Gothamist: Yankees Want $350 Million More for New Stadium

sonyactivision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:07:35 -0500

Make Billy Crystal cover the shortfall. He's still working, right?

jalcon

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:22:07 -0500

Yankee stadium is not part of the commons. You have to pay to get in. I have an idea for a popular restaurant, you guys buy it build it and staff it for me and I will collect the money. I am an entrepreneurial genius! The Yankees would not be the yankees without New York, let them move to Peoria if they can't make money here. If I buy that stadium I want free access and power to make trade deals.

Think twice

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:23:40 -0500

Hey Steinbrenners, howzabout you, and your primadonnas, and your peons all just take a pay cut! That ought to pay for 3 stadiums. Ey, howzabout dat.

Dirk

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:00:07 -0500

No. Fucking. Way. What a bunch of greedy bastards. The Yankees need to pay for this themselves.

mattbrogan

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:52:31 -0500

Yankees 2007 attendance: 4,271,867 Public Financed: 34% * Information is based on $450 million public finanicing of the $1.3 billion total. That does NOT take into account the value of the tax-free bonds (money diverted from other projects without interest). Browadway 2007 attendance: 12,300,000 Public Financed: 11% * Figure based on 1999 report, which is old but I highly doubt that number has jumped even close to 23% since then. I'm not saying only fund the arts- the city has a strong interest to fund public work projects. But funding obviously isn't being given out evenly and it only sings worse beacuse we know those pin-stripes are just getting rich off it too!

GaryK

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:36:03 -0500

agreed. the city should call their bluff and deny them. i think the only thing that would change my mind is if the city could get ownership in the team. then we all benefit.

Spiritof76

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:50:10 -0500

I get really annoyed when people defend the athletes' salaries as being the result of a free market. A free market would be if the teams had to support themselves without handouts from government and cable TV. Agreed. If it was really a free market, they'd make the people attending the game pay for the whole shebang. And if they're not willing to pony up the $250 per seat necessary to cover those outrageous salaries, then obviously the sport and the stadium just aren't worth it. It's not the responsibility of all the taxpayers in New York who don't give a damn about baseball to subsidize the stadium because some people claim it's an inalienable American right to be able to afford attending baseball games.

abcohen

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:17 -0500

if the city says yes... they should tell those a-holes to put a dome on that sucker!!!

Bubba

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:48:21 -0500

They should ask A-Rod for the money.

Sommelier

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:47:51 -0500

The new stadium has FEWER seats, so fewer of us will be able to go to games... so why should we pay more to build the place? Ask the skybox holders who they sacrificed those seats for.

JMH

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:31:19 -0500

Fuck them, the city has given them enough.

smokedgouda

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:31:18 -0500

The Yankees don't need one more cent from the city. This is already a giveaway of epic proportions, and they shouldn't get anything more.

Bottomless Chips

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:05:19 -0500

If you subscribe to basic cable you get about a dozen sports channels whether you watch them or not - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNNews, ESPNU, SNY, MSG, YES, etc. A portion of your monthly bill ends up in the hands of professional sports through no choice of the consumer. Cable rates have gone up twice the rate of inflation since the mid 90s. Cable enjoyed a government granted monopoly for decades, Satellite came along to offer "competition" but interestingly offers almost the exact same packages for the same price. To get onto the basic tier, though, is decided on by the Time Warners and the Cablevisions, not the government. Sure, I want full de-regulation in media and telecommunications---no FCC on cable, and work our way toward abolishing it all together. I just can't blame YES, SNY, NESN, or any other team's cable network with taking our money. We don't have to buy cable TV; it's not a public utility.

EricGewiz

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:58:02 -0500

If the Yankees get subsidized money, then the Mets should, too. Both stadiums are on city property (Department of Parks of Recreation), so if one benefits from city subsidies, so should the other.

Sinchy

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:38:25 -0500

Privatize profit socialize risk- free market capitalism in the USA.

EastRiver

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:38:15 -0500

I don't understand the cable TV argument. If you subscribe to basic cable you get about a dozen sports channels whether you watch them or not - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNNews, ESPNU, SNY, MSG, YES, etc. A portion of your monthly bill ends up in the hands of professional sports through no choice of the consumer. Cable rates have gone up twice the rate of inflation since the mid 90s. Cable enjoyed a government granted monopoly for decades, Satellite came along to offer "competition" but interestingly offers almost the exact same packages for the same price.

kane

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:37:50 -0500

Have that asshole Steinbrenner pay for it.

Pizza_Time

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:33:57 -0500

Screw the Yankmee's need for our tax money. Are the Yankees going to let NY'ers in for free? Or at leas at a discount. No friggin way that will happen. I am tired of this subsidation of private business with taxpayer money. If they do get it they should have to pay it back. With intrest. This bullshit model of businesses being subsidezed by taxpayer money, but do not share the profits back. Should be done away with.

Sinchy

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:31:37 -0500

A Gallup poll shows that less than half of Americans are baseball fans. Assuming that even fewer New Yorkers are BB fans because we have more alternative sports, more foreigners and then factor in that half of New Yorkers are Mets fans how can one justify doling out all that money is a fair deal for New Yorkers.

Bottomless Chips

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:28:40 -0500

A free market would be if the teams had to support themselves without handouts from government and cable TV. If you have YES on basic cable you are helping to make rich guys richer even if you never watch a game. I don't understand the cable TV argument.

whitecastlerock

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:27:03 -0500

Complete bullshit-this fucking stadium will make the team owners richer-make them pay for it. Give them nothing more-NOTHING

jibbly

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:17:47 -0500

Uuuuh, City of New York? I'd like $100 million so that I can provide an essential entertainment service to the community. It would have...uh...fun...bocce ball tournaments, yeah...and and and...uuuuh, yeah. Can I have my tax free bonds please?

drewo

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:17:47 -0500

The city will cower and come up with the $350 million (sure to be even more before it's all finished). And you can bet the parks promised to the residents around Yankee Stadium, as replacements for parkland lost to the new stadium, will not be completed on time nor constructed as originally planned.

Toby von Meistersinger

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:17:23 -0500

Why should the Yankees get $350 million. That could go for schools, transportation, infrastructure upgrades, parks, and other things of actual value.

nomnomnom

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:46 -0500

I call bullshit on this need for more money.

EastRiver

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:11:47 -0500

HowBoutDemCowboys

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:02:26 -0500

Maybe they'd have enough money if they didn't pay their inept players so much.

Bottomless Chips

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:01:56 -0500

Absolutely not. The city shouldn't even fund one bit of it other than infrastructure. The Yankees have plenty of money.