March 31, 2009
Yanks community benefits fund benefiting administrator, not so much the community
Two from today's New York Daily News on the "community benefits fund" the New York Yankees set up by way of apologizing for taking away Bronx parks for at least four years:
- The New Yankee Stadium Community Benefits Fund gave a 600-pound pitching machine (no, not David Wells) to a local high school, but the school can't use it: It's too big for their gym, and their local ballfield was displaced to make way for the Yanks' new stadium. "It took six men and a flatbed truck for them to drag it in here," All Hallows High School principal Sean Sullivan told the News. "If the Yankees had only given us a bus instead." The school asked the fund for $40,000 to replace the buses the school's teams use to travel to fields on the other side of the Bronx, but were rejected.
- And that was the good news. The News also reports that the lawyer the Yanks hired to set up the benefits fund is suing its chair, Serafin Mariel, saying Mariel deposited $800,000 in fund money in a non-interest bearing account in the bank he owns, and issued no-bid contracts to friends. Mariel, who wouldn't comment to the paper, was originally put in place by former Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion; what ever happened to that guy, anyway?
March 30, 2009
Selig appoints Gang of Three to seek A's stadium answers
If Lew Wolff wanted a response from MLB on the fate of the Oakland A's, he got one: Commissioner Bud Selig appointed a three-man committee today to study "why a stadium deal has not been reached" and where to go from here.
If you take Selig at his word, that will include all the options in the Bay Area: The commission said the committee will analyze "the prospects of obtaining a ballpark" in Oakland (which Wolff previously said he's done with) while league spokesperson Rich Levin said "territorial rights are part of the issue" (implying that San Jose could be in play if rights to that city can be pried loose from the San Francisco Giants). Unless, of course, Selig is just giving lip service to one or the other, or both, so he can say MLB looked at all the options before rejecting them.
As for the committee itself, it will consist of Bob Starkey, who used to be the Minnesota Twins' accountant (and before that worked for Arthur Andersen, best known for that Enron thing); Corey Busch, a longtime Giants exec; and Irwin Raij, who was one of MLB's lawyers on the relocation of the Montreal Expos to Washington.
As Rob Neyer observes: "Here's the question this committee will try to answer: 'Why won't poor people agree to give money to rich people?'"
March 29, 2009
Yanks and Mets preview: Empty seats and pricey beers?
You can't walk past a newsstand in New York &mdash yes, we still have newsstands here, and walking — without seeing a passel of articles hyping the soon-to-be-opening Mets and Yankees stadiums. I've long since given up hope of following it all, but here are some of this weekend's highlights:
- The Newark Star-Ledger is wondering whether the teams will be able to sell all their pricey new seats, with sports marketing consultant David Carter saying ticket-buyers are likely to be more price-conscious during a recession: "For a long time, fans haven't done that kind of assessment. Now they're looking at it that way."
- The Daily News' Bob Raissman, meanwhile, wonders if the Yankees' cable network will show any empty seats on TV. That is, if they ever stop complaining about the lousy camera angles at the new stadium.
- Bucketloads of new Yankees stadium photos keep turning up. Note the $9 beers and $5 bottled water. (You'll still be able to bring your own bottled water into the ballpark, but juice boxes will be at the discretion of security guards.)
- The Times' Richard Sandomir reports that the Mets' goal in reducing seating at Citi Field by 15,000 from Shea Stadium was "stoking demand for far fewer tickets." (Yeah, no duh.) Though Sandomir also buys into the Mets' argument that the new stadium is more "intimate," notwithstanding that it's actually almost as tall as the one it replaced, despite offering 25% fewer seats.
Which brings us to the other contender for dumbest observation of the day:
As for the all-important matter of restrooms, here's what Jeff Gold, a season-ticker holder from Bellmore, N.Y., had to say said when I asked about Citi Field's biggest improvement: "Have you been to the bathrooms here? They're clean and they're huge. It's a first class facility."
As FoS correspondent David Dyte remarked: "And here I was expecting them to pre-age the bathrooms with assorted human waste from local sewers."
Colts leaving good for Baltimore?
I've read a bunch of good reporting from Baltimore Sun writer Childs Walker, and even been interviewed by him, so I'm not happy to have to nominate him for dumbest observation of the day on the 25th anniversary of the Baltimore Colts moving to Indianapolis:
With 25 years of perspective, however, it's possible to argue that March 29, 1984, was actually a good day for Baltimore sports. It allowed the city to cut ties with a desperately flawed franchise and a deeply unpopular owner. It spurred elected officials to get serious about plans that would keep the Orioles in Baltimore and attract a new NFL team. Those plans bore fruit in Camden Yards and M&T Bank Stadium, beloved facilities that are now as intrinsic to downtown as the Inner Harbor. The Ravens arrived in 1996 and won a Super Bowl six years before the Colts brought Indianapolis its first Lombardi Trophy.
Uhhhh, so let me get this straight: It's good that the Colts moved and left the city without an NFL team for a decade because it ended up forcing the state to spend $330 million on two new stadiums? Isn't that a bit like saying the economic crash was good because it forced the government to increase unemployment insurance?
Also nowhere to be found in Walker's article: Any mention of the fact that the Ravens, after all, "arrived" from 50 years of being the Cleveland Browns, a move that forced that city to pony up $283 million for a new stadium to get football back. Though I guess when the thesis of your article is "Hey, it worked out okay, we ended up with a better team and all it cost us was $330 million!" there's no room to worry about how things worked out for the next guy.
Ratto: Wolff's all talk on San Jose
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Ray Ratto has chimed in again about A's Lew Wolff's public spurning of Oakland for San Jose:
This has always been the problem when Wolff chats up folks about a new building. He talks before everyone else can walk, and as such comes across not as a guy with a plan but as a guy who hopes one magically materializes.
His history on this topic is clear, from the Oakland Flea Market plan on out - he speculates out loud, can't get sufficient immediate headway, tries for awhile and then he retreats. He comes off almost as a dilettante who wants to move out of his old neighborhood but wants the new neighborhood to come to him.
Ratto goes on to write that "MLB is already looking at a projected 9 percent revenue drop in 2009, and perhaps more. The Oakland-San Francisco problem means even less now to MLB than it did a year ago, and a year ago MLB didn't give a very discernible damn." If he's correct, then Wolff's strategy is even more puzzling than I thought.
March 27, 2009
A's owner: San Jose or the highway
Looks like my conspiracy theory may be right: Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff anointed San Jose as the front-runner for the team's new home yesterday, telling reporters, "We are really saying that we'd love to stay in Northern California, and go to San Jose. Wolff added: "From a preparation point of view, they are in as good a position as any city in California."
Perhaps more tellingly, Wolff said he expected a decision from the league on the San Francisco Giants' territorial rights to that city "by the end of the season, maybe sooner. I hope sooner" — the first public indication that MLB is preparing to officially reopen the question of rights to Santa Clara County, which were assigned to the Giants nearly 20 years ago when that team was mulling a move to San Jose.
Wolff also rattled the non-threat threat saber, hinting that another unnamed city outside of the Bay Area could acquire the A's if San Jose falls through: "If we want to stay in Northern California we don't want to get on a plane and go to another city... I won't name that city." Wait, wait, don't tell me!
New Yankee Stadium, before and after
While the papers have been full of photos of the New York Yankees' new and old stadiums side-by-side, the public parks that were displaced by the Yanks' new home have been wiped from the map. Except on Google Maps, where they live on:
- Google's aerial photo of the Bronx offers an excellent "before" picture of the new stadium site when it was still Macombs Dam Park: The running track, adjacent ballfields (here filled with cars of fans parking for the ballgame then underway), and tennis courts just north of the old stadium are all now buried beneath the new stadium and its accompanying player parking garage.
- Stadium construction was already underway by the time Google took its ground-level view photos of the main Macombs Dam Park site, but you can still see what the park annex to the southwest looked like before it met the wrecking ball. Another Yankees garage now stands on this site; it's scheduled to eventually have a running track and artificial turf field on its roof eventually, but for now only a smaller temporary field will open later this spring.
The original Yankee Stadium is slated for demolition, at which point three new ballfields will be built on that site, one of these years.
Plenty of overpriced Mets seats still available!
Just got an email from the New York Mets offering tickets to opening day at their new Citi Field, providing one buys tickets to four other April and May games as well. The email continues: "Available seating: Secure your choice of Metropolitan Box, Field Box or Caesars Club Bronze seats." A look at the insanely complex Mets pricing chart reveals that these are the seats in the lower level along the infield, and will set fans back a mere $210, $175, and $161, respectively. The prospect of empty seats on TV when the Mets open their new home is looking more and more likely.
(Note: It looks like the Yankees are still having similar problems.)
Dynamo stadium deal: Now you see it, now you don't
Houston Chronicle headline, March 24, 2009, 5:27PM:
Financing for Dynamo stadium nearly a done deal
Houston Chronicle headline, March 25, 2009, 1:16AM:
Financing for Dynamo stadium still up in air
What changed in a matter of hours? Apparently, the Chron reporters got hold of county commissioner El Franco Lee, whose precinct would house the new $80 million stadium, and who said, "There is nothing that I'm about to put on the agenda at all. There's nothing happening on that."
Under the Dynamo's proposed deal, the team would put up about $60 million towards a stadium, while the city and county would provide $20 million in tax-increment financing plus free land. The public money would repay bonds that the Dynamo have to sell first, which is where progress apparently has been made: Team president Oliver Luck said the "principal points have been agreed upon" with the BBVA/Compass bank. Even then, though, the deal still must go through the city council and county commissioner's court for approval.
March 26, 2009
LA stadium developer must crack Walnut
The City of Walnut has filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court to block the development of a new football stadium in neighboring Industry, citing insufficient study of the environmental impact.
According to the San Jose Mercury News, stadium developer Majestic initially filed a full environmental impact study for a mixed-use development on the site, and only a shorter supplement to that when the plan was changed to radically different stadium project. The suit, if successful, will force Majestic to produce a completely new environmental study.
Majestic managing partner John Semcken was in no mood for conciliation. "If they think we're going to stop working on football because of little old Walnut, they've got another think coming."
The NFL is not answering questions on the subject, including the biggest one: which team, if any, will play in this stadium?
Not everyone united on DC stadium plan
The Washington Post reports that the Prince George's County Council's General Assembly Committee voted 5-0, with two abstentions, against the next step in the stadium process. Specifically, the committee voted to recommend opposing state legislation allowing the Maryland Stadium Authority to begin design, site study, and financing work on the proposed new stadium for DC United. This vote is non-binding, and such votes represent "the sense of the Council at that time" according to Council Chairman Marilynn M. Bland.
While other Council members were silent on the reasons for the vote, Eric Olsen took issue with an obscure throw-in part of the plan allowing for new headquarters for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, bypassing the council. According to Olsen, "That is a fatal flaw."
DC United spokesman Doug Hicks appeared bemused. "It's difficult to react to today's vote, as we've not yet spoken to the legislators and don't know what, exactly, they are opposed to."
March 25, 2009
Yanks introduce class-segregated dining at new stadium
The New York Yankees released their list of dining options at their new stadium a couple of days ago, which will include everything from Cuban sandwiches to sushi, as well as a cooking station run occasionally by former Iron Chef Masaharu Morimoto. The new cuisine isn't for just everyone, though: The New Stadium Insider blog notes a curious clause in the team's fan guide:
The food court located near Section 126 on the Field Level offers guests a taste of New York with a variety of concessions, including Boar's Head deli sandwiches, Famous Famiglia pizza and Asian cuisine. Please note that only Field Level and Legends ticket holders have access to the Field Level.
Field Level seats start at $90; having eaten Famous Famiglia pizza, I'm pretty sure it's not worth the price. More worryingly, NSI notes that the fan guide says that fans (or in Yankee newspeak, "guests") "are welcome to watch batting practice from their seat location," which implies that the long tradition of all fans being able to go down front to seek autographs before the game, and later being shooed away by surly guards, could be at an end.
In related news, it's being widely reported that the Yanks and the city have finally agreed how to split the cash from sales of salvaged materials from the old Yankee Stadium: The team will pay the city $10 million up front, plus 5% of net sales over $16 million, 10% over $17 million, 20% over $18.5 million, 24% over $19.5 million, and 50% over $29 million. (Given the Yanks' propensity for improper deductions, you have to hope somebody will be monitoring that "net.") The Yankees are saying that nothing has been signed, but at least this means that work on those public parks might actually begin sometime this decade.
March 24, 2009
On the subway ride home tonight, I remembered that I still needed to send a copy of the new edition of Field of Schemes to Hardball Times and Baseball Digest Daily writer John Brattain, someone I've been reading and occasionally corresponding with for years now. With John about to go into the hospital for an angioplasty, a mutual friend had suggested that he'd enjoy something to read during his recovery.
When I got home and turned on my computer, I found the horrible news: John went in for surgery yesterday, and died on the operating table.
I don't even remember the first time I spoke with John — it might have been when he interviewed me about the debates around replacing Fenway Park, eons ago, or when I interviewed him about the possible contraction of his beloved Montreal Expos, also eons ago. As both a columnist and an email correspondent, John was that rare combination of funny and insightful, and someone who could be clear-eyed about baseball's shortcomings and yet still retain a fan's enthusiasm for the game. (He was exactly the sort of person who would have found reading about stadium scandals to be some nice light recovery-room entertainment.) In many ways, he was the worthy successor to the late Doug Pappas, as both a writer and an analyst; now he's gone at 43, just one year older than Doug was when he left us five years ago.
There's a long thread at Baseball Think Factory with friends and fans of John's remembering him and telling how he'd want us to honor him by telling bad jokes. Like so many others, while I'm sure they're right — John would die for a chance to tell a joke, the worse the better — my heart's not in it: His loss is too much of a bad joke in itself.
Marlins win final stadium approval (kinda)
After a long, long day of hearings that included two stadium opponents being hauled off in handcuffs for shouting "Good jobs, no stadium!" the Miami-Dade Commission voted 9-4 to approve the Florida Marlins' $634 million stadium deal, with no amendments. Following Thursday's Miami City Commission vote, this gives final approval to the team's stadium plan, 12 years, three owners, and several hundred million dollars in cost increases after it was first proposed. Construction is expected to begin this summer, and be completed in time for the 2012 season.
...unless. There is still one final hurdle remaining for the plan: If the city or county isn't able to sell stadium bonds by July 1, either party can back away from the deal. It's a bit unclear what constitutes "unable" in this scenario — even in this economic turmoil, it should be possible to sell bonds if you jack up the interest rate enough — but it's conceivable a government entity could back away from the deal if it proves too rich for their blood: Previous projections have shown that hotel-tax revenues would likely fall well short of paying off the county's stadium bonds, and county manager George Burgess was forced to resort yesterday to assuming hotel spending will leap 15% in 2011 to make the numbers work out.
In all likelihood, though, yesterday's vote means the bagel slicer will become a reality, and the team will in three years' time become the Miami Marlins. If so, how does this deal stack up against previous stadium deals? Let's recap the numbers:
- The county will now put in a whopping $359 million for stadium construction and roads and utilities, mostly from tourist taxes. While the Marlins argued that tourist-tax money legally can't be used for anything other than tourism projects, the way the county got these funds for the stadium in the first place was by funneling off new tax money to pay for what the tourist taxes had been previously pledged to — meaning the cost will ultimately come out of the county's general fund.
- The city puts up $119 million, mostly to build parking garages for the team.
- The Marlins kick in $155 in private funds, a good chunk of which will likely come from the sale of naming rights, assuming there are still any corporations left to buy naming rights in the future.
- The team pays cost overruns on the stadium itself, taxpayers cover overruns on everything else, including the garages.
- The team gets all revenues from the stadium itself, paying only $35 million in rent (part of its $155 million contribution). The city will receive revenue from parking at the new garages, and the Marlins have agreed to purchase some of the spots up-front for resale.
So the public puts up almost exactly three-quarters of the cost, and the team gets virtually all of the revenues. That's not quite as bad as the Washington Nationals deal, but it's in the same, er, ballpark, especially when you consider that virtually all of the spending at the Marlins' new home will be cannibalized from existing spending elsewhere in Miami-Dade County — unless you really believe that more people will schedule summer vacations to Florida so that they can see the Marlins play.
Miami residents, in the end, will be paying a high, high price to free themselves from the team's constant move threats and get to watch ballgames without fear of getting rained on. Now that the deed is done, you have to hope that at least more fans will actually use the place than turned out to be the case in D.C., or this could be another boondoggle for the ages.
March 23, 2009
Marlins stadium vote #2: The webcast
The Miami-Dade County Commission meeting on the Florida Marlins ballpark proposal is underway; you can watch live here, though the feed is pretty jerky on my computer. They're still in public comments at the moment (1:48 pm), so this could go on awhile.
I'll be out for a chunk of the afternoon, so will post results when I return, if it's been decided. In the meantime, please play nice in the comments field...
UPDATE: The commission finally voted 9-4 late in the evening to approve the Florida Miami Marlins stadium deal. More on this when it's not 1 a.m.
March 22, 2009
Marlins stadium deal: All over but the haggling?
Miami-Dade County Commission members are now indicating that the Florida Marlins stadium deal is likely to pass tomorrow, albeit after one last-ditch attempt to extract a few more concessions from the team. "I think they have the votes now, but you can still make the deal better by changing some aspects of it," commissioner Carlos Gimenez, a stadium opponent, told the Miami Herald. Specific items Gimenez mentioned: Getting the Marlins to provide more of their share of funding up-front, and getting an even larger cut of team sale proceed for the county than what was agreed to on Thursday.
Besides, you know the Marlins stadium is unstoppable when it has its own Facebook 25 Random Things About Me page. My personal favorite: "12. More than 80,000 tickets a year will be locked in at affordable prices, starting at just $15." Why, that's almost 1,000 tickets a game, in a stadium that seats 37,000! I'm friending that!
March 21, 2009
Portland gets MLS team, shy $15m
The Portland Timbers will indeed become the 18th MLS franchise in 2011, the league announced yesterday, two days after announcing the Vancouver Whitecaps as the league's 17th team. "A city with such a storied soccer tradition deserves an MLS team, and we are proud to have Portland join the top level of professional soccer," declared MLS commissioner Don Garber, adding: "The renovations of PGE Park was a key factor in Portland becoming our 18th team."
Now all they need is a way to pay for those renovations, which — along with money to build a new baseball stadium for the minor-league Beavers once PGE is converted to soccer-only — are expected to cost $88.8 million. About $75 million in funding is in place, a bit under half of it public funds, but a $15 million gap remains. Possible sources, according to The Oregonian, include "revisiting the idea of an urban renewal area, finding savings in construction, creating new fees on development around the stadiums and taxing nearby bars and restaurants that might profit on game days." No one is saying who pays if the added $15 million isn't found, let alone what happens to the franchise if the PGE renovations aren't complete by 2011.
UPDATE: Garber now has said what happens to the franchise if the stadium deal doesn't get done: "Then we won't be able to have an MLS team in Portland." So apparently the expansion team really is conditional on stadium funding.
March 20, 2009
More on yesterday's Miami city commission vote in favor of a new $634 million Florida Marlins stadium:
- As expected, commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones cast the tiebreaking vote in favor of the stadium deal, though not before much harsh questioning of city and team officials, most of it geared toward ensuring that her constituents will get a cut of stadium construction jobs. Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, who'd been one of the opponents of the stadium deal, then cast the deciding vote in a 4-1 decision to waive competitive bidding for the project — a vote that required a four-fifths "supermajority" — saying while it was difficult, "I just don't want to be a cause of a potential cost overrun because I didn't believe in something but three of my commissioners did believe in something."
- The Marlins made one concession to Sarnoff's earlier objections to the deal, agreeing to share a larger percentage of profits with the city if the team is sold in the next nine years: Under the old deal the city's cut began at 18% then dropped each year, under the new one it begins at 70%. The Marlins also chipped in $500,000 a year for local charities — which, of course, gets them a tax break, meaning part of the tab will be paid by the federal government.
- The stadium deal now moves on Monday to the county commission, where, at least according to the Miami Herald, "if Thursday is any indication, Monday at County Hall may not be as easy." The county commissioners have so far remained fairly quiet about which way they're leaning, though some have expressed misgivings about possible shortfalls in taxes slated to pay the county's $297 million share.
Following the votes, ever-quotable team president David Samson declared, "It's just like beating the Cubs in Game 6. We still have to come back and play Game 7." He'll have to hope the county commission starts Kerry Wood.
March 19, 2009
Miami city commission debates approves Marlins stadium (again)
And with a "Good morning heavenly father, good morning lord Jesus," the Miami city commission hearing on the Florida Marlins stadium deal is underway. You can follow the webcast here — I'll be posting in the Comments field as we go, with major updates noted here.
UPDATE: Marc Sarnoff just joined three other commissioners in voting to approve the waiver of competitive bidding, which required a four-fifths majority: "I just don't want to be a cause of a potential cost overrun because I didn't believe in something but three of my commissioners did believe in something." That seals it for the city approvals; it's now on to the county commission, Monday at 1 pm.
Still more delays for Bronx parks
The New York Yankees have started removing the outfield turf at the old Yankee Stadium, but that doesn't necessarily mean that demolition is around the corner for the House That Ruth Built. As New York City mayoral spokesperson Andrew Brent told me yesterday, the city can't start tearing down the stadium until it's reached an agreement with the Yankees over who owns what pieces of it: "Part of the demolition process involves removing the seats. And obviously if you're going to sell the seats, you're going to remove them in a different way than if you're demolishing them." (The turf, if you're wondering, both belongs to and is being removed by the Yankees, not the city.)
Bronx residents are eagerly awaiting the demolition, as new public ballfields to replace those destroyed for the Yanks' new stadium can't be built until the old building is gone. Already, the ballfields' opening has been delayed from 2010 to 2011; meanwhile, the cable news station NY1 reports that new tennis courts on the other side of the Major Deegan Expressway, originally supposed to open next month, now won't be ready until December at the earliest. And a running track and soccer field atop a Yankees garage has been pushed back until next spring, though a "temporary" park there is now scheduled to open at the end of this April, according to the Parks Department.
On the bright side, Bronx locals who don't have to be at work on a Thursday afternoon (and who have an in with their local community board) will get a chance to watch batting practice for free on April 2, courtesy of the Yankees. Maybe climbing the steps to the top of the upper deck can count as aerobic exercise.
March 18, 2009
Miami vote looms, confusion still reigns
The Miami city commission meets at 9 am tomorrow morning to vote on the Florida Marlins stadium package, and still no one is sure how the five-member board will vote.
Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones, who was thought to be leaning "yes" after getting a promise of $100 million or more in redevelopment money for her district, confused matters again on Tuesday night by issuing more demands, including a trust fund to build amateur baseball fields and "encouraging the team to employ local residents for the stadium's construction and operation," according to the Associated Press:
"I'm feeling confident that we're going to be able to work through them," Spence-Jones said Wednesday. "I just can't tell you whether I'm going to vote yes or no until all the decisions have been made."
Further muddying the waters: The Marlins' pledge to hire black-owned businesses to help build the stadium turns out to have been illegal. The team will instead just encourage black-owned firms to apply for contracts; it's unclear how this might affect the city vote tomorrow, or a county vote that would follow Monday afternoon if the city approves the deal.
Either way, I'll post webcast information here, and be liveblogging as much as possible. If it's half as fun as the last one, I'm going to have to type fast...
Maryland: We don't know nuthin' 'bout funding no stadiums
Apparently even vague financing plans for a D.C. United stadium were too much for the Maryland legislature, which stripped language from the stadium bill that would have specified the use of state bonds to finance the project. Instead, the new language will just punt the issue to negotiations between the Maryland Stadium Authority, the county, and the team. Many, many hearings can be expected before that comes to pass; bill sponsor Del. Melony Griffith declared, "Shovels are not going into the ground if this bill passes."
Meanwhile, Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson has asked the Metro transit agency to sell it land near the Morgan Boulevard Blue Line station that is one possible stadium site. No word on whether Metro would get full market value for the land, or whether United would reimburse the county for land expenses.
St. Louis "ballpark village" now a parking lot
The St. Louis Cardinals have released their "temporary" plans for the site of the Ballpark Village on the site of their old Busch Stadium, now that the actual Ballpark Village isn't so much happening: a parking lot and softball field:
The release also said that "once the bonds for the larger Ballpark Village project are sold, the softball field and parking lot will be taken over by the construction of the larger project."
So when will those bonds be sold? That's unclear. City officials earlier this year approved a revised plan that gives the Cardinals up to three years to sell bonds to start construction. At the time, team President Bill DeWitt III said the bond market was still "quiet" and "iffy" but that he still remained enthusiastic about developing the site.
Mayor Francis Slay signaled his disappointment with the news, but said the additions are "the best we can expect" given the economy and woeful credit market.
Somebody should have thought of that, perhaps, before giving the Ballpark Village $100 million in tax breaks.
Major League Soccer announced its expansion plans today, but only halfway: The Vancouver Whitecaps, currently in soccer's top minor league, will become the league's 16th team in 2011 as expected. Announcement of a 17th franchise, though, is on hold, with Portland, St. Louis, and Ottawa all still in the running. Maybe somebody's still worried about that $15 million funding hole.
Evansville mayor: Arena will make little kids smile, bring rain of puppy dogs
We have another sports facility being touted as "economic stimulus," and this time it's an elected official doing the touting:
"There really couldn't be a better time to build a new arena," [Evansville Mayor Jonathan] Weinzapfel told members of the Rotary Club of Evansville. "It will create community pride, improve our quality of life and attract more prestigious and visible events to Evansville. An arena will be our own stimulus package.
"It will put hundreds of people to work and support more economic development Downtown. And we will not raise property taxes to build it."
The proposed downtown arena would cost $127 million, and be home to the University of Evansville Purple Aces basketball and hockey teams. Make your own joke, people.
March 16, 2009
Sticker shock continues for Yanks, Mets fans
Opening day for the New York Yankees and Mets new stadiums are less than a month away, and more and more people are noticing that the teams will be charging through the nose for the privilege of enjoying all those new cupholders. The latest developments:
- Jay Jaffe was finally offered seats for less than $85 a pop, but remains unhappy about the whole experience.
- The Yankees are offering first dibs on buying single-game tickets to season ticket holders, with the hoi polloi (and holders of smaller miniplans) going to the back of the line.
- With single-game Mets tickets going on sale to the general public today, fans are starting to notice what I noted last week during the pre-sale: They're crazy expensive. "I'm speechless," one Mets fan and blogger told amNewYork. "I was shocked by the pricing, especially the outfield seats."
It's pretty shocking, no doubt — as much as $70 a pop for seats in the front sections of the outfield, the kind that used to be known as "bleachers." It's little wonder, then, that fans look to be heading for the rafters as fast as possible — though this isn't helped by the team's online ordering system, which when a certain section isn't available (in my experience looking for tickets yesterday) appears to automatically offer much pricier seats closer to the field as a substitute.
As for the latest indignity to Yankees fans, it seems odd to offer season ticket holders first crack at buying individual game tickets — these are the people who already have seats after all. But there could be method to the madness: Doing it this way not only helps strong-arm fans into coughing up for season plans, but it effectively pushes the risk of whether tickets will sell onto fans, who will be the ones waiting and watching if their excess ducats draw buyers on StubHub. Not to mention that the Yankees now get commissions from every resale on StubHub, meaning they can effectively charge twice for selling the same tickets. Nice work if you can get it.
March 13, 2009
Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff responded today to Oakland city officials' overtures about building a new stadium, and he was, shall we say, less than enthusiastic:
We have fully exhausted our time and resources over the years with the City of Oakland, dating back to previous A's ownership.
We recognize conditions have not changed. Letters to Major league Baseball offer nothing new or of any real substance. Outside stimulation to have us continue to play in an aging and shared facility may generate press and "sound-bite" opportunities, but do not provide any tangible alterations in the circumstances we face.
We understand the facility continues to cost the city of Oakland and Alameda County millions of lost dollars per year. Sadly, the business and corporate base of the city of Oakland was very limited when we purchased the team and has eroded since. Our attendance and low number of season ticket holders (both one of the lowest in Major league Baseball) also continues to decline; even when our on-field performance produced play-off participation.
We appreciate the sincere interest of Mayor Ron Dellums, Supervisors Scott Haggerty and Gail Steele and local citizen Sherman Balch, as the very few people that have offered encouragement and in-depth understanding about our situation.
Our goal and desire for the organization is to determine a way to keep the team in Northern California. That goal has not changed.
We have no interest in covering old ground again, as we need to move forward in finding a future home for our team.
Zoinks. Needless to say, it's a tad unusual for a sports team owner to publicly dismiss a stadium offer — even one as vague and unformed as Oakland's — without even attempting to string them along for the sake of creating leverage. Either Wolff is sending a message to Oakland to put its money where its mouth is — past Oakland administrations have balked at Wolff's demands for development rights in exchange for staying put — or he doesn't want anyone distracting MLB from approving his campaign to get permission to move to San Jose. Except, of course, that he told San Jose to quit with the public lobbying, too. Curiouser and curiouser...
Spence-Jones gets her stadium payoff
In a tuneup for next Thursday morning's Florida Marlins stadium vote, the Miami city commission yesterday unanimously approved extending and expanding the Community Redevelopment Agency district that funnels property tax money to development projects in Overtown rather than having them go to the city's general fund. That would meet the condition set down by commission swing vote Michelle Spence-Jones in return for her support of the stadium deal. Of course, the tanking economy means the CRA district isn't expected to generate nearly as much money for Spence-Jones' district as she'd hoped — between $106 million and $140 million, according to Miami CFO Larry Spring, instead of the $500 million that was originally expected — but Spence-Jones has already said she'll take what she can get.
If all goes as expected, then, the city commission will approve the $600-million-plus stadium deal on Thursday, which will leave the plan in the hands of the county commission, which votes the following Monday. Some county commissioners have started expressing concerns about the looming shortfall in tax revenues that are supposed to pay for the stadium, but if anyone's actually done a headcount of whether these are enough to potentially vote down the deal, I haven't been able to find it.
Oakland forming own damn A's committee
Not to be left out of the fun, the city of Oakland has formed its own committee to discuss a new stadium for the A's, with Mayor Ron Dellums and city council president Jane Brunner writing to MLB commissioner Bud Selig yesterday asking him to appoint a liaison to the new task force, and saying they'll do anything "reasonably possible" to keep the team. You'd think they'd know by now that MLB wants nothing to do with "reasonable."
March 12, 2009
No Citi name for Mets subway stop
New York Mets fans upset about their new stadium being named after a bailed-out bank can take solace in the fact that at least the local subway stop won't be. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has revealed that the Willets Point/Shea Stadium stop on the 7 train will be renamed "Mets/Willets Point" after the Mets declined to cough up naming-rights money to slap a corporate name on the station. "We're willing, as we have said, to entertain corporate names on stations, but only for a fee," MTA spokesperson Jeremy Soffin told the New York Times.
As for the Yankees, their local subway stop will continue to be called "161st Street/Yankee Stadium," because their new stadium will have the same name as the old one. And, presumably, the MTA doesn't see "Yankee" as a corporate name.
San Jose to launch A's campaign
Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff may have told San Jose city officials to quit bugging MLB about his team moving to their city, but Mayor Chuck Reed just can't contain his enthusiasm, it seems. "All right, it's time for baseball," said Reed yesterday in announcing that the issue will be taken up at an April 7 city council meeting. :We know we have a great market for professional sports and we have a site identified. Although the [economic impact report] is done, it's not 100 percent ready. But we can prepare ourselves."
Reed said it was too soon to spend city money on a poll to see if city residents are as excited as he is, but a council committee disagreed, passing a measure yesterday that called for a public poll. Michael Mulcahy, the local businessman and former mayoral candidate who heads the private A's to San Jose Study Group, says he's trying to raise private funds to do the polling. Not like there'd be any concerns about biased results there.
UPDATE: Reed's office has put out a statement saying that the AP story linked above was incorrect, and that any poll will be funded by Mulcahy's private group. Hey, remember when newspapers conducted polls, in an attempt to be objective and stuff? Remember newspapers?
Portland okays MLS deal, cuts renewal funds
The Portland city council voted 3-2 yesterday to approve Portland Timbers owner Merritt Paulson's plan for an $88.8 million MLS soccer and minor-league baseball complex, but with one condition: Commissioner Dan Saltzman insisted on eliminating $15 million in urban-renewal money that was to be used for the sports project, leaving it with a major funding hole. The Portland Business Journal notes, "It's unclear how the city will fund the $15 million shortfall, should Major League Soccer award Portland one of two expansion it will award next week."
Or maybe not next week, as MLS commissioner Don Gerber said yesterday that a decision on expansion could be delayed until later in the month. As for what role, if any, the $15 million funding hole will play in that decision, that's unclear, too.
March 11, 2009
Buns & Noodle appearance, NYC, Thursday
Just a reminder for NYC-area readers that I'll be on a panel discussion with Kevin Goldstein, Steven Goldman, Jay Jaffe, and Cliff Corcoran of Baseball Prospectus tomorrow (Thursday) at 6 pm at the Barnes & Noble on 5th Ave. and 18th St. in Manhattan. Bring your A's and Marlins questions — or, for that matter, your D.C. United questions, though we may have to sneak off into a corner to discuss them.
D.C. United: Actually, how about some county money, too?
Just four weeks after announcing a plan for Maryland state taxes to pay for three-quarters of the $180 million cost of a new soccer stadium in Prince George's County, D.C. United officials switched gears yesterday, saying that the county itself should kick in $47 million towards the project. Needless to say, state officials like this idea: Maryland Stadium Authority executive Gary McGuigan told the county council yesterday that as "this was a county initiative," the county should help pay for it.
County officials, just as needless to say, weren't thrilled, asking who'd cover the gap if ticket sales and property values were to fall short of what's needed to pay off the stadium tab. The Maryland state house of delegates, which has been similarly skeptical of the plan, meets next Tuesday to discuss the details.
March 10, 2009
Mets fans heading for the cheap seats, too
The "pre-sales" for New York Mets tickets began today, and what's available to pre-sell gives a glimpse into the shape of the collapsing sports bubble. As I report on the Village Voice blog:
Flushing nights in April and May providing a good imitation of the South Col, let's try for a Sunday afternoon game against the Nationals, a Bronze selection. Promenade Boxes, the new term for the front of the upper deck, are only $28 — but they're sold out. As are the $20 Promenade Reserved Infield seats. A handful of $15 tickets are available, if you don't mind sitting in the last section of the outfield upper deck, seats so bad they didn't even exist at Shea.
Other Saturday and Sunday games produce the same message for almost all tickets under $30: "Unable to secure seats in this Price Level." You can, however, get tickets in the Caesar's Club Platinum section in the second deck — for only $140 a pop.
One possibility that occurred to me after posting the Voice article: In addition to Mets fans all scurrying for the cheap seats, it could well be that professional scalpers are focusing their energies there, figuring that the profit margin on reselling $140 seats is going to be pretty slim, in this economy or any other. Either way, it's going to be very interesting to see how the Mets respond if, say, Citi Field is one-third empty for its second game ever, and it's the bottom third — which looks more possible than anyone could have imagined last fall.
Portland soccer deal reached, headed to council
The soccer stadium standoff in Portland is over, with would-be MLS expansion team owner Merritt Paulson and city officials agreeing on an $88.8 million plan to renovate the city's existing minor-league baseball stadium for soccer, while building a new baseball-only park as well. The deal, which now goes to the Portland city council for approval, uses a hodge-podge of funding sources to get to $88.8 million:
- $24.3 million from Paulson himself, though he may seek to recoup some of that from public sources, such as $5 million in player income-tax kickbacks from the state.
- $31 million in rent payments, ticket taxes, and hotel and rental-car taxes in the city's arena district.
- $15 million in kickbacks of increased property taxes from a downtown tax-increment financing district.
- $18.5 million in public urban renewal funds.
Depending on how some of these are broken down, then, it looks like anywhere from 38%-50% public money, which is better than some deals, certainly, though not necessarily better than a carrot. To help form your own opinion, you can read the arguments by political consultant Jeremy Wright, who thinks it's a worthwhile investment in public infrastructure, and Oregon state representative Nick Kahl, who thinks it's a misuse of urban renewal money.
Marlins stadium funds to run dry?
That swing vote on the city commission may finally be within reach for the Florida Marlins, but the economy is delivering less rosy news for the team's now-$639 million stadium proposal. (And no, I haven't figured out yet when the price tag went up another $30 million.) The Miami Herald, which last month reported that projections of hotel taxes slated to pay off stadium bonds seemed overly optimistic, has downgraded that assessment to totally nuts, given that county hotel tax receipts were down an astonishing 22% in January, prime tourist season:
With January's decline, combined hotel-tax revenue is down 9 percent for the 2009 budget year.
Should that trend continue, the county's stadium plan would face shortfalls on ballpark bonds from 2014 to 2029, according to a Miami Herald analysis of the county's stadium financing plan.
The mounting deficits would burn through a planned $26 million reserve fund and leave a deficit of $22 million, the analysis found.
The Herald wasn't clear what it meant by "should that trend continue" — if tax receipts keep going down 9% a year for how long? Forever? Still, the prospect of a $48 million shortfall can't be making county commissioners less antsy about approving the deal — nor can this from the South Florida Business Journal:
The property tax projections that helped Miami-Dade County's $3 billion so-called megaplan gain approval have to be updated to account for condo projects that were not built or finished.
Miami CFO Larry Spring told the Business Journal that the last time the projections were updated was in December 2007 — as the nation's economic meltdown was gaining momentum.
If the updated numbers come in lower than the earlier projections, the general fund might have to be tapped to make up for shortfalls — a key criticism of megaplan opponents.
That'd be the CRA money, for those following along at home, which is being counted on to free up those hotel tax revenues so they can be used on a Marlins stadium.
The city commission is now scheduled to meet to vote on the Marlins project on Thursday, March 19 at 9 am; assuming they approve the deal, the county commission will meet Monday, March 23 at 1 pm. I'll have links to webcasts here once I get them.
March 08, 2009
Portland soccer stadium talks break down
I've been meaning for a while to catch up with goings-on in Portland, Oregon, where Merritt Paulson, owner of the local minor-league baseball and soccer teams — and son of former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson — to use $85 million in public money to build a new minor-league baseball stadium and renovate the old stadium for a Major League Soccer expansion team.
Now events seem to have caught up with me: Talks between Paulson and the city broke down on Friday, with Paulson reportedly storming out of the last meeting after being told he'd have to agree to pay any cost overruns. (Paulson denies it.) There's also the problem that the plan is already $20 million short, even after kicking in everything from ticket taxes to urban renewal money to kickbacks of state income taxes by soccer players. Which, come to think of it, is much the same problem that Portland's MLB stadium proposal had. Must be some sort of local tradition.
Could Coliseum rehab satisfy A's?
Today's San Francisco Chronicle has a rundown of how the Oakland Coliseum could be rehabbed for the A's if the Raiders moved out, possibly to share digs with the San Francisco 49ers. The Chron's verdict: "It just might work," citing the Coliseum's central location, the Los Angeles Angels' successful (and relatively cheap) renovation of their stadium back to baseball dimensions after the Rams left for St. Louis, and that some of the stadium's new premium seating could be retained even if Mount Davis were torn down.
Of course, the Raiders would need to move out first, but there are more relocation options for an NFL team than for an MLB team, so maybe. Much will depend on whether A's owner Lew Wolff is willing to sit tight until the Raiders situation is resolved — that is, if he has much choice in the matter.
K.C. and Jackson County tussle over who'll pay stadium subsidies
If nothing else, the economic meltdown and attendant budget woes seem to be making local governments bolder about trying to reign in subsidies for sports facilities. On Thursday, Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser proposed a city budget that would eliminate the city's $2 million a year subsidy of the Chiefs and Royals stadiums, which was extended as part of the teams' $425 million stadium renovation deal approved three years ago by Funkhouser's predecessor, Kay Barnes. Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders immediately flipped out, saying it would allow the teams to break their leases and leave town if they wanted to. "The fact that we would have violated a substantive provision would mean those leases are now gone," Sanders told KMBZ radio. "We would be on a tightrope or a high wire with no safety net."
Sanders' confusion about funambulist nomenclature aside, the teams' leases themselves (Royals here, Chiefs here) don't seem to support his contention: They only say that the teams will get money from the existing "local/state sports tax revenues," defined as "currently, Missouri State of $3 million, County Property Tax of approximately $3.5 Million, and City of $2 Million, with a minimum annual amount of these three combined sources not to be less than $8.5 Million per year." In other words, the state, county, and city are responsible for coming up with $8.5 million a year, but how they get there is between the three of them, meaning if the city stops kicking in, the county and state would have to make up the shortfall — which helps explain why Sanders is flipping out, but also why Funkhouser felt free to say, "I don't think it would jeopardize leases. We're trying to focus on ... basic services like police. That is a core function. Operating a sports venue is not."
Brodsky v Levine III: Yet another Yanks stadium hearing
If you were dying to hear how Friday's hearing by New York State Assemblymember Richard Brodsky into the Yankees' stadium deal went, I didn't go, but apparently there was lots of shouting, which should surprise no one. Yanks president/former city deputy mayor Randy Levine apparently brought some of the documents that Brodsky had subpeonaed, but not all, meaning we may yet have to go through more of these hearings.
Brodsky also revealed at the hearing that he's signed on in support of an assembly bill to require that 7% of tickets be kept "affordable" at sports facilities that receive public benefits. Reading the bill itself reveals that "benefits" is defined as "any direct or indirect grant of funds, tax reducations, tax preferences, subsidies, payments in lieu of any tax or tax obligation, or any other form of public support," which seems to cover all the basis; "affordable" is defined as "within the economic ability of persons whose income is at or below the area median income for a four-person household to purchase tickets without economic hardship," which is a bit more vague. A potentially bigger problem: What with StubHub serving as teams' official ticket reseller, many of those "affordable" tickets would likely be snapped up by scalpers and resold at unaffordable prices — that is, if the teams didn't just scalp them themselves.
March 06, 2009
Long piece in today's Wall Street Journal on the bad timing by the New York Yankees, New York Mets, and Dallas Cowboys in opening stadiums geared to high-end consumers at a time when there ain't none to be found. (Best headline, though, goes not to the WSJ but to the New York Times' blog item on the story: "Luxury Stadiums Seemed a Good Idea at the Time.") Highlights:
With just weeks before their new $1.1 billion stadium opens, the Cowboys still have 2,000 premium seats and about 50 of their 300 luxury suites left to sell. The Yankees have hired [luxury real estate agent Neal] Sroka to drum up buyers for the hundreds of premium seats still in their inventory. The Mets, who once had deals for all 49 of their luxury suites, say they've had to go back to the market after one customer, whom they declined to name, backed out....
Between corporate sponsorships, naming-rights deals and luxury suites, two-thirds or more of teams' revenue comes from corporations rather than ordinary fans, estimates David Carter, executive director of the University of Southern California's Sports Business Institute. Over the years, luxury boxes, once just a few glass-enclosed rooms high above the regular seats, have become as integral to a new stadium as concession stands -- more so, because companies pay for them up front, guaranteeing profits regardless of the team's success on the field. As team owners crammed in ever-more premium seats, corporations, eager for new ways to entertain clients, happily bid up the prices.
All that corporate money, Mr. Carter says, has created what he calls the "sports ticket price bubble." Now that bubble is in danger of bursting.
If so, the question is whether sports will get that "soft landing" that everyone was talking about for the real estate market a couple of years ago, or the spectacular nosedive that we saw instead. Opinions?
Mets ticket prices go sky-high, too
Amidst all the fuss over New York Yankees ticket prices at their new stadium, the Mets' new stadium has been largely overlooked in recent weeks. But today, Citi Field gets its day in the spotlight with a love letter from the New York Times' Ken Belson and Richard Sandomir, declaring it the "anti-Shea" and raving about its waterless urinals and "intimacy" — a baseball industry buzzword that means not that it's actually physically smaller (it's just as large as Shea Stadium was in height and breadth), but that it holds fewer fans: 42,000 as opposed to 57,000 at Shea.
And what do the Mets gain by lopping off one-quarter of their seating capacity? Seating scarcity, which they hope will enable them to charge much higher prices than at Shea as demand outstrips supply. And oh, are those prices higher — Sporting News blogger "greenjet5" links to the new Mets pricing scheme and has a fit of apoplexy:
Yes, there are 140 different ticket prices! You will have to typically spend $40 to $50 to sit in the best outfield seats, and those are the worst seats in the stadium. Upper deck boxes may run from $60 to $75. There is one positive. I expect upper reserved to be pretty good seats in this stadium. I don't know what kind of maniac fan spends over $100 to see a regular season baseball game. It appears to me that the majority of tickets are over $100. Now I'm not one of those idiots that complain about high ticket prices and then pays for them anyway. I'll look for an upper deck seat to a couple games. It's a baseball game. I can afford to spend $100+, but why? That's not what it's worth. The Mets will have to find out the hard way.
As FoS reader Andrew Ross chimes in: "Which is more expensive: the most expensive season ticket at Citi Field, or buying Citibank itself?"
"Pre-sales" for individual Mets tickets begin next week, so maybe after that we'll see whether fans will swallow these ticket price hikes as they've done at past stadium openings, or whether the economic crash has changes the rules of the game. If the latter, expect to see some meal deals as the season progresses.
Spence-Jones on Marlins stadium payoff: I'll take whatever you got
So it turns out the Miami Community Revitalization Agency board didn't actually vote last night, instead holding a "workshop meeting" on city commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones' plan to expand a special property-tax district to provide $500 million funding for projects in her Overtown district. And only two of the five board members bothered to show up, Spence-Jones and stadium critic Marc Sarnoff.
Instead, it became a night for tea-leaf reading of which way Spence-Jones will vote on the Florida Marlins stadium deal, and she gave the team's owners plenty of reason for optimism. First she said she'd already met with Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Alvarez and gotten his backing for her plan, which would expand the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency and funnel any new property tax revenues to Overtown. Then, when Sarnoff questioned whether property-tax revenues are really going to go up by much — he estimated, "You probably only have, at a maximum, $100 million in bonding capacity, not $500 million" — Spence-Jones first cut him off, then replied, "If we can't bond $500 million and we know the market won't support it, we're not going to do it. But if we can bond $100 million — guess what — we'll take it."
An actual CRA vote is now set for next Thursday, March 12. If Spence-Jones' price has been met, then the city commission — made up of the same people as the CRA board — would presumably vote to approve the stadium deal the following Thursday, with Spence-Jones as the swing vote. The project would then move on to an as-yet-unscheduled county commission vote, which would get to consider such issues as that the stadium bonds would depend on the same future revenues already committed to other projects.
And if this weren't already complicated enough, the owner of the former site of the Miami Arena in downtown Miami says he'll build a stadium with his own money, so long as he's paid back in the form of rent. Sarnoff made optimistic noises at this, but it really wouldn't be any easier for the team, city, and county to come up with $40 million or so a year in rent payments than in stadium bond payments. But at least nobody's missing an opportunity to make this whole mess even more confusing.
March 05, 2009
Miami postpones one stadium vote, schedules another vote for tonight
Apparently Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Alvarez knew something after all: The Miami city commission yesterday postponed its scheduled vote tomorrow on the Florida Marlins stadium proposal, rescheduling it for Thursday, March 19.
In the meantime, Miami's Community Redevelopment Agency board will vote tonight on city commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones' demand for $500 million in property taxes to be redirected to her Overtown district as a condition of the stadium deal. (The CRA board, conveniently enough, is made up of the five city commissioners.) It looks like Spence-Jones is just looking for an expanded tax-increment financing district, not the use of existing TIF funds, so the Marlins' confusing deal to shuffle tax money among various pockets wouldn't be unraveled; instead, the city would just agree to peel $500 million off the top of future property-tax revenues and put it in a fund marked "Open only for use in Overtown."
If tonight's vote approves the Spence-Jones plan, then, expect that the stadium should have smooth sailing once the city commission finally meets on March 19. Except, of course, that the county commission still needs to approve it afterwards. And then there's this guy:
Newly elected Miami Beach Rep. Richard Steinberg has announced he filed an amendment to a sports-franchise bill (HB 253) that would require voter approval of a Marlins stadium in Miami.
From a Steinberg press statement:
"The voters in Miami-Dade County should be given the right to decide whether to commit over a billion dollars of public money for a baseball stadium. If the local elected officials will not allow the people to vote, the Florida Legislature should require them to hold a referendum."
It almost certainly couldn't be done retroactively — that didn't work in St. Louis — even if it were to pass the state legislature. But it's got to be one more thing keeping David Samson up at night.
Yanks' Trost one year ago: We'll take care of ya
A reader notes that the New York Yankees' handling of ticket plan holders at their new stadium conflicts with what team COO Lonn Trost promised in a WFAN radio interview last March 11:
Mike Francesca: Are some people getting relocated, getting hurt? Are there some guys who've been loyal season ticket holders who are gonna get hurt in this move?
Trost: We hope not. We spent substantial time coming up with a relocation program, and the relocation program will probably be public in about six weeks. The program basically says, we will put you in a comparable location, and you have the choice of taking it or not. If you don't want it, and elect to go down, or up, or move, we will do that also.
Chris Russo: You will take care of them.
Trost: We will take — and understand, this is most likely the largest and hardest relocation program in the history of sports. ... But the philosophy is try to give—
Francesca: And you're going to take care of your people in the bleachers, and take care of your people who are in the upper deck, and the guy who takes his son once a week, or has his Sunday plan. You're going to take care of that fan in this new ballpark.
Trost: The plans will be the same, or comparable.
That relocation plan actually took six months, not six weeks, to appear, and contained none of the guarantees about "comparable" seating that Trost promised to radio listeners. Noting that Trost has recently begun berating fans for "not reading the documentation," jilted miniplan holder Jay Jaffe tells FoS: "Basically, he's insulting his customers for failing to read the fine print."
In somewhat related news, there's apparently yet another freaking Richard Brodsky hearing on the Yanks' stadium tomorrow. Per a Brodsky press release: "Chairman Richard Brodsky of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions and Chairman Jim Brennan of the Committee on Cities will hold a hearing tomorrow, March 6 at 10:30 AM in Assembly Hearing room 1923 at 250 Broadway in New York City, to receive testimony and documents from New York Yankees President Randy Levine pursuant to a subpoena issued to Mr. Levine on January 13." Lord knows if Levine will actually bring the documents with him, mind you, or just a letter from his attorney saying why he shouldn't have to turn them over. Or, for that matter, what shade of purple he'll be.
March 04, 2009
Tiger Stadium rehab now at $27m
The Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy officially delivered its financial plan for preserving what's left of Tiger Stadium on Monday. Preservation magazine has the first detailed description that I've seen: The plan will "return Tiger's historic dugouts and locker rooms to their 1923 appearance [and add] a banquet hall, sports bar, and sports memorabilia store," at a total cost of $27 million; $3.8 million would come from one of those controversial earmarks in the Congressional budget bill, with tax credits covering much of the rest.
That would leave $5 million to be raised, but as Kathy Wendler, president of the Southwest Detroit Business Association, told Preservation: "Considering that the total cost for construction is $27 million, being $5 million short is not bad."
Yanks handling ticket sales about as well as finding a backup catcher
If you missed it, the Village Voice website yesterday had another rundown by yours truly on the latest in the New York Yankees ticket controversy. Meanwhile, another report that Yankees ticket salesfolk are still dispensing a load of horsepoop.
March 02, 2009
As Miami squabbles, the C-word rears its head
Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Alvarez declared today that the Florida Marlins stadium plan has been "hijacked" by dissident city commissioners, with their "unreasonable demands that have nothing to do with baseball," as well as "political grandstanding, the dissemination of half-truths and intellectually dishonest assumptions." He also instructed county manager George Burgess not to "expend or exhaust further resources or time into the Florida Marlins Baseball Stadium agreements" until the city votes on a plan — which seems pretty pointless given that they're voting on Friday, unless he knows something we don't know about a delay to deal with Commissioner Spence-Jones' bombshell.
In related news, New York Daily News baseball columnist Bill Madden has raised the specter of contraction, a subject that's been a major topic of discussion on the comment threads here:
Baseball has run out of places to move struggling franchises and, especially in this economy, who in their right mind would buy either the A's or Marlins with their bleak stadium situations? And just as Wolff, his partner John Fisher and the Marlins' Loria are going to be looking for a way out from under their mounting losses, baseball can't afford to keep dumping revenue-sharing money into hopeless franchises. Like just about every other industry in this country right now, baseball is going to have to take stock of its situation and downsize. There are too many teams in baseball anyway and it makes no sense to continue operating them in places that can't or won't support them.
ESPN's Rob Neyer is having none of it:
Look, the A's and the Marlins both have serious ballpark/revenue woes. No question about it, and Madden does a good job enumerating those woes. But it's a massive leap from "needing" a new ballpark to the c-word. For one thing, both the A's and the Marlins have, in recent years, been competitive. We're not talking about the St. Louis Browns here. We're talking about one franchise that won 93 games three seasons ago and another that won 84 games just last year. I mean, seriously: these are the two teams that might disappear?
What's more, even if both franchises were utter wrecks they still wouldn't be serious candidates for contraction. No franchise would be. It was, what, eight years ago when this spectre was first raised, regarding the Twins and the Expos? I said then that it would never happen; that Congress (among others) wouldn't allow it, and that the owners were simply floating the notion as leverage in their negotiations with the union.
I said much the same thing during the last round of contraction talk, for that matter. At the time, sports economist Rod Fort summed it up to me this way: "I think what'll happen is [players union chief Don] Fehr will look them in the eye and say, 'Fine. You can't.'" Eight years later, that still seems like a pretty likely scenario, as do the other possibilities (lawsuits, antitrust charges) I outlined back then.
