Field of Schemes: Another day, another $187 million

December 21, 2004

Another day, another $187 million

That didn't take long. Just one day after announcing plans to build a $500 million stadium for the Indianapolis Colts, Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson revealed that the total cost, including land acquisition, would be more like $687 million. Moreover, the Colts' $100 million contribution would really be just $52 million, since the city would be buying out $48 million worth of the team's current lease on the RCA Dome. Assuming all these figures hold, then, the city would be on the hook for more than 92% of the stadium costs - a split that Peterson called "a good deal" for both sides.

As for Peterson's slot-machine-based financing plan, neither the governor nor state legislative leaders sound too thrilled about it. Peterson, though, strongly defended his gambling plan, saying: "It's not my first choice, [but] the alternative in this case is, do you want the Colts to leave?" Okay, maybe strongly was the wrong word...

One more note on this story. Apologies in advance for picking on the Indianapolis Star again, but this paragraph jumped out at me:

Mark Ganis, a Chicago-based sports consultant who has worked on more than a dozen stadium projects, called the Indianapolis plan creative, for avoiding existing public money. Although the city is committing more public money than in many recent stadium deals, Ganis said that is the trend in smaller markets; those teams need more public money [to] remain financially competitive.

Okay, so teams in smaller markets need a bigger economic boost to compete with the big boys - makes sense, right? Except that Ganis leaves out one piece of the puzzle: Owners of small-market teams got to buy them at a discount, precisely because they're small market. So while the potential revenues from a city like Indianapolis might indeed be less than, say, New York - though, given football's revenue-sharing system, actually not all that much less - that doesn't necessarily mean that the Colts owners' return on investment is going to be any worse. It's the kind of argument that helps bamboozle local elected officials, though - not to mention local journalists on a deadline.

COMMENTS

I am astounded at the hypocrisy of Bart Peterson in all of this. He has worked for years to make Indy more "family friendly" by closing down adult venues, adult bookstores, sex clubs, video arcades, etc., and now thinks bringing a casino to downtown Indy is a good thing. I'm more shocked that so few people see the problem with this: bringing a casino to the downtown will increase crime, traffic, and drunk driving in an area where more and more people are looking to make their home. I also fear for the large number of small business owners that will be forced off their land so new parking can be created for this new stadium. So much for Bart Peterson being a man of the people. Logic is a four-letter word in Indy these days.
Posted by: Jay at December 21, 2004 03:18 PM

I could not help but detect your synical spin on the story just thought I would throw out some additional facts missing from your story so that your readers can gather the entire scope. $687 million has been transmuted into $800 million as the new convention center is now tied to this stadium along with a sky bridge and tunnel system linking the two. The NFL for lack of a better description (NFL stadium fund) will be chipping in a few million along with Irsays money. I understand letting him out of lease frees up 48 mil for old MR. Irsay but you cant count money you havent been paid for something that hasnt happened as lost revenue or even as a refund for Mr. Irsay, he does not yet owe it, therefore he has not yet paid it, therefore it is not money he is recieving.... True state legislature is not high on the financing plan proposed but if you follow the local political scene closely you can see that its all about political posturing right now, when its all said and done they will compromise it to death just like everything the government does and it will be done deal. In closing the city paying for 92% of the stadium is in exchange for something NFL owners DONT DO commit to a 30 year lease with NO OUT clause...look around the league it just doesnt happen, the mayor wanted to trade guaranteed stability for money spent, a heck of a bold move I think. I am not an Irsay/Peterson supporter....I am a fan who wants the Colts to stay
Posted by: Crunked at February 8, 2005 09:11 AM