View Full Version : Why Yankee Stadium Should Have Been Renovated, Not Destroyed
LouGehrig
10-03-08, 10:17 AM
It didn't have to happen. It didn't happen in despised Boston, and it didn't happen in Chicago. Yankees' fans were sold a lie, and they couldn't wait to buy it. The fans had absolutely NO SAY in the matter, but most refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Link (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1055031/why_yankee_stadium_should_have_been.html?cat=14)
BBombers85
10-03-08, 10:37 AM
A New Stadium is only new until it opens. Then it's old.
I love that there is a new stadium with modern amenities. I mean honestly, grass is replaced and how many people actually saw Ruth, Gehrig, and Mantle play there? It's a very small percentage.
Why should the fans have a say? They don't own the Stadium. The Parks Department does. Let's say you bought Abraham Lincoln's old house and wanted to build a mansion on it. Would you listen to someone who came and said to you "I want a say. This is part of history and I read about this fella. Don't do it."
BRNXBMRS
10-03-08, 10:43 AM
It didn't have to happen. It didn't happen in despised Boston, and it didn't happen in Chicago. Yankees' fans were sold a lie, and they couldn't wait to buy it. The fans had absolutely NO SAY in the matter, but most refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Link (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1055031/why_yankee_stadium_should_have_been.html?cat=14)
I was up in Fenway in 99 when the plans for the new Fenway were in the scorecard etc. The Mass people made a stink and they maximized their profits in original Fenway. The Yanks could've done this but they hired the rightman to get a new stadium "Randy Levine" thats wy he is there, he isnt a baseball person he knew/knows the ins & outs of NYC politics & red tape. Steinbrenner wanted a new stadium since the 80's and he got it. But the famous line "be careful what you wish for" couldnt be more true with the way the economy is tanking. All of the business' (Wall St) that the Steins were/are marketing to are going out of business or arent going to spend $800,000 on four seats per season. SO this may blow up in their face. There is nothing we can do at this point so we might as welll accept what we are given. Those who go will go.
BRNXBMRS
10-03-08, 10:46 AM
A New Stadium is only new until it opens. Then it's old.
I love that there is a new stadium with modern amenities. I mean honestly, grass is replaced and how many people actually saw Ruth, Gehrig, and Mantle play there? It's a very small percentage.
Why should the fans have a say? They don't own the Stadium. The Parks Department does. Let's say you bought Abraham Lincoln's old house and wanted to build a mansion on it. Would you listen to someone who came and said to you "I want a say. This is part of history and I read about this fella. Don't do it."
Something tells me that Lincolns house is probably landmarked.
LouGehrig
10-03-08, 10:51 AM
Why should the fans have a say? They don't own the Stadium.
But taxes helped finance about $1 billion so far.
And aren't we told it is OUR team?
4bronxbombers
10-03-08, 10:56 AM
I have mixed feelings on this. I wish they would have kept the old stadium and renovated it but I have to admit it will be great to have the new amenities esp the wide walkways. I don't however, like when "non-baseball, finance" people like Levine get involved. I think it ruins a lot of things including getting rid of historic Yankee Stadium.
It didn't have to happen. It didn't happen in despised Boston, and it didn't happen in Chicago. Yankees' fans were sold a lie, and they couldn't wait to buy it. The fans had absolutely NO SAY in the matter, but most refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Anyone who thinks Wrigley or Fenway will last forever is delusional. Eventually those old structures will come down, too.
I think teams should get new parks every 30-40 years or so, lest they become more associated with their stadium than for what they do on the field.
LouGehrig
10-03-08, 11:06 AM
I think teams should get new parks every 30-40 years or so, lest they become more associated with their stadium than for what they do on the field.
[/left]
Similar to getting a new wife or husband every few years?
PeteRFNY
10-03-08, 11:23 AM
If I had been given a say in this, I would have given two thumbs-up.
Don't kid yourself - the Red Sox would LOVE to get a new ballpark. So would the Cubs (remember a few years ago when they had to install nets to keep concrete from falling on people? THAT was fun: Get Hit On The Head With Cement Day at Wrigley). No matter what anyone says, eventually THEY will get new stadiums, too. You can only put so many Band-Aids on a gaping wound until you have to give in and get stitches.
Yeah, yeah, yeah we have heard all about it...the Yankees didn't HAVE to get a new Stardium...they COULD have renovated...they COULD have played in Shea for three years (even though there won't be a Shea to play in)...they COULD have played in Macombs Dam park...etc, etc, etc.
The bottom line is they COULD have done all of this - but they DIDN'T. The team needed to acknowledge that the 1970's renovation was a crappy, slap-dash job done on a limited budget (it was) that took away all the character of the original Stadium without fixing one aesthtic problem other than removing the sight obstructions. There was still tiny aisles, limited ameneties, nasty bathrooms, overcrowded walkways and more isuues - and it took them 37 years to finally remedy that.
The new Stadium will be more like the OLD pre-renovation Yankee Stadium than this one EVER was, both in class and grandure. Yeah - they COULD have done ANOTHER renovation to the hulk on the same GPS coordinates as the current Yankee Stadium - but if you can build a NEW structure from scratch and get it built exactly to the spec you want - and in addition, have it built ACROSS THE STREET - you go for it. To do otherwise would be crazy.
Building over the current structure would have limited the organization to the same space constrictions it had to work with last time. This time, it would have taken even LONGER, because they would have rebuilt from the ground up - NOT around an 85-year-old skeleton.
Eventually, people are going to need to accept that there is a new, beautiful, grand, modern Stadium coming and it is coming next year. It will correct the transgressions of the recent past and restore the grandure of the distant past while upgrading considerably in many areas.
Despite all the hand-wringing and flowery blogging, this is a GOOD thing.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-03-08, 12:08 PM
Yankees' fans were sold a lie
What lie were fans sold? I mean, there was a lack of clear information about just how much public funding was going into the new stadium, but for the most part I think everyone knew what was going on. The yanks wanted a new stadium with more luxury boxes. The city was willing to kick in a bunch of corporate welfare to help them do it. One would really have to have their head in the sand not to have seen all that pretty clearly, so who was lied to?
The fans had absolutely NO SAY in the matter, but most refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Of course the fans had no say. Who refuses to acknowledge that?
Home is where the heart is.
I don't believe for a second that concrete and steel arranged in a particular way has any spiritual significance; the old ballpark has historical value, sure, but you seem to value Yankee Stadium as history more than you value Yankee Stadium as a functional and aesthetic place to play and watch baseball. For those purposes (the ones that really count), the new ballpark is vastly superior to the old.
Pay proper respect to the history, but don't let it keep you from living in the present. I think the Yankees have done this.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-03-08, 12:18 PM
Pay proper respect to the history, but don't let it keep you from living in the present.
I like that.
Yankee Stadium has approximately 53 luxury boxes, including the Loge suites. Mullally Park is going to have what, 57? 59? Something like that.
So basically, you're getting new concrete, a shiny new replay board, wider concourses, and obscene price increases for ordinary field box seats behind home plate, while ownership gets an additional 4-6 luxury boxes and a whole hell of a lot of extra retail space.
I hope you enjoy your new shiny toy that looks pretty on the surface but is totally hollow inside. That it cost upwards of $1 billion in public money after the formal announcement that it would be privately-funded is nothing short of a travesty. Some people find the amount to be obscene, which it is, but I find the lying to be even worse.
The rest of my thoughts have already been posted in a different thread, so I'll just link it here instead of wasting my energy typing everything out again.
http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114316
Post #19 in that thread efficiently summarizes everything else I said throughout the entire thread.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-03-08, 12:46 PM
Yankee Stadium has approximately 53 luxury boxes, including the Loge suites. Mullally Park is going to have what, 57? 59? Something like that.
What are you talking about? The luxury suite capacity of the new park is a massive increase over the existing park. If you're going to post so much about the change in stadiums, you should probably at least try to understand some basic facts.
What are you talking about? The luxury suite capacity of the new park is a massive increase over the existing park. If you're going to post so much about the change in stadiums, you should probably at least try to understand some basic facts.How many luxury boxes are there going to be next year?
http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/new_stadium_comparison.jsp
Again, more lies... it says there are only 19 luxury suites in Yankee Stadium, but that's only counting the ones below the press box. It's not counting the 28-30 that have been added in the last 10-15 years. Remember the Budweiser announcing booth in section 15 where you could announce an inning of the game and have it recorded? That space was converted into a luxury suite, as were several other spaces in the loge level.
How many luxury boxes are there going to be next year?
http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/new_stadium_comparison.jsp
Again, more lies... it says there are only 19 luxury suites in Yankee Stadium, but that's only counting the ones below the press box. It's not counting the 28-30 that have been added in the last 10-15 years. Remember the Budweiser announcing booth in section 15 where you could announce an inning of the game and have it recorded? That space was converted into a luxury suite, as were several other spaces in the loge level.
HUGE difference between a Loge Suite and a Luxury Suite. And what they can charge for them
HUGE difference between a Loge Suite and a Luxury Suite. And what they can charge for themDo you know what the prices were? I know loge suites were going for around $6,000-$10,000 a game, depending on the size. Some had higher capacities than others. Figure half a million each for the entire season, conservatively. How does that compare to the prices of the 18 luxury suites below the press level behind the plate?
Still doesn't change the fact that virtually all prices are going up next year. I'd be curious to know if the total increase in revenue from 2008 to 2009 is mostly attributed to the extra amenities in the facility itself, or in the increased prices of everything. It would have to be an elaborate analysis, but any decent accountant should be able to figure it out if given the relevant information.
I'm thinking that a substantial enough portion of the increase will come from simply raising prices that it can be argued that similar price increases in the current Yankee Stadium would have yielded a similar increase in total revenue.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-03-08, 02:37 PM
How many luxury boxes are there going to be next year?
http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/new_stadium_comparison.jsp
Again, more lies... it says there are only 19 luxury suites in Yankee Stadium, but that's only counting the ones below the press box. It's not counting the 28-30 that have been added in the last 10-15 years. Remember the Budweiser announcing booth in section 15 where you could announce an inning of the game and have it recorded? That space was converted into a luxury suite, as were several other spaces in the loge level.
Do you even read the links you post? This stuff is really pretty straightforward.
JOBA RULES
10-03-08, 02:48 PM
true....
Chairman-of-TheBoard
10-03-08, 03:05 PM
Similar to getting a new wife or husband every few years?
Dude, come on. Speaking for myself, I don't even remotely equate my status as a Yankee fan with my loyalty to my wife. I plan to live and die with my wife, not the New York Yankees.
I do see that you have a legit gripe. The Yanks are worth, what $1.3 Billion with the YES Network adding even more? If any organization can afford to build their own stadium/complex/whatever, it would be the Yankees. I was and still am completely against any public financing of privately owned sports clubs, because when it comes time for that team to skip town, the public that paid hundreds of millions of clams for the stadium have ZERO say in the team staying or leaving. I don't buy into the hollow "It's your team too" arguement.
On a side note, I thought it was a despicable move by Steinbrenner to threaten to build a stadium in Jersey when the debate was still alive & he was getting resistance. I've seen other clubs (Houston Rockets, Milwaukee Brewers), try this and unfortunately get their way WITH public financing of the new stadium.
Do you even read the links you post? This stuff is really pretty straightforward.Very little of it is straight forward.
What exactly is a "party suite?" And why aren't the loge suites in the current Stadium listed anywhere on that chart?
Why does the total capacity of the current Stadium that's listed not include the people who rent luxury boxes and suites, but the total capacity listed for Mullally Park does include these numbers, plus standing room only?
Numbers can be manipulated. I should have known that someone would take the Yankees' lies at face value when I used that link. Shame on me. :(
Is it just me, or do the people longing for the preservation of the (now) Old Yankee Stadium remind you of the people who still long for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the old Penn Station?
It's gone....time to finish grieving and move on....
Steve Dalkowski
10-03-08, 03:49 PM
I was up in Fenway in 99 when the plans for the new Fenway were in the scorecard etc. The Mass people made a stink and they maximized their profits in original Fenway. The Yanks could've done this but they hired the rightman to get a new stadium "Randy Levine" thats wy he is there, he isnt a baseball person he knew/knows the ins & outs of NYC politics & red tape. Steinbrenner wanted a new stadium since the 80's and he got it. But the famous line "be careful what you wish for" couldnt be more true with the way the economy is tanking. All of the business' (Wall St) that the Steins were/are marketing to are going out of business or arent going to spend $800,000 on four seats per season. SO this may blow up in their face. There is nothing we can do at this point so we might as welll accept what we are given. Those who go will go.
Mass people making a stink had nothing to do with saving Fenway. What saved Fenway was new ownership. Old ownership always wanted a new park.
If the Yanks similarly changed ownership, the same thing may have happened.
__starr69
10-03-08, 03:54 PM
Yankee Stadium has approximately 53 luxury boxes, including the Loge suites. Mullally Park is going to have what, 57? 59? Something like that.
According to their website (http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/new_stadium_comparison.jsp), they are going from 19 to 56 private luxury suites, and will have 410 party suites.
I hope you enjoy your new shiny toy that looks pretty on the surface but is totally hollow inside. That it cost upwards of $1 billion in public money after the formal announcement that it would be privately-funded is nothing short of a travesty. Some people find the amount to be obscene, which it is, but I find the lying to be even worse.
I know they're purposely being vague as to where exactly the money is going to and from, but I really would be interested in seeing a comprehensive list of how much in public and third-party funds are paying for what projects, and if and how these funds are going to be paid back.
__starr69
10-03-08, 03:56 PM
Mass people making a stink had nothing to do with saving Fenway. What saved Fenway was new ownership. Old ownership always wanted a new park.
If the Yanks similarly changed ownership, the same thing may have happened.
Also, from what I understand, there is no place else in Boston the Red Sox can play, either for a new ballpark, or for ~2 years while they renovate or rebuild. I say they just forfeit 81 games each of those two years.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-03-08, 04:07 PM
Very little of it is straight forward.
What exactly is a "party suite?" And why aren't the loge suites in the current Stadium listed anywhere on that chart?
Why does the total capacity of the current Stadium that's listed not include the people who rent luxury boxes and suites, but the total capacity listed for Mullally Park does include these numbers, plus standing room only?
Numbers can be manipulated. I should have known that someone would take the Yankees' lies at face value when I used that link. Shame on me. :(
Well you have finally started to get at least something right, so I suppose it would be unfair to deny credit where it's due.
According to their website (http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/new_stadium_comparison.jsp), they are going from 19 to 56 private luxury suites, and will have 410 party suites. Yeah, that's what I said... they're lying.
Well you have finally started to get at least something right, so I suppose it would be unfair to deny credit where it's due.So you admit that the information on the Yankees' website is false. Hooray!
dabomb2045
10-03-08, 04:34 PM
Is it just me, or do the people longing for the preservation of the (now) Old Yankee Stadium remind you of the people who still long for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the old Penn Station?
It's gone....time to finish grieving and move on....
I'm not one to concern myself with whats already happened, as opposed to whats gonna happen. The old YS is finished, while the new one will be open in 2009.
No amount of complaining will change it. Might as well focus on the present and the future.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-03-08, 04:36 PM
So you admit that the information on the Yankees' website is false. Hooray!
You seem a little light on reading comp.
__starr69
10-03-08, 04:38 PM
I'm confused.
It didn't have to happen. It didn't happen in despised Boston, and it didn't happen in Chicago. Yankees' fans were sold a lie, and they couldn't wait to buy it. The fans had absolutely NO SAY in the matter, but most refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Link (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1055031/why_yankee_stadium_should_have_been.html?cat=14)
Fans always have a say - just stay home and watch the game on TV if you don't like the new ballpark. I was at the Phillies ballpark this week and it got me think how much nicer and better it will be next year to have a concourse that is double the width with a lot better eating. I was the game 9/20 game and participated in a fan survey the Yankeees were running at the stadium.. I forget most the questions now , but I do remember picking Outback as one of the eateries that I would like to see in New Yankee Stadium.
bobbymagee
10-03-08, 07:01 PM
Anyone who thinks Wrigley or Fenway will last forever is delusional. Eventually those old structures will come down, too.
I think teams should get new parks every 30-40 years or so, lest they become more associated with their stadium than for what they do on the field.
[/left]
Big E , disagree. You forget we are talking about hallowed ground: first base where Lou stood, home plate where Dickey, Munson and Yogi caught, and center field where Joe D. Mantle and Bernie tracked down fly balls.
It is a national landmark where greed killed Mystique and Aura.
I'm going to meet you halfway. The old stadium may have been completely renovated, but everything from the mid-waist to the bedrock piers remained, if I remember correctly, which means much of the foundation from 1923 still remained. It's an outdated place, with seats for 20th century-sized folks. I would have rather had the team play at Shea for 2 years, or the new City Field for 2 years, then tear down the stadium all the way and start over in the same place. Too late now.
ymike673
10-03-08, 07:44 PM
Why do people keep saying the new park will look more like the original stadium than the renovated stadium did?
The new park has an upper tier section half the size of the ones in the original and renovated stadiums. And far less affordable seating.
Maybe I could accept the new park more if it had been built with the average fan in mind and not as a ballpark primary for the rich. Look at any of the new parks built since 1991 and they all have more upper deck seats than the new stadium will have.
The New YS- "The House That GREED Built!"
bobbymagee
10-03-08, 07:57 PM
I'm going to meet you halfway. The old stadium may have been completely renovated, but everything from the mid-waist to the bedrock piers remained, if I remember correctly, which means much of the foundation from 1923 still remained. It's an outdated place, with seats for 20th century-sized folks. I would have rather had the team play at Shea for 2 years, or the new City Field for 2 years, then tear down the stadium all the way and start over in the same place. Too late now.
Perfectly stated. No more words need to be stated. Commence locking of this thread. :-padlock- :-padlock- :-padlock-
The New YS- "The House That GREED Built!"
Which is totally different from the old one, that one was built for the malnourished children
Renovation might have cost 2/3 of what a new stadium costs.... its a really really tough and long procedure if its done right. It often takes extra work because you have to be incredibly careful not to break the pieces you are trying to keep, even though they have been heavily beaten down by weather and building stresses and old building techniques were inferior.
And you get something that doesn't last as long as a new stadium and is still going to have many of the problems of the old. And playing at Shea/Citi for two years? Its easy to say "oh it wouldnt be a big deal" now, but come on. It would suck
Jumpman_DJ
10-03-08, 09:02 PM
I will throw my two cents in on the subject at hand. I love the Yanks, I love going to the stadium and seeing the game but my seats are really tight and when i want to get food or drinks there are alot of crowding in the walk ways. When i am standing online all i can think about is why is it that when i travel to other cities and the great ballparks that other teams now have, i dont have this problem. Folks this is the Yankees Orginization!! We are the most hallowed team in all of sports, we draw 4 million people + every year. WE think the world series is our birthright! WHy shouldnt we have the best stadium? We deserve it, as much as i enjoyed the old stadium, i look forward to a new home. So what if its a block away from the old stadium. The yankees will be playing there. Jeter Arod Mariano Posada, the pinstripes, the interlocking NY.
IM sure veterans stadium held moments for phillie fans, but i bet they all went wayside when they stepped into Citizens bank park. Or giants fans leaving the stick for pac bell( or whatever its called now).
I have made peace with the fact that the place where i asked my wife to marry me will be torn down, i said my good bye to the stadium, now i welcome the new stadium with open arms.
AS for the ticket prices going up, just wait they will come down if the market is going under and companies dont spend, how many of you bought tickets in the late 80's or early 90's, but afte winning became an every year thing tickets went back up. thats my two cents make change!
Jumpman_DJ
10-03-08, 09:05 PM
Big E , disagree. You forget we are talking about hallowed ground: first base where Lou stood, home plate where Dickey, Munson and Yogi caught, and center field where Joe D. Mantle and Bernie tracked down fly balls.
It is a national landmark where greed killed Mystique and Aura.
I think it was more of a combination of kevin brown's pitching and johnny damons grand slam that led to the killing of mystique and aura but i could be wrong!
Big E , disagree. You forget we are talking about hallowed ground: first base where Lou stood, home plate where Dickey, Munson and Yogi caught, and center field where Joe D. Mantle and Bernie tracked down fly balls.
It is a national landmark where greed killed Mystique and Aura.
Hallowed ground? We're not talking about a cemetery, house of worship or Ground Zero. It's a ballpark.
Geographically, yes, it's the same GPS location where Gehrig, Dickey, Yogi, et. al. played...but it's not the same dirt, or same grass. Ruth and Gehrig would probably walk into that place and wonder where Yankee Stadium went, and what is this place they are calling Yankee Stadium?
It's a ballpark. I've been there over 100 times. Will it be weird going to Yankee games in a different park? Of course.
But I am really looking forward to it, too...
It's an outdated place, with seats for 20th century-sized folks.Maybe people should stop focusing so much on all the awesome food they're going to eat at the ballpark next year and go on a diet.
Hallowed ground? We're not talking about a cemetery, house of worship or Ground Zero. It's a ballpark. You're right - they're not the same. Not the same at all.
Why do people keep saying the new park will look more like the original stadium than the renovated stadium did?I'm only speculating here, but I think it's possible that some of them may have been brainwashed by the Yankees' media propaganda machine.
The fact of the matter is that Mullally Park is a "cookie cutter" HOK Sport stadium whose only real distinctions from all the other "fake-old" modern ballparks are the replica of the original facade and an outer design that slightly resembles the original Yankee Stadium, despite being constructed of an entirely different type of material that's not at all faithful to the original.
http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5492240&postcount=70
The facade in the original Yankee Stadium was hung high up on the roof, and from a distance looked almost as if it was hanging in mid-air. In Mullally park, the installation of lights above the facade take away from its effect, but even worse, it's set back and only hangs over a small handful of the highest rows in the highest section of the upper deck. No matter how excited some people are about it, it's a fake imposter, and a very poor one at that.
PeteRFNY
10-03-08, 11:40 PM
It's going to be amusing when they celebrate something like the 50th anniversary of the new Stadium and people are STILL walking around going, "BUT...BUT...BUT THEY COULDA BUILT ON TOP OF THE OLD STADIUM WHILE THE NEW STADIUM WAS BUILT FROM PRE-FABRICATED PRESSBOARD...LIES! ALL OF IT - LIES!!!".
THE NEW YANKEE STADIUM IS OPENING NEXT YEAR. All this Flux Capacitor hindsight complaining is ridiculous. Good for the Yankees. It's state of the art yet classic looking. They had a chance to do this and took the opprotunity. I know it sucks that each and evey person wasn't consulted about this, but guess what? We don't own the Yankees.
As far as I can see, HOK does NOT build "cookie cutter" parks and there's NOTHING "cookie cutter" about this new Stadium. If ANYTHING, it has more character than the 70s renovated Yankee Stadium. I didn't know that building new stadiums with distinctive features was considered "fake". I always assumed that was a distinction reserved for perfectly-round multi-use stadiums from the early-70s.
Oh yeah, and the new Stadium is called Yankee Stadium as well.
The old saying says - you can make some people happy but you can't please everybody. This is Exhibit A. If the choice is enjoying something new and special that fixes transgressions of the 70s or being constantly miserable, then slap my rump and call me happy.
Oh yeah, and the new Stadium is called Yankee Stadium as well.You're free to call it whatever you want. I will never call it that.
The old saying says - you can make some people happy but you can't please everybody. This is Exhibit A. If the choice is enjoying something new and special that fixes transgressions of the 70s or being constantly miserable, then slap my rump and call me happy. You're free to be happy but I will not slap your rump. Some people are more concerned with principle than rump slapping.
I know I only hurt myself out of spite.
I guess I'd rather be a martyr tonight.
It's my decision.
ymike673
10-04-08, 07:18 AM
I can't wait until next season to read the posts of fans complaining that since the upper tier is so much smaller in the new park that they can't get tickets and they can't afford the extremely high cost of getting seats in the new larger lower deck. All the wider seats and concourses and food courts mean nothing if there is almost no affordable seating for the average fan who can't afford a full season plan.
Why do we have medicine? When I had my back surgery when I was 12 in 1968, there were kids in iron lungs born three years before me that had polio before the vaccine was developed.
Lou, I'm sure that you don't have a dial up phone any more and have running water.
I'm going to get screwed in the new stadium but my section flooded every time it rained . Something had to be done.The Stadium as most of us know is thirty years old.
fredgmuggs
10-04-08, 08:34 AM
Home is where the heart is.
I don't believe for a second that concrete and steel arranged in a particular way has any spiritual significance; the old ballpark has historical value, sure, but you seem to value Yankee Stadium as history more than you value Yankee Stadium as a functional and aesthetic place to play and watch baseball. For those purposes (the ones that really count), the new ballpark is vastly superior to the old.
Pay proper respect to the history, but don't let it keep you from living in the present. I think the Yankees have done this.
I like that.
Me, too.
teknetic
10-04-08, 08:55 AM
You're free to call it whatever you want. I will never call it that.
You're free to be happy but I will not slap your rump. Some people are more concerned with principle than rump slapping.
I know I only hurt myself out of spite.
I guess I'd rather be a martyr tonight.
It's my decision.
Weird post is weird.
b4uplayball
10-04-08, 10:00 AM
All good things come to an end. It's sad to see the stadium go but times change. But I will never forget attending my first big league game in Yankee stadium.
Now it's time to let it go and start a new tradition in the new park - one that our kids will remember when they grow old - and hope that the same thing doesn't happen to them (going to a new ballpark).
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-04-08, 10:47 AM
I always assumed...
That's where you went wrong man, you made these assumptions, and it was all built on a bed of lies. Rotten, dirty lies!
Jumpman_DJ
10-04-08, 10:56 AM
For all the haters on the new stadium, I have something to tell you now listen closely.
We are getting a new stadium whether you like it or not!!! if you dont like it then stay at home watch on tv, dont go to the games, if it makes you mad that we are tearing down the old stadium. Tough. unless your last name is Steinbrenner, you have no say only opinions.
I dont think the boss is concerned that much with what every fan has to say.
You think met fans are sad to see shea go, NO they want a new place. IF it means that much to you all go root for the cubs and their old stadium!
Its a stadium, where the YANKEES play. They could play in the middle of 5th avenue for all i care and they would still be my team.
I cant wait for the people saying i wish we rebuilt the stadium on that exact piece of land to go to the new place and just drool over how great it is. I for one will celebrate the new stadium and help the Yanks welcome it with open arms.
I cant wait for the people saying i wish we rebuilt the stadium on that exact piece of land to go to the new place and just drool over how great it is. I for one will celebrate the new stadium and help the Yanks welcome it with open arms.In some of the cases, you'll be waiting a really long time - like, FOREVER.
LouGehrig
10-04-08, 12:01 PM
Home is where the heart is.
I don't believe for a second that concrete and steel arranged in a particular way has any spiritual significance
But...but...Yankee Stadium is a CATHEDRAL.
LouGehrig
10-04-08, 12:07 PM
What lie were fans sold?
Of course the fans had no say. Who refuses to acknowledge that?
That the ball park being built is Yankee Stadium.
If it is MY team and YOUR team, and it is MY city and YOUR city (I don't know your location so it may not be your city, but you have been told repeatedly that it is YOUR team), then you may be not upset that you have no say, but if something, or a small part of something belongs to me, I would like a say in its fate.
You seem a little light on reading comp.Reading comprehension has nothing to do with any of this. I am simply gifted in my ability to draw logical inferences. :)
I'm also gifted in being able to follow forum rules and refrain from personal attacks. :)
dabomb2045
10-04-08, 12:22 PM
Some of you seemed much more concerned about the new stadium next year, and tearing down the old place.....then what moves the Yanks will make to improve themselves for 2009 and beyond.
I dont get that. Its only a stadium--I dont follow the Yanks cuz of where they play.
LouGehrig
10-04-08, 12:30 PM
Is it just me, or do the people longing for the preservation of the (now) Old Yankee Stadium remind you of the people who still long for the Brooklyn Dodgers or the old Penn Station?
It's gone....time to finish grieving and move on....
Quite a few individuals who know a little about life and about baseball don't agree.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43
LouGehrig
10-04-08, 12:37 PM
I do remember picking Outback as one of the eateries that I would like to see in New Yankee Stadium.
Take me out to the ball game,
Take me out with the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-04-08, 12:41 PM
That the ball park being built is Yankee Stadium.
I don't understand what this means. The yankees will play there, they have chosen to call it Yankee Stadium. If some people want to refuse to acknowledge it as such, they can do what they wish, but to call it a lie that the stadium will be Yankee Stadium is more than a little silly.
If it is MY team and YOUR team, and it is MY city and YOUR city (I don't know your location so it may not be your city, but you have been told repeatedly that it is YOUR team), then you may be not upset that you have no say, but if something, or a small part of something belongs to me, I would like a say in its fate.
What does that have to do with your original post though? It's fine for you to be disappointed that you have no say, but you said people are refusing to acknowledge that fans have no say. I don't see how anyone is refusing to acknowledge that. As I said, of course we have no say. Everyone knows that. You can be unhappy about that, but don't suggest that somehow everyone doesn't even realize it.
But...but...Yankee Stadium is a CATHEDRAL.
The cathedral is wherever the prelate presides. When your bishop leaves to take up a new see, the old cathedral becomes just another fancy building.
The specialness resides in the team, not in the building they choose to play in.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-04-08, 12:45 PM
Reading comprehension has nothing to do with any of this. I am simply gifted in my ability to draw logical inferences. :)
But it has everything to do with it. You've proven yourself unable to read information about the existing stadium and new stadium, and correctly identify the changes between the two.
I'm also gifted in being able to follow forum rules and refrain from personal attacks. :)
If you think there have been any personal attacks directed at you in this thread, you seem to be confirming my opinion.
LouGehrig
10-04-08, 12:50 PM
Why do we have medicine? When I had my back surgery when I was 12 in 1968, there were kids in iron lungs born three years before me that had polio before the vaccine was developed.
Lou, I'm sure that you don't have a dial up phone any more and have running water.
I'm going to get screwed in the new stadium but my section flooded every time it rained . Something had to be done.The Stadium as most of us know is thirty years old.
Repairs can correct flooding problems. Renovating Yankee Stadium would be an even better way of solving that problem.
Why do we have medicine? Volumes have been written, but with respect to vaccines, there are a few questions that have been raised, and a few studies that have not been reported by the mainstream media.
http://poisonevercure.150m.com/vaccines3.htm
But it has everything to do with it. You've proven yourself unable to read information about the existing stadium and new stadium, and correctly identify the changes between the two. Actually I can read information on the linked page very efficiently, and your suggestion that I lack reading comprehension is a personal attack.
I know enough about Yankee Stadium to realize that the most significant information on the linked page is erroneous. I can't force you to acknowledge that it is, but the truth is the truth whether you believe it or not.
If you think there have been any personal attacks directed at you in this thread, you seem to be confirming my opinion. This inference makes no sense. There is no correlation here whatsoever.
forget about Yankee Stadium, I think this thread should be destroyed....
LouGehrig
10-04-08, 01:02 PM
I don't understand what this means. The yankees will play there, they have chosen to call it Yankee Stadium. If some people want to refuse to acknowledge it as such, they can do what they wish, but to call it a lie that the stadium will be Yankee Stadium is more than a little silly.
Yankee Stadium will soon be destroyed. Long live Yankee Stadium. In my article, I addressed your puzzlement.
Next season, the Yankees will not play their home games in Yankee Stadium. The ball park will be called "Yankee Stadium," but it has become a cliché that is often quoted incorrectly: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The new Yankees' home can never approach what will be destroyed.
The new ball park can be called whatever those in power want to call it, but it will not be Yankee Stadium.
I don't understand what this means. The yankees will play there, they have chosen to call it Yankee Stadium. If some people want to refuse to acknowledge it as such, they can do what they wish, but to call it a lie that the stadium will be Yankee Stadium is more than a little sillyWhy the strict adherence to authority? Just because the mayor and the team owner slap a name on the outside doesn't mean it's "the same building." (http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4909434&postcount=860) It's not the same building, and it's a travesty that a cookie cutter ballpark is going to be referred to as Yankee Stadium in the future. Yankee Stadium is Yankee Stadium. Mullally Park is not Yankee Stadium, even if the name was stolen and slapped on the outside.
As far as I can see, HOK does NOT build "cookie cutter" parks and there's NOTHING "cookie cutter" about this new Stadium. If ANYTHING, it has more character than the 70s renovated Yankee Stadium. I didn't know that building new stadiums with distinctive features was considered "fake". I always assumed that was a distinction reserved for perfectly-round multi-use stadiums from the early-70s.The term "cookie cutter" can be applied as a conceptual idea to multiple items that are all built from the same mold. That mold doesn't necessarily have to be overly simplistic as the totally round multi-use facilities that were built in Philadephia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and other cities in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
If you build 20 ballparks that all have the same "distinctive features," are they really distinctive?
As I stated previously, there is not much that's distinctive about Mullally Park compared to other HOK-designed retro ballparks. The seating in the upper deck is set back, and the field is generic. One of the great features of Yankee Stadium is the deep area behind the plate combined with the lack of foul territory down the base lines, creating a cavernous feel that was totally unique and is going to be lost in Mullally Park.
teknetic
10-04-08, 01:38 PM
Why the strict adherence to authority? Just because the mayor and the team owner slap a name on the outside doesn't mean it's "the same building." (http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4909434&postcount=860) It's not the same building, and it's a travesty that a cookie cutter ballpark is going to be referred to as Yankee Stadium in the future. Yankee Stadium is Yankee Stadium. Mullally Park is not Yankee Stadium, even if the name was stolen and slapped on the outside.
The term "cookie cutter" can be applied as a conceptual idea to multiple items that are all built from the same mold. That mold doesn't necessarily have to be overly simplistic as the totally round multi-use facilities that were built in Philadephia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and other cities in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
If you build 20 ballparks that all have the same "distinctive features," are they really distinctive?
As I stated previously, there is not much that's distinctive about Mullally Park compared to other HOK-designed retro ballparks. The seating in the upper deck is set back, and the field is generic. One of the great features of Yankee Stadium is the deep area behind the plate combined with the lack of foul territory down the base lines, creating a cavernous feel that was totally unique and is going to be lost in Mullally Park.
So I take it in order to avoid being a raging hypocrite, you don't plan on stepping foot in the new stadium?
So I take it in order to avoid being a raging hypocrite, you don't plan on stepping foot in the new stadium?LOL where have you been? You are correct.
LOL where have you been? You are correct.
Will you be boycotting television images of the imposter stadium as well?
Will you be boycotting television images of the imposter stadium as well?There's a 90% chance I won't watch any baseball next year, but there's only a 10% chance of that.
YankeePride1967
10-04-08, 06:15 PM
I can't wait to go to a game in the new stadium. That is if I can get a ticket.
26 and counting
10-04-08, 06:25 PM
I hope to go to games in the New Yankee Stadium while enjoying looking at images of the Old Yankee Stadium being destroyed.
I also hope to go to games in Citi Field while enjoying looking at the parking lot that used to be Shea Stadium.
:D
There's a 90% chance I won't watch any baseball next year, but there's only a 10% chance of that.
So why are you still posting here then?
So why are you still posting here then?
http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5490058#post5490058
Quite a few individuals who know a little about life and about baseball don't agree.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43
So what's that? A whole forum of people living in the past? The Dodgers left 50 years ago...time to move on. They're never coming back.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-05-08, 09:55 AM
I know enough about Yankee Stadium to realize that the most significant information on the linked page is erroneous.
The only thing that's erroneous is your laughable assertion that the makeshift boxes that have been added in various places around yankee stadium are even remotely comparable to the luxury suites which exist in smaller numbers in the current stadium and will be added in great numbers in the new stadium. Those boxes are fun to be in, and are better than many of the regular seats, but they're a completely different experience from the luxury suites, providing less comfort and amenities, and being much less expensive. To suggest, as you have, that there's really no increase in luxury capacity in the new stadium because of the increase in luxury suites simply defies the facts. You've got a lot to say about the stadium, why would you choose to post in ignorance when it's really quite easy to learn the straightforward facts? Oh right, lies. Well, to be fair, I suppose there's no point in making any effort to understand the "facts", when it's all just lies. You do have me there.
Actually I can read information on the linked page very efficiently, and your suggestion that I lack reading comprehension is a personal attack.
If you're so incapable of handling disagreement that you view everything as a personal attack, posting on the internet may simply not be for you. It seems you don't have the temperment for it.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-05-08, 10:04 AM
Why the strict adherence to authority? Just because the mayor and the team owner slap a name on the outside doesn't mean it's "the same building." (http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4909434&postcount=860) It's not the same building, and it's a travesty that a cookie cutter ballpark is going to be referred to as Yankee Stadium in the future. Yankee Stadium is Yankee Stadium. Mullally Park is not Yankee Stadium, even if the name was stolen and slapped on the outside.
There you go with sloppy reading comprehension again. As I said, the yankees will play there. If someone in "authority" tried to call the new stadium in Flushing "Yankee Stadium" it would certainly be silly to defer to that. If the yankees choose to call the stadium where the yankees play "Yankee Stadium", that's hardly a matter of authority. It's kind of a matter of common sense. And who said it's the same building? Certainly not me. I merely said that it will be called Yankee Stadium, which you acknowledge, and thus it's not a lie, as LouGehrig claims it is, to call it Yankee Stadium. Will it be a different stadium in spirit? Obviously some feel it will be. People can feel any way they want. The yankees themselves certainly haven't tried to suggest that it's the same building or the same place where Gehrig, Ruth, Mantle, Mattingly, etc... have played. So for LouGehrig to insist there's some sort of lie about the name of the stadium is just silly. It's not the same building, and everybody knows that. But it is the home of the yankees. No lies about that.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-05-08, 10:07 AM
Yankee Stadium will soon be destroyed. Long live Yankee Stadium. In my article, I addressed your puzzlement.
Next season, the Yankees will not play their home games in Yankee Stadium. The ball park will be called "Yankee Stadium," but it has become a cliché that is often quoted incorrectly: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The new Yankees' home can never approach what will be destroyed.
The new ball park can be called whatever those in power want to call it, but it will not be Yankee Stadium.
Look I get you - the spirit of the original stadium will not be in the existing one. Knock yourself out feeling that way - no skin off my nose and you're obviously not alone. I'm still just trying to figure out what the lie. It's a new stadium, the yankees haven't tried to somehow deny that. A name's a name, and it's no lie to choose whatever name they want, even Yankee Stadium. I understand you feel it changes things to have a new stadium and it won't approach something about the new stadium. But you've said the yankees are lying about something, but don't show anything they're lying about.
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 10:48 AM
I hope to go to games in the New Yankee Stadium while enjoying looking at images of the Old Yankee Stadium being destroyed.
I also hope to go to games in Citi Field while enjoying looking at the parking lot that used to be Shea Stadium.
:D
Speaking about cookie cutters. Your post can be the template for many, if not most, modern baseball game viewers.
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 10:50 AM
So what's that? A whole forum of people living in the past? The Dodgers left 50 years ago...time to move on. They're never coming back.
It is a forum of the most knowledgeable baseball fans that ever existed.
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 11:03 AM
Look I get you - the spirit of the original stadium will not be in the existing one. Knock yourself out feeling that way - no skin off my nose and you're obviously not alone. I'm still just trying to figure out what the lie. It's a new stadium, the yankees haven't tried to somehow deny that. A name's a name, and it's no lie to choose whatever name they want, even Yankee Stadium. I understand you feel it changes things to have a new stadium and it won't approach something about the new stadium. But you've said the yankees are lying about something, but don't show anything they're lying about.
And I get you. You make excellent points based on the premises you accept. That is fine and that is your right, but to me, it is quite simple.
There is one Yankee Stadium. The new ball park may be called "Yankee Stadium" but it is a different ball park in a different location. The most dangerous, insidious lies are those that seem to be the truth.
Of course the Yankees haven't tried to deny that the new ball park is a new ball park. They are not idiots. But by calling it "Yankee Stadium," they are encouraging a false belief.
When a baby is named after one a parent, "Jr." or "II" or "III" is often used. There is a page on the Yankees' site that DOES list Yankee Stadium I, Yankee Stadium II, etc., which is in itself inaccurate, but if the new ball park were formally named "Yankee Stadium II" or "Yankee Stadium VII," it would be less of a lie (can there be degrees of lying or is truth an absolute?), but it would still be misleading.
It is a forum of the most knowledgeable baseball fans that ever existed.
a bunch of bitter old timers.
One thread I opened was debating if the Dodgers could have played at the Polo Grounds and renovated Ebbets. Or moved to Queens to stay in NY.
If 50 years from now you and lurker are still complaining about the Yankees moving across the street, I hope jim blows up this forum...
I would much rather that the Yankees moved across the street than across the river.
And I get you. You make excellent points based on the premises you accept. That is fine and that is your right, but to me, it is quite simple.
There is one Yankee Stadium. The new ball park may be called "Yankee Stadium" but it is a different ball park in a different location. The most dangerous, insidious lies are those that seem to be the truth.
Of course the Yankees haven't tried to deny that the new ball park is a new ball park. They are not idiots. But by calling it "Yankee Stadium," they are encouraging a false belief.
When a baby is named after one a parent, "Jr." or "II" or "III" is often used. There is a page on the Yankees' site that DOES list Yankee Stadium I, Yankee Stadium II, etc., which is in itself inaccurate, but if the new ball park were formally named "Yankee Stadium II" or "Yankee Stadium VII," it would be less of a lie (can there be degrees of lying or is truth an absolute?), but it would still be misleading.
This is what...the fifth or sixth place the Yankees have played?
Hilltop Park
Polo Grounds
Yankee Stadium
Shea Stadium
Yankee Stadium II
Yankee Stadium III
I think we should petition for the Yankees to move back to Hilltop Park. It's where they belong...
If you're so incapable of handling disagreement that you view everything as a personal attack, posting on the internet may simply not be for you. It seems you don't have the temperment for it. Again with the personal attacks! My temperment is not up for discussion. Allow me to provide a brief lesson on what constitutes a personal attack.
(1) - NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK: "You didn't understand the point I was trying to make, so allow me to clarify it for you. The luxury suites which exist in smaller numbers in the current stadium and will be added in great numbers in the new stadium. Those boxes are fun to be in, and are better than many of the regular seats, but they're a completely different experience from the luxury suites, providing less comfort and amenities, and being much less expensive. Therefore, your argument doesn't make a lot of sense, once you understand the substantial differences."
[[[wow, look at that, I made a better argument against myself than you did]]]
(2) - A PERSONAL ATTACK: "You lack reading comprehension and your arguments are laughable."
If you need further clarification, please see the Community Standards (http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/../communityStandards.php) or ask a moderator.
MODS: For the record, I reported the very first post in which he insulted my intelligence and nothing was done about it, nor did I hear a response from any moderator.
The yankees themselves certainly haven't tried to suggest that it's the same building Hahahahahahahaha did you read the link? Here, I'll give it to you again so you don't have to search for it earlier in the thread:
http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4909434&postcount=860
LONN TROST: "It's the same building. It's the same stadium."
LOL who is low on reading comprehension again? Was it me? Or you? ;)
This is what...the fifth or sixth place the Yankees have played?
Hilltop Park
Polo Grounds
Yankee Stadium
Shea Stadium
Yankee Stadium II
Yankee Stadium III
I think we should petition for the Yankees to move back to Hilltop Park. It's where they belong...To some people, there has always been and will always be only ONE Yankee Stadium. To these people, it's easy to understand why they'd feel that naming the new ballpark Yankee Stadium is disingenuous, and they're entitled to express that opinion. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but why belittle it by saying the Yankees should move back to Hilltop Park, which we both know is kind of a ridiculous idea?
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 11:43 AM
a bunch of bitter old timers.
You have not questioned the fact that they are most knowledgeable baseball fans to ever have paid an admission fee to see a game.
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 11:45 AM
This is what...the fifth or sixth place the Yankees have played?
Hilltop Park
Polo Grounds
Yankee Stadium
Shea Stadium
Yankee Stadium II
Yankee Stadium III
I think we should petition for the Yankees to move back to Hilltop Park. It's where they belong...
The way your posts attempt to deflect things reminds one of Sarah Palin's debating skills.
The way your posts attempt to deflect things reminds one of Sarah Palin's debating skills.Uh oh, time to move this thread to the political soapbox! :P
Casey37
10-05-08, 12:42 PM
It is a forum of the most knowledgeable baseball fans that ever existed.
That's one heck of a statement. From what I've seen, they are knowledgeable about the Brooklyn Dodgers in particular, and only about the time period between 1941 and 1957. Ask them to name the 1920 Brooklyn Dodgers and I doubt they come up with more than 4-5 players.
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 01:26 PM
Ask them to name the 1920 Brooklyn Dodgers and I doubt they come up with more than 4-5 players.
So go do it.
26 and counting
10-05-08, 01:44 PM
It's not the stadium structure that makes a ballpark great. The fans make a ballpark great. And the Yankee fans next year will be fantastic in the new stadium, just like they were in the old stadium. So the new stadium will have the same electricity as the old stadium.
This is why Yankee fans are the best fans on the planet.
Casey37
10-05-08, 01:46 PM
So go do it.
Only if you ask them about the 1974 Dodgers. I've lurked there before and as I previously stated, their world begins in 1941 and ends in 1957. The threads are all there to prove this, so... thanks, but no thanks.
It is a forum of the most knowledgeable baseball fans that ever existed.
That's quite the extravagant claim. Extraordinarily unlikely, and completely impossible to prove.
Casey37
10-05-08, 03:44 PM
That's quite the extravagant claim. Extraordinarily unlikely, and completely impossible to prove.
Thank you.
You have not questioned the fact that they are most knowledgeable baseball fans to ever have paid an admission fee to see a game.
Well since that's probably the most far-reaching unprovable statement I've ever read in this forum, I am not replying to it....
...besides, have any of them gone to a game since 1957?
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 05:25 PM
That's quite the extravagant claim. Extraordinarily unlikely, and completely impossible to prove.
Or to disprove.
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 05:26 PM
Well since that's probably the most far-reaching unprovable statement I've ever read in this forum, I am not replying to it....
...besides, have any of them gone to a game since 1957?
You just have, and the answer is none has attended a game at Ebbets Field since then, although a few now live there.
Or to disprove.
I think citing the fact that every post seems to concern a team that hasn't existed for more than 50 years would be a good start.
But the burden of proof belongs to the one who made the claim. That's you.
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 05:55 PM
I think citing the fact that every post seems to concern a team that hasn't existed for more than 50 years would be a good start.
But the burden of proof belongs to the one who made the claim. That's you.
Quite simple. The majority of Brooklyn fans realized what the majority of Yankees fans refuse to acknowledge.
Each team had (or will have) its ball park destroyed. Ebbets Field and Yankee Stadium were (are) two of the most historic, if not the most historic and mystical of all ball parks.
Brooklyn fans and Yankees fans could do nothing to prevent the ruination of their franchises.
But Yankees fans faced a much shrewder adversary. Yankees fans were bribed with a new ball park across the street that would shut out many of them during the regular season and many more of them if the team played in October -- or November.
Brooklyn fans were merely ignored as both their ball park and team were taken away from them.
Brooklyn fans knew what was happening to them and to this day, refuse to accept the false premise that the LOS ANGELES National League franchise is a continuation of the BROOKLYN National League franchise.
Franchise: the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
Los Angeles is not Brooklyn.
Fans on baseball-almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum are the most knowledgeable of all fans because they opened their eyes and saw what happened. They were not fooled. They were helpless to do much, but they knew what happened.
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 06:00 PM
I think citing the fact that every post seems to concern a team that hasn't existed for more than 50 years would be a good start.
But the burden of proof belongs to the one who made the claim. That's you.
Quite simple. The majority of Brooklyn fans realized what the majority of Yankees fans refuse to acknowledge.
Each team had (or will have) its ball park destroyed. Ebbets Field and Yankee Stadium were (are) two of the most historic, if not the most historic and mystical of all ball parks.
Brooklyn fans and Yankees fans could do nothing to prevent the ruination of their franchises.
But Yankees fans faced a much shrewder adversary. Yankees fans were bribed with a new ball park across the street that would shut out many of them during the regular season and many more of them if the team played in October -- or November.
They are faced with obscene ticket prices, even worse parking fees, and of tremendous importance, having thousands of individuals in the ball park who don't care if the Yankees win or lose because they are guests of the corporation that owns the luxury box. Fans don't realize that dilutes the "magic" Yankees fans bring to the game.
Brooklyn fans were merely ignored as both their ball park and team were taken away from them.
Brooklyn fans knew what was happening to them and to this day, refuse to accept the false premise that the LOS ANGELES National League franchise is a continuation of the BROOKLYN National League franchise.
Franchise: the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
Los Angeles is not Brooklyn.
Fans on baseball-almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum are the most knowledgeable of all fans because they opened their eyes and saw what happened. They were not fooled. They were helpless to do much, but they knew what happened.
Quite simple. The majority of Brooklyn fans realized what the majority of Yankees fans refuse to acknowledge.
Each team had (or will have) its ball park destroyed. Ebbets Field and Yankee Stadium were (are) two of the most historic, if not the most historic and mystical of all ball parks.
Brooklyn fans and Yankees fans could do nothing to prevent the ruination of their franchises.
But Yankees fans faced a much shrewder adversary. Yankees fans were bribed with a new ball park across the street that would shut out many of them during the regular season and many more of them if the team played in October -- or November.
They are faced with obscene ticket prices, even worse parking fees, and of tremendous importance, having thousands of individuals in the ball park who don't care if the Yankees win or lose because they are guests of the corporation that owns the luxury box. Fans don't realize that dilutes the "magic" Yankees fans bring to the game.
Brooklyn fans were merely ignored as both their ball park and team were taken away from them.
Brooklyn fans knew what was happening to them and to this day, refuse to accept the false premise that the LOS ANGELES National League franchise is a continuation of the BROOKLYN National League franchise.
Franchise: the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
Los Angeles is not Brooklyn.
Fans on baseball-almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum are the most knowledgeable of all fans because they opened their eyes and saw what happened. They were not fooled. They were helpless to do much, but they knew what happened.
Sorry, Lou. Not one word of that long post supports your absurd and unsupported claim that posters in that forum are "the most knowledgeable baseball fans that ever existed". It appears to me that you accord them that exalted status because they agree with you. That's not nearly enough.
Hyperbole has its place in argument, but that's just ridiculous. It doesn't strengthen your argument; it weakens it.
Also, as an aside, can you give some support to your claim that the new ballpark will "shut out" many Yankee fans? My understanding is that, aside from 4300 or so hideously expensive seats near the field, the ticket prices in the new ballpark will not be higher than this year's ticket prices.
Mass people making a stink had nothing to do with saving Fenway. What saved Fenway was new ownership. Old ownership always wanted a new park.
If the Yanks similarly changed ownership, the same thing may have happened.
Fenway is still an antequated dump. The sightlines suck,The seats are old and wood. The concourse under the stadium is a firetrap. The only good thing is the surounding area, but so what? There ARE NO AMENITIES. At so point they will have to build a new stadium, and all the nonsense that has grown up with the Sawx fan base will be exposed as a bunch of hoey.
Keep in mind-MLB's revenue-sharing rules allowed the Mets and Yankees to divert a good chunk of cash that would've gone to the various poor sisters during the construction to these new stadiums. So it's a win/win-keeping cash in NYC to amke your stadium more of a xpaelong-term cash cow.
LouGehrig
10-05-08, 08:10 PM
Sorry, Lou. Not one word of that long post supports your absurd and unsupported claim that posters in that forum are "the most knowledgeable baseball fans that ever existed". It appears to me that you accord them that exalted status because they agree with you. That's not nearly enough.
Hyperbole has its place in argument, but that's just ridiculous. It doesn't strengthen your argument; it weakens it.
Also, as an aside, can you give some support to your claim that the new ballpark will "shut out" many Yankee fans? My understanding is that, aside from 4300 or so hideously expensive seats near the field, the ticket prices in the new ballpark will not be higher than this year's ticket prices.
They do NOT agree with me. I agree with THEM.
Merely because you do not support a position does not mean that it weak. Not one of the points presented has been refuted, probably because they are irrefutable.
I remember some hyperbole was used by the greatest franchise in sports history this season with respect to the cathedral that they decided to abandon.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I belong to an exercise facility whose majority of members are among the wealthiest in the country ( a group to which I do not belong). Many of the members have Yankees or Giants or Jets season ticket plans. NOT ONE (at least 10 and probably more) has renewed.
One Yankees fan, who has been one of four indivduals who shared 4 box seats for many seasons, has seen the cost rise from $40,000 in 2007 to $81,000 in 2008 to about $240,000 in 2009.
The number of seats that I used to purchase has decreased. For 2009, the price of those seats may not rise, but the number available has decreased. That's pretty clear.
Quite simple. The majority of Brooklyn fans realized what the majority of Yankees fans refuse to acknowledge.
Each team had (or will have) its ball park destroyed. Ebbets Field and Yankee Stadium were (are) two of the most historic, if not the most historic and mystical of all ball parks.
Brooklyn fans and Yankees fans could do nothing to prevent the ruination of their franchises.
But Yankees fans faced a much shrewder adversary. Yankees fans were bribed with a new ball park across the street that would shut out many of them during the regular season and many more of them if the team played in October -- or November.
They are faced with obscene ticket prices, even worse parking fees, and of tremendous importance, having thousands of individuals in the ball park who don't care if the Yankees win or lose because they are guests of the corporation that owns the luxury box. Fans don't realize that dilutes the "magic" Yankees fans bring to the game.
Brooklyn fans were merely ignored as both their ball park and team were taken away from them.
Brooklyn fans knew what was happening to them and to this day, refuse to accept the false premise that the LOS ANGELES National League franchise is a continuation of the BROOKLYN National League franchise.
Franchise: the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
Los Angeles is not Brooklyn.
Fans on baseball-almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum are the most knowledgeable of all fans because they opened their eyes and saw what happened. They were not fooled. They were helpless to do much, but they knew what happened.One more thing-my parents each grew up in Brooklyn and recalled walking to Dodger games.
Things change.
But Ebbets was a lot like Fenway-old, dirty, poor access, little parking. It's easy to blame O'Malley, but Robert Moses and NYC wanted to stick him in Flushing where the Mets wound up, which he refused. O'Malley wanted to build at the same corner they recently broke ground on the Nets arena on top of a subway/LIRR hub. Either way, even the City government recognized that the Dodgers were doomed to drawing flies at the dump that was Ebbets, which was the reality despite all the "Used to Be a Ballpark" myth that's grown up since.
I'm not sure I understand-they should stay in the old 1970s renovated stadium because...Why exactly?Misplaced nostalgia?
They do NOT agree with me. I agree with THEM.
Merely because you do not support a position does not mean that it weak. Not one of the points presented has been refuted, probably because they are irrefutable.
I remember some hyperbole was used by the greatest franchise in sports history this season with respect to the cathedral that they decided to abandon.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I belong to an exercise facility whose majority of members are among the wealthiest in the country ( a group to which I do not belong). Many of the members have Yankees or Giants or Jets season ticket plans. NOT ONE (at least 10 and probably more) has renewed.
One Yankees fan, who has been one of four indivduals who shared 4 box seats for many seasons, has seen the cost rise from $40,000 in 2007 to $81,000 in 2008 to about $240,000 in 2009.
The number of seats that I used to purchase has decreased. For 2009, the price of those seats may not rise, but the number available has decreased. That's pretty clear.
1) You made a ridiculous claim and you haven't offered one whit of support for it. I can only assume that you can't. In fact, I know you can't -- what you claim to know is unknowable. I don't have to "refute" it. YOU have to support it, and you haven't. You really haven't bothered to make an argument at all -- you haven't presented anything other than an emotionally-tinged appeal to sentimentality.
2) Your anecdotal evidence of higher ticket prices at the new ballpark indicates you haven't bothered to find out how much tickets will cost at the new stadium. Yes, as I admitted, there are some premium seats (4300 in number) which are priced at a much higher level than at the old stadium. The other 90%+ seats will be priced comparably to seats at the old ballpark, but you persist in giving the impression that all the seats will have higher prices.
The new ballpark is finished and the old ballpark is gone. You're either going to have to accept it or you're going to have to join those sad and bitter Brooklyn Dodger fans who spend their lives pretending that the last 50 years never happened.
Whichever you choose is fine with me.
Quite simple. The majority of Brooklyn fans realized what the majority of Yankees fans refuse to acknowledge.
Each team had (or will have) its ball park destroyed. Ebbets Field and Yankee Stadium were (are) two of the most historic, if not the most historic and mystical of all ball parks.
Brooklyn fans and Yankees fans could do nothing to prevent the ruination of their franchises.
But Yankees fans faced a much shrewder adversary. Yankees fans were bribed with a new ball park across the street that would shut out many of them during the regular season and many more of them if the team played in October -- or November.
Brooklyn fans were merely ignored as both their ball park and team were taken away from them.
Brooklyn fans knew what was happening to them and to this day, refuse to accept the false premise that the LOS ANGELES National League franchise is a continuation of the BROOKLYN National League franchise.
Franchise: the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
Los Angeles is not Brooklyn.
Fans on baseball-almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum are the most knowledgeable of all fans because they opened their eyes and saw what happened. They were not fooled. They were helpless to do much, but they knew what happened.
1) Would you rather the Yankees move across the street, or across the river to NJ? My whole life growing up, there was the constant threat of the Yankees moving to NJ. With a new ballpark, that threat will be gone probably for the rest of my life.
2) So do you think that the Boston Braves, Milwaukee Braves and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises? That the Oakland Raiders/Los Angeles Raiders/Oakland Raiders are three franchises? Two franchises? Or one franchise?
The new ballpark is finished and the old ballpark is gone. You're either going to have to accept it or you're going to have to join those sad and bitter Brooklyn Dodger fans who spend their lives pretending that the last 50 years never happened. -----------
I know I only hurt myself out of spite.
I guess I'd rather be a martyr tonight.
It's my decision.
-----------
Absolutely.
Entirely up to you. If you prefer to throw away your allegiance to the team because they've moved to a new building, that's completely your choice.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-05-08, 09:59 PM
Again with the personal attacks! My temperment is not up for discussion. Allow me to provide a brief lesson on what constitutes a personal attack?...
You seem a lot more confused about this discussion as you've gone along, so I'm not sure what to say that won't simply make matters worse for you. You do however seem keen to confirm my posts, which puzzles me, but I suppose I should be grateful for it, so thanks for that. At any rate, perhaps in 70 years or so, the yanks will build a new stadium on the current site, and you'll be happy about that and begin going to games again. I guess that's something to look forward to. Until then, I'll leave you to your demons about the new stadium, and I'm sure the yankees will miss you in the meantime.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-05-08, 10:01 PM
2) So do you think ... that the Oakland Raiders/Los Angeles Raiders/Oakland Raiders are three franchises? Two franchises? Or one franchise?
Well, they're so hapless I prefer to think of them as something less than even one full franchise.;)
You seem a lot more confused about this discussion as you've gone alongHow would you know if I'm confused? I assure you that's not the case, and your insinuation is insulting, just as your previous attacks on my reading comprehension and temperment were insulting. To the contrary, I have a full and complete understanding of everything that has been said in this thread, by both myself and others. Do you?
I'm curious why you find it necessary to resort to personal attacks. Are you unable to dispute my points while staying on topic?
Why didn't you provide specific information about the price differential between the 19 super luxury boxes behind home plate compared to the 20+ "makeshift" luxury suites around the rest of the ballpark?
Hah, makeshift suites... that's why they were made out of giant concrete cinder blocks and fully furnished with plush seating behind permanent sliding glass windows... uh huh... real "temporary."
I Heart Jeter
10-06-08, 10:44 AM
Do we know what ticket prices are gonna be in the new Stadium?
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 10:48 AM
One more thing-my parents each grew up in Brooklyn and recalled walking to Dodger games.
Things change.
But Ebbets was a lot like Fenway-old, dirty, poor access, little parking. It's easy to blame O'Malley, but Robert Moses and NYC wanted to stick him in Flushing where the Mets wound up, which he refused. O'Malley wanted to build at the same corner they recently broke ground on the Nets arena on top of a subway/LIRR hub. Either way, even the City government recognized that the Dodgers were doomed to drawing flies at the dump that was Ebbets, which was the reality despite all the "Used to Be a Ballpark" myth that's grown up since.
I'm not sure I understand-they should stay in the old 1970s renovated stadium because...Why exactly?Misplaced nostalgia?
Yankee Stadium should have been renovated, retaining as much as possible, and it should have been modernized.
PeteRFNY
10-06-08, 10:49 AM
Boy, the Yankees really SHOULD have done a lot of things just because we all say so. Doesn't mean they HAD to.
There is some PONDEROUS stuff being written in this thread that is beyond comprehension. I’ve never seen such virulent arguments for the excuse to cut one’s nose off despite their faces in my life.
I root for the NEW YORK YANKEES. I rooted for them before they destroyed the former Yankee Stadium, I rooted for them while they toiled at Shea Stadium for two years and I rooted for them when the new “cookie cutter” (that term REALLY fits there) renovated Yankee Stadium opened up in 1976. I’ll keep rooting for them when they move a couple hundred feet away to bigger and better digs.
Why? Because I am a Yankee fan. I love buildings as much as the next guy, but I don’t pick up the paper in the morning to check the latest stadium standings ("Ooh, PNC Park is in first in the NL Central!"). Besides, as has already been pointed out, the Yankees would have been CRAZY to not jump at this opportunity when it was offered to them.
I liken this to selfish, spoiled, bratty kids that get angry at their parents because they sold the old house they grew up in and moved into a better one, unable and unwilling to appreciate the gesture.
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 11:01 AM
1) You made a ridiculous claim and you haven't offered one whit of support for it.
2) Your anecdotal evidence of higher ticket prices at the new ballpark indicates you haven't bothered to find out how much tickets will cost at the new stadium. Yes, as I admitted, there are some premium seats (4300 in number) which are priced at a much higher level than at the old stadium. The other 90%+ seats will be priced comparably to seats at the old ballpark, but you persist in giving the impression that all the seats will have higher prices.
