(06-10-2013 02:18 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 11:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't know what Susie Byrd meant to say and I don't know how you would know either.

All I know is that she said the construction cost would be 50 million.

In that statement, construction costs includes the design and planning. No need to become Chicken Little and declare the sky is falling.

I'm just reporting the facts. You seem to be the one attempting to read her mind.

Susie Byrd is not the project manager. She could say the project is going to cost 100 million and that doesn't make it true. Yes, it's a fact that she said that, but it is not a fact that the construction portion of the stadium is going to be 50 million.

(06-11-2013 03:29 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  Susie Byrd is not the project manager. She could say the project is going to cost 100 million and that doesn't make it true. Yes, it's a fact that she said that, but it is not a fact that the construction portion of the stadium is going to be 50 million.

I've never had an issue with what hte project manager said. Only what City Council has said to the public.

When Susie Byrd says construction cost will be 50 million and the documents say 40 million.

It poses a problem.

(06-10-2013 01:53 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 11:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  When you compare the process to how Oklahoma city did it. I think we would have had better support had we done it the way Oklahoma city did it.

While I am not 100% familiar with how OKC did it, I can see where you are coming from. Then again, I know the position in the city was. There were legit concerns about acquiring the franchise if we didn't move quick. There were going to be some unhappy puppies either way.

OKC brought in the public who oversaw the process and singed off along the way. We still could have done that without compromising the time frame.

It just feels as if the council used the time frame as an excuse to keep the public out of the loop.

That is the bottom line here. Is that the public was left out of the loop. If they hadn't done that, support would have been much higher.

(06-11-2013 04:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  OKC brought in the public who oversaw the process and singed off along the way. We still could have done that without compromising the time frame.

I don't know if that is true. The earliest the citizens could have voted on it was November. The sellers claimed they would not wait that long.

(06-11-2013 02:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It just feels as if the council used the time frame as an excuse to keep the public out of the loop.

The public was in the loop. The public just didn't have a say. Different issues.

(06-11-2013 02:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That is the bottom line here. Is that the public was left out of the loop. If they hadn't done that, support would have been much higher.

If the public had a say, then the naysayers would have been much happier, is a better way to put it.

(06-11-2013 04:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 03:29 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  Susie Byrd is not the project manager. She could say the project is going to cost 100 million and that doesn't make it true. Yes, it's a fact that she said that, but it is not a fact that the construction portion of the stadium is going to be 50 million.

I've never had an issue with what hte project manager said. Only what City Council has said to the public.

When Susie Byrd says construction cost will be 50 million and the documents say 40 million.

It poses a problem.

Not really. What Susie Byrd is quoted as saying in one interview is not a big deal. You inferred one thing. I inferred another. Susie Byrd is not going to cut a check for 50 million dollars. Non issue.

(06-11-2013 07:44 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 03:29 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  Susie Byrd is not the project manager. She could say the project is going to cost 100 million and that doesn't make it true. Yes, it's a fact that she said that, but it is not a fact that the construction portion of the stadium is going to be 50 million.

I've never had an issue with what hte project manager said. Only what City Council has said to the public.

When Susie Byrd says construction cost will be 50 million and the documents say 40 million.

It poses a problem.

Not really. What Susie Byrd is quoted as saying in one interview is not a big deal. You inferred one thing. I inferred another. Susie Byrd is not going to cut a check for 50 million dollars. Non issue.

It may not be an issue to you because you seem not to care what this thing will end up costing. It does however confuse the situation for those who are keeping score.

They could have waited til November. To this day, not one person has put forth a city that was interested in purchasing this team. Even if they didn't put it to a vote, it wouldn't have been difficult to allow public input. Yes, you will always have naysayers but it isn't as bad if you allow them to be in the process. They did it with downtown revitalization and garnered much more support.

(06-13-2013 12:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  They could have waited til November. To this day, not one person has put forth a city that was interested in purchasing this team.

Let's call this a stalemate. You are going to believe what you want regarding this. I could pull a Fitbud and copy/paste articles from the MiLB site(s) about franchises trying to get AAA teams relocated but it really isn't worth the effort. There are many MLB teams that want to relocate their AAA team to a suburb near their park.

(06-13-2013 12:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Even if they didn't put it to a vote, it wouldn't have been difficult to allow public input. Yes, you will always have naysayers but it isn't as bad if you allow them to be in the process. They did it with downtown revitalization and garnered much more support.

They did. There were many public meetings regarding the stadium open to the public. Not just City Council meetings.

(06-13-2013 12:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It may not be an issue to you because you seem not to care what this thing will end up costing. It does however confuse the situation for those who are keeping score.

What makes you think I do not care what the stadium project will end up costing? Explain. Expand. Specifically.

Are you saying I have not been "keeping score?" If so, that may be dumbest thing you have said on this forum - and that is saying a lot. I am the one that has constantly known exactly who has said what. You are the one that has wildly said "they," "them," etc. You haven't known the difference between City Council and the City Planner. Only recently, have you desperately grabbed at random quotes in a weak attempt to save face. You can't make your case so you grasp on a quote and play on technicalities. You are the one who has to reply with "whatever," "let's put it another way," etc.

The City already voted on and passed the motion on the stadium costing 52.8 million dollars. Now you think that is going to be overruled because Byrd said construction of the baseball stadium is going to be 50 million?

As you would say, "whatever."

MountainStar to pitch in 12.1 million dollars toward the stadium.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_23452983

Interesting news.

This from the article you posted.

Late last month, city officials withdrew a request asking the City Council to add up to $10 million to the ballpark construction contract - half of which was slated as a contingency to pay for amenities that may not have been covered under the original $40 million contract.

(06-13-2013 11:29 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 12:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It may not be an issue to you because you seem not to care what this thing will end up costing. It does however confuse the situation for those who are keeping score.

What makes you think I do not care what the stadium project will end up costing? Explain. Expand. Specifically.

Are you saying I have not been "keeping score?" If so, that may be dumbest thing you have said on this forum - and that is saying a lot. I am the one that has constantly known exactly who has said what. You are the one that has wildly said "they," "them," etc. You haven't known the difference between City Council and the City Planner. Only recently, have you desperately grabbed at random quotes in a weak attempt to save face. You can't make your case so you grasp on a quote and play on technicalities. You are the one who has to reply with "whatever," "let's put it another way," etc.

The City already voted on and passed the motion on the stadium costing 52.8 million dollars. Now you think that is going to be overruled because Byrd said construction of the baseball stadium is going to be 50 million?

As you would say, "whatever."

I have tried repeatedly to explain things to you. When I simply put them in my own words you say that I have no facts. When I give you the facts you say to stop the copy and paste.

Susie Byrd is quoted as saying that the construction cost would be 50 million.

Today's paper states that the construction cost would be 40 million.

Now city council will vote to increase that to 60.8 million.

Are these not the facts? If so, how do you feel about it.

I'm willing to bet you are going to be perfectly okay with this.

So let's just cut to the chase and answer this question.

If you truly care about how much this thing is going to cost. Why don't you simply give me a number.

What cost will finally convince you that this is going too far?

Just give me a city. That isn't too much to ask.

And you say I'm the one who dismisses stuff with whatever?

I ask you to simply give me a city who wanted to buy this team and you say " let's just call it a stalemate"?

The public meetings regarding the stadium did not involve the city asking the public where we should put the stadium and how much we should spend on it.

The meetings simply were more like........here is what we are going to buy and here is where we want to put it.

(06-13-2013 07:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just give me a city. That isn't too much to ask.

And you say I'm the one who dismisses stuff with whatever?

I ask you to simply give me a city who wanted to buy this team

Hey... I just replied to a post of yours 5 minutes ago, which claimed something to the effect that you weren't against El Paso getting a team... You're a piece of work, fit.

Shove it where the sun don't shine, fit....

http://www.kvia.com/news/mountainstar-sp...index.html

(06-13-2013 07:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:29 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 12:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It may not be an issue to you because you seem not to care what this thing will end up costing. It does however confuse the situation for those who are keeping score.

What makes you think I do not care what the stadium project will end up costing? Explain. Expand. Specifically.

Are you saying I have not been "keeping score?" If so, that may be dumbest thing you have said on this forum - and that is saying a lot. I am the one that has constantly known exactly who has said what. You are the one that has wildly said "they," "them," etc. You haven't known the difference between City Council and the City Planner. Only recently, have you desperately grabbed at random quotes in a weak attempt to save face. You can't make your case so you grasp on a quote and play on technicalities. You are the one who has to reply with "whatever," "let's put it another way," etc.

The City already voted on and passed the motion on the stadium costing 52.8 million dollars. Now you think that is going to be overruled because Byrd said construction of the baseball stadium is going to be 50 million?

As you would say, "whatever."

I have tried repeatedly to explain things to you. When I simply put them in my own words you say that I have no facts. When I give you the facts you say to stop the copy and paste.

Susie Byrd is quoted as saying that the construction cost would be 50 million.

Today's paper states that the construction cost would be 40 million.

Now city council will vote to increase that to 60.8 million.

Are these not the facts? If so, how do you feel about it.

I'm willing to bet you are going to be perfectly okay with this.

So let's just cut to the chase and answer this question.

If you truly care about how much this thing is going to cost. Why don't you simply give me a number.

What cost will finally convince you that this is going too far?

Mountain Star Sports group is pumping 12.1 million into it..... OK, Ready, Spin, GO!

You don't have the ability to explain things to me. You don't have a firm grip on the project. If you had made a solid point - just once - everyone wouldn't constantly crap on you. Reread the various threads. All you can do is deflect. I have enjoyed it.

This is not a court of law where a quote can make or break a case. Regardless of what is technically said.

Regardless of how you want to spin it:

Byrd was talking about the whole project and not just construction costs.

40 million'ish is the actual construction costs and not the entire budget of the project.

The City and MountainStar appear to have settled on a design plan and MountainStar is going to kick in 12.1 million to make that project happen.

That's the score as it stands now. What is the problem?

40 million in original construction costs. Not total budget.