OT: The Economics of Sports Stadiums and bye-bye to the Oakland A’s

[JedB]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

As highlighted in the NYT article, the Raiders do well in LV because fans of the opposing team build a visit around the game. That works when there are 8 or 9 games, hard to see strong attendance from this dynamic when there are 81. No, make that impossible to see.

The Raiders fans also travel to see them.
When they were in Oakland, Sunday evening at the Oakland Airport was always interesting.
Fans going back to LA, San Diego, Vegas, and about 10 other towns out of the SouthWest terminal.

I'm sure Raiders fans from LA, San Diego, now Oakland, and other metros will travel to Vegas, and like the article stated, make a vist around that game.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by JedB

The corporate structure of the Packers won't let them move.
Stock is not publicly sold.
Can only be transferred between family.
No single owner may have more than 4% of the total stock.

Can you imagine trying to get a simple majority of those share-holders to move?

And are we surprised that the team owners have modified league rules to prevent that kind of corporate team owndership ever again?

[JedB]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

And are we surprised that the team owners have modified league rules to prevent that kind of corporate team owndership ever again?

Not in the least surprised.
Huge difference in a Single Owner / LLP Group vs. true fan based ownership.

Some things you will never see in the US Sports franchising (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, NWSL, W-NBA) is relegation.
There's no way an owner(s) will accept the devaluation of their investment based on the outcome of the team's results. The Padres aren't going down to AAA ball, nor will the Clippers, etc...

With some very few exceptions, the business of sport stadiums is based on making the debts publicly owned and the profits privatised for the ownership group.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by JedB

With some very few exceptions, the business of sport stadiums is based on making the debts publicly owned and the profits privatised for the ownership group.

That's the working model of a great many corporate businesses.

[JedB]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

That's the working model of a great many corporate businesses.

There is a distinction between public ownership of a company and being funded at the public's expense.

At least with public ownership of a company (via stocks or bonds) there's the illusion that you may see some of those profits distributed back to you via dividends.

There are very few cases where private sports businesses that have been funded at the public's expense have actually generated income for the city/municipality.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by JedB

There are very few cases where private sports businesses that have been funded at the public's expense have actually generated income for the city/municipality.

And this being an Olympic year, the Olympics are a prime example of private sports businesses (i.e. the IOC and the host city's Olympic Committees) making money at the public's expense. Which is why I'm glad that the people of Boston were successful at shutting down the attempts by the (private) Boston 2024 group to get Boston to host the Olympic games this year.

[JedB]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

And this being an Olympic year, the Olympics are a prime example of private sports businesses (i.e. the IOC and the host city's Olympic Committees) making money at the public's expense. Which is why I'm glad that the people of Boston were successful at shutting down the attempts by the (private) Boston 2024 group to get Boston to host the Olympic games this year.

The few that I can think of that have been successful.

Sydney Olympics. That complex is used daily by a LOT of groups within Sydney metro based on everything I've read/heard.

Portland, OR stadium. Various renovations have been public and privately funded with the most recent being privately funded. Stadium is publicly owned.

------
Separate topic and discussion is the IOC, FIFA, FIM, governing bodies corruption..

[trener1]

Originally Posted by JedB

The Padres aren't going down to AAA ball, nor will the Clippers, etc...

The Padres have actually been one of the better teams in Baseball the last few years.

[JedB]

Originally Posted by trener1

The Padres have actually been one of the better teams in Baseball the last few years.

I grew up with the padres of the 70s and 80s, so that was my reference. I will say that the Krocs (both Ray and Joan) did work with the city and were very active in trying to find mutual wins.

Regardless of the specific team, my point was that no League, nor team owners in a US based league are going to ever going to allow relegation in the way the EUR soccer leagues do.

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by JedB

The few that I can think of that have been successful.

Sydney Olympics. That complex is used daily by a LOT of groups within Sydney metro based on everything I've read/heard.

Portland, OR stadium. Various renovations have been public and privately funded with the most recent being privately funded. Stadium is publicly owned.

------
Separate topic and discussion is the IOC, FIFA, FIM, governing bodies corruption..

Maybe you're specifically focused on the infrastructure, but as I recall the '84 Los Angeles games were profitable and the taxpayers didn't fund much, if any, additional infrastructure. The only thing I believe was built was the cycling track in Carson (Cal State Dominguez Hills), which still gets regular usage.

[trener1]

Originally Posted by JedB

Regardless of the specific team, my point was that no League, nor team owners in a US based league are going to ever going to allow relegation in the way the EUR soccer leagues do.

You are absolutely right on that point.

I'm not even sure if Relegation is the way to go, I guess that's a different argument for another time.

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by JedB

The Raiders fans also travel to see them.
When they were in Oakland, Sunday evening at the Oakland Airport was always interesting.
Fans going back to LA, San Diego, Vegas, and about 10 other towns out of the SouthWest terminal.

I'm sure Raiders fans from LA, San Diego, now Oakland, and other metros will travel to Vegas, and like the article stated, make a vist around that game.

I think you've missed my point. Getting someone to travel to see "their" team, whether it's the Raiders or the opposition, is one thing when they play at most 9 regular season home games. It's a completely different proposition when the team plays 81 home games, and if Fisher still owns the team I'd guess that very few A's fans will want to travel and put ticket money in his pocket.

[quacker2000]

Originally Posted by trener1

You are absolutely right on that point.

I'm not even sure if Relegation is the way to go, I guess that's a different argument for another time.

Also agreed that I can't see this ever happening in my lifetime... that being said, baseball may be the best candidate for an American sport that could benefit from some national regulations and protections as some sort of special cultural pastime. Especially as the fanbase gets older and the revenue shrinks.

This guy makes a much more drastic argument, but I think there's something to it: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/o...tionalize.html

[JedB]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

I think you've missed my point. Getting someone to travel to see "their" team, whether it's the Raiders or the opposition, is one thing when they play at most 9 regular season home games. It's a completely different proposition when the team plays 81 home games, and if Fisher still owns the team I'd guess that very few A's fans will want to travel and put ticket money in his pocket.

I did miss that, you are correct.
I do agree with you, that there are not a lot of folks that are going to travel for baseball (compared with football) to catch even 50% of the home games in Vegas, much less all 81 of them.

I'm sure a lot of folks won't support the A's just to spite Fisher. I know that's my sentiment with the Chargers. Fsck the Spanos' family sideways and I hope they lose money.

[makoti]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

I think you've missed my point. Getting someone to travel to see "their" team, whether it's the Raiders or the opposition, is one thing when they play at most 9 regular season home games. It's a completely different proposition when the team plays 81 home games, and if Fisher still owns the team I'd guess that very few A's fans will want to travel and put ticket money in his pocket.

I'm at a loss as to why ANY fan from Oakland, LA, or SD would walk across the street to go to a game for any of those teams. You want to leave? Go. I will not give you a second thought.
Bandwagon fans with no actual ties to the cities might follow. What do they care?
If the Chiefs or Royals ever leave KC, they are dead to me.
The A's did. They are of no interest to me, anymore.