Welcome to the first Friday of October, following a September that was the hottest on record, so much so that one climate scientist called it “gobsmackingly bananas.” It’s all fun and games to joke about cities building stadiums that will soon be underwater or for populations that will have to flee unlivable conditions, but it’s also super-weird sometimes to be writing about a now four-decade-long trend of erecting ever newer sports venues with ever larger construction carbon footprints, often prompted by the need for roofs and air conditioning to protect from the hostile air outside, to draw fans who are expected to fly in from out of town via the most climate-worsening mode of transportation ever invented — and especially weird to then read articles that end with a note that researchers say “overwhelmingly pointed to one action as critical: slashing the burning of fossil fuels down to zero.” That … does not seem to be happening? Is there a point at which journalism that drily reports on the cliff that humanity’s car is about to drive off of is maybe not the most responsible journalism? Discuss.
And with that, on to the latest ways in which rich dudes are plotting to make off with taxpayer money while the world burns:
- A “finalized agreement” for a new Calgary Flames arena was approved yesterday, with no new details about how the financing would work. So we’ll just have to assume it’s still an $837 million public subsidy, plus of course the cost overruns, obviously the public is going to cover the cost overruns, duh. Maybe it’s best just to assume that every stadium and arena deal involves around a billion dollars in public cash, give or take? That certainly seems to be where we’re headed.
- Jacksonville Mayor Donna Deegan gave an exclusive interview to Action Sports Jax while in London for a Jaguars home game — oh man, this sentence is already not starting out promisingly — and said “the buck stops with me” in terms of spending $1 billion on upgrading the team’s stadium, and “I think everyone wants to see this work.” Does everyone, though? NBC Sports’ Mike Florio reports that Deegan went on to say that “80 percent say [they] don’t want to spend the money, 80 percent don’t want to lose the Jags,” but actually well over 80% of those polled don’t approve of the $1 billion public expense and well under 80% are afraid of losing the Jags. “Basically, she hopes to not be the mayor who lost the Jaguars to London,” concludes Florio, but more so it appears that she hopes to be the mayor who ginned up fear of losing the Jaguars to London to cover her butt for delivering a much-hated $1 billion handout to a billionaire.
- The Wisconsin legislature held a hearing yesterday on the somewhat less than a billion dollars in tax money being proposed for the Milwaukee Brewers, at which Republican state Rep. Rob Brooks defended his plan to hand out tax money on the grounds that it’s not really tax money because some of it would come from the income taxes paid by players who are currently paying it now into the state treasury. Meanwhile, a Milwaukee community advocate complained way down in the 17th paragraph that it was an “insult and degrading” to ask Milwaukee residents to pay $200 million toward a stadium most of them never visit, and also that it was disrespectful to make them wait hours to speak while team officials and members of the legislature got all the early speaking slots; whether other people testified along the same lines, who knows, journalists gotta get back to their desks to bang out copy, they can’t be hanging around hearing rooms all day long.
- Golden State Warriors owner Joe Lacob says he “might be interested” in buying the Oakland A’s if John Fisher gives up on moving them to Las Vegas and sells them, which is pretty lukewarm but still likely to boost the spirits of the “SELL” crowd. It also raises the question of whether MLB can legitimately approve the A’s move when there’s a local buyer interested in keeping the team in town, though hahaha MLB can make up whatever rules it wants, it’s not like a court would hold the league financially liable for disobeying its own rules to allow a team to move … hmm.
- Whoa, the Tampa Bay Times actually ran an article expressing some criticism of the proposed Rays stadium! Admittedly, they still got it wrong — adding up future interest costs as if they’re part of present costs is bad financial logic, just like you wouldn’t calculate the price of your new house by adding up all your future mortgage payments over the next 30 years — but hidden costs could yet end up pushing the deal’s public cost over $1 billion anyway, so I’ll be generous and give the Times credit for being half-right.
- The TB Times also ran a 2,200-word article this week about the company building out the Rays’ surrounding development that quoted no one except the developers and their current or former business partners, so at least some things about the world are still predictable.
- Some people who live near the former site of RFK Stadium want a new NFL stadium to bring the Washington Commanders back, and some want them to stay the hell away. The answer clearly must be somewhere in the middle, sure as the sky is green.
- Kansas City voters could be forced to vote twice on an extension of a sales tax hike to fund Royals and Chiefs stadiums, because reasons. How would that work, exactly, if it’d be the same sales tax hike? Article too short, ask again later.
- One of the plaintiffs suing to block a proposed referendum to overturn the Las Vegas A’s stadium deal is also a lobbyist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which failed to disclose that in its reporting on the lawsuit. Whoopsie!
- The city of St. Louis ended up spending $19.6 million on a Rams stadium that was never built, and it may have been the least costly part of the whole St. Louis Rams experiment.
- The Philadelphia 76ers‘ proposed Chinatown arena faces an “uncertain future” amid opposition from local residents, according to WHYY, and while this falls squarely into the “one thing’s for sure — no one knows” school of reporting, the local opposition part certainly checks out.
Great links as always thanks!
The Tick! LOL
I have still not forgiven Amazon for canceling the latest Tick iteration, even if the second season went a little off the rails by the end.
There have been three TV adaptations of The Tick and they’ve all been comedy gold.
One of my favorite things ever was during lockdown, when all three casts got together to do a table read of an unproduced script from the animated show where The Tick had to stave off a threat from “Skull Canada,” a country next to regular Canada. A pantomime moose featured heavily.
“slashing the burning of fossil fuels down to zero” was a misquote. They meant to write “slashing and burning our fossil fuel reserves down to zero.”
We will definitely be in glub glub glub territory way before then.
That $19.6 million St Louis spent basically got them the $790 million settlement. That’s the best ROI I’ve seen
For sure. The only thing worse than spending $19.6 million and not building a stadium would have been to spend nearly $2 billion and actually building a stadium. Even the $100 million they still owe on the old dome is better than spending money another stadium.
Does Deegan actually fear losing the Jags (a team that the city and people of Jacksonville have never, ever, owned, nor could they under the NFL’s constitution…)?
Or does she just need cover as a weakl attempt to obscure the fact that, like all mealy mouthed weak-ass politicians (regardless of gender), she does whatever the nearest billionaire tells her to?
RE: Lacob
It would be great if the ‘rules’ (MLB’s or the law of the land or Congress or anyone…) could enforce a non-move clause so long as there was a qualified and willing buyer for any team, but like you I doubt that would happen. At least not before the team moved and then 20 years of litigation…
I would guess that Lacob’s comment was directed more toward Fisher’s 29 defacto partners in the MLBOG (not original gangstas… owners…)
It seems likely there are significant reservations within the group about what Fisher is doing. Sure, it may be a wash for them as someone gets the ‘last’ revenue sharing check. But there will be two or three owners who need it and who are going to vote against the move because it means they might be on the bubble, and there will probably be a few (a half dozen?) who are just pissed off that they even have to talk about subsidizing failson fisher when there is a pretty good deal on the table in Oakland and room to move.
It’s about shaking poor people down for money, not shaking the other owners down for it. That has to rankle the skewed and corrupt moral compass of even the most Vegas friendly MLB owner… and as with the NFL and Mark Davis/Dean Spanos, at least some of them have to be thinking this could be a way to get Fisher either out or at least make him more likely to sell.
Lacob has had an offer on the table for a while now: https://www.si.com/mlb/2022/07/10/joe-lacob-standing-offer-purchase-oakland-athletics
MLB used to have a rule requiring teams to try to sell locally before they were allowed to move. That’s why the Mariners were sold to Nintendo and the Giants to McGowan’s group.
I believe MLB still has that “rule” when they feel like it.
If there are reservations about what he’s doing, they’re probably mostly about how half-baked the whole Vegas stadium plan is and not so much about screwing over the fans of Oakland.
There is a very real chance – maybe more than 50% – that this domed stadium on 9 acres in Vegas just isn’t going to work, for a few different pragmatic reasons.
They’ve also yet to come up with a remotely viable solution for where the team will play in the three or four or five years before that is built. I can’t see anyway that doesn’t turn into a fiasco and the other owners don’t want a situation like what is going on with the Phoenix Coyotes. It just makes the whole league look bad.
The mayor said that Oakland would only let them stay in the Coliseum if MLB keeps the A’s name in Oakland and gives Oakland an expansion team. I don’t think they’ll do that.
Manfredo has to convince the other owners that the A’s continuing to be bottom feeders in Vegas is ok because it nets everybody $200ish million when they grant 2 expansion franchises.
The thing about expansion though is that it’s really a loan. Eventually those two expansion teams make the same amount of money as the other teams via revenue sharing, tv deals etc etc. The smart owners, who are in it for the long haul have to question Fisher leaving a normal sized market for a tiny one, and continue to be a loser- all for a one time $200 million loan that may or may increase MLB’s revenue pie. Also, any expansion teams will probably be in smaller cities and qualify for revenue sharing, so you’re effectively keeping 1 team on and adding 2 more teams to your welfare rolls.
The welfare rolls are pegged to the median revenue, so really you’re adding two more revenue-sharing recipients while eliminating one (16 out of 32 instead of 15 out of 30). But otherwise, yeah, agreed, Fisher is counting on his fellow owners smelling billions of dollars in quick cash and not thinking too much about the slice of the broadcast pie they’d be giving up down the road.
“… counting on his fellow owners smelling billions of dollars in quick cash…”
I’m sure Fisher is counting on that, but the only reason the two are tied together is because MLB has made it so in an effort to exert pressure on two of their existing partners (and which two can change on a whim, of course…)
Who is being hurt by “MLB” requiring that the A’s and Rays ‘stadium situation’ be resolved before issuing expansion franchises? Prospective expansion franchise owners? Other MLB owners? The cities of Oakland and Tampa-STP? The owners of Oakland and Tampa franchises?
The only deadlines and prerequisites here are MLB’s own.
If an image of Cleavon Little taking himself hostage at gunpoint just popped into your head, you are not alone (and you are at least as old as I am…)
There is a timeline, but it’s outside of MLB’s control. The real expansion deadline is based on expansion cities willing to spend on new stadiums AND the cable tv/RSN market not collapsing.
The Panthers are starting to put out feelers about a renovation/new stadium in Charlotte. Nashville’s new mayor says he’s against public financing. Assuming the A’s move to Vegas, the number of potential expansion cities with subsidies on the table seems less then ideal for a bidding war.
Meanwhile it also sounds like the NBA’s next tv deal might be less then originally anticipated. And the RSN market is collapsing outside of the major markets.
Baseball national tv deal goes thru 2028, a lot can change between now and then but if the NBA deal is significantly less than expected, that spells trouble long term for non-football sports media money.
Why would a collapsing viewership matter for expansion? You think billionaires eager to be let into the owners’ club are going to start balking at prices just because cable revenues are down? That seems rational in an unlikely way.
Oh Al! Manfredo!
Best nickname yet!
Thanks!