Friday roundup: Tax money for A’s “privately funded” stadium, ticket prices to blame for MLB attendance drop, and USL stadiums for everybody!

Running late after staying up reading that damn Rams/Chargers article, so going to have to rush through the week’s remaining news a bit. I’m sure you all will add the requisite snarky remarks in comments:


12 comments on “Friday roundup: Tax money for A’s “privately funded” stadium, ticket prices to blame for MLB attendance drop, and USL stadiums for everybody!

    • Building two stadiums for one team makes no sense, from either a marketing or economic standpoint.

        • It absolutely doesn’t make more sense to build 2 stadiums for 1 team in dystopian Florida cities than it does to build 1 stadium for 1 team in Montreal.

        • I live in Orlando. A team shared between Orlando and Tampa would be an abject disaster in both cities, due to factors that probably require an entire dissertation to detail in full.

          Just because the two cities are supposedly close to each other (they’re actually as far way from one another as Philly is from NYC and as Milwaukee is from Chicago) doesn’t mean there’s a definitive link between the two of them

          • “… factors that probably require an entire dissertation to detail in full.”

            No dissertation needed: Florida’s a great state for baseball players, not so much for baseball fans.

      • The ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey makes more sense than the Tampa- Montreal plan.

        Though building two stadiums in cities whose residents could easily drive to the other is impressively nonsensical too. Maybe we could have the Rays thrown into space by a sentient computer and be done with it?

  1. As discussed in this forum some time ago, if the city of Oakland wants the A’s at Howard Terminal (and no, I don’t understand it either…) it would be foolhardy for the A’s to simply refuse to consider building there.

    It almost certainly will cost a staggering amount. But if the city wants the ballpark there and is willing to defray most/all/more than 100% of the additional cost of them being there, you “definitely take that meeting”.

    I am not saying that that is right or fair, but even the most ardent anti subsidy campaigner would do the same if they were the owner of the franchise.

    • What doesn’t seem to be widely understood yet is that the level of subsidy being discussed right now won’t come anywhere close to being enough to prepare the Howard Terminal site for a ballpark, not to mention other proposed development. The cost of site prep is going to be astronomical, far more than what it was for any other stadium in the league.

      This is just one of many, many issues (plus close to 15 years of following their stadium search saga)that causes me to take the position that I won’t believe the A’s will build at Howard Terminal until I actually see ground broken.

      • They may not. The point is that they would be foolish to reject the idea out of hand when the city wants them there. We don’t really know what the city’s plan is, other than to have the site redeveloped. It seems unlikely they can subsidize this location to the level that will be needed, but so long as both parties are talking about it openly and honestly, I see little harm in continuing to discuss and evaluate it.

        It is entirely possible that once even preliminary estimates are in one or both parties will decide HT won’t work.

  2. Drone flyover of Raiders stadium in progress from a month ago… still very much in progress.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rARNdBDZ6A

    Now 9-10 months is a long time, but there’s a fair bit of work to be completed…