December 31, 2003
Yankees pay $75K to avoid ethics charge
The New York Yankees have agreed to pay a $75,000 fine to settle an investigation by the state legislature's Lobbying Committee into free tickets given to local elected officials in 2003. At this rate, George Steinbrenner would be taking a loss on his hoped-for $400 million in public stadium funding by the year 7336 AD.
December 30, 2003
Pittsburgh pol: No public money for Penguins
Incoming Allegheny County chief executive Dan Onorato has rejected a plan to provide $153 million in public funding for a new Pittsburgh Penguins arena. "They need to make the deal work without local tax money," insists Onorato, pointing out that the nearby Columbus Blue Jackets got Nationwide Arena built mostly with private money, after local opponents rejected larger public subsidies.
Florida house candidate proposes Ft. Lauderdale Marlins
Apparently it's "propose moving big-league teams to minor-league parks" week: Now Bruce McNeilage, who's running for the Florida legislature, says he thinks the Florida Marlins should move into Ft. Lauderdale Stadium, which he would expand from 8,000 to 35,000 seats via a $100 million "public-private partnership." At this rate, it's only a matter of time before somebody suggests moving the New Jersey Nets to Maxwell's.
Minneapolis council wants Minneapolis as stadium site
The Minneapolis city council voted 11-1 yesterday to a approve a resolution proposing a downtown Minneapolis site near the Target Center for a new home for the Twins, while the Metrodome would be renovated for the Vikings. No financial terms were discussed, though, making the vote largely meaningless; a 1997 referendum prohibits the city from spending more than $10 million on stadiums without a public vote.
Edison dumps Anaheim naming rights
Edison International has terminated its naming-rights deal for the Anaheim Angels' stadium, declaring that the cost "had simply become greater than was sensible for our business to carry." The Angels said the building will now be known as "Angel Stadium of Anaheim," at least for the coming year, and perhaps longer: "It's an opportunity for us to get our name out there," said Angels president Dennis Kuhl. "We need to find out if there is a value in that." If not, they can always look for a new naming-rights partner.
December 29, 2003
ESPN.com on Brooklyn Nets: We prefer Pabst
The mysterious cabal that is ESPN.com's "Writers' Bloc" has weighed in with a rousing debate on the prospect of moving the New Jersey Nets to a new arena on the site of their favorite bar. While opinions differ, the general consensus appears to be summed up in Patrick Hruby's conclusion: "If and when the Nets generously allow Brooklyn to help fund their new arena, let's hope the team has the common courtesy to offer something of value in return. Like, say, magic beans."
Expos follies
They're really coming out of the woodwork now: a Connecticut newspaper columnist has suggested that the state of Connecticut buy the Montreal Expos and move them to the University of Connecticut's new football stadium in Hartford. While it arguably wouldn't be that bad a deal for the state - buying the Expos would likely cost less than building a new stadium - MLB has rejected out of hand all previous attempts at public ownership, and certainly isn't about to start now, when the primary goal of moving the Expos is to get another taxpayer-subsidized stadium built for the league.
On the marginally more realistic front, our old friend Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff - who'd previously offered to share the Expos between San Antonio and Monterrey, Mexico - is now suggesting a San Antonio-Austin split instead. This is giving us weird flashbacks.
December 24, 2003
Marlins to Orange Bowl?
Depending on which newspaper you believe, the Florida Marlins are either seriously considering an offer to move into a renovated Orange Bowl, or not that interested. Miami City Manager Joe Arriola says the 66-year-old stadium could be refitted for baseball for less than $200 million. Of course, if the Marlins really want to play in a converted football stadium with no roof, they have an even cheaper option.
December 23, 2003
Cards to finance own share of stadium
The St. Louis Cardinals finally revealed the "investors" behind the private share of their $387.5 million stadium plan, and it turns out to be - tah-dah! - the St. Louis Cardinals themselves. Apparently unable to find anyone who wanted to own a major-league baseball stadium - gosh, we can't imagine why - the Cardinals have decided to put another $30 million in cash into the stadium project, while selling $200 million in private bonds to finance the remainder of the construction cost.
The final tally, then, has the costs of the new facility breaking down like so:
- $42.7 million in state funds to pay for infrastructure and the demolition an replacement of an interstate ramp;
- $3.4 million a year from the elimination of a city ticket tax, which should pay off $42.9 million worth of bonds;
- $90 million in cash from the Cardinals;
- $200.5 million in private stadium bonds, to be paid off by the team at $15.9 million a year;
- a $45 million county loan, to be repaid by the team with interest - though the Cards can instead choose to simply hand over the stadium after 30 years, which they almost certainly will.
So while involving substantial public funds - somewhere between one-quarter and one-third the total construction cost, depending on how you count that loan - the new St. Louis stadium will still involve the second-most private money of any baseball park of the last 30 years, after the San Francisco Giants' Pacific Bell Park, which was 90% privately funded. And it will leave the Cardinals with a fair bit of debt to pay off: even after the ticket tax rebate, the team will be left with $12.5 million a year in bond payments, plus the need to recoup a return on their $90 million in cash outlay. Given that the Cards are already one of the more profitable teams in MLB, increasing revenues by $15 million a year or so for the next 30 years could be a challenge - sports business experts have estimated that the Giants will need to draw crowds of 30,000 or more a night for 20 straight years to pay off their $18 million a year in mortgage payments.
In all, the stadium finance plan is a large outlay of public money, but a much better deal than most other cities have gotten on new stadiums (and far better than the Cards' original proposal), while posing a sizable financial risk to the team. For the final score on winners and losers, check back in 30 years...
December 22, 2003
Nets arena would displace 1,000
About 100 Brooklyn residents rallied on the steps of New York City Hall yesterday, holding signs reading "Develop, Don't Destroy" while charging that Bruce Ratner's proposed Nets arena would force the demolition of homes of 1,000 people, ten times what the developer has claimed. The affected neighborhood's representatives in the city council, state assembly, state senate, and U.S. Congress have all now come out against the plan.
Get in line, George
With the city of New York considering subsidizing new homes for the Jets and Nets, the Yankees are again floating rumors of a new stadium, with the team paying half of the $800 million cost (and the city presumably paying the rest). Because clearly the Yanks just don't have enough money of their own.
49ers mull redoing the Stick
The San Francisco 49ers, who spent $2.5 million (and alleged support from beyond the grave) to win a vote for $100 million in public stadium money back in 1997, still haven't gotten around to building the thing, and are now considering renovating Candlestick Park instead. It's unclear when if ever the city's $100 million check expires, or whether the team would still build the accompanying mall that was a prime selling point in the 1997 drive for public dollars.
Expos to Jersey?
In the midst of a long New York Times profile of subsidy-bashing New Jersey sports authority chief George Zoffinger, Zoffinger reveals that he has been (in the Times' words) "contacted by two parties about moving the Montreal Expos to the Meadowlands to a stadium that exists only on paper." That'd make some people happy, anyway.
December 21, 2003
Jets stadium would use PILOTs
The New York Post reports that the proposed $5 billion Manhattan development project that would include a New York Jets stadium would be subsidized with PILOTs (payment in lieu of taxes), not TIFs (tax increment financing). As discussed earlier in this space, it would amount to the same damn thing.
Brewers "scammed" Milwaukee
After promising to spend $90 million on the construction of Miller Park, the Milwaukee Brewers ended up putting just $13 million of their own money into the project, writes Andrew Zimbalist in the New York Times. Zimbalist goes on to note that the $110 million in debt the Brewers have complained prevents them from signing new talent is in fact largely an investment: loans that will be paid back by millions of dollars in naming-rights revenue over the years. Concludes Wisconsin State Senator Mike Ellis: "The Seligs just scammed the living dickens out of the people of this state."
December 20, 2003
Miami stadium looks dead again
That didn't last long - the Florida Marlins stadium drive that began after their World Series win in October was declared dead today by Miami City Manager Joe Arriola. "We really cannot find the monies to come up with for the stadium, and the county's really reluctant to put the referendum for a half-cent sales tax on the ballot," Arriola told the Sun-Sentinel. "As far as the city is concerned, there's not going to be a deal ... this is over." Mike Lowell, phone your real estate agent.
December 19, 2003
Not much Houston stadium spinoff
The Houston Chronicle reports that while the opening of the Astros' Enron Field in 2000 led to lots of land speculation, "the vision of the baseball stadium surrounded by wall-to-wall restaurants, nightclubs and new development proved to be a mirage." The one new hotel, the 201-room Inn at the Ballpark, is expected to sell out on weekends when the Astros are at home, but that's just 13 weekends a year, which may not generate enough revenue to justify the location. Grumbles one Houston realtor of the $250 million stadium, which was two-thirds paid for with public funds: "It just hasn't resulted in much construction."
Sacramento arena won't die
Sacramento Bee columnist Ailene Voisin says Sacramento Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof, having failed at gaining support for a tax-subsidized arena on downtown rail yards, now hope to build a new home near their existing Arco Arena. As Voisin goes on to speculate that public subsidies would still be required, and opposition to the use of tax money is what killed the downtown plan, it's unclear how this helps the Maloofs' arena dreams. (Okay, not that unclear.)
December 18, 2003
Miami stadium price tag $450 mil?
The Miami city commission has asked Miami-Dade County to hold a March 9 referendum on hiking sales taxes by half a percent for 18 months, as a means of raising $225 million for a new Florida Marlins stadium. (Polls have previously shown Florida voters to be overwhelmingly opposed to using tax money for a stadium.) The Marlins will apparently need it, as Miami City Manager Joe Arriola says the cost of a stadium would be far higher than the $325 million that's been reported: "The real number is around $450 million. At least 450 million. We have had people say that estimate might be short." We don't want to say I told you so, but - oh, heck, sure we do.
St. Louis groundbreaking watch (continued)
The deadline has passed, and still no announcement of the deal everyone has been waiting for... the St. Louis Cardinals closing on $230 million in private financing for their proposed $402 million stadium. (What, you thought we were going to say something else?) Cards VP William DeWitt III told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he hopes to finalize the deal on Monday, but still would not reveal who the private investors are or what they will get in return for their money.
December 16, 2003
San Antonio offers minor-league stadium, share with Mexico
Coming on the heels of yesterday's curious revelation that MLB considers San Antonio a potential permanent home for the Montreal Expos, Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff (former San Antonio mayor and author of "Baseball for Real Men") has offered the following deal: have the Expos play half their games in a converted Texas League ballpark (that'd be Nelson Wolff Stadium), the other half in Monterrey, Mexico. Wolff added: "Ten years from now, the bonds will be paid off for the arena, the population will have grown and Toyota will be well-established. Ten years from now, things may be completely different around here." Whoa, Judge Wolff! Turn off the hard sell!
December 15, 2003
Desperately seeking suitors
Can't tell the prospective Montreal Expos relocation sites without a scorecard: With no stadium baksheesh forthcoming in D.C., Northern Virginia, or Portland, Oregon, MLB is now throwing Las Vegas and San Antonio into the mix. This notwithstanding the fact that Las Vegas could be about to lose its Triple-A team, while the last time San Antonio officials were asked about hosting the Expos, they said they needed to get a Toyota plant first. No, we're not sure why, either - maybe because they needed the practice?
December 12, 2003
Ratner hires stadium analyst
"Plan for Nets Arena To Get Hard Review," reads the Newsday headline on Bruce Ratner's hiring of noted sports economist Andrew Zimbalist to analyze his Nets arena plan. In his comments to Newsday, though, Zimbalist's eye looks less than jaundiced: he enthused that Ratner's plan would attract new money to the city, since with a $50 million Nets payroll, "if they came to Brooklyn [players] would pay $5.5 million or 11 percent of their income to New York State and New York City" - an assessment that likely underestimates the skills of Jason Kidd's accountant. (While declining to go into specifics, Zimbalist did tell FoS News that his comments to Newsday were taken out of context and "incomplete.") Zimbalist's public comments also overlooked the fact that while the Nets would be relocating from New Jersey, their fans would not be - a bit surprising, coming from the man who helped teach us everything we know about the substitution effect.
December 11, 2003
NJ gov ups Nets ante
And they're off! The war between the states for the New Jersey Nets got started in earnest yesterday, as Jersey governor James McGreevey countered Bruce Ratner's $2.5 billion tax-aided Brooklyn arena plan with a promise to build a $150 million rail line to the Nets' present home. Of course, this is a rail line that's been in the works for some time now, and the funding hasn't yet been approved, and but all's fair in love and bidding wars.
Interestingly, McGreevey's proposed rail line would be paid for by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a bistate authority controlled jointly by the governors of the two states. New York Gov. George Pataki was conspicuously absent from yesterday's Brooklyn news conference announcing plans for a new home for the Nets.
December 10, 2003
H to the izz-oops
At a packed-to-overflowing press conference this morning at Brooklyn Borough Hall, developer Bruce Ratner - flanked by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, Guggenheim Bilbao architect Frank Gehry, and rapper/limited partner Jay-Z - unveiled his plans for a $2.5 billion complex in downtown Brooklyn that would include an arena for the New Jersey Nets. In addition to the Gehry-designed arena, the project would include 4,000 units of housing and two million square feet of office space, and would require the demolition of two existing blocks of the adjacent Prospect Heights neighborhood (likely by city eminent domain).
The presentation was long on balsa-wood models, but short on financial specifics. Both Ratner and Bloomberg insisted that most of the costs would be paid for with private money, though the city would kick back sales and income taxes from the new arena to help pay for construction - the same controversial "tax increment financing" plan that has been proposed for a New York Jets stadium in Manhattan. (Ratner wouldn't say how much public TIF money would be involved, though other reports have pegged it at about $500 million.) Then there's the land, most of which is now rail yards for the Long Island Rail Road. When a reporter asked how much Ratner was planning to pay the cash-strapped public Metropolitan Transportation Authority for development rights, and whether that was included in the $2.5 billion figure, the developer would say only that he planned to "pay fair market value"; Mayor Bloomberg likewise bobbed and weaved, joking that "it's not enough to balance anybody's budget." (Previous estimates have pegged the value of the land at as much as $500 million.)
In addition to the financing, the plan faces one other obstacle: landing the Nets. Promised Ratner: "If we do not get the team, there will not be a project. Because that's the centerpiece."
December 09, 2003
Miami voters to vote on something
Miami city commissioners have agreed to a March vote on using city money toward a new stadium for the Florida Marlins. Of course, there's been no decision yet on how much money the city would spend, where the money would come from, if Miami would get any of it back in rent, whether the March vote is binding or advisory, or how the ballot question would be phrased - but at least there'll be some kind of vote.
December 07, 2003
Nets to split from Yankees, Jersey?
According to the Newark Star-Ledger, the YankeeNets conglomerate could be broken up as early as tomorrow, with part-owner Lewis Katz getting full control of the New Jersey Nets, which he would try to move to Bruce Ratner's proposed Brooklyn arena. There are some serious questions whether an arena could generate enough revenue to pay off construction costs, provide Katz with his desired boost to profits, and give Ratner a reasonable return on his investment, even if the public kicks in "tax increment" subsidies - Ratner reportedly has a news conference scheduled for later this week, so we may learn more then.
Jets stadium would cost public $850 million
That "privately financed" New York Jets stadium on Manhattan's West Side - touted by deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff as "the largest private contribution to a facility of this type" - would also be one of the largest public contributions to a sports facility: $850 million, according to Jets president Jay Cross, including $400 million to deck over the Long Island Rail Road train yards, $200 million for a retractable roof, and $250 million for an adjacent underground truck garage. And that's not counting the $2 billion subway extension to get people there, or the $1.5 billion expansion of the nearby Jacob Javits Convention Center. Doctoroff's financial plan for how to pay for all this, originally scheduled for last April, is now rumored to be on its way in January.
Where have you gone, A.J. Pierzynski?
Carl Pohlad's main man, Minnesota Star Tribune columnist Sid Hartman, is blaming the Minnesota legislature for not passing a stadium bill, thereby forcing the Twins to trade "superstars" like Latroy Hawkins, A.J. Pierzynski, and Eric Milton. If Eric Milton (lifetime record: 57-51, 4.76 ERA) is what passes for a superstar in Minnesota, they have bigger problems than playing in a 20-year-old stadium...
December 05, 2003
Throw it away (and get a new one)
The Carolina Panthers are griping about an increase in the tax valuation of Ericsson Stadium that will cost the team an additional $880,000 a year in property taxes. In reality, team officials told the Associated Press, the stadium should be devalued because it's heading toward obsolescence - it is, after all, seven years old.
Miami Beach, entire population of Florida oppose Marlins stadium funds
You go and win a World Series with hand-me-down equipment, and this is the thanks you get? Miami Beach is now threatening to sue Miami-Dade County over $73 million in tourist tax money that the county wants to redirect from Miami Beach's convention center to a new stadium for the Florida Marlins. Meanwhile, a new poll shows that 80 percent of Floridians are opposed to using tax money for a Marlins stadium.
Pro-stadium state rep Ralph Arza counters that the poll is misleading, since a rebate of sales taxes on a new stadium (one funding scheme being considered) wouldn't be existing taxes, but new tax money that otherwise would not exist. How moving the Marlins from one part of the state to another will generate new tax revenue isn't exactly clear to us, but we're sure there must be a reasonable explanation.
December 04, 2003
Lowell contract tied to new stadium
The Florida Marlins have signed star third baseman to a four-year contract with a clause that cancels the last three years of the deal if the team doesn't have a new stadium in the works by next November 1. As Doug Pappas notes: "If Lowell's agent was smart, he negotiated a separate royalty for every time his client's face appears in an advertisement or article about the Marlins' proposed park. For better or for worse Lowell, a popular South Florida native, is now the symbol of the stadium bill."
St. Louis groundbreaking watch (update)
The target date is now "late this month or in early January," according to the Belleville News-Democrat. But the Cardinals did produce some really bizarre-looking computer renderings.
Wisconsin pols cut off tax to spite face
With the Milwaukee Brewers celebrating their fourth season in taxpayer-funded Miller Park by dumping their only good players, Wisconsin legislators have proposed ditching the 0.1 percent sales tax that's paying off the stadium debt. "I prefer it sunset in 2004 rather than waiting 10 more years. This is really a useless program," said Ozaukee County Supervisor Kimberly McCulloch. "If the Seligs are going to put a crappy team on the field, then I don't think we should be paying for the stadium," added fellow board member Gerald Walker. Of course, Wisconsin taxpayers will still be on the hook for stadium costs even if legislators scrap the sales tax, but it's something to do.
December 03, 2003
Stadium name curse watch
The stadium naming-rights curse may have struck again. This time it's Invesco Funds, holders of a 20-year naming rights deal on the Denver Broncos' Invesco Field at Mile High, that are being accused of shenanigans with their investors' funds. The Denver stadium board is watching the situation closely, according to spokesperson Matt Sugar, but has no morals clause that would allow it to revoke Invesco's naming rights if the company is mired in scandal - which means this could get ugly...
St. Louis groundbreaking watch
The St. Louis Cardinals are now hoping to break ground for their new stadium "by the end of the year," according to the Associated Press. But they didn't say for sure.
Minnesota legislator to Twins: Name your price
Showing an odd notion of the art of haggling, Hennepin County Commissioner Mark Stenglein has sent a list of 13 questions to the Minnesota Twins, asking how much they would contribute to construction of a new stadium, what rent they would pay, and so on. Reports remain unconfirmed that William Shatner will soon be appointed to Minnesota's stadium task force.
Red Sox stadium options dwindle
The owners of the Boston Red Sox still aren't saying what their plans are for Fenway Park, but it's looking less and less likely that they'll build a new stadium: the Boston Herald reports that four previously proposed stadium sites are now being targeted for other development projects. "They may not have the options they may like when and if they decide to build a new stadium," stadium consultant Marc Ganis told the Herald. Of course, the last round of stadium plans fell apart when bankers scoffed at Red Sox requests for $330 million in private financing, so the entire question might be moot, unless Curt Schilling invites Gov. Romney over for a high-stakes round of Advanced Squad Leader.
