The latest extension expires today at 5, any news on this?
I'm expecting another delay announcement.
The deal's got problems, many of which remain unsolved.
I understand the Drillers keep asking for more stuff to be thrown in...more luxury boxes, underground batting cages, etc.
I would also guest that the City Council has to approve the trust before anything can be signed.
Getting the proposed Trust approved by the Council would be only one of the major problems.
Have you read the Trust Agreement (//%22http://whoownstulsa.blogspot.com/2008/08/tulsa-stadium-trust-up-close-and.html%22)?! Wide open contract to do anything, anytime, anywhere.
Not to mention the FIVE of the Seven Board memebers getting stuck with 12-year positions, and having to donate more than $2 million for the privilage.
The other two are the Mayor and the Mayor's choice.
And, that's not even the most distrubing part:
ARTICLE III
Purpose and Powers of The Trust
quote:
(1) This Trust shall have the power to (i) to acquire, construct, own, operate, and sell a baseball stadium in downtown Tulsa (herein called the "Tulsa Stadium Project") and (ii) to acquire, construct, own, operate, and sell amenities and facilities necessary or convenient thereto as determined by the Trustees in their discretion.
and,under
ARTICLE VII
Powers and Duties of the Trustees
quote:
(c) To make and change investments; to convert real into personal property and vice versa; to lease, improve, exchange or sell, at public or private sale, upon such terms as they deem advisable, any or all of the property in the Trust, real or personal; to purchase property from any person, firm or corporation, and lease land and other property to and from the Beneficiary, and construct, improve, repair, remodel and equip buildings and facilities thereon and to operate or lease or rent the same
and, this:
quote:
(e) To make and perform contracts of every kind...
And, essentially takes away any "benefit" the City of Tulsa (Named formally as the "benefactor of the Trust") might ever receive in:
ARTICLE VIII
Beneficiary of Trust
quote:
(3) The Beneficiary shall have no legal title, claim or right to the Trust Estate, its income, or any part thereof, or to demand or require any partition or distribution thereof, or to demand or require any partition or distribution thereof, except as set forth hereinafter in this Trust Indenture. Neither shall said Beneficiary nor any agents thereof, have any authority, power or right, whatsoever, to do or transact any business for, or on behalf of, or binding upon, the Trustees or upon the Trust Estate, nor the right to control or direct the actions of the Trustees. The City of Tulsa as Beneficiary of this Trust shall be entitled solely to the benefits of this Trust as administered by the Trustees hereunder, and, at the termination of the Trust as herein provided and then only shall said City receive the residue of the Trust.
Then, goes on to shield them from ANY liability for anything, ever:
ARTICLE VI
The Trustees
quote:
(13) The Trustees, the City, or any agency thereof, shall not be charged personally with any liability whatsoever by reason of any act of omission committed or suffered in good faith or in the exercise of their honest discretion in the performance of such Trust or in the operation of the Trustee Estate; but any act or liability for any omission or obligation of the Trustees in the execution of such Trust, or in the operation of the Trust Estate shall extend to the whole of the Trust Estate or so much thereof as may be necessary to discharge such liability or obligation.
...some deal.
Pay for and hand them a ballpark, the ability to take whatever other land they desire (really, anywhere), let them contract and operate it, profit from it or sell it if they desire, and then shut up.
IMO, this Trust Agreement is written as a Private Startup Operation, funded by the public.
Idea: Make it private, let them do it themselves, or (here's a thought), bid it. Apparently, the economics works (so long as the public puts their $30 million into it).
If we're going to pay for a ballpark (the $30 million), then we should own it. Meaning the City Council would have some ongoing control, in particular, the ability to authorize the selling of the asset, or not.
Question: Is this Trust Agreement in any way similar to the one written for the BOinc Arena?
Sigh.
If they had just decided to build a stadium and then created a set of special design codes for the stadium district, they could be moving dirt soon. But they can't help themselves from overreaching, can they. And it always ends badly.
I want to know who drafted this thing and why they thought it would fly. I wonder if this was even a unique document or if it came from some kind of template that wasn't tailored to this kind of purpose. 12 yr terms? For the donors? Really?
After Mayor Taylor's confused, tearful performance in front of the TDA, I'm convinced she's not the one actually orchestrating this whole deal. Can anyone tell us who, ostensibly even, is the public face of the ballpark master plan?
Geez.
The thing that struck the wife and I this weekend after reading the details is, if the assessment district is contributing 25 million and the donors just 5 million more at 30 million, WHY do the donors have so much more representation? The assessment district has 1 member appointed by the Mayor (which turns out to be from Williams co.s). The donors have 12 including the boys that only contributed 2 million.
Sounds a little out of whack. And after reading the trust agreement I'm inclined to sell and move before they decide my home would be good for visiting team executive stays.
Just for the sake of chatter...
Early on when the Driller's had the negotiation agreement with Jenks..
Many speculated they (the Drillers) were just out to get as much as they could out of Tulsa...
What if what is happening now is the reverse?
A draw of 6 million people in your immediate area could be very enticing. May well mean mucho mas dinero$
The Drillers are walking along the precipice if that's the case. Masterful if they are, but I didn't see that kind of stuff in them.
After watching the River District video of a Benz cruising through what looked like a nuclear irradiated California corporate campus, I really doubt it would fit in there. Artist says its the teenager, soccer mom market demo. That ain't baseball boys. Big field of dreams, that's for sure.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Just for the sake of chatter...
Early on when the Driller's had the negotiation agreement with Jenks..
Many speculated they (the Drillers) were just out to get as much as they could out of Tulsa...
What if what is happening now is the reverse?
A draw of 6 million people in your immediate area could be very enticing. May well mean mucho mas dinero$
The timing of these new news releases (with really no new news) can't be accidental.
The Jenks people are making very sure that the Drillers are reminded that there's another very viable option.
I think Lamson owes Jenks and the River District an exclusive negotiating period too.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The Drillers are walking along the precipice if that's the case. Masterful if they are, but I didn't see that kind of stuff in them.
After watching the River District video of a Benz cruising through what looked like a nuclear irradiated California corporate campus, I really doubt it would fit in there. Artist says its the teenager, soccer mom market demo. That ain't baseball boys. Big field of dreams, that's for sure.
the kind of family oriented atmosphere that the dillers say they need exists more out in Jenks that it does downtown.
No, the river district is begging the driller's to reconsider because that development needs the ballpark more than the ballpark needs the development.
Honestly. If its soccer moms forget it. Soccer folks don't do baseball. If its teenagers same thing. Last thing they want to do is be with the family at a Drillers game. They may all go to the River District to shop, graze and take in movies but the Drillers aren't a good fit for them. Seems Sgrizz is right. Lamson would be flirting with long term diminishing returns in a beautiful setting.
