FINALLY! The Tampa Tribune stopped speculating about possible new Rays stadium locations long enough to have a legitimate discussion about the region's seemingly-impossible challenge of paying for it.
Chris O'Donnell writes surging subcontractor costs, land acquisition costs, and other amenities aimed at maximizing MLB profits could send stadium costs surging past $600 million. The story also gives a great breakdown of retractable roof pros/cons and costs.
But in his limited column-inches, O'Donnell doesn't address the public revenue streams the Rays may look to tap to pay for the stadium. Sure, there's plenty of time for that, but the real sticker shock is what the hundreds of millions of expected tax dollars could pay for instead of a baseball stadium:
Fixing Tampa's immense flooding problems ($250M)
Relocating the ConAgra eyesore from the middle of Tampa's growing downtown ($70M)
Extending the Selmon Xway to the Gandy Bridge ($100M)
The needed replacement of the Howard-Frankland Bridge ($367M)
Of course, counties can't use bed tax money to directly pay for road projects, but the general revenue (TIF/CRA) dollars that would be required for a new Rays stadium could absolutely go toward any of the above priorities...if funding community priorities wasn't so damn political.
In the broader conversation, I wonder if the focus on the expected stadium sticker shock and possible $600M+ price tag is doing the region a disservice.
That's because the local media is already doing such a good job setting expectations for the public contribution at $300M+ on a retractable roof stadium, while the Rays - and MLB commish Rob Manfred - are simply kicking back and simply enjoying the show. Yes, I know they are neither kicking back, nor enjoying the years of inaction...but the fact remains the team has refused to talk money.
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.
UPDATE: For as low as the state sets the bar on qualifying for subsidies, the Bucs' incomplete application still wasn't enough, as it was rejected. The team said it wasn't far enough along in the renovation process yet and it will re-apply next year.
Any regular reader of this blog knows the ridiculousness of Florida's 2014 stadium subsidy law, pitched as a way to vet pro teams' and leagues' requests for tax dollars...but really doing nothing of the sort, just expanding the number of teams eligible for the handouts and number of tax dollars available.
I also documented how the incentives handouts really don't incentivize a heckuva lot since the legislature denied all four applicants last year...and all four projects moved forward anyway.
Adding insult to injury, the legislation was written in a way where applicants like Daytona Int'l Speedway & the Miami Dolphins are exempt from the loosely-written requirements that teams prove their projects will increase economic impact. So in those cases, the legislation actually incentivizes teams to reduce how many people can come to the game, in favor of more expensive tickets.
The Bucs submitted a supplement to their ridiculous one-line original subsidy application earlier this month, only needing to show how many tax dollars they paid to the state in each of the last three years. The number was redacted since tax figures are often exempt from Florida's broad public records laws. But the team did not have to submit any projected revenue forecast to show what the state's cash would actually help them accomplish...or pretty much anything else, for that matter.
In fact, because the law was intentionally written in a way to make it easy for pro teams and leagues to tap that taxpayer cash, the Bucs will only need to surpass a baseline of $2 million/yr in taxes paid to qualify for additional incentives. The state already forgives the first $2 million/yr the Bucs owe in taxes, as part of its old stadium subsidy program.
And since the Bucs bring in an estimated $4M-$5M in tax just on ticket sales alone (if you believe Forbes), they should have no problem meeting the ridiculously-low threshold.
So even if the Bucs ripped out seats, drew fewer out-of-towners to Raymond James Stadium, struggled to sell tickets, and conceivably saw a drop in future taxable revenue...they'd still be eligible for state economic development incentives.
Oh, and they'd get additional breaks - paid for by Florida taxpayers - since their contract with the Tampa Sports Authority requires the county to act as a pass-through on many of the construction costs so the team doesn't have to pay 7% tax on them, like everyone else would if we took up a renovation project.
Fortunately, the legislature still has to sign off on any state subsidy deal. But just remember, Florida's stadium subsidy incentive program doesn't really incentivize anything at all - except maybe political contributions.
Later today, St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman will give his annual State of the City address, likely heralding the bright redevelopment future of Tropicana Field.
However, there's an important lesson to be learned from the recently-scorned St. Louis market. In the city's losing bid to keep the Rams, it spent the amazing sum of $16.2 million on architects, attorneys, engineers, and consultants.
$16.2 million!?!!!
To the Rays' credit, they offered to chip in up to $100,000 on a downtown master redevelopment plan, but the difference in those totals shows just how expensive stadium-chasing can be...and those are your tax dollars, my friends.
So St. Pete, be careful about how far down this road you go when we already know your location isn't ideal for many fans in the bay area. Because stadium-planning can be expensive if you let it run away from you.
And if the prospect of a few million dollars in earmarked money for the most problematic part of St. Petersburg draws this many headlines...just think about the headlines we'll see if your city spends $16 million on a failed stadium bid.
(The Rays) can dream all they want about what a fancy urban stadium would mean to growth and development, but it won’t matter unless they can figure out how to pay for it. I know where they need to start, though. Major League Baseball needs to pony up.
Why wouldn’t baseball want to do the same here? ... The Rays will have to pay a big part of the bill, too, but even that won’t be enough to cover the whole cost. If the landing spot is Tampa, I’m guessing city and county leaders will cast a longing eye toward tourist taxes and rental car surcharges as a major funding source.
A stadium will have to be everything Tropicana Field is not. Fans will demand a retractable roof, air-conditioning and all the other do-dads that are a staple of modern stadiums. No sense building something unless it is done right.
The problem is, doing it right is enormously expensive — probably $600 million, minimum.
I've recently written that we shouldn't assume a new stadium will cost $600+ million; a fixed-roof option with a translucent roof (roof technology has come a long way in recent years) would be a much-more economical option, possibly in the $450 million range.
That might make a stadium possible with $200 million from the Rays; $150 million from MLB; and $100 million from tax coffers. Of course, neither the Rays nor MLB will want to spend that much, and Hillsborough County doesn't have a spare $100 million without drawing from general property tax revenues (via CRA/TIF districts).
With $7B in revenue last year, there's plenty of profit in MLB to go around. And although revenue sharing is considered by some a crutch and a problem, it's neither; revenue sharing is a symptom of the league allowing teams to spend dollars proportional to their cities' size (because its more profitable that way).
As much as the Steinbrenners and Lucchino/Werner/Henry clans may want revenue sharing reduced, it will remain an important part of the MLB business model as long as salaries continue to grow (which they will). But since the big clubs profit more if the smaller clubs profit more, a stadium in Tampa Bay is so important to everyone in the league.
St. Pete built the then-Florida Suncoast Dome in 1986 to try and bring MLB to the market. When it was completed in 1990, it, and Tampa Bay-St. Pete became a lever to get new stadiums around the league built. Whether it was the White Sox, Giants, or Mariners, all used relocation to the new Dome as a way to get shiny ballparks built.
The stadium debate isn't about the Rays - it's about the profits of all 30 MLB clubs. If simply building a new stadium was the instant fix some people suggest, MLB would step in to help close the $200 million funding gap Tampa Bay faces in building a $500-$600 million stadium. But it's not. Unfortunately, the stadium debate is much like the national debt debate and there's no instant fix.
The problem in Tampa Bay isn't just about the fans or the market - it's about MLB. It allowed its business expenses to skyrocket, and now it wants you to help fix it.
In theory, the site makes sense...but Hillsborough County still doesn't have any money to build a stadium.
Buckhorn Press Conference
As expected, Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn touted the possibilities of a Downtown Tampa stadium, as he's done ever since he began his mayoral campaign five years ago.
The mayor continues his retreat from full-on cheerleading a new stadium given the general statewide contempt for stadium subsidies. After all, a fat check from Tampa taxpayers won't do any wonders for his gubernatorial hopes.
This:
Mayor Buckhorn: "Tampa will compete hard for Rays, but keeping them in the Bay Area is the biggest priority." pic.twitter.com/I10sPMiWd8
Except every one of the locations mentioned in the article comes with a few major roadblocks.
And a lot of those roadblocks have to do with the fact that neither Hillsborough County nor the city of Tampa have many dollars to contribute toward a new stadium. At least, not without taking away funds from other community needs...which leads us to...
Isn't that the reason we're talking about a new stadium in the first place???
That's why the next question needs to be the very important question of: how much will the Rays contribute? The team has routinely dodged that question, and we all know it's the ONLY question about whether Tampa will be the team's next home.
If St. Pete and Tampa keep talking money...and allowing the Rays to avoid talking money...elected officials are just negotiating against themselves. And MLB loves when you do that.
Because if Tampa Bay lets the Rays lead this conversation and pick their "pitch-perfect" spot without addressing the financing details until they say "make this happen...or else," the cost to taxpayers is going to get a lot greater than if we address the money issue at the front end, thereby eliminating sites that may be cost-prohibitive.
St. Pete is Negotiating Against Itself
Mayor Rick Kriseman says St. Pete will clearly have the best financing package available for a possible new stadium. And he's right. A new stadium may even help an exploding and revitalized downtown continue its impressive trajectory.
But twocouncilmembers may have brought up a legit concern yesterday when they pointed out the newly-tweaked MOU negotiates away some of the possible redevelopment rights to the Tropicana Field land, when the original contract - and the original MOU - only included redevelopment rights until the day the Rays left the dome, conceivably, even if they built a new facility next door. Kriseman even posted about it on Facebook.
Now, this could all be a moot point if the Rays don't take the risky leap of faith on a second Downtown St. Pete stadium. But possibly more consequential, is if St. Pete and Tampa get in any sort of unofficial bidding war over a new stadium, St. Pete just upped the ante already with tens of millions of additional incentives to stay in St. Pete.
So if the city builds a redeveloped Tropicana Field 2.0, it's going to cost more than it did before. Instead of using all the redevelopment revenue to help subsidize the city's cost of stadium construction...half of it will now subsidize the Rays' cost of construction if they stay.
Ball's in Court of Hagan, Buckhorn
Things are about to get fun/tough for Hillsborough County's stadium cheerleader-in-chief, Commissioner Ken Hagan, who has supplanted Mayor Bob Buckhorn as the politician committed to making the money for a stadium work in Tampa.
According to the Tampa Tribune, Hagan already had a conference call yesterday with county staff and the law firm they hired in 2014 to help facilitate a stadium search. And he's been burning up the airwaves for years at every opportunity to talk about the Rays.
Unrelenting Editorial Board Finally Satisfied The Times finally got what it wanted - the Rays free of their ironclad contract. Maybe the editors are right when they say, "It is a vote of confidence in the future and a rejection of the status quo."
They probably aren't right when they've supported the team's low payouts and St. Pete's major concessions to allow this search...and they definitely weren't right for the last five years when they claimed St. Pete was down to its "last chance" to save the Rays and the region was only losing leverage.
But I did enjoy reading this excerpt:
The team should expect to make a significant contribution, and it would help if a developer chips in as part of a larger vision. The last time Hillsborough County negotiated a big stadium deal was with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and that one tilted toward the team. Hillsborough Commissioner Ken Hagan is eager to lead this effort, but it may be up to Mayor Bob Buckhorn to ensure taxpayers are adequately protected. The push to help the Rays with site selection and create a financing package should be open and transparent, and taxpayers should have a voice.
Does that mean we have hope of the editorial board revisiting its calls for the Rays to open their books and demonstrate real need for the subsidies they're sure to ask for???
St. Pete - and the rest of Tampa Bay - appear to be ready to just move this dang thing forward. And by a 5-3 vote St. Pete's council approved Mayor Rick Kriseman's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which will give the team permission to explore new stadium sites in Tampa.
So what's next?
We know the team is anxious to explore any and all sites across Pinellas & Hillsborough counties, since there's a great need to make the next stadium site "pitch-perfect". Everyone with a pile of dirt will be offering up their stadium ideas. And if the Rays were to build another stadium in the wrong location, it'd be a disaster.
Pro teams want you to focus on the boogeyman and not how much money they want from you for that next stadium.
And it's working.
The Tampa Bay Timespublished another editorial this morning urging the deal's passage - an editorial with threemajorflaws - and of course, there was no mention of the tax money that would go toward the next stadium.
The exposure to the taxpayer on a new stadium is likely to be great. Elected officials may decide the expenditures are justified. But the Rays won't address that giant elephant, and it would just be nice to have some idea of what kind of public dollars the Rays are gunning for before we go any further down this road.
A subtle clause – requested by the team, according to St. Petersburg officials – could potentially allow the Rays to play up to 10 “home” games in a market outside of Tampa Bay once they left Tropicana Field {READ SECTION 6, ARTICLE vi OF THE CONTRACT HERE}. The 10 games are not a guarantee and could include international trips to Japan or Cuba; but the permission might also apply to other markets in North America.
The Rays’ Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with St. Petersburg sets a price for damages if the team chooses to end its Tropicana Field contract before 2027 in favor of a stadium elsewhere in Pinellas or Hillsborough Counties. However, the stadium does not need to be new and the Rays only need to sign a promise of some sort to play there through 2027.
"There's no assurances after 2027," said former Mayor Bill Foster, who could not come to terms with the Rays regarding a possible Tampa stadium search in his four years as mayor (2010-2013). "(The MOU) weakens the original agreement so much that you're setting a measure of damages allowing them to leave the region prior to 2027."
Foster said the failure to require a long-term commitment from the Rays might open the door for the team to use the 10 “home” games to test the waters of other potential MLB markets while still playing the majority of their games in a temporary location elsewhere in Hillsborough or Pinellas County.
Tampa Bay baseball fans became familiar with MLB relocation threats in the 1990s, as the Mariners, Rangers, and White Sox all used the threat of a Florida relocation to score taxpayer-funded stadiums in their home markets.
The Rays chose not to comment on the story Tuesday.
A representative from Mayor Rick Kriseman's office said Tuesday the administration didn't question the Rays' motives, and proponents of a regional stadium search have backed the Rays' claims that the MOU is the only way to ensure long-term success in Tampa Bay and they have no interest in looking outside the region for their next home.
Foster speculates that for only $24 million, the Rays could tear up their existing contract after the 2017 season and start playing 71 home games in an existing Tampa Bay minor-league stadium – potentially with additional, temporary seats – and play 10 games a year in markets like Montreal, New Jersey, or Mexico City. They would then only need to deal with the unknown legal repercussions of their new lease(s) if they wanted to leave before 2027, rather than the seemingly-ironclad contract the team is currently locked into with St. Petersburg.
"This weakens Tampa Bay's (hold on the Rays)," Foster said of the MOU, set to be voted on Thursday. "This amendment is by far the biggest weakening of the (original) agreement that we've ever seen in the past 15 or 20 years."
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers recently drew public scorn after they requested the freedom to play a second home game away from Raymond James Stadium. The team ultimately compromised with the Tampa Sports Authority and secured the right to play both home preseason games in another market.
The Rays have had a more difficult time renegotiating their contract with St. Petersburg, which has been complimented by legal experts for its crafting of the stadium use agreement. In 1998, the Rays guaranteed 30 full MLB seasons at Tropicana Field, without many of the loopholes that have allowed other pro teams to escape their respective leases early.
And when the Rays asked for permission to play three games at Disney’s Wide World of Sports in 2007, a cautious city council negotiated a one-time exception with the team, as well as a contract amendment that stipulated no “home” games could be played away from Tropicana Field without city council’s permission. Council allowed the Rays to repeat the series again in 2008.
In exchange for permission to play games in Orlando, then-mayor Rick Baker and council negotiated additional compensation for the city, as well as the promise from the Rays they would not play any out-of-market games against their best-drawing opponents, such as the Red Sox, Yankees, or Tigers.
Foster was city council chairman when the Rays first asked about Orlando in 2006.
“I remember how contentious that was (in 2006/2007),” said Foster, who could not come to terms with the Rays regarding a possible Tampa stadium search in his four years as mayor (2010-2013).
But any new contract deciding how many "home" games the Rays can play away from home in 2018 and beyond would be up to whatever governmental agency owns the facility they're playing in at the time, whether it be a brand-new stadium or a temporary arrangement.
City council is expected to approve the new MOU Thursday, after previous councils rejected similar deals by 5-3 and 4-4 margins.
This blog is clearly the only outlet questioning why the Rays aren't willing to compensate St. Pete for the 2027 baseball season, the final season they originally agreed to play at The Trop.
The team's got a pretty sweet offer lined up now if they choose to move to Tampa, only paying St. Pete $4M if they leave before the 2018 season, $3M/yr for the 2019-2022 seasons, and $2M/yr for the 2023-2026 seasons. That's significantly less than what other teams have paid to break their stadium contracts.
So I asked Mayor Kriseman last week why there was no compensation for the Rays reneging on playing that final season in St. Pete:
Kriseman said because he didn't negotiate 2027 compensation into his 2014 deal, "there didn't seem to be any sense" to trying to get them to compensate the city now.
"The Rays were very clear they weren't going to be paying more," the mayor said.
However, we can always learn something by reading between the lines:
1. Buckhorn on the Stadium Saga timeline
When St. Pete gives the Rays permission to talk new stadium sites in Pinellas & Hillsborough next Thursday, the floodgates will open for anyone looking to sell their dog track, parking lot, or flea market. But Mayor Bob Buckhorn told me yesterday fans shouldn't expect the process to move too quickly:
3. A "transformative" project (Part II)
Even though Kriseman talks about incorporating a new Rays stadium into new Trop redevelopment plans, his comments seem to indicate that St. Pete's "selling low" on its contract equity is all about removing baseball from the equation. Why? Because there's nothing that's prohibited the city from redeveloping the majority of the Trop's footprint previously. The Rays have actually had financial incentive to help the city redevelop for years, as they retain half the redevelopment revenues for as long as they're at the Trop.
4. The timeline coincides with political calendars...
...and it's probably not coincidental. Kriseman's MOU states the Rays must make a decision on their future - in writing - by January 2019. That should ensure the issue doesn't play prominently when Kriseman and several of his council allies run for re-election in Nov. 2017.
5. Of course, another Times editorial...
...and as predicted, the Times' stadium cheerleading board called it "improved" and urged its' passing. It also tipped its cap to the Rays for not lowering the ~$2M/yr payouts originally offered several years ago, even though the board said "the team could have sought lower payments since another year has ticked off the lease."
Then again, we once read in the Timesthe city should expect a nine-figure payout if the Rays were to leave the Trop early, so buyer beware when you read about the Stadium Saga.
Mayor Rick Kriseman released details late Thursday of his newly-agreed upon deal with the Rays...and it looks pretty similar to last year's deal the old council rejected {link to document on Times' site}.
The Rays cannot sign a deal for a new home in Pinellas or Hillsborough counties for at least 6 months "in order to give the city of St. Petersburg and our community an opportunity to make our case that the Rays' current location, enhanced by future development, is the best long-term location." The Rays also cannot leave St. Pete before 2018.
The Rays will pay 50% (up to $100,000) of a "city-directed master plan for the Tropicana Field site" redevelopment.
The Rays are eligible for Trop-related redevelopment incentives if they stay in St. Pete.
There are no changes to the annual penalty payments if the Rays leave St. Pete before 2027 - they remain at approx. $2M/season ($4M for 2018; $3M/yr for 2019-2022, $2M for 2023-2026; $0 for 2027). Once again, that figure has been poorly reported and is also significantly less than other teams have paid to break their stadium contracts.
You know, it's good to see Mayor Kriseman bringing councilmembers into the process early enough for everyone to have plenty of time to vet and think about the deal before discussing it publicly.
On the other hand, Kriseman claims he didn't create a single public record during months of talks with the Rays, even up until 1 p.m. today when I requested any public records from his office. I get his desire for secrecy on this...but transparency suffered on this one, and secrecy tends to only benefit the pro club, not the taxpayer.
So next up - at least five of the eight councilmembers expected to vote for the measure, possibly as early as next Thursday. Shadow of the Stadium will continue to bring you the latest!
Clemens, an 11-time all-star and 7-time Cy Young winner, was a Hall-of-Famer before he allegedly started using PEDs. So was Bonds, a 14-time all-star and 7-time MVP, was a Hall-of-Famer before he saw exponential growth in his home run - and cap size - numbers. Yet neither star garnered as many votes as Curt Schilling?!?
I wrote in 2015 that "simply put, the Hall of Fame should be for the guys who dominated their peers, regardless of era. By those metrics, Bonds and Clemens should be on every voter's ballot." That goes for the dead-ball era, the long-ball era, the "it's OK to use amphetamines and cocaine" era...and because we don't have any clue exactly who used drugs in the 1990s and 2000s, the PED era too.
I wrote in 2014 that "held to today's standards (on drugs), Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Mike Schmidt, Hank Aaron, and Whitey Ford may all have been kept out of the Hall" and that year's inductee, Tom Glavine, even turned a blind eye to the PED epidemic as the Braves' long-time rep to the players' union, which fought off drug testing for so long.
And I wrote in 2012 that "we don't compare pitchers' ERAs in 2012 with those of the dead-ball era because stats fluctuate between eras. But dominance among peers remains the best indicator of Hall-of-Fame worthiness and during the 'steroid era,' when PEDs were largely legal. The playing fields were level."
So when Edgar Martinez, a 7-time all-star at the DH position with one top-five MVP finish and one steroid allegation, gets 43% of the HOF vote...yet Mark McGwire, a 12-time all-star at first base with three top-5 MVP finishes, gets just 12% of the HOF vote...something is wrong with the system.
PS - what the heck did Mike Piazza do in his 5th, 6th, and 7th years of retirement that suddenly made him HOF-worthy in his 8th year of retirement??? The system is less-than-ideal.
A new year is breathing new life into the Rays' prospects for a new stadium.
The Times' Charlie Frago reports St. Pete Mayor Rick Kriseman is moving along with his planned meetings with councilmembers, making sure he has the five votes he needs to finalize a deal that would allow the Rays to finally explore new stadium sites in Tampa. (Sorry Montreal)
The mayor issued a correction/clarification today, however, that no vote will take place this Thursday, the first full meeting with the new council.
Mtg. w council members all week to discuss a new agreement w/Rays. Productive so far. Despite reports, no vote happening this week.
Details of the "new" deal have been secret for weeks, with the city taking extreme steps not to create any written documents through the negotiating process to avoid creating public records.
But I've said before that the "new" deal will look a lot like the "old" deal for some common sense reasons:
