Monday, February 23, 2015

Why Sternberg's "2022" Deadline Comment Means Nothing

Stu Sternberg tells reporters he's going to look for new stadium sites by 2022, with or without St. Pete's blessing.  But:
All Sternberg said is - sometime in the next seven years - he'll need to start looking at 2028 stadium options.  Which is no surprise, given the team's current contract with St. Pete prohibits the Rays from exploring any move prior to 2028.

So in short: Sternberg said he'd continue to honor the team's business deal and will spend the next seven years if necessary trying to improve it.  At least that's better than his previously-mentioned alternative.

22 comments:

  1. We'll see if Sternberg is bluffing or not. Back in December 2014, he said: “The chances of me owning this team in 2023 if we don’t have a new stadium are probably nil. Somebody else will take it and move it. It’s not a threat, just the reality. I won’t be sitting here 10 years from now waiting it out to move the team.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Pro-Montreal people are hilarious with their comments. They actually think that a team will be playing in Montreal. It definitely won't be within the next 15 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our goal Glen is 2020. And lot of us think it is possible. We don't know yet if it's an existing team or a new one. Of course, MLB will prefer to consolidate the Rays and the A's in order to expand. This is way more profitable. But I do think that Rays move to Montreal is inevitable considering all the history over the past 5-7 years. I can't see this saga going on till 2020.

      Once that said, what is hilarious is how any people show up at a FanFest this weekend, how many people are in the stands when a winning team is on the field, how a city council is acting to find reasons not to accept a MOU.

      Rays deserve to be loved and to be cheers during games, with real people, not with eyes in front of a TV. Yes, Rays need TV audience, but the best audience with an empty stadium is not sustainable.

      Let's agree to have two pre-season games in April 2016 between the Jays and the Rays in Montreal with Sternberg and Manfred on site. If such event don't resolve quickly the situation in TB (I can't imagine the pressure such ever will have on all the stakeholders, Tsunami you said) then, let's start planning a transfer in the coming years.

      Delete
    2. Montreal can sell out every preseason exhibition from now to 2027, and it still won't matter if there's no stadium deal in place locally.

      My guess? MLB only wants to hype Montreal up to the extent that it can be used to extort current MLB markets for stadium subsidies -- kinda like LA with the NFL, and Seattle with the NBA.

      Delete
    3. Kei Teay, I agree that preseason game attendance has no relevance to season-long attendance. And you're right, it won't matter unless they have a way to finance a stadium.

      Yet, as I've posted on this blog before, I see no reason why we are more likely to get a stadium deal done than Montreal is. They've made significant steps in the past year or so that have gone relatively under the radar (naming potential owners being the most important), while the Tampa-St Pete is stuck in the same spot it's been in the past 7 years. I am not so certain that we're closer to building a stadium than Montreal is; we can't even decide where the Rays are allowed to LOOK.

      Delete
    4. Tampa Bay is ahead of Montreal for the sole reason that it still has an MLB team. And this leads to your point about potential owners in Montreal: The only way they'll ever come into play is if Sternberg decides to put the Rays up for sale.

      MLB would probably love for Montreal to become its own stalking horse. It's not even at that point yet.

      Delete
    5. "My guess? MLB only wants to hype Montreal up to the extent that it can be used to extort current MLB markets for stadium subsidies -- kinda like LA with the NFL, and Seattle with the NBA."

      Kinda like when the White Sox, Giants, and Mariners were all looking at St Pete back in the day, as leverage to get new Parks. Eventually Tampa Bay got a team. No reason why this wouldn't happen again for Montreal.

      Either way, they need to get something done.

      Delete
    6. @Kei Teay

      I would disagree with that. You're saying that just by virtue of having a team, the Tampa Bay area is likely going to be the first to have a serious stadium finance plan for the Rays. One that is attractive enough for the Rays to agree with. I don't think being without a team stops a city from coming up with money for a stadium, if they truly want to attract a team from another market.

      Delete
    7. @Matt: And which one of those teams ended up moving to Tampa Bay? Exactly. The league used TB to force other cities into coughing up cash for new ballparks. I wouldn't put it past them eventually trying to use Montreal in the exact same way.

      @Anon: By the virtue of the Rays being bound to TB, the team isn't allowed to have any dealings with anyone outside of TB, never mind north of the border. Hey, maybe Stu sells up before 2027. Perhaps he signs the severance check with St Pete and moves the team on his own volition. But TB remains the first choice by a comfortable margin, in my estimation.

