fyatuk

:lol Just a few weeks ago Wolff practically guaranteed the Marlins were moving to San Antonio. Well, you know the story is going to be that Wolff always meant that IF they were to leave S Fl, then SA was a lock. Not that I'd believe him, but Wolff was always too optimistic about it since he's such a baseball freak. I'm just hoping Wolff and Harberger don't completely give up on trying to attract another team.

New lights, new scoreboard, better access, more seating and shade... Oh wait, you meant for the Marlins, not improvements to Wolff Stadium for the Missions

I agree, I believe it's pretty much over for SA with the Marlins, but only the beginning for future teams wanting to relocate to SA. Must admit I like the approach the City of SA is taking toward future relocation teams. "NO MORE LEVERAGE". It is a breath of fresh air having the leadership saying 'meh, screw it' instead of begging and pleading to the end, isn't it. There's still one immediate chance left in MLB (Twins still have work to do, though it looks like they'll get their stadium too), and several soon to be chances in the NFL in all likelihood. Hopefully SA has made a strong enough impression to be honestly considered.

Failing bid for Marlins teaches Wolff a lesson Not really almost, but have. Wolff has accepted nothing is going to happen there. Not only that, but he said he is not going to pursue any other MLB team either. He's basically decided that SA should not deal with teams until after dealing with the league so this crap about the Marlins and MLB saying they are waiting on each other doesn't happen. Something to that affect. 'Twas an article in todays print edition business journal. But I think SA managed to make a point about its viability as a market for any sport, and hopefully it'll pay off in the next few years.

They'll be ready for MLB in about 5 years... maybe. A looming factor is compensation to Hicks and McLane over television broadcast territory. It's academic at the moment... Can't see an MOU being signed. Just not enough on the table by SA to warrant such a deal. That's about how long it'd take a team to be able to move down here since we have no adequate facility already But yeah, the compensation for the TV area will be a bit of a sticking point. You'd basically effectively have to buy out part of the Astros contract with FSN (not really the Rangers since the Astros are nearly exclusive down here). And the Astros will certainly be fiesty about it. It'll cost a lot more than buying out the Missions territorial rights will anyway. Marlins would be stupid to sign an MOU with SA until they are 100% sure they can't get what they need out of S.FL. So, it ain't happening. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for something to happen with either MLB or NFL though. SA needs a second team soon to satisfy all the fans and businesses.

Yeah, I agree this design doesn't fit in with the architecture in Texas. This would look perfect in Miami though. All the new buildings downtown looks like this. Yeah, I was thinking that and remembering what downtown looked like when I was there in February. It'd be a great fit down there. Might look out of place at the Hialeah site depending on what they build around it.

I really do think its a very cool design, and I'd love to see it built. Also no way in hell I'd want that built in SA though. Doesn't fit this city. But it'd be awesome anywhere else (to me).

fyatuk Posted Today, 12:51 PM:SA is being a bit dumb for trying to include it for things such as ticket sales and sponsorships Agreed. During the weekdays we would have to fill the stadium on our own for any team that decides to move to SA. But, I believe that on w/e we will get help from the surrounding areas to include Austin. I've driven on the w/e to Austin to see a couple of Longhorn football & baseball games. A little bit yes. Some from San Marcos and very South Austin on the weekends. Doubtful anyone north of Downtown Austin would even think about it. They'd probably rather stay in Austin and watch the Express. But we'd certainly get people coming in from the RGV and Corpus as well. We get more people from the RGV than Austin at the Spurs games. We'd probably get some Austinites during the weekday to, particularly if the stadium is visible from IH-35 (they'd be able to snag some of those what, 25k daily commuters). Just nowhere near what Wolff, et al., seem to be expecting. Never been to a Longhorn game for anything. I did however speed up to Austin after work with a few friends to watch an SA Iguanas/Austin Icebats game. That was great fun

Although, you did note that Austin & SA could be consider one TV market, your analysis only took SA as stand alone. I don't believe that to be the case. However, I concur that any team would be moving to a smaller market, however using the term "unfavorable" is guestionable. The league would be daft if they didn't include the Austin-San Marcos DMA in a SA team's TV market, but at the same time, SA is being a bit dumb for trying to include it for things such as ticket sales and sponsorships... Unless you want to put the stadium along the ASA line (should be opening 2009-10) somewhere around New Braunfels, anyway.

It also doesn't look at recent US Census estimates and changes. Well, I certainly could have added that... and distance to other franchises... and cost of living differential.... and.... and... and... It was one of those bits of research that could be done in several parts. The need was not there to go whole hog... the point is made. On the recent estimates and changes... I did the change in-between the censuses. One could have done what you suggest, but then it doesn't make or break the findings... market sizes for relocation are considerably smaller than exisiting markets. Thanks for catching the typo on the hotel/motel rental car tax figure for SA Yeah, I didn't really mind the census figures since you used the same figures for all markets. Although SA's growth looks really impressive in the in between 2000-2005 estimates My bigger problem was with the inaccuracies in what other teams were where, including not mentioning what teams play in the MSA's the teams are currently located, and the lack of revenue figures for the Fortune 1000 companies. Both of those are fairly big deals when discussing this. But I do agree that any team moving is certainly moving to a significantly smaller market. For some teams it'll be worth it for the increased stadium revenue, etc, but for most, not at all.

I do a comprehensive study on relocation and come to the conclusion that teams aren't moving. The Hardball Times: Relocation? Your Team's Not Going Anywhere Just a few comments on the SA entry: Number of Fortune 1000 Corporations: five Number of other professional sports: two (Texans ? CFL Football; Missions ? Double-A Texas League baseball) Might be a good idea to include the total revenue listings for the Fortune 1000 companies. The total revenue and profits posted by the SA companies is as large or larger than a lot of other cities, and it can have a serious impact on naming rights, local advertising, etc. Also, some large SA companies (like HEB with 11 bil in revenue) are not included on the Fortune list for some reason (private ownership?). Also... The Texans? They played in 1995 before the CFL shut down its US operations, so no way they should be included. But included should be the AHL Rampage and the WNBA Stars. Portland and Las Vegas both have AAA teams in the PCL. passed it would generate $100 million towards the stadium construction, Wolff has said 200, not 100. Then of course the study gives the A's the entire San Fran/Oakland MSA even though it splits it with another team. And really the Giants have the bigger presence there from what I've heard. Even if you give them half the market, that's only 1.2 mil households. There's a lot of little bugs in that study. Which just a tad ahead of Portland, Indianapolis, etc. Obviously that's not how it works, just pointing out that the A's market in the study looks much larger than it really is because of the presence of a direct competitor. It also doesn't look at recent US Census estimates and changes.

My bad, "not" is a glitch, I agree councilperson are PT. I worked as an Auditor for Bexar County in the Mid-'80, and know for sure they are fulltime elected officals. Thx, When you say/write TX Constitution, I can't speak to the other 251 counties, just Bexar. By the way, I like how you have replied in this forum, with objectivity from both sides (SA/SFL). The same for rferry. I was raised in SA, but Born and, lived in Sfl for many yrs. I have follow the Marlins since inception. However, a Dallas Cowboy, and SPURS fan forever. Have a good one. Cool. I'm just saying that county governments are organized by the state constitution, all operating on the same guidelines basically. Slight differences, like there is one county in Texas where the County Judge is an actual judge instead of just an administrator. And I pride myself on objectivity. Don't get me wrong, I get my hopes up sometimes, but I don't post on message boards about my hopes. That's what my blog is for besides, I know how to behave. I'm a member of a Saints board too And really the only San Antonian that's liked there... Personally I've lost interest in the Cowboys and would LOVE to have another team that I could at least watch the games for regularly (without having to pay for NFL Network), but there's not beating the Spurs in my heart anyway.

I agree. But, I wouldn't say "most", some yes but not "most". Every city has that fraction that will oppose anything, even if it's mean good economics. Do you recall the Tax group that opposed building the ATT center, and so...... County officials are elected to fulltime positions, not unlike the City of SA. It's too bad the ISD killed the Longhorn Quarry location for the AT&T center. That would have been a much better spot than Freeman area. Uhh, I think there's a glitch in that last sentence though. I don't think that "not" should be there. City of SA officials are not full time. They are asked to work basically every Thursday, everything else is unpaid overtime so to speak. That's why a city councilman gets paid a MAX of $1k a year and the Mayor a MAX of $4k (depending on how many meetings they go to). That's also why there are so few decent councilmen. Have to be rich be able to do the job... But I'll take you're word on county officials. I haven't read the pertinent sections in the TX Constitution to know for sure.

