Sorry for the relative paucity of posts this week — I’ve been a little under the weather (not Covid, or so the test strips say), and the stadium news cycle was taking a bit of a summer break, anyway. But things have started picking up again toward the end of the week, and nothing will stop me from my appointed Friday rounds, so away we go:
- We start off with the latest news, which just broke late yesterday: Oklahoma City Thunder owner Clay Bennett, who is in the middle of spending $115 million in taxpayer money on upgrading his 20-year-old arena with new restaurants and video boards and the like, has put the project on hold because he might just want a whole new arena instead. “Obviously we want a long-term relationship with professional sports in this city,” said Mayor David Holt in yesterday’s State of the City address. “And to do that, you have to have facilities that are current and competitive.” Being built in 2002 doesn’t count as “current” anymore, apparently, even with three rounds of renovations that were costing $214 million total, because the arena doesn’t have enough “room for all the other elements of user experience” that aren’t watching basketball, though isn’t that what adding new adjoining buildings with new restaurants was supposed to be about? Anyway, even with the Thunder signing a new lease extension until 2026, Holt says the city needs to get cracking on a new arena, because “we have non-NBA cities checking our pulse every morning” and “if we want to be a top 20 city, we have to act like it” — he didn’t say whether Bennett would move the Thunder back to Seattle or what if he didn’t get what he wanted, but sometimes the most effective threats are the ones that leave the details to listeners’ imagination.
- Clark County residents oppose “allocating taxpayer money in the budget for new sports stadiums similar to what was done to fund the Allegiant Stadium for the Las Vegas Raiders” by a 62-17% margin, yup, they’ll do that. Maybe the Oakland A’s aren’t getting a new stadium in Las Vegas so fast after all if their Oakland plans fall through — sure, elected officials can and do ignore the public will all the time, but given that public statements from Nevada officials about luring the A’s with a stadium have been lukewarm at best, this really does start to smell like savvy negotiators seeking leverage.
- Knoxville’s $74.3 million Tennessee Smokies stadium subsidy may be getting held up as a model compared to the $79.4 million the Chattanooga Lookouts owners are demanding, but it turns out that $74.3 million figure may not be the final one: Rising interest rates and supply chain issues have the price tag soaring to “not yet been determined,” which means that Smokies owner Randy Boyd’s promise not to ask for any additional public funds may go by the wayside. Neither Boyd nor the government entities involved in the stadium have actually signed any of the stadium agreements yet; both sides say they plan to come up with a plan to cover cost overruns by a July 26 meeting of Knoxville’s sports authority, but would it be crazy to suggest that “Getting too rich for our blood, let’s call the whole thing off?” be at least considered as an option?
- Speaking of the Lookouts, a Hamilton County commissioner wants to adjust the county’s spending plan to have the team owner front the money and the county repay him with tax money instead of having the county cover costs directly, because at least that would protect the public in case tax increment financing revenues fell short. This is not a terrible idea, though “don’t use tax increment financing at all, it’s almost always a terrible idea” might be an even better idea.
- New Orleans is set to get a new USL franchise, because pretty much every city is, which will play in oh, someplace. No talk yet of how much a theoretical stadium would cost or who would pay for it, plenty of time for that once soccer fever has taken hold beyond the pages of Nola.com.
- Some Brooklyn elected officials want New York City to impose a $10 million fine on the developers of the Pacific Park project (which used to be called Atlantic Yards, and which originally included the Nets arena though later those two elements were split between two different developers, really you don’t want to know all the details) because they failed to build a contractually promised “urban room” community space — one of the politicians called this a “field of schemes,” which, you know, it’s always nice to be part of the conversation, even if unintentionally.
- The Portland Trail Blazers owners may or may not be trying to get a new arena to replace its (gasp!) 27-year-old one, but in the meantime they’re getting about a $1.5 million a year property tax discount thanks to a generous reassessment of the value of the old arena after they went to court to demand one, it really does pay to be able to afford the best lawyers.
- Oh, did I forget to mention that the Chicago Bears owners’ response to Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s proposal last week to put a dome on Soldier Field was “Nuh-uh, we only have eyes for Arlington Heights, at least right now?” Well, it was, but that happened all the way back last Friday after last week’s roundup was published — I may just need to place a moratorium on things happening after 9 a.m. on Fridays, don’t make me do it.
An implicit threat of the Thunder moving would make me laugh heartily, recalling the travesty that brought them to OKC in the first place.
Apples and oranges Neil. We all knew already that the A’s (or any other future franchise for that matter) most likely weren’t going to get a Raiders hotel room tax deal. So hyping this up that Nevada hates all forms of potential stadium funding subsidies could be categorized as falsehood. Nothing mentioned about potential real estate deals, TIF districts, etc. Should read “Nevadans hate idea of ANOTHER Raiders-style stadium subsidy.”
