Tweets by @StadiumShadow
Here are some other reports and opinions this morning ahead of the 3 p.m. vote:
Times' Charlie Frago: "No rubber stamp from City Council for St. Petersburg's deal with Rays"
Today's vote will be close. Potentially very close. It's something I also talked about on SportsTalk Florida yesterday afternoon.
Times' Editorial Board: " "
The latest example of the paper's heavy pressure for a stadium deal contends the region needs to work together on a new stadium. It also seemingly contradicts previous editorials in saying the Rays may ultimately choose a suburban St. Pete stadium over one in a downtown core...and downtown land may be more valuable as non-baseball development, rather than a stadium.
Times' Romano: "Rays deal is a risk for St. Pete, but one that a city on the rise can handle"
The columnist writes St. Pete should approve the deal and may even have the leg-up in keeping the Rays.
Buckhorn to WUSF: "If you ask me now how we'd pay for it, I couldn't tell you"
This could have everything in the world to do with Jeff Vinik's need for city dollars, which I wrote about yesterday.
And here are the most relevant posts from this blog in the last 10 days since the proposed deal was announced:
- Key Tweets from the Rays' Press Conference with St. Pete Leaders
- What We Should Really Read Into Sternberg's Non-Threat Threat
- What Could a New Rays Stadium Really Cost Taxpayers?
- Big Surprises from Thursday's Council Non-Vote
- A Brief History of Sternberg's Threats to Tampa Bay
- 6 Brutally Honest Stadium Statements from Mayor Buckhorn
- How the Rays Are Playing Hardball...and Winning
- If St. Pete's contract isn't ironclad, could Tampa's ever be?