Friday roundup: Congress gets riled up over minor-league contraction, Calgary official proposes redirecting Flames cash, plus what’s the deal with that Star Trek redevelopment bomb anyway?

Happy Thanksgiving to our U.S. readers, who if they haven’t yet may want to read the New Yorker’s thoughtful takedown of the myths that the holiday was built on. Or there’s always the movie version, which has fewer historical details but is shorter and features a singing turkey.

And speaking of turkeys, how are our favorite stadium and arena deals faring this holiday week?


9 comments on “Friday roundup: Congress gets riled up over minor-league contraction, Calgary official proposes redirecting Flames cash, plus what’s the deal with that Star Trek redevelopment bomb anyway?

  1. Neil do you suspect a linkage between potential mlb expansion in the next 10 years or so and the contraction of these affiliates. Perhaps the new teams could take over these affiliates as part of their organization to assuage any political fallout from the contraction. Maybe the pool of affiliates wont grow. It just seems weird you are seeing all these headlines with all these groups Nashville Orlando etc (seem more than usual) yet this contraction is being proposed

    • There is zero chance of MLB expansion being approved in the next few years, and the minor league agreement expires at the end of 2020. So no, I don’t see any connection. (The headlines are less about any expansion plans being imminent and more about Manfred wanting to drum up the next set of expansion candidates for whenever they need some, and wannabe owners being happy to oblige.)

  2. That AFL plan was bizarre. With the lacrosse leagues it kind of makes sense because there isn’t a lot of high level lacrosse around the country so it’s kind of a treat in cities without it, but pretty much every corner of this country is saturated with football that is at the very least comparable with what the AFL offers.

  3. I may be asking a for a simple answer to a very complex question here… but are the Yankees actually paying the ‘full cost’ of the city’s stadium related debt?

    I seem to recall that those payments (to the IDA?) were actually deemed to be PILOTs (as an aside, I would like to count my municipal tax payments against my mortgage…. and also count my mortgage payments against my municipal taxes if possible)… so they are kinda bond payments and kinda taxes and kinda…. hrrrrmmmm, don’t look so close it might hurt your eyes…

    • They’re not tax payments, they’re only pretending to be. So yes, the Yankees are covering the full debt payments on the stadium bonds, but they’re also getting a full property tax break. Does that help?

      • Yes. Only it helps the Yankees more than it helps me, but I have gotten used to life working like that… The one part that does actually seem reasonable is that they don’t pay taxes on a stadium they don’t own (???).

        Steinbrenner!

        • Right, but the reason they don’t own it is so they don’t pay taxes on it: They paid to build it, get all the revenue from it, etc. But it technically belongs to the city so as not to be taxable.

  4. Do I detect just a touch of schadenfreude in that San Diego UT piece on the Chargers???

    If not there are several others on side panels which seem like they have quite a lot of it…

  5. “…what the heck the people are supposed to be doing in this picture?” Looks to me like the people in the foreground are celebrating thev‘pox’ that’s boldly blazoned in the turf —maybe an anti-vaxer event?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *.
NOTE: Both personal attacks on other commenters and trolling (posting inflammatory remarks solely to start a fight) are not allowed in comments, and will be deleted. Any commenters who repeatedly ignore these rules may be placed on moderation, or banned.

HTML tags are not allowed.

789,127 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments