Not only did Wagman recognize the important difference between a revenue problem and the Rays' problem - simply an inability to "optimize...stadium-based cash flow" - but he also called out the team for trying "to muscle the team landlord, the City of St.Petersburg, to give up its right(s)" in its contract.
That said, Wagman suggested a new approach to the new stadium conversation:
The fact is, modern stadiums, many of which will be deemed obsolete in 25 years, cost far too much in society dollars to justify.Wagman suggests a photochromic roof could allow enough sunlight in to give an "outdoor" feeling without "baking" the fan. And a side benefit of a new stadium would be a new concessions contract for the Rays, who Wagman writes, are stuck in a poor deal (I haven't seen any numbers on it).
...
I believe that a reasonable cost for a state of the art, fun to attend stadium in Tampa is no more than $400 million.
To attain that lower level, two fundamental things need to be changed. One, lower the amount of seats to 23-28,000 and two eliminate the retractable roof.
...
50-70 inch HDTVs have made the viewing experience exceptional with instant replay, your own bathroom, cheap beer and food a fine way to cheer on our Rays. Tampa Bay residents do support the Rays, but the discretionary entertainment dollar just isn't there to support 34,000 fans actually attending 81 games in person.
...
The major construction cost reduction would come from the elimination of the retractable roof. The absurdity of watching summer baseball in Florida is known by any owner of a car with a convertible roof or sunroof. The heat, UV exposure and rain in June, July, August and September make opening the roof a joke. A very expensive one.
But one potential problem with Wagman's numbers is he suggests a possible $20-40 million payment to St. Petersburg for the right to terminate the current contract early. I suspect the number might be a lot higher if prior to 2027. After all, the Rays themselves said they were a $200 million economic engine annually.
Wagman acknowledges much of the value of major-league teams comes in the form of "community pride, legacy issues and an emotional belief in the economic efficacy of having a sports team." But he also calls for fiscal responsibility, which is often absent from stadium conversations in other cities (ahem, Miami):
We need a tough negotiating team with representatives from both sides of the bay to hammer out a deal that will cost the public a reasonable amount to make the move happen.
Making some extra money on the advertising are we NO'ah?
ReplyDeleteOne penny at a time. If you comment enough, I can build a stadium!
ReplyDeleteSince we're asking NO'ah questions, my questions are can they actually take stuff out of the Trop & use'em in the new park, if so, how much could they save, AND what's the lowest cost on building some sort of roof, how much more could the Rays charge for better luxury boxes, how much would hosting a All-Star game cover for building the building, will Channelside be the "LA Live" they hope it could become, how many X's more people will there be living within a "30 min. drive" of Channelside by 2025, how much could they fetch for a TV deal & naming rights & advertising @ the new park, etc.????
ReplyDeleteNoah PranskyAugust 11, 2013 at 5:47 PM
Don't count on recycling much from the Trop.
And don't count on getting many answers to these questions - when we last asked the Rays these things, they said they hadn't started looking into them yet "because there's no point."
B. Dufala August 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM
AND I might not "count" on it, but couldn't they to save millions? AND I'm not "count(ing) on getting many answers to these questions", if I'm counting on you to "investigate" these questions as a "investigator"! To believe the Rays "hadn't start looking into" answering these type of questions is naive, we're talking about a team that has scouts at other teams farm leagues just in case they have to trade a star players for prospects to one of those teams. But, newsflash! These questions don't need answers from the Rays, it's not like they have to get these answers from a know-it-all troll in the baseball of the Trop that only talks to Stu! These answers can be answered by independent businesses & researchers. I could dedicate my time to finding these things out, BUT I'm a regular Joe w/ limited resources & time, your the "investigative reporter" that decided to put himself in limelight of this stadium issue! So as a "investigative reporter", maybe be one, which is what I been trying figure out about this blog for a year! Just think, "Stu: we we where going to do that the original way, but after seeing how Noah discovered doing it a creatively way that will save us about $20 million, which is $20 less we had to ask the city of Tampa!"...
(Just think how much money you could really make through adv. if you really posted something that wasn't written in TBO or tampabay.com or Field of Schemes, etc....)
Recycling "stuff" from the Trop? Like what? Seats? Foul poles? Foam cushions in the outfield? The turf?
ReplyDeleteOf course, thinking about the turf only reminds me how that's one of the knocks against the Trop, that "It's one of ONLY TWO STADIUMS that still has turf! Takes YEARS OFF CAREERS!" I can't imagine people will forego a retractable roof, if only to have natural grass in there.
At any rate, "recycling stuff" from the Trop would be a logistical nightmare, assuming they're closing down the Trop in October and moving into their new stadium in April. Sure, the foul poles and some other stuff can go for emotional reasons. The Ted Williams Museum should go wherever the Rays do. But as for the rest, ridiculous.
PS: I suspect seats and other stuff from the Trop might fetch a tiny sum. Might be fun for folks to have a keepsake in their basements.
Well, who's to say they couldn't sell the turf? And, I'm talking moving not just the stuff around the interior, but a lot of other stuff behind the scenes. They would have over 6 months which would be plenty of time to unbolt stuff and drive it 25 miles. Bottomline, most of the stuff is still nice & new, and if could save many millions by doing so, well, let's just say it's a good option that might help save the city money that you won't read from NO'ah...
DeleteYou seem to forget that the Trop belongs to St. Pete. Whatever "stuff" might be worth salvaging, they would pay St. Pete for the privilege of carting it over to Tampa, in addition, of course, to the big check they'll be writing St. Pete for the privilege of breaking their use agreement.
DeleteSeriously. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
OK!? Well, that still doesn't mean they couldn't do so to save money, a lot of the "stuff" in the Trop is still nice, modern, and has been kept in doors out of the weather. So I don't see where I'm "embarrassing" myself if we sort of agree it's a cost saving possibility! See, you think I should "stop", I think we need more realistic dialog then NO'ah's statuesque of being against any idea!
DeleteWhat about a "cost effective" roof? Maybe a transparent stationary roof, or a dry-fit shirt like canvas roof, or maybe light weight panels that fold open & close like the roof of the future ATL Falcons stadium?
Also, I read about gambling $ helping fund the Min. Vikings new stadium, what about some sort of funding from "the 6th biggest casino in the world", the Hard Rock casino!?
And we all already know NO'ah, none of it will work! lol
DeleteI don't need to say it - you admitted it.
DeleteWhy would the Hard Rock voluntarily give away money to a Downtown Tampa stadium?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd we're still waiting for info on a new ballpark in Tampa you personality investigated like the dialog I been trying to bring to light like different ideas & it's cost on a roof, what other development would be built around the park, can they get businesses to buy into the ballpark by building on, etc.. We'll be holding our breath...
DeleteWell duh! the Indians of Hard Rock wouldn't just "give away money" to the Rays, but if they see a sort of benefit being a hotel less then 7 miles away, maybe they would see value in a lower interest rate on a loan then Hillsborough's tax payers would want to make?!
DeleteIt's called brainstorming, something this blog tends to lack considering it's easier to just say NOPE, WON'T WORK!
And maybe Busch Gardens would see the economic benefit to baseball being just 7 miles away and kick in the money too?
DeleteDude, please don't be dumb about my comments, no one is talking about "kicking in money", I'm talking about a loan, like the commercials running on TV of Indians tribes that are now in the loan biz!
DeleteAnd how do you think Tampa would pay back that loan? Cities already get low-interest, tax-free municipal bonds (loans) thanks to Congressional handouts. Paying them back is the problem.
DeleteB.Dufala,
ReplyDeleteI have to admire how thick-skinned Noah is, as he never even acknowledges your constant barrage of insults and personal attacks. You know, if you leave the insults/personal attacks behind, you can save alot of keystrokes when doing your replies.
Well, let's just say it's nothing personal, and I give him credit for a lot of times being to professional. But as far as the context of his content, I'm not as naive as most of the readers on here. He is from Boston, he does love his Red Sox, and most of his inserts on here is digressive & negative toward the Rays without any actual evidence or investigating on what the Rays want to do to accomplish moving into a new ballpark. Yes there's times stadiums situations don't workout, but there is times it does. So you may worship his work, but I'm a Rays fan, and it seems this blog is an attempt by a Red Sox fan from Bahstun to rally others to help keep down the future of the Rays, covered up by the theory of trying to help the "tax payers". Read all the inserts, and point out one that isn't Re-reporting something someone else has said or that isn't an assumption of the future. He's the one that wants to try to put himself at the forefront of the opposition to a new stadium in Tampa. I would think if you or I did the same, that we would do some actual investigating to find out what would or won't work, future outlook of baseball in Tampa in 2025-2040, etc., calling around & research different ways & creative ways of building a stadium in Channelside or other places opposed to the wait-and-see, post any articles that only agree with his ideology, and RE-report articles from sites like TBO. So again, no it's not personal banter, yes you have to be "thick-skinned" when you put yourself out there in this manner, and giving people a "Sunshine of the Stadium" view means more then some "keystrokes", why(?), because there's as much evidence that stadiums that are smartly built to accommodate it's city does work & make money, and Tampa more then likely will benefit in it's future investment in the Rays...
DeleteNo Dufala, you are significantly more naive than the average reader here in many ways. G'day!
DeleteNote of sanity, when MLB owners get their new mallparks - whether free and clear from taxpayers or their own mortgage - they're not interested in recycling. It's new that $el$.
ReplyDeleteI've been to many of them and if there's any carry over from the previous place it's minimal.
Rayz management won't be going the bargain basement route, they'll want all the bells and whistles (moveable roofs etc.) that all the other owners get or they will continue to complain about their economic competitive disadvantage.
A new Tampa mallpark will run close to $1billion - the $600million assumption is the usual low ball lie used to make the boondoggle palatable - and it will be quite a stretch for the region and/or Rayz to be able to handle it.
Assuming seems to be the theme of this blog! I guess we should also "assume" a team with one of the lowest payrolls every year should have the least amount of wins in the Majors!!!
DeleteIt's fewest wins, not least amount.
ReplyDeleteWayda ignore the proven point, and point out a difference in a way of something. Besides, it can be worded both ways genius...
Delete