Oakland A's Attendance Woes Featured in Chronicle Today (San Jose, Fremont: apartment, house)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Stop making this about me.

How will this stadium get built without taxing the heck out of poor people in Oakland?

It likely won't, much like a new arena for the loser Kings in Sacratomato! Guvmint doesn't seem to care.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Stop making this about me.

How will this stadium get built without taxing the heck out of poor people in Oakland?

Easy -- they won't. Generally speaking, poor people don't own houses.

They'll put another freakin' parcel tax on the backs of the homeowners. Just like they want to do with paying for police AGAIN. After Measure Y STILL hasn't been fulfilled -- oh yes -- let's do another one.
Passing the buck on Oakland deficit so reckless

[jrb724]

I think the train has left the station for an Oakland ballpark. Cleveland is a great example of what Oakland could have done. The rest of Cleveland may be a dump, but the stadiums helped make its downtown relevant again.

The A's are in most need but they aren't alone in the stadium issue. The Bay area probably has the worst collection of pro stadiums/arenas in the nation. Except for AT&T park, the stadiums/arenas are below average.

Candlestick? Awful idea before it was even built.
Oakland Coliseum and Arena - everything said about the Coliseum's location applies to the arena as well. The W's had the all-star game but everyone was in SF b/c there was nothing to do in Oakland. HP Pavilion? My understanding is that it doesn't even have luxury boxes or anything that makes it unique.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

You obviously don't know what a "business plan" is. Have you ever started a business before?

And here I thought you werent trying to be a jerk.

The fact of the matter is the presentation outlines the financial benefits of a proposed stadium.

They are numerous and worth examining closer.

By the looks of the proposal, the potential for financial benefits is actually greater in Downtown Oakland than in San Jose.

That presentation makes no mention of how a city that is practically broke plans to build a baseball stadium on some of the most expensive real estate in the East Bay.

[QUOTEAnyone else want to take a stab or can we safely assume that the only way this will happen is by gouging poor, minorities, in Oakland?[/quote]
Now I see your lack of knowledge of this saga.

The As did not ask for public funding in their previous proposal in Oakland and for San Jose are not seeking public funding for actual construction.

All they want is help with land acquisition and infrastructure improvements.

Bay Area sports teams know that post-ATT Park( 100% privately funded), it is impossible to expect municipalities and counties to shell over hundreds of millions of dollars. That's just not going to happen.

It is not however, unreasonable for teams to ask for help in streamlining red tape as far as land acquisition and help with improvement surface streets and help with transportation.

As an Oakland resident and voter, I fully support the city helping with those 2 aspects of the proposal.

Yes, approach private investors during one of the worst economic climates in decades, ask them to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build a stadium for a baseball team

The return on their investment would be very lucrative.

that can barely attract 10,000 fans in one of the most crime ridden, depressed cities, in the Bay Area.

Oakland is in a much better position financially then many cities that have built new stadiums, and we have no reason to believe that a new stadium wouldnt galvanize the region to come Downtown to watch a game.

The setting is 1 million times more inviting then the current coliseum and that area has great entertainment and excellent restaurants.

What I would like to see Oakland expand its proposed BRT to go all the way to the stadium.

That's the stupidest thing I've read in 6 months.

[llowllevellowll]

There's no reasoning with him.

Even when he can gain knowledge and learn something, he just builds a strawman.

He put me over the top in another thread.

Anyone know where he came from? I hadn't been on CD in about a month and now I come back and every thread is some hotly contested pissing contest - very disappointing.

[vdy1985]

Originally Posted by jrb724

HP Pavilion? My understanding is that it doesn't even have luxury boxes...

Definitely has luxury boxes.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The return on their investment would be very lucrative.

Have you ever attended or been part of an investors meeting?

What proof do you have that their return on their investment would be "very lucrative"? Do you have empirical data that you can show to potential investors that would make them open their check books? I'm not talking about 5 year/30 year projections, venture capitalist don't invest purely based on projections, they also consider how the company has been trending.

I'm not trying to be difficult in this thread, I'm actually heavily involved with micro-cap and nano-cap investment. When I look at a company and try to determine whether they are worth my money or not, I look at various factors.

- Do they have a sound business model?
- Do they have a history of sales/profitability?
- What is their potential for growth considering a variety of underlying market factors?
- What do I get back in return for my money?

One thing I don't look at is "How awesome is their imagined profits?" That's because, 1) It's easy to lie, 2) It's extremely difficult to predict market forces 5 years into the future, let alone 30, and 3) I don't invest into pipe dreams (which is why I've never invested into start ups). I need to see real skin in the game before I let my money go.

As I outlined before, you'd be asking investors to make a sizable, and very risky investment, for a baseball team that can't even attract 10,000 people right now. You're asking them to invest their money based on speculation. Only the most risky and fool hardy investors would even consider looking at your plan, and even then I doubt you'd get any money.

That's probably the reason the owner wants to move the team because he knows no serious investor would get duped into funding a doomed stadium.

Oakland is in a much better position financially then many cities that have built new stadiums

That may be true but there are literally dozens of underlying factors that could explain that, it's never black and white in the investment world.

I actually think it would be cool to have a brand new, high tech, stadium in JLS, but as an investor myself, I just don't see them being able to raise the money under this current climate.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

There's no reasoning with him.

Even when he can gain knowledge and learn something, he just builds a strawman.

He put me over the top in another thread.

Are you going to contribute anything to this thread besides crying about me?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Are you going to contribute anything to this thread besides crying about me?

Are you going to contribute anything pertinent to any of the threads you've infested besides stinkin' thinkin' and a nasty, superior attitude?

Must suck to be you!

[jrb724]

Originally Posted by vdy1985

Definitely has luxury boxes.

I stand corrected. I did a little more research and see that some think HP Pavilion would need to be remodeled to land an NBA team. The last paragraph of the entry briefly mentions SJ Arena.

http://newballpark.org/2010/03/26/br...-the-bay-area/