TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Sports Discussion
-- Washington Nationals? or not?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Washington Nationals? or not?
Man this just pisses me off.. Chairmain of the DC Council Linda Cropp pretty much put a wrench in the wheels of DC getting the Montreal Expos..
Yeah this probably doesn't affect anyone who isnt part of the DC, MD or VA regions, but because I am part of the VA region, this affects me a whole lot.
DC is the laughing-stock of the sports world because they couldn't get their act together. Since September, Cropp has had time to review all the deals made between DC and Major League Baseball and then now, all of a sudden, she wants amendments!
Look I know a lot of people are not happy about a public-financed ballpark, i mean I know I would raise hell too if I had to pay for a new stadium, but 2 things:
1) you will be generating revenue in the long run, with ticket sales, commerce and tourists.
2) I would support this baseball team, in fact I WANT to support this team! I was all ready to go out and get myself a new Nationals T-shirt and Baseball cap.. but they shut down all promotions and distributions.. SO no memorabilia at all.. Ill have to get my nationals hat on eBay and because it's a collectors item now ill have to spend 3x as much! 
Anyways I know Cropp is standing up for the citizens of DC who dont want to pay for the stadium, but for gods sake woman! why didnt you look over the deal earlier instead of springing your "amendments" at the last second!
eh, sorry for this long winded rant, I just feel that DC is so close to getting a baseball team (the first one in more than 30 years) and now we probably wont. And if that happens, then I will probably never see a major league baseball team come to DC in my lifetime.
Eh, just cheer for the Twinkies. Small market baseball is more enjoyable anyway. And we know what its like to have complete a$$holes ruining the organization (aka our owner).
Hope you still get your team.
going through the same stuff here with the Marlins, I feel your pain.But I dunno man I can see why they dont want to put money into the stadium,the economy right now sucks and paying taxes for some stadium dosnt make sence to normal every day middle class/to poor americans.
Joe Robbie built the stadium for the Dolphins with pretty much his entire money.All that revenue stuff is a bit overated,back in the late 80s we built the Miami Arena in a poor town called Overtown next to downtown Miami for the Miami Heat.Almost 20 years later they no longer play there,the stadium is useless,and Overtown still sucks ass.So theres negatives,a positive here has been the racetrack built a couple minutes from my parents home in Homestead which hosts Nascar and Indy races,the racetracks revenues has really helped this city that was destroyed by hurricane andrew ,which was already rebuilt,but now into a bigger city in terms of business.And Homestead has felt more of the help then lets say Miami because it is simply a smaller city.One problem though is because theres only 2 major races a year, their having some troubles money wise.
So theres positives but also many negatives.I believe that Owners should put in a major to everything part of their money because in the end they are the ones that will see the major profit.
right, yeah i know there are pros and cons..
I think the one thing that pisses me off about the whole thing, is the fact that this is sprung up like 15 days before the deadline (dec 31, 2004)
If she had read the deal and made her amendments beforehand and let Mayor Anthony Williams, Baseball, et al know about what she wanted, we might have been able to work out something.
Now, the holidays are coming up and that means less meetings for the DC Council, which doenst look too bright for an agreement on both parties.
Yeah Baltimore Orioles are just around the corner, but I'd like to have a team closer that I can root for...