      Delete
    8. Obviously none of those teams ending up moving. That's not the point. Tampa Bay was a decent boogeyman for those teams to get what they wanted. And because Tampa Bay was seen as being so viable for a team, their name was close to the top when time came for expansion.

      The whole "Rays to Montreal" saga will go away the minute that a new stadium is announced for Tampa Bay. That being said, nobody wants to foot the bill, so until that time, Montreal is going to get more and more momentum.

      I guarantee the Rays won't build one themselves, as the market is questionable, given the fact that nobody is willing to drive to see this team now. Also, I can't see MLB being too crazy about the Rays financing it, as it sets a precedent which could be used by other cities as to why they won't use taxpayer dollars to build parks. Its all about fear, that much is true. That's why Stu and the gang keep trying to create urgency to the situation. It wouldn't have been so easy to do, if people would have just shown up between 2008 and 2013.

      Delete
    9. I can see why Sternberg/MLB would want to manufacture a sense of urgency. Public sentiment against subsidizing sports teams is rising throughout the US (and Canada even); the league's revenues are now reportedly north of $9 billion; and the Rays' new and improved TV deal will make even more area residents feel they shouldn't prop up the construction cost of a new stadium.

      I can also see the proverbial can getting kicked around until 2027, or perhaps until Stu finally throws his hands up. No mayor (or politician) wants to be remembered for losing their city's team, and so they might play hot potato for years on end. Eventually, the poor saps who'll get elected to office around that time will be left to basically make important decisions on the fly.

      Delete
    10. I don't understand how you can say the Rays are bound to Tampa Bay until 2027 because of a contract. Stu has already said they will begin discussions with or without St. Pete signing off. In my opinon, the only reason the Rays haven't left the Trop and paid for damages yet is because it would cost money and still leave them with no stadium.

      We don't know how much the city can sue for, but let's not act like it's hundreds of millions of dollars. If some other city presents an attractive stadium plan while St. Pete, Tampa, and the Rays argue over where to play, then the Rays will gladly leave and pay for damages.

      Delete
    11. Begin discussions by 2022 about where to play in 2028.

      A hostile departure could very well cost hundreds of millions.

      Delete
    12. It's telling that he brought up 2022 on the stadium talks, a full seven years from now, as opposed to, say, two days from now. Even Sternberg appears to want to kick the can down the road.

      Delete
    13. OK Noah, I'm confused as to why the city would be able to sue for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, when you yourself have admitted that there are studies saying teams have little economic impact on a region.

      I'm no lawyer, but I don't understand how a city could sue for hundreds of millions when the team may only bring in, for example, $6 million a year in tourist revenue.

      Delete
    14. As I wrote earlier in another thread, we are at a point where legal analysis of the Use Agreement is required. In fact, we may need more than one point of view to better understand the scenarios an the implications.

      Just saying that irreparable damages will results in hundreds of millions is not enough.

      The other side of the medal is the fact that the city council could face some legal actions by the Rays and the MLB considering they don't let the Rays look at other sites.

      Again, I'm not a lawyer, just thinking out loud here. But I think such legal understanding will be required soon.

      Delete
    15. The Rays in 2008 helped produce an economic impact study that suggested they mean hundreds of millions of years to the local economy. That would be used against them if they tried to leave early and claim minimal damages.

      Delete
    16. Noah, that was 7 years ago and attendance in 2008 was 1,780,791 or an average of 22,259. So such numbers (economic impacts) will be way lower in 2015 an even lower in the coming years if attendance is dropping.

      And let's say that the Rays demonstrate that the non-action or lack of actions by the city council affected the Rays revenues and profitability between 2008 and 2015.

      Ultimately, TB will risk to sue the Rays regarding the Use Agreement and being sued by the Rays/MLB which will affect the city, the region. And with a MOU that was rejected for a non-issue (development rights), the Rays can demonstrate that the city council is affecting the Rays and their profitability.

      Let's have a legal point of view on those topics, because just saying a study was produce means nothing.

      Delete
    17. Having spoken to many many lawyers on this issue, the deck is stacked against the Rays for the next decade. Forget damages....MLB has to fear an injunction that could block a move altogether.and/or threats to their antitrust exemption.

      Delete
  3. The Pro-Montreal people are hilarious with their comments. They actually think that a team will be playing in Montreal. It definitely won't be within the next 15 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glen Bergman, is that you?

      lol why post the exact same thing as a Glen Bergman did above, but this time do it anonymously..?

      Delete
  4. The Montreal people are taking a break from shoveling snow to shovel something else.

    ReplyDelete