Why do the Giants and the Jets share the same stadium?  Don't they have enough money to have their own?
816072
i guess it makes sense financially.
650656
The Royals are in a tough division (Cleveland, ChiSox, Twins) and thier owners are a bunch of penny-pinching tightwads. Unless they can keep and pay for their young talent, it will be Pittsburgh. The Pirates have the talent and an owner who's willing to shell out some $$$ to keep them. Besides, they have a new stadium and to increase revenues they have to put fannies in the seat and to do that the Pirates must field a winning team.
656219
i'm a beantown boy, so its all about the red sox around here. i wish that the teams had a league determined spending limit for their player salaries. imagine how much better the games would be if the teams were more evenly matched!
603562
More power to them.  LA has not been awarded a team because they (like san Diego) refuse to build a new stadium.  They want a team to share the colesium and that's not even cool..  If Chula wants to build them a stadium, Good for them!
1137730
no they shouldn't they already have two teams!!!!!!!
453539
People often get these kinds of taxes mixed up.  It is a special allotment that MUST be approved by taxpayers as an ADDITIONAL tax on a special proposition.  If they don't approve it, then so be it, taxpayers can contribute it in other ways.\n\nSpeaking just to the stadium system, I think it's fine the way it is and I actually think it works to the team's benefit.  The roof is one of a kind and makes the stadium special.  Who wants a stadium that looks like everyone else's?
253541
Yes, I would.  FINALLY someone who feels the same way I do.  Usually, it's the large market teams who hate the idea of this.  Currently teams such as the Red Sox, Yankees, and a handful of others, rule the league.  Why?  Because of their ownership's huge pocket-books.  The team I root for, and many others, aren't so fortunate.  We live in smaller markets, and simply can't shell out the big bucks for big-name players.  It's not because of our losing records that we don't draw huge crowds every game, allowing us to make more money.  It's the fact that we just live in smaller cities with smaller populations.  Beside that fact, we have lower ticket prices, because the market value in our area doesn't support higher ticket prices.  If we lived in an area where we could charge more, we'd have more capital to spend on the big name players.  However, the reality is that we don't.  Why should we be punished because of our geographical location?  These larger-market teams have payrolls 4 or more times that of the smaller-market clubs.  It simply isn't fair, and we just can't compete.  Face it.  It's simple.  If you don't have enough capital to spend, you won't even compare to the clubs who do...and your record at the end of the season will show it.  If you can't afford the big home-run sluggers, and ace pitching staff, you won't even be a match to these larger teams.  As it stands, look at the All-Star game every year.  All the starters you see play for large-market teams, and are making huge salaries that small-market teams couldn't even dream of affording.  Some people say this isn't true, because of the fact that you do see a small-market team make it to the post-season from time to time.  This does happen periodically, but it doesn't happen consistently from year to year...unlike the Yankees, who are in the post-season almost every single year.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that as they way it stands, the MLB isn't even a fair contest.  So yes, a salary cap is definitely needed.
265176
A salary cap would not solve the problems, it's the "Holy Grail" of baseball. Read this: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1345\n\nMore appropriate, I believe, is your other suggestion, a "salary floor". There is currently no incentive for some owners (Tampa, Milwaukee, for example) to spend on quality players. Revenue sharing means that a team like NY will hand out over $60 million to the have-nots of the league. So Tampa gets their cut of this and some merchandising money and a little bit of gate receipts and that's all they need to cover $30 million of salary. They can do little work, field a horrible team and still break even. Force them to carry a roster with at least $55 million in salary and they start thinking, I better put a quality team on the field so people will come watch and more money is generated.
1038508
As ludicrous as this may sound, baseball stadiums may be different sizes because they are allowed to be just that. There is nothing to regulate how each stadium could be built. Hence, why Fenway has the Green Monster, and Minute Maid Park has the "hill."\n\nI think MLB only does this to make it a bit more interesting. It may be kind of dull if every single stadium was the same thing. True, it is unfair, but in the end, it would suit certain players over others. The way the stadiums are built now, are built to help the home team as much as it can.\n\n**If you were to regulate the sizes of baseball stadiums, in theory, you would have to regulate the height above sea level which they are built at too as that also affects scoring.**\n\nAs for other sports with variable field sizes:\n(a) golf\n(b) racing (as in road courses, not oval tracks)\n(c) horse jumping\n(d) any extreme sport (i.e. BMX, skateboarding, etc)\n(e) professional ski and snowboard races\n\nThere are many.
