Friday roundup: When a pretend seagull on Twitter is the voice of stadium reason, you know it’s been a week

And so we come to another Friday, when it is time to take stock of all the crap that happened while we were busy paying attention to other things. Was this a week where Oakland A’s president Dave Kaval continued his mission to get publicity for his team’s stadium demands in any way possible by launching a Twitter war over attendance with a pretend San Francisco seagull? You bet it was! And while I’m tempted to just stop there, allow you all to boggle appreciatively, and wish you a happy weekend, there’s other stuff that happened that is worthy of note:

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

20 comments on “Friday roundup: When a pretend seagull on Twitter is the voice of stadium reason, you know it’s been a week

  1. The Jaguars will officially be on the clock in Jacksonville when Shad Khan and co formally make known their demand for a new or renovated stadium… the NFL will never sign off on a G4 loan for a new venue in North Florida, and Khan himself has done everything he could do to decimate local and regional fan support — all the while trying to cultivate a following in a city an entire ocean away.

    I know most people don’t respect Jacksonville (or really any city in the South not named Atlanta) as a real American city, let alone as an NFL town, but it’s impossible to overstate how much of a gut punch it would be for Duval to lose its only major pro team. And given its proximity to Atlanta, as well as to other big cities in Florida, it likely wouldn’t get another team for quite some time, if it ever does at all.

    1. Well, come to think of it, people don’t even really respect Atlanta either… like every other booming city in the Sun Belt, it’s seen as a place where people are at, or where people are going to, but not as a place where people are *from*. And that’s big in terms of perception and regard.

    2. Isn’t G-4 money guaranteed to any team owner who gets public financing and puts in at least a little of their own money? That’s how I’ve always understood it to work, even if the other NFL owners would probably have to hold their noses a bit.

      1. As signs of the apocalypse go, the fact that we are living in a world where a condition of putting your own money into your own project is that someone else commits public money first is really amazing.

  2. I didn’t notice this at first because the Miami Herald’s website is so bad, but the paper’s coverage today of the Inter Miami lease approval with “GOLAZO!” is an exact parallel of the Hartford Courant in 1998 covering Connecticut approving money for a New England Patriots stadium with “TOUCHDOWN!”

    https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/mls/inter-miami/article260875477.html
    https://www.courant.com/courant-250/moments-in-history/hc-pictures-patriots-hartford-20140318-photogallery.html

    I get that newspaper headline writers are addicted to cheap plays on words, but if, say, Herschel Walker were elected president, would the Miami Herald report on it with the headline “TOUCHDOWN”? (Don’t answer that.)

    1. The Miami herald – for as long as I can remember – used 72 point fonts with catchy puns, followed by a large picture that emphasized the pun.

      I’m glad to see they are keeping up that “fine tradition”. [forehead slap]

      As for Herschel, he might, or as he famously said when asked why he didn’t say he was leaving to go to the usfl “I would have told you but the words got stuck in my neck” (paraphrasing).

  3. I agree the University of Hawaii should build a new, smaller stadium, but they should do it the old fashioned way, increase student fees.

  4. Vend it like Beckham, indeed.

    Anyway, this looks more or less like the old Wolff plan from San Jose.

    “We are paying for everything. We don’t want any public money”.

    But, you know, what we would like is to take control of a large parcel of land – for which we will pay, you know, something – and then have you rezone it and allow us to make staggering amounts off the land (either by developing and selling it, or just by selling it as newly rezoned and more valuable raw land), which we will then use to build a 100% privately funded stadium.

    It is tempting to see this as creative… but it doesn’t really matter whether a money grubbing multimillionaire/billionaire franchise owner is demanding public money or public assets which will then be turned into public money… it’s still public funding.

    If it were swamp land that the city, for whatever reason, was not able to develop cost effectively (and yes, we know about the site contamination) or that was otherwise close to worthless, then maybe the cost of reclaiming the land could be considered it’s own “purchase price”. But it’s not.

    Melreese GC has some value to the city. Maybe great value (I don’t live there…). Shouldn’t the ‘price’ of assuming control of this parcel include building a replacement public golf course somewhere else?

    Even if the city had a surplus of public courses, the value of this one is not zero.

    1. John as a local I can tell you it has at least some value.

      It was supposed to a public park. Because it was contaminated they decided a golf course would work – and it did have some use to locals. It was a public course, maintained by the city.

      But it wasn’t profitable (at least enough) and the old hokey pokey took place – we can let someone else have it and get “something” in return (be it personal, city, advertising dollars, whatever) …

      Any private golf course (of which there are many) could easily take on the business of “serious” golfers; the locals and the kids who can’t afford that can find another hobby…

      But you are correct. It’s not zero. Well that is unless you count the number of zeros between the first number and the decimal point. I do recall someone close to it giving me a ballpark (pun intended) number at one point. I don’t recall what it was exactly but it was enough to realize this is really a gift that ultimately tax payers will keep on giving.

  5. If UH can get some Super Rugby Pacific matches at the new Aloha Stadium, then I’m all for the approved funding Neil! As for Libby Schaaf’s commentary; just jaw dropping to say the least.

  6. Must give a shout out to the Odd Couple reference. Maybe Libby can twist somebody’s Rigolettlo?

  7. Anyone interested in the A’s ballpark drama here is an interview with Dave Kaval getting a grilling. I think the interviewer is engaging in theater for the sake of theater. Anyone with half a brain know they are gutting the team because the team is in a state of limbo for this year while all this stuff plays out and they are cutting their losses. Not sure why that is a difficult concept to understand

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdK_gmF9gPM?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&wmode=transparent&w=640&h=360]

  8. It’s possible that Billy Corben’s 2 minute anti-stadium video backfired. By using an unpopular figure like David Samson as the mouthpiece he might have thrown sentiment in the other direction. (Neil, do you agree?)

    Also, I am not sure what to call Corben’s video, but I wouldn’t call it a documentary. Generally speaking, I don’t call anything a documentary (even a mini-documentary) unless it’s at least 10 minutes long. Sorry if I seem to be nitpicking on that.

    1. I suspect the video had no impact whatsoever on the city commission.

      As for it not being a “documentary” because it’s short, I was inclined to agree until half an hour ago when I saw this:

      [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM2yInYIIdE?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&wmode=transparent&w=640&h=360]

  9. “Change the narrative” is basically The Simpsons’ “No, it’s the children who are wrong.”

  10. It would be silly for Hawaii to rebuild a huge stadium for UH football. They probably need about 25,000 and could build one of those MLS erector set stadiums. That being said Aloha stadium was amazing, they used a high tech and expensive to maintain space age technology to change the configuration of the stadium. Once AAA baseball left, it didn’t move around much.

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070018874/downloads/20070018874.pdf

    1. Wow, that’s really interesting Al, thanks. I knew that the stadium could be reconfigured, but I thought it was something akin to the old Mile High where a section or two could be moved “slightly” to make room for something else.

      I tend to agree on the need for a smaller stadium. 22-25k would be fine. That said, LAFC spent $300m+ on a stadium that size… rationality appears to have disappeared from the sports world. At least LAFC used mostly private money.

      It just seems to me that even today you should be able to build a basic but perfectly serviceable 22,000 seat stadium for under $100m. Metal grandstands at each end are fine. Teams/users need serviceable dressing rooms and other facilities. They don’t need five star spas built in.

      How many executive or premium lounges would be built if most owners had to pay for them themselves?

        1. How can you tell? They are built with taxpayer money and are rented out at a price that is 100% profit for the leaseholder.

          If each lounge costs the owner $5m to build and grosses $500k annually (say, $200k in profit), would it be built?

          For a building the owner intends on replacing in less than 25 years?

Comments are closed.