Today in the Papers....

Today in the papers, a story about another Downtown Tampa apartment tower going up.  I've never said Downtown Tampa wouldn't benefit from a baseball stadium, but once again, I'd ask - with all that development booming - does it need a baseball stadium?

Also, Evan Longoria is finally going public with news of his investment in a new mini-bowling alley and sportsbar on Tampa's Kennedy Blvd., not too far from his condo in Downtown Tampa (but typically about 30 minutes from Tropicana Field).

And, here's one final nugget from the non-paper world of ESPN.com - Rays VP Andrew Friedman talking about the prospects of re-signing David Price: "The question is: If our resources don’t increase, then it’s going to be really difficult to compete."

UPDATE: Gov. Scott's Plan to Bolster Grapefruit League

Even though there's probably a way to keep Spring Training teams in Florida without forking over big-time subsidies, Governor Rick Scott and key legislators want to make more public money available for stadium upgrades.

As reported on Shadow of the Stadium yesterday, the Governor wants the legislature to approve $5 million in annual incentives to improve Florida stadiums.  But today we learn the money would be contingent upon a 50% match from local governments, meaning at least $10 million a year in public dollars will be committed to spring training facilities.

According to a Florida Sports Foundation spokesperson, the governor's concern is apparently over the Tigers', Blue Jays', and Astros' leases that expire in 2016, and the Nationals' and Braves' leases that expire in 2017.  It's tough to imagine the Tigers, Jays, Nats, or Braves leaving Florida, but the Astros would be the most likely to jump to Arizona.

And yes, Spring Training is a huge economic driver in Florida and state contributions to stadiums would be capped at $20 million per project.   But it's another example of how Major League Baseball (and its $7.5 billion annual revenues) has convinced public officials it needs help.

BizBallMaury Rips on Marlins

Maury Brown (@BizBallMaury) made a few bold Twitter predictions today following Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria's open mic performance at the ballpark (which, of course, followed the underwhelming lines at the box office):

For those of you keeping score at home, the previous worst sophomore season at a new ballpark in the modern era belongs to the Tampa Bay Rays, which saw attendance drop by 30% from 1998 to 1999 (2.5 million fans to 1.7 million fans).

The Brewers also saw their attendance drop by 30% in their second year at Miller Park (2.8M fans to just under 2.0M), while the Pirates saw attendance drop by 28% in the second year of PNC Park (2.5M fans to 1.8M).

So that means for Brown's prediction to come true, the Marlins would have to average fewer than 19,823 fans per game in 2013.  Not only is it possible, but it's also possible they could fall below that mark and still draw more fans than the Rays.  In 2012, Tampa Bay drew just 19,255 fans per game.

Florida Governor, Legislature Agree to Spend $5M More Annually on Spring Training

Just received a press release from the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce that powerful State Senator Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, helped negotiate an agreement with Governor Rick Scott to dedicate $5 million in recurring funds each year to the "State Economic Enhancement and Development Trust Fund for Major League Baseball Spring Training."

Given the blatant factual errors in the release, I hesitate to post any of it, but here is an excerpt:

"Spring Training Programs in Florida create significant economic impact12 months per year. Spring training does not drive our tourism economy. Every Spring Training facility in the State provides thousands of needed jobs in the communities where they are located", said Bob Clifford, President/CEO of the Clearwater Regional Chamber.

It is projected that spending $5 million to enhance these programs will generate approximately $750 million additional dollars for our state's economy.

Major League Baseball began spring training in Florida decades ago. As recently as 15 years ago, every Major League team held its training in Florida. This year, for the first time, less than one-half of Major League Baseball teams train in Florida.

"We must reverse this trend", said Senator Latvala, "Spring Training Programs attracted roughly 1.6 million people to baseball facilities in Florida last year alone, sixty-two percent of which were tourists from other states. Clearly these programs are worth nurturing because of the economic impact they have on our state."

Of course, there are NOT "less than one-half" of teams currently training in Florida (they are perfectly split 15/15 between the Grapefruit/Cactus).  And every major league team did NOT train in Florida 15 years ago (the Cubs haven't been there since 1916, some teams never have).

