Drillers Deadline Today (again)

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Just for the sake of chatter...

Early on when the Driller's had the negotiation agreement with Jenks..
Many speculated they (the Drillers) were just out to get as much as they could out of Tulsa...

What if what is happening now is the reverse?

A draw of 6 million people in your immediate area could be very enticing. May well mean mucho mas dinero$

The timing of these new news releases (with really no new news) can't be accidental.

The Jenks people are making very sure that the Drillers are reminded that there's another very viable option.

What occurred to me was that this will be a family oriented "tourist attraction"..

If they are putting that much up front in the beginning they will surely have the cash to add-on if interest dwindles..

Swake, I never really considered tis side of the argument  until I read a post you made on another thread.. Something about "they may be getting a sports team yet"..

Six million tourist a year is not soccer...

It is whatever the majors can sell them. If the majors place players in and out of these bush leagues... Your attraction may be the next "A Rod"...

Mister and Mrs Clark Griswold would pay to see that.

Keep in mind this is purely speculation and conjecture. No offense intended...

Sure makes for some great suspense though.

[USRufnex]

Gee, stereotype much....

Soccer Moms Don't Exist

http://marketingtowomenonline.typepad.com/blog/2005/12/soccer_moms_don.html

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Honestly. If its soccer moms forget it. Soccer folks don't do baseball. If its teenagers same thing. Last thing they want to do is be with the family at a Drillers game. They may all go to the River District to shop, graze and take in movies but the Drillers aren't a good fit for them. Seems Sgrizz is right. Lamson would be flirting with long term diminishing returns in a beautiful setting.

Have you seen their promo digital trailer? I didn't even see a stadium featured.

it isn't soccer moms....I dunno where you get that stupid idea.  if this was going into the Union school district I might agree.

Read my posts. I said "if" because the stupid idea is from Artist on the other current thread. He has been more aware of River District development and its demos than most on this forum. And I somewhat agree with him that they think their demo is family. But baseball is a blue collar, grey collar sport. Soccer fits the wealthy Jenks demographic. What, you think baseball is king in Jenks? Football is king in Jenks but its an everyman sport despite the appearance of its fan base.

River District is going to have to pull from the entire region to get 6 million visitors a year. Competing against the Arena, the Bixby arena, a growing downtown that matches a national growth pattern, suburban malaise, festivals, gasoline prices and resistance from angry Tulsans. Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.

Drillers would have jumped on the idea of a share of 6 million visitors if: a. they believed it and b. they thought they would draw less downtown, or c. the demographics were superior for growth.

Downtown is a regional draw that if done right will dwarf RiverDistrict. Anyone who went to the Centennial Celebration downtown, Mayfest, Blue Dome Art festival or the Christmas Parade knows its potential for drawing a crowd.

The Drillers are squeezing hard but have less of a future in RiverDistrict than downtown.

[Renaissance]

Waterboy, I agree with you that the Drillers have a bigger, better future in downtown than in the suburbs.  I expect, eventually, there will be a resolution and the Brady ballpark plan will be finalized.

It is just so frustrating, though, that someone, somewhere had the genius idea to tie the timetable for the construction of the ballpark to acquisition of the surrounding properties and tie it all up in a trust whose terms stink to high heaven of moneyed influence.  Why not create separate trusts?  Why not allow the TDA to do its job and farm out parcels to developers whose plans match up with the vision for the area?  Where's the creativity?  I just can't stand these bloated plans that continue to emanate from city hall, and eventually collapse under their own weight.

As much as I was impressed that the deal got done, I'm just as disappointed to see control of the process spiral out of the mayor's control.  Kathy Taylor needs to take a step back and stop trying to please her "donors."  She needs to explain to them that as much as they want total control, if they don't back off they'll control jack and squat.

[Oil Capital]

Kathy (and apparently the "donors") seem to misunderstand the word "donor".

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.

Texas League teams play 136 games a season -- so 68 home dates assuming no double-headers. This season the Drillers are within reach of 300,000 attendance, a milestone they've reached in 13 of the last 15 seasons.

That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.

Texas League teams play 136 games a season -- so 68 home dates assuming no double-headers. This season the Drillers are within reach of 300,000 attendance, a milestone they've reached in 13 of the last 15 seasons.

That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.

The Drillers rarely get to that 10,000 seat mark.  That's a pretty desperate argument.  You can do better.

Beyond the 300,000 mark, another benchmark is actual revenue.  Rest assured it will go up.

How about we let the baseball people worry about their business rather than make up numbers or make their value judgments for them?  (Making big assumptions seems to be a running theme on here.)  Lamson seems pretty interested in the downtown site.

[TheTed]

There's a large disparity between paid attendance and actual butts in seats at Drillers games.

Every non-Saturday game I've attended has had probably 500-1,000 fans tops. The announced attendance was many times larger.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Waterboy, I agree with you that the Drillers have a bigger, better future in downtown than in the suburbs.  I expect, eventually, there will be a resolution and the Brady ballpark plan will be finalized.

It is just so frustrating, though, that someone, somewhere had the genius idea to tie the timetable for the construction of the ballpark to acquisition of the surrounding properties and tie it all up in a trust whose terms stink to high heaven of moneyed influence.  Why not create separate trusts?  Why not allow the TDA to do its job and farm out parcels to developers whose plans match up with the vision for the area?  Where's the creativity?  I just can't stand these bloated plans that continue to emanate from city hall, and eventually collapse under their own weight.

As much as I was impressed that the deal got done, I'm just as disappointed to see control of the process spiral out of the mayor's control.  Kathy Taylor needs to take a step back and stop trying to please her "donors."  She needs to explain to them that as much as they want total control, if they don't back off they'll control jack and squat.

I'm with you on that. We seem to have leadership as far as ideas. Like Taylor or not, she meets problems head on and attempts to find solutions. Once the details start to unfurl though, it gets pretty gruesome. There are some terribly greedy or terribly shortsided controlling people on that end. That trust agreement is poisonous.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.

Texas League teams play 136 games a season -- so 68 home dates assuming no double-headers. This season the Drillers are within reach of 300,000 attendance, a milestone they've reached in 13 of the last 15 seasons.

That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.

The Drillers rarely get to that 10,000 seat mark.  That's a pretty desperate argument.  You can do better.

Beyond the 300,000 mark, another benchmark is actual revenue.  Rest assured it will go up.

How about we let the baseball people worry about their business rather make up numbers?  Lamson seems pretty interested in the downtown site.

Agree with you there. The attendance numbers aren't even that important. Revenue, profitability and growth potential make downtown a better choice. Note the stadium in RiverDistrict would also be smaller and note it is not featured in their promotional trailer.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates



That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.

The Drillers aren't going to worry as much about attendance as they are about revenues.

Most of the major league teams' new stadiums are *smaller* than the old stadiums -- including the St. Louis Cardinals' up the road. But revenues have gone up big-time because of more luxury boxes and other revenue-enhancers.

The Drillers are looking at doing the same thing.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Waterboy, I agree with you that the Drillers have a bigger, better future in downtown than in the suburbs.  I expect, eventually, there will be a resolution and the Brady ballpark plan will be finalized.

It is just so frustrating, though, that someone, somewhere had the genius idea to tie the timetable for the construction of the ballpark to acquisition of the surrounding properties and tie it all up in a trust whose terms stink to high heaven of moneyed influence.  Why not create separate trusts?  Why not allow the TDA to do its job and farm out parcels to developers whose plans match up with the vision for the area?  Where's the creativity?  I just can't stand these bloated plans that continue to emanate from city hall, and eventually collapse under their own weight.

As much as I was impressed that the deal got done, I'm just as disappointed to see control of the process spiral out of the mayor's control.  Kathy Taylor needs to take a step back and stop trying to please her "donors."  She needs to explain to them that as much as they want total control, if they don't back off they'll control jack and squat.

Post of the year

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by TheTed

There's a large disparity between paid attendance and actual butts in seats at Drillers games.

Every non-Saturday game I've attended has had probably 500-1,000 fans tops. The announced attendance was many times larger.

That's true of spectator sports at a lot of levels.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Drillers aren't going to bring them more than 85,000 a year (I forget, 16 games at 5000 per game?) unless they seriously make the stadium multi use. Fireworks or no.

Texas League teams play 136 games a season -- so 68 home dates assuming no double-headers. This season the Drillers are within reach of 300,000 attendance, a milestone they've reached in 13 of the last 15 seasons.

That level could be harder to reach in the new location. The downtown park will only have a little more than half the seats of the current park. They will need to provide for berm seating or temporary bleachers to accommodate crowds for opening day and other special events in order to rack up a few 10,000-fan games.

The Drillers rarely get to that 10,000 seat mark.  That's a pretty desperate argument.  You can do better.

Beyond the 300,000 mark, another benchmark is actual revenue.  Rest assured it will go up.

How about we let the baseball people worry about their business rather than make up numbers or make their value judgments for them?  (Making big assumptions seems to be a running theme on here.)  Lamson seems pretty interested in the downtown site.

Take it easy. I support the ballpark downtown, and I think the Archer and Elgin location is the best downtown location. (I just don't like the way the deal is being done.)

Desperate argument? I wasn't making an argument at all. Waterboy made a guess at Drillers season attendance, which was low, and I chimed in with what I knew about it.

When the current Driller Stadium was first opened, it was much smaller -- probably closer to the 6,000 or so seats being discussed for the new park. Most nights that was enough, but opening dates and special promotions would draw far more. They would let the overflow sit on berms down the 1st and 3rd base lines. I recall one game when the crowd was so large they fenced off part of the outfield.

The Arkansas Travelers' new park only seats 5,288, but they still managed to set a franchise record attendance in their opening year -- 372,475. Their average attendance was actually higher than the official stadium capacity, because they could seat people out on berms along the foul lines.

There are going to be days when you need more than 6,000 seats for a ballgame. I seem to recall some discussion of berms for overflow seating in the new park. Hopefully that won't be overlooked. The more people at the game, the more concessions you sell, the more money you make.

[Gold]

It's the same argument that Friendly Bear makes over and over again (I'll admit that I see it and my need to bash fools on the internet kicks in).  Revenue is the factor.  A lot of nights (like tonight and tomorrow night) the Drillers hand out free tickets around town.  They make their money off selling beer and hot dogs, not cheap (or free) seats.

I realize you say you are in favor of the stadium, but you also have a history of talking about things that you don't understand (see the article about firing every OK Supreme Court judge other than Opala).  In this case, you raised a point about 10,000 seat games that are not the norm.  I think Lamson is well aware of the risks and benefits of what he's doing.

I will aplogize for that being a bit over the top.  But I've also seen so much nonsense put forth on the stadium (and other subjects) on here that it sends me into orbit when I see broad assumptions used to justify policy choices.