The A's averaged 9,973 fans last year. They should at least double that with this move.
Others have stated some reasons, but also, Knights games are an EVENT. They put on a show for the fans. I don't know if baseball can do the same stuff.
Attendance was so low because they self sabotaged the team in virtually every way possible. It was like the plot of ‘Major League’ came to life.
Clearly, baseball ain't hockey and the Golden Knights are actually quite good so that's a key distinction right off the bat. I think the ownership point is a valid one. Changing geographies won't matter if they run the team in the same manner but I do think there is some upside here given the general popularity of baseball.
There is clear upside here for a team that wants to try. Did they sabotage to get this move over the finish line and will they actually try going forward? I guess we'll see. But I don't really share the same attendance concerns, if ownership actually gets committed. That's a big "if" though. Hopefully they do because right now this team is an absolute mess with only 1 guy on the MLB top 100 prospect list with an MLB team of very little talent.
https://www.thelvballpark.com/
I went to a game at the Mausoleum after the strike in 1981. It was at night and I didn't think the place was all that great (apparently going in the daytime would give one a more favorable impression). The foul territory is/was excessive and they never addressed that. Not sad to see it go. Plus, nothing worse than seeing the Sox on TV from there, especially the getaway day games where even good Sox teams tended to mail it in.
Is it domed? That might be a huge consideration if your hoping to make that a temporary home for any length of time.
The Knights do well. Of course they're filling at least 10-15K less seats than a baseball stadium, and doing it for half the number of home games. Plus tourism seasonality (I'm assuming there's less tourists in Vegas in June-August than November-March, but that's just an assumption). So I think that's a different dynamic.
Which would be a major improvement from the status quo so I don't really see the downside here. Nobody expects this team to be a top 10 draw or anything.
The fans' best hope is that Fisher cashes out after the stadium deal further helps to line his pockets. I dont see him spending any more money on the team than he currently does.
I think Fisher will stick around for a year or two in Vegas so he can be called a hero and then when his team as at the apex of its worth, he sells, makes a couple of billion and flies off into the sunset.
Well, the downside is abandoning a longtime, long abused fanbase in Oakland. Even when the A's have been successful on the field, which they were as recently as a few years ago of course, fans have had to endure an ownership group that will not maintain the stadium they play in, and has been incessantly threatening relocation.
This is an incorrect assumption. The lowest visitor months were Jan/Feb last year.
| Tourism Indicators | Jan 2022 | Feb 2022 | Mar 2022 | Apr 2022 | May 2022 | Jun 2022 | Jul 2022 | Aug 2022 | Sep 2022 | Oct 2022 | Nov 2022 | Dec 2022 | 2022 YTD |
| Visitor Volume | 2,474,800 | 2,616,600 | 3,334,700 | 3,382,200 | 3,446,900 | 3,324,800 | 3,491,600 | 3,190,600 | 3,355,200 | 3,639,200 | 3,265,500 | 3,307,200 | 38,829,300 |
Fair enough. I admitted I might be wrong.
This pretty much sums up my opinion. Especially in this case when there is another MLB stadium a little more than 15 miles from the Coliseum. It'll take time, but eventually everyone will just become Giants/49ers fans. Giants ownership must be pumped.
It's definitely an interesting thought exercise and business case, that's for sure. For context, I looked up all of the A's playoff seasons in the last 20 years or so and their MLB attendance rank:
Yeah. I mean this is the result the Giants wanted when they wouldn't let the A's move into San Jose because of territorial rights. Rights that the A's gave to the Giants for nothing back in the early 90s. That was a cold business move.
A legit question is does A's ownership actually care about attendance? They're going to get a publicly funded stadium, all sorts of sweet tax breaks, and revenue streams from whatever businesses out there buy suite access and corporate sponsorships. I imagine ownership will be happy enough if attendance settles in the low-to-mid 20s after their debut season.
I doubt Fisher cares about baseball. As for attendance, I've always thought that if an owner thought he could make more money by *not* allowing fans into the game, he'd do it.
Yup, this is effectively a bail out for these guys. Pretty annoying. I don't really care about attendance but I do care about the quality of the product. The AAA's roster is an absolute joke and it's embarrassing for a team to have this poor talent for so long.
They don't. Attendance and stuff bought at the stadium is just icing on a very expensive cake. By the time that the season starts, thanks to other revenues, most teams are already in the black. With the A's, between their low payroll and the money that they're getting from other teams, I am sure that they are turning a pretty good profit before ticket one is sold. Owning a sports team is like owning an ATM.
As a Tampeno, I feel compelled to defend Rays fans. Stu Sternberg and his ownership is an abomination. He's been trying to bilk the cities (he's been playing Tampa and St. Pete against each other) for a decade but no one's falling for his bullshit. The stadium was built BY THE CITY (!) BEFORE a team was even here, and frankly that's laudable. That the team hasn't built a new stadium in 30 years just reflects poorly on Sternberg, who's owned the team since 2004 (!!).
It's not domed. It still draws really well for a minor league team, even over the summer when it's 100+ degrees at the start of nearly every game, but I don't think it's really an option for a major league team. Plus, the minor league team plays there so they'd still need to find a stadium for someone to play in because they can't share it.
They made the expansion more friendly than before, which wasn’t a tall task, but the Knights preyed on fears of GMs to get them into giving the Knights favorable deals so the other teams wouldn’t lose certain players.
I read many times that Pac Bell was mostly built with private money and is the big exception to the rule.
No need.
Yes for baseball, no for North America's big four.
Because their constituents don't want to hear reasons (it's ALWAYS a total rip off for the city/state), they just know on Sundays (or weeknights) when it's time to watch Palookaville Palm Trees action, they're now playing in Albuquerque and that sucks. It's such an easy scare tactic for owners to use, which is weird because there's probably more non-sports fans (or fans that aren't as fanatical) than there are fans who live and die with the team. I mean if you can tune out the people who want to spend every dime on making the latest and greatest sports palace and just speak to the more moderate voter, that politician would win every time.
They really missed the possible name change. Should have been the Florida White Sox with Sandals. A few simple changes make that logo a sandal.
If the A's aren't renamed the Aces, I'll be shocked. They can even have Robert DeNiro throw out the first pitch.
I'd opine that if DC/Balt has 2 teams, the Bay Area should, but I sure wouldn't have one in Oakland. Or you can take the position that if Boston doesn't (and IMHO shouldn't) have two teams, neither should the Bay Area.
The park sucks, but as a Red Sox fan, there was something nice about being able to make a snap decision on a work trip to SF, drive over the bridge (2 bridges?), take an off-ramp off the highway right into a huge parking lot that cost like $7 in 1994 and walk up the gate and buy $10 tickets. It was convenient to say the least, but it was like every seat was a bad seat. The Sox took a huge lead, and I got mustard dumped on my hat from the balcony. Fun night overall.
