It’s Friday again, and you know what that means: Time for the cavalcade of bullet points on news we didn’t have time for the rest of the week (or which just broke since Thursday morning, that happens too).
- The Philadelphia Phillies and Flyers owners say they’re going to partner on a $2.5 billion mixed-use development in the teams’ shared parking lots, with restaurants, shops, hotels, apartments, and a 5,500-seat performance stage. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports: “Asked if the project would require public tax dollars, the company said that it was still working on an estimated cost, and that there were many ways to finance the development,” which is decidedly not “no”; stay tuned on this one.
- Apparently it is allowed to conduct polls in Missouri during the early voting period, and one conducted in Jackson County on the April 2 referendum on a 0.375% sales tax surcharge extension to fund Kansas City Royals and Chiefs stadium projects is … tied, basically, with “yes” ahead by 47-46% but with a 4.5-point margin of error. The poll was taken last weekend before the latest news that community groups are urging a “no” vote, and by the Remington Research Group, which is connected with the “yes” campaign, so all this doesn’t look great for the team owners, though of course they still have more campaign spending to do.
- Asked if state and city money would be required for the $2 billion Royals stadium — since team owner John Sherman is only putting in $1 billion and the county sales tax surcharge would only generate $250-350 million, sure seems like yes — team EVP Sarah Tourville told Fox4KC: “What I’ll tell you is that the Royals are committed to putting private capital into the stadium. We’re committed to a billion dollars of private capital in the stadium district.” That’s also decidedly not “no.”
- The Arizona Coyotes briefly posted some arena renderings on their team app on Tuesday, and they’re super-tiny images that don’t have any fireworks at all, come back when you have something high-resolution, guys. Team owner Alex Meruelo still doesn’t actually have the land to build an arena on, since he first has to win an auction for state land where the bidding starts at $68.5 million, then also find the money to build the thing, but baby steps, and baby images, first, apparently. A Sportsnet reporter warned last weekend that the Coyotes could relocate if they don’t win the land auction, but 1) there might not be time to do so before the 2024-25 season and 2) we’ve been hearing this for decades now about multiple arena plans, wolf-crying caveats apply.
- Oakland A’s management has agreed with the Las Vegas Stadium Authority on a community benefits agreement worth at least $2 million a year, which is less than they’re paying 34-year-old relief pitcher Scott Alexander. Also, community benefits agreements are supposed to be signed with community groups that can oversee and enforce them; teams can sign them with local politicians, sure, but that generally turns out very badly.
- Speaking of going very badly, “Oakland A’s again block all replies on Twitter after realizing how much everyone hates the A’s” is an excellent headline about how very badly things are going for A’s execs right now.
- The Chicago Bears could use personal seat license sales to fund “a significant portion” of a new lakefront stadium, reports Crain’s Chicago Business, which also notes that the team used PSLs to fund a portion of its 2002 renovation of Soldier Field — a portion of the team’s share, not the public’s share, don’t get crazy now — and that those licenses’ “value would evaporate” if the team moved to a new stadium. “Buy the right to buy tickets and keep it forever or until we tear down the stadium and build a newer one, whichever comes first” would not seem to be the best marketing strategy, but team owners do seem to rely on sports fans having short memories.
- I was all set to see where sports subsidies would fall on Phil Mattera’s list of biggest mega-scandals, but sadly he ranks these by how much in penalties companies have paid for their misdeeds, and sports team owners have so far escaped prosecution for their crimes, unless you count the St. Louis Rams settlement.
If only the fine people of Charlotte had told Jerry Richardson where to put his PSLs when he floated that concept. (Or before that, the bonds the Cowboys made people buy to get tickets at Texas Stadium.)
Caveat emptor.
Definitely agree on Caveat Emptor.
Having said that, I have reversed my position on PSLs a little.
Maybe it’s just another case of team owners moving the goalposts on fans (like me), but I look at it this way:
If a team has fans who want a shiny new palace to watch their team play in, and who are willing and able to fund all or part of it, what is the problem with offering something like a PSL option?
Put another way, if Montreal (or Portland or San Antonio or…) wants MLB back and has 10,000 fans willing to each put down $10-15k for swanky seats in a new stadium… what is wrong with using that money and fan support to float a construction mortgage (which is a thing sports owners can do. They almost never do because they can force politicians to use money that should be going to schools, libraries and hospitals instead)?
I don’t think that “all” seats in a stadium should carry PSLs. And it absolutely can be viewed as extortion to make people pay for place in line (whether it is to buy sports tickets or a new car/iPhone etc).
But, to me at least, having club seats that carry an up front seat license fee for willing and able buyers is just another fair market transaction.
Apple & Tesla’s questionable (but hugely profitable) marketing strategies may not be for everyone, but then, I don’t have to buy from either one of them. I can shop elsewhere.
And at very least, using PSLs to fund part of a stadium is much less offensive than forcing taxpayers (the majority of whom will be neither interested in or able to buy tickets to the team they are subsidizing) to foot the entire bill.
There’s nothing wrong with PSLs if they’re marketed honestly and people are willing and able to pay for them. (Well, aside from the issue of some fans being much more able to pay than others, but that’s a separate economic issue.) When teams sell PSLs as perpetual licenses and then skip out on them to build a new stadium with new PSLs, that’s starting to be fraud-adjacent.
Do the PSLs (I’ve never owned/leased one, obviously) actually reference “perpetual” or lifetime rights?
I have always assumed they are tied to the existing building. But perhaps not?
As William Shatner once said about a lifetime guarantee, “who’s lifetime? Yours or mine? I haven’t got much time left”.
As I recall, that was nearly 20 years ago… and he seems to have outlasted at least one full generation of stadia since saying that… Go Bill.
It depends on the PSL, they’re all written differently. I’m sure none actually promise that they’ll be transferrable to a new building, but I’m also sure that none of the salespeople are mentioning the possibility that the current building may not reach drinking age.
Your comment got me thinking – how old is Mr. Shatner?
Hey, today’s his birthday. Happy 93rd, Captain Kirk!
Those renderings posted by the Coyotes look like they were produced on a software package purchased at Best Buy for $19.99. The problem is the cost of the arenas, floating roof between the arenas, air conditioning the whole thing where it’s over 100 degrees 150 days a year will cost $19.99 plus several billion. My favorite photo was the one that depicted the entire Coyotes development finished, pasted on a Google satellite photo of the Arizona State Trust Land still untouched desert. That should make Arizona’s teachers enthusiastic about the Coyotes staying in Arizona, the Coyotes get their arena complex on 95 acres, the Arizona Land Department gets stuck with a 905 acre rattlesnake preserve. Another excuse to underfund education in Arizona.
I just had a flashback to 2001, I’ve seen these renderings before. Yes, they look very similar to what Steve Elman released for his Coyotes Arena and Westgate City Center in Glendale. Those actual photos of the Glendale Arena (paid for by the City of Glendale) all by itself in the middle of open desert while Elman was unable to finance Westgate City Center should be a warning. Once the Cardinals arrived in 2006, Elman was finally able to start construction on Westgate. Despite the Coyotes constant moaning and complaining about how close Glendale is to Hawaii, the Glendale Arena is 27 miles west on Loop 101 from their latest proposed arena, or about 25 minutes in the carpool lane. Bettman (Meruelo must be a mute, he has so little to say himself) keeps hyping Arizona as a great hockey market. Sorry Bettman, Phoenix, with its ever increasingly intolerable heat island, isn’t ever going to be a hockey utopia. Putting a team on the ice that hasn’t made the playoffs in 12 years won’t help either.
The Rams paid $700 million to cover up a scandal. There were documents and discussions the NFL didn’t want anyone digging into. Probably a lot more documents with the heading “Adios mother f—kers.”
Probably, yes. But just the stuff that did come out (like Kroenke and JJ toasting the “Los Angeles Rams” return w cigars and champers while E.Stan was ‘still negotiating’ with St. Louis over dome renovations) is enough to convince anyone not employed by the NFL how corrupt that process was.
The city got rid of Kroenke and his moribund team (yes, one superbowl win. And not much else), were fully compensated for the building they put up for the team and got some bonus money to do some upgrades after the team left (if they want).
This is one of the few instances in which I can recall a city actually coming out ahead. And in this case, only because they didn’t ‘win’ the fight to keep the team.
I’d put Vancouver in the same general classification… after all, they have saved nearly $1bn by no longer having the Grizzlies.
I don’t doubt they’ve lost some tax revenue as well. But it would be nowhere near a tenth of that amount, let alone the full shot.
How did Vancouver save a billion dollars by losing the Grizzlies? The arena was already built for both the Grizzlies and Canucks. Its not like St Louis who was going to build a stadium and then didn’t.
Because Memphis already had an arena as well, but had to build another one for the team (at a cost in 2024$ of nearly $400m) and are now being asked to cough up somewhere between $350-550m for upgrades to that “new” arena.
What, you think these concrete and steel structures can last forever???? Clearly not…
I wonder which tenant at the Pyramid contributed more tax revenue. The Grizz or Bass Pro Shop. Gotta think it’s Bass Pro Shop. Unless Memphis gave them huge tax breaks.
I have some bad news about that…
https://www.localmemphis.com/article/money/economy/six-years-bass-pro-pyramid-paying-the-rent-promised/522-4775b263-8d71-4751-b634-3850ebc9d71d
On the other hand… Grizzlies attendance last year, 646,785. Bass Pro Shop at the Pyramid 2,000,000 (claimed) Oh crap, now all the retail stores will demand cities build them pyramids.
mb: I recall reading somewhere that it took the Memphis Grizzlies around a decade to begin outdrawing the Vancouver Grizzlies historic average with a truly all-time terrible w-l record (maybe with the exception of the Washington Generals….).
I wonder who was subsidizing that? I would bet not the owner.
Aqib: because they didn’t have to build them another one?
Any NBA team in Vancouver will always be roommates with the Canucks.
Neil, does the NHL have revenue sharing? I can’t imagine all the money the coyotes owner has flushed with all his wandering…..
The Coyotes have received nearly $1 billion in revenue sharing from other NHL teams over the last 28 years. Add in the money Glendale poured in, and the cost to other NHL teams, fans and Glendale is somewhere around $2 billion 2024 dollars. Bettman’s hockey in the desert dream has been very expensive.
Thanks DPT!
More Coyotes, the land auction will probably require a City of Phoenix infrastructure letter, similar to the one for the Sonoran Oaisis Tech Park going to auction May 29th. The letter was dated January 16th, a similar delay for the Coyotes auction would go into next season. The requirements, if the City of Phoenix is willing to play hockey, will probably be more than Alex Meruelo can afford.
Can you elaborate on what an infrastructure letter involves?
It is a list of infrastructure that Phoenix requires to permit development. Streets, flood control basins, police and fire stations, water and sewer facilities etc, the list gets very long. The infrastructure letter provided with state land auction contains a disclaimer that Phoenix could require more. Scottsdale residents and businesses will also be involved in the process, meaning providing strong opposition.
Meanwhile in DC: Capitals and Wizards can’t leave D.C. until 2047, AG says
https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2024/03/22/capitals-wizards-arena-lease-attorney-general
Since Axios can’t be bothered to link to the actual AG letter:
https://twitter.com/broadcastben_/status/1771214333902454890
Does anyone have a copy of the D.C. bond/lease agreement from 2007? Seems like the big question is what the penalties are there if the teams don’t play home games in D.C.
Here’s the bond legislation, but it just says that 20 years is added to the lease, not what the lease says about penalties for leaving town early:
https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/17-12