Quote:
Originally Posted by STLtoSA
A little research will tell you that there is more to the story. On the surface it looks like solely greed ans possibly extortion, but the truth is that the current ballpark was built a few years too early.
The stadium was built 4 years prior to the boom in construction of retractable roof stadiums. The only one at the time was Skydome in Toronto, which was an anomaly (and really doesn't compare to the later retractable roofs).
Not only was the stadium built at the wrong time, but the design exaggerates the summer weather; Large grand Stands, enclosed outfield stands (with building), etc.
Pitchers hate pitching there in the summer, players hate the excruciating heat, and fans suffer.
Excerpt From Stadium's Wikipedia Page:
The reality is probably somewhere in the middle. The current stadium probably does put the Rangers at a disadvantage to retaining certain players and attracting fans, but at the same time the increased revenue streams related to those things as well as having a shiny new stadium is very attractive to owners.
If you want extortion or rather unnecessary spending, look not farther than the Atlanta Braves quest and success to landing a new stadium (Turner field is even newer than the Ballpark at Arlington). The Braves cited that the most of their fans live on the North Side of Atlanta and in-turn need the Ballpark to be located there. If that was a valid argument, half of the teams in Baseball with downtown stadiums could justify a move to the suburbs.
|
So they built a terrible stadium 22 years ago. It's still extortion to threaten to move the team if they don't get a taxpayer-funded new stadium. Short-sightedness is not a legitimate reason to hit the tax base up again.
And I agree, the Braves are extorting Atlanta in the same way, and for the same reasons.