Saturday, November 18, 2017

Stu Sternberg Hits Tampa Bay with Sticker Shock So He Can Deal a Numbed-Down Blow Later

I first thought this Tampa Bay Times article was from 2008:
But then I realized the news of Stu Sternberg estimating the Rays would put only $150 million toward a new stadium in Tampa Bay was published Wednesday night.

That means the team seems to want to fund a smaller portion of a new stadium than they were in 2008, when they offered up the same $150 million for a less-expensive stadium in St. Pete.  Adjusted for inflation, their 2017 opening bid is actually 13% less money than they were willing to spend ten years ago.

Longtime columnist Joe Henderson asked if Sternberg was joking.   And one Pinellas County Commissioner reacted this way:
No matter what you thought, money has always been - and remains - the biggest problem in the Rays' Stadium Saga.  But we can draw a few conclusions from Sternberg's comments:

1) The funding gap is ENORMOUS; and maybe bigger than even this blog thought
Commissioner Ken Hagan has repeatedly said there would "never again be a sweatheart deal" like the one the Glazers got at Raymond James Stadium.  Except, as this video shows, the Rays' stadium is likely to be WAY more expensive, even when adjusting the Buccaneers' 1998 haul for inflation:

There is no way Hillsborough (or even the deeper-pocketed Pinellas) is coming up with $650 million in public cash for a new stadium, so they two sides had better start hawking peanuts to private donors who may have a sweet spot for baseball.

2) Sternberg knows $650 million isn't happening
So why did he hit everyone with the sticker shock of $650 million this week?

Either because it's the next step in Sternberg's exit plan, finally coming clean that not even a new ballpark means significant new revenue unless someone else pays for it (as this blog has written dozens of times)...

And/or he's setting public expectations high - and his initial offering low - so that coughing up $350-400 million in public money later may seem like a deal.  It's a topic this blog covered in 2016:
This way, the Rays are now perfectly set up to "settle" sometime down the road for a fixed-roof stadium at a much lower overall cost...once the public has committed its chunk of the cash.

We should end the conversation about a retractable roof right now.  The Marlins' don't use theirs, the region can't afford one, and the technology has come a long way since the Rays' last stadium foray in 2008.
But Sternberg knows there is no appetite to fund major subsidies for a new stadium in Tampa: not on Hillsborough's county commission, where four of seven commissioners have already spoken out against any tax funding for a stadium;  not in Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn's office, where he just had to fight for a controversial tax increase to pay for basic city services and wastewater upgrades; and not in the statehouse, where several bills aim at banning all sorts of stadium subsidies and the biggest proponent of stadium investment, State Sen. Jack Latvala, is sitting on the sidelines as allegations of sexual misconduct play out.

So what does Sternberg do with that?  Well, a savvy negotiator creates leverage.  And he's doing his best.

Sternberg is well-aware there are at least 14 different types of public subsidies the Rays could target to subsidize a new home.

3) Transparency from Rays??
Sternberg said the $150 million figure was based on the team's estimated revenues from a new stadium - something he told me five years ago the Rays don't do.

So, I guess now in 2017, the team all of a sudden knows what kind of ballpark they want to build and generally what kind of revenues it can expect from it?  Does that mean the Rays will finally be a little more forthcoming about financial issues?

Because three years ago...
If Sternberg was serious about only contributing $150 million, at least he's being honest (although I'm not convinced).  Because so far, the only real money talk we've heard from the Rays and MLB is how taxpayers had better start coughing up money.

Transparency has not been a priority here, and little has changed since I said this 12 months ago:



We know from the Marlins' new stadium that a new park, even in the wrong place, will increase a franchise's value by hundreds of millions.  So c'mon Stu, show us the money.






FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook



3 comments:

  1. RayJay cost $168 million back in the late nineties - $260 million in 2017 dollars. Stu wants taxpayers to fork up $650 million - 2 1/2 times the amount of RayJay. Ain't happening. Evan Longoria should start brushing up on his French.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why have all concerned accepted the TBT's $800M figure on a new stadium? Even the editorial they published on the cost of recent new stadiums ranged from the $400Ms to the $600Ms.
    The Astros Minute Maid Park in Houston with a retractable roof cost $250 opening in 2000 with ground breaking in 1997. Adjusted for inflation, that would cost $358M in 2018 dollars. If contracts are signed later than 2018,about $5M in additional inflation costs should be added for each year after 2018.

    I attended an Astros game at Minute Maid :Park this past season. It's an outstanding ballpark and would be perfect for the Rays at about half the TBT projected cost of $800M.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A stadium won't cost $800M:
      http://shadowofthestadium.blogspot.com/2017/11/stu-sternberg-hits-tampa-bay-with.html

      Delete