All of those taxes are already in place currently they will be getting voted on to extend them

quote:

---

All of those taxes are already in place currently they will be getting voted on to extend them

---

I agree but extending the taxes "just because we already pay them" is horrible justification

quote:

---

quote:

---

All of those taxes are already in place currently they will be getting voted on to extend them

---

I agree but extending the taxes "just because we already pay them" is horrible justification

---

look id agree with you if the subject wasn't up for a vote but it is and ultimately the people get to decide

The Rangers staying in Arlington is no doubt a net positive for the city. It seems that more and more billionaire owners across the nation have realized they have this leverage. This "leverage" is effectively threatening to leave if taxpayers don't give them what they want. It reads more like legalized extortion to me.

On the surface it is ridiculous. Billionaire owners want to increase profits, I mean attendance, because fans don't love sitting outside in 100 degree temperatures. Market research is done that indicates that profits will increase by X with a cost of Y. Obviously X is greater than Y over some number of years or it dies there. But instead of financing Y on their own they use "leverage" to pay Y/2. The net effect is that local Wal-Mart shoppers gets to transfer tiny bits of wealth to billionaire owners through a nominal sales tax increase.

I understand why the majority of residents would vote yes. Maybe they are Rangers fans. Maybe they want that roof. Maybe they have Arlington civic pride. I get it. What I don't get is why there has to be a vote at all. Owners want to increase profits? No problem. Pay the cost of Y and increase your profits by X. I suppose I should just accept that they are doing the "smart" thing by using their "leverage". I get it. I just don't like it.

One additional thing I would be curious about. What is the estimated cost of retrofitting the current stadium with a retractable roof?

If the cost is under $500M then the Rangers ownership could theoretically shift their money earmarked for a new stadium towards retrofitting the current stadium. The end result would still be a ballpark with a retractable roof in Arlington. Except done without the use of taxpayer funds.

I'm assuming we won't hear the actual cost of a retrofit as it would just lead to more questions.

quote:

---

One additional thing I would be curious about. What is the estimated cost of retrofitting the current stadium with a retractable roof?

If the cost is under $500M then the Rangers ownership could theoretically shift their money earmarked for a new stadium towards retrofitting the current stadium. The end result would still be a ballpark with a retractable roof in Arlington. Except done without the use of taxpayer funds.

I'm assuming we won't hear the actual cost of a retrofit as it would just lead to more questions.

---

its not just the cost they said in the press conference that its a project that would tak a full season to complete and leave the rangers without a stadium to play in for a year which in turn would kill any revenue and would hinder any chance of bringing in any good free agents for that season as they would not have a home game all year

quote:

---

if this deal is so damn awesome why arent the rangers seeking out traditional investments and loans. The city does not exist to be the personal bank to the wealthy.

---

Maybe because the city of Arlington approached the Rangers first to head off the movements in Dallas to bring the Rangers there.

Retrofitting a 22-year-old stadium with a roof that costs hundreds of millions of dollars makes little sense.

I think people are forgetting that this ballpark, while certainly not old, is 22 years old. When the first game is played in the new stadium, it will be 27 years old.

To give you a comparison:

The Rangers played at Arlington Stadium for 22 years before building their current ballpark.
The Astros played in the Astrodome for 34 years before building their current ballpark.


While I think all of us agree that it's a little early to be moving out of Rangers Ballpark, it's really only 5-6 years before a new stadium would have been prudent (based on other teams around the league).

quote:

---

The Rangers staying in Arlington is no doubt a net positive for the city. It seems that more and more billionaire owners across the nation have realized they have this leverage. This "leverage" is effectively threatening to leave if taxpayers don't give them what they want. It reads more like legalized extortion to me.

On the surface it is ridiculous. Billionaire owners want to increase profits, I mean attendance, because fans don't love sitting outside in 100 degree temperatures. Market research is done that indicates that profits will increase by X with a cost of Y. Obviously X is greater than Y over some number of years or it dies there. But instead of financing Y on their own they use "leverage" to pay Y/2. The net effect is that local Wal-Mart shoppers gets to transfer tiny bits of wealth to billionaire owners through a nominal sales tax increase.

I understand why the majority of residents would vote yes. Maybe they are Rangers fans. Maybe they want that roof. Maybe they have Arlington civic pride. I get it. What I don't get is why there has to be a vote at all. Owners want to increase profits? No problem. Pay the cost of Y and increase your profits by X. I suppose I should just accept that they are doing the "smart" thing by using their "leverage". I get it. I just don't like it.

---

The rangers have said they miss out on about 300,000 in attendance per year due to the heat. I dont buy that at all. Take a look at the other domed stadiums that have to deal with the heat/humidity like the Rangers do

Arizona
Houston
Tampa
Miami

Now here is where they rank in terms of attendance

Houston 17
Arizona 24
Tampa 21
Miami 26


And now for their records and place in respective division

Houston 17-28 5th
Arizona 21-25 4th
Tampa 20-21 4th
Miami 22-21 4th

And their home records

Houston 10-13
Arizona 7-17
Tampa 10-11
Miami 9-12

In fact they have been in the bottom 10 in terms of attendance for the past 3 years. If anything this shows that quality of the game on the field has a bigger impact. Its less Ray Kinsella (if you build it, he will come) and more Al Davis (Just win, baby).

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Rangers staying in Arlington is no doubt a net positive for the city. It seems that more and more billionaire owners across the nation have realized they have this leverage. This "leverage" is effectively threatening to leave if taxpayers don't give them what they want. It reads more like legalized extortion to me.

On the surface it is ridiculous. Billionaire owners want to increase profits, I mean attendance, because fans don't love sitting outside in 100 degree temperatures. Market research is done that indicates that profits will increase by X with a cost of Y. Obviously X is greater than Y over some number of years or it dies there. But instead of financing Y on their own they use "leverage" to pay Y/2. The net effect is that local Wal-Mart shoppers gets to transfer tiny bits of wealth to billionaire owners through a nominal sales tax increase.

I understand why the majority of residents would vote yes. Maybe they are Rangers fans. Maybe they want that roof. Maybe they have Arlington civic pride. I get it. What I don't get is why there has to be a vote at all. Owners want to increase profits? No problem. Pay the cost of Y and increase your profits by X. I suppose I should just accept that they are doing the "smart" thing by using their "leverage". I get it. I just don't like it.

---

The rangers have said they miss out on about 300,000 in attendance per year due to the heat. I dont buy that at all. Take a look at the other domed stadiums that have to deal with the heat/humidity like the Rangers do

Arizona
Houston
Tampa
Miami

Now here is where they rank in terms of attendance

Houston 17
Arizona 24
Tampa 21
Miami 26


And now for their records and place in respective division

Houston 17-28 5th
Arizona 21-25 4th
Tampa 20-21 4th
Miami 22-21 4th

And their home records

Houston 10-13
Arizona 7-17
Tampa 10-11
Miami 9-12

In fact they have been in the bottom 10 in terms of attendance for the past 3 years. If anything this shows that quality of the game on the field has a bigger impact. Its less Ray Kinsella (if you build it, he will come) and more Al Davis (Just win, baby).

---

this is a very poor example all 4 of those have historically had bad attendance other than Houston when they for a 10- 15 year stretch were really good.

Miami has never supported their sports teams unless they are really really good

Arizona is the same as most of the people in Arizona are retiree transplants and fans of other teams not named Arizona

and tampa **** tampa just has never supported baseball even when they are good.

Houston has shown they will only go if the team is good as well.


The rangers on the other hand have been top half of the league in attendance for the last decade and a few of those years were very very bad

Has there been a stadium funding referendum not pass in the US?

I saw this tidbit from a presentation from the 2014 North American Society for Sport Management Conference:

"In the 26 stadium referendums brought before voters between 1990 and 2000, 81% of the proposals were passed by voters"

So in some places, the vote has failed. I know Phoenix rejected a new hockey stadium and I think Seattle rejected a new stadium for the Sonics, and that's why they play in OKC now.

It still goes to a show a dome isn't an elixir for good attendance.

The Rangers may have better baseline attendance, but that is with or without a dome. This is about the effect of a roof on attendance.

Also, attendance fell as low as 1.9 million and to 11th in the AL as recently as 2008 as part of a slow decline since the late 1990s playoff teams.

And then, attendance fell by a full million just from 2012 to 2015.

Rangers fandom is not special, they stay home when the team is bad just like everyone else.

I have no doubt the dome will help some of that, but I'm really curious to see the economics that say it'll help everyone to the tune of an extra $1 billion plus interest and all the other money that will be spent. I'm not saying they don't exist but that's a lot of money for a baseball stadium.

quote:

---

All of those taxes are already in place currently they will be getting voted on to extend them

---

And that is why people say Taxes never go away or down.

Our City and our ISD used the same logic in passing the new Bonds for both. They said, "There is no net-increase in Taxes." Dismissing the fact that your taxes would be coming down because the old bonds had been paid. They made it sound like you weren't voting on an increase, when in fact you were.

Funny how they just seem to find new things to spend money on just in time. Of course, if they let the taxes go down, it is a much harder fight to raise them again, so they just keep sustaining the vote.

quote:

---

I saw this tidbit from a presentation from the 2014 North American Society for Sport Management Conference:

"In the 26 stadium referendums brought before voters between 1990 and 2000, 81% of the proposals were passed by voters"

So in some places, the vote has failed. I know Phoenix rejected a new hockey stadium and I think Seattle rejected a new stadium for the Sonics, and that's why they play in OKC now.

---

I think Oakland failed.

The Seattle situation was much bigger than voting on a stadium. The team was sold to a group of Oklahoma City investors who bought the team and promptly moved them to ... OKC.

The guy who sold the team has been actively trying to get a new team to Seattle.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I saw this tidbit from a presentation from the 2014 North American Society for Sport Management Conference:

"In the 26 stadium referendums brought before voters between 1990 and 2000, 81% of the proposals were passed by voters"

So in some places, the vote has failed. I know Phoenix rejected a new hockey stadium and I think Seattle rejected a new stadium for the Sonics, and that's why they play in OKC now.

---

I think Oakland failed.

The Seattle situation was much bigger than voting on a stadium. The team was sold to a group of Oklahoma City investors who bought the team and promptly moved them to ... OKC.

The guy who sold the team has been actively trying to get a new team to Seattle.

---

but didn't he sell the team originally because Seattle voted no to build the new arena?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Rangers staying in Arlington is no doubt a net positive for the city. It seems that more and more billionaire owners across the nation have realized they have this leverage. This "leverage" is effectively threatening to leave if taxpayers don't give them what they want. It reads more like legalized extortion to me.

On the surface it is ridiculous. Billionaire owners want to increase profits, I mean attendance, because fans don't love sitting outside in 100 degree temperatures. Market research is done that indicates that profits will increase by X with a cost of Y. Obviously X is greater than Y over some number of years or it dies there. But instead of financing Y on their own they use "leverage" to pay Y/2. The net effect is that local Wal-Mart shoppers gets to transfer tiny bits of wealth to billionaire owners through a nominal sales tax increase.

I understand why the majority of residents would vote yes. Maybe they are Rangers fans. Maybe they want that roof. Maybe they have Arlington civic pride. I get it. What I don't get is why there has to be a vote at all. Owners want to increase profits? No problem. Pay the cost of Y and increase your profits by X. I suppose I should just accept that they are doing the "smart" thing by using their "leverage". I get it. I just don't like it.

---

The rangers have said they miss out on about 300,000 in attendance per year due to the heat. I dont buy that at all. Take a look at the other domed stadiums that have to deal with the heat/humidity like the Rangers do

Arizona
Houston
Tampa
Miami

Now here is where they rank in terms of attendance

Houston 17
Arizona 24
Tampa 21
Miami 26


And now for their records and place in respective division

Houston 17-28 5th
Arizona 21-25 4th
Tampa 20-21 4th
Miami 22-21 4th

And their home records

Houston 10-13
Arizona 7-17
Tampa 10-11
Miami 9-12

In fact they have been in the bottom 10 in terms of attendance for the past 3 years. If anything this shows that quality of the game on the field has a bigger impact. Its less Ray Kinsella (if you build it, he will come) and more Al Davis (Just win, baby).

---

I think you've chosen a bad cause-effect correlation.

First, Houston has always played in a domed stadium.

quote:

---

Houston 17: 1962 / WS 0
Arizona 24: 1998 / WS 1
Tampa 21: 1998 / WS 0
Miami 26: 1993 / WS 2

---

If winning is the key, then why are Arizona and Miami not higher in attendance. They both have a WS.
.
Do you think Tampa would have a higher attendance if the stadium were an outside stadium? No. They built their stadium in a place that is impossible to get to. Much like Oakland... it is so bad getting to the stadium that any product on the field is not going to drive attendance.

Miami has been and is a terrible franchise and the owners have done everything they could to destroy it's fan base. Huizenga won a WS and then promptly dismantled the team. The new owner sold the fans on a new stadium under the guise of increasing payroll. He increased the payroll... got his new stadium and then within 6 months completely dismantled the team.

Do you think Arizona would have higher attendance without a dome? I'll let you in on a clue... The average temperature in Phoenix by month:
June: high 104 / low 77
July: high 106 / low 83
August: high 104 / low 82
September: high 100 / low 75

Compare that to Dallas:
June: high 92 / low 73
July: high 96 / low 77
August: high 96 / low 77
September: high 89 / low 69

I've been out at RBiA when it was 90F at 9:30pm, sweating. It is brutal.

Houston is just Houston.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I saw this tidbit from a presentation from the 2014 North American Society for Sport Management Conference:

"In the 26 stadium referendums brought before voters between 1990 and 2000, 81% of the proposals were passed by voters"

So in some places, the vote has failed. I know Phoenix rejected a new hockey stadium and I think Seattle rejected a new stadium for the Sonics, and that's why they play in OKC now.

---

I think Oakland failed.

The Seattle situation was much bigger than voting on a stadium. The team was sold to a group of Oklahoma City investors who bought the team and promptly moved them to ... OKC.

The guy who sold the team has been actively trying to get a new team to Seattle.

---

but didn't he sell the team originally because Seattle voted no to build the new arena?

---

I didn't live in Seattle, and would have to go back and look at the details. IIRC, yes, they voted it down. The Mariners had a stadium voted down and ultimately got a new stadium. I think Seahawks had just gotten their new stadium, so the timing was bad. The former owner is actively trying to get a new stadium built by the city, in order to lure the NBA back to the city.

So, my point was not just that the team got sold... or there was a down vote on the stadium. There were several moving parts. The fact the team got sold to the Okie City investors played a role. The new ownership group had committed to staying in Seattle and once they took ownership, flipped on their stance.

I don't know all the details why the city voted it down... but there were lots of things going on.

IMO, the city should not be funding this project. The city and residents of arlington should not be serving as the piggy bank for a couple of billionaires that own the rangers

quote:

---

IMO, the city should not be funding this project. The city and residents of arlington should not be serving as the piggy bank for a couple of billionaires that own the rangers

---

Except that it gets voted on and passed by the citizens of the city.

I agree that "do this or we take our stadium elsewhere" is a ****ty thing to do to a city's residents... but if the city's residents vote to be bent over instead of losing their team, then who is to blame?

Oh I know it will be voted on, I just hate the fact that a bunch of people would likely agree to a garbage plan like this

Domes and convertible roofs are bad for the game atmosphere. I've been to a baseball game in Phoenix and the atmosphere sucked inside. It was 105 degrees outside, and I'd have rather the game been outside. Even with the huge glass wall and a real grass field, it still felt like being inside, and in no way felt like being at a ball park. It was only a minor improvement over the Astrodome, Kingdome, Tampa, etc.

I'm sure the Rangers will get a small temporary bump in attendance just from having a new facility, but I doubt it will retain larger home attendance figures due to a roof. Indoor baseball sucks, so I won't go to games unless I know the roof will be open.

Eh...I'm not a huge fan of that indoor field there. Minute Maid is better.

I doubt it.

quote:

---

Domes and convertible roofs are bad for the game atmosphere. I've been to a baseball game in Phoenix and the atmosphere sucked inside. It was 105 degrees outside, and I'd have rather the game been outside. Even with the huge glass wall and a real grass field, it still felt like being inside, and in no way felt like being at a ball park. It was only a minor improvement over the Astrodome, Kingdome, Tampa, etc.

I'm sure the Rangers will get a small temporary bump in attendance just from having a new facility, but I doubt it will retain larger home attendance figures due to a roof. Indoor baseball sucks, so I won't go to games unless I know the roof will be open.

---

The problem with Arizona is that stadium is just a Giant Cavern it's one of the worst atmospheres in baseball because ofthis

quote:

---

IMO, the city should not be funding this project. The city and residents of arlington should not be serving as the piggy bank for a couple of billionaires that own the rangers

---

You are entitled to your opinion and your vote. I don't begrudge you.

Just to be sure... A city and residents will vote to be the piggy bank for a couple billionaires that own the Rangers. The question is whether it be Arlington or someone else.

Billionaires become billionaires because they get people to part with money in their favor.

I like the way the current owners of the Rangers run the club. I've studied how most teams are run.

Hicks leveraged his position and when things started to go South everything fell apart and the Rangers (and Stars) sucked.

Let's say the Rangers built the stadium themselves and self-funded. $75M/yr for 15 years comes out to about $1.1B.

Payroll for 2016 is $160M.
Payroll for 2017 is $97M. (Down $63M from 2016)
Payroll for 2018 is $79M. (Down $81M)
Payroll for 2019 is $60M. (Down $100M)

Options:
1. Status quo. Keep RBiA and keep on trucking. Consequences are losing competitive edge as others grow their payroll.
2. Go for the new stadium
2a. Dig into their pockets to pay $75M/15 to pay for the stadium.
2b. Find another city\suitor
2c. Take the Arlington deal
2d. Redirect payroll from players to fund new stadium

The reality is... if nobody offered the Rangers a deal like Arlington did, they would lose competitiveness over time, or they would siphon off payroll short-term to get a new stadium to help long-term.

We've seen (Marlins) teams that get a new stadium and then still cut payroll.

I'd prefer the Rangers not drop payroll by $50-75M/yr.

In fact, the Rangers have extended Beltre (not in figures above). And, if the Rangers want to extend Yu Darvish (how much will he get $30-35M/yr ?), they are going to need a larger budget.

Now it may be that we are great with what we have and will be fine.

quote:

---

I doubt it.

---

You've been to both? I have, and I prefer Minute Maid. Feels more like a ballpark versus an arena.

I feel some many of you must have missed the games in Toronto this year (indoor)... Day games during the week and that place was LOUD.

And it's crazy to think the roof sucks the life out of the crowd more than the heat.

I thought MMP was as good as it gets for having the roof closed. I hope the Rangers can duplicate or even somehow improve on that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I doubt it.

---

You've been to both? I have, and I prefer Minute Maid. Feels more like a ballpark versus an arena.

---

Nope, and I don't have to in order to know that the steel beams and roof overhead do not look like a sky, and that the air conditioning isn't the same as a breeze and fresh air. Glad you like MMP - keep going. I prefer outdoor baseball and football and will not go to indoor games.

Just know that some indoor fields are superior to others.