California League should come to Chico!

The California League (CalL) forum
User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

Post by Pounder » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:30 pm

Buff, there's more than one thread on the PCL board that speaks to the Portland situation. You can disbelieve it all you want, that changes nothing.

The LA metro area supports FIVE California League teams (High Desert, Inland Empire, Lake Elsinore, Lancaster, and Rancho Cucamonga). Only High Desert has been threatening to move of late, and they re-upped for two more seasons. In that usual LA quirk, all of these clubs are in "exurban" areas that are a 90-180 minute one-way commute into town, and MANY people make that commute.

(Of course, to play the ridiculous into the sublime, if you drop a map of the LA metro area on Buffalo and match downtown LA with downtown Buffalo, I think Utica would be in it. I do believe High Desert is further away from Los Angeles than Rochester is from Buffalo.)

The city of Los Angeles bets that private money will pay for all the costs of NFL in LA. They are now being presented with the option of giving up the downtown area's convention center in exchange for private money building the NFL stadium, while another group is looking to land near a freeway several miles away. LA rightly believes that the NFL needs them more than LA needs the NFL, and they may decide the convention center brings THE CITY more money long term.

The state isn't going to pay for an Escondido ballpark. Escondido, a town with almost as much population as Syracuse (city-wise), is offering to float bonds. Whether that's a good idea or not is worth debating, but Jeff Moorad has entered into an agreement to buy the Beavers, so I suspect he's got the votes to pass the project.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

User avatar
Buffalo Super Fan
Site Admin
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:27 pm

Post by Buffalo Super Fan » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:42 am

[quote=""Pounder""]Buff, there's more than one thread on the PCL board that speaks to the Portland situation. You can disbelieve it all you want, that changes nothing.

The LA metro area supports FIVE California League teams (High Desert, Inland Empire, Lake Elsinore, Lancaster, and Rancho Cucamonga). Only High Desert has been threatening to move of late, and they re-upped for two more seasons. In that usual LA quirk, all of these clubs are in "exurban" areas that are a 90-180 minute one-way commute into town, and MANY people make that commute.

(Of course, to play the ridiculous into the sublime, if you drop a map of the LA metro area on Buffalo and match downtown LA with downtown Buffalo, I think Utica would be in it. I do believe High Desert is further away from Los Angeles than Rochester is from Buffalo.)

The city of Los Angeles bets that private money will pay for all the costs of NFL in LA. They are now being presented with the option of giving up the downtown area's convention center in exchange for private money building the NFL stadium, while another group is looking to land near a freeway several miles away. LA rightly believes that the NFL needs them more than LA needs the NFL, and they may decide the convention center brings THE CITY more money long term.

The state isn't going to pay for an Escondido ballpark. Escondido, a town with almost as much population as Syracuse (city-wise), is offering to float bonds. Whether that's a good idea or not is worth debating, but Jeff Moorad has entered into an agreement to buy the Beavers, so I suspect he's got the votes to pass the project.[/quote]

Pounder your a good poster but my sources say that San Diego is buying the Portland Beavers your right about that but there not going to a single-a stadium in California which I suspected all along because you can't do triple-a baseball business in a long term situation with a single-a stadium which would be likely in California with this economy.

I don't care if Los Angeles has a billion people your not getting a triple-a baseball stadium passed in this economic environment. Anyway the Portland Beavers are going I have read to Tucson, Arizona in Tucson Electric Park which holds a seating capacity 11,500. That is the up to date information I have read on the subject of the Portland Beavers there waiting for the transaction to get finalized and the California vote but I doubt very much it passes.

Your city Portland pounder put the Portland Beavers staff on the Portland Timbers MLS staff some of those that were working for the Portland Beavers PCL and from what I read the Portland Beavers PCL at this point are on a very small staff now till the sale is finalized.

As for Los Angeles and the NFL I wouldn't hold your breathe pounder on the NFL getting to Los Angeles real soon because the other NFL owners make out by using Los Angeles as a bargaining chip. Los Angeles was very foolish in my opinion to screw up 1999 NFL Expansion with the Los Angeles NFL franchise award that went to Houston instead so we disagree there. The economy was better then in 1999 to build and get a NFL team there then it is now in my opinion. People are going to be less willing in tough times economy wise.

How many Super Bowls did the leaders at the time at the Los Angeles Coliseum and there commission give up for the city of Los Angeles because they couldn't compromise and work on another sollution other then there own agenda the Los Angeles Coliseum.

It reaked of Robert Moses in New York City in the late 1950's and his ego and agenda that cost Brooklyn, New York the Brooklyn Dodgers insisting the Dodgers go to Queens, New York instead of Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, New York there home that they wanted. Yeah pounder New York got a new team for 1962 the New York Mets but it isn't the same.

The Brooklyn Dodgers if they stayed in Brooklyn would have been like the Chicago Cubs. The New York Mets are clearly number 2 in New York because the history just isn't there like the New York Yankees and the Brooklyn Dodgers had. Even the New York Giants who also left had more history then the New York Mets. New York got hurt as sports fans by Robert Moses selfishness in my opinion because he could work with people which in the end lead to his downfall from power in New York in the late 1960's not the Brooklyn Dodgers leaving but Robert Moses inability to work with people in a reasonable fashion. So it caught up to him in the end but the damage for the Brooklyn Dodgers was done.

Brooklyn, New York went down a steedy sports decline for a while with population decline because people were moving in the 1960's to the New York suburbs till it picked back up again now and Brooklyn, New York today is putting the sports peaces back together with building the new Brooklyn Nets NBA arena on the very site Robert Moses said no to the Brooklyn Dodgers to in the 1950's. But Robert Moses short sighted in for his own ego and political agenda hurt alot of baseball and sports fans in New York.

But I guess that is ok for you pounder if the ends justifies the means I don't think we agree on much. I believe in working toward a goal to fix the problems not drive teams out of town. Los Angeles has waited 15 years and I don't see any end in sight because political people in Los Angeles on the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum couldn't get off the Coliseum and step aside and do what was right for the city of Los Angeles in my opinion so I disagree.

And I don't need a geography lesson I have been to Los Angeles I realize how big it is but it gotten people leading there that don't compromise for the good of the people in my opinion. Very short sight political leaders on the Los Angeles Coliseum commission they didn't play it right at all pounder do you see any NFL team in Los Angeles the number 2 tv market? No for 15 plus years try again pounder your a good poster but we can agree to disagree.

I believe in compromise and working together for the public good. Losing the expansion NFL franchise from Los Angeles to Houston was a embarrassment for Los Angeles in my opinion and I feel bad for the sports fans there. How much money could have been made for the citizens of Los Angeles if NFL went there in 1999.

Los Angeles isn't a normal NFL situation like Green Bay or Pittsburgh were those cities are too small to host Super Bowls. Your talking millions of dollars the Los Angeles Coliseum and council cost Los Angeles. I don't live in Los Angeles but if I did I wouldn't be to happy that the council cost my city of Los Angeles a NFL team and Super Bowls even if you don't care a lick about the NFL maybe Sue or Mary are catering the Super Bowl for the week long festivities that is economic money gone for years because of shortsighted ness in my opinion.

So you don't have to be a huge fan of the NFL to like NFL if you live in Los Angeles just from the money point of view. Your not dealing with Buffalo where it is just a NFL team your dealing with. In Los Angeles a stadium and team there means so much more with all the Super Bowls a national televison time for most americans that is millions and millions of dollars potential not made for the past let's say every 4 to 5 years Los Angeles would have hosted a Super Bowl that is 3 Super Bowls and millions of dollars going into the city of Los Angeles being spent in the city of Los Angeles I will stand by my post pounder shortsighted was the Los Angeles Coliseum commission. Good posting with you. Let's Go Buffalo
Last edited by Buffalo Super Fan on Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:55 am, edited 5 times in total.
The above post is in my opinion and I have no proof or link. I am just a Buffalo sports fan.

User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

Post by Pounder » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:44 pm

Ah, joy, the blues of Brooklyn Dodgers fans.

That'd be a fair argument if baseball's anti-trust exemption were a two-way street.

You shaming people who YOU THINK support the owners... perhaps that sends a message to people, but do you see it working?

I don't.

Let's face it... you have a world view based on fear of the Bills leaving. You're using every example you can find to yell at the wind. I don't even blame you for that, even though I don't think the Bills will leave. Problem is, long term, it's like yelling at the bully who has you tied down to stop hitting you. There ARE a couple ways- which will require an insane amount of work- to stem this tide. You also need to act like I'm saying Los Angeles' play with the NFL will work... clearly, I have to spell things out for you. LA would love the NFL to come on LA's terms, and the text between the lines is that they DO NOT THINK the economic benefits truly pan out if they bend over to an owner's demands. They'd rather shut the league out and focus on keeping a fair chunk of Hollywood in Hollywood. That provides more income to a city than a football team.

Still, let's answer the core issue.

America seems to believe in sports league officiating their own affairs. They LET these anti-competitive cartels take hold (promoting competition all the while, cute trick) while being able to shut everyone else out. They do well at that.

Want to send a message?

