One can see the most obvious example of this in the NFL...the open market in LA just got the normally quite parsimonious citizens of Minnesota to cough up about $500 million for a new Vikings stadium. The Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints almost certainly have LA to thanks for their new or upgraded stadiums as well. All in all, LA is probably worth more to the NFL without a team than with a team.Just ask St. Pete residents what it's like to help build new stadiums for the White Sox, Giants, and Mariners.
Just ask Jerry Reinsdorf or Peter Gammons, who have touted how blackmail and leverage get MLB stadiums built.
Or just ask the Cubs, who are unconvincingly telling Chicago it will "consider a new home" if it can't get its desired renovations at Wrigley (just a couple of years after leveraging Naples for a new $99M stadium in Mesa).
Next post, we'll chat about other lessons learned from the NBA's Seattle situation.
Tough true, but who's to say any of teams won't of moved? And for the "leagues" in on it, please don't act like if you was the NBA commish, that YOU wouldn't be pushing for the lowly Kings to move from a small city w/ a bad economy to a big thriving city in Seattle...
ReplyDelete(Good reporters put themselves in the other persons shoes...), don't worry YOUR Bahstun teams don't have to worry about being "blackmailed"...
Beazy
Of course I - as a CEO - would make decisions that were best for my business, Beazy - but I would do so at the taxpayers' expense.
DeleteStern, Selig, and Goodell have done just that. And the return to taxpayers is often questionable at best.
What isn't "best for""the taxpayers" is a failing billion dollar business in the middle of the city. Though knowing your from the Bahstun area, ask the citizens of Foxboro, MA how a great front office @ Gillette stadium helped spawn "Patriot Place", but I guess it doesn't matter, new stadiums are NEVER a good investment or is the drama of incidents where bad management fail to succeed bring better publicity for this site?
DeleteBeazy
Actually, after St. Pete made the mistake of building the Trop, it's in the stages of recouping some of the value it sank into it. An occupied stadium provides St. Pete far more value than a vacant stadium would.
DeleteWell, just think what a nice ballpark in a thriving city (opposed to St. Pete's declining pop.) would do in due time. I understand sports is more of the "what have you done for lately, and Tampa could suffer a tragedy between now & then, but I'm sure they plan on building a ballpark that will last the next 50-100 years, and if it took St.Pete 15 years or so to recoup their $, would that mean the city of Tampa & Hills. co. would benefit from a nice revenue stream for 35-85 years? Though it would probably be a lil' more sooner after an All-Star game, WBC's, etc....
DeleteBeazy
Hey Anonymous Beazy,
DeleteInteresting that you cite Gillette Stadium.
============================================
Stadium: Gillette Stadium:
Date Built: 2002
Facility Cost ($/Mil): $325
Percentage of Stadium Publicly Financed: 0%
Facility Financing: The team paid for the $325 million stadium itself.
============================================
It was built with no tax dollars. If Sternberg wants to build a stadium in Tampa with no tax dollars, I don't think anyone will stop him, assuming, of course, that he can extricate his team from its obligations to St. Pete.
Well, thanks for the Noah-like rebuttal, but how much more revenue does the city of Foxboro, MA bring in these days compared to before the days of Gillette with additional spending, taxes, and jobs? How much did the city's real estate value increase, how much did the value of homes increase? That's some of the questions we should be asking. Not just if the owner used his own money or not, THAT'S the argument I been making on here for the past year! If the owner of a sub-division pays for half my house there, but I save him double in the long run through paying for the community pool, park, street signs, planted trees, and sidewalks, was the owner of the sub-division's investment in paying for 1/2 my house to assure me living there opposed to taking my money else where worth it???
DeleteLongo's 100m contract wasn't just for his value of winning games, it was equally about having a marketable player to sell, a player that people will want to solely come see play, a player that people will want to buy stuff of his because he is on it, we don't want a $130 S.Rod jersey, we want the "Longo" jersey. SOOO will the Rays make their money back in 10 years from marketing him along with winning more games? Noah likes to only simply ask if it was worth 100m for 1 player this year...
It doesn't matter on this site though, bland drama is easier to sell then figuring the real facts...
Beazy
Beazy, there are no modern-day stadiums built to last 100 years. The Georgia Dome was as state-of-the-art as it gets and they're replacing it after 20. The modern life expectancy from a stadium is 25-30 years. So there goes that theory.
DeleteBut I appreciate your patronage to this site very much.
Nice "Noah-like" reply, avoiding the REAL questions that require REAL reporting. Though to your "Negative Noah" (that we should expect coming from a Bahstonian), let's just say there's a reason why teams like the Dolphins, Cubs, Jags, Texans, Mets, Dodgers, Royals, etc. just want(ed) to renovate their stadium, AND teams like Vikings, Falcons, Rays, ans Kings need new ones...
Delete(On a side note, I'm sorry to sound like a prick toward you (Noah), and I respect your views, I'm just a true sports junkie that simply doesn't agree w/ a lot of your views, it must be the Pittsburgh in me compared to the Bahstun in you...)(maybe I just need to come out w/ my own blog, maybe I'll call it "Sun Shining on the Stadium"(lol))
Beazy
Beazy, I don't have a dog in the game - just putting all the information out there since few others are.
DeleteAnd don't mistake this blog as a product of where I grew up - if anything, it's a product of years spent working in pro sports and in media.
As for renovating stadiums, is it really ethical for teams to pressure local governments to renovate stadiums that are only 15-20 years old when the local governments paid for the stadiums in the first place?
Well, let's just say only below average sports fans "don't have a dog in the game", real sports fans has "a dog in game" in every game their watching...
DeleteAnd, nice Bahstonian reply to "renovating", is PNC Park, Yankee stadium, Petco Park, Marlins Park, etc. built for only the next 20??? LOL, try again...
Beazy
I write as a reporter - we look at all the facts.
DeleteI also wear the hat of a Rays ticket-buyer; a former MLB team employee; a taxpayer; and an amatuer athlete. I grew up in the Northeast, where sports fans are willing to drive/travel 60-90 minutes for a baseball game. But I've lived in Florida for almost a decade, where sports fans generally aren't willing to drive that far.
So not sure what all your snide comments are getting at. But I enjoy your participation here.
Thanks for your replies. So though you might not show your cards in your articles, you have "dogs in the game", and I like how you simply said "MLB team",you meant a Red Sux employee, come'on it's OK, we forgive you (lol). But, as for "Florida" fans, it's not fair to comparing cities sports like Pittsburgh & Boston to Jax, Orlando, Tampa, etc., our grandparents parents rooted for the same teams we grow-up rooting for, though I think the Rays biggest increase in attendance at the new stadium in 5-10-20 years will come from the kids that run the bases on Sunday, and are growing-up rooting with their friends in schools...
DeleteBeazy
So you're acknowledging part of the Rays' attendance struggles may simply be a lack of longevity here, and it could be cured over time as fans' roots grow?
Delete(Though) true...
ReplyDeleteHey Anonymous,
DeleteHow about having the guts to reveal your identity?
Regarding LA as a viable market for the NFL, how come San Diego can't even get enough residual fans to prevent blackouts?
"Hey" genius, "how about" reading my 1st comment that the 2nd spawned from...
DeleteTo answer your question, "how come" Jacksonville DOESN'T have blackouts, and teams like the Chargers & the Bucs do??? Well, like anything else, championships start from the top down, meaning the Bucs & Chargers have bad management, and the Jags ownership quickly addressed the issue to make going to the game more welcoming with cheaper cheap seats, cheaper parking, free seating for lil' kids, the ability to bring small food & drinks into the game, better promotions, etc., sounds like a team we know(?)! The Rays adopted those same tactics to (though still 1 of the lowest in MLB) double their average attendance...
And, LA isn't San Diego, just like St. Pete isn't Tampa which is 100 mi. closer...
BY: BEAZY!!! lol
Hey Anonymous-BEAZY,
DeleteMy point is that SoCal is not a hot bed for NFL fandom even though it is very densely populated.
And no question that Chargers had bad management while the Bucs have selfish ownership.
I'm not sure how you can draw any parallels between the Cubs situation and the Rays. Besides Noah, I assumed you'd love the fact that the Cubs are planning on paying 100% of the 500 million planned on upgrading the ballpark and building a hotel.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the "threat" Ricketts made in question, this was in regards to how he'd react if the council voted down the proposal already agreed upon with the city. Where the only people against the proposal are the rooftop owners making money from selling the view of Wrigley field.
Really this whole back and forth between the Cubs and the city is ridiculous. I'm sickened to see how those few rooftop owners with an alderman in their pocket can potentially ruin something that could be so good for the city. I don't blame Ricketts for wanting more night games and video display and don't see how the rooftop owners are able to dictate the situation.