Mets Say There Are No Obstructed Seats (Times)
According to the Times....
As for the Mets, they continue to maintain that there are no obscured-view seats in Citi Field, despite what some fans were contending after Sunday’s game. Fans might miss a play or two, the Mets conceded. But, they added, the game action will be replayed on the scoreboards and the fans are closer to the field to begin with.
“Whenever you bring seating closer to the action, and put seating in fair territory, there will be certain angles where you lose a sightline here or there,” said Dave Howard, the Mets’ vice president for business operations. “That’s typical in new ballparks, but a little different for our customers because Shea didn’t have much of anything like that."
Steven Gottesman, who has a 15-game ticket plan, went to see his four seats in Section 533, Row 15, near the top of the upper deck down the left-field line. To his “shock and horror,” he could not see the warning track or about 20 feet of the outfield from the left-field line to center field.
“In other words, I will only know if a home run is hit if I am listening to a radio at the game or I wait to see the sign from the umpire,” Gottesman, 45, said in an e-mail message.
"If you're a shorter person it could be an issue," Howard said, "but we think that can be addressed in some way with booster pads . . . For most adults it should not be an issue, and if it becomes an issue we'll have the means to address it."
Did the Mets Police doctor this picture? Unfortunately this is not our annual April Fools joke.
If there are no obstructed views then why is this article one of the most popular on our site week in and week out?
In happier news, Bloomberg reports beer now $6 down from $7.50
Mets, the park is nice. Just be honest with your fans. I see my left field seats are in row 3. If there's a pole in my face expect some live blogging via iphone, and a visit from me to customer service with my audio recorder running.
Check out the Times piece.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?