Can any team move cities?

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well there's no economic incentive for the Yankees to move. If it ever got to the point that the Yankees would want to move, then they'd no longer be iconic.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's not much economic incentive for the Sonics to move either. But this isn't stopping the ownership group from trying to move the team.

[/ QUOTE ]

idk much about their stadium issues, but isn't getting a new stadium an economic incentive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that they have numerous other holdings in OKC that could see an increase in value as the result of adding a sports franchise to the local economy.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well there's no economic incentive for the Yankees to move. If it ever got to the point that the Yankees would want to move, then they'd no longer be iconic.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's not much economic incentive for the Sonics to move either. But this isn't stopping the ownership group from trying to move the team.

[/ QUOTE ]

idk much about their stadium issues, but isn't getting a new stadium an economic incentive.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Mass., the state has consistently refused to build new stadia for our teams, and we have still managed to avoid having one move (the Pats did come close though).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm looking forward to the next time a group opposes public funding for a stadium. I'm interested in how they change their arguments in light of the Superdome and Qualcomm stadium housing refugees from natural disasters.

[MicroBob]

I don't think it will matter that much. There aren't many decent sized cities that don't have some sort of stadium or arena for such purposes.

the arguments against stadiums in various areas are mostly against NEW stadiums with all the luxury-suites, etc that will also involve tearing down the old stadium.

If something happened in Seattle for example I think the refugees would be pretty much just as well off at Safeco field as they would have been at the old dome.

[littlekeed]

[ QUOTE ]
The Packers couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't they have some games in Milwaukee?

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Packers couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't they have some games in Milwaukee?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't move since the team is owned by fans as if they were a company in stock market. And I doubt the owners (fans from GB area) would vote to move thier team.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Packers couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't they have some games in Milwaukee?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes.
They had a couple of seasons, maybe more, where they played 4 games at Lambeau and 4 games at Milwaukee County Stadium.

They've also played a few exhibitions in Madison. I went to one of these in the 80's.
Not sure if they have had any reg-season games there. Don't think so.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well there's no economic incentive for the Yankees to move. If it ever got to the point that the Yankees would want to move, then they'd no longer be iconic.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's not much economic incentive for the Sonics to move either. But this isn't stopping the ownership group from trying to move the team.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm happy for OKC because I think that market is deserving of their own team. But saddened that it has to be a team like the Sonics which does seem to have a decent following out there even now that they are kind of lousy and apparently leaving.

Compare that to a team like the Memphis Grizzlies. I feel like they could pack up their bags and leave tomorrow and maybe 6 people would care.
Especially strange for that market considering that it's the only major-league team they have. Whereas a market like Seattle has 2 other big-league teams but the Sonics are still relatively popular out there.

I wonder if the Sonics leaving coule potentially open the door to the possibility of bringing the NHL there. With the right facility I think it could be successful there.

Or maybe SEA can eventually land a new NBA team such as the Grizzlies when they finally give up trying to make that work in the most apathetic market in the country.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Up here in Seattle the Sonics will be moving. My roommate and I got into a discussion/disagreement how some teams wouldn't be allowed to move.

He says if the Yankess, Lakers or Redsox wanted to move there's no way the league would let them since they're such iconic teams. I say the owners could move them if they want as all teams would be treated equal. Why let some team move and not another. I don't see how that would stand up.

I just don't see the league standing in Steinbrenners way if he wanted to move the Yanks.

Thoughts?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Its kinda OT but FWIW the baseball antitrust exemption excludes MLB from the Sherman Anti-trust Act so teams can't sue the league for blocking a move.

Other sports without this exemption can face antitrust lawsuits, ala Al Davis and the Raiders to LA saga.

A non baseball league would I think be less passionate about blocking a move the greater the prospect an owner would litigate.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Packers couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't they have some games in Milwaukee?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but it's not like they moved. They had some home games in Milwaukee because, while they are the "Green Bay" Packers, they are basically the "Wisconsin" Packers and have a massive fan base in Milwaukee.

[MicroBob]

I agree this isn't a big deal.
The percentage of their fans who make the trek up to Lambeau from Milwaukee or Madison each Sunday has to be pretty significant. So bringing some of their games to those fans and making the GB people travel instead was probably the general idea behind it I think.