The new ballpark is finished and the old ballpark is gone. You're either going to have to accept it or you're going to have to join those sad and bitter Brooklyn Dodger fans who spend their lives pretending that the last 50 years never happened.
Whichever you choose is fine with me.
1) See my post #98. You may not accept it, but it supports my conclusion that Baseball-Almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum has the most knowledgeable of all fans. The KNOW why their team was stolen and they face it. Most Yankees fans DON'T know why their ball park was stolen -- why their cathedral will be destroyed -- and those who do, rationalize that the new ball park makes up for it. For many Brooklyn fans and for some Yankees fans, it's like that old song, "If I Can't Have You, I Don't Want No One, Baby."
2) As stated, "Many of the members have Yankees or Giants or Jets season ticket plans. NOT ONE (at least 10 and probably more) has renewed.
One Yankees fan, who has been one of four indivduals who shared 4 box seats for many seasons, has seen the cost rise from $40,000 in 2007 to $81,000 in 2008 to about $240,000 in 2009.
The number of seats that I used to purchase has decreased. For 2009, the price of those seats may not rise, but the number available has decreased. That's pretty clear."
Those are the numbers. They are valid. How about the parking fees?
3) The Brooklyn fans and I are not bitter. We are realistic. I refuse to be seduced by the glitter and vapidness of a new ball park.
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 11:07 AM
1) Would you rather the Yankees move across the street, or across the river to NJ? My whole life growing up, there was the constant threat of the Yankees moving to NJ. With a new ballpark, that threat will be gone probably for the rest of my life.
2) So do you think that the Boston Braves, Milwaukee Braves and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises? That the Oakland Raiders/Los Angeles Raiders/Oakland Raiders are three franchises? Two franchises? Or one franchise?
The Giants and the Jets moved to New Jersey. Why are they called the NEW YORK Giants and the NEW YORK Jets? Because their corporate offices are in New York? The Giants and Jets are prime examples of Orwellian double talk and newspeak. Naming the ball park where the Yankees will play next season Yankee Stadium is similar.
No I don't think the Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises. The valid definition of the term "franchise" leads me to that conclusion.
And it is a shame that a great site, Baseball-Reference, clumps teams that have moved but retained the same nick name together.
1) See my post #98. You may not accept it, but it supports my conclusion that Baseball-Almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum has the most knowledgeable of all fans. The KNOW why their team was stolen and they face it. Most Yankees fans DON'T know why their ball park was stolen -- why their cathedral will be destroyed -- and those who do, rationalize that the new ball park makes up for it. For many Brooklyn fans and for some Yankees fans, it's like that old song, "If I Can't Have You, I Don't Want No One, Baby."
2) As stated, "Many of the members have Yankees or Giants or Jets season ticket plans. NOT ONE (at least 10 and probably more) has renewed.
One Yankees fan, who has been one of four indivduals who shared 4 box seats for many seasons, has seen the cost rise from $40,000 in 2007 to $81,000 in 2008 to about $240,000 in 2009.
The number of seats that I used to purchase has decreased. For 2009, the price of those seats may not rise, but the number available has decreased. That's pretty clear."
Those are the numbers. They are valid. How about the parking fees?
3) The Brooklyn fans and I are not bitter. We are realistic. I refuse to be seduced by the glitter and vapidness of a new ball park.Problem in Brooklyn-from where I type this-is that too manyof these knowledgable (now geriatric) fans didn't go to Ebbets field in the late 1950s, when they had a very competitive team. They might have gone to a new stadium located at what is now the Nets' Atlantic Yards arena site. It's not that hard to "steal" a team when it's fans don't show up in sufficient numbers to justify staying in place.
And simply whether they're knowledgeable or dumb as fenceposts doesn't much matter. What matters is attendance figures.And that is why teams move.People stopped going to Ebbets Field in sufficient numbers. O'Malley, love him or hate him, saw a chance to go to an expanding market, gave NYC a chance to make him a good offer.The City refused and he moved. You can have all the poems and columns written about O'Malley being a bastard and it might even be true. But if Brookln fans had shown up in sufficient numbers, they'd still be here.
And given as others have noted the 1980s threats of the Yankees stupidly decamping to the Meadowlands, this is as good as it could get. Further, my understanding is that the field will be restored intact for colleges, high schools and little leagues and a girls softball field added. Kids will get to play there. The Hall of Fame will have a museum on site, and 12,000 trees will be planted.
Vapidness? It's a baseball game.And it's a business. May be some of these knowledgeable "fans" need to grow up a bit.
CoyoteYankee
10-06-08, 12:02 PM
1) See my post #98. You may not accept it, but it supports my conclusion that Baseball-Almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum has the most knowledgeable of all fans. The KNOW why their team was stolen and they face it. Most Yankees fans DON'T know why their ball park was stolen -- why their cathedral will be destroyed -- and those who do, rationalize that the new ball park makes up for it. For many Brooklyn fans and for some Yankees fans, it's like that old song, "If I Can't Have You, I Don't Want No One, Baby."
2) As stated, "Many of the members have Yankees or Giants or Jets season ticket plans. NOT ONE (at least 10 and probably more) has renewed.
One Yankees fan, who has been one of four indivduals who shared 4 box seats for many seasons, has seen the cost rise from $40,000 in 2007 to $81,000 in 2008 to about $240,000 in 2009.
The number of seats that I used to purchase has decreased. For 2009, the price of those seats may not rise, but the number available has decreased. That's pretty clear."
Those are the numbers. They are valid. How about the parking fees?
3) The Brooklyn fans and I are not bitter. We are realistic. I refuse to be seduced by the glitter and vapidness of a new ball park.
Awwww...I feel so bad for the rich people who can no longer sit in the front row. If they were really fans and wanted to go to the games, there are other less expensive seats that they could buy.
I am holding on to my season tickets. The cost hasn't gone up too much for me, being a peon in the Upper Deck.
I love going to the ballpark and I love watching baseball. Where a team plays does not change that for me. Am I going to miss Yankee Stadium? Of course, I have a lot of great memories there. Am I going to miss not being able to see 3 innings of the game because I decided that I wanted some popcorn? No, not really.
To each his own, obviously, but to me, if you love the game, it shouldn't matter where it is being played. I consider myself lucky that I live close enough to Yankee Stadium to go to 20 to 30 games per year and that I am financially able to do so. As long as the crowd is into it, the games are magical.
My only complaint about the new stadium is that I believe the Upper Deck (my peon seats) is going to have a more gentle slope to it. I know that a lot of people complained about how steep it was in the UD of the old YS but I loved it because even sitting way up high, it felt like you weren't far from the field. With the new YS, the higher up you go, the further you get away from the action.
26 and counting
10-06-08, 12:07 PM
No I don't think the Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises. The valid definition of the term "franchise" leads me to that conclusion.
And it is a shame that a great site, Baseball-Reference, clumps teams that have moved but retained the same nick name together.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't these two statements contradict themselves?
The Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles and became the Los Angeles Dodgers, therefore they are the same franchise. If the Kansas City Royals pack up and move to Mexico City and become the Mexico City Royals, they will remain the same franchise.
What if the Colorado Rockies pack up and move to Idaho, but choose a different nickname and become the Idaho Mashed Potatoes? They should still be the same franchise, just under a different name. Just like when the Hartford Whalers became the Carolina Hurricanes, when the Winnipeg Jets became the Phoenix Coyotes, and when the Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals.
However, if the Colorado Rockies were folded by MLB, and the MLB created an expansion franchise from scratch named the Idaho Mashed Potatoes, then they should be a different franchise because they had no history.
ymike673
10-06-08, 01:01 PM
Problem in Brooklyn-from where I type this-is that too manyof these knowledgable (now geriatric) fans didn't go to Ebbets field in the late 1950s, when they had a very competitive team. They might have gone to a new stadium located at what is now the Nets' Atlantic Yards arena site. It's not that hard to "steal" a team when it's fans don't show up in sufficient numbers to justify staying in place.
And simply whether they're knowledgeable or dumb as fenceposts doesn't much matter. What matters is attendance figures.And that is why teams move.People stopped going to Ebbets Field in sufficient numbers. O'Malley, love him or hate him, saw a chance to go to an expanding market, gave NYC a chance to make him a good offer.The City refused and he moved. You can have all the poems and columns written about O'Malley being a bastard and it might even be true. But if Brookln fans had shown up in sufficient numbers, they'd still be here.
And given as others have noted the 1980s threats of the Yankees stupidly decamping to the Meadowlands, this is as good as it could get. Further, my understanding is that the field will be restored intact for colleges, high schools and little leagues and a girls softball field added. Kids will get to play there. The Hall of Fame will have a museum on site, and 12,000 trees will be planted.
Vapidness? It's a baseball game.And it's a business. May be some of these knowledgeable "fans" need to grow up a bit.
I read several books on the Dodgers move and you got it all wrong. Dodgers attendance dropped in the fifties because O'Malley actually made it harder for fans to buy tickets to the games. He wanted the attendance to go down. Even with that the Dodgers are still the only franchise to draw over one million fans the last year before they moved. And remember one million fans was a big deal in 1957 O'Malley was also making loads money off the local TV contract. The Dodgers were the most profitable team in the NL before they moved out of Broojklyn..
PeteRFNY
10-06-08, 01:09 PM
To each his own, obviously, but to me, if you love the game, it shouldn't matter where it is being played. I consider myself lucky that I live close enough to Yankee Stadium to go to 20 to 30 games per year and that I am financially able to do so. As long as the crowd is into it, the games are magical.
My only complaint about the new stadium is that I believe the Upper Deck (my peon seats) is going to have a more gentle slope to it. I know that a lot of people complained about how steep it was in the UD of the old YS but I loved it because even sitting way up high, it felt like you weren't far from the field. With the new YS, the higher up you go, the further you get away from the action.
Ahh a voice of reason...I was starting to think there weren't any left out there!
CY - you would think that about the upper deck, but I've sat in what could be considered the "worst" seats at Camden Yards, and despite the "gentle slope" (I love that term!) you do not feel like you are 100 miles away from the action - quite the opposite. I'm convinced that there are NO bad seats there.
No I don't think the Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises. The valid definition of the term "franchise" leads me to that conclusion.
But you also said:
Brooklyn fans...refuse to accept the false premise that the LOS ANGELES National League franchise is a continuation of the BROOKLYN National League franchise.
So how is the fact that the LA franchise is a continuation of the Brooklyn franchise, FALSE? Yet you consider the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves to be a single franchise?
CoyoteYankee
10-06-08, 02:45 PM
Ahh a voice of reason...I was starting to think there weren't any left out there!
Where is Deb when you need her? :P
CY - you would think that about the upper deck, but I've sat in what could be considered the "worst" seats at Camden Yards, and despite the "gentle slope" (I love that term!) you do not feel like you are 100 miles away from the action - quite the opposite. I'm convinced that there are NO bad seats there.
I hope that's the case. I love how I feel so close to the action all the way up there in the Upper Deck.
I liken this to selfish, spoiled, bratty kids that get angry at their parents because they sold the old house they grew up in and moved into a better one, unable and unwilling to appreciate the gesture.Guilty as charged... but Yankee Stadium isn't only where I grew up watching baseball. It's where Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle and countless other Yankee legends grew up playing it. Spoiled and bratty yes... selfish - not so much, because it's not all about me.
Further, my understanding is that the field will be restored intact for colleges, high schools and little leagues and a girls softball field added. Kids will get to play there. The Hall of Fame will have a museum on site, and 12,000 trees will be planted.Incorrect. The NYC parks department website says the original field will be "indistinguishable."
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 03:34 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't these two statements contradict themselves?
The Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles and became the Los Angeles Dodgers, therefore they are the same franchise. If the Kansas City Royals pack up and move to Mexico City and become the Mexico City Royals, they will remain the same franchise.
Read the definition. The Brooklyn National League franchise ceased to exist after the 1957 season.
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 03:37 PM
...the Yankees would have been CRAZY to not jump at this opportunity when it was offered to them.
Naive. It was presented to them the way some individuals present other individuals offers they cannot refuse.
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 03:41 PM
Problem in Brooklyn-from where I type this-is that too manyof these knowledgable (now geriatric) fans didn't go to Ebbets field in the late 1950s, when they had a very competitive team. They might have gone to a new stadium located at what is now the Nets' Atlantic Yards arena site. It's not that hard to "steal" a team when it's fans don't show up in sufficient numbers to justify staying in place.
O'Malley could not turn down the offer from Los Angeles. The fans you denigrate attended games at Ebbets Field. Sadly, I think you can figure out the year below.
World Series Champs
Scored 857 runs, Allowed 650 runs. Pythagorean W-L (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/faq.shtml#pyth): 95-58
Managed by Walter Alston (http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/alstowa01.shtml)
Ballpark: Ebbets Field <small>(ballparks.com (http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/ebbets.htm))</small>
Attendance: 1,033,589 (2nd of 8)
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 03:42 PM
Awwww...I feel so bad for the rich people who can no longer sit in the front row. If they were really fans and wanted to go to the games, there are other less expensive seats that they could buy.
I am holding on to my season tickets. The cost hasn't gone up too much for me, being a peon in the Upper Deck.
I love going to the ballpark and I love watching baseball. Where a team plays does not change that for me. Am I going to miss Yankee Stadium? Of course, I have a lot of great memories there. Am I going to miss not being able to see 3 innings of the game because I decided that I wanted some popcorn? No, not really.
To each his own, obviously, but to me, if you love the game, it shouldn't matter where it is being played. I consider myself lucky that I live close enough to Yankee Stadium to go to 20 to 30 games per year and that I am financially able to do so. As long as the crowd is into it, the games are magical.
My only complaint about the new stadium is that I believe the Upper Deck (my peon seats) is going to have a more gentle slope to it. I know that a lot of people complained about how steep it was in the UD of the old YS but I loved it because even sitting way up high, it felt like you weren't far from the field. With the new YS, the higher up you go, the further you get away from the action.
That is your choice. It is your right. Best of luck. I really DO hope you enjoy the games.
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 03:47 PM
But you also said:
So how is the fact that the LA franchise is a continuation of the Brooklyn franchise, FALSE? Yet you consider the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves to be a single franchise?
If my meaning is lost by the sentence construction, I will write it differently.
Los Angeles, the media, mlb, etc., ignore the definition of a franchise and have decided that the LA Dodgers are a continuation of the Brooklyn franchise. The same has been with the Twins and Brewers, although the latter does present a problem and becomes quite confusing.
Brooklyn fans simply refuse to accept the premise that the LA franchise is a continuation of the Brooklyn franchise, which ceased to exist after the 1957 season.
I hate to support the Brooklyn Dodgers, but their fans have a valid point.
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 03:50 PM
But you also said:
So how is the fact that the LA franchise is a continuation of the Brooklyn franchise, FALSE? Yet you consider the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves to be a single franchise?
Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I guess putting "I" in bold when writing does not create the same emphasis speaking the sentence would create.
No I don't think the Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises. The valid definition of the term "franchise" leads me to that conclusion.
Read the definition. The Brooklyn National League franchise ceased to exist after the 1957 season.
Then why consider the Braves a single franchise?
The Brooklyn team moved to LA...with most of the same players...owner...etc.
They are not coming back. There will be no expansion franchise to Brooklyn.
After 50 years it's time to give up the ghost.
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 03:52 PM
Then why consider the Braves a single franchise?
The Brooklyn team moved to LA...with most of the same players...owner...etc.
They are not coming back. There will be no expansion franchise to Brooklyn.
After 50 years it's time to give up the ghost.
I explained that above. The Braves are NOT a single franchise. The emphasis and sentence construction led some to draw that conclusion. I am sorry for the confusion. See posts above.
