Page 2 of 2250 FirstFirst 123412521025021002 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44990

Thread: Citi Field

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by efin98
    The tickets are still cheaper than a large number of other places I've examined this upcoming season. $10 for a ticket to the bleachers is a great price. In fact, not many places are you going to find $38 for a single game ticket right behind home plate.
    Well, if my Dodgers ever closed down the Top Deck (right behind home plate - $6) and said, "well, we've moved those $6 seats way out by the foul pole, so you should still be happy", I'd have one thing to say:
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Revere, MA
    Posts
    4,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis9045
    Well, if my Dodgers ever closed down the Top Deck (right behind home plate - $6) and said, "well, we've moved those $6 seats way out by the foul pole, so you should still be happy", I'd have one thing to say:
    For a baseball only stadium it doesn't make sense, but we are talking about a dual use stadium. There are cases where it's better to close off the seats than to open them up for just a few fans.

    Look at Toronto and Minnisota. Those places have closed off sections in favor of closer seats and haven't suffered much if at all.
    Best posts ever:
    Quote Originally Posted by nymdan View Post
    Too... much... math... head... hurts...
    Quote Originally Posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    I understand, I lost all my marbles years ago

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by efin98
    For a baseball only stadium it doesn't make sense, but we are talking about a dual use stadium. There are cases where it's better to close off the seats than to open them up for just a few fans.

    Look at Toronto and Minnisota. Those places have closed off sections in favor of closer seats and haven't suffered much if at all.
    There are 2 main things in Oakland's situation that are rubbing some people the wrong way:

    1. Working-class folks on a tight budget who used to be able to go to 5 or 10 games a year and get great seats behind home plate will either have to cut down on the number of games they attend, or sit down by the foul pole or in the bleachers.

    2. The way the A's are marketing this decision as an attempt to "create intimacy" by tossing some burlap sacks covered with $$$advertising$$$ over the upper deck. The whole "intimacy" thing is donkey poo. The only reason this is being done is to save some money in maintainance costs (It's basically the same reason that teams don't let you spread out to other sections if they're not sold - to not have to go clean up that section after the game) AND increase ad revenues for the huge corporate bilboards that will be on said burlap sacks.
    Last edited by Elvis; 02-21-2006 at 11:46 AM.

  4. #24
    I would become an A's fan if they literally used burlap sacks to cover the upper deck. That would be hilarious.

    I can understand why they're doing it, I just think it's unfortunate for the fanbase.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean O
    I would become an A's fan if they literally used burlap sacks to cover the upper deck. That would be hilarious.

    I can understand why they're doing it, I just think it's unfortunate for the fanbase.
    Well, this is the same team that gave us Charlie-o the jack-ass mascot and a wanna-be bugs bunny to deliver baseballs to the ump's, so anything's possible.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Revere, MA
    Posts
    4,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis9045
    There are 2 main things in Oakland's situation that are rubbing some people the wrong way:

    1. Working-class folks on a tight budget who used to be able to go to 5 or 10 games a year and get great seats behind home plate will either have to cut down on the number of games they attend, or sit down by the foul pole or in the bleachers.


    2. The way the A's are marketing this decision as an attempt to "create intimacy" by tossing some burlap sacks covered with $$$advertising$$$ over the upper deck. The whole "intimacy" thing is donkey poo. The only reason this is being done is to save some money in maintainance costs (It's basically the same reason that teams don't let you spread out to other sections if they're not sold - to not have to go clean up that section after the game) AND increase ad revenues for the huge corporate bilboards that will be on said burlap sacks.
    Every action has an equal reaction. Lose a few casual fans but the loss from them is offset by the cut in cleanup cost and an increase in ad revenues.
    Best posts ever:
    Quote Originally Posted by nymdan View Post
    Too... much... math... head... hurts...
    Quote Originally Posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    I understand, I lost all my marbles years ago

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Revere, MA
    Posts
    4,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis9045
    Well, this is the same team that gave us Charlie-o the jack-ass mascot and a wanna-be bugs bunny to deliver baseballs to the ump's, so anything's possible.
    Since they don't own the Colliseum did the closure come from the A's or did it come from the city/county?
    Best posts ever:
    Quote Originally Posted by nymdan View Post
    Too... much... math... head... hurts...
    Quote Originally Posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    I understand, I lost all my marbles years ago

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by efin98
    Every action has an equal reaction. Lose a few casual fans but the loss from them is offset by the cut in cleanup cost and an increase in ad revenues.
    Losing some fans is OK as long as you increase your advertising revenues?

    I'd expect that from a number cruncher, but not from a baseball fan. Believe me, when you're ok with replacing fans with ad space you're in trouble. However, if they want to move the club in a few years, this could be just the thing to justify it. Kind of like what Georgia Frontiere did to the Rams in SoCal.

    By the way, I hope you don't consider working-class fans like me a "casual" fan, just because we don't have a lot of cash to spend on great seats. I'm as hard-core a fan there is, but I can't afford to go to a ton of games AND pay the big bucks required to sit in the premium sections.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Revere, MA
    Posts
    4,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis9045
    Losing some fans is OK as long as you increase your advertising revenues?

    I'd expect that from a number cruncher, but not from a baseball fan. Believe me, when you're ok with replacing fans with ad space you're in trouble.
    No I mean losing a few fans is offset by the money you would make from the ads and not having to pay for upkeep. It's a tough choice but would you rather that the fans have to pay through the nose thanks to high costs of maintaining a mostly empty stadium? Or worse- the team pull an Expos and be forced to leave because they can't afford to stay anymore?

