New PNC Ballpark

[NetShrine]

The new ballpark in Pittsburgh holds 38,365.

One of the laments you always here about Fenway is that it only holds 34,218. They claim you can't make money with such a small park.

So what are the Pirates thinking?

[ChrisCary]

They're thinking, we can't sell out anyway and if we have our way Mr. Selig will force The Yankees to carry our financial load

[NetShrine]

George is getting smart - like TBS, FOX, and the Tribune Co.

With YankeeNets (or whatever they call it) the big cable money goes to that company - and not the "Yankees" - - - so, it doesn't count as Yankee revenue when it comes time to slice the pie.

Bud better come up with another plan.

[BuzzBuzzard]

And when the Yanks and other revenue making franchises stop sharing the green, who exactly are the Yanks going to play? No one is going to be interested in a 6 team league.

[NetShrine]

Hey, I thought you wanted contraction? :loud:

[BuzzBuzzard]

I do, but I want to nip any of this anti-revenue sharing sentiment in the bud (no pun intended).

[NetShrine]

For me, it only works if they have to spend it on players. It's wrong for the guy in KC to put the Mets money in his pocket, for keeps, no?

[BuzzBuzzard]

I'm not sure how I feel about the owner having to spend the entire amount shared, but I would argue that is has to be a substantial portion, at least 90% if not more.

[ChrisCary]

Not until their books are public.

[ChrisCary]

It would have to be the 90 percent (or whatever they deem) plus whatever they were already spending.

What's to prevent owners from spending George's money (90 or 100 percent of it) and keeping their own?

And if they spend the money and still can't make their team work because they stil don't care to spend on scouting and development then at what point do you cut their allowance off?

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by ChrisCary
And if they spend the money and still can't make their team work because they stil don't care to spend on scouting and development then at what point do you cut their allowance off?
A valid question and one I can only answer with a question. At what point do you suspend revenue sharing and risk having too few teams for a competitive league to exist?

I don't have the answers to either, but I do think that revenue sharing of some sort is need for the game to survive. George's hiding of revenue in Yankee/Nets/Devils is counterproductive to the prolonging of the sport.

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by ChrisCary
Not until their books are public.

Which one? The real ones or the cooked ones?

[ChrisCary]

My main issue is that there are too many questions for me to even get past the face of one business helping his competitor.

For one, why do we have to take these billionaires on their word? Why won't they open their books?

For two, what the hell have we been doing expanding baseball if we can't suport the teams that already exist?

Where'd the bright idea come from that they can't get people out to support them because they can't compete with other payrolls but they can have a brand new ballpark? Seems like money is already going to the wrong place.

I'm not dead against it, but it seems like some teams are hoping this will save them and are banking on it.
Liek the guy that blows his rent money because he might hit the lottery.

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by ChrisCary
I'm not dead against it, but it seems like some teams are hoping this will save them and are banking on it.


They only thing that will save some teams is making smart decisions - - and all the money in the world can't buy that.

[ChrisCary]

Originally posted by NetShrine


They only thing that will save some teams is making smart decisions - - and all the money in the world can't buy that.

Right, so wouldn't it be better to force some teams to show that they could run a team or at least force them to make some efforts or strides before we arbitrarily hand them my ticket money?

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by ChrisCary
Right, so wouldn't it be better to force some teams to show that they could run a team or at least force them to make some efforts or strides before we arbitrarily hand them my ticket money?

Preaching to the choir homey.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by NetShrine
The new ballpark in Pittsburgh holds 38,365.

One of the laments you always here about Fenway is that it only holds 34,218. They claim you can't make money with such a small park.

So what are the Pirates thinking?
Getting back to the original question, is it possible that in building a smaller park, they can actually increase attendance? Here is my thought.

Say the Pirates sell out 10 homes games. With a smaller park, they are a)going to sell out more games and b)fans wanting to attend games that previously would had not been sold out are prevented from going because they are sold out Follow?

OK, maybe this in and of itself is not an increase in attendance. All I have done is spread out the same number of filled seats over the season. However, this increases the perception of increased fandom. It creates the appearance that there are more fans going to games and maybe creates a stir. More people get behind it because tickets are more difficult to get. Therefore, more people go to the game.

I know I am way out on a limb here, but don't discount some of the extrinsic benefits.

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
this increases the perception of increased fandom. It creates the appearance that there are more fans going to games and maybe creates a stir. More people get behind it because tickets are more difficult to get. Therefore, more people go to the game.

I think that's exactly what they're doing. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Pirates even covered up seats @ 3 Rivers to have this same effect.

[ChrisCary]

So, they're going for the optical illusion.
Once they make it seem like they're selling out or close to selling out, then does the ticket price go up?

By the way Buzz, good use of "Fandom", but I may be wrong so be careful using it around english teachers

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by ChrisCary
By the way Buzz, good use of "Fandom", but I may be wrong so be careful using it around english teachers
This morning seems a long time ago, but I think you gave me fandom as an alternative to fanship. There is no such word as fanship and fandom refers to 'all the fans.' It seems while fandom is indeed a word we may be using it incorrectly. There is your grammar lesson of the day.

[NetShrine]

fan, fandom, fanship - - whatever you use, just remember that the "n" on your keyboard is very close to the "g" - - - be careful, don't want anyone to think you're talking about british cigarettes. :smokin:

[ChrisCary]

Still doin' well at the day job?

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by ChrisCary
Still doin' well at the day job?

LOL Chris!
Sorry to all if my posts were stranger than usual - - bad day at the office with an even worse one due tomorrow (much worse). I hope to be back online, and in a better posting state, on Friday.

BTW, on the Yankee Radio pre-game tonight, Michael Kay asked Knoblauch about the way the Minny "fandom" was treating him - - I nearly drove off the road :loud: ing

[Shel]

Originally posted by NetShrine


They only thing that will save some teams is making smart decisions - - and all the money in the world can't buy that.

SIGH!! How true.