Fenway now on the National Register of Historic Places

[onlybereaved]

"Hi, I'm from MN/CA/FL/Canada, you're not allowed to tear down Fenway."

 

My contention is that people still see it as a "magical" vacation destination like Disneyland. Once you've had season tickets/passes, the so called magic wears off.

 

For all the "renovations" they've done, the RF seats are still an abomination. Personally, most of the renovations feel like putting a rice rocket wing onto a Model T.

 

Fans deserve a better place to see a game. Funny how Dodger stadium built in the 60's, is still light years ahead of Fenway, even with all the renovations. It's not a good place to watch a game and it has nothing to do with seat size though.

 

My friend actually has been a season ticket holder for 10+ years, and disagrees with this.

 

The so called magic doesn't wear off everyone, just wears off of you and everyone who shares your opinion (which may very well be 50%, as I would assume the differing in opinion on the subject to be roughly 50/50 based on no sited info or facts)

 

Also, there are people in Boston who don't see it as a magical vacation destination or disneyland who agree with us, opposed to sharing your opinion. Again, you cant'/won't/don't speak for 'all of the season ticket holders' or for anyone/everyone from Boston.

[mvp 78]

I've never said I speak for anyone but myself. It's my opinion.

 

I love Fenway, but it's time for something better.

 

It's a moot point because Fenway will still be here in 10-15 years.

 

Someday, I'll take MVP Jr to his first game at Fenway. It will be one of the best days of my life.

[onlybereaved]

Amen!

 

Should be one of the best days of his life too, for sure.

[Spudboy]

How about a ballpark I can sit down in?

 

George, we have had this conversation before.

 

I have not been to Fenway (to see a game) since September, 2010. However, I remember thinking about you while at that game. I was a porker myself then, weighing in at about 325. I sat in one those bar stool chairs outside in The Bank Boston Pavilion. They are identical to the stools atop the Monster. You can sit in those. Although your ass and thighs will become numb after a while. Also, there are areas where people in wheelchairs can "sit" or park. In those areas they provide folding metal chairs. When my ass and my bad right knee became painful I asked an usher if I could sit in one of the folding chairs even though I was not handicapped. So you see, you can sit somewhere comfortably at Fenway.

 

Your obstacle would appear to be more economic than ergonomic. Go for it.

[Dojji]

That's definitely interesting. Thanks for the advice.

[Dojji]

My friend actually has been a season ticket holder for 10+ years, and disagrees with this.

 

The so called magic doesn't wear off everyone, just wears off of you and everyone who shares your opinion (which may very well be 50%, as I would assume the differing in opinion on the subject to be roughly 50/50 based on no sited info or facts)

 

Also, there are people in Boston who don't see it as a magical vacation destination or disneyland who agree with us, opposed to sharing your opinion. Again, you cant'/won't/don't speak for 'all of the season ticket holders' or for anyone/everyone from Boston.

let's make the economic argument.

 

The fact that scalpers can get markups of 5-6 times face is pretty good evidence that demand for the Red Sox is very high. If the customer experience is not universally appreciated, then actual demand might even be higher than that.

 

Now, Fenway Park is one of the smallest ballparks left in big league ball. It wasn't exactly huge when it was built and most stadiums these days are built with a higher capacity.

 

That would fly if Boston was a small market. A small market like Tampa would struggle to fill a 30,000 seat stadium and would probably be well advised to build a smaller park than the Trop if they ever do build a new one. For Boston though, the underservice of the market by a stadium like Fenway is just unprecedented in modern baseball. This is a market that could fill a 70,000 seat stadium most nights, if such a thing could be done and sight lines, etc. preserved. It's the only baseball team in a baseball town, and besides the city itself, which could fill the stadium nightly on its own, all of the greater New England area is Red Sox country as well.

 

The fact is, it's just poor asset management not to build a 50,000 seat stadium with better sight lines and a few more mod cons and see if you can compete directly on an even financial footing with the Yankees (who split their much bigger market with the Mets) if you do so. It would result in a better team on the field, and now that Fenway's a protected landmark, it's not like it's going to be torn down if they do.

 

Unfortunately we already know it won't happen. I mean look at the name Henry chose for his umbrella corporation -- Fenway Sports Group is not abandoning its most iconic asset under any circumstances.

 

 

 

I would be amused if they did build a new park and move the Sox out to the burbs (say to Foxboro), and then some rich yahoo came along and tries bring the National League back to Boston at the Fens. It's not a thing I think would happen but it would be interesting to see who stayed a Red Sox fan and who would go to Fenway. Also interleague games in that scenario would be fascinating in a domestic-civil-war kind of way.

[a700hitter]

I would be amused if they did build a new park and move the Sox out to the burbs (say to Foxboro), and then some rich yahoo came along and tries bring the National League back to Boston at the Fens. It's not a thing I think would happen but it would be interesting to see who stayed a Red Sox fan and who would go to Fenway. Also interleague games in that scenario would be fascinating in a domestic-civil-war kind of way.

^ This could never happen. The Red Sox have a veto over a franchise being moved within a certain radius of Fenway. They are not going to share their market.

[mvp 78]

Even if they did allow it, there's no way fans would fill the ballpark for another team. Also, taking the Sox out of Boston would be the dumbest thing ever.

 

They should build a new park in Boston. Have minor league teams play throughout the summer. Schedule one series for each AL East rival to be played at Fenway every year.

[a700hitter]

Even if they did allow it, there's no way fans would fill the ballpark for another team. Also, taking the Sox out of Boston would be the dumbest thing ever.

 

They should build a new park in Boston. Have minor league teams play throughout the summer. Schedule one series for each AL East rival to be played at Fenway every year.

When prior ownership was pitching plans for a new Fenway with identical dimensions, they had planned on making the Green Monster and the field as a sort of museum, but they would have demolished the rest of the structure.

[ORS]

Speaking of economics, should we consider this?

 

The Red Sox currently outright own Fenway park. A new park would undoubtedly add expense to the running of the team via capital improvement financing. I'm curious to know how the "new park" crowd feels about the potential for the on field product to suffer due to budget constraints vs. maintaining the current budget and competitiveness with Fenway as the lower cost option.

 

Personally, I think the arguments for a new park are compelling. The average size of a person is much larger in 2012 than it was in 1912. Those seats are not comfortable for people even a little bit above the current average size of a person. I've always thought the reasonable compromise between making things more accomodating for contemporary fans and tradition is to add more super structure and expand the seating area while upgrading the quality of the seating (more room for fans), with a minimal net gain of total seats while making the seating sections more comfortable. I realize this plan would have to be phased over time, as the construction schedule would be limited to the offseason, but I think it would be a happy compromise that would appeal to both sides of the argument.

 

Of course, I'd also have those new, roomier seats, face the infield and not the triangle.

[a700hitter]

Speaking of economics, should we consider this?

 

The Red Sox currently outright own Fenway park. A new park would undoubtedly add expense to the running of the team via capital improvement financing. I'm curious to know how the "new park" crowd feels about the potential for the on field product to suffer due to budget constraints vs. maintaining the current budget and competitiveness with Fenway as the lower cost option.

 

Personally, I think the arguments for a new park are compelling. The average size of a person is much larger in 2012 than it was in 1912. Those seats are not comfortable for people even a little bit above the current average size of a person. I've always thought the reasonable compromise between making things more accomodating for contemporary fans and tradition is to add more super structure and expand the seating area while upgrading the quality of the seating (more room for fans), with a minimal net gain of total seats while making the seating sections more comfortable. I realize this plan would have to be phased over time, as the construction schedule would be limited to the offseason, but I think it would be a happy compromise that would appeal to both sides of the argument.

 

Of course, I'd also have those new, roomier seats, face the infield and not the triangle.

The owners would only do the deal for the additional revenue. The comfort of the fan would be a byproduct. They would profit handsomely from numerous additional luxury boxes. Also, I think that every dollar spent on the new stadium would be a dollar that is not subject to revenue sharing. That was definitely a motivating factor for building the new Yankee Stadium.

[onlybereaved]

It's such a shame that there isn't really a way of preventing a percentage of people from buying a s***-load of tickets and almost making a living on selling them at ridiculous marked-up prices. It's also a shame that Boston Red Sox season tickets are so appealing to business men who have no interest in the team or in baseball.

 

I mean, they could hypothetically limit the amount of season ticket holders, and have a lottery of sorts, where every ticket gets sold from the Boston Red Sox to the fan at face-value...LOL right. That sort of thing just wouldn't work in our world today.

 

Also, is it a safe assumption that the demand would be the same if we had a facility of 70,000? Or, is part of the current demand driven in large-part to people knowing how hard it is currently to obtain tickets for games? See what I'm saying? No doubt there is enough demand for a steady 50,000 strong and constant. But would CEOs and these suits get the same hard-ons for a facility where johnny-normal fan can get tickets to every game? That may even solve the corporate coke-head hoarding seats issue. lol

 

There would be so many pros AND cons to the hypothetical new 70,000 capacity facility. The things discussed in this thread open that can of worms nicely

[ORS]

I forgot about capital improvement expenditures being a shelter from revenue sharing. That's a good point. It could also provide incentive to go the compromise route I suggested, since it would not ulitimately add to the amount of money going out with the benefit of an improved facility for the fans. I agree that they won't add expenditure without a corresponding revenue gain, but if the money it costs for the capital improvement doesn't add to expenditures, there is a gain in the quality of the facility and fan experience (more repeat customers). Plus, they could also add those profitable luxury boxes with expanded super-structure.

[a700hitter]

It's such a shame that there isn't really a way of preventing a percentage of people from buying a s***-load of tickets and almost making a living on selling them at ridiculous marked-up prices. It's also a shame that Boston Red Sox season tickets are so appealing to business men who have no interest in the team or in baseball.

 

I mean, they could hypothetically limit the amount of season ticket holders, and have a lottery of sorts, where every ticket gets sold from the Boston Red Sox to the fan at face-value...LOL right. That sort of thing just wouldn't work in our world today.

 

Also, is it a safe assumption that the demand would be the same if we had a facility of 70,000? Or, is part of the current demand driven in large-part to people knowing how hard it is currently to obtain tickets for games? See what I'm saying? No doubt there is enough demand for a steady 50,000 strong and constant. But would CEOs and these suits get the same hard-ons for a facility where johnny-normal fan can get tickets to every game? That may even solve the corporate coke-head hoarding seats issue. lol

 

There would be so many pros AND cons to the hypothetical new 70,000 capacity facility. The things discussed in this thread open that can of worms nicely

I don't know how much the scalpers are making these days. I have tickets that I can't use on Stubhub for a price that would only return my cost, and they are not exactly selling like hotcakes. It was the same story last year. I didn't get stuck with any tickets, but I just recouped my cost.

[a700hitter]

I forgot about capital improvement expenditures being a shelter from revenue sharing. That's a good point. It could also provide incentive to go the compromise route I suggested' date=' since it would not ulitimately add to the amount of money going out with the benefit of an improved facility for the fans. I agree that they won't add expenditure without a corresponding revenue gain, but if the money it costs for the capital improvement doesn't add to expenditures, there is a gain in the quality of the facility and fan experience (more repeat customers). Plus, they could also add those profitable luxury boxes with expanded super-structure.[/quote']If Boston wasn't such a difficult place to put together any project, never mind a huge project like this, I believe that we'd already have the new stadium.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Are you kidding me? What sporting event doesn't have drunk fans? That's the dumbest s*** I've ever heard. I've been to a good amount of Heat and Marlins games. I've yet to go to one without witnessing a drunk fan. It's part of sports. That's not the atmosphere we were talking about anyways.

 

Every stadium has drunk fans. Fenway's no different. I just don't know where people get 'great atmosphere' out of that, or anything at Fenway.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

You don't want to debate anything' date=' especially stadiums, with JE. He legit thinks all stadiums need to be alike out of fairness, and doesn't care about "fun" factors, which is why pro sports exist.[/quote']

I have no problem with fun and gimmicks, until it gets in the way of fair competition.

[Emmz]

I have no problem with fun and gimmicks' date=' until it gets in the way of fair competition.[/quote']

 

The rules allow changes and obstacles, because both teams have to be able to overcome them, bro. They're reasonable too, you can't designate a place in fair territory as an auto-out zone or have a field of glass.

 

You don't know how to differentiate between fair and "okay now every sports venue looks the same". You're probably that guy who calls people for traveling and fouls in 1-on-1 basketball.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

http://www.treatyourskin.com/product_images/y/798/vagisil_creme___66483_zoom.jpg

[a700hitter]

The rules allow changes and obstacles, because both teams have to be able to overcome them, bro. They're reasonable too, you can't designate a place in fair territory as an auto-out zone or have a field of glass.

 

You don't know how to differentiate between fair and "okay now every sports venue looks the same". You're probably that guy who calls people for traveling and fouls in 1-on-1 basketball.

Plus, he must be measuring the height of the rim before he'll play. It must be 10'0" exactly or it isn't fair.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Every team in the NFL should have a different field size. That's fun, right?

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

And while we're at it, every NBA stadium should have different rim heights. That way, a jumpshot that would be a swish in one arena is a front-rim in another arena. The shooter has to adjust his technique based on the venue he's playing in, which makes the game more skillful and obviously more fun to watch.

 

I mean, obviously.

[Emmz]

Oh JE, always failing to get a good reaction.

 

 

You keep on living with the delusion that whoever's disagreeing with you is upset.

 

Its funny because you always end up all cut up.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Lol Emmz.

 

>Loses argument, calls the other person mad

>Is madder than anyone else in the thread

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Really though it's remarkable how she can honestly bitch about people piling up on her when she's always the first to point fingers and starts antagonizing the s*** out of people once her crap is smoked out.

[a700hitter]

The old Boston Garden had a smaller rink than other venues. I guess they tore it down because it was unfair and not because it was an eyesore of a dump.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Obviously.

[Emmz]

And while we're at it, every NBA stadium should have different rim heights. That way, a jumpshot that would be a swish in one arena is a front-rim in another arena. The shooter has to adjust his technique based on the venue he's playing in, which makes the game more skillful and obviously more fun to watch.

 

I mean, obviously.

 

They have standards for rim heights. Missing the point in typical JE fashion.

[Emmz]

Lol Emmz.

 

>Loses argument, calls the other person mad

>Is madder than anyone else in the thread

 

Not mad at all. You I just laugh at because you're trying so hard to troll. You're delusional.

[Emmz]

Really though it's remarkable how she can honestly bitch about people piling up on her when she's always the first to point fingers and starts antagonizing the s*** out of people once her crap is smoked out.

 

Well Dojji does it every day, and he gets off on it sort of like you, but the thing is that one of you is trying and the other seems to have a psychological issue, and must do it.

 

I don't lose arguments, I finish them, and with particularly trollish subjects, I make them go off crying about how "i'm so antagonistic" LOL.