    However, if they want to move the club in a few years, this could be just the thing to justify it. Kind of like what Georgia Frontiere did to the Rams in SoCal.
    Actually I think it's the kind of thing that gets the ball rolling in their new stadium, like the one that was released to the public last year. They justify moving into a smaller venue of their own by showing they can handle the small venue and not the huge hulk they are currently in.

    By the way, I hope you don't consider working-class fans like me a "casual" fan, just because we don't have a lot of cash to spend on great seats. I'm as hard-core a fan there is, but I can't afford to go to a ton of games AND pay the big bucks required to sit in the premium sections.
    No. I mean the casual fans who only come to a few games like when the team is facing a "big name" club. Unfortunately there are people who are hurt in the situation but sometimes you have no choice but to hurt a few for the greater good.
    Best posts ever:
    Quote Originally Posted by nymdan View Post
    Too... much... math... head... hurts...
    Quote Originally Posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    I understand, I lost all my marbles years ago

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ by way of Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,983

    Citi Field--Too much Dodgers?

    This thread contains all of the "Is there too much Dodgers at Citi Field" talk from the Citi Field construction photos thread. Please use this thread for all further discussion on this topic.
    Thanks,
    nymdan9


    i still don't understand that if wilpon has all his $$$$$$$ and loved ebbets field so very much, WHY DOES THIS CITIPARK LOOK NOTHING LIKE EBBETS FIELD??????????? rotunda, roshmunda. the inside of this new park looks anything BUT like ebbets field! why couldn't he have built an EXACT copy of ebbets? damn! pete
    Last edited by nymdan; 11-08-2007 at 04:28 PM.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    866
    I don't understand it either. It's like Ebbets Field and Camden Yards had a child with a marketed name slapped on it. I guess... that they wanted it to be "fan-friendly" and innovative in the 21st century but I wish they encorporated more of the ballparks from yesteryear including the Polo Grounds.

    I like it as a Mets fan but it's uniqueness is questionable.


    D-Rex!

  12. #32
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    1,946
    Quote Originally Posted by penncentralpete View Post
    i still don't understand that if wilpon has all his $$$$$$$ and loved ebbets field so very much, WHY DOES THIS CITIPARK LOOK NOTHING LIKE EBBETS FIELD??????????? rotunda, roshmunda. the inside of this new park looks anything BUT like ebbets field! why couldn't he have built an EXACT copy of ebbets? damn! pete
    You'd really want an exact copy of Ebbets? For the Mets?

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    866
    He's a Brooklyn Dodger fan. For the Mets a new "Ebbets" isn't necessary but some creativity when it came to designing it was. I will truly enjoy my time at Citi Field but even though Shea was a cookie cutter it had a personality. Maybe Citi will too- only 2 years left to find out.


    D-Rex!

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by penncentralpete View Post
    i still don't understand that if wilpon has all his $$$$$$$ and loved ebbets field so very much, WHY DOES THIS CITIPARK LOOK NOTHING LIKE EBBETS FIELD??????????? rotunda, roshmunda. the inside of this new park looks anything BUT like ebbets field! why couldn't he have built an EXACT copy of ebbets? damn! pete
    I hear ya! But c'mon, those old ballparks were so bad as far as seating was concerned. Ebbetts was one of the better ones, but I think parks today are dictated by people and the fans today. They have to be "fan-friendly" having crap all over the stadium for people to do because we live in an ADD society. To ask someone to just sit in their seat and watch baseball is asking too much in today's world. Sure, I'd like to see an old Ebbetts, but there are only so many "old school" fans out there. We're a dying breed. The park schematics are dictated by the average patron.

    New York fans are a little different though and that's why Citi Field won't be as ridiculous as some of the other parks out there today. Turner Field for example is a great field, but the stadium might as well be a carnival. There is so much to do in that stadium other than watch baseball, kids don't know how the hell to keep score because they're playing in "Tooner Field." It a crime against humanity if you ask me.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    1,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Venti View Post
    New York fans are a little different though and that's why Citi Field won't be as ridiculous as some of the other parks out there today.
    Different how? Like more arrogant?

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    866
    Not all New Yorkers are arrogant. Most are knowledgeable, and respectable... but then again there are the spoiled bandwagoners of the New York Yankees who all they care about is 26 rings and Derek Jeter. Let's be honest... all teams and their fans can appear arrogant but saying New York is arrogant is as ignorant as saying that Brooklyn pizza costs more then Upstate pizza.
    Last edited by Onemoredayatshea27; 07-27-2007 at 02:26 PM.


    D-Rex!

  17. #37
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    1,946
    I was joking man, I know that not all NY fans are arrogant.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    866
    Ok... I know I overreacted but hey I'm a New Yorker so lets fugghet about it.


    D-Rex!

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Lafferty Daniel View Post
    Different how? Like more arrogant?
    They're different in that they are one of the few fan-bases that actually go to a ballgame to watch baseball.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    866
    That's not true. There are many fan bases that have loyal fans who would sit for days watching them play. Boston is a great example. People go for the atmosphere yes, but they see their beloved Red Sox play. Same with Wrigley Field, Dodger Stadium, Busch Stadium III, that comment is a bit ignorant to other franchise's fans.


    D-Rex!

Page 2 of 2250 FirstFirst 123412521025021002 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •