Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Yanks set to pay $800 million for a new stadium out-of pocket, minimizing a hit to the taxpayers of New York. Damned if that stadium doesn't look beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I haven't read what they're going to do with Yankee Stadium. They should keep it open and make a museum out of it. It would be a shame to tear down a piece of history. (Unless I could get a piece of it for my collection) I'm glad they're staying in the Bronx though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Yanks set to pay $800 million for a new stadium out-of pocket, minimizing a hit to the taxpayers of New York. Damned if that stadium doesn't look beautiful. 359942[/snapback] Of course they do have an ulterior motive. The money the team spends on the staduim will for the most part be deducted from what they owe the other MLB teams in revenue sharing (70% if what I heard was correct). Not saying there's anything wrong with that, just saying. Bad news for Pitt, KC, Oakland etc., good news for the Yanks (and smart business). Last year Tampa Bay received just over 30 Million in revenue sharing. Their current payroll? Around 29.7 Million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Of course they do have an ulterior motive. The money the team spends on the staduim will for the most part be deducted from what they owe the other MLB teams in revenue sharing (70% if what I heard was correct). Not saying there's anything wrong with that, just saying. Bad news for Pitt, KC, Oakland etc., good news for the Yanks (and smart business). Last year Tampa Bay received just over 30 Million in revenue sharing. Their current payroll? Around 29.7 Million. 359944[/snapback] Exactly, this isn't the nice generous move that it looks like on the surface. They plan to keep Yankee stadium as a museum of baseball history and build the new ballpark across the street, but they're robbing money of teams trying to be competitive in smaller markets (screw the D-rays if they're not gonna put $$ back into their team). Smart move by Steinbrenner, bad for baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 Exactly, this isn't the nice generous move that it looks like on the surface. They plan to keep Yankee stadium as a museum of baseball history and build the new ballpark across the street, but they're robbing money of teams trying to be competitive in smaller markets (screw the D-rays if they're not gonna put $$ back into their team). Smart move by Steinbrenner, bad for baseball. 359977[/snapback] The fact remains they're paying it out of pocket. Look, Tampa is a HORRIBLE baseball town. Terrible. Kansas City is cheap. Same with the Pirates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Well, it is a better deal than what the Jets tried to pull, but the state is still pitching in $70 million for infrastructure improvements, and the city throws in their own $100 million for parks, infrastructure and other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 The fact remains they're paying it out of pocket. Look, Tampa is a HORRIBLE baseball town. Terrible. Kansas City is cheap. Same with the Pirates. 359979[/snapback] I agree. So it takes revenue from other teams, big deal. The bottom line is that the taxpayers of NY don't have to come out of pocket. People are going to B word either way because it involves the Yankees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 The money the team spends on the staduim will for the most part be deducted from what they owe the other MLB teams in revenue sharing (70% if what I heard was correct). 359944[/snapback] Just curious, how is this possible? Are MLB revenue sharing rules weak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwovince Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Dont forget the Yankees have a ton more money then the Jets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Dont forget the Yankees have a ton more money then the Jets 360088[/snapback] Mostly because they haven't sucked on a regular basis throughout team history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Supposedly the old field will remain with less seats for use for youth, high school and college baseball perhaps. Part of it will also be a museum. I hate the Yankees, but this relatively small amount of money that the taxpayers are spending is good considering the Jets fiasco. Besides, baseball is more likely to have a positive economic impact than football. You know, though, Camden Yards only cost 110 million in the early 1990s. Have materials really become that much more expensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Mostly because they haven't sucked on a regular basis throughout team history. 360266[/snapback] A lot of that has to do with the money situation in each sport. The Jets certainly would open their pocket books but they do have a salary cap to work with, the Yankees do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Supposedly the old field will remain with less seats for use for youth, high school and college baseball perhaps. Part of it will also be a museum. I hate the Yankees, but this relatively small amount of money that the taxpayers are spending is good considering the Jets fiasco. Besides, baseball is more likely to have a positive economic impact than football. You know, though, Camden Yards only cost 110 million in the early 1990s. Have materials really become that much more expensive? 360301[/snapback] Building in NYC is a little different situation than renovating what was essentially a ghost town area of the waterfront in B-More. Not to mention more experts at graft and corruption in the City that Never Sleeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Building in NYC is a little different situation than renovating what was essentially a ghost town area of the waterfront in B-More. Not to mention more experts at graft and corruption in the City that Never Sleeps. 360314[/snapback] I suppose, but the land is being given to them. Are construction workers just paid a lot more or does the graft make the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Just curious, how is this possible? Are MLB revenue sharing rules weak? 360085[/snapback] Guess you could call it a loophole, just like the fact that teams don't have to spend OVER the amount they receive from other teams. Yeah, that's weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Last year Tampa Bay received just over 30 Million in revenue sharing. Their current payroll? Around 29.7 Million. dry.gif This is the problem with MLBs revenue sharing program. This money is going directly into the pockets of the owners and they are not using it on their teams. we need a salary cap. The problem is there is no fair way to implement it. I say make it 150-200 mil with no annual increase. This will immediatly stop the yankees spending, and allow other teams to slowly be able to compete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simadafuma Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Although I despise the Yankee's I loved the trip and the experiance of Yankee Stadium and I will be sad to see it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 This is the problem with MLBs revenue sharing program. This money is going directly into the pockets of the owners and they are not using it on their teams. we need a salary cap. The problem is there is no fair way to implement it. I say make it 150-200 mil with no annual increase. This will immediatly stop the yankees spending, and allow other teams to slowly be able to compete. 360502[/snapback] Yeah, all these teams are having a terrible time competing with the sub-.500 Yankees and their 200 million dollar payroll. Games have never been won at the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Of course they do have an ulterior motive. The money the team spends on the staduim will for the most part be deducted from what they owe the other MLB teams in revenue sharing (70% if what I heard was correct). Not saying there's anything wrong with that, just saying. Bad news for Pitt, KC, Oakland etc., good news for the Yanks (and smart business). Last year Tampa Bay received just over 30 Million in revenue sharing. Their current payroll? Around 29.7 Million. 359944[/snapback] Give me a break! Gee... It is so bad that the Yankees put all their profits back into the team and players wages. Maybe you can tell the owners in TB, KC, Pitt, and Oak to do that! They get 30 mil and payout 29.7 mil... Is that all they made last year in profit? Smells like "welfare" for the owners! Sports and all the whining has become a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Yeah, all these teams are having a terrible time competing with the sub-.500 Yankees and their 200 million dollar payroll. Games have never been won at the bank. 360747[/snapback] So true Darin... So true! They would have you believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts