Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Food for Thought on Sternberg's Statement

So let me get this right:

A NY millionaire flies down and says, "I know you're paying tens of millions of dollars a year for the right to host my (for-profit) business, and I know you still have many more millions to pay...and even though I agreed to stay for 17 more years....I decided it's only going to be 5-10...and I expect you to start paying a lot more money after that."

And somehow we think the bad guy is the Mayor of St Pete, looking out for his taxpayers' investment?

You now see how professional teams have mastered media manipulation.


  1. Brilliant, huh?

    I think people have more sympathy because it is a situation Stu inherited rather than created. Quite honestly, the ROI on the current situation will only go downhill as the turd has been polished as much it can be. He can tank the team and still sell it for a profit just as every other owner has if he chooses to. If he decides to sell, the club will not attract someone smarter than he because nobody with a brain will want to inherit the current situation and have to live in it another 15+ years.

    Taxpayers may have funded it but they've treated it like a charity that they give to once a year. Show up to games, get some corporate sponsorship - do something.

  2. Well, Stu bought the situation. He didn't inherit it.

    But yes, fans should support the team at times other than the playoffs. And yes, St. Pete gets a nice ROI from the team. However, we all know the Rays are just doing the same thing every other pro team has done in its respective community sometime in the last 30 years.

  3. The mayor of St. Pete better brush up on his media manipulation skill then, because he's in for a battle.

  4. Yet with all of that going on, Stu is the good guy and mayor is the bad guy. Like Mike said, mayor needs to brush up on his PR skills if he wants to win this battle. As I see it, Stu has improved the product on the field and put a lot of $$ into making the Trop look much better than it did when he took it over. On the city side of it, the appearance is they haven't done much to the equation while enjoying the increased attention that comes with being a competitive team.

  5. Mayor Foster needs a substantial upgrade in legal counsel. sailindude

  6. Like I tweeted to you, you've seen the tables and charts showing how Tropicana's location isn't viable and how that 1+ MIL population is cut in half in the "within 30 minute drive" section.

    If Tampa/St. Pete would institute a mass transit system, attendance would probably improve. However, it seems that particular part of Florida is still in the wee infancy of 20th century technology.

    Boo hoo, the owners are asking for millions for new stadiums and so forth. Kinda like how 40% of Florida residents are living off all of us with Social Security that anyone in the 18-35 years old range is paying for yet will never see. Places like Chicago and New York are willing to build stadiums, but Tampa/St. Pete bitch and moan because some NY Wall Street guys who fixed the organization are asking for a new stadium to make more money for themselves? Business is business, folks in Florida need to shut up and be happy they have major league baseball teams. They don't know this, however, due to the fact that they don't go to games without a reason.

  7. Jake, that's just stupid, ridiculous reasoning. Maybe if you'd read something other than the sports page, you'd know that there's no money in the state/city/federal budget for us to buy Sternberg a new money-printing stadium. People here aren't whining about having to fund a new stadium, we're tired of the hundreds of millions of dollars we're already on the hook for to build the current stadiums. And with unemployment and falling tourism revenue, maybe the owners and MLB could pull their heads out of their asses and realize that sucking on the public subsidy tit isn't a very feasible solution.

    You said yourself that a new stadium will make money, yet somehow you think public money should be stolen from the citizens for that purpose. It's a profitable venture, and slushing it up with public funds makes it even more profitable. Sternberg's not only breaking a legal contract, he's asking us to spend hundreds of millions to draft another worthless agreement to stay in the area.

    I really doubt you'd be so happy with this scenario if it was an ex-wife or a landlord or a bunch of welfare cheats, yet you'll happily turn your pockets out just to watch a bunch of jocks play a game. Obsessive fans like yourself should be the ones to pay for the stadium directly with comparable ticket costs. Maybe you'd realize what a raw deal it is when you had to pay a non-subsidized ticket price starting in the hundreds of dollars.