Jump to content

Do New Stadiums and Arenas Make a Differece?


markinsac
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since the early '90's teams have been building new buildings. The St. Louis Rams built their dome in '94 and it's already outdated. Of course new venues bring in much more revenue. A perfect example of success is the SF Giants. They played in Windy, cold and old Candlestick Park since '62. The won no World Series. In the last few years of playing there, their attendance was down to just 10,000 a game. Once Pac Bell Park arrived, they have sold out 90% of their games averaging just over 39,000 a game. The setting is downtown and in a much warmer climate. Now SF is going for their 3rd Championship since packing their bags. Other successes: St. Louis Cardinals, Seattle Seahawks, Baltimore Ravens etc. Of course, there's plenty of new stadiums and arenas. But look at the Oakland Raiders and A's. They are near the bottom in attendance and payroll and play in the worst stadium known to mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the biggest scams of the past 20 or 30 years

 

teams with tons of revenue get communities to pay for stadiums. and then they take $200 million in naming rights, ads, etc and stick it in their pocket!

 

shameless behavior by anyone in the club

 

Can't argue with that...

 

Billionaire owners do a great job of holding cities hostage.

 

Why should people have to pay taxes for a new stadium just to make the team more money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...