Nationals future in D.C. already in doubt

[Bored 0]

I'm loving this. Awwwww poor little Bud might have to find another city to extort.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec14.html

 

Council Approves Altered Stadium Deal

Requirement for 50% Private Financing Leaves Team's D.C. Future in Question

 

By David Nakamura

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A01

 

The D.C. Council approved legislation late last night that dramatically restructures the city's deal with Major League Baseball by requiring that private financing cover half the cost of a new stadium.

 

Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) shocked her colleagues after 11 hours of debate on a stadium package by offering the private financing amendment about 10 p.m., saying she was disappointed by recent talks with Major League Baseball.

 

The bill, which was approved on a 7 to 6 vote, gives Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) until June to find the required private financing plan. If that plan is not certified by Natwar M. Gandhi, the city's chief financial officer, and approved by the council, the stadium bill would lapse.

 

"My basic belief is that there are too many public dollars going into this," Cropp said. "This will make the mayor seek private dollars more than anything else. I don't know how Major League Baseball will react."

 

Williams and other baseball supporters believed Cropp was nearing a compromise with baseball officials that would keep in place the key terms of the mayor's pact to use public funding. Williams was furious after the amendment was approved and stormed out of the chambers as Cropp's council allies spoke in favor of her action.

 

Cropp said the council could reconsider the legislation next week if baseball officials show they are willing to seriously renegotiate some terms of the agreement.

 

But the move opens another threat to the stadium: Three new council members, all of whom oppose using public funds for a stadium, take office next month.

 

Over the past two weeks, as Cropp pressed for better terms, baseball officials consistently emphasized that they had a deal with the city. That agreement, negotiated by the city, the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission and Major League Baseball, requires that the city pay for the baseball stadium.

 

For baseball, the two-year search for a permanent home for the former Montreal Expos seemed on the verge of collapse last night. Baseball officials had privately expressed concern that the city would try to renegotiate once they made a commitment to Washington. That concern became a reality last night, although baseball did not officially weigh in on the council's decision.

 

"We're not going to comment piecemeal on these amendments," Robert A. DuPuy, president of Major League Baseball, said. He said baseball officials will comment after "we've had time to review it and talk it over with the commissioner."

 

Under the pact Williams negotiated with baseball officials in September, a stadium along the Anacostia River in Southeast, estimated to cost $279 million, would be funded largely through a gross receipts tax on businesses. The deal's total price tag has been estimated by mayoral aides at $440 million, but Gandhi put it at $530 million and D.C. Auditor Deborah K. Nichols said $584 million.

 

Baseball officials had given the city until Dec. 31 to pass the financing legislation. The Washington Nationals are to begin next season at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium.

 

"We guaranteed that a baseball stadium would get built," said Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), the council's most ardent stadium supporter. "That guarantee is essential for Major League Baseball, because they want to sell the team. . . . Without that guarantee, I don't see baseball staying here."

 

He added: "Now she has stuck a poker in their eye. . . . The chairman laid down the gauntlet and said, 'Baseball needs to negotiate with us and do what I want.' We've given them the opportunity to leave, which wasn't there before."

 

Cropp told her council colleagues that if they did not approve her amendment, she would vote against the stadium agreement. The council then approved her amendment by a vote of 10 to 3.

 

Williams left the John A. Wilson Building without commenting on Cropp's actions and before the council voted on the legislation. A half-dozen police officers formed a cordon to shield him from reporters as he left the council chamber. The officers scuffled briefly with reporters as they tried to follow the mayor into a public hallway leading to his offices.

 

Reporters ultimately cornered the mayor in an elevator and demanded to know why he had taken the unusual step of enlisting the police as reporters tried to question him.

 

"I don't want to talk to anybody, okay?" Williams said.

 

City Administrator Robert C. Bobb said Cropp's move came as a total shock. "I think it is real bad," he said. "The question is whether it violates the stadium agreement. . . . I think we have given them an opportunity to walk."

 

The council narrowly gave preliminary approval to the financing legislation two weeks ago, voting 6 to 4 in favor of the stadium, with three members, including Cropp, abstaining. Yesterday, voting in favor of the final legislation were Cropp, Harold Brazil (D-At Large), Evans, Vincent B. Orange Sr. (D-Ward 5), Sharon Ambrose (D-Ward 6), Kevin P. Chavous (D-Ward 7) and Sandy Allen (D-Ward 8).

