Curtailing once to the pressure of newspaper editorial boards on the issue of the city's previously-ironclad contract, Kriseman cut a less-than-ideal deal with the Rays to look at possible stadium sites outside city limits. Still, Kriseman is learning: 1) you can’t please everyone…and 2) it’s not easy to preserve the city’s interests and financial equity in MLB (as predicted on this blog two and a half years ago).
Just this past week, Kriseman was hit with a Times article on the slow pace of “Baseball Forever” stadium discussions in St. Pete, a letter from a powerful Pinellas senator who wants to be involved in stadium discussions, then a Times editorial suggesting his administration is bumbling the process in more ways than one.
Look, the Times may be right about Kriseman putting St. Pete’s interests above the region’s, but as Bill Foster always said, the mayor was elected by the people of St. Petersburg to look out for St. Pete tax dollars and interests first. In hindsight, Foster may have actually done a pretty good job preserving the city’s leverage and keeping the Rays in-place for four years.
The Rays and the region have asked St. Pete to make a financial sacrifice to keep the team in the region long-term. Kriseman granted that wish. But he’s going to find it harder and harder as the demands for St. Pete’s sacrifices continue to grow.
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook
Isn't contradictory to be an advocate for cities involvement with sports team's stadiums because you believe it's a losing investment, and simply say St.Pete should continue to fight to keep the Rays as long as possible for the benefit of the cities finances?
ReplyDeleteNo. When considering new subsidies, cities need to be me more vigilant.
DeleteOnce invested in a stadium, cities need to be more vigilant with protecting that investment.
Raiders owner on Las Vegas,“I say ‘with your help’ because there’s a misconception that all NFL teams … are owned by billionaires that are looking for free stadiums. There’s two problems with that. No. 1, I’m not a billionaire. No. 2, we’re looking to be a partner with you.”
ReplyDeletePartners in paying for stadium; not in sharing profits.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThen should teams get revenue from city's profit & taxes from money spent by everyone that comes to town because of the stadium, and everyone that works for the teams get big tax deductions? Sounds like a double standard if not...
DeleteTeams are a business. Businesses pay taxes. Those who invest in the business get the profits. If government is funding a private business, why shouldn't it get an equal share of profits?
DeleteIt's not a double-standard - That's how our economy works.
My post at 6:04PM was deleted, not sure why.
DeleteI'm posting it again.
----------------------------------
This is why a detailed and objective economical and financial impact analysis must be done.
Montreal funded one study to highlight what would be the benefits for governments and citizens to have the Expos back in town.
http://www.ccmmdev.com/baseball/analyse_retombees_baseball_131212.pdf
With such details, it's easier to identify if any governments funding or investments (which is not the same) are profitable or not.
I have a Master and a Bachelor degrees in Business Administration and what I can say is let the specialists analyzed the cost and the benefits of such problem/situation/opportunity. Then and only then, let's debate on it.
For all economical and financial questions and analysis, I found out over the years that journalists (especially the sports journalists) are the worse people to comment such topics.
Yes, journalists are very good at asking questions on different topics, but once the right specialists publish strong analysis and reports, let's rely on those information rather than "je ne sais quoi" type of questions with false statements.
However, I do agree that right now in Tampa Bay, very few (if no) good economical and financial analysis were published and to some extend, it's a real advantage for sports business owners over the ones that need to make decisions on behalf of tax payers.
I, like many, don't think you know how business works, let alone "our economy". I have managed businesses, and your one-size-fits-all opinions on business is telling. Again, luckily your not one of our Mayors or Rep..
DeleteThis is why a detailed and objective economical and financial impact analysis must be done.
DeleteMontreal funded one study to highlight what would be the benefits for governments and citizens to have the Expos back in town.
http://www.ccmmdev.com/baseball/analyse_retombees_baseball_131212.pdf
With such details, it's easier to identify if any governments funding or investments (which is not the same) are profitable or not.
I have a Master and a Bachelor degrees in Business Administration and what I can say is let the specialists analyzed the cost and the benefits of such problem/situation/opportunity. Then and only then, let's debate on it.
For all economical and financial questions and analysis, I found out over the years that journalists (especially the sports journalists) are the worse people to comment such topics.
Yes, journalists are very good at asking questions on different topics, but once the right specialists publish strong analysis and reports, let's rely on those information rather than "je ne sais quoi" type of questions with false statements.
However, I do agree that right now in Tampa Bay, very few (if no) good economical and financial analysis were published and to some extend, it's a real advantage for sports business owners over the ones that need to make decisions on behalf of tax payers.
The only one who wants the Rays in St Pete is Kriseman - but he neither has the viable location nor the money (public or corporate) to keep the team there...
ReplyDelete"Look, the Times may be right about Kriseman putting St. Pete’s interests above the region’s, but as Bill Foster always said, the mayor was elected by the people of St. Petersburg to look out for St. Pete tax dollars and interests first. In hindsight, Foster may have actually done a pretty good job preserving the city’s leverage and keeping the Rays in-place for four years."
ReplyDeleteThis makes the mistake of equating the Rays staying in St. Pete with the best interests of St. Pete. They are not the same. That's exactly why I voted against both Foster and Newton, because I think St. Pete would be better off if the Trop land were developed as something else and the Rays would be better off in Tampa.
Apparently a lot of my fellow St. Pete residents agree with me.
Fair point (as this blog has repeatedly agreed with)
Delete... but having sports teams "loses" money for cities!(?)
DeleteSome cities, regions, states will invest smartly. Others will blow money on sports teams. Those who can least afford to blow money on sports teams will be the first in line to do so. The wasteful places will struggle to compete economically, because their schools/workforces/job options will remain low quality.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between the winner/loser cities will be even more sharply contrasted 40 years from now. These trends will accelerate in a hyper-competitive globalized economy. Talent flows to where it can reach its highest use.
And perhaps the most important and most persuasive point: St. Petersburg's recent renaissance has ZERO to do with baseball.
Every decision (including even a decision not to make a decision) has real economic trade offs.