New Season, Same Game in Stadium Saga

It's opening day and that means more talk of the Rays' antiquated stadium!

While I was tempted to simply re-post my "New season, same refrain" column from a year ago, I'll freshen it up. (Although I admit, it's a fun read one year later)

The 2011 season begins much the way the 2010 season did: Rays owner Stu Sternberg makes poorly-veiled threats about the team leaving town and the St. Petersburg Times wants St. Pete to cut the team a break and let it explore other stadium options.

For my readers that get worked up about every Sternberg comment and every rejection from St. Pete Mayor Bill Foster, I say this: relax, and enjoy some baseball.

This is all part of a very long and frustrating process that will continue to get painful for all parties involved. How do I know? As I explained in 2009, it always goes down that way.

But right now, the Rays have little leverage other than the fear that they may relocate (or get contracted, but that's silly).

So expect a steady dose of Sternberg and Bud Selig comments designed to grow that fear. It's your choice to buy into it or not.

I suggest, instead, you enjoy the Rays' exciting on-field action - they're poised for a number of real good years on their not-so-real Tropicana turf.

Sternberg's "They'll Find a Place for Me" Comment

At first, I didn't write about Rays' owner Stu Sternberg's "(MLB) will find a place for me" comment because it isn't the first time recently he reiterated his frustrations with the Stadium Saga.

However, a lot of intelligent (and not-so-intelligent) things are being said about it on some other websites and message boards.

Judge for yourself:
Field of Schemes
Rays Index
Rays Renegade

Why shouldn't this come as a surprise? Because as any MLB owner can tell you, you create leverage by:
1) Scaring your region.
2) Negotiating through the media.

Can't Escape Ticket Fees at Grand Prix of St. Pete

I think most fans of sporting events (or even cultural events) are used to paying ticket fees and convenience charges when buying tickets for an event online.

Usually, we pay because the convenience is worth the fee. But when the fees on the inconvenient option costs just as much as the convenient option, the point of the fee becomes unclear.

At the Honda Grand Prix of St. Petersburg, tickets were as low as $10 for juniors on Fri/Sat. But whether you ordered tickets online or bought them at the gate, you still had to pay a service fee. The costs range between $5.00 and $6.50 per ticket.

So really, there were no $10 tickets - just $16 tickets. And the adult tickets really weren't $25 and $40, as advetised - they were $31 and $46.

Event organizers said it was simply the "industry standard" and the cost of doing business with an online vendor. But what about the service fee for tickets purchased at the gate? It was explained as the cost to pay for a ticket booth and people to staff it. That's silly.

And what industry is it standard? Not the sports entertainment industry, where the Bucs, Lightning, and Rays all sell tickets at face value at the gate.

Maybe the racing industry? I haven't done my research on it yet, but I'm not holding my breath on it.

Forbes: Rays' Value Up to $331M

The Rays may not be turning much of a net profit (although, they may be and we wouldn't know it), but the estimated sale price of the team keeps soaring.

According to the annual Forbes' valuations of MLB franchises, Tampa Bay is up to $331 million, a five percent gain from 2010's figure of $316 million. That's almost double the $176 million it was worth in 2005 when Stu Sternberg assumed majority control of the club.

For those of you counting at home, the Yankees remain the most valuable MLB club ($1.7 billion), worth almost double the next-most valuable club, the Red Sox ($912 million).

The Biz of Baseball has more here, as well as historical values here.

Another Chapter in the Glazer Financial Saga

As the Associated Press reports, Manchester United posted a $171.5 million loss last season. Ouch.

The Glazer family, which is much more scrutinized in its role as owners of Man U. than they are in their role as owners of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, are downplaying the numbers:

"But in the annual report for the year ending last June 30, director Joel Glazer
says the club has "sufficient cash reserves ... for investment in the playing
squad."

Read more here.

Tampa Mayoral Candidates Promise to Back Tampa Stadium*

The two candidates still standing in the race to be Tampa's next mayor both pledged this week to help find the Rays a new home on the "better" side of Tampa Bay.**
**if negotiations don't prove fruitful in St. Petersburg

With a close election expected on March 22, both Rose Ferlita and Bob Buckhorn are fighting tooth-and-nail over every available vote. That means the Rays fans' contingency too, as the two candidates suggested Monday how they could possibly help keep the team in Tampa Bay if St. Petersburg doesn't work.

Of course, a Tampa vs. St. Petersburg tug-of-war is just what the team needs to create the leverage to get a new stadium...but St. Pete Mayor Bill Foster told us today he's hoping the mayoral candidates start talking about helpful ways to cooperate with their friends across the bay, rather than talking about ways to compete with them.

Furthermore, Buckhorn needs to get his stadium facts straight, as a Truth Test fact-check shows he's making claims about stadium funding that are misleading, at best. To indicate Tampa (the 54th-largest city in the county) can put together stadium packages similar to that of a metropolis like New York City, San Francisco, or Dallas is pointless.

Why MLB Contraction Won't Happen. Period.

After writing why it's time to "Redact the Contraction Talk," I simply cannot stress enough that the threat of contracting the Tampa Bay Rays (and Oakland Athletics) isn't worth the paper (or LCD screens) the rumors are printed on.

While it may fall short of tortious interference, columnists and "experts" who toss around the C-word are irresponsibly creating leverage for the league. Bud Selig won't directly threaten contraction, but he may make a well-placed call to Ken Rosenthal or Peter Gammons. It has the same effect.

Why won't MLB contract?

The league grossed $7 billion in 2010. It's doing very well in a terrible economy. The Rays were a profitable team despite a bad television contract and a bad stadium location. Could they be more profitable? Sure. Do they hinder MLB's profitable operation? No.

And, when you consider the Rays are due for a huge windfall when their television rights are renegotiated in a few years, there's no way MLB would contract a team in the 14th-largest media market in the country.

Simply put, there's no traction for contraction (hat tip to friend Maury Brown at Biz of Baseball).

And even if MLB wanted to contract the Rays and A's, there are insurmountable problems with MLBPA union issues and various television deals.

For an idea of how tough it is to contract teams in a major professional league, look to the NHL - a league decimated by overexpansion. Both their product and profits have suffered in the last 20 years, but all 30 teams have somehow survived. Many of the Southern teams shouldn't have.

Right now, Anaheim is 25th in attendence despite a good record and playing in the No. 2 media market. Atlanta is 28th despite playing .500 hockey in the No. 8 media market. And Phoenix is 29th despite their second-place record in the 12th-largest media market.

If any league needs to contract, it's the NHL. Or maybe I'm wrong and all those teams simply need new stadiums to cure their attendance ills?

Time to Redact the Contraction Talk

Slow news day.

Why else would John Romano write about the "gaining credibility" of MLB contraction?

Halfway through the article, I thought he was criticizing the Ken Rosenthal column suggesting contraction:

So should Tampa Bay fans be practicing their panicked expressions this morning? Probably not. I'm guessing there is zero chance the Rays, or anyone else, will be contracted before the next labor deal is finalized in the coming months.

But then Romano spends the rest of his column explaining why Rays fans should possibly fear contraction. He acknowledges the idea as far-fetched, but since Stu Sternberg is unlikely to threaten contraction and Bud Selig doesn't like direct threats...the only people likely to stir the contraction pot...are columnists.

Romano usually does good work, but I think he missed the story here. He touches upon the possibility of Sternberg taking a check from MLB in 2017 to simply fold the franchise, but that's unlikely. Far more likely is the possibility of Sternberg getting involved in an ownership shake-up like we saw in 2002 with the Red Sox, Marlins, and Expos.

If you want fun speculation that isn't so far-fetched, what would happen if the Steinbrenners sell the Yankees? Would Sternberg look to "upgrade?" Even if the Rays don't have a new stadium, he'll make a great profit. And if the team does have a new stadium, tack another $50 million to Stu's bottom line.

Not saying it'll happen...but it's a lot more likely than contraction.

Hank Steinbrenner Calls Out Jeter Mansion

Continuing in his father's footsteps of criticizing his team, Hank Steinbrenner suggested Monday that some of the Yankees players "celebrated too much last year" and they were "too busy building mansions and doing other things and not concentrating on winning."

Although he denied the slight was aimed at Derek Jeter, the team captain dominated headlines in both New York and Tampa when he built his 30,000-square-foot home on Davis Islands (with fence).

Florida Lawmaker Tries Blocking Stadium Funding Again

State Sen. Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton), one of the world's biggest opponents of stadium subsidies, is at it again. Bennett re-filed legislation today to prevent public financing of sports stadiums without voter approval.

I remember covering a similar bill he filed in 2009, but it never made it out of committee. He took it as a hint not to file again in 2010.

But hope springs anew for Bennett in 2011, the era of anti-tax sentiments. He's been taking aim at an effort in Miami to renovate Sun Life Stadium with public dollars and hasn't been shy in the past about the need for private businesses to build their own stadiums.

In 2005, when the "Tea Party" was nothing more than a line in a history book, Bennett told the Sports Business Daily, "if you can afford to pay somebody $53 million to throw a baseball 90 feet, you can afford your own damn stadium. I believe you should support your business and I’ll support mine. Nobody ever gave me a handout. What kind of deal is that?”

He updated his comments in 2011, saying, "If you can pay someone $52 million to play the game of baseball, certainly you can build your own stadium with your own money.”

A Softer Side of Stu

Give Stu Sternberg this - he's definitely softening up. Conspiracy theorists may say it's simply a shift in his stadium-seeking philosophy. However, his 30-minute chat with reporters on Wednesday (and December sit-down interview with me) are a nice start toward repairing his image in Tampa Bay.

Aside from shrugging off the notion that he'd be interested in purchasing the Dodgers or Mets (everyone knows he wants to buy the Yankees, not the Mets!), Sternberg indicated he was taking his foot off the throttle a bit when it comes to the team's search for a new home.

"There is nobody to blame," Sternberg told Gary Shelton from the St. Petersburg Times regarding the stadium saga. "This is our situation."

Sternberg added he had not been contacted by any other cities about relocating despite his threat last summer that there were five markets better for baseball than Tampa Bay.

Roger Mooney from the Tampa Tribune reports that Sternberg said movement might happen this year on the stadium issue, but "if it's going to fall totally on my shoulders, no."

Much like advocates of light rail in Tampa Bay, it seems Sternberg is keen to the anti-spending sentiment out there these days and is content in waiting some time before putting the pedal to the metal again on the issue.

Lawsuit Sheds Light on Agent's Relationships with College Kids

Just received a press release from a law firm in Tampa suing national securities firm Oppenheimer & co. The suit alleges that investors were defrauded out of money intended for college football players after they declared themselves eligible for the NFL draft:

The complex scenario generally worked as follows. Investor monies were raised for the purpose of creating and funding an investment used to fund the temporary needs of young NFL recruits during the period of time immediately following their departure from college football and prior to their entry into the NFL draft. This is a period of time wherein sports agents aggressively recruit top NFL future talent to support their extremely lucrative businesses. Having monies available to lend to these recruits is a very powerful recruiting tool for sports agents. Monies were thus raised by Oppenheimer’s New York City office through (a financial advisor in New York) to fund the loans to these young recruits which were guaranteed by the players, the sports agencies, and others.

The suit claims, however, that the monies were funnelled elsewhere, defrauding investors.

The athletes indirectly involved in the suit include Steelers' WR Emmanuel Sanders (just ays before the Super Bowl), Broncos CB Perrish Cox, Cardinals LB Daryl Washington, Jets CB Brian Jackson, and Raiders DE Lamarr Houston.

Tampa Mayoral Candidates Talk Rays

Even though the Rays' stadium saga has been quiet this winter and the City of St. Petersburg remains at the helm of any possible negotiations, candidates hoping to become Tampa's next mayor in March tackled the issue at a debate Wednesday night.

While every candidate said the issue was solely St. Pete's to deal with right now, Tampa would be a grateful host if the team wanted to jump the bay...and finance its own stadium.

Click here to read their responses.

Lightning Say They Don't Need Bed Tax Dollars

Following a noontime press conference to announce uniform changes, Lightning Owner Jeff Vinik previewed the renovations he was planning for the St. Pete Times Forum.

We asked Vinik if he was still going after bed tax dollars, as uncovered by the Times.

"We do not have a deal with the county for public funding at all," Vinik told WTSP-TV reporter Mike Deeson. "We are announcing this plan to go ahead whether we eventually get funding from the county or not."

In a time where almost every commission and council in Florida is looking to cut spending (even tourist taxes), Vinik's comments are truly a nice surprise. They also show he's a really really bad poker player.....unless he's a really really good one and we don't know it yet.

Lightning Looking to Grab Few Available Hillsborough Tax Dollars

News this week of the Lightning's renovation plans for the St. Pete Times Forum should come as no real surprise, nor should their plans to ask for reimbursement from the county:

The Tampa Bay Lightning plans to announce roughly $40 million in renovations to the St. Pete Times Forum that the team hopes will significantly improve the hockey game and concert-going experience.

Documents obtained from Hillsborough County indicate that the team's new owners want to get reimbursed for much of the work with tourist taxes.

Among the changes being discussed: new seating, an overhauled ventilation system, a new interior color scheme and an upper-level concession area.

Deferred payment on immediate upgrades to a public building isn't a bad deal for the county. But it also reinforces my point from last year that Hillsborough County has no money for a possible Rays stadium.

When there's discussion of bed taxes potentially not covering the $2 million annual tab for the Forum, there's no way money will just magically free up for a brand-new baseball stadium before the bonds are paid off in 2027.