I explained that above. The Braves are NOT a single franchise. The emphasis and sentence construction led some to draw that conclusion. I am sorry for the confusion. See posts above.
You said...TWICE...that you don't think the Braves are three separate franchises...
Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I guess putting "I" in bold when writing does not create the same emphasis speaking the sentence would create.
No I don't think the Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises. The valid definition of the term "franchise" leads me to that conclusion.
So answer, yes or no:
DO YOU THINK the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves are separate franchises?
PART TWO:
IF NO How are the Braves different from the Dodgers?
LouGehrig
10-06-08, 04:02 PM
You said...TWICE...that you don't think the Braves are three separate franchises...
I did not. I wrote the following and it is getting tiresome.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I guess putting "I" in bold when writing does not create the same emphasis speaking the sentence would create.
No I don't think the Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises. The valid definition of the term "franchise" leads me to that conclusion.
This is why taking one word out of a sentence or one sentence out of a paragraph has led to innocent individuals being sent away for life.
I am irrelevant. What I think is irrelevant. My conclusion in this case must be based on the definition of franchise. I tried to say that my opinion, your opinion, mlb's opinion is irrelevant. This is NOT an opinion. It is a conclusion based on a definition from a valid source.
Art Vanderlay
10-06-08, 04:11 PM
I was born and raised in Brooklyn and have many family members who were Brooklyn Dodger fans in the 40's and 50's (Joe Pignatano lived down the street from us). Those in my family that rooted for the Dodgers viewed the Mets as the continuation of the Brooklyn franchise they all became Met fans.
CoyoteYankee
10-06-08, 04:18 PM
That is your choice. It is your right. Best of luck. I really DO hope you enjoy the games.
Why thank you. And I hope you enjoy your time spent away from the games.
26 and counting
10-06-08, 04:53 PM
I should start a thread with the title "Why Yankee Stadium Should Be Destroyed, Not Renovated". That should open up a few cans of worms.
And regarding the Dodgers, it's true that the Brooklyn franchise ceased to exist after 1957. However, the Dodger franchise has continued on in Los Angeles to this very day.
I've got an interesting example: the NFL's Cardinal franchise. Here's the progression of that franchise:
Morgan Athletic Club (1898)
Racine Normals (1899-1900)
Racine Cardinals (1901-1906, reformed 1913-1919)
Chicago Cardinals (1920-1943)
Card-Pitt (1944 - merged with the Pittsburgh Steelers that year)
Chicago Cardinals (1945-1959)
St. Louis Cardinals (1960-1987)
Phoenix Cardinals (1988-1993)
Arizona Cardinals (1994–present)
Even though the Cardinals have been called nine different names, they are still one franchise, one entity.
Yankeefan3783
10-06-08, 06:07 PM
I'm sure it would have been more expansive to renovate Yankee Stadium then building a new one. My favorite soccer club, Benfica, built a new stadium in 2003. Originally they wanted to renovate the Estadio da Luz (Stadium of Light, which is Portugal's "Yankee Stadium" as it too was called the cathedral), but found out it would have much more expansive to do that. HOK Sport designed the new stadium (http://09.img.v4.skyrock.com/09a/mel244/pics/104844998_small.jpg) to look a lot like the old one (http://www.campeoesdofutebol.com.br/imagens/est_ant_benfica.jpg), except with all the new ameneties. The end result was a state-of-the-art stadium, with features that pay homage to the old stadium. The best decision they made.
The Yankees could have demolished Yankee Stadium and then rebuilt from scratch on the same location, but that would take 2-3 years, meaning the Yankees would be without a real home during that time. I think they made the right decision by building a new stadium across the street.
As much as I love Yankee Stadium, I'm very excited and ready for the new Yankee Stadium.
No I don't think the Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises.
OK...so YOU don't think the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises. Do YOU think they are one franchise?
And if YOU think they are one franchise, how is that different from the Brooklyn Dodgers and Los Angeles Dodgers?
WTrain44
10-06-08, 07:14 PM
I'm sure it would have been more expansive to renovate Yankee Stadium then building a new one. My favorite soccer club, Benfica, built a new stadium in 2003. Originally they wanted to renovate the Estadio da Luz (Stadium of Light, which is Portugal's "Yankee Stadium" as it too was called the cathedral), but found out it would have much more expansive to do that. HOK Sport designed the new stadium (http://09.img.v4.skyrock.com/09a/mel244/pics/104844998_small.jpg) to look a lot like the old one (http://www.campeoesdofutebol.com.br/imagens/est_ant_benfica.jpg), except with all the new ameneties. The end result was a state-of-the-art stadium, with features that pay homage to the old stadium. The best decision they made.
The Yankees could have demolished Yankee Stadium and then rebuilt from scratch on the same location, but that would take 2-3 years, meaning the Yankees would be without a real home during that time. I think they made the right decision by building a new stadium across the street.
As much as I love Yankee Stadium, I'm very excited and ready for the new Yankee Stadium.
Benfica and Sporting both got new stadiums just like the Yanks and mets, and they look pretty similar. I don't think Benfica's stadium looks like anything special or unique... more like an HOK cookie cutter bathtub.
PeteRFNY
10-07-08, 12:34 AM
Guilty as charged... but Yankee Stadium isn't only where I grew up watching baseball. It's where Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle and countless other Yankee legends grew up playing it. Spoiled and bratty yes... selfish - not so much, because it's not all about me.
Oh, for the love of..other than being in the same rough geographic location, the field that sits there now is not the same grass, dirt, bases, home plate or even exact foul lines that were there in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s.
Hell, it doesn't even remotely resemble the original Stadium! The Frieze is in the outfield, the huge scoreboard is gone, the Monuments are BEHIND the wall (thank GOD) and the obstruction poles are long gone. The only thing Yankee Stadium II has in common with the original Yankee Stadium is the name.
The place where DiMaggio and Mantle and the Babe played was altered beyond recognition in 1976. This is what befuddles me the most about the automatic hate of the new Stadium: old-timers like my Dad and his old army pals HATED the renovation, yet he never stopped rooting for the Yankees. Never once did I hear the man say, "That's it, I can't go there anymore". Mind you, he bitched about it every time we went there, but that didn't stop him from going to the renovated Stadium.
I look at it this way: if guys that PLAYED in OLD Yankee Stadium can say that they will miss the old Stadium, but are looking forward to the new one, then it should be OK with the general public as well (unless they are all crazy, too). I'm down with the men that really called the place "home".
I laugh when I think about what people would be doing and saying if they'd built a new Stadium in Manhattan. Holy crap on toast. This is almost the same swath of land for crying out loud and people are ready to cecede from the city.
old-timers like my Dad and his old army pals HATED the renovation, yet he never stopped rooting for the Yankees. Never once did I hear the man say, "That's it, I can't go there anymore". Mind you, he bitched about it every time we went there, but that didn't stop him from going to the renovated Stadium.This explains a lot.
jlw1980
10-07-08, 04:09 AM
Tearing it down is a travesty. :(
BRNXBMRS
10-07-08, 08:18 AM
Oh, for the love of..other than being in the same rough geographic location, the field that sits there now is not the same grass, dirt, bases, home plate or even exact foul lines that were there in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s.
Hell, it doesn't even remotely resemble the original Stadium! The Frieze is in the outfield, the huge scoreboard is gone, the Monuments are BEHIND the wall (thank GOD) and the obstruction poles are long gone. The only thing Yankee Stadium II has in common with the original Yankee Stadium is the name.
The place where DiMaggio and Mantle and the Babe played was altered beyond recognition in 1976. This is what befuddles me the most about the automatic hate of the new Stadium: old-timers like my Dad and his old army pals HATED the renovation, yet he never stopped rooting for the Yankees. Never once did I hear the man say, "That's it, I can't go there anymore". Mind you, he bitched about it every time we went there, but that didn't stop him from going to the renovated Stadium.
I look at it this way: if guys that PLAYED in OLD Yankee Stadium can say that they will miss the old Stadium, but are looking forward to the new one, then it should be OK with the general public as well (unless they are all crazy, too). I'm down with the men that really called the place "home".
I laugh when I think about what people would be doing and saying if they'd built a new Stadium in Manhattan. Holy crap on toast. This is almost the same swath of land for crying out loud and people are ready to cecede from the city.
Finally the best post in this thread. Nice work, end of argument. :-werd-:
1) See my post #98. You may not accept it, but it supports my conclusion that Baseball-Almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum has the most knowledgeable of all fans. The KNOW why their team was stolen and they face it. Most Yankees fans DON'T know why their ball park was stolen -- why their cathedral will be destroyed -- and those who do, rationalize that the new ball park makes up for it. For many Brooklyn fans and for some Yankees fans, it's like that old song, "If I Can't Have You, I Don't Want No One, Baby."
Here's what you wrote in post #98:
Fans on baseball-almanac's Brooklyn Dodgers forum are the most knowledgeable of all fans because they opened their eyes and saw what happened. They were not fooled. They were helpless to do much, but they knew what happened.
Oh, I get it. They are the most knowledgeable of all fans not because they know anything about baseball (How can they? They stopped watching baseball in 1957), but because they "opened their eyes" on one occasion more than 50 years ago. Got it.
2) As stated, "Many of the members have Yankees or Giants or Jets season ticket plans. NOT ONE (at least 10 and probably more) has renewed.
One Yankees fan, who has been one of four indivduals who shared 4 box seats for many seasons, has seen the cost rise from $40,000 in 2007 to $81,000 in 2008 to about $240,000 in 2009.
The number of seats that I used to purchase has decreased. For 2009, the price of those seats may not rise, but the number available has decreased. That's pretty clear."
Those are the numbers. They are valid. How about the parking fees?
I heard you the first time, Lou. I asked you to come up with something more substantial than an anecdotal account, and your response is to repeat the anecdote. The evidence you bring in support of your contention that "many fans will be shut out" by prices in the new ballpark amounts to "some wealthy guys I know aren't renewing their season tickets".
It's not at all clear that the number of low priced seats has decreased. The ticket price increases in the new ballpark have been almost entirely constrained to 4,300 of the most desirable box seats. As I said in an earlier post (and you ignored), the remaining 90%+ tickets will not be more expensive.
I don't know how much more parking will cost across the street, but if it's too expensive for you, take the train.
3) The Brooklyn fans and I are not bitter. We are realistic. I refuse to be seduced by the glitter and vapidness of a new ball park.
I'll take your word for it, but your posts sound quite bitter to me. In the end, though, who cares whether you go to the new stadium or not? You appear to value the building more than the team that played there anyway, so ... maybe you can go hang out across the street from where they'll be playing baseball next spring, close your eyes, and watch your glorious memories? I hope you're not disturbed while fans of the 2009 Yankees enjoy actual real-life baseball amid the glitter and vapidness of comfortable seating and clean restrooms.
YankeePride1967
10-07-08, 09:06 AM
I for one will shed no tears when the "old" stadium is torn down. April 16 can't come fast enough.
The current structure is still pretty much the same as the 1923 one, with some renovations from 1976.In 1998, the Yankees had to play a game in Shea after a beam collapsed. There would be more problems in the future, like Wrigley with nets catching cement chunks(Catch Cement in The Head Day, anyone?). Fenway is an antequated dump, no matter how much nonsense has grown up around it. Problem is, there comes a point you can only do so much renovations. And I wouldn't want to go to Shea or Citifield for 2 or 3 seasons while they rebuild the old Stadium site. It's going to be park , which beats the hell out of what became of the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field.
Something had to get done, this is as good as it's gonna get. Having a new stadium in the Bronx is better than going to the Meadowlands or some Midtown abomination(whcih were real possibilites as late as 1995). And we get a shiny new HOK park like Camden Yards and others, with great sightlines, great concessions, easy entrance and exit, bigger seats,cleaner and more bathrooms.
Think the core of the "knowledgeable/renovate"advocates here is that you have some mystical idea that the players get paid in thank you notes and atta boys, this is all some legendaryl wonderland where things stay the same forever and money never intrudes. You're apparently shocked to discover that MLB franchises are for profit concerns. Without being too harsh, seems your knowledge needs a serious reality check. When you consider that the Yanks managed to divert revenue sharing cash to the new stadium rather than pay it to also rans like the Rays, Reds, Royals, Pirates, Marlins et al, it was a financial no brainer. If you want to keep talking about Ebbets Field, knock yourself out. But you might consider that even there, the harsh reality of MLB finances mattered a whole bunch more than the wishful thinking of a few so-called knowledgeable fans a half century too late.
I'm less than overjoyed about paying more to go to games, but prices on everything are going up(except houses and stocks).Plus if the market cannot bear the price of the top end tickets, they won't be that expensive for long. I suspect that the current crisis will have an impact.Still, if it's too expensive, I'll watch on tv.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-07-08, 09:13 AM
April 16 can't come fast enough.
I realize your post is meant as a positive one, and I certainly share the sentiment of looking forward to opening day, but you also remind me that the league saw fit to give us our 2009 home opener more than a week into the season. That really does annoy me.
I realize your post is meant as a positive one, and I certainly share the sentiment of looking forward to opening day, but you also remind me that the league saw fit to give us our 2009 home opener more than a week into the season. That really does annoy me.
Maybe they tried to make it as close to the original 1923 date as possible? But that day is a Saturday.
April 18, 1923 - Original Yankee Stadium Opening Day
April 15, 1976 - Renovated Yankee Stadium Opening Day
April 16, 2009 - New Yankee Stadium Opening Day
yankeebot
10-07-08, 10:19 AM
I realize your post is meant as a positive one, and I certainly share the sentiment of looking forward to opening day, but you also remind me that the league saw fit to give us our 2009 home opener more than a week into the season. That really does annoy me. I suspect that was by request from the Yankees to have as much time as possible to be ready. The same thing was done with the Mets schedule.
fredgmuggs
10-07-08, 10:41 AM
I suspect that was by request from the Yankees to have as much time as possible to be ready. The same thing was done with the Mets schedule.
Actually, on a Mike and the Mad Dog show I heard Lonn Trost utter that very thing. They also wanted April 18 because of the symmetry with the opening date of the old stadium but because it was on a Saturday it wouldn't work.
YankeePride1967
10-07-08, 10:46 AM
I realize your post is meant as a positive one, and I certainly share the sentiment of looking forward to opening day, but you also remind me that the league saw fit to give us our 2009 home opener more than a week into the season. That really does annoy me.
With the Mets opening April 14 (and not the opening week) as well leads me to believe that both teams asked for the delayed opening to give them more time to work on the stadiums.
EDIT: I see Yankeebot and Muggs explained it.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-07-08, 10:50 AM
Actually, on a Mike and the Mad Dog show I heard Lonn Trost utter that very thing.
Interesting. Good to know that the special exhibition games they're talking about having there may be before the stadium is fully ready.
LouGehrig
10-07-08, 11:08 AM
Why thank you. And I hope you enjoy your time spent away from the games.
Thank you too. It will difficult, but it will be done.
LouGehrig
10-07-08, 11:12 AM
OK...so YOU don't think the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves are three separate franchises. Do YOU think they are one franchise?
And if YOU think they are one franchise, how is that different from the Brooklyn Dodgers and Los Angeles Dodgers?
It is quite simple.
Franchise: the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
Brooklyn was the territory granted for the Brooklyn National League franchise.
Los Angeles is the territory granted for the Los Angeles National League franchise.
It is not I who has defined the term. A scholarly, valid, accepted source defines the term.
It's not at all clear that the number of low priced seats has decreased. The ticket price increases in the new ballpark have been almost entirely constrained to 4,300 of the most desirable box seats. As I said in an earlier post (and you ignored), the remaining 90%+ tickets will not be more expensive. The cheapest non-bleacher seats in Yankee Stadium were Tier Reserved seats. Going by the total number of seats in all 36 Tier Reserve sections, there were far more "cheap" (if you consider $29 a seat cheap this year) seats in the upper deck than there are going to be across the street.
