PDA

View Full Version : DC Council rejects proposed stadium lease


delben91
02-07-2006, 07:56 PM
According to the "stadium" website, but I've heard the same story on some nats message boards, so it seems to be true.

Link (http://www.jdland.com/dc/stadium.cfm) (scroll down below the pictures for the update)

No idea what this means now. MLB could go to arbitration, but it's also said in a radio report that Virginia's governor has said he'd be interested in trying to bring the Nationals to northern Virginia, so the team could be on the move again after 2006.

Leave it to DC to delay the original lease vote in December only to have it still fail 2 months later. They're champs down there, truly.

PINWHEELS
02-07-2006, 08:38 PM
According to the "stadium" website, but I've heard the same story on some nats message boards, so it seems to be true.

Link (http://www.jdland.com/dc/stadium.cfm) (scroll down below the pictures for the update)

No idea what this means now. MLB could go to arbitration, but it's also said in a radio report that Virginia's governor has said he'd be interested in trying to bring the Nationals to northern Virginia, so the team could be on the move again after 2006.

Leave it to DC to delay the original lease vote in December only to have it still fail 2 months later. They're champs down there, truly.Here's Another Link WWW.NBC4.COM (http://www.NBC4.COM). It's a Shame That this Situation is still not resolved. MLB Should get the Ball Rolling for a Stadium in the State of VA.

DC Sox Fan
02-07-2006, 11:25 PM
Debate still going into the night. Marion Barry has done a 180 and is now sporting a Nats' cap as the debate goes deep into the night. He then throws in a last minute wrench by saying they need "excess money" to go into a community fund. I am attempting to watch this fuster cluck live online... it is a true emberassment to politics. These jokers could (and hopefully will) go all night. Big Jim Thompson should have had it so easy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/Marion_Barry_smoking_crack.gif/200px-Marion_Barry_smoking_crack.gif
"Bitch set me up!"

SouthSide_HitMen
02-07-2006, 11:33 PM
They're champs down there, truly.

They are if they are able to block this permanently. Probably the first thing the elected officials of the District actually did for their constituents in decades.

Bud Selig and MLB deserve to eat this team for destroying baseball in Montreal and Miami and then trying to fleece DC taxpayers of over $700 - $800 million when all is said and done.

:thumbsup:

DC Sox Fan
02-07-2006, 11:45 PM
They have now voted yes on the emergency cap... $610m in costs for DC. MLB must approve, then DC votes again on the lease. Round and round they go... what a mess.

gowhitesox
02-08-2006, 01:37 AM
They have now voted yes on the emergency cap... $610m in costs for DC. MLB must approve, then DC votes again on the lease. Round and round they go... what a mess.

That is indeed a mess. I might be wrong on this but doesn't the lease at RFK Stadium run out after the 2007 season? This could go on forever. I question a new stadium will ever get built. MLB should give up and go to Virginia or somplace that will build a stadium.

delben91
02-08-2006, 05:30 AM
They have now voted yes on the emergency cap... $610m in costs for DC. MLB must approve, then DC votes again on the lease. Round and round they go... what a mess.

So first they ignored a vote on the emergency cap, and just voted the lease down.

Then they went back and voted yes on the emergency cap, and now must re-vote on the lease?

Fantastic...just when you think they've gotten as ridiculous as possible, they keep raising the bar.:rolleyes:

DC Sox Fan
02-08-2006, 07:44 AM
OK so apparently this "emergency cap" was also in effect, approving a lease agreement. link here: http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=398&sid=692601

Reading DuPuy and co's comments, it sounds like they have been really pissed.

"People are beside themselves. They're trying to blackmail us," said one baseball source. "We're not going to take it."

"The bar keeps moving. We jump over the bar, then they move it higher," protested DuPuy. "We had a contract with them. But we made concession after concession even though we didn't have to. I'd put a value of 40 to 50 million dollars on everything we gave them."

IMO the DC council is run like a joke, but IF MLB approves this agreement- and I honestly think they will so they can finally sell this team and get their precious money- they will be lauded as heroes for getting so much back from the evil and greedy MLB.

In the end MLB still makes out like a bandit, but it's funny and outrageous at the same time that they are so upset they're getting jerked around knowing full well they are sitting on a gold mine.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2006, 09:02 AM
OK so apparently this "emergency cap" was also in effect, approving a lease agreement. link here: http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=398&sid=692601

Reading DuPuy and co's comments, it sounds like they have been really pissed.

Bud Selig and his pit bull DuPuy have much to fear on judgement day.

DC residents assume the position.

:kermit

itsnotrequired
02-08-2006, 09:12 AM
Looks like they finally accepted it:

Just hours after rejecting an earlier proposal, the Washington, D.C., City Council reversed course early Wednesday morning and voted to approve a 30-year lease for the Washington Nationals to play at a still-to-be-constructed stadium on the waterfront, just a mile south of the Capitol building.

