Re:Cities should not pay for new stadiums
by smcl on Tuesday March 15, 2022 @08:17AM
(#30684363)
Can you think of any city that this applies to? Maybe a few English Premier League teams are as or more famous than the cities themselves, but there's a problem here. There is a near-zero chance of any of those teams threatening to move and using the stadium as a bargaining chip. I can think of a couple of moves that have happened in my lifetime - Meadowbank Thistle moving to Livingston (I'd be surprised if 5 people on this site were familiar with this) and Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes (a move so deeply unpopular the bulk of their fans immediately formed a new team which now competes in the same league as the "old" one). This issue is pretty unique to the US leagues due to their "franchise" system.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Cities should not pay for new stadiums
by CRConrad on Wednesday March 16, 2022 @10:59PM
(#30707150)
> Maybe a few English Premier League teams are as or more famous than the cities themselves
Not more, but independently of the cities. At least when the actual city isn't in the team's name: I had heard if Chelsea, Arsenal, and Tottenham long before I realised they're all from London. (Likewise, [Västra] Frölunda being from Göteborg.) And I'm still not quite sure about Crystal Palace and the Queen's Park Rangers... (Only recently I pieced together that Crystal Palace are probably named for the famous wrought-iron-and-glass building at the ~1850s World Exhibition, but I can't recall where that was. Probably also London?)
Re:Cities should not pay for new stadiums
by PoignardAzur on Friday March 18, 2022 @07:10AM
(#30720684)
> had heard if Chelsea, Arsenal, and Tottenham long before I realised they're all from London.
Wait, they are?
Googles Oh, they're from the London area. I didn't know that. Man, London is huge.