Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd say you lost the argument. Even a staunch rightwinger who agrees with your side of the AZ law told you you were full of it. You tried to spin this story as though it was even relevant to the AZ law and council wide protest. The councilmen and mayor even stated their "boycott" was just with AZ firms and contracts. It didn't say anywhere in any of your links they called for a city wide boycott and nowhere no way did they even mention baseball.
Not quite.. The City would be obligated to hold the game, but if the citizens felt strongly about a boycott, then the arena would have been empty..
I wasn't referring to you in that second to previous post, pgh. For whatever reason the quote button doesn't always appear for me.
But the city never called for a downright boycott of AZ business. If they would've and then told people not to go to this game, it's hypothetical arguing if people would've showed.
Actually they dont.. Our lease with the city when we played only allowed the city the right to revoke the permit under several conditions
1) Our team didnt pay our lease fees
2) Out teams insurance lapsed
3) Our corporate license was revoked by the state
There might have been some other conditions as well (I'd have to pull out the lease to look again) but they all dealt with the teams failure to do something which then authorized the city to revoke the permit to play. As long as the team was in legal standing, the city could not revoke the permits because they would then become liable for any expenses the team invested into planning the game..
I don't think Fenway is leased but i'd have to pull public records and see how it's deeded. The city could block the game by refusing to provide services suah as police and sanitation.
I'd say you lost the argument. Even a staunch rightwinger who agrees with your side of the AZ law told you you were full of it. You tried to spin this story as though it was even relevant to the AZ law and council wide protest. The councilmen and mayor even stated their "boycott" was just with AZ firms and contracts. It didn't say anywhere in any of your links they called for a city wide boycott and nowhere no way did they even mention baseball.
I disagree. The city made money off an Arizona business. Who cares if it's baseball or a basket weaving company.
The purpose of a boycott is that the other city doesn't make money. Not vice-versa.
There's also a principle. It's not only money. Do all of the cities that have boycotted actually do any significant business in AZ if any at all? I say the other city did make money. Can you prove that they didn't? Are you saying that all road games are played for free by the visiting team and noi tyax revenues are created?
Also....Let's say peole went to a bar in AZ and watched the game. AZ made money......
Last edited by Rick Roma; 06-16-2010 at 08:07 AM..
I don't think Fenway is leased but i'd have to pull public records and see how it's deeded. The city could block the game by refusing to provide services suah as police and sanitation.
I checked and indeed the park is owned by the owner of the Red Sox. The city I'm sure would be in some type of violation to provide services, but even if they arent, blocking services would only harm the city and reduce revenues in the city.. They would only be harming themself which is why they dont put their money where their mouth is and truly boycott AZ..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.