Friday roundup: Florida Panthers’ lease extension could be one of the priciest ever for taxpayers

I’ve been trying to write about this all week, but stuff kept happening: Broward County commissioners agreed to a term sheet that would give the Florida Panthers a five-year lease extension through 2033, and the money part is so convoluted that it calls for its own set of bullet points:

  • Panthers owner Vincent Viola will give the county $51.5 million to pay off the remaining debt on the arena where the team plays, which cost the county $185 million to build in 1998.
  • The county will continue to spend $25 million a year in hotel tax money on operations, maintenance, and upgrades to the arena, for the life of the lease extension.
  • The county has two five-year options to extend the lease. If it doesn’t do so, it has to return some or all of Viola’s $51.5 million debt payment.
  • Viola gets development rights to land around the arena, which he had given up as part of a 2015 deal to get access to the hotel tax funding and get the out clause in his lease that is the whole reason why the county is renegotiating his lease now instead of waiting until 2028.

I’m hesitant to put a dollar figure on the whole thing, but it looks like if Broward County picks up the two five-year lease extensions it gets the $51.5 million while spending $25 million a year over 15 years, which comes to around $250 million in present value, plus gives up development rights to 140 acres of land, which is worth who knows — let’s guesstimate it as $250-300 million in subsidies from the county to Viola. On the other hand, if Broward doesn’t do the extensions, it doesn’t get the $51.5 million, but also its annual arena subsidies go down to more like $100 million, so that’d be more like a $150-200 million subsidy — but also it would need to redo the Panthers’ lease a decade sooner.

So on a per-year basis — math’s almost done, I promise! — that’s either $17-20 million a year for a 15-year extension, or $30-40 million a year for a 5-year extension. That would still be less than the current record $43 million a year lease extension that Charlotte gave the Carolina Panthers (no relation), but it’s a chunk of change regardless.

The Broward County Board of Commissioners still needs to give final approval to the deal, so maybe if we’re lucky we’ll get some hearings or something that will shed more light on the bouncing dollar signs. In the meantime, we had more news this week, let’s get to that:

  • Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch says if Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf wants a new stadium, he should mostly pay for it with private money. Welch also revealed that the White Sox greats at that private ballfield event Reinsdorf held this week for elected officials included Bo Jackson, Ron Kittle, Harold Baines, and Ozzie Guillen, and they didn’t even play catch — though given Kittle’s career –7.5 defensive wins above replacement, you probably don’t want to let him throw many baseballs your direction anyway.
  • Frisco, Texas approved that $141 million-plus renovation for the F.C. Dallas stadium that it was set to vote on Tuesday, as expected. At least the new sun roof looks cool, even if the provided rendering shows lots of fans still sitting in the sun.
  • My former employer Gothamist, continuing its race away from quality journalism that saw it earlier this week write about New York police shooting a bystander on a subway car in the head by only asking former cops whether it was justified, opines that the Philadelphia 76ers not moving to Camden is a loss for New Jersey officials who proposed the idea. Not mentioned: All the other things New Jersey can do with $400 million if it doesn’t give it to Sixers owner Josh Harris. Guess this is what happens when keep laying off your news staff.
  • The design of the Oakland Athletics‘ proposed Las Vegas stadium is 50% complete, and no, I don’t know what that means either. It would only have 30,000 seats, with another 3,000 in standing room. If you don’t count the Tampa Bay Rays stadium, which only holds 25,000 because its upper deck has been closed since 2019, this would be the smallest MLB ballpark since the 1969 Seattle Pilots played at 25,000-seat Sick’s Stadium, which went so well that the Pilots moved to Milwaukee the next spring.
  • Cleveland.com asked some sports economists if a new Cleveland Browns stadium would be good for local jobs or tax revenue, and got the expected answer. It’s a good overview of the existing economic findings, though, and worth reading if you want to dive into the details of why sports subsidies don’t pay off for taxpayers, not even if you count the value of keeping a team from leaving town.
Share this post:

Hunt family set to get $141m+ and city land to renovate 19-year-old FC Dallas stadium that was just renovated in 2018

Another day, another team with a stadium not yet of drinking age seeking public funds for upgrades. Today’s contestant: F.C. Dallas, who are set to get $182 million in sales tax money from the city of Frisco for upgrades to their “aging” stadium, which opened all the way back in 2005.

When last we checked in on this back in May, it was just $130 million, and the source of the public money wasn’t yet known. But things have escalated quickly, to the point where the Frisco city council is set to vote today on issuing $182 million in sales tax revenue bonds, 64% of which would be paid off by the city and 36% by team payments on an extended lease through 2057. (Much of the money could go to build a canopy to provide shade for fans, but it would also add 3,400 seats and new restaurants and other revenue-generating opportunities, all of the revenue from which would go to the team.)

But F.C. Dallas owners the Hunt family, of Kansas City Chiefs fame and $24.8 billion net worth, are holding out a carrot of sorts:

Hunt Sports Group has proposed a “mixed use vision” that, according to city documents, would include 1.2 million square feet of class A office space, a 180,000-square-foot upscale hotel with 200 rooms and a 200-unit multifamily high-rise with retail and restaurant space on the ground floor. The development would also include 30,000 square feet of additional retail and restaurant space, parking structures and complimentary civic spaces and urban streetscape.

Adding mixed-use districts to stadium projects is all the rage, as it both creates new profit opportunities for the team owners and provides a way to show they’re making an “investment” in their city that they can use to justify the stadium subsidy. Which is fine, so long as the ancillary development doesn’t require subsidies of its own—

For the mixed-use improvements, Hunt Sports Group has requested economic development incentives “that are similar in scale and structure to what has been provided for other major mixed use partnerships in Frisco,” according to city documents. The incentives would be provided as reimbursements for infrastructure expenses incurred during the first phase of the mixed-use improvements.

Council documents reveal that subsidies for the stadium district would include a $25 million “Qualified Infrastructure Grant,” plus a kickback of 50% of sales tax on construction materials and services, provided the first phase of the development is underway by the end of 2037. The ancillary development would also require use of a city-owned parking lot, the land value of which isn’t given.

Add it all up, and you have somewhere between $141 million and who knows in order to let multi-billionaires upgrade a stadium that cost $80 million to build 19 years ago and which just received $55 million in upgrades in 2018. Today’s council meeting is set to kick off at 5 pm CT; it looks like we’ll be able to watch along here, if anyone wants to see if there’s any discussion of how much all this will cost or why the city should be paying for it.

Share this post:

FC Dallas plans $130m expansion of clubs and luxury suites, likely using city money

The owners of F.C. Dallas are seeking a major expansion of their stadium in Frisco, and Dallas Business Journal has all the details:

The May 28 filing with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation calls for a 130,000-square-foot expansion “of premium product including clubs and suites” as well as new broadcast and press areas, to meet Major League Soccer guidelines. New canopy lighting could also be added.

A source close to FC Dallas, who asked not to be named, called the filing a first step toward a potentially bigger project announcement but declined to elaborate…

The TLDR filing listed an estimated cost of $130 million for the project. It indicated construction could begin in January and be completed in August 2027.

Okay, so maybe not all the details. Who actually submitted the paperwork to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation? Who would pay the $130 million cost? Let’s go to the actual filing and find out:

  • The form was filed by Kimberly Goss, who is president of an accessible architectural design firm in Dallas. The filing doesn’t state whether Goss was acting on behalf of the city or of team owner Dan Hunt.
  • Under “Type of Funds,” the form lists: “This project involves public funds, public land, or is a Federally funded roadway project.”
  • Under “Are the private funds provided by the tenant?” the filing says: “No.”

This is hardly definitive, especially since the filing form can contain errors. (This one lists the stadium owner as “Frisco Stadium LLC,” which is the team, though the building is in fact owned by the city; and it lists the tenant as “Not Assigned.”) But it sure looks like the city of Frisco is about to be asked to spend $130 million on its 19-year-old soccer stadium that was just renovated in 2018, all to create new clubs and luxury suites to increase profits for the team’s private owners. The city issued a statement that Toyota Stadium and FC Dallas represent “important” pieces of “Frisco’s tourism and entertainment economy,” which certainly sounds like preparations to justify spending public money.

It’s always possible, of course, that the plan is for the FC Dallas owners to pay for the new stadium expansion, either directly or through rent payments or revenue sharing down the road. After all, the 2018 renovation cost $55 million and the team kicked in, let’s see … $1 million a year in rent, which is the equivalent of about $15 million total. So, yeah, expect that taxpayers would cover most of the $130 million price tag — which would be more than half the entire annual Frisco city budget, and more than the city spends each year on police, fire, and EMS workers combined, but truly, who can put a price on “premium product including clubs and suites”?

Share this post:

NFL and MLS about to start letting fans in, is this a terrible idea or what?

So far, the restart of sports in the U.S. has gone reasonably well: Sure, there were a few embarrassing pratfalls like the Miami Marlins having to stop playing games for a week after they had a dozen players test positive for Covid when they played a game right after initial positive tests because their shortstop said it was okay, but overall, things are working out much better than one might have feared. No league has actually had to stop play entirely (yet) as the result of outbreaks, and leagues playing in “bubbles” like the NBA and NHL have avoided even interruptions for individual teams.

The one thing that major North American leagues haven’t tried yet, though, is allowing actual fans to attend games. That’s about to change big-time, though, as two MLS teamsReal Salt Lake and Sporting Kansas City — are about to join FC Dallas this week in holding games before limited-capacity crowds. (FC Dallas played its first home game before a reported 2,912 fans two weeks ago, though it didn’t look like no 2,912.) And then the floodgates are set to open September 10, when the NFL season kicks off with the Kansas City Chiefs, Indianapolis Colts, Dallas Cowboys, Miami Dolphins, and Jacksonville Jaguars all set to play before about one-quarter-capacity crowds, with a dozen other teams either considering letting fans in or not yet having announced plans. In each case, there will be rules in place to protect fans — staggered entry times, mask requirements (except when eating or drinking), buffer zones between groups of seats, etc. — or at least to make fans feel more reassured that they’re being protected.

The question everyone wants to know the answer to: Is it safe? The answer, unfortunately, isn’t easy to determine: Sure, lots of overseas sports leagues have readmitted fans without ill effects, but those were all in nations with very low Covid rates — if you collect 13,000 people in one place and none of them are infectious, that’s not much of a test of how fast the virus can spread at a sporting event. The new-case rate in the U.S. has fallen by about a third over the last three weeks, but it’s still higher per capita than anywhere other than Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, or Spain. And certain states remain far worse than that: Texas would have the third-worst numbers of any place on the planet if it were its own nation, yet the Cowboys are preparing to reopen to fans for their first game, and the Houston Texans possibly for their second home game starting in October.

The science behind viral transmission at sporting events remains the same as it’s been since the spring: The more time you spend near someone, the closer you get, the more indoors with poor ventilation, and the less effective mask wearing, the more likely you are to get sick. So in theory, all the measures being taken by sports teams should help reduce risk, though item #1 suggests that if the NFL is really serious about fan safety, it should reduce the length of games to one quarter.

Trying to determine the exact risk level from attending one of these games is impossible, and in any case kind of beside the point. Will you get sick from Covid by going to an NFL game, even if fans don’t strictly obey all the new rules? (Sporting K.C. is talking about a “three strikes you’re out” rule, which isn’t exactly reassuring given that security will have to be policing more than ten thousand people while also keeping track of their card count.) Probably not — even during the Atalanta-Valencia disaster plenty of people didn’t get sick.

But in epidemiology, what’s important isn’t whether you get sick but rather whether somebody gets sick, and sticking 13,000 people in one place, even one socially distanced place with masks on, is a whole lot of dice to roll at once. And the risk then isn’t even just if you go to the game — check out the Maine woman who died after a Covid outbreak at a packed indoor wedding that she didn’t even attend, after she caught the virus from one of the 30 people who caught it there.

Really the question, then, is less “Is it safe to go to an NFL game in the middle of a pandemic?” than “Is it safe for a nation in the middle of a pandemic to allow people to go to NFL games?” The only way to know for sure is to do a huge experiment, with human subjects — and for better or for worse, that’s what we’re about to get.

Share this post:

F.C. Dallas to use naming-rights money for renovations; city funds next?

I’ve been meaning to write about F.C. Dallas‘s plans to expand and add a partial roof to their stadium for a while now, but have held off because I’ve been trying to figure out how it would be paid for. And today we have a hint, with an article about the team’s naming-rights deal with Toyota:

Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Hunt Sports Group vice president Dan Hunt assured the assembled VIPs and media that it would run “significantly into the future.” Hunt also said that the partnership with Toyota will help enable recently discussed stadium improvements such as a partial roof along with expanded suites and premium seating.

“It will obviously help with those things,” he said. “As we continue to grow, I know that the city is committed to helping improve this facility, so it’s all coming together.”

Okay, that doesn’t really explain anything, other than that 1) the team will be getting an unknown amount for naming rights, and 2) the city of Frisco may kick in some money as well. This is yet another case where it’d be nice if local reporters took the time to ask more about finances, but I guess there’s no time when there’s important alternate-jersey news to be reported.

Share this post:

Naming-rights musical chairs!

Maybe it’s just end-of-year contract cancellation time, but this week has seen a relative whirlwind of naming-rights reversals: A national pizza chain announced it was taking its name off of FC Dallas‘ soccer stadium, while the Indiana Pacers‘ arena got a new name thanks to a corporate renaming, the Miami Dolphins‘ stadium is getting one thanks to its namesake company closing up shop in the U.S., and the Sacramento Kings‘ arena could get one depending on how its sponsor’s bankruptcy proceedings go.

All of which is pretty much old hat in the sports world by now — this will be the eighth name for the Miami stadium in 25 years — but it does make you wonder how much brand value a stadium name when nobody can remember what it’s called. (Quick, anyone: Where do the Oakland Raiders play?) So far, companies still seem willing to throw their name onto any building that might get it on the lips of national sportscasters — just look at the San Diego Chargers‘ stadium, which got a new name that will last only from last Sunday through next Wednesday in order to promote its usual sponsor’s new cellphone chip at three major football games. But how long will it last, especially if announcers stop making as many references to stadium names-of-the-week.

It’s possible to imagine, even, a world where entire articles could be written about stadiums without ever bothering to mention who has paid to advertise on their sides. But no, that could never happen.

Share this post: