Field of Schemes

September 30, 2004

New Jersey Mets?

You let one city steal another's team, suddenly everybody wants to get into the act. Yesterday it was San Jose, today it's New Jersey, where acting-governor-in-waiting Richard Codey says he wants to lure the New York Mets to a new stadium built in the Jersey swamps.

The plan, according to Jersey sports czar George "no subsidies for billionaires" Zoffinger, would be for the state to use the proceeds from the sale of two racetracks to build a $350 million stadium, which the Mets would then repay with annual rent payments. If the Mets wanted to do that, though, they could just go to a bank - it's not like New Jersey could even offer a tax-exempt bond rate to sweeten the pot, thanks to the 10% private-activity bond limit. If anything, Jersey's offer is only likely to provide leverage for the Mets (and Yankees) to extort more money from the New York treasury with the threat of jumping across the Hudson.

That's actually the likely goal of Jersey's stadium plan, according to the Newark Star-Ledger's Matthew Futterman. (In fact, Zoffinger pretty much said as much back in March.) Writes Futterman:

If New York has to spend money on the Mets and Yankees - who want to build a new Yankee Stadium and have requested some $250 million for transportation improvements - it will have less money to spend on venues for the Nets and Jets, increasing the likelihood of those teams remaining in New Jersey.

I think during the Cold War they had a different name for this strategy.

U of T: Stadium too rich for our blood

Man, those Canadians just don't know how to throw money at their sports teams. After committing to help pay for an $80 million stadium to be shared with the Toronto Argonauts football team, the University of Toronto has abruptly pulled out of the project. Why? Because rising costs meant they'd have to foot the bill for an additional $20 million in construction. "Our commitment to the university was this would be an $80 million project and not a penny more," school VP Jon Dellandrea told the Canadian Press. "The project was creeping over $100 million with no particular end in sight." Those crazy Canucks just don't understand that cost overruns are the American way.

Le plus ca change...

More Expos news than you can shake a stick at today, so let's get to it:

The Washington Post reports that once D.C.'s stadium bonds are retired (D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams' office hopes this could be in as little as 20 years), the ballpark taxes would be rescinded, but the team would continue to pay its $5.5 million a year rent. According to my back-of-the-envelope (okay, I actually used an online present value calculator) calculations, this could be worth maybe another $15-20 million in present value, but not nearly enough to tip the balance of the overwhelmingly generous stadium deal that I reported on Tuesday.
Speaking of generosity, the Post also quotes a source at last week's baseball executive council meetings as saying, "People were amazed that the District had done the deal that they did." Post writer Peter Whoriskey speculates that D.C. could have cut a much better deal for taxpayers, had they noticed that Virginia's competing bid was falling apart. It's not like it was exactly a secret.
In the midst of an excellent analysis of D.C.'s sweetheart deal with MLB (and no, not just excellent because he quotes me), ESPN.com's Darren Rovell reveals that at least one sports marketing expert believes the team "can easily get $100 million for 25 years" in a naming-rights contract. That would knock another $1.5 million a year off the team's costs, or about $20 million in present value - nicely balancing out those future rent payments noted above.
Derek Zumsteg of Baseball Prospectus (no registration/subscription required for this one) notes that MLB's reported annual-revenue guarantee to Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos is "easily the worst deal MLB has made with anyone, ever":
You can field a bad team (or the A's) for $40 million dollars. If you run a lean, mean organization, you can run your team's operations on another $40 million. Eighty million in expenses with $150 million in guaranteed revenues leaves $70 million a year in guaranteed profit.
Teams have been destroyed for far less, run into the ground for the tiny guaranteed profits that baseball's misguided revenue sharing offered. Imagine what could happen with this sort of motherlode.
Zumsteg foresees years of lawsuits, and ultimately an MLB buyout of the clause, either of which sounds like a pretty good bet.
Bob "Nostradamus" Nightengale of Baseball Weekly reports that Angelos' compensation package will actually be "a sliding scale based on any decrease in attedance." But then, Nightengale has never been right about anything before.
Jayson Stark of ESPN.com reports informed sources as saying "MLB could be stuck with this club anywhere from another six months to (better grab the smelling salts) two years." At best, if the D.C. city council passes a stadium bill quickly and then MLB picks a new owner shortly after that, the Expos could be in new hands by next spring - way too late to sign any free agents to improve this year's pathetic squad. Or, for that matter, to sell any tickets: "There's not one person working on selling a baseball ticket right now," one sports exec told Stark. "There's not one person working on selling a suite, or a marketing deal, or a sponsorship. And there's already too little time to do all of that right."
Stark further notes that the pending Expos move is a good news/bad news scenario for those baseball boosters in San Jose, quoting another unnamed exec: "The precedent is now in place. So if they'll do it for one team, they have to do it for everyone. This doesn't make it impossible [to move a team into another club's neighborhood]. It just makes it really expensive."
As for what the D.C. team will be called, a third incarnation of the Washington Senators looks unlikely, both since the mayor hates it and since the Texas Rangers took the rights to the name with them when they skipped town in 1972. A petition is being circulated to call the team the Washington Grays, after the Homestead Grays, an old Negro League team that played some home games in the District; Mayor Williams supports this name as well. The Toronto Star, however, says that "the team will likely keep the name Expos until new owners take over." The Washington Expos? What's next, the Utah Jazz?
And finally, to answer the question that I'm sure all of you are really wondering: Youppi lives!

September 29, 2004

San Jose: We got next

The pending Expos-to-D.C. announcement has raised hopes of baseball boosters in San Jose that perhaps MLB will now look more kindly on a move of the Oakland A's to the South Bay. "You had an owner in Peter Angelos in Baltimore who has clearly stated he did not want the Expos to move into his area," Mike Fox Jr. of Baseball San Jose told the San Jose Mercury News. "From our standpoint, that's a hopeful sign that there might be an ability to get a major league baseball team in San Jose."

Yeah, except of course that Angelos' Orioles don't actually have territorial rights to D.C., while the San Francisco Giants have been granted rights to all of Santa Clara County. And that neither San Jose elected officials nor the local populace have shown themselves eager to throw $300 million or so at a new stadium, as D.C. is doing and the A's want. San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales did say that he plans to introduce a city council resolution asking MLB to remove Santa Clara from the Giants' territory; you can probably guess what MLB's likely response will be.

Seattle signage suit

A nonprofit group called Save Our Skyline has sued the city of Seattle, saying the enormous Qwest logos recently installed on the Seattle Seahawks stadium as part of a naming-rights deal violate city ordinances on the size of ad signs, as well as local regulations that prohibit ads for companies that don't occupy or sell products on the premises. In order to get around the latter provision, Qwest installed a small booth at the stadium to sell its products, a maneuver that the plaintiffs' lawyer called a "transparent sham." No word yet on what this lawsuit would mean for Safeco Field.

Monster impervious to voters

Monster Park it will be. The San Francisco city attorney says that yesterday's naming-rights deal for the 49ers home stadium will stand even if voters approve a November referendum blocking future corporate names for the building. Of course, that may not be the best news for corporate sponsors Monster Cable: the L.A. Times points out that many sports fans are likely to think the stadium name is an ad for the better-known Monster.com instead. The Curse lives!

And away we go...

Word on the street - okay, and on the AP wire - is that MLB will announce Wednesday afternoon its intention to move the Montreal Expos to Washington, D.C. for the 2005 season. Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos met with MLB lieutenant Bob DuPuy for six hours today, with presumably enough progress being made on compensation talks that MLB feels it can hold a press conference without worrying about Angelos bursting in, lawyers blazing.

The fate of the Expos now lies in the hands of the D.C. city council, which is expected to begin consideration of a $440 million stadium-finance package by the end of the week; and U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages, who could yet send the Expos back to Montreal for another season with a court injunction in the continuing RICO suit against MLB and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria. In the meantime, the Expos are preparing for what could be their final home game on Wednesday night, one day before the 33rd anniversary of the Senators' last game in Washington.

LATE NOTE: ESPN's Jayson Stark cites "baseball sources" as saying that MLB has offered to Angelos: 1) a guaranteed annual team income, with MLB making up the difference; and 2) a guaranteed minimum team sale price, with MLB again making up any shortfall. If true, this is pretty extraordinary, and would be the biggest incentive to gut a team's payroll since Carl Pohlad decided he'd rather cash revenue-sharing checks than field a baseball team. I'll be watching this one closely.

September 28, 2004

D.C. taxpayers to foot 80% of stadium bill

After a whole lot of math and a fair bit of guesstimating, I've come up with projected numbers for who would end up paying how much for the proposed $440 million Expos stadium in D.C. And the survey says: D.C. taxpayers would be on the hook for $320 million, while the team owners would spend just $70 million. (The remainder would effectively come out of the budgets of neighboring states.) For more details, see my article in today's Baseball Prospectus (no registration/subscription required).

And speaking of neighboring states, the Maryland Stadium Authority reports that if the Expos' move to D.C. reduces Baltimore Orioles ticket sales by 30%, it would cost the state of Maryland $2.6 million a year in lost ticket taxes. There are a world of problem with this figure - 30% is a crazy high number, for starters, and there's also the likelihood that at least a few of those lost fans would stay home and order crabcakes - but it does point out that an Expos move could have some unforeseen collateral damage.

Monster green for 49ers, S.F.

Somebody alert the D.C. mayor's office: Not every sports franchise gets 100% of the naming-rights fees from the buildings they're tenants in. With yesterday's announcement that the San Francisco 49ers have sold naming rights to Candlestick Park to speaker-wire manufacturers Monster Cable, the team and the city are set to split 50/50 the $6 million fee the company is paying over the next four years.

Starting this Sunday, the stadium will now officially be known as, yes, Monster Park, though it'd be a shocker if any locals call it anything but the Stick. On the bright side for the company, though, they already got out of the deal what must be their longest writeup ever in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Isles owner draws pretty pictures

New York Islanders owner Charles Wang yesterday unveiled plans for a $200 million renovation of the Nassau Coliseum that would add a ring of luxury seats and a new concessions concourse. And how would it be paid for, you ask? "Financial details," reports Newsday, are "sketchy," beyond an Isles exec saying it would involve "help from state, the county and Wang." And what about the plan for 70 acres of surrounding development, which would include - I swear I am not making this up, people - a 60-story lighthouse modeled after the Great Lighthouse at Alexandria? Says Newsday: "who will develop that area, how it will be financed, and whether zoning and environmental issues can be addressed remain uncertain." But, hey, pretty pictures!

September 27, 2004

Angelos speaks!

For the first time since the MLB executive council got together Thursday and decided whatever it did or didn't decide, Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos has spoken to the press. Angelos told the Baltimore Sun that while $100 million or $150 million might "take care of" him, that's not what he's concerned about, oh no. Rather, Angelos indicated he'd agree to a move of the Expos to Washington, D.C. on two conditions: "Does the deal protect the value of the franchise? Does it protect the state and the taxpayers' investment in Camden Yards?"

Laugh all you want about that last bit, given that Camden Yards is currently costing Maryland taxpayers $11 million a year. The important bit here is that for the first time, Angelos has admitted that he has a price. Pretty much everyone is now saying that Thursday will be the day for announcement of an Expos-to-D.C. move, contingent upon passage of an acceptable stadium bill.

September 24, 2004

NYC stadium backers: "Tastes great!"

The big story at yesterday's public hearing on New York's multi-billion-dollar Hudson Yards plan was the scene on the sidewalk outside, where supporters and opponents of the stadium/convention center/office development plan engaged in a brief shouting match during a press conference by state assemblyman Richard Gottfried. While the altercation - Crain's, in an exceptionally lyrical moment, called it a "ruckus" - made the headlines, there were relatively few reports of what actually went on inside the hearing room: Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum was quoted as saying the financing for the plan looked "very, very risky," while Mayor Michael Bloomberg insisted that the project would create jobs and revenue. Vishaan Chakrabarti of the City Planning Commission again promoted the argument that the proposed Jets stadium would meet the city's need for additional convention, which Heywood Sanders covered yesterday.

Yesterday's public hearing - the only one scheduled on the $5-billion-plus plan, though there will almost certainly be more city council and state legislative hearings to come - almost didn't come off, going ahead only after a judge ruled against granting an injunction to opponents of the plan who claim the city's environmental impact statement is inadequate. The opponents' lawsuit against the EIS will still go forward, though; no word on when court proceedings are expected to begin, but presumably it would need to be before the city council holds its final vote on the plan next January.

D.C. at the bat, cont'd

All kinds of news this morning on the potential Montreal Expos-to-D.C. move:

While the official word was that yesterday's MLB executive council meeting didn't come to any decisions on the Expos' fate, today's Washington Times reports that the league's relocation committee "made a strong case" for a move to D.C., and will "unquestionably" make a formal recommendation by the end of the regular season next weekend. In an attempt to placate Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos over the loss of a share of his existing TV market, MLB has hired former CBS Sports president Neal Pilson to discuss setting up a new regional sports channel that Angelos would part-own.
Though it was previously reported that a tax on large D.C. businesses would pay for more than half of a new stadium for the relocated Montreal Expos, today's Washington Post brings word that if sales and ticket tax money from the stadium comes in faster than expected, the business tax could be retired early. (This is what happened with the Wizards' MCI Center bonds in the 1990s, ending what was planned to be a 15-year business tax after just seven years.) Apparently using any larger-than-expected tax revenues to, say, start putting stadium sales taxes back into the general fund is not being considered.
It turns out that the "largely industrial" neighborhood that would be wiped out to make way for the stadium includes the city's main gay nightclub district. City officials insist that they would help relocate any displaced businesses, but it's unclear if any funds have been allocated to this end.
And finally, MLS team D.C. United, which would temporarily share RFK Stadium with a relocated Expos, has jumped in with its own demands for a new stadium, across the Anacostia River from the proposed baseball site. D.C. officials say the soccer stadium would be "funded primarily" by D.C. United's owner, the Anschutz Entertainment Group, but full financial details are still murky.

In any case, it looks Bud Selig & Co. are finally ready to roll the dice on D.C. - something they could have done two years ago, but better late than never, right? While the D.C. Expos plan still faces significant hurdles - a city council vote on a stadium bill, and that little matter of the RICO suit - it's enough to make it worth updating the Expos Odds Chart (see right-hand column) yet again.

September 23, 2004

D.C. gridlock

MLB's executive council has concluded its summit meeting on the Montreal Expos, and decided... nothing. The eight-owner group emerged after three hours without a recommendation on the Expos' fate, and apparently without resolving how or if to compensate Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos for dropping a team onto his doorstep. (Angelos, a member of the executive council, did not comment following the meeting.)

While MLB assistant honcho Bob DuPuy had previously warned not to expect any announcement following the meeting, the initial press reports definitely bear the whiff of wheels spinning. For his part, DuPuy's reiterated that the league hopes to make a decision by season's end, noting, "I think we're all running out of time." You are, Bob; Marion Barry & Co. have nothing but time.

Re-crunching the numbers

A reader points out that while my summary of the D.C. stadium finance plan is accurate, the Washington Post's math is not: $5.5 million in annual rent, plus a few million more a year in ticket and parking taxes, makes for a total private contribution of closer to 30% of the whole project than the 44% that the Post reported. Subtract $2-3 million a year in anticipated naming-rights fees, and you have a number that's more likely to bring a smile to the lips of Bud Selig - and a snarl to those of the D.C. Three.

Redskins fans seek to vote with feet

How does a sports team owner manage to pay three-quarters of the cost of a new stadium and still turn a handsome profit? A government-sanctioned monopoly on parking spaces is a nice start. Ever since the Washington Redskins' FedEx Field opened in 1997, fans have avoided the team's $25-a-car parking fees by parking at the nearby Landover Mall, and walking to the stadium. This June, however, Prince George's County transportation director Dale G. Coppage, citing "public safety" concerns, ordered all sidewalks leading into the stadium closed to pedestrians on game days, effectively forcing all fans to use the Redskins parking lots. A group of fans has appealed to the county to reverse the ruling; if their request is denied, they may file a lawsuit.

Putting the "con" in "convention center"

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to interview Heywood Sanders, the pre-eminent expert on the economic impact (or lack thereof) of new and expanded convention centers - think of him as the Andrew Zimbalist of convention centers, and you're on the right track. The wheels of transcription grind slow but fine, and the full interview with Prof. Sanders is now available on this site.

Crunching the numbers

The Washington Post breaks down the proposed D.C. stadium deal today, concluding that the team's rent payments, plus ticket and parking surcharges, would amount to about 44 percent of the $440 million cost being paid by the team owner. A large chunk of that, however, the team could recoup via the sale of naming rights, which would be given by the city to the team for free.

In all, then, the relocated Montreal Expos - is it too soon to assume they'd be called the Washington Senators? - would pay somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of construction costs, with the rest borne by taxpayers. There are, however, several questions that still remain to be answered about the plan:

Who would pay the cost of acquiring the 20 acres of private land required for the stadium, estimated by the Post at $65 million but which could certainly go higher, or even require the use of eminent domain? [Late note: The Washington Times says that land acquisition costs are included in the $440 million; the Washington Post implies they aren't.]
Who would be responsible for paying for cost overruns (or as the Seattle Mariners management liked to call them, "unanticipated capital expenditures")?
Will D.C. business leaders go along with the plan to fund about half the stadium cost with a tax surcharge on large area businesses, and will they demand any concessions in return?
Does Mayor Anthony Williams have the votes on the lame-duck city council to pass a stadium bill and make it stick? The Post estimates that seven of the 13 current councilmembers would back a stadium bill; however, with three anti-stadium councilmembers expected to take office in January, that could lead to a 9-4 vote to repeal any bill - enough to override a mayoral veto.

Then there are those other niggling uncertainties, like the potential for a Peter Angelos lawsuit and that RICO suit. The Expos' future could still get muddier before it gets clearer.

September 22, 2004

D.C. marks a spot

With the MLB executive council set to meet tomorrow to discuss the fate of the Montreal Expos, Washington, D.C. officials have finally agreed on a stadium site, a plot of privately owned land near the Navy Yard in southeast D.C. The stadium plan, according to the Washington Post, would cost $440 million (how they've pinned down a price when negotiations to buy the land haven't begun yet, I haven't a clue); members of the lame-duck city council contacted by the Post were split on the plan, with four in favor, three opposed, four undecided and two not reachable by phone.

The current D.C. stadium plan on the table would be paid off by a tax on large D.C. businesses ($21-24 million a year), rent from the team ($5.5 million) and both new and existing taxes on tickets, concessions and parking ($11-14 million). It's unclear as yet how local businesses will respond to the plan, and also what MLB will think of it: $5.5 million in annual rent, plus several million more in ticket and parking surcharges (which economists generally consider to come out of team owners' pockets), would be a significant annual cost to a new owner, and thus reduce MLB's possible sale price. And since the expense would be in rent and not construction debt, they couldn't even use the Steinbrenner dodge.

As for that MLB executive council meeting tomorrow in Milwaukee - following in the long tradition of commissioners who don't like to travel far from home - don't expect an immediate decision no matter what transpires. "The council will review the options and then it's up to them to make a decision," said MLB COO Bob DuPuy. "But I certainly don't expect an announcement on Thursday."

September 20, 2004

Expos ponder fate

Comments from the Montreal Expos clubhouse on the team's drawn-out relocation saga:

"The speculation on the TV and in the newspapers doesn't bother me. I don't listen to them. I don't read them. ... The secret word is, 'The Montreal Expos have been relocated to ...' That will get my attention." -Expos manager Frank Robinson
"The word was we're going to D.C., but now they're backing off that. I'm like, 'OK, whatever.' The way I look at is that we're going to be in Montreal next year. There's a whole bunch of politics involved. It's not easy to move a team." -Expos outfielder Terrmel Sledge
"I've been telling these guys for two years that the owners aren't going to let go of us. With us, the owners have control of one-30th of our union and we have a contract coming up in two years. It's common sense for them to keep us. They're keeping a piece of that rope so they can play a better game of tug of war with us in two years." -Expos pitcher Joey Eischen

Eischen's theory is that with the league's collective bargaining agreement due to expire in 2006, the league will hold off on selling or moving the Expos until then, at which point Bud Selig will again raise the threat of "contracting" teams in order to force players into bargaining concessions. (Contraction is disallowed through 2006 under the current CBA.) "That's a good point," Expos player rep Brad Wilkerson told Pennsylvania's Patriot-News. "It seems to the general public that they've been working on this for just a year, but they've been working on this for the last three years. They haven't made a decision by now, and that makes you a little wary."

September 18, 2004

Quakes on deadline: Not yet

The San Jose Earthquakes were facing a self-imposed deadline yesterday for resolving their multi-city relocation controversy, and ... well, even if you haven't already read the headline on this item, you can probably guess: They extended it indefinitely to give prospective local buyer Tony Amanpour more time to drum up investors and stadium money. A final decision is now promised for October on the team's future home, at least for the 2005 season.

Vikes to stadium lobbyists: Go home

The Minnesota Vikings have laid off their stadium lobbyists for 2005, saving themselves an estimated $500,000. "We feel like we've made the case for a new stadium during the past five years and not gotten the response for it," said team president Gary Woods. "The inclination would be not to spend more time, effort and money for a sixth year, trying to explain the same information to the same people." Suburban Anoka County still insists it's working on a $645 million stadium complex for the team, but it's unlikely to make headway with either state legislators or local voters.

Evans to MLB: You suck

So, D.C. councilman Jack Evans, you have a two-week window in which to get MLB to approve the move of the Montreal Expos to your city. What do you have to say to baseball officials?

"Major League Baseball is so screwed up, they probably won't give us the team anyway. I have nothing but disrespect for the owners of Major League Baseball, to be honest with you. And if they drag this thing out any longer, they can take the team and put it in Northern Virginia, and I hope it fails. Good for them."

MLB officials were too screwed up to issue a comment on Evans' remarks.

September 17, 2004

Rush job on D.C. stadium?

With stadium opponents set to take over the D.C. city council, there's increasing speculation that the lame-duck council will try to push through a stadium bill for the Expos before it leaves office. The timetable would be extraordinarily tight, reports the Washington Times' Eric Fisher: Given procedural requirements of the council, "a bill introduced in October would not be completed until early December at the soonest, just days before [stadium supporters Harold] Brazil, [Kevin] Chavous and [Sandy] Allen make way for Marion Barry, Vincent Gray and Kwame Brown on the council."

Since it's extremely unlikely baseball owners would make any decisions on the Expos' fate during the playoffs - and since D.C. officials have been adamant that they won't introduce a stadium bill until MLB awards them the team - that effectively leaves until the end of the regular season for Bud Selig & Co. to make their decision. Can 29 baseball owners agree on a course of action - including how to placate Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, how to deal with the possibility of a RICO arbitration loss, and how much stadium baksheesh to demand from the D.C. council - in the next sixteen days? Stranger things have happened.

THIS JUST IN: Canadian news outlets are reporting that Olympic Stadium concessionaires have been told that the Expos will be officially relocated November 30, and all team front-office personnel laid off on that date; Expos management denies the story. Read into this what you will.

K.C. at the bat

Voters in the Kansas City region will go to the polls this November to decide on "Bistate 2," a plan to raise sales taxes by 0.25% for 15 years, with the proceeds going half for a $380 million renovation of the Royals and Chiefs stadiums, half for local arts programs. (If you haven't noticed, this is a trend: Presumably sports team owners have discovered that it's easier to get a stadium bill passed if it's sold as "money for stadiums and fluffy puppies.") Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt answered "cynics" - the K.C. Star's word - who think the Chiefs should pay for their own renovations to Arrowhead Stadium, saying, "The fact is, this is a public facility. The Chiefs only play 10 games a year here," while the rest of the year it's used by such events as Wizards soccer games and the Billy Graham crusade. Billy Graham needs new locker rooms?

In the official kickoff of the Bistate 2 campaign this week, meanwhile, Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce President Pete Levi insisted that "this campaign is just as tough" as that faced by Lewis and Clark when the passed through the area 200 years ago. Why, just last week Royals vice-president Mark Gorris was eaten by a b'ar!

September 16, 2004

Gentlemen, start your lawyers

Stadium negotiations may be going nowhere fast, but the MLB Commissioner's office has nonetheless filed notice with the judge overseeing the RICO suit filed by former Expos minority owners that the league plans "subject to the negotiation of satisfactory terms and the affirmative vote of the major league clubs to relocate the Montreal Expos baseball club in time for the commencement of the 2005 regular season." The RICO plaintiffs promptly indicated that they would file for a preliminary injunction against any relocation, attorney Jeffrey Kessler saying, "We probably will look for a schedule for a hearing to be held in November."

All this will likely be moot if the RICO plaintiffs lose their arbitration ruling next month. If they win, though, and MLB somehow comes up with a plan to move the Expos by then, the team's fate could end up being decided by U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages.

Meanwhile, there's again talk of a "conditional" award of the Expos to D.C., with a permanent home to be determined once it's clear who'll cough up the most stadium cash. As previously noted, this would solve a bunch of problems for MLB, it's unclear whether it would pass muster with the players' union, which has been insisting that baseball pick a permanent home for the team and stick with it.

LATE NOTE: On second read, it's possible the Post meant a "conditional" award in the sense of "We promise to give D.C. the team once it shows us the stadium money." That wouldn't solve so many problems.

Piling on vs. Jets stadium

You know your stadium plan is in trouble when even traditional City Hall suck-ups are listing the reasons why it won't be built. Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin today declares New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Jets stadium plan to be "in Big Trouble" - just like that, with the capital letters and everything - quoting scads of state officials to that effect:

"The odds are not good at all," said one Albany player. Said another, "I'd bet against it." Even supporters call it a "tossup."

"I'd say it's 50-50," said one.

Most notably, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno has not joined the Republican mayor's team.

"The verdict is not in yet about putting a stadium on that site," Bruno aide John McArdle said yesterday. "He's still open, but he's not convinced it's a good idea."

Meanwhile, an increasingly testy Newsday editorial page tore into Bloomberg's threat that losing the stadium would cost New York its Olympic bid, writing:

He might have sounded like the quintessential peevish papa - "Don't make me take your Olympics away!" - save for one thing: He needs $600 million in city and state cash to help the Jets pay for new Manhattan digs. Taxpayers and politicians should debate this expense at length.

And if the back and forth costs us the Olympics? Too bad.

Added Newsday: "He shouldn't try to scare New Yorkers into a premature choice." What, and give up show business?

Baseball Barry, Barry bad to him

Presumptive D.C. city councilmember Marion Barry (he still needs to win the November general election, but that's a foregone conclusion in a Democratic town like D.C.) lashed out at Mayor Anthony Williams' stadium plans for the Expos yesterday, declaring: "Over my dead body. I don't believe we should spend one cent of taxpayer money on a stadium. ... These owners stick you up. I won't let them stick you up." Current councilmember Adrian Fenty added that the council should take Tuesday's voter revolt as a sign to stop pouring tax money into downtown projects like museum expansion or baseball stadiums.

For his part, Mayor Williams responded to the election results: "It would be myopic and stupid and idiotic, certainly on my part, to just say, 'Oh, all we need to do is just adjust the drapes and the air conditioning.' Clearly, there is a message being sent here." Then he went on to insist that he'd go ahead with his stadium plan, because it would be a benefit to the whole city. Maybe Barry should try Western Union.

September 15, 2004

More opponents for Expos stadium

Poor Bud Selig. As if things weren't going badly enough with his stadium extortion schemes for the Montreal Expos, now yesterday's council primaries in Washington, D.C., swept out three allies of pro-stadium Mayor Anthony Williams and replaced them with stadium opponents: Vincent Gray, Kwame Brown, and Marion Barry. (Yes, that Marion Barry. No, not that one.)

According to the Washington Post, voters east of the Anacostia River - that's D.C.-speak for "poor folks" - were angered by Mayor Williams and the outgoing councilmembers' focus on downtown development instead of addressing crime and schools. So while not specifically a referendum on the stadium, it's another instance where low-income voters weren't swayed by promises of trickle-down economic development.

That's D.C. Over in Virginia, meanwhile, the Post is reporting that Gov. Mark Warner has joined key legislative leaders in raising questions about the use of state "moral obligation" bonds for a new stadium. If true, this is a huge deal: As previously noted, Virginia's stadium authorizing legislation expires at the end of the year, and the state legislature isn't scheduled to meet again until January - so the only way a stadium bill can get passed is if the governor calls a special legislative session. These means that Gov. Warner can, if he so chooses, effectively issue a pocket veto of stadium plans simply by declining to call the legislature back into session.

Put it all together, and it's looking more and more like another April in Montreal. Time to update the Odds Chart (see righthand column).

September 14, 2004

When in doubt, confer

If a bureaucrat is someone who responds to a crisis by calling a meeting, then Major League Baseball is positively Kafkaesque: More meetings are scheduled this week with representatives of Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia to discuss the never-ending Montreal Expos relocation. This is almost certainly just killing time until the RICO arbitration is resolved next month - though the fact that D.C. and Virginia have each gotten two visits from MLB in the last month while nobody else has gotten any can't make baseball boosters in Norfolk and Las Vegas very happy.

In related news, Virginia's Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has launched a study into how having a stadium just across the county line in Loudoun County would affect traffic patterns in the region. If you'll recall, Fairfax County needs to give its blessing to new highways before the stadium can go forward, so Virginia baseball boosters - and MLB - will no doubt be watching this development carefully.

September 13, 2004

Promises, promises

The Anaheim city council is scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss building a stadium for an NFL team, but local officials swear they've learned their lesson after being spurned by the Rams and the Seattle Seahawks. "We realize it's not the end of the world not to have an NFL team," City Attorney Jack White told the Orange County Register. (He then utterly failed to launch into a blistering guitar solo.) "We want to facilitate them coming if they want to come, and yet we're not going to finance a stadium for them." Um-hm. Be sure to bookmark this quote for future reference once a stadium plan actually emerges.

Newsom twosome

It seems that new San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is intent on reversing his city's two-decade-long history of saying no to sports subsidy demands: First he's opening stadium talks with the San Jose Earthquakes, now he's saying he wants to be "proactive" on a new stadium for the 49ers. Newsom told the San Jose Mercury News: "This lease is about to expire, the life of this stadium is really in question as well, and the deferred maintenance requirements are such that we're going to have to make some tough financial choices if we don't resolve this new stadium." (For those playing along at home, that's items 1 and 5 in the stadium-grubbers' playbook, as described in chapter four of Field of Schemes.)

Though a 49ers spokesman insisted that the team has no thoughts of leaving town, that didn't stop Newsom from declaring that a new stadium was necessary to keep the 49ers from moving: "I'm going to fight hard to make sure this team stays. Plus, if it happens on my watch and they leave, I won't be able to live that down. I take that personal."

Bloomberg: No stadium, no Olympics

I've previously described New York's multi-billion-dollar Hudson Yards plan as "all cart and no horse," and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg made another stab at muddying the waters of causality in statements at yesterday's Jets game. Though the city has certified an official backup plan (Shea Stadium), Bloomberg nonetheless insisted yesterday that the bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics will be withdrawn if the Jets' $1.4 billion Manhattan stadium is not approved. "If we were to not get the stadium going very soon we would have to drop out of the competition for the Olympics," Bloomberg said of the project, which is currently stalled in the state legislature. "I have to be able to look the IOC in the eye and say this stadium is going to be built."

Notes Brian Hatch of NewYorkGames.org, who has long advocated hosting the Olympics in Queens: "They are extorting New Yorkers by demanding they give them what they really want - a West Side real estate deal - in exchange for the popular Olympics." (Though not so popular among New York Post readers, apparently.)

Bloomberg, meanwhile, was roundly booed at yesterday's game by Jets fans fearful they would no longer be able to tailgate at a Manhattan stadium. (The Hudson Yards stadium plan does not include a parking lot.) "You can have tailgating in New York," insisted the mayor. "We know how to eat outside." Just watch out for the guys with the orange nets.

September 12, 2004

Hot Cross bucks

It's often speculated that one reason local politicians are so eager to jump on the new-stadium bandwagon is the lure of campaign contributions from powerful business leaders. Rarely, though, is the quid pro quo so bald-faced as that which today's New York Times reports regarding stadium-boosting city councilman David Weprin:

Mr. Weprin's first news conference was on March 15, when he appeared on the City Hall steps with Mr. Cross to present what he said was an analysis showing that the West Side stadium would provide an economic boost to the city...

He also said at that time that he had not received contributions from the team but added that he would accept any that were offered. A few weeks later, on April 9, [New York Jets president Jay] Cross wrote his first check for $1,000 to Mr. Weprin's campaign.

Then, on May 16, Mr. Weprin held another news conference, again to promote the Jets stadium, which would be partly financed by public money. That news conference was followed five days later by a second $1,000 check from Mr. Cross.

Weprin admitted to the Times that the donations were likely because of his stadium lobbying efforts - there's no record of Cross donating to any other councilmembers' campaigns in the past five years - but protested that "it wasn't like I changed my position after accepting campaign contributions." Vote David Weprin: Smart enough to know which side his bread is buttered on before he orders his meal.

September 11, 2004

Earthquake tremors

The San Jose Earthquakes are quickly becoming the Expos of soccer, inspiring stadium talks in no less than four different prospective host cities. The latest rundown:

The Mexican TV network Televiso, which owns the popular Mexican soccer team Club America, has expressed an interest in buying the Earthquakes and moving them to Houston. Though there's been speculation that a new soccer-only stadium would be required in Houston - MLS has been adamant that it wants all of its teams in new stadiums of their own - the University of Houston's Robertson Stadium would be at least a short-term solution.
A second option would be for current owner Philip Anschutz to keep the team, and move it to San Antonio, where Mayor Ed Garza has talked of building a new soccer-only stadium. MLS commish Don Garber recently declared that "it's not a question of if, it's a question of when" San Antonio gets a team, "due to the strong support of the mayor and his vision for a soccer-specific stadium."
Back in San Jose, meanwhile, a group of investors led by banker Tony Amanpour has said it's ready to submit a bid to buy the Earthquakes and keep them in the Bay Area, but only if a municipality shows "sincere interest" in building a soccer-only stadium. The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara have reportedly talked about chipping in on a stadium.
Amanpour says his ownership group has also been "contacted" by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, and will discuss the possibility of building a soccer stadium there, possibly near the Giants' SBC Park.

All this presumably needs to be settled by September 17, the deadline by which Anschutz has said he wants to have the team either sold or moved. Though as we've seen, deadlines are made to be broken.

Invesco Field by any other name

With Denver investment firm Invesco - namesake of the Broncos' Invesco Field at Mile High - merging into rival AIM Investments, the Denver Post is again calling for the stadium to be renamed simply Mile High Stadium. Write the paper's editorialists: "It's an enduring image and it can't go bankrupt, be indicted or do any number of embarrassing things that companies with naming rights have done in recent years." Though it can inspire sophomoric suggestions for public-address playlists.

September 10, 2004

The first hit is always free

This just in from Rocky Mountain News baseball columnist (and official MLB suck-up) Tracy Ringolsby: Bud Selig is currently trying to get owners to back a plan to "place the [Montreal Expos] in Washington in what can be announced as a two-year trial." That way, continues Ringolsby, it "would give baseball a chance to see what type of legitimate ownership interest surfaces." Er, Tracy? MLB isn't looking for owners, it's looking for stadium funds. Try to keep up.

A trial relocation would solve several problems for Selig, though: It would stanch the league's bleeding of red ink up in Montreal, and would possibly placate D.C. officials who want to be declared the team's new home before passing a stadium bill - all without actually committing the team and thereby giving up the league's only leverage. Of course, the Expos RICO suit plaintiffs would likely still file for an injunction against even a "trial" move, so nothing's likely to happen until their arbitration case is resolved next month.

Meanwhile, Ringolsby also reports that MLB officials have begun preliminary talks with Olympic Stadium officials about the Expos remaining in Montreal for 2005. Mmm, poutine!

St. Paul mayor to Twins: Pick me! Pick me!

Jack Evans disease is catching: Now it's St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly who's told the Minnesota Twins that unless they anoint his city as their preferred home in the next few months, he'll take his stadium site and go home. "This has been going on now since 1999,'' Kelly told the St. Paul Pioneer Press. "Either the Twins will want to come to St. Paul and partner up with us on a stadium, or we need to look at other opportunities for that property." Given that Kelly's own city council is none too crazy about the idea, while the state legislature is facing a projected $1 billion budget deficit, it's likely the sort of threat that the Twins can safely ignore.

Indy-centive program

Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson has announced that the city will hire Hunt Construction Group, a stadium construction firm, to conduct a feasability study on building a $450 million Colts stadium near the current site of the RCA Dome. Peterson further revealed that if the stadium isn't built, Hunt won't be paid its fee; if it is built, Hunt will get $600,000 - and be named construction manager on the project.

In related news, Peterson also announced that the city has hired a new henhouse manager.

