from real estate, housing or retail. He just gets to build the park, which is going to cost him somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars out of his own pocket. Plus he's got to figure our where his team is going to play for a few years while his new Xanadu is being built.
MLB loses the tenth biggest media market and swaps it for the the fortieth, the smallest one in the MLB. They get to send revenue sharing dollars and high draft picks to Vegas and while Fisher takes their money and fields perennial losing teams stocked with AAAA players.
Vegas and Nevada get to spend 400 million dollars they can't afford for a sports team they don't need run by a billionaire failson who is arguably the worst owner in sports. They get the opportunity to starve their schools of money so they can watch their local team lose with the stands full of high rollers who are rooting for the visitors.
The only potential winner here is Oakland. They get to keep their money and maybe use the coliseum site for something useful.
Quote:
As for the move from Oakland, the one thing the article got right is that the A's made multiple attempts to say local, in Fremont, San Jose and Oakland at Laney. It wasn't money or environmental standards that foiled those plans just as they did not prevent the previously listed venues from being built.
It was a total lack of cooperation from MLB, the City of Oakland and indifference from other California politicians.
The Oakland Colosseum I believe is the third oldest MLB stadium in existence behind Wrigley and Fenway. I can speak from personal experience that it is a depressing, poorly lit, drafty stadium located in a City thats on its way to becoming like the South Bronx in the 70's. They did the A's no favors when the built Mount Davis and tore out prime seats to build a club for the Raiders. Howard Terminal, if Oakland was even serious about that proposal was even a worse location.
Again with this nonsense?
The A's were offered three quarters of a billion dollars in public money and the rights to develop a a twelve billion dollar mixed used project at Howard Terminal. So, obviously it's the Oakland and California's fault that he decided to declare he was moving the team to Vegas to squeeze more money out of the deal and then had his bluff called.
The Vegas move is a bad deal for almost everyone.
Fisher will now have the opportunity to build a small stadium on an undersized lot. There will be no ancillary revenue from real estate, housing or retail. He just gets to build the park, which is going to cost him somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars out of his own pocket. Plus he's got to figure our where his team is going to play for a few years while his new Xanadu is being built.
MLB loses the tenth biggest media market and swaps it for the the fortieth, the smallest one in the MLB. They get to send revenue sharing dollars and high draft picks to Vegas and while Fisher takes their money and fields perennial losing teams stocked with AAAA players.
Vegas and Nevada get to spend 400 million dollars they can't afford for a sports team they don't need run by a billionaire failson who is arguably the worst owner in sports. They get the opportunity to starve their schools of money so they can watch their local team lose with the stands full of high rollers who are rooting for the visitors.
The only potential winner here is Oakland. They get to keep their money and maybe use the coliseum site for something useful.
Good post, Gary