Page 134 of 135 FirstFirst ... 3484124132133134135 LastLast
Results 3,326 to 3,350 of 3368

Thread: The Mets Ownership / Management Thread

  1. #3326
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by trepye View Post
    These fools are going to take this Billion-Dollar pitching rotation and turn it into a 5-yr cash cow. And so long as Met fans tumble into the ballpark like zombies incapable of judgment and self-respect they are going to make a minimal investment on their ridiculously good talent pool of pitching. Next time you are pissed off watching your hometeam during a game in Citifield, REMEMBER..... you get what you pay for, and you paid for it, thereby you should be pissed off at your lack of common sense as much as this reprehensible ownership.
    They're not fools they're villains.

    Fandom is imprinted same time as religion and national identity for most. That's why fans act like "zombies" instead of consumers of entertainment. Add in that Fred has the local franchise for a legal monopoly and you've got a problem.

    Between this and the Willets Point land grab, owning the Mets has let Fred and Saul go on a real rampage.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  2. #3327
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    5,418
    Contrasting wisdom from a couple months ago:
    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14...s-luxury-taxes

    CLEVELAND -- Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert said he's spending a near-record amount on salaries and luxury taxes because it would be foolish not to.

    Since the end of last season, the Cavs have locked up players to nearly $300 million in new contracts, including $113 million to Kevin Love, $82 million to Tristan Thompson and $47 million to LeBron James. Currently, Gilbert is committed to spending $175.6 million on payroll this season, with $65 million of that in luxury taxes. Those numbers would represent the second-highest spending numbers in league history, falling behind only the 2013-14 Brooklyn Nets, who spent $197 million, including tax.

    "We're committed; we're all-in ... When you invest in something like a sports franchise and you're in for so much ... if you at the margins start pulling back, I think that may be foolish on a lot of fronts," Gilbert said "We're investing for the future as well as the current." With the exception of James, who can be a free agent next summer, the Cavs now have their entire core locked up for the next four seasons, as Kyrie Irving is at the start of a new extension he signed last year. Gilbert said that was a driving force behind all the spending in the offseason. "These guys who are under these large contracts, that's a core for four or five years,"

  3. #3328
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    Contrasting wisdom from a couple months ago:
    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14...s-luxury-taxes

    CLEVELAND -- Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert said he's spending a near-record amount on salaries and luxury taxes because it would be foolish not to.

    Since the end of last season, the Cavs have locked up players to nearly $300 million in new contracts, including $113 million to Kevin Love, $82 million to Tristan Thompson and $47 million to LeBron James. Currently, Gilbert is committed to spending $175.6 million on payroll this season, with $65 million of that in luxury taxes. Those numbers would represent the second-highest spending numbers in league history, falling behind only the 2013-14 Brooklyn Nets, who spent $197 million, including tax.

    "We're committed; we're all-in ... When you invest in something like a sports franchise and you're in for so much ... if you at the margins start pulling back, I think that may be foolish on a lot of fronts," Gilbert said "We're investing for the future as well as the current." With the exception of James, who can be a free agent next summer, the Cavs now have their entire core locked up for the next four seasons, as Kyrie Irving is at the start of a new extension he signed last year. Gilbert said that was a driving force behind all the spending in the offseason. "These guys who are under these large contracts, that's a core for four or five years,"
    Gilbert takes pride in owning a sports team, hobnobbing with LeBron, winning. It's a more attractive persona for him than being a usurer. Fred is different. All you needed to see was Fred and Saul celebrating on the steps of the courthouse after the Madoff settlement to know they're different. Fred and Saul's joy at keeping almost all the money stolen from widows and charities said it all. They prefer sticking it to others over being local heroes.

    Also Fred is probably running the Mets/SNY at a better than 50% operating margin combined. It's incredible.

    T.V. money is guaranteed to be over $250M a year. Wilpon net from SNY is >$100M, SNY paymet to the Mets $83M, MLB payment for national TV deal $70M. That's $250M for TV rights.

    In Fred's New Yorker interview it was revealed every fan that attends a game averages $125 in revenue for Fred. Let's lower that to $75 for no shows, etc. The Mets never dip below 2 million attendance. That's another $150M almost guaranteed every year.

    So $400+ million dollars combined. And last year with better attendance and the post-season they probably grossed over $500 million.

    And what are operating expenses?

    The best chart I've seen is outdated but a good guideline:

    If Mets operating expenses were $75 million in 2002 inflation would bring them to around $100 million now.

    Meanwhile TV revenues have exploded between then and now.

    With payroll of around $100 million and operating expenses of $100 million Fred probably netted close to $300 million from the Mets/SNY last year. But the team never sees any of that money. The tapeworm's tape just gets longer and longer. Which for Fred is meaning of life.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  4. #3329
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Apparently Fred Wilpon has achieved the almost impossible: he's managed to lose a lot of money in the current real estate environment.

    http://deadspin.com/documents-mets-o...lio-1754348874

    Not sure exactly what's going on. I'm not sure how big a role SAP V plays in Fred and Saul's ventures. I'd imagine as with most such funds their liability is limited. Not in the mood to waste brainpower assessing Fred's problems right now. I'll say this: if he needs a quick $2 billion he knows what to do.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  5. #3330
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Is New York a big market or a small market?

    http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/n...gaining-032516


    Yankees snipe at Mets in revenue-sharing gripe

    By Ken Rosenthal @ken_rosenthal Mar 25, 2016 at 1:45p ET

    Baseball’s collective-bargaining negotiations again have the potential to pit not only owners against players, but owners against owners.

    One example: The Yankees are upset about the money they are paying in revenue sharing compared to their cross-town rival Mets.

    “What is very burdensome to us -- and is unfair -- is the amount of money we have to pay in revenue sharing compared, for example, to teams in our market that pay 10 times less than us,” Yankees president Randy Levine told FOX Sports...



    Some might want to gloat on how Fred is getting over on the system compared to the Yankees but think about it: Fred screwing the intent of revenue sharing doesn't benefit Mets fans. Does the money he palms go to the team? No. Fred screws Mets fans too.

    Maybe if this is addressed in the next CBA it'll help disincentivize Fred from future pillage.

    By the way, the $313M Mets 2015 revenue quote attributed to Forbes doesn't include the roughly $200M from the Wilpons' share of SNY. One of these days I'd love to see Forbes add up all the money the Wilpons derive from the Mets properly.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  6. #3331
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange County NY
    Posts
    6,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    Is New York a big market or a small market?

    http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/n...gaining-032516


    Yankees snipe at Mets in revenue-sharing gripe

    By Ken Rosenthal @ken_rosenthal Mar 25, 2016 at 1:45p ET

    Baseball’s collective-bargaining negotiations again have the potential to pit not only owners against players, but owners against owners.

    One example: The Yankees are upset about the money they are paying in revenue sharing compared to their cross-town rival Mets.

    “What is very burdensome to us -- and is unfair -- is the amount of money we have to pay in revenue sharing compared, for example, to teams in our market that pay 10 times less than us,” Yankees president Randy Levine told FOX Sports...



    Some might want to gloat on how Fred is getting over on the system compared to the Yankees but think about it: Fred screwing the intent of revenue sharing doesn't benefit Mets fans. Does the money he palms go to the team? No. Fred screws Mets fans too.

    Maybe if this is addressed in the next CBA it'll help disincentivize Fred from future pillage.

    By the way, the $313M Mets 2015 revenue quote attributed to Forbes doesn't include the roughly $200M from the Wilpons' share of SNY. One of these days I'd love to see Forbes add up all the money the Wilpons derive from the Mets properly.
    Mets owners charge triple the price as Yankees for subway series steerage seats .....no problem. A slew of Mets fans here rush to defend the practice.
    Mets owner avoids paying into revenue sharing, by golly that is just fantastic.

    Anything and everything connected to the Mets is good, at least on baseball fever. This is a Mets forum, and 90% of Yankees fans left. In fact most MLB teams do not get any posts for an entire season on BF; some only get a handful. I wonder why?
    When fans of other teams left in droves, these forums began to stink. Even as the team vastly improved, the forum sank. There were once hundreds of active members; now I would say about a dozen.

  7. #3332
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by mandrake View Post
    Mets owners charge triple the price as Yankees for subway series steerage seats .....no problem. A slew of Mets fans here rush to defend the practice.
    Free market. Just like airlines charging a premium to fly on or near holidays.... Get over it.

    Mets owner avoids paying into revenue sharing, by golly that is just fantastic.
    Avoids? Avoiding, in my book, involves circumventing policies to one's benefit.

    To that end, the Mets aren't "avoiding" paying into revenue sharing... They aren't required to, because they do not generate as much revenue as the Yankees do.

    A similar article elsewhere read that the Yankees generated more than $200 million more than the Mets in revenue, AND needed to pay a luxury tax on their payroll. I guess Yankee management is upset that their high-payroll team is not reaping the same ROI as their neighbors across the bridge who haven't spend nearly as much.

    My guess is that the Mets will be paying more into next year's pot based on the reported boost in attendance that is sure to be coming. The bill hasn't come due yet...
    20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

  8. #3333
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by mandrake View Post
    Mets owners charge triple the price as Yankees for subway series steerage seats .....no problem. A slew of Mets fans here rush to defend the practice.
    Mets owner avoids paying into revenue sharing, by golly that is just fantastic.

    Anything and everything connected to the Mets is good, at least on baseball fever. This is a Mets forum, and 90% of Yankees fans left. In fact most MLB teams do not get any posts for an entire season on BF; some only get a handful. I wonder why?
    When fans of other teams left in droves, these forums began to stink. Even as the team vastly improved, the forum sank. There were once hundreds of active members; now I would say about a dozen.
    There are two forums that traditionally got the most traffic: The ballparks forum got a lot when Yankee Stadium and Coupon Field were being constructed. The Mets ticket thread was a magnet back when some fans believed they'd become tycoons from ticket resales. The coaching forum still draws heavy traffic.

    The individual team forums never drew commensurate attention.

    Why do you think member posts have fallen off?

    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    Free market. Just like airlines charging a premium to fly on or near holidays.... Get over it.
    Doug: look up the meaning of free market. Fred sucking the tit of government and gaming every system he's part of is the opposite of "free market".

    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    Avoids? Avoiding, in my book, involves circumventing policies to one's benefit.

    To that end, the Mets aren't "avoiding" paying into revenue sharing... They aren't required to, because they do not generate as much revenue as the Yankees do.

    A similar article elsewhere read that the Yankees generated more than $200 million more than the Mets in revenue, AND needed to pay a luxury tax on their payroll. I guess Yankee management is upset that their high-payroll team is not reaping the same ROI as their neighbors across the bridge who haven't spend nearly as much.

    My guess is that the Mets will be paying more into next year's pot based on the reported boost in attendance that is sure to be coming. The bill hasn't come due yet...
    I believe after the sale of their share of YES network the Yankees' local TV revenue, which is now received as payment to the team, is counted in their overall revenue. Add what Fred skims from SNY and Mets and Yankees revenue streams are comparable.

    I think the problem here is you view Fred's pillage as a triumph of the individual. It's not. It's a manifestation of systemic problems that you, as a Libertarian, should find appalling.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  9. #3334
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    Doug: look up the meaning of free market. Fred sucking the tit of government and gaming every system he's part of is the opposite of "free market".
    Okay. From the Wikipedia:

    A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.


    The Mets (the vendors) set a price. The consumers (the fans who attend games) buy tickets. The levels of government have no say in the cost of tickets. The vendors will sell their product at the price which gives them the highest yield.

    Any deal a team makes to get their ballpark typically doesn't impact how much they charge for tickets for a particular game. The advantages the owners of any professional sports team take are given to them by the politicians who make it possible. He plays by the rules the elected politicians made.

    I believe after the sale of their share of YES network the Yankees' local TV revenue, which is now received as payment to the team, is counted in their overall revenue. Add what Fred skims from SNY and Mets and Yankees revenue streams are comparable.
    Source? I cannot believe the Mets generate anything near to what the Yankees do.

    I think the problem here is you view Fred's pillage as a triumph of the individual. It's not. It's a manifestation of systemic problems that you, as a Libertarian, should find appalling.
    Triumph? No. The right to do with his property as he sees fit? Yes.
    20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

  10. #3335
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    Okay. From the Wikipedia:

    A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.


    The Mets (the vendors) set a price. The consumers (the fans who attend games) buy tickets. The levels of government have no say in the cost of tickets. The vendors will sell their product at the price which gives them the highest yield.
    Except Fred gamed capacity of a government owned facility to force contrived shortages. He slashed affordable seating by 15,000. Fred hijacked a mountain of government money to put the screws to Mets fans.

    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    Triumph? No. The right to do with his property as he sees fit? Yes.
    Coupon Field is not Fred's property.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  11. #3336
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    Except Fred gamed capacity of a government owned facility to force contrived shortages. He slashed affordable seating by 15,000. Fred hijacked a mountain of government money to put the screws to Mets fans.
    I posted a long time ago the cost of building those extra seats over the amortization period of the bonds; historical attendance; historical ballpark capacities... Forget who owns the land or the ballpark... You don't lease or build capacity that you will not need. And besides, once a tenant takes occupies whatever they are leasing / renting, they can charge whatever they want for admission.

    Hell, the city of New York screws everyone by not mandating sub-market rate apartments be made for everyone who wants one....

    You wrote that you were going to comment on my stadium cost numbers. Have you put your thoughts together on the subject?

    Coupon Field is not Fred's property.
    Neither are many businesses housed in leased spaces, yet those business can charge whatever they want for their services. The prices charged by the business for services / goods provided are independent of the leasing agreement. There is no requirement made by the City of New York that any such "affordable" seating be built and designed into the stadium.
    20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

  12. #3337
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    I posted a long time ago the cost of building those extra seats over the amortization period of the bonds; historical attendance; historical ballpark capacities... Forget who owns the land or the ballpark... You don't lease or build capacity that you will not need. And besides, once a tenant takes occupies whatever they are leasing / renting, they can charge whatever they want for admission.

    Hell, the city of New York screws everyone by not mandating sub-market rate apartments be made for everyone who wants one....

    You wrote that you were going to comment on my stadium cost numbers. Have you put your thoughts together on the subject?



    Neither are many businesses housed in leased spaces, yet those business can charge whatever they want for their services. The prices charged by the business for services / goods provided are independent of the leasing agreement. There is no requirement made by the City of New York that any such "affordable" seating be built and designed into the stadium.
    Fred took a pre-existing City owned facility, demolished it and built a new one at City expense with 15,000 less seats. He thereby rigged supply and demand so he could inflate ticket prices and spook fans into buying 81 tickets at once. He is now scalping tickets to his own games, using the term "dynamic pricing". You seem to consider this the free market in action. It's absurd.

    Since Fred hardly paid for anything amortizing the cost of extra seats was a non-issue. The cost of extra seating vs. benefit was always a non-issue. Back when teams paid for their own stadia they always built capacity at least 4 times their average attendance:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...910-misc.shtml

    Drawing more fans was always a winning proposition... Until ticket reselling became easier and fans could be bamboozled into thinking reselling Fred's tickets could make them rich. At that point the paradigm changed:

    http://www.nysun.com/sports/now-the-...inciple/55004/

    Now, the Fenway Principle
    Sports
    By EVAN WEINER, Special to the Sun | May 23, 2007

    In less than two years, Mets owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon will unveil their version of baseball's grandest ballpark on the site just behind the visitor's bullpen in the left field parking lot at Shea Stadium. The new yard will include the latest in technological gadgetry and no shortage of ATM machines — the stadium will bear the name of a bank, after all. The ballpark will carry all of the now requisite revenue producers, from club seats and luxury boxes, to eateries and fan apparel stores. In short, the Wilpons are building a mall that happens to feature baseball. As Shea Stadium — a functional though not graceful slab of cement — is readied for demolition like its neighbor in the Bronx, Yankee Stadium, club owners are finding that there is more money in mall ball. For ticket holders flush with cash, but not necessarily a love for baseball, the attractions beyond the ballpark could prove to be the real draw and a windfall for the Mets' ownership.

    In their new homes, the Mets and Yankees owners will offer fewer seats, reducing capacity by about 12,000 and 7,000 seats a game, respectively.

    Years ago, a professor at the University of Central Florida, Bill Sutton, coined the phrase the "Fenway Principle," to describe how a ballpark or arena with reduced capacity can create a shortage of tickets, forcing customers to purchase tickets months in advance if they want to attend a game. The Fenway Principle will likely play out in Queens and the Bronx, where fans will not only vie for fewer seats, but will pay more for them...


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  13. #3338
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    Fred took a pre-existing City owned facility, demolished it and built a new one at City expense with 15,000 less seats. He thereby rigged supply and demand so he could inflate ticket prices and spook fans into buying 81 tickets at once. He is now scalping tickets to his own games, using the term "dynamic pricing". You seem to consider this the free market in action. It's absurd.

    Since Fred hardly paid for anything amortizing the cost of extra seats was a non-issue. The cost of extra seating vs. benefit was always a non-issue. Back when teams paid for their own stadia they always built capacity at least 4 times their average attendance:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...910-misc.shtml

    Drawing more fans was always a winning proposition... Until ticket reselling became easier and fans could be bamboozled into thinking reselling Fred's tickets could make them rich. At that point the paradigm changed:

    http://www.nysun.com/sports/now-the-...inciple/55004/

    Now, the Fenway Principle
    Sports
    By EVAN WEINER, Special to the Sun | May 23, 2007

    In less than two years, Mets owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon will unveil their version of baseball's grandest ballpark on the site just behind the visitor's bullpen in the left field parking lot at Shea Stadium. The new yard will include the latest in technological gadgetry and no shortage of ATM machines — the stadium will bear the name of a bank, after all. The ballpark will carry all of the now requisite revenue producers, from club seats and luxury boxes, to eateries and fan apparel stores. In short, the Wilpons are building a mall that happens to feature baseball. As Shea Stadium — a functional though not graceful slab of cement — is readied for demolition like its neighbor in the Bronx, Yankee Stadium, club owners are finding that there is more money in mall ball. For ticket holders flush with cash, but not necessarily a love for baseball, the attractions beyond the ballpark could prove to be the real draw and a windfall for the Mets' ownership.

    In their new homes, the Mets and Yankees owners will offer fewer seats, reducing capacity by about 12,000 and 7,000 seats a game, respectively.

    Years ago, a professor at the University of Central Florida, Bill Sutton, coined the phrase the "Fenway Principle," to describe how a ballpark or arena with reduced capacity can create a shortage of tickets, forcing customers to purchase tickets months in advance if they want to attend a game. The Fenway Principle will likely play out in Queens and the Bronx, where fans will not only vie for fewer seats, but will pay more for them...
    Although I don't doubt the scumbag that owns the Mets was adhering to the "Fenway Principle", but that only works if you have a product worth watching. Now lets face its - for the first 6 1/2 seasons at Citi Field the Mets weren't worth it.

    Fred is such an arrogant douche bag he probably thought that the ignorance of the fan base was going to last forever and despite the garbage that was on the field they would continue to buy tickets. Then they saw the big drop in attendance. Which led to some of the most embarrassing campaigns I have ever seen.
    Last edited by Paulypal; 03-28-2016 at 12:32 PM.

  14. #3339
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    Although I don't doubt the scumbag that owns the Mets was adhering to the "Fenway Principle", but that only works if you have a product worth watching. Now lets face its - for the first 6 1/2 seasons at Citi Field the Mets weren't worth it.

    Fred is such an arrogant douche bag he probably thought that the ignorance of the fan base was going to last forever and despite the garbage that was on the field they would continue to buy tickets. Then they saw the big drop in attendance. Which led to some of the most embarrassing campaigns I have ever seen.
    The Wilpons assembled a good paper team quickly in 2005-2006. They had a RSN to launch and had to have a winner going into the new ballpark for "the Fenway Principle" to work.

    Problem was they always spent as little as possible to achieve their goal. They were always cheap in the draft, got much of their depth from the scrap heap and avoided blue chip talent until they were inside that 2005 to 2008 window. They also encouraged their best players to play hurt.

    The result was the stars inevitably got knocked out and there wasn't much left.

    Considering Fred's never played anything straight and always gotten away with it he was probably shocked when the team collapsed. I'm sure he never planned on dumping unsold tickets on StubHub for pennies and undercutting season ticket holders who'd been scared into plans by reduced capacity.

    You can bet the season ticket holders never expected that.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  15. #3340
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    Fred took a pre-existing City owned facility, demolished it and built a new one at City expense with 15,000 less seats. He thereby rigged supply and demand so he could inflate ticket prices and spook fans into buying 81 tickets at once. He is now scalping tickets to his own games, using the term "dynamic pricing". You seem to consider this the free market in action. It's absurd.
    It's called good business. I know you don't like it, but it's the reality of today's modern professional sports teams.

    Since Fred hardly paid for anything amortizing the cost of extra seats was a non-issue. The cost of extra seating vs. benefit was always a non-issue.
    How can you say that the cost of constructing those last 15,000 seats is a non-issue? The Mets made use of muni-bonds to fund the construction of the ballpark. Instead of paying rent, the Mets are repaying the bonds. Had they built a 60,000 seat stadium, they would never have gotten the banks to underwrite the bonds. The Yankees could demonstrate the ballpark draw - the Torre Yankees make that possible - but not historical Mets attendance. The underwriters would never have signed off on the bonds, no matter if they were muni-bonds or private bonds.

    But this is getting off-topic again. Free market is dictating the ticket prices that are being asked, and apparently being paid.


    Back when teams paid for their own stadia they always built capacity at least 4 times their average attendance:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...910-misc.shtml
    Comparing 1910 to 2010 stadium capacity cannot be done. Too much has changed.

    1. The cost of acquiring land has increased 100 fold.
    2. The cost of construction has increased 100 fold.
    3. Modern building and safety codes place burdens on construction that didn't exist 100 years ago. Hell, those stadiums didn't even come with lights to illuminate the field.

    I won't even bother addressing maintenance, because that is not part of construction, but needs to be considered to determine cost of ownership over the life of the structure.

    In addition, how a fan gets his fix has changed. When the pre- WW1 parks were built, you either went to the game, or read about it the next day in the paper. When radio come of age, you could listen to the game live. When TV came along, you could now sit at home and watch. If an owner generated all his revenue from the gate in 1910, he sure wasn't generating all of it from the gate in 1960. He definitely isn't generating it all at the gate now.

    Crowded urban cities and displaced fan bases caused the owners to look to replace their self-built ballparks. People went to games in cars. Many of the old parks weren't built with ample car parking. In comes the municipal stadium... Why? Because owners could not acquire sites to build new stadiums with ample parking. Land acquisition alone would bankrupt them. When teams were playing in those cookie-cutter municipal multi-purpose stadiums, they had no risk or stake in their construction. Cities used these new stadiums to lure franchises or keep their existing ones. These stadiums were built and sized for football, not baseball. But since they were used for both, of course the team would sell as many seats as they could. They had no bonds to pay off, so they didn't need to worry about excess capacity.

    Historical attendance, and not historical ballpark capacity, should dictate how anyone sizes their new ballpark.
    20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

  16. #3341
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    How can you say that the cost of constructing those last 15,000 seats is a non-issue? The Mets made use of muni-bonds to fund the construction of the ballpark. Instead of paying rent, the Mets are repaying the bonds. Had they built a 60,000 seat stadium, they would never have gotten the banks to underwrite the bonds. The Yankees could demonstrate the ballpark draw - the Torre Yankees make that possible - but not historical Mets attendance. The underwriters would never have signed off on the bonds, no matter if they were muni-bonds or private bonds.
    Really?

    Let's see some evidence.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  17. #3342
    Fenway principle?

    Miami metro area has 5.5 mil population. Larger than Boston metro area. They have smallest MLB ballpark and were 28th in attendance. Shrinking their ballpark resulted in empty seats. Is this really a principle or the age old idea that winning brings in the fans?

  18. #3343
    Additionally where was the Fenway Principle in the early 80's when Fenway averaged 20,000 per game?

  19. #3344
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,872
    Quote Originally Posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    Additionally where was the Fenway Principle in the early 80's when Fenway averaged 20,000 per game?
    1) Miami's not a ML city.

    2) The new paradigm was helped along by the ease of reselling on the internet and the emergence of well-funded scalping behemoth StubHub, which was able to fend off legal challenges, fight anti-scalping laws, etc.

    No way most people would commit to season plans if they weren't able to resell the tickets they didn't use. In fact, back in 2008, many of the most rabid supporters of slashed capacity on this board were newly minted entrepreneurs who figured they'd benefit from Fred's screw job.

    At that time posters weren't denying the intent of the reduced capacity; they were celebrating it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Saltzy23 View Post
    Sigh...here we go again...these extra seats lay dormant for 75%(or more) of the games. That is extra supply. Extra supply means less demand. Less demand means lower prices. Lower prices mean that the people that just wanna make sure theyre in for the playoffs(and LOL...make over $40k in NYC) buying season tickets get STUCK with thousands of useless tickets cause anyone can just mosey on up to the BO 10 mins before first pitch or buy from a scalper for 1/2 face. We ALL know what a peachy deal this was for all of you. TOUGH. Now the people that actually deserve to get some money back(vs the people getting in for $3) have a little leverage...boo freaking hoo...
    And so they happily laid out thou$ands to hedge Fred in the event of an unwatchable team. As we all know the Amateur Scalper Army got massacred.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  20. #3345
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,406
    Quote Originally Posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    Additionally where was the Fenway Principle in the early 80's when Fenway averaged 20,000 per game?
    So your taking a period of time when the team sucked and using that to discredit the fact that any product worth watching in a smaller venue will drive up demand and prices for tickets?

    Its all a matter of supply and demand, but its up to team ownership to make sure that the demand is in tact before they worry about ticket supply and prices.

  21. #3346
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    1) Miami's not a ML city.

    2) The new paradigm was helped along by the ease of reselling on the internet and the emergence of well-funded scalping behemoth StubHub, which was able to fend off legal challenges, fight anti-scalping laws, etc.

    No way most people would commit to season plans if they weren't able to resell the tickets they didn't use. In fact, back in 2008, many of the most rabid supporters of slashed capacity on this board were newly minted entrepreneurs who figured they'd benefit from Fred's screw job.

    At that time posters weren't denying the intent of the reduced capacity; they were celebrating it:



    And so they happily laid out thou$ands to hedge Fred in the event of an unwatchable team. As we all know the Amateur Scalper Army got massacred.
    Ah but Miami has been an ML city for 23 years now. There are residents there going on 30 who have little memory of there not being an ML team in their area.

  22. #3347
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    So your taking a period of time when the team sucked and using that to discredit the fact that any product worth watching in a smaller venue will drive up demand and prices for tickets?

    Its all a matter of supply and demand, but its up to team ownership to make sure that the demand is in tact before they worry about ticket supply and prices.
    Exactly. The Knicks have extremely high attendance and they're not worth watching. No Fenway Principle there.

  23. #3348
    To say nothing of the Rockies huge attendance in a huge stadium when they were dreadful.

    4.4 mil in 1993.

    Its supply and demand not a POMPOUS Fenway principle, as if a 100+ year old ballpark in a small city with rabid baseball fans isn't an outlier.
    Last edited by LI METS FAN; 03-29-2016 at 08:49 AM.

  24. #3349
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,406
    Quote Originally Posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    To say nothing of the Rockies huge attendance in a huge stadium when they were dreadful.

    4.4 mil in 1993.

    Its supply and demand not a POMPOUS Fenway principle, as if a 100+ year old ballpark in a small city with rabid baseball fans isn't an outlier.
    See there you go. To follow your suit:

    The Knicks have a rabid fan base so including them is moot.

    New York is also a rabid baseball city but the Mets have had bad attendance didn't they? Which is why it all backfired on Fred.


    Wasn't 1993 the inaugural year for the Rockies after Colorado basically begged for an MLB team for years? They proved to be a good sports city unlike some cities in Florida. Which by the way even the Marlins drew over 3 million in 1993.

  25. #3350
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    See there you go. To follow your suit:

    The Knicks have a rabid fan base so including them is moot.

    New York is also a rabid baseball city but the Mets have had bad attendance didn't they? Which is why it all backfired on Fred.


    Wasn't 1993 the inaugural year for the Rockies after Colorado basically begged for an MLB team for years? They proved to be a good sports city unlike some cities in Florida. Which by the way even the Marlins drew over 3 million in 1993.
    IMO it's all about supply and demand, win or lose (see Knicks and Cubs).

    NYC has had very low attendance for the Mets, Yankees, Giants and Dodgers. Maybe in that sport it's about winning in NYC.
    Other teams, other sports in NY or around the country not so much.

    Fenway park would have sold out every game in 2005 if they had 55,000 seats. For the same high prices.

    IMO that Professor using Fenway and its "reduced capacity" implies it was done deliberately. Instead the team played in an 11,000 seat stadium and in 1912 27,000 seat Fenway park opened. It's capacity has increased over the years. Just like Wrigley field. The principle should not be named after Fenway.
    If you want to say new Yankee stadium and Citi was deliberate, that's a different scenario.

Page 134 of 135 FirstFirst ... 3484124132133134135 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
  •