August 31, 2005
Beyond the deluge
I'm somewhat distracted by the catastrophe (donations can be made here, by the way), so it's strictly bullet points today:
- The Boston Red Sox have started outlining their plans for the neighborhood surrounding Fenway Park, including transit improvements and plans for development over the Mass Pike. Most interesting tidbit: Boston Globe columnist Steve Bailey writes that "former Sox owner John Harrington, for all his ineptness, did get a $100 million infrastructure package through the Legislature. The new owners feel they are very much entitled to all or part of that money, and have their lobbyists working hard at the State House." If true, that'd be a concern for those who love Fenway Park, but hate sports subsidies. (No, that wouldn't include Fanny Dooley.)
- The Colts and the city of Indianapolis have finally agreed to a lease on their new gazillion-dollar domed stadium. So did the Colts back down on their opposition to that $3 ticket surcharge that the state wanted to help fund the place? Indiana's finest news source doesn't say.>
- You've probably heard by now that the Superdome refugees are being evacuated... to the Astrodome. Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the dome has "cleared its schedule" through December, but it's not like it had much going on there to begin with - maybe having a few white-elephant stadiums around can come in handy after all. Though personally, I'd have preferred some wetlands.
- Finally, I've already received one report of a sports-talk radio host speculating whether the disaster will make it easier for the Saints to either get a new stadium, or move to Los Angeles. Who had "one day" for the over/under on chutzpah?
August 30, 2005
Saints look to San Antonio as temporary home
With New Orleans underwater and about to be completely evacuated, the Superdome roof damaged, and the electrical grid possibly out of commission for a month, the Saints are looking at alternative sites for their upcoming NFL season. One possibility: San Antonio, which has the Alamodome ready to go if need be. "They said they are going to try to make a decision sometime this afternoon," Gil Garza, athletic director of the San Antonio School District, told the San Antonio Express-News.
August 29, 2005
Gettin' Zygi in MN
Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf is peeved that Gov. Tim Pawlenty might call a special legislative session to vote on a Twins stadium, but not one for him. "If the governor doesn't call a special session, that is fine," Wilf told Minneapolis Star Tribune house shill Sid Hartman. "But I plan to meet with him soon and tell him how unhappy I will be if he [excludes the Vikings]."
Wilf complained that the Metrodome sound system is inadequate: "Our fans can't understand our public address announcers," he told Hartman. Jeez, dude, at least you still have a roof.
August 27, 2005
Freaky Saturday
About 75 local residents rallied this morning in Mullaly Park - just about where the New York Yankees want to put their new left-field grandstand - to protest the team's plans to tear down Yankee Stadium and build a new facility atop public parkland. Speakers noted that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been critical of a proposal to build a Jets stadium in Flushing Meadows Park in Queens - "If it's good enough for their parkland, why isn't it good enough for us?" asked J.J. Brennan of Save Our Parks - then marched through the park to Yankee Stadium, perplexing dazed tourists emerging from the subway with chants of "Whose park? Our park!"
The surprise of the day was an appearance by city councilmember Maria del Carmen Arroyo, whose mother, state assemblymember Carmen Arroyo, sponsored the bill to alienate city parkland for a new Yankees stadium. Arroyo the Younger insisted that "these projects are going to be built," and then berated her constituents for not attending planning meetings in their neighborhood. (As several of those present pointed out, people have shown up for meetings when they can find them.) I asked the councilmember whether she thought a new stadium was a good use for $300 million in city money; she replied that she wouldn't take a position until she had all the details, and that anyway, the city council had already voted on the stadium in June.
Actually, Maria, that was the state assembly. You know, the place your mom works? You haven't been eating any of those funny fortune cookies lately, have you?
August 26, 2005
Sox seek landmark tax break
The Boston Red Sox are seeking to have 93-year-old Fenway Park placed on the National Register of Historic Places, in an attempt to be eligible for federal tax credits for renovating landmark structures. (While the Boston Globe asserts that no other baseball stadium has been so honored, in fact Detroit's Tiger Stadium was placed on the National Register by local preservationists, over the objections of the team.)
The total value of the tax break is unclear, since the costs of renovation are unknown, but we can make some estimates. The Red Sox would be eligible for a tax credit of 20% of their total renovation costs; as the IRS notes, this is a tax credit, not a tax deduction, so it actually earns them a tax rebate of 20%. (Since the marginal corporate income tax rate is now down to 20%, this is effectively the same as a 100% tax deduction.) However, reducing stadium costs would also reduce the Sox' revenue-sharing break from MLB, knocking 40% off of the benefit, and leaving the team with a 12% discount on their total renovation costs.
If the Sox spend their projected $200 million on renovations, then, they'd get $24 million back at the end of the day - not an incredible windfall, but nothing to sneeze at, either. Something for George Steinbrenner and Michael Bloomberg to consider.
August 24, 2005
Yankees stay home!
More than 100 Bronx residents crowded onto the steps of the Bronx County Courthouse this morning for a press conference decrying the New York Yankees' plans to build a new stadiumin a public park across the street from the current Yankee Stadium. As for what the coalition - organized by Bronx Voices for Equal Inclusion and other community groups - was demanding, there seemed to be some disagreement on the message. The official press statement called merely for a "more participatory development process" and job opportunities for local residents, but the biggest applause came for lines delivered by speakers who wanted to stop the project altogther:
"The Yankees say Yankee Stadium is old - but the Statue of Liberty is old, and nobody says we need a new one of those!" -David Gratt, Friends of Yankee Stadium"Mr. Steinbrenner has all the money in the world - he wouldn't take a park away from his children. ... If it takes a lawsuit to stop them, we're going to stop them!" -Michael Trotter, We Stay/Nos Quedamos"If they're not allowed to build a stadium in Central Park, why should they be allowed to build in our park?" -Dilsa David, Mid-Bronx Senior Citizens Council
There's also a new blog on the battle of Macombs Dam Park, by the newly formed neighborhood group Save Our Parks! First post: The "Bronx politicians who sold us out."
Next up: A rally and march to the stadium this Saturday at 10 am, starting at SCAN-NY at 40 West 164th Street, on the north side of the proposed stadium site. The NYPD has so far refused to issue a march permit, and there's a Yankee home game scheduled that day for 1 pm, so bring your video camera and your civil-liberties attorney.
Cincinnati Red ink
Another indication of how sports stadiums privatize profits and socialize risk: Hamilton County, Ohio is projecting that the 0.5% sales-tax hike approved in 1996 to pay for stadiums for the Cincinnati Reds and Bengals will begin running short of cash next year, with the total deficit possibly hitting $300 million by the year 2032. ("'Wow' is right," County Commissioner Todd Portune told the Cincinnati Enquirer.) Apparently Hamilton County based its revenue projections on the assumption that sales tax receipts would grow by 3% each year; instead, they've averaged just 1.3% in annual growth.
Bengals director of business development Troy Blackburn, meanwhile, blamed the shortfall on - I swear I am not making this up - the county wasting tax money on schools instead of stadiums. Do they give out master's degrees in chutzpah?
August 23, 2005
Jets keep finding ways to piss people off
As previously reported, the New York Jets are playing footsie with the borough of Queens about returning to a new stadium near their ancestral home of Shea - but, it turns out, it wouldn't be in the Willets Point junkyard district. Rather, the Jets are looking to build in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, a proposal that has divided local political leaders. David Oats of the Queens Olympic Committee, who has previously argued in favor of bringing the Jets to Queens, said the new plan would be "a desecration and rape" of the borough's largest park.
The Times' Charles Bagli notes that the Jets are "taking a cue from the Yankees," who are proposing to take 22.4 acres of Bronx parkland for their new stadium, which the city would replace with scattered athletic fields elsewhere in the neighborhood. Of course, that plan has garnered plenty of local opposition itself - City Limits Weekly has a report on the latest - but the local dailies have paid little notice. We'll see if that changes tomorrow, when neighborhood groups stage a press conference on the steps of the Bronx County Courthouse at 10 am to express their concerns with the project.
August 20, 2005
For the fan who has everything
And finally for today, if it's always been your dream to send a 40-year-old stadium that's been host to five World Series crashing down into a heap of rubble, you need wait no longer! The St. Louis Cardinals are holding a charity raffle to be the person who pushes the button to blow up Busch Stadium once the 2005 season is concluded: Tickets are $10, with the winner getting to trigger "the 2,000 pieces of explosives and hundreds of blasting caps that will collapse the venerable ballpark." You must be 18 years or older and a resident of Illinois or Missouri to be eligible, which presumably rules out Bud Selig.
Royals set their price
The Kansas City Royals have finally joined the Chiefs in putting a dollar figure on their renovation demands for Kauffman Stadium: $200 million, payable by the taxpayers of Jackson County. A 0.25%-to-0.375% sales-tax hike is considered the most likely scenario - I guess Carl Pohlad isn't the only one who didn't get the memo - with the team signing a lease extension in advance of a public referendum next April or November. It's still unclear, writes the Kansas City Star, "what would happen if the teams agree to new leases but Jackson County voters reject the tax and the county doesnít have the money for the maintenance projects due next year."
Blaine saves seat for Vikes
The city council of Blaine, Minnesota has voted to impose a one-year moratorium on development of the undeveloped parcel of land the Vikings want for their new stadium. The idea, Mayor Tom Ryan told the St. Paul Pioneer Press, is to keep anyone else from developing the land until the Minnesota legislature gets around to voting on public money for a Vikes stadium next year - or, failing that, until somebody else comes up with a Big Project for the site. Mayors just love those Big Projects.
A's Plan B?
Mr. I'm-Not-Going-To-Negotiate-Through-The-Media isn't talking, but Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid tells the Contra Costa Times that A's owner Lew Wolff has a fallback position if his waterfront-stadium-and-condos plan falls through: a scaled-down stadium project in what's now the north parking lot of the Oakland Coliseum. (Yes, I think it has a corporate name now, but apparently not even the CC Times can be bothered to remember what it is.) "Outside the overall plan that he is pushing, I think this is probably the most logical alternative," said Reid, who didn't say how a Coliseum-side stadium would be paid for - but then, Wolff hasn't said how his preferred plan would be paid for, either, so it's all par for the course.
Giants balk at stadium talks
Apparently disagreements with the Jets aren't the only thing holding up talks for a new New York Giants stadium in New Jersey. Giants CEO John Mara now says that he doesn't see the point of attending a stadium planning meeting next week unless he's first resolved issues of whether the Xanadu entertainment complex now under construction will be closed on football game days: "If we're not able to reach an agreement with [Xanadu developer] Mills [Corporation], we don't see the point of sitting down with all the parties." New Jersey Gov. Richard Codey seemed unruffled by Mara's we'll-take-our-ball-and-go-home threats, telling the Newark Star-Ledger, "I fully expect the Giants to be at a meeting next Thursday."
August 18, 2005
Now you see it, now you don't
There was an article in the Newark Star-Ledger this morning all about how the New York Giants had submitted a stadium plan that ignored all the requests being made by the Jets, who are supposedly going to be their partners in the project. New Jersey officials were reportedly pushing the two teams to just get along, but large rifts still remained, making it less than certain that the deal will come off.
All this was available in an article here, but somewhere this afternoon, it disappeared off the Star-Ledger website, so I'm summarizing from memory. Not sure what's up with that, but if it reappears, I'll post a fresh link here.
In the meantime, you can entertain yourself with an article about the guy who wants to build a 38,000-seat domed minor-league baseball stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Not like there's anything more I could say about that, anyway, that you're not already thinking...
LATE NOTE: Thanks to Neal S. for tracking down the original Jets-Giants article in all its glory.
August 17, 2005
Twins special session on, off?
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is telling top state lawmakers to wait until after Labor Day to discuss calling a one-day special legislative session to vote on, among other things, $353 million in public spending for a new Twins stadium. The Minneapolis Star Tribune takes this as a negative sign for stadium prospects (Pawlenty "essentially advised legislators to chill out," writes the Star Trib); ballparkdigest.com insists that "legislative insiders say the special session is a lock because [House speaker Steve] Sviggum would have never called for one unless Pawlenty was on board."
August 15, 2005
Stadium? What stadium?
Oakland's new stadium plans notwithstanding, San Jose is still moving forward with plans to lure an MLB team, buying up 14 acres of land that have been proposed as the site of a baseball stadium. Not that the San Jose Redevelopment Agency would admit that it has baseball on its mind - not when a city ordinance requires a public vote before the city can spend any tax money on sports facilities. Reports the San Jose Business Journal:
"It is for a mixed-use development site," says Harry Mavrogenes, the agency's executive director, "although it is clear that there is the potential for other uses."Asked about those other uses, Mr. Mavrogenes is coy."Regardless of whether it becomes a baseball stadium or mixed-use, it is a logical place for the city to develop," Mr. Mavrogenes says.
White elephants in Athens
Be afraid, London, be very afraid: Athens' latest cost estimates for the 2004 Summer Olympics are in, and they come to $16 billion, nearly triple the original budget. That from Chicago Tribune columnist Philip Hersh, who further reports:
The rowing venue is in the process of returning to its previous state as a swamp. Garbage has been allowed to pile up outside the 1896 Olympic Stadium, used for archery events and the marathon finishes last year. Palm trees alongside the reclaimed urban coastline are dying. ... The Greek government finally has put out tenders for lease offers on many of the venues, now white elephants that will cost more than $100 million a year to maintain.
The International Olympic Committee insists its new rules requiring "legacy" plans for Olympic venues will prevent this situation from recurring. Given their track record, I'm not holding my breath.
Land rush in D.C.
Economists often say that sports stadiums can't generate new economic activity in a region, but they can move it around a bit - and boy howdy, is that ever happening in Washington, D.C. According to my old pal Dana Hedgpeth at the Washington Post, developers are sniffing around the Near Southeast neighborhood where the Washington Nationals stadium is scheduled to be built, buying up parcels in anticipation of a city-led redevelopment effort. This is good if you're a landowner who wants to make a quick profit by selling out and moving elsewhere; if you're a resident or business owner looking at having your lease terminated to make way for "upscale" housing and businesses, it's not so hot.
Jennifer Murphy, who runs an after-school program in the neighborhood, told the Post, said she'd heard the property she rents was on sale for $3 million: "We're getting a little nervous because it's hard to know what's going to happen around here. ... I don't think we'll be serving too many Section 8 kids from in there" in the new luxury co-op and hotel being built across the street. "I'm crossing my fingers that we can stay here."
Meanwhile, D.C. appears set to go ahead with its "private financing" scheme whereby it would sell off future tax revenues from the stadium to Deutsche Bank in exchange for an upfront cash payment. This, say advocates, would enable the city to cut its stadium tax on businesses - or, say detractors, could lead to city shortfalls if concessions taxes don't reach the $18 million a year being promised to Deutsche Bank. Iceberg, Greenberg...
August 13, 2005
A's stadium plans unveiled (sort of)
Oakland A's owner (and L.A. real-estate magnate) Lew Wolff issued his long-awaited proposal for a new stadium yesterday, and they're, uh, interesting. Condos in center field. A tiny 35,000-seat capacity, to help create artificial ticket scarcity. A triangular bleacher section designed to be vaguely reminiscent of Fenway. And presumably plenty of other quirks, though they're hard to make out on the team's renderings, which look as if they were designed on a Playstation.
And just who would pay for the stadium, which would sit on a large plot of land just north of the A's current home? Wolff said the team would pay for "the vast majority" of stadium construction costs, and that he wouldn't ask the government to sell bonds for the project... and that's pretty much all he said. The A's p.r. flacks denied all knowledge of project details aside from a mealy-mouthed Wolff press release (sample English-like text: "A visionary leadership from all parties associated with this project who believe the A's are a community asset is required to help us reach our objective in creating one of the most exciting venues in all of sports"), meaning that questions about the project - who will pay to buy the land from its current private owners, will Wolff seek property-tax breaks or other tax incentives, and if the team would pay the "majority" of construction costs, who would pay the rest? - remain unanswered. For now, the would-be A's ballpark is all pretty pictures and hand-waving - and with Wolff insisting he won't "negotiate through the media," it could be a while before the public is let in on just what they'd be expected to contribute here.
What the A's plans do make clear is that we've entered a new era in baseball stadium construction. Wolff's plan bears all the hallmarks of what is becoming the 21st-century standard for ballpark seekers everywhere:
- Hide the subsidies. Taxpayers hate spending public money on stadiums, so offer to pay the full load, or at least most of it. They tend to get less uppity, though, if instead of cash you want tax breaks - even though economists consider them "tax expenditures" that have an identical effect on the public purse - so frame your subsidy requests as breaks on property taxes, sales taxes, rent, etc. If you play your cards right, this can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, and you can still claim to be building a "privately funded" ballpark!
- Throw in the kitchen sink. Taxpayers also hate funding sports-only projects, but if it's a "ballpark village" with housing and retail space, well, that's a fuzzier issue. Attach a bunch of other development to your stadium plans, and you can hopefully muddy the waters enough that no one can understand the finances, even if you're asking for 60 acres of free land.
- Take the revenue-sharing money. Contrary to popular belief, even low-revenue teams like the A's can take advantage of baseball's new revenue-sharing deduction for stadium costs - no matter where you fall on baseball economic scale, the deduction saves you about 40% on your construction and operations expenses. This is by far the main reason why we're seeing teams like the Cardinals, Yankees and Mets offer to pay substantial shares of stadium costs (the Twins apparently didn't get the memo) - as with the NFL's G-3 stadium loan program, private funding suddenly looks a whole lot more alluring when you're getting a hefty subsidy from the league.
So is the A's deal a good one for the city of Oakland, for taxpayers, for fans? There's simply no way to tell, not without more information that Wolff doesn't appear willing to provide at the moment. But it definitely is the wave of the future - and not just because it has outfield seats on top of a building.
California dreaming
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones issued a warning this week that increased revenue-sharing in the NFL could reduce the ability for a relocated Los Angeles franchise to recoup the costs of a new stadium. "I can tell you that the communal check that everybody gets in the NFL will not justify what it's going to take to put a team in Los Angeles," said Jones.
While Jones likely meant this as a shot across the bow against any attempt at increased revenue-sharing - no surprise, since the Cowboys have the second-highest revenues in the NFL - L.A.'s new mayor Antonio Villaraigos seemed to take it as a veiled shakedown for stadium funds, and was having none of it. "In some ways, why we haven't had a team here all these years is they've attempted to leverage us," Villaraigos told KFI-AM radio. "My hope is that they are going to realize there are a lot of people who want a football team, but every year that they are not here is one more year where people start to forget. ... We need a football team here. What I've said, though, is we're not spending public money for it. We're not going to subsidize the building of stadiums."
Jones actually has a point: The whole reason team owners want new stadiums is to capture the new revenue that goes along with them, so if teams, say, had to start sharing luxury-suite revenues with their competitors, they might as well just stay put. Of course, fans in Minnesota, San Diego, and other cities where teams are rumored to be mulling L.A. moves might not consider this such a bad thing, but nobody's asking them.
August 11, 2005
Jets woo Giants, Queens woos Jets
Matt Futterman of the Newark Star-Ledger reports that the New York Jets are getting serious about plans to share a new stadium with the Giants in New Jersey, proposing a 90,000-seat facility next to the existing Giants Stadium. The Giants have previously expressed an interest in sharing a new building - and its estimated $800 million construction cost - with the Jets. (The state of New Jersey has offered free land and $30 million in infrastructure costs.)
Meanwhile, Queens borough president Helen Marshall has scheduled an August 23 meeting with the Jets to talk about luring the team to her borough. Somewhere in her borough. With somebody paying for it. Somehow. Hey, all her powers were taken away, she's got to do something with her time.
August 10, 2005
Jags offered club seat guarantee
The city of Jacksonville is reportedly offering to guarantee 90% of club seat sales for Jaguars games through 2011 if the team signs a new lease deal. (In other words, if those seats don't sell, the city will buy them.) As any San Diego Chargers fan can tell you, this is a truly terrible idea.
The sweetened pot offer comes on the heels of a letter from Jags owner Wayne Weaver to the city last month declaring that the team had "'suffered a pre-tax loss' in two of the last three fiscal years and did not 'in one of the two ensuing years realize pre-tax earnings equal to at least the median pre-tax earnings of the then member clubs of the NFL" - the two provisions that would allow the team to break its lease on Alltel Stadium, and presumably move elsewhere. Weaver publicly insists he's not threatening to take the team to L.A., but is presumably happy enough to take whatever lease concessions the city offers to make him stay put.
Quote of the day on this one is from city policy chief Adam Hollingsworth: "We talked about it conceptually, several times, with them. It builds an esprit de corps with the Jaguars if a ticket campaign is led by both the civic and political leadership of the city." "Esprit de corps" - that's a new one on me.
Around the bases
Some baseball news items that have stacked up in recent days:
- New Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff told athleticsnation.com that he remains focused on a new stadium in Oakland or elsewhere in Alameda County, and insisted he's "not talking about the city writing me a check for the venue. ... As soon as I say I need government help, everybody thinks I'm talking about a bond issue and a check. What I'm really talking about is someone who will say, my God if we can do a new venue here, what can we do to make it work financially for the developer and the owner? ... Cities have things that are better than funds [such as] the power to clear property." The Oakland Tribune reports that a stadium news conference could be forthcoming this Friday.
- The Kansas City Royals keep finding new ways to lose - last night it was by coughing up 11 runs in the ninth inning - and Jackson County Executive Katheryn Shields is worried it will hurt them at the ballot box: "Both [the Royals and the Chiefs] have said to me during this long process, 'What can we do?' And I've always said, 'Win games, please!'" Jackson County must decide by the end of August on whether to place funding for stadium renovations on the November ballot.
- Architect Joseph Spear of HOK, who's working on the design of the new Washington Nationals stadium, won't publicly reveal any details, but does tell the Washington Post it will be "very light and modern and different." And have two facades, one of glass and steel, and one of glass and stone (which certainly qualifies as "different"). If you have a better idea, you can tell it to the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission, or read the public comments posted so far.
August 05, 2005
NJ pitches $80m MetroStars stadium
The on-again, off-again MetroStars stadium is on again, with yesterday's announcement by New Jersey Gov. Richard Codey of a deal to build an $80 million soccer stadium in Harrison, to open in the spring of 2007.
As for how the stadium will be paid for, it depends on which newspaper's fine print you read. The New York Times says the MetroStars "will come up with a portion of the $80 million for the stadium - though how much has not been determined," while taxpayers will "provide more than $50 million in county and municipal funds for land acquisition, parking and road improvements that would be reimbursed by the stadium's revenue."
Sounds good, right? Except that the Times then goes on to explain that the "reimbursement" for the town's $40 million in land costs would come from "lease payments and payments in lieu of taxes from the MetroStars." Problem #1: Property taxes (or payments in lieu of them) aren't usually regarded as being "reimbursement" of the municipal treasury for land costs - or so Mayor Bloomberg told me when I asked him to buy me a co-op in Park Slope, and I'd promise to pay the property taxes. Problem #2: The Associated Press reports that "the MetroStars would pay $1 a year to rent the land, and make payments of $125,000 annually in lieu of taxes" - and you don't have to be a bond expert to know that $125,001 a year isn't going to come close to paying off $40 million in debt. Something is fishy here, so this one bears watching as it makes its way through the municipal and county approval process.
D.C. still shooting for 2008
Washington, D.C. officials say they still plan to have the Nationals' new stadium completed by March 2008, but skeptical prospective team owners are figuring they may have to play an extra year or even two at RFK Stadium. Since this would reduce their projected revenues and hence their bid price to MLB for the franchise, looks like Linda Cropp got something useful out of Bud Selig after all.
K.C. follies, cont'd
More on those upcoming lease showdowns in Kansas City: Royals execs are saying they might not grant the county's request for an extension of the deadline from 2006 to 2007 for upgrades to Kauffman Stadium. While the team isn't exactly threatening to break its lease as of yet, drawing a line in the sand, says Royals VP Mark Gorris, would "cause everybody to understand the need and seriousness of it all."
The Chiefs, meanwhile, have delivered the price tag for their desired improvements to Arrowhead Stadium: $292 million, for a plan that would effectively build a new stadium superstructure around the existing seating bowl to provide expanded concession space. The Royals haven't provided their own wish list yet, but the K.C. Star notes they've "continually voiced a preference for simple repairs over expansion."
August 03, 2005
...or are you just glad to see me?
Man, I want a local politician in my pocket. I mean, they're just so handy. Let's say you're the owner of a major-league baseball team - or if major-league is too rich for your blood, lets say the Kansas City Royals. With your Pocket Pol Pal, you can get on the good side of fans by committing not to leave town - and still rest easy that someone will be there to rattle the move threat saber on your behalf.
The latest to carry out this tradition: Jackson County Executive Katheryn Shields, who told the K.C. Star on Monday that Kansas City could lose the Royals or Chiefs to another city if it doesn't upgrade or replace the teams' current stadiums, as required in their leases. And though both Chiefs and Royals execs have insisted that they plan to remain in town regardless, Shields added that "I think if there is a move it is more of a distance than" across the river in Kansas. Number of calls that Star reporters placed to the local sports franchises to see if they would stand behind Shields' threats: zero.
