My apologies for not blogging more lately, but my real job comes first...and, well, there hasn't been much Rays stadium news lately.
But that all changes every year at this time - it's All-Star Weekend in Miami!
OK, so there still probably isn't much news on the Stadium Saga front to report, since Hillsborough doesn't have any money to buy the team a stadium and all legit Pinellas options probably hinge on late-August's St. Pete mayor's race.
But I'd still expect MLB Commish Rob Manfred to carry on the league's rich tradition of using the Mid-Summer Classic as an opportunity to manipulate/scare fans into action on stadium sagas. This blog has been tracking the tradition since Bud Selig in 2010.
Just don't give the comments the time of day; Selig never did "intervene" in the "inexcusable" situation he was concerned about...and even Manfred admits creating a boogeyman, like Montreal, helps pressure cities like Tampa and St. Pete.
UPDATE: Manfred says MLB won't expand until it can no longer hold relocation over heads of T.B. & Oakland
But the great irony in whatever Manfred implies about Tampa Bay's "problems" is that the host of the optics are far worse for the hosts of the All-Star Game, the Marlins.
The Associated Press penned a piece from Miami identifying some factors that have hurt both Marlins' and Rays' attendance, including ballpark location and a transient fan base.
But while the Marlins have a sparkly new ballpark that didn't accomplish much other than lining Jeffrey Loria's pockets with public dollars, the Rays are actually drawing much better TV numbers.
Neither the Rays (15,680 avg) nor the Marlins (20,904) are doing well at the gate, per your annual All-Star Break attendance update.
UPDATE: Manfred says TB better market than Montreal right now and is "hopeful" for progress
Meanwhile, the Tampa Bay Times' John Romano writes "Tampa Bay could learn from Miami's stadium fiasco" and public dollars should only be spent in conjunction with "a provision requiring a percentage of profits be split with local governments if the team is sold."
That would be wonderful and all, but it kind of undermines the reason teams seek public support: to boost the value (and thus sale price) of the franchise. If the team has to share profits with the public, it may as well just take out a mortgage and fund the thing itself.
I agree with Romano that this kind of agreement would go a long way toward earning Stu Sternberg a place in Tampa Bay fans' hearts again. But I just don't see it happening.
At the end of the day, the Rays' next step may ultimately depend who wins the Rick Baker vs. Rick Kriseman mayoral battle.
Kriseman has already offered up significant subsidies to keep the Rays downtown, but Baker has not shown the same willingness.
It may be no coincidence then that the Rays have financially supported Kriseman's re-election campaign.
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook
Part 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteRegarding John Romano’s column at http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/romano-tampa-bay-could-learn-from-miamis-stadium-fiasco/2329747
John says:
Factoring in the team's $400 million in debt and the normal appreciation of a big league franchise, Loria's profit margin isn't quite that dramatic, but I get it if people aren't in a benefit-of-the-doubt mood.
I say:
And Loria will get to unload the remaining obligations of the stupid $325 million/13 year contract of Giancarlo Stanton.
John says:
That's why I have this suggestion for Tampa Bay's stadium pursuit: Make yourself a partner with Rays owner Stu Sternberg.
I say:
Why should government get involved with a 100% private enterprise?
John says:
If there is public money to be spent on a new baseball stadium in Tampa Bay, there should be a provision requiring a percentage of profits be split with local governments if the team is sold.
I say:
There should be no public money spent, not even a dime.
John says:
The Minnesota Vikings, who opened a new stadium in 2016, would have to forfeit 25 percent of any sale profits if the team is sold before 2022. The percentage decreases in subsequent years before disappearing in 2032.
The Marlins have a similar provision, but it doesn't appear to have much teeth in it. Loria can subtract debt, closing costs and taxes from the equation, and he only owes 5 percent of his profit. The provision also expires in March — six years after the stadium opened — which may explain the sale's slow pace.
I say:
What a deal – the taxpayers’ return, meager to start with, totally evaporates.
John says:
Still, I think the idea has merit in Tampa Bay for two reasons.
1. Sternberg has repeatedly said that it is his intention to keep the Rays in his family's control for the foreseeable future. If that's his plan, then this deal costs him nothing. It would obviously require a sunset at some point, but that's a negotiable detail.
I say:
Why would it require a sunset? Why should taxpayers give money to Sternberg? Why should we do a deal that costs Sternberg nothing? He will make plenty of money if and when he sells the team.
John says:
2. Despite turning the franchise's fortunes around after taking control of the Rays in 2005, Sternberg is still viewed by many as a Wall Street carpetbagger. This provision would give critics a measure of comfort since Sternberg couldn't cut-and-run without a penalty.
I say:
If Sternberg gets an offer he can’t refuse, he will cut and run immediately. The ‘penalty’ will be ‘chump change’.
John says:
Perhaps you think stadium financing plans are premature considering we haven't even figured out on which side of the bay a new stadium might be built, but I would guess the chances are pretty good that the Rays will have settled on a location in Tampa by the end of December.
I say:
As long as the Rays/MLB pay for 100% of the stadium, that is wonderful.
Part 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteRegarding John Romano’s column at http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/romano-tampa-bay-could-learn-from-miamis-stadium-fiasco/2329747
John says:
And, as protracted as the search for a site has been, the financing of a stadium is bound to be even more contentious. That is why it's important to approach it as a partnership.
I say:
And all of the contention should be between the Rays and MLB as to how much each party pays.
John says:
Along with the sale clause, there are other ways to ensure both the franchise and the community have a stake in the success of a stadium.
For instance, in return for a larger investment from Sternberg, the community could guarantee the team will be within a certain percentage of Major League Baseball's average attendance. If attendance continues to underperform, then Sternberg would be due a refund on his investment.
I say:
This is a ticket to disaster. Sternberg shows that he operates the team tactically, not strategically, always focused on making a ‘profit’ year-to-year. Since he won’t open his books, we have no idea how much that profit is. And he can easily have the team under-perform to drive attendance down if it is to his financial advantage.
John says:
Conversely, if the team has too many seasons under MLB's average payroll, then Sternberg could be required to pony up a penalty fee.
I say:
Right. For the 2017 MLB season, average team payroll is $150 million and the Rays payroll is $90 million - $60 million below the average. http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/ . Rays president Brian Auld is on record as saying that the Rays are looking for a 10,000 per game increase in attendance in the new stadium, by no means a slam dunk, and he says that would project to about $20 million per year in increased team revenue. The Rays have no chance in hell of ever having a payroll anywhere near average without more revenue sharing from the other teams.
John says:
And since Sternberg has never expressed much interest in expanding his business interests beyond baseball, it might be possible to negotiate a deal that would give a city or county control of a stadium during the five-month off-season.
I say:
Since the Rays/MLB will own 100% of the stadium, they can ‘knock themselves out’ generating revenue during the off-season. This will not be a taxpayer problem. Yeah for capitalism.
John says:
The basic idea is that it would be in the best interests of both the Rays and the community for a stadium to succeed. A one-sided deal, or a misplaced location or a contentious relationship will only increase the odds of failure.
I say:
The best idea is that the Rays/MLB pay for 100% of the new stadium, if they indeed think that building a new stadium is the smart thing to do.
Any MLB stadium should be 100% funded by the team/MLB. Please read the folowing to find out why.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-more-public-money-major-league-baseball-scott-myers