How the Rowdies' Stadium Saga Will Go Down

If you remember my 2009 post on "How the Rays' stadium saga will go down," or the 2011 update, you know I regularly reference the typical blueprint for how pro sports franchises leverage public subsidies.

Well, since buying the Tampa Bay Rowdies last year, Bill Edwards has followed that blueprint too.  It started with complaining about conditions at Al Lang Stadium, the lease he inherited when he bought the team.  Then, he started talking about a new stadium.

Now, after currying favor with local politicians, he's cranking up pressure on St. Petersburg to act (sound familiar, Rays fans?).

According to Kameel Stanley at the Tampa Bay Times, Edwards filed a lawsuit over conditions at Al Lang {link to Times' site}.  Stanley reports the complaint not only alleges maintenance violations, but also a new dispute over the team's share of ticket sales.

I'll stop short of making too many predictions on this one, other than the fact that - much like the Rays' stalemate - it'll take a long time to reach a resolution.

Don't Believe Every Team Follows the Same Stadium Blueprint? (Pt. 2)

Following up on yesterday's post on how just about every team - even the Red Sox at "beloved" Fenway Park - uses the same blueprint to campaign for stadium subsidies, I wanted to pass along another gem from 1995.

This story, from former USA TODAY columnist Mark Woods, appeared three years before the Rays played their very first game at Tropicana Field:

Vince Naimoli is new to this business of being an owner, but apparently he is a quick learner.

Twenty-five days. 

That's how long it took for the proud buyer of an expansion baseball team in Tampa Bay to turn around and do what owners do best: 

 

- Ask the taxpayers for more money. 
- Say the stadium isn't good enough. 
- Threaten to move. 

 "I've already been contacted by other parties outside Pinellas County," Naimoli said, adding that "as long as other people fill their obligations, I'll be here." 

 

Baseball fever ... catch it! 

Actually, this isn't just a baseball thing. It's an owner thing. 

In the last few months, it has been easy to forget about the gall of the bosses. That's because their employees were busy stealing the greed limelight - from NBA rookies asking for $100 million deals to baseball players saying things like "some of us don't even make $1 million a year." 

But this summer we can expect to watch the modern-day version of a broad daylight holdups. (No masks required. Just guys in suits saying, "Hand over all your money or we're moving to Virginia!") 

- Al Davis (OK, it's football, but the principle is the same) is threatening to leave Los Angeles. 

- George Steinbrenner is throwing out the J-word (Jersey), hoping to get money to refurbish Yankee Stadium. 

- Bud Selig is saying that his Milwaukee Brewers must have a $200 million park with a convertible roof and, of course, lots of luxury boxes. 

The list goes on and on. But we expected as much from them. They're veteran owners. 

Naimoli is a rookie. One would have thought it would take a while for him to get up the nerve to swing for new fences. Maybe 1998, after his team actually played a game. 

Twenty-five days. 

In the same week that Naimoli announced that his team officially would be called the "Tampa Bay Devil Rays," he also basically threatened a change in the first name. 

How about them Orlando Devil Rays? 

OK, so Naimoli didn't actually mention Orlando or Virginia or any of the other areas standing there with cash hanging out of their pockets saying, "Please rob us." He didn't have to. Not in this game. Something as vague as "other parties from outside" will do the trick. 

He is upset that elected officials haven't worked out a deal to come up with $20 million in improvements for the five-year-old ThunderDome. A commitment for financing those improvements must be submitted with a final lease to Major League Baseball officials by April 30. 

And guess who he wants to foot the bill. 

Never mind that many of these improvements - restaurants, concession stands, souvenir shops - will put money back in Naimoli's pocket. He figures the people who spent $138 million for the stadium should throw in another $20 million. 

You're thinking, "These guys (Steinbrenner, Selig, Naimoli) are the millionaires, right? Why should fans fork over money to help them make even more? Shouldn't they be the ones paying for these improvements and new stadiums?" 

Silly you. 

The taxpayers are always asked to pay.  

And they always do. 

I's the lure of having a pro sports franchise, of being considered "a good sports town," as if that's the ultimate civic goal. 

Funny thing, though. When Naimoli was trying to convince baseball to come to St. Petersburg, everyone else was making fun of the white dome with the slanted roof. But he kept insisting that it was a first-class facility, that it would make a fine home for major-league baseball.

Now he says that $20 million will "make it sufficient" and will be "enough of an improvement in order to get by." 

Twenty-five days. 

That's all it took.

UPDATE: The good folks behind the Tampa Bay Baseball Market blog add this nugget:

@StadiumShadow One month in, Namoli wasn't happy with attendance. Thought the team would avg 3 million a season. http://t.co/OdLe4VF75y
— TBBaseballMarket (@TBBaseballMkt) May 28, 2014

Yes, the Rays' Stadium Campaign is Following the Same Blueprint of Every Other Stadium Campaign

Expect a tug-of-war: first between two local communities, then two communities separated by thousands of miles. Blogs, petitions, editorials, and maybe even a full-page ad or two. Anger. Heartbreak...all things the Tampa Bay area has to look forward to...as the Rays lobby for a new state-of-the-art baseball stadium.

I first wrote that paragraph ten years ago, in my July 3, 2009 column, "How the Rays Stadium Saga Will Go Down."  A decade later, it's clear not much has changed.

I acknowledged at the time the post was speculative, but also that I had covered enough bare-knuckles stadium shakedowns to know the playbook pro owners all seem to count on  So how did that 2009 column hold up?

Let's take a look, with my 2019 comments in bold:

July 3, 2009=============
Every time a team wants a new ballpark, it starts planting seeds that it cannot field a competitive team in its current digs (Rays got this out of the way in the 1990s).

When people start believing the team actually could be competitive at its current site - both on-the-field and at the box office - the team drops more hints that attendance could/should still be better (see Rays' 2008 campaign).

When people start believing that a new ballpark could make a difference in attendance, the team commissions a study to "analyze" the feasibility of staying put. The Red Sox did it, the Marlins did it, and the Rays did it this June.
Ten years later, Rays owner Stu Sternberg swore his "sister city" split-season pitch was "not a page out of a playbook" and that he likes to be different.  Except, for the last 10 years, almost every move the Rays have made off-the-field, including a half-dozen relocation threats, has been out of the standard "build leverage for stadium subsidies" playbook.

The study - predictably - concludes it's not feasible to stay at current location long-term.  That takes us to the present point in time, where we await a new study from the ABC Coalition that will analyze where a new stadium would be best-placed. There really isn't much suspense here...the foregone conclusion is that a stadium in - or very close - to Hillsborough County will draw more fans than the current location in somewhat-remote downtown St. Petersburg.Later in 2009, that ABC Coalition report affirmed the foregone conclusion that Downtown St. Petersburg, at the time a less-desirable live-work-play destination than it is now, was too remote of a location for most potential baseball fans. 


Disclaimer #2: I love watching the Rays play. I think they've grown a great base here and need to stay here. I think they mean a lot of money to the local economy...but I don't think anyone knows exactly how much that is.
In 2008, the Rays commissioned a study that indicated their impact was $122 million per year at the time, then later suggested their true impact was closer to $200 million.  Not only were economists quick to dispute those figures, but the Rays were too.  In 2013, one team executive suggested St. Petersburg should let the team explore leaving because they were hurting the city's economy. Go figure.


Once the ABC Coalition releases its findings on location, the Rays may finally admit that they don't hate The Trop; they hate playing in downtown St. Pete. That's when things will really get fun.
That moment came in June 2010, when Sternberg shifted his explanation of poor attendance from the facility to the facility's location.


The team will continue to drop hints that it needs a new home at a new place. Grass-root efforts will pop up. Fan groups - on both sides of the bay - will start rallying the troops.
Over the last decade, stadium support groups have included the Clutch Hitters, Top Off the Trop, Build it Downtown Tampa, Baseball Forever St. Pete, and most recently, the not-so-grass-roots group, Tampa Bay Rays 2020.


Since the team's current contract with St. Pete doesn't expire anytime soon, Tampa may not happen. However, since St. Pete and Pinellas Co. could work out a deal to tear up the current lease and sign a new one long-term, the Gateway area (near the bay bridges) will start to become the most realistic location.
Former Mayor Bill Foster offered to let the Rays explore the Gateway/Mid-Pinellas area shortly after he was elected in the fall of 2009. But despite the robust tax revenues available to fund a ballpark in that region, the Rays said they wouldn't even consider it until they could explore Tampa first. Years later, the Rays were still exploring and several Pinellas possibilities near the bay bridges were developed without considerations for baseball.


The public will scoff at the cost ($470M?). The team will become more poignant that it needs help from the community to survive. Execs will "remind" us that they aren't so much a private business, but an integral and beloved part of the community. The Red Sox did it, the Marlins (hilariously) did it, and the Rays will do it.
That $470 million projection in 2009 grew with inflation and construction prices to the $892 million sticker-shock figure the team estimated in 2018. But the Rays have relentlessly campaigned that they are part of the fabric of Tampa Bay's community, and they have amplified their case that they need community support ($$) to stick around.


The team will re-affirm its commitment to stay in the area, but it won't be shy about its need for a new park.  The public will still scoff at the cost.
Check. Check. Check.


It will be right about that time a high-ranking team executive (Stuart Sternberg? Matthew Silverman? Stadium Czar Michael Kalt?) will take a trip to Charlotte. Or Portland. Or some other MLB-starved city.  A trip like that would normally go under-the-radar, but a well-placed call to someone like Peter Gammons or Rob Neyer will drop the tip that the Rays are exploring other communities.Sternberg started talking to Montreal, and it was a well-placed call to ESPN's Jeff Passan that ensured one little tip would fuel more than a week's worth of stadium talk.


Why? Because teams don't get free stadiums unless two cities are competing for their services. The blogs, editorials, and letters to the editor will fire up again. Local politicians will get nervous. One leader - maybe a Pinellas Co. Commissioner or a St. Pete City Councilman? - will decide his/her legacy will be keeping the Rays in Tampa Bay.
This turned out to be Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan.


He/she will fire up more grass-root efforts to save the team. Expect more petitions, rallies, and forums.
Hagan has spent an enormous amount of time and effort collaborating with developers and business leaders to make an Ybor stadium happen.  Some in the Tampa community have followed his lead, while others in St. Petersburg have vilified him.


Fans in Charlotte (or Portland, etc.) will launch similar grass-root efforts to show their interest in a team. The Rays will kick back and let the scenario run its course.
So far, it's happened in Portland and Montreal.  The Rays wouldn't mind if another city or two joined in too.


Baseball fans will fight stadium-haters. City leaders will battle their counterparts in other municipalities. Columnists will stir the pot with provocative headlines. The war will be waged on newsprint, on the airwaves, and of course, online.
We saw a three-year civil war in Tampa, with baseball boosters fighting subsidy critics in their own backyard, as columnists and sports talk hosts fanned the flames.


And while it will be a war of public opinion, the Rays - mark my words - will NEVER let the issue go to public referendum. After seeing a public stadium vote fail (for a modest $16M price tag) in Sarasota, they won't risk letting the people of Tampa Bay decide their $470M fate. (The Bucs won their referendum in a different era - there is no comparison.)
Still true.


Private investors will join the fight, offering up their money, land, and services to help the area keep the team.
See above notes on Ybor City.


The "donations" won't be nearly enough to cover the cost of a new stadium, but it will be enough to give the impression that the people of Pinellas County are willing to buck up to keep the economic engine in-town.
There were lots of developers who wanted to be involved in the Ybor stadium project, but as predicted, none of them wanted to finance an actual stadium that someone else would profit off. 

 
When the public still scoffs at the cost of a new stadium, the team casually reminds fans that while they are a beloved part of community, they could be a beloved part of someone else's community.
Check.


More trips to the second city follow. The Rays will acknowledge publicly that they are talking to another city. After all, the owners aren't from here - they aren't committed to staying in a town that's not committed to them.
To Sternberg's credit, he has continued to say he wants to be in Tampa Bay long-term. But he also hasn't been afraid to continuously flirt with the idea of relocation.


More local politicians start feeling the heat and get legitimately scared the team will leave.
That's where we are today.


That's where the blueprint ends.  What happens from here? Tough to say. Still tough to say. 

Every professional franchise uses these steps to try and leverage a new, free stadium. The results vary but often depend on two things: the economy and the volume of the voices of the stadium cheerleaders.  Those voices aren't loud yet, but when people REALLY get scared the team may leave - and it always reaches that climax - you won't be able to tune them out.
And that's why the Rays are trying to reach that climax before the economy slows down again.  However, they're still feeling the impact of anti-subsidy sentiment left over from the Great Recession, which was magnified by the Marlins' well-publicized fleecing of Florida.  That's made Sternberg's subsidy campaign deciding uphill.

So the next time you think Sternberg is making major stadium news, realize it's probably not the climax of a ten-year soap opera.  In fact, in the last decade, not much has changed at all in the stadium saga except the volume of some voices. 

---

Get Shadow of the Stadium delivered straight to your inbox

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

More Fallout from Rays' Hillsborough Push

Yesterday's news in the Stadium Saga - a proposed amendment by the Rays to only consider St. Pete stadium sites if they can consider Tampa stadium sites too - wasn't exactly new news.  But it certainly excited a lot of Rays fans in Hillsborough County.

Especially the Tampa Tribune!

Not only did the paper cover the developments, but it also published a seperate article about Jeff Vinik possibly assembling stadium land in Downtown Tampa.  Of course, there was no real suggestion that's what a group connected to Vinik was trying to do when it bought land across the street from the arena it already owns...but it makes for a good headline.

As for the proposed amendment to the Rays' stadium contract, St. Petersburg council members - and the city attorney - were leery of its intentions.

"Most of my colleagues' concern is protecting that investment first," Jeff Danner told the Trib, adding the amendment could considerably weaken St. Pete's contract with the team.

The Tampa Bay Times reported Danner suggested financial compensation for breaking the contract, as theorized yesterday on this blog.

Councilman Steve Kornell added his opposition to the amendment, saying, "If Tampa is a better solution...then why haven't I been able to watch a Bucs home game on TV for a couple of years?''

The most thought-provoking reasons for possibly rejecting the Rays' offer came from St. Pete City Attorney Mark Wolfe and Mayor Bill Foster.

Wolfe said that while St. Pete would retain "veto power" over a new stadium deal, they could be pressured politically to give in to "tough buyout terms" if the Rays cut a deal in Hillsborough County. 

"The newspapers are going to be all over us for being unresponsive,'' Wolfe was quoted in the Times. "You will have pressure on you from all sides.''

Foster said that he was determined not to play the saga out in the media (where the leagues have big advantages over municipalities), even if it means taking talks behind closed doors and away from the public eye.

Meanwhile, Hillsborough Commissioner Ken Hagan is "delighted" to speak to the Rays and entertain talks, regardless of what St. Petersburg decides.

A Tampa vs. St. Pete tug-of-war: exactly what the blueprint for a new stadium calls for.

Referendum Questions: From St. Pete to Sacramento to Tampa

With the referednum on continuing to build a new St. Pete Pier going down in flames this week, the topic of referendums seems to be coming up quite a bit.

And, depending whom you ask - especially given the pier problems - voters may not always know best.  In fact, there are probably at least a few Rays fans who wish there would have been more support for the canceled "sailboat" stadium referendum in 2008.

But there's an interesting take from the New Ballpark blog on the importance of putting stadium subsidies to a vote:

1. Public money for stadia in the form of cash, loans, or bonds – whether or not secured by upfront taxes or fees – should never happen in this day and age.
2. All new or renovated venues that do not require public money are generally good, as long as they don’t come with significant kickbacks for the team and developers.
3. Any public assistance that goes beyond processing permits or planning work (providing land, money, or other benefits) should require a public vote over the terms of the deal.

New Ballpark is especially critical of the Sacramento arena efforts, which are intentionally avoiding a voter referendum - presumably for the same reason the Rays yanked theirs off the table in 2008 - because true democracy doesn't always produce what elected officials consider the best results.

The post continues:

Are these people nuts? Have some respect for your citizens, politicians. Allow for campaigns. Allow the citizens and fans to be fully educated on the issues. You owe them that much. Sure, campaigns are expensive. The billionaires and millionaires who want these projects can afford campaign costs, they’ve seen and done it before. Chances are that they’ll outspend opponents 10:1. They have the resources. That’s fine. That’s the way the process works.

Eventually, we may see the process repeat itself in Tampa Bay....where a recent poll shows voters have no interest in approving a taxpayer-subsidized stadium.

And a Letter to the Editor in this morning's Times (3rd one down) echoes the sentiment of many residents here, it seems:

We are paying enough for problems from the past -- reservoirs under repair, nuclear energy plants that will never be built, a section of an expressway under construction, and now a section of road just three years old leading to Tampa International Airport...We must learn from our many mistakes. Any plans to build a new baseball stadium must not include any citizen funding and must be approved in a referendum in the 2014 elections.

There's a reason referendums are not part of the standard blueprint for stadium campaigns.

Rays-to-Tampa Momentum: Day 4

Lots of opinion in the papers today after three days worth of Rays-to-Tampa talks...

In the Tampa Bay Times, the region's largest newspapers, it's all about pushing regional pride.  In fact, the editorial board mentioned some variation of the word "region" six times in six paragraphs.  That said, a new stadium may not get built without a regional approach - a regional tax, more specifically - so time to get talking now if the people want it to happen.

The Times also opined:

It took outside pressure for Foster to adjust his approach. He acknowledged to the Times editorial board this week that efforts by the county commissions in Pinellas and Hillsborough, and the St. Petersburg City Council, to break the stadium stalemate had an effect.

This comes as no surprise since public pressure is all part of the blueprint so many other teams have used to get stadia built on someone else's dime.  But it is nice to see Tampa and St. Pete cooperating (to a degree) rather than competing for this resource.

The editorial board of the Tampa Tribune wrote this morning that some outstanding questions need to be answered before plans for a new stadium progress too far...and they're right:

Will the team fare better in Tampa than in St. Petersburg, where attendance routinely ranks near the bottom despite winning teams? Will there be sufficient corporate support? Can the region financially support three major league sports franchises? Can a stadium be funded with minimal costs and limited risks to taxpayers?

I'm not sure the answers to these questions.  I have theories, but so does everyone.

The Trib also suggested the ever-popular rental car taxes, hotel taxes, and ticket surcharges could cover the public portion of a new stadium, as to avoid a significant burden on taxpayers.  Except, not only could these revenue streams be used to pay for other local needs, but I've explained before why ticket surcharges are the last thing an MLB team wants to use to finance a stadium.

Unless Tampa finds a way to reinvent the wheel and finance a stadium in ways no other team has done before, you're probably looking at a real tax committment (not my words)....or another stadium in Pinellas County, where hotel taxes bring in more revenue.

Why Everyone's Gaga for Toytown

Two quick thoughts on the Tampa Bay Times' most recent Rays-related editorial regarding the tug-of-war between the Braves and Rays over Toytown (that isn't really a tug-of-war at all):

1. The editorial board summarized the Toytown interest this way: "as usual, the key issue is money."  After spending years putting the emphasis on grabbing great land parcels before they disappear - this may be the first time the board really acknowledges finding the public funds necessary for a new stadium are a bigger problem than finding the land for one.
2. Have you ever wondered why there's so much fuss over a Toytown site they Rays haven't shown interest in, located in a county so many fans assume the team wants to leave?  Either because the team isn't sure it wants to leave Pinellas....or the Rays simply need Pinellas money in-play to leverage Hillsborough money.  Duh, it's the blueprint. 

I first wrote back in 2009 that if I had to bet on where the next Rays stadium would be built, I'd bet Mid-Pinellas/Toytown because of Pinellas County's available tourist tax.  And there's been little in the last six years to convince me it's not still the frontrunner.

---

Get Shadow of the Stadium delivered straight to your inbox

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

Henderson: Montreal Nothing But a Boogeyman

Following Michael Sasso's Wednesday piece in the Tampa Tribune about the likelihood Montreal could steal the Rays, columnist Joe Henderson follows it up today with a nice piece identifying the Canadian city as the "bogeyman who can help scare this area into building a new stadium for your Tampa Bay Rays."

Mind you, I don’t think we have anything to be scared about. If the Rays move anywhere, it will be across the bay to downtown Tampa. There has been precious little urgency about getting it done, though, because the Rays have no alternative to the catwalk-covered catastrophe known as Tropicana Field.

They probably still don’t, but it might help if local politicians believe they do. If you’ve ever been to Montreal, you know what a dynamic, lovely place it is.

As well-documented on this blog, I don't think the Rays will move to Montreal either.  And I don't think they will move to any other region, either.

But as Peter Gammons said, MLB teams "need to be able to blackmail" cities.

And as Jerry Reinsdorf said, "a savvy negotiator creates leverage."

So sure, why not use Montreal as the boogeyman?

Henderson also echoed my 2009 post that predicted the Rays would take a trip to some "MLB-starved city...a trip like that would normally go under-the-radar, but a well-placed call to someone like Peter Gammons or Rob Neyer will drop the tip that the Rays are exploring other communities."

In Henderson's words:

This is all about pressure, though, so, I would expect a few well-timed leaks from mystery sources saying the Rays might be headed to the cold, frozen north unless they get a new stadium. That might finally get things going here.

And when the new place eventually opens somewhere in Tampa, we can finally close this chapter of the team’s history and maybe offer a merci to our Canadian friends for helping to make it happen. We should appreciate them for stepping up.

That's just part of the stadium subsidy blueprint.  So rather than panic, Rays fans in Tampa Bay should just accept it, prepare for it, and - why not? - chuckle at it.

A smarter approach may be to figure out how much the team would be willing to put toward a new stadium and see if the region still wants to close the funding gap with public money over the next 10-15 years.

Tampa Mayor Talks Downtown Stadium Again

Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn says he won't "meddle" with the City of St. Pete's contract with the Rays - a contract that has 15 more years on it - he just can't help talking about how much greater a Rays stadium would be in his city:

"We need to be prepared if (a "divorce" from St. Pete) happens to be able to make the case not only to the voters in this community but also to the business community that this is a regional asset, the Rays, that we need to keep. And if that is the case, which I think it is, what is the best location for it. I happen to think it's in downtown Tampa."

Buckhorn acknowledged a point I've made before - that any new stadium outside of Greater St. Pete would likely require a large cash buyout of the use agreement.

But Buckhorn also indicated St. Pete's biggest concern would be $90 million in outstanding debt on the stadium - debt that will be paid off in a few years. I bet if you asked St. Pete Mayor Bill Foster, he would tell you his city has a lot more than $90 million in equity invested here.

Furthermore, every time Buckhorn touts Tampa as a suitable alternative to St. Pete, he is playing into the hands of the Rays, who want nothing more than to diminish St. Pete's bargaining power. The blueprint for a new stadium involves pitting one metropolis against another; but since that hasn't happened yet, a St. Pete vs. Tampa tug-of-war will suit just fine.

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.

Next in Line for Spring Training Funds: Houston Astros

If you offer it, they will come.

It's not just the Toronto Blue Jays anxious to tap into Governor Scott's new spring training retention funds;  now, according to TCPalm.com, the Houston Astros are saying they'll start shopping around too:

“I have been looking at an area in southeast Florida for about a year now, and have also been exploring options in Arizona,” said Giles Kibbe, general counsel for the Astros.

Of course, the Astros suggested they might move to Arizona to create the required leverage to land a new spring training stadium.  But they apparently want to end up in Palm Beach County:

"We are interested in making something happen there (Palm Beach Gardens), but we are a long way from getting that done.”

"A long way from getting that done" means the Astros are waiting for someone else to figure out the financing.  And in the meantime, the team may shop around other cities to create leverage and expedite the process.  It's hardly a secret; it's simply the blueprint.

It may also help expedite the spring training financing bill, which hasn't even been signed into law yet.  TCPalm continues:

In an amendment to a larger economic incentives bill, a Senate budget subcommittee voted Wednesday to offer cash for upgrading or building spring training facilities. Stadiums that host one team could apply for up to $20 million over a 30-year span. Facilities with two teams could receive $40 million. Local governments would have to match the state money, and payouts would start in 2015-16.

As SaintPetersblog.com points out, the Astros want to be first in line in Tallahassee; they just hired uber-lobbyist Brian Ballard to grease the legislative wheels.

How Rays' stadium saga will go down (Pt. 2)

I can admit...sometimes I'm wrong.

More than two years ago, I sketched out the longterm blueprint the Rays would use to get a new stadium...and while most of it has come true, I didn't knock every prediction out of the park.

Click here to continue reading.

Rays-to-Tampa Momentum: Day 2

Yesterday, I wrote why Mayor Bill Foster's easing up on the Rays Stadium Saga may be good news.  It could mean progress on discussions of how to pay for a new venue.  But on the other hand, we are likely years away from figuring out that conundrum.

So where exactly are we at and what are the major players saying?

Hillsborough Commission Chairman Ken Hagan: A conservative Republican, Hagan once pledged not to use public funds for a stadium.  He told my WTSP colleague Grayson Kamm the "Tampa business community will step up to close that gap, with advertising deals, naming rights, and other agreements adding revenue."

However, advertising and naming right revenues typically go to the team, not to pay off a stadium.  So when you factor in the Rays' presumed $200 million contribution, there's a good chance those revenues would be part of the $200 million, not on top of it.

Expect Hagan's biggest contribution to be forming some sort of a search committee in Hillsborough County.  Hopefully they come up with an easier pill to swallow than these guys.

Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn: Out-of-state on vacation, Buckhorn issued a statement that said "it is time we broke the stalemate...It would be a complicated project, but it is worthy of a full and healthy discussion."   They mayor may not be the one to come up with the funding for a new stadium, but he has indicated he's up to the challenge.  Foster chuckles and calls it "backpedaling."

St. Petersburg Mayor Bill Foster: Hard to imagine a phone blowing up more around Tampa Bay today, but the mayor insists the news doesn't mean the Rays are leaving the Trop anytime soon.  "My position hasn't changed in protecting the interest of the taxpayers....we've really moved past 2027," he told WFLA.  That means he's still planning on enforcing the current contract...and until the Rays agree to his terms, they can't go and look in Tampa either.

The team's contract with St. Pete: It's still there.  It still runs through 2027.  And it still will require a signed agreement between the city and the team if the Rays want to look elsewhere.  Oh, and it's still not a "lease!"

Foster's opponents in the Aug. 27 election: “It's a shame that it takes the mayor's political future being on the line for him to care about the future of baseball in Tampa Bay," former councilman Rick Kriseman said in a statement.   He may have a point about the timing of this all, but Kriseman and Kathleen Ford saw this coming weeks ago.  (PS - they're all debating tonight)

Pinellas County: The Tampa Tribune's Michael Sasso reports, "Coincidentally, the Pinellas County Commission is expected to discuss how to divvy up some of its hotel bed taxes at a Tourist Development Council meeting this week. One possibility is redirecting some of the bed tax money now going to pay off Tropicana Field bonds toward a new potential stadium, Pinellas County Commission Chairman Ken Welch said." Pinellas County, home to Tampa Bay's beaches, brings in a lot more bed tax money than Hillsborough County.

Tampa Bay Times columnist John Romano: "There are still plenty of details to be worked out. For instance, an amendment to allow the Rays to look at stadium sites outside of St. Petersburg must be written. And a settlement to the Tropicana use agreement will also have to be negotiated if the Rays get funding for another stadium elsewhere...For today, at least, Foster has figured out it's not such a bad idea to pass the buck. Or several hundred million bucks."

Tampa Bay Rays: They've yet to comment.  But knowing the blueprint of how stadium deals get done, they have to be happy.

 

Why the Bucs - Just Like the Rays - May Soon Be Seeking a New Stadium

It has never been more clear that the Bucs, just like the Rays, will soon be seeking a new stadium somewhere in Tampa Bay...and they'll lean on taxpayers to pay for it.

Of course, "soon" is a relative term since the real PR blitz may be nearly a decade away, as the team's lease at Raymond James Stadium runs through 2027. But it can take a decade for the seeds of a new stadium to blossom...so why not plant them now?

We can see the early stages of the leveraging as the Bucs jockey for leverage with the taxpayer-funded Tampa Sports Authority, regarding terms of their stadium renovations.  What should have been a simple "taxpayers pay $26 million; we'll pay the rest" discussion has broken down over the team's out-of-the-blue request to play multiple regular-season games in another city (or country).

In fact, I reported in October how the county asked the Bucs about extending their lease at Raymond James Stadium past 2027 in exchange for some of their requested contract & renovation concessions, but the team said it "was not interested at this time."

If the heavy-handed arm-twisting and relocation threatmongering in San Diego, Oakland, and St. Louis is any indication, Tampa Bay fans can expect the league to threaten relocating the Bucs in the late 2020's if plans aren't underway for a new stadium by the middle of the decade.

And as valuable as cities like Los Angeles and London may be as NFL markets; they're potentially even more valuable as stalking horses for other cities to use as relocation leverage.

Of course, Tampa Bay baseball fans already know all about being used as a pawn to help other cities get new taxpayer-funded stadiums...

The stadium blueprint also explains why team owners ultimately insist on stadium deals where they control stadium profits, but taxpayers technically own the facility.  Neil deMause explains: 

Not only would they have to pay their own property taxes then, but they wouldn’t have expiring leases to hold over the heads of local officials. Or have the local news media hold over officials’ heads — it’s so much more convenient that way. 

---

Get Shadow of the Stadium delivered straight to your inbox

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

New Season Brings Old Stadium Refrains

The start of a new baseball season brings a lot of warm, fuzzy feelings. But, in the case of the Tampa Bay Rays, it’s also bringing a rash of commentary on the team’s stadium situation.

As unsurprising as the attention is, the similar nature of all the talk is surprising. Other than some good analysis of the pros/cons of building a new stadium from the St. Pete Times, all the editorials seem to urge elected officials to get off their glutes and get the ball rolling.

The Times editorial board calls on St. Pete city leaders to act promptly. The Trib wrote an editorial simply calling for a new stadium. And Trib columnist Joe Henderson echoed the editorial by repeating the ABC Coalition’s findings in column format.

An interesting take on it all comes from the website "Field of Schemes." The site usually provides a level-headed approach to stadium-building and public financing, and it criticizes Henderson for wanting to build a stadium “just because.”

(In full disclosure, the site also sells these snarky t-shirts which wouldn’t exactly get ABC Coalition-approval)

And just as I predicted back in the ABC Coalition’s infancy, columnists and editorial boards are jumping on municipalities to act. But where’s the pressure on the Rays to come back to the table with ideas (or even a fair request) of their own?

As reported back in March, the Rays are still sitting on the sidelines, “waiting for the process to play itself out.”

But the process has basically played itself out with the ABC Coalition having already delivered its final report. It will soon drift off into the sunset, but there’s no indication the Rays will sit down with any community leaders anytime soon.
Why aren’t they at the table if they want a new stadium so badly?

It seems that - because although they’re counting on public money for a stadium - there’s not much public support for one. So the Rays continue to wait.

They’re still following the stadium-building blueprint that so many MLB teams have used, but anybody in Tampa Bay hoping for a quick resolution on the Rays' future will be thoroughly disappointed. All interested parties right now are playing a poker game with very valuable leverage at-stake.

There’s no debating the fact (or the editorials) that local leaders need to step up and help build a stadium if they want the Rays here into the 2020’s. But it’s not going to happen without the team’s help too.

No municipality can build a stadium by itself, so until the team shows its cards – both what it wants and how much it is willing to contribute to it – we’re at an impasse.

The Rays’ brass is undoubtedly still bitter about the way the waterfront deal fell through in 2008. But it’s going to take a similar united effort for the Rays and the community to get what they’re each looking for. And making things more difficult, it will have to be in full public view this time around so taxpayers aren’t left with an equally bitter taste in their mouths.

The time is now for the Rays to step up to bat and contribute more than their disappointment to the process. And fellow journalists, instead of penning editorials that encourage elected officials to work with the Rays (since there's proof they ARE trying), maybe we should be pushing the Rays' officials to work with them.

Fla. Cities Fearing Side Effects of Spring Subsidies

Echoing a Shadow of the Stadium post from a few months back, the News Service of Florida reports local leaders are starting to panic about the unintended consequences (or intended, depending on whom you ask) of Florida's new laws making it easier for baseball teams to get publicly-paid spring training stadiums.

What else did you expect?

"I know the state wants to keep spring training teams here in the state, but when you look at it from purely a local level, we want to keep that team here in our community. They've been here for a long time," [Dunedin Chamber of Commerce President Lynn] Wargo said. "The Jays are only a few blocks out of our downtown. When there is a game here, the town is packed; the businesses are packed; the restaurants are packed."

Similar concerns have been expressed in Melbourne and Kissimmee, where moves by teams have been seen as more inevitable.

Brevard County Commission Chairman Andy Anderson has said the law will create a "free-for-all."

Basically, the state of Florida is now bankrolling a silent auction between its cities (just what the blueprint calls for).

Florida taxpayers will eventually spend hundreds of millions of dollars for new spring stadiums for teams like the Blue Jays and Nationals that would have never left the Grapefruit League anyway.  Not to mention MLB teams don't exactly need handouts these days.  Not to mention the state already has empty spring training stadiums looking for teams.

Sure, fans will get some new stadiums to enjoy.  But let's not pretend tourism numbers are going to explode when the Astros get a new stadium.  And let's not forget Gov. Rick Scott could have prevented these businesses teams from playing the Arizona card for a lot less money if he really wanted.

UPDATE: The Cardinal Nation Blog points out Florida spent $43 million on spring training retention since 2010, but three of the teams have already moved, two of them to Arizona

Epic Stadium Subsidy Quote

There have been a few epic quotes over the years about how pro sports teams arm-twist cities to get free stadiums:

In 1995, Jerry Reinsdorf said, "a savvy negotiator creates leverage."

In 2010, Peter Gammons said, MLB teams "need to be able to blackmail" cities.

And now, in 2014, Milwaukee Bucks owner Herb Kohl said (h/t to Field of Schemes), "Sacramento (was) helped by the drama with it all.”

Kohl is talking about how relocation threats from Seattle helped the Kings land monster stadium subsidies in Sacramento.  And possibly indicating the same blueprint - that so many other teams have quietly followed - could help him get a new stadium in Milwaukee.

I just don't know which city should be more upset: Milwaukee, Sacramento, or Seattle?

Pinellas Co. Begins Stadium Funding Plan

We're still a looooong way from the $500-$600 million required for a new stadium and we already know the Rays would love to go to Tampa, but the Times' Stephen Nohlgren breaks news tonight of the Pinellas Co. Tourist Development Commission(TDC) considering new stadium financing via bed taxes as soon as 2015.

This was an inevitable event in the bold blueprint for stadium-building, but I'm a little suprised/pleased to see the TDC start the process now. Pinellas Co. still has way more available money for a stadium than Hillsborough Co., and - as I've detailed before - that's way more important than available land in the stadium saga.

One year ago, I wrote Mid-Pinellas was the most likely spot for a stadium, and I still believe it to be true. The one curveball in the plan, however, has been the oil spill and the TDC may have to re-arrange its long-term priorities if the situation doesn't improve soon.

Don't Believe Every Team Follows the Same Stadium Blueprint? (Pt. 1)

It's hard for many younger baseball fans to understand, but the previous owners of the Red Sox once treated Fenway Park like the Rays treat the Trop: as an outdated facility in urgent need of replacement.

I've previously written how Red Sox ownership changed the reputation of Fenway through a little TLC and a lot of marketing prowess.

But to see how similar the Red Sox' previous stadium campaign mimicked almost every other MLB stadium campaign of the last 25 years, I dug up an old research paper on Fenway Park I wrote for my freshman year English class (in 1995!).

Highlights:

 

  

My intel at the time was pretty much limited to what I read in the Boston Globe and Sports Illustrated, but it also goes to show how MLB teams successfully utilize the media to disseminate their message.

 

 Sound familiar, Rays fans?

What Stu Sternberg is Thinking

With the Rays and St. Pete entering year No. 4 of the Stadium Saga, the most pivotal player in the game is also the hardest to get on-the-record.

Rays’ Principal Owner Stu Sternberg has been more calculated than candid with his public comments, but it’s because he’s trying to execute a blueprint dozens of professional teams have used to get new stadiums.

Sternberg truly cares about putting a winning club on the field. And despite a bitter taste in his mouth from how the 2008 waterfront stadium idea was quashed, he still wants that club to play in Tampa Bay. But he – and his investors - also care about turning bigger profits and that will ultimately determine the future of the Rays franchise.

Related: Is a New Rays Stadium a Need or "Want?"

A new stadium could represent $200 million in value to the Rays, including tens of millions in revenue in each of the first few years. And while Sternberg would put a portion of that money into his own pocket, the rest would undoubtedly go back into the team, creating a better product for fans. He sees it as a win-win.

But the problem is that a new stadium would cost substantially more than $200 million. So Sternberg needs help.

While private developers may be eager to donate land for a new park, there’s no financial gain to be had from building the actual stadium for a team. That leaves a funding gap for a retractable-roof stadium of approximately $300 million.

So public financing will have to close that gap. And every penny generated by a tourist tax, a tax-increment financing (TIF) district, or payments-in-lieu-of-taxes, means a penny saved by Sternberg.

With a lucrative television opportunity lurking in 2016, the franchise may be anxious to capitalize on the stadium momentum now. Attendance is ugly, payroll has been slashed, and the team has been winning. To many in the Rays’ organization, there’s no reason the region shouldn’t be supportive of these efforts. But like the private sector, there’s no appetite in the public sector right now for stadium financing, either.

Sternberg’s frustrations stem from the fact that the Tampa Bay region can’t get together for a seemingly-simple multi-county tax like the efforts that got stadiums built in Denver and Milwaukee.

But even in bad economies, appetites can change. And the process can be sped up by finding a second municipality hell-bent on landing Major League Baseball.

Until that day, the Rays have to wait out the economy, let Tampa Bay fans grow uncomfortable with the silence, and let columnists and editorial boards do the dirty work of leveraging politicians. The uglier it gets, the more leverage created for the long-term goal.

It’s not that Sternberg and the Rays have bad intentions; it’s actually the opposite: they really want baseball to survive in Tampa Bay. But business is business and profits must come first.

Tomorrow, a look inside the brain of Sternberg's nemesis in “What Mayor Bill Foster is Thinking.”