The Wile E. Coyote of stadium consulting takes on Brewers’ stadium, gets crushed by anvil

I (and you, if you read this site regularly) didn’t have to go much beyond the headline on this Milwaukee Business Journal story — “Miller Park has delivered $2.5 billion impact to Wisconsin, study shows” — to figure that it’s probably nonsense, for all the usual reasons: economic “impact” doesn’t really mean anything, most sports spending is just cannibalized from other local entertainment spending, and most economic impact reports are garbage. But you will be glad if you do, as I was, because then you will discover who wrote the report that was responsible for the rose-colored headline:

An independent study released by the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce Monday shows Miller Park has generated $2.5 billion in economic output since 1999. It officially opened in 2001.

Miller Park and the Brewers delivered valuable exposure to the city during the 20-year period, according to the study performed by Conventions, Sports & Leisure International, including $131.8 million in media value. It also brought in out-of-state dollars, which include visiting teams and fans, and fans from across Wisconsin who do not live in Milwaukee or Milwaukee County.

Oh hell yeah, it’s everybody’s favorite incompetent cartoon supervillains, CSL! In this case, they were hired by the local chamber of commerce — surely a disinterested body if ever anyone has seen one, even if the Brewers are a member — to show how the people of Wisconsin’s gift of $310 million to one Bud Selig for a new stadium was totally worth it.

The chamber allows for downloading the full study by clicking on the “Download the Full Sudy” (sic) button on its website, so let’s see what the report has to offer:

  • “Cumulative net new impacts to the State … “totaled approximately $2.5 billion in total output, $1.6 billion in direct spending, $263 million in new taxes, 1,835 total annual jobs, and $1.2 billion in personal earnings.”
  • 86% of Brewers game attendees were from the state of Wisconsin. Of the others, 95% said their main reason for going to Milwaukee was to see a Brewers game.
  • That $2.5 billion in “total output” over the last 20 years comes from $448.2 million from construction, plus $152.5 million a year from new spending by fans who otherwise wouldn’t be spending in town.
  • The $152.5 million a year, in turn, is an estimate based on a multiplier effect (in essence a calculation of how much spending generates more spending when the places you spend your money then turn around and pay workers who then spend that money, etc.) applied to $99.4 million a year in actual spending.

Let’s do a smell test on that $99.4 million a year. If 14% of Brewers game attendees are from out of town, and they sell maybe 2.7 million tickets a year, that’s 378,000 people. To generate $99.4 million, each and every one of those people has to spend $263 per game, meaning no doubling up on Airbnbs. And, of course, these need to be people who would not have gone to see the Brewers if they were still in their old stadium.

And, of course, that’s just total money changing hands in the state of Wisconsin, not actually money that Wisconsin taxpayers get back in their pockets. To see that, we have to take a look at CSL’s estimates for net new tax revenue:

  • “Over the course of the previous 21 years, it is estimated that the operations of the Team and Ballpark have generated approximately $262.9 million in net new tax revenues to the State, $25.2 million to the County, and $24.3 million to the City.”

Another way of look at this then, is: In exchange for $310 million in cash in 1999 dollars, if you squint and make a lot of optimistic assumptions about out-of-towners and how much they’ll only spend if offered a new stadium to visit, the state of Wisconsin has gotten back $292.4 million in tax revenue, over the course of 21 years, meaning taxpayers have taken a loss on the deal, we’re just not sure how bad of one. That would arguably be more honest, but it also wouldn’t get CSL more chamber of commerce contracts if it made that the headline, so of course it didn’t play that up!

Or we could call up a legit economist, like the Wisconsin politics site The Center Square did, and see what they have to say about the CSL report:

“I refer to [CSL’s] approach as a ‘benefits-only analysis’ because it’s fundamentally one-sided; it never counts the negative economic impact of the taxes needed to fund the subsidy in the first place. And, unsurprisingly, it’s pretty easy to make arguments in favor of an idea if you ignore the cost,” said Dr. Michael Farren, a Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. “At the end of the day, peer-reviewed academic research consistently finds that subsidies, especially stadium subsidies, don’t work very well to create economic development, and may even reduce it in the long-run.”

Really, Keith Law’s response is probably the best. But if you want the hard, cold numbers to back up your kneejerk derisive laughter, feel free to reference the above.

Tampontreal Ex-Rays partnership already blowing up real good

Big news out of Montreal this weekend, where would-be Tampa Bay Rays co-owner Stephen Bronfman — Seagram heir, son of former Expos owner Charles Bronfman, and prospective Rays co-owner if they split time between two countries as current owner Stuart Sternberg insists against all sense and reason is what he’s seriously considering —  announced that a purchase deal could be imminent! Via Google Translate:

“In a few months, probably three or four, our group from Montreal will become co-owner of the Tampa team with Stuart Sternberg, the current owner of the Rays. The negotiations are very advanced. We are going to become minority shareholders, but that doesn’t bother us at all. Stuart Sternberg is a straight man who is nothing like Jeffrey Loria [former owner of the Expos],” says Bronfman.

Whoa, the Tampontreal Ex-Rays plans are so advanced that they could have a Canadian co-owner by as soon as May? That would be something! Except that Sternberg immediately chimed in with a big nuh-uh:

Sternberg said Montreal group leader Stephen Bronfman was incorrect in saying those negotiations were underway and a sale could be completed in the next three-four months.

“It isn’t true,’’ Sternberg said Saturday at Rays camp. “Eventually, at a point, I would expect and believe they could and would become minority partners. … I need some representation up there. But there’s nothing happening in months. No way.’’

Now, on the one hand, this isn’t a huge stumbling block or anything: Sternberg doesn’t have to be in any hurry to sell a share of his team, even if he does fully intend to go through with this two-state solution. (If doesn’t fully intend to do so, of course, he’s in even less of a hurry.) But Bronfman announcing one thing and then Sternberg immediately shutting it down is certainly a sign that the two aren’t completely on the same page, which is not a sign of a deal where all the t’s are crossed and i’s are dotted. It would make way more sense if Sternberg is just stringing Bronfman along as a way to see what cities, if any, he can finally get to go along with his plan to get a new stadium (or two!) with somebody else footing the bill — which, again, isn’t proof that that’s what Sternberg is up to, but it certainly all fits.

And anyway, mostly what this does in our 280-character age is get “Rays and Montreal” trending, and that can only benefit Sternberg as he haggles for whatever he can get. This is going to be a long, long ride — I mean, it’s already been going on for over a decade, but it has a long, long way yet to go — so try not to get too distracted by any one week’s headlines, though by all means go ahead and get a schadenfreude-y chuckle out of them.

 

Friday roundup: 49ers stadium squabble, Richmond nixes arena plan (for now), Mets’ $55m taxpayer-funded sofas off-limits to mere minor-leaguers because “status”

A glacier in Antarctica just lost a chunk of ice bigger than Seattle twice the size of Washington, D.C. nearly the size of Atlanta almost as big as Las Vegas a third the size of Dublin, maybe it’s time to quit driving an SUV? Or maybe it’s just time to focus on some more human-scale disasters that involve small groups of people enriching themselves to the detriment of humanity:

Nashville mayor agrees to revised MLS stadium deal that costs taxpayers the same $75m as before

Great news, everybody! Nashville Mayor John Cooper and the owners of Nashville S.C. have settled their dispute over the team’s stadium deal, and according to the Tennessean:

To accommodate the mayor’s demands, the team will pay $54 million more in potential expenses — which includes $19 million in infrastructure and $35 million for stadium debt payments the city was previously on the hook for if sales and ticket revenues came up short.

Wow, that’s great! Cooper’s refusal to issue demolition permits enabled him to extract $54 million in concessions from team owner John Ingram, and … hey, wait, that $54 million figure sounds kind of familiar:

  • In the spirit of cooperation, the Team offered to pay an additional $19 Million to Metro for infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the stadium.” This is real money — assuming the team (sorry, the Team) isn’t playing games and reclassifying tortilla chip fryers as “infrastructure” or something — but not exactly a huge concession given that the current deal doesn’t specify who’s responsible for infrastructure overruns, so it comes down to How about we split the costs, where we pay $19 million (sorry, $19 Million) and you pay whatever’s left over?
  • If ticket and sales tax revenues fell short of their $35 million projections, Ingram would cover any shortfall instead of making the city do it. This is worth something to the city, but almost certainly not anywhere near $35 million — how much depends on what you think the likelihood is of the taxes falling short, and by how much.
  • Ingram would also cover $85 million in stadium construction cost overruns, which is nice and all, but it was always going to be on the hook for stadium overruns, so this isn’t a savings to the public at all.

That’s from a week ago Tuesday, when Cooper rejected the offer as insufficient. The difference now appears to be that the legendary Parcel 8C, a two-acre plot between the stadium site and the racetrack next door, will be subject to a “general statement of principles” agreed to by the team that it will allow for an open plaza, like Cooper (and NASCAR) wanted.

Nowhere in the celebratory coverage, meanwhile, is it mentioned that Nashville will still be putting up $25 million in cash and around $50 million in kicked-back sales taxes, plus free land. That was the case in the original deal, and that was the case in this deal — the only difference is that Ingram has agreed to cover more of the added cost increase from overruns or revenue shortfalls. So while Cooper has successfully kept the deal from getting any worse, he hasn’t made it any better — unless you count a two-acre public plaza as a major get.

Twitter, predictably, responded with all the insight and nuance necessary for analyzing the deal’s complexity:

You think maybe I should borrow The Straight Dope’s tagline, now that they’re no longer using it?

St. Louis prepares to increase MLS stadium tax kickbacks to $60m

Ever since the state of Missouri informed the owners of the as-yet-unnamed St. Louis MLS expansion team that it couldn’t give them the $30 million in tax credits they wanted, there’s been a scramble to figure out how to fill that hole. And now the city of St. Louis appears to be stepping up to the, uh, penalty spot, with a package of tax breaks and dedicated tax streams that could be worth $55 million over 25 years:

The two measures, providing partial property tax abatement for the project and outlining other tax incentives, were endorsed, 7-0, by the Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee…

The bills, which now move to the full Board of Aldermen, call for 25 years of property tax abatement on the value of new construction. That’s expected to save the ownership about $34.5 million.

Also planned is a sales tax exemption for building materials used for the project; an estimate has yet to be released for that.

The legislation, sponsored by Aldermanic President Lewis Reed, also calls for two separate one-cent sales taxes on food, drinks, tickets and other items sold at the stadium. They would be levied by new community improvement and transportation development districts.

In addition, ownership attorney Bill Kuehling told the committee that “we are counting on” revenues from a third one-cent sales tax that would be authorized by the city’s Port Authority.

Okay, let’s run through these. The full property tax abatement had been previously announced, but without a price tag; $34.5 million over 25 years is a decent chunk of change, and worth maybe $19 million in present value (a bit less if it’s backloaded as property value rises over time, a bit more if the stadium is expected to fall in value as it ages). A sales tax exemption on building materials is a common subsidy to hand out, and typically isn’t a huge value, but it could be a few million dollars. A sales tax surcharge on in-stadium purchases was previously announced, too, and probably mostly ends up coming out of team owners’ pockets (since they have to lower prices slightly to account for the increased end price); if some of these additional taxes cover the area surrounding the stadium, though, it would effectively be taxing the team’s neighbors to finance the stadium project.

Put it all together, and we’re probably looking at around $30 million in city tax subsidies, which added to the $29 million worth of ticket tax kickbacks the team owners would be getting gets us to around $60 million of public cost, before even accounting for whatever the state manages to scrounge up in tax credits. (They’ve suggested $5.7 million as a more doable figure.) That’s not an insane amount of money compared to some stadium subsidies, but $60 million is still $60 million, and about the same as what some other cities have been throwing at stadiums to lure MLS expansion franchises. Except that St. Louis has already been awarded an MLS team to start play in 2022, and it would be really messy for the league to try to undo that, so is this really the time for the city of St. Louis to start bailing out the team owners for their shortfall in state subsidies? (Answer: It’s always time for that, apparently.)louis

Panthers owner takes break from demanding renovation money to demand whole new stadium

Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper is currently preparing to renovate his stadium to be more accommodating for Major League Soccer with the help of $110 million in city funds, before which his predecessor as owner got $87.5 million in public funds for upgrades in 2013 — all for a building that Tepper owns and collects 100% of revenues from. So naturally the billionaire owner’s argument is that all these renovations have resulted in a stadium that really oughta be torn down any year now:

“As far as a new stadium, this thing is whatever it is, seven years or 10 years — you have to talk about this stuff at some point. And this stadium is old in the NFL and at some point, we’re going to have to do something major — maintenance (cost) goes up every year.”

It’s true, it does! You know what else has high maintenance costs? An even newer, more lavish stadium! Also, maintenance costs tend to be in the millions of dollars are year, and a new stadium would cost in the billions, so taking on that kind of construction cost just to save on maintenance would be like tearing down your house and building a new one because the carpeting is getting old. Unless, of course, you’re expecting to get someone else to pay for the new house — and own it and pay property taxes on it, and give you free rent — in which case it makes total sense.

Tepper has rumbled about the need for a new stadium before, of course, but that wasn’t while he was in the midst of negotiating publicly funded renovations to the stadium he apparently thinks is ready for the wrecking ball. This page really could use a nice cover image, don’t you think?

Sternberg meets with Tampa officials about shared-city Rays plan, it’s working, it’s wooooorking, mwuahaha!

Tampa Bay Rays owner Stu Sternberg, taking advantage of his newly confirmed right to talk before 2028 about moving the Rays out of St. Petersburg (but not to talk about moving the Rays out of St. Petersburg before 2028), met for 2.5 hours yesterday with Tampa Mayor Jane Castor and Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan about splitting the team between new stadiums in Tampa and Montreal, and also not splitting the team between new stadiums in Tampa and Montreal:

“The goal is to try and have an agreement with all three entities [the Rays, Tampa, and Hillsborough County] by the end of the year. It’s extremely aggressive. However, having gone through the last several-year exercise, I appreciate the sense of urgency and the goal of trying to reach an agreement as quickly as possible,” said Hagan, who led the talks with the team for the proposed $892 million stadium in Ybor City before they broke down in December 2018….

Castor agreed, but said she hadn’t given up hope for keeping the Rays for the entire 162-game season.

“The focus was on the split season, but I don’t think the full season is off the table yet,” Castor said.

And Hagan added:

“I am still hopeful that we can go back to the original model and framework of an entire season in Ybor City,” said Hagan. “I take the Rays at their word. Right now we are only considering a split season concept.”

Whether this whole Tampontreal Ex-Rays plan is serious or a lavishly orchestrated bluff, you’ll note that it’s working out pretty well for Sternberg: He’s gone in just one year from even his own commissioner saying he was stuck playing in St. Petersburg to suddenly getting to hold stadium talks with cities in two nations. If it lands him a new stadium in Tampa, great; if it lands him a new stadium in Montreal but not one in Tampa, he can go to the public and MLB and say, “Hey, I tried with Tampa, they didn’t hold up their end of the deal, Quebec ho!”; if it lands him new stadium offers in both, he can either pick one or go ahead with his cockamamie scheme. And if lands him nothing, well, at least he’s no worse off than where he started.

Castor and Hagan said the goal is for a deal for a Tampa stadium to be in place by the end of the year, which is a meaningless deadline since it can be extended at any time, but does provide the three parties a nice way to turn up their crisis inducers. Castor noted that “the citizens’ appetite of paying for a stadium is about zero at this point,” which is a sticking point, but there are enough creative ways to fund a stadium without making it look like citizens are paying for it when they really are — tax breaks, tax increment financing districts, free land deals, “infrastructure” spending, hey-look-over-there-what’s-that — that you know they’ll come up with something to try.

Noah Pransky, you have anything to add?

Ayep. Throw another data point on the fire for “Stuart Sternberg, not so much crazy as crazy like a fox.”

Nashville soccer stadium fight turns out to be all about a 2-acre public plaza

We’re getting more clarity in the Nashville S.C. soccer stadium standoff, thanks to Mayor John Cooper writing an op-ed in the Tennessean and giving interviews about his stance. And the upshot appears to be that the sticking point is really less the $50 million in public subsidies or preservation of the existing fairgrounds or whatnot, but rather whether a tiny plot of land will be available to NASCAR as an entrance plaza to the neighboring racetrack:

I’m hopeful that the 2.4 acres between the soccer stadium and the speedway (“Parcel 8c”) can be redesigned to create a public plaza worthy of the two great sports in neighboring 30,000-seat venues. A multi-functional plaza would address the operational needs of multiple fairgrounds uses, create open space on a campus home to Fair Park and Browns Creek Greenway, and shape a unified and beautiful fairgrounds for generations.

And:

“You’re gonna have to have loading, you’re gonna have to have pickup, drop off, you’re gonna have to have ADA compliancy. Having that space between the two stadiums, it can’t be just for one or for the other, it has to function for both parties,” Mayor Cooper said.

I previously called this a strange hill to die on, and it’s really awfully strange, for both sides: Nashville SC owner John Ingram has likewise said the deal is off if Parcel 8C isn’t included. Maybe it’s all brinksmanship, maybe NASCAR is just feeling butthurt its needs are coming behind that of the demon soccer, maybe Parcel 8C secretly sits atop a hidden vein of gold ore, who knows? As I’ve noted many times before, Ingram is totally within his rights to hold up this project if he wants, and there are certainly plenty of worthy questions about it. But if the only outcome ends up being a debate over whether to create a 300-foot-square plot of concrete, that’s going to be awfully anticlimactic.

NJ paying up to $20m a year to NBC to use Meadowlands Arena as a soundstage

New Jersey’s now-shuttered Meadowlands Arena, which died at age 33 in 2015 of arena glut, has found new life as the soundstage for NBC Universal TV shows “The Enemy Within” and “Lincoln Rhyme: Hunt for the Bone Collector.” (They’ve never heard of you, either.) That’s a good adaptive, reuse of a state asset that doesn’t cost state taxpayers anything … except that in order to lure the productions, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy is paying them a whole lot of money in tax subsidies:

The relationship between NBC and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which owns the arena, is the byproduct of a tax credit signed by Governor Phil Murphy that took affect last year and was meant to draw business to the state from film and digital media companies…

NBC reached out to the commission when it began scouting for warehouses to use as a sound stage. The commission suggested the abandoned arena and within weeks, NBC and the NJSEA struck a deal.

The NJ.com article on this doesn’t bother to calculate how much this is costing New Jersey taxpayers, so we’ll have to do the math for them. NBC spent $63 million filming the first season, and the Garden State Film and Digital Media Jobs Act reimburses 30% of a production company’s expenses — not 30% of its taxes, 30% of its expenses, even if that’s more than the company paid in local taxes (this is known as a “refundable” tax credit). So that means that if all of that $63 million was spent locally, New Jerseyans are paying more than $20 million for the privilege of being in close proximity to Russell Hornsby playing a tetraplegic “brilliant but hardheaded forensic criminologist.”

There are benefits to the local economy, certainly, since TV shoots hire local caterers, buy from local vendors, etc.; but numerous studies have shown that these aren’t enough to repay states’ expense on subsidies, which is why lots of states, including New Jersey, have canceled them in the past. (Though former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie seems to have been motivated less by the program’s terrible economics than by his concern that “Jersey Shore” made the state look bad.) NBC Universal’s current lease is $185,000 per month, and the state sales and income taxes are in the single digits, so it seems inconceivable that New Jersey is getting anywhere near positive bang for its buck.

The NJ.com article, meanwhile, happily burbles along without wondering about any of this, but it does take the time to include this memorable quote from Jim Kirkos, president of the Meadowlands Regional Chamber of Commerce, about how tough it was when the arena closed:

“It was a blow not only to the union workers and stage hands, but we lost the economic impact of event day activity,” he said. “The family of four who take their two kids to Disney on Ice is likely to go out to dinner to a local restaurant. It’s the sports bars, if it’s a sporting event. All the restaurant and hospitality-type businesses lost the positive impact of event activity.”

For those of you who’ve never been fortunate enough to attend a sporting event at the Meadowlands, let me paint a picture for you: It’s in the middle of a parking lot, in the middle of a swamp. I have been to dozens of sporting events and concerts (this was a particular highlight) there, arriving variously by car, train, and bus, and never once have I even been aware of a place that I could have dinner in the vicinity. The already dismal bump to local spending from sports facilities has to be at its absolute weakest in a place like the Meadowlands, to the point where I’m impressed that Kirkos could make the above statement without bursting into laughter.

It’s all just another lesson in a couple of things: One, that sports venues are the tax gift that keeps on costing, as elected officials tend to see them as “too big to fail” in ways that often end up throwing good money after bad; and two, that elected officials will sign ginormous checks for just about anything, so long as it can be declared a “tax credit” and for promoting “development.” The main difference between the rich and the poor, it turns out, is that the former’s grifting is less likely to be punished by bloodshed.

Saturday roundup: Manfred endorses Tampontreal Ex-Rays, NYCFC readies Bronx stadium plan (maybe), everybody in Nashville sues everybody else

Man, I sure picked the wrong week to get so sick that I couldn’t post for a couple of days! But even if it’s now the weekend and I’m only at about 80%, the news is at 110%, so let’s get to it:

  • First up is Thursday’s declaration by MLB commissioner Rob Manfred that he and baseball owners are “100% convinced” that having the Tampa Bay Rays play half their games in Montreal “is best way to keep Major League Baseball in Tampa Bay.” That’s not entirely surprising — I mean, it’s surprising that we have a major sports executive saying that the best way to keep a team from moving is to let it move half its games, but no more surprising than when Rays owner Stuart Sternberg first said it last June — since it’s very rare for sports commissioners and fellow owners to stand in the way of their fellow owners’ stadium or relocation plans, especially if it doesn’t infringe on their territories. (Speaking of territories, Toronto Blue Jays president Mark Shapiro said, “We are supportive of them exploring it,” if you were wondering.) The plan itself remains, in the words of the great unemployed sports editor Barry Petchesky, “completely batshit,” not least because it would require getting not one but two cities to build not one but two new stadiums just to land half a team, but also for a billion other reasons. It still makes the most sense as a Madman Theory strategy by Sternberg to scare Tampa Bay or Montreal into competing to build him at least one stadium — can you imagine the headlines to come about “Montreal is moving ahead with its stadium while Tampa lags behind?” or vice versa? — but sports owners are just rich, not necessarily smart, so who the hell knows what Sternberg really intends to do? Whatever it is, though, he’ll have Manfred’s support, because Manfred knows who signs his checks.
  • NYC F.C.‘s plan for a new stadium just south of Yankee Stadium has been reportedly almost ready for more than a year and a half now, but now it’s supposedly really almost ready, according to a different New York Times reporter than the one who reported the initial rumor. The outline of the plan remains roughly the same: The Yankees owners, who are minority owners of the MLS club, would allow the city to demolish a parking garage that their lease otherwise requires remain in place, a private developer would take the garage and a parcel across the street and the street itself (plus a highway off-ramp) and build housing and a hotel and other stuff on part of it while leasing the rest to NYC F.C. to build a stadium on, which would — again, supposedly — allow the whole thing to move forward without public money being used for construction. Being used for other things is another story: The Times doesn’t mention whether the team or developers would pay the city anything for the section of East 153rd Street that would need to be demapped and buried beneath a soccer pitch, or how much the developers would pay to lease the garage site, or if either parcel would pay property taxes. (The Times reports that “Maddd and N.Y.C.F.C. [would] convey the [street] property to the city” then lease it back, which certainly sounds like an attempt to evade property taxes.) City officials said that “a deal has not been reached, and more conversations are needed,” so maybe none of these things have even been decided; tune back in soon, or maybe in another year and a half!
  • The lawsuit filed by Save Our Fairgrounds claiming that Nashville S.C. stadium project would take up too much public land needed for other uses is moving to trial, and Nashville S.C. has sued to intervene in their lawsuit, and everybody’s trying to figure out if NASCAR and soccer can coexist on adjacent parcels, and soccer fans are mad that that stadium isn’t getting built yet, and the community coalition that negotiated a community benefits agreement to go along with the stadium plan is mad that nobody’s consulting them about any of this. It’s only a matter of time before Jimmy Carter is called in to resolve this.
  • Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont has put $55 million into his state budget proposal over the next two years to renovate Hartford’s arena, with the rest of the cost — estimated at between $100 million and $250 million, depending on how extensive it is — to be paid off by private investors who would get … something. The state is studying it now! Get off their back!
  • A bunch of the Carolina Panthers fans who bought “permanent seat licenses” to help finance the team’s stadium back in 1993 have found that the “permanent” part isn’t actually so much true: About 900 seats in the front of one end zone are being ripped out to make way for luxury suites for soccer (or a standing-room “supporters’ section — the latter makes more sense, but the Charlotte Observer article on this is frustratingly unclear), so fans with PSLs there are being offered either to move to other nearby locations or to sell their licenses back to the team for 25% over what they initially paid for them. No wonder everyone else started calling them “personal” seat licenses!
  • Also, the Panthers are having their stadium property tax bill reduced by $3.5 million a year, because they asked nicely. Or just asked, and are a major sports franchise and therefore an 800-pound gorilla, with all the privileges that go with that. One of those two.
  • The Jacksonville Jaguars are going to play two home games in London next year, which the team’s website says is “strategically aligned” with development in their Jacksonville stadium’s parking lot, somehow, though is one extra week of construction time really going to help them all that much? Or maybe this is some weird kind of brinkmanship, as in “approve our Lot J development, stat, or we’ll keep moving games to London?” Anyway, cue people freaking out about the Jaguars moving to London again now, which team owner Shad Khan can’t be unhappy about because savvy negotiators and leverage and all that.
  • A poll by the Oakland Athletics on where the team should build a new stadium found that Oakland residents backed the team’s preferred Howard Terminal site by 63-29%, but a poll by a group that opposes the Howard Terminal plan found that residents prefer the current Oakland Coliseum site by a 62-29% margin. Reminder: Polls are garbage!
  • This video of an entire Russian hockey arena collapsing during reconstruction work, with a worker clearly visible on the roof as it gives way, doesn’t actually have much to with stadium subsidies, but it sure is impressive-looking, in a horrific way.