Author Topic: L.A. Dodger blues (10-24-05)  (Read 77 times)

WestCoasta

  • Guest
L.A. Dodger blues (10-24-05)
« on: October 27, 2005, 12:54:50 AM »
www.dodgerblues.com





Upgraded Dugout Club. Check. Increase in the cost of parking. Check. New seats along the lines. Check. Advertising on the outfield wall. Check. Advertising ribbon wrapping the stadium. Check. Advertising on the bullpen gates. Check. Advertising on the groundskeepers' rakes. Check. Commercials on Diamondvision between innings. Check.

So what's next? With the McCourt's tapping everything in sight to generate revenue, is anything sacred? By anything, of course, we really mean just one thing: Dodger Stadium itself. Almost every major league stadium—most of which are owned or operated by people far less greedy than Frank McCourt—has seen a monstrous corporation pay to have their name attached to the venue. There's Petco Park, PNC Park, Safeco Field, U.S. Cellular Field, Citizens Bank Park… the list goes on. Yet, Dodger Stadium is still Dodger Stadium. But for how long? The Houston Astros are making $6 million a year from an orange juice company. If McCourt can get that kind of money by selling naming rights to Dodger Stadium (and the truth is, a stadium in L.A. would surely fetch more than one in Houston), why wouldn't he do it? The fact is, he will. Like a J.D. Drew injury, it's only a matter of time.

While McCourt hasn't seemed particularly concerned with his image considering the speed and ruthlessness with which he's made changes, he obviously understands the uproar he'll cause when Dodger Stadium becomes Wells Fargo Field. He understands the uproar, but does he care? Doubtful. Likely he's held off selling naming rights in hopes that he'd first gain fan support. Since it's clear that he's failed in that regard, there doesn't seem to be much stopping him from lowering the boom. Fans are already upset-—why not just kick 'em when they're down? When the time comes, McCourt will probably say that they're selling naming rights to keep the team competitive, but haven't they been competitive for about 100 years without having to sell naming rights?

It's great that McCourt isn't knocking down the stadium anytime soon, but taking a wrecking ball to the name isn't any less disturbing. As it is, there are very few remnants of the organization we all grew to love. Since Dodger players come and go like drunks at a urinal, the only attachments we have are in the physical. We still have the palm trees out beyond the bleachers, there's still the smell of Dodger dogs wafting through the air, and there's still the sight and sound of Vin Scully in the broadcasting booth. But would those things all have the same meaning if you had to enter Barnes & Noble Stadium to experience them?



« Last Edit: October 27, 2005, 12:56:41 AM by We$t Coa$t »
 

Javier

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 8585
  • Karma: 284
Re: L.A. Dodger blues (10-24-05)
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2005, 08:12:03 AM »
He's not.   He already lost many whining fans that had LoDuca's dick so far up their ass that it was damn near laughable.  HIs 25 year deal wasnt even seen as a good thing, because yes this guy is pure evil!