Chamber of Commerce Study: New Stadium Will Require Real Tax Committment

Addressing a long-ignored aspect of the Rays' Stadium Saga I first started complaining about in 2010, two local chambers of commerce released their joint report on how a new stadium could be financed...and what sacrifices the community may have to make.

The long-awaited report from the Greater Tampa and St. Petersburg-Area chambers indicated Hillsborough County may have more bonding capacity available for a stadium than previously believed.  However, Pinellas County's revenue streams have fewer political strings attached.

The "Baseball Stadium Financing Caucus" focused only on stadium financing.  It avoided talking about sticky issues like locations and the legal issues surrounding the team's current contract with St. Petersburg.

While the Tampa chamber is supporting the Rays' and Hillsborough County's push for a regional stadium conversation, the St. Pete chamber is supporting Mayor Bill Foster's effort to keep the Rays in Pinellas County.

If a new stadium were built in Tampa/Hillsborough County, the caucus concluded the best ways to reach the near-$400 million that may be needed would be mechanisms, including: (estimated 33-year impact in parenthesis)

• Using tax-increment financing (TIF) associated with Tampa's Downtown Community Redevelopment Area (CRA).  Increased property tax collections downtown, which must be used for capital projects, would be directed to pay down stadium debt. ($105-$115 million)
• Re-direct a portion of the Community Investment Tax (CIT) from local road & infrastructure improvements to a new stadium.  The local sales tax, of which a portion funds Raymond James Stadium, expires in 2026 and would have to be extended. ($70-$80 million)
• A new 5% surcharge on auto rentals, which would hit tourists more than local residents.  ($140-$150 million)
• A new 6th-cent added to the tourist/bed tax.  Hillsborough County isn't considered a "high-tourist" county, so state law prohibits it from charging tourists 6% tax on hotel stays.  However, the chamber indicated legislators could be convinced to change the law. ($35-$45 million)

If a new stadium were built in St. Pete/Pinellas County, the caucus concluded the best ways to reach the near-$400 million that may be needed would be mechanisms, including: (estimated 33-year impact in parenthesis)

• Existing revenue streams already paying for Tropicana Field.  Most Trop bonds will be paid off by 2015, so leaders can either stop collecting the taxes, re-direct the collections to other city & county needs, or re-direct them to a new stadium. ($115-$148 million)
• Re-direct a portion of the "Penny for Pinellas" local improvement tax to a new stadium. The tax sunsets after 2020, so its bonding capacity would be modest at best without another extension. ($35-$40 million)
• A new 6th-cent added to the tourist/bed tax.  Pinellas County, like Hillsborough, isn't considered a "high-tourist" county, so lawmakers would have to change state statutes for Pinellas to increase the tax on hotel stays from 5% to 6%. ($50-$60 million)
• Re-directing a large portion of St. Petersburg's share of state sales tax toward a new stadium.  The city currently receives $12.2 million/year from the state, and much of it could be leveraged into new stadium bonds. ($165-$175 million)

While the timing of the announcement could have been be better - a recent firesale of talent by the Miami Marlins has cast public subsidies of stadiums in a negative light - the group is hoping its ideas can break the stadium stalemate the Rays and the region have been locked in for the last few years.

"We applaud the joint effort of the Tampa and St. Petersburg Chambers in identifying potential funding sources for our next ballpark," said Rays President Matthew Silverman in a statement released Monday afternoon.  "Regional cooperation like this is sorely needed as we all move forward and work together to secure the future of Major League Baseball in Tampa Bay."

Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn called it a "great first step," and said he was happy the caucus didn't delve into the location debate.

The caucus also did not mention anything about creating a regional stadium authority with taxing power - a concept previously mentioned as one way to get multiple Tampa Bay counties to share in a stadium burden.

GRAY AREASThe Tampa chamber's Chuck Sykes, delivering the joint presentation, acknowledged ticket prices would likely jump at a new stadium, as would prices on stadium parking, concessions, and souvenirs to help pay the team's estimated $150 million contribution.  There was no indication of whether a new ballpark would draw more fans than increased prices would keep away.

Sykes also stipulated, "you have to be a winning team" to get a big attendance bounce with a new stadium.  The comment may have been referencing the Marlins, who drew just 27,400 fans per game this year, the lowest mark for a new ballpark in decades.  While the Rays have posted five straight winning records, no on-field performance is guaranteed.

The presentation, which included no new sales taxes, was aimed at a "best-case scenario" in many instances.  The caucus assumed a price tag of $500 million for the stadium, even though Sykes admitted it could cost a lot more: a parking garage could cost $150 million and some experts have estimated restitution to St. Petersburg for breaking the current contract could cost $100 milllion.

A number of the proposed funding mechanisms are also dependent on lawmakers re-writing state statutes - a scenario Buckhorn was skeptical about, given the conservative anti-tax feelings in Tallahassee.

"WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME"Sykes stressed the need for St. Petersburg and the Rays to advance the discussion soon since Tropicana Field bonds will be paid off in a few years and those revenue streams will be repurposed by the local municipalities.

"We don't have a lot of time," Sykes said.  "Almost 60% of the (Tropicana Field) debt is going to be paid off by 2016.  A number of the sources can be used for general funds...and in this environment, when the economy is tight (and) nobody wants to increase taxes, that's something to us that we need to move quickly.  Because when that debt is paid off, it's not going to sit there. It's going to be claimed."

Sykes also said hearing rumors of contraction in MLB circles tells him Tampa Bay had better start acting on a new stadium.

"Please," he said, "don't look at that lease and think that you've got time, we really need to get going."

Buckhorn agreed, calling a stadium opportunity in Tampa one that could pay off exponentially for the city and county.

Following the presentation, I pointed out Forbes estimated the Rays were one of the most profitable teams in baseball and asked Sykes if he had seen any evidence the team was struggling financially.

"I saw financials that were leaked out to the public, and that was all I saw," Sykes said, referring to 2008 financial reports the Rays have never confirmed were accurate.  "The key question, though," Sykes added, "was is those financials could support $150 million in debt."

Sykes, who had cooperation with the Rays for part of the report, called the financials "valid," but said the team never opened up its books to either chamber of commerce.

I also asked if the caucus took into account soaring television revenues Major League Baseball and it's teams are now receiving.

"It got us excited when we heard about the (billion-dollar) contract the Texas Rangers signed," Sykes said.  "Every major-league team we came in contact with, though, said, 'don't make the mistake to think that that exists for a mid-market-level team.'"

However, Forbes recently reported the San Diego Padres quadrupled their annual television revenues from $12 million to $50 million.  And the league recently doubled it's national television revenue to $1.5 billion - payments that are split evenly among the 30 teams, according to the Biz of Baseball.

"Compared to what we saw in 2008," Sykes said of local TV revenues, "I'm sure (the Rays have) opportunities to improve that, but I think what holds true is still that the 'main lever' that moves...is still ticket sales.

Sykes estimated ticket sales account for 35% of the Rays' revenue and the team "will get a new media contract with or without a stadium."

Massive Marlins Firesale & Rays Impact - Sternberg Reacts

It's too early to call it a post-mortem on the Marlins' firesale and its effect on the Rays, but after a week's worth of reactions, Roger Mooney from the Tampa Tribune recapped it all in this morning's paper. Aside from the brilliance of The Biz of Baseball's Maury Brown, the article stood out for including a tiny bit of reaction from Rays owner Stuart Sternberg:

CBS.com baseball writer and MLB Network insider Jon Heyman, after a brief chat with Sternberg last Thursday at the Owners Meetings in Chicago, tweeted, "He knows Miami situation won't help his cause."

Sternberg, when asked Thursday about the Marlins situation by a reporter from the New York Times, said, "You can't sustain success as a small-market team. You do the best you can."

Chambers' Rays Stadium Finance Report Due Monday

Two Tampa Bay-area chambers of commerce will release their long-awaited study on how to finance a new Rays stadium Monday.  The report, delayed at least once, is designed to break the stadium stalemate (good luck) by introducing ideas from a quorum of high-profile Tampa Bay business leaders.

As I wrote in 2011, the chamber caucus group is decidedly pro-stadium and although it won't advocate a preferred site, location won't matter as much as how they could possibly pool the $300 million in public revenue to get a deal done.

In an ideal world, multiple counties around Tampa Bay would contribute to a new stadium to lock up the team for decades to come. But cooperation has never been Tampa Bay's strongest characteristic and, thanks to the recent Marlins' firesale, the timing of tomorrow's report couldn't be worse.

For that reason, you can expect the presentation to mention easier-to-swallow pills like rental car taxes, Tax-Increment Funding (TIFs), and/or Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs).

However, these ideas are all still taxes, and the chambers of commerce face an uphill battle when it comes to winning public support for any kind of stadium subsidy right now.

What to watch for tomorrow: any new ground the stadium caucus breaks that the ABC Coalition didn't identify in 2010.  De-facto spokesman for the ABC coalition, Craig Sher, said at the time a new stadium "is just not going to happen," without public financing, so we're still waiting for answers to "how will it happen?"  Will the chambers of commerce address the elephant in the room and take the bold political step of suggesting a multi-county tax?

Massive Marlins Firesale & Rays Impact - Part 4

Day Four of the South Florida firesale fallout, and there's no shortage of frustrations toward not just Jeffrey Loria, but all baseball owners.

The Times' Gary Shelton echoes what I wrote Tuesday - that business comes before baseball for many owners, and the reminder will continue to hamper the Rays in the Stadium Saga:

To get a new stadium, the team will have to survive a border war between St. Petersburg and Tampa. It will have to overcome the general disinterest that comes when someone wants to talk about a new stadium. Someone will have to come up with creative financing. And, yes, there is a lease and the possibility of lawyers.

Now there is the legacy of Loria's lunacy.

Good luck with that one.

Shelton goes on to write how he "understands" Mayor Bill Foster's position, but speculates St. Pete may not even want the Rays because their residents are against building a new stadium.  Except the residents are against building a new stadium not because they don't want the team, but because THEY ALREADY HAVE A STADIUM AND THE TEAM IS STUCK THERE!

More interesting reaction to the Marlins' mess from Brian Frederick with the Huffington Post:

What’s happened in Miami is just the latest (and most gaudy) example of how pro sports owners fleece the public. But it ought to be the last.

Whether it’s cities cutting social services to pay off stadium debt (Cincinnati), cities building new stadiums for teams they don’t have (Kansas City), cities breaking leases to tear down beloved stadiums for owners demanding new ones (Denver), cities tearing down historic ballparks (Detroit, St. Louis and many others) or cities funding stadiums because politicians voted against the will of the public (countless cities), the public always ends up paying more than it receives. And, as the case of Miami illustrates, pro sports owners couldn’t care less.

We all must agree to never, ever finance a pro sports stadium again.

Neil deMaus of Field of Schemes calls Frederick's post a "fine argument," but not one that "changes things all that much," given:

1) plenty of other teams have gotten new stadiums and then continued to pinch pennies on payroll (Pittsburgh Pirates, anyone?), and 2) other owners can legitimately utilize the “Unlike Jeffrey Loria, I am not Satan incarnate” defense. Still, if you’re Stuart Sternberg or Lew Wolff, today probably isn’t the best day to call your local legislator and complain about how your team can’t win ballgames because it doesn’t have a new ballpark.

And to top it all off, Deadspin recaps Marlins' president David Samson's interview with The Dan Le Batard Show in Miami.  Good reading/listening.

Tampa Yankees to Ocala?

The New York Yankees love the free agency market so much, they're even testing it out with their High-A team in Tampa. 

After promises of a new stadium in Orlando ultimately fell through, the Tampa Yankees are now rumored to be courted by the City of Ocala. 

There are no costs yet associated with building a new ballpark, but you can bet it'll cost Ocala taxpayers a pretty penny if they want to lure the Baby Bombers away.

The deal would not include Yankees Spring Training, which is committed to Tampa for another decade.

What's the Effect of Changing Coaches?

Hat tip to The Sports Economist for pointing out a new paper in the Social Science Quarterly that analyzes data to assess if changing head coaches ultimately helps a college football team:

Methods. Using data from 1997 to 2010, we use matching techniques to compare the performance of football programs that replaced their head coach to those where the coach was retained. The analysis has two major innovations over existing literature. First, we consider how entry conditions moderate the effects of coaching replacements. Second, we examine team performance for several years following the replacement to assess its effects.
Results. We find that for particularly poorly performing teams, coach replacements have little effect on team performance as measured against comparable teams that did not replace their coach. However, for teams with middling records—that is, teams where entry conditions for a new coach appear to be more favorable—replacing the head coach appears to result in worse performance over subsequent years than comparable teams who retained their coach.
Conclusions. The findings have important implications for our understanding of how entry conditions moderate the effects of leadership succession on team performance,and suggest that the relatively common decision to fire head college football coaches for poor team performance may be ill advised.
...
As with any statistical analysis, we cannot rule out the possibility that some specific instances of coaching replacements truly benefit a team. This is certainly a possibility and there is little doubt that many commentators, school administrators, and other observers believe that coaching changes are often responsible for turnarounds in team performance. However, it is important to bear in mind that the fact that a team’s performance improves following a coaching replacement does not necessarily mean that the coach should be given credit for the improvement.

Bloomberg: Glazers Weren't Truthful with Finances at IPO

Bloomberg reports on more reasons for Man U fans to hate the Glazers:

Manchester United Plc team owner Malcolm Glazer is so loathed by fans that some once burned him in effigy. They might hate him even more if they learn how he tried to hide the true state of the soccer club’s finances before its August initial public offering.

The struggle to keep secret the material risks the storied team faces is detailed in letters between club executives and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission before United’s August IPO. The SEC demanded and got more disclosure about team losses, debt and benefits for Glazer and members of his family.

What investors and fans weren’t able to see until a month after the team raised $233 million selling shares, was the owners’ behind-the-scenes resistance to disclosing more transparent earnings data, details about Glazer’s debt and what the IPO money was to be used for. The full story of the correspondence, posted on the SEC’s website without fanfare in September, hasn’t been previously reported to investors or fans.
...

The SEC-United letters show seven Glazer family members have kept almost total control of the club after the IPO, saddling the team with higher taxes to evade potential shareholder lawsuits by incorporating offshore.

Massive Marlins Firesale & Rays Impact - Part 3

Some of the best tweets reacting to the Marlins' firesale (hat tip to @BizballMaury):

• Another consideration for MLB as it reviews this trade: the Marlins will be held up as cautionary tale for cities asked to build ballparks. – Buster Olney, ESPN
• So Jeffrey Loria threw himself a cheap wedding, collected a ton of gifts, then got the marriage annulled the next day. Got it. – Molly Knight, ESPN the Magazine
• Alright, I'm pissed off!!! Plain & Simple - Giancarlo "Mike" Stanton, outfielder for the Marlins (retweeted more than 13,800 times)
• Decency would require Marlins to slash ticket prices for the public that helped fund new ballpark for "major league" team, no? – Bill Shaikin, LA Times
• I'm not gonna do whatever body thinks I'm gonna do and freak out! Ugh, I need a bath. - Logan Morrison, outfielder for the Marlins
• Huh? - Rickey Nolasco, Marlins starting pitcher

Massive Marlins Firesale & Rays Impact - Part 2

Last night, my quick reaction to the Marlins' sell-off - besides calling out of team owner Jeffrey Loria for bailing on the unwritten obligation he has to South Florida fans - was that it will be another impediment to the Rays trying to get a new ballpark built.  Of course, we always knew the Rays were facing a decade-long uphill battle anyway....but this morning, it appears more are getting on-board with the thinking.  Here's a small sampling.

Keith Olbermann on MLBlogs.com:

Rays’ owner Stu Sternberg was already less than sanguine about getting significant scratch from the state and local governments for a new ballpark that is absolutely essential to his survival in Tampa/St. Petersburg. If he had any hopes left after the disastrously low crowds for the free ballpark the good burghers of Florida gave Jeffrey Loria, they have to be gone now and he has to be looking elsewhere.

(Olbermann goes on to talk about how there are no viable markets for the Rays to move right now - a point I've made several times.  I just wish he didn't lose credibility by contending the team will now move to Montreal.)

Neil deMaus on Field of Schemes:

This looks a simple case of an owner who got the publicly subsidized new stadium he’d been dreaming about for a decade, used some of the proceeds to pay star players like he’d promised, was disappointed in the results both on the field and at the ticket office, and threw up his hands three months in and decided, “Hell with this, I’m going to go back to making money the old-fashioned way: Not spending anything or trying to sell tickets, and just collecting my share of league money and pocketing it."

Maury Brown on Biz of Baseball:

"The reality is, if you don't have a competitive team, the big stadium that's built publicly and privately becomes another disaster," Samson said in 2008.
Well, glad to see you pushed that whole disaster thing forward on Tuesday.

Jonah Keri on Grantland:

What makes Loria a genius is something more elemental, something that goes well beyond any one trade, even one this big: The system is rigged, and Loria is taking advantage of it better than any other owner in baseball history, other than Frank McCourt.
...
I don't blame him for any of this. I'm just impressed by how well he worked everything to his advantage, taking advantage of elected officials, short-sighted businessmen, and a system that rewards the kind of behavior that might seem despicable but is impossibly profitable. When it comes to Jeffrey Loria, I'm just in awe.

Basically what Keri is saying, is "I'm not even mad; that's amazing."

Massive Marlins Firesale After Debuting New Stadium

Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria blames market economics for his massive firesale of premier talent.  Star pitchers and hitters all shipped off for minor-league prospects.  Some may pan out, but fans who expect a winner are tearing up talk radio, ripping the deal.

The year is 2005, and Loria implies the trading of Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell, Carlos Delgado, and Paul Lo Duca are because the city of Miami simply won't buy him a new stadium.

"I know it's hurting Mr. Loria," Lo Duca was quoted after his trade. "He wants to win so badly, but with no stadium, he is doing what he has to do."

---

Fast-forward to 2012, and Loria is selling the farm again.  Although, this time, Loria can't blame league economics: he cut a deal, promising to spend more after MLB balked at how much he was pocketing from revenue sharing.

And of course, Loria can't blame a stadium stalemate since he got his new stadium, primarily paid for by taxpayers.  Sure, the SEC launched an investigation into how he may have bamboozled the city, county, and state into coughing up the money, but businessmen don't get rich by giving in during tough negotiations.

Speculation is Loria is trying to thin out the team's financial committments in order to sell the team.....for a handsome profit, no doubt.  Why?  Because that's what businessmen do when they have an opportunity to sell high.

The Marlins drew 27,400 last year - one of MLB's smallest first-year draws for a new stadium in decades.  There's little doubt the sophomore campaign will see a drop.

Additionally, Loria has bulked up the value of his team with a new stadium and new logoed merchandise.  There's no better time to sell - if he can find someone who is willing to buy high.

One caveat is Loria will have to pay the local municipalities 18% of profits from a sale if he sells before 2018.  But that could be chump change....

---

Now, what should Rays fans take from this episode?

Maybe nothing.  Maybe Loria will re-invest the values he gets through trades and build a dynasty that will reward South Florida for a decade.  And the Rays may one day get a new stadium reaping similar rewards.

Or, maybe it's a lesson that that baseball remains a business.  And when a businessman has an opportunity to increase his bottom line - regardless of whatever perceived obligation he has to a community - he is going to opt for the profits.

Time will tell on all accounts.

Rays Release 2013 Ticket Prices

The Rays have released their 2013 ticket prices, and, depending how you look at it, the team either held or dropped prices on 75% of their tickets.....or they raised prices on 25% of their seats.

The team's press release was peppered with pats-on-the-back for success and affordability, but didn't mention which tickets would be going up in price.  A quick search of the team's website failed to turn up any 2013 ticket price information either.

However, there's no doubt the team is offering lots of opportunities for value, with tickets as low as $10:

The Tampa Bay Rays have announced that almost 75 percent of their tickets for 2013 regular season games at Tropicana Field—nearly 2 million total—will either decrease in price or remain the same. The Rays enter the 2013 campaign having recorded five consecutive winning seasons, an achievement matched by only the New York Yankees and St. Louis Cardinals.

The Rays will continue with four categories of single-game ticket pricing: Diamond, Platinum, Gold and Silver. Upper Deck seats will cost as little as $10 for 28 of the Rays home games in 2013. Overall, nearly 80 percent of 2013 Rays games at Tropicana Field will feature ticket prices of $14 or lower. For Gold games, Outfield prices have dropped from 2012 pricing by nearly 25 percent from $22 to $17.

For the second time in four years (2009 and 2012), the Rays have been named the No. 1 most affordable team in professional sports, according to ESPN the Magazine’s annual “Ultimate Standings.” It marked the sixth consecutive year that the Rays ranked in ESPN’s top three in Affordability out of 122 Major League Baseball, NBA, NFL and NHL franchises.

All Monday-through-Friday home games will start at 7:10 p.m., with the exception of seven weekday games including Opening Day (April 2 at 3:10 p.m.), Memorial Day (May 27 at 3:10 p.m.) and the home regular season finale (September 23 at 3:10 p.m.). Saturday game times will be announced at a later date and Sundays will remain at 1:40 p.m. The Rays will also welcome the 2012 World Champion San Francisco Giants to town for a weekend series August 2-4, marking the Giants first visit to St. Petersburg in nine years.

For the eighth consecutive year, the Rays will continue to provide carpoolers access to free parking in team-controlled lots. As in 2012, vehicles with four or more passengers will continue to park free in team-controlled lots for all Sunday games, subject to availability. For all other games, the first 100 cars with four or more passengers will park for free up to an hour before game time, with other main lot Tropicana Field parking rates ranging from $15 to $20 per vehicle.

The Rays will also continue to be one of the few teams with the family-friendly policy of allowing fans to bring food and select beverages into the ballpark.

TV Revenues Soaring; Will Attendance Matter Anymore?

A recent column by ESPN's Darren Rovell didn't mention the Tampa Bay Rays, but it sure means a lot to the team's future.  Rovell writes why the Dodgers sold for an astronomical $2 billion price tag: future TV earnings.

Sure, $2.15 billion seems like a stunning sum for a team with a huge mountain of debt and a mediocre recent record. But it may not be for a team about to negotiate a local TV deal that could be the largest in sports history, making the new Dodgers ownership the first of perhaps many to come that based a bid for a team, then the team's payroll, almost entirely on local TV money.

As I wrote in 2010 about the Rays, Rovell suggests the Dodgers are due a huge financial windfall ($225M/yr) if and when they re-negotiate their television contract.
But since MLB mandates 1/3 of television revenue gets shared UNLESS you own your own network, Rovell speculates the Dodgers may just start up their own network (or two).  Which may once again throw the league's balance of power off as more big-market teams will be able to spend like the Red Sox and Yankees, while more small-market teams, like the Rays, will see their spending dwarfed.

Forget the fact that the Padres just quadrupled their annual TV revenues from $12 million to $50 million and the Rays may do the same in a few years.

The biggest takeaway from Rovell's article is how little attendance and ticket sales will matter in the future MLB model.  Television revenues will dwarf stadium revenues and even teams like Milwaukee, Minnesota, and Colorado (11th, 12th, and 13th, respectively, in attendance last year) will struggle to keep up with poor-drawing large market-teams like Houston.

It seems to echo the notion I wrote about here a couple months ago: "Filling the Stadium isn't Nearly as Critical for Teams as it Used to Be." And it's one of the many reasons that will make it extremely hard for the Rays to get a new stadium anytime soon.

Tropicana Field: Back to the Future

The Tampa Bay Times' Stephen Nolgren made a rare appearance in the opinion pages this week, writing "The view of the Trop from 1995": a look back at how the Rays' stadium saga started.

After his faily comprehensive retrospective, Nolgren makes two outstanding observations about where this soap opera is headed:

Certainly, the Trop's shortcomings contributed to the Rays' attendance malaise, but they are by no means the main culprit. The entire Tampa Bay region is simply a decent TV market with lackluster attendance potential that falls considerably below generic Chevrolet blah.
...
But we are probably stuck with stadium conversations for another decade. So let's keep the Trop and its flaws in proper perspective.

Could Glass or Solar Cells Cover a Rays Stadium?

From Al Austin to Ed Turanchik to Bill Edwards, there’s no shortage of community and business leaders in Tampa who think big. And while nobody has any idea how to fund a new $600 million retractable-roof stadium without new tax money here, stadium expert/blogger Matthew Brown points me out to new revolutions in architecture – REALLY big ideas – that could render retractable roofs obsolete.

One of the big factors in Qater winning the 2022 men’s soccer World Cup bid was how it comforted fears about its uber-hot summer temperatures. Basically, they are going to create shade and then air-condition their open-aired stadiums.

"But that would use an incredible amount of energy," you may think. 
Except Wolfgang Kessling thinks Qater can harness the incredible energy of the sun to power the entire stadium.  The plan is to use solar cells to provide shade, while using cooling pipes with chilled water to cool the stadium; kind of like how a hockey rink cools its ice.

If this technology can work in Qater, it could certainly work here in the "Sunshine State." And if scientists continue to make advances in solar-powered energy, there's no reason a stadium like that couldn't help pay its own bills by creating electricity.

Brown also says Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin, New Zealand (not to be confused with Dunedin, Fla.) could the model for a new Rays stadium. It’s the world's only natural grass, fully-enclosed stadium, resembling a greenhouse more than it does what Americans are used to.

Could a glass roof work in Tampa Bay? Why not?  It could certainly displace costly retractable-roof techonology.

Retractable Roofs: Can't Live with 'em, Can't Live without 'em

Matthew Brown over at the Stadiafile blog took a recent look at retractable roofs, particularly in MLB.

In comparing the league's six transformable stadiums, he dispells the notion that retractable roofs are "essential to the game of baseball" but agrees the comfort and assurance they provide has value.  So what gives?

In light of the extraordinary financial and environmental cost it takes to operate a closed stadium, it would be interesting to think of an open-air alternative that would bring the same level of comfort and assurance of games being played as a retractable roof does.  A recipe that brings together new advancements in synthetic surfaces, creative passive heating and cooling strategies and partial roof coverings for spectator comfort could provide such alternative.
...
The must-have amenity for European football stadiums are big roofs.  Wembley Stadium, Arsenal’s Emirates and Allianz Arena in Munich are three examples of big football stadiums built in the past ten years whose expansive roofs cover the entire seated section, leaving only the playing field open to the weather above.  These structures keep fans warm and dry during the winter months, while allowing rain and wind to play their part in the game on the pitch.  Along with new grass-like synthetic surfaces, large roofs could help create an atmosphere similar to the best a retractable roof could offer

The problem for Tampa Bay Rays fans, of course, is that a half-domed stadium probably wouldn't work in Florida.  Just like in Miami, Tampa Bay fans won't come out to games in the scorching heat and the games won't be able to be played in some of the summer downpours.
But is a retractable roof necessary when teams like the Marlins and D'Backs already keep theirs closed most games?

Brown writes it certainly doesn't seem necessary in Arizona:

Regardless of how well composed the Chase Field façade is or how well the roof and mechanical systems control the indoor climate, there is only so much architecture can do to bring lukewarm fans out to the game save giving tickets away.

But Brown also argues fickle fans (like in Arizona or Florida) may never be content with beautiful ballparks:

Architecture can only do so much to help a club gain its foothold and retain strong fan bases.  Despite these inherent limitations, clubs must remain ambitious and creative, retractable roofs or not, in their quest to create the best and most exciting ballparks possible to cater to and help craft future fans.