I think the prospect of having a downtown location was so enticing to MLB that they compromised what was needed and proposed the only stadium whose footprint can fit on the land: an open air or domed facility.

 

I'm wondering whether gobucks can confirm anything...?

 

MLB dumping the roof would make no sense. Sounds to me like an issue of control over the project or team.

I'm basing all my reasoning on what gobucks has said thus far. He has said there was key information in the article posted a few days ago. We all came to the consensus that the compromise was relating to the roof. Gobucks also said that Loria was not asked to give up any control. That leaves us with three scenarios: 1) the facility was seen as lacking by Loria and Co. 2) Loria has no intention of building a stadium and is waiting the alotted time for forgiveness on his loan. 3) Loria is genuinely evil and does not want baseball to succeed in South Florida.

"It's hard to imagine that MLB would have negotiated something behind the team's back and if that is what happened, that speaks to a bigger problem for the league."

 

This is what happened.

 

As far as the roof issue, there was a significant compromise put forward.

 

Remember, we all want a hot supermodel girlfriend but not all of us can get one.

 

And i disagree completely with people who think the roof is the single biggest issue facing this franchise. Revenue is the single biggest issue facing this franchise. This plan solved that issue. Hialeah's plan does not yet. Every day that goes by the stadium becomes more expensive.

 

I would love a retractible roof almost as much as I would love a supermodel girlfriend.

Increasing revenue is important, but that doesn't have to be accomplished at the Miami site. The Hialeah site offers the same thing, a new lease free from Huizenga's stranglehold. Why build in Miami, when it ignores the next biggest issue for a successful stadium: the South Florida weather?

I have no issue with a Hialeah stadium with a retractable roof that has all the revenue sources the team needs. The problem is i think everyone is looking at that deal too positively (glass is half full), like i did on the Miami deal. They are not so close.

 

look at todays numbers for Hialeah. Maybe Capefish can break them down for us with sources and uses?

"It's hard to imagine that MLB would have negotiated something behind the team's back and if that is what happened, that speaks to a bigger problem for the league."

 

This is what happened.

 

As far as the roof issue, there was a significant compromise put forward.

 

Remember, we all want a hot supermodel girlfriend but not all of us can get one.

 

And i disagree completely with people who think the roof is the single biggest issue facing this franchise. Revenue is the single biggest issue facing this franchise. This plan solved that issue. Hialeah's plan does not yet. Every day that goes by the stadium becomes more expensive.

 

I would love a retractible roof almost as much as I would love a supermodel girlfriend.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I have no reason to doubt you, but if this is the case then this is extemely short-sighted by MLB. Getting out of Dolphin Stadium is one thing, but building something that will help the long-term viability of the franchise is completely different. Revenue is very important, but I doubt MLB wants a team here that continues to draw 10,000 fans a night. Solving just one problem with the stadium is pointless. If you build a stadium without a roof, in 10 years, you are back to where you started from.

Is the title of this thread overly pessimistic or is it like no chance in hell of coming back dead?

"If you build a stadium without a roof, in 10 years, you are back to where you started from."

 

This not accurate. I have said many times there was a significant compromise regarding the roof.

 

On a side note, imo, the issue is not the rain but rather the perception of and possibility of rain.

"If you build a stadium without a roof, in 10 years, you are back to where you started from."

 

This not accurate. I have said many times there was a significant compromise regarding the roof.

 

On a side note, imo, the issue is not the rain but rather the perception of and possibility of rain.

 

 

When you say significant compromise, that can only mean 2 things, either a permanent dome or a roof-ready building. Either way, those are poor choices. Building a permanent dome for a baseball team is an outdated concept. A roof-ready facility isn't much better. You are still in a position down the road of finding funds to pay for it. Unless there is some other innovation I have never heard of, these seem to be the only types of possible compromise.

 

As for the rain, you are absolutely right. It is not the rain that keeps people from going to games, it is the threat of rain. But that is besides the point, as both issues are resolved by building a retractable roof stadium.

Would Loria not accepting a deal decided by MLB be enough to force MLB to require him to accept a partner (most likely codina)

Gobuck, what was that compromise?

 

permanent dome or a roof-ready building?

Is the title of this thread overly pessimistic or is it like no chance in hell of coming back dead?

 

 

Judging by the history of these stadium talks, nothing is ever dead...or resolved.

 

I guess the best thing we can take from this is that MLB really wants something to get done here, and therefore the threat of actually losing the team is remote. You also have to keep in mind that stadium talks, in any market, are never easy. Look at Minnesota, where it took 13 or so years. Same thing with the Brewers. MLB moved the Expos to a city it hand-picked and still had a bumpy road negotiating a stadium deal.

anyone else wonder if perhaps loria is stalling so he doesnt have to pay back the 30 million dollar loan?

Just got back. (EDIT: I mean I've been out, someone just asked me if I was at a meeting regarding this. My apologies if it sounded that way. But was told what I wrote below)

 

It boiled down to no roof and no parking (revenue).

 

Sounds like Dolphin Stadium. Worse than the Orange Bowl proposal. It was the wrong site (at least as offered) in the first place. At least for now the "Florida Marlins" name is safe.

 

In negotiations, walking away is sometimes the best thing to do if you eventually want to make a deal. Let's see what the GMCVB does to sweeten the pot or find a parking solution that doesn't rob the franchise of that necessary revenue stream.

Your sources told you there was "no roof" Marlins2003?

 

I am curious.

 

The parking revenue part is kind of funny to me. The parking revenue would be there all loria has to do is by the two lots right near by and then charge for parking. The parking dynamics are much different in a downtown area.

 

Sounds like Dolphin Stadium. Worse than the Orange Bowl proposal.

 

I think those are exaggerations. :blink:

Cant the city build a parking garage for all since it is downtown and upon days of events at the stadium split the revenue?

Just got back. (EDIT: I mean I've been out, someone just asked me if I was at a meeting regarding this. My apologies if it sounded that way. But was told what I wrote below)

 

It boiled down to no roof and no parking (revenue).

 

Sounds like Dolphin Stadium. Worse than the Orange Bowl proposal. It was the wrong site (at least as offered) in the first place. At least for now the "Florida Marlins" name is safe.

 

In negotiations, walking away is sometimes the best thing to do if you eventually want to make a deal. Let's see what the GMCVB does to sweeten the pot or find a parking solution that doesn't rob the franchise of that necessary revenue stream.

 

 

Thanks for the update. Pretty much what I figured. The team has said all along that the roof was non-negotiable. If they were willing to accept a stadium without a roof, the thing would be half built by now. I had not thought of the parking issue with the Miami site, but I can see how that would be a huge issue for this franchise, especially considering with the current lease that they've had to live with. So, 2003, what do you see as the next step here?

Your sources told you there was "no roof" Marlins2003?

 

I am curious.

 

The parking revenue part is kind of funny to me. The parking revenue would be there all loria has to do is by the two lots right near by and then charge for parking. The parking dynamics are much different in a downtown area.

 

That was an assumption on my part. I assumed when told the stadium configuration hadn't been acceptable to the Marlins that they were talking about the roof. I was, and am in hurry, just really came home for a minute to see what others had.

OK so my first post, I've been a lurker ever since the Orange Bowl deal collapsed....

 

Loria is making such a huge mistake here it sickens me. Like Gobucks said, the team has a revenue issue, not a rain issue. Sure, there are some people who stay home because of the threat of rain. But any team that depends entirely on walk-up sales has no chance of surviving anyways. The threat of rain is irrelevant if your stadium is filled with mostly pre-sales. This, my friends, is what the Miami Arena site brings. I'd bet the farm that every single luxury box in an arena-site stadium would be sold out for the entire season. Think of all the law firms, banks, and big corporations that are blocks away. And they will not only buy up luxury boxes, but thousands of season tickets. A downtown stadium will also bring in the Anna Kournikovas, Jamie Foxx, etc. that add glitz and glamour to the team, which encourages more sales. That is a guaranteed revenue stream wholly independent of weather. It's location, location, location, and Loria has blown it.

 

Gobucks thanks so much for keeping us updated. I am ill right now with this great opportunity flushed down the toilet.

Could they house the roof over the train tracks like at Safeco? Judging from the pictures, that looks like a possibility.

OK so my first post, I've been a lurker ever since the Orange Bowl deal collapsed....

 

Loria is making such a huge mistake here it sickens me. Like Gobucks said, the team has a revenue issue, not a rain issue. Sure, there are some people who stay home because of the threat of rain. But any team that depends entirely on walk-up sales has no chance of surviving anyways. The threat of rain is irrelevant if your stadium is filled with mostly pre-sales. This, my friends, is what the Miami Arena site brings. I'd bet the farm that every single luxury box in an arena-site stadium would be sold out for the entire season. Think of all the law firms, banks, and big corporations that are blocks away. And they will not only buy up luxury boxes, but thousands of season tickets. A downtown stadium will also bring in the Anna Kournikovas, Jamie Foxx, etc. that add glitz and glamour to the team, which encourages more sales. That is a guaranteed revenue stream wholly independent of weather. It's location, location, location, and Loria has blown it.

 

Gobucks thanks so much for keeping us updated. I am ill right now with this great opportunity flushed down the toilet.

 

 

Obviously we all want this resolved and resolved now, but just accepting a bad deal because it is slightly better than what they currently have now, is not a good thing. I'm not saying that is what happened here because I have no clue what really happened. But like I said before, building anything less than a retractable roof building is very short-sighted. Initially, yes, you would sell a lot of season tickets and luxary suites, every new building does. That is great, for the first few years when it is a novelty. The problem is the 3rd year and beyond and people don't renew their tickets. What happens when people don't show up to a new open-air, roof-ready facility because of the same weather issues we have now? Then you have a new building drawing 10,000-15,000 a night and you are the Pirates. Let's say you build a permanent dome and 3 years down the line people don't show up because playing baseball in a dome in South Florida is a dumb idea(ok, that is just my personal opinion)? If you are going to spend $500 million on a stadium, build it right or don't build it.

"If you build a stadium without a roof, in 10 years, you are back to where you started from."

 

This not accurate. I have said many times there was a significant compromise regarding the roof.

 

I almost get the impression that you were not informed of what exactly this compromise was.

Obviously we all want this resolved and resolved now, but just accepting a bad deal because it is slightly better than what they currently have now, is not a good thing. I'm not saying that is what happened here because I have no clue what really happened. But like I said before, building anything less than a retractable roof building is very short-sighted. Initially, yes, you would sell a lot of season tickets and luxary suites, every new building does. That is great, for the first few years when it is a novelty. The problem is the 3rd year and beyond and people don't renew their tickets. What happens when people don't show up to a new open-air, roof-ready facility because of the same weather issues we have now? Then you have a new building drawing 10,000-15,000 a night and you are the Pirates. Let's say you build a permanent dome and 3 years down the line people don't show up because playing baseball in a dome in South Florida is a dumb idea(ok, that is just my personal opinion)? If you are going to spend $500 million on a stadium, build it right or don't build it.

 

 

You make good points, but I think you overrate the importance of retractable-roof over location. Sure, the best of all worlds is retractable roof downtown. But that, frankly, seems unattainable given the hatred of South Florida that the state legislature possesses. We've tried and failed for 7 years. So the question is one or the other, location or retractable roof. IMHO, location is a million times more important. Put a roof over Dolphin Stdm, it still wouldn't matter, because it is in the 2nd most boring location in the United States of America. 2nd only to the Hialeah landfill site, which guarantees this team is never financially successful. The Hialeah site is just awful. Dolphin Stdm's bad location in the middle of nothing has doomed the franchise to bad crowds for years (again, in my opinion--some say the rain has doomed them, I respectfully disagree). Hialeah is an even worse location (further away from EVERYONE, and in the middle of a landfill). Baseball stadiums in the middle of nowhere just don't do well. Roof or not, this is a fact.

 

Pittsburgh is a different situation; it is much smaller than South Florida, it can't compare to the wealth of South Florida, and it doesn't have the glitz and glamour, and it isn't growing at all (compared with Miami's exponential growth, including the downtown housing boom that Pittsburgh could only dream of).

 

Can't they agree on a roof-ready stadium and put in a clause which saves capital improvement funds, and if the average attendance is below 20K after say 6-10 years, they use the funds for a roof? And if average attendance is over 20K, Miami-Dade/Miami get to keep most of it?

I almost get the impression that you were not informed of what exactly this compromise was.

 

I am aware of what the compromise was.

Obviously we all want this resolved and resolved now, but just accepting a bad deal because it is slightly better than what they currently have now, is not a good thing. I'm not saying that is what happened here because I have no clue what really happened. But like I said before, building anything less than a retractable roof building is very short-sighted. Initially, yes, you would sell a lot of season tickets and luxary suites, every new building does. That is great, for the first few years when it is a novelty. The problem is the 3rd year and beyond and people don't renew their tickets. What happens when people don't show up to a new open-air, roof-ready facility because of the same weather issues we have now? Then you have a new building drawing 10,000-15,000 a night and you are the Pirates. Let's say you build a permanent dome and 3 years down the line people don't show up because playing baseball in a dome in South Florida is a dumb idea(ok, that is just my personal opinion)? If you are going to spend $500 million on a stadium, build it right or don't build it.

 

 

You make good points, but I think you overrate the importance of retractable-roof over location. Sure, the best of all worlds is retractable roof downtown. But that, frankly, seems unattainable given the hatred of South Florida that the state legislature possesses. We've tried and failed for 7 years. So the question is one or the other, location or retractable roof. IMHO, location is a million times more important. Put a roof over Dolphin Stdm, it still wouldn't matter, because it is in the 2nd most boring location in the United States of America. 2nd only to the Hialeah landfill site, which guarantees this team is never financially successful. The Hialeah site is just awful. Dolphin Stdm's bad location in the middle of nothing has doomed the franchise to bad crowds for years (again, in my opinion--some say the rain has doomed them, I respectfully disagree). Hialeah is an even worse location (further away from EVERYONE, and in the middle of a landfill). Baseball stadiums in the middle of nowhere just don't do well. Roof or not, this is a fact.

 

Pittsburgh is a different situation; it is much smaller than South Florida, it can't compare to the wealth of South Florida, and it doesn't have the glitz and glamour, and it isn't growing at all (compared with Miami's exponential growth, including the downtown housing boom that Pittsburgh could only dream of).

 

Can't they agree on a roof-ready stadium and put in a clause which saves capital improvement funds, and if the average attendance is below 20K after say 6-10 years, they use the funds for a roof? And if average attendance is over 20K, Miami-Dade/Miami get to keep most of it?

 

I completely disagree with you about location. The most important part of the location for the stadium is access for all 3 counties. In fact, Dolphin Stadium is probably the best possible location. It is not where DS is located that kills the Marlins, it is the lease that they have to play there.

I completely disagree with you about location. The most important part of the location for the stadium is access for all 3 counties. In fact, Dolphin Stadium is probably the best possible location. It is not where DS is located that kills the Marlins, it is the lease that they have to play there.

 

 

The only good spot for all 3 counties that can also provide bars/restaurants/office workers is downtown Ft. Lauderdale. Neither the city nor Broward has shown much interest as far as I know.

 

The DS lease does not keep the attendance under 15,000. Neither does the quality of the team, as shown last year. It's the boring location that allows for zero foot traffic attendees, in my opinion.