https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bally%...on?wprov=sfla1

Employees will get 2k per year they worked at Tropicana for severance pay. Some have been there for 30 years.

Everything about the A's beyond next season is pretty murky.

For one they don't have a stadium for 2025 and beyond. Leaving Oakland after next season means that Comcast gets out of its $70mil/season broadcasting deal that's contingent on the A's playing in the Bay Area which is the 10th largest media market in the US. If they play a couple seasons in a AAA park, no matter if that's in Sacramento, Salt Lake City or Vegas, they need a new TV contract that will pay a fraction of what they're getting right now.

Not only do the A's have the lowest payroll in MLB right now, they've never had one >$100mil. Playing in a ballpark with roughly 10k seats and without a meaningful TV deal means there's significantly less money to spend. OTOH when they filed for the move with MLB they talked about a $170mil payroll for their first season in Vegas. Calling that "highly unlikely" might be the understatement of the year.

Re Tropicana site in Vegas, apparently there's not enough room for a stadium with a retractable roof and the planned hotel & entertainment complex. At almost any other site they could suck it up and spend more money to build vertically instead of horizontally. But it looks like that's not possible because they're right next to the airport.

All you need to know about john Fisher in one quote:

10k seats are more than enough for the A's.

Whoever owns Tropicana is jumping the gun without cast in stone contracts. Another rumor I read was Salt Lake City. It would suck to shut down the Trop, fire all those people, and then find out the deal is off.

Salt Lake City is in the running as a temporary home from 2025 to 2028. Their goal is to prove they're a viable candidate for an expansion team when the league goes to 32 teams.

To be clear, none of the current speculations from credible sources involve the A's not moving to Las Vegas. That deal has already been approved. Something absolutely dramatic would have to happen for them to stay in Oakland or move somewhere else. The unresolved questions aren't about Vegas as a city but about where they will play. There are several other options with the most obvious alternative site in the area of the Rio.

The Tropicana is over 60 years old and had one mayor remodel over the last 30+ years. I stayed there for a couple days soon after they reopened in early 2011 and really liked what they did but it was obvious that wouldn't last forever. That casino was going to be replaced sooner than later with or without an MLB ballpark.

https://www.si.com/mlb/athletics/new...n-to-las-vegas

It seems like it always goes back to that inept owner. Does MLB have any sort of rule in place where they can basically remove a team if the owner is so incompetent and unwilling to work with them? It’s one thing to run your own team into the ground but now you’re making MLB as a whole look like a joke.

I've read that article. Outside of the sensational headline there's nothing in there that hasn't been posted somewhere else over the last week including on fieldofschemes.com who put a ton of effort into that stuff.

But there's nothing that says MLB was about to revoke their relocation approval. Nobody even knows if they can do that without getting sued for billions. As of now the only realistic path of stopping the move would be if John Fisher decides to pull the plug himself because he's not getting a stadium built or another city offers him significantly better terms.

MLB is going to give Fisher a lot of leeway to make sure he's getting that stadium in Vegas. The by far biggest fear of owners is for other teams not getting public money because that means they might not get public money next time they ask. Same thing with the Royals and the April vote on an extension of a current sales tax to fund their new stadium. MLB can't get to their expansion plans without all current stadium questions being resolved because they need the threat of relocation for that.

RIP Tropicana, I went there right after the remodel. Last thing I remember I was in a teepee out by the pool. All banged up from boozing for 24 hours and I think I did a snort of coke in that teepee. Good times imo

No way in hell that happens.

Some years back, there was a development east side of the strip (Mandalay Bay/Luxor area). It apparently stalled; last time I was down there, there were what appeared to be a couple of elevator columns and no further construction.

It occurred to me today: rather than knocking down Tropicana, why didn't/don't they use all that empty space a little further south?

Trop owners got paid. They prob weren't the only ones.

That place is close enough to the airport that there are hight restrictions. Furthermore, the farther away you get from center strip the worse the attendance.

I absolutely hate renderings like that.

The reason I hate them is that depending upon the execution of the drawings, the park will either be a disaster or it will be great.

The devil is in the details, which these images do not show.

I also think that the stadium should have a large screen outside the stadium to show the game.

For a long time many people thought that showing the game for free outside the stadium was a loser because it gave away something for free.

It is not a loser. It is a long term money winner because the park can surround itself with vendors selling food and alcohol to the people watching on the free screen. It adds a certain vibe to the area and makes people want to go there even if they do not have a ticket.

It is the difference between being a just a transactional event and a must see event.

The Tropicana site has hight restrictions, too. That said, i'm not sure if they would even be allowed to build South of Trop right next to the airport.
It's promotional material, not how the park would look like in reality. For example, if you look at actual images of domed stadiums in the desert like for the 2022 soccer world cup, you see plenty of ductwork. There's none on those renderings which would mean no A/C. That's highly unlikely.

BTW, in case anyone was wondering why the renderings dropped out of the blue by a journalist from The Athletic:

That was to be another large ferris wheel. I'm not too sure that the footprint at that location is large enough for a stadium.

Sounds like they just haven't figured out A/C yet (same as funding) but want to do under the seat AC like they do in Sacramento's NBA arena.
https://venuesnow.com/as-in-vegas-cl...remium-in-mlb/

To nobody's surprise they're also going for MLBs highest proportion of premium seats.

TBF, the current location is also not large enough for a stadium. At least not with the surrounding area as originally planned/announced.