EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted October 31, 2003 Its disgusting how owners extort the government to get them new stadiums. If they get the profits, why the hell should we pay for it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted October 31, 2003 I don't like the team, but one thing I'll give Jack Kent Cooke is that he paid for what's now called FedEx field himself. The state did some work on roads and infrastructure, but Cooke footed the cost of the stadium himself. I wish more owners would do things like that. My main problem with football stadiums is that they're almost universally funded by the public, but then you have to pay $5000 for the "right" to buy a ticket. Um... didn't my tax money help pay for this park? Why should I have to pay more just to be able to then spend entirely too much money on season tickets. In other countries, they call it extortion; in America, it's the "personal seat license." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfaJack 0 Report post Posted October 31, 2003 In other countries, they call it extortion; in America, it's the "personal seat license." Anyone, and I mean anyone, who buys a PSL is a fucking idiot. They deserve any financial hardship that might result from throwing that few grand away. When the Houston Texans were just starting to sell tickets a couple of years ago, all the proceeds from PSL's were supposed to go to help defray the Texans' part of the cost of building Reliant Stadium (which was only about 20% of the total cost, btw). There was actually a sportswriter for the Houston Chronicle, Dale Robertson, who wrote an article about season tickets and PSL's for the Texans, telling the citizens of Houston that we actually owed it to Bob McNair (Texans' owner) to buy all the PSL's, because he had spent $1 billion of his own money to give us another NFL team and stadium and that we should be grateful, "because of Mr. McNair's generosity"we were no longer a "black hole" in the NFL's landscape, and an embrassment of a city because we didn't have an NFL team. I couldn't believe he actually had the gall to write that. We, as fans, owe those overpaid millionaire assholes NOTHING, especially since all they care about is us showing up to their games and giving them our money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LooseCannon25 0 Report post Posted October 31, 2003 Luis Castillo, 2B; ---- will resign Andy Fox, 2B; ----- will resign Chad Fox, RHP; ----- will resign Lenny Harris, 3B; ----- no Rick Helling, RHP; ---- no Todd Hollandsworth, OF; ----- yes Mike Mordecai, 3B; ----- yes Ivan Rodriguez, C; ----- yes Ugueth Urbina, RHP; ---- no Gerald Williams, OF. ----- no Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 1, 2003 They should be the Miami Marlins. State names should only be used when you don't want to alienate one of two major cities in your market (Minnesota in place of Minneapolis, Golden State in place of Oakland), the city name doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, (Salt Lake City Jazz), or you're the Angels. Anaheim? Come on. That being said, "Boston Patriots" should make a return also. The Pats aren't in Boston anymore though. If anything they would have to be the Foxborough Patriots...and that sounds craptacular Neither of New York's teams are in New York. The Bills are in Orchard Park. The LA Rams played in Anaheim, Dallas Cowboys in Irving, Washington Redskins in Landover, Maryland. "Boston Patriots" holds historical merit whilst "New England Patriots" is cumbersome and lame. Foxboro is close enough to Boston that they can get away with it. And it's not like that would disenfranchise the people of Rhode Island and Connecticut, because they still by and large cheer for the Bruins, Red Sox, and Celtics. So my argument does have a sliver of veracity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 1, 2003 My main problem with football stadiums is that they're almost universally funded by the public, but then you have to pay $5000 for the "right" to buy a ticket. Well, people that work in Allegheny County have to pay a tax for the privilege of working there, so PSL's make perfect sense to me. Heck, why don't we have a tax for the privilege of breathing air while we're at it?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted November 1, 2003 My main problem with football stadiums is that they're almost universally funded by the public, but then you have to pay $5000 for the "right" to buy a ticket. Well, people that work in Allegheny County have to pay a tax for the privilege of working there, so PSL's make perfect sense to me. Heck, why don't we have a tax for the privilege of breathing air while we're at it?... We do. It's called "emissions testing." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jay Z. Hollywood Report post Posted November 1, 2003 They should be the Miami Marlins. State names should only be used when you don't want to alienate one of two major cities in your market (Minnesota in place of Minneapolis, Golden State in place of Oakland), the city name doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, (Salt Lake City Jazz), or you're the Angels. Anaheim? Come on. That being said, "Boston Patriots" should make a return also. The Pats aren't in Boston anymore though. If anything they would have to be the Foxborough Patriots...and that sounds craptacular Uh huh, and given that the Patriots are the only team in the area that's won a championship in the last 18 years, I'm starting to think the "Boston" name is a curse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JangoFett4Hire 0 Report post Posted November 2, 2003 Foxboro is closer to Providence than Boston... Providence Patriots? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2003 Don King offers land he owns to the Marlins for new Stadium King owns a jai-alai fronton in Mangonia Park that he said would be an ideal site for the World Series champions' proposed park, spokesman Robert Weneck said. If the ballpark has a roof, King would stage boxing matches in arena during the offseason. Thats..wierd. I guess they'd have to call it Don King Park... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mik 0 Report post Posted November 5, 2003 The City has committed their side of the money, pending one more meeting. It's already been approved, but I guess they need to discuss it again? Park would be ready by 2007. This world series is going to bring salvation to Florida in the form of a baseball only stadium. Miami Marlins? Even better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Don King offers land he owns to the Marlins for new Stadium King owns a jai-alai fronton in Mangonia Park that he said would be an ideal site for the World Series champions' proposed park, spokesman Robert Weneck said. If the ballpark has a roof, King would stage boxing matches in arena during the offseason. Thats..wierd. I guess they'd have to call it Don King Park... This scrupmptvicentious ballpark is just the kind of grandilofication Miami needs! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Anyone else think they should call the new stadium the Aquarium? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mik 0 Report post Posted November 5, 2003 Ha, I'd be down for that. And Keiper, drove past the new Phils stadium a bit back, and will be again this weekend. It's looking nice with the brick exterior. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted November 5, 2003 I would've been nice had they not built it in the middle of a parking lot, but at least access will be easy. I'm gonna try and get to a game next year. Can't wait to see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