September 08, 2004

Dissension in the ranks

True to form, when the going gets tough, MLB owners turn to infighting. According to unnamed sources quoted in the Washington Times, a group of owners is now pressing Bud Selig to ditch the current Montreal Expos relocation process, and instead just "sell the team, get the money and let the new owner figure all this out."

It's pretty unlikely Selig will go for this - among other things, the whole point of starting a multi-city bidding war was to get a lucrative stadium deal that would drive up the team's sale price - but it does indicate that at least some owners are growing frustrated with the growing Expos money pit.

It's raining Super Bowls!

As part of his continuing efforts to extract a new $450 million stadium from the city of Indianapolis, Colts owner Jim Irsay is now promising there would be a "high probability" of the city landing a Super Bowl if the stadium were built. At the rate NFL teams are making this promise - and making it again (and again) - the NFL is going to have to hold three Super Bowls a year if everything gets built that owners are asking for.

September 05, 2004

Battle of the Potomac

MLB may be getting no closer to deciding where the Montreal Expos will be next year - the 2005 draft schedule just calls them the "Expos," no city indicated - but the D.C.-area turf war over the team is going strong. Following up on last weekend's salvo from D.C. councilman Jack Evans that he'd block a Northern Virginia team from using D.C.'s RFK Stadium as a temporary home, Virginia Congressman Tom Davis (no, not the funny one) fired back, saying, "Congress could overrule something like that in a heartbeat." Added Virginia baseball lobbyist Mike Scanlon: "Virginia's got 11 votes in the House; D.C.'s got no votes in the House." Yeah, that's really something to brag about.

Rep. Davis, meanwhile, called out Evans over his RFK threats, fuming: "What's it get you to say that? It's like throwing a tantrum." Unlike, say, what Davis said next, when he threatened to go after MLB's antitrust exemption if the D.C. area doesn't get a team, noting darkly: "There may be repercussions if you bypass the Washington region." Remember: when your side does it, it's statesmanship.

September 04, 2004

Block that headline!

Sometimes mainstream media reports have all the information you need to understand a situation, but they just fail to connect the dots. Let's try playing this game with today's St. Paul Pioneer Press article, "McCombs says no one wants to buy Vikings." Excerpts from that story:

Despite rumors of an imminent sale, Vikings owner Red McCombs said Friday there are no serious suitors for his football team.

"We're playing football. If someone can show me a reasonable chance to build a stadium, then I would take that into serious consideration about selling this team," the Texas car dealer and communications industry investor said.

McCombs is said to want $600 million for the team, a number [Timberwolves owner Glen] Taylor contends is much too high without a new stadium to boost revenues.

"I don't set the price," McCombs said matter-of-factly. "The market sets the price. There's no question that NFL franchises have become more valuable, and they'll continue to increase in value. It's a good business model."

Okay, so the upshot is that someone does want to buy the Vikings, but McCombs needs a new stadium - which would cost the public something on the order of $350 million - so that he can get more money when he sells the team. Me, I'd think a headline would be in order of, oh, something like "McCombs says stadium needed to boost sale price." Or "McCombs to taxpayers: Line my pockets." But I guess that's the sort of reporting that these days can get you challenged to pistols at ten paces.

The lure of the slots

With the smell of slot-machine casino money in the air, Pittsburgh Penguins owner Mario Lemieux looks to be setting his sights higher than a mere new hockey arena: Asked if he'd be okay with another company getting Pittsburgh's slots license on condition of building an arena (instead of the Pens getting the license and using casino profits to build an arena, as has previously been discussed), Lemieux replied: "That's something we'd have to look at. I'd think that, at this stage, we'd need a little bit more than just a new arena for us to make it work." Notes the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Dejan Kovacevic in his indispensible "Penguins Q&A" column:

It could mean nothing more than that, as the Penguins have maintained for months, they not only want a new arena but also want control of its operations and revenues, same as the Steelers and Pirates have.

It could also mean that, in addition to the arena, they want the millions of extra dollars in slots revenue and are not willing to give the Gaming Control Board an easy out to giving the license to someone else when they feel they can have it for themselves.

So either it's a veiled threat to leave town if an arena lease isn't to Lemieux's liking, or a veiled threat to leave town if he doesn't get both an arena and a casino.

September 02, 2004

The Saints go cashing in

New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson, already set to receive $250 million in state subsidies to remain in the Superdome instead of demanding a new home, says that if the state goes ahead with building a new $450 million stadium he'd be willing to kick in ... $60 million. Plus another $34 million from the NFL's stadium loan program. Oh, and he'd want to keep getting those annual state subsidy payments until "a stadium is actually built." No immediate word from Gov. Kathleen Blanco on what she makes of Benson's, ahem, generous offer, but neither she nor, oddly, the Saints owner looks too thrilled about the situation.

Any day now

For those scoring at home, MLB supreme leader Bud Selig now says he hopes to decide the fate of Montreal Expos by the end of September. Apparently some people even believe him: "They're going to make a decision soon," Jerry Burkot, director Northern Virginia's prospective ownership group, told a local paper. "We've been saying that for 11 years now, but they really are." Ba-dum-tish!

Expanding Fenway

George Steinbrenner may have his heart set on a new pleasure palace, but Boston Red Sox owner John Henry appears to have settled on remaining in Fenway Park for at least the near future. According to the Boston Herald, Henry intends to announce plans for adding two to three thousand seats to the 92-year-old baseball shrine in the next few weeks - that is, the announcement would take place in the next few weeks, though the actual renovation would be phased in over several years. Now, where could he have gotten an idea like that?