Hey fitcrud, how do you sleep at night when you're filled with so much hate? Why don't you just burn it to the ground after it's built so that you can be happy, if you're even capable of happiness.

(09-13-2012 06:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Mistabinks

1. If the baseball team changes owners, a new contract would have to be negotiated.

Wrong.

(09-13-2012 06:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The city would be foolish not to do so. They would want to renegotiate the terms of the lease, maintenance and length of stay. In turn, the new owners would want to do the same. They might agree to the 25 year stay but they would not have to abide by the same contract of the previous owners.

Speculation...at best.

(09-13-2012 06:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  2. The existing contract only forces the current owners from moving the team. If the owners claim bankruptcy as they most certainly will in order to write off their expenses, a third part will sell the team and new owners will not have to be bound by the existing contract.

1. Speculation. 2. Source?

(09-13-2012 06:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  3. The league will most certainly do everything in their power to insure the success of their franchise. Why do you think the team is getting moved to El Paso in the first place? Look what happened to the Dodgers. The owners screwed it up and the league stepped in and found new owners. If you think the league won't take this team from El Paso if it's not making money I have some land in horizon to sell you.

The leagues wants/motives won't trump a valid contract.

(09-13-2012 06:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  4. This is a passion project for Foster and Hunt? What evidence do you have of that? This is nothing more than a business investment. These guys are businessmen. If they don't make money, they will sell the team and move on. They didn't get rich by sticking with bad investments for sentimental reasons.

Not a lot of MiLB teams earn big bucks. From everything I have read this is a passion project for them. You disagree. That's okay.

(09-13-2012 06:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  5. I am not concerned that another city will want to buy the team. To this day, no one on this forum or anywhere else for that matter has named one single city that was interested in this team.

I am simply pointing out a very important fact that everyone seems to miss and that is this.............The contract does not prevent the team from being sold which means that nothing prevents the team from being moved. Except of course for the fact that no one else wants them.

So what exactly are you worried about?

(09-13-2012 06:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Don't be so naive.

Don't be such a troll.

(09-13-2012 06:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  We build a new stadium for the Diablos to keep Double A in El Paso, we then built a canopy to keep them here and then we put in a jumbo tron. None of those things kept the team from leaving.

We have a jumbo tron?

That is probably why we will have a binding contract for the AAA franchise. It's good to learn from your mistakes.

(09-13-2012 06:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is your memory actually that short or are you just too young to remember?

I don't always remember everything but I tend to only remember authentic things and not fabrications. Try it sometime.

Mistabinks

According to KVIA, the current contract for 25 years can actually be renegotiated every 5 years. Which tells me that the contract can be changed or voided after 5 years.

http://www.kvia.com/news/Proposed-downto...index.html

(09-14-2012 12:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Mistabinks

According to KVIA, the current contract for 25 years can actually be renegotiated every 5 years. Which tells me that the contract can be changed or voided after 5 years.

http://www.kvia.com/news/Proposed-downto...index.html

Wrong again. At least you are consistent.

The (binding) contract can be extended five years. There are three opportunities in the 25 year lease where they City and MountainStar can agree to extend the (binding) contract another five years.

Rally for the stadium, tomorrow from 4-7... I wonder why the occupy city hall protest was done during business hours and the rally in support of the stadium was done after business hours?

rally for the stadium link

In today's paper, City Council representative Emma Acosta now says that she will vote no to approve the stadium. This will leave Mayor Cook to be the deciding vote.

Cook has been on both sides of the issue.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_21560...k-ballpark

Im for the stadium, but the way (it seems) they have f***** up the PR side of things has me shaking my head.

However it should be mentioned that Foster is renovating a couple of buildings downtown that he admits will never recoup his initial investment.

El Paso Inc.

Q: What abut the Mills Building? I heard from a commercial real estate agent that you’ve probably put about $60 million into the renovation. Is that true?

I won’t acknowledge how much we spent there, but what I will tell you is we don’t ever expect to recover our investment.

(09-17-2012 01:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  In today's paper, City Council representative Emma Acosta now says that she will vote no to approve the stadium. This will leave Mayor Cook to be the deciding vote.

Cook has been on both sides of the issue.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_21560...k-ballpark

fit, you should read this

http://brandonsilverstein.com/post/31663...in-el-paso

I am here at the rally. The 'opposition' has cardboard signs and magic markers. Loud online but complete jokes in person.

I posted a nice request to Emma Acosta on her site, asking her to vote for the park. Send her an comment asking her to vote for it.

I'm sure the negative one will click to do the opposite.

Emma Acosta Comments Link

I am sick of these anti-baseball crowd. As a software developer it doesn't pay to stay in this city, but if this fails I will seriously think of leaving. This city keeps dropping the ball, it seems Acosta and Cook will continue the failures of the past by killing the stadium. Yet they are sneaking in a stupid MLS stadium than will never be used that cost 3x more than the AAA baseball stadium.

In my comments to Cook and Acosta, I did mention something along the lines of "please do not let the present council be remembered as a council which squandered yet another El Paso opportunity".

So much for City Hall being a perfectly functioning building...

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/city-wil...din/nSDN6/

They should just move the Mayor's office to fall masion. Have reps have offices into their district, and use City Civic Center for meetings. But the anti-growth and economy suppressing group is out in full force.

I would give more respect to the 'opposition' if they had actual facts backing up their claims. They are literally all like fitbud. Spouting half truths, exaggerations, and other myths.

(09-17-2012 01:34 PM)chuwy9 Wrote:  Im for the stadium, but the way (it seems) they have f***** up the PR side of things has me shaking my head.

However it should be mentioned that Foster is renovating a couple of buildings downtown that he admits will never recoup his initial investment.

El Paso Inc.

Q: What abut the Mills Building? I heard from a commercial real estate agent that you’ve probably put about $60 million into the renovation. Is that true?

I won’t acknowledge how much we spent there, but what I will tell you is we don’t ever expect to recover our investment.

I agree 100%

I am not against the building of a stadium and would support one if it is built. What has most of El Paso upset however is how it was presented to the people.

If city council had been honest with the people and told them that it would be a slight cost to the tax payer, and allowed the people to be an active part of the process things would have been different.

Should Foster, Hunt, and the City Council post on your FB page every detail of this project. As a sports fan, I have kept up with the headlines over the last two years. It is not their fault that the ignorant are crab-like ankle biters.

Interesting. Maybe a little prejudice on my part.

The people speaking for the stadium have been educated, well dressed, well spoken, businessmen and professionals.

The people speaking against the stadium have been in tees, rambled, and not at all well spoken.

(09-18-2012 04:18 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  Interesting. Maybe a little prejudice on my part.

The people speaking for the stadium have been educated, well dressed, well spoken, businessmen and professionals.

The people speaking against the stadium have been in tees, rambled, and not at all well spoken.

Hate to agree.......Also, very interesting to note is the age of the opponents.

Down to the last 5 or so speakers. Lets vote!