gj4marlins

LOL...I will even laugh at that...Did sound a bit like Joe. I am just frustrated that the state will give Homestead the 2 mil, when the Marlins have been seeking it for years and could not get it done. If the state is in such a generous mood this year, why are we at least not back there trying? Worth the questions about these guys sincerity, considering 30 million is there if no deal done before 2007. No guarantees they would not be shut out again, but the old saying is true...Can't get anything unless you try.

Just reading in Sun Sentinel today that Homestead is seeking to be allowed to keep up to $2 million a year for 30 years in sales taxes (SB 494) generated in Homestead-Miami Speedway to help maintain and provide security at the venue, which hosts the season finale of the NASCAR Nextel Cup series, plus the legislature is providing up to 15 million a year to Spring Training sites. These are clse to passage. Why in the world could the Marlins not get this done last year, or do everything they could to try again this year. Makes us ask these question: 1) Why are the Marlins not back in Tallahassee this year? 2) Did Samson and Loria REALLY push for the passage of the tax rebate last year when if no stadium deal done before 5 Years they do not have to pay back the 30 mil loan to MLB? 3) Its obvious the lobbyists for Homestead and Spring Training sites have the power and Loria and Samson are clueless as to how to get things done politically in this state...How can they provide 2 mil a year back to a place with 2 events a year, but not to a team that places people in the stands spending $$ 81 dates a year? Please sell the team to MLB, Latin Billionaires, or just anyone that actually has a dime in there pocket to come to the table with. Politicians like money, and wining and dining, and these two paupers are obviously offering only a dinner at Denny's. :-(

"As San Antonio pursues the Marlins, fans should know it might not have come to this if Major League Baseball had been proactive. We're told Marlins management -- knowing baseball values the South Florida market -- asked MLB to contribute toward stadium financing, but baseball balked, citing lack of precedent." Now there's a shock to read :whistle ...Let me compare NFL = G3 Financing - Actually helping there teams as a partner to build new revenue producing facilities MLB = Extortionists that only care about there own interests instead of the "Best Interests of Baseball" NFL = #1 Sports League and Game in the World MLB = #3 in a close call with the sorry non-revenue producing NHL Love the game, and hate the way its run by these arrogant selfish billionaires - Oh wait - We have the poor owner thats only a millionaire and probably has an allowance from Samson's Mommy ...Pathetic :-( How about being proactive like a plan to place a $1.00 per ticket Facility Development Charge on all teams MLB Tickets much like they do at the airport when you land there. Last year total MLB attendance was 75 million - Thats 75 Million every year that one team would be eligible for once every 30 years to borrow against, or for a DP on a new stadium. That is roughly the lifespan of leases and a stadium. Instead of holding us hostage, maybe an idea like this, or any other thinking out of the box ideas would finally result in a stadium that a 2 Time World Champion deserves.

