southsider2k5 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: Yeah it's going to be a HUGE problem. Any new stadium anywhere will need to be privately financed, as it should have always been from the beginning. I think you're going to see a slew of sports franchises relocate over the next couple decades. If no one is going to publicly finance, what is the attraction of leaving? That doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Latilleon said: Portland... Probably the most attractive US market without MLB because it has 2.5 million people and only an NBA team. Still only the size of Pittsburgh. Las Vegas is 2 million people and will have NHL and NFL. Already full of entertainment. TV deal will suck. Oklahoma City has a population of 1.4 million. Not gonna happen. Mexico City is the largest city in North America. But its a long way away from the rest of the league. San Juan, Puerto Rico has 2.4 million people but the Commonwealth is having a really bad financial crunch. Who's going to pay for a $600 million plus stadium there? Montreal has 4 million people and when MLB expands, if someone will build a stadium, the National League is probably coming back. Indianapolis has 2.3 million people, the NFL, NBA, and Cincinnati 100 miles away. San Antonio and Austin are 80 miles apart. SA has 2.4 million and Austin has 2.2 million. Austin is also a wealthier city than San Antonio. If MLB went there, it'd probably be Austin but the markets would both be exploited by a perspective team. New Orleans has 1.3 million and has no business having the NFL and the NBA right now. Definitely can't afford the MLB. Charlotte is 2.5 million and a front runner with Portland and Montreal. But Charlotte already has the NFL and NBA taking a great amount of the money out of the market for a potential MLB team. Raleigh is slightly smaller than Charlotte but only has the NHL. It also has three major ACC programs in the metro area. Sacramento has 2.4 million, only an NBA franchise, but two MLB teams 80 miles away. It's almost like the Milwaukee Brewers. Milwaukee would never get an MLB team today being so small (2 million) and close to Chicago. I'm surprised you didn't mention Nashville. That's the hot city on the tip of everyone's tongue. Nashville has 2 million and the same issue as Charlotte, Las Vegas, and incredibly, New Orleans; two big league sports franchises already sucking the oxygen out of a potential MLB franchise's atmosphere. Chicago is an attractive market for both a National League and American League franchise and can afford to sellout both stadiums all 162 games. That's why the question of whether the Sox would leave Chicago is a non-starter. If a younger owner came in and bought the Sox, they could easily find one of the suburbs to allow them to Cobb County a new stadium and let them develop the real estate around the new park. We know the city and the state won't pay for a new park, but Chicago is attractive enough as a market that Reinsdorf taking the fanbase for granted can be overcome with actual hope and not optimism tempered by mistrust. Even if you assign the Sox just 1/3 of Chicago. it still blows away almost every City on this list, especially if you equalize for the Peso, income, and already failed locations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: If no one is going to publicly finance, what is the attraction of leaving? That doesn't make sense. To stick it to the places for not publicly financing, and to try to scare others into doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latilleon Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 27 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: With the economic climate shifting to such priority areas as the environment, health care, infrastructure and education...I'd have a hard time imagining that public financing is realistically going to be part of any municipal plans in the future. Look what happened to Amazon HQ2. Imagine trying to get through public funding for a sports facility in today's climate, let alone a decade from now. Is anyone familiar enough with Portland, Nashville, Charlotte, Montreal, Las Vegas or the San Antonio/Austin area to provide a gauge of how such a projected would be greeted by local voters/legislators in terms of possible MLB expansion? Portland and Montreal have MLB efforts. Portland seems to have a stadium plan, Montreal apparently does not. Nashville just publicly funded a MLS stadium for $300 million and a Triple-A stadium for $100 million. I don't know if they would be 100% for publicly building a $750 million MLB stadium, but they would love the feather in the cap of an MLB team, even if they probably cannot support it and all the other teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latilleon Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 51 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: I'm guessing you're referring to the Atlanta Braves here.... Yes. If Naperville went half on a stadium and they gave the Sox a huge amount of acreage where the Sox can do what the Braves did in Cobb County, GA and the Cubs have been doing in Wrigleyville, how attractive would that be for a new Sox owner, even if it meant leaving the city? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.