Expos de Montréal

[TomSawyer]

Depuis un certain nombre de jours,  les mises à jour de la Presse au sujet du nombre de cas de covid sont accompagnées d'un homme portant une casquette des Expos.   Je n'ai pas de formation en psychologie des médias mais ce n'est certainement pas innocent et compte tenu de la ligne de la ligne éditoriale de ce journal, ce n'est certainement pas pour favoriser l'acception sociale du projet.

[go_habs_go]

On 2021-10-09 at 12:17 AM, Maisonneuve said:

If this ends up being the orientation, it is fine. 

It is more than fine. 

People shouldn't worry about the skyline not being seen, because it will be seen one way or the other. Every homerun is filmed from at least 3 angles, so for those who want to see the skyline, you'll see them on replays of homeruns from left field to center. But even if you end up not seeing the skyline in those replays/highlights, you'll see it anyways. When the odd homerun ends up in Peel Basin, you'll see that on replay/highlights too. And the B reel footage  — pre/post game, between innings, while the commentators are yapping on about something between pitches, between meetings on the mound, during pitching changes — will zoom in on anything that can be seen with a camera from the stadium: Habitat 67, Farine Five Roses, REM trains zipping by, cyclists along the edge of Peel basin as people in kayaks wait for homeruns, the top of Jaume Plensa's 'Source', traffic on the Bonaventure, the Jacques Cartier Bridge lit up at night, the Old Port with a cruise ship docked in the terminal, and the skyline if they choose, and more. Camerapersons find shots, and there's so much to pick up from that location. For sure the camera outside the stadium filming the approaching crowds will show the Champlain Bridge lit up. No matter what the orientation is, television viewers will see MONTRÉAL. I'm not worried about that. Plus, all these sports broadcasts now have at least one drone doing B reel, for the home team or the away broadcasts.  I'm not concerned about people in Anaheim, Houston, or Seattle not seeing Montreal. They'll see it, and it won't be one-dimensional too, because all those things I just mentioned are part of the urban landscape within the view of the stadium, each at varying scales and adding different layers. Different layers, varying scales, many angles creates curiosity for the viewer, to captivate the fan inside the stadium as well as the woman in Chicago cheering for her White Sox to beat our Expos thinking "hey Montreal looks like an interesting place with a little bit of this and a little bit of that..."

This stadium won't be Camden Yards with a wall at the back, and we won't be looking at public housing projects or parking lots like the New York stadiums. And sometimes when the skyline is too close to the stadium the whole scene looks like an amusement park, like the Pirates stadium in Pittsburgh. Ours will show a lot of Montreal, not too much, not too little, but just enough to be interesting. That's fine, we can live with that.

 

Love it! I vote you for president! 👏🍺👊

[Exposteve]

Savons-nous ce qu'il se passe avec les installations P&H Milling qui sont sur le terrain du bassin peel?  Selon le site web de la compagnie ils sont encore actifs.  J'imagine que l'expopriation devient un peu plus compliqué pour un moulin / des silos comparé à une batisse Loto-Québec ou un stationnement.  C'est probablement un détail relativement mineur dans le contexte du projet global.  

[IluvMTL]

Élection de Plante et le dossier des  Expos

https://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/7e9737cd-6fb0-4268-8c29-2e165176987a__7C___0.html?utm_content=facebook&utm_source=lpp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=internal+share

[Exposteve]

Brian Auld, Co-president of the Tampa Bay Rays, spoke to a community club earlier today and discussed the Sister City concept at length.  Here is a broadcast of the speech and Q&A. Starts around the 7-min mark. 

 

https://tigerbay.tbae.net

 

[Exposteve]

https://www.tampabay.com/sports/rays/2021/11/16/the-rays-flirtation-with-montreal-could-become-a-true-romance-this-week/

 

The Rays’ flirtation with Montreal could become a true romance this week

John Romano | The team seems prepared to seek permission to take the next step in the sister city plan.

 

By John Romano

Published Earlier today

ADVERTISEMENT

TAMPA — For the better part of two years, Rays executives have spread their message across Tampa Bay. Civic groups, church groups, political groups. Skeptical crowds, angry crowds, apathetic crowds. If you were willing to listen, they were willing to talk.

The Rays wanted you to know their proposed sister city plan with Montreal was neither a ploy to sneak out of town, nor a way to create leverage for a better stadium deal.

It was, they insisted, the only way to save baseball in Tampa Bay.

Now that message is about to take on greater urgency.

And the next audience on the agenda could have the authority to help make it happen. The Rays are likely to seek the blessing of baseball’s executive council this week to transition from the current exploratory plan to a more definitive pursuit of the shared city idea.

Going this route would accomplish several things at once for the Rays. It would reconfirm the franchise’s commitment to Montreal politicians and developers who are getting antsy about their up-in-the-air stadium plans near the city’s waterfront. It would also be a shot across the bow for Tampa Bay politicos who remain leery of the team’s sincerity about the split-season plan.

And, if the executive council agrees, it would be a tangible sign that Major League Baseball’s owners are seemingly losing faith — if it hasn’t already evaporated — in Tampa Bay’s ability to be a permanent, full-time home for the Rays.

Now maybe, as some people continue to believe, this is all part of a bluff. A three-card monte deal to distract everyone’s attention from the team’s true, unspecified intentions.

But, if so, it’s getting terribly elaborate and runs the risk of alienating more potential allies. Particularly when the Rays could simply bide their time for another six years while simultaneously cutting a deal in some other city to leave Tampa Bay as soon as the use agreement at Tropicana Field expires in 2027.

So how would the Rays go about getting permission from MLB’s executive council at this week’s owners meetings in Chicago? The same way they’ve been converting fans over lunches of dried-out chicken and broccolini at Tampa Bay speaking engagements the past two years.

The pitch is simple and has been honed to near-perfection as team president Brian Auld demonstrated at the Tampa Tiger Bay Club last week in Ybor City:

1. Tampa Bay and Montreal are both flawed markets but combined could generate enough revenue to allow the Rays to be a mid-tier team in terms of revenue/payroll.

2. Building smaller, boutique-style stadiums without roofs in each market would be less expensive and, thus, minimize the risk for municipalities that would be asked to contribute roughly half the cost.

3. The alternative is no Major League Baseball.

This last point is never framed as a threat, but simply a point of fact. Which, considering the historically poor level of attendance in Tampa Bay, the possibility is not that difficult to envision.

And while there are legitimate market-driven reasons for Tampa Bay’s poor attendance, it does not change the reality.

The Rays won 100 games in 2021 and finished second-to-last in the American League in attendance. That has never happened in more than a century of Major League Baseball. Not in Oakland, not in Cleveland, not in Seattle, not in Minnesota. What’s worse is the Rays were coming off a World Series appearance in 2020, so enthusiasm should have been as high as any market in the AL.

And, no, the pandemic is not to blame. COVID existed in every city and the Rays still drew fewer fans than virtually every MLB market.

Tampa Bay’s geography, population and demographics will always make attendance a challenge, but drawing as poorly as the Rays have while making seven postseason appearances in the last 14 years is not simply a red flag. It’s more like a white flag.

So does this mean politicians should be rushing to City Hall looking for loose tax dollars for a Rays stadium? Heck no. The economic and societal return on building a stadium still needs to be weighed against other community investments in either Hillsborough or Pinellas counties.

But the direction this is heading does suggest the shared city plan is not some street-corner hustle. As skeptical as I was about the plan two years ago, I’ve come to believe in ownership’s sincerity.

The Rays have done enough on the field and in the community in recent seasons to deserve the benefit of the doubt when they say their focus is on the sister city plan.

You may not like it and you may not think it is feasible.

But it’s time to at least take it seriously.

John Romano can be reached at jromano@tampabay.com Follow @romano_tbtimes.

[Né entre les rapides]

On nous présente (voir l'article cité dans le message précédent) la garde partagée comme étant le nec plus ultra du romantisme maintenant?  Et si après tout ce n'était pas si loin de la réalité!  Mais ce n'est pas pour moi.

L'article prétend que "Tampa Bay and Montreal are both flawed markets, but combined...", ce avec quoi je ne suis pas d'accord en autant que Montréal est concernée.  Au point où nous en sommes rendus, à l'aube de l'année 2022, je préférerais attendre jusqu'en 2028 pour avoir une équipe de plein droit.    

Afin que Bronfman et cie. changent d'idée et rejettent l'option de la garde partagée, il faudrait que les partisans des Expos fassent majoritairement connaître leur rejet.  Qu'arriverait-il à Tampa Bay si vers la fin de 2027 ou préférablement bien avant, la garde partagée n'était plus une option?  La franchise s'évaporerait-elle à la fin de la saison?  -- Non; elle aurait encore une bonne valeur marchande, à condition d'être déménagée -- à Montréal plutôt qu'ailleurs.

Alternativement, en supposant 1) que la garde partagée soit malgré tout la voie choisie et 2) que Bronfman et cie.  trouvent les fonds nécessaires pour un nouveau stade et leurs parts de l'équipe, qu'arriverait-il si 3) c'était un échec dans les deux villes, ou si 4) Montréal s'avérait un grand succès tandis que Tampa Bay était encore un plus grand flop?  -- Selon quelle formule les revenus combinés seraient-ils partagés?

Brian Auld et Stephen Bronfman se montrent plus optimistes que moi; je les croirai vraiment (tout en demeurant pessimiste) quand je les verrai tous les deux investir dans de nouveaux stades dans leurs villes respectives.  

[JayDee]

 

[Rocco]

Emmenez la pépine au plus vite sur le Bassin Peel, ça presse. Depuis le temps qu'on en parle en coulisses, y'é temps d'agir. Pis ça prend combien de temps construire un stade? 2-3 ans? Construire les voies d'accès, etc.. La relocalisation est pas pour demain..... Jpense pas qu'il vont aller jouer au Big O avant que l'autre soit prêt, ca serait l'art de tuer le momentum dans l'oeuf.

[Now]

Le 2010-06-22 à 23:35, ToxiK a dit :

 

MLB is not interested in Montréal. They have a team in Toronto, so they have the whole canadian market covered (remember: Toronto is Canada).

 

MLB would much rather have a team in smaller American cities like Raleigh-Durham, Portland or Indianapolis, where the local TV market can be more profitable to the national broadcasters.

Premièrement le baseball majeur est très intéresser à avoir un club à Montréal, Mr. Manfred l'a dit mainte fois et son bras droit est John McHale jr. et en 1969 il était là avec son père qui était président des Expos à l'époque, alors sur quelle hypothèse vous dites cela ?

Premièrement le baseball majeur est très intéresser à avoir un club à Montréal, Mr. Manfred l'a dit mainte fois et son bras droit est John McHale jr. et en 1969 il était là avec son père qui était président des Expos à l'époque, alors sur quelle hypothèse vous dites cela ?