(1) You NEED a national fan's union. They need to have a considerable voice. They need to be able to call for BOYCOTTS and be listened to and heeded when they do. That means you have to make a lot of friends in a lot of places. See, as long as you do this in one market, the cartel just trades you in for the next market. If the fans skip everywhere else instead, it's a different ballgame.

(That's easier for soccer. MLS fans are generally also US National Team fans. There's something of a Supporters Union because of that, and at times, we can work together towards common goals. Of course, the first is to keep growing MLS popularity here.)

(2) I'd be putting pressure on Congress to tweak baseball's anti-trust exemption. That's a touchstone NFL drools for and everyone else kind of had for a while, which is why going after that sends a message to all sports leagues. I can see a stipulation mandating promotion and relegation in baseball, which would almost kill the notion of franchise upheavals... much as it usually (not completely, but far more rare than here) does in the rest of the world. It would probably encourage an owner in Buffalo to go for the gusto, and someone in Portland to build a ballpark. I can see threatening a poison pill of requiring that, if MLB wants to keep their anti-trust exemption, they have to pay back all the public funds used for building the ballparks currently used... and I think that can get the support of liberals and tea-partiers alike.

Is it a longshot? Yes. They're still better ideas than whining to the bully.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

User avatar
Buffalo Super Fan
Site Admin
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:27 pm

Post by Buffalo Super Fan » Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:25 am

Pounder I don't have a problem with the Buffalo Bills moving anywhere if that is what is ment to be because we live in a capitalistic society. I believe in capitalism so I have no problem if the Buffalo Bills move. I don't want it to happen but if it does it does.

I don't fear the Buffalo Bills NFL moving or any Buffalo sports team moving because one would come back in another league because of our size of 1 million plus metro. It isn't like Buffalo, New York is Yuma, Arizona or something we are a decent size city. I will give you pounder most of Buffalo, New York does fear the Buffalo Bills moving. But I don't because I think Buffalo would get another football team as I have said before either UFL, CFL or Arena League one will come to Buffalo in my opinion.

All I am pointing out was that Los Angeles Coliseum Council was foolish and short sighted because of the money $$$ that Los Angeles lost with Super Bowls they could have had. Basically I disagreed with your train of throught that the Los Angeles Coliseum Council and Los Angeles guessed right no they didn't. Not when there going on two decades with no NFL football in Los Angeles. No one stepped up privately because the cost is too much to make the numbers work doing it all privately for a stadium plus team or teams. Look how much trouble the New York Giants and New York Jets had making the private stadium numbers work and that is with two NFL teams already there. The cost is simplely to high and inless there is some kind of assistance in some way NFL in Los Angeles isn't happening anytime soon in my opinion. If I had a educated guess the Buffalo Bills will just use Los Angeles to get a new NFL stadium or another redone stadium with a sweatheart lease deal they want in Buffalo. Los Angeles will just get used like they have been for two decades. Let's Go Buffalo
Last edited by Buffalo Super Fan on Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
The above post is in my opinion and I have no proof or link. I am just a Buffalo sports fan.

User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

Post by Pounder » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:37 pm

Try telling your fellow Bills fans that the UFL or CFL or AFL is a suitable replacement for the Bills. Good luck with that.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

Hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:37 am

Post by Hockey » Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:30 pm

I have relatives in Lake Elsinore. Its not realistic for them to be season ticket holders of the Angels, Dodgers or Padres due to traffic for both game days and work.

The stadium is in a great location for the community though. I could really see the sky being the limit for who ever is there.

nksports
Site Admin
Posts: 3669
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Newton, KS (the land of Oz)

Post by nksports » Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:16 am

[quote=""Pounder""]Try telling your fellow Bills fans that the UFL or CFL or AFL is a suitable replacement for the Bills. Good luck with that.[/quote]

The commish said today he wants a team in London. It could be the London Bills — chip, chip, cheerio. Fish and chips and a nice warm ale for everyone. Bangers and mash anyone? (You think Raider fans are bad).

aardvark
Site Admin
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:59 pm

Post by aardvark » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:43 am

High Desert now has new ownership--the same ownership group that runs the Quad Cities RiverBandits in the Midwest League. I think they can make a go of it there, as when the franchise first started playing in the high desert, but if not, they could be the franchise moving to Chico. I think Bakersfield will end up with a new stadium in the next 5-10 years (IMO), so I think Bakersfield will be staying put (again, IMO).

aardvark
Site Admin
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:59 pm

Post by aardvark » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:41 pm

Bumping this thread (and replying to myself). It appears that Bakersfield will get a new stadium all right; it just probably won't be in Bakersfield. Midway through the 2011 season, the Blaze are averaging around 600 paid per game--I would say the clock is ticking on the franchise moving.

Post Reply

Return to “CalL”