Florida senator calls Marlins terrorists...

[Mik 0]

The Florida Marlins, already hinting they might move to Las Vegas, say it will cost taxpayers another $60 million to keep the team in South Florida, the Palm Beach Post reported in Thursday's edition.

 

And the state's senate president is already bristling at the Marlins "terrorist" tactics.

 

In a letter to state House Speaker Allan Bense, Marlins president David Samson said not only does the team need a new stadium with a retractable roof because of rain delays and fan "discomfort," but the team's landlord will not renew the team's stadium lease, which expires in 2010.

 

"Our landlord has informed us that it will not, under any circumstances, extend or renew the current lease; thereby, giving the Marlins no place to play in South Florida after that time," Samson wrote in a Jan. 12 letter to Bense.

 

Bense told the Post on Wednesday that he has not studied the request, which comes a month after a much-publicized presentation by the team to Las Vegas regarding a possible move there.

 

"I want to look at it," Bense told the Post.

 

The Marlins, though, may have a bigger hurdle on the other side of the Capitol, where Senate President Tom Lee appeared less receptive.

 

"I thought that we already appropriated money to help them move to Vegas," he said. "I was very disappointed that they publicly announced the negotiations and discussions with Las Vegas, and I don't negotiate with terrorists."

 

The Post reported Samson wants $2 million a year for 30 years. He said that money would allow the team to borrow $30 million today and "close the current funding gap" toward a $360 million stadium. The city of Miami, Miami-Dade County and the Marlins also are picking up part of the tab, the Post reported.

 

"This entire transaction, and in fact the future of baseball in South Florida, hinges on securing a sales tax rebate from the state," Samson wrote.

 

Although Samson's letter describes the money as a "rebate," under the law, the money is actually a subsidy, not dependent on how much sales-tax revenue the new stadium generates.

 

In fact, Wayne Huizenga's Dolphins Stadium will continue to receive the $2 million a year it has been getting for the Marlins since 1993 for another 18 years -- whether the Marlins move to downtown Miami, Las Vegas or even, as was rumored two years ago, are eliminated as a franchise.

 

Current law prohibits a team from getting more than one subsidy. The new language Samson wants gets around that by reassigning the existing subsidy to the football Dolphins and letting the Marlins get the new subsidy.

 

Huizenga -- the original Marlins owner and the current owner of the Dolphins -- tried to get $2 million a year for the Dolphins in 1997, but the plan was defeated in the House on a floor vote.

 

At a recent news conference, Huizenga described the Marlins' possible departure as something the team brought up first, when it was owned by John Henry. Huizenga recently said the team's departure would allow him to stage other events and improve the stadium.

 

"They have informed us that they are leaving," Huizenga said. "We understand that they might stay until 2010, but that is not what I am hearing. I am hearing that they will be out before that."

 

Gov. Jeb Bush in 2000 rejected an attempt by the Marlins under Henry to build a new park using a tax on cruise ship passengers. Then, in 2001, a $240 million tax break for a new park died on the final day of the legislative session.

 

An attempt last year by the Marlins to get the $60 million subsidy also failed.

 

This guy is going to ruin everything - I know it. He probably hangs out with Zell Miller.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Good for him. It's about time someone stood up to Loria and Samson. Scumbags.

 

Seriously though, the Marlins need $2 Million a year? Maybe if they didn't waste $4 Million on Juan Encarnacion, they could afford it. Talk about penny pinching.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

It's also worth noting that this team that needs to borrow $30 Million can somehow afford to offer Carlos Delgado a $36 Million contract.

[sfaJack 0]

I really do not understand why teams can't build their own stadiums. It might be expensive, but that's part of the cost of doing business. Run a more efficient organization and the debt service doesn't have to be crippling to your operation.

 

What I also don't understand it why it HAS to be a retractable roof. Those roofs are 1) too expensive and 2) unnecessary. If you're so concerned about rainouts or fan comfort, just build a dome and be done with it. Rainouts and hot weather have been a part of baseball for 150 years; I think the game and its fans have survived just fine. I'd be interested to know if the Marlins have a significantly higher number of rainouts than other teams.