Have you seen their promo digital trailer? I didn't even see a stadium featured.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Honestly. If its soccer moms forget it. Soccer folks don't do baseball. If its teenagers same thing. Last thing they want to do is be with the family at a Drillers game. They may all go to the River District to shop, graze and take in movies but the Drillers aren't a good fit for them. Seems Sgrizz is right. Lamson would be flirting with long term diminishing returns in a beautiful setting.
Have you seen their promo digital trailer? I didn't even see a stadium featured.
it isn't soccer moms....I dunno where you get that stupid idea. if this was going into the Union school district I might agree.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Just for the sake of chatter...
Early on when the Driller's had the negotiation agreement with Jenks..
Many speculated they (the Drillers) were just out to get as much as they could out of Tulsa...
What if what is happening now is the reverse?
A draw of 6 million people in your immediate area could be very enticing. May well mean mucho mas dinero$
The timing of these new news releases (with really no new news) can't be accidental.
The Jenks people are making very sure that the Drillers are reminded that there's another very viable option.
What occurred to me was that this will be a family oriented "tourist attraction"..
If they are putting that much up front in the beginning they will surely have the cash to add-on if interest dwindles..
Swake, I never really considered tis side of the argument until I read a post you made on another thread.. Something about "they may be getting a sports team yet"..
Six million tourist a year is not soccer...
It is whatever the majors can sell them. If the majors place players in and out of these bush leagues... Your attraction may be the next "A Rod"...
Mister and Mrs Clark Griswold would pay to see that.
Keep in mind this is purely speculation and conjecture. No offense intended...
Sure makes for some great suspense though.
Gee, stereotype much....
Soccer Moms Don't Exist
http://marketingtowomenonline.typepad.com/blog/2005/12/soccer_moms_don.html
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Honestly. If its soccer moms forget it. Soccer folks don't do baseball. If its teenagers same thing. Last thing they want to do is be with the family at a Drillers game. They may all go to the River District to shop, graze and take in movies but the Drillers aren't a good fit for them. Seems Sgrizz is right. Lamson would be flirting with long term diminishing returns in a beautiful setting.
Have you seen their promo digital trailer? I didn't even see a stadium featured.
it isn't soccer moms....I dunno where you get that stupid idea. if this was going into the Union school district I might agree.
Read my posts. I said "if" because the stupid idea is from Artist on the other current thread. He has been more aware of River District development and its demos than most on this forum. And I somewhat agree with him that they think their demo is family. But baseball is a blue collar, grey collar sport. Soccer fits the wealthy Jenks demographic. What, you think baseball is king in Jenks? Football is king in Jenks but its an everyman sport despite the appearance of its fan base.
River District is going to have to pull from the entire region to get 6 million visitors a year. Competing against the Arena, the Bixby arena, a growing downtown that matches a national growth pattern, suburban malaise, festivals, gasoline prices and resistance from angry Tulsans. Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.
Drillers would have jumped on the idea of a share of 6 million visitors if: a. they believed it and b. they thought they would draw less downtown, or c. the demographics were superior for growth.
Downtown is a regional draw that if done right will dwarf RiverDistrict. Anyone who went to the Centennial Celebration downtown, Mayfest, Blue Dome Art festival or the Christmas Parade knows its potential for drawing a crowd.
The Drillers are squeezing hard but have less of a future in RiverDistrict than downtown.
Waterboy, I agree with you that the Drillers have a bigger, better future in downtown than in the suburbs. I expect, eventually, there will be a resolution and the Brady ballpark plan will be finalized.
It is just so frustrating, though, that someone, somewhere had the genius idea to tie the timetable for the construction of the ballpark to acquisition of the surrounding properties and tie it all up in a trust whose terms stink to high heaven of moneyed influence. Why not create separate trusts? Why not allow the TDA to do its job and farm out parcels to developers whose plans match up with the vision for the area? Where's the creativity? I just can't stand these bloated plans that continue to emanate from city hall, and eventually collapse under their own weight.
As much as I was impressed that the deal got done, I'm just as disappointed to see control of the process spiral out of the mayor's control. Kathy Taylor needs to take a step back and stop trying to please her "donors." She needs to explain to them that as much as they want total control, if they don't back off they'll control jack and squat.
Kathy (and apparently the "donors") seem to misunderstand the word "donor".
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.
Texas League teams play 136 games a season -- so 68 home dates assuming no double-headers. This season the Drillers are within reach of 300,000 attendance (//%22http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3703833%22), a milestone they've reached in 13 of the last 15 seasons.
That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.
Texas League teams play 136 games a season -- so 68 home dates assuming no double-headers. This season the Drillers are within reach of 300,000 attendance (//%22http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3703833%22), a milestone they've reached in 13 of the last 15 seasons.
That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.
The Drillers rarely get to that 10,000 seat mark. That's a pretty desperate argument. You can do better.
Beyond the 300,000 mark, another benchmark is actual revenue. Rest assured it will go up.
How about we let the baseball people worry about their business rather than make up numbers or make their value judgments for them? (Making big assumptions seems to be a running theme on here.) Lamson seems pretty interested in the downtown site.
There's a large disparity between paid attendance and actual butts in seats at Drillers games.
Every non-Saturday game I've attended has had probably 500-1,000 fans tops. The announced attendance was many times larger.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Waterboy, I agree with you that the Drillers have a bigger, better future in downtown than in the suburbs. I expect, eventually, there will be a resolution and the Brady ballpark plan will be finalized.
It is just so frustrating, though, that someone, somewhere had the genius idea to tie the timetable for the construction of the ballpark to acquisition of the surrounding properties and tie it all up in a trust whose terms stink to high heaven of moneyed influence. Why not create separate trusts? Why not allow the TDA to do its job and farm out parcels to developers whose plans match up with the vision for the area? Where's the creativity? I just can't stand these bloated plans that continue to emanate from city hall, and eventually collapse under their own weight.
As much as I was impressed that the deal got done, I'm just as disappointed to see control of the process spiral out of the mayor's control. Kathy Taylor needs to take a step back and stop trying to please her "donors." She needs to explain to them that as much as they want total control, if they don't back off they'll control jack and squat.
I'm with you on that. We seem to have leadership as far as ideas. Like Taylor or not, she meets problems head on and attempts to find solutions. Once the details start to unfurl though, it gets pretty gruesome. There are some terribly greedy or terribly shortsided controlling people on that end. That trust agreement is poisonous.
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.
Texas League teams play 136 games a season -- so 68 home dates assuming no double-headers. This season the Drillers are within reach of 300,000 attendance (//%22http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3703833%22), a milestone they've reached in 13 of the last 15 seasons.
That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.
The Drillers rarely get to that 10,000 seat mark. That's a pretty desperate argument. You can do better.
Beyond the 300,000 mark, another benchmark is actual revenue. Rest assured it will go up.
How about we let the baseball people worry about their business rather make up numbers? Lamson seems pretty interested in the downtown site.
Agree with you there. The attendance numbers aren't even that important. Revenue, profitability and growth potential make downtown a better choice. Note the stadium in RiverDistrict would also be smaller and note it is not featured in their promotional trailer.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.
