And now for the news that slipped through the cracks of the week:
- Albuquerque and New Mexico United released the full terms of the stadium plan that residents will vote on in November, and it’s pretty what it looked like when first discussed last month: $50 million from the city, $8 million from the state, $10 million from team owner Peter Trevisani. The team will also pay $900,000 a year in rent and shared concessions revenue, which comes to maybe $12 million in present value, so we’re talking $46 million public, $22 million private, which would still be the biggest USL subsidy ever for the most expensive USL stadium ever. There’ll be a community benefits agreement, though, those always work out great!
- The revamped Soldier Field that Chicago spent more than $600 million to build in 2002 would be hard to expand by much, plus the Bears owners are mad that the city won’t let them install a sports gambling location at the stadium. This latter is according to one “sports economist” who turns out to be, let’s see … Marc Ganis? Marc Ganis isn’t a sports economist, he’s a consultant who works for the NFL. Anyway, these seem like petty reasons to decide to spend billions of dollars on a new stadium complex in Arlington Heights, but nobody’s said yet whose billions of dollars those would be, so file all this under laying the groundwork for haggling.
- The Arizona Coyotes‘ Tempe arena proposal might get in the way of airplanes landing, oops. They worked this out for the Los Angeles Rams stadium, but still worth keeping an eye on along with the whole how-much-would-taxpayers-pay-for-it thing.
- Oakland A’s management has raised ticket prices and parking fees in the middle of a pandemic while threatening to move the team to Las Vegas, and lo and behold, attendance is down! There’s probably a term for this, but I can’t put my finger on it…
- “Hochul: Study on Bills stadium site coming soon“! Hooray, Gov. Kathy Hochul has finally agreed to release the cost-benefit study that her administration has been refusing to release under open records requests, and … hmm, Hochul says the study is still “underway” but will be completed “in the next couple of weeks”? Even though it was presented to the state by Bills execs back in May? Hmm, maybe let’s withhold judgment until we see what’s actually released. [CORRECTION: Paul Wolf of the New York Coalition For Open Government points out that though Hochul and much of the news coverage implied that this was the Bills’ cost-benefit study, it’s actually a separate, unrelated study by the state on potential stadium sites only. More on this on Monday.] Meanwhile, state assembly speaker Carl Heastie has called questions about who would pay how much for a new stadium “a little above my pay grade,” which given that he’s literally in charge of a legislative body that would have to approve any plan deserves at the very least a Nobel Prize for Ducking the Question.
- A poll of Kansas City residents has found that two-thirds would oppose using public money to pay for half the cost of a downtown stadium for the Royals, and a plurality are against a downtown stadium even if the Royals owners paid for the whole thing. But that’s not really the point, is it?
- That new Long Island Railroad station New York state is building for the Islanders‘ new arena will be open this fall, so long as you don’t mind only using it to get to the game, and taking a different train back and transferring to get where you’re going. Or taking a shuttle bus to and from yet another nearby station. But still, spending about $41 million in state money on a new train station was absolutely necessary because Islanders fans would never put up with changing trains or taking shuttle buses, how crazy would that be?
- Will a major-league baseball team ever come to Nashville? Ooh, ooh, I know this one!
I’m going to be traveling next week, so prepare for a possible light posting schedule. Though if past history is any guide, whenever I go on vacation, all kinds of news immediately happens, and I’ll have my laptop with me, so maybe it’ll just be a normal week from your perspective. We’ll all find out together!
If econ profs can pass themselves off as economists, then so can Ganis.
Damn, I had 10:48am in the “time of the obligatory ‘bash the econ profs’ comment” pool.
Clearly the “trickle-down economic theory” as it applies to sports stadia in US cities is something you fail to grasp. As does 9 out 10 sports economists. As does FoS. This is obviously an academia, left-wing, socialist led plot, conspiracy to stop the spending of my tax dollars on sports stadiums for billionaire franchise owners. Freedom for my Bills!
Disclaimer. I am not a paid spokesperson nor am I in any way associated with Pegula Sports and Entertainment, LLC.
Of course, as you know Ben, is an issue of conflict of interest and not profession.
He could be a zookeeper or an architect. But that he works for the NFL on stadium issues should be noted.
I caught some of David Samson’s comments the other day, and they are generally related to the As raising ticket prices.
Essentially, he was saying the new Marlins ownership “projected” a whole bunch of things would happen. They raised prices, negotiated a new tv deal, and … saw attendance drop. And their revenue with tv isn’t what they hoped for.
So they had to slash payroll and he suggested they probably will need to again this off-season.
Which will lead to lower attendance and lower viewership.
And baseball may not be sustainable in Miami at this pace.
Not that he’s a beacon of great things, of course. Or sees anything more than we can overall.
It’s just interesting to hear it said from a former executive, and to realize just what a vicious circle it is.
The Tennessean quite a jumble. Also, why would Nashville need a retractable dome? All the other cities in that region, CIN, STL, ATL make do without. For team with no owner and no business plan, they’re awfully greedy.
Perhaps the retractable dome is to keep the sun out of the batters’ eye, since the stadium is oriented in a southwest direction (home-centerfield) to have views of the river. LOL
Ah, a sunset clause, or sunset close, in this case.
Much the same argument about Phoenix airport runways was raised when a nearby site was proposed for the Cardinals’ stadium. It was actually a large factor in getting the football stadium moved out to Glendale. The issue isn’t that it will make planes crash, but having a clear space in front of the runway in the event of a disabled aircraft is important. Putting 60,000 people in that spot just wasn’t considered a good idea. This was also a time when 9/11 was still very much on people’s minds, and a stadium under a flight path was thought to be a tempting target.
I also remember some commenter noting that this would be a good time to move the airport halfway to Tucson, where it belonged, to accommodate the stadium. Moving one the state’s most valuable economic resources to build a football arena was also not considered a great idea.
clear space in front of the runway in the event of a disabled aircraft to keep it from CRASHING
This same concern came up in the build up to the ScoFi Englewood stadium. But it was done by the competing, downtown LA, stadium plan from AEG to try and KO that one. They even got Tom Ridge to play along.
I once stood next to Tom Ridge in the men’s room in National Airport. True story.
Surely we’ve had enough examples of new stadiums both in downtowns and outside to get an idea of the actual ensuing development.
I’d suspect there’s not a lot in either case. But we always hear that the wind is too strong or the grass is too long or the seats too narrow for development to kick in.
There is often development, but that development could have happened anyway and/or been cheaper.
I’m having trouble imagining a football stadium existing now that makes me say “let’s go shopping/dining there.” Foxboro has the fake Pats Place mall. I suppose there are a couple similar models.
The model of large empty concrete building plus large empty parking lot isn’t too charming. But NFL fans like it for tailgating…so why move downtown???
47.7% of Tempe taxpayers are against the Coyotes proposed arena.
Taxpayers Icy at Thought of Paying for a New Arizona Coyotes Arena
https://www.dataorbital.com/the-blog/taxpayers-icy-at-thought-of-paying-for-a-new-arizona-coyotes-arena
Thanks for that.
I don’t know enough about polling to be sure and I don’t know how it compares to the public opinion prior to other arena deals, but to me that seems like a lot more support for the proposal than I would have actually expected.
If the owners are able to sell it as “but we’re investing $1.7bn!!” they may be able to pull it off.
I’ve noticed that the Coyotes-oriented sportswriters seem to be totally in the bag for Meruelo. I guess that’s typical, but it doesn’t help.
True about the reporter.
Here are the details (PDF) on that survey.
https://mcusercontent.com/5a280d25318f2afe3f311adb6/files/eb38bb84-9713-27d1-e0b6-f4328bce28ff/Public_Toplines_PHXSports_Live_090221.pdf
Thanks for the link NMG.
One of the issues with so called straw polls is that you never know who is answering or how representative their views are.
If you file a plan to build anything anywhere, you are going to hear mainly from people who are either totally in love with or totally against the idea.
You don’t really know how the general public feels about it unless you put the notion on a ballot. Even then, you risk having people who don’t really care all that much about it not bothering to vote.
I would have expected higher numbers against the proposal. Do you think the 48% is truly representative?
When 59% do not support any funding and/or tax breaks, and 61% state that another venue is not needed — as there is already more than 20 –, I think the 48% is a little low because of that “10%” that are undecided.
Seems like the numbers are not in the Coyotes favor.
The chicago press today is announcing the Bears are buying Arlington Park raceway.