[nl5xsk1 0]

I think it's funny that everyone is ignoring the fact that he compared these guys to terrorists ... I don't remember any owner beheading an infidel or strapping suicide bombs to anyone. Whether you agree that the Marlins need a new stadium or not, using such a dumbass analogy shouldn't be overlooked.

[The Man in Blak 0]

I really do not understand why teams can't build their own stadiums. It might be expensive, but that's part of the cost of doing business.

Ah, but bringing a sports team to a city adds prestige and value to the community, which leads to more people moving to the city, which equals more dollars for the city.

 

I'm not saying that the city should foot the bill for the whole deal but, in principle, I think the city and the sports team should work together on a stadium deal.

[sfaJack 0]

I think it's funny that everyone is ignoring the fact that he compared these guys to terrorists ... I don't remember any owner beheading an infidel or strapping suicide bombs to anyone. Whether you agree that the Marlins need a new stadium or not, using such a dumbass analogy shouldn't be overlooked.

It's a stupid thing to say, but considering how many of these teams hold cities hostage and extort taxpayer dollars to pay for their playpens, I see where he's coming from. Terrorism isn't limited to just senseless executions and suicide attacks--it is more often used to coerce others into giving you what you want.

 

So while he shouldn't have used the term 'terrorists' to describe the Marlins, I think his point is valid.

[nl5xsk1 0]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess ... I hate, hate, hate when war analogies are used in sports, and this kind of falls into the same category. I see your point, but don't think it's wise to use a terrorism analogy at a time when terrorism is more real, and more widespread, than it's ever been

[sfaJack 0]

I really do not understand why teams can't build their own stadiums.  It might be expensive, but that's part of the cost of doing business.

Ah, but bringing a sports team to a city adds prestige and value to the community, which leads to more people moving to the city, which equals more dollars for the city.

 

I agree with this point, but I think it's overrated. Just looking here in Houston, the main reason given for building Minute Maid (and now Toyota Center) downtown was to revitalize the area and bring people back into the city. It's been 5 years since Minute Maid opened (and 8 since they broke ground), and it really hasn't happened. The only time downtown has been really bustling was the Super Bowl and (to a MUCH lesser extent) the All-Star Game last year. Problem is those events don't happen every year.

 

Traffic, parking, construction, and homeless bums hanging on every corner are still serious problems downtown and while you can probably blame most of that on poor city managment, the ballpark does nothing to solve them. Things like that, which are widely noted here blemishes on the city's reputation (and often cited by locals as reason they don't go downtown), are not offset by having a baseball team play 81 times a year. Perhaps the money Houston spent on Minute Maid would help in solving them...perhaps not.

 

I'm not saying that the city should foot the bill for the whole deal but, in principle, I think the city and the sports team should work together on a stadium deal.

They should work together to put the best possible stadium plan in place, but when push comes to shove, I just feel the team should pay for it. If the city wants to volunteer some money (or if voters approve), fine, but when teams use threats of moving to try and get their way, I have no sympathy for them.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

If they were terrorists, then strap some bombs to a few of them and let them run around in the current stadium. That outta save a few bucks on demolition costs...

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I really do not understand why teams can't build their own stadiums.  It might be expensive, but that's part of the cost of doing business.

Ah, but bringing a sports team to a city adds prestige and value to the community, which leads to more people moving to the city, which equals more dollars for the city.

 

I'm not saying that the city should foot the bill for the whole deal but, in principle, I think the city and the sports team should work together on a stadium deal.

The city and county have already agreed to their own funding deals. This is just involving the state. The Marlins do have other funding they've arranged.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

If they were terrorists, then strap some bombs to a few of them and let them run around in the current stadium. That outta save a few bucks on demolition costs...

 

The current stadium is the Miami Dolphins.Miami Hurricanes facility. It's converted to baseball for the Marlins.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

The Hurricanes still play in the Orange Bowl. The Orange Bowl bowl game, however, is played in Dolphins Stadium (no longer called Pro Player Park).