No one-horse sports town has lost its only major franchise since Hartford and Quebec City (remember them?) saw their teams decamp in the mid-1990s. There’s a reason why every existing one-horse sports town has bent over backwards to keep theirs.
I’m not saying it’s right, obviously, but I do get why places like OKC are hell bent on doing so — especially so in OKC’s case, given the nature of how they got their one team in the first place.
I mean OKC shouldn’t have an NBA team, they just had a rich benefactor who placed a team in the city.
Then what city should? Seattle is not entitled to an NBA club.
If Bennet moved the team back to Seattle he’d be leaving a 20 year old arena for 60 year old arena. Sure the Seattle Center/Key/Climate Pledge arena has been renovated many times, but so has his current 20 year old arena.
The Seattle arena is in the same location as Key was, but aside from the roof (which I believe is landmarked), it’s a 100% new structure.
But in 20 years, you know the Kraken owners will claim they’re playing in an 80 year old arena. Remember the Atlanta Baseball Team’s owners saying they needed to move because Turner Field was built for a 10 day event. When everyone knew the “10 day event” portion was demolished.
I know Mayor Lightfoot can’t say it, but it would be better for everyone if the Bears were in Arlington Heights. You can’t fit a modern NFL operation in the middle of the city’s lake front park. The city would hardly miss the hassle of 10 home games. I think the only reason the Arlington move might not happen is the Bear’s ownership is poor by NFL standards. Trying to get the city to build them a stadium is more attractive than financing their own. If the McCaskey’s had Kronke, or Jerry Jones money, they’d be breaking ground already.
It might well be a better experience for everyone if the Bears moved (especially if the move included redesigning the current stadium to be smaller for it’s remaining tenant and less aesthetically offensive to the waterfront…).
That said, their option with CD for that property does not close for some time yet, so they may or may not ultimately commit to Arlington Heights.
What that option gives them in the mean time is legitimate leverage with the city of Chicago. Whether that ‘works’ for them, who knows. One of the reasons the current Soldier field build was the disaster it was is the limitations of the site and location. I have trouble seeing any future renovation that doesn’t also face significant compromises for the same reasons.
As you suggest, it may just be “time” for the Bears to move. Some fans would (and did) lament the loss of the original soldier field. I doubt many (beyond the inevitable few who find it easy to get to the current location but harder to get to the new) will miss this one.
The McCaskeys certainly don’t have Jones/Kroenke type money. Do we know what Arlington Heights is actually prepared to offer?
The large site the Bears have an option on certainly suggests a large stadium related development. I could see the current ownership being able to put together enough money to build a stadium with NFL funds, naming rights, PSLs and say $600m combined from themselves and the city (or just the city).
The question is, who pays for the rest of the development? If that development cannot be built, then how much advantage do the Bears really get from moving to AH?
Pat Ryan is a minority owner (19.7% in partnership with Andy McKenna) of the Chicago Bears and has an estimated net worth of $7.8 billion.
He also holds the right-of-first-refusal as “primary investor” if any of the McCaskey stock comes up for sale.
Sure. If the McCaskey family themselves wanted to 100% fund the stadium, they could raise enough money through personal and business (Bears) related borrowing to do so as well.
But that isn’t going to happen. Why would it be more likely that one of their billionaire partners will want to fund a stadium out of their own pockets (either after taking over majority ownership or not)?
Pat Ryan also is fond of avoiding taxes, a favored practice of billionaires as Pro Publica is detailing in an ongoing series of stories.
A billionaire who dodges taxes may be able to get away with corporate welfare in a filthy rich suburb such as Arlington Heights.
I agree with all that, except Bears fans preferring the old configuration. The new exterior is an eyesore but the current seating configuration is far better the original.
Climate Pledge Arena is completely a new arena! Only the roof remains because it’s an architecture piece of history in Seattle. By the way the SEATTLE KRAKEN owners built the stadium at 1.2 billion $$$ with the own money. The city of Seattle didn’t pay a cent! No one in Seattle wants the OKC Noise with that owner Bennett involved. He wouldn’t have a very pleasant time showing his face around the city.
Yeah there’s no redemption arc available to Clay Bennett in Seattle. By the same token, there probably isn’t one for Chris Hansen, either. I do wonder who would front the expansion (or less likely atm, relocation) costs of a new Sonics franchise, if there ever is indeed a new Sonics franchise.
Seriously. If there is a Hell, I surely hope Clay Bennett roasts there when his time comes.
“Hi, Clay! It’s a little toasty down here!” Aubrey McClendon said.
And still, Beckham’s little chitty-chitty-sput-sput kiddie-train ride towards a stadium in Miami, sputters along. It’s only taken 10 12 years.
https://www.miamitodaynews.com/2022/07/12/county-defers-study-of-freedom-park-impact-on-airport/
How soon before Clay Bennett credits Braves getting a new stadium after only 19 years at Turner Field for winning the World Series. Doesn’t OKC care about the Thunder winning it all???