Friday roundup: Rays focused on Tampa Bay (for now), Anaheim officials say Angels stadium sale got illegal secret approval

Lots of news this week, starting with the continuing reaction to yesterday’s tragic death of the Tampontreal Ex-Rays:

  • While the rejection of his split-city plan by his fellow MLB owners would seem to leave Rays owner Stuart Sternberg in a position to play Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Montreal — and maybe other cities as well like Nashville or Portland — off against each other in a bidding war, he says he intends to focus on Tampa and St. Pete, at least for now, saying during yesterday’s bonkers Zoom press conference, “I’ve never threatened to move the team out of the region. That seems to be 101 in the playbook of getting stadiums and arenas built. It just hasn’t been my way to this point. And people have advised me to do that.” (Yahoo Sports’ Hannah Keyser astutely observes that “telling someone you haven’t threatened them yet — and, indeed, have magnanimously resisted the obvious and apparently advisable temptation to do so — can read a little like a threat.”) Meanwhile, would-be Montreal investor Stephen Bronfman responded like Montreal is out of the running, saying during his own Zoom call, “It’s like a bloody eulogy. I’m just tired. I’m a little upset. We had something so good. We would have proved [to] everyone, we would have made a mark. I think a lot of people in sport would have been listening to us.” Prediction: Sternberg works on getting whatever bidding war going that he can between the two sides of Tampa Bay, since that seems to be what MLB prefers, and if that falters then he can decide which city to start ostentatiously attending hockey games in.
  • Speaking of the Oakland A’s, their Howard Terminal stadium environmental impact statement passed a planning commission vote this week, which means the environmental signoff could be headed for a final council vote in February. Of course, there’s still a potential half-billion-dollar budget gap even after the Oakland council gave preliminary approval to $495 million in tax kickbacks, all of which would need to be resolved before a final council vote later this year. Meanwhile, a new poll shows that Oakland residents oppose spending public money on an A’s stadium by 46-37% margin, though given that the maybe-billion-dollars in proposed public money is all for “infrastructure” and not the stadium per se, stadium advocates are claiming that the plan meets this provision anyway. The A’s seem to have backed away from threats to trade all their good young players this winter, which is probably a good idea as it’s tough to build support for public funding for a terrible team, but we could well see this whole threatdown reemerge after the 2022 season, if there is one.
  • That lawsuit announced back in March 2020 against the city of Anaheim for selling its stadium land to the Los Angeles Angels without sufficient public meetings is finally underway, with former city manager Chris Zapata and councilmember Jose Moreno filing testimony that the council secretly made the sale decision before holding any public hearings at all. The trial is set to begin on February 14, and man do I hope it will be televised.
  • The Buffalo Bills are currently getting about $13 million a year in state money to fund stadium operations under their current lease, while paying only $900,000 a year in rent, according to an Investigative Post report. The Bills lease, which was signed in 1998, is “not much worse than a lot of the other leases out there, but given that the average lease is pretty bad, that’s not really a compliment,” says one stadium blogger whose name you can probably guess even without clicking through to the article.
  • The new head of Charlotte’s economic development committee, councilmember Malcolm Graham, said that “Public-private partnership is one that’s obviously going to get a lot of attention over the next 18 to 24 months in terms of some of the things we are working on with some of our local partners,” and indicated that taxpayer money for the Panthers and Hornets could be two of those things. The latest ask from Panthers owner David Tepper was for around $500 million, while Hornets owner Michael Jordan hasn’t put a dollar figure on his request so far that I can tell.
  • Las Vegas’ top tourism marketer says that more than half of all Vegas visitors will add an extra visit or stay longer thanks to the presence of the Raiders and Golden Knights, citing … no actual data at all that I can tell? It’s going to be tough in any case to determine economic impact of the new teams given that the pandemic has turned both sports spending and travel spending upside down, but I hope that once we can manage a relatively normal year, the usual economist suspects will do some studies to see if the substitution effect holds for Vegas the same as everywhere else.
  • The Single-A Hillsboro Hops want a $60-100 million stadium upgrade, because all the minor-league baseball kids are doing it. No word yet on who would pay for what, but the city of Hillsboro issued an RFP for design and construction work.
  • This week’s non-sports-stadium subsidy report: West Virginia is giving $1.7 billion to a steel company for a new plant that will largely employ residents of neighboring Ohio and Kentucky, read all about it.
  • A sewage pipe burst at the Los Angeles Rams‘ stadium, time to build a new one!
Share this post:

A’s execs to kick tires on Vegas, any other cities willing to play along with their bidding war

This was too easy. Me, six days ago:

If the news cycle demands an extra booster shot of threatdown, we could maybe see [Oakland A’s president Dave] Kaval fly to Vegas or Portland and meet with local officials there, because that often works.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, Monday night:

Oakland Athletics officials will visit Southern Nevada next week to explore moving the Major League Baseball club to Las Vegas.

