Another attempt to keep the Sun here. | The Boneyard

Another attempt to keep the Sun here.

☘️IrishEyes said:
www.espn.com

Connecticut proposal would see state take minority Sun stake

The state of Connecticut is proposing buying a minority stake in the Sun at a valuation higher than the WNBA's current $250 million offer in an effort to keep the team from moving away.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Expand ...

The W has already said that Boston will be a site in the future and then we will have the same problem the Whalers had and they will relocate.
I also don't like tax dollars going to subsidize the center of downtown Hartford.
 
Alydar said:
The W has already said that Boston will be a site in the future and then we will have the same problem the Whalers had and they will relocate.
I also don't like tax dollars going to subsidize the center of downtown Hartford.
Expand ...
The Sun and a Boston team can coexist
 
cellocgg said:
The Sun and a Boston team can coexist
Expand ...

not for long. Boston and NY would dominate the NY/Boston media market. It's an old problem, of young women and their desire to work in Hartford. The income potential in NY and Boston is immense compared to CT and the cultural activity is two universes. At some point the owner of the team would take it away to a new home in the sun belt, if only for business reasons.
 
Alydar said:
not for long. Boston and NY would dominate the NY/Boston media market.
Expand ...
Good thing Hartford is in the Connecticut market otherwise your point might make sense
 
EricLA said:
Connecticut just needs to give it up and stop trying to force the W or the team to stay in Connecticut.
Expand ...


…why?
 
.-.
CL82 said:
I struggle with the logic behind the WNBA saying Boston didn't request to be an "expansion" franchise therefore someone located in Boston can't buy and "existing" franchise.

Apples and oranges, no?
Expand ...
I don't know. I'm nowhere near an expert, and only know what I've read about it, which isn't a ton. Not sure if it was opinion pieces, or actually based in fact, but I did read that the WNBA didn't want the Sun to move to Boston BECAUSE they were not one of the 10 or so cities who originally submitted an expansion bid request that ultimately went to Golden State, Portland, and Toronto.

My understanding was that IF Boston had been one of the teams to submit the expansion bid at the time the WNBA was considering offers, they they might have been allowed to purchase the Sun. But because they did not, the WNBA was going to block the sale to them in favor of selling it to one of the already established franchise bid cities.
  1. City Proposals:
    Cities vying for a franchise submit a detailed proposal or bid to the league.

  2. In-Depth Evaluation:
    The WNBA conducts a robust evaluation of these proposals, assessing how well each city meets the key criteria.

  3. Scoring and Selection:
    Cities that score highly across all the considered factors are selected. The most recent expansion, which added teams in Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia, exemplified this thorough process.

GS was already given a team. Then came Portland and Toronto. For the next round, the deadline was January 30 and the following submitted bids (again, for the first 3 rounds, no bid from Boston)

Austin - Group of former Bucks owner Marc Lasry (very deep pockets), Kevin Durant, Fran Harris of the Comets are involved. Will play at UT, but will build a practice facility if they win the bid.

Charlotte - Erica Berman, part of Hornets ownership group leading this bid.

Cleveland - Bid by Dan Gilbert of the Cavs. Bid includes plan to build practice facility.

Denver - Dimond family (any further details on who they are?). Plan is to play in a purpose-built arena.

Detroit - Tom Gores, Pistons, as well as HOFers Chris Webber and Grant Hill, Lions owner. Will play at Little Caesars (Pistons) but will build dedicated practice facility.

Houston - Tillman Fertitta, Rockets. Will play at Toyota Center. No mention of practice facilities.

KC - KC Current owners, Brittany and Patrick Mahomes. Will be anchor tenant at T Mobile Center and will build separate practice facility.

Nashville - Predators owner. Would be called Tennessee Summit, in honor of Pat. Candace Parker, Faith Hill, Tim McGraw, Peyton Manning part of ownership. No other details

Philly - Sixers ownership group. City plans on new arena for Sixers/WNBA team. No mention of practice facility.

For me, I think a team in Boston is a no-brainer, but maybe they need to do more homework and put more effort into following what the WNBA is asking for, instead of trying to circumvent and jump in with a purchase of a team who wants to sell... But if I have read everything correctly, the WNBA wants the sun to move to Austin, Charlotte, Denver, Houston, KC, or Nashville (please never Nashville). I'm rooting for Denver or Kansas City.

One last note - now would be a great time for the WNBA to start laying down the law for current teams who are playing in ridiculously small arenas. Atlanta Dream - Gateway Center Arena (3,500 seats) and Washington Mystics - CareFirst Arena (4,200 seats). Both are a joke. Get a real arena or lose your franchise.
 
EricLA said:
I don't know. I'm nowhere near an expert, and only know what I've read about it, which isn't a ton. Not sure if it was opinion pieces, or actually based in fact, but I did read that the WNBA didn't want the Sun to move to Boston BECAUSE they were not one of the 10 or so cities who originally submitted an expansion bid request that ultimately went to Golden State, Portland, and Toronto.

My understanding was that IF Boston had been one of the teams to submit the expansion bid at the time the WNBA was considering offers, they they might have been allowed to purchase the Sun. But because they did not, the WNBA was going to block the sale to them in favor of selling it to one of the already established franchise bid cities.
  1. City Proposals:
    Cities vying for a franchise submit a detailed proposal or bid to the league.

  2. In-Depth Evaluation:
    The WNBA conducts a robust evaluation of these proposals, assessing how well each city meets the key criteria.

  3. Scoring and Selection:
    Cities that score highly across all the considered factors are selected. The most recent expansion, which added teams in Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia, exemplified this thorough process.

GS was already given a team. Then came Portland and Toronto. For the next round, the deadline was January 30 and the following submitted bids (again, for the first 3 rounds, no bid from Boston)

Austin - Group of former Bucks owner Marc Lasry (very deep pockets), Kevin Durant, Fran Harris of the Comets are involved. Will play at UT, but will build a practice facility if they win the bid.

Charlotte - Erica Berman, part of Hornets ownership group leading this bid.

Cleveland - Bid by Dan Gilbert of the Cavs. Bid includes plan to build practice facility.

Denver - Dimond family (any further details on who they are?). Plan is to play in a purpose-built arena.

Detroit - Tom Gores, Pistons, as well as HOFers Chris Webber and Grant Hill, Lions owner. Will play at Little Caesars (Pistons) but will build dedicated practice facility.

Houston - Tillman Fertitta, Rockets. Will play at Toyota Center. No mention of practice facilities.

KC - KC Current owners, Brittany and Patrick Mahomes. Will be anchor tenant at T Mobile Center and will build separate practice facility.

Nashville - Predators owner. Would be called Tennessee Summit, in honor of Pat. Candace Parker, Faith Hill, Tim McGraw, Peyton Manning part of ownership. No other details

Philly - Sixers ownership group. City plans on new arena for Sixers/WNBA team. No mention of practice facility.

For me, I think a team in Boston is a no-brainer, but maybe they need to do more homework and put more effort into following what the WNBA is asking for, instead of trying to circumvent and jump in with a purchase of a team who wants to sell... But if I have read everything correctly, the WNBA wants the sun to move to Austin, Charlotte, Denver, Houston, KC, or Nashville (please never Nashville). I'm rooting for Denver or Kansas City.

One last note - now would be a great time for the WNBA to start laying down the law for current teams who are playing in ridiculously small arenas. Atlanta Dream - Gateway Center Arena (3,500 seats) and Washington Mystics - CareFirst Arena (4,200 seats). Both are a joke. Get a real arena or lose your franchise.
Expand ...
Yeah, I still see expansion in buying an existent franchise as being two different things. If you want to say open a new KFC franchise, there may be limits on where you can open it based upon people who already have franchises, but if you want to buy the franchise, I already own that's between you and me. That's the way I view it in any event.
 
CL82 said:
Yeah, I still see expansion in buying an existent franchise as being two different things. If you want to say open a new KFC franchise, there may be limits on where you can open it based upon people who already have franchises, but if you want to buy the franchise, I already own that's between you and me. That's the way I view it in any event.
Expand ...
We're saying the same thing. I think Boston should be able to buy the Sun. Especially when they were offering something like $325M while the WNBA was offering $250M to buy them so they could sell the franchise to one of the preferred cities.
 
I think that the state of CT is on the right warpath by making an offer to become a minority owner. That's exactly what the Minnesota Twins owner recently did when he failed to find a buyer. Instead he sold a minority stake at a valuation slightly higher than the asking price so that he could cover $400 million in loans that were made in large part due to borrowing during the covid years.
Similiarly the Sun have loans due that were pushed out to 2030 & 2031 prior to their attempt to sell the team.
Then the state's offer could make it the proverbial white knight that could satisfy the tribe & the league & the fans in CT.
After CT was duped by Kraft & the Patriots, hopefully the state has found a way to hold on to a pro franchise for once.
Since CT has lost businesses to Boston (such as GE), it would be quite an accomplishment to be able to keep the Sun in CT.
The Mohegan casino can't leave CT, which gives them every reason to fight on behalf of the state to protect their name and to reinforce their goodwill towards the CT residents who compose the majority of customers who support their casino empire.
The tribe needs to ffght to maintain their reputation of being good stewards for the team.
 
sun said:
I think that the state of CT is on the right warpath by making an offer to become a minority owner. That's exactly what the Minnesota Twins owner recently did when he failed to find a buyer. Instead he sold a minority stake at a valuation slightly higher than the asking price so that he could cover $400 million in loans that were made in large part due to borrowing during the covid years.
Similiarly the Sun have loans due that were pushed out to 2030 & 2031 prior to their attempt to sell the team.
Then the state's offer could make it the proverbial white knight that could satisfy the tribe & the league & the fans in CT.
After CT was duped by Kraft & the Patriots, hopefully the state has found a way to hold on to a pro franchise for once.
Since CT has lost businesses to Boston (such as GE), it would be quite an accomplishment to be able to keep the Sun in CT.
The Mohegan casino can't leave CT, which gives them every reason to fight on behalf of the state to protect their name and to reinforce their goodwill towards the CT residents who compose the majority of customers who support their casino empire.
The tribe needs to ffght to maintain their reputation of being good stewards for the team.
Expand ...
I actually think the state should sit on the sidelines. I don't think the Sun brings a big enough multiplier effect to justify investment in it. I'm not sure how much they get out of being a minority interest holder, but I guess getting a bit of equity back is better than just handing the Sun a bucket of cash.

For what it's worth, the university of Connecticut has a bigger multiplier effect, based upon number of teams, number of games, and relative popularity. If the state is throwing around money to subsidize athletics, the best way to do that is to stop charging us to use State owned or controlled facilities. We pay above market rent to use the PBA (former Hartford Civic Center) for the men's basketball team, the women's basketball team, occasionally for the hockey team. We also pay to use Rentschler field for football. These events are being played in the greater Hartford area because the state feels as if they are an economic engine. Currently, the state pays University of Connecticut, which pays for the athletic department, to pay the CDRA so that a portion of its multimillion dollar annual operating loss is, effectively, hidden in the athletic departments budget. This makes the athletic department look less successful, and thus makes the university less desirable target. The. CDRA is a state agency so it's an annual deficit is paid for by the state, meaning that the money it comes from the State and is ultimately paid to the state. The only real world impact of the existing process is that it hides a portion of the CDRA's annual losses inside the state of Connecticut budget. If they eliminate the circular transfer of money, then the Connecticut athletic department's financials look much healthier. Given that we only play in Hartford because the State wants us to come in further given that ultimately the state pays for it either way. This makes more sense.
 
Last edited:
.-.
The State of CT needs to look long and hard before any investment of taxpayer dollars in invested in the Sun or any other pro sports teams.

First of all the State should not be taking a financial interest in a private enterprise.

Has a detailed Return of Investment study been done on how the State will recoup the $100 MILLION dollars that has been proposed to build a practice facility for the Sun? The $100 million will be even more than that since my assumption is that these funds will be borrowed so there will be debt issuance costs and interest over the length of the bonds. Plus as with most projects there will be over runs to the $100 millon estimate.

Has anyone put pen to paper to determine the revenues the State will receive. Yes there will be taxes on tickets sold, hopefully a rental fee for use of the Civic Center and the practice facility. I presume businesses in Hartford will see an uptick in sales on game days thus creating additional income that will be taxed. Yes there will be additional employees at the arena and Hartford businesses creating additional income for them and increased income taxes payable to The State. ut $100 MILLION is a lot to recoup.

There needs to be quantification of the return vs cost. Not just a blanket statement that this will be good for Hartford.

I think CT needs to accept the fact that being located between New York and Boston will hamper the support for a major league pro franchise when competing with the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Celtis, Knicks, Giants, Patriots, Rangers, Bruins etc.

Having lived in CT 65+ years I accept that reality.

GO HUSKIES
 
CL82 said:
I actually think the state should sit on the sidelines. I don't think the Sun brings a big enough multiplier effect to justify investment in it. I'm not sure how much they get out of being a minority interest holder, but I guess getting a bit of equity back is better than just handing the Sun a bucket of cash.

For what it's worth, the university of Connecticut has a bigger multiplier effect, based upon number of teams, number of games, and relative popularity. If the state is throwing around money to subsidize athletics, the best way to do that is to stop charging us to use State owned or controlled facilities. We pay above market rent to use the PBA (former Hartford Civic Center) for the men's basketball team, the women's basketball team, occasionally for the hockey team. We also pay to use Rentschler field for football. These events are being played in the greater Hartford area because the state feels as if they are an economic engine. Currently, the state pays University of Connecticut, which pays for the athletic department, to pay the CDRA so that a portion of its multimillion dollar annual operating loss is, effectively, hidden in the athletic departments budget. This makes the athletic department look less successful, and thus makes the university less desirable target. The. CDRA is a state agency so it's an annual deficit is paid for by the state, meaning that the money it comes from the State and is ultimately paid to the state. The only real world impact of the existing process is that it hides a portion of the CDRA's annual losses inside the state of Connecticut budget. If they eliminate the circular transfer of money, then the Connecticut athletic department's financials look much healthier. Given that we only play in Hartford because the State wants us to come in further given that ultimately the state pays for it either way. This makes more sense.
Expand ...
The University pays a small amount of rent as compared to the debt service it would've cost to build/refurbish the Rent (or put it on campus) and to build or refurbished 16,000 seat on-campus arena. Having no debt on its books certainly is a big plus for the Athletic Department and should especially help in the NIL/revenue share era.
 
cullaville said:
The State of CT needs to look long and hard before any investment of taxpayer dollars in invested in the Sun or any other pro sports teams.

First of all the State should not be taking a financial interest in a private enterprise.

Has a detailed Return of Investment study been done on how the State will recoup the $100 MILLION dollars that has been proposed to build a practice facility for the Sun? The $100 million will be even more than that since my assumption is that these funds will be borrowed so there will be debt issuance costs and interest over the length of the bonds. Plus as with most projects there will be over runs to the $100 millon estimate.

Has anyone put pen to paper to determine the revenues the State will receive. Yes there will be taxes on tickets sold, hopefully a rental fee for use of the Civic Center and the practice facility. I presume businesses in Hartford will see an uptick in sales on game days thus creating additional income that will be taxed. Yes there will be additional employees at the arena and Hartford businesses creating additional income for them and increased income taxes payable to The State. ut $100 MILLION is a lot to recoup.

There needs to be quantification of the return vs cost. Not just a blanket statement that this will be good for Hartford.

I think CT needs to accept the fact that being located between New York and Boston will hamper the support for a major league pro franchise when competing with the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Celtis, Knicks, Giants, Patriots, Rangers, Bruins etc.

Having lived in CT 65+ years I accept that reality.

GO HUSKIES
Expand ...
Buy low and sell high. This might’ve made sense in 2003, but my thinking is the W is a house of cards.
 
cullaville said:
The State of CT needs to look long and hard before any investment of taxpayer dollars in invested in the Sun or any other pro sports teams.

First of all the State should not be taking a financial interest in a private enterprise.

Has a detailed Return of Investment study been done on how the State will recoup the $100 MILLION dollars that has been proposed to build a practice facility for the Sun? The $100 million will be even more than that since my assumption is that these funds will be borrowed so there will be debt issuance costs and interest over the length of the bonds. Plus as with most projects there will be over runs to the $100 millon estimate.

Has anyone put pen to paper to determine the revenues the State will receive. Yes there will be taxes on tickets sold, hopefully a rental fee for use of the Civic Center and the practice facility. I presume businesses in Hartford will see an uptick in sales on game days thus creating additional income that will be taxed. Yes there will be additional employees at the arena and Hartford businesses creating additional income for them and increased income taxes payable to The State. ut $100 MILLION is a lot to recoup.

There needs to be quantification of the return vs cost. Not just a blanket statement that this will be good for Hartford.

I think CT needs to accept the fact that being located between New York and Boston will hamper the support for a major league pro franchise when competing with the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Celtis, Knicks, Giants, Patriots, Rangers, Bruins etc.

Having lived in CT 65+ years I accept that reality.

GO HUSKIES
Expand ...
The state shouldn’t invest in a private business? But it’s ok for the federal government?

And the destination was pegged as Houston, not Boston.
 
I'd love to see many many more UConn player connections made by playing with the CONNECTICUT Sun some day in the future. But I'm not interested at all if they're not going to stay in the state. Perhaps someday there will be an inside pipeline of UConn players to the Sun which would only have a spinoff effect from UConn's popularity. Just imagine if Paige ever signed with the Sun, or Stewie. Plus more. This could really have a snowball effect that would be too much of an opportunity for the WNBA to refuse to capitalize on. It could certainly go a long way toward making CT truely the basketball capital of the world in more than name only, and concerning more than just the NCAA.
No one can predict the future but like Gov. Lamont says in his new commercial, "If you can dream itt then you can make it in CT."
We should all hope that the Sun can continue to make basketball history in CT, whether by hook or by crook.
They were the 1st WNBA ream to turn a profit.
It's the WNBA that's dirt in my book since Hartford is not a true relocation.
If the WNBA wants to play that way then I'm all for the the state making them an offer and sicing Bluementhal on them too.
 
CTFAN4LIFE said:
The University pays a small amount of rent as compared to the debt service it would've cost to build/refurbish the Rent (or put it on campus) and to build or refurbished 16,000 seat on-campus arena. Having no debt on its books certainly is a big plus for the Athletic Department and should especially help in the NIL/revenue share era.
Expand ...
I'm not sure that that's actually accurate, particularly when you include the lost revenue from parking in concessions with the cost of above market rent for a half century, but in any event, it is based on a flawed premise. Whether the state owns an athletic facility in Hartford, or owns it in Storrs through the university, it's still owned by the state. So the notion that the university would have to independently finance a stadium in Storrs is a flawed one.

But in any event, no one is suggesting demolishing the PBA in building a 16,000 seat arena in Storrs. What I am saying is the state paying the university to pay the athletic department to pay the CDRA to pay the state is a nonsensical transaction that exist solely to hide a portion of the annual multimillion dollar CDRA losses in the university's athletic department budget.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
I'm not sure that that's actually accurate, particularly when you include the lost revenue from parking in concessions with the cost of above market rent for a half century, but in any event, it is based on a flawed premise. Whether the state owns an athletic facility in Hartford, or owns it in Storrs through the university, it's still owned by the state. So the notion that the university would have to independently finance a stadium in Storrs is a flawed one.

But in any event, no one is suggesting demolishing the PBA in building a 16,000 seat arena in Storrs. What I am saying is the state paying the university to pay the athletic department to pay the CDRA to pay the state is a nonsensical transaction that exist solely to hide a portion of the annual multimillion dollar CDRA losses in the university's athletic department budget.
Expand ...
We can argue around and around on this but one thing stands true - unlike many other universities UConn is not carrying hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities debt and I'm glad we're not in their camp...

Here's an AI Overview:
Universities with significant athletic stadium debts as of early 2025 include Illinois ($312.5 million), Ohio State ($286.7 million), Michigan ($252.8 million), Penn State ($246.9 million), Washington ($244.4 million), and Iowa ($227.8 million). Other institutions like UCLA ($102.8 million) and Cal (around $445 million) also have substantial debts, with Cal's having payments extending to 2112. Many other schools face substantial debt, but these are among the highest reported.
 
I am not a resident of CT, don’t own any property there, don’t pay any taxes there in CT at all. I really have no dog in the fight.

With that being said, 1) it is not uncommon for public funds to be involved in the construction of sporting venues. Often times it is a concoction of private money and public, and the public money can be a combination of State and local. 2) It may not be the only occurrence, but it would be uncommon to have public money invested in the actual sporting team. I believe the Green Bay Packers are owned by the local municipal government, and they have done very well with that. Of course that is the NFL which is on the opposite side of the profitability spectrum than that of the WNBA.

In modern America, we tend to think that the government has an unlimited checkbook, but the reality is that it’s your money. How do you folks that live in CT feel about your current State and Local government. Do you feel that you are under taxed for the services that you receive. Or, do you feel that your taxes are excessive now and not well spent?

I don’t have a dog in your fight as noted. I can tell you however that I am not a fan of any of my tax dollars being spent on the construction of the new stadium for the Las Vegas Raiders, nor the new stadium for the Las Vegas A’s. Part of that is that I live 450 miles away. It’s an equivalent distance as from Storrs to Richmond,VA. I just don’t seem to be getting great bang for my buck with having those two professional sports teams home facilities packaged into my payroll. JMHO.
 
Threatening to sue the WNBA to keep the Sun in CT is an act of sheer desperation.
 
My point was about the State of CT investment but no the Federal Government should not be investing in private enterprises
 
CTFAN4LIFE said:
We can argue around and around on this but one thing stands true - unlike many other universities UConn is not carrying hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities debt and I'm glad we're not in their camp...

Here's an AI Overview:
Universities with significant athletic stadium debts as of early 2025 include Illinois ($312.5 million), Ohio State ($286.7 million), Michigan ($252.8 million), Penn State ($246.9 million), Washington ($244.4 million), and Iowa ($227.8 million). Other institutions like UCLA ($102.8 million) and Cal (around $445 million) also have substantial debts, with Cal's having payments extending to 2112. Many other schools face substantial debt, but these are among the highest reported.
Expand ...
Lol, so you're saying that Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State are all in worse financial circumstances than we are? That list effectively proves the point that caring debt in and of itself isn't an evil in end of itself.

If you want to have some fun, go and look at the athletic department franchises values that was posted in a different thread. Look at those schools position versus our schools position.

You're welcome.
 
.-.
cullaville said:
My point was about the State of CT investment but no the Federal Government should not be investing in private enterprises
Expand ...
It already does via loans, venture capital, incentives, bailouts, etc. They don't take ownership stakes but there is federal investment.
 
cullaville said:
My point was about the State of CT investment but no the Federal Government should not be investing in private enterprises
Expand ...
Like pretty much all answers, you have to qualify that with a big "depends." I would suggest that there are times where it makes sense and is in the country's best interest. The problem is that "investing" the due diligence consists of how much cash you can load into a dump truck and dump on the institution. Like you, I have a very healthy skepticism about it because politicians think like politicians and not businessmen. Dumping wheelbarrels full of cash on companies because it makes a political statement is inevitably a bad decision.

That said I feel like we're getting into political drift so let's end it here.
 
reelfan said:
Threatening to sue the WNBA to keep the Sun in CT is an act of sheer desperation.
Expand ...
But right out of Blumenthol's playbook apparently...
 
CL82 said:
Lol, so you're saying that Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State are all in worse financial circumstances than we are? That list effectively proves the point that caring debt in and of itself isn't an evil in end of itself.

If you want to have some fun, go and look at the athletic department franchises values that was posted in a different thread. Look at those schools position versus our schools position.

You're welcome.
Expand ...
I'm not saying Ohio State, Michigan, PSU are in a worse situation, you did... most of the top 20 revenue generating AD's also carry debt and many run in the red operating-wise. Just because you have high end revenue it doesn't mean you make a profit. It also doesn't mean you aren't concerned about revenue/expenses/bottom line. Heck, just today the Ohio State President is talking about the Big10 one day having an unequal revenue distribution model like the ACC. I'd say every D1 school is concerned with every aspect of their budgets; especially now with athlete revenue share, NIL, reduced academic research grants, etc.
 
WHY?? The TV channel that televises most of the Sun's game is in BOSTON!

Why don't all the concerned people who are working so hard to keep the Sun in Connecticut. speak to some CT channels?
 
Monte said:
WHY?? The TV channel that televises most of the Sun's game is in BOSTON!

Why don't all the concerned people who are working so hard to keep the Sun in Connecticut. speak to some CT channels?
Expand ...
NESN covers yard goats games when the Red Sox are not playing. Maybe we should move them Boston University’s baseball stadium. Our beloved team used to be on SNY all the time. Maybe they should be moved to New York
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,491
Messages
4,578,051
Members
10,487
Latest member
husky62


Top Bottom