let the offseason begin. It doesn't matter if I have to pay $6500 more over the next 40 years of my life, small things like having to drive an extra 30min, $5 extra bucks for a ticket or paying for parking don't bother me. I am actually a fan of the Wizards not just a fan of sports, and they happen to be around. I don't want to be the richest man in the graveyard. If that is the price for game day, then so be it. If tickets double and go for $50-$75, then I might not be able to afford season tickets, but then again I will not have a problem watching the game either because it will be on tv, and most likely broadcast tv.
They could even be looking at how the roofs over the "handsitters" would keep the sound in. To some people everything is... Well said... I am not fans of teams that I dislike the ownership. I will never root for certain teams because of their ownership.
I must say that I disagree here. I have a long list of teams that I like, and a slightly shorter list of teams that I love. Teams that I like, you bet, I won't cheer for them if I don't like who's leading them. I didn't cheer for Iowa State in 2002 when I didn't like their coach, stayed away from the Royals for years, dropped the Blues when they dropped Quenneville and then Pronger, etc. However, teams that I love are much more important than any one individual in it. I hate Jamie Pollard and Gene Chizik for turning ISU football back into the joke it was before McCarney, but I still go to all the games(bird-hat, flag, scarf and all). I think Clark Hunt is a spoiled child who has no experience in running anything, but I still go to every home game of the Chiefs. The Barnstormers are owned by a teacher hating lunatic, but I couldn't have been more excited for their return to DSM. The list goes on. Anyways, my point is that when you truely love a club it's a lot like the saying that questioning your leadership is the most American thing you can do. You don't threaten to leave your club, you wait them out, because you have been a fan longer than they've been there, and you'll be a fan long after they're gone. All that being said, I disagree with his assessment of these owners, but I disagree with your attack of his opinion more. Besides, what's wrong with being a fan of sports? Wouldn't it be a good thing...no, great thing...if we got fans of sports to finally accept soccer and the Wizards into their realm of interests?
It's not like having open corners will make the place a church. A roof would be much more helpful with sound than seats in corners...and if we are indeed working with acoustics experts, then they must be telling us that. It's why Seattle put that massive roof on top of each side of Qwest rather than fill the ends with seats.
You asked how sound was supposed to stay "enclosed" with open corners. I gave you an example of a stadium with at least 3 partially open corners that was known for how loud it gets in there. I'm not saying KC is Stoke, you asked how I gave you a way how.
Let me clarify a little bit. There is only 2 teams that I dislike because of their ownership and both of those I consider to have abandoned me, the fan. If I thought the owners were trying to screw people as much as it seems some people do, I would have a hard time rooting for the team until they were gone. I may like or dislike a coach or player but that will not stop me from rooting for a team. I have lots of team that I like in some form of hierarchy but there are only 3 pro teams that I REALLY root for. The Wizards, a baseball team and a hockey team (Blues). My attack? Being a fan of sports is fine. I watch (or at least did when I had more time) lots of sports. Soccer, hockey, racing, baseball, football, fencing, volleyball. With the exception of tennis and golf, I would watch it. I was just agreeing with some others that I am a FAN of the Wizards, not JUST a casual fan of sports in general. Meaning that I will be a fan of the Wizards if they raise the price by a few dollars over my lifetime.
calm down, it wasn't meant as anything more than 'your disagreement.' I was just stating that it's unfair to tell someone to not root for the Wizards because he disagrees with the owners. I think Jamie Pollard is trying to exploit the Cyclone fan-base, with the way that he raises prices while moving up the due-dates on payment. Meanwhile, he completely changes the logo, uniforms and look of everything at Iowa State all while trying to make it seem like the fans chose this. I can't imagine disliking any owner more than I dislike our AD, yet as I stated, I will be at every game as well as traveling to K-State this year. Anyways, I've gotten off track. All I'm trying to say is that I disagree with your idea that he is less of a fan than anyone else for disagreeing with the owners, and that some people need to calm down when responding to his post.
That is cool, but I guess I was just curious. Several people responded to him. I just agreed with a couple of them so I did not want it to turn into a ME attacking someone. I try very hard not to do that (sometimes may not succeed). I am not telling anyone to not root for them. I am just surprised that with what appears to be so much dislike for the ownership, that someone could still root for the team. You use Iowa State as a good example but I would make a distinction between college and pro. College support can, and often is an even deeper relationship than pro teams. College teams do not often get sold and move to other towns. College are where some people live for 4 (sometimes more) years of their life. Colleges are less about names on the back than on the front usually, at least for players. Coaches can be bigger than the school. If the Chiefs decided to break the agreement with the city and move to Toronto, would you still root for them, or would you find another football team to cheer for? I know, we should take it to PM's and get back on topic...
I'm sorry that it came off as me only going after you, I was more going against the collection of people echoing your argument, yours happened to be the post I quoted. Anyways, you're right, we should get back on topic, but first I'd say that I agree with the college sentement, but the reason I include it is that I grew up in Ames and was a Cyclone fan long before I stepped on campus...and no, if they moved to Toronto I would not support the Chiefs. I would live a bitter life and pray that we would get them back like the Cleveland got the Browns back...just like the Iowa Barnstormers. Anyways, I'm still for the roof even if it means giving up 5 bucks. Although, I'm starting to think that Robb started this just to get us to start talking about the stadium for the offseason again...the beer one was just for laughs I bet.
Just a quick note. You are correct of course, he is entitled to his opinion. I'm just curious about the apparent contradiction of his dislike of this ownership and consistent accusations directed at them, and his continued support of the club. I for one, if an owner were as unprincipled as he seems to believe ours are, would make damned sure not a dime of my hard earned money ended up in their pockets either directly or indirectly. And from the late 90's when David Glass took over until very recently that was exactly my policy toward the Royals, albeit for somewhat different issues. The last couple of years I have softened my position on them a bit (I would characterize it as "cautious support") but I would never give my money to an owner who has no intention of giving me the things I want from my club in return.
That is cool, I appreciate that. I just do not want it to come across as a me vs him thing. I do disagree with him, but I do not want to come across as attacking anyone. One of the teams that I will root against until the owner is good and gone is because they moved. Ironically, both teams are in the NFL that I dislike so I have no team that I really root for there. And of course to keep it on topic. I am for the roof as well, at least for acoustic reasons. Even if it means the ticket costs more.
Does this mean ESPN will be purchasing the naming rights to the beer hall... or whatever the 'zone' is meant to be?
A roofed north stand will NOT block the sun... but evening matches should not pose a serious problem.
Some Other Questions Been out of town for a few days; playing catch up ball and going long: Regardless of owner behavior I will always back the guys on gameday. How is this even a question with me? Not for nothing, but I believe I was the first guy in the section to make his own flag by hand (at that time you couldn't buy one). You know me so well. First things first, I didn't say sinister. I've posted before that owners can and will most always charge exactly what they can and no less. It is what owners do. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, owners gotta maximize new revenue streams. Have OnGoal accepted risk? Sure, I suppose. I have a rule with investing. It's a good rule. If I buy an asset where the public pays/eats between 12 and 40% of the actual real cost of the investment with zero incidents of ownership, I generally do that every single chance I can as it does tend to temper the overall risk. Good for OnGoal. I'm OK with due dilligence if that was the only thing going on. I'm suggesting it isn't that antiseptic and shiny. I don't think of the owners as stupid or sinister. Not even remotely so. You want to accept everything as altruisitc, that's your issue. I'll continue to put pieces together and offer it up for flaming. It smells like a reach for cash with a roof already planned. Your disagreement is respected and noted. At the very least, nobody else would post this view. So what is worse? Not having an opposing viewpoint for others to better articulate their own views OR doing some thinking inclusive of other views and taking it all in? Other than predisposed slant, that's a valid point. In absence of other owners' actions OR a history of how Cerner has grown, and other things such as ownership being in favor of a roof since before the new stadium was even a vote, that view would and probably should be automatic. Clearly that doesn't look like the case here. I do read them for what they are. That's why I posted. Conspiracy is a crime. Conspiracy is your word not mine. Also, why would I want that? How do I gain with this view exactly? I agree with the last bit. For most people $6500 toady in a lump sum or it's equivalent is signifigant...or should be. I have no doubt all owners, including those that post on blogs, are keenly aware that many people care less about $5 per game...which is exactly why it's often presented to you with the smaller number up front when you are the one paying. For car salesmen it's, "How much a month can you afford?". For jewlers it's, "How much are you looking to spend on the woman you love? You do pay for quality and she's worth it. We have payment plans available." This and the 2-months salary "guideline", er, marketing campain. For home mortgages its, "...it's affordable today, the fees are normal, it's well within your budget, and in today's climate that's a great interest rate." (or at least it was). For investment guys it's, "Look at this huge number 20 years from now, that's how you can do everything you want. Sign here and press hard." You are being sold. It might be subtle. It might be communicative. It might be friendly. It might be someone you like and respect. It might be via an intenet channel. Robb might be a outstanding gentleman, but make no mistake, he is in your wallet and he isn't your wallet's best friend. I gave a highly lowballed approximation of the actual bigger number over time. People can make their own decisions on how much they prefer to give over to OnGoal, Inc. Funny how I didn't get even one response either way to the stadium being paid for already so tickets could more reasonably be $12 with a roof all around. I'm not an accoustic expert. Just thought that air has more difficultly reflecting sound around than other more solid substances. Let's test your true faith and put some money on it. I'll take "With roof" at even money. I'll even lay 6:5 if you force me... That's 20% extra in your favor Merlin, you should jump at it... OK, well that post was predicable. Hope someone bought you a beer... As for assuming the roof. That's garbage. Every time anyone in the Wizards' FO is asked they have consistently spoken as if the FO is of one mind and that a roof is required and wanted. Only now is it framed as suddenly a pure cost issue to be born by fans. Which is it Merlin: Is Robb - a highly successful, educated and intelligent cog in a Fortune 500 company - simply not aware of the rest of his FO's viewpoint or is it more likely OnGoal is trying to sell something at an increase? I await your post on pins and needles. In case you don't respond: As such, I'm saying bluntly, the roof has always been part of the preferred plan as it leaned and Robb's post is a nicely worded sales pitch asking your blessing on another big chunk of cash over every Cauldron fan's lilfetime. What better way to do that than to tie that cost to a roof. Win/win, right? So, Merlin, I'm now very curious. What are your thoughts on all of the subsidy money paying for much beyond the actual stadium and then the owners asking for more money for a roof? This roof being something verbally wanted by ownership and fans since almost before there has been tangeble discussion. Does it really matter if it's framed a hypothetical trial ballon or a smooth sales pitch? I'm also curious, Merlin, was there a roof in any stadium drawings presented to the committees and other governmental groups, etc.? Those groups were responsible for opening the door to the cash grab/gift/subsidy/TIFF/vote/whatever? Was a stadium roof included in any cash line itemization or other workups that were involved in the overall project presented? You let us know. It's amazing how owners - you know, the people actually taking money out of your wallet - can live in hypothetical land and be praised for it. "It's midnight and I'm still thinking about soccer because I'm just like you... Um, hypothetically guys, we might not build the roof we've been talking about forever. It's kind of pricy, we're looking into it. So, just for our knowledge, can we charge you another $5 every night forever if we build the roof? How would you feel about that? Again, your choices are open air and $15 or a roof and $20. Thanks." Wow, what courtesy that they