April 28, 2003
Steinbrenner seeks more Jersey bucks
George Steinbrenner's YankeeNets empire has made a new offer to Newark, New Jersey, in an effort to break the stalemate over a proposed $355 million new arena to serve the New Jersey Nets and Devils: instead of the teams paying for a third of the construction costs, suggested YankeeNets negotiators to Newark officials, how about you front the money, and we pay you back? Newark city business administrator Richard Monteilh: "We don't want to do that." Far be it for us to intrude, but we think someone's missing the point here.
April 26, 2003
Dodgers to Vegas: Rebuild it, or we split
Las Vegas doesn't even have a big-league baseball team, but that doesn't mean the city can't be shaken down by one. The Los Angeles Dodgers have threatened to pull their Triple-A minor-league franchise out of Vegas unless the city puts up the money for major renovations to Cashman Field. Which is understandable, of course, because it's not like the Dodgers' corporate parent has money or anything.
San Diego "Park-at-the-Park" faces revisions
The San Diego city council has informed the Padres that they'll need to upsize the "Park-at-the-Park," a planned public park at the team's new stadium, set to open next year. The team's original proposal, approved by voters in 1998, called for a park of 3 to 4 acres, from which fans could watch games for free; the latest team proposal reduced the size of the park to 1.8 acres. The council and the ballclub could also be headed for a showdown on proposed development surrounding the stadium: after initially proposing low-rise buildings, the Padres now say they need to build a pair of 20-story buildings beyond the outfield wall - on land seized by the city via eminent domain - to recoup their investment.
April 24, 2003
Rose Bowl touts $500m reno for NFL
Operators of the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, are the latest to throw their hat in the ring to become the home of an NFL franchise in the L.A. area. Consultant John Moag, fresh from convincing Maryland that a stadium for the Baltimore Ravens was a swell idea, insists that a $500 million reconstruction of the 81-year-old stadium could be paid for with "not a penny of taxpayer money," by using personal seat licenses, luxury suite sales, naming rights revenues, a 10% ticket tax, a loan from the NFL, and historic preservation tax credits. Even if Moag's numbers add up - and note that we've heard this sort of thing before - it's an open question why an NFL team would want to relocate to a stadium whose revenue streams are all committed to pay off construction costs: since the NFL has revenue sharing for all ticket sales and media rights, merely playing in a major media market like L.A. is unlikely to be attractive unless the team could reap big windfalls from non-shared revenues like naming rights and suite sales.
April 21, 2003
Miami stadium plans clear as mud
A report in the Miami Herald on the Florida Marlins owners' hopes for a new stadium indicates the following: the team owners are willing to pay for part of a $450 million facility but "aren't ready to say how much"; Miami city manager Joe Arriola "doubt[s] very seriously we could contribute toward construction" but "could help with land and infrastructure"; Arriola ruled out using tax money, but said bond issues ''could make sense." (Herald reporter Barry Jackson apparently failed to ask how the bonds would be paid off.) Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria, who formerly failed in efforts to shake down Montreal for a new stadium when he owned the Expos, wants to start construction by 2004 on the site of Miami Arena - built in 1988 at $52.5 million in public expense, then abandoned in 1999 when both the Miami Heat and Florida Panthers got even newer facilities.
April 10, 2003
MLB official: we don't care about funny numbers
It's not Major League Baseball's problem if would-be baseball towns overinflate economic projections in a bid to secure stadium funding, an unnamed MLB source tells the Washington Post. "It may make a difference for whoever's got to pay the bond eventually, but it doesn't make any difference to us," the official said. "How they choose to believe . . . they can raise the revenues to service the debt and the bonds is really their problem, not ours."
Padres to profit from seized land
Another hidden subsidy has been uncovered in the deal for the San Diego Padres' new stadium, set to open next year. In 1999, the city of San Diego condemned three blocks near the stadium site, and agreed to sell them to the team at the then-market price of $17.7 million; now, four years later, Padres owner John Moores plans to resell the land for double what he paid for it. While California law prohibits developers from profiting on "speculation" on seized land, the 1998 stadium agreement calls for all such profits to be poured back into the stadium project - potentially reducing the team's share of construction costs.
April 02, 2003
Cowboy toy would cost public $400m
The Dallas Cowboys issued their long-rumored pitch for a new stadium last week, proposing a $900 million complex of restaurants, shops, a 1,000-seat hotel, and, oh yes, a stadium - the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink paradigm that's become increasingly popular with teams hoping to get around charges that stadiums themselves are a bad economic investment. The second most valuable sports franchise on earth wants the public to kick in $400 million or more in construction costs; if team owner Jerry Jones gets his way, a voter referendum could be on the ballot as early as November.
