Angels focused on staying in Anaheim.

[T.G.]

25,000-30,000?  You've got to be kidding.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Yeah according to google the smallest stadium currently seats 31K.  There's no way he's going to want a stadium that will only let him get to about 2.4M when the franchise is celebrating 3M tickets sold the last so many years.

[Claude]

I’m willing to bet that if Arte started a “Keep the Angels in Anaheim” campaign on GoFundMe to help him build a new stadium there would be plenty of fools donating cash. 

[eaterfan]

5 minutes ago, True Grich said:

25,000-30,000?  You've got to be kidding.

25-30k seats will lead to a "Chargers problem." People think the problem with the Chargers is that they don't have the fanbase to support themselves. But I think the major issue is that the price of tickets is too high because the stadium has too few seats and all the seats are premium. Part of my evidence for this is the Chargers draw quite well when they play in the Coliseum. Going off the crowd noise when they've played there it's been about 30-40% Chargers fans and 60-70% Rams fans. Chargers have the highest average ticket prices in the league (or second). The home games are taken over because season ticket holders can pay for half their season selling tickets to the Packers game this Sunday. I'm not saying that's the only issue, but having too small a stadium with too high of ticket prices hurt a lot. 

I could see the Angels running into a lot of those issues if they cut the stadium size down by 30%. No more cheap seats, ticket prices double. Food obviously won't be coming down in price. It's now 3 times more expensive to go to the game. The only time it's affordable to go is a weeknight game against a cellar dwelling KC team and who wants to go to that now that it costs twice as much? The stadium is a quarter empty and it didn't solve the problem reducing the number of seats sought to solve. The Red Sox, Yankees, or Cubs are in town and the season ticket holders sell their seats to pay for half their season. The crowd is 70% fans of the opposition.

[angelsnationtalk]

35 minutes ago, Second Base said:

The Angels have the right fan base, and a stadium in the right location with the perfect degree of accessibility. 

They don't have to move.

But they do need a new stadium. The current stadium they play in is the second worst in the division, and likely the second or third worst in baseball. There's no sense of identity, the plumbing when it rains backs up, sewage spills into the concourses. The seating is too large and doesn't fit the current climate, and the field itself uses a stupid yellow line to identify a home run, which takes away the spectacle of the home run itself.

Angel Stadium needs to be tore down, completely gutted and rebuilt.

It should be made smaller, down to 25-30,000 seating attendance, the field made compete, so that a scoreboard isn't in the field of play and there isn't a stupid yellow line, and the areas outside the field of play should be made to celebrate, Southern California's natural resources, or at least perception. Orange groves, palm trees, sandy beaches etc...

Agree with everything minus the 25,000-30,000 for seating. If Arte and Eppler built a freaking winner then the 44,000+ seats would be filled. Period. 

[angelsnationtalk]

If/When the Angels explore building a new stadium in the lot I'd love to see the artists' renditions for the new design. Would also be cool to see what new features a 21st century ballpark would include. 

[yk9001]

5 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

25-30k seats will lead to a "Chargers problem." People think the problem with the Chargers is that they don't have the fanbase to support themselves. But I think the major issue is that the price of tickets is too high because the stadium has too few seats and all the seats are premium. Part of my evidence for this is the Chargers draw quite well when they play in the Coliseum. Going off the crowd noise when they've played there it's been about 30-40% Chargers fans and 60-70% Rams fans. Chargers have the highest average ticket prices in the league (or second). The home games are taken over because season ticket holders can pay for half their season selling tickets to the Packers game this Sunday. I'm not saying that's the only issue, but having too small a stadium with too high of ticket prices hurt a lot. 

I could see the Angels running into a lot of those issues if they cut the stadium size down by 30%. No more cheap seats, ticket prices double. Food obviously won't be coming down in price. It's now 3 times more expensive to go to the game. The only time it's affordable to go is a weeknight game against a cellar dwelling KC team and who wants to go to that now that it costs twice as much? The stadium is a quarter empty and it didn't solve the problem reducing the number of seats sought to solve. The Red Sox, Yankees, or Cubs are in town and the season ticket holders sell their seats to pay for half their season. The crowd is 70% fans of the opposition.

I am not sure at all that the Angels have a Chargers problem as described in your first paragraph.

The Chargers do not have an LA fan base, at all.  