309531
It's not the players, it's the owners who should be paying.  The problem is that there are more cities who want MLB teams than there are teams, so when an owner wants to build a stadium, they can extort money from the local government by threatening to move the team out of the area.  \n\nIt is true that MLB teams contribute to the local economy by providing jobs and increasing revenue in surrounding businesses, but the local governments need to make sure that they're getting a decent return on the investment.\n\nThe whole stadium-building race is being driven by luxury boxes leased to corporations.  In baseball, where revenue sharing among teams is minimal, a team that doesn't maximize its revenue is at a competitive disadvantage.
979600
Well, first off, an SF rookie gets paid BANK anyways...55 grand a year: no education above high school required. And no - it's not due to the cost of living. I worked there for a lowly 35 grand a year and did just fine.\n\nSecond of all, these are not team requirements...the team doesn't bear the cost of it's fans...it plays football. Fans come. If it's a traffic problem...which it is, the city can either cover it - as they benefit from having a pro stadium...or they can let it go.\n\nThe team will go where the money is, and if it's SC...I guess thats where they go. It won't be fair to us fans that have held seasons tickets for...\nuhhhh...I've has seasons tickets for 34 years now....\nBUT it could happen.\n\nI think the city loves the team, it just isn't equipped to adapt very well.
971208
not if you own a business California has a reputation as being downright hateful towards businesses due to oppressive taxes.\n\nDodgers are just going back to Brooklyn where they started. The Chargers may be moving to Los Angeles where they started i also heard a rumor they were going to start calling themselves the California or Southern California Chargers and play in SD and LA. They were the Los Angeles Chargers in their first year. I think the Giants were also originally in another city the 49ers may just be moving to a new stadium.
554299
It was actually a combination of low fan support and poor ownership support. Back when the Expos were a decent team they couldn't fill up that abortion of a ballpark called Olympic Stadium. The owners wanted to move for years but were locked into a lease with the stadium, so they quit putting a good team on the field. Some big names have played in Montreal, but were traded or cut loose as soon as they were going to cost any real $$. Finally a few years back MLB had enough and tried to contract the league by getting rid of two teams, Montreal and Minnesota. Minnesota responded by making a run at the world series. The contraction plan was eventually thrown out the window and the other team owners with MLB bought the Expos and operated for at least one year in Montreal until a plan to move them, ultimately to DC, was developed. They finally, this year, had finalized a deal to sell the team to a DC based group.
337686
Steinbrenner could definitely sell the Yankees for a billion dollars. The way Forbes comes up with how much a team is worth is by liquidating all of their assets. Like the stadium, name and liscensing. With the Yankees, you also have YES network, and that boosts what the team is worth because it belongs to the Yankees name. You;ve also got to remember that it's really only worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. I think the Red Sox were sold a few years back for 686 million. They weren't worth that much. But that's what the previous owner was able to get for it. On the other hand, when the Montreal Expos were getting ready to fold their franchise, they tried to sell it first. And nobody wanted them. Major League Baseball ended up taking over ownership of the Expos for a payout of . . . nothing. Clearly a professional baseball team is worth more than $0 dollars, but nobody wanted them
63578
they needed the money\nthe new stadium took lots of money
1100995
The Wikipedia links have much of the story, but the real answer is that the team owners decide, usually by authorizing the league to make changes.  Today that would be a decision of all the owners on behalf of MLB, as when the leagues expanded and when the Milwaukee Brewers were moved from the American to the National League.\n\nWhy do some states (and cities) have teams in both leagues?  Competition, pure and simple.  The American League itself was founded for that reason, and it was why the original Baltimore Orioles became the New York Yankees.  In fact, part of the 1905 agreement that established the World Series as an annual affair specified that the American League would not move a franchise to Pittsburgh to compete with the Pirates.\n\nThe New York Mets and Houston Astros - indeed all of the expansion franchises and most of the recent franchise moves -also exist because of competition.  When the Giants moved to San Francisco, a minority shareholder who opposed the move, Joan Payson (who also unsuccessfully tried to buy the Giants from Horace Stoneham and thus prevent the move), had enough money to back a new major league, the Continental League, which would have teams in Atlanta, Buffalo, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York and Toronto.  (All these cities except Buffalo now have major league teams.)   The AL and NL folded and added four new teams, the others being the second Washington Senators franchise (now the Rangers) and the Los Angeles Angels (no "of Anaheim" in those days).  The man who organized the Continental League, William A. Shea, is the man for whom Shea Stadium is named.  Payson became the first owner of the Mets.\n\nSometimes moves occur because the team owner wishes to move to greener pastures, as with the Giants, Dodgers, Athletics, the Milwaukee (ex-Boston) Braves and the Seattle Pilots (now the Brewers).
327219
I am a lifetime Knicks, Yankees, Rangers, and Giants fan. I have never heard of Yankee fans hateing on Knicks fans, thats new to me. I figured all new york like other nyc teams, except for mets fans likeing yankee fans , jets and giants. Go NYC teams. Funny i'm from Jersey.