An article related to the Twins challenges for a new ballpark has some unnerving news and language related to the possibility of the Twins and Marlins being prime Contraction candidates. Thoughts on this article? :mad Twins are hearing dreaded 'C' word again The politicians should be paying attention, because contraction involving the Twins and Marlins makes too much sense right now to be ignored. Patrick Reusse, Star Tribune Last update: February 11, 2006 ? 1:22 AM Contraction reared its ugly head again this week when Gov. Tim Pawlenty played host to a meeting among Twins officials and political leaders. The twist was that the dreaded "C" word first was uttered by the governor and not Jerry Bell, the lead man in the Twins' ballpark efforts. Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat, who has jeopardized his political future more than anyone in this ballpark battle, was in attendance. "When the governor laid out the reasons that contraction could be something to be concerned over, Jerry Bell did correct him somewhat," Opat said. "He said it wouldn't be easily done, since baseball would be required to bargain the effects of contraction with the players [union]." Opat said in his many conversations with Bell and other Twins officials that the possibility of contraction had not been raised. "The Twins have conducted themselves in good faith through this whole process," Opat said. "Now, if they get to the point where they say, 'We've taken it as far as we can,' I don't expect them to tell me their strategy. "After a couple of false starts, I'm sure baseball isn't going to say anything in advance about contraction. If it happens, it will be when we're past the point of no return." There is no denying this: Major League Baseball has two franchises absolutely ripe for contraction after the 2006 season in the Twins and Florida. These are baseball's two most underperforming markets. The big-revenue franchises have grown disgusted with handing $20 million to $25 million per year apiece to teams located in what should be lucrative markets. Baseball could buy out owners Carl Pohlad and Jeff Loria for $200 million to $225 million apiece and pay it off in a hurry with the savings in revenue sharing. For sure, contraction makes much more sense for baseball than trying to find new locales for the Twins and the Marlins. The timetable as laid out in the basic agreement between the owners and the players also fits perfectly with the Twins reaching the decision, "We've taken it as far as we can." The agreement states the following: "The Clubs [management] shall have the right ... to reduce by as many as two the number of Major League Clubs effective for the 2007 championship season." According to the document, the clubs must notify the players of any decision to cut teams effective for 2007 no later than July 1, 2006. The owners also must deliver a tentative schedule at that time, thus revealing the names of the teams to be eliminated. Presumably, Minnesota's 2006 legislative session will be well over before July 1. If the Hennepin County ballpark bill dies, the Twins officially can call it the end of the line. And if a bill gets passed with a requirement for a referendum? Sorry, there's no time, the ballpark's supporters can say, not with that July 1 deadline for a contraction decision. The players have agreed in this basic agreement not to take up a National Labor Relations Act challenge to contraction. They do have the right to bargain the effects. The best guess is the players would wind up with more players on the big-league rosters -- say 27, not 25, during the season, and 43 not 40 on the protected list. This basic agreement expires after this season. There's little chance the language will be as favorable to contraction the next time around. So, if baseball is going to reduce itself to 28 franchises, this is the moment. Carl Pohlad is now 90. When contraction failed in the winter of 2001-02, his son Jim took a big interest in trying to restore the credibility of the franchise. He didn't want the Pohlad name to be associated with the loss of baseball in Minnesota. The Hennepin County deal offered last April was advanced as the Pohlads' last, best effort to guarantee baseball's future in Minnesota. If a clean version of that deal doesn't come out of this legislative session, Jim can with clear conscience join his brothers Bob and Bill in wanting no part of owning a baseball team. Bell and Twins President Dave St. Peter consistently have shrugged off contraction as a renewed possibility. Commissioner Bud Selig will remain dismissive of the notion, rather than allow political and public opposition to escalate as was the case in 2001-02. But Pawlenty had it right this week at his meeting: Elimination of the Twins (and the Marlins) makes too much sense to be ignored. http://www.startribune.com/508/story/240117.html

The Kansas City Chiefs and Royals have agreed to joint lease extensions, and to place a measure on the ballot to seek funding for a Rolling Roof between the two Stadiums. The architect is HOK Sports, which just happens to be the same architectual firm that prepared the Marlins OB Renderings, and is currently working on the renovation of DS. I wanted to open the discusssion as to whether anyone here sees a similiar soluton working on the Dolphins Stadium mass acreage of parking lots? What a concept - Teams actually working together. There is plenty of land immediately to the east and west of Dolphins Stadium. The Marlins could use the current funds available to build an open air park with the 138 Mil from the county, and the team contribution of 212 Mil on this acreage of land. A joint funding measure to be paid over 30 years by the Marlins, Dolphins, and County by levying a User Fee of $3.00-$5.00 per ticket for the use of the facilities, plus a $2.00 Parking Surcharge could raise 10 million a year for the funding of the rolling roof. The roof would completely enclose the Marlins New Park for Air Conditioned Comfort, and could enclose Dolphins Stadium as well with some architectual enhancements to add to the Super Experience H. Wayne wants for that facility. Here is a link to the article about the KC Project. Seems like we could use some of this creative thinking and cooperation down here. Thoughts? :whistle http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2006/01/24/ch...ts_april_vote2/

Interesting article on Dolphins Stadium Renovations just posted on Palm Beach Post. Now if only the Marlins and Wayne could get together and re-work such an unfavorable lease, plus figue out how to pay for a Retractible Dome we have New Stadium Amenities in the best location... :cool http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/conten...12dolphins.html