 

Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), David A. Catania (I-At Large), Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3) and Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4) voted against the bill.

 

If the city and Major League Baseball follow through on the deal, baseball will return to Washington 33 years after the Senators left for Texas. Washington would join 27 other cities with a baseball franchise and add a fifth professional team to go with the Wizards, the Mystics, the Capitals and D.C. United. The Redskins play in Landover.

 

As the council debated the stadium package during the past month, Major League Baseball began accepting preliminary bids from groups that are interested in owning the team. The estimated $18.5 million renovation of RFK, which will house the team for three seasons, has proceeded slowly as officials waited for the council to act. RFK needs to be ready for the first home game April 14 against the Arizona Diamondbacks.

 

The council chambers were packed yesterday, with supporters of the stadium wearing red Nationals hats and white T-shirts while opponents wore light blue caps and shirts bearing the words: "No Stadium Giveaway." Williams and his top aides watched the proceedings at times from the front row.

 

Even before the council began debating the bill, both sides cheered and booed as council members entered the chambers. Brazil entered wearing a Nationals cap and waving a sign reading: "D.C. Baseball '05." At one point, a man began loudly cursing members who supported the stadium. Police escorted him out of the building.

 

Supporters of the stadium argued that if the city did not offer to fund it, baseball owners would simply move the team to another city.

 

"If you want baseball in Washington, you have to support this," Evans said. "Baseball owners want the most money. They don't care about whether they put it in Washington or not. If they did, they would have put it here a long time ago."

 

But council members who objected to the stadium package continued to rail against it.

 

"Why can't the owners pay for this themselves?" asked Fenty. "That's the one question no one has been able to answer. . . . We cannot in good conscience build a stadium, with all the problems we have in the District of Columbia. Where are the priorities of the government?"

 

The debate over building a stadium with public money has raged since Williams unveiled the details of his agreement with Major League Baseball in September. Under the pact, the stadium would be funded mostly by a gross receipts tax on the city's biggest businesses, as well as a tax on concessions and an annual rent payment by the team.

 

Some business leaders objected to the amount of the taxes, while civic activists protested that public money would be better spent on other pressing needs, such as schools, libraries, health care, recreation centers and affordable housing.

 

Williams added a community investment package to his legislation to appease some of the neighborhood activists. His aides proposed creating a special tax district around the stadium in which tax revenue from businesses would go toward funding bonds of as much as $450 million for neighborhood investment.

 

Also, council members persuaded the mayor to agree to an investment of $45 million for libraries and $30 million for computers for students and other items. But the library money required an increase in the business taxes, and Cropp, responding to concerns from business leaders, persuaded her colleagues to strip the $75 million from the legislation. That left only the special tax district, which some economists say is unfeasible because the stadium will not lure enough businesses to the area.

 

Cropp surprised Williams in early November by delaying a first council vote on the stadium deal, saying she feared the potential rising costs of the project and the liability of the city to pay for such overruns.

 

She suggested a number of ideas, including building adjacent to RFK, which was rejected, and setting up a formal process for seeking private funds, which the council adopted in an amendment to the legislation.

 

Cropp also insisted that Williams reopen talks with Major League Baseball on portions of the stadium agreement. Last week and early this week, mayoral aides and members of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission discussed ideas with baseball leaders.

 

On Monday, baseball officials agreed to some changes to the stadium deal in a letter to the city. Among those were allowing the city to use the stadium for 18 days a year, instead of 12, and providing additional free tickets for District youths.

 

The letter also said that baseball will give $100,000 to renovate a community center in Ward 8 and set up a foundation to help provide money for more neighborhood investments. Also included in the letter were discussions of ways to limit the amount of damages the District would have to pay if the new stadium were not completed by March 2008.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

It's high time Bud and his cronies learned that taxpayers are no longer easily swindled. D.C. is willing to pay half the cost of a new stadium. Terrific. If I were MLB, I would take the deal.

[sfaJack 0]

MLB better think long and hard about taking this deal, if only for the fact that they don't have too many other choices when it comes to relocation.

[2GOLD 0]

They already have another site if they need it.

Las Vegas.

 

You know, the city they are using to try to rip money out of the people of Florida.

 

I find this hilarious since the city told them they were not going to pay for a new stadium a long time back. DC doesn't need baseball, they have the Orioles. So them giving 50% should be viewed as a damn gift by Bud cause he's not going to get another cent more out of them.

 

And if he tries, the city will just say, "ok bye".

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I'd be in favor of putting the screws to MLB over this (as opposed to McCain's steroid-related push)

[cabbageboy 0]

It would be such a huge fiasco if they had to relocate after already announcing the DC move that they HAVE to get a deal done. I don't see where there's any other choice. It'd be a PR nightmare.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Suddenly the crooked D.C. city council gives a rat ass about spending the taxpayers money. Guess, MLB didn't grease the palms enough.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Move them back to Montreal.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Creating a team and its identity and then moving them before they play a single game? What is this, the WHA?

[nogoodnick 0]

Does Las Vegas have a stadium right now?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Las Vegas has a 9,000 seat stadium for minor league AAA Baseball. In fact, they use it for the Home Run Challenge that seems to air every year around Spring Training.

[Dogbert 0]

I think we're all missing the most important detail here.

 

The woman's name is Linda W. Cropp.

 

No matter what happens, this woman will still have a funny name.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Here's an...interesting article on the new possibility that could be revived as a part of this:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1947231

 

Never has nothing been, potentially, so valuable.

 

The possible collapse of Major League Baseball's plan to move the Montreal Expos to Washington, and then sell the franchise to the highest bidder, might have actually been the best financial move for the sport.

 

If the owners of the 29 teams don't sell the team at all and absorb losses for another two seasons, they would likely make more from contracting it, sports industry insiders say.

 

The league has the right to eliminate two teams after the 2006 season, and per the current collective bargaining agreement, the Major League Baseball Players' Association has given up its right to contest the unilateral move.

 

"In the long term, holding onto the team and then contracting the team and another team will be better for the 28 clubs," said Marc Ganis, president of SportsCorp Ltd., a sports consulting firm.

 

Major League Baseball purchased the Expos from current Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria and his partners for $120 million in February. Since then, they have lost tens of millions of dollars on the team, which was seen as an investment given that MLB had every intention of selling the franchise in a new city for greater financial gain.

 

If MLB would have sold the collectively owned Expos for $350 million before the season, it likely would have made a profit of approximately $150 million, factoring in the purchase price and the estimated losses endured over three seasons. But agreeing to continue to lose more over the next two years seems like a better long-term financial solution, Ganis said.

 

By contracting the franchise, the teams could pocket $50 million a year in revenue sharing and money from the television contract that would no longer go to the contracted team.

 

They could then use that money to finance buying out the owner of a second team, while continuing to keep the additional revenue-sharing dollars that would have gone to both teams in perpetuity, said one sports investment banker, who has helped structure the financing of professional baseball teams.

 

"Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good," he said. "If the Washington, D.C., deal falling through could have possibly been planned, I would have said it was a brilliant strategy."

 

In order to keep the team for two years, Major League Baseball would obviously have to find someplace for it to play. But no matter which city is its home, odds are attendance wouldn't be much worse than it was in Montreal and in their home-away-from-home in San Juan last year, where average attendance was 9,300 per game.

 

Contraction would also help the teams artificially lower the salaries heading into a new collective bargaining agreement in 2007. With two fewer teams, there will be more talent to select and less demand for it.

[The Czech Republic 0]

bwahahahaha

 

Does anyone find it ironic that Jeff Loria is about to fuck over another city? Maybe we should contract the Marlins too, or rather, merge them with the Devil Rays.

[iggymcfly 0]

Contract the Brewers. Selig should be able to get that deal done, and having 30 teams is more than are necessary anyway. Plus, that would balance the leagues 14 to 14, making it so that NL teams don't have a tougher road to the World Series every year.

[Vern Gagne 0]

On a related note. The House speaker says a Twins and Gopher Football stadium financing bill are likely to pass the next legilastion session. We've heard this before, but it's worth mentioning.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Contract the Brewers. Selig should be able to get that deal done

That's cute.`

[Precious Roy 0]

Just wondering, what happens to the Nationals players if they actually get contracted? Obviously there would be a suplemental draft of some sort, but what about the guys like Guzman and Castilla that they just signed to big contracts? Would those deals be binding?

[Bored 0]

I think the Diamondbacks are in the process of contracting themselves.

 

If there ever is contraction then yes there would some sort of dispersal draft for those players.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Contract the Marlins. I know there are worst teams on the field, but it gets rid of Loria and Marlins fans can just drive to Tampa.

[geniusMoment 0]

Contract the Marlins, Tampa Bay, The Nationals and The Brewers.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Wrong Florida team. Contract the Devil Rays, instead of the team that has two World Series championships and longer tenure in the league. That way, you kill off two markets with intra-league competition (Florida and Baltimore/DC).

[Vern Gagne 0]

Why did the city council, wait this long. MLB made it clear, 100% government financing or no deal. Like it or not, they made that very clear. The city council should of said, they wouldn't agree to this deal when the move was announced. Instead they wait 10 days before the deal expires.

[treble 0]

I love this. I feel sorry for the players who are still caught up in all this bullshit, but it looks SO good on Selig and company.

[Guest LooneyTune]

The Expos/Nationals are going to turn into the mooching Uncle everyone has. Go from city to city until the place can't stand them anymore.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Wrong Florida team. Contract the Devil Rays, instead of the team that has two World Series championships and longer tenure in the league. That way, you kill off two markets with intra-league competition (Florida and Baltimore/DC).

If you contract the D-Rays then Loria will still be around. The whole point of my plan is to run him out of the league.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It's only fitting that Bud Sellig can't even get moving a team right.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The only person who would miss the D-Rays if they were contracted:

 

 

Personally, I figured that Peter Angelos would be more of a problem that the DC Council but at least maybe PA will get his wish without really having to be the bad guy.

 

I have a feeling that they'll still play at RFK but instead of playing in DC in 4 years they'll be playing in Northern VA. If you'll remember, the Northern VA group to bring a baseball team there had proposed a stadium that would be fully funded without taxpayer dollars so the whole issue at hand currently with DC wouldn't be an issue there.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Wrong Florida team. Contract the Devil Rays, instead of the team that has two World Series championships and longer tenure in the league. That way, you kill off two markets with intra-league competition (Florida and Baltimore/DC).

If the Marlins and Miami can't get off their asses to make a ballpark that actually DOESN'T suck more than Tropicana Field, and one that actually brings revenue to the Fish and not Fins, then fuck em.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Why did the city council, wait this long. MLB made it clear, 100% government financing or no deal. Like it or not, they made that very clear. The city council should of said, they wouldn't agree to this deal when the move was announced. Instead they wait 10 days before the deal expires.

The problem is that the taxpayers of Washington D.C. do not want to spend public money on a new stadium. In recent elections, three pro-stadium councilmembers were voted out in favor of three anti-stadium proponents. That is why there is such a sense of urgency on the part of MLB, regarding the December 31st deadline. Once the new councilmembers take office, there will be NO stadium deal of any kind. It's toast. MLB realizes that, but they are still gung ho on the idea that taxpayers will hand them a new stadium on a silver platter.

 

The other unspoken aspect of this deal is the true cost. Media outlets report that the D.C. council wants private investors to pay for half of the construction costs of the new stadium. Note the construction costs. The deal requires approximately $140 Million in private investment. The entire stadium will cost around $584 Million. So in effect, the city of Washington is willing to pay 75% of the cost of a new stadium.

 

New stadiums do very little to spur economic development. The effects of new stadiums in Cleveland and Milwaukee have been negligable at best. The main benefit a new stadium provides is that fans are given the opportunity to pay exorbitant prices to watch Major League Baseball, with the profits going to the owner who did not have to pay a cent to build the facility.

 

Right now, MLB's most potent threat involves moving the team to Northern Virginia. "If you don't pay, we'll move the team ten miles." It's a hell of the threat. It is a wonder D.C. councilmembers manage to hold in the helpless laughter. Bottom line is, this is a fair deal for Major League Baseball. Selig and his cronies reached a deal with Major Williams. Big whoop. A deal reached without the consent or approval of the city is not a deal. It is simply an idea approved by two people who have no regard for the opinions of the citizens of Washington.