MetroplexJim
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think only the Cards and the A's are still playing in those ghastly "multi-purpose" stadia. The Cards need a new park and the A's a new city with a new park.
As
Screaming Chicken pointed out, the Cards play in a new state-of-the-art stadium that sits on the lot adjacent to the former Busch Stadium. I saw a game in "old' Busch in 2005 and saw the construction on the new building first-hand. You would never have believed that they could fit the new stadium on the construction footprint, based on where the old stadium was and where the interstate is. I guess that's why they hire people smarter than me to make those things happen - because, obviously, it fits.
As for the "ghastly multi-purpose" stadium issue, are you referring to the set of cookie-cutter ballparks all built in the early 70's (Riverfront, Three Rivers, Veterans) or just the idea that both football and baseball teams play(ed) there? When most people refer to the ghastliness of the multi-purpose stadiums, they refer to the three cookie-cutters mentioned above - the total lack of character, AstroTurf surfaces, etc. giving people the idea that they could be in any one of those three and not be able to tell the difference - lest they be able to identify the teams on the field. Oakland's coliseum was built in 1966 - about the same time as Fulton County Stadium in Atlanta, Anaheim Stadium, and the former Busch in St. Louis. These stadiums did host both baseball and football teams, they didn't usually have the term "cookie-cutter" attached to them. You could make an argument that while the Kansas City stadium never had both football and baseball tenants, it was designed at around the same time as those cookie-cutter ballparks. However, KC has invested considerable money in renovating Kaufman Stadium, and you would never now confuse it with the cookie-cutter nature of those other 70's era ballparks. In fact, I would say it is one of my favorite ballparks in the bigs.
Last on this subject....you could make a case that Toronto is or wants to be the next of the multi-purpose facilities. Toronto has been hosting an annual home game for the Buffalo Bills at the Rogers Centre for a few years now, in hopes of landing an NFL franchise.
MetroplexJim
$TWO Billion for the Dodgers! The owner's ex-wife and her lawyers are going to be very happy!
Fronted by Nolan Ryan, two low-key multi-billionaires bought the Rangers for $593 million which seemed to be a fair market price in 2010. So, it is hard to see the "wisdom" of $2,000,000,000.00 for the Dodgers in 2012.
We'll see.
Steinbrenner bought the Yankees in 1973 from CBS for a for net $8.8 million. That was thought to be a "bargain" even then.
Jerry Jones was thought a fool for paying $140 million for the Cowboys in 1989. He's laughing now.
Little Danny Snyder paid $800 million in borrowed money to buy the Redskins (and their stadium). He has done more than just 'alright'.
You are comparing a lot of apples to a lot of oranges there. This deal is really like no other team sale that has ever been completed. One of the things that the group purchasing "the Dodgers" is really buying is the right to negotiate their next local television contract. They are going to get immediate cash relief on their purchase price - most likely in the form of starting their own TV network, like the Yankees with YES. I read somewhere that YES generates as much profit as every other component of the Yankees' organization COMBINED. I know that SNY is the leading money-maker for the Mets, as well. This is the direction that baseball is heading - owning your own television network in a major market. LA is a major market - second largest in the country - with a rabid fan, loyal, and high $$ earning fan base. I have a friend who tried to buy the Dodgers when the O'Malleys sold to Ruppert Murdoch in 1998. When I last spoke with him, he told me that the price that would likely be paid for the Dodgers this time around would likely be a bargain.
Football teams have local radio deals, but no local television outlets - otherwise the Giants would have the same revenue sources as the Yankees and the Packers would be the football equivalent of the Minnesota Twins/Oakland A's - trying to win every sixth or seventh year on a shoestring budget.