The Review-Journal goes on to report that, according to “sources,” the A’s move threat team plans to meet with officials in other cities as well. It adds that Kaval and owner John Fisher are looking for “a private-public partnership” like the one that built the Las Vegas Raiders stadium, which readers will recall involved Raiders owner Mark Davis getting $750 million in public subsidies and paying $0 in rent, so really who wouldn’t look for that?

The question everyone will be asking now is “Are the A’s serious about moving or just bluffing?” and the answer, as always, is “Why can’t it be both?” There is no harm in burning a few thousand frequent flyer miles to, as Pittsburgh Penguins owner Mario Lemieux once said, “go and have a nice dinner and come back,” which serves the dual purpose of seeing what other cities have to offer and sparking headlines back at home about how a move is imminent if the team’s owner doesn’t get what he wants. If you play your cards right, you can maybe get a bidding war going between multiple cities; but even if you play your cards wrong, it’s a proven way to get subsidy-shy legislators back to the bargaining table, or maybe even resetting the clocks so that a stadium bill can be approved before a midnight deadline.

Weirdly, hardly anyone seems to see much wrong with elected officials in cities like Las Vegas enabling this kind of extortion scheme, even though it’s been 26 years since Arthur Rolnick and Melvin Burstein of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve decried it as a wasteful “economic war among the states” that leaves everyone worse off:

When states compete through subsidies and preferential taxes for specific businesses, the overall economy suffers. From the states’ point of view each may appear better off competing for particular businesses, but the overall economy ends up with less of both private and public goods than if such competition was prohibited.

Everyone worse off but for the team owner who ends up with a new stadium with someone else footing the bills, that is.

Rolnick and Burstein called for Congress to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate interstate bidding wars for relocations of everything from sports teams to auto plants; if you prefer, there’s still David Minge’s excise tax on corporate subsidies idea. Or maybe we could start with a little public shaming, since if nothing else that’s the 2021 thing to do? Hey, Carolyn Goodman, why are you helping a California billionaire play off cities against each other to extract the biggest taxpayer check? Do you hate America, Carolyn Goodman? I’m thinking you hate America. #CarolynGoodmanhatesAmerica

Share this post:

A’s owner threatens to move team out of Oakland to [throws dart at map] to gain $855m in public cash

When last we checked in on the Oakland A’s stadium situation, team execs had just released a plan where they would build a stadium (and maybe a whole bunch of other stuff) at Howard Terminal on the downtown waterfront, and the city of Oakland would spend $855 million on building them unspecified “infrastructure,” in response to which Oakland city officials had gone Hmmm naaah. What’s a self-respecting sports team owner to do next? You know what:

“The future success of the A’s depends on a new ballpark,” A’s owner John Fisher said in a statement. “Oakland is a great baseball town, and we will continue to pursue our waterfront ballpark project. We will also follow MLB’s direction to explore other markets.”

Yep, Fisher has finally played the move threat card, asserting he may take his team and go, well, somewhere, if he doesn’t get his way in Oakland. And, also in sports owner tradition, he did so by passing the buck to his league as the one that really wants him to get a stadium or else, something MLB provided cover for with a statement of their own:

MLB released a statement Tuesday expressing its longtime determination that the current Coliseum site is “not a viable option for the future vision of baseball.”

“MLB is concerned with the rate of progress on the A’s new ballpark effort with local officials and other stakeholders in Oakland,” MLB said. “The A’s have worked very hard to advance a new ballpark in downtown Oakland for the last four years, investing significant resources while facing multiple roadblocks. We know they remain deeply committed to succeeding in Oakland, and with two other sports franchises recently leaving the community, their commitment to Oakland is now more important than ever.”

(Note the inclusion of the passive-aggressive jibe about “two other sports franchises leaving” Oakland recently. Whoever wrote that statement clearly has better feel than MLB commissioner Rob Manfred.)

Back to A’s president Dave Kaval, who has been spearheading the stadium lobbying campaign:

“We’re going to immediately start working with the league on exploring other markets and working hand in hand with them to identify which ones make the most sense and pursuing that right away,” Kaval told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “We need to keep our options open. People know, we can’t even keep the lights on here at the Coliseum.”

All this is, on the one hand, unexpected because both the A’s owners and MLB have long insisted they wouldn’t move the team out of the Bay Area, even while kicking the tires on seemingly every place in the Bay Area; and at the same time totally expected, because this is just how it’s done when stadium talks stall. If nothing else, it gets everyone talking about How will Oakland keep the A’s from moving? instead of The A’s want $855 million for WHAT?, and that’s worth the price of putting out a couple of press statements and maybe enraging a few fans.

I know you all have lots of questions, so allow me to both ask and answer them for you:

Are the A’s really going to move?

