September 30, 2009
No sale on Coyotes, but NHL is the winner
And the winner of the Phoenix Coyotes is ... nobody! As threatened earlier this month, Judge Redfield Baum rejected both bids for the bankrupt NHL franchise, ruling that neither Jim Balsillie's plan to move the team to Hamilton over the league's objections nor the league's offer to buy the team itself and search for a new owner met the standards of a bid that was in the best interest of creditors.
If the NHL lost the battle, though, it looks to have won the war. Baum decisively rejected Balsillie's attempt to buy the Coyotes under any circumstances, ruling that the NHL has the right to approve or deny prospective owners, and the league had previously voted unanimously to bar the BlackBerry king. The NHL, meanwhile, will be allowed to revamp its bid to produce more money for outgoing Coyotes owners Jerry Moyes and Wayne Gretzky (which was Baum's main objection to the league bid) — or, presumably, it can sit back and wait for a new crop of non-Balsillie bidders, which is what it wanted all along. Wrote the judge, unable to resist a painful sports metaphor: "In hockey parlance, the court is passing the puck to the NHL who can decide to take another shot at the sale net or it can pass off the puck."
Balsillie has said he won't appeal. So the big question now is: Who'll bid for the Coyotes now that they don't have to compete with Balsillie? The last two bidders promising to keep the team in Arizona — for one season at least — you'll recall were a guy from Chicago who wanted to be paid to play there (and who has a history of shaking down cities for subsidies) and a consortium that wanted the team to split its home schedule between cities 3,000 miles apart. It's always possible someone has been hiding in the woodwork waiting for the price to drop, but at this point, the NHL has got to be shaking palm trees in hopes another Russian billionaire falls out.
Jacksonville mulling new Jaguars stadium subsidy
The Los Angeles NFL stadium talk has already sparked ripple effects in Jacksonville, where city council president Richard Clark is proposing to add $5 million a year to what the city spends on maintaining and upgrading Municipal Stadium for the Jaguars, who are rumored to be considering leaving town.
The money, generated by local hotel taxes, currently goes to Jacksonville's convention center, which is scheduled to be fully paid off next month. "The Jaguars are an enormous economic driver in this city, and we owe it to them as much as we owe it to the taxpayers who own the stadium," Clark told Jacksonville.com — yes, that'd be the taxpayers who would otherwise be getting back $5 million a year, or at least the benefits thereof, if the money weren't going to the Jaguars.
Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton endorsed Clark's plan, saying it would help allow the city to "maintain a world-class facility." Oh, you really don't want to go there.
September 29, 2009
Cowboys' record-breaking stadium to spark new building war?
The Dallas Cowboys officially have the world's largest video board, as certified by the Guinness Book of World Records. The question now is, as I've noted before, whether this ups the ante for other NFL teams' stadium demands. Peter Callaghan of the Tacoma News Tribune wonders today whether Cowboys Stadium could be "the first stadium of the next round" of stadium extortion in the NFL.
"Every time a new stadium or arena opens it has something new that everyone else wants," notes some guy with a website to Callaghan. Sports economist Rod Fort counters that not every market could really support a 100,000-person capacity stadium or the world's largest video board; but then, keep in mind that Fort is also the one who once quipped to me: "I don't see anything wrong, from an owner's perspective, with the idea of a new stadium every year."
Is the Sprint Center really making money?
The Wichita Eagle looks at a report in the Kansas City Star (by our old friend Kevin Collison) that that city's new Sprint Center is making money, and wonders whether that might be good news for Wichita's soon-to-open Intrust Bank Arena, NCAAs or no NCAAs.
Only one problem: While the Sprint Center is indeed turning a profit, that's only an operational profit — in other words, it doesn't count the cost of paying for building it in the first place. Kansas City essentially handed over the building to arena managers AEG after it was complete, and told them to deal with the expense of running the place and allowed them to keep most of the proceeds; the fact that K.C. will see any money at all, in fact (estimated at $1.8 million this year), is an indication that AEG is doing a good job, since according to its lease it doesn't need to share any profits at all with the city until it's making a 16% return itself. Given that K.C. is on the hook for $10-15 million a year in arena bond payments (guesstimating here — that information doesn't seem to be online anywhere [UPDATE: It is now, and I was — ahem — on the money]), there's almost no way it will actually turn a profit on building the Sprint Center.
That said, it's still better for AEG to be running a profit than running a loss, especially since the Sprint Center still doesn't have a major-league sports tenant. And AEG seems to be intent on using its success with concerts to drive a hard bargain with any sports teams looking to move to Kansas City: AEG president Tim Leiweke told the Star, "The economic model of this building is quite successful. The last thing we or the city want to do is throw away that model and make the arena a loss leader with another tenant. It's a tougher scenario with a professional team. I'm sure we wouldn't be able to write a check to the city for $1.8 million." In other words: As predicted, they're not going to be no pushovers for, say, the Islanders.
September 28, 2009
Media playing "Guess who's coming to L.A. stadium?"
With an Industry NFL stadium looking more likely, newspapers are busying themselves with the game of figuring who'd play there. The Los Angeles Times declares the San Diego Chargers the frontrunner "because the Chargers have a window each year to get out of their Qualcomm Stadium lease without the threat of a lawsuit." The Jacksonville Jaguars, who are blacking out their entire season on TV thanks to poor ticket sales, are considered next most likely, with the Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams, Buffalo Bills and Oakland Raiders earning honorable mention.
Of course, the Times also notes that Industry developer Ed Roski wants to own part of whatever team moves to his new building — but wants to pay for it not with cash, but with development rights to other parcels in Industry, which is a bit dicey, considering that "California development rights" is the new "swampland in Florida."
The Chargers, meanwhile, are rushing to take advantage as their newfound belle of the ball status, meeting today with Escondido officials to discuss a new stadium there. Ironically, the team's main demand there is development rights, though a North County Times estimate shows that they'd actually want a huge swath of the city's property:
In order to generate $400 million in revenue, the ancillary development would have to be either 1,400 condos, a retail complex significantly larger than the Westfield North County mall or about 2 million square feet of office buildings, which would nearly double the amount of office space in the city.
Escondido, the paper notes, currently has two half-built condo complexes sitting empty, and a 30% vacancy rate on its existing office space. I know it's old-fashioned, but the Chargers really might want to hold out for actual cash.
September 25, 2009
Stadium death watch: One leaves, one enters
From the Shoot First, Ask Questions Later Dept.:
With Tiger Stadium now history, the Detroit Economic Growth Corp. may soon solicit ideas to redevelop the site.
Meanwhile, the Irving, Texas city council has authorized the demolition of Texas Stadium, the former home of the Dallas Cowboys. According to the Associated Press, the council is hoping to set up an "implosion auction," with tickets marketed "possibly [to fans] from cities with ardent rivals of the Cowboys." Bring your own dust masks!
September 24, 2009
Prokhorov Nets deal: Who's getting paid?
More details are trickling out on Mikhail Prokhorov's deal to buy into the New Jersey Nets. The New York Times' Charles Bagli reports that "the deal is conditional on [current Nets owner Bruce] Ratner's obtaining financing for the [Brooklyn] arena project and control of all the land required for it by the end of this year." That means that if the lawsuits over seizing land for the project by eminent domain drag on too long — the state's top court is scheduled to hear arguments next month, and more lawsuits are reportedly waiting in the wings — the Prokhorov offer could evaporate along with the rest of Ratner's tax-exempt bond financing.
Still somewhat a mystery, though, is exactly what Prokhorov would be getting in the deal, and what Ratner would be giving up. We know that Prokhorov would be getting 80% of the Nets and 45% of the as-yet-unbuilt arena (he'd also get the right to buy into the larger development, but presumably at market value); Ratner would be getting $200 million, plus handing off unspecified Nets debts to his new Russian partner. Norman Oder writes that given Ratner paid $300 million for the team in 2004, "If 80% of the team goes for $200 million, that's a $40 million loss. Then the arena's a gift." But we don't know what the Nets balance sheet looks like: If the team has borrowed heavily since 2004, then 80% of it could be no longer worth anything close to $200 million.
The big question, though, remains not who's getting the team or the arena, but who's getting the team and arena revenues. As has been noted previously, the only way anyone would want to buy into the whole project would be if they could get a cut of any resulting boodle — if you're going to own the Nets, you want them to keep any revenues they make at the arena, while if you're going to own the arena, you want the Nets to either hand over revenues to you or pay a high rent. For Prokhorov, who'd own a larger stake in the team than the building, you'd think he'd want to ensure a low rent so that he doesn't end up owning 80% of a Huizengaesque boondoggle. But no details have been released about any lease agreement between Ratner and Prokhorov, which makes you wonder if there's more that hasn't been reported, or if the two are just throwing up their hands and figuring they'll work that out later.
Look at it this way: Regardless of who owns the team or the arena, at the end of the day, there needs to be enough cash rolling in to pay back the investments of the folks who are building it. Though Prokhorov's offer has been described as a "cash infusion," it doesn't really change the financial calculus here: It's just that you have two guys now trying to figure out how to divvy up the revenues to make a $900 million arena pay, instead of just one. Unless Prokhorov is happy to take some losses in exchange for the publicity boost of now being known for something other than nickel mining and prostitutes, that nut remains uncracked.
Of course, it's always possible that this whole deal is more p.r. than reality, giving both Ratner and Prokhorov some much-desired positive media attention. Keep in mind that the last "tentative deal" reported by Bagli (for a land sale and redevelopment plan in Coney Island) still hasn't materialized two months later.
Arena operator: Open your wallets, Edmonton
The chair of Northlands, the volunteer non-profit that operates Edmonton's sporting venues — yes, Canada really is a different country — tells the Edmonton Journal that any new arena for the Oilers would require public money to get built:
"When it starts to get in excess of $400 million, there will have to be in some form or fashion public support likely from two orders or more of government to get this accomplished," [Northlands chair Andrew] Huntley says....
"The reality is that the last large number that have been built took some level of public support, and as I get into the numbers here, I think it's going to take some measure of public support to see a development of this magnitude occur."
The main expected piece of the public funding puzzle is a "community revitalization levy," which as discussed here previously is a newfangled word for tax-increment financing, where any new taxes generated on a property are kicked back to the developer. Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel has said he'd back a CRL, but that in that case, the city should have a "big time say" over the project.
Tiger Stadium is finally completely gone.
Detroit Economic Growth Corp. spokesman Bob Rossbach remarked earlier this week on the resulting vacant lot: "With this done, the site should look pretty good." If you're an opossum, anyway.
September 23, 2009
Prokhorov signs "tentative" deal to buy Nets
So apparently the crazy Russian was partly serious after all: New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner has announced what the New York Times calls a "tentative" deal to sell 80% of the team and 45% of his as-yet-unbuilt Brooklyn arena to nickel magnate Mikhail Prokhorov — though for only $200 million, not the $700 million that had previously been rumored.
As Norman Oder notes, this is just enough to provide the bridge financing Ratner needs to complete the $900 million arena. It remains to be seen, however, how he'd pay off the other $700 million in loans he's expecting to take out, especially now that he's looking at having Prokhorov as a tenant. No details have emerged as to the lease the Nets would sign or how much arena revenue they'd share with Ratner's development company, which would remain majority owner of the building itself.
And, of course, the NBA still has to sign off on allowing Prokhorov to become the first non-North American into its owners club — though I'm sure not the first to be accused of running a prostitution ring. Way more on this as details emerge, I'm sure.
Walnut to drop Industry stadium suit for cash
The city of Walnut has apparently agreed to a payoff — er, a settlement in its lawsuit against the neighboring city of Industry's planned NFL stadium. No word yet on how much boodle Walnut got for going away; an official announcement is expected tomorrow.
A group of citizens still have a lawsuit pending against the project for insufficient environmental impact studies. If that fails, developer Ed Roski can move ahead with the stadium project ... just as soon as he finds a team to play there.
KJ issues Kings move threat against self
It often seems like local politicians act more like advocates for sports team owners than like negotiators for the public good, but this latest from Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson takes negotiating against yourself to new heights:
After learning that Arco Arena is considered unsuitable to host a major college basketball tournament, Mayor Kevin Johnson said Tuesday that Sacramento could lose the Kings if efforts for a new arena aren't stepped up.
"If we don't have a clear path to an arena in the not too distant future, then we as Sacramentans need to know that [the Kings] very well may look elsewhere," Johnson said.
Johnson has stumped for a new Kings arena before — and he is, of course, a former NBA star — but learning that Sacramento was considered ineligible for the NCAA men's basketball tournament (yes, that again) seemed to push him over the edge, as he declared, "I've got to be more aggressive, and I've got to move the timeline up in terms of the arena. The timeline has to include an Option B, an Option C, and I haven't quite determined what we're going to do."
The most recent plan, you'll recall, was for a $1.9 billion arena-and-"living-village" that has no developer and no financing. Sacramento's downtown railyard may be back in play as well: The land's owners say they'd "absolutely" like to see an arena there, but aren't offering to build it or pay for it or anything.
Meanwhile, we can almost certainly look forward to more articles speculating where the Kings are headed without a new arena — though you can't help wondering, if a move were so enticing, why the team owners didn't skip town the last time we heard this kind of talk four years ago?
September 22, 2009
Prokhorov: I want share of Nets, and Alaska back
The Mikhail Prokhorov New Jersey Nets rumors got even crazier today when Russia's richest man posted to his LiveJournal page a "counterproposal" for investing in the team's Brooklyn arena project. (See the Google translation here.)
Though the media seem to be taking it seriously, much of it seems tongue-in-cheek, including demands for controlling interest in the Nets in return for a "symbolic price," as well as "an equal place in the elite world of basketball" for Russia and placement of Russian coaches in the NBA. Prokhorov also implies that he first learned of his supposed interest in the Nets by reading about it in the newspaper, though that could be just the bad translation.
Of course, maybe all this is the kind of thing that passes for common business practice in Russia — like negotiating business deals via LiveJournal, for that matter. It seems equally likely, though, that Prokhorov is just issuing a nutso bid as a way to up his international profile as a sports mogul. I'll be eagerly watching Bruce Ratner's Facebook page for further details.
Arena glut watch: No NCAAs for Wichita
Another cautionary tale about the promises made by stadium and arena seekers: After spending $205 million to build a new arena, in part to have a shot at hosting a share of the NCAA basketball tournament, the city of Wichita has been told that it won't get one before 2014 at the earliest. And the explanation, while meant to be reassuring, isn't exactly:
"There was nothing wrong with Wichita's bid," [NCAA men's basketball associate director David Worlock] said. "We just ran out of slots. We don't want people to be discouraged by the announcement today. It's ultra-competitive, especially in the Midwest."
Of course, it's entirely possible that Wichita will land a round of the NCAAs one of these years. But with Tulsa, Kansas City, Omaha (all of which landed parts of future tourneys), Oklahoma City, and Des Moines (which didn't) all boasting new arenas as well, it's likely to remain a rare enough event to wonder if it was really worth $205 million to have a shot at it. Though I guess Wichita Thunder fans will be happy about getting new digs ... sort of.
September 21, 2009
Rays could leave Tampa Bay ... in a decade or two
The St. Petersburg Times has analyzed the Tampa Bay Rays' current lease, and concluded that while it indeed binds the team to playing at the Tropicana Dome through 2027 — in fact, the team can't even talk to other cities about moving until then — and includes potentially onerous penalties, it would become easier for the team to buy its way out as that date approaches.
Though the contact (actually a "use agreement") stipulates that the value of having the Rays play there can't be measured in dollars alone, lawyers contacted by the Times say that judges tend to prefer assigning damages than actually issuing injunctions forcing a team to stay put; and then too, "The practical effect of an injunction becomes less and less the older [the Tropicana contract] becomes," says local lawyer Michael Keane, who predicts that if no stadium is in the works by 2019, the Rays could pay $100 million or so to bolt.
That still leaves a good decade worth of leverage on St. Pete's side, but the Times argues that the city will need to play its cards right: "Jettison the Trop too quickly and you sacrifice leverage that translates into tax dollars. Push too closely to 2027 and good-bye baseball." The best bet might be using the threat of trapping the Rays at the Trop for another 18 years to get the team to cough up more than the one-third of construction costs that they'd previously offered for a new stadium. Especially since it's not like there are any other cities with major-league-ready stadiums and fan bases that could offer the Rays a better deal — though if they're really willing to wait two decades, maybe San Antonio will finally be ready.
More vaportecture in San Jose?
The San Jose Earthquakes released some sketches of a proposed soccer-only stadium on Saturday, but there's no indication when it might be built: Team owner Lew Wolff still doesn't know how it would be paid for, and would say only that it would open about two years after construction began, whenever that might be.
"People expect you to break ground," Wolff told the San Jose Mercury News. "I've been breaking ground all my life. But I don't like to generate expectations beyond what I can deliver."
Interestingly, Wolff didn't entirely rule out having the Quakes share space with the Oakland A's should they move to San Jose, though he said, "The first goal is to have it soccer only." Meanwhile, team execs announced they'd be cutting ticket prices for next season — some by as much as 40% — which is probably as much about the team having just finished in last place two years in a row as it is about the deflating ticket bubble.
September 18, 2009
NY state approves downgrading Nets arena from platinum-plated to gold-plated
New York state's Empire State Development Corporation signed off on Bruce Ratner's revised Brooklyn Nets arena plan yesterday, something that's been a foregone conclusion for at least two months now. It is noteworthy, though, for prompting this Reuters headline:
NY agency OKs modest basketball arena plan for Nets
This is no doubt the first time in human history that a basketball arena costing between $800 and $900 million — which would still easily break the record as the most expensive ever — has been described as "modest."
September 17, 2009
Russian rescue for Ratner's Nets arena?
New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner's $200 million financing gap might be resolved soon, if Reuters is to be believed:
Russia's richest man Mikhail Prokhorov is preparing an offer to help the New Jersey Nets build a new arena and sources close to him say he could own a large stake in the NBA club as part of the $700 million deal.
This would, needless to say, solve Ratner's biggest problem, which is how to raise enough money to get his $900 million arena built, when he's only eligible for $700 million in tax-exempt bonds (or maybe not even that). The big question is: What would Prokhorov be getting in exchange for his $700 million? The entire Nets franchise is worth less than $300 million, so even a "large stake" wouldn't get him his investment back. (While a move to Brooklyn would increase the team value somewhat, even the Knicks aren't worth $700 million.) If the $700 million is mostly a loan, Prokhorov would get annual payments as well — but then we're back to asking where Ratner would get the money to pay off the annual cost, regardless of where he borrowed it.
And then there's this:
Prokhorov is considering issuing a bond worth $700 million through Onexim to help fund the project, one source close to the deal said.
The source said the bond must be issued before the end of 2009 so it is exempt from government taxes, adding: "This is a pure business story. The value potential of the club and arena are very high."
Exempt from U.S. government taxes? Private financiers don't have the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds, so that doesn't make sense — in fact, it sounds as if Reuters mangled the facts about Ratner's planned $700 million in bonds to be issued by the state Empire State Development Corporation.
Of course, it's also entirely possible that the entire story has been concocted to make the Nets project seem more viable, as ESPN.com notes has been the case in other instances where teams have dropped Prokhorov's name. Though Prokhorov and Ratner would seem to have one bond between them: They're both losing money hand over fist.
Keeping up with the (Jerry) Joneses
ESPN.com's Matt Mosley raves about the new Dallas Cowboys stadium, or at least its grandiosity, citing in particular its humongous scoreboard, the fact that players enter the field by running through a sports bar, and the glass-enclosed exterior. "It was [Cowboys owner Jerry Jones'] vision to build the greatest stadium in the world," writes Mosley, "and he just might have pulled it off."
We can argue whether being bigger necessarily equates with better — it's especially noteworthy that Jones apparently decided to build the stadium's signature oversized scoreboard after going to a Celine Dion show at Caesars Palace and being so distracted by the giant video screen that he couldn't keep his eyes on the actual performance — but for NFL fans the key phrase here is in the photo caption, which describes Cowboys Stadium as "the new standard by which other stadiums are judged." "State-of-the-art" clauses are already popular among NFL teams, and Cowboys Stadium only ups the ante for what other franchise owners can demand as standard. (And even for teams without lease clauses, you know their owners are salivating over Cowboys Stadium's new goodies.) At least Jones skimped on the holographic replay system.
This, in part, is the answer to the often-asked question (often-asked to me, anyway): "Won't the new-stadium craze die off once every team has one?" The problem with "new" is that it's a moving target — this decade's state-of-the-art is next decade's outmoded, as new stadiums keep (sorry) moving the goalposts. Twenty-one NFL stadiums have opened in the past 20 years, but eight of those are already more than a decade old. If Cowboys Stadium leads to a new round of NFL stadium demands — or stadium upgrade demands — it will end up costing taxpayers and football fans far more than the $350 million in public funds that went into the stadium proper.
The Yankee Stadium gate that will not die
The push to save Yankee Stadium's Gate 2 is back in the news today — or rather, back in the News, the one New York paper that can't seem to get enough of this story. The latest angle is that advocates say preserving it would cost only $1 million, not the $10 million that the Parks Department says it would run; how this translates into "cheaper to save than tear down," only the Daily News headline writers know for sure.
Next up: Gate 2 supporters are reportedly meeting Monday with Bronx borough president Ruben Diaz Jr., who has absolutely no oversight over the stadium demolition project. He could certainly try to lean on the mayor's office to adapt its plan for demolition — scheduled to begin next month — but given that he just voted to oppose a project by the mayor's favorite developer, he might not get such a warm hearing.
September 16, 2009
Glendale council: Help us, NHL, you're our only hope
The Glendale city council endorsed the NHL's bid to buy the Phoenix Coyotes yesterday — which should come as no surprise, as the NHL is the only entity that's expressed any desire to keep the team in town. Though telling outgoing Coyotes owner Jerry Moyes to get lost when he tried to testify for Jim Balsillie's bid was a nice touch.
The most important thing here is that Glendale has now joined most of the other Coyotes' creditors in endorsing the NHL bid, which is likely going to be what sways Bankruptcy Judge Redfield Baum, whose primary goal is to get the best deal for the team's creditors. (That is, if he approves any bid at all.) If so, the NHL has only promised to keep the team in town for one year, at which point if no local owner emerges — which seems pretty damn likely, especially considering the team's, um, fan base — then we get to go through this all over again next year, only with the NHL holding the auction instead of a bankruptcy court. Which means they'd be free to pick an owner based on any criteria they choose, like who they think has the best character, or who is best pals with the commissioner, or who promises to build the snazziest new stadium — nah, that'd never happen.
Sports bubble watch: Yanks trim some pricey seat fees
The long-awaited decision by the New York Yankees on how to respond to their empty seat crisis is in, and the verdict is: The team is cutting ticket prices on about 6,400 of their priciest seats, while raising prices on 1,700 second-deck seats:
3,400 Field Level seats currently priced at $325 as part of full-season licenses will drop to $250 or $235 each next season, depending on their specific location. Additionally, all 1,208 Suite seats in the Delta Sky 360° Suite will see a decrease in price, as will 1,846 of 1,894 Suite seats (97 percent) in the Legends Suite. The balance of the Legends Suite seats will have no price change....
In the Main Level, 10,111 seat locations will see no increase. The remaining 1,704 seats in Sections 216-217 and 223-224 currently priced at $100 will be $125 next season. These mark the only increases for 2010.
The lesson the Yankees seem to have learned here: Fans aren't willing to pay an arm and a leg for great seats, but will give up a few fingers for good ones. Which makes sense, given that the most expensive seats are the ones that were going unsold, but is almost certainly bad news for fans hoping for more cheap seats, not more $100-$300 ones.
In related news, random Yankee fans with no last names think these prices are still too damned expensive.
September 14, 2009
NHL to Balsillie: Say you're sorry
As expected, Friday's session of the Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy hearing provided plenty of drama, as the standoff between the NHL and Blackberry king Jim Balsillie reaches absurd proportions.
On Friday, both sides upped their offers for the bankrupt franchise, Balsillie guaranteeing more of his $242 million offer, the league promising for the first time that some of its $140 million bid would go to current owners Jerry Moyes and Wayne Gretzky. The NHL also levied a new demand before Balsillie will ever be allowed to own an NHL team: He has to say he's sorry:
"Perhaps someday his passion for hockey will meet up with a recognition on his part that he isn't above the rules that apply to all the other NHL owners," Tony Clark said at an auction for the league's bankrupt Phoenix Coyotes, for which Balsillie and the NHL are the only bidders.
"Maybe he will find a way to express an honest regret and a humility and acknowledge where he went wrong."
From what I can tell, what Balsillie needs to express "regret" for is thinking he can buy an NHL team without the approval of the NHL. Or arguing it in court. Or something.
In any case, demanding fealty from its potential owners isn't likely to win the NHL any friends from its latest foe: The nation of Canada, whose Competition Bureau said if Balsillie's bid to move to team to Hamilton, Ontario, is blocked, it will consider investigating whether the Toronto Maple Leafs violated competition (i.e., antitrust) laws by unilaterally vetoing the move.
"We are looking at all the paperwork that's coming out of the proceedings and we will take action if we believe that the veto that Toronto thinks they have is exercised and blocks a team," deputy commissioner Richard Taylor told the Toronto Star. "The exercise of the veto that effectively blocked a team from moving would raise concerns for us and would be something we would investigate." "Paperwork" could be an oblique reference to the letter from Maple Leafs ownership to the NHL, introduced by Balsillie's lawyers as evidence, stating that "the Toronto Maple Leafs do not agree that the relocation of a club into their home territory would be subject to a majority vote. They continue to believe a unanimous vote would be required."
Of course, if Canada does charge the NHL with antitrust violations, they'll likely have to get in line. Does anybody really still believe that this will all be resolved before the start of the hockey season?
September 11, 2009
One step forward, one back for Santa Clara 49ers stadium
It was a good news/bad news day for the San Francisco 49ers: The bill to allow them to evade public bidding rules in selecting a stadium contractor without going before a public referendum passed the state senate last night, but Cedar Fair is getting uppity again about allowing a stadium to be built on one of its parking lots. (The city owns the land, but Cedar Fair has a long-term lease for its Great America amusement park.) "Cedar Fair does not believe that the proposed stadium and Great America can coexist without overcoming significant legal and operational issues," Cedar Fair attorney Geoffrey Etnire wrote in a letter to Santa Clara city manager Jennifer Sparacino. "However, Cedar Fair will come to the table in good faith to explore possible resolution of this conflict." Translation: Give us more money, or we'll sue you so hard your heads will spin. Isn't this where we came in?
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the 7th-inning stretch...
The New York Yankees may have acknowledged that mandatory patriotism isn't such a hot idea, but don't tell that to their minor-league brethren across the river:
In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Newark, three Millburn High School students contend Newark Bears president and co-owner Thomas Cetnar berated them, cursed at them and then booted them from the ballpark after they failed to stand for the song during the seventh-inning stretch.
"Nobody sits during the singing of "God Bless America' in my stadium," Cetnar bellowed during the June 29 incident, according to the suit. "Now get the (expletive) out of here."
By "my" stadium Cetnar actually means "their" stadium: Bears and Eagles Riverfront Stadium was built and is owned by the city of Newark and Essex County. Cetnar, a former Newark police officer booted off the force after being convicted of embezzling drug buy money, has been a tenant there since buying into the bankrupt Bears franchise last fall.
Can Ratner come up with Nets arena funds?
Brooklyn blogger Gumby Fresh has weighed in on what the new Brooklyn Nets arena design looks like ("the funny helmets the rebels used in the third Star Wars movie"), as well as noting that owner Bruce Ratner is looking to get a private investor to kick in up to $200 million toward arena financing, which could make things dicey for Ratner:
They'll only do it, though, I imagine, if the Nets sign a long and expensive lease on the arena, which would doom his chances of trying to sell the team for a while. Of course, Ratner says that FCE could meet this $200 million from its own resources, but I think a commitment that large would put its return on capital so far in the toilet it might as well go back to building strip malls in Cleveland.
Then there's this issue of issuing the bonds to finance the stadium and then holding them in escrow until the litigation can be resolved. Ratner has told Brown that he can do this. I'm still not sure how that will work. I'm fairly certain the tax consequences for investors of being made whole (paid back early) on these bonds would be horrible. But it might be possible, and FCE, in one final throw of the dice, might be able to put up the premium to prepay the bonds itself. Certainly it would be easier to find that kind of money than $200 million in equity.
And that's assuming that Ratner is allowed to sell $700-million-plus in tax-exempt bonds for the rest of the cost, which the city Independent Budget Office seems to think would be illegal. Like I said, the man's not having a good week.
Oilers eye casino site for arena
The Edmonton Oilers officially have a proposed site for their proposed arena, on land adjacent to the Baccarat Casino. What they don't have is a proposed financing plan, though a TIF-style plan is still being floated by Mayor Stephen Mandel.
September 10, 2009
Coyotes judge: Bailiff, kick these two nuts in the butt
Okay, the Phoenix Coyotes saga officially has more preposterous twists than Melrose Place. The latest came at today's bankruptcy court hearing — originally scheduled to be the date of the actual auction of the team, but who knows when that will happen now — when Judge Redfield Baum said he might just not award the team to either bidder:
The league said it would look for a buyer to keep the team in Glendale, but if one can't be found, they'd consider moving it.
Either way, "it will necessitate the rejection of the lease," said lawyer Jordan Krupp.
"You're all forgetting there's a third option here," said Baum.
"No sale."
And that's right, "either bidder" — did I neglect to mention that Ice Edge Holdings, the group that wanted to have the Coyotes play some home games in such far-flung places as Saskatoon or Halifax, pulled its bid at the last minute on Tuesday night, saying it couldn't come to an agreement with Glendale on a new arena lease?
That leaves only two bidders: Jim Balsillie, who the NHL has declared will join their exclusive club when Arizona freezes over; and the NHL, whose bid Baum raked over the coals today:
Early in the day, the judge got tough with the NHL, wanting it to clarify who gets what in its $140 million bid. He said it didn't seem fair that Jerry Moyes would get very little in the NHL bid, wondering why the league was treating him so differently from other creditors.
"I can't approve a bid I don't understand," said Baum.
With options like these, you sort of understand why Baum might be threatening to take the franchise and go home. Tomorrow, both Balsillie and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman are expected to testify; if the courtroom is still standing afterwards, Baum has promised to issue a ruling "certainly before the start of the season" on October 1.
Nets arena subsidies worth almost as much as Nets arena
The New York City Independent Budget Office has issued an update of its 2005 study of the proposed Atlantic Yards arena to bring the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn, and as Norman Oder notes, has come up with "far more pessimistic results." The highlights:
- Counting both direct public spending and tax breaks, New York City is spending $350 million on the project, the state and Metropolitan Transportation Authority $142 million, and the federal government $194 million (via tax-exempt bonds), all in present-value dollars.
- Nets owners Forest City Ratner, meanwhile, would save $726 million thanks to public subsidies. That's almost as much as the $772 million that the arena is now projected to cost to build — though, since some of the Ratner savings have merely kept that figure from being higher, it wouldn't be quite right to say that the public is paying the full arena cost.
- The IBO estimates that the city and state would each bring in $130 million worth of new tax revenues (and the MTA $6 million) as the result of the arena — most of it, notes the report, thanks to the Nets themselves paying New York income taxes instead of New Jersey. That would mean the city would lose $40 million even just counting direct cash outlays; counting tax breaks puts the city at a $180 million loss. For the state/MTA, tax breaks would turn a $31 million gain into a $7 million loss. And the federal treasury, needless to say, would get nothing in return for its contribution.
- The IBO report
doesn't includeincludes a pro-rated portion of the cost of below-market land provided for the project (between $50 million and $114 million, depending on how you define "market"),nor does itbut doesn't attempt to estimate how much tax revenue the site could generate if something else where built there, as some other studies have tried to do. - Projected property tax valuations for the site aren't expected to generate enough payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to pay off the arena bonds, meaning they'd be illegal without the kind of fancy footwork the city is alleged to have engaged in for the Yankees.
Way, way more at Atlantic Yards Report, as always, if you're interested.
Wizards to play off one K.C. against the other?
The Kansas City Wizards are looking across the river in Kansas City, Kansas in their search for a new stadium, and boy, is stadium-lovin' Kansas City Star writer Kevin Collison excited. Check out this lede:
The Kansas Speedway area has emerged as the new choice for a long-sought Wizards soccer stadium in a sweeping proposal that would include at least 4,000 new Cerner Corp. jobs.
Read further down, and it turns out that the Wizards owners are just saying they'd "consider" putting a new office for their software company there, if they decide to open one. Also, that they plan to ask the state and county for sales-tax money to build the $400 millin project.
Kansas City, MO city council member John Sharp, meanwhile, who represents the Bannister Mall area that the Wizards had previously targeted for a stadium, sounded jilted: "The city and state of Missouri have offered these developers every economic incentive we have to offer. I don't know what else we could do, other than offer to back all their construction costs. ... I don't know if we could do that without severely jeopardizing the city credit rating." Or the two Kansas City could stop throwing money at stealing each other's development projects — but that'd be crazy talk.
Forget the obstructed seats and the punt-hazard scoreboard, the Dallas Cowboys' new stadium has another cross to bear: It's apparently running Windows.
Make your own joke, really.
UPDATE: Sorry, link was wrong. You can see the photo now here.
September 09, 2009
New Atlantic Yards arena designs! Collect 'em all!
The latest redesign of the New Jersey Nets' proposed Atlantic Yards arena in Brooklyn is out, and it looks like... a Claes Oldenburg handbag? A giant eyeball, as arena opponent and last man standing Daniel Goldstein insists? The previous design, only wrapped in one of those metal-grille facades that are all the rage these days?
Post your suggestions below. In the meantime, I'm mostly interested that the surrounding condo and office towers still appear to be made of some sort of translucent plastic — either the developers realized they didn't look so hot filled in, or it's an oblique admission that they're really vaportecture.
September 08, 2009
If you'd like to have FoS headlines and links tweeted at you, follow us at www.twitter.com/fieldofschemes. (Is that 130 characters yet?)
Chicago council to sign off on Olympics blank check
The great Chicago Olympic contract hullabaloo looks like it's ending with a whimper, not a bang: A Chicago city council committee has voted this afternoon to approve signing the official Olympic contract that makes the city the stopgap for any cost overruns, and the full council is expected to approve it tomorrow, according to GamesBids.com:
The contract would require the city to cover cost overruns beyond the $750 million already backed by the city and the state. The Chicago Tribune reports Olympic organizers say insurance policies would protect the public, making it unlikely they would require the $750 million.
The contract was the main hurdle to Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid (not counting the competition from Madrid, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro), which will be decided on October 2. (New York City never officially guaranteed cost overruns with its 2012 bid, either, but it ended up with bigger problems.) The winner gets to be on the hook for billions in dollars worth of velodromes and infrastructure; the losers get to watch on TV for free.
Fenway power struggle: Catfight or condo conflict?
The Boston Herald is reporting that Fenway renovations director Janet Marie Smith's departure from Boston wasn't as voluntary as official sources had claimed:
"Janet Marie was told to go because [John Henry's new wife] Linda [Pizzuti is] taking over the whole damn place," said one person familiar with Smith's exit. Another source said, "Janet was thrown under the bus and everything is a mess as a result of the young bride. The Chinese symbol for conflict is two women under one roof."
Minus the gratuitous misogyny, I'd heard something similar through the grapevine. So if three unnamed sources count as confirmation, consider it confirmed.
As for what this will mean for Fenway, probably not much — as Smith noted, most of the planned renovations were complete before her July ouster. It does seem, though, that Pizzuti, a 30-year-old who formerly worked for her family's development firm, is likely to push the Sox to build condo towers on land the team owns around Fenway — so while the Green Monster won't be changing, the view of what's beyond it might be.
September 07, 2009
With the New York Mets' season long since having passed the laughingstock stage, the media have turned their sights on their new stadium: Yesterday's New York Post reported that the new $830 million stadium "has been plagued by water damage to several luxury suites -- including Jerry Seinfeld's -- as well as mold, falling signs and concrete, flooding in outfield seats, faulty electrical wiring and shoddy tile work, sources said." One "insider" (hey, remember when newspapers weren't going to rely on anonymous sources anymore?) told the Post: "Shitty Field -- that's what we call it." Get in line, pal.
To be fair, this is the sort of thing a lot of new buildings go through when they first open, and all the problems seem fixable. Still, after taxpayers devoted more than $600 million to building the place, water dripping on Jerry Seinfeld's head must seem like adding insult to injury and injury and injury...
September 06, 2009
NHL v. Balsillie: Haggling over the price
In the latest weirdness in the Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy case, the NHL has filed papers saying that a "reasonable" relocation fee for moving the team to Hamilton would be between $101 million and $195 million dollars. Spurned would-be owner Jim Balsillie, who wants to do just that, insists that $11.2 million to $12.9 million would be more like it.
The NHL responded that "the notion that a team in Hamilton would be worth only $11.2 million to $12.9 million more than a team in Phoenix is patently absurd." To which New York Times hockey writer Jeff Z. Klein adds: "Which of course raises the question: Why have a team in Phoenix and not Hamilton?"
The NHL's response, presumably, would be that a Hamilton team would cannibalize revenues from Toronto and Buffalo, whereas Phoenix has sole possession of that hockey hotbed that is the Arizona desert. Still, it does make it seem like the NHL is cutting off its nose to spite Balsillie — or, at the very least, holding up a move that might increase overall league revenues just so the league can demand a cut in return.
Either way, you have to imagine that the San Francisco Giants and Bud Selig's Oakland A's stadium taskforce are closely watching how this plays out. How to determine territorial rights indemnification — not just how much money changes hands, but who the payees and payers are among the teams involved and the league — is likely to play a huge role in determining whether it's feasible for the A's to move to San Jose.
Calgary arena push is on; funding, site unclear
The Calgary Flames arena push heated up this week, with team president Ken King saying the team wants to begin construction "as soon as we can."
That could be a while yet, though. The team still hasn't picked a site, or figured out financing for a new arena. City and provincial elected officials have all promised that no public money will go into arena construction, but notably didn't promise that no taxpayers funds would go for any part of an arena project: Alberta premier Ed Stelmach said he'd consider funding improvements to a light-rail line serving the arena site, while Calgary mayor Dave Bronconnier said the city could provide the land.
As for King, he was mum about any funding talk, saying only, "We will make a presentation when and if we seek public funding. In what quantum and if that's going to take place has not been determined." I don't speak fluent Canadian, but that sure sounds to me like: "We're still trying to figure out what we can get away with."
49ers no-bid bill moves forward
If you've been wondering what ever happened to that bill to get the San Francisco 49ers out of a Santa Clara stadium referendum, it passed the state assembly on Thursday. (No details that I can find on the vote tally.) Next up, the state senate, which has yet to vote on the bill even though its main sponsor, Elaine Alquist, is in the senate, not the assembly. California is weird.
Just to be clear, the 49ers will still need a public vote to approve the stadium project if the Alquist bill passes, just not one to evade competitive bidding requirements for selecting a stadium contractor.
September 05, 2009
Goodell rattles Vikes move threat saber, goes off message on Chargers
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell did what sports league commissioners are good for during a TV interview on Thursday:
"We have a franchise that is owned by someone that really cares about the Minneapolis community [and] wants to get something done that is responsible," Goodell said. "We understand the challenges that exist not only in that market but more broadly in how to finance these projects. But it is something that we need to get done because the Vikings belong in Minnesota and I know the ownership feels that and the public leadership feels that."
Goodell also addressed the San Diego Chargers stadium situation, saying, "It's clear the stadium needs to be either completely renovated or a new stadium built." Whether he was hinting a change in policy (renovation hasn't previously been on the table for Qualcomm Stadium, at least not according to the NFL) or merely misspoke, Goodell was immediately slapped down by Chargers stadium czar Mark Fabiani, who told the San Diego Union-Tribune that it's "been proven over and over again by anyone who has looked at it over the years" that renovation is "just not feasible, either technically or financially." Well, except for a bunch of local architects and the former chair of the city's stadium task force.
The interview, incidentally, was conducted by sports consultant Rick Horrow, who knows a thing or two himself about the stadium-grubbing game. It airs next week on the cable channel Versus (not to be confused with the far better Versus).
Yankee Stadium frieze being removed
The picking apart of Yankee Stadium for salvage continues, with the concrete frieze atop the scoreboard (what's often called the "facade," though it's not) being carefully removed by a crane this week. If you want a piece, you can buy one at auction (shipping, presumably, is extra); the Daily News also reports that two panels will be on display at Heritage Field, the new public park that's scheduled to replace the old ballpark in 2011.
Speaking of the new park, construction will apparently be able to begin next summer, which is when the News reports that demolition of the House That Ruth Built will be complete. (Serious demolition work is expected to begin this October, presumably once the Yanks' playoff run is complete and fans are no longer around to watch the carnage.) According to the News: "After the stadium's interior is stripped, the lower level will be razed by an excavator and the upper deck by a large cantilever." By a what?
Sports bubble watch: Big market, small market
Today's special September ticket offers from baseball teams out of contention:
$1 O's tickets available exclusively at orioles.com
Mets Wine Pairing * Wine Tasting Event in the Empire Party Suites * The ticket price includes the cost of food! * Tickets only $75!
Times are tough all over, but apparently some fan base's times are tougher than others...
September 04, 2009
Report: A's stadium benefit to San Jose would total only $65 million
Oy, the headline writers. The city of San Jose issued its economic impact study on a potential new stadium for the Oakland A's yesterday, and to read the headlines you'd think that the conclusion was that San Jose would be raking in $130 million a year in new revenue if the A's came to town.
But what the news reports call "economic benefits" is actually economic activity — in other words, the total amount of dollars spent in the city's confines. But if A's fans are buying $100 Bobby Crosby jerseys (I can't believe even Crosby's mother has one of those) in San Jose instead of Oakland, most of the money goes the same place: Into the pockets of the A's owners. The only added benefit to San Jose is whatever it skims off in sales tax, and the salary of the salesperson who actually sells the shirt.
Read the actual report, and it provides those numbers, though most of the news coverage chose not to highlight them. The key numbers are on page 25, where the report projects the arrival of the A's would bring 980 new jobs (many of which would no doubt be part-time, though it doesn't say); and on page 33, where it says that the total new tax revenue for local government would be worth about $100 million in present dollars over 30 years. And on page I-8, it also — and I give it props for doing so, since it's rare in an economic impact study — compares this to the return from doing nothing, calculating that if the land were instead allowed to have office and retail development built there local government would collect about $35 million in present value tax benefits — meaning the net value of an A's stadium would be $65 million.
So, is it worth it? We don't know, because we have no idea what the city would be spending — the general expectation is that San Jose's primary contribution would be to buy 23 acres 14 acres [UPDATE: see below] of land for the stadium and hand it over to the A's owners, but no one's saying what that would cost. (Downtown land was bringing offers of $20 million an acre four years ago, but that was in bubble money.) It's also worth noting that we haven't yet seen a proposed lease between the A's and the city, so it's conceivable there could be other hidden costs.
Let's say, though, that the city could get the land for a relative bargain price of $2 million an acre. Then San Jose would be looking at $46 million in costs, vs. $65 million in benefits (though some of the benefits, it's worth noting, would go to county agencies, not the city). And guesstimating the 980 jobs would translate into maybe 500 full-time equivalent jobs, that would be roughly $100,000 in expense per job created — pretty lousy as far as job creation goes, but in line with what most other stadium projects have generated.
Look at $2 million an acre, then, as the tipping point: If San Jose can get that price or lower, then a new A's stadium could be the next Pac Bell Park, where public costs were actually kept low enough that the modest public benefits of a stadium were worth the subsidy; more than that, and it's just throwing money down a hole. And that's assuming, of course, that A's owner Lew Wolff gets permission from MLB to move to San Jose at all — and that he can then afford the price of buying out the San Francisco Giants' territorial rights on top of building a $461 million stadium. But those are questions too complicated to get into in a headline.
[UPDATE: A reader points out that the current plan requires only 14 acres of land, not 23 acres. In that case, figure the tipping point at around $4 million an acre — above that, and even by the city's own numbers it's not worth the expense.]
September 03, 2009
And the verdict on whether Jim Balsillie can enter the auction to buy the Phoenix Coyotes is ... going to wait for yet another hearing. Everyone gathered in Judge Redfield Baum's bankruptcy court yesterday as promised, at which point the following transpired:
- Baum hinted that he'd like to leave Balsillie in the auction, saying he wanted as many offers to consider as possible.
- Baum told Balsillie that he should reconsider his self-imposed September 14 deadline for gaining control of the team, since he thinks they'll still be in court then.
- The NHL raised concerns about setting the schedule for the 2009-10 season, at which point Balsillie's lawyers huddled and offered to keep the team in Phoenix for a year before moving it to Hamilton, Ontario. NHL representatives immediately rejected the offer.
At that point, in the words of the Toronto Star, "The judge admonished both sides for negotiating in court, suggesting they do it in private and offered to have them go home and come back Thursday." From the sound of it, though, the next hearing will actually be on either September 10 or 11, which doesn't bode well for the Coyotes auction taking place on the 10th as planned. Maybe Baum will just lock both sides in a room and wait for somebody to explode.
Ratner seeking to be Huizenga of the north?
NetsDaily has posted a long FAQ on the future of the New Jersey Nets, whose owner, Bruce Ratner, has them up for sale at the same time as he's trying to move them to a new arena in Brooklyn. Ratner is reportedly looking for both a "premium" sale price and for the new owners to pay a "large annual lease" to play in his new Barclays Center, which he hopes to have open any decade now. Since Ratner would get to keep revenues from all non-NBA events at the arena while also double-dipping from new owners, prospective buyers aren't likely to go for it unless they're severely stupid: One "team insider" said, according to NetsDaily, "In that scenario, Ratner sells the team, you get control of the team and the right to lose $20-$35 million a year on the team. Key to the franchise success is the arena, not the team."
If all this sounds familiar, by the way, it's because it's exactly what Wayne Huizenga did with the Florida Marlins in 1998, sticking new owner John Henry with a terrible lease and an even more terrible team. The difference there is that Huizenga snookered Henry into believing he'd be able to get a new stadium built in south Florida soon (it only ended up taking 14 years), whereas a new Nets owner would be settling into a new home with an awful lease.
The FAQ concludes that if "it doesn't work" (without specifying whether "it" is the arena, the sale, or both):
"The team will be sold to whoever can pay for it," said an insider. "They could wind up in Seattle or St. Louis." A sports marketing expert agreed, suggesting that Brooklyn gets less and less likely every day.
That's a lot of unnamed sources, so take this with whatever grains of salt you have handy. In any case, though, it doesn't sound like Ratner has much of a coherent exit strategy for his grand gamble.
September 02, 2009
Another theory on Yanks postseason ticket pricing
Today's New York Times notes that while the Yankees will be offering Division Series seats to season ticket holders at regular-season prices, they'll be several dollars higher for non-season plan holders lucky enough to win the ticket lottery. (All tickets will also carry a mandatory MLB "handling fee" of between $1 and $6 for all, because you don't expect Bud Selig to run his greasy fingers over everything for nothing, right?) This suggests one possible reason why the Yanks are keeping first-round ticket prices low: They may be worried about season-ticket renewals in the wake of all the uproar over this year's crazy price hikes (86% on average, according to the Times), and are hoping that the guarantee of discounted postseason tickets will be enough to lure fans back for 2010.
In any case, this should be one more data point in rebuttal of any notion that sports ticket prices are set according to some rational analysis of supply and demand — as my six-year-old says about the weather forecasts, "They're just guessing." And right now with everyone guessing about so many other things, it makes sense to expect some weirdness in ticket pricing, too.
September 01, 2009
Coyotes sale even more confused than ever
The Phoenix Coyotes auction is still nine days away, but already all hell has broken loose in the race to decide the team's new owner (and where it will play). In the past week, we've seen:
- Would-be frontrunner Jerry Reinsdorf unexpectedly drop out of the bidding either because (depending on which report you believe) he couldn't work out an arena lease with Glendale or because of an "unwilling seller" or because of "growing negative publicity" around his bid. Sorry about that, chief.
- The NHL entered its own $140 million bid for the Coyotes, with the intent of selling the team to a local owner once it's out of bankruptcy. Though the league's court papers indicate that if no local buyer is found by next June, the NHL may move the team anyway, raising the specter of a Montreal Expos-like multi-city bidding war. Though it's worth recalling that it wasn't much of a war.
- Ice Edge Holdings submitted their own $145 million bid to buy the team and have it split time between Arizona and Canadian cities such as Saskatoon and Halifax. Wayne Gretzky is reportedly backing the Ice Edge bid, though he hasn't made any public statements himself, so it's hard to say whether he kept a straight face while doing so.
Meanwhile, Bankruptcy Judge Redfield Baum has yet another hearing scheduled tomorrow to decide yet again whether Blackberry zillionaire Jim Balsillie will be allowed into next week's auction, after the NHL preemptorily rejected him as a prospective owner. Who, if anyone, will end up with the team after next week's auction remains anyone's guess, but it's probably a safe bet to put your money on there being further lawsuits ahead no matter what.
Ugliest part of Tiger Stadium still standing
Believe it or not, the demolition of Tiger Stadium still isn't finished yet, more than two months after it was ostensibly complete. Still standing: a pile of rubble that was once the home-plate grandstand, and an elevator tower precariously balanced above it. Apparently the tower is too close to Michigan Avenue for it to be demolished without closing the street, though it's hard to avoid the obvious symbolism that the demolition crews are simply leaving the least-lovable part of the stadium for last.
Meanwhile, the Tiger Stadium flagpole is still standing as well, though no one's saying why. As a memorial to the old ballpark, it'd be better than nothing, but just barely.
Yanks lower playoff ticket prices; also, pigs fly
Is it opposite week at New York Yankees HQ or what? First the team relents and allows fans to bring small bags to the games, now comes word that they're lowering postseason ticket prices from what they'd planning on last year, with tickets for the Division Series largely unchanged from regular-season levels. Either they know something about the recession that we don't, or they're planning to make it back on $12 popcorn buckets. Or maybe they're just hoping to make up the difference in StubHub fees.
UPDATE: New Stadium Insider notes that with the smaller capacity of Fake Yankee Stadium, larger season-ticket base, and required set-asides for MLB and the media, fewer than 5,000 tickets will be available to the general public for the ALDS (and fewer than 1,000 for the World Series). Still, a break to season ticket holders is still a break — and the relative scarcity of generally available tickets only makes it weirder that the Yanks are passing up the chance to ask for the moon.
Oilers exec: Cart ready, who cares about the horse?
Edmonton Oilers president Patrick LaForge showed he knows the ropes of the arena game during a press conference yesterday, saying the team is moving ahead with plans for a $500 million (or maybe $1 billion) downtown arena-and-development project, but has no thoughts of how to pay for it: "I'm not even going there. The idea is to get the design and the development put together, understand what is on the table, how much it costs and where it's going to be. ... Through the process we'll be understanding what partnerships look like on the arena."
The Oilers need a new arena because their at current home, Rexall Place, they've sold out 155 straight games and have a 2,000-person waiting list for tickets. No, wait, that's not right. They need a new arena because the old one has too many unpleasant memories of Nickelback?
