Conference hbahba::cam_sports

    
    
        Well I heard they are making Tax payers pay 1/3 of the bill!
    
    
        That is rediculous. Especially for people from Western Mass.
    
    
    Chap

    Not being familiar with what the Megaplex involves, can someone post a
    brief synopsis of what all is involved?  Hate to comment on something
    in the SPROTS note without knowing anything about the subject matter:-)
                                           
    UMDan

    
     I don't want to pay for the "Megapox".  Let the owners pay for it.

     And don't give the the poor-owners-not-making-money routine; these are 
     financially astute individuals who wouldn't be there if it weren't 
     profitable.  The books portray what they want to show to the rest of the 
     world, especially the players.

     CBB

      A new Boston Garden was sorely needed and could be done 
     using a minimal of public funding. It wasn't so much a great
     idea as something that obviously needed to be done. Still, it 
     took thirty years to get it done. It took getting to the point 
     where the old Garden was a dump and an embarassment to the city.
     The Pats have a stadium. It's not going to make anyone forget 
     the palace at Versailles but it's a functional stadium. Putting
     a Megaplex in a city with the traffic problems that Boston already
     has is stupid. Picture 20,000 cars on the Southeast Expressway
     all in line to turn right. Picture yourself trying to get to Logan
     the same day. Expecting the pre-game (read:tailgating)  festivities 
     to be the same in a city where parking is at a premium is just as 
     crazy. And be sure that you will pay through the nose for parking 
     as they try to force you to take public transportation or pay for
     the Megaplex. And not to be political BUT the proposed Megaplex is 
     in the senate president's neighborhood. It's his chance to leave a 
     big mark and even more it's his chance to dole out a billion dollars 
     worth of booty. It'll be the biggest piece of pork barrel in state 
     history. Get used to the idea of a Megaplex. There's too much money and
     opportunity to flex political muscle for it not to happen as stupid
     an idea as it is.
  
    

    Rule #1 of life
    Those with the gold have the power. We'll bitch and moan about it but
    it ain't going matter. So WTH. I'll pay my fair share and worry about
    things I can control. Like finding a cure for the common cold, Coming
    up with a lasting peace in the Middle East and Yugoslavia and figuring
    out just how my two teenagers already know everything while I don't
    know nothing. (Just ask them)
    
    Mike

RE      <<< Note 230.2 by ODIXIE::ZOGRAN "Love the poppies in the median" >>>

>    Not being familiar with what the Megaplex involves, can someone post a
>    brief synopsis of what all is involved?  Hate to comment on something
>    in the SPROTS note without knowing anything about the subject matter:-)
                                           
  The megaplex consists of a plan to build a major indoor football stadium and
convention center in South Boston. On your map of Boston this would be the area
just across the harbor south of Logan Airport and South East of Down Town
Boston. The construction would take place in the area two blocks south of the
docks containing Anthony's Peer Four, The World Trade Center, the Noname
Restaurant, etc. 

  In addition to the convention center and a domed football stadium there is
talk of building a new baseball park a bit further west in the area just east
of Fort Point channel (next to the Children's Museum) which would replace
Fenway Park. 

  The major advantages are:

  - Boston could stage national or world class sporting events like the Super
    Bowl, All-Star Game (if they build the baseball park) Big Four finals, etc.

  - Boston could host conventions of major private corporations and user
    groups (eg. DECUS in Boston)

  - Boston could host major political conventions like the National Republican
    or Democratic convention.

  - Major league teams like the Patriots and Red Sox (if they build the ball
    park) would be less tempted to leave town.

  The Major disadvantages are:

  - Expense, someone has to pay for this thing.

  - Boston has limited hotel space. That's why we had the QE2 at DECworld.

  - Transportation: What hotels we have are beyond walking distance and the
    subways don't go out that way. The nearest Redline stop is several blocks
    away and the other lines don't go anywhere close to that area.

  - Community bickering: You can't build anything in Boston without citizen's
    from the community in which it's being placed complaining about it
    infringing on their way of life and citizen's from other communities
    complaining that the decision against them getting the project was ethnic
    based.

  - Parking and traffic problems resulting from cars trying to get into and
    out of that area.

  George

    re 230.2
    The Megaplex project involves building a stadium in Massachusetts
    similar to the Giant Stadiums in other large cities ie. Joe-Robbie, or
    Mile-High stadium.  The problems seem to be;
    1.There will be way to much traffic for something like this in Boston
    2.There won't be enough money to build or maintain this so the 
    tax-payers will have to pick up the tab.
    
    I think the only pro-arguments are that fact that we, in Mass., could
    finally get a descent football stadium.  But let's face it, the
    Patriots only have 12 home games I think.  Hardly enough to flip a
    multi-million dollar price to build.  With the creation of the New
    Fleet center in Boston, the Celtics nor the Bruins will play in the
    Megaplex and getting rid of Fenway is out of the question (it is too
    famous--i think).  Although I love the Patriots and respect Bob Kraft,
    it seems that this project is nothing more than a multi-million dollar
    toy for team owners.
    
    GC 

    
    	Lets see we have a Football Stadium, Convention Center, and a
    Baseball Park. You have the Patriots paying for the football stadium,
    Red Sox paying for the Baseball park. Who do you people think should
    pay for the Convention Center? If you think the Patriots and Red Sox
    should pay for the STATE'S piece of the complex your crazy. So the
    state paying 1/3 sounds about right to me. Technically 1/3 of the
    complex is for the state.
    	Foxboro stadium is a dump and one of the worse stadiums in the
    league. Depending on where you park it costs you $10-15$ bucks. So
    don't tell me parking is going to be more expensive. The traffic 
    getting to Foxboro stadium stinks. Unless you leave at 9:00 - 10:00
    in the morning. I'm not saying that the Megaplex isn't going to have
    problems, Every stadium has problems. However in the long run it will
    be better then Foxboro stadium.
    
    Ron

  I'm in favor of the project. I think it would be worth all the money and
hassles to have a shot at getting things like the Super Bowl and major
political conventions in town. 

  I hate the idea of replacing Fenway Park with a new baseball stadium and
personally Kenmore Square is a lot more convenient being a 20 minute bus ride
but realistically if we want to keep the Sox long term we'll need a new ball
park. Plus the fact that having the All-Star game would be a lock. 

  If they do it, I'd like to see a new branch to the Greenline built to run
from just east of the Park Street station, under Fort Point Channel, and along
just north of the Complex. Extending it through South Boston to Castle Island
would make it useful year round. Now that they are tearing up the tracks in
Watertown it could become the new "A" line.

  George 

>>>    	Foxboro stadium is a dump and one of the worse stadiums in the
>>>     league. 

        Many citizens don't care.
 
        Let's face it, a stadium is for entertainment, and used by only a 
        portion of the populace.  Why should others have to fund it, especially 
        when there may be owners involved who aren't exactly hurting 
        financially?  
 
        CBB
         

    There are a number of pluses to building a Megaplex along with the
    minuses. If they build it I'll bet that you would see a NCAA final 4
    basketball tournament here, A large political convention, probably a
    Super Bowl and other large conventions that you cann't have now. I have
    heard that a few major hotel firms want to build hotels in the area and
    one is willing to cough up a few mill to have the stadium named after
    it. Also their is talk that the waterfront area would be developed like
    the waterfront area in Baltimore is developed around Camden Yards. The
    Red Sox should be commended for their willingness to build the baseball
    stadium w/o any state money. And the traffic going to their game cann't
    be any worse then Kenmore square after a game.
    What I don't like is that the Patriots along with the NFL seem to be
    bent on extorting this stadium from the taxpayers. How much money is
    Kraft willing to pay?
    Wouldn't be nice if this complex is built that the State Super Bowls
    be held there and maybe some State Soccer titles.   
    
    Mike

    Thanks for the info.  Here in Atlanta we (and since I am located in Fulton
    County, me) are still paying for ALtanta-Fulton County Stadium.  Any
    shortfalls from the Braves in paying the bonds are made up by the
    taxpayer, a situation that has taken place in all but 3 or 4 years that
    the Braves (and formerly the Falcons) have been playing there.  We will
    soon have a new baseball park (thanks to the Olympics), but I am not
    sure if the taxpayers will be paying for any of it (my guess, we will).
    
    Atlanta also coughed up some dough for the dome for the Falcons, but
    I'm not sure of the tax situation there.
    
    Couple of points -
    
    No subway access to the baseball park (new or old).   Parking is $7 at
    the bandit lots ($5 last time I parked due to lack of business). 
    Traffic is so-so, not bad during evening games, a bear for day games
    that let out during rush hour.  Parking is about the same for the dome.
    
    NIMBY arguments were prevelant for the dome, but not for the new ball
    field (built on parking lot and open space.)  The dome is a pretty neat
    (if sterile) place, and Atlanta-Fulco stadium is a nice ball park.
    
    As said earlier, pork and gold rules!
    
    UMDan                  

    They should include a Hotel and Casino at the same location and use
    the revanue's from that to pay back for construction (Not costing the
    taxpayers anything) and in the long run should make Taxachusetts taxes
    go down :-)
    
    If our taxes don't go up for the Megaplex they'll just give out 30%
    raise's and raise the taxes anyways so what the he'll build the
    Megaplex.  I don't get to see too many games LIVE but would rather
    jump on the train and take the Subway then drive to foxboro...
    
    							mab

  >> You have the Patriots paying for the football stadium,

     The Pats are NOT going to pay for the stadium. All the Patsies 
     have committed to is to pay a $5 million a year lease. Kraft is
     pulling the now standard owner move of decrying the stadium that
     he's in and holding up the city and state with threats to move
     after he bought the team and listed keeping the team here as one 
     of his reasons. 

  >> Depending on where you park it costs you $10-15$ bucks. So
  >> don't tell me parking is going to be more expensive. 

     It will *have* to be more expensive. Whereas the parking lots
     in Foxboro are owned by "entrepreneurs" who are more or less
     competing, the parking lots at the Megaplex will be owned
     by the state who will be footing a $1,000,000,000 bill at 
     the same time trying to "encourage" you to take public trans-
     portation. You can't park in Boston now for $10 for 4 hours 
     nevermind at a facility where bringing your car and barbecuing 
     is a good sized part of the whole experience. They have you
     over a pork barrel.

  >> The traffic getting to Foxboro stadium stinks. Unless you leave at 
  >> 9:00 - 10:00 in the morning. 

     Foxboro on its worst days is just like the Southeast Expressway
     EVERYday. Throw a Megaplex into the mix and I can guarantee you that
     for the first year it's open tons of folks won't make it for the
     opening kickoff. Besides you're "supposed" to leave at 9:00-10:00
     if you want to tailgate.
    

  Of course those belly aching about the taxes are ignoring the other half of
the financial coin as always. Yes, we will have to cough out the dough but
where do you think that money is going to be spent? 

  The answer, right here. Most of this project involves construction and
building a megaplex will create jobs in the Boston area. Also world class
sporting events and conventions bring money into the economy. In the long run
both the megaplex and any improvements in the transportation infrastructure
will be worth while.

  George

    <<<<-----I agree, creating more jobs and other commerce in Mass could
    be a major plus.
    
    On an aside, Bob Kraft is going to New York today (2/6) to ask
    the NFL for the first Superbowl of the Millenia in 2001.  We'll
    see what that brings.
    
    GC

  >> Of course those belly aching about the taxes are ignoring the 
  >> other half of the financial coin as always. Yes, we will have 
  >> to cough out the dough but where do you think that money is 
  >> going to be spent? 

     I don't believe that the financial impact of stadiums can't truly 
     be gauged and is probably often exaggerated. We live in the state
     with the most lucrative lottery in the country, can anyone in here
     say that they've derived any economic benefit from that at all? Are
     our roads better? Our streets safer and cleaner? I don't think so.
     Was anyone here more wealthy after the World Cup and it's "economic
     impact"? The rich got richer and the poor got the picture. The more 
     important issue is football in a domed stadium. It's an abomination 
     and not to be tolerated in a city with the grand sports tradition of 
     Boston. I'd sooner the Patsies moved to some nouveau riche burg where 
     such things are encouraged.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.17 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     I don't believe that the financial impact of stadiums can't truly 
>     be gauged and is probably often exaggerated. We live in the state
>     with the most lucrative lottery in the country, can anyone in here
>     say that they've derived any economic benefit from that at all? 

  There's a big difference. The lottery takes money from people in Mass and
gives it primarily to the cities and towns Mass. That money along with an
infusion of money from our state taxes going to cities and towns has done a
great deal to give the illusion that Prop 2.5 is working but you are right it
hasn't done much else. 

  The convention center is different in that holding world class events brings
in money from out of state. Cooperations like DEC that hold events like DECUS
have to pay rent for the hall and bring people from all over the country or
world to stay at local hotels and otherwise spend money in town. Same with
political conventions. 

  George 

    
    
      Does anyone know if this is going to the floor for a vote?  I
    personally would like to see something built but not in the location
    that they are talking about.  I have lived in both Roslindale and
    Hyde Park and have family that live in Southie and it would be an
    absolute nightmare were they want to put this thing.  Why not put
    it at the Mass Pike 495 interchange.  Traffic would be easier to
    manage there is plenty of room to build some 4* hotels and resturants
    and most importantly be easier for ME to get there.
    
    Jerry

Add to all that's been mentioned the fact that they want this new 
megeplex to be run by the same bunch of hacks that can't seem to 
run the Hynes without going back to the state each and every year 
for more cash to make up the shortfall and this has all the 
making of another giant PRM mismanaged hackarama.

There's talk about putting something like that up here off 93 in the 
manchester/hooksett area as well....

daryll

  I think that everyone would agree that building a stadium out in the berbs is
better from a traffic point of view than putting it down town. The reason
cities like to build things like this near the center is that they want all the
people who come to games and conventions to be near down town shopping centers
and hotels so that they will spend money in the area. 

  Also it works the other way. Do you think the people who plan work/junket
conventions would rather be in a convention center out in the boonies or near
down town in a major city? No one, especially the National Democratic or
Republican party, is going to want to have their convention out near the
intersection of Rt's 495 and 90 just because the grunts attending don't have to
sit in traffic jams. 

  George

    
    >> No one, especially the National Democratic or Republican party, is 
    >> going to want to have their convention out near the intersection of 
    >> Rt's 495 and 90 just because the grunts attending don't have to sit 
    >> in traffic jams. 
    
       I'd rather run the limited risk that you'll lose the once every 
       thirty years business of hosting a national politcal convention 
       than to build this boondoggle and be forced to suffer through un-
       godly traffic to go inside and watch the Pats play on a big piece
       of plastic.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.24 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>       I'd rather run the limited risk that you'll lose the once every 
>       thirty years business of hosting a national politcal convention 
>       than to build this boondoggle and be forced to suffer through un-
>       godly traffic to go inside and watch the Pats play on a big piece
>       of plastic.
    
  It's not the once in 30 years business they are thinking of, rather the
convention/junket business from the private sector.

  Also, if you consider the big events like National Conventions, super bowls,
final 4, all-star games, separately yes, they are once in 30 years, but when
you think of them collectively then add in a potential annual college bowl for
the Boston area maybe a yearly Billy Graham type thing, an occasional Amway pep
rally (they fill a football stadium) then bringing all those out of state
people down town means big business.

  Conversely, if you want to hold those things out in the boonies of Westboro,
where would the people stay? Where would they shop? Where would they eat? About
all you'd get would be the Patriot games and building this sort of thing for 8
home games per year and maybe a couple playoff games is just not worth it. 

  George 

    
    	If they built the megaplex by the Mass Pike/495. There are a lot of
    small hotels/motels within 15 minutes. Going up and down 495 and rt 9.
    Yes, there would be a need for a couple fo big hotels. As for food the
    same thing applies there are plenty of restaurants and places to eat in
    the 495/290/9 belt. As for shopping there is a brand new mall being
    built at 495/290.
    
    Ron

    
    
    
         Yeah I think the Convention Center is Boston or None. I really
    would like to see Boston come into this century..ie New Sport Stadiums
    World Series large conventions, but I just don't think making tax
    payers pay for it is the answer. I mean what are people west of 495
    gonna get from all these things? No money in my pocket? Make it a city
    tax and get Corporations to foot the costs to have there names on the
    places.
    
    
    Chap

RE       <<< Note 230.26 by SNAX::ERICKSON "Where is the grass greener?" >>>

>    	If they built the megaplex by the Mass Pike/495. There are a lot of
>    small hotels/motels within 15 minutes. Going up and down 495 and rt 9.
>    Yes, there would be a need for a couple fo big hotels. As for food the
>    same thing applies there are plenty of restaurants and places to eat in
>    the 495/290/9 belt. As for shopping there is a brand new mall being
>    built at 495/290.
    
  Yes there are hotels and restaurants but can they handle the monthly boom and
bust that would result from large conventions? Down Town hotels and restaurants
have other sources to hold them over between conventions.

  Another question is how would people flying in get to the area and then get
back and forth from the hotels to the convention center? A event that is
attracting 30,000+ would mean a lot of rental cars.

  And finally, would that area attract the convention business that down town
Boston would attract? Major convention holders like to place their conventions
in areas that will attract convention/junket goers and are most often attracted
to big cities or resort areas.

  No one wants to go to a convention to go shopping at a mall or to fight a
crowd of 1000 people trying to get into Harry's Diner. The former they can do
at home, the latter they never want to do.

  George 

  >> Also, if you consider the big events like National Conventions, 
  >> super bowls, final 4, all-star games, separately yes, they are 
  >> once in 30 years, 

     They might get the SB, Final 4 or an all-star game once every 10 
     years. Boston isn't New Orleans and in January can be an awful place
     to be if you're not used to the weather. That's why Detroit has hosted
     one and only one SB. The Final Four makes a circuit of domed stadiums 
     and Boston might get on the list but again that only be a once every
     10 years thing. All-star games have nothing to do with the Megaplex
     or at least not the football/convention center part of it.

  >> then add in a potential annual college bowl for the Boston area 

     Never happen. Again Boston can be tough in the dead of winter and Boston
     is a pretty poor college football town. A bowl here, which would have
     to compete with the myriad of bowls out there, would not draw flies.

  >> Conversely, if you want to hold those things out in the boonies of 
  >> Westboro, where would the people stay? Where would they shop? Where 
  >> would they eat?

     Westboro is hardly "the boonies'. It's in the heart of Metro-west and
     there are more than sufficient hotel rooms, restaurants and shopping
     areas to support a megaplex. Drive down route 9 sometimes, George.


     All in all I tend to think that the whole Megaplex issue isn't driven
     so much by economics as the goal to make Boston a "world class city". 
     You hear that a lot. "Boston will be a world class city". Ptooey.
     A bunch of plastic grass does not a world class city make. 
    

RE <<< Note 230.28 by WMOIS::CHAPALONIS_M "NY YANKEES 1995 WORLD CHAMPS!!!!!" >>>

>I mean what are people west of 495
>    gonna get from all these things? No money in my pocket? Make it a city
>    tax and get Corporations to foot the costs to have there names on the
>    places.
    
  The people in Western Massachusetts get plenty of state money. I know, I use
to live there. The University of Mass in Amherst employees thousands and the
business that UMASS and other colleges bring to that area has a major impact on
the local economy. For towns like Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton and Amherst,
education funded in part or entirely by the state is their primary business. 

  George

    
 >> The people in Western Massachusetts get plenty of state money. I know, 
 >> I use to live there. The University of Mass in Amherst employees thou-
 >> sands and the business that UMASS and other colleges bring to that area 
 >> has a major impact on the local economy. For towns like Springfield, 
 >> Holyoke, Northampton and Amherst, education funded in part or entirely 
 >> by the state is their primary business. 

    That's all well and good, George but the question us how are people in 
    central and western Mass going to benefit from the Megaplex? Not Umass 
    the Megaplex. The answer is - they aren't. Very very few people who don't 
    live or work within a ten mile radius of it will benefit from it at all.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.30 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>  >> then add in a potential annual college bowl for the Boston area 
>
>     Never happen. Again Boston can be tough in the dead of winter and Boston
>     is a pretty poor college football town. A bowl here, which would have
>     to compete with the myriad of bowls out there, would not draw flies.

  Funny, Tommy seemed to cut out the stuff I added about private corporations,
Billy Graham revivals, Amway pep talks, etc. I agree if you don't consider
half the business it would attract it doesn't look as viable.

  Now what about transportation. How do some 20,000 to 30,000 people get to
metro-west from Logan air port never mind getting around to all those hotels
spread out over the 400 or so square miles of area we are discussing?

>     Westboro is hardly "the boonies'. It's in the heart of Metro-west and
>     there are more than sufficient hotel rooms, restaurants and shopping
>     areas to support a megaplex. Drive down route 9 sometimes, George.

  Whooooooo, metro-west. I'll bet that people all over the world put that right
up there with New York, Paris, and Hawaii as some place they just have to see
before they die. And Route 9, why if that's just not the big city I don't know
what is. And I aught to know, I lived in an apartment complex on Rt 9 in
Framingham.

  Shopping Mall Mecca U.S.A. why the Framingham 14 alone would be worth the
trip and we haven't even started talking about that giant electric cross behind
Chapel Hills Apartments. I had that shinning in my bed room window for about
four years. Talk about putting a damper on your love life.

  George

RE        <<< Note 230.34 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>Just how many Billy Graham revivals
>    can we count on, George? Has he even had one in the last three years?
>    I'm not up on these things. All your talk of Amway pep talks and Billy
>    Graham rallies only tends to make me even more skeptical about the
>    viability of the whole thing. 

  Your doing the same thing again. Your entire argument consists of taking
my list of examples, selecting one or two, then arguing that if those one
or two things were the only things happening the complex wouldn't be worth
it.

  That's not my argument. My argument is that a wide variety of events
would take place and taken together they will make the complex worth while.

>    In all honesty, metro-west isn't the best place to put the convention
>    center piece because it is a suburban wasteland but it's the smartest 
>    place to put the stadium.

  And what do thousands of out of towners do for transportation?    

>    Boston itself hardly fits in the same category as New York, Paris or 
>    Hawaii. It's a nice livable city but in too many ways is still very
>    townish and its nightlife pales in to comparison to just about any
>    other city of its size or larger on the planet.
    
  Living in Boston I answer questions for tons of tourists from all over the
world all the time. While living in Framingham I never once met a tourist. 

  George

    >> Your entire argument consists of taking my list of examples, 
    >> selecting one or two,
    
       Not at all. I think you've missed the point entirely. It
       isn't the financial viability that is my main concern. It's 
       the inconvenience of a stadium in the city. It's watching a 
       game indoors on a plastic carpet. The leaves will be changing,
       it'll be a crisp fall day. Not so cold that you can see your
       breath or so cold that you'd rather have a hot drink than a 
       cold beer but cool enough to make you wear sweater. It'll 
       feel like football weather. And we'll get off the T. go *inside* 
       and watch the Pats play Jacksonville. That ain't football.

  Well actually you have your financial viability exactly backwards.

  Considering that Foxboro stadium is good for soccer, highschool superbowl,
and other lesser events and your stadium would be useless for conventions then
you are really limited. Someone would have to be willing to shell out lots of
money for a stadium which is only good for eight regular season football games
and maybe a playoff or two. 

  Outdoor stadiums work in baseball where they play 80 games per year in the
late spring, summer and early fall but there's no way on earth that you will
get an open stadium in the burbs to make money on football alone.

  If the Patriots are winning they will have no problem selling as many tickets
for an indoor stadium in the city as an outdoor stadium in the country. The
question is, who else would ever hold an event in your outdoor stadium? If you
think the cold of New England will prevent people from using a dome, what
chance do you have of getting a convention to book an outdoor stadium in
Westboro for the middle of January?

  George 

  >> what chance do you have of getting a convention to book an 
  >> outdoor stadium in Westboro for the middle of January?

     George, who cares? First of all, no one is going to schedule any
     convention for January in Boston anyways. Secondly, I'm looking at 
     this as a football fan. I'd rather the Patsies left town than for 
     my tax dollars be used to build a domed stadium where it will be 
     hell to reach. I don't care if Mary Kay Cosmetics can hold their 
     convention there. I don't care if we'll be able to go to tractor 
     pulls in the dead of winter. Football should not be played indoors.
     But given the gentrification of Patriot nation, it seems ineveitable
     that we will get a dome in the city and the attendant cheesy at-
     mosphere of football played there. It's just another holdup by a
     greedhead owner.
    

  Well Tommy, at least you've finally come clean and stopped talking about
economic viability. 

  Yes I agree that it would be nice to continue the tradition of holding
Patriots games in an outdoor stadium if for no other reason than to watch the
Dolphins freeze their fins off once a year but unfortunately it's not going to
happen. The Patriots are going to move to a domed stadium that will attract
50,000 people in the dead of winter and the only question is where that stadium
will be located, Boston, the New England suburbs, or some other city entirely. 

  About the only way that won't happen is if Foxboro follows Greenbay's
example and buys the team so that they won't move but somehow I doubt that
the city of Foxboro will even shed a tear when the team leaves never mind
shell out $100,000,000+ to purchase the team.

  The only thing that makes any economic sense at all is a dome down town.
Anything else and the team leaves the area.

  George

    Just two points:

    	First one would like to think that "experts" could deliver an
    objective account of the overall profit/loss of one of these things but
    every "objective/scientific" study looks politically influenced and
    tends to fall into that same Republican/Conservative vs
    Democrat/Liberal labeling baloney as even opinions of the baseball
    strike,OJ trial and ice-cream.

    	Second - "the taxpayer pays"	What does this mean?  It should
    mean the the net disposable income of the overall group affected goes
    down as a result and over a ten year period adjusted for "acts of God".
    Instead there seems to be a view that if no mega-plex then taxes will
    go down (not ever stated but connotatively).

    	The biggest problem does still lie in the amount of waste that
    these things always engendered when done around beantown (see
    harbortunnel-gate) and any control at all around waste has to be
    handled upfront; once started it's too late.

  >> Well Tommy, at least you've finally come clean and stopped 
  >> talking about economic viability. 

     I've said since 230.17 that the main issue with me is that we
     will have football in a domed stadium. That I don't think it 
     will be economically viable and will be a big feeding trough for
     Bay State pols is a peripheral issue with me.

  >> The Patriots are going to move to a domed stadium that will attract
  >> 50,000 people in the dead of winter...

     They attract 60,000+ now. The Pats drawing fans isn't a matter of 
     where they play but how they play.

  >> The only thing that makes any economic sense at all is a dome down-
  >> town. Anything else and the team leaves the area.

     Kraft wants a new stadium. It'd be nice if it were downtown but
     he'll make money no matter where in eastern Mass it is as long as
     it has ~70,000 seats and luxury boxes. 
    

I believe that it was Price/Waterhouse that said the Megaplex
would be a mistake financially.  If such a respected firm does
the study and finds the project to come up wanting, why go
ahead and do it?  And this is assuming that the numbers are
correct - don't forget the 20% Boston extortion and incompetency
tax...

Best thing to do is to let each project stand on its own.  The
Red Sox will be building their own stadium - the Patriots should
do the same, and then a convention center could stand on its own
merit.  I don't see the benefit of having them all in the same spot -
it just seems like the trendy thing to do...

Roland

  I agree that there are a lot of questions about the viability of a down town
stadium, especially if you figure the profit and loss the way an accountant
would, ticket sales - construction and maintenance. But what Price Waterhouse
is probably not figuring in is the increased business to down town hotels
and restaurants based on events at the complex plus visitors who come back to
town after coming to a convention first.

  And even if these things are questionable, I still haven't heard an alternate
suggestion that makes any economic sense at all. The Patriots are not going to
build themselves a giant stadium in the burbs that is exclusively for football.
The state is not going to build the Patriots a giant stadium in the burbs that
is exclusively for football. If it's not build down town and if it's not
multi purpose, it won't get built.

  It's either the megaplex or it's nothing, the Patriots move to L.A. to fill
the swooshing hole left by the Rams or some other town that will build them
their stadium.

  Given the fact that there is no other choice that will ever happen, I'd
rather see the stadium built down town. For those of you in the burbs, you
can park at Riverside or Alewife and take the T.

  George

 >> I still haven't heard an alternate suggestion that makes any economic 
 >> sense at all. The Patriots are not going to build themselves a giant 
 >> stadium in the burbs that is exclusively for football. The state is not 
 >. going to build the Patriots a giant stadium in the burbs that is ex-
 >> clusively for football.

    Kraft owns Foxboro. He owned it before he owned the Patsies. He knew 
    what kind of stadium he had when he bought the team. He's crying poor-
    mouth now and trying to milk the citizenry but in reality the team is
    more popular than it ever was with season ticket sales at an all-time 
    high. If he screwed up and overpaid for the team that's his problem
    and not up to the taxpayers of Massachusetts to bail his butt out.

 >> It's either the megaplex or it's nothing, the Patriots move to L.A. 
 >> to fill the swooshing hole left by the Rams or some other town that 
 >> will build them their stadium.

    That's pretty much what Kraft is saying. If that's the case good-bye.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.46 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>


>    Kraft owns Foxboro. He owned it before he owned the Patsies. He knew 
>    what kind of stadium he had when he bought the team. He's crying poor-
>    mouth now and trying to milk the citizenry but in reality the team is
>    more popular than it ever was with season ticket sales at an all-time 
>    high. If he screwed up and overpaid for the team that's his problem
>    and not up to the taxpayers of Massachusetts to bail his butt out.

  When Kraft bought the team the Governor and the Legislature were in the
process of trying to pull together an 11th hour deal to build a new stadium
so the old owner wouldn't move the team to St Louis. The moment that Kraft
bought the team and spoke of his attachment to the New England area, all
talk of building a new stadium dried up. Kraft has every right to turn the
pressure back on.

>    That's pretty much what Kraft is saying. If that's the case good-bye.
    
  So if Tommy can't go watch football out doors in Westboro then the entire
Boston area should be deprived of a football team? That's nuts.

  George

  >> When Kraft bought the team the Governor and the Legislature were 
  >> in the process of trying to pull together an 11th hour deal to 
  >> build a new stadium so the old owner wouldn't move the team to 
  >> St Louis. The moment that Kraft bought the team and spoke of his 
  >> attachment to the New England area, all talk of building a new 
  >> stadium dried up. Kraft has every right to turn the pressure back 
  >> on.

     Yes, I remember that whole ridiculous scenario quite well. After
     years of total apathy towards the Pats, it suddenly became a matter
     of grave importance and civic pride that our beloved Pats not leave 
     New England. Why beanhead #1, Dan Shaugnessy, even wrote his standard 
     "Boston is better than [fill-in-blank. in this case St Louis]" and 
     insulted the citizenry of that fair burg. Of course, where your
     argument falls down badly is that Orthwein was griping about his
     lease. The worst in football he called it. Kraft has no such prob-
     lem because he owns the stadium!

  >> So if Tommy can't go watch football out doors in Westboro then the 
  >> entire Boston area should be deprived of a football team? 

     You missed the point again, George. Although, this "entire Boston
     area should be deprived of a football team" is the kind of talk
     that I was referring to above. I'd hazard a guess that you haven't
     been to three games in the last five (even ten) years. Am I right?
     And yet you would be permanently scarred if they were to leave. I'd
     bum out much harder than you, the Pats being my favorite sports team,
     but I don't like the idea of caving in to blackmail and that's essent-
     ially what Kraft is doing. I'm doing nothing more than voicing my 
     opinion, I don't have the power to deprive anybody of anything but 
     if I had my  druthers, I'd rather have no football than capitulation
     and dome football.
     
  
    

    
>>    That's pretty much what Kraft is saying. If that's the case good-bye.
    
> So if Tommy can't go watch football out doors in Westboro then the entire
> Boston area should be deprived of a football team? That's nuts.
    
    Seems reasonable to me...
    
    I have no interest in my tax dollars going to build the Megaplex,
    at least, that's for sure.
    
    Joe

    Do any of you go into Boston on Sunday, especially during the day to
    downtown?  I can remember being able to go there and park on the
    street.  Saturday was a little risky, weekdays impossible as the meter
    police patrol incessantly.
    
    I would expect that the streets around Boston thruout one mile of
    circumference to the football stadium would be no parking.  In fact I
    suppose the residents would have a similar problem to what George faced
    in Brighton when BC was at home.

RE        <<< Note 230.48 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     lease. The worst in football he called it. Kraft has no such prob-
>     lem because he owns the stadium!

  Kraft is saying that the current football stadium is not big enough, not
modern enough, not down town enough, what ever, to support his team. Taking a
look at it, what he says makes sense. It's got to be one of the worst stadiums
in the NFL.

>I'd hazard a guess that you haven't
>     been to three games in the last five (even ten) years. Am I right?

  Yes you are right but so what? I watch them on TV thus adding to their TV
revenue. And I won't go until they do something about the problem of excessive
drunkenness in the stands.

>     And yet you would be permanently scarred if they were to leave. 

  When did I ever say I'd be permanently scarred? Like many sports fans in
New England I'd miss not having a professional team in the area.

>I'd
>     bum out much harder than you, the Pats being my favorite sports team,
>     but I don't like the idea of caving in to blackmail and that's essent-
>     ially what Kraft is doing. 

  Kraft is making a reasonable request and in this day and age no owner of any
major team ever gest a stadium unless he threatens to take his team out of
town. How long do you think he would have to sit in that small park out in the
middle of nowhere before someone volunteered to build him a stadium? In this
industry, blackmail is the only thing that ever works.

>I'm doing nothing more than voicing my 
>     opinion, I don't have the power to deprive anybody of anything but 
>     if I had my  druthers, I'd rather have no football than capitulation
>     and dome football.
     
  That's what we're all doing, voicing opinions. And my opinion is that they
should build the megaplex and keep the Patriots in town.

  George

RE                      <<< Note 230.51 by AKOCOA::BREEN >>>

>    I would expect that the streets around Boston thruout one mile of
>    circumference to the football stadium would be no parking.  In fact I
>    suppose the residents would have a similar problem to what George faced
>    in Brighton when BC was at home.

  Just park at Riverside or Alwife and take the T. It's easy.

  Not allowing cars near the stadium, or locking them in a garage, would be a
major benefit in that it would finally be an end to tailgate parties which are
probably more responsible for the fans being drunk than all other factors
combined. 

  George 

  >> Kraft is saying that the current football stadium is not big 
  >> enough, not modern enough, not down town enough, what ever, to 
  >> support his team. Taking a look at it, what he says makes sense. 
  >> It's got to be one of the worst stadiums in the NFL.

     I don't doubt that Foxboro is a lousy place to try and do business.
     I just don't think it's my problem. He knew what he was getting
     he bought the team. I didn't see the state building DEC a new
     chip facility in Hudson when we needed one.

  >> Yes you are right but so what? I watch them on TV thus adding to 
  >> their TV revenue. And I won't go until they do something about the 
  >> problem of excessive drunkenness in the stands.

     Sounds more like you haven't been to a game in 15 years not 5 or 10.
     Foxboro is a completely different place these days, George. A lot of
     families, a lot of women and a lot of yuppies. It's nowhere near the
     rowdy place it used to be. It's downright wimpy these days. But if
     you don't go to games, what the hell do you care where they're played?
     Your seat is going to be in the same place. At home. You won't miss
     the crisp autumn air or the fun of tailgating or tossing the foot-
     ball around in the parking lot. Your advice to take the T gave you away. 
     That's so alien from the experience of going to a football game that
     I knew right away that you hadn't been or at least not in a *long*
     time. 

    
    

RE        <<< Note 230.54 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     I don't doubt that Foxboro is a lousy place to try and do business.
>     I just don't think it's my problem. He knew what he was getting
>     he bought the team. I didn't see the state building DEC a new
>     chip facility in Hudson when we needed one.

  So what you are saying is that some vandetta against Kraft is more important
than whether or not we have a football team? 

  Look, if Kraft hadn't done what he did, the Patriots would already be gone
to St. Louis. He saved Patriots football for the New England area. Now he's
telling us what is reality, to keep NFL football, we need a new stadium.

  Regardless of what anyone did or said, there is no way New England is going
to keep an NFL football team without a new stadium. Why should our decision
on whether or not to build that stadium and keep the team depend on the order
in which Kraft said things.

  It's no big deal to him if we don't build the stadium, he just moves to L.A.
or somewhere else. We are building the stadium so that we can have NFL
football, not so Kraft can have NFL football. He's got his franchise and he's
going to keep it. Somewhere. Our choice is whether he keeps it here or
somewhere else. 

>     Sounds more like you haven't been to a game in 15 years not 5 or 10.
>     Foxboro is a completely different place these days, George. A lot of
>     families, a lot of women and a lot of yuppies. 

  Last year a bunch of guys from work went and they said the drunkenness was
just as bad as ever. They said a bunch of drunks behind them were yelling and
swearing and when some guy in front of them stood up, turned around and
complained, the drunks rained food down on both our guys and the guy who
complained.

  They also said that the stair ways were filled with people so drunk they
could hardly walk and these were guys coming in to the stadium.

  And that's not the only time I heard that story. I've heard a similar story
from everyone I know who's been there. 

>It's nowhere near the
>     rowdy place it used to be. It's downright wimpy these days. But if
>     you don't go to games, what the hell do you care where they're played?

  Even if you watch on TV a home game is still a home game. If they leave the
area there will be no team that the press covers, no excitement over any team
that's winning, no controversy over any team that's losing, no nothing. There's
a lot more to having a home team than actually going to the games and you can
support your team by watching on TV and helping with the ratings.

>Your advice to take the T gave you away. 
>     That's so alien from the experience of going to a football game that
>     I knew right away that you hadn't been or at least not in a *long*
>     time. 

  Then how do you explain the fact that I had so much fun last year following
the team on TV? 

  George

    George I was thinking of those who come into Boston on Sundays and take
    advantage of free parking except living up in Nashua I don't get in and
    don't know if you can park on Devonshire or Franklin on a Sunday or
    even on Northern ave.  Any other time I would surely take the T after
    having gotten skunked a month ago parking in a garage.
    
    Many people park in back bay for redsox games despite excellent T
    service and surely Pats fans would be parking all over Boston and
    Menino would be ticketing,towing like mad.

  >> So what you are saying is that some vandetta against Kraft is 
  >> more important than whether or not we have a football team? 

     Saying that I shouldn't have to foot the bill for Kraft's new
     stadium and subsidize his businesss hardly amounts to a "van-
     detta" [sic]. 

  >> He saved Patriots football for the New England area. Now he's
  >> telling us what is reality, to keep NFL football, we need a new 
  >> stadium.

     Kraft invested $175 million or so in a business venture. He isn't
     Mother Theresa. Now he's looking to maximize the return on his
     investment. Fine, that's business. Just don't do it at my ex-
     pense.

 >> Last year a bunch of guys from work went and they said the drunkenness 
 >> was just as bad as ever. They said a bunch of drunks behind them were 
 >> yelling and swearing and when some guy in front of them stood up, turned 
 >> around and complained, the drunks rained food down on both our guys and 
 >> the guy who complained.

 >> They also said that the stair ways were filled with people so drunk they
 >> could hardly walk and these were guys coming in to the stadium.

 >> And that's not the only time I heard that story. I've heard a similar 
 >> story from everyone I know who's been there. 

    Those are either gross exaggerations or flat out lies. There's been
    a concerted effort to turn Foxboro into more of a family type at-
    mosphere and it's worked. Numerous folks have had their season tickets
    yanked because they failed to realize that Foxboro had changed and were 
    still behaving like Foxboro was one big rowdy party.

    

RE        <<< Note 230.57 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     Saying that I shouldn't have to foot the bill for Kraft's new
>     stadium and subsidize his businesss hardly amounts to a "van-
>     detta" [sic]. 

  Yes it does. People build stadiums so they can have major league sports in
their area. What you are saying is that you want all the advantages of having a
major league sport but you want to be good and sure that Kraft doesn't profit
off the service that he is providing you. 

  I feel differently. I want an NFL franchise in town and I'm willing to pay
my fair share to see that happen. And I couldn't care less whether that money
is paid through taxes, box office, TV ratings, or my cable bill, anything that
will get it done is fine by me.

>     Kraft invested $175 million or so in a business venture. He isn't
>     Mother Theresa. Now he's looking to maximize the return on his
>     investment. Fine, that's business. Just don't do it at my ex-
>     pense.

  Typical Tommy, you want all the advantages of having the Patriots around, the
press coverage, the media coverage, games on local TV, the excitement of seeing
the team win, the arguments over why they lose, as long as you don't have to
foot the bill. Tommy, the welfare sports fan.

>    Those are either gross exaggerations or flat out lies. There's been
>    a concerted effort to turn Foxboro into more of a family type at-
>    mosphere and it's worked. Numerous folks have had their season tickets
>    yanked because they failed to realize that Foxboro had changed and were 
>    still behaving like Foxboro was one big rowdy party.

  Ok, then maybe I'll try again. Now are you absolutely positive if I go to a
game I won't get a beer deliberately poured down my back or have someone take
a leak on my head while I'm walking below the stands?

  I heard one story once where some paramedics were trying to revive a guy
under a grandstand and a bunch of Patriots fans decided it would be fun to
literary piss all over them. 

  George

    
   >> What you are saying is that you want all the advantages of
   >> having a major league sport but you want to be good and sure 
   >> that Kraft doesn't profit off the service that he is providing you. 

      Wrong again, George. Unlike yourself, I actually glady pay to go 
      to games and spend money at the concessions. I actually squander 
      money on Patriots merchandise. I have no compunction about giving
      Kraft my hard-earned money to be entertained.

   >> I feel differently. I want an NFL franchise in town and I'm willing 
   >> to pay my fair share to see that happen. 

      You're not even willing to buy a ticket. If it wasn't for saps
      like me you wouldn't be able to sit on your butt and watch home 
      games on tv. Sure you're willing to maybe pay a tax somewhere 
      down the road but when it comes to actually opening your wallet 
      here and now all you have is wild excuses and urban legends. 

  >> Ok, then maybe I'll try again. Now are you absolutely positive if I 
  >> go to a game I won't get a beer deliberately poured down my back or 
  >> have someone take a leak on my head while I'm walking below the stands?

     Not unless it's me doing it. Seriously, there's less chance of it 
     happening at Foxboro than there is of it happening at Fenway.

  >> I heard one story once where some paramedics were trying to revive a 
  >> guy under a grandstand and a bunch of Patriots fans decided it would 
  >> be fun to literary piss all over them. 

     Do you make these things up yourself?
    

This is bordering on the absurd. This "welfare sports fan" 
garbage takes the cake. The NE Patriots are a private enterprise.
Why in the world should we use tax money to build this 
monstrosity given the pathetic track record the state has in 
running the Boston Convention Center and the other various 
sinkholes which the taxpayers have been dumping billions of 
dollars into. The consensus of every knowledgable group or 
organization is that this thing will never ever turn a profit. 
The taxpayers will be funding it forever. The only people who are 
saying different are those that are driven by political or 
personal gain. If this megaplex is to become the huge money-maker 
to the local businesses it's being made out to be, where are 
they? Why aren't they lining up to help finance it? They choose 
to let the taxpayer fund the project which will line their 
pockets. Have you answered the question of how the taxpayer in 
Westfield will benefit from their tax dollars going to build 
this? You don't seem to have a problem with spending taxpayers money 
on just about any damn thing, so why not one more.
If you're willing to help finance this boondoggle, then write em 
a check. 

Finally, is there anyone here that thinks this franchise is losing money?
How much do you think this franchise is worth now compared to 
what he bought it for just a few years ago. The man has made a 
KILLING already. The threats of moving the team to LA (not as 
easy as you make it out to be George, Tags and the boys will have 
other ideas) is driven by GREED, pure and simple.

Also, I've gone to a couple games every year for the past 5-6 
years and have never ever seen the things your friends are 
telling you.

daryll

RE        <<< Note 230.59 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>      Wrong again, George. Unlike yourself, I actually glady pay to go 
>      to games and spend money at the concessions. I actually squander 
>      money on Patriots merchandise. I have no compunction about giving
>      Kraft my hard-earned money to be entertained.
>
>
>      You're not even willing to buy a ticket. If it wasn't for saps
>      like me you wouldn't be able to sit on your butt and watch home 
>      games on tv. Sure you're willing to maybe pay a tax somewhere 
>      down the road but when it comes to actually opening your wallet 
>      here and now all you have is wild excuses and urban legends. 

  Tommy, your understanding of economics is so simplistic it's actually funny. 

  What's the difference between supporting your club by paying cable fees,
watching on TV, or paying for a stadium through taxes versus buying a ticket?
It's the same thing. Money goes out of the fans pocket to support the service
of having an owner provide a franchise for the area.

  It is almost comical the way you think that a dollar spent on a ticket is
somehow a legitimate show of support but that same dollar spent on taxes which
go to pay for a stadium is somehow soiled.

  Your listening to to much hate radio Tommy. They push that same sort of
monkey see monkey do logic. If it can't be stated in one line, it must be
wrong.

  Unplug that thing or at the very least switch over to WZLX and listen to some
hard core rock and roll. 

  George

George,

If Tommy doesn't buy his ticket along with the other 50K that 
attend the game, it doesn't sell out. If it doesn't sell out, you 
don't get it on TV. Simple enough?

daryll

RE           <<< Note 230.60 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>This is bordering on the absurd. This "welfare sports fan" 
>garbage takes the cake. The NE Patriots are a private enterprise.
>Why in the world should we use tax money to build this 
>monstrosity given the pathetic track record the state has in 
>running the Boston Convention Center and the other various 
>sinkholes which the taxpayers have been dumping billions of 
>dollars into. The consensus of every knowledgable group or 
>organization is that this thing will never ever turn a profit. 

  It doesn't "turn a profit" if you only consider cost versus revenue from
running the building itself but what those "knowledgable groups" don't consider
is that having a major stadium in the area brings in other revenue that
benefits the tax payers which is not recorded on the stadium's profit and loss
statement. 

  Having conventions and major sporting events brings people in to town to use
the hotels and eat at the restaurants. Having these things on TV will result in
other people hearing about Boston then deciding to take a vacation there also
staying at the hotels and eating at the restaurants. 

  Now when some accounting firm comes along and looks at the balance sheet of
the stadium itself, of course they won't see all that. So yes, the stadium may
be running at a loss but the people who live in the area running retail
businesses will be pulling in lots of money they wouldn't see otherwise. That
creates jobs and adds to the economy in general.

  Of course once again, you'll never see a talking mouth allow a discussion of
this on hate radio because you can't say it in 5 words or less and get the
proper knee jerk response from your listeners but major cities have been
benefiting form major stadiums for a long time. They've been cost justified
for thousands of years and they are still cost justified today.

  George

RE           <<< Note 230.62 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>If Tommy doesn't buy his ticket along with the other 50K that 
>attend the game, it doesn't sell out. If it doesn't sell out, you 
>don't get it on TV. Simple enough?

  Right, and if tax payers like me don't pay for a stadium for Tommy to sit
in they won't be playing in town and Tommy won't get to go to the game.

  Now is that simple enough for you?

  George

And they're going right now aren't they?
In fact, they just insured that you can sit home all cozy and 
warm and catch every home game for the '95 season since it's been 
sold out, in FOXBORO.

It comes down to this, are you gullible enough to believe that 
a. this franschise is losing money and b. the nfl will let them 
move anyway.

I don't believe either to be true.

daryll

    What's the differance between Raytheon getting tax breaks (everyone
    makes up the differance), the Real Estate Market and banking market getting
    advantages because homeowners can write off their interest which the
    (rent payers subsidize with higher tax payments),taxpayers who
    subsidize companies R & D investments which companies write off and
    taxpayers subsidizing Kraft? Isn't it all the same? 
    
    Mike

    Actually I don't care if Tommy Buys a ticket or not, I'll be watching
    the game from my Springfield TV Station :-)
    
    								mab

    
    
    Ditto!!!

RE           <<< Note 230.66 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>It comes down to this, are you gullible enough to believe that 
>a. this franschise is losing money and b. the nfl will let them 
>move anyway.

  I seem to recall people saying that the NFL would never let Al Davis move the
Raiders out of Oakland but guess what? 

  And yes, I believe they need a new stadium. Just compare Foxboro with the
others and it's easy to see they are not state of the art.

  If Foxboro really made sense then all the teams would be leaving down town
and heading out to small stadiums in the burbs. They are not and all the
Patriots are asking is that they have a stadium similar to all the others
in the league.

  George

    I have been really enjoying this Megaplex discussion.  THere have been
    excellent points made by both sides.  I am ambivalent about the project
    myself.  I certainly see the need for a convention center and Foxboro
    is woefully inadequate, but I am dismayed at the thought of indoor
    football, and even more dismayed at the thought of the political
    haggling, infighting, and patronage that will inevitably arise from
    the construction of the megaplex.
    
    The South Boston site is far from ideal.  The parking and traffic
    problems that have made Foxboro a nightmare will be much worse in South
    Boston.  The local residents will be much more vocal than the Foxboro
    suburnanites in showing their displeasure.
    
    In spite of all that, I guess I am slightly in favor of the megaplex. 
    As many other cities have shown recently, putting a ballpark and/or a
    convention center downtown make economic sense for the revitalization
    of the city.  Many jobs, both part-time and full-time will be created.
    The city where I have lived all but one of my 45 years will attain the
    status it so richly dseserves.
    
    If Bob Kraft profits from the megaplex, that's OK by me.  If he
    profits by doubling ticket prices, then I'd have a problem.  As long
    as pro sports owners don't abouse the public trust, I have no problem
    with them making as much money as they can.  When they violate that
    trust by treating the public like idiots (Hello, Thanksdad!), they
    deserve public ridicule and lack of support.
    
    
    NAZZ

  >> What's the difference between supporting your club by paying 
  >> cable fees, watching on TV, or paying for a stadium through 
  >> taxes versus buying a ticket? It's the same thing. Money goes 
  >> out of the fans pocket to support the service of having an owner 
  >> provide a franchise for the area.

     By your logic, Kraft doesn't need a new stadium what he really 
     needs is more people watching on television because after all - 
     revenue is revenue.

  >> Your listening to to much hate radio Tommy. They push that same sort 
  >> of monkey see monkey do logic. If it can't be stated in one line, it 
  >> must be wrong.

     I've never listened to a single talk or sportstalk radio show in my 
     life unless you count NPR's All Things Considered and the BBC World
     Service. You're repeated attempts to pigeonhole me with phrases like
     'welfare sports fan' (was that really necessary?) are ridiculous. Darryll 
     Doda and I are polar opposites politically speaking but we can each 
     agree that it should not fall to the taxpayers to prop up Kraft's 
     business investment, the South Boston site it a bad one and the Megaplex 
     deal will be a big feeding trough for greedy pols. It is *not* a matter 
     of politcal leanings.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.72 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     By your logic, Kraft doesn't need a new stadium what he really 
>     needs is more people watching on television because after all - 
>     revenue is revenue.

  No, once again you are selecting things out of a list I wrote then attacking
each one as if it were there alone. To make money a football team or league
needs decent stadiums to support ticket sales, TV money, and what ever other
revenue they can find.

>Darryll 
>     Doda and I are polar opposites politically speaking but we can each 
>     agree that it should not fall to the taxpayers to prop up Kraft's 
>     business investment, the South Boston site it a bad one and the Megaplex 
>     deal will be a big feeding trough for greedy pols. It is *not* a matter 
>     of politcal [sic] leanings.
    
  If you both agree on a point with regard to public policy and how tax money
should be spent then you are hardly opposites. If you are opposites, where
does that leave people who support spending on the stadium?

  And no, no one is saying that the taxpayers should prop up Kraft's business
investment. What those in favor of the complex are arguing for is support for
NFL football in the New England area. If Kraft's business investment improves
because of it who cares (you obviously)?

  George

    George,
    
    Kwitcherbitchin.
    
    JaKe
    

  Just me?

  I was happy with the proposal as it was state in the paper. I believe you
should have channeled that statement toward my opponents.

  George

    Allaya, then.
    
    I think the Peoples Republic of Massaholes should make alla younzes
    fork over $200, then they could build the freakin thing and it'd be
    paid for, plus some.
    
    JaKe
    

                     <<< Note 230.73 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>


>  No, once again you are selecting things out of a list I wrote then attacking
>each one as if it were there alone. To make money a football team or league
>needs decent stadiums to support ticket sales, TV money, and what ever other
>revenue they can find.

George,

Foxboro is sold out. The TV money is a NFL deal so NE gets their 
cut just the same as any other NFL franchise. The same is true 
for the majority of the NFL merchandising gear.

I fail to see the link between a new stadium and TV money or 
"other revenue (I'm assuming merchandising $$$). In fact since 
the current venue is sold out for the upcoming season, you can't 
even tie a new stadium to ticket sales. It's the product people 
will come to see. No one will come to see a miserable team even 
if they do play in a nice new taxpayer financed standium. On the 
other hand, I believe people will go to see a winning team in a 
miserable stadium, like Foxboro.

daryll

  >> And no, no one is saying that the taxpayers should prop up 
  >> Kraft's business investment.

     The whole premise of your argument in support of the Megaplex is 
     that if we don't ensure that Kraft can make a certain amount of
     profit then he'll pack up and go so it behooves the taxpayers of
     the state to build him a stadium so we can keep our Patriots.
    
    

    I don't live in the North East or follow the patriots much but.....
    I believe that last year Patriots merchandise move into the top 10 or
    even top 5 for NFL teams.  It had reportedly made a marked jump.  It
    seems to me that the way you want to make money is to put a good
    product on the market.  In this case IF the Patriots continue to
    improve then they will continue to make money.  And if you want a new
    stadium then just do what Al Davis did and MAKE the nfl build you a 
    stadium give you 20 million on top of that and oh btw make sure that
    a few superbowls are GUARANTEED to be played in your new stadium.
    Other than Atlanta I know of NO big megaplexes in the NFL.  BTW Atlanta
    has a nice convention center and football stadium in downtown area.
    But they have an adequate amount of Hotels and restaurants and railway
    system (MARTA).  I am not from Atlanta but I sure like their city...
    

    Atlanta does have a nice "Megaplex" like setup downtown, with the new
    dome, World Congress Center and Omni all within a stones throw of each
    other.  We host a lot of conventions, including the Super Show, the
    largest sporting goods show in the US.  This show occupies both the WCC
    and the Dome, and is an awesome sight.  Brings in lots of $ to the
    local economy.  Even the local, uh, Establishments hire on extra
    Dancers to keep up with the demand:-).
    
    Still not sure of the tax implications of the Dome though, and the
    Hawks keep threatening to move to the 'burbs.
    
    UMDan

RE           <<< Note 230.77 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>I fail to see the link between a new stadium and TV money or 
>"other revenue (I'm assuming merchandising $$$). 

  Depends on what you are talking about. "Other Revenue" for the stadium
includes money spent by people who come from out of state to Boston for big
events including football and many other things. When that revenue is
considered, the megaplex makes more sense.

>In fact since 
>the current venue is sold out for the upcoming season, you can't 
>even tie a new stadium to ticket sales. 

  Well, a bigger stadium would mean more tickets.

>It's the product people 
>will come to see. No one will come to see a miserable team even 
>if they do play in a nice new taxpayer financed stadium. On the 
>other hand, I believe people will go to see a winning team in a 
>miserable stadium, like Foxboro.

  Right, and conversely no one would go to Foxboro to see a poor team but they
would come down town to see a winning team.

  Or no one would go to Foxboro to see a poor team but they'd go to Foxboro
to see a winning team.

  Or no one would go to Boston to see a poor team but they'd go to Boston
to see a winning team.

  Any more possibilities we might have left out?

  George

Re        <<< Note 230.78 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     The whole premise of your argument in support of the Megaplex is 
>     that if we don't ensure that Kraft can make a certain amount of
>     profit then he'll pack up and go so it behooves the taxpayers of
>     the state to build him a stadium so we can keep our Patriots.
    
  Once again you have selected one item out of my list and claimed it's
my entire argument.

  No, that's flat wrong. I'm arguing that there are many reasons for a Megaplex
including providing incentive for the Patriots (who ever owns them) to stay and
the possibility of many major events from the private and public sector. This
includes both sports and non sports events which will provide a place for
locals to see these events while also attracting out of state people and their
money for both ticket sales and other local spending.

  Ok Tommy, which one of those things are you going to pick out next while
arguing that it alone does not justify the stadium?

  George

                     <<< Note 230.73 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
    
>  If you both agree on a point with regard to public policy and how tax money
>should be spent then you are hardly opposites.

Hey Tommy, one of us should be insulted here although I'm not 
sure who :-)

> If you are opposites, where
>does that leave people who support spending on the stadium?

Well, since we are indeed opposites, I'd say the answer is S-O-L.

daryll

RE           <<< Note 230.83 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>> If you are opposites, where
>>does that leave people who support spending on the stadium?
>
>Well, since we are indeed opposites, I'd say the answer is S-O-L.

  ... or sitting in a bran new stadium down town.

  Actually I'm psyched about the new complex. For me it's a short bus ride to
Kenmore Square then hop the Greenline down town. Now if only they'd built a
Greenline branch to South Boston I'd be set.

  George

>  Actually I'm psyched about the new complex. For me [...]

This has been a significant part of your argument for the Megaplex.

Not everybody has easy access to public transportation, or even the
desire to use it (see Kenmore Square after a Sox game).  Some very
good points have been brought up regarding traffic congestion, parking,
etc., that you don't seem very concerned about.

What would seem even more important to me, though, is the question of
what Western Mass. would get out of the deal.  They'd get whacked with
the taxes for a facility that they'd get very little chance to use.
And don't give me the argument that they'd get more money from the
state due to the incremental revenue from the Megaplex.  The state
spends damned little money on Western Mass. to begin with, and shows
no inclination to change that pattern.

The only fair thing would be some sort of use-based tax to pay for it,
which is essentially a ticket increase for the Patriots fans, or a
higher rental rate for the convention facilities.  I can't speak for
convention-related stuff, but it seems that most of the Patriot ticket
holders in here aren't willing to pay more just to get a new facility.

Roland

RE        <<< Note 230.85 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>      George, you're contadicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that
>     no one is saying the taxpayers should prop up Kraft's business and 
>     on the other hand you say that if we don't build hima stadium he'll
>     leave. 

  No, you've taking that so far out of context that it doesn't have anything
close to it's original meaning. What I'm saying is that I could care less if
Kraft profits from the new stadium. He's providing the people of the New
England area with a service, NFL football, and deserves to get compensated. 

  You get what you pay for and if you are not willing to pay for a big league
stadium, you probably won't get to keep your big league team.

>And like most proponents of the Megaplex, you haven't been
>     to a Patriots game since Len St Jean had a full head of hair 
>     but you're all too willing to shove a domed stadium in town down the
>     throats of us who are fans and don't want either.
    
  First of all, as I've said a million times the stadium would be for more than
just football. Second, I'm more than willing to pay my fair share for the new
stadium. And finally, if they do build a new stadium I'll probably go since
the location would be convenient and the lack of a location for tailgate
parties would make it unlikely that the drinking problem would resume/continue. 

  George

 >> What I'm saying is that I could care less if Kraft profits from the 
 >> new stadium. 

    You're contradicting yourself again. Of course you care if he profits 
    from a new stadium. You've said all along that if he can't make more 
    money than he's making in Foxboro then he'll leave. Something you're
    so eager to prevent that you're willing to part with your hard-
    earned money.
    

RE                      <<< Note 230.86 by IMBETR::DUPREZ >>>

>Not everybody has easy access to public transportation, or even the
>desire to use it (see Kenmore Square after a Sox game).  Some very
>good points have been brought up regarding traffic congestion, parking,
>etc., that you don't seem very concerned about.

  Anyone can park at Riverside or Alwife and take the T into town. And I don't
see the problem with Kenmore Square for those using the T after Red Sox games.
I find it's very reasonable to hop on the bus and my friends say it's not that
bad getting on the trolley. 

  Conversely, the only public transportation to Foxboro is a train that only
goes to South Station. With that you end up where you'd start if there was a
megaplex. 

>What would seem even more important to me, though, is the question of
>what Western Mass. would get out of the deal.  

  I grew up in Western Mass. From experience I can tell you that having teams
in New England means you don't have to hold your nose and wade neck deep into
the muck of having a New York team as your home team. 

  The people from Western Mass get plenty out of being part of this state. The
major industry west of the Quabin Reservoir is Education and much of that is
paid for by the rest of the people in Massachusetts. Believe me the folks
in Western Mass benefit from keeping the Patriots in town. And they don't
get blacked out at all and can see all the games on TV.

>  The state
>spends damned little money on Western Mass. to begin with, and shows
>no inclination to change that pattern.

  I use to love summers when I lived 2 miles from the UMASS Amherst campus.
During August you had an entire city in which everyone had gone home leaving
it empty. You could ride your bike around the streets and sidewalks for hours
and only occasionally see a campus cop who'd wave as you went past. And half
the adults I knew either worked at UMASS or ran a business that depended on
the student population.

  George

RE        <<< Note 230.88 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>    You're contradicting yourself again. Of course you care if he profits 
>    from a new stadium. You've said all along that if he can't make more 
>    money than he's making in Foxboro then he'll leave. Something you're
>    so eager to prevent that you're willing to part with your hard-
>    earned money.
    
  That is not a contradiction. 

  I have no emotional feelings, as you do, about Kraft making money. When I
hear reports about Kraft making money, it doesn't cause the knee jerk reaction
in me that it seems to cause in others. In that sense I don't care if he makes
money or not. 

  From a practical point of view I understand that Kraft, or who ever owns the
team, has to have a big league stadium for there to be NFL football in the New
England area. This doesn't cause any sort of emotional glee as I see Kraft
scoop up the bucks, nor does it cause me any distress, I just realize it's
necessary. 

  So yes, I don't care if Kraft makes money but I understand that if he doesn't
he'll move out of town and I do care if we don't have a football team. 

  As for my money being "hard earned", spending some of that to keep NFL
football seems like a deal to me. 

  George

  >> So yes, I don't care if Kraft makes money but I understand that 
  >> if he doesn't he'll move out of town and I do care if we don't 
  >> have a football team. 

     That's not contradictory? Okey-dokey.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.92 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>  >> So yes, I don't care if Kraft makes money but I understand that 
>  >> if he doesn't he'll move out of town and I do care if we don't 
>  >> have a football team. 
>
>     That's not contradictory? Okey-dokey.
    
  Not of you conveniently clip off the explanation of why that is not a
contradiction. Try quoting that paragraph and see if your argument holds up.

  George

RE        <<< Note 230.91 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     Because you don't actually *go* to games you don't know what fun
>     tailgating is and have this skewed image of it as some kind of frat
>     party drunkfest with crazed fans doing time trials under the keg
>     tap. It's a social event, George with the primeval ritual of men-
>     folk gather around the fire (or Weber grille in this case) roasting
>     the days kill (fresh from Star Market). 

  Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

  You like to fry your wieners on a grill before the game and freeze your butt
off watching the action while I like to buy a Frank from the kid in the red
shirt while watching the game in shirt sleeve comfort.

  Too bad we couldn't have just said that a million notes ago and avoided all
this stuff about economics and traffic jams.

  George
  

and oh, could you add quiche to the concession stand menu?

RE        <<< Note 230.96 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>    Yes, you could have just said, "I'm George Maiewski, faux fan and I'd 
>    like to watch faux football on faux grass in a faux atmosphere." That
>    might have worked but something tells me that you would have still 
>    managed to ring 100 replies out of it like you tend to do.
    
  And you could have said ...

                                ... "I'm Tommy Brydie 19th century fan and I'd
like to watch 19th century football in a 19th century stadium while freezing
my butt off. Oh and by the way, why don't they run a steam engine on game days,
I can't stand the smell of diesel".

  That might have worked but something tells me that you would have still
managed to ring 100 replies out of it like you tend to do. 

  George

Re           <<< Note 230.97 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>and oh, could you add quiche to the concession stand menu?

  At least I'd get to eat it rather than having it thrown at me.

  George

    
    
    Anti Heiser Snarf

I agree with Tommy.

I've seen football indoors on plastic, and outdoors on real grass.

To ME, football is played outdoors on grass in the elements.  Anything is
is like grabbing the Johnson's baby lotion, a Playboy, and a roll of
bounty.....


hth,
'Saw

>  Anyone can park at Riverside or Alwife and take the T into town. And I don't
>see the problem with Kenmore Square for those using the T after Red Sox games.
>I find it's very reasonable to hop on the bus and my friends say it's not that
>bad getting on the trolley.

Your friends are wrong.  If you're looking to get out on the Green Line from
Kenmore Square right after a game, you'd better have a good book to read. 

>  Conversely, the only public transportation to Foxboro is a train that only
>goes to South Station. With that you end up where you'd start if there was a
>megaplex.

I agree in that I think there should be more trains to Foxboro - however, that
would take away from the parking revenue, so I'm not holding my breath for it.
However, I'd like to know what the proposed public transportation would be to
the Megaplex site - I'm not familiar with that.

>The people from Western Mass get plenty out of being part of this state.

I'm sure the folks in Great Barrington agree...

>  I use to love summers when I lived 2 miles from the UMASS Amherst campus.
>During August you had an entire city in which everyone had gone home leaving
>it empty. You could ride your bike around the streets and sidewalks for hours
>and only occasionally see a campus cop who'd wave as you went past. And half
>the adults I knew either worked at UMASS or ran a business that depended on
>the student population.

I'm glad you enjoyed living there (really, no sarcasm intended - well, not much
:-).  But are you trying to tell me that UMass and N. Adams State support
most of Western Mass.?

Roland


 

    >I'm glad you enjoyed living there (really, no sarcasm intended - well,
    >not much
    >:-).  But are you trying to tell me that UMass and N. Adams State
    >support most of Western Mass.?
    
    >Roland
    
    There is no freaking way UMASS and NASC (Not a Serious College) support
    1% of Western Mass. Tourism supports some, The few industries left
    support some but a great deal of the far western part of this state is
    supported by the government (welfare and Social Security). Every time I
    go back to see my family in the Berkshires I get totally depressed.
    An area that has as much natural scenic beauty as anywhere in the
    Eastern US has become one of the most depressed areas in this state.
    Conservationist keep holding back any attempt to develop Mt Greylock
    and other areas that would bring a lot of tourism to the area with
    jobs. Maybe the area aroud UMASS det support from the colleges but that
    area is an awful small part of Western Mass.
    
    Mike
    
    

Re                     <<< Note 230.102 by IMBETR::DUPREZ >>>

>Your friends are wrong.  If you're looking to get out on the Green Line from
>Kenmore Square right after a game, you'd better have a good book to read. 

  The trick is to cross the street to the bus terminal and go down those
stairs. You avoid half the crush.

>I agree in that I think there should be more trains to Foxboro - however, that
>would take away from the parking revenue, so I'm not holding my breath for it.
>However, I'd like to know what the proposed public transportation would be to
>the Megaplex site - I'm not familiar with that.

  Right now they are promising shuttles from South Station. Also it's walking
distance from the Redline station just south of South Station. What I'd like to
see is an extension of the Greenline from Park Street east under Fort Point
Channel and north of the Complex. It could be extended to South Boston and end
near Castle Island. 

  In any case they are going to have to do something for the new Federal Court
house and my idea would service the World Trade center as well. And Tommy
notice I've given a list. Don't just pick out one or two and say that those
alone do not justify the project.

>I'm sure the folks in Great Barrington agree...

  Do you really think there are enough people in Great Barrington to pay for
the highways and other public projects that service that area? People who
choose to live in remote areas often have access to cities 50 or more miles
away via highways paid for by people who almost never use those routes. And
just because 1% of the population has chosen to live in the woods that should
not mean that the other 99% can't build public facilities that benefit the
vast majority of citizens.

>I'm glad you enjoyed living there (really, no sarcasm intended - well, not much
>:-).  But are you trying to tell me that UMass and N. Adams State support
>most of Western Mass.?

  Most colleges and universities get some level of public funds and many get
most of their funding from the state. If you add together UMASS, Hampshire
College, Amherst College, Smith College, Mt Holyoke, Springfield College,
AIC, Western New England College, Westfield State, Greenfield Community,
Holyoke Community, Springfield Community, and North Adams, yes, they pay for
quite a few employees. And as many if not more work in small businesses near
those places and rely heavily on the student population for their livelihood.

  Education is the primary industry for Massachusetts west of the Quabin.

  George

    I agree wif Saw and Tommy, football is no wussy sport like baseball
    what should be played indoors with skirts on, it a MANS sport and
    should be played outside in the mud and muck and on frozen fields and
    wif the turf stuck in peoples facemasks and blood on their pants, not
    in a living room atmosphere where faux fans cain sit in their warm
    seats and not see the sky and stay dry and be big freakin' wimps.
    
    You probably drink O'douls, too, huh George.  Cain't gradiate to the
    real stuff.  Typical fad fan of the 90s.
    
    JaKe
    

Re        <<< Note 230.103 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>      Saw, spoken like a true football fan, Unfortunately for
>     real football fans here in Mass, our fate lies in large part
>     in the hands of folks like George who think there's such a 
>     thing as a center linebacker. 

  Typical Tommy. When all else fails rely on one slip of the tongue made due to
my dyslexia. I'll take that one goof over years of notes you've posted which by
your own admission are only correct once we all understand that logic does not
apply to arguments in the SPORTS notes file. 

  George

    
>>  Once again you have selected one item out of my list and claimed it's
>>my entire argument.
    
    that's cause if Tommy was to attack yer whole note at once, he'd have
    to enter a note so long it'd make one of MrT's old diatribes look like
    one liners.  Plus, you'd come out of it looking the equivalent of Ray
    "boom Boom" Mancini's meat sliced face after one of his fights.
    
    Schnorttt Schittt Schleppps
    
    JaKe
    

     >> And Tommy notice I've given a list. Don't just pick out one or 
     >> two and say that those alone do not justify the project.
    
        I'm done. Once you came clean and admitted that you weren't a 
        real fan, hadn't attended a game since who knows when and wanted 
        to sit indoors in a dome and be spared elements that was all she 
        wrote as far as I'm concerned. I just wish people like you wouldn't
        try and dictate to real fans who attend games.

RE           <<< Note 230.106 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    I agree wif Saw and Tommy, football is no wussy sport like baseball
>    what should be played indoors with skirts on, it a MANS sport and
>    should be played outside in the mud and muck and on frozen fields and
>    wif the turf stuck in peoples facemasks and blood on their pants, ...

  Another candidate for going back to the 1800's.

  The century is going to change but after the latest round of nostalgia
prompted mostly by the fact that the dominant generation, the baby boomers,
are turning gray, we will be moving ahead to the 21st Century.

  It will be the age of interactive entertainment, two way instant response
in 3-D. Plastic will give way to electronic. Fire will give way to Zap. While
those who can't keep up with the times will cook wieners out in a snow bank
in Foxboro.

  George

    
  >>Another candidate for going back to the 1800's.
    
    George, yer so full of sh_t ?I cain smell it here in Pittsburgh(or is
    it the wind blowing in from Clevescum).  Where in the hell does it say
    that to be a fan in the 1990's you have to want to sit in what amounts
    to a large living room and watch football.  Now look at baseball, they
    want to play inside to stay away from the elements, cause they stop the
    game for a few raindrops.  Football has been played thru all kinds of
    weather, and not called off for any weather.  Playing indoors on
    artificial turf has shortened many a players career, and left them
    hobbling in life after football/baseball.  It ain't wanting to go back
    to the 1800s, bozo, it's wanting to see it played as it was meant to
    be, and SHOULD BE played.
             
    Go get yerself a plate of brie, some quiche, and shove em where the sun
    don't shine, I'll take it the way I've always seen it, outside.  I just
    wish Three Rivers Stadium was natural grass.
    
    I've sat thru football games in all kinds of weather, and the best game
    I remember was the thrashing the STEELERS laid on the Houston Oilers in
    the AFC Championship game, when they beat them 34-5, and it was an
    icestorm thru the whole game.  i wouldn't have changed that for a seat
    in a dry 70 degree starium wif a roof for anything in the world, and I
    think football played indoors is a sacrilege fo the game.
    
    JMHO
    
    JaKe
    

RE           <<< Note 230.111 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>Now look at baseball, they
>    want to play inside to stay away from the elements, cause they stop the
>    game for a few raindrops.  

  Well actually that's wrong. Baseball has gone back to building outdoor
parks. But then baseball fans haven't had their heads bashed together as often
as football fans so they are smart enough to hold their games in the summer.

>Football has been played thru all kinds of
>    weather, and not called off for any weather.  Playing indoors on
>    artificial turf has shortened many a players career, and left them
>    hobbling in life after football/baseball.  

  So improve the surface and the footware.

>It ain't wanting to go back
>    to the 1800s, bozo, it's wanting to see it played as it was meant to
>    be, and SHOULD BE played.

  Says who? Now who's cramming something down someone else's throat. Did I
miss the place where the NFL conducted a vote on whether fans would rather
sit indoors or freeze their butts off?
             
>    I've sat thru football games in all kinds of weather, and the best game
>    I remember was the thrashing the STEELERS laid on the Houston Oilers in
>    the AFC Championship game, when they beat them 34-5, and it was an
>    icestorm thru the whole game.  

  And one of the worst games I remember was an NFL championship game where the
kicker (Lou Groza I think) kicked the ball off into a blizzard and to this day
no one agrees on whether it was good or not because no one knows where the ball
went. Archaeologists will one day extract it from a glacier along with a woolly
mammoth.

  George

    
>>  The century is going to change but after the latest round of nostalgia
>>prompted mostly by the fact that the dominant generation, the baby boomers,
>>are turning gray, we will be moving ahead to the 21st Century.

>>  It will be the age of interactive entertainment, two way instant response
>>in 3-D. Plastic will give way to electronic. Fire will give way to Zap. While
>>those who can't keep up with the times will cook wieners out in a snow bank
>>in Foxboro.
    
    right George, and who will ultimately suffer from this, it's you, Mr.
    Faux Fan.  the boom intechnology has produced so many kids who come
    home from school, turn on the TV and crank up the ol high technology
    Nintendo or Sega and waist their life playing video games, that in 25
    years, baseball players in the Majors, if they still exist, swon't be
    better than what the AA players are now, and that's if yer lucky.
    
    It'll be because so few of them will be able to learn to field a ball
    or hit a fastball or curveball on the TV screen, where they will be
    spending their time.  
    
    So many kids now playing organized baseball are there because their
    parents WANT them to be there, and some even FORCE them to be there. 
    SOme of these parents are trying to relive their long passed youth thru
    their kids.  You don't see too many kids playing pick up games of
    baseball or football anymore. 
    
    Set mode/nostalgia=on
    
    I remember a time when during the summer you couldn't go past too many
    fields that were empty, most being occupied by neighborhood pick-up
    games.  Now the fields, for the msot part, seem to sit vacant, except
    for the occasional little league/pony league/softball game.  
    
    Set mode/nostalgia=off
    
    My kids have stopped wanting to go over to certain other kids houses to
    "play" becuase these other kids only want to play video games, they
    cain't seem to work up the energy to do something real, like playing
    outdoors.
    
    My oldest son, Robb, loves playing outside, whether it's hide and go
    seek, wiffle ball in the alley, or some kind of team fantasy
    game(war/freeze tag/etc).  I've seen some real drones of kids come
    here, unable to function in games like that, and they ask "where's
    you're nintendo at".  They seem suprised when we say we don't have one,
    and won't own one either.  The kids cain use their own imagination, not
    have some moronic game, or assinine game, like Mortal Combat thrown in
    their faces.
    
    I'll climb offa my soapbox now, fer you're sake.
    
    JaKe
    

                     <<< Note 230.112 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Well actually that's wrong. Baseball has gone back to building outdoor
>parks. But then baseball fans haven't had their heads bashed together as often
>as football fans so they are smart enough to hold their games in the summer.

Well actually, that's wrong as well. Even outdoor parks are 
removing the plastic and installing natural turk because the stuff 
is a danger to the players and bastardizes the game, football or baseball.

Your solution of just improving the foorwear is of course not 
that simple or it would've been done by now.

daryll

    
 >> So improve the surface and the footware.
    
    Like they haven't been trying that, to little avail, for years.
    
>>parks. But then baseball fans haven't had their heads bashed together as often
>>as football fans so they are smart enough to hold their games in the summer.
   
    So, we who happen to prefer football to baseball are products of having
    our heads bashed together, huh???
    
>>  Says who? Now who's cramming something down someone else's throat. Did I
>>miss the place where the NFL conducted a vote on whether fans would rather
>>sit indoors or freeze their butts off?
    
    Oh, so we football fans only have two choices, sit inside or freeze our
    butts off.  Tell that to the people of LA.  I'm sure they'll love to
    get out of the cold, or the people of Dall-Ass and San diego, who will
    now rush to build domed stadiums so they, too, san avoid "freezin their
    butts off" during their games.
    
>>went. Archaeologists will one day extract it from a glacier along with a woolly
>>mammoth.
    
   Probably while escavating for another domed stadium.
    
    JaKe
    

RE           <<< Note 230.113 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    right George, and who will ultimately suffer from this, it's you, Mr.
>    Faux Fan.  the boom intechnology has produced so many kids who come
>    home from school, turn on the TV and crank up the ol high technology
>    Nintendo or Sega and waist their life playing video games, that in 25
>    years, baseball players in the Majors, if they still exist, swon't be
>    better than what the AA players are now, and that's if yer lucky.

  Nuts. First of all I am one of those kids who cranks up his Nintendo. Ok I'm
into systems a bit more advanced but I have no problem with interactive
entertainment. 

  And second, kids have always liked new wizbang games in addition to spectator
sports. And from the sounds of the debates we've been having, if (excuse me
when) baseball and/or football do change with the times I'll handle it a lot
better than the more conservative fans with which I usually debate.

>    I remember a time when during the summer you couldn't go past too many
>    fields that were empty, most being occupied by neighborhood pick-up
>    games.  Now the fields, for the msot part, seem to sit vacant, except
>    for the occasional little league/pony league/softball game.  

  The difference is that today so many of those parents you talk about are
forcing kids to play baseball that it's no longer fun. If they left the kids
alone they'd probably get back to playing it for the love of the game. Small
wonder the players today treat baseball like a job, they are trained to see
it that way from the time they are 8 years old. 
    
>    My kids have stopped wanting to go over to certain other kids houses to
>    "play" becuase these other kids only want to play video games, they
>    cain't seem to work up the energy to do something real, like playing
>    outdoors.
 
  In my parents day they said the same thing about TV. And I remember my
grandmother once complaining about how when she was a kid everyone would sit
around singing songs but then that new fangled radio came along and suddenly no
one cared about singing any more. Now if your logic applied then I guess that
would mean that there would no longer be any professional singers since
everyone was too busy listening to the radio to learn how to sing.

  I remember once back in the 60's hearing some article written by an author
claiming that the new generation was going to ruin, technology was spoiling
our way of life, future generations were doomed, etc, etc, etc. The punch
line was that it was written by some Greek scholar back around 330 B.C.

  George

>>  Nuts. 
    
    Cashews, thank you.
    
>>    First of all I am one of those kids who cranks up his Nintendo. Ok I'm
>>into systems a bit more advanced but I have no problem with interactive
>>entertainment. 

>>  And second, kids have always liked new wizbang games in addition to spectator
>>sports. And from the sounds of the debates we've been having, if (excuse me
>>when) baseball and/or football do change with the times I'll handle it a lot
>>better than the more conservative fans with which I usually debate.

    I wasn't talking about grown kids, Mr. wizard, I was talking about the
    kids who will be baseball(if it still exists) in 20-25 years, not the
    freakin' spectators.
    

>>  The difference is that today so many of those parents you talk about are
>>forcing kids to play baseball that it's no longer fun. 
    
    OhmyGosh, I agree with ya.
    
>>    If they left the kids
>>alone they'd probably get back to playing it for the love of the game. 
    
    I highly doubt it, unless they were playing it on their Nintendos.
    
>>    Small
>>wonder the players today treat baseball like a job, they are trained to see
>>it that way from the time they are 8 years old. 
  
    the media and the game and the players themselves force it that way,
    not the parents.  when every freakin player is either pissing and
    moaning about how he should be making more money for a G A M E, and the
    media balsts out evry red cent that is involved in a game, kids cain't
    help but think about the money end of it, other thatn the game fer the
    pure enjoyment(which I seem to have lost for baseball, for the most
    part).
      
>>  In my parents day they said the same thing about TV. And I remember my
>>grandmother once complaining about how when she was a kid everyone would sit
>>around singing songs but then that new fangled radio came along and suddenly no
>>one cared about singing any more. Now if your logic applied then I guess that
>>would mean that there would no longer be any professional singers since
>>everyone was too busy listening to the radio to learn how to sing.

    First, I think baseball is digging its own financial grave, secondly, I
    don't think the quality of players will be around in years to come.
    JMHO.
    
>>  I remember once back in the 60's hearing some article written by an author
>>claiming that the new generation was going to ruin, technology was spoiling
>>our way of life, future generations were doomed, etc, etc, etc. The punch
>>line was that it was written by some Greek scholar back around 330 B.C.

    And how right he was.  the world has been going to sh_t since then.
    
JaKe
    
    

RE           <<< Note 230.117 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    I wasn't talking about grown kids, Mr. wizard, I was talking about the
>    kids who will be baseball(if it still exists) in 20-25 years, not the
>    freakin' spectators.

  Exactly. And when I was a kid there would be no baseball (in fact no society)
because all the kids were watching TV. And when my parents were kids, there
would be no baseball, (in fact no society at all), because the kids were
listening to the radio.

  Guess what. In spite of the fact that kids are the 1st to migrate toward
new advances in entertainment, they still have time for a life and the world
doesn't come to an end.
    
>    the media and the game and the players themselves force it that way,
>    not the parents.  when every freakin player is either pissing and
>    moaning about how he should be making more money for a G A M E, and the
>    media balsts out evry red cent that is involved in a game, kids cain't
>    help but think about the money end of it, other thatn the game fer the
>    pure enjoyment(which I seem to have lost for baseball, for the most
>    part).
 
  Right, but when did those guys 1st start thinking of baseball as a job?
It was when they were kids and had to play so that their father could live
his fantasy life through his kids. They didn't play for fun, they played
to please Dad which is every kids #1 job.

  If parents left their kids alone they'd get away from their nintendo's long
enough to play ball just as we got away from our TVs and our parents got
away from their Radios before us.

  George

If I wanted to sit in climate controlled comfort and watch the game,
I'd do it from my living room.

To me part of the football experience has always been the chill of an autumn
afternoon, entering the stadium after a nice tailgate.  The only weather I hate
for a tailgate is rain.  I don't mind snow, I don't mind bitter cold.
If you dress right, and have the right food, and don't drink too too much,
you don't get that cold anyway.

And besides, half the fun of being out there is coming back in again.


I think what happens is that as we get older a lot of us forget what it was
like to be kids.   When I was a kid we played football all winter.  Hell, I
remember times we'd be playing in the snow, running around (and man was it
tough to run in the snow sometimes) but snow-football was always cool because
it never hurt much when you were tackled.

As an adult I've played rugby in every kind of weather, and while I can't speak
for NFL players, to me the weather is just an inconvenience.  If you're focused
on the game, you don't notice it too much (unless you're getting your a__
kicked bad).


I'll give it to those folks in Green Bay and Buffalo, they're REAL fans.

>>  Exactly. And when I was a kid there would be no baseball (in fact no society)
>>because all the kids were watching TV. And when my parents were kids, there
>>would be no baseball, (in fact no society at all), because the kids were
>>listening to the radio.

>>  Guess what. In spite of the fact that kids are the 1st to migrate toward
>>new advances in entertainment, they still have time for a life and the world
>>doesn't come to an end.
  
    You, who complain that everybody misses your point, have missed the
    point.
    
    the kids nowadays spend far more time playing nintendo than any of the
    kids in my day spent in front of the boob tube.  I read not too long
    ago of a town, cain't remmeber where, that started "Nintendo Leagues"
    for the kids, and the enrollment in soccer football and baseball
    dropped immensely.
    
    How many kids do you see playing pick-up baseball games these days,
    huh, not many, righto, George.  During my summers, I played baseball 4
    or 5 days a week, from 9 in the morning till dinner time, and honed my
    skills at second base pretty damned good.   I couldn't have learned it
    from a nintendo machine, and the kids cain't now, either.  And one or
    two games a week, and an hour of practice ain't going to give ya real
    good skills.
      
>>   Right, but when did those guys 1st start thinking of baseball as a job?
>>It was when they were kids and had to play so that their father could live
>>his fantasy life through his kids. They didn't play for fun, they played
>>to please Dad which is every kids #1 job.

    When I played organized baseball, it was for me, and the team I was on. 
    I was happy when I pleased my Dad, but he was not the reason I played. 
    I disagree with ya on the "when was it considered a job" aspect,
    though.
    
>>  If parents left their kids alone they'd get away from their nintendo's long
>>enough to play ball just as we got away from our TVs and our parents got
>>away from their Radios before us.

    Again, I highly doubt that, cause I see what's going on right now. 
    Take off yer blinders George.  Kids just don't play, except for their
    leagues, nowadays.

    
    JaKe
    
    

    re.119, I agree wif ya Saw.  I think George musta been reared on Pong
    on his parents Atari, and thinks ya should sit inside a dome, and he'll
    probably lobby for game controllers in front of every seat, so he cain
    fake like he's got something to do with the game.
    
    Jake
    

    George, 
    	You left out Elms college - one of the seven sisters of the
    catholic world.  It's in Springfield, sisters of the iron mace.
    
    	I see the kids playing nintendo instead of tv but mostly the same
    amount of time as past kids, post tv.  TV started it, nintendo takes
    time from that more than anything.  My kid will play anything other
    than Nintendo if it's available but he sure can play a tune on that
    stick.
    
    	Beleive it or not I didn't watch a lot of daytime tv but it seems
    most of my peers spent all their time in the 50s watching.
    
    billte

RE           <<< Note 230.120 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    the kids nowadays spend far more time playing nintendo than any of the
>    kids in my day spent in front of the boob tube.  I read not too long
>    ago of a town, cain't remmeber where, that started "Nintendo Leagues"
>    for the kids, and the enrollment in soccer football and baseball
>    dropped immensely.

  This may be true and this may not be true. The claim is exactly the same
as the one we heard about TV 30 years ago, "kids today spend far more time
in front of the tube than we spend listening to the radio".
    
>    How many kids do you see playing pick-up baseball games these days,
>    huh, not many, righto, George.  During my summers, I played baseball 4
>    or 5 days a week, from 9 in the morning till dinner time, and honed my
>    skills at second base pretty damned good.   

  Like your story about the town of "can't remember where", this is anecdotal.
Fine, in a nation of 250,000,000 people you found one town where on one
occasion someone organized a nintendo league and other sports dropped off.
A million factors could have entered into that one case. And fine you use to
play baseball 4 or 5 days a week. We use to play softball on Sunday afternoons.
That was it. The rest of the time we watched TV.

>    When I played organized baseball, it was for me, and the team I was on. 
>    I was happy when I pleased my Dad, but he was not the reason I played. 
>    I disagree with ya on the "when was it considered a job" aspect,
>    though.
 
  I, me, I, I, I, Dad, he, I. That's 8 examples that amount to a total of 2
people. Again, anecdotal evidence. What about the other 250,000,000-2 people? 
   
>    Again, I highly doubt that, cause I see what's going on right now. 
>    Take off yer blinders George.  Kids just don't play, except for their
>    leagues, nowadays.

  That's because they have the leagues. Why play more baseball if you've got
organized practice and games? I like to write computer programs but I don't
generally go home and write them after writing them all day at work. Enough
of enough.

  Now if there were no leagues and you told me kids were not playing then
that would mean something.

  George

    George, the kids playing in the leagues nowadays don't get the practice
    they need cause they're too busy running to soccer after the baseball,
    and from there to basket weaving, and from there to Joey's house to
    play Mortal Kombat and fry a few brain cells, then to dance class and
    then to and on and on and on and on
    
    
    JaKe
    

  In your opinion of course. And in your opinion that didn't happen before. 

  Ok since you are the one talking about trends, what percentage of time did
the average kid spend playing baseball back in the 60's and what percentage of
time does the average kid spend playing baseball now?

  And I'm not asking about you, your friends, your family or the people you've
met. You keep making statements implying that you know of nation wide trends,
let's at least hear the numbers you are basing them on. 

  I haven't heard or seen any reliable numbers so I have no idea if what you
are saying has any basis in fact or if you are just blowing wind.

  George

	This Sissyplex controversy is going to play out in every city in 
the NFL.  Ever since Georgia Frontiere backed up the Rolls Royce to the 
Missouri vault and emptied it out into her back seat every NFL owner wants 
the same sweatheart deal.  They're either going to get it or find some 
wannabe location that's willing to mortgage the future in order to be a "big 
league city".  If being a "big league city" means paying well into the 21st 
century so some wealthy owner can be even wealthier then put me down as 
favoring second city status for Boston.

				   /Don

  So is St. Louis now guaranteed to be a 2nd rate city because of this one
deal?

  Can you show me some example of a city which is clearly 2nd rate only because
they built a domed stadium?

  Seems most of the cities with domes are considered major metropolitan areas.
I've never heard an argument that one of them is not and I've certainly never
heard an argument that one of them is 2nd rate ONLY because they built a domed
stadium.

  George

    George, 
    
    I think he meant that he would rather Boston be considered a 2nd rate
    city due to it's lack of a dome (and football team), not because it
    had mortaged the taxpayers to have one.
    
    HTH 
    
    UMDan

    
   >> every NFL owner wants the same sweatheart deal.  
    
       Al Davis really started it all and then he whupped the NFL in 
      court when they tried to stop him. If owners threaten to move 
      there's nothing that can be done other than cave in or call 
      their bluff. In Kraft's case, it's an obvious holdup. He's making 
      money, he just wants more and if he gets it who's to say that it
      will still be enough. Unfortunately a lot of figure skating fans up
      here who don't know a 4-3 defense from a center linebacker are
      scared witless that their going to lose this team whose band-
      wagon they were just getting comfy on. I'm with you, Slash. I'd
      hate to see the Pats leave town but I'd get over it.

                     <<< Note 230.127 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Can you show me some example of a city which is clearly 2nd rate only because
>they built a domed stadium?

St. Pete

  Look who's talk'en.

  Talk about paranoia. Major cities have been building state of the art
convention and sporting arena's for years. How often do you hear the people
of a city complain about how awful their life is because they are burdened
with a domed stadium they built 5 or 10 or more years ago?

  Do people in Houston complain that they wish they had never built the
Astro dome? Are people in Atlanta really suffering a poor life style because
of the complex near the CNN center?

  Just how bad do you guys thing life will get if this thing gets built?

  George

RE           <<< Note 230.131 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>>  Can you show me some example of a city which is clearly 2nd rate only because
>>they built a domed stadium?
>
>St. Pete

  This is the 1st time I've ever heard anyone say that St. Pete was a 2nd
rate city ONLY because of a domed stadium.

  So you are saying that if they had not built a stadium, St Pete would be a
1st rate city but since they built the thing, that alone makes them 2nd rate?

  George

RE        <<< Note 230.129 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>Unfortunately a lot of figure skating fans up
>      here who don't know a 4-3 defense from a center linebacker are
>      scared witless that their going to lose this team whose band-
>      wagon they were just getting comfy on. I'm with you, Slash. I'd
>      hate to see the Pats leave town but I'd get over it.

  Once again Tommy picks on my dyslexia to cover for the fact that the only
way he could claim to win the figure skating debate was by admitting that
logic had no place in the SPORTS notes file.

  Tell me Tommy, do you get ahead of little old ladies at the grocery store
by kicking their cane out from under them?

  George

In many ways, yes it does. they built it George, and "They" did 
not come. No one did. What does that say about the attitude 
toward St. Pete when they go out and spend millions of dollars to 
build a domed stadium (in FLA no less, what morons) and STILL no 
one is interested?

daryll

RE           <<< Note 230.135 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>In many ways, yes it does. they built it George, and "They" did 
>not come. No one did. What does that say about the attitude 
>toward St. Pete when they go out and spend millions of dollars to 
>build a domed stadium (in FLA no less, what morons) and STILL no 
>one is interested?

  What do you mean no one is interested. They were the final team eliminated
before Major League baseball selected Miami and Denver for the Marlines and
Rockies and have all but been promised a major league franchise when MLB
expands to 30 teams. 

  As for the NFL, when they pick a city for an expansion team the stadium is
only one consideration. They also consider the financial situation and ability
of the syndicate asking for the Franchise which is why St. Louis didn't get one
of the expansions but did attract an existing team. 

  You're counting St. Pete out a little bit early. Two rejections including
a close 3rd for 2 available teams and a bad syndicate does not a 2nd rate
city make.

  George

Re        <<< Note 230.137 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>       Phooey. If you want to believe that figure skating is a sport
>       because it fits the broadest definition of what a sport is then
>       go ahead. I realized a long time ago  that it's useless to try 
>       and convince you otherwise. 

  When I asked why you couldn't name one person who both understood the
basic fundamentals of Figure Skating and felt it was not a sport you admitted
that the reason I didn't understand that I was losing the debate was that
logic did not apply to discussions in the SPORTS notes file. And that's where
we left it.

  You ready to give me a name?

  George

    
    George,
    
    I * N E V E R*  said I had any kind of numbers, only stated what I've seen
    from my observations and the trends that youth are following today.
    
    If you want numbers, go talk to a freakin' mathematician.
    
    Everytime someone gets into it with you, you come screaming for
    numbers, be they attendance numbers or whatever.  Well, figures don't
    lie, but liars figure, so a lot of times, numbers don't mean sh_t.
    
    
    JaKe
    
    
    

    

    Center-Linebacker was the name of the position before it became more
    popularly known as middle linebacker and Sam Huff glamorized it.  So,
    George just claim age and leave those trendy disfunctions out of it.
    
    You two are not	going	to	start the figure skating debate
    again.  If there is a man, woman, child or other who wants that one
    back, speak now or...  Okay the silence is deafening
    
    By the way I decided the other day that the purest sport out there is
    tennis.

RE           <<< Note 230.141 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    Everytime someone gets into it with you, you come screaming for
>    numbers, be they attendance numbers or whatever.  Well, figures don't
>    lie, but liars figure, so a lot of times, numbers don't mean sh_t.
    
  Well if you are so against the scientific method I guess that explains why
you feel there has been no significant progress in mankind since 330 B.C. Once
those Greeks invented mathematics the world was never the same. 

  You got'a admit though that Alexander the Great sure kicked some butt to get
it all started. 

  George 

     Don't even try it, George. This is the Megaplex note. If 
    you want drag that stupid discussion out again, do it some-
    where else with someone else because I ain't interested. So
    far the only compelling reasons that you've offered for the
    Megaplex is that it will pump some revenue into the state
    in the form of hundreds of low paying service jobs and it'll
    allay your fears that Bob Kraft might take his ball and go
    elsewhere depriving you of the opportunity to call this team 
    that you will not pay to see in person *your* home yteam. The 
    Megaplex will not make Boston a 'world class city'. There are 
    dozens of cities that have domes that aren't 'world class' and 
    then there many cities that don't have domes but are 'world class'. 
    It will make the team more profitable for Kraft at the same time 
    lessening the experience of actually attending games or even watching 
    them on tv. There are no guarantees that it will not bleed red ink 
    even after residual revenue is taken into account. The Megaplex
    is a move that a nouveau riche burg like Charlotte might make.
    It is not something that belongs in Boston.
     
   
    

RE        <<< Note 230.145 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     Don't even try it, George. This is the Megaplex note. If 
>    you want drag that stupid discussion out again, do it some-
>    where else with someone else because I ain't interested. 

  If ** I ** want to drag it out!!!???

  Go back and look, you were the one that brought it up in .137 so just try to
find a note where I brought it up earlier. 

  In fact I think I can say without qualificiation that your side of the
argument started the Great Figure Skating Debate and that every single time
it's reared it's ugly head it's been your side that's brought it up.

RE My only argument is that it makes economic sense and keeps the Pats in town

  Yes, that about sums it up but those are good reasons to me. About your
only argument is that SOME of the fans of ONE of the events that will use
ONE PART of the mega plex will be denied the opportunity to eat wieners in
the snow and pour beer on other fan's heads.

  George

                     <<< Note 230.147 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

RE My only argument is that it makes economic sense 

I'm sure you have some sort of statistics to back this assertion 
up?

daryll

  >> Go back and look, you were the one that brought it up in 
  >> .137 so just try to find a note where I brought it up earlier. 

     Note .134 seems to fit the bill, George. It's where you mention
     that moronic debate. All I did earlier was refer to you as a
     figure skating fan which you are.

  >> My only argument is that it makes economic sense and keeps the 
  >> Pats in town

  >> Yes, that about sums it up but those are good reasons to me. About 
  >> your only argument is that SOME of the fans of ONE of the events that 
  >> will use ONE PART of the mega plex will be denied the opportunity to 
  >> eat wieners in the snow and pour beer on other fan's heads.

     You offer not one study that suggests that this thing will be ever
     be profitable. Not one. You're willing to guess that Price Waterhouse 
     didn't take all factors into account when they concluded that it was 
     a sinkhole and you're willing to believe that all of the low-paying
     service jobs created will make up for the big cash outlay but you
     offer no real evidence. And my argument isn't just that the foot-
     ball part of it will be ruined but that it won't be convenient for
     anybody or for any purpose. I also believe it will be a big hole to
     throw money down wil pols and other lowlifes at the bottom catching
     our tax dollars. It'd be nice to have the Final Four and SB and the
     like held here but then that's more than offset by you're telling
     me that we could have an Amway convention here with 20,000 Amway
     salespeople descending on Boston - nothing is worth that.
    
    

RE           <<< Note 230.148 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>RE My only argument is that it makes economic sense 
>
>I'm sure you have some sort of statistics to back this assertion 
>up?

  You'll have to ask Tommy, he's the one who said my only argument was that it
made economic sense and it would keep the Patriots in town. I don't believe I
said that on my own. 

  Personally I just like the idea of being able to ride cross town mass transit
to ball games and to see big events in the city and I feel that hotels and
restaurants should not be discounted when figuring revenue versus cost for the
citizens in general.

  George

Re        <<< Note 230.149 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     Note .134 seems to fit the bill, George. It's where you mention
>     that moronic debate. All I did earlier was refer to you as a
>     figure skating fan which you are.

  Yes but I wasn't arguing it's merits, I was only responding to your earlier
claim that we should not have a megaplex in Boston because one time I mixed
up the words center and middle when talking about linebackers.

  Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. If your side never brings up the GFSD
again and if you never pick on my one typo again, I'll never argue back the
merits of the GFSD nor will I remind everyone how you feel that logic has
no place in SPORTS notes file debates.

  Do we have a deal? Ha, I doubt it that's a promise you would never be able
to keep.

>     You offer not one study that suggests that this thing will be ever
>     be profitable. 

  Nor did I make that argument in the 1st place. It was you that claimed I
was taking that position, not me.

  George

So to sum up George, you want this megaplex built because it will 
suit your personal needs and although you claim there is some 
sort of overall financial windfall to be found here, you can 
produce no concrete evidence to support that assertion nor can 
you dispute studies to the contrary with anything other than 
blind supposition.

It's not Tommy's role to provide statistics to support his 
position. He's is not the one advocating spenind a billion 
dollars to build this thing. It's the supporters of this project 
that own that responsibility. They've been unsurprisingly mute.

daryll

>     You offer not one study that suggests that this thing will be ever
>     be profitable. 

 > Nor did I make that argument in the 1st place. It was you that claimed I
 > was taking that position, not me.

       Since 230.15 you've taken the position that in the long run
      the Megaplex will pay for itself. That you're now backing away
      from that postion is rather telling. 

    

RE           <<< Note 230.152 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>So to sum up George, you want this megaplex built because it will 
>suit your personal needs and although you claim there is some 
>sort of overall financial windfall to be found here, you can 
>produce no concrete evidence to support that assertion nor can 
>you dispute studies to the contrary with anything other than 
>blind supposition.

  No, you have not articulated my position properly.

>It's not Tommy's role to provide statistics to support his 
>position. He's is not the one advocating spenind a billion 
>dollars to build this thing. It's the supporters of this project 
>that own that responsibility. They've been unsurprisingly mute.

  No one has ever asked Tommy to provide statistics. Try reading more
carefully. 

  George

RE        <<< Note 230.153 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>       Since 230.15 you've taken the position that in the long run
>      the Megaplex will pay for itself. That you're now backing away
>      from that postion is rather telling. 

  When did I ever say that?

  George

>       Since 230.15 you've taken the position that in the long run
>      the Megaplex will pay for itself. That you're now backing away
>      from that postion is rather telling. 

  >> When did I ever say that?

       You've said that pretty much from the beginning. In 230.147
       your reiterate it with...

 " RE My only argument is that it makes economic sense and keeps the Pats 
   in town

   Yes, that about sums it up but those are good reasons to me."

       Don't start denying things that there is a clear rcord of you
       saying. Polite people call that fabricating, I call it something
       plainer.

                     <<< Note 230.154 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

RE           <<< Note 230.152 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>>So to sum up George, you want this megaplex built because it will 
>>suit your personal needs and although you claim there is some 
>>sort of overall financial windfall to be found here, you can 
>>produce no concrete evidence to support that assertion nor can 
>>you dispute studies to the contrary with anything other than 
>>blind supposition.

 > No, you have not articulated my position properly.

Then correct me George. What exactly is incorrect in what I've 
written.

>>It's not Tommy's role to provide statistics to support his 
>>position. He's is not the one advocating spenind a billion 
>>dollars to build this thing. It's the supporters of this project 
>>that own that responsibility. They've been unsurprisingly mute.

 > No one has ever asked Tommy to provide statistics. Try reading more
>carefully. 

Meanwhile, still no factual support for this project....

daryll

    I'll get off  my soapboix on the kids of today/baseball and stay to my
    assertion that domed stadiums are wanted by yuppy quiche eating morons
    who whine too much because of a little bit of cold but go skiing cause
    it's the fashoinable thing to to.  What's next, indoor ski slopes??
    
    JaKe
    

    There is one way that the state could subsidize this and reduce
    expenditure and that would be to link nfl betting with the 'plex.
    Systems such as the Ontario lottery system could be used, football
    cards, all sorts of creative combinations which would not be the direct
    link to the final score that illegal betting is today.
    
    Then again there are Las Vegas interests ready to build everything scot
    free if we grant them gaming licenses.  Here (is Daryll listening?) it
    is the state which by restricting private enterprise adds to the 
    taxpayer burden.
    
    I still thinks some definition of terms like taxpayers pay are in
    order.  If there is more pay to tax the residents may pay less.

    
     for the record the Worcester Telegram runs a yes/no poll on hot
     subjects. The poll for the Megaplex at the expense of taxpayers
     was 874 against 83 for it. Most lopside vote I've ever seen.
     I guess that means this thing is a shoo-in. TFB
    
    mike

RE        <<< Note 230.156 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

> " RE My only argument is that it makes economic sense and keeps the Pats 
>   in town
>
>   Yes, that about sums it up but those are good reasons to me."

  You keep getting balled up between two arguments going on here, the economic
and civil benefits of having a megacomplex versus doing what is necessary for
it to be economically practical for the Patriots to stay in town. 

  A couple notes ago a claim was made that I've said the entire complex is
guaranteed to be profitable but haven't given numbers to support that argument.
Not true, I never said that the entire complex was guaranteed to be profitable.
Who knows, maybe it will maybe it won't. All I said was that it was unlikely
that the studies saying the complex would lose money considered economic
benefits to hotels, restaurants and other retail businesses. 

  The statement you quoted above was in the middle of the other argument that I
am having with you in which the Patriots, not me, are saying that the complex
makes economic sense for them. Again, I don't know but I don't see why they
would be asking for it if it didn't make economic sense. 

  So let's keep the threads separate. There's the debate on the megaplex in
general and there's the debate on whether or the Patriots should be play in a
megaplex if it's built. 

  George

    George,
    
    do ya ever get dizzy?? Are ya dizzy now?? ya should be.  Yer practicing
    a ton of spin control in here, and the ground's rushing up at ya fast. 
    Better grab the stick and pull out of the spin.
    
    (8^)*
    
    JaKe
    

RE           <<< Note 230.157 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>Then correct me George. What exactly is incorrect in what I've 
>written.

  I never said there was a financial windfall to be found there.

>Meanwhile, still no factual support for this project....

  Sure, and no factual criticism either. I speculate it will be good while
you speculate that it will be bad. Meanwhile Tommy complains that he won't
be able to cook his wieners in the snow while I get all jazzed about the idea
of seeing a football game in my shirt sleeves.

  George

RE           <<< Note 230.158 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>               -< And by the way, figure skating ain't a sport >-

  Notice the other side trying to start this debate once again.

  George

RE           <<< Note 230.162 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    do ya ever get dizzy?? Are ya dizzy now?? ya should be.  Yer practicing
>    a ton of spin control in here, and the ground's rushing up at ya fast. 
>    Better grab the stick and pull out of the spin.
    
  I'm a little dizzy trying to sort out all the claims that I'm saying things
I've never said but that's typical in these debates.

  George

But there has been at least one study done that has concluded 
that the megaplex will not be profitable. You choose to discount 
it with a supposition that it did not include the revenue 
generated by nearby business. You, of course, can't back that 
claim so the study still stands unchallenged by facts to the 
contrary.

daryll

    I dunno, George, I see extracts from yer notes and then you continually
    saying that what you said is out of context when it appears to be in
    context and you saying it ain't and,.....well, perpetuating a vicious
    circle.  If what you say isn't what you say, don't say it.
    
    Tighten the strap on yer crash helmet, too.
    
    JaKe
    

RE               <<< Note 230.165 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

>    happened earlier than that.  Egypt couldn't have built the pyramids
>    without knowledge of math.

  Some math. Arithmetic certainly. But they didn't have the concept of zero
which is necessary for modern math and their geometry was trial and error.

  At 1st they were building their pyramids rather steep then they decided to go
to a less steep model. It actually happened right in the middle of the
construction of one of the larger pyramids and you can still see where that
one monument is steeper on the bottom than on the top.

  It was the Greeks that invented Algebra as we know it today and made the use
of zero popular in algebraic computations and proofs.

  George

RE           <<< Note 230.167 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>But there has been at least one study done that has concluded 
>that the megaplex will not be profitable. You choose to discount 
>it with a supposition that it did not include the revenue 
>generated by nearby business. You, of course, can't back that 
>claim so the study still stands unchallenged by facts to the 
>contrary.

  You keep claiming you have studies and if you do fine, let's have a look.

  I'm not even making a claim that it's economically feasible so I have nothing
to prove. I simply pointed out that a study saying that the complex itself
will lose more money than it will make does not take into consideration revenue
to the public through hotels, restaurants, and other retail establishments.

  George

RE           <<< Note 230.168 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    I dunno, George, I                                       continually
>
>
>
>
>                             crash            .

  Sorry about that.

  George

                     <<< Note 230.163 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

RE           <<< Note 230.157 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>>Then correct me George. What exactly is incorrect in what I've 
>>written.

>  I never said there was a financial windfall to be found there.

Well then that leaves the part about you being in support of 
this for your own personal reasons which you've conveniently 
stated below:

>Meanwhile, still no factual support for this project....

Meanwhile Tommy complains that he won't
be able to cook his wieners in the snow while I get all jazzed about the idea
                                              --------------------------------
of seeing a football game in my shirt sleeves.
---------------------------------------------
 

  >> You keep getting balled up between two arguments going on here, the 
  >> economic and civil benefits of having a megacomplex versus doing what 
  >> is necessary for it to be economically practical for the Patriots to 
  >> stay in town. 

  >> The statement you quoted above was in the middle of the other argument 
  >> that I am having with you in which the Patriots, not me, are saying that 
  >> the complex makes economic sense for them. Again, I don't know but I 
  >> don't see why they would be asking for it if it didn't make economic 
  >> sense. 

     That's another er... fabrication, George. You said in 230.15 that "in
     the long run both the megaplex and any improvements in the transport-
     ation infrastructrure will be worth while" in 230.147 you say "it [the 
     Megaplex] makes economic sense and keeps the Pats in town". It was you
     saying that not you attributing that to the Pats. You're not running
     for office you know so don't constantly change your story. 

     As for the dome making economic sense for the Pats, of course it does. 
     No one has ever said it didn't. It's everyone else but the Pats for 
     whom it doesn't make sense. 
    
    

    So when do they have the groundbreaking ceremony?
    
    :-)
    
    UMDan

RE        <<< Note 230.174 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     That's another er... fabrication, George. You said in 230.15 that "in
>     the long run both the megaplex and any improvements in the transport-
>     ation infrastructrure will be worth while" in 230.147 you say 

  Yes and I believe that's true. If we had both a megaplex and improvements in
transportation lots of people would benefit and in my opinion it would be worth
while.

  It would be worth while from the point of easy access and it would provide a
place to hold major events which will benefit the cultural, political aspects
of the city in terms of art, entertainment, and other major events. 

>"it [the 
>     Megaplex] makes economic sense and keeps the Pats in town". It was you
>     saying that not you attributing that to the Pats. 

  No I believe it was the Patriots who claimed long before we had this
discussion that they needed a new stadium for economic reasons. I'm just
restating their position. Without the economic benefit of a new stadium they
will probably pick up and leave town.

>     As for the dome making economic sense for the Pats, of course it does. 
>     No one has ever said it didn't. It's everyone else but the Pats for 
>     whom it doesn't make sense. 
    
  Now you are the one making a claim without numbers to back it up.

  If that is your opinion, then fine. I believe many would benefit from such
a complex and obviously you guys feel only the Patriots would benefit. Such
are our opinions.

  George

    
    I realize this is totally outside the context of the note, so I will
    limit myself to this one entry.  While it is correct that one of the
    pyramids has two slopes, it is NOT because it was too steep.  There are
    many with STEEPER slopes that the lower portion of that particular one.
    
    Also, there are lots of examples in the design of the pyramids to prove
    that they knew, at the least, trig. and they certainly did have the
    concept of zero.  Any respectible historian can verify this statement.
    
    Marc
    

    Pyramid Megaplex!  Re-bury the Pharoahs and charge admission, taxpayers
    don't have to pay, and you may be able to get some free curses to use
    on visiting teams.
    
    UMDan

    I'm sure Maynard Keynes might make the argument that building a pyramid
    instead of a megaplex would be beneficial to the state of
    massachusetts.  We have as a nation been building the equivalent in the
    use of tax dollars for nuclear warheads, in fact the entire myth of
    strategic defense is our modern pyramid.
    
    And of course the Sumerians were surely the ones to pass on whatever math
    the Egyptians had while in South America similar math was possessed,
    allegedly without contact between the civilizations.

  >> It would be worth while from the point of easy access and it 
  >> would provide a place to hold major events which will benefit 
  >> the cultural, political aspects of the city in terms of art, 
  >> entertainment, and other major events. 

     That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with you 
     trying to retract your original supposition that the Megaplex
     would pay for itself in ways other than mere ticket sales.
     There's nothing in 230.15 about culture, art or anything other 
     than basic economics. If you're recanting that statement then 
     do so but don't try and deny you ever said it when there is ample 
     proof that you did.
   
  >> No I believe it was the Patriots who claimed long before we had this
  >> discussion that they needed a new stadium for economic reasons. I'm 
  >> just restating their position. Without the economic benefit of a new 
  >> stadium they will probably pick up and leave town.

     You aren't just "restating" the Pats position. You've adopted it as 
     your own and have been defending it right along and have as much as 
     said that you're willing to pay good money to keep them here. The
     rest of us (especially me) are "welfare sports fans" because we don't
     agree with you.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.181 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with you 
>     trying to retract your original supposition that the Megaplex
>     would pay for itself in ways other than mere ticket sales.

  I never held that position.

>     There's nothing in 230.15 about culture, art or anything other 
>     than basic economics. If you're recanting that statement then 
>     do so but don't try and deny you ever said it when there is ample 
>     proof that you did.

  I'm not recanting that statement, I stand by it. But if you go back and
read 230.15 again you will see that it never says anything about the Megaplex
paying for itself. It says it will "create jobs" "bring money into the
economy", and be "worth while" and I stand by that. Even if they run in the
red which is far from certain when considering other economic benefits, when
you add in the cultural factors and improvement to the city and area in general
it becomes worth while.
   
>     You aren't just "restating" the Pats position. You've adopted it as 
>     your own and have been defending it right along and have as much as 
>     said that you're willing to pay good money to keep them here. The
>     rest of us (especially me) are "welfare sports fans" because we don't
>     agree with you.
    
  Tommy, if you spent a little less time getting excited over the prospect of
entering a knee jerk response to what you think someone is saying and read what
they actually say you would make a lot more sense. You have been misquoting me
and twisting my arguments into something they are not this entire string and
I've had enough.

  Now unless you want me to start claiming that you advocate slaughtering the
1st born of some group or other, knock it off.

  George

    
      Moving right along...
    
       I managed to catch the last bit of a report on WODS this
      morning where yet another person (House Speaker Flaherty?)
      came out and called the Megaplex a foolish waste of money.
      I tend to doubt that the poll that Mike Childs posted was
      completely scientific or that the rate of opposition state-
      wide is the 91% cited in that poll but there is consider-
      able opposition to the Megaplex and any deal that is struck 
      will not be done quickly nor will the stadium itself be com-
      pleted overnight once the go ahead is given. If Kraft really 
      is hurting (and that's a damned big if) he probably can't 
      count on any relief in the form of a new stadium within at 
      least the next 5 years and probably considerably longer than 
      that. Can he hold out that long? Not to hear him tell it. And 
      how can he have calculated things so poorly? As far as attendance, 
      tv ratings and team performance he has pretty damned close to the 
      best possible scenario and yet he's still losing money? He says 
      that he overpaid for the team. Either that's true and he pulled 
      a major blunder and we have another Victor Kiam/Billy Sullivan
      on our hands or he's not telling us the complete truth.  

Judging by the response from everyone responding to your notes, 
everyone else in this file seems to be interpreting your notes 
much like Tommy does.

Since you keep insisting that you're being misunderstood, I'd 
suggest that the problem lies more in the writing than the 
reading.

I'm done. You can now declare yourself the winner....

daryll

    Did Kraft say he needed a Mega-plex or a new stadium?  If he needs a
    new stadium then fine put it to a vote.  If he needs a mega-plex then
    its POSSIBLE that the TAX payers in the area are in big trouble.
    
    BTW                                  
    What is the answer to Mike Childs question on the turnpike?
    It just seems to me that whenever taxes are to be raised for a private
    project that the taxpayers get stuck with the bill for MANY years.
    How many people will watch the Patriots play (IN PERSON) when the
    down years come back?
    

RE           <<< Note 230.184 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>Judging by the response from everyone responding to your notes, 
>everyone else in this file seems to be interpreting your notes 
>much like Tommy does.

  I see about 3 or 4 guys interpreting them that way, not everyone.

>Since you keep insisting that you're being misunderstood, I'd 
>suggest that the problem lies more in the writing than the 
>reading.

  Considering the small number of people who misunderstand and their strong
feelings I disagree.

>I'm done. You can now declare yourself the winner....

  Looks like you've already done that.

  George

Everytime the Turnpike even gets close to paying off the latest 
round of bonds, they just float new ones and start all over 
again. It was paid for years ago.

Another point to consider: The Hynes Convention Center was 
estaimated as costing $71M way back in 1980(?), final cost close 
to $500M. Look at the cost estimates for the 3rd Harbor tunnel 
and what the actual costs are now. Take the stimates of what 
it'll take to build this thing and triple them to start and work 
up from there....

daryll

RE                       <<< Note 230.185 by BSS::MENDEZ >>>

>    Did Kraft say he needed a Mega-plex or a new stadium?  If he needs a
>    new stadium then fine put it to a vote.  If he needs a mega-plex then
>    its POSSIBLE that the TAX payers in the area are in big trouble.

  No, all he wants is a stadium. And he doesn't really want the stadium for
himself, he's willing to share it with others. Beyond the stadium the megaplex
includes convention space.
    
>    What is the answer to Mike Childs question on the turnpike?

  The Turnpike is paid for. The representatives elected by the people of
Massachusetts decided to retain the Turnpike Authority to maintain the
Turnpike.

>    It just seems to me that whenever taxes are to be raised for a private
>    project that the taxpayers get stuck with the bill for MANY years.

  The Turnpike is a public project. The megaplex would also be a public
project which the Patriots along with many others would be allowed to use.

  George

                     <<< Note 230.188 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No, all he wants is a stadium. And he doesn't really want the stadium for
>himself, he's willing to share it with others.

    
  >>I see about 3 or 4 guys interpreting them that way, not everyone.
    
    That's cause there's only 3 or 4 who are willing at this time to debate
    it with you, I'd ventur that there's 10 or 15 more RONing this note
    shaking their head at you and your cry of "you misunderstood".
    
    
    IN FACT, EVERYBODY WHO SIDES WITH TOMMY AND THOSE DEBATING GEORGE<
    REPLY WITH AN "AYE".
    
    There George, maybe if some peoples do reply here, you can have your
    freakin' numbers.
    
    JaKe
    
    
    AYE
    
    

    In fairness to George, anybody siding with George put in a "NAY"
    
    JaKe
    

    Better yet, save the notesfile disk space and mail me with your vote
    and I'll tabulate the results in a few days.
    
    JaKe
    

 Yes Tommy, as you surmise the poll isn't fool proof. Just call in and vote
 yes or no. I mean if I was so inclined I could vote 200 + times but I doubt
 that anyone is that obsessive.

 Yes I realize the Turnpike is paid for. The Turnpike Authority is either the
 second or highest employer of folks in the state of a state run business. The
 problem is that when it was built in the sixties the people were told that it
 would pay for itself in ten years and then the boths would be uprooted and it
 would become a free highway. Instead all we've seen it do is turn into a cash
 cow for the state and a place for Joe politcal's no talented no hussle brother
 to get a job not that all toll collectors are. Of course the rates go up just
 about every other year too. I see the Megaplex if built being turned into the
 same style of operation where the ploticos will always be dumping money into   
 it.

 mike

  >> No, all he wants is a stadium. And he doesn't really want the 
  >> stadium for himself, he's willing to share it with others. 

     He can't share what he doesn't own. He may be the anchor 
     tennant in a sense but he'll have no more say over what 
     will and won't go on there than any other tennant save 
     that he'll probably have dibs on dates. He's not making
     any magnanimous gesture, he wants us to build him a stadium.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.196 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     He can't share what he doesn't own. He may be the anchor 
>     tennant in a sense but he'll have no more say over what 
>     will and won't go on there than any other tennant save 
>     that he'll probably have dibs on dates. He's not making
>     any magnanimous gesture, he wants us to build him a stadium.
    
  Yes you can share what you don't own. If you agree to use something along
with someone else, then you are sharing it whether you own it or not.

  I share the parking lot of our building with everyone else that works here
but I don't own it. I share office space with the people in my group, I share
the computer I'm working on now and in fact the type of operating system is
even called time "sharing".

  You most certainly can share something you don't own and something you have
no control over.

  George

RE           <<< Note 230.190 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    That's cause there's only 3 or 4 who are willing at this time to debate
>    it with you, I'd ventur that there's 10 or 15 more RONing this note
>    shaking their head at you and your cry of "you misunderstood".
>    
>    IN FACT, EVERYBODY WHO SIDES WITH TOMMY AND THOSE DEBATING GEORGE<
>    REPLY WITH AN "AYE".
    
  Remember what we are voting on here.

    Aye means "George has specifically claimed that the megaplex will make
               a profit"

while Nay means "George makes no claim about profit but says the megaplex
                 will provide economic benefits and cultural advantages to
                 the Boston area".

  This is NOT a AYE/NAY vote on how you feel about a Megaplex in Boston.

  George

  >> I share the parking lot of our building with everyone else that 
  >> works here but I don't own it. 

     You aren't making any magnanimous gestures either, George. You have
     no choice. You aren't "willing to share" it, Digital is willing to 
     let you use it. You can't very well turn around tomorrow and decide 
     that you no longer want to "share" the parking lot and want to turn 
     it into a fruit stand. So when you say Kraft is "willing to share" the 
     stadium it is not accurate because all he's willing to do is lease the 
     place to play NFL football.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.199 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     You aren't making any magnanimous gestures either, George. You have
>     no choice. You aren't "willing to share" it, Digital is willing to 
>     let you use it. 

  Yes, and likewise Kraft is not making any magnanimous gesture either. He has
no choice. He can't turn around tomorrow and decide that he no longer wants to
"share" the megaplex with everyone else in the city. 

  In fact I don't understand why you brought up the idea of magnanimous gestures
anyway. I don't see how that applies to this argument.

  George

      re the Turnpike

      That was pretty much my point earlier about the lottery.
     We have an incredibly lucrative lottery in this state. At
     one time it was the richest in the country, may still be I
     don't know. But I think anyone here would be hard-pressed 
     to point to anything and say, "That's better now that we
     have the extra revenue." The streets aren't measurably better.
     Our schools aren't measurably better. Etc. All that money and
     nothing has really changed that I can tell. That's why when 
     George tells me that we'll reap residual rewards from the 
     Megaplex beyond mere ticket sales that will make the deal
     worthwhile, I cast a jaundiced eye on him. I see no benefit
     from revenue that we can measure nevermind something as 
     vague as what we're hearing from the proponents of the
     Megaplex.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.201 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>      That was pretty much my point earlier about the lottery.
>     We have an incredibly lucrative lottery in this state. At
>     one time it was the richest in the country, may still be I
>     don't know. But I think anyone here would be hard-pressed 
>     to point to anything and say, "That's better now that we
>     have the extra revenue." 

  There's a reason for that. Back in the 70's the cost of running cities and
towns started to sky rocket and the towns responded by raising property taxes.
This resulted in a tax revolt that lead to Prop 13 in California and Prop 2.5
in Massachusetts which limits the town's authority to raise revenue. 

  One response was that the state instituted the lottery with the understanding
that just under half the money received would go for prizes, just under half
would go to the cities and towns, while the remainder would pay lottery
overhead. 

  While it's not a windfall, it's enough to help with the problem that while
inflation runs at around 4%-5%, cities and towns can only raise revenue at
about 2.5% without a voter override. The lottery along with about a third of
our State Taxes makes up the difference. 

  So the lottery is working in that it allows Prop 2.5 to work. Without it and
support from state taxes Prop 2.5 would have bankrupted the cities and towns
almost as soon as it was passed since the law did not allow them to raise taxes
to keep up with inflation. 

  George 

     Saying Kraft is "willing to share" [the Megaplex stadium] implies 
    a conscious act of generosity or at the very least a concession. It 
    is in fact neither. It's not a matter of him being "willing", he has 
    no choice. Also Prop 2.5 or no, we do not see a return in terms of 
    services from the lottery commensurate with the revenue generated. Not 
    even close but that's standard with state run agencies and will not 
    change with the Megaplex.
    

 Speaking of the lottery, why don't we have Powerball? God forbid our dirty
 politcos would have share some revenue with others. Why let John Q. Public
 without a car, without a job, but 1 lousy buck and a dream, spend that buck
 on a real jackpot that the state has no control over. 

 Before somebody says move then, why should I? My roots are here, why not
 change the dam system. But with thinking like voting for term limits but
 re-electing Teddy I don't hold much hope for it......

 mike

We don't have Powerball down here either.  

If I wanna play Powerball, I'm looking at at least an hour's drive to get
to the nearest place in RI which sells tix for it.


Course the way my luck has been lately, there'd be some computer glitch
and I'd end up owing the Powerball people 85 million!


8^)


'Saw

RE        <<< Note 230.203 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     Saying Kraft is "willing to share" [the Megaplex stadium] implies 
>    a conscious act of generosity or at the very least a concession. 

  No it doesn't. All it means is that realizing that his only choice if he
wants to play in the Megaplex is sharing, he's willing to take that deal
rather than refusing it outright and playing somewhere else.

>Also Prop 2.5 or no, we do not see a return in terms of 
>    services from the lottery commensurate with the revenue generated. Not 
>    even close but that's standard with state run agencies and will not 
>    change with the Megaplex.
    
  Yes we do see a return. What we see is that our local schools, fire and
police departments are not disappearing completely which is what would have
happened if the Cities and Towns were not bailed out by someone.

  Because of Prop 2.5 and inflation, the city and town's ability to raise
revenue is decreasing yet because of the lottery and state aid to cities
and towns, they are able to maintain services or only drop back a small
amount. 

  That's a contribution and it's one that can clearly be seen. Anyone with
any common sense could tell you that if a group of organizations have their
costs go up by 5% while their revenue only goes up by 2.5% over time they
will head for disaster. The lottery is helping to prevent that disaster.

  George 

  What's powerball?

  George

    Kinda like rollerball?
    
    NAZZ

  >> No it doesn't. All it means is that realizing that his only 
  >> choice if he wants to play in the Megaplex is sharing, he's 
  >> willing to take that deal rather than refusing it outright and 
  >> playing somewhere else.

     I guess it boils down to semantics. You say "willing". Willing?
     I guess he's willing. Kraft has no other deal. He couldn't possibly 
     expect to hold out for exclusive rights to the stadium and he isn't.
     He'll be lucky to get the stadium built anyways, if he were to demand
     complete control over it, he'd be told to take a flying leap at a 
     rolling donut. It wasn't all that long ago that the Pats were a laughing
     stock. He's willing to lease the stadium for $5 mil a year in order to 
     play his games there and keep all gate and concession recipts and that's
     a fabulous deal. There really aren't that many other places for him to 
     go lest he want to fight some lawsuits and spend some time in court. Al 
     Davis has the temperment to take on the NFL and the municipality, I'm 
     not sure Bob Kraft does. And why would he? His team might be the hottest 
     team in the fifth largest market in the country. He's not going to do a 
     whole lot better anywhere else and certainly not without a fight. He 
     wouldn't be leaving Oakland for much bigger LA or Baltimore for wannabe 
     player Indianapolis, he'd  be leaving Boston/NE for St Petersburg or 
     Baltimore. "Willing" to share a new stadium in Boston? He'd *love* to 
     share a new stadium. He'd bend over backwards and recite the Gettysburg 
     Address to be *in* a new stadium. His labor costs are controlled by the 
     salary cap and then he'd be in a bigger better stadium with that cost 
     fixed and no upkeep to worry about or worries about the behemoth sitting 
     idle in the offseason. Yeah, he's "willing" all right.
            
  >> Yes we do see a return. 

     The key word was "commensurate". And, IMO, there's a lot of layers of
     fat that are fueled by lottery revenue from the state level on down. I 
     don't buy that the lottery is a panacea any more than I believe the 
     Megaplex will be. Whether it's morally proper for the state to play 
     bookie isa  whole other issue.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.209 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     I guess it boils down to semantics. You say "willing". Willing?
>     I guess he's willing. Kraft has no other deal. He couldn't possibly 
>     expect to hold out for exclusive rights to the stadium and he isn't.

  Yes he does have another deal, he could stay in his own stadium. He could
almost certainly move to St Pete, they'd take him in a heart beat. And with
a little negotiation there are probably several other combinations of cities
and stadiums in which he could play.

  However he has indicated that he's interested in playing in a stadium
in Down Town Boston if one is built. He is willing to play in that stadium.

>     He'll be lucky to get the stadium built anyways, if he were to demand
>     complete control over it, he'd be told to take a flying leap at a 
>     rolling donut. 

  When did Kraft ever say he wanted control over the stadium? No one has ever
suggested such a thing, including Kraft.

>     Yeah, he's "willing" all right.

  That's what I said in the 1st place. Exactly what point are you trying to
make?
            
>     The key word was "commensurate". And, IMO, there's a lot of layers of
>     fat that are fueled by lottery revenue from the state level on down. I 
>     don't buy that the lottery is a panacea any more than I believe the 
>     Megaplex will be. 

  No, no one is suggesting anyone build a panacea, all they want is to build
a stadium and a convention center just like they have in Atlanta and many
other places around the world.

>Whether it's morally proper for the state to play 
>     bookie isa  whole other issue.
    
  Whether it's morally proper for a state to tell it's citizens what they can
and can't do with their money by making laws restricting gambling is also a
whole other issue.

  George

    Where are are other "many places in the world" for such a mega-plex?
    

RE                       <<< Note 230.211 by BSS::MENDEZ >>>

>    Where are are other "many places in the world" for such a mega-plex?
    
  Well they've already built a stadium in St Pete, he could probably go there.
It wouldn't be a "megaplex" but I'm not sure that would effect the Patriots.
It's the convention hall and a new hotel that make it a megaplex and the Pats
wouldn't need that to play in St Pete. 

  He could probably go out to L.A. and play in the Angels stadium now that
the Rams have left. I'm sure he could draw some fans there.

  Beyond that I don't know, but I'll bet he could find someone who would
build him a stadium if that were necessary.

  George

  >> Yes he does have another deal, he could stay in his own stadium. 
  
     Isn't the crux of this whole discussion that his current stadium
     is woefully inadequate? Did I miss something? Why would he pass
     up a state of the art 70,000 seat stadium with luxury boxes galore
     in the city for what he has now? Talk about cutting off your nose to 
     spite your face. As it is, he's begging for the stadium.
  
  >> He could almost certainly move to St Pete, they'd take him in a 
  >> heart beat.

     As I already said it'd be a *big* step down and he'd have some legal
     battles on the way. He's almost a victim of his own success. The
     league isn't going to let him move a wildly popoular team from this
     huge market without a fight. It's also too lucrative for Kraft to 
     leave without huge guarantees. It wouldn't be a prudent move and Kraft 
     wasn't able to afford the Pats in the first place by being imprudent.

  >> And with a little negotiation there are probably several other comb-
  >> inations of cities and stadiums in which he could play.

     Several? I don't think so. Unless two or three qualifies as "several".
     You pointed out LA. Not likely. They have stadium problems there, too.
     And Al Davis is already there. Even if Al Davis were to move, as he as 
     indicated he might, the league would have to approve the move and I think
     they'd be inclined to let someone who hasn't got every home game soldout 
     move first. As it is, Davis probably isn't going anywhere and is putting
     some feet to the fire to get *his* stadium. Besides, the reason for the
     Pats newfound popularity is one Bill Parcells, a New Jersey guy with 
     an affinity for the northeast. Move the Pats and you may experience 
     a short windfall but you'd lose the Big Tuna.

  >> When did Kraft ever say he wanted control over the stadium? No one has 
  >> ever suggested such a thing, including Kraft.

     Of course he hasn't. That's why it's silly to suggest that he's "willing"
     to share the new stadium. For the umpteenth time, he has no choice!

    
    

RE        <<< Note 230.215 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     Isn't the crux of this whole discussion that his current stadium
>     is woefully inadequate? Did I miss something? Why would he pass
>     up a state of the art 70,000 seat stadium with luxury boxes galore
>     in the city for what he has now? Talk about cutting off your nose to 
>     spite your face. As it is, he's begging for the stadium.

  Exactly. That's why I said he's willing to play in the megaplex. 

  You know it's weird, you seem to be arguing that if they built the megaplex
Kraft would have no choice but to play there. If that is true then I guess
it would also be true that if they don't build the megaplex, the Patriots are
doomed to file Chapter 7 and go out of business.

  If on the other hand there is some other place that they could survive then
your argument is wrong and Kraft has the choice of selecting that place instead
of the Megaplex. 

  George 

    
    Just more fuel I suppose, but wasn't Al Davis SUCCESSFUL in getting a
    new stadium for the '96 season.  Or did I miss the point entirely on
    that topic.
    
    Marc
    

    Did the Patriots lose money last year?  And if they did, was it that
    much?  If they did'nt... Why a new stadium???
    

    
    
      You can't protect stupid people from themselves.
    
    Jerry

    better watch it Groaner, George is going to in here asking you for the
    absolute God's truth and statistics on who aactually plays the
    lotteries.
    
    JaKe
    

    
    I disagree.
    
    Joe (the fact that Megan & I won $100 today w/ a free ticket courtesy
         the state of Massachusetts wouldn't have anything to do with this
    	 opinion, would it?  B^)

    
    
     Joe...
    
      I see you and I play the lottery the same amount of times.
    
    
    Jerry

RE           <<< Note 230.222 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    better watch it Groaner, George is going to in here asking you for the
>    absolute God's truth and statistics on who aactually plays the
>    lotteries.
    
  Speaking of statistics, what are the results of the poll you conducted?

  George

  >> You know it's weird, you seem to be arguing that if they built 
  >> the megaplex Kraft would have no choice but to play there. 

     Why the do you think he's going around town with his hat in his 
     hand trying to get the damn thing built? The choice between staying 
     in Foxboro and making money and moving to a new stadium with more 
     seats and luxury boxes and making even more money and increasing
     the value of his franchise with less of a downside is no choice 
     at all. 

  >> If that is true then I guess it would also be true that if they 
  >> don't build the megaplex, the Patriots are doomed to file Chapter 
  >> 7 and go out of business.

     Incredibly faulty logic, George. Because I'm not a multi-millionaire
     it does not follow that I'm bankrupt.

  >> If on the other hand there is some other place that they could survive 
  >> then your argument is wrong and Kraft has the choice of selecting that 
  >> place instead of the Megaplex. 

     The Pats could probably "survive" in Skowhegan, Maine. The object here 
     is not to "survive", it is to thrive.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.227 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     Why the do you think he's going around town with his hat in his 
>     hand trying to get the damn thing built? The choice between staying 
>     in Foxboro and making money and moving to a new stadium with more 
>     seats and luxury boxes and making even more money and increasing
>     the value of his franchise with less of a downside is no choice 
>     at all. 

  I don't think anyone disagrees about this. What's your point?

>     Incredibly faulty logic, George. Because I'm not a multi-millionaire
>     it does not follow that I'm bankrupt.

  If you are saying that not moving into a megaplex in Boston will turn Kraft
from a multi-millionaire into a non-multi-millionaire then that implies that
he would be doomed to lose money without a megaplex. If that continues then
the next step after losing his multi-millions would be bankruptcy. How could
he possibly lose his fortune and not go bankrupt if the situation continued?

  George

  >> If you are saying that not moving into a megaplex in Boston 
  >> will turn Kraft from a multi-millionaire into a non-multi-
  >> millionaire then that implies that he would be doomed to lose 
  >> money without a megaplex. If that continues then the next step 
  >> after losing his multi-millions would be bankruptcy. How could
  >> he possibly lose his fortune and not go bankrupt if the situation 
  >> continued?

     I don't know where the hell you got all of that because I haven't 
     said anything remotely resembling that. If you stop filtering things
     through the Maiewski-izer for a second you'll realize that I've said
     all along that Kraft is making money and just wants our help to make
     more.
    

RE        <<< Note 230.229 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>     I don't know where the hell you got all of that because I haven't 
>     said anything remotely resembling that. If you stop filtering things
>     through the Maiewski-izer for a second you'll realize that I've said
>     all along that Kraft is making money and just wants our help to make
>     more.
    
  When I said that Kraft was willing to move into the megaplex you said he had
no choice but to take the megaplex deal if it was offered. You then went on to
argue that each place I listed as a possible alternative was not valid. 

  Now make up your mind, if they build the megaplex and if Kraft is invited to
play there does Kraft have a choice of taking or leaving the megaplex or not?
Yes or no? 

  If it's yes, then it is possible that he indicated that he was willing to
play in the megaplex. If it's no, then the Patriots are doomed unless they
get the megaplex.

  George

    
    	Kraft isn't going to lose any money, just make more. I see the
    Patriots moving from Foxboro into the Megaplex. With Kraft still
    owning Foxboro stadium.
    	He then turns around and funds one of those new American soccer
    teams. Where they will play there games in Foxboro stadium. Where
    Foxboro stadium will get used for between 15-20 soccer games a year.
    Plus, any concerts that go on there. So Foxboro ends up getting used
    more in the future then now. So Kraft makes more money.
    
    Ron

     Meanwhile the first group from South Boston (several artists occupying 
     some of the warehouses near Fort Point Chanel) have stepped forward and 
     voiced opposition to the project. A relatively lightweight group but an
     omen of things to come when the heavy hitters from Southie chime 
     in and want to know how they're affected and what's in it for them.
     If there's a neighborhood with sufficient organizational skills
     and political clout to bring this project to its knees, it's Southie.
     Especially if they think their surface streets are going to be shortcuts
     to a dome with the resultant traffic snarls.

     BTW - took the T to Fenway friday.  It's slow. It's crowded.
           It'll only be worse for football games. 
    

    So Tommy, what was your "T" route from Clinton, Riverside?  Or did you
    go to Alewife and then come back on green line to Fenway park?  The
    latter is pretty crowded but is a ballpark crowd do enjoyable (for
    some).
    
    I have a six year old but he couldn't stay put at a ball game unless
    they got continual wave action going (they come close).  Wonder what
    the Vaughn's thought about the McGuire cheers although that type of
    thing is some kind of Boston tradition which was "tradition" when I was
    cheering Bobby Doerr.

  >> So Tommy, what was your "T" route from Clinton, Riverside?  Or did you
  >> go to Alewife and then come back on green line to Fenway park?  The
  >> latter is pretty crowded but is a ballpark crowd do enjoyable (for
  >> some).
    
     We went out of Alewife. I usually drive into town and park in the
     South End (my old neighborhood) and walk but traffic was at a stand-
     still just before Alewife on Rt. 2 so we T'd it. It sucked. The red
     line is slow and the green is too crowded. I can't imagine what'd be 
     like for a football game to go all the way to the other end of the
     red line packed in like sardines. It figures to be a 90 minute trip. 
     Way too long.

  >> Wonder what the Vaughn's thought about the McGuire cheers although 
  >> that type of thing is some kind of Boston tradition which was 
  >> "tradition" when I was cheering Bobby Doerr.

     Wasn't a problem Friday night because while I was there no one could 
     touch Wakefield including McGwire. Pretty amazing to see how baffled 
     the A's were with his knuckler. And yes, Boston does have a very
     nice tradition of acknowledging outstanding play even if it's on the
     side of the opposition. 
    

    If I count my vote in, 11-0 for Tommy, without my vote, 10-0.
    
    
    JaKe
    

        <<< Note 230.234 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>The red
>     line is slow and the green is too crowded. I can't imagine what'd be 
>     like for a football game to go all the way to the other end of the
>     red line packed in like sardines. It figures to be a 90 minute trip. 
>     Way too long.

  Why would you go all the way to the other end of the Redline? They want to
build the megaplex in South Boston, not Braintree. That's one more stop beyond
Park Street if you want the South Station Shuttle, one more beyond that to the
stop south of the site. 

  Here's another possibility if you are taking the Greenline from Fenway Park
inbound (i.e. toward the Redline at Park Street). Instead of going into the
Kenmore crush, go around the old Sears building and get on at the Sears Stop
inbound. You will still get crushed a stop later when the Kenmore crowd gets on
but at least you will already be on the train and you might even get a seat. 

  George 

RE           <<< Note 230.235 by PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane" >>>

>    If I count my vote in, 11-0 for Tommy, without my vote, 10-0.
    
  Ok great, 11-0 saying what?

  At one point you said it was a vote on whether or not I was saying that
the megaplex would break even then at another point you said it was a vote on
whether or not there should be a megaplex. 

  Of those 11 votes, who was voting about what?

  George

    I vote we end this friggin' LDUC.
    
    UMDan

  Well that's not likely to happen. According to JaKe 11 people just voted
that I had clearly stated somewhere in this string that I felt the megaplex
would be financially profitable. I'm curious as to why all those folks found
something in my notes which I never wrote.
    
  JaKe could you forward me those 10 letters? This I've got to see.

  George

    
    >> I vote we end this friggin' LDUC.
     
       Seconded.

    
    I second that!

    I'm done with it.
    
    JaKe
    

  I just got mail from JaKe saying that he can't send me the mail with his 11-0
vote because he deleted them as he got them. 

  Boy is that convenient.

  I think it's only fair that if JaKe, who is clearly on one side of this
debate, can see the votes, I should be able to see the votes. So would those
of you who voted please send me mail with your vote?

  Again the issues is this. 

    - Vote Aye if you believe that my argument states that the megaplex would 
      be profitable.

    - Vote NAY if you think that my argument states that the megaplex would be
      worth while based on both economic and cultural advantages to the
      community.

  George 

    Eat a SLOF, George.
    
    Some of those who voted axed fer anonymity, so I just deleted all of
    the freakin' mail as I got it, after tabulating the votes.
    
    If you don't wanna believe it, or think I am jerking you off, then I'll
    call it 0-0 so, in your pea-freakin'-brain, you don't feel that anybody
    fouled you.
    
    Done with this sh_t
    
    JaKe
    

    
    I cain see it now.
    
    George, our resident know-it-freakin'-all, decides someday to run for
    office.  He loses, not getting a single vote, and then complains to the
    bureau of elections, asking for the names of everyone who voted against
    him, then lobbies the state supreme court to get those names.  The state
    Supreme court, immediately classifying the kind of person George is by
    his actions, orders him put to death, immediately, with no appeals.
    
    Ah, wishful thinking...
    
    JaKe
    

    

  Whoooooo, someone's a bit touchy. 

  In any democracy votes are either tabulated by a neutral party or both sides
get to see the votes. In this case it wasn't an "election commission" that
counted the votes, but one of the most vocal opponents in the debate. 

  All I'm asking for is fair play. I promise to delete all votes sent to me
just as JaKe did. 

  I'd like to add that the reason I'm asking this is not because I don't
believe JaKe, it's just because the way JaKe originally stated the question
it was a bit unclear what we are voting on. I just want to make sure that
everyone voting understands this is NOT a vote on whether the complex is a
good idea, rather it's a vote on whether or not I've been arguing for the
complex on the basis of profitability or a combination of cultural and
economic values.

  And if someone feels it's stupid to vote on something like this, I agree
but then again it was JaKe that called for this vote, not me.

  George

    Sure, George, I believe that's why you want to know.
    
    AND PIGS FLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    JaKe
    

    
  >>Whoooooo, someone's a bit touchy. 
    
    
    No, just I take exception to being inferred to as a liar.
    
    I may jerk peoples around, tell jokes that are lower than Whale shit,
    but I ain't no freakin' liar.
    
    JaKe
    

  No, no one is saying you are a liar. I believe you are completely honest.

  I believe you honestly reported a vote that was 11-0 in against the idea
of building a complex. I believe you thought that's what you were voting
on and I believe that's what voters thought they were voting on because
after you called for the vote you changed your words around and started
implying that that's what the vote was about.

  But maybe not. Maybe you are right and for some weird reason people were
voting that they thought I said something I never said.

  Not wanting to leave any wrong impressions I'd just like to know if everyone
is misunderstanding my argument so I can improve my style of writing, clear
up where I stand, and not leave wrong impressions in the future.

  Never would I call JaKe a liar.

  George

    
      George just goes from one fascinating LDUC to another.

  Funny how I never seem to be there alone.

  George

Funny?  
Like a clown funny?

  Funny strange more than funny ha, ha, but just take a look.

  The one difference between me and you guys is that I'm the one not
criticizing my opponents for taking part in this debate.

  George

George, 
    
    you turned the voting thing into, in your mind, a I said this, ..vs
    Tommy said that.
    
    Behind the nexted form feed, you will find what it was REALLY about.
    
    After I hit control "Z" on this, I am outta this note on the subject of
    the voting.
    
    JaKe
    
    
    
    >>                <<< CAM::$1$DUA5:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPORTS.NOTE;1 >>>
>>                                  -< SPORTS >-
>>================================================================================
>>Note 230.186                 Massachusetts MegaPlex                   186 of 256
>>HELIX::MAIEWSKI                                      20 lines   8-JUN-1995 17:07
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>RE           <<< Note 230.184 by SALEM::DODA "Chairman of the Bored" >>>

>>>Judging by the response from everyone responding to your notes, 
>>>everyone else in this file seems to be interpreting your notes 
>>>much like Tommy does.

>>  I see about 3 or 4 guys interpreting them that way, not everyone.

>>>Since you keep insisting that you're being misunderstood, I'd 
>>>suggest that the problem lies more in the writing than the 
>>>reading.

>>  Considering the small number of people who misunderstand and their strong
>>feelings I disagree.

>>================================================================================
>>Note 230.190                 Massachusetts MegaPlex                   190 of 256
>>PTOSS1::JACOBR "Certifiably Insane"                  20 lines   8-JUN-1995 19:20
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>>  >>I see about 3 or 4 guys interpreting them that way, not everyone.
    
>>    That's cause there's only 3 or 4 who are willing at this time to debate
>>    it with you, I'd ventur that there's 10 or 15 more RONing this note
>>    shaking their head at you and your cry of "you misunderstood".
    
    
>>    IN FACT, EVERYBODY WHO SIDES WITH TOMMY AND THOSE DEBATING GEORGE<
>>    REPLY WITH AN "AYE".
    
>>    There George, maybe if some peoples do reply here, you can have your
>>    freakin' numbers.
    
>>    JaKe
    
    
    AYE
    
    

    SLOF was our kinder gentler word for "Steaming Loaf of Feces", instead
    of coming out and telling someone they were full of sh_t or to eat
    s__t.
    
    JaKe
    

Awright guys, can it.

I've been reading this topic with fascination since it started, but I'm
about Megaplexed out.

And I don't even live in yer state 8^)



'Saw

  Ok, back to the topic. 

  According to the Boston Globe the megaplex commission has gotten pledges from
corporations for about $90 million of the $1 billion price tag to build a
stadium and a convention center. The commission would like the Massachusetts
State Legislature to vote on the megaplex before the summer break but the
Legislature is holding out for corporate sponsors. 

  ITT was mentioned as one of the corporations promising a large contribution.
Rumor is that the Patriots would pay $5 million per year to play their regular
season games in the complex if it is built.

  George

  >> According to the Boston Globe the megaplex commission has gotten 
  >> pledges from corporations for about $90 million of the $1 billion 
  >> price tag to build a stadium and a convention center. The commission 
  >> would like the Massachusetts State Legislature to vote on the megaplex 
  >> before the summer break but the Legislature is holding out for corporate 
  >> sponsors. 

    Not quite accurate. The commission hasn't "gotten" pledges, they are
    reportedly "nearing agreements". 

 >> ITT was mentioned as one of the corporations promising a large 
 >> contribution.

    Again not accurate. ITT hasn't been "promising a large contribution"
    they've were "identified as having expressed a strong interest in
    participating".

 >> Rumor is that the Patriots would pay $5 million per year to play their 
 >> regular season games in the complex if it is built.

    This is the only thing that isn't "rumor". It's a fact.
    

     According to the Globe the Megaplex bill will be filed today.
    The bill, among other things, would give a special role in the
    project to the chairmen of the House and Senate Ways and Means
    committees and the secretary of administration and finance ac-
    cording to Globe sources. The three would have to certify the
    project is financially feasible and would not impose a signif-
    icant adverse impact on city neighborhoods. That first part, I'm 
    guessing, means that the project can't bleed millions of dollars
    year in and year out regardless of any resifual benefits that
    might accrue. If it's found that the project will lose $20 million
    a year, the three appointees would have to give it a thumbs down.
    The second part would seem to require input from local residents.
    With a new fuss over the hauling of dirt from the Central Artery 
    Project over neighborhood surface streets breaking out, the second 
    part might be stickier than the first which is no bargain itself. 
   
    

    The latest on the Megaplex issue...


    The hotel industry is none too happy about the proposed
    manadatory room fee that has been proposed to raised to 
    revenue to finance the project. "We're disappointed with
    the increase in the current tax structure," Paul Sacco,
    president of the Mass. Lodging Assoc. said of the proposed
    sliding hotel room fee.


    House ways and Means chairman Thomas Finnernan voiced skepticism
    that the financing could be made to work.

    House leaders are also reportedly concerned that the commission
    underestimated land acquisition costs for the South Boston site.
    
    In South Boston residents voiced near unanimous opposition to
    to building the propsed complex off of Summer Street during a 
    Boston City Council hearing last night. Of about 150 residents
    present only one or two raised their hands in support of the
    project.    
    
    

    Just an update.......
    Yesterday 6/21 Bob Kraft promised 90 million dollars of his own money
    to help with the project.  How does that strike you?
    
    
    GC

Whoa a deal and now the taxpayers only have to fork over the 
remaining $910,000,000.00 and Bob's willing to share this stadium 
with others as well?  

How generous.

Meanwhile the hotel industry is now bitching about the proposed tax 
on rooms, statewide.

daryll

    
  >> Just an update.......
  >> Yesterday 6/21 Bob Kraft promised 90 million dollars of his own money
  >> to help with the project.  How does that strike you?
    
      It's a plus for Megaplex backers but there is the small matter of
      details. You know little things like who, what, when, where, why 
      and how. All Kraft is saying is that he'll raise $90 million from
      private sources. No word of if that money will be upfront or spread
      over goodness knows how long. No word if that'll make him an owner
      operator or just a shareholder. The state is not going to pay $29
      million a year in debt service for a stadium it doesn't own so what
      does the $90 mil buy whoever forks it over?. No word on how a guy, 
      who says that he'll have to move the team due to financial difficulty 
      without a new stadium, is going to raise $90 million in the first place 
      and what promises he'll have to make. 
     
       Basically, the check's in the mail.
    
       Meanwhile Gillette Corp which is a huge employer in the Fort Point
      area has raised objections to the Sox building their stadium there.
      That objection is seen as a stumbling block to the Megaplex deal.

	In a related note, Mike Brown the owner of the Bengals, effectively
	stalled a fast track bid to build a very similar Megaplex project 
	in downtown Cini, on the site (or near it) of Riverfront stadium.

	Although I'm not entirely clear on all the details, it seem the 
	250 - 300 million dollar project was going to be funded by *union 
	pension funds* this part was glazed over in the local TV news so 
	I'm not sure how that would work, the Megaplex would be similar to 
	Bostons in that it would include a Domed stadium, Covention Center, 
	and Hotel complex, and there was some talk of an aquiarium in the 
	mix.

	Brown's statement said that "threre are some problems with the plan
	that prevent the Bengals from giving there support to this proposal,
	and although we appreciate the effort put forth by the downtown 
	development committee, the Bengals would perfer an open air stadium 
	to an inclosed dome."

	It seems that the development committee was quite surprised by this 
	response, and were incredulous that Brown would propose a stadium 
	that would only be used 10 times a year (I guess they don't figure 
	to see the Bengals in the playoffs anytime soon).

	My question is how the hell would union pensions fund a 300 million 
	dollar megaplex?

	Turk

    >> My question is how the hell would union pensions fund a 300 million 
    >> dollar megaplex?

       $300 million is a lot of money but not as compared to the huge sums
       that a big union like the Teamsters would have in their pension fund.
       The question isn't so much how they would fund it but why. Unlike the
       goverment spending our tax dollars, the pension fund is supposed to be 
       invested in sound manner with fairly predictable returns because you
       are dealing with members' retirement money. I'd be intersted to know
       how they would expect to realize a reasonable return from a domed 
       stadium/Megaplex.
    

>       how they would expect to realize a reasonable return from a domed 
>       stadium/Megaplex.


Tommy, I must be getting dyslexic in my old age.  I read this sentence and at
first thought you wrote "a DOOMED stadium/megaplex."  Had to read it another
time to make sure I wasn't seeing things.

Talk about a Freudian slip.....    

>       The question isn't so much how they would fund it but why. Unlike the
>       goverment spending our tax dollars, the pension fund is supposed to be 
>       invested in sound manner with fairly predictable returns because you
>       are dealing with members' retirement money. I'd be intersted to know
>       how they would expect to realize a reasonable return from a domed 
>       stadium/Megaplex.
    
    No doubt the fact that the project would keep many union workers in a 
    job has something to do with it.  Call it a indirect ROI.  Combined 
    with any direct ROI, it might make sense for the union.  Again, all 
    depends on the details...
    
    glenn
    

    
 >> No doubt the fact that the project would keep many union workers in a 
 >> job has something to do with it.  Call it a indirect ROI.  Combined 
 >> with any direct ROI, it might make sense for the union.  Again, all 
 >> depends on the details...

    I'm sure that was a major consideration but the question still begs,
    what were the revenue projections and the estimated direct ROI because
    afterall as a union pensioneer that's what I'd want to know. That jobs
    might be created is nice but orgs like union pension funds have specific
    charters and guidelines about what is an acceptable risk. I could see a 
    scenario where the union would be legally enjoined from investing in such 
    a deal because of the risk involved.   
    
    

    
>	Brown's statement said that "threre are some problems with the plan
>	that prevent the Bengals from giving there support to this proposal,
>	and although we appreciate the effort put forth by the downtown 
>	development committee, the Bengals would perfer an open air stadium 
>	to an inclosed dome."

    All's I can say is.....  Thank God for people like Mike Brown.
    
    I've heard other reports of his views that he thinks the only savior of
    the NFL is shift to the Camden Yards Philosphy.  Nice, traditional,
    outdoor parks that include the amenities of the new-fangled ones.
    
    I don't know what Kraft is thinking with this Dome crap.  Hope he has
    some espresso and wine spritzers on hand at the concession and hope he
    doesn't mind an empthy 4th quarter stadium as the glitterati who go
    to domes all leave for dinner.  
    
    I really really really hate domes.
    
    - Sean
    

    Hey 'Saw - I read it the same way you did!!!
    
    NAZZ

I wasn't gonna say anything, but I read it twice before
I realized he put "domed"


billl

	There's some more news outa Cinci, there has been a frantic effort 
	in the last month to come up with a plan for stadiums to suit both 
	Marge and Mike, the latest plan which will be funded by a 1% tax 
	increase on the county (Hamilton) which includes downtown Cinci., 
	is to build two stadiums, one a baseball only for Marge, and one 
	a football only for Mike, I assume that Riverfront will either be the 
	basis for one or the other, or be leveled to make room for one or the 
	other.

	I believe the 1% tax will be a property tax increase, but I'm not 
	sure. There is already strong opposition for groups that support a 
	tax increase to help the school system, but the City government seems 
	to feel that the teams are a more pressing concern, go figure..

	Turk

    
        Bob Kraft's white knight image is looking just a bit more
       soiled to these eyes after reading today's Globe. It seems
       Krafty wants quite a bit in exchange for the $90 mil in 
       private funds that he's promised to raise. And by the way 
       the 90 mil is to be a lump sum paid within a "year of the fac-
       ility's opening". So the state has to put the money up front
       and assume all debt. And for granting the state the priviledge 
       of putting up the front money and assuming all the debt all 
       Krafty wants is to run the stadium and to be able to develop 
       (with Massport) hotel, retail and entertainment ventures on
       nearby Massport property . What a guy. He just gives 'til it
       hurts.
    

    Sounds like a good deal for him.  It is a business......
    
    If you were in his position Tommy wouldn't you try and get the best
    deal for yourself???????
    
    Jimbo

   >> If you were in his position Tommy wouldn't you try and get the best
   >> deal for yourself???????
    
      From note 230.57:

      "Kraft invested $175 million or so in a business venture. He isn't
       Mother Theresa. Now he's looking to maximize the return on his
       investment. Fine, that's business. Just don't do it at my ex-
       pense."
      

    You've conveniently avoided the question.  Would you in his position
    try and make the best deal for yourself including using
    taxpayer money.  These type of deals are happening all over the 
    country.
    
    I think you would, and wouldn't even hesitate
    
    Jimbo

	That's right!  Tommy would be not only giving tickets away, he
	would be paying the less fortunate to attend his games.  ;^)


	billl

    >> That's right!  Tommy would be not only giving tickets away, he
    >> would be paying the less fortunate to attend his games.  ;^)

       If I owned the Pats, I wouldn't have to pay people to come because 
       we're already soldout for this year (just like last year). But I knew
       that there was no good answer to Jim's question. Either I come off 
       looking like a liar, a martyr or a thief. This whole sitchy-ayshun
       is all *just* like the Patsies. They go from one pinheaded owner to
       the next. It all starts out with Billy Sullivan who put up $8,000
       for the team, sells it for $93 million and loses money on the deal.
       And who does he sell it to? Victor Kiam, who like Billy was playing 
       way out of his league. Enter Orthwein, who was probably the smartest 
       and most honorable of the bunch. He could have taken the Patsies out 
       to St Louis and there wouldn't have been a thing we could do about it
       but he was a man of his word and he sold it to a local guy who promised
       to keep the team here. Now less than two years later that local guy is 
       crying about losing money and not being able to compete and he needs
       a stadium and blah blah blah... Mitch Albom had a good idea yesterday
       on the Sports Reporters. Build these guys stadiums with nothing but
       luxury boxes because all they do is cry that they can't compete with-
       out enough of them. To hell with the average guy who has been packing
       Foxboro. Build luxury boxes so that self-important corporate types
       can stand around and lament the days when OK Sampson was running
       the pig iron for the Buffalo Bulls instead of standing trial for
       killing the Menendez brothers.

    
  >> I think you would, and wouldn't even hesitate
  >  
  >   It would go against what I personally believe to do what Kraft is
  >   trying to pull. Again, I don't blame him any more than I blame Al 
  >   Davis. It's the greedy nature of the owner-beast. It doesn't mean 
  >   that I approve of it or that I'd do it myself.
    
    The Red Sox are pledging to put up every cent for their new park (I'm
    not saying that they won't look for tax or land usage breaks, but
    there's no $X hundred million giveaway).  It's a different situation,
    but still a business proposition where if they strictly wanted to reap
    every last dime, they could open up bidding to outside the city 
    proper...
    
    glenn
      

    
     >> -< If it makes business sense it can be done... >-
    
        Ironically, yesterday's Globe stated that the Price-Waterhouse 
        study concluded that the dome would have a negative impact on
        the financial benefits of the convention center. Apparently
        the dome would make the convention center *less* attractive
        to conventioneers. As for the dome itself, I think the fact 
        that folks like the Bank Of Boston, who missed the boat on the
        new Boston Garden, Fleet Bank or any of a number of private
        developers haven't leaped at the opportunity to privately finance 
        this project (or even just the dome piece) speaks volumes.
    
    
         Meanwhile, there was another article in yesterday's Globe about
         neighborhood opposition to the project including quotes by comm-
         unity leaders in South Boston about lying in front of trucks and
         not being pushed around, etc.

    
       The editorial in the Globe is entitled "Jeers For The Megaplex
      Plan". Nuff said.

    
>      The editorial in the Globe is entitled "Jeers For The Megaplex
>      Plan". Nuff said.
    
    Yabbut, a day or two ago they were applauding Bob Kraft for a serious
    and sincere commitment of real money to such a project.  So I assume 
    that the Globe jeers are for this very specific proposal, not the idea 
    in principle (as indifferent as I also am to the notion).
    
    glenn
    

    
  >> Yabbut, a day or two ago they were applauding Bob Kraft for a serious
  >> and sincere commitment of real money to such a project.  

     On the editorial page? I didn't see it.

  >> So I assume that the Globe jeers are for this very specific proposal, 
  >> not the idea in principle

     The jeers are for the way the Megaplex commission went about choosing
     the Summer Street site without community input. Oddly enough, the 
     piece points out that the biggest losers are the Sox who are willing
     to pay for their own stadium.
      
    

    Yesterday 8/17 Boston Mayor, Tom Menino, voiced his approval for the
    project.  Apparently Roxbury is being considered the new location
    for the MegaPlex.  Those of you that had a conflict with the original 
    location, what do you have to say about the new location?

Given that it was Tom Menino speaking, how do you know that's what he said?

  The Roxbury location they are talking about is the cite of the old DEC plant
right next to Boston City hospital. In terms of transportation it would be 6 a
one half dozen the other, easy access to the South East expressway but then you
are on the South East Express way. 

  I think the old location is a bit closer to the Redline but neither location
has really great T service.

  George

    .292
    I agree.  Menino said something to the effect that it took so long to 
    Build the Boston Garden and that we in Mass. can't afford to wait
    forever for this complex.  He also mentioned some big events (I forget
    what they were) that were coming to Boston in the future.  I guess he
    was hinting that we need to have the proper facilities, etc..

    
    
    
     Thats an even worse location.  I was down there Saturday off of Albany
    St. and Melina Cas BLVD.  What a nightmare.  Zero parking narrow
    streets whata disaster.  I can see it know, driving Mass Ave to get to
    a Pats game.  Yup can't wait.
    
    Jerry

    Yesterday 1/23 Bob Kraft discussed his plans on T.V..  He said that the
    team will never leave New England as long as it is owned by his family. 
    He also said that he met with the General Manager of the Red Sox in
    order to combine forces.  Apparently he is now settling for a stadium
    that is within 15 miles of the current stadium.  He said he would still 
    do it in Boston if possible though.
    
    I understand he is looking at Hartford, CT for a possible move if the
    Massachusetts location doesn't work out.
    
    G

>    I understand he is looking at Hartford, CT for a possible move if the
>    Massachusetts location doesn't work out.
    
This rumor has been floating around like a turd that just won't flush.


Never, ever, ever, ever gonna happen.  The local news had everyone down here
in a frenzy two years ago.  They were gonna take Renschler Field in East
Hartford and turn it into a footabll stadium.  They were going to build
a stadium next to Brainard Airport (just north of the sewage plant).

It was ALL a big hype job.

The day that the Patriots actually play their first game in Hartford (a town
who can't even support a hockey franchise) I'll reach into the bowl with my
bare hands, grab that turd and throw it in the garbage can....


'Saw