The Drillers aren't going to worry as much about attendance as they are about revenues.
Most of the major league teams' new stadiums are *smaller* than the old stadiums -- including the St. Louis Cardinals' up the road. But revenues have gone up big-time because of more luxury boxes and other revenue-enhancers.
The Drillers are looking at doing the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Waterboy, I agree with you that the Drillers have a bigger, better future in downtown than in the suburbs. I expect, eventually, there will be a resolution and the Brady ballpark plan will be finalized.
It is just so frustrating, though, that someone, somewhere had the genius idea to tie the timetable for the construction of the ballpark to acquisition of the surrounding properties and tie it all up in a trust whose terms stink to high heaven of moneyed influence. Why not create separate trusts? Why not allow the TDA to do its job and farm out parcels to developers whose plans match up with the vision for the area? Where's the creativity? I just can't stand these bloated plans that continue to emanate from city hall, and eventually collapse under their own weight.
As much as I was impressed that the deal got done, I'm just as disappointed to see control of the process spiral out of the mayor's control. Kathy Taylor needs to take a step back and stop trying to please her "donors." She needs to explain to them that as much as they want total control, if they don't back off they'll control jack and squat.
Post of the year
quote:
Originally posted by TheTed
There's a large disparity between paid attendance and actual butts in seats at Drillers games.
Every non-Saturday game I've attended has had probably 500-1,000 fans tops. The announced attendance was many times larger.
That's true of spectator sports at a lot of levels.
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.
Texas League teams play 136 games a season -- so 68 home dates assuming no double-headers. This season the Drillers are within reach of 300,000 attendance (//%22http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3703833%22), a milestone they've reached in 13 of the last 15 seasons.
That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.
The Drillers rarely get to that 10,000 seat mark. That's a pretty desperate argument. You can do better.
Beyond the 300,000 mark, another benchmark is actual revenue. Rest assured it will go up.
How about we let the baseball people worry about their business rather than make up numbers or make their value judgments for them? (Making big assumptions seems to be a running theme on here.) Lamson seems pretty interested in the downtown site.
Take it easy. I support the ballpark downtown, and I think the Archer and Elgin location is the best downtown location. (I just don't like the way the deal is being done.)
Desperate argument? I wasn't making an argument at all. Waterboy made a guess at Drillers season attendance, which was low, and I chimed in with what I knew about it.
When the current Driller Stadium was first opened, it was much smaller -- probably closer to the 6,000 or so seats being discussed for the new park. Most nights that was enough, but opening dates and special promotions would draw far more. They would let the overflow sit on berms down the 1st and 3rd base lines. I recall one game when the crowd was so large they fenced off part of the outfield.
The Arkansas Travelers' new park only seats 5,288, but they still managed to set a franchise record attendance in their opening year -- 372,475. Their average attendance was actually higher than the official stadium capacity, because they could seat people out on berms along the foul lines.
There are going to be days when you need more than 6,000 seats for a ballgame. I seem to recall some discussion of berms for overflow seating in the new park. Hopefully that won't be overlooked. The more people at the game, the more concessions you sell, the more money you make.
It's the same argument that Friendly Bear makes over and over again (I'll admit that I see it and my need to bash fools on the internet kicks in). Revenue is the factor. A lot of nights (like tonight and tomorrow night) the Drillers hand out free tickets around town. They make their money off selling beer and hot dogs, not cheap (or free) seats.
I realize you say you are in favor of the stadium, but you also have a history of talking about things that you don't understand (see the article about firing every OK Supreme Court judge other than Opala). In this case, you raised a point about 10,000 seat games that are not the norm. I think Lamson is well aware of the risks and benefits of what he's doing.
I will aplogize for that being a bit over the top. But I've also seen so much nonsense put forth on the stadium (and other subjects) on here that it sends me into orbit when I see broad assumptions used to justify policy choices.
The Drillers have seven games left this season. I am going to at least two of them.
Anyone else on this thread going to the games this week? I hope so, especially with so many experts on how the minor league baseball business works.
Free tickets for tonight's game and tomorrow nights game at all area sponsors. Tomorrow is Myron Noodleman, Thursday is 2 for 1 cheeseburgers and margarita coolers, Friday is mustache night and Saturday is fireworks. Kids eat free on Sunday and Monday the Drillers actually give their jerseys to lucky fans.
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
It's the same argument that Friendly Bear makes over and over again (I'll admit that I see it and my need to bash fools on the internet kicks in). Revenue is the factor. A lot of nights (like tonight and tomorrow night) the Drillers hand out free tickets around town. They make their money off selling beer and hot dogs, not cheap (or free) seats.
I realize you say you are in favor of the stadium, but you also have a history of talking about things that you don't understand (see the article about firing every OK Supreme Court judge other than Opala). In this case, you raised a point about 10,000 seat games that are not the norm. I think Lamson is well aware of the risks and benefits of what he's doing.
I will aplogize for that being a bit over the top. But I've also seen so much nonsense put forth on the stadium (and other subjects) on here that it sends me into orbit when I see broad assumptions used to justify policy choices.
What policy choice was I trying to justify? And am I a bad person for suggesting that overflow seating could be useful once in a while?
I think you and I are in agreement that revenue is what matters and that giving away seats is a way to boost concession revenues. Re-read the last sentence of my last post.
By definition, this forum is a bunch of guys opining about matters on which we are not experts, talking about issues about which we have only partial information. I can't speak for anyone else, but I try to back up my opinions with the facts that I have at my disposal and acknowledge the limits of what I know. You seem to be saying that if we aren't Chuck Lamson, we shouldn't be commenting on the baseball business aspects of the park at all.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The Drillers have seven games left this season. I am going to at least two of them.
Anyone else on this thread going to the games this week? I hope so, especially with so many experts on how the minor league baseball business works.
Free tickets for tonight's game and tomorrow nights game at all area sponsors. Tomorrow is Myron Noodleman, Thursday is 2 for 1 cheeseburgers and margarita coolers, Friday is mustache night and Saturday is fireworks. Kids eat free on Sunday and Monday the Drillers actually give their jerseys to lucky fans.
I'm going tonight. My buddy owes me some beer.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The Drillers have seven games left this season. I am going to at least two of them.
Anyone else on this thread going to the games this week? I hope so, especially with so many experts on how the minor league baseball business works.
Free tickets for tonight's game and tomorrow nights game at all area sponsors. Tomorrow is Myron Noodleman, Thursday is 2 for 1 cheeseburgers and margarita coolers, Friday is mustache night and Saturday is fireworks. Kids eat free on Sunday and Monday the Drillers actually give their jerseys to lucky fans.
I'll be in town and may be there Saturday.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
It's the same argument that Friendly Bear makes over and over again (I'll admit that I see it and my need to bash fools on the internet kicks in). Revenue is the factor. A lot of nights (like tonight and tomorrow night) the Drillers hand out free tickets around town. They make their money off selling beer and hot dogs, not cheap (or free) seats.
I realize you say you are in favor of the stadium, but you also have a history of talking about things that you don't understand (see the article about firing every OK Supreme Court judge other than Opala). In this case, you raised a point about 10,000 seat games that are not the norm. I think Lamson is well aware of the risks and benefits of what he's doing.
I will aplogize for that being a bit over the top. But I've also seen so much nonsense put forth on the stadium (and other subjects) on here that it sends me into orbit when I see broad assumptions used to justify policy choices.
What policy choice was I trying to justify? And am I a bad person for suggesting that overflow seating could be useful once in a while?
I think you and I are in agreement that revenue is what matters and that giving away seats is a way to boost concession revenues. Re-read the last sentence of my last post.
By definition, this forum is a bunch of guys opining about matters on which we are not experts, talking about issues about which we have only partial information. I can't speak for anyone else, but I try to back up my opinions with the facts that I have at my disposal and acknowledge the limits of what I know. You seem to be saying that if we aren't Chuck Lamson, we shouldn't be commenting on the baseball business aspects of the park at all.
I didn't say you were trying to justify any policy choice in this thread -- it was an observation about things I've noticed recently on here. It was relevant to my point that a lot of people have identified problems for the stadium plan without real knowledge. See Friendly Bear's silly tirade about Lamson not wanting to compete with beer sales downtown. In this case, you brought up a point about seating that doesn't make much sense to discuss unless you think it is a possible flaw in the stadium proposal, i.e., not enough seats to get to 300,000.
No doubt this forum, and all message boards in general, allow for people to express their $1.05; some folks will always know more than others, and, if the board is popular, you'll get disagreement and some completely off base remarks. My point was that lately it seems like a lot of the conversation involves one person making a proposition not supported by fact, then another person making a counter-proposition also not supported by fact; if push came to shove and you asked what supports their argument, neither side has a thing (see the homeless shelter thread as Exhibit A).
My point is that it would make more sense to identify those fact propositions as questions rather than claim some sort of knowledge of a policy factor. For example, it would be good if we had more knowledge as to why the downtown Y is getting out of the housing business -- instead we get this long conversation about property values and the risks associated with the homeless without any support for fact.
Yes, you can't easily link or support every fact in a forum like this, but when you're talking public policy, and when you want to do your best to have a sincere discussion on that end, it would help to support SOME of the arguments with facts.
In the example above, you bring an issue with the seating arrangement that Lamson is clearly well aware of. I don't know how you have an intelligent converation about that without deferring to his obviously more well-informed position, other than to ask something like "How is Lamson going to make a profit if there are less seats available?"
And when you ask that question, I think you get to some potentially more interesting discussion points: increased ticket costs (and whether that's a good or workable possibility), increased revenue from concessions (and the possible restaraunt in the stadium), and so on. But it makes more sense to me to ask the question than to assume a fact.
Tonight's Driller starting pitcher is interesting. Chaz Roe is young (21), 6'5" and throws hard. He was a first round pick in the 2005 draft.
His last two starts were wins where he gave up four hits and only one run.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Tonight's Driller starting pitcher is interesting. Chaz Roe is young (21), 6'5" and throws hard. He was a first round pick in the 2005 draft.
His last two starts were wins where he gave up four hits and only one run.
Quantify hard. I throw hard. My hard is 48mph. Let me ask this question...How are the Drillers going to win if he just throws hard?[:D]
"Hitting is timing. Pitching is destroying timing."
Ron Perranowski
Perranowski pitched in three World Series for the Dodgers, then became their pitching coach and took them to four more.
Hmmm.... I would have thought many from here would go to the presentation to make gay bashing a hate crime... oh well
They will not make the downtown stadium big because it will compete with the BOK if it is.Outdoor concerts are a hit and a big ball park would hurt BOK revenues.
You can argue thatg most ball teams are building smaller parks but Tulsa wants activities other than just ball games going on. If that is the case then it should be built to hold more and shouldn't cost much more just to add seats.
Then again "what ballpark"
Waterboy-- "Honestly. If its soccer moms forget it. Soccer folks don't do baseball."
Rico-- "Six million tourist a year is not soccer..."
Waterboy-- "But baseball is a blue collar, grey collar sport. Soccer fits the wealthy Jenks demographic. What, you think baseball is king in Jenks? Football is king in Jenks but its an everyman sport despite the appearance of its fan base."
Waterboy-- "Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no."
------------------------------------------------
What's up with all this, Waterboy?..... you channelling Average Joe these days??? And Rico, unless you're talking about pie-in-the-sky prospects for a Major League Baseball team in Jenks, 6 million tourists a year is not baseball either...
Can either of you argue for the advantages in a downtown location for the Drillers without resorting to soccer mom stereotypes and urban/suburban mythology???
Most of the soccer folks I've met here in Tulsa... happen to also like baseball... and football... and basketball... and NASCAR. The consensus among the soccer people I've met is that they don't understand why a new ballpark is needed when Driller Park works just fine. Baseball may have been a "blue-collar sport" decades ago, but the fan demographics I've seen in full force at Chicago Cubs games at Wrigley over the past decade or so... have been decidedly white-collar and suburban...
Maybe you guys can come out with me to the Four Aces Tavern off 41st & Garnett and meet a few "soccer dads"... who also happen to like riding Harleys....
WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY!
I won't be going to any of the final Drillers' home games this summer, but I would likely go to a game or two every year at a new stadium, whether that stadium opens on Archer & Elgin or in Jenks.
I'd be one of many Tulsans who would be casual fans.... I wouldn't care if the Drillers were 2 1/2 games outta first, or mathematically eliminated from the Texas League playoffs.... just wanna have a few beers and sit on the grass berm... hopefully looking at the downtown skyline... last year, wanted to sit over off right-field at Driller Park but some old geezer told me I couldn't sit that far away from the first baseline... tried to buy a ticket, but was presented with a Reasors' coupon for a freebie.... and trust me, I am not part of the "wealthy Jenks demographic." I also wouldn't characterize D-Fest fans or McNellie's or Caz's patrons or the folks who flock to the stuff on Cherry Street as "blue-collar, grey-collar" baseball fans either--- [:O]
"16 games at 5000 per game" doesn't describe the Drillers... but it does describe USL-1, a pro soccer league one level under Major League Soccer that would like to see a team in Tulsa revived under the Roughnecks name. How do I know this?... well, a little birdie from USL-1 cold-called me last May.... [;)]
5.06.2008
USL Open to Resusitating Tulsa NASL Franchise
http://theoffsiderules.blogspot.com/2008/05/usl-open-to-resusitating-tulsa-nasl.html
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9963
I was surmising based on comments previously made. I wasn't doing my thesis in baseball vs soccer demographics. Like others noted, and I alluded, I was guessing on figures for attendance but attendance wasn't the real issue.
As far as the schism between baseball, soccer and football, it is quite real. At least up through high school. I coached baseball for 7 years up to middle school. Coached soccer for one season. Soccer coaches would never accept any hardship excuses from kids that wanted to play other sports, particularly baseball. In fact most of the soccer coaches didn't want them on their team. Committ to soccer, sit on the bench or take a hike. In baseball, we were glad to get a body on the bench. Some of my best players were eventually given the ultimatum and chose soccer.
Football didn't make that distinction but worked the kids so hard that few attempted a second sport. Of course there were great athletes that were excepted but in my experience very few.
Once you grow up by realizing you won't coach in the majors or play in anything but recreational sports and simply enjoy the games for what they are, you can sit on a berm in right field, drink a chablis and soak up the moment. However, a lot of parents of players never give up their identification with a sport and remain jerks about it their whole lives.
Didn't mean to offend. I still don't much care where they locate (I'll visit either location occasionally and migrate to a berm) but I still believe economically, and even demographically, downtown is a better fit. Apparently they do too.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Waterboy-- "Honestly. If its soccer moms forget it. Soccer folks don't do baseball."
Rico-- "Six million tourist a year is not soccer..."
Waterboy-- "But baseball is a blue collar, grey collar sport. Soccer fits the wealthy Jenks demographic. What, you think baseball is king in Jenks? Football is king in Jenks but its an everyman sport despite the appearance of its fan base."
Waterboy-- "Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no."
------------------------------------------------
What's up with all this, Waterboy?..... you channelling Average Joe these days??? And Rico, unless you're talking about pie-in-the-sky prospects for a Major League Baseball team in Jenks, 6 million tourists a year is not baseball either...
Can either of you argue for the advantages in a downtown location for the Drillers without resorting to soccer mom stereotypes and urban/suburban mythology???
Most of the soccer folks I've met here in Tulsa... happen to also like baseball... and football... and basketball... and NASCAR. The consensus among the soccer people I've met is that they don't understand why a new ballpark is needed when Driller Park works just fine. Baseball may have been a "blue-collar sport" decades ago, but the fan demographics I've seen in full force at Chicago Cubs games at Wrigley over the past decade or so... have been decidedly white-collar and suburban...
Maybe you guys can come out with me to the Four Aces Tavern off 41st & Garnett and meet a few "soccer dads"... who also happen to like riding Harleys....
WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY!
I won't be going to any of the final Drillers' home games this summer, but I would likely go to a game or two every year at a new stadium, whether that stadium opens on Archer & Elgin or in Jenks.
I'd be one of many Tulsans who would be casual fans.... I wouldn't care if the Drillers were 2 1/2 games outta first, or mathematically eliminated from the Texas League playoffs.... just wanna have a few beers and sit on the grass berm... hopefully looking at the downtown skyline... last year, wanted to sit over off right-field at Driller Park but some old geezer told me I couldn't sit that far away from the first baseline... tried to buy a ticket, but was presented with a Reasors' coupon for a freebie.... and trust me, I am not part of the "wealthy Jenks demographic." I also wouldn't characterize D-Fest fans or McNellie's or Caz's patrons or the folks who flock to the stuff on Cherry Street as "blue-collar, grey-collar" baseball fans either--- [:O]
"16 games at 5000 per game" doesn't describe the Drillers... but it does describe USL-1, a pro soccer league one level under Major League Soccer that would like to see a team in Tulsa revived under the Roughnecks name. How do I know this?... well, a little birdie from USL-1 cold-called me last May.... [;)]
5.06.2008
USL Open to Resusitating Tulsa NASL Franchise
http://theoffsiderules.blogspot.com/2008/05/usl-open-to-resusitating-tulsa-nasl.html
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9963
First of all Ruf I am glad you are feeling well enough to be your usual agreeable self.[}:)]
My comment regarding 6 million tourist a year came from a projection made as to the potential the Jenks Development, in it's entirety , has... Not just the sports end of it.
That much exposure for a team whether it be soccer or baseball is enormous.It ain't peanuts.
I don't think Downtown Tulsa can offer that kind of a magnet to the Drillers. The people that visit Jenks in the future will be staying the day... or, at least, that is the impression I get with the "Aquarium" the 25 million dollar Bellagio fountain, the Hotel, fine dining, etc.
On the other hand I would like to see the Drillers locate Downtown.. I think it would be an enormous step towards taking DT forward into economic prosperity. Baseball would seem more "at home" in a DT setting IMHO..
The price that goes with the DT location seems to be going up daily.
If having "America's Favorite Pastime" locate within the IDL means sacrificing what appears to be on the table... I will not be a cheerleader for folks like that.
You might get the Drillers... But you may get drilled on the price that goes with it.
Bring on soccer... Bring on baseball...
But don't ask me to choose sacrificing DT for either.
Homey do not play like that.
Se you around Ruf.
Rico,
So, how would you have reacted if Mayor LaFortune had announced that he and his wife were gonna have 2 of the 12 seats on a sports authority for the ballpark?.... like a certain Ms. Taylor and Mr. Loebeck?
And which would be a better deal for downtown Tulsa?... a TIF district used to build the stadium or this deal... ?
Inquiring minds want to know.
***Major League Soccer would never agree to playing second fiddle to a AA-baseball club or sharing facilities with said club... USL-1, on the other hand... would love to play 16 dates at the new ballpark, or take over old Driller Stadium, or move to Jenks and share with... ???? They ain't that picky...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Rico,
So, how would you have reacted if Mayor LaFortune had announced that he and his wife were gonna have 2 of the 12 seats on a sports authority for the ballpark?.... like a certain Ms. Taylor and Mr. Loebeck?
And which would be a better deal for downtown Tulsa?... a TIF district used to build the stadium or this deal... ?
Inquiring minds want to know.
***Major League Soccer would never agree to playing second fiddle to a AA-baseball club or sharing facilities with said club... USL-1, on the other hand... would love to play 16 dates at the new ballpark, or take over old Driller Stadium, or move to Jenks and share with... ???? They ain't that picky...
My opinion.... You asked for it.
"Tubby" LaFortuna did not have the brainpower for a scam at this level.. Maybe Clay but not the big man.
Bill would have been trying to loan Sean Gray money for the "American".
The rest of your question....
It's not a Mayoral election year, but.
If it were....
Well let's just say I hope we have some choices.
Unlike an article explaining a vote for LaFortune... "The Devil I know" is not a good reason to elect anyone.
I think the talk of LaFortune's incompetence is a load of crap.... my opinion. LaFortune did for Tulsa what Ron Norick did for OKC... also my opinion.
The biggest incompetence IMHO came from Republican bloggers who stabbed him in the back...
Taylor just lost this dem's vote... what collosal arrogance and conflict of interest.
Bill Lobeck stepped down from consideration for the trust authority board. I have no problem with he and the Mayor on the board. He oversees the foundation of theirs that donated the money to get them a seat on the board if $2 million is the limit and she is the Mayor who deserve a spot. She won't always be the Mayor but I'm sure they would still like a place on the board to help guide the project over the years since they ponied up money for it.
I do agree that the downtown business owners need to have more equitable representation though.
Announcement coming at 11:00 am at the ballpark site. Hmmm am I about to be shocked that an actuall ballpark is really going to be built?
P.S. looks like a possible rainout for scheduled announcement time[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Announcement coming at 11:00 am at the ballpark site. Hmmm am I about to be shocked that an actuall ballpark is really going to be built?
P.S. looks like a possible rainout for scheduled announcement time[:P]
I sure hope so, at this point I have no idea what is going on anymore lol.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Announcement coming at 11:00 am at the ballpark site. Hmmm am I about to be shocked that an actuall ballpark is really going to be built?
P.S. looks like a possible rainout for scheduled announcement time[:P]
Where was this announced?
At a Saturday morning news conference Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor announced an agreement between the Tulsa Drillers and the City of Tulsa.
The Drillers have agreed to move their stadium to downtown Tulsa. This decision comes after 8 months of negotiations and according to both sides of the deal, will be mutually beneficial.
NewsChannel 8 will continue to follow this developing story and release new information as it becomes available.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0808/546996.html
I went to the press conference. Everybody was smiles.
The mayor and Driller president/owner Chuck Lamson did most of the talking, but three councilors were also in attendance.
I am excited. This will be big for downtown.
I'd like to see the list of conditions which made this announcement possible.
..."if" and "upon" use considerable, I'd imagine.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Getting the proposed Trust approved by the Council would be only one of the major problems.
Have you read the Trust Agreement (//%22http://whoownstulsa.blogspot.com/2008/08/tulsa-stadium-trust-up-close-and.html%22)?! Wide open contract to do anything, anytime, anywhere.
Not to mention the FIVE of the Seven Board memebers getting stuck with 12-year positions, and having to donate more than $2 million for the privilage.
The other two are the Mayor and the Mayor's choice.
And, that's not even the most distrubing part:
ARTICLE III
Purpose and Powers of The Trust
quote:
(1) This Trust shall have the power to (i) to acquire, construct, own, operate, and sell a baseball stadium in downtown Tulsa (herein called the �Tulsa Stadium Project�) and (ii) to acquire, construct, own, operate, and sell amenities and facilities necessary or convenient thereto as determined by the Trustees in their discretion.
and,under
ARTICLE VII
Powers and Duties of the Trustees
quote:
(c) To make and change investments; to convert real into personal property and vice versa; to lease, improve, exchange or sell, at public or private sale, upon such terms as they deem advisable, any or all of the property in the Trust, real or personal; to purchase property from any person, firm or corporation, and lease land and other property to and from the Beneficiary, and construct, improve, repair, remodel and equip buildings and facilities thereon and to operate or lease or rent the same
and, this:
quote:
(e) To make and perform contracts of every kind...
And, essentially takes away any "benefit" the City of Tulsa (Named formally as the "benefactor of the Trust") might ever receive in:
ARTICLE VIII
Beneficiary of Trust
quote:
(3) The Beneficiary shall have no legal title, claim or right to the Trust Estate, its income, or any part thereof, or to demand or require any partition or distribution thereof, or to demand or require any partition or distribution thereof, except as set forth hereinafter in this Trust Indenture. Neither shall said Beneficiary nor any agents thereof, have any authority, power or right, whatsoever, to do or transact any business for, or on behalf of, or binding upon, the Trustees or upon the Trust Estate, nor the right to control or direct the actions of the Trustees. The City of Tulsa as Beneficiary of this Trust shall be entitled solely to the benefits of this Trust as administered by the Trustees hereunder, and, at the termination of the Trust as herein provided and then only shall said City receive the residue of the Trust.
Then, goes on to shield them from ANY liability for anything, ever:
ARTICLE VI
The Trustees
quote:
(13) The Trustees, the City, or any agency thereof, shall not be charged personally with any liability whatsoever by reason of any act of omission committed or suffered in good faith or in the exercise of their honest discretion in the performance of such Trust or in the operation of the Trustee Estate; but any act or liability for any omission or obligation of the Trustees in the execution of such Trust, or in the operation of the Trust Estate shall extend to the whole of the Trust Estate or so much thereof as may be necessary to discharge such liability or obligation.
...some deal.
Pay for and hand them a ballpark, the ability to take whatever other land they desire (really, anywhere), let them contract and operate it, profit from it or sell it if they desire, and then shut up.
Has anyone else bothered to read the "Trust Document" (//%22http://whoownstulsa.blogspot.com/2008/08/tulsa-stadium-trust-up-close-and.html%22), if so, could someone please help me understand where exactly the boundary line for the "Stadium Trust" is...?
Possibly a Realtor or Attorney... ? ?
quote:
Has anyone else bothered to read the "Trust Document" (//%22http://whoownstulsa.blogspot.com/2008/08/tulsa-stadium-trust-up-close-and.html%22), if so, could someone please help me understand where exactly the boundary line for the "Stadium Trust" is...?
Possibly a Realtor or Attorney... ? ?
Neither here, but I do know the citizens of Tulsa CAN file suite against ANY Councilor, personally, who votes to approve the Trust Agreement in its' current form. THAT would be breach of duty by any measure.
Personally, I think the ballpark should be entrusted to the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority, as is most other public buildings. Let them bid out the construction and management/operations, similar to the arena. As for the fringe land, let the market and our EDC work it out, with some zoning to effect purpose.
Leave the dynasty to fend for themselves.
Public contracts for monopolistic domain of ALL development around the ballpark is just flat uncalled for, and may be illegal as written with a benefactor named but contracted with no benefits.
They might as well make the changes now since it will likely be tied up in court for several years if they don't. That would mean no ballpark for quite awhile.
As far as I know, TPFA's facilities were paid for entirely with public funds, the ballpark is not.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
As far as I know, TPFA's facilities were paid for entirely with public funds, the ballpark is not.
As I understood things, those were 'donations'.
Or, did you mean it's a 'pay-to-play' deal?
Besides, I think the argument can be made, particularly with the construct of the current Trust Agreement, that the IDL tax will pay the $30 million ($25m + $5m from Drillers) cost of the ballpark, with the 'donors' $30m really being used for surrounding development.
For getting prime and solitary rights to all peripheral development, they also get to own and run the ballpark. And, the current Trust Agreement really has NO LIMITATIONS on when, where or how much land they can buy, sell, own, operate. It's not even limited to the IDL. For that matter, not even the City limits.
They could buy a Major League Team in Kansas City if they can find a way to word it as appropriate. It wouldn't even need be a baseball team. Heck, they could buy Busch stadium or your house if they wanted the way it's worded.
the lion's share of the $60M will go to the ballpark. The work done to the surrounding areas will largely be aesthetic.
For comparison, Columbus, OH is building a minor league park much like the one proposed currently under construction. Cost for the park alone is about $50M
http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2008/08/18/story5.html?b=1219032000^1685241
I have no doubt that the ballpark to be built in Tulsa will be one of the best. I am glad they are spending the money to do it right. Using the argument that "a city in Arkansas built one for $30 million so we should too" is stupid. I am sure that the generous Tulsans who have pledged so many millions for this park also didn't do it to build the cheapest one either.
The architects are the same ones building Yankee stadium. They are the "Pelli" of the baseball stadium designers. From what I have heard, the Drillers also asked for quite a few additions, some of which will never be seen by the casual fan. This ballpark will be built with indoor batting cages and workout rooms for the players. The Rockies have invested millions of dollars into these athletes and want them to have a stadium that also helps them.
I have probably been to more baseball stadiums than the average fan. First class design and operation are a thing of pride and keep the casual fan coming back to the park.
This ballpark is going to transform the entire north and east side of our downtown. This is going to be an iconic thing of beauty that revitalizes everything for blocks around. I am glad they are budgeting enough money to build it right.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The architects are the same ones building Yankee stadium. They are the "Pelli" of the baseball stadium designers.
They're also the same ones that built the $32 million park in Northwest Arkansas.
Not jumping into the pig wrestling match over how much the stadium proper will or won't cost, but will there not be some sort of an itemized pre-construction budget presented?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The architects are the same ones building Yankee stadium. They are the "Pelli" of the baseball stadium designers.
They're also the same ones that built the $32 million park in Northwest Arkansas.
My wife's car came from an infinity dealer for about $6,000. Based on your assumption, every car in the lot should be about $6,000.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The architects are the same ones building Yankee stadium. They are the "Pelli" of the baseball stadium designers.
They're also the same ones that built the $32 million park in Northwest Arkansas.
My concern with HOK is that they're not the "Pelli," they're the "big box store" of stadium designers. I think we chose them a) because of lack of imagination, and b) because we were in a huge hurry. We'll get a first rate stadium, but it will be cookie-cutter HOK design with some "local charm" tacked on the exterior if we're lucky. That's fine and it will be lovely, but it won't be unique to Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Has anyone else bothered to read the "Trust Document" (//%22http://whoownstulsa.blogspot.com/2008/08/tulsa-stadium-trust-up-close-and.html%22), if so, could someone please help me understand where exactly the boundary line for the "Stadium Trust" is...?
Possibly a Realtor or Attorney... ? ?
Neither here, but I do know the citizens of Tulsa CAN file suite against ANY Councilor, personally, who votes to approve the Trust Agreement in its' current form. THAT would be breach of duty by any measure.
Personally, I think the ballpark should be entrusted to the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority, as is most other public buildings. Let them bid out the construction and management/operations, similar to the arena. As for the fringe land, let the market and our EDC work it out, with some zoning to effect purpose.
Leave the dynasty to fend for themselves.
Public contracts for monopolistic domain of ALL development around the ballpark is just flat uncalled for, and may be illegal as written with a benefactor named but contracted with no benefits.
They might as well make the changes now since it will likely be tied up in court for several years if they don't. That would mean no ballpark for quite awhile.
Thanks..
The reason I said Realtor..... the wording of the "Trust" paper is such that all property, other than City owned, within the defined area would have an easement attached to the abstract of Deed.
If I am wrong please correct me. The "Trust" paper, as it stands, creates an item that pertains to the ownership of property that
could be affected by the terms of the "Trust".
There must be a boundary, or some language, that limits the property that may or may not be affected. If not, you may as well be in a
third world country, where the bottom line of ownership of anything is such that you own it unless the Government wants it.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
My concern with HOK is that they're not the "Pelli," they're the "big box store" of stadium designers. I think we chose them a) because of lack of imagination, and b) because we were in a huge hurry. We'll get a first rate stadium, but it will be cookie-cutter HOK design with some "local charm" tacked on the exterior if we're lucky. That's fine and it will be lovely, but it won't be unique to Tulsa.
BS Floyd. You obviously have a bias here...
They have an incredible portfolio of unique designs.
Look here for sports stadiums...
http://www.hoksport.com/projects/index.html
Look here for minor leagues ballparks...
http://www.hoksport.com/projects/portfolio_milb_all.html
Not biased--excited to have a ballpark at all--but just expressing my opinion that the choice of HOK doesn't show much imagination or out of the box thinking by whoever is planning this thing. I think if you Google "minor league ballpark architects (//%22http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=minor+league+ballpark+architects%22)," HOK is the first (and only) one to come up. I sure haven't seen any competing designs; you'd think that we might get to compare different plans first--maybe even poll various renderings and involve the public a little more. Did they look local? I very much doubt it, given the necessary rush to put this project together.
I didn't say HOK wouldn't bring us a first-rate stadium. It's just that I am concerned their design will not be unique and will fail to incorporate local elements. It will be a stadium that could be in Anyminorleaguetown, USA, because they've built half of them, apparently. If you were HOK, would you start all over if you didn't have to? No. You would take the basic design you used in Arkansas, Albequerque, Akron and San Antonio, tweak it up to fit the site requirements, put some special brickwork or signage on it, collect your fee, and call it a project.
I could be wrong. But call me when they incorporate Art Deco into the stadium design....
We know this one is out
(http://www.hoksport.com/images/hok_sport/sportprojects/surprise/main_2.jpg)
This would be nice to have a grassy area
(http://www.hoksport.com/images/hok_sport/sportprojects/autozone/main_2.jpg)
I think you will be pleased with the final product, Floyd. I will buy you a ticket and a beer at the first game I see you at and I bet you will say you underestimated the design team.
Baseball fields are fairly rigid. The bases are always ninety feet apart and the pitching rubber is always 60'6" from home. But they keys are how to incorporate the foul areas and the outfield fences. Too much foul area between the bases means more easy outs, shorter games and less souvenirs for the fans. Too high of fences or gaps in the outfield design really affect the outcomes of games as well.
From the fans perspective, luxury boxes will attract a whole different customer for the Drillers. These boxes, especially on day games, will be the "in" place to have a small staff meeting or entertain some clients.
The old ballpark is simple, utilitarian and sparse. The new ballpark will be exciting, beautiful and plush. It is going to be great.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I think you will be pleased with the final product, Floyd. I will buy you a ticket and a beer at the first game I see you at and I bet you will say you underestimated the design team.
Baseball fields are fairly rigid. The bases are always ninety feet apart and the pitching rubber is always 60'6" from home. But they keys are how to incorporate the foul areas and the outfield fences. Too much foul area between the bases means more easy outs, shorter games and less souvenirs for the fans. Too high of fences or gaps in the outfield design really affect the outcomes of games as well.
From the fans perspective, luxury boxes will attract a whole different customer for the Drillers. These boxes, especially on day games, will be the "in" place to have a small staff meeting or entertain some clients.
The old ballpark is simple, utilitarian and sparse. The new ballpark will be exciting, beautiful and plush. It is going to be great.
How do you know the new ballpark will be "beautiful and plush"? Have you seen plans? Have you seen a budget? Will the City Council or the public get to see any of this before the Council votes on the trust indenture?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
As far as I know, TPFA's facilities were paid for entirely with public funds, the ballpark is not.
As I understood things, those were 'donations'.
Or, did you mean it's a 'pay-to-play' deal?
Besides, I think the argument can be made, particularly with the construct of the current Trust Agreement, that the IDL tax will pay the $30 million ($25m + $5m from Drillers) cost of the ballpark, with the 'donors' $30m really being used for surrounding development.
For getting prime and solitary rights to all peripheral development, they also get to own and run the ballpark. And, the current Trust Agreement really has NO LIMITATIONS on when, where or how much land they can buy, sell, own, operate. It's not even limited to the IDL. For that matter, not even the City limits.
They could buy a Major League Team in Kansas City if they can find a way to word it as appropriate. It wouldn't even need be a baseball team. Heck, they could buy Busch stadium or your house if they wanted the way it's worded.
No comment.
Trust the force , Michael. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
How do you know the new ballpark will be "beautiful and plush"? Have you seen plans? Have you seen a budget? Will the City Council or the public get to see any of this before the Council votes on the trust indenture?
Yes. There have been many drawings done. They were printed in the TulsaWorld. I have also talked to the Drillers management about the new park on many occassions.
I have not seen a budget. I don't know what the councilors have seen.
I say we give the donors' money back, get bids on a $30 million ballpark budget, owned by Tulsans via TPFA, and leave the rest to EDC and the market.
...yeah, that's the ticket.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I say we give the donors' money back, get bids on a $30 million ballpark budget, owned by Tulsans via TPFA, and leave the rest to EDC and the market.
...yeah, that's the ticket.
Could also take the Brady TIF package, expand it to include the entire stadium development district, and put the proceeds towards ending the IDL BID as early as possible.
We must be the free money hatingest city in the country.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
We must be the free money hatingest city in the country.
[:D]
If you call the terms of the "Trust" document
free...........
Seek help now..Do not pass go and do not drive or operate machinery.
yes, especially if any of that machinery is involved in building the stadium.
we turned down free money for the river debacle too.
How about throwing some free money at finishing the smooth sections of the BA....THAT's something I could get behind. Nothing like literally driving on rich people's money.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
As far as I know, TPFA's facilities were paid for entirely with public funds, the ballpark is not.
As I understood things, those were 'donations'.
Or, did you mean it's a 'pay-to-play' deal?
Besides, I think the argument can be made, particularly with the construct of the current Trust Agreement, that the IDL tax will pay the $30 million ($25m + $5m from Drillers) cost of the ballpark, with the 'donors' $30m really being used for surrounding development.
For getting prime and solitary rights to all peripheral development, they also get to own and run the ballpark. And, the current Trust Agreement really has NO LIMITATIONS on when, where or how much land they can buy, sell, own, operate. It's not even limited to the IDL. For that matter, not even the City limits.
They could buy a Major League Team in Kansas City if they can find a way to word it as appropriate. It wouldn't even need be a baseball team. Heck, they could buy Busch stadium or your house if they wanted the way it's worded.
No comment.
That really was just for you.
Stadium trust vote delayed until next month
http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=860dd844-bb5a-4b3a-ab4a-0ace2ed1a53f
Tulsa city councilors on Tuesday postponed Thursday's vote on a stadium trust agreement so the community can give input.
This weekend, the Drillers announced they are willing to play downtown at Archer and Elgin. Before that happens, the trust has to be set up so it can collect $30 million in donations that will help build the stadium.
Meanwhile, ballpark donors made significant changes to the proposed agreement. Two smaller downtown property owners, Glen Stroebel and Larry Lyon, have now been added to the trust; along with Greenwood Chamber of Commerce President Reuben Gant.
"Those downtown property owners are being forced to pay for the ballpark through the increase in their assessment, and they need to have a say on the trust," said Councilor Rick Westcott.
Stan Lybarger, president of Bank of Oklahoma, represents the donors. He presented the changes at Tuesday's meeting.
"I don't think there are broad areas of disagreement," said Lybarger. "There will be some tweaking, changes in the wording, but substantively, I don't think the agreement will change very much."
Westcott says he's close to a "yes" vote.
"I think the trustors heard the concerns councilors had that we expressed two or three weeks ago. I think they've gone a long way to addressing those concerns," Westcott said.
The mayor wanted councilors to approve the agreement this Thursday, citing rising construction costs. Councilors say, that's too soon.
"We need to let the public have as much information that's germaine to this proposed trust document and comment fully before we pull trigger on it," said Councilor John Eagleton during the meeting.
Drillers owner Chuck Lamson believes councilors have legitimate concerns.
"Obviously we hope to get it done sooner rather than later, but we understand how the proces works," said Lamson. "We'll adjust to it and keep going as if we're going to get the "yes" vote and we feel very good about that."
Council is scheduled to discuss the trust agreement at meetings on Thursday, August 28th and Thursday, September 11th at 6pm in council chambers at city hall. A vote is expected on the 11th.
Well good to hear they are making some positive changes. One wonders though whether they planned to put out an initial "insane" proposal as a bargaining position or distraction, and then "give in a little", but still end up where they wanted? Or were they just truly full of it in the first place?
They are either very crafty or very wacko.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
As far as I know, TPFA's facilities were paid for entirely with public funds, the ballpark is not.
As I understood things, those were 'donations'.
Or, did you mean it's a 'pay-to-play' deal?
Besides, I think the argument can be made, particularly with the construct of the current Trust Agreement, that the IDL tax will pay the $30 million ($25m + $5m from Drillers) cost of the ballpark, with the 'donors' $30m really being used for surrounding development.
For getting prime and solitary rights to all peripheral development, they also get to own and run the ballpark. And, the current Trust Agreement really has NO LIMITATIONS on when, where or how much land they can buy, sell, own, operate. It's not even limited to the IDL. For that matter, not even the City limits.
They could buy a Major League Team in Kansas City if they can find a way to word it as appropriate. It wouldn't even need be a baseball team. Heck, they could buy Busch stadium or your house if they wanted the way it's worded.
No comment.
That really was just for you.
You talk like that's a bad thing..... repeat after me:
flexibility = good. Ask OKC about how they got NBA basketball to come to town after the Hornets had to leave New Orleans post-hurricane katrina..... and if the NBA hadn't come to OKC this year, what would've become of
"MAPS III - 'NBA in 3-D'"???...... the city woulda still got the bucks...
Normally, I just read this stuff so you don't have to...
But here's one back at ya....
Friday, August 22, 2008Stadium developers seek $30M in Missouri tax creditsSept. 16 may be the most crucial date for the Kansas City Wizards this year, and it will find them in the government arena.http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2008/08/25/story2.html?b=1219636800%5E1688218&t=printable
ENJOY!