 

Also, it may be interesting to note that construction of Dolphins Stadium was (IIRC) entirely privately funded by Joe Robbie.

[Mik 0]

While I agree that they are being quite cheap with $2 M a year, they've already pledged hundreds of millions - they are just asking for a little bit of help from the state.

 

One more interesting point: They NEED a new stadium, as their lease with Dolphins stadium has been terminated and they will be forced to leave in 2010.

[The Czech Republic 0]

When was this name change? So now the Marlins play in Dolphins Stadium? Why not revert to Joe Robbie Stadium?

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Pro Player went out of business. It was renamed in early January (I think).

 

http://www.miamidolphins.com/pressbox/pres...?contentID=3690

 

Why "Dolphins Stadium"?

"The first of these initiatives is to immediately rename the stadium Dolphins Stadium. It's the home of a widely respected sports franchise, and the Dolphins tradition of excellence should be underlined by having the team name carried on one of the nation’s premier facilities. Further, the name Dolphins Stadium will not only reinforce the Dolphins brand locally, but will extend it nationally and internationally through the world-class events that are hosted there.

 

Interesting to note, there are upgrades/renovations planned in the neighborhood of $300-$425 million, all privately funded.

[starvenger 0]

I agree with this point, but I think it's overrated. Just looking here in Houston, the main reason given for building Minute Maid (and now Toyota Center) downtown was to revitalize the area and bring people back into the city. It's been 5 years since Minute Maid opened (and 8 since they broke ground), and it really hasn't happened. The only time downtown has been really bustling was the Super Bowl and (to a MUCH lesser extent) the All-Star Game last year. Problem is those events don't happen every year.

 

Traffic, parking, construction, and homeless bums hanging on every corner are still serious problems downtown and while you can probably blame most of that on poor city managment, the ballpark does nothing to solve them. Things like that, which are widely noted here blemishes on the city's reputation (and often cited by locals as reason they don't go downtown), are not offset by having a baseball team play 81 times a year. Perhaps the money Houston spent on Minute Maid would help in solving them...perhaps not.

I have to agree with you - it's been slow going rebuilding the downtown in Houston, possibly because of the seeming randomness of their rebuilding projects. They've done some nice stuff on the north end, and they've got some nice areas on Main, but the south end still has jack shit. Not to mention the vast amounts of jack shit around the Toyota Center.

 

Anyways, back to the Marlins. That idiot Loria still owns them, right?

[Mik 0]

I don't think Loria is an idiot.

 

He has no morals, he did what was right for him and ruined an entire city's sports franchise because of it - but he is anything but an idiot.

 

He spends his money wisely and ever since he became the owner payroll has increased by 20%. Speaking strictly as a fan of the Florida Marlins, he's been a terrific owner. Speaking as a fan of MLB, not so much.

[starvenger 0]

I don't think Loria is an idiot.

 

He has no morals, he did what was right for him and ruined an entire city's sports franchise because of it - but he is anything but an idiot.

You're right, he's not an idiot. He's an immoral douchebag.

[Guest sek69]

One point for the whole retractable roof thing, you can look at how the Pirates just moved into a new stadium a couple years ago yet it seems like they can't get more than two consecutive games played until June since almost all the April and most of the May games get rained out. Yeah they get rescheduled, but its a pain in the ass for all involved since you usually sit in the rain for 2 hours before they decide to call the game.

 

I think owners probably look at that and decide retractable roofs are the answer. Do I agree? No, but it's probably part of their thinking.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I'd agree. It's something the Vikings and Twins both want on any stadiums.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I think Miami is a city that could definitely benefit from a roof. Until it blows off.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Retractable roof means they can use real grass and actually play out in the open some of the time. I cant see why any city would build a fixed dome anymore.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Retractable roof means they can use real grass and actually play out in the open some of the time. I cant see why any city would build a fixed dome anymore.

Money.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Retractable roof means they can use real grass and actually play out in the open some of the time.  I cant see why any city would build a fixed dome anymore.

Money.

Then build an open stadium.