Thursday, September 5, 2013

Fallout from Foster's Memo: Day 1

Predictably, the Times headline this morning, "Mayor: Talks going badly," created a lot of other headlines today...even though the mayor never actually said talks were going badly.

However, councilmembers were telling the Tampa Tribune that's exactly what's going on: the Rays are refusing to compensate St. Pete for leaving Tropicana Field early:
“Their premise is they shouldn't have to pay us anything,” (council chair Karl Nurse) said. “I can't imagine how they can say, 'We owe you nothing. Goodbye.' And I can't imagine the city agreeing to that.”
Mayor Foster said negotiations were going well until Bud Selig's August 15 comments, but now no further meetings are scheduled.

These compensation disagreements - if they are true - are part of the unsurprising tug-of-war over public opinion and negotiating leverage.  Two years ago, Shadow of the Stadium wrote, "What Bill Foster is Thinking" and it still rings true today:
It comes to down to preserving St. Pete’s equity in Major League Baseball. The city agreed to build a stadium in exchange for 30 years of baseball. Foster sees anything short of that benchmark unacceptable.

Is he willing to negotiate? Sure. Is he willing to accept financial restitution in exchange for early termination of the contract? Probably. But that hasn't been offered by the Rays.

What has been offered is a region-wide search for a better location and Foster already knows what that would yeild: a Tampa vs. St. Pete tug-of-war. When the
Tribune suggests a Tampa stadium plan would do nothing to interfere with St. Pete's relationship, they're wrong. It takes away St. Pete's leverage.

And in a stalemate that will ultimately come down to a negotiation over hundreds of millions of dollars in public subsidies, Foster the Lawyer can't afford to lose any leverage.
Just like a homeowner, St. Pete has a right to look out for the equity it has built in this contract; those are taxpayers' dollars.

And if you disagree, ask yourself these questions:
  1. If you buy a home and finish paying off your 30-year mortgage early, is your equity zero just because you have finished the debt service? Or do you still have the right to the equity you originally bargained for?
  2. If Evan Longoria decides he deserves a better contract, does he have the right to walk away from his current deal without penalty?
  3. If the Rays claim they're bringing value to Tampa, doesn't it suggest they're taking it away from St. Pete?

Meanwhile, sportstalk radio was all abuzz with Rays talk Thursday and I spent a good 15 minutes chatting with WDAE's Steve Duemig (you can listen to it here).  But one thing he asked was if Mayor Foster's public foray was "politicking."  My response: "of course!"

The political ramifications of any major news two months before a major election are always calculated.  And the Times was quick to recap the "campaign rhetoric" fallout.

"I don't lie," mayoral challenger Rick Kriseman told the Times. "You can trust me...We will have honest dialogue."

But Foster fired back, telling the Times, "There is a big difference between politics and governing...I'd appreciate it if he'd leave the governing to me. I'm not going to play politics with taxpayers' money."

When asked what he'd do different, Kriseman said he'd push mass transit (which Foster has supported as well) and propose the Rays pay for the right to look in Tampa with a different kind of concession:
Rather than charge the team a fee for exploring sites outside the city, he would grant permission in exchange for them lowering ticket prices next season to lure more fans. He also wants to create incentive programs with restaurants and hotels to make games attractive to tourists and visitors.
The Rays declined to comment on the ideas and Foster then called them "naive":
"I have been working with the organization for two years to make sure taxpayers interests are preserved and recognized," (Foster) said. "It sounds like a Kriseman administration would give everything away."
UPDATE: Kriseman's campaign manager, Cesar Fernandez, later told me the Times got Kriseman's concept wrong and the proposal was not "one season of cheap tickets in exchange for the right to look" - it was merely brainstorming. 

Given all of the politicking between the mayoral candidates, there was a stark contrast from city council this week, as I first pointed out this morning.

My WTSP colleague Preston Rudie spoke with councilmember Charlie Gerdes, who authored the unsuccessful amendment to allow the Rays to look in Tampa, and his message was that MLB should just butt out at this point.

As for Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, he told Rudie that baseball just won't work in St. Pete, but he's still stuck on the sidelines until the Rays and St. Pete finalize their "divorce" and give Tampa their blessing to start talking.

26 comments:

  1. Noah, your analogies are way off. A much more accurate analogy is:
    If you build a house in the hopes of renting it to a friend in Chicago or a friend in SF, who said they may be moving to the area. But they decide not to. Leaving you with an empty house for several years. Some new family comes along and inquires about renting your house. They ask you to replace the carpeting with hardwood and in return you ask them to sign a 30 year lease. After 16 years, they start say they want to move to a better neighborhood, they now have children and schools in the region suck. And now you've decided that they should pay for the house because they signed a 30 year lease.

    You do realize how far off on this you are on this. You do know the team and city are basically fighting over 20 million dollars towards improvements made for the original 30 year lease. Everything else is the city posturing to scare the team into relenting. You do realize the team is going to fight tooth and nail to pay 0 out of the 20 million in question, considering they will be approaching Tampa to help cover the costs of a new stadium. And the optics of paying out St. Pete will not go over.

    Anything beyond those improvement costs have NOTHING to do with the agreement between St. Pete and the Rays.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Rays didn't sign a "lease," they signed a contract - and there is a difference.

      So it's like if you are a developer who built a house...the house sat vacant...then you sold it to someone who agreed to pay for it over 30yrs...but decided halfway through they don't like the house anymore and don't want to pay the rest of their mortgage.

      I also think you are way off on your assumptions about compensation. This battle is over a lot more than $20M.

      Delete
    2. Well, though I think the Rays w/ Hillsborough county, Jeff Vinik among others have the plans for Channelside pretty much figured out, now it's about playing politics w/ St.Pete! That's all this is, and unfortunate for the Rays they're not in control. Though it's greed by St.Pete to not want their cash-cow to leave because the Rays were pure luck for have for what will be over 20 years by time they get out. But, let's keep-it-real any stadium drama is GREAT publicity for the team, because drama sells, and sells means more money... A win-win that yinz are all caught up in like being fooled into thinking that the "reality show" is REAL, and NOT scripted!

      Also, Noah!, you should (if you could) put a lil' auto-stream thing of your interview on the "Big Dog Show"...

      Delete
    3. The Channelside thing is far from "figured out" with the mess that is Channelside Bay Plaza.

      And the "drama" may be good for the Rays' bottom line years to come (that's why we're going through these motions), is not good publicity for trying to sell tickets: http://shadowofthestadium.blogspot.com/2010/07/rays-attendance-how-trop-is-like.html

      PS - you can find the Big Dog replay here, I'm told: http://t.co/stu6599XtL

      Delete
  2. David,

    It is totally irrelevant how much St. Pete paid or owes for the Trop. The Rays signed a 30 year lease, that is legally binding. If they want to break it, they will have to make St. Pete whole in the context of what does St. Pete lose if the Rays leave early.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd love to see how well that argument holds up. Are you telling me, no one anywhere is able to break any lease without covering the entire cost of its impact? Every apartment building or commercial building in the entire country has every tenant stay for the entirety of their lease.

      This is some fantasy land that Foster himself probably doesn't believe in. The 2 things Foster is doing: stalling to get a couple more seasons at the Trop and positioning the city to get some compensation for the improvements the city did when the Rays signed the lease.

      Delete
    2. It's a contract, not a lease. So breaking it is like breaking a mortgage, not a rental agreement. Far more legal implications.

      Delete
  3. Scott omg. You must be a st.pete resident. Foster has been a problem since day 1. They talk corporate welfare but look what the government pays people who dont work and are low income, not including the disabled. The wealthy create jobs. Dont like the salary they pay you, go back to college, they have pell grants etc. Time for St.Pete to step aside. Cut welfare benefits. Time for st.pete to wake up. The city is a joke to professional sports. They cant even solve the lens issue. Make the trop a homeless shelter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I learned Scott lives in Hillsborough, for what it's worth.

      Delete
  4. All it is now is sour grapes and hurt feelings. St.Pete a minor league city in a major league world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great lil' post! The 78th (probably over a 100 during the summer) populated city in the US is lucky to have had a cash-cow in a Major League baseball team occupy their empty Suncoast Dome for the last 20 years (2018 or so bout time they move)...

      Delete
  5. Welfare benefits aren't administered nor paid by St Pete so your suggestion that they cut welfare benefits is a prime of example of people who don't have a clue chiming in when they should sit quietly in a corner & listen in hope of absorbing knowledge.

    The stadium solution is as simple as the Rays negotiating their way out of their current contract, just like any other entity who has a contract would be legally required to do.

    The Rays are seeking to break their contract w/out ramifications. That is utterly unreasonable no matter how the team or MLB try to spin it.

    What the city of St Pete does w/ proceeds from said negotiations, is not of concern to the team or those residing outside of St Pete.

    It is the LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY of the Tampa Bay Rays to fulfill the terms of their contract or negotiate their way out of it. That simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks like there is more than one ANONYMOUS on this thread. The ANONYMOUS that I am responding to right now is 'right on'. The MR/MS ANONYMOUS that this ANONYMOUS is referencing is 'right off'.

      Noah, can we at least have unique identifiers for ANONYMOUS responders to minimize confusion and ambiguity?

      Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Nothing I can do about it, Scott. Sorry.

      Delete
  6. Scott needs to learn mlb told them not to build a stadium they did. Clearly scott is someone of lower income. Really the city is impeding progress. The city does support the team. Welfare is not administered by st. petr but needs to be a model here. Clearly the only group impeding them moving to tampa are city govermemt and low lncome cry babies acting like the rays improved the area and the city and it citizens are hurt by the rays leaving. Attendance ia pathetic. Taxpayers have felt no pinch from tropicana field. Everyone in sports knows it time to move. Again this is sour grapes and jealousy. St.Pete a minor league city in a major league world. It's that simple Scott!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am assuming that this if from MR/MS ANONYMOUS

      MLB needs to learn that when one of their teams signs a 30 year contract with a city, it is legally binding.

      Clearly you have done a background check on me to determine that I am someone of lower income, right? So, MR/MS Anonymous what is my income?

      Delete
    2. MLB was so upset with St. Pete's building of a dome without a team, it rewarded it with a team and a 30-year agreement to play there.

      Delete
  7. Bottom-line is that if WE were in Stu's position, WE ALL would be playing the same hardball politics w/ St.Pete for a brighter future...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For once, Dufala, I agree with you.

      Delete
    2. "thinking like the customer" = good business, if only everyone thought that way, lol...

      Delete
  8. But currently, Tampa is the minor league city. Have fun at Steinbrenner Field! Go Tampa Yankees!

    ReplyDelete
  9. St.Pete has done nothing to let down the Rays. They cant even get the lens project done under foster. This shows how weak foster is. No progress on anything.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Explain to me again how the lens and the rays have anything to with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It shows how out of touch foster is. Let them go. Why would the rays have to pay demolition. MLB told them not to build it again. Everyone sees reality except St.Pete

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MLB agreed to a contract. If they want out, they should propose a suitable solution.

      If Evan Longoria wanted out of his contract, wouldn't it be up to him to propose a suitable alternative?

      If you wanted out of your home's mortgage because you didn't like the deal you signed, wouldn't it be up to you to satisfy the contract somehow?

      Delete
  12. So let them pay the remaining trop bonds. They are over soon anyways.

    ReplyDelete