Blogads

« Excuses, Excuses: A-Rod's Troubles Explained (Redux) | Main | Back to the 80s? »

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Interesting dilemma. In places like Boston, where the stadium is tiny and renovations/ticket prices can be somewhat legitimized in the name of a need to increase revenues in this age of growing payroll, the Yankees have no such protection. If YES can afford to foot the bill for a new, smaller, modernized stadium then financial models had to have been built by the team and network showing this stadium to be significantly more profitable than the current behemoth, and that's gotta be their primary motivation, nothing else. YF is right to be skeptical about this plan, but I am not sure it's because of the public infrastructure portion of the deal - after all, that's a reasonable part of the project for the city to contribute to, so I'd forgive the city for some of their commitment. What the paying fan should be concerned about is the most important aspect of any public-use facility, and that's in the team maintaining affordable access for its fans to see the team they love. To be skeptical, we can all be sure that this access will suffer in a new stadium, writing a whole sector of the team's fanbase out of the general attendance and season ticket equation.

(On the other hand, I think Yankee Stadium is an inelegant shithole, regardless of tradition. But that's a separate discussion altogether.)

YF has it (mostly) right. Vive la toilette!

Whether it's worth it economically for the city/state to pay for infrastructure is a subject of legitimate debate, as SF notes. But the point is that YES's presentation essentially attempts to circumvent the subject by suggesting that the entire cost of the project is borne by the team, which it is not.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search YFSF




Sports Gambling

twitter

schedule & standings