After first rejecting the lease by an 8-5 vote late Tuesday night, the Council then went into a three-hour extra session and voted 9-4 to approve a revised lease. In doing so, the Council added two significant provisos: a $610.8 million cap on the cost of the project and a drop dead date of March 6 for Major League Baseball to accept the terms of the revamped deal. If MLB fails to do so by then, the lease agreement goes away. If MLB agrees, baseball will no doubt ultimately conclude the process of selling the team, which it has owned since Feb. 15, 2002, when it purchased the faltering Montreal Expos.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060207&content_id=1308320&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

MisterB
02-08-2006, 10:01 AM
"People are beside themselves. They're trying to blackmail us," said one baseball source. "We're not going to take it."


And what exactly is the 'build us a stadium or we leave town' tactic that MLB teams have employed over the last 15 years? :rolleyes:
http://www.wholewheatblogger.com/weblog/images/potandkettle250x150.jpg

TheOldRoman
02-08-2006, 11:13 AM
Bud Selig and his pit bull DuPuy have much to fear on judgement day.

DC residents assume the position.

:kermit
:rolleyes:
Yeah, I for one rue the day that Reinsdorf was able to "steal" money from hotels to build me a new park. I wish the Sox would have moved to Tampa just to fix me. At least I would still have my principles.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2006, 11:34 AM
:rolleyes:
Yeah, I for one rue the day that Reinsdorf was able to "steal" money from hotels to build me a new park. I wish the Sox would have moved to Tampa just to fix me. At least I would still have my principles.

Yea, I love billions in corporate welfare for millionaires and billionaires.

DC has one of the highest crime rates, tax rates and one of the worst school systems in America (despite being very high on per capita spending).

Giving MLB hundreds of millions of dollars they don't have should be #984,353,894,814,957,829,642 on their to do list.

And where in my post was I discussing the White Sox? While I don't support any of these "deals" that was far less egregious to the taxpayers of Illinois than this current deal. You assume a lot of things not in my post but then again nobody should have the nerve to question Bud Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf or MLB when they shake down America.


</IMG>

TheOldRoman
02-08-2006, 11:52 AM
Yea, I love billions in corporate welfare for millionaires and billionaires.

DC has one of the highest crime rates, tax rates and one of the worst school systems in America (despite being very high on per capita spending).

Giving MLB hundreds of millions of dollars they don't have should be #984,353,894,814,957,829,642 on their to do list.

And where in my post was I discussing the White Sox? While I don't support any of these "deals" that was far less egregious to the taxpayers of Illinois than this current deal. You assume a lot of things not in my post but then again nobody should have the nerve to question Bud Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf or MLB when they shake down America.


</IMG>
I have noticed in several of your posts that you are very against public funding for stadiums. I would prefer teams to pay for their stadiums, but I wont lose any sleep over it. Things are the way they are, and I don't see anything short of a supreme court ruling changing it. With all the money DC throws around, they wont miss that $600million 35 years from now. Nobody will lose their house because MLB comes into town.

The people of DC have gone without baseball for so long because the last two owners were horrible. Baseball wanted to move to DC, and these counselmembers are making names for themselves off of it. They are blackmailing baseball worse than it is blackmailing them. I actually hope baseball decides to move to Northern Virginia instead, and let the idiots in the city counsel have their moral victories. The DC counsel has broken pretty much every code of ethics you can think of. They keep on coming to agreements and then breaking them. I want to see the longterm success of baseball in Washington, but not at this expense. The grandstanding counsel members are gaining a lot more here than baseball will. MLB is going to get their deal somewhere, so in the big scheme of things it doesn't matter where. Linda Cropp has repeatedly gone back on her word, and is trying to be a hero. This crap should have gotten done months ago.

Hangar18
02-08-2006, 11:56 AM
And where in my post was I discussing the White Sox? While I don't support any of these "deals" that was far less egregious to the taxpayers of Illinois than this current deal. You assume a lot of things not in my post but then again nobody should have the nerve to question Bud Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf or MLB when they shake down America.



Sounds like you got Old Roman'd, heh heh!

Hangar18
02-08-2006, 11:58 AM
And what exactly is the 'build us a stadium or we leave town' tactic that MLB teams have employed over the last 15 years? :rolleyes:
http://www.wholewheatblogger.com/weblog/images/potandkettle250x150.jpg


EXCELLENT! I laughing loudly as we speak!

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2006, 12:23 PM
I have noticed in several of your posts that you are very against public funding for stadiums. I would prefer teams to pay for their stadiums, but I wont lose any sleep over it. Things are the way they are, and I don't see anything short of a supreme court ruling changing it. With all the money DC throws around, they wont miss that $600million 35 years from now. Nobody will lose their house because MLB comes into town.

The people of DC have gone without baseball for so long because the last two owners were horrible. Baseball wanted to move to DC, and these counselmembers are making names for themselves off of it. They are blackmailing baseball worse than it is blackmailing them. I actually hope baseball decides to move to Northern Virginia instead, and let the idiots in the city counsel have their moral victories. The DC counsel has broken pretty much every code of ethics you can think of. They keep on coming to agreements and then breaking them. I want to see the longterm success of baseball in Washington, but not at this expense. The grandstanding counsel members are gaining a lot more here than baseball will. MLB is going to get their deal somewhere, so in the big scheme of things it doesn't matter where. Linda Cropp has repeatedly gone back on her word, and is trying to be a hero. This crap should have gotten done months ago.

Well I do agree it will be hard to change the culture of spending (well at least until we collectively cannot borrow another nickle) but not impossible nor is a Supreme Court decision necessary. This practice will stop if voters across the nation like the DC residents who said enough already and voted some earlier representatives out and the ones in Minnesota fighting Billionaire Carl Pohlad who loves baseball and his team so much he offered to fold it at the drop of a hat for, in the words of Sergio Leone, a few dollars more, continue to demand accountability from their representatives. Baseball should pay for their expenses. The players and owners would get a smaller take than they do now, but they would still be making millions each season. They survived for over a century building their own stadiums and their broadcast and merchandise revenue streams are bigger and growing faster, than they ever have in the past.

The Mayor signed the lease before the DC counsel voted to approve it. Apparently he did not have the authority to do so as the lease is as valid as a roll of toilet paper without the Counsel's approval (well unless the Mayor wants to come up with the several hundred million from his own bank account - an amount even the highest level politicians in Illinois and Louisiana would have trouble coming up with in a pinch).

Northern Virginia voters did not approve of this either. It is still questionable whether the area will support a third attempt in DC after the honeymoon period. Most residents are fans of the Orioles (or Phillies for NL fans) and I don't know how any owner who demands several hundred million dollars will be considered "good" for the area. Plus, the team's TV rights are 2/3 owned by their competitor. The whole thing reeks anyway you look at it.

Maybe Tokyo will pay for this mess.

http://www.metmanfl.com/images/japan1.jpg

Ol' No. 2
02-08-2006, 12:47 PM
Well I do agree it will be hard to change the culture of spending (well at least until we collectively cannot borrow another nickle) but not impossible nor is a Supreme Court decision necessary. This practice will stop if voters across the nation like the DC residents who said enough already and voted some earlier representatives out and the ones in Minnesota fighting Billionaire Carl Pohlad who loves baseball and his team so much he offered to fold it at the drop of a hat for, in the words of Sergio Leone, a few dollars more, continue to demand accountability from their representatives. Baseball should pay for their expenses. The players and owners would get a smaller take than they do now, but they would still be making millions each season. They survived for over a century building their own stadiums and their broadcast and merchandise revenue streams are bigger and growing faster, than they ever have in the past.

The Mayor signed the lease before the DC counsel voted to approve it. Apparently he did not have the authority to do so as the lease is as valid as a roll of toilet paper without the Counsel's approval (well unless the Mayor wants to come up with the several hundred million from his own bank account - an amount even the highest level politicians in Illinois and Louisiana would have trouble coming up with in a pinch).

Northern Virginia voters did not approve of this either. It is still questionable whether the area will support a third attempt in DC after the honeymoon period. Most residents are fans of the Orioles (or Phillies for NL fans) and I don't know how any owner who demands several hundred million dollars will be considered "good" for the area. Plus, the team's TV rights are 2/3 owned by their competitor. The whole thing reeks anyway you look at it.

Maybe Tokyo will pay for this mess.

http://www.metmanfl.com/images/japan1.jpgPhilosophically, it's impossible to disagree with your basic premise. There's not a reason in the world sports teams shouldn't pay for their own stadia. If all local governments decided that they were going to stop building stadia for sports teams, the teams would miraculously find a way to do it on their own. But no business will ever pay for anything if they can get someone else to pay for it. This phenomenon, of course, is not limited to baseball, but that's a story for another time. As long as MLB can play one city against the other, the practice will continue.

Flight #24
02-08-2006, 01:44 PM
Yea, I love billions in corporate welfare for millionaires and billionaires.

DC has one of the highest crime rates, tax rates and one of the worst school systems in America (despite being very high on per capita spending).

Giving MLB hundreds of millions of dollars they don't have should be #984,353,894,814,957,829,642 on their to do list.

But for some reason DC has a "right" to a baseball team? *****. If they (or Minnesota)don't want to fund a stadium - fine, that's their right. As you mention, there are many other, more important issues to deal with. But when a team moves to another locale that is willing to build them a stadium, I hope you won't be among the group crying about how MLB screwed the local fans. The door swings both ways.

In any case, the issue in DC appears to be more one of making fairly specific promises and then going back one them. MLB is certainly guilty of similar things, but not in this case.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2006, 01:58 PM
But for some reason DC has a "right" to a baseball team? *****. If they (or Minnesota)don't want to fund a stadium - fine, that's their right. As you mention, there are many other, more important issues to deal with. But when a team moves to another locale that is willing to build them a stadium, I hope you won't be among the group crying about how MLB screwed the local fans. The door swings both ways.

In any case, the issue in DC appears to be more one of making fairly specific promises and then going back one them. MLB is certainly guilty of similar things, but not in this case.

I agree 100% Flight except for the part about DC promises.

The mayor signed the lease without the legal authority to enforce the terms. This is similar to Woodrow Wilson bringing back "The League of Nations". It meant squat until the Senate approved it.

MLB created this mess in 1994 followed up by the Loria debacle. Montreal was a great baseball city until Bud Selig became commissioner. I don't see why the citizens of the District or anywhere else for that matter need to bail them out.

Flight #24
02-08-2006, 02:02 PM
I agree 100% Flight except for the part about DC promises.

The mayor signed the lease without the legal authority to enforce the terms. This is similar to Woodrow Wilson bringing back "The League of Nations". It meant squat until the Senate approved it.

MLB created this mess in 1994 followed up by the Loria debacle. Montreal was a great baseball city until Bud Selig became commissioner. I don't see why the citizens of the District or anywhere else for that matter need to bail them out.

By 1992, when Selig became commish, the Expos were already in the midst of a pretty horrid run of attendance. Selig didn't begin to "get involved" in the Expos until a few years later, when the poor attendance run had been extended despite having a very strong team.

Ol' No. 2
02-08-2006, 02:02 PM
But for some reason DC has a "right" to a baseball team? *****. If they (or Minnesota)don't want to fund a stadium - fine, that's their right. As you mention, there are many other, more important issues to deal with. But when a team moves to another locale that is willing to build them a stadium, I hope you won't be among the group crying about how MLB screwed the local fans. The door swings both ways.

In any case, the issue in DC appears to be more one of making fairly specific promises and then going back one them. MLB is certainly guilty of similar things, but not in this case.Publicly financed stadia amount to a taxpayer subsidy for the team. Why should a baseball team (or any business for that matter) be subsidized by taxpayers? Unfortunately, this has been going on for a long time. Businesses of all types have been extorting public subsidies of various kinds in order to persuade them not to move, only to have them move anyway in many cases. MLB didn't invent this dodge, but they're working it as hard as they can.

And as I understand the situation, the original agreement called for DC's share of the stadium to be capped at $535M. When the cost turned out to be a lot higher than expected (surprise!), MLB tried to squeeze DC into increasing their share. DC did not go back on its original agreement. MLB did.

AZChiSoxFan
02-08-2006, 02:44 PM
This phenomenon, of course, is not limited to baseball, but that's a story for another time.

Great point and one I make all the time. This happens in lots of different industries but people only bother to complain about it when it's sports teams.

Flight #24
02-08-2006, 02:53 PM
Publicly financed stadia amount to a taxpayer subsidy for the team. Why should a baseball team (or any business for that matter) be subsidized by taxpayers? Unfortunately, this has been going on for a long time. Businesses of all types have been extorting public subsidies of various kinds in order to persuade them not to move, only to have them move anyway in many cases. MLB didn't invent this dodge, but they're working it as hard as they can.

And as I understand the situation, the original agreement called for DC's share of the stadium to be capped at $535M. When the cost turned out to be a lot higher than expected (surprise!), MLB tried to squeeze DC into increasing their share. DC did not go back on its original agreement. MLB did.

Who owns the stadium? Who's in charge of the development? What's the reason for the overrun? I don't pretend to know the answer to these questions, but they're crucial to determining the "fault" here.

As for public subsidies to businesses, it's part of life in America, you're right. No one complains when Boeing gets them, but it's "blackmail" and "corporate greed" when MLB gets them....:dunno:

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2006, 03:36 PM
As for public subsidies to businesses, it's part of life in America, you're right. No one complains when Boeing gets them, but it's "blackmail" and "corporate greed" when MLB gets them....:dunno:

Actually many people are opposed to the Boeing "deal" and other subsidies but the press and city hall pretty much squashed all debate during their little cheerleading sessions.

The local press was also pretty happy when the Springfield clock "stopped" and the White Sox were "saved".

It's hard to get a consensus to oppose these measures since most people (including legislators) are not going to take the time to learn about financing and tax implications except for those with a vested interest. Taxes / subsidies are a big blur when considering the scope of modern day government. Even when many people oppose a measure, people with a vested interest in the deal have the money to pimp their idea while the opposition is generally unfunded and unorganized (which is why we are where we are today). Hire a few "consultants" to present your talking points and selected "facts" and here is your check.

MLB gets the negative press due to the numerous times they lie to Congress, and the local population / government. MLB was aware of steroids (not to mention greenies and other abused drugs) for decades prior to 2005. MLB did not lose billions despite Bud's testimony to Congress. If MLB wants better press, they should plead the 5th if they are not going to tell the truth and stop being so greedy. Asking for some infrastructure around the stadium and even help with the financing / tax breaks is one thing. Acting like a 5 year old and demanding you get what you want when you want it is another.

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2004/03/15/LzXF7L97.jpg

I am not 5 years old, I just look like a 5 year old.
WHERE IS MY TAXPAYER FUNDED ICE CREAM SUNDAE? :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

Ol' No. 2
02-08-2006, 03:45 PM
Actually many people are opposed to the Boeing "deal" and other subsidies but the press and city hall pretty much squashed all debate during their little cheerleading sessions.

The local press was also pretty happy when the Springfield clock "stopped" and the White Sox were "saved".

It's hard to get a consensus to oppose these measures since most people (including legislators) are not going to take the time to learn about financing and tax implications except for those with a vested interest. Taxes / subsidies are a big blur when considering the scope of modern day government. Even when many people oppose a measure, people with a vested interest in the deal have the money to pimp their idea while the opposition is generally unfunded and unorganized (which is why we are where we are today). Hire a few "consultants" to present your talking points and selected "facts" and here is your check.

MLB gets the negative press due to the numerous times they lie to Congress, and the local population / government. MLB was aware of steroids (not to mention greenies and other abused drugs) for decades prior to 2005. MLB did not lose billions despite Bud's testimony to Congress. If MLB wants better press, they should plead the 5th if they are not going to tell the truth and stop being so greedy. Asking for some infrastructure around the stadium and even help with the financing / tax breaks is one thing. Acting like a 5 year old and demanding you get what you want when you want it is another.

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2004/03/15/LzXF7L97.jpg

I am not 5 years old, I just look like a 5 year old.
WHERE IS MY TAXPAYER FUNDED ICE CREAM SUNDAE? :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:"If you don't give me a subsidy, I'll take my team (or factory, or whatever) someplace that will, and you'll lose out." Of course, the threat only works because they can play one location against another. If nobody built taxpayer-financed stadia, MLB wouldn't go out of business. Factories would still get built. They'd just find a way to build it them on their own.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2006, 03:58 PM
"If you don't give me a subsidy, I'll take my team (or factory, or whatever) someplace that will, and you'll lose out." Of course, the threat only works because they can play one location against another. If nobody built taxpayer-financed stadia, MLB wouldn't go out of business. Factories would still get built. They'd just find a way to build it them on their own.:yup:

Flight #24
02-08-2006, 04:43 PM
"If you don't give me a subsidy, I'll take my team (or factory, or whatever) someplace that will, and you'll lose out." Of course, the threat only works because they can play one location against another. If nobody built taxpayer-financed stadia, MLB wouldn't go out of business. Factories would still get built. They'd just find a way to build it them on their own.

Which is exactly how the rest of the world works. Free markets & all. This is especially true for smaller municipalities where the broadcast & ticket sales revenues are less than other locations. Minnesota or DC complaining about funding a stadium and complaining that MLB would rather move to a free stadium than fund one is just plain ludicrous.

For an example of a small market that supports a big revenue team, look to St Louis. Small city, but they're consistently at/near the tops in attendance, even during decades like the late 80s/early 90s when they were middle of the pack or worse for 8 years in a row. Their LOWEST attendance was 7th/14 NL teams during that period.

Hokiesox
02-08-2006, 04:50 PM
They are if they are able to block this permanently. Probably the first thing the elected officials of the District actually did for their constituents in decades.

Bud Selig and MLB deserve to eat this team for destroying baseball in Montreal and Miami and then trying to fleece DC taxpayers of over $700 - $800 million when all is said and done.

:thumbsup:

You've summed up what most locals have been thinking for a long time.

MiamiSpartan
02-08-2006, 05:32 PM
Actually many people are opposed to the Boeing "deal" and other subsidies but the press and city hall pretty much squashed all debate during their little cheerleading sessions.

The local press was also pretty happy when the Springfield clock "stopped" and the White Sox were "saved".

It's hard to get a consensus to oppose these measures since most people (including legislators) are not going to take the time to learn about financing and tax implications except for those with a vested interest. Taxes / subsidies are a big blur when considering the scope of modern day government. Even when many people oppose a measure, people with a vested interest in the deal have the money to pimp their idea while the opposition is generally unfunded and unorganized (which is why we are where we are today). Hire a few "consultants" to present your talking points and selected "facts" and here is your check.

MLB gets the negative press due to the numerous times they lie to Congress, and the local population / government. MLB was aware of steroids (not to mention greenies and other abused drugs) for decades prior to 2005. MLB did not lose billions despite Bud's testimony to Congress. If MLB wants better press, they should plead the 5th if they are not going to tell the truth and stop being so greedy. Asking for some infrastructure around the stadium and even help with the financing / tax breaks is one thing. Acting like a 5 year old and demanding you get what you want when you want it is another.

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2004/03/15/LzXF7L97.jpg

I am not 5 years old, I just look like a 5 year old.
WHERE IS MY TAXPAYER FUNDED ICE CREAM SUNDAE? :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

Your pic is a little misleading. The Marlins are not looking for an entirely tax payer funded ballpark. They are paying for over half of the proposed park, more then most of the other new parks built over the past few years. They were only looking for the State or someone to toss in $60 million, MUCH less then the usual publicly funded park.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2006, 05:33 PM
Which is exactly how the rest of the world works. Free markets & all. This is especially true for smaller municipalities where the broadcast & ticket sales revenues are less than other locations. Minnesota or DC complaining about funding a stadium and complaining that MLB would rather move to a free stadium than fund one is just plain ludicrous.

For an example of a small market that supports a big revenue team, look to St Louis. Small city, but they're consistently at/near the tops in attendance, even during decades like the late 80s/early 90s when they were middle of the pack or worse for 8 years in a row. Their LOWEST attendance was 7th/14 NL teams during that period.

The St. Louis Cardinals funded most of their stadium.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/000324.html

Even though they wanted more public funding initially.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/26795p-25448c.html

Cities are starting to reject the outright lies of the proponents of these stadiums. Corporate welfare is the antithesis of free markets.

These measures will be soundly rejected at the polls and legislators fear their jobs if they go against the growing public consensus against these boondoggles. MLB can stomp like 5 year olds and throw a fit, but they have nowhere else to go.

MLB - :bs: :

"Everything we saw today, and more important, with everyone we had a chance to meet, the general consensus here is that baseball is important to Portland (http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/exclude/113686351386731.xml&coll=7&thispage=2) and that major league baseball is important to Portland." --Marlins president David Samson

Real World - Reality:

Publicly financed baseball [will] not be coming to Portland on my watch (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/baseball/13589015.htm). And that was not a point of discussion today. ... I do not want the city of Portland taking out any mortgage on our children's future.'' --Portland Mayor Tom Potter

Asked whether most Portlanders couldn't care less about a baseball team (http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/exclude/113686351386731.xml&coll=7&thispage=2), Potter said: "That's my very strong sense." --The Oregonian

:thumbsup:

You've summed up what most locals have been thinking for a long time.

This is why these stadiums will be soundly rejected by voters via referendum. Minnesota taxpayers won't stand for it. DC taxpayers won't stand for it. A few were already axed for their yes vote. Hopefully this is the new trend and not an anomaly.

MLB already has earned hundreds of millions of $ in price appreciation in the few years since the Loria swap. They would still earn hundreds of millions if they took DC's $535 (no make that $610 million) check and sold the team the next day. Yet they are debating whether to squeeze even more concessions. If they reject this latest, larger offer they may (in the words of Judge Smails) get nothing and like it (though Judge Smails wasn't nearly as miserly as MLB - he did tip Danny a quarter for taking the blame for the "worn grip" golf club incident and round of golf). I think most of DC's residents would be doing the:supernana: .

It's something unpredictable
but in the end it's right.
I hope you had the time of your life.

Good Riddence by Green Day

TheOldRoman
02-08-2006, 05:38 PM
The local press was also pretty happy when the Springfield clock "stopped" and the White Sox were "saved".
I don't know why you put the word saved in quotes. The White Sox were saved. Don't you remember they had a stadium built for them in Tampa? No matter what you think of public funding of stadiums, it had to happen. It is the nature of the beast - teams try to get cities to build them new parks. If one city won't do it, another one will. The Sox had the cities of Tampa/St. Pete build them a stadium. Obviously, they could have a much larger revenue stream in Chicago, but not without a new park.
There was no middle ground. The Sox NEEDED a new park. Yes, ideally Reinsdorf should have rounded up the private funds like McGowan did in SF, but it didn't happen. Either the state approved the bill, or the Sox were on the next plane to Florida. It is obvious that the White Sox have a large fanbase. They have had the support to survive for over 100 years. Does that mean we should lose the team because Chicago wouldn't build a park but Tampa would? The Sox had to leave Comiskey Park, so they couldn't have just stayed there.
My question to you is, would you have rather the state didn't pass the after hours bill, millions was saved in taxpayers' money, and the Sox left town, or would you rather have the current scenario where Reinsdorf "extorted" the city into building him a new park so they stay where they belong? Im guessing that, despite your principles, you would pick the extortion choice.
Ok, so how is this different with DC? There is a fanbase, and there is a lot of resentment for Angelos. The city is growing, and it will support the team. This is the perfect climate to build a fanbase. Is it right to say that they don't deserve a team because they can't find an owner to pay for the entire park itself?
I also don't buy the arguement put forth by many of the public funding opponents "the money should be spent on the schools, they are more important". Yes, schools are more important than baseball. However, as you pointed out, DC spends way too much per capita, and their schools are horrible (and it isn't a local phenomenon). Does that mean they should just throw more money into the fire? Without getting into politics (because no particular party or person is to blame), they need another solution besides throwing more money into schools, because that clearly doesn't work. That arguement doesn't fly with me. There may be other pressing things for DC to spend extra money on, but schools are not one of them.

TheOldRoman
02-08-2006, 05:45 PM
This is why these stadiums will be soundly rejected by voters via referendum. Minnesota taxpayers won't stand for it. DC taxpayers won't stand for it. A few were already axed for their yes vote. Hopefully this is the new trend and not an anomaly.

There is the problem. Nobody WANTS to build a stadium. No taxpayers want their money going towards a new park. A large number certainly want a new park, but nobody wants to pay for it.
However, this is the second or third time you mentioned that taxpayers wouldn't stand for it, and they would vote people out of office. I don't see that happening. People will get worked up initially, but they will forget. When it comes voting day, people will think that there are more important issues than whether or not they were one of many votes for a stadium. I hardly see the 3 or 4 DC counsel members getting tossed as a public referrendum on the issue.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2006, 05:54 PM
Your pic is a little misleading. The Marlins are not looking for an entirely tax payer funded ballpark. They are paying for over half of the proposed park, more then most of the other new parks built over the past few years. They were only looking for the State or someone to toss in $60 million, MUCH less then the usual publicly funded park.

No his picture is actual life size. :D:

They are looking for $60 from the state on top of up to $360 mil from Miami Dade County or whatever other local community they can get to approve this a majority of remaining costs.

They are looking for $600 - $700 mil projects in places like Charlotte.