All joking aside I do about the '3,000,000 fans', the Angels do have a fan base, and it is sizeable.

[angelsnationtalk]

1 hour ago, Calzone 2 said:

By the time this all comes to fruition Trout will be 38 years old. A new stadium is about an 8-10 year process. 

Construction takes about 1-3 years after approved. Could happen while the Angels are making a serious run. If the Angels have already considered it as an option then i'm sure they've reached out to people already.

[eaterfan]

2 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

I am not sure at all that the Angels have a Chargers problem as described in your first paragraph.

The Chargers do not have an LA fan base, at all.  

All joking aside I do about the '3,000,000 fans', the Angels do have a fan base, and it is sizeable.

I'm saying if the Angels went to a 25-30k seat stadium it might happen. 

Also, I think you're underestimating the Charger's OC fanbase. As I mentioned, Chargers drew well at the Celiseum. Probably had more fans there than at any game at Stubhub, and training camp was fairly well attended, too. 

But here's a question to you, if the Angels went from 12th cheapest in the league ($58 per ticket average) to 8th most expensive (just a random position but one that seems reasonable to me) ($80 per ticket average) do you think attendance will go up or down as a % of available seats? 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193673/average-ticket-price-in-the-mlb-by-team/

[yk9001]

4 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

As I mentioned, Chargers drew well at the Celiseum.

You keep mentioning this.  Are you talking about the one game last year vs. the Rams?

If the Chargers have an OC fan base, they aren't showing up to support their team.  What is going on in Carson is unprecedented, in any sport.  We've seen Yankee and Sox fans be sizable in Angels stadium.  I have never ever seen this.

[yk9001]

[T.G.]

Haven't you heard? Carson is the new Pittsburgh.

[Second Base]

It's pretty simple really.

The Angels claim 3 million fans a year, but any idiot can go to the stadium and realize that during a losing season, the stadium itself is only 1/3 filled. Even during a successful season, it's not at capacity even half the time.

You have a stadium that fits 45,000 people, yet only 15,000 show up on a daily basis in a losing season. And those 15,000 are spread out all over the place. They aren't building on inner another's cheers. There's no buzz in the crowd. 

You make the stadium smaller, it's more full, there's greater buzz, and the players feed off that. You make the prices for tickets themselves in more if a sliding scale. If there are open tickets, lower the price too fill the seats. If the stadium is full every night, then you can kick up prices.

[Brandon]

Pittsburgh is somewhat of a bad example because the away crowd always looms large of any team in the NFL. But, on the flip side, even in SD the Chargers always had an issue. I used to go to Chiefs games down there and there was a ton of red. Also, watching games on TV the opposition was always prominent for an away crowd. I think some of it is that SD and LA are transplant areas.

[Claude]

17 minutes ago, angelsnationtalk said:

Construction takes about 1-3 years after approved. Could happen while the Angels are making a serious run. If the Angels have already considered it as an option then i'm sure they've reached out to people already.

Construction of a new stadium isn’t that easy. They will have to consider the surrounding area for future development. It’s public land and they would still have to perform an environmental impact study. These things travel at a snails pace. The Angels aren’t going to push the envelope because they have a terrific team friendly lease agreement already in place. Arte has Trout locked up, the new scoreboards are up so Play Ball!

[yk9001]

9 minutes ago, True Grich said:

Haven't you heard? Carson is the new Pittsburgh.

Carson will be the new Wisconsin on Sunday.

It was the new Denver a couple weeks ago.

[eaterfan]

4 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

You keep mentioning this.  Are you talking about the one game last year vs. the Rams?

If the Chargers have an OC fan base, they aren't showing up to support their team.  What is going on in Carson is unprecedented, in any sport.  We've seen Yankee and Sox fans be sizable in Angels stadium.  I have never ever seen this.

Yes. I'm talking about the one last year. It suggests it's the price that's the issue. If they draw 25,000 fans for the cheaper game and 18,000 for the more expensive game, despite it being an away game, it suggests the price is the sticking point. The Chargers ticket prices are $40 per ticket more than the next closest team on average. The Rams ticket prices are $50 cheaper on average than the Chargers tickets. The average Chargers ticket is 31% more expensive than the average Patriots ticket. It's more than double the price of the Bills ticket. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193595/average-ticket-price-in-the-nfl-by-team/

[yk9001]

5 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Pittsburgh is somewhat of a bad example because the away crowd always looms large of any team in the NFL. But, on the flip side, even in SD the Chargers always had an issue. I used to go to Chiefs games down there and there was a ton of red. Also, watching games on TV the opposition was always prominent for an away crowd. I think some of it is that SD and LA are transplant areas.