Probably not? Sure, they’re likely to go kick the tires on lots of other cities clamoring to get their own MLB franchise. But it’s hard to overlook these numbers on TV market size:

DMA Name                    Ranking   No. Homes 2021
San Francisco-Oak-San Jose        6        2,653,270
Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto         20        1,459,260
Portland,OR                      21        1,315,470
Charlotte                        22        1,290,660
Nashville                        29        1,102,340
Las Vegas                        40          833,510

Yes, the A’s currently have to share the Bay Area with the San Francisco Giants, so their media rights there aren’t quite worth double what they would be in Portland (or triple what they would be in Las Vegas). But they’re still a really strong reason for the team to stay put.

But the Raiders!

The Las Vegas (née OaklandRaiders, as you are probably aware, play football, not baseball. And the NFL has a dramatically different TV rights structure, where pretty much all TV money comes in from national networks, and is then shared equally among all the teams, whether they play in huge markets or in Green Bay. Add in that NFL teams only have to worry about selling tickets to eight home games a year, not 81 like in MLB, and it’s far easier for football owners to take their teams to a city of whatever size, so long as they’re being offered a tasty enough stadium deal.

So is Fisher just saying this for—

Yes.

You didn’t let me finish.

Sorry, but you know I love to link to that Jerry Reinsdorf “savvy negotiator creates leverage” story. But anyway, yes, this is a leverage move, first and foremost — though one of the great things about being a sports team owner is that there is no downside to threatening first, and deciding whether you’re serious later.

So what happens next?

If all goes well for Fisher, the media goes nuts speculating on all the places he could possibly move the A’s, preventing him from having to do so much as put out a press release naming names. (Ideally, this would be accompanied by actual investigations of whether those cities are viable options offering better stadium deals than Oakland, but you know it’ll just be “where the A’s will move, ranked” — oh look, here we go already.) If the news cycle demands an extra booster shot of threatdown, we could maybe see Kaval fly to Vegas or Portland and meet with local officials there, because that often works.

At the same time, expect to see lots of frantic repositioning among Oakland city officials to swear that they are totally in favor of helping fund a new stadium, when did they ever say otherwise? In fact, here are some right now:

Justin Berton, a spokesperson for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, said in a statement: “We share MLB’s sense of urgency and their continued preference for Oakland.

“Today’s statement makes clear that the only viable path to keeping the A’s rooted in Oakland is a ballpark on the waterfront. … Now, with the recent start of financial discussions with the A’s, we call on our entire community — regional and local partners included — to rally together and support a new, financially viable, fiscally responsible, world class waterfront neighborhood that enhances our city and region, and keeps the A’s in Oakland where they belong.” …

Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas said in a statement Tuesday that the council “is committed to keeping the A’s in Oakland.”

So is that it? Fisher and MLB put out a couple of press releases, and Oakland city officials fold and offer him whatever he wants?

Not at all. There’s a huge difference between “We support a downtown Oakland stadium” and “We want to spend $855 million on a downtown Oakland stadium,” which is where all the haggling will come in. But, as noted above, this shifts the conversation from Should Oakland give John Fisher a pile of money? to How big should the pile be?, and that’s the most important win a team owner can ask for at this stage of negotiations.

How much money should Oakland offer to keep the A’s?

See, even you’re doing it now! You’re assuming the A’s will leave without a sufficient offer!

You’re talking to yourself, you know.

Writer’s prerogative.

Anyway, what’s a reasonable (or “fiscally responsible,” as Schaaf put it) amount to spend on infrastructure for an A’s stadium depends on lots of things, including:

On that last bullet point, the last time we went through this was with the Montreal Expos, at which point Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams responded to an utter lack of competing offers with Sure, I’ll give you whatever you want. So history is not exactly optimistic that everyone will arrive at a price that works for both sides, if that’s even something that’s possible.

You mentioned the Oakland Coliseum site. Is that still an option?

There’s going to be lots of tea-leaf reading into MLB’s statement that the Coliseum is “not a viable option for the future vision of baseball” in Oakland — does that mean the current Coliseum, or something new on the Coliseum site, or what? I already got an email last night from the East Oakland Stadium Alliance, which is mostly made up of Howard Terminal port unions and businesses worried about a stadium getting in the way of their ships and trucks, arguing that “the Coliseum location is the ideal place to build a new stadium, as it already has freeway access, public transit, and more than enough space to create a ‘ballpark village’ that could revitalize East Oakland.” All of which is true (well, maybe “revitalize” is a stretch), but would Fisher settle for developing the Coliseum site if getting Howard Terminal in shape proves to be more expensive than either he or the city can stomach? Will Schaaf and the city council force him to make that decision? And what about Naomi? Tune in again tomorrow, and tomorrow’s tomorrow, and on and on into the future vision of baseball.

Share this post: