@@firebird200 I'm just kidding. They'll play in the AAA park in Sac. If Fisher gets the new ballpark built in Vegas, they'll go there. If not, Vivek (Sac Kings owner) will help Fisher get a new ballpark in Sac and the A's will stay in Sac.
Tax payers are getting tired of funding these owner's vanity projects. Many of these stadiums are perfectly fine. In either case, the expectation that tax payers are obligated to pay for a private organization's place of business is ridiculous.
@@sirchi8731Profitable for the owners an politicians, sure. Taxpayers, no. The politicians use it for pr/campaign donations, they always need a shovel ready project to add to their resumes. But just as important, the taxpayer assumes the financial risks for such projects as well.
There’s nothing wrong with Kaufman Stadium. Maybe depressed ginger should do a little bit more homework: The Royals don’t suck because of the stadium situation. The Royals winning percentage has only been over .500 THREE times in 20 years. THAT’S NOT THE STADIUM’S FAULT. Maybe you should do a little deeper dive into how each of these teams operate. The Royals stink and it’s not because of the stadium. It’s because ownership doesn’t either know how to run the ball club or doesn’t want to spend the money that it requires but either way Taxpayers don’t need to billion dollar gifts to billionaire team owners so they can bask in the glow of a new stadium. None of these owners got rich by being stupid. If stadium projects were so valuable I don’t think any of these team owners would be so willing to “share the wealth” with their tax paying neighbors.
There’s nothing wrong with Kaufman Stadium. Maybe depressed ginger should do a little bit more homework: The Royals don’t suck because of the stadium situation. The Royals winning percentage has only been over .500 THREE times in 20 years. THAT’S NOT THE STADIUM’S FAULT. Maybe you should do a little deeper dive into how each of these teams operate. The Royals stink and it’s not because of the stadium. It’s because ownership doesn’t either know how to run the ball club or doesn’t want to spend the money that it requires but either way Taxpayers don’t need to give billion dollar gifts to billionaire team owners so they can bask in the glow of a new stadium. None of these owners got rich by being stupid. If stadium projects were so valuable I don’t think any of these team owners would be so willing to “share the wealth” with their tax paying neighbors.
@@thomasgentilella1183 well Royals ownership doesn't want to play in a 50 year ballpark. Maybe you tax payers need to put in your share for a new ballpark. Or else let another city have them
@@noahlisiecki2734If anything the Sox need new ownership. As long as Reinsdorf is owner, the will most likely not contend again, because he's too cheap to spend quality money on quality players, not to mention the fact that they don't have the right coaches, etc, as far as getting the best out of each player so as to be in contention each year. The way the team's playing, chances are they'll be worse than the '62 Mets.
This junk never ends. After 20 or 30 years, owners want a new stadium, no matter where it is. No wonder Montreal lost its baseball team. People there aren't willing to spend money for a project for billionaires just so that fans can cheer for the Expos. If they had good ownership in Montreal and kept good teams together like the 1994 team, that city would still have a team and a new stadium. But what I have a problem with is how the stadiums don't last. They're only good for 20 years. It would be so cool if they could somehow repurpose Olympic Stadium. I know it's not possible, but it would be nice if they could 'fit' a new stadium inside the shell they already have. I mean, if they tore down all the seats there, then built something entirely new and had a glass ceiling, that would be really cool. They could add restaurants and other viewable areas in the stadium. I don't think it will happen because Olympic Stadium seems old now and it would probably be difficult to use it. But when I used to watch games there, I didn't care that the stadium was falling apart. I just liked that they had a good team. The Quebec government also seems willing to spend an endless amount of money in that stadium because French tourists like it. Building a new stadium is out of the question for them, but repurposing Olympic Stadium is not. People in Montreal would like more affordable housing, more metro stations and more parks. Having a baseball team, while a nice dream, doesn't seem to be a priority for lots of people there. Don't get me wrong. Montreal is a baseball city. It's just that, if owners never support the team and keep good teams together, then it's no wonder attendance fell. Why should people support a league that gave up on them? It's the same thing with Oakland. I feel sorry for the fans there.
@@brad8749I did when I visited all 30.... History is cool and all... But modern facilities have more amenities and better sightlines and the fan experience is better
Stuart Sternberg owner of the Rays will get filthy rich off of this deal. As of right now he gets 100% of all stadium revenue. All the parking 100%. He also is one of the major decision makers with all the projects in this 6B project. Even if he sells the Rays. The city said they probably will revise that. The complete project will be finished around 2055 on schedule. Rays will be able to get out of the least that same decade. I think the commissioner's will try to push the vote passed November so they do not immediately lose their job if they vote for this.
For the Royals; build a retro stadium in NE Johnson County, KS accessible by public transportation, for the Rays, get Disney to build a smaller version of SoFi off I4 near the attractions area in Orlando, for the White Sox, build a retro park in one of the outlying suburbs and have the outfield fence literally be a corn field.
Please don’t include the White Sox’s if you know nothing about TV revenue in MLB They have the 3rds best local TV deal Chicago is the third largest market in MLB behind NY and LA. They are not giving that up to move to a lower tier market and no that money is not equally shared either. So please the Sox’s are not moving out of the Chicago area.
They SHOULD move. No Midwest city deserves TWO teams. Especially with Illinois population loss and Dallas and Houston about to leapfrog the Chicago metro area in population in the not too distant future if current population trends continue.
Philadelphia Boston St Louis and now the California Bay Area all had 2 teams at one point too. Times change. The US population is moving West and South. And a sports league can't endlessly expand and expand teams. So..... Chicago SHOULD only have ONE team. And Cubs are more popular so they stay
@HoshizakiYoshimasa if the white Sox are moving then the mets and angles should too because new york and LA are losing population and LA is a dodger town and new york is a Yankee town
TV revenue u make more money people people in the seats ticket sales is where the money is y did the A's move cuz no1 wants to go to the game cuz of how bad the stadium is it's ticket sales not TV revenue that makes them money
I was at the Rays game earlier today. Their offense needs a rebuild more than the Trop. It’s honestly not that bad. Seeing the upper deck closed is a bummer, but the rest of the stadium was packed. The Trop is nothing special, but it gets the job done. If they added in a few windows in the outfield walls, it would make a huge difference. The AC was struggling to keep it cool today - something I’ve never experienced before.
So the Rays’ owner refused to change his team’s name to St. Petersburg Rays, but expects the citizens of St. Pete to pay most of the cost of a new stadium.
Royals' attendance terrible? It's much higher than it was last year, and as they stay above .500 even more fans will be going to watch. There is nothing wrong with Kauffman Stadium; it is a great place to watch baseball, and it is in a good location, easily accessed from all parts of the metro (much easier than a downtown ballpark would be), which is one of the main reasons Jackson County voters said no on the tax extension.
Compared to most MLB teams, KC has never drawn well unless they were division champs like in late 70s or 2014/2015. And that is to be expected as the stadium is in the middle of nowhere. The Chiefs draw despite being next door because there are only 8/9 home games and virtually all played on Sunday. Hard to draw for 81 games during weekdays so move into the city for the Royals would make a lot of sense.
@@frogger1952 -- There aren't near enough people living downtown to make that idea viable, and most of those who work there don't have time to take off to go watch day ball games (never mind the fact that at 5 most everybody who works downtown goes home to the suburbs). People will have to drive in to go to games, and LOTS of people in the metro will not want to go downtown, and hunt for parking, especially for night games (not to mention the much great odds of having one's car broken into, or being mugged, downtown compared to at the K).
@@gregb6469 I didn't realize it was that dangerous in KC at night. I figured it would easier to go to the game directly after work if the ballpark was located near downtown.
@@frogger1952 -- Because work-from-home has become such a big thing for office workers, there are not near as many people physically working downtown as there were a few years ago, so fewer who can go from work to a game. I don't know the exact crime stats, but it is perceived by the public [and on something like this perception drives decision-making] to be more dangerous to be downtown at night than to be at the K for a night game. I have heard many people say that they would be less likely to go to a downtown Royals game than to one at the TSC. I've also heard lots of people say that it is simply too expensive to go to more than one or two games a year, no matter where the stadium might be.
The owners of the Chiefs (Hunt family) were very upset about the failure to obtain the vote for the taxes/funds to renovate Arrowhead Stadium. They are very interested in seeing how the Kansas City, Kansas offer pans out. If the state of Kansas comes up with the money to build a new stadium they will strongly consider it.
Guaranteed Rate ballpark (White Sox) isn't terrible at all. It doesn't have much character but the seats are comfortable, the views are very good and the food ain't bad. The neighborhood isn't great, but it wasn't that good when they built the thing to begin with.
why would they build a "new" stadium for the Rays in the same area as Tropicana Field? The area is not safe and is a long way from downtown Tampa Bay (traffic to this area is terrible). And there is still a lot of resentment about the fact that to build Tropicana Field many homes/businesses in that area had to be torn down
@@gerardosantiago3960 You aren’t wrong. But at least people visit those places intentionally. People go to the theme parks. Nobody actually goes to see Orlando.
Relocation always, always means moving to another city or state. By that definition: Royals - not relocating. And I hope Kauffman Stadium will stick a while longer than originally thought. It seems like such a nice ballpark. I hope to visit it someday. It's the closest MLB ballpark to m not counting my home ballpark (Coors Field), though still over 600 miles away. Worth it, I feel. Rays - probably not relocating. And frustratingly, for fans, not building a park in Tampa Bay itself. A shame, that. If somehow they leave Florida, I'd prefer they'd move to Nashville or North Carolina (either Raleigh or Charlotte). Unlikely, though. White Sox - not relocating. Might replace Guaranteed Rate Field someday, but I doubt they will in the near future. Maybe in 15 to 20 years' time. But you never know.
In my informed opinion, NO public financed sports project HAS NEVER worked out FOR THE PUBLIC - - - WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION - - - the expansion/modernization of Lambeau Field in Green Bay (the smallest municipality that has ever done such a project). I believe that the TWO REASONS Brown County/Green Bay's project worked... are 1. the project administrators kept to the 5.5% sales tax timetable... (NOT extending the tax levy beyond the original 2 extension periods)... and MOST IMPORTANTLY... 2. the Green Bay Packers ARE OWNED BY the City of GREEN BAY and the fans. IMHO, NO Public Funding Project WILL EVER WORK to the Benefit of ANY PUBLIC ENTITY providing that funding - BECAUSE - it's ONLY meant to benefit a BILLIONAIRE OWNER!!!
It looks like either the White Sox or the Bears will be playing in a new suburban stadium 10 years from now. Chicago can’t afford to keep both inside the city limits.
the leagues, MLB, NFL should lend money to the teams. They make money and this would generate revenue for the leagues overall. Taxpayers shouldn't be extorted to pay for stadiums
I don't see the White Sox relocating, Reinsdorf also owns the Bulls, if the Sox do move i see massive protest during Bulls games, if Sox move Bulls must move also
Is it truly a relocation if the team stays in the same metropolitan area? Kansas City would still be in Kansas City. If the Rays go to Tampa Bay, its just across the bay.
They are insane to build new stadium in St Petersburg either move to TB or another city or leave Florida altogether attendance not get better with new stadium maybe little bump first year or 2 but be Tropicana Field 2.0. Bears insane to ask for that much money never get it luck got half of it
The Royals are absolutely never moving. PERIOD. They aren't going to Kansas. The White Sox are going nowhere. Tampa may go. They've had many stadium proposals with nothing to show for it. They are a winning organization, and fans don't care. When it comes to moves, there's only a few markets that can handle a major franchise. None of those markets are building stadiums or have proposals. Nashville, is a possibility. But they don't have a stadium or one in the works.
The Royals would not survive on the KS side of KC. The location of Kauffman is one of the main reasons the Royals don't draw well. Moving to KS would be the same problem worse. A suburban MLB stadium?
So many say the Rays don't draw because of their location. Yet the new ballpark proposal is literally right next door to the orange juice can they play in now. Makes no sense to me, but I'm not a billionaire like Sternberg.
The White Sox need to move to the suburbs. No one wants to pay money to watch a crappy team in the ghetto. Moving to downtown Chicago wouldn't work because it would be too close to Wrigley Field, but a move west to, say, Downer's Grove near the Yorktown Center mall, would be good. The Rays need to move to the Tampa side where more of the Tampa Bay area population lives. St Pete is too geographically isolated, and since there are only 2 bridges connecting it with Tampa it can take a long time in heavy traffic for fans on the Tampa side to get to and from the ballpark. A new stadium in downtown Tampa or next to the Bucs' stadium near the airport would be a huge boon to the Rays.
DG Ybor City again. Slimy Stuart Sternberg pitted Tampa against St. Pete. Tampa has been out of the picture for a dozen years or so. Tampa comes back with we can scrape together 65 million or so every time. Tampa is still paying for Raymond James Stadium(Bucs). That is 26 years old and there is a little talk making circles what to do with it. St. Pete commissioners prize is not keeping the Rays or building them a new stadium. It is the 6B boondoggle. St. Pete boards are loaded with Progressives. They want to build the projects around the stadium. I live East of Tampa, I would rather them go where they can be successful at the gates, Orlando or Nashville.
Dude the marlins draw less than 10,000 regularly. They built that stadium in the worst place possible. When they played at joe robbie, 2/3 of season ticket holders where from the next 2 counties north. Had a great spot in boca raton to buld a new stadium, but they moved it south. Sometimes it takes 2 1/2 hours to get from my area during rush hour to get to a 7:00 pm game. Whos going to do that?
Rays need better ownership get them out of Florida. Cheap owners always look for public funding. Norman Braman is a prime example when he owned the Philadelphia Eagles, very cheap with the players while making massive profits for himself.
What about the Athletics moving to Las Vegas? It's going to happen. I've been to a game in KC when they had George Brett and it is fine. Location isn't the problem. Moving to Kansas would be a mistake. The ownership is the problem. A downtown stadium would be a mess with parking, traffic etc. If that site is good enough for the Chiefs it's good enough for the Royals. Owners are HUA! Florida has too many teams anyway. White Sox need new ownership. The Bears do need a nice new stadium but the public shouldn't pay for it. Have Pritzker pay for it. He can afford it.
Washington moving to the Carolinas would make their owners super billionaires and would be given anything they would want instead of ultra small market washington.right on the Carolinas borders.
Sports franchises are hugely profitable. Why should tax dollars be used to facilitate their profits? The Cubs play in a hundred year old stadium that they own. Why should the citizens of Illinois pay for a stadium for their competition? It really pissed me off when Michigan tax dollars were spent to build not one but two stadiums in Detroit. I could maybe see one stadium for both the Lions and the Tigers to share; in the interest in revitalizing Detroit. But here's the thing: even amongst avid NFL fans, more people in Michigan are NOT Lions fans. Southwest Michigan is squarely Bears country; the entire UP and most of Northern Michigan are Cheeseheads.
The Rays and Marlins problem is demographics. There's only 2 industries in Florida ( produce and tourism). The natives don't have disposible income for baseball, and retirees aren't going to waste their money on season tickets.
2:20 The Royals would NOT "still be in Kansas City but on the Kansas side." Kansas City, Kansas is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT city from KC, Missouri. It is not the same city that is spread over 2 states. They are 2 different cities that merely have the same name.
@@josephhanes6402 .. AND Camden NJ is part of the Philadelphia PA metro area. However, they are 2 different cities in 2 different states. If the Phillies moved to Camden, they would not "still be in Philadelphia but on the New Jersey side." They'd be in a different city.
Same Metropolitan area and TV market area so not technically a relocation. Even if it's in a different state and different city with the same exact name.
Right, so what's the issue? If they move to Kansas City, Kansas they still would technically be the Kansas City Royals? Currently they're not called the Kansas City Missouri Royals.
Has anyone considered that maybe there is a shortage of megamarkets capable of supporting big league sports. Only New York and Los Angeles are sure things, with the Chicago area a marginal third. Then there is Philadelphia, Dallas and maybe Houston. Every other market is either too small or too fickle, with the exception of Boston, which is an historic city with a long sports legacy. The S.F. Bay area is bleeding franchises largely because of the failures of the political leadership there. The only thing the teams not in the megamarkets can do is keep on moving.
Montreal would be a different baseball city in the American League. They would get synergy with the Blue Jays, Yankees and Red Sox. The Canadiens are only other big league club (sorry Alouettes). Ownership would need to drill deep on demographics and consumer habits, but Montreal is probably more viable than Tampa or Chicago. Montreal MLB was poorly executed in the NL with very inferior stadia. Make the new stadium small, vintage, and Quebecois, and you got 'em. Montrealers have always like baseball and softball, and getting outside the during the summer. Bringing back the tri-color caps in the American League seems a like a no-brainer to me.
Billionaires getting taxpayer money😐. For whatever reason we don’t want the donor class to pay anything ever. Give me a billion dollars, I promise I will open a business and give back several million in payroll to the community.
public funding of sports stadiums/arenas are ALWAYS a bad deal for citizens. If billionaire owners want new stadiums, they should fund it the way other businesses do...invest their own money. There are too many MLB and NFL teams anyway.
I also find it interesting that the Rays are putting a decent team on the field and can't attract fans. They have the only real argument about their stadium needing replaced. The White Sox and Royals are just poorly run, low performing teams and have been for decades--in the White Sox case, that is for the entire history of the team. All three teams need to consider smaller stadiums or moving outright.
The moniker, “Indians” is still available. You currently have the Indianapolis Indians AAA team. Nice ballpark, great location. Just upgrade it to MLB standards.
The owner of the pirates should have the team taken from him. Basically AAA ball club just grooming players to be traded for minor leaguers and the cycle never ends.
If St. Pete has a formal citizens vote on contributing taxpayer money towards a new ballpark, it will almost certainly be voted down as I suspect most citizens of St. Pete likely don't want to spend a nickel on a new stadium for the Rays as they're either not baseball fans at all or just have a casual interest in the Rays but don't want taxpayer to pay for a new stadium. Plan B would be a move to Orlando, which apparently is ready to start building a new ballpark if they get a team.
I don't think any city will vote for a tax payer funded stadium anymore. St. Pete in particular around 6 years ago, a St. Pete Times article said only 1000 season tickets were bought by residents of St. Pete. Basically the fans live outside the tax base. Although in St. Pete they use the tourism bed tax to pay for such items.
Would never happen. Nashville is not getting a team. For one, they spent all that money on the Titans and the politicians that approved it all got kicked out of office. There is the other issue of the Nashville Sounds, the AAA affiliate there. They would have to move but they paid for part of the stadium they have now and have a decades long lease. Nashville would have to buy them out and the thought is that would cost $100M or so. So ballpark funding would be $600M+ from the public and a city that is congested and has not done anything to build mass transit out. The Rays will stay in St Pete and see massive attendance increases when a new stadium opens that actually provides an experience. This channel loves to talk about how people do not want to go to St Pete. It's BS. More people go to St Pete now than Tampa and the infrastructure has improved dramatically. Between the Selmon extension to the Gandy Bridge and the Gateway Expressway, there are now over a MILLION people within a 30 minute drive of Tropicana. The problem with Tropicana Field is it's ugly, it feels like a Sam's Club, and you have to walk a quarter or half mile over hot blacktop just to get inside (or through massive storms). The experience of the facility and surrounding area does not make many all that interested when they can watch at home. There is no experience - which will change with the new facility. As for Nashville and Charlotte, they both have the same issue. The public is not going to fund the stadium. The Panthers are getting a massive amount of money upcoming and Charlotte has so many traffic problems. The place on the East Coast that will get a team is Raleigh. They already have the owner of the Carolina Hurricanes backing the expansion bid, they have at least three good locations that are doable, they have financing plans, and the Triangle has over 2.1 million people, investment in metro transit, and the highest median income of any city MLB does not exist in yet. The average person in Raleigh has more disposable income than those in Charlotte or Nashville (or Salt Lake, Las Vegas, etc).
@@scotttild Baseball doesn't seem to work well in Florida. If Orlando does, let them build a stadium and the Rays can move there. I just don't see baseball should expand. There aren't enough good MLB quality players to spread around as it is now.
Nah Rays can afford to just build a new stadium in Tampa. Rays actually have a big fan base they can’t just alienate easily even if attendance says otherwise
First, let me say I enjoy your videos. As to the attendance situation in Kansas City, I was a Royal's season-ticket holder for 17 years but after statements that were made last year, I saw the writing on the wall and I did not renew my seats for this year, (saving about 14K a year) and I haven't attended a game in 2024. It appears to me that Mr. Sherman was taking a page from Oakland's Mr Fisher's play book to leave town. The request for a new stadium was not handled correctly, there wasn't a real plan in place, but they expected the voters to approve it, they said NO. Then after the failed vote for a new stadium, the Sherman family belittled the voters of Jackson County. I can only assume that's what happened in Oakland. Before I continue, each household in Jackson County pays about $150 annually in sales taxes that goes to maintain the Truman Sports Complex. I know people who live here who can't even afford to even attend a single game, but they are expected to finance the stadiums. I'm sorry I digress, the attendance in KC is down because of the statements made by the Sherman family. I don't believe they have any intentions to stay in Kansas City, and I'm not the only one who sees it. KC's a great baseball town with a 100+ year history, the late Ewing Kauffman was a real baseball fan, Kansas City loved him, Mr. Sherman is probably the most hated person in the city.
The state of Kansas won't fund its public schools, but it will give money to sports teams owned by billionaires. Another reason not to move to to Kansas
That may be a good idea. Football fields are usually constructed in a north/south configuration, so the KS-MO line would go down the center of the field from one end zone to the other.
No they are not giving up the number 3 TV market for a very lower tier Utah market. Clearly people don’t understand how TV revenue works in MLB. It’s not like NFL where everything is put into one pot.
@@scotttildBay Area is a top ten market and is losing its 2nd team. What makes Shitcago different? Especially when Illinois is LOSING population and Dallas and Houston metro areas will leapfrog its metropolitan area in population if current population trends continue.
I’m a sox fan. I get I am a fan and you might think “oh he just wants them to stay” but they shouldn’t move. It’s just because they might be awful and the Cubs are a more popular team, but the White Sox are a historic team, and Chicago is a big city. It will also take away the fun Chicago vibe of “Cubs or White Sox?”
Just like the Sox’s the Angles are not giving up the LA market. They may move around that area but they are not giving up LA to the Dodgers. It is too valuable a commode to give up.
More money can be made being the 3rd or 4th team in a large city than being the only team in a mid tier to small city, there exist no good reason for the White Sox to leave Chicago. They had the pulse of Chicago from the 50’s into the 80’s and they only loss their role as the #1 team due to self inflicted wounds, not population decline or anything else, when the Sox win they draw, when ownership shows initiative they draw, that’s it.
There is 900 million sitting in the table for MLB in Salt Lake City …White Sox should consider moving there because no matter how much Las Vegas doesn’t want the A’s it looks like they are going to get stuck with them
billionaires thinking they walk on water. no loyalty to the city they are in. pay for it yourself mr. rich guy. if you do, i would bet attendance (and respect for ownership) would go up.
Chicago White Sox will relocate to New Orleans .. and be called the New Orleans Gators. Tampa Bay Rays will relocate to Montreal and get the naming rights back to Washington Senators and become Montreal Expos again
All pro sports are out of hand, greedy owners wanting this and that all at the tax payers expense, meanwhile most people can't afford to go to these games anymore.
