I do remember the words from David and Jeffrey. Now, there are many to blame for the plight we are in now, BUT, I do have a difficult time with those that completely exonerate our ownership-they are not worthy of that. These takes from 2002 from article on Cnnsi's Mike Fish:

 

"Another interesting twist is, as part of Loria's deal to purchase the Marlins, Major League Baseball agreeing to pick up the tab for his hiring a "stadium revenue guru'' to help jack team revenue. Team president David Samson, Loria's stepson, says the not-yet-hired specialist will focus on making a go of it at Pro Player Stadium, but baseball people insist the only way the Marlins can survive long-term in South Florida is with a new stadium.

 

Samson won't discuss how big a tab baseball agreed to pick up, saying only, "When we negotiated the sale of the Expos and the purchase of the Marlins, it is hundreds of pages of documents -- and this was just part of the negotiated deal."

"Right now, we're not marketing performance," Samson explains. "What we're marketing is -- what is the right word? -- we are marketing permanence, not performance. Meaning permanence in this market. "

"Again, from my perspective it is more important to build our brand and stress the permanence and commitment to this market, and prove to people you are right and genuine about staying in Florida, which we are.''

"In Florida, the model works perfectly once we get past all this concern about whether the team is leaving, once people realize that the past four years are finished and now it is time to fall in love with the Marlins again.''What Samson won't utter is a word about stadium plans.

 

From Mike Fish: If you look to Florida's two struggling baseball franchises, you'd likely say it makes make more sense to go after the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, who are in worse financial shape. The catch is that the state itself is tied to the long-term lease for Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg, and Selig is shrewd enough not to pick a fight with Gov. Jeb Bush.

 

SO, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PERMANENCE AND LONG TERM. I would say that, not counting 2002, where they just took over the team, leaves 2003-05. Three years and a slowly building fan base, but building, to then tear it up again and get into "serious" discussions about moving. Loria and Samson do not deserve to be defended, let them do it themselves.

Their lease runs out in 2007 and they can't play at PPS after 2010. What do you expect them to do?

Their lease runs out in 2007 and they can't play at PPS after 2010. What do you expect them to do?

 

 

they probably would be able to play at PPS after 2010. they could possibly get a new lease... don't see it happening though.

I thought they've made it clear that they don't want another lease at DS.

They have one-year options until the end of 2010. They have taken those options up until the end of 2007.

 

The option for 2008 will be taken on December 31, 2006. For 2009, it will be New Years' Eve 2007.

It wouldn't be the first time they were wrong. I seem to remeber them thinking people would come out to see Carlos Delgado.

Their lease runs out in 2007 and they can't play at PPS after 2010. What do you expect them to do?

 

 

You know that is only half of the lease issue. They could stay. The other half is Wayne saying he would not kick them out and would give them a new lease. I am not taking issue with the financial problems or the lease. Wayne had his motives for bringing this up during the legislative session which all but eliminated the chance of getting the tax rebate. He stuck his nose in it again and the Marlins fans will suffer again because of Wayne. Loria and Samson will make out just fine-who knows, maybe they asked Wayne to sabotage the deal. They want out, Wayne wants them out-everyone makes out fine and the blame is on the fans and the politicians. Hmmmmm.

 

As far as "what do you expect them to do", that has to do with credibility. They had the lease when "permanence" was shouted. It was all in front of them. They can do what they want-we do not have to like it but don't defend them. They misled and deceived and misrepresented from the beginning. If you could take them at their word, we wouldn't be talking about relocation. They did see what they were getting into. Of course, maybe they got lost in the "hundreds of pages of contract" and did not realize they had a bad lease. Just slipped by them. Never would have talked about "permanence" had they not missed the lease issues. I think it was more that they had to get out of Montreal at any cost.

Their lease runs out in 2007 and they can't play at PPS after 2010. What do you expect them to do?

 

 

You know that is only half of the lease issue. They could stay. The other half is Wayne saying he would not kick them out and would give them a new lease. I am not taking issue with the financial problems or the lease. Wayne had his motives for bringing this up during the legislative session which all but eliminated the chance of getting the tax rebate. He stuck his nose in it again and the Marlins fans will suffer again because of Wayne. Loria and Samson will make out just fine-who knows, maybe they asked Wayne to sabotage the deal. They want out, Wayne wants them out-everyone makes out fine and the blame is on the fans and the politicians. Hmmmmm.

 

As far as "what do you expect them to do", that has to do with credibility. They had the lease when "permanence" was shouted. It was all in front of them. They can do what they want-we do not have to like it but don't defend them. They misled and deceived and misrepresented from the beginning. If you could take them at their word, we wouldn't be talking about relocation. They did see what they were getting into. Of course, maybe they got lost in the "hundreds of pages of contract" and did not realize they had a bad lease. Just slipped by them. Never would have talked about "permanence" had they not missed the lease issues. I think it was more that they had to get out of Montreal at any cost.

Wow :thumbdown

 

Sometiumes it's hard for me to believe there aren't forces working against the Marlins who have infested this board and are willing to spew whatever larceny they can get away with.

Their lease runs out in 2007 and they can't play at PPS after 2010. What do you expect them to do?

 

 

They misled and deceived and misrepresented from the beginning.

Care to elaborate here?

They misled and deceived and misrepresented from the beginning.

Care to elaborate here?

 

I thought the 1,000 word essay was elaboration enough. What part of the following seems truthful and requires elaboration?

"Right now, we're not marketing performance," Samson explains. "What we're marketing is -- what is the right word? -- we are marketing permanence, not performance. Meaning permanence in this market. "

"Again, from my perspective it is more important to build our brand and stress the permanence and commitment to this market, and prove to people you are right and genuine about staying in Florida, which we are.''

 

Oh, by the way, how am I anti-Marlin? I am angry about what is happening, whoever is to blame. I want to talk about what other team boards talk about exclusively-the team, the position players, the managers decisions etc, but as much as I will support our team by purchasing my three season tix, until we know if they are staying or going, the game on the field is not the only focus, and that is a shame.

I think that quote from Samson is in baseball terms just Manny being Manny, or Samson being Samson. I don't believe that the Marlins have negotiated in good faith at any time the building of a stadium here in SoFla, unless you consider holding your hand out and expecting someone to give you the entire pie good faith negotiating. Samson is either incompetent, insincere, or both.

I think that quote from Samson is in baseball terms just Manny being Manny, or Samson being Samson. I don't believe that the Marlins have negotiated in good faith at any time the building of a stadium here in SoFla, unless you consider holding your hand out and expecting someone to give you the entire pie good faith negotiating. Samson is either incompetent, insincere, or both.

 

 

Both.

 

For the life of me, I can't begin to fathom why people still defend this ownership group.

 

They were sued by their business partners for a reason, they were called unprofessional by any group they've negotiated with other than a nefarious mob lawyer and a crazy cowboy and they've mislead fans in Miami with disgusting rope-a-dope tactics. Really says something, doesn't it...

Hard to negotiate in good faith when the city of Miami tries to force you into paying for two-thirds of both your stadium and the stadium of a private university's football stadium or atempting to force you out by rquiring you to cover cost overruns but not control of the project

Hard to negotiate in good faith when the city of Miami tries to force you into paying for two-thirds of both your stadium and the stadium of a private university's football stadium or atempting to force you out by rquiring you to cover cost overruns but not control of the project

 

I didn't say anything about the other sides negotiating tactics. The City of Miami is just one of the possible deals, and certainly the one that got the furthest. And you're following the Marlins propaganda when you spew that bs about paying 2/3 the cost. Paying rent is not paying. I simply said that I don't believe that The Marlins have ever negotiated in good faith, with anyone down here, at anytime.

Paying rent is according to nearly every stadium deal going back decades.

 

I choose to object to your statement and ask why should they.

Paying rent is according to nearly every stadium deal going back decades.

 

I choose to object to your statement and ask why should they.

 

Why should they what....1. negotiate in good faith?....or 2. not expect to get the whole pie for nothing? That was the extent of my statement. Which one do you object to?