There's some fairly interesting statements in there. What most people in San Antonio are not understanding is the economic benefit is not directly related to the team. A second major league team in San Antonio would be a great boon to drawing and retaining major businesses. In fact, it's businesses that are pushing this drive. AT&T, Valero, etc, are asking San Antonio to bring in another team. It's all about the luxuries necessary to appease big wig CEO's and company presidents. When it comes to the actual budget, many of those things that are "needed" cannot, by state law, be provided by the county and must be funded by the city. For the county to be involved, legislation would have to be passed in Austin. Off hand I don't know about County officials, but I doubt it's much different, but elected City officials are all PART TIME. As in they get paid less than $1,000/yr to work about 8 hours a week. The County Judge is not "a judge". He's a elected member of county administration only. No judicial duties.

Okay.....geography and weather aside.....I have a question for you Finatics.......why does it seem that the only people that know about the significance of the UDB vote and its ties to the Marlins stadium seem to be the one's on this message board. For the life of me, I cant find any commentary regarding it in the Miami Herald...at least the online version. Have I missed something? A development as significant as it is being positioned on this board missing from the daily paper strikes me as very odd. Hopefully someone can shed some light on it. ps- Anyone know why Vince Young scored so poorly on the Wonderlic? Answer.....he didnt have time to study because he was out searching for the Heisman trophy that was stolen from him. I saw articles about it online at both the Herald and MySA, but I ain't going back to look for them. It's about as significant as the Twins getting out of the Tax committee. Still need several steps, so its not a big jump forward. And Vince scored so poorly on the Wonderlic because he hired a bad agent. But yes, the Heisman was definitely stolen from him by USC hype...

Once again, I never said that San Antonio was part of Southeast Texas. It seemed implied. Your post sounded like an argument that moving to SA would be a wash in regards to hurricanes. Personally I ignored the statement, since most hurricanes that hit TX hit in the mostly rural area between Houston and Corpus anyway. But the person who said SA never gets more than heavy wind and rain from hurricanes missed something. If things happen just right (it has to be very strong, and hit just at Corpus Christi, at just the right angle), SA gets nasty. Not just wind and rain, but tornados, hail (even in summer), etc. Last time that happened was a couple decades ago. I remember that very clearly. Tornados ran through my neighborhood. Thought I was going to die. Don't laugh, I was 5 years old and it was the first severe weather I ever saw...

Quoting what CapeFish said at the top of this page...I didn't think the Royals were building a new stadium, just renovating Kaufman...or am I wrong? There's nothing wrong with Kaufman, the place is actually beautiful, my fav ballpark that I've been to...it'd be a shame to tear it down. They're renovating. The two bills that were on the last ballot were 1) money to renovate both Kaufman and Arrowhead, and 2) money to build a rolling roof for the 2 stadiums to share. The first got approved, so both stadiums will be renovated, but the second didn't so no roof. According to the side deals, that means KC will be getting a MLB All-Star game, but no Superbowl... They and the Nationals are the only ones who have their stadium issues completely resolved, but it looks like the A's are making very good progress. Marlins and Twins both have a ways to go with theirs.

And then of course there is the elephant in the room that no one is willing to talk about publicly.......hurricanes. I am guessing that as a resident of SFL you are well aware of the forecasts. Why would any right thinking baseball owner want to risk operating in a hurricane prone area? A cat 4 or cat 5 direct hit would likely decimate the economy much like New Orleans. Can you imagine the effect that would have on a bottom line? What do you suppose the likelihood is that either Samson or Loria has spoken with Tom Benson about what the effect has been to his asset? l guarantee you that thought has been rumbling around in Loria's dome since.....oh say last October? Do you know much of anything? Do you realize the damage directly caused by Katrina, a high level 4 nearly directly impacting New Orleans, was actually pretty minimal? The damage was caused when the levees where broken down by upstream runoff causing an area below sea level was flooded. Even that would not have been very serious if one or two of the pumps had not broken. That's not a problem that exists anywhere else. It is a problem unique to New Orleans. You're probably one of those people who quote the 200k new population of New Orleans, a 50% drop, ignoring the 1+ million people who lived in the Metro, but not the city, that never really left. So you think there shouldn't be teams directly on the gulf coast because of hurricanes? Does that include Houston? How bout the earthquake prone areas in California? There's a higher chance of structural damage to stadiums in California than there is for Florida...