I don't know if this team is worth more than $50 mil.

http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/depth_chart/index.jsp?c_id=fla

It is worth about $1 mil if you sell Cabrera and Willis unless you count the genius of the ownership which most people will concede is priceless.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-08-2006, 06:32 PM
I don't know why you put the word saved in quotes. The White Sox were saved. Don't you remember they had a stadium built for them in Tampa? No matter what you think of public funding of stadiums, it had to happen. It is the nature of the beast - teams try to get cities to build them new parks. If one city won't do it, another one will. The Sox had the cities of Tampa/St. Pete build them a stadium. Obviously, they could have a much larger revenue stream in Chicago, but not without a new park.
There was no middle ground. The Sox NEEDED a new park. Yes, ideally Reinsdorf should have rounded up the private funds like McGowan did in SF, but it didn't happen. Either the state approved the bill, or the Sox were on the next plane to Florida. It is obvious that the White Sox have a large fanbase. They have had the support to survive for over 100 years. Does that mean we should lose the team because Chicago wouldn't build a park but Tampa would? The Sox had to leave Comiskey Park, so they couldn't have just stayed there.
My question to you is, would you have rather the state didn't pass the after hours bill, millions was saved in taxpayers' money, and the Sox left town, or would you rather have the current scenario where Reinsdorf "extorted" the city into building him a new park so they stay where they belong? Im guessing that, despite your principles, you would pick the extortion choice.

When (notice I didn't say if) White Sox ownership decides to shake down taxpayers in 2020 or thereabouts due to a perfectly sound stadium being "obsolete" I will be opposed. If they decide to move instead of going the UC route and building it themselves or taking on most of the cost, I hope they end up in a worse scenario than they would have had in Tampa.

I doubt government will be funding these stadiums in 20 years - they are stretched today and things will only be worse down the road with underfunded / unfunded obligations for a longer living retired workforce and the new programs they enact each and every day.



Ok, so how is this different with DC? There is a fanbase, and there is a lot of resentment for Angelos. The city is growing, and it will support the team. This is the perfect climate to build a fanbase. Is it right to say that they don't deserve a team because they can't find an owner to pay for the entire park itself?

This is a fan base of 1 year. People survived for 35 years without baseball in DC. Somehow they managed.


Also, this is a much larger dollar amount than US Cellular as stadium costs have increased far greater than inflation. Part of this is due to higher concrete and other building materials (part of which are protected via tariffs - free market :rolleyes: ). The terms are far more egregious than the White Sox deal.



I also don't buy the arguement put forth by many of the public funding opponents "the money should be spent on the schools, they are more important". Yes, schools are more important than baseball. However, as you pointed out, DC spends way too much per capita, and their schools are horrible (and it isn't a local phenomenon). Does that mean they should just throw more money into the fire? Without getting into politics (because no particular party or person is to blame), they need another solution besides throwing more money into schools, because that clearly doesn't work. That arguement doesn't fly with me. There may be other pressing things for DC to spend extra money on, but schools are not one of them.

New taxes and bonds in the tune of $611 million for MLB is not vital to the interests of most DC residents (the federal government also subsidizes the DC Government). Stadium revenue will account for a tiny portion of this subsidy. The rest will be collect via increased taxes.

Reinsdorf and Wirtz built their mostly privately funded stadium. San Francisco and the Cardinals did the same thing. When MLBs options run out (which apparently they are on the verge of) the remaining teams will have to build the stadiums with their own money. And Bud said it couldn't be done.

I think asking for help with the infrastructure is something that can be considered legitimate. To ask for the entire cost of the stadium is obscene. As bad as the Boeing, Sears and other boondoggles that have passed locally are, government did not pay for an entire factory or office complex. The real estate tax and other breaks were large enough.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/wires/02/08/2010.ap.bbn.nationals.ballpark.0516/

I guess we will have to wait a few days or weeks to find out whether $610 million is good enough for Selig or if MLB will demand more than the obscene amount they already have secured.

DC Sox Fan
02-08-2006, 07:23 PM
Is it right to say that they don't deserve a team because they can't find an owner to pay for the entire park itself?


This was one of the biggest BS moves MLB made. Ownership groups... LOCAL ownership groups offered to pay some/half/most/all (varying amounts) of ballpark construction, but MLB WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO because it would decrease the value of their cash cow Nats. This seriously happened. MLB told hopeful ownership groups to shut up when they stepped up to make these offers. That I have a serious problem with.

MLB makes out like a bandit in this one, but the DC Council did end up saving some face.

Flight #24
02-08-2006, 11:45 PM
The St. Louis Cardinals funded most of their stadium.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/000324.html

Even though they wanted more public funding initially.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/26795p-25448c.html

Cities are starting to reject the outright lies of the proponents of these stadiums. Corporate welfare is the antithesis of free markets.



Gee - you mean a team that's consistently at the top in attendance even when the team struggles for an extended stretch can find more money to self-fund something than one that doesn't? Stop the presses!!!

Some cities are rejecting the stadium theory. Some are not. Las Vegas being one, heck - even Minnesota supposedly has the votes to get a stadium bill passed and it's the governor who's resisting. Guess those legislators just don't care for their jobs, huh?

You raise a nice theory, but I'd bet 10 years from now we're seeing much of the same thing.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-09-2006, 12:29 AM
Gee - you mean a team that's consistently at the top in attendance even when the team struggles for an extended stretch can find more money to self-fund something than one that doesn't? Stop the presses!!!

Some cities are rejecting the stadium theory. Some are not. Las Vegas being one, heck - even Minnesota supposedly has the votes to get a stadium bill passed and it's the governor who's resisting. Guess those legislators just don't care for their jobs, huh?

You raise a nice theory, but I'd bet 10 years from now we're seeing much of the same thing.

MLB still hasn't signed the new and $76 mil increased deal. Knowing Selig's track record there is plenty of time to **** this up and he is just the man to do it.

DC supposedly had the votes in December. You cannot assume a vote will be until it is taken, especially when the public is against this. What you can assume is any referendum will be rejected which is why they are trying to pass this without taxpayer approval since the polls show overwhelming rejection of these proposals even though the "no" side is unfunded.

Then again we may not have baseball in 2007, let alone ten years from now. But new and improved undetectable steroids can bail us out yet again and players and owners can continue to lie to congress as they have the past decade - what a great plan!

Flight #24
02-09-2006, 12:55 AM
MLB still hasn't signed the new and $76 mil increased deal. Knowing Selig's track record there is plenty of time to **** this up and he is just the man to do it.

DC supposedly had the votes in December. You cannot assume a vote will be until it is taken, especially when the public is against this. What you can assume is any referendum will be rejected which is why they are trying to pass this without taxpayer approval since the polls show overwhelming rejection of these proposals even though the "no" side is unfunded.



Actually, that's true of most referenda. It's generally one of the least successful ways of getting ANYTHING approved, and is in fact the surest way of getting anything killed.

As for the MLB signing....since the lease was just approved (literally - it happened Wed.) by the council, it's not surprising at all that MLB has been holding off on the deal. Given the history and the fact that as you pointed out in a prior post, no deal is final until approved - can you blame them?

This deal has been hindered significantly because the DC local government has mismanaged the project and is asking for baseball to increase it's commitment to help cover it. Baseball did not design the stadium, the city did. Baseball is not managing the construction, the city is. Baseball will not own the stadium, the city will. But when a project completely run by the city goes over, baseball's expected to kick in some extra bucks over the preexisting arrangement? I'd like my company to increase my pay a bit because I lost more $$$ than expected in a Vegas vacation last month too!

SouthSide_HitMen
02-09-2006, 01:14 AM
This deal has been hindered significantly because the DC local government has mismanaged the project and is asking for baseball to increase it's commitment to help cover it. Baseball did not design the stadium, the city did. Baseball is not managing the construction, the city is. Baseball will not own the stadium, the city will. But when a project completely run by the city goes over, baseball's expected to kick in some extra bucks over the preexisting arrangement? I'd like my company to increase my pay a bit because I lost more $$$ than expected in a Vegas vacation last month too!

The entire project is disgusting. For baseball to bitch about cost overruns on a project that benefits them to the tune of $535 million (no scratch that $611 million) is beyond obscene. The real cost will be in the neighborhood of $750 million and MLB wanted to lowball the figure and have DC eat it.

There is no sense discussing this further. I disagree with this and you obviously are happy with it.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

This calls for a Full Metal Jacket moment.


They paid for it, you eat it.

http://army4036.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/r_lee_ermey_full_metal.jpg

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman address MLB.

http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/films/fmj/audio/jlydonut.wav

Semper Fidelis

Ol' No. 2
02-09-2006, 09:00 AM
This was one of the biggest BS moves MLB made. Ownership groups... LOCAL ownership groups offered to pay some/half/most/all (varying amounts) of ballpark construction, but MLB WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO because it would decrease the value of their cash cow Nats. This seriously happened. MLB told hopeful ownership groups to shut up when they stepped up to make these offers. That I have a serious problem with.

MLB makes out like a bandit in this one, but the DC Council did end up saving some face.This is precisely what this is all about. The more money DC puts up, the bigger the profit the owners get on their "investment". Call it a bribe. Call it extortion. Call it whatever you want. Bottom line is that hundreds of millions of dollars are passing from taxpayers to MLB owners to induce them to do what they would have done anyway if cities would just stop playing this game.

What nobody's mentioned in all this is that it distorts the entire process of deciding where you place a team. Are they going to where they have the best chance of being successful or to where they get the biggest bribe? You'd like to think they're one and the same, but if that's true, why the need for the bribe?

Flight #24
02-09-2006, 09:45 AM
The entire project is disgusting. For baseball to bitch about cost overruns on a project that benefits them to the tune of $535 million (no scratch that $611 million) is beyond obscene. The real cost will be in the neighborhood of $750 million and MLB wanted to lowball the figure and have DC eat it.




Actually, the "bitching" is being done by DC. As I noted - it's their project. Their design, their management. Their politically motivated redesigns (including late concerns about the degree of view of the city from the seats, etc.). Which is all adding to the cost. Baseball's not saying a thing - except when the city comes in saying "Hey - our construction project is coming in over budget because of our mismanagement, can you kick in some $$$?".

But I'm sure that's all baseball's fault somehow because they're the richest guys in the room.....

gowhitesox
02-09-2006, 11:57 AM
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060207&content_id=1308320&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was

A few hours after the D.C. city council rejected the idea, they approved a stadium deal. Now it is up to major league baseball.

itsnotrequired
02-09-2006, 11:59 AM
DC Sports and Entertainment Committee Chairman Mark Tuohey was on yesterday's (2/8/06) MLB Radio Daily podcast talking about the new deal. Interesting to listen to but nothing too groundbreaking is said.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/radio/index.jsp