If someone knowledgeable here can name a game since the Chargers got to Carson that the Chargers have had a real home field advantage, I'm willing to hear it.

I follow it kind of closely, and I've never seen it.

And when the Raiders and Steelers play there, it is unprecedented.  Until maybe this Sunday with the Packers.

[yk9001]

2 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Yes. I'm talking about the one last year. It suggests it's the price that's the issue. If they draw 25,000 fans for the cheaper game and 18,000 for the more expensive game, despite it being an away game, it suggests the price is the sticking point. The Chargers ticket prices are $40 per ticket more than the next closest team on average. The Rams ticket prices are $50 cheaper on average than the Chargers tickets. The average Chargers ticket is 31% more expensive than the average Patriots ticket. It's more than double the price of the Bills ticket. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193595/average-ticket-price-in-the-nfl-by-team/

Understood.  I get your point.  I didn't before. Thanks.

Your theory will be tested next year, when the Chargers will go from having the most expensive ticket (Carson) to the least expensive ticket (Inglewood).

[eaterfan]

Just now, yk9001 said:

Understood.  I get your point.  I didn't before. Thanks.

Your theory will be tested next year, when the Chargers will go from having the most expensive ticket (Carson) to the least expensive ticket (Inglewood).

Thanks. And I'm certainly not arguing that they have a following like the Raiders, Steelers or Packers. I think it will take time to develop a following even like the Angels have. But I think the smaller stadium has exacerbated the problem. I think the same (maybe not to the same extent) could happen to the Angels if they cut the capacity too much. 

Games against teams with national followings could be 60-70% opposing fans and teams no one cares about could suffer attendance issues because the smaller stadium will undoubtedly have higher costs to fans. 

[Duren, Duren]

I was at the game that was rained out a couple of years ago. Insane ankle deep flooding in the corridors. Obviously that was a rare thing, but it illustrated some of the infrastructure and aging issues. 

As things go, it isn't a bad ballpark (see Olympic Stadium in Montreal for a cold, concrete monstrosity), but should be upgraded and made a bit more fan friendly. I'd also like a little more historical reference. Perhaps a small museum type section. The murals are nice, but some of the only actual artifacts are the items being sold. Multiple thousands of dollars for signed Trout, Pujols, Ohtani things mostly. The store also should be bigger with more selections. 

Location wise it's easy to drive to, but on the ground it's pretty isolated. Obviously not in a downtown type area but possibly more development can be built around it in the future. The Hockey arena across the street also has the same problem. 

Too bad it is a busy highway separating the two. In Seattle the baseball and football stadiums are also close to each other, but within a self contained area with plenty of amenities and places around them. 

Starting from scratch could be daunting, with all sorts of logistical complications. Unless a great opportunity presents itself it makes more sense to upgrade. I doubt one of those retro refit styles that Baltimore popularized a few decades ago would fit the team or it's history. But a nod to past tradition would be nice. 

And I would get away from those quaint straw hats the ushers wear. It isn't the 1913 county fair! 

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Yeah according to google the smallest stadium currently seats 31K.  There's no way he's going to want a stadium that will only let him get to about 2.4M when the franchise is celebrating 3M tickets sold the last so many years.

And Tropacrapa Field is the only one that seats under 35k. 

[Lhalo]

4 hours ago, Blarg said:

It would cost over a billion to build a new one. 

It doesn't have to be Yankee Stadium. 

Citi Field was built for $610m.

Edit: $850m lol

Edited October 29, 2019 by Lhalo

[Brandon]

One thing throwing me off in this thread is how can the team build a new stadium in the same location? I don't drive by the stadium often, but did on Sunday and I don't think there is room to replace the stadium without demolishing the old stadium.

[Lhalo]

1 hour ago, Calzone 2 said:

 It’s public land and they would still have to perform an environmental impact study. 

I believe it's already covered under the Platinum Triangle EIR but I could be wrong.

http://www.anaheim.net/1075/EIR-No-339