Because all of life's problems can be solved with more money. In all honesty, hasn't it been shown on a couple different occasions that the Quakes spend about middle of the pack for the team? Nevermind that they are funding the stadium in the first place or bought in to the league to replace a team that no longer existed. I honestly feel like these arguments only reflect that the amount of money it actually costs to own and operate a professional team is completely incomprehensible to people. These are no longer the days of extremely wealthy people dumping money on something because they love having a toy to waste their fortunes on. Professional sports are business and investors expect a return on their investment. People praise cost cutting measures in other types of businesses and running teams as efficiently as possible, but when it comes to sports, throw all that out of the window. Just spend more money.
I agree with you completely about the impact on new fans that may be purchasing season tickets for the first time. I thought the 2014 date was a bit too optimistic. What really sucks for the Quakes is that no matter what, this stadium is going to be dwarfed by Levi's Stadium opening up for the 49ers. When people see how awesome the new 49ers stadium is and then compare it to Buckshaw (new fans) and later the new Quakes stadium, there will be only disappointment.
If having a shiny new stadium is more important than having a team is to new fans, then those people weren't going to routinely spend their money on professional sports in the first place. They would come out every now and again when they got word that the team was doing well and then they'd go off to do other things when the team wasn't doing so well. That's just how it is. Frankly, I don't understand this desire for new new new. You know what happens to new buildings? They get old, and fairly quickly, at that. What's far more important to the strength of the team is having a building that they control and can generate revenue and profit from. The 9ers are only going to get profit because they didn't pay to build the stadium. If they had built that stadium under their own abilities, they'd have folded already.
Trust me, if you regularly visit a "new" stadium over visiting an old one you'll understand. Having gone to A's games my entire life at the old dumpy Coliseum and then now going almost as regularly to Padres games at their shiny "new" stadium even though it's nearly a decade old, the comparison is jarring. Yes it has no impact on the on field experience, but it does add a layer of enhancement to the overall game day experience that makes it just that much more worthwhile to go out and spend the money on a game. Quakes fans will understand in 2015. Games at Spartan or Buck Shaw will seem positively stone age by comparison. And even as the new stadium ages, at least it'll have a better base level to start with rather than being a glorified grandstand like both of the old stadiums. Particularly if the Quakes take good care of it like the Giants or Padres do their now 13 and 10 year old "new" parks.
Well, no need to explain as I have also been to many A's games. Personally, I love going to the Coliseum to watch games because that's where the A's play and that's the team I like to watch the most. There definitely comes a time when structural integrity and cost of maintenance come into play, but buildings are still going to age. So long as they are maintained to a decent degree (and don't have the Raiders as a tenant) I really don't know how much better an experience you could possibly have at a newer stadium versus old. People still flock to Fenway and Wrigley field after all. If people are afraid that the Quakes' stadium will appear disappointing next to Levi's Stadium, to me, that says more about that person's own insecurities than it does about the Quakes organization. It's terms like "embarrassing" that get used in reference to how people feel their team is represented where it starts to get into the absurd. It's entertainment. If you don't like what's offered, there are other things to choose from. Maybe it's because sports tap into some emotional part of people or something, but most arguments about the stadium or in general against the ownership seem to be more based on maintaining ego than on running a team responsibly.
Okay, maybe not a new stadium but a good stadium is very important . Look what AT&T Park has done for the Giants. The stadium is 13 years old but still looks great and the amenities are awesome. All the restaurants that opened up around the stadium is what is keeping their attendance high. You think all those people would have still gone to games after the Bonds era when the team was horrible if they still played at Candlestick?
Difference with a Fenway or a Wrigley is that they're not the same stadiums they were 50 years ago. A lot of upgrades and complete rebuilds were done to the places. The Coliseum hasn't had the benefit of either really. Just downgrades and deferred maintenance.
Well the sad thing is is that there is nothing next to the new Quakes stadium except for an in n out and a Lowes.. Is there any pl;ans for any bars or stuff?
I think Wolff got the Quakes for something like 13 million. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/11/20/major-league-soccers-most-valuable-teams/
The Coleman Highline project is supposed to have a restaurant or two, but, unfortunately the building sites at the Lowe's complex have become a Staples, fitness center, gas station.....
Interesting investment. You've gained something like $60m in value, but you lose almost $5 million a year (according to the article, only Chivas USA and NYRB lose more). So you invest another $60m in the product to hopefully get to a yearly break even point or better in operating income.
The loss for 2012 is said to be $4.5, it doesn't mean they have lost that every year. A few years ago I heard they were just losing about $1 million per year. With revenues of $15 million and a loss of nearly $5 million for 2012 I would like to see where all the money went, since we know player salaries accounted for less than a third.
those figures are estimates... they didn't get access to SJ's books to see the real figures. who knows the exact numbers.
Well I'd be surprised if their revenue is really $15 million, unless league profit-sharing kind of stuff makes up a good part of it. But the point is that they are probably losing money every year, and to get their product to a level where they might go into the black, it's going to take a substantial investment, which is what the $60 million (or whatever) stadium represents.
i wonder if the value of the club goes up by $60 million because of the new $60 million stadium? It should, right?
It's common practice for sports teams to "give" a stadium they have built, privately funded or not, to the relevant government in order to avoid paying the property taxes on such a structure. The team retains operating control of the stadium. If I remember correctly, the Quakes agreement with the city requires the team to cover the maintenance of the stadium for 50 years.
If I recall correctly, there wasn't much around AT&T Park when it opened, either, sort of like a forgotten part of the city. The biggest difference is AT&T is in San Francisco, and thus always had potential to boom due to the higher amounts of walking traffic and relative closeness to the rest of downtown. The San Jose area is much more a driving community, so I'm not sure how much development should be expected around the stadium itself. That's the thing, they didn't all go to games after Bonds and before their World Series win. While attendance wasn't really bad when you compare to some other places, it was trending down and likely would have continued to go down. A winning team brought people back out. Would attendance have been worse had they continued to be at Candlestick? Probably. Attendance in general was worse, and I think that speaks to the team not being very good for many years and because San Franciscans might not travel as readily as people in other cities. Getting to Candlestick is not the easiest trip, even with a car.
Nice little end around the local measures against govt subsidy of sports stadiums w/o going up for a public vote. So I'd imagine that regardless, the stadium increases the value of the franchise, as presumably it would be available to a new ownership, though I guess the Wolff group could continue to manage / maintain it.
Not really an end run, the city law specifically cites general fund or tax money going into building of the venue over 5,000 seats. Which of course our stadium doesn't do. And considering the city is bearing none of the cost of the stadium, the city is only being denied property taxes that likely wouldn't reach the value of the stadium over its lifetime, and as a bonus they WILL get the property tax from the surrounding development that wouldn't have happened without the stadium. Plus it's standard practice for almost all stadiums. Either the city owns the land or the city owns the venue or both. Even vaunted "private" AT&T Park sits on land owned by the city.
Yeah, practically speaking it's hard to argue that in the grand scheme of things, this is not a great deal for the city. But I suppose a hardcore anti-stadium-ite like the "Field of Schemes" folks could argue that the city could have sold that land to a private developer like Cisco (which did not "sell it back"), and they get property tax revenue along with sales tax revenues. Speaking of "Field of Schemes", here is their latest sarcastic blurb about the Quakes stadium: The opening of the San Jose Earthquakes‘ new stadium has been pushed back from 2014 to 2015 because builders “encountered concrete vaults deeper than expected” at the site, according to a “source involved with the project.” (An official announcement is expected on Monday.) I know you’re all disappointed. Though maybe some of you are actually a little extra disappointed if you already bought season tickets for the new stadium for next year, which apparently a bunch of Earthquakes fans already had. The San Jose Mercury News helpfully reports that “team officials will have to address what to do with the season tickets already sold for the new facility.”
That's mainly because FOS is about as biased against any sporting venue as you can get. Neil sees no real value in them and would rather cities spend no money. Which frankly is BS IMO. If cities can spend money on crap like Symphony Halls, Orchestras, Libraries (that few people need anymore), then they can spend some $$$ on sporting venues too. As for the idea that the city would have sold the land to someone else, I'd ask... who? It sat unused for a decade after the city ceased having any interest in it. And really we're only talking about losing out on property tax on the acreage the stadium sits on, nothing else. And at the same time the city gets use of the venue too which is a civic benefit in and of itself.
Well, you're preaching to the choir. Obviously, FoS is heavily biased against sporting venues, particularly where there is any use of public funds. If the local economy booms (and it seems to be on an uptick right now) that land could possibly be sought after by some company like Cisco, but it's a big couple of "ifs". That said, it's not necessarily a novel concept that if you hold onto real estate for extended periods, you may win big, especially in the bay area. Think "farmer John" and his orchard property that he held onto for years and years and then sold to Apple.