Category: Arizona Coyotes

Friday roundup: Nevada legislator says she voted for A’s stadium because she didn’t understand it, and other great moments in U.S. politics

access_time personNeil deMause

Before we get to the week’s news roundup, a couple of programming notes. First off, my apologies for the ads that have kept appearing in the middle of posts on this site — I keep telling Google Ads not to put them there, and it keeps ignoring me. I think I may have finally succeeded in turning those off, but do let me know if they reappear for you. I may end up dropping Google as this site’s ad provider if it keeps this up — that is, if I don’t drop Google anyway for firing workers upset that it successfully created Project Nimbus from the famous science fiction novel Don’t Create Project Nimbus.

Second, I know that the Dark Mode function is pretty broken again, often displaying dark gray type on a black background. I’m in discussions with the plugin provider about bug fixes, and also once again looking for alternatives that work more consistently. In the meantime, you can sometimes get it working by refreshing your browser; if that doesn’t work, just don’t use Dark Mode for now, and hopefully everything will be back in working order before your eyeballs explode from the screen glare.

And now for the news:

  • Nevada assemblymember Danielle Gallant tried, despite a very unhappy dog in the background, to explain her vote last summer for $600 million in public money for a new stadium to bring the Oakland A’s to Las Vegas, and ended up having to apologize for not understanding how the financing worked at all. “I hope future errors you make are met with more kindness than some of the responses I received,” tweeted Gallant, presumably inviting those among you who haven’t accidentally given $600 million to a billionaire sports owner to cast the first stone.
  • Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who previously praised Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf’s proposed stadium development that would require $2 billion in public subsidies and said “everything is on the table here,” now says that some things are off the table: “I’ve always said that ownership has to put some skin in the game,” Johnson told reporters this week, adding that he opposes kickbacks of city ticket taxes to Reinsdorf to help fund the project.
  • If you’re a Buffalo Bills fan outraged that the team is charging as much as $50,000 for personal seat licenses before you can even buy tickets to their new stadium that is being built with over $1 billion in your tax money, good news: Now you can instead be upset about the fact that Gov. Kathy Hochul agreed to make the PSLs exempt from sales tax, costing you and your fellow New Yorkers around another $25 million. Or I suppose you can be upset about both, but life is short, you have to pick your priorities.
  • Tampa Bay Times opinion editor Graham Brink, who previously defended spending $1.5 billion in public money on a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium on the grounds of “collective pride,” is now back with a list of other ways it would allegedly be a good deal: extending the Rays’ lease will keep the team in town longer, their development partner is “the real deal,” they’re using stadium designers who’ve designed stadiums before, owner Stu Sternberg has an “astute front office,” and … that’s all he’s got so far, stay tuned for “Economists may say Rays stadium is a boondoggle, but aren’t puppies great?”
  • Meanwhile, if you ask St. Petersburg residents if $1.9 billion is too much to spend on a Rays stadium, they say yes, and if you ask them if a new stadium would be a good idea in the abstract without telling them how much it would cost, they also say yes! The truth must lie somewhere in the middle!
  • Where will the Kansas City Royals and Chiefs owners turn for stadium money now that voters told them where to stick their sales tax hike? “It’s not something that’s going to just kind of be thrown up into the ether out of nowhere,” says Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas of city funding, and a spokesperson for Gov. Mike Parson says there’s no state money in the works either. Clay County Presiding Commissioner Jerry Nolte says he hasn’t heard from Royals execs lately, and there’s no talk of fresh funding from Jackson County after the sales-tax plan failed, which leaves only … the team owners’ pockets? KMBC-TV for some reason doesn’t mention this option in their article, the internet must have run out of bits before they got to it. The Kansas City Star, meanwhile, reported on noted sports business expert George Brett’s thoughts on whether the teams will now move out of town, it’s truly not a great week for Kansas City journalism.
  • Now that the Arizona Coyotes are moving to Salt Lake City in the fall, everyone wants to know what the team will be called, and new owner Ryan Smith confirms that it will “start with Utah.” No word yet on what it will rhyme with or how many syllables, but presumably Smith will reveal that eventually — just maybe not this fall, don’t want to rush into things, “Utah Professional Hockey Club” sure has a nice temporary ring to it.
  • Tempe city councilmember Randy Keating has complained that the reason the Coyotes are leaving town is because team execs “ran a terribly inept campaign” for arena subsidies. Better luck next time finding ways to overcome massive public opposition, Randy, there’s got to be a way around this whole “democracy” thing.
  • A’s concessionaire Aramark threatened to fire stadium workers who openly criticize the team’s coming move out of Oakland, which turns out to be a violation of labor law, who could have known?
  • This Ringer article on fan opposition to the A’s departure is really long for anyone who already knows the basics, but its deep dive into the history of fan protest movements does quote Field of Schemes and also includes the priceless quote from Oakland activist Bryan Johansen that his goal is “to fucking haunt John Fisher for all of eternity,” so it’s worth it if you have the time.
Share this post:

Economists divided on whether Coyotes’ departure will hurt Arizona economy, if you only ask two economists

access_time personNeil deMause

With the Arizona Coyotes departing for Utah (for now), the Arizona Republic’s Sam Kmack set himself the task of determining what, if anything, this will mean for the local economy. Let’s see what the experts say!

[Grand Canyon Institute research director Dave] Wells believes the Coyotes’ departure will have “close to zero” economic effect, because of how consumers behave regarding entertainment spending.

“Most people have a limited leisure budget to start with. So, they’ll just reallocate it. You might see an uptick in attendance at ASU basketball games or something like that,” said Wells. He added that a “small core of people” in Arizona may now shift some of their spending to Utah to follow the Coyotes.

And:

[Arizona State University Seidman Research Center director Dennis Hoffman] pointed to three factors related to the Coyotes’ departure that could have an impact:

  • Canadian snowbirds choose to vacation in Florida or another warm state with NHL hockey, rather than coming to Arizona and spending cash here.
  • The loss of the roughly $200 million in revenue he expected the Coyotes would generate, plus the broader economic activity that initial income drives.
  • The loss of the NHL franchises employees who both spend money here and pay state income taxes.

Hoffman said “we could be losing significant money” because of the cash Canadian retirees have invested in Arizona’s economy. Hoffman said that money could “migrate” out of the state, if snowbirds chose Arizona because of the Coyotes.

“How many Canadian winter visitors have historically chosen to locate in Arizona as opposed to Florida because they can go to NHL games?” Hoffman asked. “It’s unknowable. But I think it does a disservice if we just say we’ll ignore it because it’s unknowable.”

And:

Nope, sorry, two economists is all we have time for today! All the better for framing this with a heading reading “Experts are divided” and a framing about how this has “reignited an old disagreement between two experts” over the Coyotes’ proposed Tempe arena deal, albeit a disagreement where one side (Hoffman) was being paid by the Coyotes for his time.

While this may be news to the Republic, there are other economists out there, many of whom have looked at things like what happens when a team leaves a city! As a public service to Kmack, I spent 30, maybe 40 seconds crafting an email to several of them yesterday, and here’s what I got back:

J.C. Bradbury, Kennesaw State University: If Dennis Hoffman honestly thinks that the Coyotes generate a significant economic impact on Phoenix, then he needs to write that up and submit it to peer review where it will be vetted by other economists. That’s the normal process for academic researchers. You don’t get to dismiss the academic consensus by flippantly stating the opposite to the media, especially after producing the estimates for a fee. That’s completely inappropriate, and it does a disservice to the community, which is largely ignorant of rigorous economics research standards. I’m at a total loss to understand why a PhD economist with an academic appointment thinks a pro sports team has such a large economic impact on the community. I mean, maybe I’m wrong; but the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate it to his economist colleagues who have found the exact opposite.

Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross: Anytime an economist says there are “untold benefits” from hosting a franchise, either the economist is too lazy to estimate them or is afraid of calculating them for what they might show.

As for actual losses, the state income tax losses from a group of highly paid athletes leaving the state is real, in my opinion, so that is a few million a year. There is an actual “feel-good” loss for the actual fans. (Of course, the fact that the Coyotes are moving suggests there aren’t many of those fans.) Other than that, pretty much no losses.

And the idea that Canadians might not relocate to AZ is absurd. Small numbers in the first place and no consideration that people bring costs not just benefits when they live in a community.

Geoffrey Propheter, University of Colorado: I agree with Victor’s take. It’s silly on its face that people from anywhere outside the state, let alone the country, travel to Arizona strictly because of the Coyotes and for no other reason in such large and frequent numbers to justify the cost of a consultant’s economic impact study, let alone the subsidies for the Coyotes themselves.

I’ll add that the income tax loss is a loss to state public goods. Players pay about $1.8m in state income tax this season, and based on anecdotes about salaries for non-players from NBA teams, I’d put the total (non-players + players) at $2.5-$3.5m. Which on a per capita basis means the hit to state public goods is less than 50 cents per person. The state’s general fund budget is $17.8 billion, or $2,405 spent on state public goods per person. So the income tax loss of the Coyotes leaving the state is at most 0.021% of the state’s total per capita spending on state public goods. Yes, there is a state income tax hit, and yes that translates in theory (ignoring fiscal illusion/obfuscation issues) into lower quantity and quality state public goods, but the magnitude of lost state public goods is so tiny I frankly have a hard time trying to figure out a practical comparison to make it meaningful.

But a little algebra tells me 235 people working 20 hours a week for 52 weeks at the state minimum wage will generate $3.5m in state income tax too. So if folks really care about that couple million dollars of state income tax, there’s other ways to get it.

Matheson: Yeah, I agree with Geoffrey about all of this. I like to put it this way regarding the potential $3.5 million in player taxes. At current interest rates, that amount is sufficient to finance roughly $50 million in stadium construction. So, if you propose a $1 billion stadium deal where the team pays $950 million in construction costs and the state offers up $50 million in subsidies, I probably wouldn’t argue too much.

Brad Humphreys, West Virginia University: New sports facilities do not drive migration between US cities

And there you have it: Economists are actually very much in agreement on whether the Coyotes leaving will have a significant impact on the Arizona economy (LOL, no), except for the one guy who used to work for the Coyotes. The answer must lie somewhere in the middle!

It’s still weird, though, that nobody at the Republic thought to call any other prominent economists to ask — wait, what’s this, also dated yesterday?

What does losing a pro sports team like the Coyotes mean for the metro Phoenix economy?

By Corina Vanek
Arizona Republic

[Phoenix’s] status as a sports hotspot translates little into economic activity, two sports economists said…

[Kennesaw State University professor J.C.] Bradbury said there is “no evidence whatsoever that communities are harmed when teams leave,” when looking at economic activity…

[University of Michigan professor emeritus Rodney] Fort said there are other, measurable benefits that come with sports teams, however. Those are outside ripple effects, Fort said, such as increased sales for businesses near stadiums, making a market more attractive for people to move to and creating a sense of value for fans. The benefits can be small, like if someone goes to a bar to watch the game and buys a drink, but they could add up to notable economic activity…

But, Fort said, it is important to note that those effects are “a drop in the bucket” to a place like Phoenix, which has an annual budget of $6 billion. The economic impact of a sports team annually is about the same as the impact of a large anchor department store, he said.

So one economist says there’s no evidence that economies are significantly harmed when a team leaves, however, another economist says that communities may be harmed, but not significantly. The answer must lie somewhere in the middle!

Anyway, Arizona Republic left hand, meet Arizona Republic right hand. You two clearly have lots to talk about.

Share this post:

Three ways to think about the Coyotes’ sort-of move to Utah

access_time personNeil deMause

The first rumors that the Arizona Coyotes would relocate to Salt Lake City for the 2024-25 season raised a lot of questions: Why now, when team owner Alex Meruelo was just two months away from bidding on land for a new arena in Phoenix? Would the NHL really be happy with trading one of the larger NHL media markets (albeit with not much historic enthusiasm for the NHL) for a much smaller city that’s also not a hockey hotbed? Why would Utah Jazz owner Ryan Smith be paying $1.2 billion (or maybe $1.3 billion; reports continue to vary) for the team, but Meruelo only receiving $1 billion, with the rest being shared among other NHL owners?

Over the weekend, more details emerged, and they only raise more questions:

  • While all of the Coyotes’ assets, including its players and right to actually play NHL games, are being sold to Smith and transferred to Utah, Meruelo will retain the Coyotes name, logo, and trademarks, as well as the minor-league Tucson Roadrunners.
  • Meruelo will have five years in which to finalize a new arena, in which case he’ll immediately be given the right to buy an expansion franchise for the same $1 billion he received for the Coyotes.
  • Accordingly, Meruelo is going ahead with his Arizona land bid, and if he wins, he’ll presumably begin to pursue funding for an arena, likely using a state “theme park district” tax surcharge that remains murky exactly whether it should really be a public subsidy. (I asked three prominent sports economists and got back one “probably,” one “I don’t think so,” and one “let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.”)

To help make sense of all this — none of which has been officially announced, mind you, with Meruelo himself issuing a “reply hazy, try again later” letter, though the Associated Press says a press conference is expected next week — let’s try conceptualizing what’s going on here in three ways:

  1. Meruelo is selling the Coyotes, and getting a replacement expansion franchise in Arizona once he gets an arena deal. This is how it’s mostly being framed in the media, and is strictly accurate. It sort of makes sense for everyone involved: Meruelo gets more time to negotiate an arena deal without racking up annual losses in Arizona; the NHL gets out of the embarrassment of a franchise playing in a college arena without having to worry about a legal battle with Meruelo, plus that $200 million it’s taking off the top of the sale price; Smith gets a team without having to go through expansion bidding wars; and commissioner Gary Bettman gets a new owner who, according to ESPN, has “spent several years building a level of trust” with him, read into that as you will. The main risk for the league seems to be that Meruelo could end up getting an expansion team at a bargain price if those bidding wars really take off, but the NHL may be fine with that if it means getting back into the Phoenix market with an acceptable arena deal.
  2. The Coyotes are going on hiatus to figure out their arena situation, while Utah gets an immediate expansion franchise to take its place. This is an equally valid way of looking at it, and makes the pros and cons even clearer: The NHL is solving its Arizona problem by putting the Coyotes on ice for a few years, while filling out the schedule by letting Smith jump to the head of the line for a new team in exchange for a 20% tip on the sale price. (Smith is also getting an established roster rather than having to pick players in an expansion draft, though given the current Coyotes roster that may not be that much of a benefit.)
  3. The Coyotes are going to be the NFL’s Cleveland Browns, where the team moves but the team’s name and identity stays. That’s Yardbarker’s take, but I’m not sure the parallel works: The NFL granted Cleveland a new Browns franchise in exchange for stadium funding, yes, but that was all sparked by lawsuits over Art Modell moving the old Browns to Baltimore. If the Coyotes re-emerge eventually, though, it’d be the same in terms of a team in one city being transferred to another one then being replaced, after a break, by a new team with the same name once a new venue has been built, so it kind of works if you squint.

There’s definitely lots of ways the Coyotes’ move to Utah can go wrong: As noted here previously, Salt Lake City would be by far the smallest market with two major-league winter pro sports teams, which will create a ton of competition for both ticket buys and TV eyeballs; and the Jazz’s Delta Center, while clearly a better NHL venue than the Coyotes’ current Mullett Arena if only because it has more than twice as many seats, is one of those NBA-optimized venues that sucks for hockey, at least until it gets the $500 million facelift that the state of Utah has promised it. But you can see where someone in the league offices could have made a good case for “So we want a team in Arizona but don’t have an arena there yet, and we have a guy in Utah who wants a team right now and has a marginally workable arena, maybe this can be the beginning of a beautiful friendship? Also, $200 million cash!” At least nobody here would be paying the purchase price by wiring a fraction of it and then claiming he’d left a bunch of zeroes off as a typo. Probably not, anyway. The NHL is always about trying new things.

As for the bigger picture: What, if anything, does the Coyotes’ sort-of move mean as far as how seriously cities should take relocation threats? The team is leaving Arizona after Tempe voted down $500 million in tax breaks for a new arena there, but that came less because either the team owner or the NHL wanted to leave so much as that Meruelo had painted himself into a corner by getting booted out of his old arena and moving to a 5,000-seat one. And Utah did apparently bump itself to the head of the new-NHL-team line by approving $500 million in arena spending, but only because the Coyotes situation called for an immediate solution and they were standing in the right place at the right time. Leagues and individual owners absolutely do shop around for stadium and arena subsidies when thinking about where to play, but that’s not all they think about — if it were, Arizona would now be getting the cold shoulder from the league, instead of an offer of an expansion slot in the next five years. The only truism here is that sports barons love leverage; how they then use it is up to them.

UPDATE: And The Athletic just dropped a tick-tock of what led to the current Coyotes resolution. Tl;dr: The NHL and NHLPA were both sick of the Mullett Arena situation, Meruelo didn’t want to sell but also couldn’t promise when he’d build a big-boy arena, and this was the compromise that was worked out. If that’s not how you think sports league franchise decisions should be made, go take it up with crony capitalism.

Share this post:

The Arizona Coyotes are moving to Salt Lake City (maybe, depending, check back later)

access_time personNeil deMause

Yesterday, the interwebs started buzzing with talk that the Arizona Coyotes were, maybe, going to be moving to Salt Lake City next season. Things like:

The NHL is concurrently drafting two versions of a league schedule matrix for the 2024-25 season, one with the Arizona Coyotes and another with the Coyotes franchise playing in Salt Lake City in the event of relocation.

And:

The NHL would purchase the Coyotes from Meruelo in a deal believed to be worth around $1 billion. … The league source said that after purchasing the team, the NHL would then sell the Coyotes to [Utah Jazz owner Ryan] Smith at a price that could be as high as $1.3 billion — much higher than the $650 million expansion fee that the Seattle Kraken’s owners paid in 2021 to join the league. The source said the NHL’s other 31 owners would split $300 million as part of the sale.

And:

The team’s final game is at home against Edmonton next Wednesday. One Coyote indicated today that there are rumours of “meeting about the future” before everyone goes their separate ways for the off-season.

The reason behind this reported shift: Uncertainty around the league about Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo winning a June 27 public land auction for a parcel near the Phoenix-Scottsdale border and then being able to put together an arena financing plan. Though Scottsdale Mayor David Ortega on Tuesday walked back his statement the previous that an arena on the site was “not feasible, or welcome,” saying he’s now fine with it so long as traffic is directed away from his city, the whole deal is apparently flimsy enough that the NHL wants to have a Plan B — or maybe even a Plan A, as Daily Faceoff, citing “multiple sources,” asserted that “there is a real possibility that the Coyotes franchise is not based in Arizona come June 27.”

This morning brings no real updates, with the league remaining officially silent and even Coyotes players having been shielded from the press after last night’s game. So what can we make of all this?

First off, the Utah legislature’s vote last month to approve $500 million in spending on a new or renovated arena if the NHL comes to town definitely got some attention. The money is supposed to come from a 0.5% citywide sales tax hike plus kickbacks of sales taxes from a “10-block revitalization area” around any arena. How much an NHL-ready arena would cost overall remains unknown, as is how much Smith would pay to cover the remaining costs after plunking down maybe $1.3 billion for the Coyotes, but $500 million in the hand is worth some anonymously leaked move threats to the league, at least.

Whether the NHL would actually go through with a Utah move for the Coyotes, especially before the Arizona land auction has even taken place, is less clear. Salt Lake City may have some public money approved, and that’s certainly tasty to the league; it would also be one of the league’s smallest media markets, and by far the smallest with both NBA and NHL teams competing for winter sports ticket sales (1,148,120 TV households, behind Miami’s 1,720,970). Actually going ahead with the move would be a major bet on giving a team to whatever city coughs up a public subsidy and has an owner willing to overpay for a team because he once played roller hockey or something, and let them figure out how to actually sell tickets once the team gets there.

And then there’s maybe the weirdest twist to all of this, according to Sportsnet:

The real key is what the NHL will promise Meruelo to avoid this ending up in court.

Those same sources indicate he could be offered a five-year exclusive window to “bring back” the Coyotes as an expansion franchise — although there would be certain language stating what would need to be accomplished for him to return. (The league definitely desires a return to the market if it leaves.)

Sure, I guess? The NHL is clearly enamored of the Phoenix area’s size — though it’s smaller than Atlanta and Houston, which also don’t have teams and don’t seem to have drawn the same unrequited love from the league — and would be happy to have a team there, even if it’s one owned by Meruelo. If that “certain language” stipulates arena financing being in place and, say, season-ticket deposits from more fans than you can count on one hand, it wouldn’t be the craziest way of the NHL deciding where to stick an expansion team. (That would probably be this.)

All of this remains at the level of rumor, needless to say, even if true it could just mean that the NHL is coming up with contingency plans to ensure that the Salt Lake City arena has dates available for the Coyotes’ 2024-25 schedule. In the meantime, are people already wondering how a Utah Coyotes (yes, there are coyotes in Utah, at least more than there is jazz) would impact the Oakland A’s move options? Of course they are:

The longer any online discussion continues, the greater the chance that it will lead to somebody clowning on John Fisher.

Share this post:

Scottsdale mayor to Coyotes owner on arena plan: “Not feasible, or welcome”

access_time personNeil deMause

Let’s get this out of the way right off the bat: The Arizona Coyotes‘ proposed arena site is not in Scottsdale. It’s right next to Scottsdale, but it’s not in Scottsdale — much like the Oakland A’s proposed stadium site is on what’s called the Las Vegas Strip, but not actually within the city limits.

Still, just like when Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman said she thought the A’s should stay in Oakland, when the mayor of Scottsdale says that he doesn’t want a Coyotes arena on his doorstep, that’s not exactly a great way to create momentum for the Coyotes’ arena campaign:

The prospect of a rookie developer attempting to buy Arizona State Trust Land with absolutely no infrastructure on the Phoenix side of the 101/Scottsdale Road intersection at the doorstep of Scottsdale is not feasible, or welcome…

I admire the hockey sport, Arizona Coyotes community involvement and phenomenal youth clubs at the Scottsdale Ice Den. But I along with City of Scottsdale staff will continue to monitor any actions that occur, and negative repercussions for Scottsdale. As it stands today, the fantasy hockey project must move west, away from Scottsdale.

Mayor David Ortega’s specific beef is about water and sewer lines, which he said he has no intention of providing from Scottsdale, and wants extended from Phoenix to the west instead. (He did say Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego “confirmed that all utilities must be extended from 56th Street,” which isn’t exactly clear about whether Gallego is offering to foot the roughly $100 million bill for that, or is just acknowledging that whoever gets the land would need to pay for it.) Ortega also complained that “the dream Coyote retail components sit too close to the retail lions of Scottsdale,” implying that he thinks it would just cannibalize economic activity from his city.

Again, none of this is a death knell for the Coyotes project, as Ortega’s approval isn’t needed. But as we just saw in Kansas City, development subsidy plans are most likely to fail when all the “growth coalition” ducks aren’t in a row, so starting off with one elected official loudly proclaiming that the arena should stay offa his lawn is definitely not what Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo would want.

For now, Meruelo needs to focus on winning a public auction for the land he wants — currently set for June 27 — and then getting both Phoenix and Maricopa County to sign off on the creation of what Arizona calls a “theme park district” within which a tax surcharge would be levied on sales or business income and then kicked back to pay off construction bonds. This isn’t a TIF, because it’d be a new tax on top of the development paying normal taxes to the city and county, but it’s also not quite like a tax just on tickets where the money mostly comes out of a team owner’s pockets because economics; I’m currently engaged in a lengthy email exchange with a couple of economists about how exactly to figure out what should count as the public cost, but since we don’t know the projected total amount of the tax surcharge it’s a bit premature anyway.

If Meruelo doesn’t get what he wants, team CEO Xavier Gutierrez has warned, “the NHL has made it very clear” that “we would have to look at other markets,” which is not what commissioner Gary Bettman has been saying out loud, but sure, rattle that move threat saber. It doesn’t sound like at least one local elected is impressed, but maybe you’ll have better luck finding Phoenix or Maricopa County officials who are more admiring of the hockey sport.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: More vague Royals threats, Coyotes trying every trick in book at once, plus: stadium theme song challenge!

access_time personNeil deMause

Not gonna lie, this week has been a lot, what with Kansas City and environs voting down a Royals and Chiefs tax subsidy proposal and the Oakland A’s announcing a temporary move to Sacramento, requiring eight full posts in four days. (If you want to show your appreciation, or just your sympathy, you know where to find the tip jar.) I’m tempted to let you all go a day early, but then what would we do with all the other news that happened this week and got short shrift? Let’s take it one bullet point at a time and see how it goes:

  • Kansas City Royals owner John Sherman’s wife, Marny Sherman, for some reason got to be the one to make move threats in the wake of Tuesday’s “no” vote on a $500 million sales tax surcharge for the Royals and Chiefs, posting on Facebook that “neither team will work with Jackson County again.” Presumably she means to imply that the teams will either look to neighboring Clay County or the neighboring state of Kansas — she concluded her post, “We will be lucky if both teams wind up in Kansas. At least still in the area!” — though neither has a stadium funding plan in place right now, which is a big part of why the team owners were focusing on Jackson County. Meanwhile, Missouri state Sen. Bill Eigel — yes, the flamethrower guy — says, “I know of no path in the Missouri Senate where we’re going to do any public funding of sports stadiums” and “I think that would be resisted vociferously and extensively,” and while Eigel doesn’t have a leadership position, I’m not sure I’d want to risk finding out what he means by “resist extensively.”
  • Arizona Coyotes owner Alex Meruelo is dead set on winning an auction for public land on which to build a new arena, and also is looking for someone who wants to buy the team, and also is threatening to move the team somewhere if he doesn’t get the land. Plus, the Arizona Republic reports that “team leadership is also likely to seek a special taxing arrangement to help finance construction” if it does win the land bid. Alex Meruelo is also a lot — maybe he might want to consider having one less pregnancy?
  • Marc Normandin has taken on the question of why other MLB owners are content to let John Fisher have the A’s spend three years playing in a minor-league stadium and then potentially move them to baseball’s smallest market while continuing to rake in revenue-sharing checks, and concluded that other owners are not content at all, but they’re also not going to do anything about it: “Owners are probably just happy that the Fisher saga is nearly at an end, and that this potentially opens up the path for them to split expansion fees once the A’s are fully settled in somewhere new in a new park, and hey, in the meantime, one fewer suitor on free agency means prices get to come down.”
  • More on the Sacramento River Cats stadium that is supposed to host the A’s the next three years, via SFGate:  [River Cats broadcaster Bill] Laskey mentioned that the press amenities are dreadfully lacking, with only two total broadcast booths — one for each radio team — and, in Laskey’s estimation, space for four to eight people in the press box. When the occasional River Cats game was televised, Laskey told SFGATE the TV crew would take over one of the booths, forcing a radio broadcaster to call the game outside under a canopy, even in the blistering Sacramento sun.”
  • Philadelphia’s Civic Design Review committee called 76ers owner Josh Harris’s plan to build an arena on the downtown Gallery mall site “undercooked” and a continuation of the bad public planning that led to the failed mall in the first place, with one member saying, “We need to think about the real giveback here and whether we should build this thing.” The committee is only advisory, but coupled with the fact that city agencies are now months overdue producing studies of the arena project that would allow a city council vote, all the trash talking only adds to the project’s distinct lack of momentum.
  • Why should St. Petersburg-area taxpayers spend around $1.5 billion on a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium to revitalize the area around the current stadium when it could just build all the other stuff like housing and museums and skip the expensive part? That’s the question being asked by Tampa Bay Times opinion editor Graham Brink, before acknowledging that there are intangible benefits to having a sports team: “When the team wins, the city feels a sense of collective pride. What’s that worth?” That’s actually been studied, and the answer is: Not as much as you might think.
  • I had to head back home after one day of last week’s sports economics conference and so sadly missed taking in a Baltimore Orioles game with the assembled economists, but fortunately the Baltimore Banner has the recap.
  • This interview with Good Jobs First director Greg LeRoy took place before the Alexandria, Virginia arena plan for the Washington Capitals and Wizards got a fork stuck in it, but it’s a great reminder of both how dubious the economic arguments were for the deal (MuniCap, the consultant that came up with $75 parking fees to justify the arena, is “not a company known for saying no, let’s put it that way,” says LeRoy) and how dumb it is that team owners refuse to release details of their own numbers on the grounds it’s “proprietary” information.
  • And this interview with me by Debtwire took place right after the Kansas City stadium tax vote, but we covered a lot of ground regarding other cities’ stadium and arena shenanigans as well. If only we had had a theme song…
Share this post:

Friday roundup: $2.5B Philly stadium development could demand public money, KC sales-tax vote too close to call

access_time personNeil deMause

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.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: Browns rattle suburban move saber, AZ gov met with Coyotes before land bid

access_time personNeil deMause

Before we get to the news, please take a moment to vote in yesterday’s poll on the fate of the Oakland A’s if you haven’t already done so: So many of you responded that Survey Monkey made me pay an obscene amount of money to see the results, so may as well get my money’s worth! I’ll close the poll and present the results on Monday.

While we wait for the returns to come in, how about some nice, crunchy news?

  • The Cleveland Browns owners are reportedly “looking at” land in the southwestern suburb of Brook Park as a possible stadium site, though the mayor of Brook Park says he has heard “nothing” from the team. “As part of our comprehensive planning efforts, we are also studying other potential stadium options in Northeast Ohio at various additional sites,” the team said in a prepared statement, which either means 1) we’ll consider a stadium anywhere that we think we can get a pile of money for it, 2) we don’t want to move to the suburbs, but if it helps throw a scare into the city to give us money, that’ll work, or 3) either way works, we’ll take what we can get.
  • Arizona Coyotes CEO Xavier Gutierrez met separately with both Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and her chief of staff before filing an application to buy state trust land for a new arena at auction, and the chief of staff used to be a lobbyist for the Coyotes, and this is just a rat’s nest of conflict of interest. “That is just one of those fundamental principles that you can’t go into government and then help your former employer,” said Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota Law School professor who co-authored an ethics guide for public employees, and it’s possible he has mistaken “can’t” for “shouldn’t,” because [gestures at the entire history of U.S. politics].
  • MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said Thursday that he’ll be “disappointed” if a new Las Vegas stadium for the A’s isn’t open by 2028, and that a decision on the team’s temporary home will be made “in the next few months,” adding, “it’s clearly going to be someplace in the West.” No word at press time on whether Manfred indicated how many syllables it will have, or what it rhymes with.
  • Speaking of commissioners commissionering, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says if a new Chicago Bears stadium, wherever it may be, has a dome, it could host “additional events,” and even if he didn’t say “Super Bowl” you know he meant the Super Bowl. And you get a Super Bowl, and you…
  • Now economists J.C. Bradbury and Geoffrey Propheter are tag-teaming all the misinformation Washington Capitals and Wizards owner Ted Leonsis is spreading about the economic benefits of his new $2 billion Alexandria, Virginia arena project that would cost the public more than $1 billion, and it’s kind of awesome.
Share this post:

“Are the Coyotes moving to Utah?” enters its ninth month

access_time personNeil deMause

It was NHL All-Star Weekend this weekend, and in addition to somebody beating somebody in the game itself (non-hockey fans, please try to guess the current format without looking), lots of people took the opportunity to say things about the fate of the Arizona Coyotes:

  • Coyotes CEO Xavier Gutierrez: “I can confirm that we have submitted an application [for state-owned land in northeast Phoenix near Scottsdale]. But … I’m confirming with you that, as I’ve made very clear on a number of occasions, we are looking at multiple sites and we are not yet ready to announce which is the one that we are going to pursue as the primary one.”
  • NHL Players Association director Marty Walsh: “If there’s no plan in Arizona, I would encourage a move to another location, absolutely. I think the league feels that Arizona is a good market and I can understand that. The issue I have, and the players have, is how long do you wait to get a home? They’re playing in a college arena and they’re the second tenant in that arena. This is not the way to run a business.”
  • NHL commissioner Gary Bettman: “[Coyotes owner] Alex Meruelo, as recently as last week, told me he was certain he was going to get [a new arena] done, and I don’t make it a practice of contradicting owners unless I have hard facts to the contrary, and I am both hopeful and reasonably [long pause] reasonably confident that he’s going to do what he says.”

Same as it ever was.

Meanwhile, talk of the Coyotes moving to Utah continues, though there’s no real evidence that this is imminent either, beyond unsourced rumors that have been rumoring ever since Meruelo lost his arena-funding vote in Tempe last spring. Also still no word on what a new hockey arena in Salt Lake City — which Jazz owner Ryan Smith said he would need in order to bring the NHL to town — would cost or who would pay for it. So while the NHL players union is undoubtably peevish that one-32nd of his members have to play in a college rink, there are still lots of reasons to expect this drama to drag on a bit longer, not least that it’s already been dragging on pretty much ever since the Coyotes moved to Arizona in 1996, what’s another few months or years or decades?

Share this post:

Friday roundup: More shouting about Virginia arena traffic, plus rumors of A’s (temporary) death and Coyotes-to-Utah

access_time personNeil deMause

Happy Friday! (Happiness provided separately.) While I have you here, is it a good time to remind you that Field of Schemes is on Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon, Post, and whatever Elon Musk is calling his thing these days? And that by following FoS in any or all of those places, you can get notifications of new posts as soon as they happen — and not only that, by reacting to posts on those sites, you can help get more attention for Field of Schemes, because that’s how social media likes work, it’s a popularity contest where your votes make the things you like more popular? No, that isn’t what you want to hear right now, you just to read the weekly news recap? Okay, ignore all that for now, you can always come back to it later.

 

Share this post: