Little did I know that re-posting my MCC Fantasy Baseball article would lead to a discussion, but it did.

Here is what Laredo57 said,

I’m not in favor of government subsidizing private enterprise, nor am I a fan of typical political double talk. Under normal circumstances I would support your position on the stadium, however, based on your Rockford stadium analysis I’m not sure I trust any of your analysis of the situation.
Rockford increased their attendance by 398 people per game.

A 19.3% increase.

That’s a total increase of 27,860 people for the season.

Therefore the new stadium cost only $251 per person if you only ammoritize it over one year, which you and I both know has no purpose.

In the 2nd year of the new stadium they were not only able to maintain the 19% increase from the previous year but added a .5%.

If $30 is the average amount spent at a game then the stadium will be paid off by increased attendance in just 8 years. Probably not a bad deal.

Using the numbers in such an awkward way makes me, a person generally on your side, wonder how many other times you are manipulating the facts to to prove a point.

If something is wrong, fiscally, socially or politically it’s wrong. The facts need not be distorted to prove it’s wrong.

I asked my baseball stadium friend of the blog and got this rebuttal. Since this is the first indication that anyone has given critical thought to the McHenry County College baseball stadium, based on the 2nd so far unreported review by Economics Research Associates of baseball promoter Pete Heitman’s and his buddy Mark Houser’s projected numbers, I thought I would share both with you.

Friend of the blog reply:

According to the numbers used in the second ERA review, Rockford attendance went from 2,065 to 2,463 in the first year that the team was in the new stadium.

This is an increase of 398 fans per game or 19,104 for a 48 game season.

I’m not sure where the 27,860 that this person uses comes from.

To me the discussion begins and ends with the fact that ERA states in its first review that attendance used in the feasibility study is aggressive based on capture rates.

In the second review they say that Year 1 attendance is conservative.

At 3,125 it is certainly not conservative considering Rockford only drew 2,463 in its first year in their new stadium.

Additionally, using attendance numbers from the Frontier League media guide, attendance at Rockford went down in the second year of the new stadium.

But using the figures in the second ERA report, attendance went from 2,463 to 2,477 or 14 per game which is a .5% increase.

Compare this to the 10% increase that is projected in the feasibility study. Additionally, the feasibility study (or page 4 of the second ERA review) calls for large attendance increases every year of the facility. Rockford was unable to meet those projections for even one year.

Assume a .5% increase in attendance every year (which is against what ERA predicts when it calls for a leveling off and an eventual decline in attendance) and it is not possible to repay the debt.

All other baseball team revenues are dependent upon that attendance.

Rockford underscores that the attendance projections in the feasibility are unrealistic, and therefore that portion of the project will have a difficult time paying for itself, which was the ERA conclusion in the first review, and the second, if you weed through the b.s.

If I made a mistake in the Fantasy Baseball article, I apologize.