The cheapest Main Reserved seats this year were something like $60 I think. In Yankee Stadium, approximately 20,000 seats are in the lower levels, comprising the Field Box, Main Box, and Main Reserve sections. There are approximately 30,000 upper deck seats including the Tier Box seats, which are more expensive than Tier Reserve seats. But keep in mind there are only 12 rows of Tier Box seats while there are 22 rows of Tier Reserve seats. And in the curved sections behind the plate and out by the foul poles, there are many more seats per row higher up in the tier. So the vast majority of these 30,000 seats are in the lower price level.
Across the street, those numbers will be reversed. There will be only 20,000 upper deck seats and 30,000 lower level seats. So even independent of any price level increases, they just took 10,000 seats that were $29 in 2008 and stuck them downstairs where they'll be at least $60 in 2009.
Best case scenario (for you and the Yankees), 20% of the available seats just doubled in price. So don't give me some crap about 90% of the tickets being the same.
Then add in the fact that capacity is being decreased significantly (the Yankees have been deliberately vague about the exact reduction) and that 4300 seats are going to have absolutely obscene prices attached to them, and it just became a lot harder for Joe Q. Public to see a baseball game at a reasonable price. There have been many occasions in recent years in which the least expensive tickets available at the box office on the day of a game were $100 seats behind home plate. It happens that way often, because the games in question were sold out, but the $100 more expensive seats were held back until the last minute in case "special" people wanted them. When the special people didn't want them, they were made available to "normal" people, i.e., "civilians."
I think $100 is an outrageous price to see a baseball game, but it's very much in line with the prices at other sporting events and concerts, and is still basically affordable to a substantial percentage of people. That won't exist next year, because the same seats that were $100 in 2008 are going to be $850 in 2009. So I'm not willing to brush aside the fact that 4300 seats are going to have extremely obscene price increases. Some of them are going to be $2500 per seat.
Besides, I'm sure there will be slight increases for each ticket, probably $2-$10 each, as there are most years, independent of the team moving to a new facility.
I don't know how much more parking will cost across the street, but if it's too expensive for you, take the train. I don't think he really cares how much parking costs, because he's not going there.
Besides, the city operates all the public garages, and aside from the garage that's actually going to be attached to Mullally Park, my best guess would be that the city will continue to operate the public garages. The only difference is instead of garage 8 being the best place to park, garage 3 will be.
The current structure is still pretty much the same as the 1923 one, with some renovations from 1976.In 1998, the Yankees had to play a game in Shea after a beam collapsed. There would be more problems in the future, like Wrigley with nets catching cement chunks(Catch Cement in The Head Day, anyone?).As discussed earlier in the thread, the beam that fell in 1998 was an isolated incident, and Yankee Stadium has been inspected and declared safe repeatedly since then.
I hope you're not disturbed while fans of the 2009 Yankees enjoy actual real-life baseball amid the glitter and vapidness of comfortable seating and clean restrooms.This is a discussion for another thread, but "actual real-life baseball" doesn't exist anymore in the mind of a true baseball purist. Everyone acknowledges that the game has changed dramatically over the years. Not everyone likes this new game that's being played in the modern era. Not everyone would even consider it "baseball." In a sense, it's only appropriate that the Yankees leave their House of Worship (when praying to baseball Gods) and move into a fake facility to play a fake game that occasionally more resembles an entertainment spectacle than a genuine sporting competition.
BTW, the restrooms in Yankee Stadium were always clean when the gates opened to the public. It was the people who made them filthy by peeing all over the floor. Then, after the game, work crews cleaned up the mess. The next day, when the gates opened, they were sparkling again. The fans again made a disgusting mess. I hate when people try to blame their own transgressions on the victim (in this case Yankee Stadium) rather than accepting responsibility for their actions. Yankee Stadium didn't make you pee on the floor. You did that by choice. It doesn't mean a new ballpark is necessary. All it means is that you have to change the culture of what's socially acceptable when using the bathroom facilities in a large stadium or arena. Maybe that culture will change next year, I don't know. I think there's a good chance that culture will be carried across the street, and people will continue peeing on the floor. If they don't, I think it's a sad commentary on society that it takes a new $1.3 billion facility to get people to stop peeing on the floor.
bostonyankeefan
10-07-08, 11:51 AM
Some of the improvements at Fenway are nice (e.g. the dining area behind the seats in right field), but the place remains a disaster in many other ways. I was there are few weeks ago for a game that was eventually rained out, and you had to dodge some puddles that were deep and pretty nasty in an interior part of the park on the 3rd base side.
As someone else said above, Fenway will be torn down eventually. The sox are just buying time for themselves with the changes that they are making to the park.
Renovations can only go so far. I will miss the old stadium but I can't wait to see a Yankee game in the new one.
WTrain44
10-07-08, 12:44 PM
The current structure is still pretty much the same as the 1923 one, with some renovations from 1976.In 1998, the Yankees had to play a game in Shea after a beam collapsed. There would be more problems in the future, like Wrigley with nets catching cement chunks(Catch Cement in The Head Day, anyone?). Fenway is an antequated dump, no matter how much nonsense has grown up around it. Problem is, there comes a point you can only do so much renovations. And I wouldn't want to go to Shea or Citifield for 2 or 3 seasons while they rebuild the old Stadium site. It's going to be park , which beats the hell out of what became of the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field.
Something had to get done, this is as good as it's gonna get. Having a new stadium in the Bronx is better than going to the Meadowlands or some Midtown abomination(whcih were real possibilites as late as 1995). And we get a shiny new HOK park like Camden Yards and others, with great sightlines, great concessions, easy entrance and exit, bigger seats,cleaner and more bathrooms.
Think the core of the "knowledgeable/renovate"advocates here is that you have some mystical idea that the players get paid in thank you notes and atta boys, this is all some legendaryl wonderland where things stay the same forever and money never intrudes. You're apparently shocked to discover that MLB franchises are for profit concerns. Without being too harsh, seems your knowledge needs a serious reality check.
Yes, they could have renovated again, even after the collapse in 98. Even just maintaining the outer structure and rebuilding the seating area would have been better than what they are doing. It was good enough for the White House, which is a bit older than Yankee Stadium. That was literally rebuilt from the inside out and was in significantly worse shape than the stadium!
We aren't as naive as you think we are. Nobody is saying its not a for profit business. With that in mind, a big part of the appeal and selling point of the Yankees is the tradition. People all over the world want Yankee merchandise because of the history and tradition.
Pride, another tradition of the Yankees is obviously not as valuable these days either. They proved that this season with the shameless whoring out of official last season merchandise. There's no pride in that at all. The Yanks have turned into high priced hookers and Brandon Steiner is their pimp.
The argument that the first class organization needs a first class facility would make sense, but I can't see whats classy about this whole thing. Modern technology and more dining options does not equal class. Wider concourses and more bathrooms does not equal class. Just because its new, expensive, and has bells and whistles does not make it classy or elegant.
They are demolishing Yankee Stadium so they can make more money in their shiny new brothel of baseball. There is absolutely nothing classy about that.
[edit: thanks for the quote Lurker!]
haven't read many of the posts in this thread nor i know much about the reasons behind the move. i wish they hadn't done it but what's done is done.
WTrain44
10-07-08, 12:53 PM
Actually, on a Mike and the Mad Dog show I heard Lonn Trost utter that very thing. They also wanted April 18 because of the symmetry with the opening date of the old stadium but because it was on a Saturday it wouldn't work.
I heard that too, why can't they have opening day on a Saturday? I have some ideas, but I don't want to be a Negative Nancy.
ymike673
10-07-08, 01:03 PM
People keep saying its not the same park because of the renovation. Lets look at the history that's been made at the renovated park since 1976..
6 World Championships
10 Pennants
18 playoff appearances.
6 no hitters including 2 perfect games.
4 consecutive 4 million attendance seasons.
There are no other ballparks in baseball that has seen that many historic events.
I know Ruth, Gehrig, Joe D and Mickey did not play there but the renovated Stadium is historic enough to have been alowed to continue as the Yankees home.
fredgmuggs
10-07-08, 01:06 PM
I heard that too, why can't they have opening day on a Saturday? I have some ideas, but I don't want to be a Negative Nancy.
I think because they usually schedule an off game after Opening Day in event the game is cancelled and they simply move it to the next day. It would be problematic to schedule it for a Saturday because they wouldn't schedule an off day for a Sunday and they wouldn't want to risk not scheduling an off day in event of a cancellation.
ymike673
10-07-08, 01:08 PM
I think because they usually schedule an off game after Opening Day in event the game is cancelled and they simply move it to the next day. It would be problematic to schedule it for a Saturday because they wouldn't schedule an off day for a Sunday and they wouldn't want to risk not scheduling an off day in event of a cancellation.
But next season there will not be an off day after the opener.
fredgmuggs
10-07-08, 01:21 PM
But next season there will not be an off day after the opener.
Well then... never mind.
Who knows? All I know is he said neither the Yankees nor MLB liked Saturday. Any other theories?
PeteRFNY
10-07-08, 01:25 PM
This explains a lot.
Well, yeah, it kind of does. I will admit, my old memories of the pre-renovated Stadium are few (any games I saw there - and there were quite a few - took place between the ages of four and six. I remember seeing games but not a whole lot of details about them. I DO remember being intimidated by the sheer size of the place when you sat in the upper deck, and that the grass always looked bad for some reason, like it was dry and dying - even in the middle of summer. I have more memories of Yankee games at Shea (yuck) since I was a little bit older then.
My Dad's opinions were based on seeing the Stadium HE grew up in get gutted and having all the life stripped from the place (in HIS opinion). He always had a funny line: he used to say, "they took a grand ballpark and turned it into a Venetian Blind". I never quite knew what that meant but I laughed at it nonetheless! Regardless, he didn't let the renovation keep him from going to games or supporting the team.
I am exaggerating a bit - he didn't bitch EVERY time...but he would engage the young'uns that would sit around us with occasional baseball talk (my Dad saw all the greats play and loved to talk about specific games, where he sat, etc.) and he would occasionally say stuff like, "You should have seen this place before they wrecked it", but he wasn't obsessed by it. In fact throughout the 90s I never heard him complain about it anymore.
We always used to talk about the concept of a NEW "Yankee Stadium" and he used to say that he hoped if they ever built one they "did it better this time". I think he would have loved the new place...it saddens me that he didn't live long enough to see it.
Lots of people say po-TAY-to...some say po-TAH-to. I think I might have too many non-baseball problems to lose sleep over a new Yankee Stadium. If anything, it sounds like a good idea to me, 33 years in the making.
It is quite simple.
Franchise: the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
Brooklyn was the territory granted for the Brooklyn National League franchise.
Los Angeles is the territory granted for the Los Angeles National League franchise.
It is not I who has defined the term. A scholarly, valid, accepted source defines the term.
And I am asking your opinion on whether you think the Brooklyn and LA Dodgers are one franchise. AND. I am asking your opinion as to whether you think the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves are one franchise.
Simple questions that you seem to want to complicate.
See look: My opinion: The LA Dodgers are the same franchise as the Brooklyn Dodgers, they just moved. The Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves are one franchise. The NY/SF Giants are one franchise.
See? Easy. My opinion. I am asking yours.
Mr. Mxylsplk
10-07-08, 02:00 PM
And I am asking your opinion on whether you think the Brooklyn and LA Dodgers are one franchise. AND. I am asking your opinion as to whether you think the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves are one franchise.
Simple questions that you seem to want to complicate.
I believe Lou is saying that it's not a matter of opinion or what he or anyone thinks - it's a matter of the definition of franchise. And that the way franchise is defined, neither of those constitute a single franchise. So just as it's not a matter of whether or not we "think" the yankees play in the bronx, it's not a matter of whether or not Lou thinks those teams are different franchises. It is a defined fact not subject to opinion. And it is a matter of definition that each time they move, one franchise ends and another begins.
My Dad's opinions were based on seeing the Stadium HE grew up in get gutted and having all the life stripped from the place (in HIS opinion). He always had a funny line: he used to say, "they took a grand ballpark and turned it into a Venetian Blind". In kind of an ironic way, I think your father and I are not too dissimilar.
[edit: thanks for the quote Lurker!]Hah you're welcome, I knew that line would get a response.
I believe Lou is saying that it's not a matter of opinion or what he or anyone thinks - it's a matter of the definition of franchise. And that the way franchise is defined, neither of those constitute a single franchise. So just as it's not a matter of whether or not we "think" the yankees play in the bronx, it's not a matter of whether or not Lou thinks those teams are different franchises. It is a defined fact not subject to opinion. And it is a matter of definition that each time they move, one franchise ends and another begins.
We all have opinions on things; I am asking his on this...
...someone can ask you, "Do you think oral sex is sex?"...you wouldn't need to quote a law, just give your opinion...so here I am asking his opinion on a question...really doesn't have to be complicated. He's just making it so.
Given2Fly8
10-07-08, 03:10 PM
It is quite simple.
Franchise: the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
Brooklyn was the territory granted for the Brooklyn National League franchise.
Los Angeles is the territory granted for the Los Angeles National League franchise.
It is not I who has defined the term. A scholarly, valid, accepted source defines the term.
Here is another accepted definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/franchise
3 a: the right of membership in a professional sports league b: a team and its operating organization having such membership
The Dodgers team and its operating organization were unchanged after moving to Los Angeles from Brooklyn. They just changed their home base. They are the same franchise in a professional sports sense.
Would you rather see a banner at Citi Field that says "New York Mets - 1955 World Series Champions"?
Are today's Cleveland Browns the same ones that Jim Brown played for?
Didn't Modell take all his players with him to Baltimore?
LouGehrig
10-07-08, 05:12 PM
And I am asking your opinion on whether you think the Brooklyn and LA Dodgers are one franchise. AND. I am asking your opinion as to whether you think the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves are one franchise.
Simple questions that you seem to want to complicate.
See look: My opinion: The LA Dodgers are the same franchise as the Brooklyn Dodgers, they just moved. The Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves are one franchise. The NY/SF Giants are one franchise.
See? Easy. My opinion. I am asking yours.
The Boston Braves were a different franchise from the Milwaukee franchise which was different from the Atlanta franchise.
LouGehrig
10-07-08, 05:13 PM
I believe Lou is saying that it's not a matter of opinion or what he or anyone thinks - it's a matter of the definition of franchise. And that the way franchise is defined, neither of those constitute a single franchise. So just as it's not a matter of whether or not we "think" the yankees play in the bronx, it's not a matter of whether or not Lou thinks those teams are different franchises. It is a defined fact not subject to opinion. And it is a matter of definition that each time they move, one franchise ends and another begins.
Thank you very much.
LouGehrig
10-07-08, 05:20 PM
Here is another accepted definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/franchise
The Dodgers team and its operating organization were unchanged after moving to Los Angeles from Brooklyn. They just changed their home base. They are the same franchise in a professional sports sense.
Would you rather see a banner at Citi Field that says "New York Mets - 1955 World Series Champions"?
The link has the following:
c (1): the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory ; also : a business granted such a right or license (2): the territory involved in such a right
By the way, your last sentence, " Would you rather see a banner at Citi Field that says 'New York Mets - 1955 World Series Champions'?" is hitting below the belt.
You can take your franchise definitions or anything else you want, but when you are writing to someone who has been a Yankee since 1951 and who lived through 1955, 1969, 1973, and 1986, don't create a hypothetical nightmare.
I will not attempt to do anything about that sentence except forget it.
Given2Fly8
10-07-08, 07:15 PM
The link has the following:
c (1): the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory ; also : a business granted such a right or license (2): the territory involved in such a right
I think the third definition (which I quoted) is more applicable to a sports team than the second definition (above). Also, who's to say you can't change the territory on a license?
To me, the Brooklyn/LA Dodgers, Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves, and yes the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens are the same "entity" (even if the NFL doesn't acknowledge the last one).
As it's been said, this is all opinion so I'll get off my soap box. I agree to disagree.
I will not attempt to do anything about that sentence except forget it.
Fair enough. :)
WTrain44
10-08-08, 11:51 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Truman_renovation_TR-71-305-1.jpg
Some places are worth renovating from the inside out instead of rebuilding from the ground up.
PeteRFNY
10-08-08, 02:51 PM
Sure, if you want to build around the same skeleton again...for the second time...and play in a different Stadium for 2-3 years...lose concession money...make Yankee fans go to Queens...realize that you can't build OUT from the inside due to space limitiations on the current lot...so you'll have the same cramped interior areas...OR you build from the ground up RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET and not miss any seasons at all in the Bronx...
This is what really kills me. So, it would be OK if they completely gutted the place, built what they are building NOW and tossed everything in the Hudson River, as long as the same plot space was used??? Am I the only one that is perplexed by the rationale of this?
LouGehrig
10-08-08, 05:46 PM
This is what really kills me. So, it would be OK if they completely gutted the place, built what they are building NOW and tossed everything in the Hudson River, as long as the same plot space was used??? Am I the only one that is perplexed by the rationale of this?
You certainly are not.
The majority of fans who don't want the Yankees to lose some revenues for two years are unwilling to have the Yankees and their fans pay a price for a short time period. They want them to pay a higher price forever.
It's similar to the educational system in the greatest country in the history of personkind that lowers standards or makes examinations easier in order to allow individuals to "succeed."
A student who might become a competent accountant in the future takes fewer courses, graduates earlier, and pays the price the rest of her life.
The Yankees are unwilling to renovovate Yankee Stadium ... anyway, you know the rest.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Truman_renovation_TR-71-305-1.jpg
Some places are worth renovating from the inside out instead of rebuilding from the ground up.That picture is awesome. Do you have more like it?
WTrain44
10-08-08, 11:26 PM
Its the White House renovation during the Truman Presidency. Check out his Presidential Library online.
WTrain44
10-08-08, 11:30 PM
You certainly are not.
The majority of fans who don't want the Yankees to lose some revenues for two years are unwilling to have the Yankees and their fans pay a price for a short time period. They want them to pay a higher price forever.
It's similar to the educational system in the greatest country in the history of personkind that lowers standards or makes examinations easier in order to allow individuals to "succeed."
A student who might become a competent accountant in the future takes fewer courses, graduates earlier, and pays the price the rest of her life.
The Yankees are unwilling to renovovate Yankee Stadium ... anyway, you know the rest.
Exactly. I'd rather 2 years to preserve/renovate Yankee Stadium than a lifetime of the fraud accross the street. They considered building a new White House instead of renovating during the Truman era, and that place was in MUCH worse shape than Yankee Stadium! They obviously made the right choice by keeping the old one and renovating.
Its the White House renovation during the Truman Presidency. Check out his Presidential Library online.ohhhh :o It looked like Yankee Stadium just inside Gate 4 to me. I figured they probably gutted more there because of the press box and luxury suites they added than anywhere else in the ballpark.
PeteRFNY
10-09-08, 12:20 AM
In kind of an ironic way, I think your father and I are not too dissimilar.
The difference being that I'm pretty sure my Dad would have been ecstatic to see the mistakes of the 70s renovation fixed, even if the fix was across the street (we'd disussed the concept of the Yankees moving to a new Stadium many times and he always said "as long as they did it right this time"). Either way, he wouldn't have allowed what was going on now to prevent him from going there, or as I have seen in some extreme cases, rooting for the team.
As old school as my Dad was (anyone who was in the Normandy Invasion on D-Day is old school and awesome by definition) he had an admirable ability to embrace change, not fear it. I guess some of that rubbed off on me.
Change for the wrong reasons (see signature below) is not to be embraced, especially when the cost is so high in this case.
ymike673
10-09-08, 09:50 AM
Exactly. I'd rather 2 years to preserve/renovate Yankee Stadium than a lifetime of the fraud accross the street. They considered building a new White House instead of renovating during the Truman era, and that place was in MUCH worse shape than Yankee Stadium! They obviously made the right choice by keeping the old one and renovating.
You are right. It was realized that the White House had to be rebuilt when Truman's piano fell through the floor.
KENMonteSS86
10-10-08, 12:30 PM
The cheapest non-bleacher seats in Yankee Stadium were Tier Reserved seats. Going by the total number of seats in all 36 Tier Reserve sections, there were far more "cheap" (if you consider $29 a seat cheap this year) seats in the upper deck than there are going to be across the street.
The cheapest Main Reserved seats this year were something like $60 I think. In Yankee Stadium, approximately 20,000 seats are in the lower levels, comprising the Field Box, Main Box, and Main Reserve sections. There are approximately 30,000 upper deck seats including the Tier Box seats, which are more expensive than Tier Reserve seats. But keep in mind there are only 12 rows of Tier Box seats while there are 22 rows of Tier Reserve seats. And in the curved sections behind the plate and out by the foul poles, there are many more seats per row higher up in the tier. So the vast majority of these 30,000 seats are in the lower price level.
Across the street, those numbers will be reversed. There will be only 20,000 upper deck seats and 30,000 lower level seats. So even independent of any price level increases, they just took 10,000 seats that were $29 in 2008 and stuck them downstairs where they'll be at least $60 in 2009.
Best case scenario (for you and the Yankees), 20% of the available seats just doubled in price. So don't give me some crap about 90% of the tickets being the same.
Then add in the fact that capacity is being decreased significantly (the Yankees have been deliberately vague about the exact reduction) and that 4300 seats are going to have absolutely obscene prices attached to them, and it just became a lot harder for Joe Q. Public to see a baseball game at a reasonable price. There have been many occasions in recent years in which the least expensive tickets available at the box office on the day of a game were $100 seats behind home plate. It happens that way often, because the games in question were sold out, but the $100 more expensive seats were held back until the last minute in case "special" people wanted them. When the special people didn't want them, they were made available to "normal" people, i.e., "civilians."
I think $100 is an outrageous price to see a baseball game, but it's very much in line with the prices at other sporting events and concerts, and is still basically affordable to a substantial percentage of people. That won't exist next year, because the same seats that were $100 in 2008 are going to be $850 in 2009. So I'm not willing to brush aside the fact that 4300 seats are going to have extremely obscene price increases. Some of them are going to be $2500 per seat.
Besides, I'm sure there will be slight increases for each ticket, probably $2-$10 each, as there are most years, independent of the team moving to a new facility.
In my eyes, the most irrefuteable argument, backed by numbers, analysis and independent thinking, against the totally illogical claim that the price of 90% of the seats in the "Even Newer" Yankee Stadium will not be increasing...
Yes, after taking out of the argument the 4,300 seats with the insane prices, the remaining 90% of seats WILL have roughly the same price--if you look at it section-by-section. Tier reserved prices might not be going up, but when 1/3 of those seats are taken away and put down in a section where the price is double what they were above, you're increasing prices! The tier box prices might be the same, the main reserved seat prices might be the same, even the bleacher seat prices might be the same--but when you completely reconfigure how many seats are in each section, saying prices aren't changing is a VERY disingenious argument, one that is complete refuted if you actually USE YOUR HEAD and THINK for a minute......................
The chances of Average Joe getting seats for just a couple of games next year (no season plan involved) at close to the same price as this past season just went down dramatically! That, my friends, is the plain and simple truth........
That doesn't mean I'm not in favor of the new Stadium--maybe it is completely illogical on my part, but what matters to me is the ground--I wanted first base to still be where it is now, center field to be where it is now, the famous address of 161st Street and River Ave. Whether that means you tear down Yankee Stadium and build an exact replica of it with all the modern amenities, or renovate the current one again, doesn't matter to me. It's not so much the building they play in, as the ground they play on....
Bozidar
10-10-08, 12:42 PM
some folks just never want things to change. get them some meds and move on, tbh..
BRNXBMRS
10-10-08, 12:58 PM
In my eyes, the most irrefuteable argument, backed by numbers, analysis and independent thinking, against the totally illogical claim that the price of 90% of the seats in the "Even Newer" Yankee Stadium will not be increasing...
Yes, after taking out of the argument the 4,300 seats with the insane prices, the remaining 90% of seats WILL have roughly the same price--if you look at it section-by-section. Tier reserved prices might not be going up, but when 1/3 of those seats are taken away and put down in a section where the price is double what they were above, you're increasing prices! The tier box prices might be the same, the main reserved seat prices might be the same, even the bleacher seat prices might be the same--but when you completely reconfigure how many seats are in each section, saying prices aren't changing is a VERY disingenious argument, one that is complete refuted if you actually USE YOUR HEAD and THINK for a minute......................
The chances of Average Joe getting seats for just a couple of games next year (no season plan involved) at close to the same price as this past season just went down dramatically! That, my friends, is the plain and simple truth........
Why would us public pee-ons think? Arent we supposed to believe and not question everything that comes out of Lonn trusts mouth. Anyone who for a second was buying that vebal diaheria about 90% of the seats in NYS are staying the same I have a bridge for sale... very cheap!
Why would us public pee-ons think? Arent we supposed to believe and not question everything that comes out of Lonn trusts mouth. Anyone who for a second was buying that vebal diaheria about 90% of the seats in NYS are staying the same I have a bridge for sale... very cheap!
Keep the bridge for a while and buy yourself a river. They'll sell better as a package.
If the argument is that, although most of the seat prices will not be increased, they'll be somewhat more difficult to obtain because there are fewer of them, well, that's a legitimate argument. Since the new ballpark seats fewer than the old ballpark, and some defined number of seats will be priced outside the purchasing ability of ordinary people, there will be more competition for seats, so even though the bulk of the seats are priced on the same level as similar seats in the old stadium, aftermarket prices are likely to rise some.
But if you're in the habit of buying seats from StubHub, you're paying through the nose anyway, so ... expect to drill out the nostrils just a bit. If you're successful in buying tickets from the box office, it probably won't cost you any more than it did this year.
BRNXBMRS
10-10-08, 02:04 PM
Keep the bridge for a while and buy yourself a river. They'll sell better as a package.
If the argument is that, although most of the seat prices will not be increased, they'll be somewhat more difficult to obtain because there are fewer of them, well, that's a legitimate argument. Since the new ballpark seats fewer than the old ballpark, and some defined number of seats will be priced outside the purchasing ability of ordinary people, there will be more competition for seats, so even though the bulk of the seats are priced on the same level as similar seats in the old stadium, aftermarket prices are likely to rise some.
But if you're in the habit of buying seats from StubHub, you're paying through the nose anyway, so ... expect to drill out the nostrils just a bit. If you're successful in buying tickets from the box office, it probably won't cost you any more than it did this year.
Last year my tier seats were $12 plus tax, thei year the grandstand are going to be $20
yankeebot
10-10-08, 02:32 PM
Last year my tier seats were $12 plus tax, thei year the grandstand are going to be $20:confused: The cheapest price for Tier Reserve in 2008 was $20 and that was the full season or B plan price.
4bronxbombers
10-10-08, 02:33 PM
Last year my tier seats were $12 plus tax, thei year the grandstand are going to be $20
$12?? wtf
Art Vanderlay
10-10-08, 02:37 PM
:confused: The cheapest price for Tier Reserve in 2008 was $20 and that was the full season or B plan price.
And you are 100% wrong. I have a partial plan in which my tier reserve tickets were $12 in section 9. They were $10 the year before. Those same seats, if I can get them, are $25 dollars next year.
yankeebot
10-10-08, 02:42 PM
And you are 100% wrong. I have a partial plan in which my tier reserve tickets were $12 in section 9. They were $10 the year before. Those same seats, if I can get them, are $25 dollars next year. I wonder why they advertised them differently then. http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/seating_pricing.jsp
I also shared a B-plan coincidentally in sec. 9 and I didn't pay $12 so I have no idea how you did. Sec 9 is even Tier MVP and cost more than Tier Reserve.
__starr69
10-10-08, 02:43 PM
Why would us public pee-ons think? Arent we supposed to believe and not question everything that comes out of Lonn trusts mouth. Anyone who for a second was buying that vebal diaheria about 90% of the seats in NYS are staying the same I have a bridge for sale... very cheap!
Does this bridge have all the modern amenities of a new bridge? Is it an HOK bridge? Is there a mammoth HDTV? Cupholders? The Hard Rock Cafe and a Martini Bar? How many luxury suites and boxes? How many restrooms and concession stands?
Art Vanderlay
10-10-08, 02:50 PM
I wonder why they advertised them differently then. http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/seating_pricing.jsp
I also shared a B-plan coincidentally in sec. 9 and I didn't pay $12 so I have no idea how you did. Sec 9 is even Tier MVP and cost more than Tier Reserve.
I have a mid week E plan which in 2007 was $10 per seat. Last year its was increased to $20 for new plan holders, however I and many others were grandfathered and were increased 20% (from 10 to 12 dollars). A simliar location will cost me $25 next year.
__starr69
10-10-08, 02:51 PM
I think Art and BRNX are talking about the E plan that was the 8 game package for $12 in Tier Reserve (I had it in the bleachers).
BTW: The cheapest seats in the Stadium were the $5 games in Tier Box, Tier Reserve, and the bleachers, which were only available on an individual game basis (no partial plan; season ticket & partial plan holders paid regular face value). They also had a few mini discount packages for 3-6 predetermined games which I think went for 1/2 of the face value of the tickets. I wonder what will become of those $5 games and discount packages.
yankeebot
10-10-08, 02:54 PM
Ah. Gotcha.
Art Vanderlay
10-10-08, 02:55 PM
I think Art and BRNX are talking about the E plan that was the 8 game package for $12 in Tier Reserve (I had it in the bleachers).
BTW: The cheapest seats in the Stadium were the $5 games in Tier Box, Tier Reserve, and the bleachers, which were only available on an individual game basis (no partial plan; season ticket & partial plan holders paid regular face value). They also had a few mini discount packages for 3-6 predetermined games which I think went for 1/2 of the face value of the tickets. I wonder what will become of those $5 games and discount packages.
Exactly. I've had the same seats in tier reserve 9 for 5 years (I used to have a weekend plan).
BRNXBMRS
10-11-08, 08:04 AM
I think Art and BRNX are talking about the E plan that was the 8 game package for $12 in Tier Reserve (I had it in the bleachers).
BTW: The cheapest seats in the Stadium were the $5 games in Tier Box, Tier Reserve, and the bleachers, which were only available on an individual game basis (no partial plan; season ticket & partial plan holders paid regular face value). They also had a few mini discount packages for 3-6 predetermined games which I think went for 1/2 of the face value of the tickets. I wonder what will become of those $5 games and discount packages.
Correrct, me & my brother did the 8 game package. In section 22. Next year our tickets will be $25 so I think we are moving even further back to stay in our budget.
BRNXBMRS
10-11-08, 08:10 AM
Does this bridge have all the modern amenities of a new bridge? Is it an HOK bridge? Is there a mammoth HDTV? Cupholders? The Hard Rock Cafe and a Martini Bar? How many luxury suites and boxes? How many restrooms and concession stands?
Its going to be a take on the classic using the original idea but it will be much more wider and have a special speed lane for rich people to drive in that will only cost $1000 each time but people who subscribe to the "legends lane" will have all tolls paid for. The other lanes will be reduced in size to compensate for the bigger lane.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0