June 07, 2010
Times blames Mets' ticket sales on road losses
Not to keep picking on the New York Times' Ken Belson, but it's just so easy, especially when he writes stuff like this:
Every time the Mets compile an impressive homestand, they undo the good feeling with an atrocious road trip. And because many fans consider the team's most recent performance when deciding whether to attend a home game, the Mets' buzz-killing road losses (including the game-winning grand slam that sunk the Mets on Wednesday in San Diego) have taken their toll. ... It seems the team's contrasting home and road records are making it harder for fans to justify running out to Citi Field.
The notion that fans are staying away from Mets games, not because the team was terrible last year or ticket prices are too high or the stadium honeymoon has worn off, but because they win too many games at home might seem too plainly demented to debunk ... but I've done so anyway for the Village Voice. The short version: All teams coming off of lousy years draw lousy, and the Mets' attendance was artificially inflated last year already with curiosity-seekers looking to check out their new digs. But why settle for facts when you can instead choose the contrarian wisdom that Mets fans are being driven away by the bad taste of giving up 18 runs in a road game that ended at 1:20 pm local time?
June 04, 2010
Internets Celebrities debut "Stadium Status"
The fine folks at Internets Celebrities have released their latest video, titled "Stadium Status," and I can say without hesitation that it's the finest (and funniest) web video ever made on the subject of stadium scams.
Featured are myself (in the role of talking-head stadium expert) and Killian Jordan (as the angry Bronx resident), plus IC hosts Rafi Kam and Dallas Penn providing an 18-minute tour of the machinations behind the new Yankees and Mets stadiums and Nets arena. Find out why the the New York Times called them a cross between Michael Moore and Dave Chappelle! (Not that Moore has been funny in years. Or Chappelle, for that matter. Hey, wait, was the Times actually dissing them?)
Seriously, it's a great video, and you couldn't ask for a better primer on the ill effects of new stadiums on both our cities and sports fandom. At least, not until I finally get permission to upload video of the Shoddy Puppet Company's shadow puppet play based on Field of Schemes. It's hard to beat shadow puppets.
May 14, 2010
Mets' league-leading attendance drop: Sign bloom is off stadium rose?
The New York Mets have seen the largest drop in attendance from last year of any MLB team, and somebody thinks they've spotted a trend:
"The problem is last year the tickets were really expensive and the team stunk and that can really stick with fans for a while," said Jon Greenberg, the executive editor of Team Marketing Report, an industry publication.
In the mid-1990s, Greenberg said, teams could count on new stadiums to help them boost ticket sales for several years, but that trend has ended.
"Stadium fatigue sets in much faster than it did before," Greenberg said, noting that new stadiums built in Baltimore and Cleveland in the early 1990s led to long periods of increased attendance for both franchises. "When Camden Yards and Jacobs Field were built, they were a big deal and were a complete change. The novelty has worn off."
That last note about stadium fatigue isn't entirely untrue, but it's also worth noting that the Orioles and Indians both got really good on the field around the same time they opened their new stadiums, which is the main reason their attendance honeymoons were so long. Cellar-dwelling teams have not been so lucky: The Pittsburgh Pirates jumped 41% in attendance the year they opened PNC Park, then fell 28% the next year after losing 100 games in 2001; the Cincinnati Reds had a similar but less-dramatic drop two years later.
Some of this is no doubt stadium fatigue &mdash Camden Yards could have drawn fans in the early '90s even if the Orioles had been playing like, well, the Orioles — but mostly it's just an expression of the same principle at work as always: If your team is winning, you can stretch a honeymoon out for a few years; if not, it'll likely fizzle in two to three. Every stadium draws curiosity-seekers its first season, and every stadium is pretty much back to baseline attendance levels ten years down the road. Florida Marlins, you have been warned.
May 12, 2010
Mets "talking" with Islanders, MLS about Queens move
More rumors of rumors, but: New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon tells Newsday (via its new sister publication Gothamist, since Newsday has hidden all its articles behind a $5/week paywall) that he's "had conversations with Islanders owner Charles [Wang] and we've talked about Queens," and that he's also talked to MLS commissioner Don Garber about a soccer stadium, though "we probably can't do both."
Any hockey or soccer venue would presumably be built in the Citi Field parking lot, though Willets Point is always a possibility as well if New York City follows through with its redevelopment plans. The bigger question — who would pay for it — Wilpon and Newsday left undiscussed.
If nothing else, anyway, this gives Wang some added leverage on his move threats to kick Nassau County into approving his plans there. And who knows, maybe Wilpon is just doing his fellow owner a favor by tossing out some red meat to the tabloids — though right now it's not like his team doesn't have its own ways to get itself into the paper.
January 05, 2010
More dubious firms got Citi Field contracts
Because everyone is emailing me about it: The New York Post ran an "exclusive" report yesterday that the Mets used contractors with suspected mob ties in the construction of Citi Field:
The Mets shelled out $51.6 million in taxpayer money to contractors shunned by the city for their ties to the Mafia, labor corruption or bribery, The Post has learned.
