The Team of Nine: What it might look like

So I'm back from three weeks of vacation (me pictured behind a stein of beer in Tallinn, Estonia). And what did I miss on the stadium front? It seems like not all that much. We still don't know who's going to be on this baseball coalition, other than Progress Energy CEO Jeff Lyash.

We do know the size of the committee, however, nine. And we know the group also has a name, A Baseball Community, Inc. If I had to guess, here's what I think the committee will look like when it's seated in September.

1. Lyash, chairman
2. St. Petersburg resident leader (CONA?)
3. Pinellas County civic/community leader
4. Rays season ticket holder.
5. St. Petersburg business leader (chamber, partnership, Steve Raymund of Tech Data?)
6. Pinellas beach business leader (Clearwater perhaps)
7. Somebody from Hillsborough/Tampa
8. Ex-politician
9. ????????????? (Could this be the POWW seat? Will Lyash give them one?)

Am I missing something?

Comments

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K.,

Just a quick question. In your 9:43PM post you state...

"However, I recognize that some regulation is desirable. The easiest example is permitting only a single electric utility to operate in a particular neighborhood, but regulating the monopoly."

Since MLB is clearly a monopoly protected by a very special exemption issued by Congress...would you be in favor of regulating MLB. That of course would be the simple answer to all that is hideously wrong with Professional Sports in our country.

The owners claim free enterprise and capitalism..then go to the socialism of demanding ENORMOUS amounts of subsidies from the citizens. The players UNIONIZE then chafe at the very thought of collusion on a wage scale. Talk about having the best of both worlds!!!

[Rick K]

but but but but it but A truly concerned, Don Mott, and 1962.

With all due respect. You folks continue to confuse your own passionate delusions with reality.

Don Mott can tell himself that investing $250 million to get a return five or ten or twenty times that amount is the same as "bleeding of communities on the false pretenses of monetary gains."

He can say it twenty-five million times, and it will never be true. It will be believed by a small portion of the populace (including many in mental institutions, but that is another topic). Don's problem is that he is perpetually frustrated that elected decisionmakers and accomplished executives won't abandon their silly insistence upon making judgements based on verifiable fact and join with Don in a world where up is down, lies are truths and multiple returnes on invested dollars are "bleeding the community."

Don takes exception to the fact that an executive at Progress Energy would use Progress Energy resources to start up this coalition.

Those of us who live in the normal world, where maturity and sanity are more common, have no problems with either the involvement of a private company or an attempt to embrace the reality that the Rays are a valuable community asset who are responsible for attracting millions atop millions of dollars into the local economy each year.

1962, I would like to reply to you, but I fear that you are so far gone my response might cause you to do yourself bodily harm, and I cannot have that on my conscience.

ATrulyConcerned, you continue to focus on an aspect of this issue that is not important to most of us. It's your right to do so. But most of us won't be joining you.

Most of us do not live lives, like Don Mott, ruled by fantasies that are not widely accepted by everyone else. Most of us do not live lives, like you, Truly, dominated by jealousy and irrational hatred.

Because it is very simple for most of us.

It does not matter if we personally like the Rays or enjoy baseball. Just as it does not matter if we like to boat, read free books, look at art, or toss a frisbee.

We make decisions about which sorts of community amentities ought to be subsidized with our tax money based on an assesment of which amenities we think would make our community attractive to the sorts of people we would like to have as our neighbors.

One need not own a yacht to be in favor of the ongoing subsidies for City owned marinas. One need not be in college or own a company to favor the ongoing subsidies for USF St Pete. One need not be fearful of drug smugglers to appreciate the ongoing subsidies for the US Coast Guard. One need not be a general aviation buff to appreciate and support ongoing subsidies for Albert Whited. One need not be a reader to appreciate ongoing subsidies of public libraries. One need not be a park goer, arts patron, concert goer, or rider of buses to appreciate the ongoing public subsidies for public parks, art museums and public art, Janus Landing and the Mahaffey, or PSTA.

Truth is, Many of us support ongoing public subsidies related to Major League (and Minor League) baseball because we value the addition it provides to our community. Many of us do the easy math and see that an entity that brings $150,000,000 per year to our local economy is worth a fraction of that each year in public tax support.

Most of us don't really care who receives specific benefits from public subsidies. We don't care that a particular artist may earn millions, that some musicians and song writers earn the same, that some yachts are owned by the mega rich, and some planes are owned by people in the upper 10%. We don't care.

We don't care how much a player or the team owners make. We don't buy into your bogus views, based on fantasy or jealousy or fear. We view baseball as a valuable addition to our community.

That is the long and short of it.

[John]

Rick K you forgot one.

Most of us don't care about your ridiculous spin and delusional fear of grassroots organizations like POWW that borders on paranoia.

Seems to me you are the one who is outnumbered in this discussion. Those reader/view comment sites I mentioned that you said were "100% negative"....why is that, Rick K?

Why aren't those people just gushing with joy over the formation of this new coalition? Because they're not stupid, Rick. That's why.

Why did ABC take down their blog before a single entry was posted? Fear of the truth from the citizens? I thought this was going to be a "transparent process"?

I can make an educated guess that they recieved several dozen, perhaps several hundred posts that read something like this:

"Make the Rays pay for their own damn stadium"

"NOT ON OUR WATERFRONT"

"Jeff Lyash is a Rick Baker puppet"

"There's nothing wrong with the Trop"

And so on....

So much for a community-wide open discussion on their forum. At least the Times provides this and other open forums without censorship of different views.

It may be time to start making "new and improved" red signs.

[John]

And one more thing

Who's bright idea was it to put the president of the local electric utility company in charge of this charade?

Seems to me if you want community-wide support, one of the LAST people you'd want is a person who is behind the upcoming massive electric rate hikes to pay for a new nuke plant. Money coming off the backs of the very same citizens they'll be looking for support from to subsidize another for-profit corporation with our tax dollars.

As they say on the Guinness commercials....

BRILLIANT!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Ahhh Rick K you've picked up where you left off before your arguments went down in smoke with the Rays tossing in the towel....again nothing but ad hominem attacks and absolute BS.

Explain the facts behind your scattergun assertions..

"Those of us who live in the normal world, where maturity and sanity are more common,"

Great Rick now you're a psychiatric expert as well as a world renown economist.

"Many of us do the easy math and see that an entity that brings $150,000,000 per year to our local economy is worth a fraction of that each year in public tax support."

Rick provide your source for those ABSURD NUMBERS. Provide it from an INDEPENDENT, PEER REVIEWED study, not some sham purchased by a group with a vested interest...like say the MLB or NFL or some government folks like Rick Mussett who want their views validated not any actual research.

And last but certainly not least Rick answer the burning question. Why are their literally dozens and dozens of reports, academic research papers, etc done by peer reviewed folks with PhD's and other advanced degrees..nothing I'm sure to compare to the Rick K degree of economics...WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION?
Why would they produce a study to simply debunk EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING. Is it because they dislike you personally? Is it because they had a bad experience in little league...perhaps on the playground? Why Rick Why would dozens and dozens of HIGHLY RESPECTED researchers produce reams of documents pointing out the fallacy of your abolutely absurd
statement..."Many of us do the easy math and see that an entity that brings $150,000,000 per year to our local economy is worth a fraction of that each year in public tax support."

IF the math is sooo easy why do SOOOO MANY ACCREDITED EXPERTS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES PRODUCE PEER REVIEWED STUDIES THAT STATE EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR FALACIOUS ASSERTION? What is their motivation Rick. Are you so incredibly arrogant that you totally disregard their degrees, qualifications, and peer reviewed studies that are not funded by ANYBODY looking for a certain outcome?

[since1962]

Yes the Progress Energy portion of the 'community discussion' was silenced before it began.

Ironically these same business/government titans foisting TWO WAY street conversions(for their business intrest$) on our populace now prefer limited access ONE WAY communication FOR THEIR BUSINESS INTREST$.
Contact us...
We'll consider SUPPORTIVE documentation....

[Jamie]

I think some people have lost their grip. The blog at the ABC website hasn't been installed yet. The site template has a place for it, but it isn't up and running. No one is trying to silence anyone. A Truly Concerned, the problem with your argument is that for every study you point to by academics you like, there are 20 that come to precisely the opposite conclusion. Being an academic doesnt make someone right.

[since1962]

Aaron

I am not a proponent of censorship and the TIMES 250 character limit on other public venues is often just shy of what is necessary...

BUT

some limitation on this blog would force concise obsfucation from erudite professor poseurs and better reflect Pinellas County demographic reality.

Want MORE participation on this site and potential advertising revenue?

That seems to be a PRIMARY goal within the job description for Customer 'Insight' Manager posted on Times site.

[since1962]

Jamie

BLOG WAS there

NOW contact us....

[Paul]

Another thing missing from these blogs is user registration. You create an account and have to provide a valid email address to activate it... and most importantly only one account per email address. That would prevent people from talking to themselves and creating multiple persona's to support their own opinions... and it would enable the Times to delete anyone who gets out of hand with insults.

I've got to think this blog software provides for that. I agree, there should be some limit on number of postings per hour / day and definately a character limit of sorts.

[since1962]

Sorry guys, I need some prune juice this afternoon ... afterall I am a VERY bitter old codger that hates progress and people that don't agree with my narrow-minded shtick

BITTER AS HELL ... since1962

[Jon McPhee]

>>>I am not a proponent of censorship and the TIMES 250 character limit on other public venues is often just shy of what is necessary...<<<

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Jamie,

I could simply repeat your hyperbole and say for every study showing baseball to be an economic boon there are 20 studies to refute that. You simply stating that doesn't make it true. I have at least a dozen hyperlinks I can post if you wish to accept the challenge. Do you have 240 to counter...heck can you even match me study for study? Will your's be independent and academic..or paid for by an entity that stands to benefit from the result?

[atrulybittercitizen]

my studies are by other progress hating weanies like myself!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Well by all means let's see your studies trulybitter...coming from someone as intellectual as you, they must be enlightening indeed...certainly tossing over 300 million of taxpayer money at millionaire players and billionaire owners is REAL PROGRESS!!!

[John]

Jamie, quit lying please.

The ABC website not only had a blog installed already, they even had "Question #1" posted for replies. However they did not post any replies and have now removed the blog from the main page AS WELL AS re-wording their welcome statement about "joining the discussion on our blog" which is now gone.

It's quite clear what this means.

[since1962]

This 'bitter old codger' just turned 50 and is attempting an INCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE conversation unburdened by BLOG BLOATING DIATRIBES FROM EITHER SIDE.

[since1962]

See even Jon can do it...

Very funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Don Mott]

Jamie AKA Sybil AKA RRRick K, show us the proof! You constantly grab numbers out of thin air with no proof to back them. Being an academic may not make one right but when MANY more than one agree on the same subject it certainly gives them more credence than some anonymous keystroker. Certainly one who tries to convince people he is MANY different people. As John said the blog link WAS on the ABC site and HAS since been removed. I'm with Paul on the user registration, it gets ridiculous when one person shows up under 10 or 20 different names.

[since1962]

and for the record while I did join AARP as a goof on my 50th I despise prune juice and embrace progress at every turn in fact went shopping for new Sony All in One' LCD HDTV/Computer yesterday which will enable lightning fast retort from these 'arthritic' digits while viewing golden girl reruns in spectacular HD.
Take that whippersnapper.

[Don Mott]

Oh and BTW check this out. http://majorleaguedowntown.com/ Scroll to the bottom and read. Thought they were a grassroots org. to counter POWW. Wrong, a site paid for by Rays Management.

[since1962]

intresting
then THEY must not be seated with the 'coalition' if strict adherance to 'rules' is to be enforced.

[Don Mott]

And then check this out. http://www.floridalobbyistdirectory.com/Principal.aspx?id=348 They are registered lobbyists. I wonder how involved they are with the supposedly INDEPENDANT ABC coalition. What a freaking joke!

[since1962]

This entire charade is unfortunate particularly when relative newcommer$ claim owner$hip of OUR tradition$ and twi$t them to their own device$.

Even I was involved in Seminole baseball and Al Lang before Rays existed yet must endure monologues by newcommers like Progress CEO Lyash regarding "OUR" long baseball tradition and what "WE" must do to maintain...
now that Rays have destroyed that tradition at Al LANG!

Lobbyists don't surprise me one bit.This EX-clusive effort will implode and may end the tradition.We'll have those brass reminders...

[Don Mott]

It gets even more interesting. If you Google the two lobbyists you will find they also lobby for the N.Y. Yankees. Isn't that a laugh? Or not?