CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 MIAMI -- Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria made the following statement after the conclusion of the State Legislative session: We are deeply disappointed in the Florida Legislature's decision, and we feel very bad for all of the baseball fans in South Florida. We will now review our options, and will not comment further until this review is completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramp Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 so how does Las Vegas Blackjacks sound? or Caribbean Studs? or Slot Machines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ns2003 Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 :crying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Author Share Posted May 7, 2005 Cape's Outlook: The next 30-60 days will see intense actions by Marlins, County, and City officials to close the funding gap of $30 million. If progress is made, we could see the Marlins extend the period another 30-60 days to get this done. Edit: Ramp, stop being an ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodge Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Norfolk still wants an MLB team. If the Marlins had to move, I'd very much love for them to come here. (I'd rather they stay down with you guys) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Author Share Posted May 7, 2005 Norfolk still wants an MLB team. If the Marlins had to move, I'd very much love for them to come here. (I'd rather they stay down with you guys) 765962[/snapback] The move to Washington by the Nationals has blocked that market out of contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollyberry Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 :crying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Miami's officially on the clock. While Loria's comments aren't exactly settling (he really didn't down play the relocation possibility like I would have hoped), you can't blame him; I take comfort knowing that Mayor Diaz has said that it's now time for them to put a concentrated effort into not letting the Marlins leave. Remember, we're talking about 7% of the deal, Miami can't lose a team over that amount... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Author Share Posted May 7, 2005 The Marlins moving would mean losing all the money put into design and site consideration. That could be around $5 million already. I expect this to get done. Loria's statement was very general, but he is trying. I expected a much more negative statement, however he stays committed. I wonder if Samson will be on TV today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 The Marlins moving would mean losing all the money put into design and site consideration. That could be around $5 million already. 765968[/snapback] But, just to play devil's advocate, they get off the hook for the $50 million (?) loan from MLB... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Author Share Posted May 7, 2005 But, just to play devil's advocate, they get off the hook for the $50 million (?) loan from MLB... 765971[/snapback] MLB may penalize the team a relocation fee. MLB may also forgive $30 million of that reimburse the Marlins the missing amount for the ballpark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 But, just to play devil's advocate, they get off the hook for the $50 million (?) loan from MLB... 765971[/snapback] MLB may penalize the team a relocation fee. MLB may also forgive $30 million of that reimburse the Marlins the missing amount for the ballpark. 765973[/snapback] :mischief2 Intriguing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Author Share Posted May 7, 2005 MLB may penalize the team a relocation fee. MLB may also forgive $30 million of that reimburse the Marlins the missing amount for the ballpark. 765973[/snapback] :mischief2 Intriguing... 765977[/snapback] Let me clarify. MLB may (likely will) charge the Marlins a fee to relocate as every place in the USA and Canada has a home team. However, that $50 million loan you mentioned may seen $30 million forgiven possibly so that the Marlins can use that money on the ballpark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramp Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Cape's Outlook: The next 30-60 days will see intense actions by Marlins, County, and City officials to close the funding gap of $30 million. If progress is made, we could see the Marlins extend the period another 30-60 days to get this done. Edit: Ramp, stop being an ass. 765960[/snapback] being an ass?... or being realistic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 MLB may penalize the team a relocation fee. MLB may also forgive $30 million of that reimburse the Marlins the missing amount for the ballpark. 765973[/snapback] :mischief2 Intriguing... 765977[/snapback] Let me clarify. MLB may (likely will) charge the Marlins a fee to relocate as every place in the USA and Canada has a home team. However, that $50 million loan you mentioned may seen $30 million forgiven possibly so that the Marlins can use that money on the ballpark. 765980[/snapback] Right, but how realistic is this "partially" forgiven loan. It makes sense from afar, but why hasn't anyone brought it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Author Share Posted May 7, 2005 Right, but how realistic is this "partially" forgiven loan. It makes sense from afar, but why hasn't anyone brought it up? 765984[/snapback] Why pay more than you have to if your Marlins/MLB? Ramp, you are not being realistic. You are an ass if you believe Las Vegas is realistic. The Athletics have first right to refuse a relocation there. Add on that the Dodgers, Giants, Padres, D-Backs, Angels, and A's all hold TV rights there and would have to be repayed ala O's-Nats. Then add the Las Vegas market is small. Dade County alone has more people than the entire state of Nevada. Then add the A's couldn't sell out 10,000 seats at Cashman for MLB games in the 90's when they were pretty good. Las Vegas is not realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramp Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Right, but how realistic is this "partially" forgiven loan. It makes sense from afar, but why hasn't anyone brought it up? 765984[/snapback] Why pay more than you have to if your Marlins/MLB? Ramp, you are not being realistic. You are an ass if you believe Las Vegas is realistic. The Athletics have first right to refuse a relocation there. Add on that the Dodgers, Giants, Padres, D-Backs, Angels, and A's all hold TV rights there and would have to be repayed ala O's-Nats. Then add the Las Vegas market is small. Dade County alone has more people than the entire state of Nevada. Then add the A's couldn't sell out 10,000 seats at Cashman for MLB games in the 90's when they were pretty good. Las Vegas is not realistic. 765988[/snapback] Alright not Las Vegas.... how about Oregon?... or Indianapolis?.... I just dont know if its ever gonna get done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Author Share Posted May 7, 2005 Oregon has Seattle about an hour and a half away. Their state legislature won't even listen to stadium talk. Indy is going to build the Colts a new facility and that pretty much drains their tax base as you know. Both Portland and Indianapolis are still major TV Market downgrades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaq-Man Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Oregon has Seattle about an hour and a half away. 766006[/snapback] maybe if you drove at 120 miles an hour. portland (where they'd put it) is three hours from seattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Author Share Posted May 7, 2005 Oregon has Seattle about an hour and a half away. 766006[/snapback] maybe if you drive at 120 miles an hour. portland (where they'd put it) is three hours from seattle. 766015[/snapback] My mistake, three hours from Portland. That is still infringing on Seattle's market. Seattle's largest TV ratings come from Portland and that area is number 2 for the Mariners in TV revenue. Mariners would be in trouble because their market would likely be cut in half. The M's wouldn't allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramp Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Oregon has Seattle about an hour and a half away. 766006[/snapback] maybe if you drive at 120 miles an hour. portland (where they'd put it) is three hours from seattle. 766015[/snapback] My mistake, three hours from Portland. That is still infringing on Seattle's market. Seattle's largest TV ratings come from Portland and that area is number 2 for the Mariners in TV revenue. Mariners would be in trouble because their market would likely be cut in half. The M's wouldn't allow it. 766023[/snapback] kind of how Angelos wouldnt allow a team to move to DC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapeFish Posted May 7, 2005 Author Share Posted May 7, 2005 Angelos could do nothing since DC was a baseball market before and MLB reserved the rights in that area. MLB would be forced to compensate the Mariners heavily in order to put a team in Seattle territory. Forming a regional sports network is not an option since the Mariners have seperate contracts for their 3 areas of dominant influence. Seattle has contracts for games with FSN and KSTW in the Metro Area and Washington State. They have a seperate contract with FSN to be the only TV home in Portland. They then have a contract with the Blue Jays owner Rogers for games to be shown in Western Canada on Rogers SportsNet. The Mariners have plenty of legal protection in that form and in their expansion contract. Portland would have to pay up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreshFish Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Good statement by Loria. He is not whinning or being emotional. Hopefuly, this gets done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildMarlinMan2003 Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 We are done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanleyDavidson Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 We need alot of fans to attend games forget about the upper deck go for the outfield reserves(where all the funs at),terrace box,or infield box.we need alot of fan support because if not we can say so long to our marlins.and im sure as hell not going for the tampa bay devil rays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.