At least seven contractors the city avoids were hired by the team to build Citi Field between 2006 and 2009, according to government records.
The tainted companies were paid from a $91 million pot the city Economic Development Corp. gave to the Mets.
This is big news — or at least, it was back in April, when the New York Times first reported it. The Post did uncover some additional names of questionable companies that worked on Citi Field, though these were because of bribery allegations and other unethical practices, not specifically mob ties. But then, the Post has a notoriously hazy notion of what constitutes an "exclusive."
November 23, 2009
Mets add Mets content to Citi Field
The New York Mets sent out a press release over the weekend announcing that they're naming Citi Field's VIP entrances after former Mets greats, renaming the stadium's outfield footbridge "Shea Bridge," and otherwise adding more Mets-specific stuff (orange-and-blue flowers in planters!). This should please Mets fans who'd griped that the new stadium seemed to have more homages to the Brooklyn Dodgers than to the pre-2009 Mets, though as the blog Loge 13 wonders: "This is all great news but it is stunning that everyone else but the Mets realized this was a good idea long before Citi Field ever got built." One possibility: Mets execs may not have wanted to rename entrances for the likes of Casey Stengel and Gil Hodges before they'd seen if they could sell off naming rights to corporate sponsors first.
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...
July 27, 2009
Yankee Stadium slam book, mid-season edition
Just in time for the pennant race, we have yet another review of the new New York Yankees and Mets stadiums, courtesy of Metropolis magazine's Mark Lamster, who'd previously critiqued New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ourossouff's review of the new places as being too focused on abstract aesthetics and not enough on actual ballpark experience. Lamster's principal conclusion this time around: New Yankee Stadium and Citi Field are mostly about making money, and aren't shy about it.
When I first started attending games on my own, some 20 years ago, a ticket to the Yankee bleachers cost $1.50, pocket change even for a kid on a tight allowance. That same ticket now costs $14: not an unreasonable sum, but more than a movie and enough to keep a student on a limited budget from making it too much of a habit. The new stadium, for that matter, doesn't beg that kind of relationship. It's a special-occasion place, somewhere to visit a couple of times a season. Why empty your wallet for an entertainment event that might not be entertaining? (Even the best teams lose roughly 40 percent of their games.) When you're stuck in the nosebleed seats, and a beer, a dog, and a bag of peanuts cost upward of 20 bucks, thoughts of exploitation inevitably percolate through the mind. It is in those moments that the fan-team compact seems hopelessly broken, and one begins to wonder about the difference between being a fan and being a chump. Sometimes it seems like there's no difference at all.
I'm pretty sure Yankees bleachers prices went up to $3 in 1986, but otherwise, hard to argue with that — and yes, I'd be saying that even if Lamster didn't quote me in his piece.
May 21, 2009
Sports bubble watch: Mets ticket discounts
The New York Mets, who've so far managed to duck the criticism the Yankees have got despite their own sky-high ticket prices and empty seats behind home plate, sent out an email yesterday offering field-level tickets to their upcoming homestand for as much as 33% off. (Which still isn't as good as StubHub, especially given all the Ticketmaster fees the team tacks on, but it's closer.) Meal deals, here we come.
May 18, 2009
New Yankee Stadium slam book, cont'd
It's official: Everybody and their sister has now chimed in with their thoughts on the Yankees' new stadium. The latest:
- There are still lots of empty seats, according to the New York Times, though the ultra-pricey ones in camera range appear to be filling up some.
- Bald Vinny likes it, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, though all he's actually quoted as saying is that he likes that bleacher tickets are still the same price and it's "sad to see" all the empty luxury seats.
- Alan Schecter at Bleacher Report says, "I don't think they could have put together a less fan-friendly experience if they tried." He also reports that the new let the fans down to the field during batting practice rule isn't as generous as it appears: It only applies during Yankees batting practice, and fans are ordered to skedaddle as soon as the visiting team takes the field.
- The Business Insider suggests the Yankees management could fix matters through the magic of the marketplace: "24 hours before each game starts, for example, remaining seats could be sold via an online auction in which prices drop 1% a minute until they're all gone." Though they also note that the risk that "people and corporations [would] stop buying tickets in advance so as to save money." Now there's an idea.
- The Newark Star-Ledger thinks it's time for a fan boycott. It's never worked before, but you can't blame people for trying.
- And finally, for a change of pace: Scott M.X. Turner's bad day at the Mets' new stadium, including reports that Citi Field is likewise beset by empty seats and bans on viewing batting practice from the field level.
April 24, 2009
Seatgate: Our long national nightmare continues
The controversy over those empty seats at New York Mets and Yankees games has reached MLB commissioner Bud Selig, though he was typically uncritical of the teams in his response:
"Hal Steinbrenner did say a couple of weeks ago that he thought that they may have overpriced tickets, and they ought to look at it. Well, good for him," Selig said at MLB's New York headquarters in a meeting with the Associated Press Sports Editors. "And I know the Wilpons are very sensitive about all of this, and I'm sure both clubs are doing that. And I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be doing that. Because they should."
Which is all well and good, except that it was reported the day before that Yankees president Randy Levine revealed the team intends to raise premium ticket prices 4% next year. Guess Selig doesn't read the Times.
As for Levine, he's said he considers the issue closed: "We're done talking about seats," he told reporters on Wednesday. "We're not talking about seats." You may not be, Randy, but everybody else still is.
April 20, 2009
New NY stadiums roomier, in both good and bad ways
Some more reactions of late to the new New York Mets and Yankees stadiums:
The New York Times' Bats blog worries that "Let's Go Mets!" chants sound weaker in the new, smaller-capacity but physically larger Citi Field. Which will come as some surprise to the Huffington Post's Michael Shapiro, who insists that Citi is intimate like Ebbets Field. (The HuffPost's Thomas B. Edsall gives a more measured overview of the new Yankees facility and its funding controversies, including a quote from yours truly.)
NJ.com blogger Mike says he was "both impressed and disappointed" by his first visit to the new Yankee Stadium, digging the open concourses and abundant food options, but missing the close-in upper deck and history of the old stadium: "Overall, the new place lacks the character of the old, but much of that character was rooted in the fact that the old place was old. ... The new place in comparison, while more comfortable in many ways, also felt sterile in many areas."
The Bongo Frenzy blog notes the irony of Citi Field honoring Citi Field while dedicating much of its space to exclusive clubs: "In the elite Delta Club, fans are segregated into Delta Club and Delta Club Silver fans. I wonder if there are signs above the water fountains in the Delta Club that read, 'Silver's Only.'"
After the Yankees and Cleveland Indians combined to hit 20 homeruns in the first four games at the new Yankees park, there's growing speculation as to whether the team has inadvertantly created a homer haven. Greg Rybarczyk of Hit Tracker notes that contrary to team claims that the new park's dimensions are the same as the old, the Yankees actually moved the right-field fences in at the new place, while making them shorter as well; however, Rybarczyk notes that homeruns are flying out of parks all over baseball at increased rates, and speculates that a juiced ball is the likeliest explanation.
Finally, the Bronx Beat, a site run by Columbia Journalism School students, has turned my Yankees stadium cost spreadsheet into a nifty infographic, suitable for framing, if your wall can hold Flash applications.
April 16, 2009
The Mets win! The Me-e-e-e-e-ets win!
I visited the New York Mets' Citi Field for the first time last night, to see what my tax dollars had wrought in Queens. My verdict, as delivered this morning at Baseball Prospectus Unfiltered: It's far from perfect, but still kicks the new Yankee Stadium's butt:
Citi Field is a typicalHOKPopulous modern stadium, with all that goes with that: Field-level seats close to the action, a wall of luxury/club seating in the middle, an upper deck that's higher than you'd expect at old-time ballparks, overly quirky outfield dimensions, more places to buy overpriced food than some (present company included) might think necessary. The Mets owners have been fond of comparing their new taxpayer-aided home to Ebbets Field; the comparison doesn't hold much better here than it did for Miller Park, which made the same claim.
That said, it's immediately clear that the Mets got most of the details right here, especially compared to their rivals across the East River. The Jackie Robinson Rotunda may be a bit of a ham-fisted nod to history (it didn't help that last night was Jackie Robinson Night, with a pregame ceremony featuring people wearing jerseys with words like "COMMITMENT" and "INTEGRITY" on their backs), but it's nicely human-scaled and functional compared to the Yanks' gratuitous Great Hall. Thanks to a relatively teensy 42,000 capacity, the upper deck isn't quite so distant as in the Bronx, about the equivalent of the back of the old Shea mezzanine — Mr. Met could almost even reach it last night with his T-shirt cannon — though the lessened seating has helped contribute to hikes in ticket prices.
And most of all, unlike the Yanks' new home, Citi Field reeks of baseball. There's plenty of attractive brick and steel, the scoreboards are useful but not overly imposing, and even the non-game attractions let you know that you're at a baseball game, not a mall: free batting cages and a Wiffle ball diamond out beyond centerfield for the younger set. (This was such an insanely huge hit last night, with my son among others, that I wonder if the Yankees are at risk of losing an entire generation of New York baseball fans here.) It may not seem like using brick-colored cinderblocks instead of grey ones should make a big difference, but it does.
I'm not sure it's $600 million nicer than Shea Stadium, but at the very least, Met fans can say they got a decent place to see a ballgame for their tax money. Unlike some other people I could name.
April 06, 2009
Yankee Stadium: The reaction-thon continues
More commentary and reviews of the New York Yankees' new stadium from the past few days:
The New York Post's Joel Sherman calls it "a monument to greed" and "a fake place designed to manipulate my emotions and get into my wallet." Long Island University history professor Joe Dorinson says the Yanks and Mets stadiums are "unnecessary, building almost for the sake of building," and "reinforce the notion that baseball is not a sport; it's a business." Daily News columnist Filip Bondy says it has "little charm" but will be okay if the Yankees win, and complained that Citi Field's WiFi wasn't working. Carlos Zambrano wishes the Cubs had one just like it, but his manager Lou Piniella says Wrigley Field with some improvements would be just fine. Joe Torre said it looked nice on TV. The Newark Star-Ledger's favorite part was when the new megapowered p.a. blew out on Saturday, temporarily leaving the field in blessed silence. Daily News columnist-turned-blogger Lisa Olson loves the new place, especially that "the green design ensures that beverage cups are made of biodegradable material rather than petroleum based plastic," though she doesn't exactly say what this has to do with the new stadium.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the blogoverse, New Stadium Insider has a long list of pros and cons, concluding, "At this point we would trade our surprisingly good sushi and Lobel's steak for the amazing views from the upper deck of the old Yankee Stadium in a heartbeat." Bronx Banter's Cliff Corcoran says he couldn't find any pretzels, notices the scoreboards don't work too well, agrees the p.a. was way too loud, and says any resemblance to the old stadium "began to fade half-way through my second visit." His co-blogger Alex Belth was dazzled, but not necessarily in a good way:
It is not only the TV, which cuts to live action as a Yankee player circles the bases after hitting a home run (what to watch, the player running around the bases or the TV?). It is all the other billboards, one brighter than the other—Delta, Pepsi, Bank of America, Dunkin Donuts (I wonder how it will play during the afternoon). And there are several scoreboards. The entire area is so busy, so insistent, it was difficult for me to focus on the field of play. And I didn't exactly know where to look. My eyes were overwhelmed and I felt lost...
The new Yankee Stadium does not look elegant or stately once you are in the stands. It is remarkable though. It looks like the inside of a pinball machine. Or a slot machine. It is Vegas, sparkling state of the art technology, spectacular in a way that WOULD MAKE TOM WOLFE SMILE. It is Times Square redux—a Disney production, but not imperial in the manner of the Time Warner buildings. It's more like baseball's answer to the Francis Ford Coppola epic, One from the Heart. I missed the sense of awe, the sheer volume of the old building. This park is wider, fatter in the hips, but it isn't nearly as steep.
Finally, Jay Jaffe of The Futility Infielder sums up his feelings after his first visit to the new place: "To my mind, the Yankees need a new park more than ever."
April 05, 2009
Sale prices of Boston Red Sox opening day tickets on the secondary market — that's "legal ticket scalpers" to you and me — are down almost 50% from last year, yet another sign that the economy is having a major effect on demand for high-priced sports tickets. The New York Mets have also announced they're auctioning off unsold seats for their opening game at Citi Field, though given you're not allowed to bid less than the face value that was the reason the tickets went unsold in the first place, it'll be interesting to see how many bids the auction draws.
(Thanks to The Sports Economist for the links.)
March 29, 2009
Yanks and Mets preview: Empty seats and pricey beers?
You can't walk past a newsstand in New York &mdash yes, we still have newsstands here, and walking — without seeing a passel of articles hyping the soon-to-be-opening Mets and Yankees stadiums. I've long since given up hope of following it all, but here are some of this weekend's highlights:
- The Newark Star-Ledger is wondering whether the teams will be able to sell all their pricey new seats, with sports marketing consultant David Carter saying ticket-buyers are likely to be more price-conscious during a recession: "For a long time, fans haven't done that kind of assessment. Now they're looking at it that way."
- The Daily News' Bob Raissman, meanwhile, wonders if the Yankees' cable network will show any empty seats on TV. That is, if they ever stop complaining about the lousy camera angles at the new stadium.
- Bucketloads of new Yankees stadium photos keep turning up. Note the $9 beers and $5 bottled water. (You'll still be able to bring your own bottled water into the ballpark, but juice boxes will be at the discretion of security guards.)
- The Times' Richard Sandomir reports that the Mets' goal in reducing seating at Citi Field by 15,000 from Shea Stadium was "stoking demand for far fewer tickets." (Yeah, no duh.) Though Sandomir also buys into the Mets' argument that the new stadium is more "intimate," notwithstanding that it's actually almost as tall as the one it replaced, despite offering 25% fewer seats.
Which brings us to the other contender for dumbest observation of the day:
As for the all-important matter of restrooms, here's what Jeff Gold, a season-ticker holder from Bellmore, N.Y., had to say said when I asked about Citi Field's biggest improvement: "Have you been to the bathrooms here? They're clean and they're huge. It's a first class facility."
As FoS correspondent David Dyte remarked: "And here I was expecting them to pre-age the bathrooms with assorted human waste from local sewers."
March 27, 2009
Plenty of overpriced Mets seats still available!
Just got an email from the New York Mets offering tickets to opening day at their new Citi Field, providing one buys tickets to four other April and May games as well. The email continues: "Available seating: Secure your choice of Metropolitan Box, Field Box or Caesars Club Bronze seats." A look at the insanely complex Mets pricing chart reveals that these are the seats in the lower level along the infield, and will set fans back a mere $210, $175, and $161, respectively. The prospect of empty seats on TV when the Mets open their new home is looking more and more likely.
(Note: It looks like the Yankees are still having similar problems.)
March 16, 2009
Sticker shock continues for Yanks, Mets fans
Opening day for the New York Yankees and Mets new stadiums are less than a month away, and more and more people are noticing that the teams will be charging through the nose for the privilege of enjoying all those new cupholders. The latest developments:
- Jay Jaffe was finally offered seats for less than $85 a pop, but remains unhappy about the whole experience.
- The Yankees are offering first dibs on buying single-game tickets to season ticket holders, with the hoi polloi (and holders of smaller miniplans) going to the back of the line.
- With single-game Mets tickets going on sale to the general public today, fans are starting to notice what I noted last week during the pre-sale: They're crazy expensive. "I'm speechless," one Mets fan and blogger told amNewYork. "I was shocked by the pricing, especially the outfield seats."
It's pretty shocking, no doubt — as much as $70 a pop for seats in the front sections of the outfield, the kind that used to be known as "bleachers." It's little wonder, then, that fans look to be heading for the rafters as fast as possible — though this isn't helped by the team's online ordering system, which when a certain section isn't available (in my experience looking for tickets yesterday) appears to automatically offer much pricier seats closer to the field as a substitute.
As for the latest indignity to Yankees fans, it seems odd to offer season ticket holders first crack at buying individual game tickets — these are the people who already have seats after all. But there could be method to the madness: Doing it this way not only helps strong-arm fans into coughing up for season plans, but it effectively pushes the risk of whether tickets will sell onto fans, who will be the ones waiting and watching if their excess ducats draw buyers on StubHub. Not to mention that the Yankees now get commissions from every resale on StubHub, meaning they can effectively charge twice for selling the same tickets. Nice work if you can get it.
March 12, 2009
No Citi name for Mets subway stop
New York Mets fans upset about their new stadium being named after a bailed-out bank can take solace in the fact that at least the local subway stop won't be. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has revealed that the Willets Point/Shea Stadium stop on the 7 train will be renamed "Mets/Willets Point" after the Mets declined to cough up naming-rights money to slap a corporate name on the station. "We're willing, as we have said, to entertain corporate names on stations, but only for a fee," MTA spokesperson Jeremy Soffin told the New York Times.
As for the Yankees, their local subway stop will continue to be called "161st Street/Yankee Stadium," because their new stadium will have the same name as the old one. And, presumably, the MTA doesn't see "Yankee" as a corporate name.
March 10, 2009
Mets fans heading for the cheap seats, too
The "pre-sales" for New York Mets tickets began today, and what's available to pre-sell gives a glimpse into the shape of the collapsing sports bubble. As I report on the Village Voice blog:
Flushing nights in April and May providing a good imitation of the South Col, let's try for a Sunday afternoon game against the Nationals, a Bronze selection. Promenade Boxes, the new term for the front of the upper deck, are only $28 — but they're sold out. As are the $20 Promenade Reserved Infield seats. A handful of $15 tickets are available, if you don't mind sitting in the last section of the outfield upper deck, seats so bad they didn't even exist at Shea.
Other Saturday and Sunday games produce the same message for almost all tickets under $30: "Unable to secure seats in this Price Level." You can, however, get tickets in the Caesar's Club Platinum section in the second deck — for only $140 a pop.
One possibility that occurred to me after posting the Voice article: In addition to Mets fans all scurrying for the cheap seats, it could well be that professional scalpers are focusing their energies there, figuring that the profit margin on reselling $140 seats is going to be pretty slim, in this economy or any other. Either way, it's going to be very interesting to see how the Mets respond if, say, Citi Field is one-third empty for its second game ever, and it's the bottom third — which looks more possible than anyone could have imagined last fall.
March 06, 2009
Long piece in today's Wall Street Journal on the bad timing by the New York Yankees, New York Mets, and Dallas Cowboys in opening stadiums geared to high-end consumers at a time when there ain't none to be found. (Best headline, though, goes not to the WSJ but to the New York Times' blog item on the story: "Luxury Stadiums Seemed a Good Idea at the Time.") Highlights:
With just weeks before their new $1.1 billion stadium opens, the Cowboys still have 2,000 premium seats and about 50 of their 300 luxury suites left to sell. The Yankees have hired [luxury real estate agent Neal] Sroka to drum up buyers for the hundreds of premium seats still in their inventory. The Mets, who once had deals for all 49 of their luxury suites, say they've had to go back to the market after one customer, whom they declined to name, backed out....
Between corporate sponsorships, naming-rights deals and luxury suites, two-thirds or more of teams' revenue comes from corporations rather than ordinary fans, estimates David Carter, executive director of the University of Southern California's Sports Business Institute. Over the years, luxury boxes, once just a few glass-enclosed rooms high above the regular seats, have become as integral to a new stadium as concession stands -- more so, because companies pay for them up front, guaranteeing profits regardless of the team's success on the field. As team owners crammed in ever-more premium seats, corporations, eager for new ways to entertain clients, happily bid up the prices.
All that corporate money, Mr. Carter says, has created what he calls the "sports ticket price bubble." Now that bubble is in danger of bursting.
If so, the question is whether sports will get that "soft landing" that everyone was talking about for the real estate market a couple of years ago, or the spectacular nosedive that we saw instead. Opinions?
Mets ticket prices go sky-high, too
Amidst all the fuss over New York Yankees ticket prices at their new stadium, the Mets' new stadium has been largely overlooked in recent weeks. But today, Citi Field gets its day in the spotlight with a love letter from the New York Times' Ken Belson and Richard Sandomir, declaring it the "anti-Shea" and raving about its waterless urinals and "intimacy" — a baseball industry buzzword that means not that it's actually physically smaller (it's just as large as Shea Stadium was in height and breadth), but that it holds fewer fans: 42,000 as opposed to 57,000 at Shea.
And what do the Mets gain by lopping off one-quarter of their seating capacity? Seating scarcity, which they hope will enable them to charge much higher prices than at Shea as demand outstrips supply. And oh, are those prices higher — Sporting News blogger "greenjet5" links to the new Mets pricing scheme and has a fit of apoplexy:
Yes, there are 140 different ticket prices! You will have to typically spend $40 to $50 to sit in the best outfield seats, and those are the worst seats in the stadium. Upper deck boxes may run from $60 to $75. There is one positive. I expect upper reserved to be pretty good seats in this stadium. I don't know what kind of maniac fan spends over $100 to see a regular season baseball game. It appears to me that the majority of tickets are over $100. Now I'm not one of those idiots that complain about high ticket prices and then pays for them anyway. I'll look for an upper deck seat to a couple games. It's a baseball game. I can afford to spend $100+, but why? That's not what it's worth. The Mets will have to find out the hard way.
As FoS reader Andrew Ross chimes in: "Which is more expensive: the most expensive season ticket at Citi Field, or buying Citibank itself?"
"Pre-sales" for individual Mets tickets begin next week, so maybe after that we'll see whether fans will swallow these ticket price hikes as they've done at past stadium openings, or whether the economic crash has changes the rules of the game. If the latter, expect to see some meal deals as the season progresses.
February 17, 2009
I'm going to try to post links here more often to articles I write elsewhere, since the "recent articles" listing went away in the Great Redesign. Today, it's an essay for Baseball Prospectus on recent developments in the Florida Marlins, Oakland A's, and New York Mets stadium situations. It's for subscribers only, but if you don't have a BP account, you can also check out the spirited discussion of the Marlins stadium deal I kicked off on BP's Unfiltered blog.
Also on the Marlins front, South Florida Sun-Sentinel sports business writer Sarah Talalay says the city and county commissions will hold their stadium votes next month on different days, to avoid the craziness that took place on Friday, while her colleague Dave Hyde thinks it's fair to demand that taxpayers get paid back before the team's owners take a profit on the deal.
February 04, 2009
"Citi Field" now even more embarrassing name than "Enron Field"
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Citigroup may try to "void" their $400 million naming-rights deal with the New York Mets, after coming under fire for the expense while getting $45 billion in bailout funds from the federal government. Today, the Mets and Citi both issued statements saying the Journal is on crack, and they accept that they have a "legally binding agreement" to name the almost-finished stadium "Citi Field."
That said, it's pretty clear at this point that the deal is an embarrassment for all concerned, and it seems like an exit strategy is in order. Over at the Village Voice blog, I suggest that the least bad solution might be to admit that the Mets will get to keep their money, but try to resell the name elsewhere, and use the proceeds to bail out the bailouters - to read the whole argument, including an interview with an actual live person who makes his living selling naming-rights deals, click the hotlink now.
"Citi Field" now even more embarrassing name than "Enron Field"
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Citigroup may try to "void" their $400 million naming-rights deal with the New York Mets, after coming under fire for the expense while getting $45 billion in bailout funds from the federal government. Today, the Mets and Citi both issued statements saying the Journal is on crack, and they accept that they have a "legally binding agreement" to name the almost-finished stadium "Citi Field."
That said, it's pretty clear at this point that the deal is an embarrassment for all concerned, and it seems like an exit strategy is in order. Over at the Village Voice blog, I suggest that the least bad solution might be to admit that the Mets will get to keep their money, but try to resell the name elsewhere, and use the proceeds to bail out the bailouters - to read the whole argument, including an interview with an actual live person who makes his living selling naming-rights deals, click the hotlink now.
