Friday, May 07, 2004
Selig: A's Need New Stadium to Survive
There are some subjects, though, on which the Commissioner's resolve remains firm and unyielding. Taxpayer-subsidized ballparks, for instance. On his first visit to the Oakland Coliseum since becoming Commissioner, Bud revealed that he hasn't been paying attention to the AL standings since his Brewers switched leagues:
"Clearly for this club to be competitive in the future it needs a new venue," Selig said. "Once people around you start getting new ballparks and generating more revenue, it becomes hard for that particular franchise to compete.
"And to say the owner should dig into his pocket with no chance of that ever changing is just not possible. These people find themselves in a very uncomfortable position of playing in a park that's now 38 years old and just can't generate the revenue to keep its players and be competitive."
Hmm...let's see. The Rangers got a new ballpark in 1994. The Angels extensively renovated their park in the late 1990s. The Mariners got a new ballpark in 1999. For good measure, the cross-Bay Giants got a new ballpark in 2000. Since the last of these obstacles to Oakland's success was erected, the club has won three division titles and one wild-card berth.
Oakland's Steve Schott was quick to echo the Commissioner:
"Teams need to play in venues that generate the necessary revenue to compete for a championship year-in and year-out. We need a new facility to insure the A's will be financially competitive for the long term. We can't achieve that goal in our present facility."
No word whether Schott winced when Selig said, "there's no question the club will have to make a considerable contribution" towards a new ballpark.
|
There are some subjects, though, on which the Commissioner's resolve remains firm and unyielding. Taxpayer-subsidized ballparks, for instance. On his first visit to the Oakland Coliseum since becoming Commissioner, Bud revealed that he hasn't been paying attention to the AL standings since his Brewers switched leagues:
"Clearly for this club to be competitive in the future it needs a new venue," Selig said. "Once people around you start getting new ballparks and generating more revenue, it becomes hard for that particular franchise to compete.
"And to say the owner should dig into his pocket with no chance of that ever changing is just not possible. These people find themselves in a very uncomfortable position of playing in a park that's now 38 years old and just can't generate the revenue to keep its players and be competitive."
Hmm...let's see. The Rangers got a new ballpark in 1994. The Angels extensively renovated their park in the late 1990s. The Mariners got a new ballpark in 1999. For good measure, the cross-Bay Giants got a new ballpark in 2000. Since the last of these obstacles to Oakland's success was erected, the club has won three division titles and one wild-card berth.
Oakland's Steve Schott was quick to echo the Commissioner:
"Teams need to play in venues that generate the necessary revenue to compete for a championship year-in and year-out. We need a new facility to insure the A's will be financially competitive for the long term. We can't achieve that goal in our present facility."
No word whether Schott winced when Selig said, "there's no question the club will have to make a considerable contribution" towards a new ballpark.
|
