Master Index of Archived Threads


Laughing to the Bank (split from NYC's Weak Sisters, 2007)

Farmer Ted Aug 13 2007 10:37 AM

Fortune says the MFYs are laughing all the way to the MLB bank. The Yankees' stadium windfall It's costing the team $800 million to build a new stadium, but it's going to be a gold mine. By Jon Birger and Tim Arango, Fortune NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Talk about the rich getting richer. Already the most valuable team in baseball, the New York Yankees will tap a whole new revenue gold mine when the team's new stadium opens in 2009. To be sure, its $1.2 billion price tag is enormous - about $400 million more than the one the crosstown Mets are now building in Queens. The Yankees are footing the entire $800 million cost of construction. (New York State and New York City are kicking in the remaining $400 million in the form of land acquisition, infrastructure improvements, and tax breaks.) Yet as expensive as the new stadium will be, nearly everyone we interviewed believes it will dramatically improve the Yankees' value, should the team be sold. "The cash flows coming out of the new building as compared with the old one are going to be ridiculous," says one Yankees source. How ridiculous? A window opened into the normally secretive world of Yankees finance last year when, in conjunction with New York City's Industrial Development Agency, the team sold $940 million in tax-exempt municipal bonds to finance the stadium's construction. The bond prospectus provides a rare if partial look at the Yankees' stadium revenues. From 1997 to 2005, growth in stadium revenue far outpaced the rise in attendance. Annual attendance rose 58 percent, from 2.6 million to 4.1 million, whereas ticket and luxury-suite revenue soared 202 percent, from $52 million in 1997 to $157 million in 2005. The new stadium will boast more than three times as many luxury boxes as the old, and as a result, ticket-and-suite revenues are projected to soar to $253 million when the new ballpark opens in 2009. They will probably be much higher. The $253 million figure in the prospectus assumes attendance in 2009 of 3.4 million, which is the equivalent of 79 percent of the new stadium's 53,000-person capacity over 81 regular-season home games. Given that the Yankees sold 90 percent of their tickets last year, 88 percent in 2005, and are on pace for another 90 percent showing in 2007, it's hard to imagine ticket sales sagging when the new stadium opens. And the ticket-and-suite figures don't include two other sources of stadium revenue - concessions and sponsorships - that Yankees president Randy Levine expects will get a boost from the new ballpark. The Yankees' current concessionaire, Centerplate Inc., obtained 9.6 percent of its 2006 sales - the equivalent of $62 million - from its contract with the Yankees, according to SEC filings. Hal Steinbrenner, George Steinbrenner's youngest who appears to have stepped in as his father's chief lieutenant, tells Fortune that the Yankees are considering handling concessions on their own in the new stadium. Were the Yankees to go that route, the team could conceivably net $30 million annually on gross concession sales of $100 million, estimates former Yankees marketing director Joseph Perello. As for sponsorships, Levine says the Yankees are not planning to sell traditional naming rights: "It's going to be called Yankee Stadium." Nevertheless, according to the bond prospectus, the team's lease with New York City (which will own the new stadium) stipulates that the Yankees keep "all cash and receivables" related to "naming rights" and "advertising" and specifically raises the possibility of the Yankees' selling naming rights "for parts of the stadium." In other words, fans may enter a building called Yankee Stadium but find themselves sitting in the Bank of America bleachers or purchasing snacks at the Pfizer food court. Perello, now a sports consultant, thinks the Yanks could collect $50 million to $75 million a year in sponsorship dough this way. What will New York taxpayers get in return for all their Yankee largesse? Very little - unless you're a local pol with a hankering for hardball. The Yankees will pay a mere $10 a year in rent in the new ballpark, down from about $10 million in the old one. No, we didn't leave off some zeros; it's typical of the sweetheart deals cities make to keep teams in town. And this one comes with a cherry-on-top kicker: According to the prospectus, city officials get their own luxury box "for all regular-season team home games." Of course, the Yankees are responsible for $51 million a year in debt service. Yet even that expense comes with a silver lining: It will help reduce the Yankees' revenue-sharing obligations. Baseball's 2002 collective-bargaining agreement permits teams to deduct stadium debt service and construction costs when calculating revenue sharing. Bottom line? Baseball's 29 other teams will effectively bear a third of the cost of the Yankees' new ballpark. "It's a classic tax shelter," one baseball insider says. "Not only do you get the benefit of added revenues, but you get a major revenue-sharing deduction as well."

Edgy DC Aug 13 2007 10:48 AM

Unless nobody shows.

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 11:41 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Unless nobody shows. I really don't see that happening anytime soon. YS has been a major tourist trap during since 1998 and I don't see the Yankees ever taking too much of a step backwards that could see late 80s-early 90s levels of attendance. Especially with the "newness" of the park. The Mets though, they need to careful. Citi Field could become like Shea because it doesn't have the YS "Tourist Trap" cache. Because of it's acclaim as one of the most historic venues around (even with the knowledge that the current structure really is 31 years old, not 84) Yankee Stadium now will always be full. So if the Mets ever did go through a 2002-2004 tailspin (Because of the economics of the game, the dark times of 1974-1983 will never happen again to this franchise, so if anything I can see just a three year cycle of 2nd division-dom), I could see fans staying away from CF in droves like many of the new ballparks like PNC, Great American Ballpark, ect where the bloom is off the rose because of a lousy team.

Edgy DC Aug 13 2007 11:59 AM

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Edgy DC"]Unless nobody shows. I really don't see that happening anytime soon. Well, baseball is dying.

Rockin' Doc Aug 13 2007 12:08 PM

Edgy - "Well, baseball is dying." Or so I've heard it argued in the past.

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 12:40 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ="SteveJRogers"] Edgy DC wrote: Unless nobody shows. I really don't see that happening anytime soon. Well, baseball is dying. Well, New York is one huge exception to baseball's lack of a fanbase across the country. Ditto Boston, Chicago, ect. Make a wise crack about baseball dying again when Philly gets themselves back into the race and doesn't sell out its NLDS games because a big Eagle game is that weekend. Give me that wise crack everytime Royal fans stage walkouts during Yankee games. Give me that wise crack when new stadiums like the ones in Pittsburgh, and Cincy do not have that "new ballpark" spike in attendance because they can't field a team. Healthier than ever? More like a house of cards because its still only popular in the biggest markets, or markets where baseball has become so damned ingrained that fans truely don't realize or care that they are watching a sport that is slowly devolving because of the economics and the greed of all sides.

Nymr83 Aug 13 2007 12:48 PM

blah, blah, blah.

metirish Aug 13 2007 12:51 PM

] Healthier than ever? More like a house of cards because its still only popular in the biggest markets, or markets where baseball has become so damned ingrained that fans truely don't realize or care that they are watching a sport that is slowly devolving because of the economics and the greed of all sides. Steve I can see you as a future feature writer for a major daily.

Iubitul Aug 13 2007 12:55 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: Healthier than ever? More like a house of cards because its still only popular in the biggest markets, or markets where baseball has become so damned ingrained that fans truely don't realize or care that they are watching a sport that is slowly devolving because of the economics and the greed of all sides. hmmmm only in the biggest markets.... So tell me, how has minor league attendance been over the last 25 years? Just askin'...

Benjamin Grimm Aug 13 2007 01:11 PM

Economics and greed have been part of the game forever. When we're eight years old it's easy to be unaware of it. As we get older, if we're still paying attention, it becomes more and more obvious. But just because we each make this discovery on our own, doesn't mean it's anything new. Greed isn't going to kill baseball. It would be nice if the game was completely unspoiled by the realities of the business world, but that never will happen and it never was the case. That's why I don't like that HBO title "When it Was a Game." It's still a game, no more or less than it ever was.

metsmarathon Aug 13 2007 01:21 PM

yeah, baseball's doing terrible in small markets like milwaukee, oakland, minnesota, and cleveland... the primary reason for the struggles of baseball in such small market teams as pittsburgh and kansas city is ineptitude and incompetence moreso than greed and financial inequity.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 13 2007 01:24 PM

Minnesota, Cleveland, etc. must be the "so damned ingrained" markets.

metirish Aug 13 2007 01:28 PM

Yancy with the wise crack.......

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 01:29 PM

="Yancy Street Gang"]Economics and greed have been part of the game forever. When we're eight years old it's easy to be unaware of it. As we get older, if we're still paying attention, it becomes more and more obvious. But just because we each make this discovery on our own, doesn't mean it's anything new. Greed isn't going to kill baseball. It would be nice if the game was completely unspoiled by the realities of the business world, but that never will happen and it never was the case. That's why I don't like that HBO title "When it Was a Game." It's still a game, no more or less than it ever was. I hear you Yance, but the point I'm saying is that the economic structure of the game right now is hurting baseball more so then when it did back then. The reason why, even if the new owner is Michael Burke reincarnated, the Yankees will never spend more than a year or two outside of postseason play from now on (ditto the Mets) is because of the revenue streams that are at their dissposal now that never existed before. Back when the Yankees were the Evil Empire that made deals only with the KC A's, the streams were just the ballpark, radio & over the air TV (which all NY teams were slow to pick up on, but thats another tale). Now there is cable deals, exclusive deals with sporting goods, internet sales, video sales, and on and on. Unless the next owner of the Yankees is a David Glass/Tribune type who would rather keep the revenue streams for their own profit margin rather than put it back onto the field, the Yankees (and Mets) are never going to be second division teams for more than a year or two again. KC, Pittsburgh, Cincy, even Philly can not compete with the mega franchises that the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, ect have become. Unless there is more equity among all teams, and yes I am talking about things like a real hard salary cap and even a floor, then this cycle is going to continue and yes MLB will in fact be considered a lesser sport (if its not already) in the eyes of mainstream America. And I'm not even getting into the points about how baseball is a slow sport, not readily accessible to be played in the cities, and that it just isn't bringing in the youth of this country (not just African-Americans) like it once did

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 01:32 PM

metsmarathon wrote: yeah, baseball's doing terrible in small markets like milwaukee, oakland, minnesota, and cleveland... the primary reason for the struggles of baseball in such small market teams as pittsburgh and kansas city is ineptitude and incompetence moreso than greed and financial inequity. Then why are Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon, Miguel Tejada, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, and Mark Mulder playing elsewhere? Why are New York media members licking their chops for Johan Santana's debut on the free agent market? Why do we have Luis Castillio, Paul LoDuca and Carlos Delgado right now?

Willets Point Aug 13 2007 01:47 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: Why do we have Luis Castillio, Paul LoDuca and Carlos Delgado right now? Because Omar made some stupid deals for old players who can't hit anymore.

metsmarathon Aug 13 2007 01:49 PM

are the a's better off this year with haren, blanton and gaudin, with dick harden looking in from the clubhouse, than they would've been with hudson, mulder & zito? do you really think they still wish they had jason giambi? are there many players out there more overpaid than johnny damon? baltimore has had ridiculous amounts of money to throw around, and, gosh, how well have they done with it all? and who cares what gives a hardon to sports journalists? last year, the big free agent pitcher went to solidly mid-market san francisco, and, gosh, isn't that nice for them? giving away big money contracts is just as good a means of destroying a team as it is building a dynasty. i forgot to look - is atlanta a big market?

metsmarathon Aug 13 2007 01:54 PM

since 2000, the mega-huge market new york mets have exactly nine more wins than the super-small market, can't keep a damned player and are always rebuilding florida marlins. well, in the regular season. in the post season, they've got exactly one more world's championship trophy.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 13 2007 01:55 PM

Steve, I see where you are coming from. The extra money allows you to take some expensive gambles and not crash and burn if they are mistakes (See: Pavano, Carl) But, on the other hand, look at the World Series winners since 2000, when Bleeping Timo gave one to the bastards: 2001: Arizona 2002: Angels 2003: Marlins 2004: Red Sox 2005: White Sox 2006: Cardinals Only the Red Sox are a mega club, though I grant you that run well, the White Sox and the Angels should be. The teams that are constantly bad -- Pirates, Royals, Devil Rays, Nationals -- are the way they are not because of a revenue problem, but because they are mismanaged. Meanwhile, the Athletics, Twins, Braves and others we are used to seeing in October are smaller markets that are run by people who know what the heck they are doing. I'm not saying the Vile Empire doesn't have massive leg up on everybody else, but it's not the ticket straight to the Series.

Edgy DC Aug 13 2007 01:55 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: Well, New York is one huge exception to baseball's lack of a fanbase across the country. Ditto Boston, Chicago, ect. I thought the Mets had to be careful.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2007 02:03 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Aug 13 2007 02:05 PM

"... but the point I'm saying is that the economic structure of the game right now is hurting baseball more so then when it did back then. " No it isn't. "Give me that wise crack when new stadiums like the ones in Pittsburgh, and Cincy do not have that "new ballpark" spike in attendance because they can't field a team. " Pitt attendence: 1979 WS winner = 1.436 mil 1992 3rd consectutive NL winner - 1.829 mil 2006 14th consecutive losing season and in market that's losing population both in the city intself and the surrounding areas = 1.861 mil the good old days weren't always so good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems - B. Joel Someone split this discussion off please

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 02:03 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]Well, New York is one huge exception to baseball's lack of a fanbase across the country. Ditto Boston, Chicago, ect. I thought the Mets had to be careful. I meant in terms of thinking Citi Field will be the automatic cash cow that Yankee Stadium III will be. Even last year Shea wasn't quite filling the turnstilles like they where back in the Big 80s. Shea doesn't and Citi won't have the same historic, tourist trap feel that the second YS has and the third will, and therefore the seats won't be filled to capacity if the Mets have a down year. They'll bounce back the next year and the fans will come back, but the Mets are fooling themselves if they share the Yankee belief that their new ballpark is guaranteed to be a cash cow, even if the team is playing lousy.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2007 02:07 PM

"Even last year Shea wasn't quite filling the turnstilles like they where back in the Big 80s. " 1986 = 2.768 mil 2006 = 3.380 mil please stop before you mis-state again

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 02:10 PM

="Frayed Knot"]"Even last year Shea wasn't quite filling the turnstilles like they where back in the Big 80s. " 1986 = 2.768 mil 2006 = 3.380 mil please stop before you mis-state again Those are totals, what was the average attendance for both years? Other than shoehorning more luxury boxes don't you think there is a reason why there are going to be 45,000 seats at Citi? Because the Mets just aren't drawing 50+ as consistantly as they once did.

metirish Aug 13 2007 02:14 PM

Johnny Dickshot Aug 13 2007 02:15 PM

="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]"Even last year Shea wasn't quite filling the turnstilles like they where back in the Big 80s. " 1986 = 2.768 mil 2006 = 3.380 mil please stop before you mis-state again Those are totals, what was the average attendance for both years? Other than shoehorning more luxury boxes don't you think there is a reason why there are going to be 45,000 seats at Citi? Because the Mets just aren't drawing 50+ as consistantly as they once did. Wrong again, Steve J.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 13 2007 02:16 PM

So you're saying that, even though the 2006 Mets had a higher total attendance over 81 home dates, the 1986 team had a higher average attendance per game?

metsmarathon Aug 13 2007 02:19 PM

="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]"Even last year Shea wasn't quite filling the turnstilles like they where back in the Big 80s. " 1986 = 2.768 mil 2006 = 3.380 mil please stop before you mis-state again Those are totals, what was the average attendance for both years? Other than shoehorning more luxury boxes don't you think there is a reason why there are going to be 45,000 seats at Citi? Because the Mets just aren't drawing 50+ as consistantly as they once did. ....um....i know i was young back then and wasn't paying close enough attention.... but.... were.... there... fewer games played.... in '86? 1986, that is... cos i'm thinkin' 2.768M : 3.380M :: (2.768M /81 games) : (3.380M / 81 games)

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2007 02:19 PM

"Those are totals, what was the average attendance for both years?" Umm, off the top of my head I'd say the avgs would be higher in the year where the total attendence was higher than it was for the year when the total was lower. At least math tended to work that way when I was in school although admittedly that was a while ago. There may have been a few fewer dates in the '80s (although DH's were rare then too) but not enough to make up for the 22% increase in the total. "Other than shoehorning more luxury boxes don't you think there is a reason why there are going to be 45,000 seats at Citi?" Yes, as has been discussed, it's to create a supply/demand ratio that better suits them making money. "Because the Mets just aren't drawing 50+ as consistantly as they once did." Show your work. If they were drawing more 50K+ dates then they must also have been drawing more under-15K dates to balance it off, no?

metsmarathon Aug 13 2007 02:21 PM

the '86 mets would've had to've played 66 or fewer home games in order to've had a higher average attendance than the '06 mets did in 81 home games.

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 02:23 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: So you're saying that, even though the 2006 Mets had a higher total attendance over 81 home dates, the 1986 team had a higher average attendance per game? As faulty of a logic as that sounds, that is my story and I'm sticking with it! =;) Okay, I'm going to do my own little barmoter going forward. You would think that if the Mets were doing 50,000 every night that all of the Upper Deck concession stands would be open. Especially on weekend afternoons/evenings. Ditto with the Yankees. I'm going to keep track of how many times they are actually open from now untill the new ballparks are open. An informal poll for sure, but if they are doing 50,000s you'd think the Upper Deck stands would be open, even if a 40,000s night is a rareity.

metirish Aug 13 2007 02:24 PM

Steve can you find someone else to do the math?.....thanks.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2007 02:31 PM

Just a rule of thumb to go by: 1,000,000 in attendence ~ 12,350 per game base on 81 home admissions so 2mil ~ 25,000 per 3mil ~ 37,000 per 4mil ~ just shy of 50K/per So if you have a number of days with 50K or better the remainder of the days would have to really suck in order to stall out at barely 2.5mil. Bottom line; attendence in NYC has never been better. Steinbrenner's complaint early on was that his team [u:9418dc24c4]Could[/u:9418dc24c4] never and [u:9418dc24c4]Would[/u:9418dc24c4] never draw 3mil. They're now headed for their 3rd or 4th straight year of 4+ The Mets + Yanks last year out-drew ANY year of the Dodgers + Giants + Yanx

metsmarathon Aug 13 2007 02:37 PM

average attendance at a met game this year is 46,092 average attendance at a home game this month is 51110, while in july it was 50123. the mets haven't played a home game to fewer than 40,000 fans since monday, june 18th against the twins. only once this season did they play to were than 30,000 fans, wednesday, may 2nd, against the fish, when only 25,236 showed up. the mets drew 50,000 TWICE in all of '86. twice!

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 02:39 PM

Okay, but you haven't answered the question, other than shoehorning tons of luxury suites and restaurants and such (which could actually be the only reason) why then, if the Mets are getting 50s consistantly is Citi Field looking at a capacity crowd of 45,000 (plus they are going to have Wrigley style standing room according to the Mets.com website) Is it because they just aren't getting those extra 10,000 people on a consistant enough basis to have 81 near capacity dates?

metsmarathon Aug 13 2007 02:41 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: Okay, I'm going to do my own little barmoter going forward. You would think that if the Mets were doing 50,000 every night that all of the Upper Deck concession stands would be open. Especially on weekend afternoons/evenings. Ditto with the Yankees. I'm going to keep track of how many times they are actually open from now untill the new ballparks are open. An informal poll for sure, but if they are doing 50,000s you'd think the Upper Deck stands would be open, even if a 40,000s night is a rareity. i would suggest that your study would be meaningless without something to compare it against. ok, so there's some number, as you say, of upper deck conession stands that are not opened. is that number high? low? typical? have they added more vendors to offset the closed windows? without a baseline and some context against which to compare it, it really doesnt matter, does it?

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 02:43 PM

metsmarathon wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]Okay, I'm going to do my own little barmoter going forward. You would think that if the Mets were doing 50,000 every night that all of the Upper Deck concession stands would be open. Especially on weekend afternoons/evenings. Ditto with the Yankees. I'm going to keep track of how many times they are actually open from now untill the new ballparks are open. An informal poll for sure, but if they are doing 50,000s you'd think the Upper Deck stands would be open, even if a 40,000s night is a rareity. i would suggest that your study would be meaningless without something to compare it against. ok, so there's some number, as you say, of upper deck conession stands that are not opened. is that number high? low? typical? have they added more vendors to offset the closed windows? without a baseline and some context against which to compare it, it really doesnt matter, does it? Okay, how about just the fact that the last sections on both the right field and left field lines are rarely filled during the spring and summer months? There is some context there.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2007 02:44 PM

"Is it because they just aren't getting those extra 10,000 people on a consistant enough basis to have 81 near capacity dates?" But your argument all along - both by implication and by outright (*and false*) statements was that they used to draw like that all the time but are no longer doing so. And yes I did answer this question.

metsmarathon Aug 13 2007 02:49 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: Okay, but you haven't answered the question, other than shoehorning tons of luxury suites and restaurants and such (which could actually be the only reason) why then, if the Mets are getting 50s consistantly is Citi Field looking at a capacity crowd of 45,000 (plus they are going to have Wrigley style standing room according to the Mets.com website) Is it because they just aren't getting those extra 10,000 people on a consistant enough basis to have 81 near capacity dates? because by reducing the supply of available seats, they increase the demand for those available seats to such an extent that they believe that they are able to make more money by drawing fewer people into the stadium at higher prices than they would have by drawing more people at lower cost. this demand, it is believed, should be sufficient to boost attendance during periods wherein the team may not perform in such a fashion as would be deserving of high attendance - kinda like how the garden was sold out every night until only just recently when the knicks got so bad that even the demand for those games couldn't sustain it. the knicks were AWFUL but they still sold out the builiding far longer than you would have expected. why? because there was such demand to go see a knicks game because hte supply was so very limited compared to that demand. and by increasing demand, you increase the attention your team gets. the knicks weren't selling out the garden because basketball is so much stronger than baseball is in new york - they were doing it because the demand was greater as a result fo the supply being so restricted. this is also why the nfl does so well, btw. 16 games a year, only 8 at home, until the theoretical maximum of four postseason games, and not only does going to the game become in demand, but merely watching it on television enjoys increased demand. bottom line - basic capitalism. supply goes down, demand must go up, and with it, prices. supply goes up, demand goes down, and with it, prices.

Willets Point Aug 13 2007 02:52 PM

Best. Rogers Thread. Ever!

Edgy DC Aug 13 2007 02:54 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Edgy DC"] SteveJRogers wrote: Well, New York is one huge exception to baseball's lack of a fanbase across the country. Ditto Boston, Chicago, ect. I thought the Mets had to be careful. I meant in terms of thinking Citi Field will be the automatic cash cow that Yankee Stadium III will be. I know what you meant, and it contradicts your New YorK is the exception to the death of baseball premise. You talk in circles on the issue of baseball economics. SteveJRogers wrote: Shea doesn't and Citi won't have the same historic, tourist trap feel that the second YS has and the third will A tourist trap feel is a bad thing.

metsmarathon Aug 13 2007 02:55 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: ="metsmarathon"] SteveJRogers wrote: Okay, I'm going to do my own little barmoter going forward. You would think that if the Mets were doing 50,000 every night that all of the Upper Deck concession stands would be open. Especially on weekend afternoons/evenings. Ditto with the Yankees. I'm going to keep track of how many times they are actually open from now untill the new ballparks are open. An informal poll for sure, but if they are doing 50,000s you'd think the Upper Deck stands would be open, even if a 40,000s night is a rareity. i would suggest that your study would be meaningless without something to compare it against. ok, so there's some number, as you say, of upper deck conession stands that are not opened. is that number high? low? typical? have they added more vendors to offset the closed windows? without a baseline and some context against which to compare it, it really doesnt matter, does it? Okay, how about just the fact that the last sections on both the right field and left field lines are rarely filled during the spring and summer months? There is some context there. what point are you even trying to make? that the mets know in advance whether or not they are likely to sell out the stadium? that's easy, what with the ease of purchasing tickets prior to a game. i would wager that the mets can predict to with in a thousand or less, what the game's attendance will be based solely on advance ticket sales. knowing that, why would they open concession stands when there would be no fans to use them? if the point is that the stadium doesn't fill likeit used to, i don't think hte evidence at all supports that notion, unless they're somehow doing a better job of filling in the stands more densely than they used to - instead of spreading everybody evenly around the park, they pack in the nearest sections first. as we've seen/shown, there aren't fewer people in those stands. there's actually quite a bit more.

Vic Sage Aug 13 2007 03:18 PM

>"Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" >"Germans?" >"Shush. He's on a roll."

cleonjones11 Aug 13 2007 04:37 PM

Angels are moving to Wally World with Marty Moose as a mascot. Now thats a tourist trap

metirish Aug 13 2007 04:41 PM

Rogers gets six schaefer points.

Rockin' Doc Aug 13 2007 05:39 PM

metirish - "Rogers gets six schaefer points." Are those actual points? Or is that an average?

TransMonk Aug 13 2007 06:06 PM

I think this is the first time in a long time I've laughed out loud 3 times in one day to 3 completely different threads.

Edgy DC Aug 13 2007 06:38 PM

Steve, I apologize for baiting you with the "Well, baseball is dying" statement.

m.e.t.b.o.t. Aug 13 2007 06:44 PM

if only m.e.t.b.o.t. could laugh...

SteveJRogers Aug 13 2007 07:19 PM

Hey m.e.t.b.o.t. did you like that picture of you and some friends?