PDA

View Full Version : Washington DC Stadium nearly dead


SouthSide_HitMen
01-11-2006, 12:53 AM
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20060110-103846-8349r.htm

The D.C. government's efforts are nearly dead in closing a deal with Major League Baseball to build a stadium in Southeast for the Washington Nationals.

D.C. Council member Jack Evans, a chief proponent of the stadium, has given up trying to persuade fellow members to support the deal.

No local official has assumed the lead role in lobbying for the $667 million stadium, he says, and there appears to be no opportunity to change the minds of any of the eight council members who oppose using public funds for the ballpark's construction.

KRS1
01-11-2006, 01:04 AM
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20060110-103846-8349r.htm

The D.C. government's efforts are nearly dead in closing a deal with Major League Baseball to build a stadium in Southeast for the Washington Nationals.

D.C. Council member Jack Evans, a chief proponent of the stadium, has given up trying to persuade fellow members to support the deal.

No local official has assumed the lead role in lobbying for the $667 million stadium, he says, and there appears to be no opportunity to change the minds of any of the eight council members who oppose using public funds for the ballpark's construction.


Maybe this will lead to a Nationals' fire sale to tick off "The Man", thus leading to the trading of Ryan Zimmerman to the White Sox for Joe Crede and Josh Fields.

I dont think there is a pink deep enough for this one.

delben91
01-11-2006, 05:29 AM
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20060110-103846-8349r.htm

The D.C. government's efforts are nearly dead in closing a deal with Major League Baseball to build a stadium in Southeast for the Washington Nationals.

D.C. Council member Jack Evans, a chief proponent of the stadium, has given up trying to persuade fellow members to support the deal.

No local official has assumed the lead role in lobbying for the $667 million stadium, he says, and there appears to be no opportunity to change the minds of any of the eight council members who oppose using public funds for the ballpark's construction.

I'll give the DC Council credit for being consistently inconsistent.

No...actually, I won't give them credit for a damn thing.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-11-2006, 07:14 AM
I'll give the DC Council credit for being consistently inconsistent.

No...actually, I won't give them credit for a damn thing.

Well if they are able to stop this boondoggle than I will give them credit.

I'm glad this is the only thing lead negotiator for MLB Jerry Reinsdorf appears to be losing this offseason.

Hitmen77
01-11-2006, 09:23 AM
so what's next for the Nationals? Is the league going to move them to another city? Go back to the plan of folding them and one other team?

SouthSide_HitMen
01-11-2006, 09:45 AM
so what's next for the Nationals? Is the league going to move them to another city? Go back to the plan of folding them and one other team?

MLB is trying to force arbitration if the council doesn't approve the plan (which it appears they are declining at this point due to the massive expected cost overruns - over $100 million and growing daily) but even if MLB "wins" an arbitration they won't be legally empowered to "make" DC build their stadium though they may be entitled to damages based on breech of contract.

I don't think Portland, Las Vegas or other rumored cities are viable and MLB will look to contract DC and Florida if they are unable to close this deal.

Ol' No. 2
01-11-2006, 09:46 AM
Last I heard MLB had filed for an abitration hearing. DC had committed to a stadium deal in order to lure the team and has now reneged on that committment. They could be assessed hefty penalties that might change their mind.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-11-2006, 09:47 AM
Last I heard MLB had filed for an abitration hearing. DC had committed to a stadium deal in order to lure the team and has now reneged on that committment. They could be assessed hefty penalties that might change their mind.

Better to pay a settlement and wash their hands of this mess than commit to the majority of the $684 million (and growing) cost of this project.

Ol' No. 2
01-11-2006, 09:56 AM
Better to pay a settlement and wash their hands of this mess than commit to the majority of the $684 million (and growing) cost of this project.The original agreement capped the city's committment at $535M (which is still a ridiculous figure). Any settlement is likely to be at least a substantial fraction of that, and it would give the councilmen the cover to vote for it. I don't know how many votes they need to turn.

GoSox2K3
01-11-2006, 10:12 AM
The original agreement capped the city's committment at $535M (which is still a ridiculous figure). Any settlement is likely to be at least a substantial fraction of that, and it would give the councilmen the cover to vote for it. I don't know how many votes they need to turn.

So, pay a substantial fraction and end up with nothing or pay the $535 million and get the benefits of a great urban sports facility that brings in 2 million plus into the city ever year and may serve as a catalyst for a vibrant neighborhood.

I'm not a big fan of public funding of stadiums either, but has anyone ever heard another city regret that they spent the money to fund one of the new retro downtown ballparks? Is Cleveland (or Ohio) sorry they put up money for Jacobs Field, does SF regret that SBC Park is there? And so forth.

Ol' No. 2
01-11-2006, 10:20 AM
So, pay a substantial fraction and end up with nothing or pay the $535 million and get the benefits of a great urban sports facility that brings in 2 million plus into the city ever year and may serve as a catalyst for a vibrant neighborhood.

I'm not a big fan of public funding of stadiums either, but has anyone ever heard another city regret that they spent the money to fund one of the new retro downtown ballparks? Is Cleveland (or Ohio) sorry they put up money for Jacobs Field, does SF regret that SBC Park is there? And so forth.This is about politics. Once they get an arbitration panel judgement, councilmen can vote for it claiming they had no choice. To people opposed to the stadium they can say they tried to stop it. To people in favor of it they can say they voted for it. They get to have their cake and eat it, too.

AZChiSoxFan
01-11-2006, 10:21 AM
So, pay a substantial fraction and end up with nothing or pay the $535 million and get the benefits of a great urban sports facility that brings in 2 million plus into the city ever year and may serve as a catalyst for a vibrant neighborhood.

I'm not a big fan of public funding of stadiums either, but has anyone ever heard another city regret that they spent the money to fund one of the new retro downtown ballparks? Is Cleveland (or Ohio) sorry they put up money for Jacobs Field, does SF regret that SBC Park is there? And so forth.

I'm fairly sure that SBC (or whatever it's called this week) in SF was privately financed.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-11-2006, 10:23 AM
So, pay a substantial fraction and end up with nothing or pay the $535 million and get the benefits of a great urban sports facility that brings in 2 million plus into the city ever year and may serve as a catalyst for a vibrant neighborhood.

I'm not a big fan of public funding of stadiums either, but has anyone ever heard another city regret that they spent the money to fund one of the new retro downtown ballparks? Is Cleveland (or Ohio) sorry they put up money for Jacobs Field, does SF regret that SBC Park is there? And so forth.

Well I regret we spent hundreds of millions on Soldier Field and if this was put up to a vote of Chicago voters it, like most stadium referendum placed in front of voters, would have failed.

Also, I doubt a "substantial fraction" of the $535 million will be paid to MLB. MLB will sue for their lawyer (including Reinsdorf's) consultant and other fees and any other terms of the contract DC has breeched but I would be shocked if they were awarded more than a couple % at most of this amount (based on the terms of the deal the amount is $19 million see link - http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/131758/index.php).

Here is a good website for stadium news:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/

GoSox2K3
01-11-2006, 10:39 AM
I'm fairly sure that SBC (or whatever it's called this week) in SF was privately financed.

ok, bad example - it's the only privately financed baseball stadium since 1962. :redface:

Fenway
01-11-2006, 10:42 AM
Angelos is a huge power broker in DC you can be sure he is behind the curtain especially after seeing how well the Nats drew in RFK

GoSox2K3
01-11-2006, 10:42 AM
Well I regret we spent hundreds of millions on Soldier Field and if this was put up to a vote of Chicago voters it, like most stadium referendum placed in front of voters, would have failed...../ (http://www.fieldofschemes.com/)

I don't know if that's a fair comparison since we spent all that money on Soldier Field for all of 8 games a year while baseball teams play 81 home games a year.

RichFitztightly
01-11-2006, 12:15 PM
ok, bad example - it's the only privately financed baseball stadium since 1962. :redface:

I'm pretty sure the Patriot's new stadium was privately funded as well.

Fenway
01-11-2006, 12:17 PM
I'm pretty sure the Patriot's new stadium was privately funded as well.

It was and the Krafts did NOT make season ticket holders buy PSL's

(so it cost $35 to park)

wdelaney72
01-11-2006, 01:23 PM
It was and the Krafts did NOT make season ticket holders buy PSL's

(so it cost $35 to park)

My Mom is a Bears season ticket holder. She paid a PSL and gets the privilege of paying $40 to park.

AZChiSoxFan
01-11-2006, 03:06 PM
Angelos is a huge power broker in DC you can be sure he is behind the curtain especially after seeing how well the Nats drew in RFK

So Angelos got the payoff from MLB for "allowing" a team to play in DC and now he's going to see to it that the Nats are either contracted or moved to another city. Nice.

DC Sox Fan
01-11-2006, 05:23 PM
Now you know why I love Havanna Pete so. Many interesting theories on it out there. With our beloved former Mayor (and now councilman) Barry back in trouble for nose candy, there goes one of the most vocal opponents. A good thread on one of the Nats' fan sites is here (http://www.ballparkguys.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=41;t=008069):

The folks on the DC council have shown they're crazy like foxes. They're trying to draw a line in the sand. Multiple potential owners have offered to pay for cost overruns, but MLB says no dice, as that might hurt the value of their precious cash cow.

I see some sort of compromise out there, but I believe a new stadium will be built, and I really don't think that MLB wants to just make the Nats go away as their value has skyrocketed due to their warm reception here.

downstairs
01-11-2006, 06:21 PM
This is about politics. Once they get an arbitration panel judgement, councilmen can vote for it claiming they had no choice. To people opposed to the stadium they can say they tried to stop it. To people in favor of it they can say they voted for it. They get to have their cake and eat it, too.

Yep! You got it. That's how this stuff often works. Politicians don't often like to make these decisions "on their own." It doesn't hurt them politically to be forced into the decision, as their holding back seems frugal.

The deal will get done, but no one wants to be the one that made the decision other than a judge.

Baby Fisk
01-12-2006, 10:00 AM
I see some sort of compromise out there, but I believe a new stadium will be built, and I really don't think that MLB wants to just make the Nats go away as their value has skyrocketed due to their warm reception here.
Even if they continue to play in venerable RFK stadium, what's important here is bringing baseball back to the people of DC. It's about the fans! It wasn't all about a new stadium, was it?

soxinem1
01-12-2006, 10:05 AM
Bud and the boys can eat some crow on this too. Did MLB think that a city with such poor cash flow can realistically build a stadium? Now this?

What a farce! The Nationals should have been moved to Richmond or somewhere else just outside the Capital in Virginia. Besides, even if MLB/Nationals win arbitration, it does nothing to get the financing.

The thing that kills me is that I believe several of the partnerships interested in buying this team said they will cover the over-runs of stadium construction. This whole episode is just turning into a total joke!

And as far as DC is concerned, what don't they get? They drew 2.7 million in a makeshift park, made a few million in tax revenue, and watched the team contend the first half of it's first season. Then once they achieve permanent owners and a new park this team would be the most successful ever in DC.

So if they don't want it, give Richmond or Charlotte the opportunity.

Fenway
01-12-2006, 10:17 AM
Looks like some progress

D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp sent a letter to Mayor Anthony A. Williams yesterday detailing a plan that she said would guarantee council support for the stalled stadium project.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102301.html


The key provision would be a guarantee that the city's costs for the project would be capped at the $535 million the council approved last year, plus $54 million in bond financing fees. Any additional costs would have to be covered by the league, the owner of the Washington Nationals or private developers, Cropp wrote.


looks like a sweetheart deal to me

Hangar18
01-12-2006, 01:48 PM
So, pay a substantial fraction and end up with nothing or pay the $535 million and get the benefits of a great urban sports facility that brings in 2 million plus into the city ever year and may serve as a catalyst for a vibrant neighborhood.

I'm not a big fan of public funding of stadiums either, but has anyone ever heard another city regret that they spent the money to fund one of the new retro downtown ballparks?

Tampa quickly comes to mind ............

Fenway
01-12-2006, 02:04 PM
Tampa quickly comes to mind ............

The saga of baseball in Tampa Bay in sordid detail
http://www.andelman.com/sfr/sfr-introduction.html

asindc
01-13-2006, 03:06 PM
The folks on the DC council have shown they're crazy like foxes. They're trying to draw a line in the sand. Multiple potential owners have offered to pay for cost overruns, but MLB says no dice, as that might hurt the value of their precious cash cow.

I believe MLB is vigorously fighting any deal allowing potential owners to pay for cost overruns because they don't want that precedent to be set. In this instance, the DC Council is on solid ground politically and from public policy standpoint. If MLB decided today to allow the future owner to pay for overruns, I think the deal would get done next week.

Personally, I say let MLB try to come up with plan B. The Nats will be playing here for at least the next 3-4 years while they try, and then anything they come up with won't be nearly as attractive as what DC offers in the long term. Many might say Vegas in response here, but don't forget the many cons (pun not quite intended) of moving there, especially being the first to do so, what with Pete Rose and all that noise.

GoSox2K3
01-13-2006, 03:19 PM
Tampa quickly comes to mind ............

I was thinking of Tampa when I said "retro downtown ballpark". Tampa didn't build a beautiful baseball park, they built an awful multiuse dome with plastic grass that has to be one of the worst parks in the league. I'm willing to bet that any stadium they build in DC will be 1000 times nicer than Tropicana Field.