What does $4B Angels sale mean for team’s stadium future, MLB expansion plans? Some investimagations

Los Angeles Angels owner Arte Moreno announced yesterday that he is selling the team to Los Angeles Rams/Denver Nuggets/Colorado Avalanche owner Stan Kroenke, and most of the news coverage has — rightly — focused on Moreno not letting the door hit him in the butt on the way out. Moreno, a billionaire billboard baron, bought the Angels in 2003 from Disney for $180 million, and since then has: angered locals by changing the name of the team from the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim to try to appeal to more fans from the populous city to the north; squandered the presence of the best player of his generation by surrounding him with every overpriced, washed-up free agent he could find; tried to obtain $500 million worth of city land around his stadium for only $150 million, and almost getting away with it until the whole thing blew up in an FBI bribery investigation; and declaring that fans don’t care about winning after conducting a survey that didn’t include “winning” as one of the choices, among other lowlights. By this season, fans were openly chanting “Sell the team!” at home games, and it was apparently enough for Moreno to cash in his chips and sell to the Walmart-heir-by-marriage up the road at a huge profit.

Even as fans exulted in Moreno’s departure, some expressed concern about what a new owner — one who already broke the Rams’ lease in St. Louis so he could move them back to L.A. (The Athletic terms this a “proven track record” in stadium development, which is certainly one way of looking at it) — might mean for the Angels’ future. The team’s lease expires in 2032, though ownership has a series of one-year options that could extend it to 2038. And that juicy stadium parking lot land is still sitting there, though complicated by the fact that the state’s Surplus Land Act requires public property to be considered first for affordable housing before it can be devoted to other uses, something the city of Anaheim already paid a $96 million fine for ignoring once.

In addition, just last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law the Home Run for Anaheim Act, which requires the team to revert to being called the Anaheim Angels in any future lease negotiation or land sale agreement (CORRECTION: Only if the team first gets an exemption from the Surplus Land Act), which may or may not matter depending on whether Kroenke shares Moreno’s obsession with the L.A. name. The 79-year-old Kroenke inherits a stadium situation that is ripe for either opportunity or extortion, depending on how you look at it, and his track record for playing hardball in such matters should encourage Anaheim officials to sleep with one eye open, at least.

The other potential fallout from the sale involves the price tag: We don’t know how big a stake the “controlling interest” is that Kroenke is buying from Moreno, but we do know that it values the entire franchise at a new-MLB-record $4 billion. Coming on the heels of the San Diego Padres‘ sale for a $3.9 billion valuation, this is a sign that there are still plenty of billionaires willing to shell out top dollar for MLB franchises. That’s likely to whet league owners’ appetite for cashing in by creating two expansion teams; even if the available open markets are underwhelming and adding teams would just dilute existing owners’ shares of national TV contracts, it’s got to be tough to pass up a cut of what could be a pair of $4 billion or more checks. With the Athletics and Tampa Bay Rays stadium situations now seemingly settled — though we’ve said that before — the next step may be setting up a bidding war among the Portlands and Nashvilles and Salt Lake Citys of the world, to see if any wants to pay enough toward a new stadium to help an expansion owner afford that multibillion-dollar expansion fee. All the kids are doing it!

 

Share this post:

Friday roundup: The world is increasingly an ocean of stadium disinformation slop, and sea levels are rising

It’s been another exhausting news week, so if you need a pick-me-up, please enjoy some videos of how I spent last weekend. Sometimes we all need a musical reminder to hang on to your humanity.

Once you’re sufficiently fortified, here’s what else happened this week in the world of sports stadium and arena shakedowns:

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bengals lease a mystery even to officials who voted for it, Congress and lobbyists pressure DC to okay Commanders’ $7B+ stadium deal

How’s everyone doing out there? The news has been a lot lately, both the stadium shenanigans and the other non-stadium stuff, I get it, I’m as tempted as anyone to just shut off the outside world and watch Murderbot. Feel no obligation to read this week’s news roundup if you’re out of spoons, but do know that whenever you’re ready for it, it has some classic Rob Manfred garblequotes in it, those are kind of amusing at least:

Share this post:

MLB expansion “not imminent,” may depend on who coughs up biggest stadium subsidies

While it’s tempting to report on yesterday’s meeting between Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf and state legislative leaders about a new South Loop stadium with a potential $1.7 billion subsidy, the public statements by Reinsdorf and his developer pals were just along the lines of “yup, we met, thanks everyone for their time,” which isn’t really much fodder even for tea-leaf reading. So instead, let’s devote some attention to the big article yesterday by ESPN’s Jeff Passan on MLB’s expansion plans, such as his unnamed sources may claim they are:

While no current plans to expand exist, the potential of a nine-figure financial windfall for every existing team reaping its piece of a combined $4 billion-plus in expansion fees for two new franchises — and the emergence of viable candidates whose merits appeal to owners and the league — has left the game preparing for a 32-team league as an inevitability, according to owners, high-ranking league sources and other team personnel who spoke to ESPN.

We kind of knew this already: Existing MLB owners are salivating at their cut of expansion fees (though even if each team cost $2 billion, they’d only each be getting $133 million, or about one and a half Eduardo Rodriguezes), so expansion will happen eventually. But “eventually” has always been the timeline, so what kind of eventually are we talking about here?

Expansion, those sources said, is not imminent — and in fact is unlikely to happen until the early 2030s. Creating a franchise out of nothing takes time, and expansion isn’t MLB’s immediate priority, either — not amid the fallout from the bankruptcy of Diamond Sports Group, the company that owned local television rights to 14 teams, the unsettled status of the Rays’ attempt to build a new stadium and the Oakland A’s attempt to abscond to Las Vegas. Not to mention the new collective bargaining agreement to be negotiated after the current one expires in 2026, too.

“It hasn’t been much of a topic of conversation,” one owner, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, told ESPN. “Everybody knows what’s going to happen eventually, but it’s so far off that people just haven’t focused on it.”

So maybe MLB commissioner Rob Manfred will be able to work out an expansion plan before he leaves office in 2029 as he’s promised. Or maybe the Oakland A’s and Tampa Bay Rays will still be trying to figure out stadium deals by then, or maybe a 93-year-old Reinsdorf will still be trying to extract a stadium deal from Chicago and will need Nashville to remain vacant so he can create leverage there, or maybe expansion will need to be held over the head of either the players union or an owners faction in order to get them to cave on some issue that Manfred will want to horse-trade on.

This has gone from “inevitable” to “someday” in record time, but sure, let’s keep playing along. Where exactly would MLB expand to, given that when the Rays and A’s owners were looking for places to move or at least threaten to, the best they could come up was “maybe part-time in Montreal in a stadium that doesn’t exist” and “maybe in Las Vegas in a stadium we still don’t know how to pay for even after $600 million in public cash“?

It is expected to include one team situated in the East and another in the West, paving the way for realignment that could radically alter the game.

Uh, if you’re going to completely reshuffle all the divisions, it doesn’t matter where the new teams are geographically. And if you’re not, you would have to have uneven division sizes anyway, since right now there are six five-team divisions, so there’s nothing stopping MLB from putting, say, one team in the AL East and one in the NL West. But if the sources say it, the sources say it.

Any particular cities in mind, Jeff?

FOR ALL OF their differences culturally, spiritually and historically, Nashville, Tennessee, and Salt Lake City share plenty in common. Nashville is the 26th-biggest media market in the United States; Salt Lake City is the 27th. Both regularly rank among the United States’ fastest-growing cities. And both have positioned themselves to be at the front of the line when MLB finally decides to expand.

I mean, yes, Nashville and Salt Lake are both similar media markets — bigger than Cincinnati and Milwaukee, about the size of Baltimore and San Diego. That also applies to San Antonio and Charlotte, both of which are growing as fast if not faster than Nashville and Salt Lake. So why are Tennessee and Utah at the front of the line?

Nashville’s and Salt Lake City’s reputations as front-runners is in large part due to their preparation and planning.

Go on…

Music City Baseball recently contracted the real estate development company Mortenson to undertake a stadium site and market analysis, two integral pieces to any eventual presentation to the league….

Big League Utah is proposing an exceptional mixed-use development that would cost $3.5 billion in private money.

And there we go. Nashville and Salt Lake City are — for the moment — the expansion frontrunners because they have stadium plans, or at least are talking about them. (Better yet, that Utah stadium development that would cost $3.5 billion in private money would also include $600 million or more in public money.) Or at least that’s what league sources want everyone to think, and why would league sources possibly mislead anyone about that in order to prompt a bidding war with taxpayer cash? You think they would lie just because they’re shielded by anonymity? What kind of monster would do that?

So we’re left with: MLB may expand someday, and right now Nashville and Salt Lake City are on their radar because they’re waving around possible stadium money, but that could always change. And it’s always possible that MLB will pick expansion cities based on some other criteria: probably not market size since there are no obvious slam-dunk markets, but which city has a potential owner who will sign the biggest expansion-fee check, or who just seems like they’d be most fun to hang out with at owners’ meetings, can’t be ruled out.

Let’s turn it back over to Passan for some closing words:

Expansion is coming to Major League Baseball. In what form, in what cities, in what year — all of those questions will be answered in time. It’s destiny.

Only one thing’s for sure: No one knows.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Stadium construction continues despite sick workers, drained city budgets may not slow subsidy demands, and other news from our continuing hellscape

How did everyone do during Week Whatever (depending on where you live) of the new weirdness? I finished another jigsaw puzzle, spent way more time than I thought possible trying to understand the new unemployment insurance rules, had the best idea ever, and wrote another article about how the media should stop feeding the troll. (Here’s the previous one, if I neglected to post a link to it before, which I probably did.) And, of course, continued to write this site, even if the subject matter, like all subject matter everywhere, has taken a decided turn for the microbial. Hopefully it’s helping to inform or at least distract you, because it looks like we may be here a while.

Anyway, it’s Friday again, so let’s celebrate getting another week closer to the end of this unknowably long tunnel with some stadium and arena news:

  • Construction is now shut down on the Worcester Red Sox stadium, but continues on the in-progress stadiums for the Los Angeles Rams and Chargers, the Las Vegas Raiders, and the Texas Rangers, even after workers on the latter two projects tested positive for COVID-19, and despite it being pretty much impossible to do construction while maintaining a six-foot distance from your fellow workers. The USA Today article reporting all this cites continued construction as a “boost to the economy,” which is slightly weird in that 1) pretty much all economic activity is a boost to the economy, but everyone has kind of decided now that keeping millions of people from dying is more important (okay, almost everyone), and 2) given that these stadiums will all have to be finished eventually regardless, shutting down construction would only push the economic activity a few weeks into the future, to a time when construction workers would actually have stores and restaurants open where they could spend their salary. It really would be nice if journalists writing about economics talked to an economist every once in a while.
  • Raleigh Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin says she’s preparing for a “recession budget” that could require cutting back on planned projects including “a planned renovation of the PNC Arena, an expansion of the Raleigh Convention Center, an addition to the Marbles Kids Museum, a proposed soccer stadium in south Raleigh and a recreational complex at Brier Creek,” reports the News & Observer. Since every local government in the U.S. if not the world is about to see its tax revenues plummet, could this mean a temporary lull in stadium and arena demands while teams have to wait for treasuries to refill? Or will team owners just do like during the Great Recession and pivot from “times are good, now is when you should spend your surplus on giving us new sports venues” to “times are tough, now is when you should be spending to promote any development jobs you can get”? Hawaii officials say the latter, and they don’t even have a team owner lobbying them, so I think you know where I’d be laying my bets.
  • A new poll shows that sports fans believe they’ll be less likely to go to live sporting events once they’ve been “deemed safe,” mostly over fears that they won’t actually be safe. (Nearly two-thirds said they’d be concerned about “health safety,” and more said they’d avoid indoor events than outdoor ones.) There’s presumably some push-poll effect here — if someone asks you if you’re going to be concerned about your health at large events, that’s going to get you thinking about how you maybe should be concerned — but still it’s at least one data point suggesting that game attendance could suffer for a while despite pent-up hunger for live sports.
  • Meanwhile, ratings have plummeted for pro wrestling events before empty venues, which could be a sign that a big part of watching televised sports is enjoying the roar of the crowd, or that pro wrestling isn’t really a sport, take your pick. Where are those New Jersey Nets sound operators when you need them?
  • Don’t count on getting back your “sports fee” on your cable bill even if there’s no sports to watch, though maybe if your TV provider can recoup some fees they’re paying to sports leagues, they’ll consider sharing some of the savings with you.
  • A study by an “advertising intelligence and sales enablement platform” that is no doubt really annoyed right now that this press release didn’t get me to use their name and promote their brand projects that ad spending on sporting events will drop by $1 billion this year. And will that cost sports teams, or the cable and broadcast networks that are contracted to carry them? Sorry, didn’t study that part, we figured Forbes would report on this even without that info, and we were right!
  • Speaking of dumb Forbes articles, here’s one about how baseball should make up for lost revenue by expanding, which overlooks both that this is undoubtedly the worst time imaginable to get the highest expansion fee possible, and that MLB teams are all owned by billionaires so really the issue isn’t having cash on hand, it’s getting yearly income back up, and diluting your share of national revenues by one-fifteenth (if two new teams were added) is no way to do that.
  • But hey, at least stadiums come in handy for herding homeless people into en masse to keep them from getting sick, that’s neither disturbingly dystopian nor terrible social distancing policy, right? What’s that you say? You’re right, let’s instead spend some time revisiting cab-hailing purse woman, that’s a much more soothing start to the weekend.
Share this post: