February 28, 2009
Miami commissioner demands half-billion in unmarked bills for stadium vote
Miami city commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones has emerged from her maternity leave, and she has done so with a bang: The swing vote on the five-member city commission that will help decide the fate of the Florida Marlins stadium deal says she'll only approve the project if she gets half a billion dollars in development money for her district in exchange. "Overtown must get its fair share," Spence-Jones said in a statement released yesterday, one week before the city commission vote. If not, "the Marlins will strike out on March 6."
Needless to say, Miami doesn't have half a billion dollars sitting around, but Spence-Jones has identified a funding source: part of the expanded Community Redevelopment Agency money that was created as part of the Marlins stadium deal. Unfortunately, that money is already earmarked for paying off $484 million in existing debt on Miami's arts center, freeing up tourist tax money that was paying off the arts center to be redirected to the Marlins stadium. It's not entirely clear whether Spence-Jones is talking about instead using this money in Overtown or further expanding the city's CRAs to generate new funds — if the former, either the arts center or the stadium would need to find a new way to pay for its construction debt; if the latter, the city would end up with a $500 million hole in its property-tax receipts, as a large chunk was funnels off to the CRAs.
Meanwhile, as if the Marlins needed even more bad news, the Miami Herald has revealed that an obscure clause in their stadium deal means the team could get out of paying the county a share of profits on sale of the team if owner Jeffrey Loria dies first, then his heir sells the team instead. Remarked county commissioner Joe Martinez: "That sucks." (No, really, that was his quote.) With the county commission's approval required after the city commission, Spence-Jones' baksheesh demands could be only the beginning of the Marlins' headaches.
Sacramento proposes Atlantic Yards West for Kings
The NBA and city of Sacramento officially issued their plans for a new Sacramento Kings arena on the site of Cal Expo yesterday, and you sure can't accuse them of thinking small: It includes a 350-acre "living village" with a new indoor fair space, and retail, office, and residential buildings, and a whopping price tag of $1.9 billion. If this sounds familiar, it's because it's a dead ringer for the similar office/residential/arena plan that is currently in the process of collapsing in Brooklyn, thanks to plunging demand for office or residential space.
All parties seem to be aware that this is not the best time to be looking for billions for a development project, with NBA arena consultant John Moag (formerly of the Maryland Stadium Authority, where he helped get stadiums built for the Baltimore Orioles and Ravens) calling it "not a shovel-in-the-ground project," and saying the arena wouldn't open until 2013, with the rest of the project following over the next 25 years. That will give them time to finalize such niggling details as finding an interested developer, and figuring out how to pay for it all — there's talk of tax-increment financing, but no real details.
Economist Claude Gruen, a specialist in these kind of giant development deals, called the plan's economic projections "too rosy," and said it wasn't reasonable to expect it could pay for itself. But at least it's created some much-needed jobs for architectural sketch artists.
Ticketgate: Day six, Yankee fans held hostage
The Great New York Yankees ticket controversy hits the New York Times today, with Richard Sandomir reporting on more tales of woe from longtime ticket plan holders who are upset with the seats they're being offered in the new stadium. Included are both fans who were offered worse seats for higher prices (including one who seems to have lucked into Jay Jaffe's $85 behind-the-foul-pole plan that the Yankees swear doesn't exist), and fans who were offered worse seats at lower prices. Embattled Yanks COO Lonn Trost blamed fans for not reading the "relocation guide" the team sent out last fall, apparently referring to a line warning that seats offered "will not likely be comparable to your current seat location" — which, in angry fans' defense, is a bit of an understatement for being moved from the third-base line to the bleachers.
At least, though, the unhappy bleacher resident can be glad he wasn't relocated to the auxiliary seating section in Astoria.
Wolff to San Jose: Shhh, not so loud
Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff has responded to San Jose's enthusiasm for being the team's new home by sending the city a letter telling them to knock it off. "[Though] I do not wish to seem disrespectful, and I always am delighted to take calls from elected officials and others, I would appreciate you letting those who wish to contact Major League Baseball officials that, as far as I am concerned, such contacts are not recommended."
For a sports team owner to publicly refuse a potential stadium offer before even using it as leverage to get a stadium elsewhere is — what's a stronger word than "unprecedented"? If I had to speculate, I'd guess that Wolff is either worried that open lobbying for a San Jose A's would throw a wrench into any negotiations for the San Francisco Giants to give up their territorial rights, or that in general he'd rather be talking to cities behind the scenes rather than in the pages of the newspapers. (Assuming newspapers still exist much longer.) Hey, it worked for Randy Levine.
If San Jose-area sports fans are eager to have a stadium debate to follow in the meantime, they can still enjoy the latest in the San Francisco 49ers saga, where newly elected county supervisor George Shirakawa Jr. has announced plans for a new football stadium on the site of the Santa Clara County fairgrounds. Because, you know, why settle for one stadium scheme with an unclear financing plan when you can have two?
February 27, 2009
Yankees forced to take the field Opening Day with no corporate logos splashed all over everything
Bank of America won't become the Adidas of the new Yankee Stadium after all: Talks with the New York Yankees about slapping the government-bailed-out bank's name all over the place have been terminated. The Yanks aren't commenting on how this will affect their finances, but you know it's gotta hurt, so if you have $20 million a year to throw around and a burning desire to see your logo affixed to light fixtures and bullpen canopies, give Lonn Trost a call.
Also, expect this to be one of the last links to a Newsday story you see here, as Cablevision, the newspaper's owner, has announced plans to start charging for its online content, possibly as part of some kind of cable TV package. While I think that some kind of subscription (or membership) fees will ultimately be needed to help keep professional journalism alive in the digital age, still, good luck to them with that.
San Jose launches A's talks, Facebook group
San Jose is definitely trying to be the front-runner in the where-will-the-Oakland-A's-end-up derby, at least in terms of public image. According to the San Jose Mercury News:
Some gathered in a hastily called meeting. Other boosters signed up for a new "Baseball San Jose" page on Facebook. They talked of conducting polls and rounding up sponsors and perhaps even offering a discount on city-owned land already earmarked for a downtown stadium.
They also called team owner Lew Wolff, who is in Arizona to mark the beginning of spring training.
The Merc News did not say whether boosters had invited Wolff to play a game of Lexulous.
More seriously, San Jose councilmember Pete Constant has called for public money towards an A's stadium to remain on the table if it's part of "a deal that makes financial sense for the city." A city referendum would almost certainly be required first. Other councilmembers are planning a poll to gauge local support for a stadium, though you have to wonder whether they'll ask whether San Jose residents will want to help pay for it as well.
City of Industry approves NFL stadium, needs only NFL team
As expected, the City of Industry council unanimously approved plans for an $800 million football stadium yesterday, paving the way for the NFL's return to the Los Angeles area. John Semcken, managing partner of Majestic Real Estate, which is headquartered in Industry and would build the project, says the company would begin looking for a team on April 1, specifically mentioning the Oakland Raiders, Buffalo Bills and Minnesota Vikings as among his eight targets. (You have to guess that the San Diego Chargers and New Orleans Saints would be in the mix as well.) If nothing else, this is going to kick-start a lot of move-threat-based stadium talks in eight cities across America.
How the project is being funded, meanwhile, remains a bit of a mystery. Majestic says it will pay for construction itself with private money, though land and infrastructure is being covered by city property taxes. With no team in place yet, though, Majestic would no doubt have to pay off what could be $60-80 million a year in stadium debt through venue revenues, which is going to make the place much less attractive as a relocation target. (In the NFL, where all games are on national TV, market size is relatively unimportant; what counts is how much crap you can sell in your stadium.)
This could end up being another Kansas City arena scenario, where the requirement for a lease where the team actually pays some rent makes your building mostly useful as a stalking horse for team's demands for new buildings back at home. Though at least, unlike K.C., Majestic was smart enough not to build the building first; construction won't begin until a team has agreed to move there.
The Miami city commission's re-vote on the Florida Marlins stadium plan has been pushed back two days, from Wednesday, March 4 to Friday, March 6. No explanation was given, but I'd guess it has something to do with giving commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones more time to return from maternity leave so she can break the commission's deadlock. If the city approves the deal, it goes to the county commission on March 9.
Yanks to charge extra to stand
New York magazine answers a question I've had for some time about the new New York Yankees stadium: "Unlike at the old Yankee Stadium, bleacher creatures can move around the rest of the stadium." That makes sense, as the Yanks management will want them to have access to all the overpriced dining and souvenir options that will fill the new place. What makes less sense: Bleacher tickets cost $12, but team COO Lonn Trost told WFAN Wednesday that standing-room tickets will cost "around $20" — meaning there will be an $8 surcharge not to have a seat to sit in.
The reason, obviously, has to do with the fact the Yanks held bleacher ticket prices at $12 from last year for PR reasons, but have no problem with charging through the nose for standing room, since there were no standing-room seats at the old stadium to compare prices with. Take it as a sign that bleacher prices will likely rise fast to meet market levels in the next year or two — or, if the signs of plummeting sports ticket demand are true, maybe Yankee fans can hope to be allowed someday to stand for three hours without giving up a yuppie food stamp.
February 26, 2009
Isles file arena paperwork, financing still hazy
It's been over a month now since the New York Islanders dropped hints they'd consider relocating if their stalled arena plan wasn't approved, and the status of owner Charles Wang's "Lighthouse Project" — so called because it used to feature a giant lighthouse in the middle of its condos-and-shopping development, though it's since replaced it with a terrible light-rock theme song — is as clear as mud. Wang issued a 6,000-page environmental report on the project on Tuesday, but told Newsday that he still hasn't figured out how he'll pay for it:
In an interview after the meeting, Wang said he has not yet obtained financing for the project. But he said he's optimistic about getting funding in increments over the 10 years the project would be built.
"How can I get funding until zoning is approved?" he said. "We are talking to a lot of banks obviously. ... If the project is good, we can get it done.
Wang said he could look to foreign countries, possibly China, for investment cash; local developer Ted Weiss called it a "virtually impossible" task, telling Newsday, "I can't imagine any bank, insurance company, pension plan or any traditional lender who's capable of doing a project of that size."
Newsday further reports that Wang is "keeping his options open" about a possible move (their words, not his). Nassau County spokesperson Bruce Nyman, asked whether Wang's scheduling of an exhibition game in Kansas City was a subtle threat to get the arena deal approved or else, replied: "I don't think it was that subtle."
Teams gear up to demand "stimulus" funds
As I was afraid of, It looks like more teams are going to be following the New Jersey Nets' lead and trying to get a piece of states' federal stimulus funding for their stadium or arena projects. The Minnesota Vikings are pushing their $954 million stadium plan as "a significant jobs and economic stimulus package," while a developer in Sparks, Nevada, is arguing that an arena is "shovel-ready." Legislators in both states sounded skeptical — Nevada assemblymember Debbie Smith, who represents Sparks, told the Las Vegas Sun, "I just can't picture how the general public would think that is the best way to spend our stimulus money" — but hope springs eternal in the stadium game.
Another "sunshine" lawsuit for Marlins
What was the Florida Marlins stadium mess missing? That's right: another lawsuit! Elvis Cruz and Grace Solares, described by the Miami Herald merely as "activists" but apparently leaders of local homeowners associations, have filed suit charging that the team's deal with the city and county should be voided because elected officials held secret meetings to negotiate it, in violation of the state's Sunshine Laws. This was an argument Norman Braman tried in his stadium lawsuit as well, but apparently Cruz and Solares think they have new evidence.
In other news, the Herald says the city and county should "tweak the deal" but then go ahead with it, a longtime local sports reporter says it's a waste of public funds, and the local NAACP isn't too happy about it either. City commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones is certainly going to have an interesting decision to make when she gets back from maternity leave to cast the deciding vote on this deal.
Yanks exec: Yes, we have no seats
New York Yankees COO Lonn Trost was on WFAN radio yesterday to discuss the growing uproar over fans being displaced from their accustomed seating sections in the team's new $1.3 billion ballpark. Trost's defense: They can't offer fans better seats because, well, they didn't build them. The new stadium has a capacity of 52,325 (down from just under 57,000 in the old place), says Trost, but those aren't all seats: 1,886 are standing room, meaning only 50,439 actual fannies can be accommodated. Add in 600 seats in the bleachers that will be have obstructed views (and bear a $5 price tag), and available seats in the new stadium are down about 14% from what Yankee fans have grown used to. "We can't create inventory when it doesn't exist," said Trost.
Of course, "We don't have enough seats" may not be the best defense when it was the Yankees, after all, who designed and built the place, but there you have it. (The Mets, it's worth noting, were even more aggressive in creating artificial scarcity at their new home, slashing about 25% of their seating capacity at Citi Field.) Other Trost bon mots:
- He said that seats behind the foul poles are "really not an obstructed seat," but that regardless, they won't be offered as part of multigame ticket plans, only on a day-of-game basis. (They'll still charge full price for them, though, meaning $85 for seats in the right-field corner was not a typo.) Given Jay Jaffe's experience, this means that Trost is either lying or misinformed.
- "Ninety percent of the non-premium seats are $100 or less," reported Trost, defending the new stadium's affordability. Of course, what's considered a "premium" seat is entirely determined by the Yankees, so this is a fairly bogus statistic; moreover, this means that even by the team's math, several thousand seats are considered "non-premium" and yet are still priced at more than $100 a pop. Maybe you have to bring your own cupholders.
February 24, 2009
Yanks to ticket plan holders: How about a nice obstructed view?
Telling your loyal fans that if they want to keep their ticket plans they'll have to pay $25 more and sit behind a pole seems like bad customer service; doing so when one of the fans in question is a noted baseball writer is p.r. suicide. Jay Jaffe tells his tale of woe at the hands of the New York Yankees and their new stadium at Baseball Prospectus; I report on Jay's report, and have some further speculation on whether this is an indication of the sports bubble bursting at the Village Voice website.
In related news, Neil Best of Newsday reports on asking Yanks COO Lonn Trost about the state of the new stadium:
How are sales of premium seats going? "Over 70 percent have been sold and paid for."
It seems as if you have been marketing them aggressively, including newspaper ads. "Why are we marketing? Like any good business, you market."
Has the recession affected sales of your most expensive seats? "It's affecting the time it takes to sell them."
Is there any chance you will drop prices on your most expensive seats? "No, our prices are our prices."
Is it true there are seats in the bleachers from which you can't see parts of the field? "Yes, but we will have TVs in the walls there."
The new Yankee Stadium: It's not actually a view of the field, but it plays one on TV.
What next for the Fremont-free A's?
With the Oakland A's-to-Fremont plans in disarray, everyone and their sister is speculating what's next for the team, since owner Lew Wolff says he doesn't have a Plan B. Latest to throw their hats in the ring:
- Sacramento Bee writer Bill Bradley offers up his city as a nice destination for the A's, though noting that Wolff told local sports editors last fall that Sacramento "lacked the corporate and TV base necessary to succeed."
- Morgan Hill Times writer Michael Moore (what, do all journalists in Northern California have to share their names with famous people?) notes that "one local property owner" is pushing for the A's, Raiders, or San Francisco 49ers to move to her town on the west side of the bay for "the benefit of humankind."
- The San Francisco Examiner's Glenn Dickey (okay, they don't) suggests that Wolff reopen talks with Oakland on building a new stadium there, which was, after all, his original plan. Dickey proposes two sites adjacent to the A's current home, as well as one just south of Jack London Square, though he says nothing about who would pay the construction tab.
Wild speculation aside, what seems most likely is for Wolff to lay low for a year or two, while working behind the scenes to put out feelers for a new site, and wait for the economy to perk up a bit. Though given recent reports, he might not want to hold his breath on that last one.
UPDATE: Wolff has now officially stuck a fork in Fremont. (Thanks to Dan for the link.)
NYC council: Enough with the MSG tax break already
It's spring, and the New York City council's thoughts turn to the property tax exemption enjoyed by Madison Square Garden, owner of the Knicks, Rangers, and Liberty, which now costs the city a whopping $14 million a year. Councilmember Eric Gioia became the latest city official to demand the tax break's repeal over the weekend, calling it "questionable at any time - and unjustifiable in these difficult economic times," and saying of the Garden owners, "Frankly, if I were them, I'd be embarrassed in accepting it or requesting it."
The MSG tax exemption has a long and weird history. Way back in 1982, then-mayor Ed Koch proposed letting the arena's owners out of paying property taxes to fund Garden renovations, in exchange for the teams staying put in town. Koch said at the time (as has since reiterated) that he thought the tax break would expire after 10 years; when the legislation was actually written, however, it read that the exemption would continue in perpetuity until such time as "one or both of said teams shall cease to play their home games in said property." (There was some talk during the 2004-05 hockey lockout that the Rangers had violated this clause, but no one tried seriously to enforce it.) The total city cost of the tax break over time is now approaching $300 million.
Mayor Mike Bloomberg has long been a critic of the tax exemption, dating back to when Cablevision, which owns MSG, successfully fought off the mayor's plans for a new Jets stadium nearby. The council jumped in as opponents last year, ultimately voting to repeal the tax break - but the state legislature, which actually has say over the provision, wouldn't play along. (State assembly leader Sheldon Silver, you may recall, was one of Cablevision's main allies in the Jets stadium battle.)
So for now, expect the stalemate to continue. Which means the issue will continue to be ripe for press conferences by city officials, especially those running for higher office - Gioia, you'll note, is in the race to become the city's next public advocate. (Yes, that's an actual elected position in New York. It's complicated.)
With Indiana facing a $43 million a year operating deficit on its sports facilities, there's increasing talk of a ticket tax hike on sporting events to help close the gap. "Of all the potential funding sources, the ticket tax makes the most sense to me," said City-County Councilwoman Joanne Sanders told the Indianapolis Business Journal. "I think true users of the facility should have to pay. The direct use is an important thing to look at."
Both the Indianapolis Colts and minor-league baseball Indianapolis Indians have come out against the tax, and little wonder: Most economists agree that ticket tax money mostly ends up coming out of team owners' pockets, as they're forced to scale back their ticket prices to keep the ticket-plus-tax price within the bounds of what consumers will pay. The Colts, for example, just hiked their cheapest ticket price by 42% - if there were a ticket surcharge in there as well, they'd have to be more concerned about driving fans away. (Though not all that much more concerned, given that at most, we'd be talking about a 3% tax hike from the existing 6% ticket tax.)
Of course, there's also the problem that even a 3% ticket surcharge would bring in only about $2 million a year - and, as noted, the state stadium authority is facing a $43 million a year deficit. Somehow I don't think a 60% ticket tax is going to fly, no matter how fair the "users should pay" argument may be.
In connection with my stadiums essay in the new edition of Baseball Prospectus and my followup article on BP's website, I'll be doing a live chat at baseballprospectus.com this Thursday from 1-3 pm. If you have a pressing question about the A's or Marlins (or, for that matter, the Gwinnett Braves) that you can't wait to ask, you can pre-ask questions and I'll reply on Thursday.
And if you're in the New York City area, I'll be appearing on a panel discussion with BP authors Kevin Goldstein, Steven Goldman, Jay Jaffe, and Cliff Corcoran, on Thursday, March 12, at 6 pm, at the Barnes & Noble on 5th Ave. and 18th St. in Manhattan. (I can remember when that was the only Barnes & Noble store - yes, I'm that old.) I'll see about having a stock of Field of Schemes copies on hand as well, if anyone wants me to deface them with my signature.
February 22, 2009
A's can't make up their mind if Fremont stadium is dead
Depending on which Oakland A's official you believe, the team's plans for a baseball stadium in Fremont are either dead, not dead, or somewhere in between. On Friday, team spokesman Bob Rose announced: "At this time we have decided to no longer pursue the Fremont project. We are regrouping and will have discussions internally about our future options." On Saturday, A's owner Lew Wolff contradicted that statement: "Unless you hear it from me, it's not necessarily true. I have not personally made an announcement yet" - though he added, "Things look gloomy there. I'm concerned about moving forward."
Further confusing matters is that there are two sites under consideration in Fremont. An initial report in the San Francisco Chronicle implied that it was only the original site near I-880 that was being ditched - but also cited as one reason opposition from the NUMMI auto plant, which was actually complaining about the Warm Springs site near its facility.
San Jose councilmember Sam Liccardo responded to the news by saying he hoped this would open the door for the A's to instead move to his city, but it didn't sound like he was holding his breath: "For people like me who would love to see the A's play baseball in San Jose, the fact that the deal is falling through in Fremont doesn't hurt. ... Until we hear from the Oakland A's that they'd like to move to San Jose, there's not a lot of reason to start banging the drums down here. There are still issues that need to be resolved before the A's could come to Santa Clara County, and we're hopeful that Lew Wolff and his team will find a resolution." (Yeah, no kidding about those "issues.") Chron columnist Ray Ratto, meanwhile, is ready to file a death certificate on the whole A's-moving thing:
Oh sure there's San Jose, and that is only a few hundred million dollars, some currently absent political will, thousands of angry taxpayers and a few environmental impact reports away from becoming reality. You'll notice we didn't include the Giants' territorial rights claims. Because those are about as enforceable as Germany's claims on Tanzania, we decided to ignore them as baseball will if and when the time comes.
More realistically, though, the A's are back in Oakland and for many years to come, as predicted by smart people everywhere.
(Note: I don't share Ratto's dismissal of the territorial rights issue, if only because Germany never had Bud Selig on its side.)
Ratto also notes that if the A's stay put, it throws a major wrench into the Raiders' recently floated plans to redo the Oakland Coliseum: "It is, after all, hard to get permits to build on a site that is still in daily use by a baseball team, and while Al would not necessarily find that a stumbling block, the A's would probably object to having their employees duck wrecking balls while trying to chase down a double in the left-center field gap." Though, of course, Jack Cust already fields that way.
February 19, 2009
Stadium ban dropped from stimulus bill
Atlantic Yards Report's Norman Oder, the hardest-working blogger in show business, reports that the final version of the federal stimulus bill deleted a proposed ban on stimulus money going to sports stadiums. The amendment, originally introduced by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, would have barred any use of funds "for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project." In the final language, parks, museyms, theaters, art centers, highway beautification, and stadiums were all stripped from the section, though Coburn's hatred of publicly funded zoos still made it into law.
This still doesn't necessarily mean a gold rush for sports teams to cash in on stimulus funds by declaring their projects "shovel-ready": The legislation still restricts funding to certain areas, like transportation or public housing, though there is a worryingly vague provision for "other government services." Lobbyists are probably Blackberrying frantically right now to figure out how wide they can force this loophole open; you think Al D'Amato types in ALL CAPS when he's excited?
P.G. official: Soccer stadium won't bring revenue, build it anyway
D.C. United's plan for a $180 million-or-so stadium in Prince George's County, Maryland, is panned today by Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher, who calls it "a sweet deal for United, a feel-good boost for the beleaguered county and a financial loser for Maryland taxpayers."
Fisher's source? That'd be none other than Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson, who defended the deal by saying, "I don't think it's going to create a lot of revenue." The reason taxpayers should put up three-quarters of the cost of a soccer stadium, he told radio station WAMU, is "public interest" and "public benefit."
Fisher then notes that a feasibility study conducted by the Maryland Stadium Authority is hardly clear about the public's interest or benefit:
- Most current United fans (57% of whom live in Virginia) say they would go to fewer games at a Maryland stadium.
- "New soccer stadiums in the Denver and Toronto areas were sold as possible concert venues, but each attracted only one show in its first year."
- Because MLS teams play only 16 home games in a season, "even if international soccer matches, a women's soccer team and a pro lacrosse team also used the stadium, it would be dark about 300 days a year."
(By the way, in case you're wondering whether Fisher is just expressing sour grapes because he writes for a D.C. paper, he made many of the same points in arguing against a publicly funded soccer stadium in D.C. last year.)
Since D.C. United has to know these same figures - especially the one about their current fans not wanting to make the trek to Maryland - this has to increase the odds that the Prince George's plan is mostly a stalking horse to kick-start plans for a soccer stadium in D.C. If so, it's not working: Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty issued a statement on Tuesday declaring, "While the District will greatly miss being home to the team, the administration congratulates both D.C. United and Prince George’s County on their successful negotiations." Fenty diplomatically failed to add: "Suckers!"
February 17, 2009
A's cancel Fremont stadium presentations
In case you were thinking the Oakland A's stadium plans in Fremont hadn't completely hit a wall, here's a wall for you: Club owner Lew Wolff announced today that he was "indefinitely postponing" a stadium presentations to the Fremont Chamber of Commerce and Fremont City Council that had been scheduled for next Tuesday. How come? "I've postponed the meetings because we had so many people lined up to yell at us," said Wolff, adding: "We're also really busy with spring training."
You might wonder whether Wolff only just noticed that spring training happens in the spring, but no matter - today apparently was Lame Excuses Day. I eagerly await Rick Wagoner's explanation that the dog ate his first $13 billion.
I'm going to try to post links here more often to articles I write elsewhere, since the "recent articles" listing went away in the Great Redesign. Today, it's an essay for Baseball Prospectus on recent developments in the Florida Marlins, Oakland A's, and New York Mets stadium situations. It's for subscribers only, but if you don't have a BP account, you can also check out the spirited discussion of the Marlins stadium deal I kicked off on BP's Unfiltered blog.
Also on the Marlins front, South Florida Sun-Sentinel sports business writer Sarah Talalay says the city and county commissions will hold their stadium votes next month on different days, to avoid the craziness that took place on Friday, while her colleague Dave Hyde thinks it's fair to demand that taxpayers get paid back before the team's owners take a profit on the deal.
Raiders float renovated Coliseum, with malls
The Oakland Raiders have proposed renovations to the Oakland Coliseum as part of a larger development with retail stores, condos, restaurants. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Ray Ratto speculates that this is just a ploy to counter talk of sharing a stadium with the San Francisco 49ers.
SF Weekly's Joe Eskenazi is skeptical as well, quoting our own Neil deMause to the effect that "football is a terrible anchor" for development. To Raiders CEO Amy Trask's suggestion that the Baltimore Ravens stadium helped spur development of that city's Inner Harbor, deMause replies: "Given that the entire inner harbor was developed five to 10 years before the Ravens stadium opened, that's a neat trick."
February 16, 2009
P.G. United? Soccer stadium plan announced for Maryland
So D.C. United held its press conference today, and now we have some specifics of the MLS team's plans for a stadium in suburban Prince George's County, Maryland. To wit:
- Where would it be built? The Washington Business Journal says the 24,000-seat stadium would be built "not far from FedEx field" and that team owner Victor MacFarlane said "the exact site will be chosen in the next 30 days." The Washington Post's David Nakamura says MacFarlane is "looking at three sites close to metro stations -- two at the Morgan Blvd. Metro Station and one at the Largo Town Center Metro Station."
- Who would pay for it? The Maryland Stadium Authority would sell bonds, 75% of which would be repaid by "admission, sales and income tax revenue created by the project" (per the Washington Business Journal), with the other 25% coming from the team. That indicates tax-increment financing (TIF) and its sibling finance mechanism, sales-tax-increment-financing (STIF), which allow developers to get their property and sales taxes to get kicked back to pay for construction costs. It's a hugely controversial finance scheme, especially during an economic downturn; as corporate subsidy expert Greg LeRoy told me way back in 2000: "Right now we're in the middle of this giant real estate boom, but real estate markets are cyclical. During the crash in real estate values in the early '90s, some places got caught in the downdraft, and the increment evaporated. And you've got a situation where a liability that was supposed to be taken care of by the TIF is now eating the lunch of the general fund." Gulp.
- How likely is this stadium to happen? Today's press conference was to announce the introduction of legislation by state delegate Melony Griffith - but, according to Nakamura, the bill, if approved by the legislature, would only "allow the team to enter into formal talks with the Maryland Stadium Authority toward building a stadium." He predicts any stadium to be "4-5 years away minimum."
In other words, this is still the very beginning of the process, not the end. MacFarlane may have declared yesterday, "We are coming to Prince George's County," but whether it's forever or just to take a look around remains to be seen.
As you may have noticed, this site has undergone a minor redesign as of today, one intended to be cleaner and better-organized than the junk drawer that had accumulated here over the years. If you notice anything important that's gone missing, or otherwise isn't working properly, please drop me a line.
There are also some more substantive improvements: We've begun adding regular correspondents (and plan on adding more) to help cover the wide world of sports subsidies, and, with any luck, will soon offer the long-awaited ability to search by categories, among other things. Over coming weeks, expect to see this site continue its transition from an accompaniment to the book Field of Schemes - don't forget to check out the book if you haven't already - into a full-fledged independent news site covering stadium and arena deals.
Finally, if you'd like to support the work being done here, or just have a product you'd like to let our readers know about, please consider taking out a text or display ad. We reserve the right to reject ads that are fraudulent or egregiously offensive, but otherwise, anything is fair game.
February 15, 2009
Maryland stadium plan lacks specifics
Tim Lemke of the Washington Times has summarized the state of DC United's proposed new soccer stadium in Prince George's County, Maryland. To summarize the summary: There is no site yet, no clear budget, no financing plan, and no detail whatsoever in an enabling bill introduced in Maryland's General Assembly. There is, however, a press conference tomorrow.
NFL in LA: no team yet, but several stadium options
The City of Industry's Planning Commission approved the latest version of Ed Roski's football stadium plan on Thursday, over the protests of neighboring cities Diamond Bar and Walnut. This passes the project back to the City Council for a final vote. Among the claims made by Roski's Majestic Realty: the stadium will be the greenest in the NFL and will generate $762 million per year. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office, however, has asked the LA Area Chamber of Commerce to endorse no specific site, leaving such unlikely options as Chavez Ravine in play.
February 13, 2009
Marlins stadium hearings in "chaos"
A vote on the Florida Marlins stadium plan descended into chaos Friday afternoon after City Commissioner Marc Sarnoff demanded significant modifications to the deal in exchange for his support.
That's from the front page of the Miami Herald's website, as of about ten minutes ago. The actual chaos descended around 2 pm, and went something like this:
- After several hours of discussion, the Miami City Commission voted on approving the Marlins' final stadium contracts. Two members, Joe Sanchez and Angel Gonzalez, voted yes, and two, Marc Sarnoff and Tomas Regalado, voted no, creating a stalemate. Regalado said in explaining his vote that he wanted a new stadium, but the agreement as presented was a "very bad deal" for the city of Miami.
- Sarnoff then proposed a series of three amendments: 1) The Marlins would pay for cost overruns on the stadium's $94 million parking garages, in exchange for getting rental income from a retail tenant of the garage building, if one could be found; 2) the city would get a cut of naming-rights revenue, since it's putting up a share of the construction cost; 3) if the Marlins were sold, the city and county would get their stadium costs paid back before the team would be allowed to reap any profits from the sale.
- There was a proposal to recess for ten minutes, so that commissioners could check with the Marlins to see if these amendments would be acceptable to them. Right before that happened, though, Sanchez shouted that he was withdrawing his support for the motion, saying, "This will kill the deal!"
They recessed anyway, and after almost an hour, Sanchez just returned to his chair and called the meeting back to order. (You can watch the webcast for yourself here.) Marlins president David Samson is now answering Sarnoff's proposal - I'll post followups here in Comments.
UPDATE: Samson said he wouldn't budge on naming rights or a share of the sale price unless the whole deal were renegotiated. Regalado and Sarnoff said fine, let's renegotiate. Sanchez then declared, "The deal is dead," followed by - another recess!
It's not clear whether the county commission will wait around to see if a new deal can be struck this afternoon, or will just postpone its hearing. Stay tuned.
UPDATE #2: They just suspended the stadium discussion until an unspecified date in March March 12, by which time the fifth commission member, Michelle Spence-Jones, is expected to be back from maternity leave. Good luck to her juggling a newborn and all the lobbying calls she's about to receive. (She's also up for re-election, which should make things even more interesting.)
Nets hire D'Amato to lobby for stimulus funds
And the first "shovel-ready" has been thrown out for a sports facility! Brooklyn Borough President Marty "Those tears of joy are swelling up in me!" Markowitz this week declared of the New Jersey Nets' Atlantic Yards arena project in Brooklyn: "This project is shovel-ready, and the jobs it would create are needed now."
And Nets owner Bruce Ratner, it appears, is already hot on the trail of stimulus funds to bail out his stalled arena project. New York magazine reports that Forest City Ratner officials "have been pushing the idea with Governor David Paterson's office, trying to elbow to the front of the line before any of the roughly $17 billion in federal aid arrives"; the New York Observer, meanwhile, observes that former Senator Al D'Amato's lobbying firm filed federal disclosure papers last month showing they'd been hired by Ratner's development company to lobby for, among other things, "stimulus spending."
Could it happen? During a conference call with reporters yesterday, both Gov. Paterson and Sen. Charles Schumer denied knowing whether Atlantic Yards would be eligible for stimulus funds. A Brooklyn resident asked the state's Atlantic Yards ombudsman - yes, this project has its own obmudsman - on Wednesday whether any stimulus money would go to defray Ratner's costs or the state's; his reply: "We're not there yet."
As for whether Paterson and the others would throw money Ratner's way even if it's legal, the Observer's Eliot Brown sums it up well:
Should the project turn out to be eligible to get money, it would require a major political step by Mr. Paterson to allocate the relatively scarce stimulus money. The project has always been a political hornet's nest, and to date, neither Mr. Paterson nor his predecessor Eliot Spitzer have had to take any overt, highly public steps in support of it. Given that there are far more projects than there is stimulus funding, it's safe to say that money to Atlantic Yards would come at the expense of some other project in the area. If eligible, the question then becomes whether or not Bruce Ratner, Al D'Amato, supportive politicians and groups could push Atlantic Yards toward the top of the stack at the same time that other politicans are fighting for projects of their own favor.
Watch the Marlins stadium vote
Miami-Dade County's Florida Marlins stadium vote is being webcast - follow along at home starting at 1 pm Eastern. I'll try to liveblog it here, or at least post frequent updates.
February 12, 2009
KC official: My niece knows a guy who knows a guy who knows the Islanders
The alt-weekly Pitch in Kansas City has video of city manager Wayne Cauthen being asked about when KC's almost-two-year-old Sprint Center might get an NBA or NHL team to play in it. Cauthen, after first quipping that he "niece works for the New Jersey Nets" (at least, the audience laughs like it's a quip), says that "there is some discussion going on with the Islanders - they have a little situation with their facility. I don't see any city building new arenas right now." Cue the 72-point type!
Also featured in the Pitch article: a bunch of quotes from yours truly, including, "You don't leave New York for Kansas City"; discussion of the fact that AEG, which controls the arena rights, won't be eager to give a team a sweetheart lease deal the same way a city might; and speculation that the New Orleans Hornets are one team for which a move to Kansas City might actually represent an upgrade: "You can say, OK, we have an arena and you'd have to pay us some rent but at least you wouldn't be in a city that's lost half of its population." I only hope I didn't give anybody any ideas...
Vikings, A's owners: Where is the love?
Sports team owners appear to have decided on a strategy for responding to the effects of the economic downturn on stadium prospects: whining.
- Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff, caught between a rock in Fremont and a hard place in San Jose, lashed out at opponents of his stadium plans this week. "I didn't think it would be this difficult," Wolff told local business leaders, calling those opposed to a stadium in their neighborhoods "self-interested and absurd" and complaining, "we're not building a rendering plant." He also griped about the lengthy process that has now dragged out for two and a half years: "We think those issues should be fully aired, but not forever. Somebody needs to put a timeline on it." Which would sound less whiny if not for the fact that it's also been two and a half years waiting for Wolff to produce the promised details of how his proposed stadium would be paid for.
- Not to be outdone, Minnesota Vikings VP Lester Bagley attacked Gov. Tim Pawlenty yesterday for not doing enough to land his team public funds for a $954 million stadium: "With all due respect, he's been governor for six years, and he hasn't done anything. He hasn't lifted a finger to engage in a problem-solving discussion to help us on our issue." (Well, maybe one finger.) "We've addressed this in times of surplus, in times of deficit, in election years and non-election years and they've chosen to put it off. Now, they've put it off to a point where the risk is significant to the state." The risk of what, exactly? "We have 30 games left at the Metrodome, and the issue isn't what the Wilfs will or won't do. It's that other NFL owners, other potential NFL markets and potential owners will come after this team." I know it's de rigueur for teams to deny they're making move threats even as they make them, but does Bagley really want us to believe that Ed Roski is going to stage a hostile takeover?
February 11, 2009
Miami Herald: Marlins deal bad even as stadiums go
Big ups to the Miami Herald, which, despite massive layoffs and earning a spot on lists of newspapers most likely to fold, has been actually taking the time to do original research on the Florida Marlins stadium deal. Today's analysis finds that the deal "would be among the more generous to a team owner this decade," ranking 9th out of 14 baseball stadium deals sealed since 2000.
As with the Herald's earlier story on the cost of Marlins stadium bonds, you can argue with the specifics - in this case, the Herald just used up-front public/private stadium splits to determine its "9th out of 14" ranking, meaning deals like those for the Mets and Yankees show as all-private. (To its credit, the Herald does note that its chart "does not address the wide range of other variables involved in stadium projects," such as land and infrastructure or low-cost loans.) But the paper's analysis also noted hidden subsidies to the Marlins deal, such as that the team will pay neither rent nor property tax, and will get virtually all revenues from the stadium - and what little money the county gets must be spent on improving the stadium for the team's benefit. ''Wow," San Diego ballpark administrator Tim Moore told the Herald, "the Marlins negotiated a good deal."
The best part of the piece, though, may be Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez's quote defending the stadium plan: "It's probably not the best deal that has ever been worked out between a community and a team. [But] at some point, negotiations have to stop." With friends like these...
Anyway, go read the article yourself: It's long, it's detailed, and the Herald needs the ad revenue.
As vote looms, Marlins debt cost still an unknown
Big headlines in the Miami Herald today: The public cost of paying off $347 million in Miami-Dade County debt for a Florida Marlins stadium, the paper estimates, "could swing borrowing costs from as low as $528 million to more than $1.1 billion."
It's not quite a fair assessment - the Herald counts money deferred for 20 years the same as money due tomorrow, for starters, which skews its figures. But they do have a point in that two days before a final vote on the stadium project, nobody knows what the interest rate would be on the county's stadium bonds, how much hotel tax money would be available to pay them off, or what would happen if there were a shortfall. This should be an interesting county commission debate on Friday.
New Orleans running out of stadium money, too
Indianapolis isn't the only city whose sports facilities are hemorrhaging red ink: The Superdome Commission, which runs both the New Orleans Saints' dome home and the Hornets' arena, is looking at a $27.5 million shortfall for the next fiscal year, according to the New Orleans Times-Picuyune. Of course, this may have something to do with the ridiculous leases the state agreed to with its teams, where Louisiana taxpayers actually pay the Saints and Hornets more than $46 million a year combined just to play in their state.
"There are not enough monster truck shows in the universe to make up" for the losses, Superdome VP told the state legislature in asking for more tax money to bail out the agency's budget. While it wouldn't be quite as simple as underprivileged college students subsidizing the Saints and Hornets profits with their tuition money, that's pretty close as shorthand.
San Jose A's would likely need voter approval
Not so fast with the San Jose A's talk, even if the whole San Francisco Giants territorial rights thing gets worked out, says the San Jose Mercury News. For one thing, any attempt to sell the A's land at anything below market value would trigger an automatic voter referendum; and San Jose councilmember Sam Liccardo says a referendum might be needed anyway, just because of the scale of the project. Given how the last attempts at a baseball stadium referendum went in San Jose, that doesn't seem a likely recipe for success - though a lot would likely depend on the financing plan, which, as in the case of the A's Fremont stadium proposal, is currently an utter mystery.
Kings still pushing for new Sacramento arena
The Sacramento Kings' arena plans aren't dead, they're just resting. The Sacramento Bee reports that NBA consultant John Moag will present a new plan to the board of Cal Expo by February 27 to propose a ""mixed-use project" anchored by a basketball arena. (The Bee also reports that the Kings are losing $25 million a year, but as that's cited only to "sources close to the team," take it with a grain of salt, as it could well be an intentionally placed bit of disinformation from the team's owners.)
Of course, given that the last plan for Cal Expo depended on using future development rights to fund the project, and the value of real estate in Sacramento right now can only be measured with an electron microscope, the real news will be whether or not Moag presents a new financing plan. ESPN blogger Henry Abbott suggests that it's only a matter of time before someone pushes a Kings arena as a "shovel-ready" plan for federal stimulus funding; the sports-sleaze blog Sports By Brooks polled its readers on this, and currently 94% are opposed to the idea. Which only goes to show we'd probably be better off with sports blog readers running Congress.
February 09, 2009
Marlins stadium vote no sure thing
The Miami Herald has polled Miami-Dade County commissioners as to what they'll do in Friday's Florida Marlins stadium vote, and it could be a close one: With five votes on the 13-member board needed to block passage, four commissioners say they're likely to vote no and a fifth, Sally Heyman, said, "I will not be voting yes unless I get answers, and I can't get any answers right now. What the answers are will determine whether I vote for it." (Which, come to think of it, is pretty much what she said last time, before voting no.) And five more commissioners say they're undecided.
"Unless something changes, I would be opposed to it," said commissioner Joe Martinez, who voted for the stadium plan last February. "The financials trouble me tremendously. It's way too much money the county is investing." What, the wiffle ball game didn't convince you?
Indianapolis: Stadiums out of money, send more
Hey, remember that $20-35 million a year operating deficit Indianapolis' stadium authority was projecting to run? Turns out it's now $43 million a year - and the city or county may have to consider new taxes to help stem the flow of red ink.
Among the options being considered, according to the Indianapolis Star, are a food and beverage tax hike, a hotel tax hike, a sales tax increment financing district (which would just divert sales taxes that would otherwise go to the state treasury), a ticket surcharge (which, contrary to what the Star claims, would mostly come out of the pockets of the Colts and other local teams, who would be limited how much they could raise ticket prices, not local fans), and lease concessions from the Colts and Pacers. Noting that the Pacers are expected to demand a sweetheart lease akin to the Colts', U of Indianapolis sports marketing professor Larry DeGaris remarked, "On one hand, the city has already played its hand by building the stadiums -- it would be a shame to have these two huge white elephants Downtown (if the teams, in particular the Pacers, opt to move to new cities). But the teams don't have the same leverage now, either. Where are the Pacers going to go that can help them?"
All this, on top of the $715 million that local taxpayers spent to build the Colts' new stadium in the first place, could leave the public on the hook for more than $1 billion in construction and operation costs. But then, it's not like anyone could have predicted that the stadium would lose money for its public owners once it opened - oh, wait...
Fremonters protest A's stadium plans
A planned Oakland A's "information session" on their latest plans for a new stadium in Fremont turned into a protest on Thursday, as hundreds of local residents turned out with "No Stadium" signs and worries of horrendous traffic in their neighborhoods. Team officials responded, according to the San Jose Mercury News, by saying they have "proposed to pay for traffic monitors and security guards to keep fans out of surrounding neighborhoods." This doesn't seem like it's going to end well.
For the fan who has everything, including some things that don't belong to him
Headline of the weekend:
New Cowboys Stadium in Arlington to feature Upgraded Jail
Great, now everybody will want one.
February 05, 2009
Programming notes from all over
I'm scheduled to be on ESPN Radio's Brian Kenny Show on Monday, starting at 8:27 pm Eastern time and running till 8:34 or something. The topic: "sports and the economy," which is sure to touch on the Citi Field deal. You can listen on your local ESPN Radio affiliate, or just click on the web stream here.
UPDATE: My interview was postponed because of the A-Rod thing. I'll post here if and when it's rescheduled.
Bailed-out banks spend billions on ballparks
Bloomberg News has a rundown today of all the banks receiving federal bailout money that are currently engaged in naming-rights deals for sports stadiums. Given that banks have been pretty much the prime buyers of stadium names since the dot-com bust eliminated most other publicity-hungry corporations, it's a long list:
- Citigroup: Got $45 billion in TARP money, spending $400 million on rights to New York Mets stadium name.
- Bank of America: Got $45 billion in TARP, spending $140 million for Carolina Panthers naming rights. (It's also in talks with the New York Yankees on a stadium ad deal that would essentially be naming-rights without the actual stadium name - much like Adidas had at the old Yankee Stadium - and which could end up costing as much as the Citigroup/Mets deal.)
- JPMorgan Chase: Got $25 billion in TARP, spending $66 million for Arizona Diamondbacks naming rights, a deal it inherited when it bought Bank One.
- PNC: Got $7.6 billion in TARP, spending $40 million for Pittsburgh Pirates naming rights. (Yes, Pittsburgh comes cheap.)
- Bank of New York Mellon: Got $3 billion in TARP, spending $18 million for soon-to-expire naming rights to the Pittsburgh Penguins' soon-to-expire arena.
- Wells Fargo: Got $25 billion in TARP, spending $40 million for naming rights to the much-renamed Philadelphia 76ers and Flyers arena.
- Comerica: Got $2.25 billion in TARP, spending $66 million for Detroit Tigers naming rights.
- M&T Bank: Got $600 million in TARP, spending $75 million for Baltimore Ravens naming rights.
- BankAtlantic: Got $124 million in TARP, spending $27 million for Florida Panthers naming rights.
The lesson here: If you don't want government money going to sports naming-rights deals, you should probably bail out some industry other than banking.
If there's a silver lining, it's that, as Daniel Gross argues in Slate, buying giant billboards on the sides of sports facilities is actually a lot less wasteful than some other things banks could be doing with their money. Though if there's a dark cloud to that silver lining, it's that buying a billboard that only makes people say, "Hey, isn't that that bank that's only being kept solvent with federal dollars" doesn't seem to be working all that well for Citi.
February 04, 2009
"Citi Field" now even more embarrassing name than "Enron Field"
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Citigroup may try to "void" their $400 million naming-rights deal with the New York Mets, after coming under fire for the expense while getting $45 billion in bailout funds from the federal government. Today, the Mets and Citi both issued statements saying the Journal is on crack, and they accept that they have a "legally binding agreement" to name the almost-finished stadium "Citi Field."
That said, it's pretty clear at this point that the deal is an embarrassment for all concerned, and it seems like an exit strategy is in order. Over at the Village Voice blog, I suggest that the least bad solution might be to admit that the Mets will get to keep their money, but try to resell the name elsewhere, and use the proceeds to bail out the bailouters - to read the whole argument, including an interview with an actual live person who makes his living selling naming-rights deals, click the hotlink now.
February 03, 2009
"Death knell" for Atlantic Yards?
The New York Daily News reports that the cost of bulletproof glass to protect against terrorist attacks "could be the death knell" for the Nets' proposed Atlantic Yards arena in Brooklyn. Citing "a source familiar with the designs," the News says an anti-ballistic glaze would cost $625 a square foot - the paper doesn't attempt to estimate what this would total for the whole building, but suffice to say it'd be a lot.
Divining who anonymous sources are and their motivation for leaks is half the trick to understanding newspaper reports; my initial guess was that this was an attempt by Nets owner Bruce Ratner to explain why he's throwing architect Frank Gehry's glass-enclosed design under the bus. Reading further, though, I'm not so sure:
"Security is one component of the cost of the arena, but by no means the most significant," said the source. "There are a whole host of reasons why the current design is expensive, including the size, the signature look and the materials. It would be very difficult to fund this arena in this economic environment."
That sounds more like someone trying to say the project is dead, which, given that Ratner insists it's moving forward, wouldn't be someone on the builder's team. Unless they expect that people are going to parse "this arena" very carefully ("we can't build this arena, but we could build a cheaper one"), which clearly isn't the lesson that the News took from this.
(Actually, come to think of it, it's probably the same anonymous source as the News cited last time saying the project isn't likely to happen. Brooklynites, feel free to chime in with guesses as to the identity of the Deep Throat of Atlantic Avenue.)
Could hotel woes nix Fish bowl?
The Florida Marlins stadium steamroller has been hitting a bumpy road of late. First, the city and county put off their final approval vote on the matter, saying they wanted to actually think about it before voting this time. Then on Sunday, the Miami Herald revealed the results of its analysis of county hotel tax receipts, which are supposed to pay for nearly half the now-$609 million cost of the project. Their conclusion: The taxes won't even come close unless tourists "spend record amounts of money" in Miami over the next 35 years.
There's lots in the Herald article projecting various different scenarios, but nothing that I can see about what happens if the county doesn't have enough hotel tax money to pay off the bonds. (Presumably it dips into general revenues.) There is, however, this tidbit buried deep on the jump page:
If commissioners in Miami and Miami-Dade approve the plan, either government would have until June 30 to cancel the deal. ''If we are presented with a worst-case scenario by June 30, we can walk away,'' Mayor [Carlos] Alvarez said in his statement.
So the final vote isn't the final vote after all? And what happens if the Marlins break ground in May as scheduled, and then the city or county backs out of the deal? Maybe thinking things over beforehand isn't such a bad idea.
Goodell: Everybody gets a new stadium!!!
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell had a busy weekend. In between watching some football game, he took time out to address the stadium situation of three of his league's teams. Needless to say, in no case did he say, "Enh, they're fine where they are":
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell conceded Friday that the 49ers and Raiders stadiums must be replaced, and he said that a shared stadium facility may be the best option in a credit challenged economy racked by recession and job losses.
Asked whether he and the NFL have determined that a joint stadium should replace the decaying Oakland Coliseum and Candlestick Park, Goodell said, "The point that you point out here is that this facility is badly needed in the Bay Area. We have asked both teams to evaluate the possibility of a shared stadium.
"We can't come to a conclusion right now if that's the best option. And in these times, when it's more challenging to get these stadiums built, we have to be more creative."
Nice touch with the "decaying," there - usually the adjective of choice is "crumbling" or "outmoded," but the stench of maggots really gives some extra zest to the image.
In any case, the real news here is that 1) the NFL has sided with the two-team option as the best bet for a new Bay Area stadium, and 2) they still don't have a clue who'd pay for it. Goodell mentioned the New York Jets and Giants stadium as a precedent, but that was able to draw off league suite revenues under the now-defunct G3 program; without outside aid, it's not clear whether the Raiders and 49ers would be any better able to make money going halfsies at a new stadium than building one apiece. In which case, you'd think they might be just as well staying put - but we can't have that, can we, Commissioner?
"I know [owners] Zygi Wilf and Mark Wilf want to continue to have the Minnesota Vikings in Minnesota in a new stadium and I share that," Goodell said during his state of the NFL address in Tampa, Fla. "They have worked very hard to be able to get to that point. They have understood the priorities of the community, they have stood by and they've allowed the baseball stadium and the Gophers [football] stadium to move forward because they recognize those priorities and there are always priorities in the community.
"I think we have to continue to work with the governor and the leadership in that community to understand those priorities and figure out how we get a new stadium built. That is necessary for the Vikings. We all want the Vikings to be there in the long term, successfully. They need a new stadium, that's clear. I think it's recognized by all parties and we need to get down to the difficult business of figuring out how to do it."
Clearly not.