I basically agree with everything this guy says:
| quote: |
Nationals Face an Unhappy New Year By Thomas Boswell Thursday, December 16, 2004; Page D01 Major League Baseball has given the District a stay of execution until Dec. 31. When the ball drops on New Year's Eve, Washington can say goodbye to the "Nationals," all the joy they might have brought and all the urban rejuvenation they might have ignited on the Anacostia waterfront, unless some sanity is restored. Perhaps because he just learned last week that he had escaped a serious brush with cancer, Commissioner Bud Selig is infused with the holiday spirit. At any rate, he and his sport have given the District an enormous Christmas gift: a second chance. In the coming days, Washington and its infuriating, disingenuous D.C. Council must make a simple, straightforward decision. Do they want to accept the deal for a new stadium that was struck between the sport and Mayor Anthony A. Williams? Or don't they? That's it. Yes. Or no. Either answer is acceptable. City councils decide such things. It's their job. What is utterly and absolutely not acceptable is the current behavior of Council Chairman Linda Cropp and nine of her colleagues who want to bait-and-switch baseball into a radically altered deal than the one which Williams negotiated exhaustively -- as his city's official representative -- over a two-year period. In business, a deal is a deal, something Cropp refuses to understand. For her any deals, those made by others or even ones she has agreed to herself in recent days, are not deals at all. They are just a starting point for her next demand. And if she finally hears "No" to one of her new conditions, as she did on Tuesday from baseball, she threatens to sabotage the whole deal. Finally, yesterday, baseball became completely disgusted and drew a line in the sand. "The legislation approved by the District of Columbia City Council last night . . . is inconsistent with our carefully negotiated agreement and is wholly unacceptable," said MLB's Bob DuPuy in a statement. "Because our stadium agreement provides for a December 31, 2004 deadline, we will not entertain offers for permanent relocation of the club until that deadline passes. "In the meantime, the club's baseball operations will proceed, but its business and promotional activities will cease." In other words, baseball will honor its deal, right down to the Dec. 31 deadline. After that, it will start the work of moving the team to another city. According to highly placed sources, no games will be played at RFK Stadium next season if the Washington ballpark deal dies. "It's fair to assume that's out of the question," said one source. When you make a deal with baseball, they honor it. If you break a deal with them, you're out. Which is as it should be. But then baseball is big league, unlike the D.C. Council, which is bush league and just damaged the city's reputation coast-to-coast. If you want to see how atrociously the District is acting, then simply put the shoe on the other foot. Nationals Face an Unhappy New Year Suppose that, over the last few weeks, it was baseball, not Washington, that was constantly trying to renegotiate. What if Selig had changed his demands at least a half-dozen times, always upping the ante and using brinksmanship to get his way? What if Selig had canceled votes within baseball ownership or delayed approvals to try to muscle Washington into concessions? And what if, most outrageously, he had signed off on the deal in private, then reneged? What on earth would we be calling Selig right now? Of course, rich, powerful sports commissioners are fair game in this society. When they act badly, we call them out. But Cropp and her cohorts, who are acting in exactly the same manner as our hypothetical Selig, get off almost unchallenged . The Council claims to be fighting for the poor of the District when it is far more likely that it is in the process of killing a development deal, with baseball as its centerpiece, that would bring significant benefits, not costs, to those very constituents. Council members claim they are protecting citizen tax dollars when they know that not one cent of public money is earmarked for the Anacostia waterfront project. All funds to back the bonds to build the park will come from the team's new owners (rich), the top 11 percent of local Washington businesses (prosperous) and fans who attend games (many affluent). As for the District's pot of money collected through taxes -- called "the general fund" -- not a cent would be taken out of it. As a bonus, more than 80 percent of Nationals fans, about two million a year, would come from the suburbs and spend tens of millions of discretionary entertainment dollars in the District. Cropp and others on the council, like Adrian Fenty and David Catania, realize all this. They just don't want the public to figure it out. They prefer to round up cheap votes for themselves by bashing baseball rather than bringing a team back to Washington, bringing urban development to a blighted area and adding millions of dollars to the city's tax base. The Council should be reminded that baseball doesn't care how Washington funds its stadium. The sport has specifically stated that if Washington can get private funding, that's okay with them, as long as it's nailed down, not pie in the sky. All the Council needs to do to solve the current mess is pass an amendment that provides the District with time to pursue the kind of private funding that Cropp espouses but, if it cannot be found, that the city will fulfill its promise to build the new park itself. We should also remember that Washington's own mayor, not some ogre in baseball, dreamed up the current funding plan that so infuriates the Council's pols. The whole concept, and it's a brilliantly original one, came from Williams's office. Of course, Council members, especially ones like Cropp who want to be mayor, have nothing to gain by approving the successful creations of a rival politician. It's easier to destroy them, and then claim that you saved the public money. If Cropp had not chosen the nuclear option on Tuesday night, she might have continued to badger baseball into a few frills. But now she's forced the game to take a stand or else look like a patsy in any future negotiations with anybody. "How can we trust Cropp now? When does it end?" said a baseball official yesterday. "She has signed off, given her word, said the deal was done, more than once. Then she just changes her mind and acts like that's a normal way to do business. "It's disgraceful. Baseball has been accused of a lot of things in the last 100 years. But never anything like this. They just went back on their word. If Cropp thinks she's going to do that and [still] get a team, she's making a horrible mistake." The clock is ticking. The ball drops at midnight on New Year's Eve. Will the District's final hopes for baseball fall with it? |
My question is, why are they calling them the 'Nationals?' They hardly come up with names like that anymore. Why can't they call them something like the 'Washington Renegades?'
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Snagglepulse My question is, why are they calling them the 'Nationals?' They hardly come up with names like that anymore. Why can't they call them something like the 'Washington Renegades?' |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Eddie N MIAMI some names that most people have no clue what it means. |
I kinda hoped this team would adopt the old school name, the Senators.
Still do really...
Prior to the Senators, they had a team called the "Nationals"...I'm thinking back as far as 1920-1930's...somewhere back then....so there was 'some' history behind it.
... found it....
Played as:
Washington Nationals 1901-1955
Washington Senators 1956-1960
Minnesota Twins 1961-Present
hmmm funny to think these two franchises have one more thing in common when they will be contracted when the league shrinks to 28 teams.... 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Eddie N MIAMI Baseball teams usually have nice sounding kinda names. Cubs, Red and White Sox, Reds, lot of bird names, even teams named after priests and also Angels and some names that most people have no clue what it means. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PhloTron Prior to the Senators, they had a team called the "Nationals"...I'm thinking back as far as 1920-1930's...somewhere back then....so there was 'some' history behind it. ... found it.... Played as: Washington Nationals 1901-1955 Washington Senators 1956-1960 Minnesota Twins 1961-Present hmmm funny to think these two franchises have one more thing in common when they will be contracted when the league shrinks to 28 teams.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PhloTron Prior to the Senators, they had a team called the "Nationals"...I'm thinking back as far as 1920-1930's...somewhere back then....so there was 'some' history behind it. ... found it.... Played as: Washington Nationals 1901-1955 Washington Senators 1956-1960 Minnesota Twins 1961-Present hmmm funny to think these two franchises have one more thing in common when they will be contracted when the league shrinks to 28 teams.... |
?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mebot I thought the Senators were traded to Texas to become the Rangers.... ? |
Hooray! Proposals went through and payments were secured! MLB approved the new proposal and it looks like Washington will have a baseball team for 2005!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Eddie N MIAMI you are correct, washington was awarded a new franchise after the move to Minnesota also called the senators and after like 10 years they were moved to texas Washington had 2 MLB teams called the Senators and both failed.now the city wants another team and theyre having problem staying again , sigh |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mebot Hooray! Proposals went through and payments were secured! MLB approved the new proposal and it looks like Washington will have a baseball team for 2005! |
i'll be visiting rfk stadium this coming season
w00t
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Eddie N MIAMI congrats support your team we are division rivals now |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shamez214 The Expos were always in our division... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Eddie N MIAMI what are you trying to say? of course i know that, but the city of Washington wasnt in the NL East till now,Im welcoming Mebots new team and city as a new division rival.... oh and by the way....Mets suck |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shamez214 Gotcha. And yeah... we suck bad. We'll see come April what our teams look like. |
huge 1 year bump for this thread... it seems like we're replaying 2004 all over again.
The nationals are at the crossroads again, as estimated costs for the new stadium goes up. Millions of dollars that the DC council did not agree with MLB for.. so now it's likely that the council will reject the proposed stadium tax, and therefore void the contract with MLB.
I'm crossing my fingers on this, and I'll be watching this very closely, but I might not be going to see Nats play in DC next season. 
Nats are the team, series is the dream.
I heard some Nats fans are bitching because the Nationals have't made any big moves to try to be competitive in the offseason. Sure, they made a strong deal to a top pitcher, but has the club done more than shuffle around some players? This team definitely overacheived last year, perhaps because of the prospect of actually playing to an audience, but can they do the same this year?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.