January 29, 2009
Congressguys to Citigroup: "Tear Down That Stadium Sign!"
In the wake of President Obama calling Wall Street firms giving their top execs bonuses while demanding government bailouts "the height of irresponsibility," Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Republican Rep. Ted Poe have teamed up to demand another Wall Street firm cut back its profligate spending. From the press release:
In November 2006, Citigroup announced they had reached an agreement with the New York Mets to name their new stadium Citi Field. According to the terms of the agreement, Citigroup will pay the New York Mets a total of $400 million over 20 years. Citi Field opens for competition at the commencement of the 2009 baseball season.
Since this time, Citigroup's financial position has changed drastically. As you well know, Citigroup received $25 billion from the first installment of the Capital Purchase Program, authorized by Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Since then Citigroup has received an additional $20 billion from the Targeted Investment Program as well as a federal guarantee on approximately $306 billion of loans and securities. Additionally, in November 2008 Citigroup announced their intention to cut more than 50,000 jobs from their workforce.
Citigroup is now dependent on the support of the federal government for its survival as an institution. As such, we do not believe Citigroup ought to spend $400 million to name a stadium at the same time that they accept over $350 billion in taxpayer support and guarantees.
We request that you intervene and demand that Citigroup dissolve the agreement they have with the New York Mets. Absent this outcome, we feel strongly that you should compel Citigroup to return immediately all federal monies received to date, as well as cancel all loan guarantees.
The odds on this actually happening are pretty slim - if Citigroup tried to cancel its Mets naming rights deal, Mets owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon would almost certainly sue, "good of the nation" or no. But it certainly makes things more interesting, especially given all the recent speculation on the Wilpons' Madoff-related financial woes.
Rethinking Nets arena, watching Mets and Yanks demolition
Busy news day, so all the New York stadium/arena news today needs to share an item:
- George Sweeting of the New York City Independent Budget Office told a Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce meeting this week that the city should "take another look" at its subsidies of the Nets' proposed Atlantic Yards project, noting: "If amenities are scaled back and the overall scale of the project is reduced, it's reasonable to stop and look at whether the city's contributions and the MTA land deal still show a positive in the cost-benefit calculation. ... A lot has changed since 2005, when we found that the arena was basically a break-even proposition." Yeah, no kidding.
- While everyone's been focused on how much it's costing to tear down Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium is almost gone already. Though for anyone who grew up a Met fan, this is a lot more heart-wrenching.
- Speaking of the escalating Yanks costs, the New York Times ran an article yesterday on the previously reported cost overruns and delays for replacement parks, which was accurate as far as it went. Only one problem: The photo that ran with it was captioned, "The new Macombs Dam Park, atop a parking garage, will have more than seven acres for sports, strolling and other recreation." Unfortunately, the photo isn't of the new Macombs Dam Park, but rather of the smaller, temporary one that's been in place since 2007. The new one actually looks like this right now - which is precisely what Bronx residents are complaining about.
January 16, 2009
Just got word that the New York Yankees' and Mets' $342 million in new tax-free bonds (plus around $30 million in additional tax exemptions) have been approved by the city Industrial Development Agency board. Comptroller William Thompson, as promised, voted against the Yankees bonds; Queens Borough President Helen Marshall's representative abstained on the Yankees portion; and the Mets portion was approved unanimously by the 15-member board.
The $1.8 billion total subsidy figure, then, stands. Unless the Yankees decide they need even fancier bathrooms.
UPDATE: Allison Lack of Good Jobs New York sends word that representatives of the Yankees and Mets were both given time to speak at today's board meeting, even though the time for testimony was supposed to be yesterday's public hearing. Writes Lack: "At all the IDA board meetings Good Jobs New York has attended over the years, never before have we seen project applicants speak in favor of their projects during these meetings."
January 14, 2009
NYC baseball stadium subsidies: Do I hear $1.8B?
Following today's release of the latest stadium subsidy estimates from the New York City Independent Budget Office, I've updated my Yankees and Mets stadium cost spreadsheet to update, at the end of the day, who's paying for what. New features include a shift to 2009 present value, and, for the first time, itemized sources for all the data listed therein. There will likely be further updates to this chart - a couple of items aren't converted to 2009 dollars, for example - but the big picture is starting to come into focus.
Note that these figures do include the teams' complete exemption from property taxes as a cost to the city (and benefit to the teams), a matter of huge controversy at today's hearing. (After the IBO counted the property-tax break in the "team savings" column but not the "city costs" column, Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber shot off an e-mail to reporters that this "shows that the allegation that the City is forgoing hundreds of millions of dollars in property tax revenue as a result of the deal is utter fiction.") The logic here is that if not for a complex sub-leasing deal for the land under their new stadiums, the Mets and Yankees would normally be required to start paying property taxes after about 20 years in their new homes, so being given a pass on that is effectively the same as the city stuffing wads of future benjamins into their waistbands.
With no further ado, some of the highlights of the revised charts:
- The Yankees' new stadium is now the most expensive ever even imagined, coming in at a staggering $2.3 billion. That includes its attendant parking garages and replacement parkland, but even the stadium construction budget alone is incredible, now standing at $1.56 billion.
- Of that, the public - city, state, and federal taxpayers - are now covering just shy of $1.2 billion, by far the largest stadium subsidy ever. In fact, even discounting the $417 million in property-tax breaks (if you're inclined to agree with Lieber), it's still the largest stadium subsidy ever. The Yankees, meanwhile, would be on the hook for just $670 million, after counting property-tax breaks.
- The Mets project is comparatively thrifty: a mere $830 million, though even that shatters the old record for priciest baseball park. Because it's cheaper, though, and the Mets demanded many of the same tax breaks as the Yankees, the team's total cost at the end of the day is astonishingly low: just $135 million, thanks to a panoply of givebacks that include property-tax breaks, parking-fee rebates, and revenue-sharing deductions courtesy of MLB. The rest is paid predominantly by - you guessed it - you the taxpayer, providing you're a taxpayer somewhere in the U.S. of A.
- Add 'em together and what do you got? Taxpayers will be paying $1.8 billion toward the new stadiums, while the teams will combine for just $805 million in costs. But it's not like the teams could afford to pay more or anything.
All this, of course, is assuming the city's Industrial Development Agency votes on Friday to approve $453 million in new bonds for the two stadiums. If the unthinkable happens and the IDA votes no, look for yet another revised chart over the weekend.
Yanks stadium cost passes $2B, subsidies near $1b
Today's New York state assembly hearing on the Yankees and Mets stadium projects can best be summed up like this: City economic chief Seth Pinsky complained about hearing chair Richard Brodsky calling the city's procedures "Soviet-style," then later quoted Edward R. Murrow to implicitly compare Brodsky to Joe McCarthy; and Brodsky, in his closing statements, offered to take on both Pinsky and Yanks president Randy Levine in a fistfight. Not, in other words, one of democracy's finest moments.
The real story, in any case, came after Levine, Pinsky, and almost everyone else had gone home: Economist George Sweeting of the Independent Budget Office presented new detailed estimates of how much the new stadiums are costing taxpayers in subsidies, and how much the teams are benefiting. I'll be updating my stadium cost spreadsheet with the new numbers shortly, but in the meantime, some highlights: The total cost of the Yanks' new stadium is now well north of $2 billion, with taxpayers picking up $854.7 million of that tab; for the Mets, the cost to the public is now a mere $371.5 million. And that's without even counting the fact that neither team will pay property taxes, ever, thanks to a nifty tax dodge involving public authorities and 99-year subleases.
For more, see my two-part recap on the Village Voice website here and here.
January 13, 2009
Levine, Pinsky to show up to Yanks hearing at gunpoint
New York state assemblymember Richard Brodsky, who you may remember from past fireworks-laden public hearings, has guaranteed that his hastily called hearing tomorrow on the Yankees and Mets stadium financing will have plenty of sturm und drang, by subpoenaing city development chief Seth Pinsky and Yankees president Randy Levine to force their attendance. One can only hope that Levine's testimony will consist of standing on his chair, pointing at Brodsky, and shouting, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"
Also today, city comptroller William Thompson, who's challenging Michael Bloomberg in this year's mayoral race (Brodsky, for his part, may be preparing a run for attorney general), has called for Thursday's hearing on the stadium bonds to be postponed so that the city can negotiate a better deal: "Incredibly, the Yankees are asking for more money and the city is giving it to them without asking for anything in return." Thompson has one vote on the 15-member IDA board.
I'll be in attendance at both hearings, and will report back here as soon as I get a free moment and an Internet connection. If you don't see any news from me here, you can always check the Village Voice blog to see if I've posted there.
January 07, 2009
NYC relinquishes suite, issues stadium finance tome
After getting slammed for trading parking and ad revenue at the New York Yankees' new stadium for a luxury suite for city officials, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg yesterday announced he'd be trading back. No, the city won't get its 250 parking spaces back, but it will get whatever cash the Yanks make from leasing out the suite, less "marketing expenses" - and I'm sure the Yankees will be honest about deducting those.
Meanwhile, in what should have been even bigger news, the city Industrial Development Agency released its paperwork for the $342 million in additional tax-free bonds it will vote on giving the Yanks and Mets next week - except that nowhere in its 116 pages does it actually discuss the costs and benefits of the new bonds, which makes the documents as worthless as the bits they're PDFed on. (Though it's always fun seeing how much the Yankees plan to spend on "bathroom upgrades" to bathrooms that haven't even been built yet.) This should be a fun hearing next Thursday - 10 am, 110 William Street, for anyone in the NYC area who feels like stopping by.