So hopefully those weren't the facts this agreement was decided on.  But last week, Governor Scott called for a plan to strengthen the Grapefruit League, which this blog pointed out did not have to include new subsidies.  But of course, it did.

Your Florida Tax Dollars at Work: Daytona 500 Sponsorships

Interesting taxpayer expense that was floating under the radar until Michael Van Sickler from the Tampa Bay Times wrote about it this weekend: $174,500 in FDOT money to sponsor a pair of NASCAR stock cars in Sunday's Daytona 500.

Van Sickler writes it's designed to remind Floridians not to hit pedestrians:

(FDOT), which is known more for building highways than sidewalks, picked this week because accidents spike during the international event.

Every year more than 250,000 people attend the big race at the Daytona International Speedway — and they do so by walking along and across the eight-lane road that runs in front of the race track.

From 2008 to 2011, there were 10 crashes involving pedestrians within a 5-mile radius of the racetrack during Speedweeks, including three last year, according to the state.

Yes, there is an elevated walkway that a $2 million state grant paid for back in 2000 to avoid such accidents, and "people use it," McPherson said.

"But the majority of the people still use the street," she said.

So your tax dollars will pay for a campaign that includes sponsorship of two stock cars on a team that includes champ and native Floridian Joe Nemechek. That's one Nationwide car on Saturday and one Sprint Cup car on Sunday, each car's hood festooned with a public service announcement in the shape of a red bull's eye, perhaps a crude reminder of where a pedestrian would land if smashed by a car.
...
Yes, it might be hard to notice the slogan as cars whiz by at close to 200 mph. But the exposure could be valuable, according to research conducted by Joyce Julius & Associates. Depending on how Nemechek does this weekend, the state could receive millions of dollars worth of television exposure.

What's more, an airplane will circle over the speedway for three hours Sunday, pulling a banner that reads: "Alert today, alive tomorrow: Safety doesn't happen by accident."

Asked if the fans swigging Bud Lights in the grandstands would understand that this message from on high had anything to do with pedestrian safety, McPherson explained that the message is intended to be about more than pedestrians.

"The car has to be alert, too," McPherson said. "Everyone has to be alert. We didn't want to just focus on pedestrians."

(We're assuming McPherson doesn't want the race drivers looking up at the banner.)

The campaign includes radio ads for drivers 65 and up, a class of drivers that are more prone to crash into pedestrians, McPherson said. They will air in April. Additional ads will target impaired drivers, who also have higher rates of hitting pedestrians, McPherson said.

Asked why the cars sponsoring pedestrian safety have to go so fast, McPherson laughed.

"Because they're a race team," she said.

When told about the campaign, Rep. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, also laughed.

"I laugh only because it's so stupid," said Fasano, who served as chair of the Senate's transportation appropriations committee from 2004 to 2010. "I don't see how spending $174,500 at the Daytona 500 will do anything to promote auto safety. No one in attendance will take any notice of this message."

Rick Scott Wants Plan to Keep Grapefruit League Teams

Last night in Sarasota, Governor Rick Scott hosted a reception for the top executives from the 15 MLB teams that take up spring residence in Florida.  And according to the Herald-Tribune, he wants to come up with a plan to make sure the state doesn't lose any more teams to Arizona:

Florida's biggest concern now is losing the Houston Astros, which train in Kissimmee. The team's lease expires in 2016, and there has been talk of Arizona cities trying to lure the team out west.

As I've written before, the Sunshine State is not in position to lose a spring training team, but maybe even pick one up from Arizona; City of Palms Park in Ft. Myers has been vacant since the Red Sox got a new $77 million stadium across town.

But maybe Governor Scott is truly concerned about the Grapefruit/Cactus competition.  It would stand to reason Arizona would be just as concerned since its main draw, the Cubs, threatened to move to Naples in 2010.

Scott has two choices for keeping Grapefruit league teams in Florida:

1. Offer state and local subsidies to keep building new and improved ballparks to keep teams (like the Baltimore Orioles);
2. Speak to his friend, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, and agree that neither state would contribute public funds toward stealing the other's spring training teams.

Option No. 2 would of course guarantee the same level playing field as Option No. 1...except the taxpayers of each state would get to keep tens of millions of dollars in their own pockets each year. 

Option No. 2 makes the most sense and is a win-win for both states;  which is why my money is on Option No. 1.

Will Stadium Saga Follow in Footsteps of Bass Pro?

So is this how new stadium opponents are going to go down?

On Wednesday, the Hillsborough County Commission heard every argument imaginable against public subsidies for a new Bass Pro Shops complex.  Then they asked Bass Pro to more or less "open its books" and reveal its annual sales numbers.  And promptly after Bass Pro said "no," commissions approved the $6+ million subsidy anyway, 6 votes to 1.

Joe Henderson from the Tampa Tribune, who nailed his Tuesday column on the same subject, writes Thursday that "the inference was clear: Bass Pro Shops doesn't need the help."  Yet the company had no trouble landing a multi-million-dollar concession by promising jobs (and upscale tackle boxes).

Is this how stadium subsidy opponents will go down too?

More than likely.  The Tampa Bay Rays are following a well-proven blueprint for landing stadium subsidies.  And despite countless calls on the team to open its books, it simply doesn't have to as long as politicians are willing to take their word for it.

Hooray! More Tampa Land Available for a Stadium!

Today's Tampa Tribune brings us news of another property owner willing to sell her land to build a new baseball stadium.  This property, sandwiched between Ybor City and Downtown Tampa, would address a number of issues the city has been dealing with for years in that neighborhood, such as blight and lack of economic growth.

But before you waste too much time giving the proposal any credibility, realize a few things:

1. Finding land isn't the problem in the Stadium Saga, it's finding money to build a stadium.  And of course, this proposal mentions nothing of a stadium funding source.
2. There are a dozen reasons why a stadium in blighted Ybor City doesn't make sense.
3. Fixing blight is a big reason why the Trop sits where it does, and how is that working out for baseball fans?

I don't know about you, but I'll file this one away with all the other proposed stadium sites in Downtown Tampa,  Ybor City, the State Fairgrounds, and of course, Brandon too.

How the Rays are Like Bass Pro Shops

Sports columnist-turned-metro columnist Joe Henderson, who has questioned some of the motives behind the Rays' stadium campaign, has penned another strong column for the Tampa Tribune. 

Today's closing graf:

Here's what I can't get past, though. If this project is going to be such a home run, why does the developer need taxpayer money to make it work? It seems a reasonable question. I just haven't yet heard a reasonable answer.

While this question could apply to any big league club's push for a new stadium, Henderson is actually talking (this time) about a controversial plan to subsidize a new retail complex anchored by Bass Pro Shops.  The proposed $6.25 million subsidy was supported by Henderson's paper, the Tribune, while opposed by the rival Tampa Bay Times.

Bass Pro isn't all that different from a pro sports team: a big-time retail business that makes hard-to-prove and potentially misleading claims about its value as a tourist attraction (among other things). 

In fact, a month ago, I pointed out how Rays' vice president Michael Kalt identified the team as a "retail business" that had trouble getting people to drive more than 30 minutes to visit. 

If Hillsborough commissioners reject the proposed subsidies to Bass Pro Shops this week, it will be because they'd rather invest their dollars in high-tech, high-paying jobs rather than retail.  And if they ever apply the same logic to the Rays' stadium search, it would make it virtually impossible to pay for a stadium in Hillsborough County.


Meanwhile, in Orlando, a wanna-be MLS club is looking for $75 million in tax money for a new stadium.

And in Atlanta, the Falcons' campaign to replace the Georgia Dome prematurely is facing some resistance.  Both stories are courtesy of Field of Schemes' Neil deMaus.

Trib: Why Won't Rays Open Their Books?

Yesterday was the Rays' annual spring Fanfest, which drew more-than-the-usual amount of fans to the Trop (25,000).  Principal owner Stuart Sternberg even said, "We're staying in Tampa Bay. We're not going anywhere. I've always been clear about that, I want to remain clear about that. We'll figure out a way to get something done."

So of course, we can count on the typical weekend stories about how baseball fans in Pinellas think the Trop is just fine and Hillsborough/Polk fans think a stadium should move closer to them.  The Tampa Bay Times delivered. As did WTVT-TV.

But over in the pages of the Trib, there was Michael Sasso's watchdog piece, "Sports teams woo investors but keep finances in the shadows."

There's great value in a story explaining how reluctant the Rays are to "open their books," because - as I wrote in 2011 - the people of Tampa Bay haven't seen a single piece of evidence that the Rays have an actual financial need for a new stadium.  Sasso explains:

Maybe only in professional sports can a private business request so much money from the community and offer so little proof it even needs it.

At least six years into the Tampa Bay Rays stadium saga, few politicians or business leaders have called on the team to open its books or prove that a new stadium would help it survive in the long term.

(Editors' note: this blog takes great pride in the wide-acceptance of the term "Stadium Saga," as well as the headline of Sasso's article referencing a "shadow," even if the reference was purely unintentional.)

Consider if the Rays were seeking money from a bank or investor, though. Whoever puts up the money would require the Rays to turn over a few years worth of financial statements and provide its projected future revenues, bankers say.

Sports teams largely have been given a free pass from taxpayers and seldom have opened their books. Given the Rays' own questions about the strength of the Tampa Bay market, can the community be sure even a new half-billion-dollar ballpark would keep the team here in the long term?

Sasso mentions how both Mayor Bill Foster and his paper have failed to get answers about the team's willingness to share its financials.  He also points out the unsual lobbying from local business groups to support a new stadium even though they (presumably) haven't seen any financials yet either.

The story contends nowhere else in the business world would we be talking about financing a new capital project like a stadium without having thoroughly examined current - and potential new - revenue streams.  Yet when I asked Sternberg recently about what kind of revenue a new stadium could mean to the Rays, he said the team hadn't looked into it yet.

But isn't that what the entire Stadium Saga is about?  Creating new revenue for the team so it can better-compete?

Sasso goes on to explain how the Astros, Mariners, and Twins all shared financials in order to get their new stadiums built.  But he also included the disclosure that a pair of sports consultants - who have done work for governments (another important disclosure) - say it's not always necessary.

It's a good read...and after some recent missteps, the Trib shouldn't allow anyone write about the Stadium Saga other than Sasso and columnist Joe Henderson.

Foster, Sternberg Meeting Produces Few (Public) Developments

St. Petersburg Mayor Bill Foster and Tampa Bay Rays principal owner Stu Sternberg met face-to-face Friday for the first time since last January, and - per Foster's wishes - the meeting was held in private.

Foster has indicated cities often lose when teams negotiate through public opinion, rather than traditional channels, such as elected leaders.

In a joint statement following their meeting, the Rays and Foster said, "Today's conversation was a productive one and we anticipate continuing it in the coming weeks."

Tampa Voters Love Buckhorn, Don't Love Stadium Subsidies

A local poll conducted for the website SaintPetersblog.com indicates voters in Tampa don't just approve of the way Mayor Bob Buckhorn is runing the city; they also approve of his hesitation to throw money at a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium.

When asked about Buckhorn's handling of the Rays’ dilemma, 45% of Tampa voters approved of his approach, while 21% disapproved.  As for his overall approval numbers, Buckhorn posted a strong 58%/18% favorable/unfavorable mark.

Meanwhile, among respondants, only 43% of voters in Tampa said they approved of tax dollars going toward a new stadium.  Forty-five percent of Tampa voters said they disapprove.

Of course, don't read too far into those numbers, because:

• Many of those who oppose tax dollars going toward a new stadium may soften their opposition if the question was changed to whether they approve of tourists' tax dollars going toward a stadium;
• And, as SaintPetersblog speculated, there's a good chance voters who actually approve of tax dollars going toward a stadium may change their mind when they see just how many dollars we're talking.

Read the entire poll results here.

Kriseman Wants Stadium Saga to be Campaign Issue

Voters disappointed they never got to vote on a Rays referendum in 2008 may get another chance in 2013, as Mayor Bill Foster's top opponent may make this fall's election an referendum on his handling of the Stadium Saga.

Former councilman and state representative Rick Kriseman, who announced his candidacy last week, said he is running because of Foster's lack of leadership on issues, including negotiations with the Rays.

"I would not have kicked the can down the road," Kriseman said in an e-mail exchange. "Rather than simply ignoring the concerns of the Rays and hoping that the agreement will adequately protect our interests until 2027, I will initiate conversations about the future of the team in St. Pete and in this area."

Kriseman added that the city's contract with the Rays, which - in theory - keeps the team at Tropicana Field through 2027, "can be amended (as well as) broken."

While Foster, a lawyer by trade, has refused to publicly consider buy-outs and has followed the advice of St. Pete's city attorney not to amend the contract to allow the Rays to search in Tampa, Kriseman disagrees.

Kriseman, also a lawyer, says he would like to capitalize on the city's negotiating leverage now and work to maximize compensation for the Rays' eventual departure.

The stance should help endear Kriseman to the editorial board of the Tampa Bay Times, the region's largest and most influential newspaper. The paper lent Foster an influential endorsement when he ran for mayor in 2009, but has since been very critical of him, including his lack of embracing a region-first approach with the Rays.

Kriseman says he respects city attorney John Wolfe, but "that two different attorneys can come up with two different opinions on an issue."

"Because I believe that the agreement with the Rays can be amended without negatively impacting the City's potential damages claim," Kriseman continued, "I would direct City Attorney Wolfe to craft an amendment to the agreement which reflects the Gerdes amendment (or something similar), yet does so in a way that doesn't diminish our damages claim should the Rays decide to terminate the agreement early."

Continue reading here.

Romano's Ever-Evolving Stadium Stance

Tampa Bay Times columnist John Romano writes this morning that the writing is on the wall for Friday's Bill Foster/Stu Sternberg meeting:

The only good that will come out of this meeting is the acknowledgement that further discussions are unnecessary. Foster ain't budging, and neither is Sternberg.

It's a well-written piece about why neither of the Stadium Saga's major players has any reason to budge right now: because St. Petersburg stands to get a nine-digit payoff for a broken lease that the Rays are trying to bargain down through public opinion.

It's the same explanation for the Stadium Saga I gave two years ago in a pair of posts:
6/23/11 - "What Stu Sternberg is Thinking."
6/24/11 - "What Mayor Bill Foster is Thinking"
However, at that time, Romano was a much fiercer critic of Foster:

This story will not have a happy ending if the final chapter involves Mayor Bill Foster blocking the front door with a lease in one hand and a campaign button in the other.

For what relationship ever works when one person refuses to let the other leave?

One thing Romano has always correctly maintained (when he wasn't suggesting contraction) is that the Stadium Saga could hasten Sternberg's possible sale of the team.  Relocation and contraction are Bud Selig's pipe dreams, but the biggest nightmare possibility of inaction is the exodus of Sternberg, Matt Silverman, Andrew Friedman, and Joe Maddon.

As I bantered recently with 98.7 The Fan's Todd Wright, no Rays fan wants to think about the possibility of someone new - someone not as successful and/or as patient - buying the team.

Romano concludes today's column with little expectation of progress, but indications new politicans (possibly mayoral candidate Rick Kriseman?) could change St. Pete's strategy:

That's where we're at today, that's where we will be after Friday's meeting and, I expect, that's also where we will be at this time next year.

Eventually talks will resume, new voices will be heard and progress will be made.

Maybe a Stadium Wouldn't Cost $600M?

There hasn't been a comprehensive stadium study in Tampa since the ABC Coalition estimated in 2009 that a retractable-roof facilitiy would cost between $500 million and $600 million.  And while the Rays haven't indicated anything less than a "state-of-the-art" facility would suffice, one thing has changed in the last four years that could affect a new stadium's pricetag: interest rates.

Depending on the product, interest rates have fallen approximately two percentage points in the last five years, meaning it would be cheaper to finance a stadium.

Of course, Miami has proven it can still cost billions to finance a stadium.

And of course, if Congress eliminates the municipal bond exemption, it could cancel out any interest rate improvements.

But at least interest rates and construction costs have gone in a favorable direction for the Rays.  It could be time to re-examine what a new stadium would cost.  But, of course, most in Tampa Bay would rather focus on location first.