would ask your permission to charge more... No offense, but it doesn't seem like I'm exactly stretching. It seems pretty plain. If I even edge into something less than blatant inarguable fact I'm automatically overstpepping, un-American, dead wrong, an insane conspiracy wonk, hate everyone, don't hold doors for people, and probably kick puppies too. C'mon. At the risk of connecting a small issue to a larger one and going longer: The public's overall ability to just assume the best but prefer to see it that way goes part and parcel with the current overall tone of governmental bailout, Bush's entire cash and carry Presidency, billionaire welfare being OK and generally not of a concern in the least, and many other things. What do I care?, it's just $5, it's just a .25% sales tax on everything and I'm afraid of my team moving to Arkansas, I waste that much anyway, It's not really my $700B dollars, Iraq is over there, what do I know, I don't understand this mortgage but he's friendly and his suit is really nice... OnGoal might well have only been communicating purely for communication's sake. Certainly OnGoal does well there and we all appreciate that. Isn't it just as possible, and maybe even probable, that would rarely be the case. Further, never would it be purely the case when actual dollar figures are involved in the communication? Big picture, I thought last year the new digs sideline tix would be $20 minimum, but I also hoped the Cauldron wouldn't be stuck in an end zone. Also good is that KCW has now shown willingness to drop prices in search of a sellout and the revenue maximization that comes with sellouts. Maybe that cycle repeats in Year 2 or 5 in the new building, maybe not.
... and the offseason is off and running. MOD NOTE: I'm going to ask that the personalization of comments be lightened. We did a fine job within the politics of the country thread, let's try to do the same with these details please. I'm well aware of history, and well aware that some only post anymore in response to another. It's hopefully going to be one of our better, more news worthy offseasons so lets try to keep it respectful as if it were face to face discussion.
We will agree to disagree on this point I guess. There is one person in the organization that has to have his mind right and that person(s) is the owner. He/she won't be replaced until they are good and ready, and if they don't "get it" the very foundation of the club is unsound. The owner leaves their image on everything, even a relatively laissez faire owner. Everyone else in the club is accountable to someone other than the fans. If fans don't hold the owner accountable, they have carte blanche to exploit the club and fans both. In the end the only thing that stands a chance of moderating their behavior is falling revenues. So we do agree on something. Actually before I deleted it in my post, I speculated that they did fully plan a roof, but maybe negotiations were at a sticking point and "Well, if we don't roof the supporters section maybe we wouldn't be all that far apart anymore, so lets run it up the flagpole and see if the supporters could live without it". We know they are or were in some pretty gritty negotiations at about the time that post was made; I think it's not entirely unlikely they might have been thinking along those lines. That's fine, that's the way you see it. But for the record, I am one of the last people to accept EVERYTHING as altruistic. I just read it the way I read it--in this case 2 and 2 add up for me, maybe they don't for you. I can live with that. Probably true. I do try to remember that opposing viewpoints have value, even if they are "devil's advocate" positions. My POV has always been that I don't mind being sold. I look at it as "I want things from them (the reasonable chance of winning, availability of certain services, decent treatment) and they want something from me (my money)". That's called capitalism, I basically have no problem with it and if I get to the point that I no longer feel what they are selling is worth what they're asking for it, I'll stop consuming it, and strangely that is apparently where we differ. That's how it works with every other product or service I can think of and I can't think of any obvious reason why a sports franchise should be any different. TANSTAAFL.
LOL.* *Can someone please ask your teenager if that means "Laugh Out Loud" or "Lot's of Laughs" or both. I have $5 riding on it.
The thing is OnGoal doesn't go into our wallets to take money, we pull it out for them. It is freely given. Sinister it is not.
We have a winner! And it predates SMS technology by 40 odd years. Yes, Heinlein would have been a killer texter.
If you replace "Ain't" with "Is" the acrocym is a little easier to say. Tin-Staff-le. The Tinstaafl theory of accounting/sales/etc.