San Jose Sues MLB (San Diego, Oakland: buy, luxury, pricing)

[bobby_guz_man]

I mean, I'm an A's fan living in San Jose.

Would I like the A's to move to San Jose? Yes, because it would be good for my city, business-wise.

Would I mind if the A's manage to stay in Oakland and build a new park? No, I would not. And I would STILL make the trek to go to games up there, like I have always done these last 23 years.

I just want a YES or NO answer, so we all can move on and figure out how to keep the A's in the Bay in a new, safe, modern ballpark.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

The homes in San Diego are about 3/4 the pricing here..maybe even less. Thus the ticket prices are prices accordingly.

Is Petco public or privately financed?

Incomes are also about 20% lower. Petco Park's tickets are A LOT cheaper than other metro's much cheaper than SD like Houston, Dallas, Detroit, etc..so there really isn't the relationship there you are trying to portray.

It's publicly financed, 43% was privately financed.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

Then why have the As not able to draw fans back when the coliseum was new? And even now?

1. When the coliseum was new, the A's and Giants had similar attendance records.

2. The A's outdrew the Giants between 1980-2000. The year 2000 marks the season AT&T park opened.

3. The A's were drawing over 2 million fans from 2000-2005, then attendance started to decrease. The year 2005 marks the season this wolf guy came into the ownership picture and efforts for relocation started.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

Then why have the As not able to draw fans back when the coliseum was new? And even now?

So now you know that the contrary what you thought, the East Bay is not lacking in wealthy people.

As far as the question of attendance, just like Giants attendance went from dismal to excellent, we have no reason to believe the same would not happen if the A's built a stadium in downtown Oakland.

In fact, considering the fact that Oakland is one of the few teams whose attendance is GROWING, CLEARLY its apparent that Lew Wolff is being unreasonable, irrational, elitist and flat out wrong in his oft repeated line about Oakland not being viable.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

1. When the coliseum was new, the A's and Giants had similar attendance records.

2. The A's outdrew the Giants between 1980-2000. The year 2000 marks the season AT&T park opened.

3. The A's were drawing over 2 million fans from 2000-2005, then attendance started to decrease. The year 2005 marks the season this wolf guy came into the ownership picture and efforts for relocation started.

B-o-o-m.

People have short memories.

[18Montclair]

You'd think all these self professed 'real A's fans' remembered the 80s and 90s.

[jsba]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

There are no lands around the proposed ballpark that belongs to Wolff. None.

Thank you for the response. I really didn't know. It was something that I heard but couldn't confirm.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

You'd think all these self professed 'real A's fans' remembered the 80s and 90s.

I do remember the 90's. I was here in the 90's. I was here when the A's were the popular team, which is why I was an A's fan and still am.

I'm not really getting your snide remarks there...is there something wrong with being an A's fan who live outside of Oakland?

[sav858]

Is anyone in this thread actually doubting whether or not Oakland could draw big crowds with a new ballpark? Maybe I missed something but that's not what I'm seeing. This issue I think, especially with me, is whether or not the CITY or PORT of Oakland can even get it built. Which considering how inept Oakland's leaders are I'm surprised by how much confidence some of you have in them, or perhaps it's just wishful thinking more so.

I don't doubt for one bit a new ballpark in Oakland would draw more fans but a lot of us are tired of waiting around and just want a new ballpark ANYWHERE in the Bay Area.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by sav858

Incomes are also about 20% lower. Petco Park's tickets are A LOT cheaper than other metro's much cheaper than SD like Houston, Dallas, Detroit, etc..so there really isn't the relationship there you are trying to portray.

It's publicly financed, 43% was privately financed.

Which is why I said, since everything is 20% lower, that means that the ticket price of $16 wouldn't stand here. It would be around $30 or so. So us wishing for $16/ticket is not going to happen.

And it's half privately financed, so there's another good reason for the lower ticket prices. Shoot, if I financed the darn park as a taxpayer, I'd like lower ticket pricing as well.