Quite a possiblity.

[padrefanforever]

which of those teams still didn't have their own ballpark and were still paying rent ? You are aware of the financial handcuffs we had at the Q aren't you ? You do know just how much we didn't get in revenues created by Padre games at the Q right ? As I'm sure you are, then you're aware of exactly how much we didn't have to spend, since only 20-25K were showing up.... 20-25K in your own ballpark with full revenue beni's is far different than the same # in a rental location

[HollywoodLeo]

Because I believe that of that 35 million we will ahve to spend, Moores will only spend 25 or so of it which will be more than enough to acquire a few big names on the team, thus ample enough publicity for the average San Diego fan (who does not know much about salaries and such) will be appeased. I feel this is a very likely and scary scenario, because it would prove that Moores cares more about getting by without turmoil while making money than simply winning.

I hope to God this will not be the case, but I just can't accept that Moores wants to win that much more than putting 10 million in his pocket.

I think your scenario is actually pretty likely...however, I wouldn't label it "scary" as the reason for the minor drop in payroll is because they're putting more money into stuff in the DR and other things....ie NOT Moores' pocket.

[HollywoodLeo]

Our average was more on the likes of 25K than 20, and compare that to the average attendances for teams with similar records to ours in those periods. I think you'd be surprised.

dude, 25K at a baseball game isn't really that good in terms of attendance.

[padrefanforever]

Ok here we go.....

It would be a great start. I simply have stopped going to Padre games and have emailed the organization informing them that I will not go until Moores gives me a reason to go. If every single one of us did that for every single team with a similar owner, yes, things would change.

Hell for that matter if everyone single San Diegan went to a game this would be a non - issue wouldn't it..... ?

It makes me sad that you look for reasons to convince yourself to be OK with baseball owners not being passionate over their team.

So because a billionaire doesn't react the same way a common person does, he's not passionate. I'd wager that it takes more passion to become a billionaire, than it does to become an irate fan ?

You can doubt all you want just as I will continue to not support it all I want. The fact is if everyone in San Diego was serious about this, if everyone who supports teams with lackluster owners followed my suit, the league would be a lot more enjoyable to watch. I'll just have to wait until I become a billionaire I guess.

This is where you jumped off your soapbox and tried to lead everyone off a cliff.... Why would everyone want to "follow your suit", you have two people here telling you you're wrong....so clearly you're mistaken about what fans think, maybe not all, but in here, the majority involved in this conversation. Again....the counter to what you're saying is this.....If everyone in San Diego was serious about getting a better team here, every single san diegan would go to every single game. That is the solution to the issues here.

...if the Padres did move, we'd have a team in no time.

This is delusion, and I'm not trying to be insulting here, but if you believe this you are clueless

Every owner in football is throwing around 100 million a season, and it is because they all agreed on the salary cap.

The football cap was around 80M until this year.... so this is false also....and if MLB had a hard cap, I believe you'd see exactly what you're trying to get....parity across the board, however with the way farm systems are entertwined into the fabric of MLB a hardcap the way we currently understand it will never work.

...apparently this city doesn;t care whether or not Moores has a burning desire to win.

Which is why we voted for a new ballpark right ? And it's also why for the first time in franchise history we hit 3M in attendance, because we the city folk don't care whether or not we win?

You care about this team more than I do because you can afford season tickets?

Apparently, since it's all about spending to you. If Moores doesn't care about his team because he wont spend, then you don't care about this team because you don't spend....it's the same damn thing which is why someone else agreed to the comparison....

And no I don't think I'm a better fan than the next person, I was simply creating an parallel and applying your twisted sense of logic here to try and make you better understand how crazy what your saying is....At least one person understood

I never said my way is the only way. In fact, I never stated anythiing as being the only way, and that is my exact point:

Uh....."if everyone who supports teams with lackluster owners followed my suit, the league would be a lot more enjoyable to watch...." that's pretty much suggesting that people should do things your way.

I am not pleased with teams having such drastically lower payrolls than others

Again......they are smack dab in the middle for payroll, and that is right where they should be considering everything. Of course we'd all like them to spend more, but until dept is paid down, and the remaining backloaded contracts are gone, which happens to be this year, don't expect more than you have. You can thank the litigous morons that stalled Petco for 2 years for that, not Moores.

The way you're getting offended is mesmorizing to me

Do you actually think you've offended me ? Believe me when I say you'll have to do far better to offend or even come close to offending someone like me.

I will state my opinion and my own displeasure that other fans don't agree with me on the desires of owners, but only when asked upon.

OBB I happen to enjoy your opinion when you're not on a soapbox preaching iinaccurately about things like the Padres owner. The however is, we're entitled to out opinion as well, and that includes when we don't agree with what your saying. Believe me when I say I wasn't the only one who thought this sounded like whining....

If our payroll is around 70 or 70 plus million next year.

What about this year......and according to your math we'd have to be around 80M next year if he ups the payroll a couple million. We're currently at an active payroll around 69M + around 6-7M in contracts still be paid on for players nolonger with the club. Add that together and we're at about $75-76M in payroll for 2006.... What more do you want ? They are trying to get rid of the shit contracts, and at the end of this year they will have. They should then be in a position to use all $75M on the active payroll which they haven't been able to do to this point.....for someone that claims to know about the way the teams salaries work it seems you left that part out ??

Again......OBB I do like your posts, but this one is way off base IMO

[padrefanforever]

No it's not......especially for a team in a stadium where they pay rent, and don't get full tix revenues, or parking revenues, or food, booze, or gift shop revenues..... People don't seem to understand how screwed this ballclub was at Quallcomm, but they are quick to jump on them about spending....funny isn't it ?

[OBBoltsFan]

Ok here we go.....



Hell for that matter if everyone single San Diegan went to a game this would be a non - issue wouldn't it..... ?



So because a billionaire doesn't react the same way a common person does, he's not passionate. I'd wager that it takes more passion to become a billionaire, than it does to become an irate fan ?



This is where you jumped off your soapbox and tried to lead everyone off a cliff.... Why would everyone want to "follow your suit", you have two people here telling you you're wrong....so clearly you're mistaken about what fans think, maybe not all, but in here, the majority involved in this conversation. Again....the counter to what you're saying is this.....If everyone in San Diego was serious about getting a better team here, every single san diegan would go to every single game. That is the solution to the issues here.



This is delusion, and I'm not trying to be insulting here, but if you believe this you are clueless



The football cap was around 80M until this year.... so this is false also....and if MLB had a hard cap, I believe you'd see exactly what you're trying to get....parity across the board, however with the way farm systems are entertwined into the fabric of MLB a hardcap the way we currently understand it will never work.



Which is why we voted for a new ballpark right ? And it's also why for the first time in franchise history we hit 3M in attendance, because we the city folk don't care whether or not we win?



Apparently, since it's all about spending to you. If Moores doesn't care about his team because he wont spend, then you don't care about this team because you don't spend....it's the same damn thing which is why someone else agreed to the comparison....

And no I don't think I'm a better fan than the next person, I was simply creating an parallel and applying your twisted sense of logic here to try and make you better understand how crazy what your saying is....At least one person understood



Uh....."if everyone who supports teams with lackluster owners followed my suit, the league would be a lot more enjoyable to watch...." that's pretty much suggesting that people should do things your way.



Again......they are smack dab in the middle for payroll, and that is right where they should be considering everything. Of course we'd all like them to spend more, but until dept is paid down, and the remaining backloaded contracts are gone, which happens to be this year, don't expect more than you have. You can thank the litigous morons that stalled Petco for 2 years for that, not Moores.



Do you actually think you've offended me ? Believe me when I say you'll have to do far better to offend or even come close to offending someone like me.



OBB I happen to enjoy your opinion when you're not on a soapbox preaching iinaccurately about things like the Padres owner. The however is, we're entitled to out opinion as well, and that includes when we don't agree with what your saying. Believe me when I say I wasn't the only one who thought this sounded like whining....



What about this year......and according to your math we'd have to be around 80M next year if he ups the payroll a couple million. We're currently at an active payroll around 69M + around 6-7M in contracts still be paid on for players nolonger with the club. Add that together and we're at about $75-76M in payroll for 2006.... What more do you want ? They are trying to get rid of the shit contracts, and at the end of this year they will have. They should then be in a position to use all $75M on the active payroll which they haven't been able to do to this point.....for someone that claims to know about the way the teams salaries work it seems you left that part out ??

Again......OBB I do like your posts, but this one is way off base IMO

I jsut don;t understand how you can;t comprehend simpler writing. Do you really not understnad what I write or do you just pretend that others and I don;t notice that what you claim I say is completely false.

I NEVER SAID THE CITY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WINNING. I SAID YOU AND OTHERS DON'T APPEAR TO MIND IF MOORES CARES MORE ABOUT WINNING OR MAKING MONEY.

You obviously don't understand anything I'm saying, so I will no longer comment on this matter. I clearly explained to you why any owner would go out of his way to get us a team. I clearly explained that I am not against Moores specifically, nor am I whining that our payroll is too low. I have clearly stated, in contrasting fashion, that I feel that all of baseball owners are to blame if they are in fact owning a team more for the sense of nuisness than actually wanting to win.

To Leo: like I said, search for other teams with records as poorly as ours and check their attendances. They will almost all be far less than 25 thousand average, thus explaining that we are not a hard team to attract fans for.

Apparently I've been "preaching from a soapbox" by having an opinion and apparently all my dieas are "ridiculous" for unexplainable reasons, so I might as well stop writing in this thread. For anybody who cares, I challenge you to read my posts and find one statement that I've said that I have not made sense of and explained, thus not being near "ridiculous".

[HollywoodLeo]

from 2001-2003 the Padres ranked 18th, 17th, and 19th in the majors in average attendance per game, respectively (29.7K, 27K, 25.4K)

18th, 26th, and 28th in standings, respectively

so yeah, that is a tad more than you might expect... but it's still not a lot, and more importantly, as pff explained, they were playing in a rented stadium.

Which means they weren't getting as much of the profits from ticket sales, consession sales, parking fees, etc etc as they currently do at PetCo.

~1.5x the attendance + getting a heckuva lot more of the profits from those things = A helluva lot more income at PetCo as compared to the Q.

[padrefanforever]

leo........no I clearly have no idea what he's saying.....