December 30, 2010
Can't tell the rejected Tiger-Cats stadium sites without a scorecard
The Hamilton Tiger-Cats owners barely had time to leak the news yesterday that they were considering building a stadium in the neighboring city of Burlington before Burlington elected officials said they hated the idea. With the city already busy paying off a new performing arts center and other improvements, and property taxes already on the rise, several city councillors said they'd be wary of committing to a football stadium as well.
Or, as councillor Jack Dennison memorably put it:
"Our mouths are full. Our constituents agree our mouths are full and we have to stop chewing before we go and stick any more in our mouth."
Still, Burlington Mayor Rick Goldring is expected to commission a report on the possibility of building a Tiger-Cats stadium in Burlington, for which a total price tag remains unknown. And if nothing else, it could be scaring some Hamilton pols into reconsidering their rejection of stadium sites in their city: At least one of the nine councillors who opposed the Confederation Park site, says he could change his vote at the next council hearing on January 12. Stadium deals are never over till they're over...
December 29, 2010
K.C. Business Journal parrots debunked NFL economic impact numbers
It's sports playoff season, which means it's time for another round of stories claiming huge economic windfalls from postseason games. Today's contestant is the Kansas City Business Journal's Krista Klaus:
The Kansas City area is poised to reap a significant economic benefit from the coming Chiefs playoff game in January, the first hosted at Arrowhead in six years.
Estimates of how much money might be poured into the local economy range from $6 million to $20 million.
A study commissioned by the NFL and conducted by Washington-based Edgeworth Economics placed the average economic effect of NFL teams on local communities at $160 million, or $20 million a game for an eight home-game season.
Another study conducted by the University of Minnesota put the economic effect of a single NFL game at closer to $6 million.
A summary of the U of M study is here, and makes clear that the authors merely took the total number of people who came from out of town for a Vikings game (in this case, a playoff game against Dallas last January), multiplied it by the average spending, and came up with a figure of $9 million. There's no adjustment for the substitution effect, however: How many of those people would have gone into Minneapolis to spend their money some other way if they hadn't been blowing it on the Vikings? And did any of those Vikings fans displace other spending — say, people who chose to stay home that day because they didn't want to fight the football crowds on the highways and in the downtown restaurants?
As for the Edgeworth study (which was actually done for the NFL players union, not the NFL), I haven't been able to find the complete study, but the talking points make it clear that the numbers aren't to be taken seriously:
The studies used in this assessment were commissioned to justify a start, increase, or continuation of public funding for NFL stadiums and/or to retain or draw a team to a city. As such, the numbers are based on the League's and facilities' own projections of the economic activity associated with NFL games.
But don't just take my word for it: Read what sports economists told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the study last month. Which Krista Klaus could have found out about as easily as me, if she'd bothered to type "Edgeworth" and "NFL" into Google. Guess she was too busy feeding the hamster wheel.
Steelers explore stadium expansion, say they'd need more parking
The Pittsburgh Steelers, unhappy with the 65,000-seat capacity at nine-year-old Heinz Field, are looking into adding several thousand seats. The good news is that the Steelers are willing to pay for it:
The Steelers lease of the stadium, owned by the joint city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority, contemplates additions. This one would be privately funded, though some revenue from a surcharge on tickets could conceivably be used.
The bad news: Team owner Art Rooney notes, "If we're going to have that many more seats, there's obviously got to be somewhere for them to park," and there currently aren't enough parking spaces to go around near the stadium. It's unclear at the moment whether the city is going to be asked to chip in for more parking to go along with the privately funded stadium expansion, but it's definitely worth watching.
December 27, 2010
Vikings say they're not moving to college stadium for next non-season
ESPN's Chris Mortensen, citing "sources," reported this morning that "the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission is assessing the viability of playing the 2011 season outdoors at TCF Bank Stadium at the University of Minnesota." (Presumably Mortensen meant the Minnesota Vikings playing there, as nobody would pay to watch the sports commission play anything.) Vikings owner Zygi Wilf will supposedly make a final determination of where to play the 2011 season in February.
Sports commission officials immediately denied the report. And ESPN's Kevin Seifert points out that TCF Bank Stadium would require major upgrades, and the university might not agree to the deal in any case, especially given that the stadium currently doesn't sell alcohol.
The biggest reason for skepticism, of course, is that there probably isn't going to be a 2011 NFL season. On the bright side, that might make the University of Minnesota more amenable to being the Vikings' landlords for the year.
Do the Rays "need" a new stadium?
NESN.com's Tony Lee, who is apparently at loose ends with all that snow blowing around outside, has taken on the task of deciding which MLB team is most in need of a new stadium, and declared it to be the Tampa Bay Rays. His reasoning? "The Trop plays home to a dynamic squad loaded with exciting players and personality, yet rarely draws many fans, except when the Yankees and Red Sox roll into town."
ESPN's Rob Neyer retorts that given the Rays have won the fourth-most games in baseball over the past three years, that's a funny definition of "need." And as noted here previously, the low attendance might have something to do with the horrible Florida Gulf Coast economy, coupled with skyrocketing ticket prices.
Mostly, though, Lee conflates economic "need" with other needs — say, what fans want — which ducks the question of whether what the Rays need is a new stadium, or for somebody to deliver them enough cash to buy a new stadium. The Rays would undoubtedly make more money in a new building if someone else built it, but that's slightly different from needing a new building. Or a new elephant.
And as for what Rays fans want, they're split on where a new stadium should go, but unified in not wanting it to involve their tax money. Which is about par for the course in these matters, at least until the campaign spending begins.
Stadium news from around the snowy globe
Slowly getting back up to speed here — it still looks like this outside. Let's start with a quick news roundup:
- Quebec Mayor Regis Labeaume has set a December 31 deadline for getting funding in place for a new NHL arena, but that surely ain't happening, especially not with Prime Minister Stephen Harper having pretty much ruled out using federal cash for sports facilities. Labeaume said earlier this month that he had a "Plan B" for arena financing, but according to a federal government negotiator, "right now we have nothing on the table."
- The 49ers signed a lease extension committing them to play in whatever the hell Candlestick Park is called these days through the year 2014. This isn't really much of a surprise given that team officials had already pretty much said a new stadium in Santa Clara couldn't open until 2015 at the soonest. But it is a reminder that leases are made to be extended.
- It looks like that plan for San Diego to build a new Chargers stadium with TIF district dollars isn't likely to happen, now that everyone involved has noticed that there isn't enough redevelopment district money left to build both a stadium and other planned projects. TIF money could still be a piece of the puzzle, of course, but somebody's going to need to find some more cash before any San Diego stadium deal can proceed.
December 23, 2010
Hamilton council rejects both Tiger-Cats stadium sites
The Hamitlon Tiger-Cats stadium plan just gets deader and deader: The Hamilton city council met yesterday, and not only rejected the overly pricey Canadian Pacific Railway site, but also the Confederation Park site that was supposed to be the cheaper alternative:
Council shot down a motion from Mayor Bob Bratina to investigate the location at an emergency meeting Wednesday morning. He proposed that staff bring a 'preliminary progress report' back to council by Jan. 14.
The majority of council disagreed with the mayor, arguing that Confederation Park was important green space, that the city was tired of the ongoing debate, and that staff don't have enough time to come up with an accurate analysis by mid-January.
"We're asking our staff to do an impossible job in a very short amount of time," said Councillor Terry Whitehead. "Therefore we will be making a decision based on incomplete information."
The odds of getting a stadium approved in time for the Pan Am Games deadline of February 1 just went from slim to virtually none, which would blow an additional $60 million hole in the stadium budget. (Though the Games organizers could conceivably extend the deadline, as they've done before.) As for what happens next, I'd lay my money on more veiled move threats, followed by more mad scrambling to find a suitable site, followed by more mad scrambling to figure out how to pay for the whole thing. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Baltimore soccer stadium study: Do the numbers add up?
A city-commissioned study on the economic impact of building a soccer stadium in Baltimore — presumably for D.C. United — was released yesterday (download it here), and included the following estimated benefits: 780 to 940 jobs created per year, state tax revenues of $3 million to $3.5 million a year, and city tax revenues of $2.3 million to $2.8 million a year. Added Patrick Turner, the developer who wanted to build the thing as part of his Westport megaproject: "It would be great for us and great for the city of Baltimore."
So, would it? Are those numbers realistic, and if so are they a good return on public investment? Let's crunch:
- Following a mind-numbing recitation of the history of MLS attendance and various Baltimore demographics (including, for some reason, a chart of student enrollment at every one of Baltimore's colleges), the study finally gets down to how many events it expects would be attracted to a new stadium: 17 MLS home games, 9 women's pro soccer games, 7 "national/international soccer" games, 4 college soccer games, 6 other sporting events (such as lacrosse), one concert, and 5 "other community events" each year. This seems a bit ambitious — are that many international soccer teams really going to want to play in Baltimore? — but not outrageously so.
- Total attendance at these events is projected at 584,750-695,100, with total direct spending of $40,379,000-$48,155,000. That's almost $70 a person, which is a lot to drop on a soccer game, even counting food, parking, and hotels (assuming anyone is traveling from out of town and staying overnight to see D.C. United). Factor in that this average needs to factor in lacrosse games as well, and you're starting to enter wishful-thinking territory.
- The report says it accounts for both displacement of existing spending and leakage of spending out of the local economy, but doesn't say squat about how these adjustments were calculated, beyond that it's part of the IMPLAN computer model used. That's not exactly reassuring, given that displacement and leakage are extremely locale- and project-specific (you need to know what out-of-town options there are for people to be otherwise spending their money at), and not easily captured in a generic computer model.
- Nobody's saying how much Turner wants in public cash for his plan — he says his goal is to privately finance the stadium, but given that this is a $1.4 billion project overall, there's plenty of other stuff he could be asking for money for. If you buy the estimated increased tax revenues of around $6 million a year, that would probably justify $80-90 million in taxpayer spending — but, of course, if any of the economic impact numbers are off, that would drop proportionately.
- Those 780 to 940 new jobs would justify a much lower public expenditure — more like $40-50 million if you want to stay below the $50,000/job figure above which projects are just embarrassingly wasteful. Though given that, according to the report, that job figure was just cranked out by IMPLAN by applying a multiplier to the economic benefits produced, it's probably not worth taking seriously anyway.
So, the overall takeaway: There's a price point at which helping to subsidizing a new soccer stadium in Baltimore makes sense, and it could be as much as $80 million, but probably a good bit less than that. Also, the clear plastic binder trick for getting your report taken seriously still works.
December 21, 2010
MN gov-elect Dayton: It's Vikings stadium time!
The Minnesota Vikings successfully survived playing outdoors last night — in snow, even — and no one was "catstrophically injured" by falling down on the frozen turf. (They also got creamed, but who's counting?)
The more important game, meanwhile, was being played in Gov.-elect Mark Dayton's office, where he met with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Vikes owners Zygi and Mark Wilf and emerged to declare that he's in favor of building a new stadium, so long as state general fund dollars aren't used to do it. "I really believe 2011 is the final opportunity for all of us to put forward a proposal," Dayton told the Minneapolis Star Tribune."I think the writing's on the wall. We need to get it done in this session."
"No general fund money" is the kind of rhetorical game governors love to play, because it simultaneously 1) makes them seem like protectors of the public purse, 2) doesn't commit them to doing anything, and 3) allows them to spend pretty much whatever they want with tax money, so long as they extract it before it hits the general fund. (The last governor just loved coming up with these.) Veteran stadium journalist Jay Weiner notes at MinnPost.com that Dayton is already thinking of ways to fund a stadium that wouldn't count against his pledge:
The governor-elect told reporters a few others things, some curious:
* "User fees" could be in the mix. That would be, among other things, ticket taxes and taxes on sports memorabilia and, maybe, hotel-motel, car rental "voluntary" taxes. These are revenue streams oft-mentioned in past Minnesota stadium plans.
But, when sharp pencil is put to paper, these slices never seem to add up to a full finance plan. Other forms of publicly generated dollars enter the package.
We await a plan that adds up.
Meanwhile, Sid Hartman, the official newspaper columnist mouthpiece of Minnesota sports owners, reports that before last night's game Zygi Wilf said he doesn't want a domed stadium, not even one with a retractable roof: "Football should be played outdoors, and for the Vikings in the past, the weather has given the Vikings a big advantage." Whether Wilf would really turn up his nose at a dome, or was just reiterating that he doesn't want to have to be the one to pay for it, Hartman didn't immediately make clear.
Harper: No Canadian funds for arenas unless Olympics involved
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper continued his backpedaling from federal funding of sports facilities yesterday, telling the QMI news service that he doesn't intend to put public money into a new Quebec hockey arena. "Historically, any federal involvement in this type of project is minimal, modest," said Harper. "If we were to change that it would create a demand in every big city across the country." Yes, so you've said.
Harper did leave one loophole, however: He would consider arena funding if it were part of an Olympic bid. So now all Quebec has to do is win a Winter Olympics bid and ... oh, dear.
Tiger-Cats stadium site too pricey, says Hamilton mayor
So much for the power of excitement. Newly elected Hamilton mayor Bob Bratina revealed yesterday that the plot of land identified as the best compromise location for a Hamilton Tiger-Cats stadium would cost $70-90 million, adding: "I've called a special council meeting [for Wednesday] and we will determine whether there is any point in continuing to pursue that particular site and my guess would be, in view of the high cost, no."
Bratina had previously estimated the stadium funding gap, which includes at least $30 million in actual construction costs to be paid for by Not Me, at $53 million; the new land price tag would push that figure to at least $100 million. None of this should be any surprise — city councillors were already skeptical that the plan was affordable — but it certainly throws a wrench into getting a new stadium approved by the Pan Am Games' February deadline.
Bratina indicated that he'll now look to build a stadium in Confederation Park, a public park on the shore of Lake Ontario. Pros: The city already owns it. Cons: It's already in use, as a public park. Haven't we been through this before?
December 20, 2010
Ratner's green card funding scheme explained (in brief, and in briefer)
If you were wondering what was up with that plan to trade green cards for Atlantic Yards arena development loans, Atlantic Yards Report just finished a 16-part series (no, seriously) on all the ins and outs of the proposed deal. And if you can't be bothered to read a 16-part series, AYR today sums it all up in a 2,400-word FAQ.
And if you can't even be bothered with a FAQ, there's my still-shorter "We read Atlantic Yards Report so you don't have to" summary for the Village Voice news blog.
And if even clicking through to one other article is too much to bear, here's the Twitter-friendly version: Ratner's green-card fundraising scheme could screw immigrants, delay promised housing.
Tune in next week, when I communicate complex economic development policies entirely via grunts and hand gestures.
December 16, 2010
MN state senator pitches Vikings stadium deal just like the last one
And in other "Quick, let's use all this Metrodome roof brouhaha to get in the paper!" news:
Sen. Julie Rosen, a Republican from Fairmont, said she planned to introduce a bill in late January to build a new Vikings stadium with public subsidies.
Rosen, a vocal advocate for a new stadium, said on Wednesday that the proposal "might be very similar" to a plan that stalled in the Legislature last spring. That proposal, which was criticized at the time for being hastily assembled, relied in part on diverting sales tax money now being used for the Minneapolis Convention Center once the convention center's debt was repaid.
Umm, yeah. The proposal from last spring wasn't actually criticized for being "hastily assembled" so much as for being something that everybody hated, and didn't raise enough money for a new stadium anyway. Though the Minnesota state legislature has gone all-Republican this election (they finally finished counting the votes), it doesn't seem likely that the city of Minneapolis is suddenly going to get all excited about dedicating its convention center tax streams to the cause. But, hey, you've gotta start somewhere, especially when you're trying to get a stadium through a legislature that's already facing a $6 billion budget hole.
Meanwhile, as for that Metrodome roof, it's now on hold over safety concerns after a fourth roof panel fell down last night. And the Vikings' planned home for next Monday's game, the University of Minnesota's TCF Bank Stadium, doesn't have field warmers to melt snow. Or beer taps to sell beer. And now the opposing Chicago Bears might file a protest over concerns that, according to Bears safety Chris Harris' Tweet: "Players have concerns of traction n the impact of falling on surface that could be as hard as asphalt. What if ur head hits it." What, indeed?
AEG pitches $1.35B stadium project for L.A.
Last week, AEG exec Tim Leiweke announced that he'd be pushing to get a new NFL stadium approved for downtown Los Angeles in the next two to three months; yesterday, no doubt mindful of all the speculation around the Minnesota Vikings, Leiweke got the campaign rolling in earnest, releasing renderings of three proposed designs for his proposed stadium.
The L.A. Times architecture critic slagged them all as "inoffensive corporate architecture," but the more interesting bit is the price tag that they come with:
The 1.7-million square foot stadium will cost $1 billion, officials said, with the cost of replacing the West Hall running another $350 million. ...
But stadium industry insiders involved in the recent development and construction of NFL facilities said the cost of a retractable roof stadium in downtown Los Angeles would run hundreds of millions above AEG's projected $1 billion budget.
One industry source told the Register that the cost of the stadium's roof would add between $150 million and $200 million to the price.
However you slice it, that's a hefty chunk of change, and one that AEG is going to be hard pressed to pay off with team revenues, even on the off chance that they can find a corporation that doesn't realize that the naming-rights bubble has popped. (Yes, the New Meadowlands Stadium seems to be making it work, but not only did it get free land and tax breaks, it has two teams' worth of revenues.) It'll be interesting, to say the least, to see what kind of financing plan AEG presents to the L.A. city council in coming weeks.
December 15, 2010
Glendale votes to give $197m to rich guy, so he can buy Coyotes for $170m
The Glendale city council last night approved a new lease agreement with the Phoenix Coyotes that opens the way for a sale of the bankrupt franchise, promises to keep it in town long-term, and in its insane complexity reminds me why I hate writing about the Phoenix Coyotes lease. Once more, into the breach:
- Under the deal, Glendale will issue $100 million in bonds, then immediately hand over the cash to Matthew Hulsizer, a Chicago hedge fund manager. The city would also pay $97 million to the team over the next five years for the grueling task of operating the arena during concerts and other non-hockey events.
- Hulsizer will turn around and hand most of his newfound lucre to the NHL, paying $170 million for the Coyotes franchise, which has been in league hands since last year.
- Glendale will gain control of 5,500 parking spaces in lots surrounding the Coyotes arena, and will attempt to earn some of its money back by charging between $5 and $20 for parking, as well as by, insists the Arizona Republic with a straight face, "selling advertising and naming rights on the lots."
While the lease requires Hulsizer to keep the Coyotes in Glendale for the next 23 years (and "work to rename" them the Arizona Coyotes; what, he has to lobby the Swedish Naming Bureau for approval?), he also gets an out clause that would let him terminate the lease if the city (in the Republic's words) "failed to meet its financial obligations to the team or faced a lawsuit that invalidated part or all of the deal." Then Hulsizer gets to keep the team and the $197 million in cash, and go wherever he likes with them.
Given that the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute is already threatening to sue to block the deal, this is a not inconsiderable risk. And, of course, Glendale is out $197 million either way. Jerry Reinsdorf is starting to look not so bad in retrospect...
Winnipeg approves $190m Blue Bombers stadium
The Winnipeg Blue Bombers are getting their new stadium after all, after the Winnipeg city council voted this afternoon to approve the revised deal put forward last week. As the CBC reports, in a story whose lede is alarmingly blunt for those weaned on U.S-style news coverage:
Winnipeg city councillors have voted to spend $12.5 million and forfeit years of property-tax revenue from a prime piece of retail land to build a $190 million football stadium on the University of Manitoba campus. ...
The government of Manitoba is putting up the bulk of the capital for the stadium, $85 million of which will be in the form of a loan to the Winnipeg Football Club, which is the managing entity of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. The club will have 44 years to repay the money.
When the current stadium site at Polo Park is ultimately redeveloped, money that is collected by the city in property taxes — about $75 million — will be repaid to the province.
In other words, the public is taking on a fair bit of risk, not to mention that those property taxes won't be available to pay for services to whatever ends up getting built on the current stadium site. (Winnipeg Free Press columnist Dan Lett notes that the Bombers will have to generate $4 million a year in new revenues to pay their share of the costs, which is no slam dunk in the CFL. And yes, I know that they don't have slam dunks in the CFL.) Still, it's arguably better than the original plan in which the province would either end up losing money or losing ownership of its team. So, one point for Manitoba!
Vikings announce move (across town, for one game)
With next Monday's Minnesota Vikings game definitely moved to the University of Minnesota's stadium (and the call out for volunteer snow shovelers to make the place playable), the speculation about what the Metrodome roof deflation means for the Vikings' stadium plans has begun to die down a little. Not a lot. But a little.
The Nation's Dave Zirin has a good rundown of some of the latest scare stories, including Forbes' Kurt Badenhausen writing, "If [Vikings owner Zygi] Wilf can't get public funding for a new stadium after Sunday's collapse, Minneapolis can kiss the NFL goodbye" and a Minneapolis Star Tribune online poll that found 66% of respondents agreed with the statement: "Yes, this is more proof that the Dome is a lousy facility. Case closed." (Excellent fine print below the poll results: "Instant polls are intended as entertainment. They are not considered to be true measurements of public opinion.") Then there's Sports Illustrated writer Steve Rushin, who's writing the dome's eulogy now to beat the Christmas rush.
The Star Tribune previously reported that the roof was in okay shape according to an inspection earlier this year, though it was recommended that it be replaced in the next five years. Estimated cost: $12-15 million. Estimated cost of a new stadium: $791 million. Journalists willing to make your team's case for a new stadium for you: Priceless.
December 13, 2010
Metrodome roof collapse: The Monday morning quarterbacking
As expected, yesterday's blizzard-related deflation of the Metrodome roof has unleashed a flood of predictions that the Vikings will now either get a new stadium or move out of Minnesota entirely:
- It only took a matter of hours before Fanhouse declared the Vikings dead in Minnesota, calling it "an awful, and potentially tragic, reason for seeing the Vikings go after 50 years." Writes columnist David Steele: "The building named for political icon Hubert H. Humphrey has been called a lot of things during its 28-year-long life. But the one thing everybody agrees it can be called today is 'unsafe.'"
- SFGate says the roof collapse makes it "even more obvious that the Vikings need a new stadium," calling the Metrodome "a pretty bland place."
- The Associated Press writes that "the Minnesota Vikings' long push for a new stadium has been stuck in neutral for more than a decade, but scary images of the Metrodome's wrecked roof might accelerate the process." The AP cites Minnesota stadium commission chief Roy Terwilliger as saying that "obviously it can't help but call attention to the fact that the facility is 28 years old," while New York Giants owner John Mara chimes in that it "bolsters their argument why they need a new stadium. For this to happen nowadays is pretty incredible."
Okay, not all that incredible, really, given that the Metrodome roof has deflated three times previously, as did the BC Place roof in Vancouver a few years back. It's the disadvantage of an inflatable roof, the advantage being that it's way cheaper to build — not to mention way cheaper to fix when it breaks. (Metrodome staffers say they hope the roof can be repaired in time for next Monday night's Vikings game.) And MinnPost.com notes that there are lots of stadiums more than 28 years old, and "last time I checked, the Red Sox weren't threatening to move to the City of Industry." (MinnPost also gets in a dig at the Vikings' owner, accompanying its link to helicopter footage of the accident with "If you look closely, I believe you can see Zygi Wilf with a box cutter rappelling down the north side.")
Probably the most sensible, if not exactly coherent, reaction came from former state senate majority leader Dean Johnson, who told the St. Paul Pioneer Press:
"I think it gives pause to look at the situation," Johnson said. "Most of the legislators who are there [now] were not there 28 years ago [when the Metrodome was built]. Anything that is 28 years old begins to have some maintenance issues." ...
"Having said that, there is no legislator in his or her right mind that's going to propose a new stadium from general fund money."
The bottom line, Johnson said, "is that it does provide an eye opener for a stadium that's close to 30 years old and a roof that is in need of repair today. It's a Monday-morning, coffee-cup, water-cooler discussion point that legislators will say, 'Oh, here's another thing on our agenda.'"
In other words: The Vikings don't need a stadium today any more than they did on Saturday, and the Minnesota legislature isn't any more eager to throw money at the team. But if you want to get people's attention, having a stadium with a giant hole in the roof, no matter how fixable, is an excellent starting point.
December 12, 2010
In case you missed it, the roof of the Metrodome collapsed last night, under the weight of more than a foot of snow. Stadium workers usually wash snow off the roof with hot water during storms, but were forced to stop the process yesterday due to high winds.
This isn't actually as serious as it might sound: The roof is an air-inflated Teflon bubble, and has actually deflated on three other occasions and been quickly repaired. "Quickly" might not be enough to save tomorrow night's Vikings game, though, which was already rescheduled from today thanks to the heavy snow. The NFL says it will make a decision on where to play the game "ASAP."
Meanwhile, one can only guess how this will play into the Vikings' new-stadium push. The Minneapolis Star Tribune notes: "Vikings officials, who have long made it known they desire a new stadium and have been attempting to get one, declined to make any statements, referring questions to the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission."
December 10, 2010
No real news on Vikings, Raiders, L.A. stadiums; Blue Bombers, maybe a little
At the end of a busy week, you don't mind if I jam together items about four different football teams in two different leagues into one post, do you? Surely you don't, so let's get on with it:
- Now Tim Leiweke of AEG says he's not going to wait until after the lockout to start on an L.A. stadium, promising: "I spend most of every waking hour on the NFL. I'm going to tell you this; we're going to give this our best shot in the next two to three months." Apparently this solely refers to an "agreement with the city and the NFL," but not actual stadium designs, or funding plans. Which leaves... the shape of the negotiating table?
- Amy Trask, who's in charge of getting a new stadium for the Oakland Raiders, says, "There will be a new stadium for the Raiders, it's on the horizon and it's very exciting." (What else is she going to say?) She also says she's "tenacious," "tough," "my hope is that I'm fair," and "it's not my job to be lovable." She left out "vague," but that's kind of in the job description.
- The price of the new Winnipeg Blue Bombers stadium has now risen from $160 million to $190 million. The team would now be responsible for putting in $70 million of the cost, which would cut into the new revenues that were supposed to be the point of building this thing, but them's the breaks. (It's also notable that now that the team will continue to be owned by a community non-profit instead of a for-profit developer, it's considered okay to ask for a bigger team contribution.) A final plan is expected next week.
- The Washington Post considers the likelihood of the Vikings moving out of Minnesota, and concludes: We dunno.
And there we go. Now, if FoS readers can help out by devoting the comments section to discussion of World Cup soccer as usual, we'll have a perfect hash of an item. Have a great weekend!
December 08, 2010
Chargers not moving to L.A. non-stadium for next non-season
The San Diego Chargers have informed Mayor Jerry Sanders that they won't be opting out of their lease for the 2011 season, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. Why should this not even be news? Let us count the ways:
- Nobody could build a new stadium in time for the 2011 season, and the only reason the Chargers would move would be to occupy a new stadium, so what would be the point?
- There probably isn't going to be a 2011 season anyway, thanks to the looming lockout.
- As previously reported, nobody's moving forward with new stadiums until after the lockout, because the league's financial structure could dramatically change depending on how the labor situation is resolved.
So, there's your non-story. But it does allow Chargers officials to deny they're making a move threat while also getting them a scare headline like "Chargers commit to S.D. for 2011, but not beyond" — a win-win!
In the wake of last week's quickly denied rumor that the Edmonton Oilers were looking into moving to Quebec City, it's been open season on Oilers rumors, with everybody and their sister proposing increasingly wacky ideas for how to get the team the new arena that it insists it needs. Over the past few days:
- Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel is still talking about a ticket tax combined with a Community Revitalization Levy, the latter of which is Canadian for a TIF. City officials say a ticket tax could bring in $10 million a year, and a CRL about $8 million a year — with the caveat that since a CRL is based on rising property tax receipts, there's no guarantee that that money would actually materialize. Or as the Edmonton Journal's David Staples puts it: "Whether the levy will work or not is crystal ball stuff." (The city's full report can be downloaded here.)
- Edmonton city officials said it doesn't look likely that a new arena could be open by 2014, but said they'd be happy to extend the Oilers' current lease at Rexall Place by a year; Oilers execs refused to say whether they'd consider this, because what would that get them in terms of leverage?
- Sports agent Rich Winter proposed what he's calling a "sports mortgage," pre-selling seats for the next 40-50 years and using the cash to pay for a new arena. (If you're wondering, this is different from the more conventional personal seat license in that once you've bought a PSL, you still have to pay for your individual game tickets; here, tickets would come with the package.) Some Edmonton city councillors seemed interested, but Oilers exec Bob Black rejected the idea, saying "any model which mortgages the future sustainability of the Oilers by using what would otherwise be ongoing revenues from ticket sales to pay for the construction of the arena" is unacceptable. (Translation: We don't want to just borrow money from our fans, we want somebody else altogether to pay for our arena.)
Odds on any of this actually going anywhere anytime soon: not so hot. But it's a good way to fill what space is left in the daily papers.
Rays hike some ticket prices 65%
Next time you hear the Tampa Bay Rays complaining about lousy attendance — and you know they will — keep in mind that the Rays just raised prices on 38% of their seats, including one section by a whopping 65%. Complains one original season ticket holder:
"They complain that nobody comes. Then they take an entire section and tick us off," [Sharon] Greene said. "I understand prices going up (but) I don't really understand prices going up when the economy is so bad."
Now, it's only one season ticket holder complaining, which makes for a pretty weak trend piece, and I'm sure Rays execs have been perusing StubHub for a sense of what the market will bear like other teams have. (And, it's worth noting, some Tampa Bay tickets will go down in price this year.) Still, Greene has a point: The Florida economy in particular remains dismal, we're rapidly heading toward deflation, and the Rays' "successful" 2010 season notwithstanding, they're going to need to sell tickets next year for a team with no Carl Crawford or Carlos Pena. With that in mind, they might want to pay attention to Greene's closing comment when asked if she'd consider cheaper seats elsewhere:
"My other seats are right here on the couch."
December 06, 2010
Houston Dynamo stadium approved — no, really this time
It seems like we've been waiting for this forever, but it's finally happened: The Houston Dynamo have signed a lease for a new stadium to be built for the 2012 season.
The funding breakdown: The Dynamo will pay for $76 million in construction costs, while the city and county will share $15 million in land costs, plus $20 million in infrastructure improvements. The city and county will jointly own the 21,000-seat stadium — presumably so that the Dynamo don't have to pay property taxes — and charge the Dynamo $65,000 a year in rent.
I haven't been able to find the full lease details — who gets things like naming rights money, for example? — but on the face of it, this doesn't look like too much of a public giveaway, unless property tax exemptions in Houston are worth more than I'm guessing. Though it's about par for the course for MLS stadiums, where the team has typically paid for construction while the public pays for land — which is probably a function of the fact that MLS still doesn't have the leverage in most markets to extort more sweetheart deals. Soccer's great and all, but no mayors lie awake at night in fear of being accused of losing the city's soccer team...
Vikings stadium site search includes ammo plant
The rebooted Minnesota Vikings stadium campaign may not have a funding plan, but it is narrowing in on sites: three in Minneapolis, according to team execs, and one in the suburbs. And that one in the burbs is a doozy: a former army munitions site in Arden Hills that would bring together three counties to help finance the project.
That could be tricky, however. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that representatives of the three counties "haven't met for two months as they struggle to come up with a financing plan and wait as Minnesota's new political landscape is mapped and the governor's race is settled." And none of the three counties sound like they want to go first in terms of committing money to the project: Washington County Commissioner Dennis Hegberg said, "We're not all that anxious to throw in sales-tax dollars," and suggested that a stadium could get funding from the entire metro area, which is pretty unlikely given that it'd mean Minneapolis officials approving tax money to help the Vikings move out of town.
Oh, and did I mention that this is also a Superfund site?
December 02, 2010
Oakland pushes A's stadium, while San Jose stands and waits
The San Jose A's stadium project missed its deadline yesterday to get on the March election ballot, meaning it will have to be ... on the ballot in April. Or May or June. Really, they can hold a vote whenever they want, and Mayor Chuck Reed seems to have got the message that he's not to schedule a vote until that MLB relocation commission finishes its work, which will surely be any day now.
In the meantime, Oakland is moving ahead with its own plans for a stadium near Jack London Square, holding a planning hearing on Tuesday that, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, was "packed" with about 200 "fervid A's fans" backing the project. Now if only each of those fans came with $2.5 million in cash in their pockets, the whole thing would be settled.
Oilers execs meet with Quebec officials, swear they're just friends
Apparently it's actually "Allude to Move Threats, Then Deny Them" week: The Toronto Sun reported yesterday that Edmonton Oilers execs were meeting with officials in Quebec City about their new arena plans, quoting Oilers president Kevin Lowe as saying: "Just the fact that we're meeting Mayor Labeaume to discuss possibilities, the sky is the limit. Exchanging ideas is the main goal of the meeting."
Both Oilers president Patrick LaForge and team VP Bob Black immediately denied that the team was exploring a move to Quebec. Black said it was just "a fact finding mission" to "learn from the Quebec City experience and bring back insights that will help move the process forward here in Edmonton. Added LaForge: "We're both building facilities and we're both trying to get them off the ground and we have a hockey team and perhaps they don't here, but there is no reason for that to be drawn together....and we are not planning to move the Oilers at this time."
That mostly put an end to the move speculation, though as Edmonton Journal sportswriter (and Edmonton arena project supporter) David Staples noted of LaForge's statement, "Carefully worded, but I can't say I appreciate the 'at this time' part of the quote." Though, of course, that could be careful wording as well. A savvy negotiator creates leverage.
December 01, 2010
Bengals, Reds, agree to trade $10m in rent for naming rights and ticket taxes
Stop the presses! Hamilton County has actually gotten the Cincinnati Bengals and Reds to agree to kick in some money to help fill the county stadium fund's $130 million gap:
The Bengals agree to pay additional rent of $8.1 million and to pay for a new field if needed within five years. In return, the team gets a $750,000 credit from the county, and the county gives up long-term naming rights.
The Reds will pay additional rent of $2.2 million and, in return, will get more from the county surtax of 25 cents per ticket once 2 million tickets are sold.
Okay, so it's not exactly a lot of money. And if the Reds do well and sell more tickets, or the value of the Bengals stadium naming rights soars, then the county could actually be worse off under the new deal. And the county will still need to eliminate three-quarters of the countywide property-tax reduction that it handed out in 1996, in exchange for voters approving the sales tax hike that funded the teams' new stadiums. Still, it's a concession by the teams. Kinda. Sorta. Yay?
Chargers deny that AEG is buying piece of team
What, is this "Take Your Football Team to L.A. Week"? Barely had Minnesota Vikings exec Lester Bagley finished saying that his team had had contact with Los Angeles football interests than a report popped up (from Canadian sports radio host Bob McCown) of would-be L.A. stadium-builder (and AEG honcho) Philip Anschutz buying 35% of the San Diego Chargers with the intent of moving them up the coast.
Chargers stadium czar Mark Fabiani immediately denied the rumor, writing in an email, "There is no truth to the rumor out of Toronto that the Chargers have agreed to sell a portion of the team to Mr. Anschutz."
Fabiani also said he knew nothing about Magic Johnson's involvement in a potential Anschutz bid for an NFL team, something that Johnson announced last night "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"
Vikings exec: We've been "approached" by L.A.
When the Minnesota Vikings' stadium campaign fizzled in the state legislature in May, team execs promised that they'd be back for another round in 2011. In a live web chat yesterday, Vikes stadium czar Lester Bagley made good on that promise in spades, kicking off the stadium campaign season a month early by dropping a mention of everybody's favorite stadium bogeyman, Los Angeles:
"We have been approached by two different groups in Los Angeles - the Ed Roski group and more recently by former Timberwolves CEO Tim Leiweke and AEG," Bagley wrote in response to a question. "In 2009 when the NFL had an owners' meeting in southern California, Mr. Wilf and Vikings management toured LA Live to try to get ideas on building a similar sports/entertainment district in Minnesota.
"Clearly, the Vikings stadium issue is being followed nationally and it's no secret that we're down to the last year on our lease. We've told those groups that we are focused on resolving the issue in Minnesota. We feel solid momentum and feel we're well-positioned with the new legislature and governor. Instead of spending energy speculating on other markets, let's keep the focus on building a world-class facility for the community and the State of Minnesota."
(Note the bit about not "spending energy speculating on other markets" while simultaneously mentioning the interest from L.A. and the expiring lease. Nice paralipsis, Lester!)
As for how the team would pay for a new stadium, Bagley didn't provide any details. The Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal reports that "lottery games, a surcharge on NFL merchandise and various hospitality-related taxes" are all options, but none of those are likely to generate enough revenue; a "racino" (slot machines at race tracks) would do it, but we've been down that road before. Bagley added that the team is "doing due diligence" on four sites, three of them in Minneapolis, and expects to present a site and funding plan to lawmakers by the end of January.
Bagley's statements seem designed to stir up anxiety among local fans and legislators, and they certainly have accomplished that already with the media: NBC Sports closed its article by asserting, "Either way, something needs to happen soon. The Vikings' lease at the Metrodome expires after the 2011 season." (Never mind that an L.A. stadium couldn't be ready by 2012 any more than a Minnesota one.) For Bagley and friends, no doubt the urgency is also over the looming NFL lockout — currently set to begin in March — which will make it all but impossible to go and ask for public stadium funding until the players are back on the field. A clock is ticking, but it's not the one the Vikings want you to think about.