Christians (and most religions, I guess) believe that God intended animals for us to be masters of and to eat. Humans are special, there's no arguing that, whether you believe that is God's intention or just the way it is. Yup, we're the only creatures who kill for reasons other than defending territory and food. Animals were not originally meant to be eaten. There was to be no death in the world God wanted. Supposedly anyway (biblical religions I mean). Personally, I hold animals much more sacred than many people in the world. A random stray cat has a better and more useful soul than someone like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden (and most likely Damer, Mansen, etc). Heck, I think I'd hold a tree's life more sacred than Hussein's.

Well, the majority wants his life ended. But, it also seems as if, except for maybe Accord and Fish Tank Frenzy, no one wants to push the button to do it. My main argument was how can another human decide to end another human's life. It's hard for me to consider it even when I believe there's no other fit punishment. I probably couldn't push that button. Of course, if you go by the King James or New King James versions, then God and Satan are the same entity, and since most Christians will tell you there is no way that's true, I just through the whole book out. But that's a whole 'nother discussion. You are awesome. Personally, I think this guy in particular needs serious help for his mental and psychological profile, not being put to death or locked up for the rest of his life. and thanks.

Its still killling though. I didnt know there were different levels of killing somewhere in the Holy Book where its ok to kill another, I think the only way its really considered ok from what I recall from my 9 years is in self defense. Its an awful huge stretch to consider this self defense. I didn't say I agreed with it, only that there is logic behind it. I'm for both the death penalty and abortion myself. But I understand other points of views, or at least the some of it. But in the old testament is does mention the whole eye for an eye bit. It does provide for the killing of criminals, but it does not discuss the treatment of fetuses. Of course that's the old testament. And depending on how you read it, the new testament expressly contradicts that view. Of course, if you go by the King James or New King James versions, then God and Satan are the same entity, and since most Christians will tell you there is no way that's true, I just through the whole book out. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

Well if thats the way your moral system works the so be it. What is the criteria though for determing said person to be un-reformable? Cause I'd be willing to bet thats not happening in our world in this day and age. For me its much more morally appeasable to simply punish someone by throwing them into a jail cell and give the subsistence to survive upon, perhaps give them a book to read, paper to write on, and what not; still a better life than anyone living in a third world country. It's not being practiced. There is no effort to reform anyone in prison. It's all about punishment, and the courts have ruled that prisoners deserve more and more priveledges which means prison isn't even punishment anymore. I don't believe the death penalty should be applied until someone has been convicted on a third occassion of a serious violent felony. The first couple times they should be forced to go through semi-daily sessions with therapists to help teach them how to deal with emotional issues, and given job training so they do not have to resort to crime to survive. As for it being better than life in a third world country, that is debateable. At least in a third world country you have privacy. You have the right to come and go as you please (well, depending on what kind of government you have). You have the right to eat what you choose. There are so many things that make a third world country preferable, at least to most people I know.

I've never particularly understood why conservative Christians/Catholics believe in the death penalty. I guess it could be the whole "eye for an eye" thing from the Bible. However, I was raised Catholic, and I am against the death penalty except in extreme cases. It just seems like a contradiction to me to oppose abortion, but favor the death penalty. That's not necessarily contradictory. With the death penalty, you have someone who has "sinned", proven and accepted. But with abortion you are referring to something who's only sin are original sin, and those of their ancestors that have passed down (the sins of the father shall be visited upon his son, etc). So its killing someone who has committed severe sins of their own free will, vs killing someone who has committed no sin themselves. It's actually kind of logical. The opposite (supporting abortion and objecting to the death penalty) is equally logical. It's has to do with the debate on when a fetus becomes a "man". Is it at conception, at 8 weeks (when it is biologically human), at birth? Before it is considered human (often considered invested with a soul), it is no more than an animal. With the death penalty in that case it is a person who is beyond doubt human, and therefore it is unacceptable to kill them. What really makes no sense, are vegans who support abortions. It's not okay to kill animals for food, but it is okay to destroy something that would be human.

so morally its alright to execute someone? To me it is if someone has proven themselves an un-reformable danger to society. If given the choice between putting them to death or locking them in a large closet for the rest of their lives, it is far less reprehensible to put them to death in my opinion.

No, those people you simply throw into jail for the remainder of their life, give them subsistence on a daily basis and let them rot away the remaining of their life. That would do a hell of a lot more for people than simply knocking them off. Did you actually pay attention to what I said? I said I support the death penalty BECAUSE I disagree with the morality of the treatment you just state. I think what you offer as a solution is far crueler than the death penalty because it attacks the mind and soul. Obviously we have a vast philosophical difference of the morality of prisons, which is pretty typical of the debate in general, and why there will never be consensus within the US.