D-Backs want out....

[DHonks]

...of Chase Field. Thought this was interesting. Not a great place to watch games, but still a decent park

 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/03/24/arizona-diamondbacks-could-leave-chase-field/82228788/

[jerichoholicninja]

I can't see the team getting any public support from this. Like I posted in the Maryvale thread, people have had enough of these teams forcing the public to pay for their stadiums. From the story it looks like the County isn't holding up their end of the deal, which I don't blame the Dbacks for being upset over, but to threaten to leave a non-dump of a building that was (I'm guessing) mostly funded by taxpayers is a real bush move. Not to get political, but if they want a nicer stadium they should spend their own money and not go begging for government handouts.

[MrTPlush]

They aren't going anywhere so the better suck it up.

[GAME05]

Chase Field is only 18 years old. Good luck with that, Diamondbacks.

[JohnBriggs12]

Chase Field is only 18 years old. Good luck with that, Diamondbacks.

 

Well, how old is Turner Field? It was built for the 1996 Olympics. Not saying anything will happen but the days when stadiums lasted 3 or more generations is over. Rams left St. Louis because the owner thought the Edwin Jones dome was no longer up to standards and its barely over 20 years old.

 

Will Miller Park still be around in 2050? It may, but it'll be one of the older stadiums if it is.

[Outlander]

I think Miller Park sticks around a while because of the retractable roof.

[pitchleague]

The D-Backs are crazy. That stadium is still fine and in workable condition. If they want to keep it "state of the art" (which, in my opinion, is ludicrous since it's still pretty state-of-the-art) then they need to plunk down the money themselves. This won't get past the voters in Arizona. I'd make other comments but they would toe the edge of Arizona politics.

[jjgott]

Where are the going to go, Montreal? Vegas?

[MrTPlush]

Where are the going to go, Montreal? Vegas?

 

I think they want to move in the burbs similar to what the Braves are doing.

[MrTPlush]

Chase Field is only 18 years old. Good luck with that, Diamondbacks.

 

Well, how old is Turner Field? It was built for the 1996 Olympics. Not saying anything will happen but the days when stadiums lasted 3 or more generations is over. Rams left St. Louis because the owner thought the Edwin Jones dome was no longer up to standards and its barely over 20 years old.

 

Will Miller Park still be around in 2050? It may, but it'll be one of the older stadiums if it is.

 

Turner field wasn't meant for baseball and just isn't really all that great of a set up. It was kind of thrown on them and they want their own stadium built for their needs. A lot of these stadiums that are having short life's were just built poorly without the future in mind. However, since the turn of the century there has been more focus on sustainability in the long run.

 

I don't think they will ever last 75+ years like some used to, but 50 years is realistic. The biggest limiter in the future will be owners pressuring cities into building new stadiums vs. truly needing one.

[Lee16]

This has been huge news all day here in Arizona and in all the interviews/blogs/tweets I have seen, there is NO support for the D-backs on this, NONE. If they do somehow litigate their way out of this lease, the Brewers can grab Chase Field for their spring training home and leave Maryvale.

[danzig6767]

 

I don't think they will ever last 75+ years like some used to, but 50 years is realistic. The biggest limiter in the future will be owners pressuring cities into building new stadiums vs. truly needing one.

What it takes for cities to stop being held hostage by owners in all pro sports is simply to say no more to these ridiculous owners and leagues.

 

There are a pretty limited number of realistic options left for teams in the NFL, NBA, and MLB to move to. So if every city said no more, build your own stadium or arena, we'd find out that in most cases the threat was more bluff than reality of moving. Granted, no city wants to be the one who actually loses their sports team, but it's not as if there are a bunch of realistic relocation options for each league.

 

Take the NBA. There is an obvious reason why they haven't offered Seattle an expansion franchise and they tried so hard to get new arenas built in Sacramento/Milwaukee vs getting either to sell to a bigger Seattle market. The NBA instead badly wants to keep Seattle twisting in the wind so as they can keep using Seattle as a gun to the head of future cities with an owner claiming they just have to have taxpayers build them a new arena. After Seattle, relocation options get slim.

 

Because nearly every city and/or state ends up caving though in all three pro sports, it just emboldens other owners to claim they also need hundreds of millions from taxpayers. They pull this crap even though these leagues are swimming in money like never seen before. In an economy where mainly just the super rich are benefiting, like sports owners are, it takes major sized balls to cry poor and still keep asking for hundreds of millions from taxpayers to build new stadiums/arenas simply because in many cases, these owners feel their current stadium or arena no longer makes them enough money.

 

Hopefully more and more cities say no and these leagues reach a point where their threats are shown to be more of a bluff which was called.

[danzig6767]

Forgot to add this for irony sake.

 

Ken Kendrick the D-Backs owner, he sits on the board of the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank which espouses limited government, except clearly though when hundreds of millions of government dollars would flood into his already wealthy pockets. No surprise how often people like him are complete and utter hypocrites.

[jerichoholicninja]

This has been huge news all day here in Arizona and in all the interviews/blogs/tweets I have seen, there is NO support for the D-backs on this, NONE. If they do somehow litigate their way out of this lease, the Brewers can grab Chase Field for their spring training home and leave Maryvale.

 

I came here to post that. There's a perfectly functioning stadium in Montreal for the DBacks to use if they don't want to play in Chase Field.

[MrTPlush]

You know it is easy to call a bluff until the team gets together relocation proposals and plans. If you are the city are you really going to say "Try Me" is they threaten to leave and say no? These sports teams are huge to local communities bringing in a lot of money and many great jobs.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking for money to build a stadium. This isn't different from bringing in other businesses. You always see cities help businesses out to come to their city. However I have a hard time with what the D Backs are trying to do. They have a perfectly good stadium and are trying to get over $100mil? That I just can't agree with.

 

Yes these owners are swimming in money, but this is exactly how businesses work. These teams can leave and go to another city if they want. If you want them you have to pay up to keep them around.

[1992casey]

This doesn't appear to be as simple as "holding taxpayers hostage" or whatever. From what I can tell, the $187 million is supposed to be the money that the district is contractually obligated to provide to take care of maintenance and repairs for the next twelve years.

 

This money is supposed to be coming in from rentals from non-baseball events. According to the D'backs lease with the district, the district is in charge of booking these events. Apparently, in 18 years, $11 million has been raised from non-baseball events.

 

It also appears that the D'backs are perfectly happy to spend their own money on a new stadium or to do a substantial renovation (refit) of Chase. It's just that they aren't allowed to explore the option of a new facility for eight years, and there's nothing they can do about Chase under the current lease.

[danzig6767]

You know it is easy to call a bluff until the team gets together relocation proposals and plans. If you are the city are you really going to say "Try Me" is they threaten to leave and say no? These sports teams are huge to local communities bringing in a lot of money and many great jobs.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking for money to build a stadium. This isn't different from bringing in other businesses. You always see cities help businesses out to come to their city. However I have a hard time with what the D Backs are trying to do. They have a perfectly good stadium and are trying to get over $100mil? That I just can't agree with.

 

Yes these owners are swimming in money, but this is exactly how businesses work. These teams can leave and go to another city if they want. If you want them you have to pay up to keep them around.

Many great jobs? How many everyday taxpayers funding hundreds of millions in tax dollars land a great job at a stadium or basketball arena?

 

This isn't some auto or whatever plant with say 500 to 1000 people or more getting good pay and benefits on a full time job. Most people working inside a stadium or basketball arena are selling concessions, collecting money in the parking lot, scanning tickets, an usher, etc at relatively low pay. They are also even less than a typical part time job. Outside of extra playoff games, it's only 81 games in baseball, 41 in basketball, and 10 in football including two preseason games.

 

Plus, most of the time when states or cities try to lure away a business, it's via some tax breaks, not spending 500 million dollars building them a state of the art new facility, and better jobs come with it than seasonal part time jobs pouring beer and scanning tickets.

 

I fully get that there is also some emotional aspect to sports teams and the sports fans in those cities/states which gets factored in. It just really bothers me at the gall of so many of these very rich sports owners today and their swimming in billions leagues when they ask for new stadiums or arenas, especially given the financial times which so many citizens and cities face. So incredibly tone deaf. Even worse when they try holding a city hostage over a building which isn't falling apart, it's just not making them enough millions compared to fellow owners who more recently blackmailed the city they play in.

 

Jealousy sets in and they think, i want my new free toy also. Out comes the blackmail gun. Rinse and repeat.

[RobDeer 45]

I think an argument can be made that a pro sports team creates many other jobs outside of the organization. Hotels, restaurants, bars, security, tourism.... all of that stuff. Do I agree with them holding taxpayers hostage, no. Especially when they just had a new stadium built in the not too distant past. There should almost be a contract when a new stadium is built, that the team can not leave, or ask for taxpayer dollars for a new stadium for X amount of years.

[dlk9s]

Turner field wasn't meant for baseball and just isn't really all that great of a set up. It was kind of thrown on them and they want their own stadium built for their needs.

 

???

 

Turner Field is a really nice stadium. Yes, it was built for the Olympics, but it was built with the plan to convert it to a baseball stadium. And that's what it is: a baseball stadium. It's not a football stadium with a baseball field on it or anything like that. It's a really good baseball stadium. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it when it comes to the fan experience or usefulness as far as hosting baseball games goes. I have read that there are some construction quality issues that need fixing, but as far as the "setup" for baseball, it's great.

 

The problem with the stadium for the Braves is the location. It's in a crap area that has never been developed properly, so there is no reason at all to hang out in the surrounding neighborhoods before or after the game. And, of course, the people with money live in the northern suburbs, so the Braves wanted to build a stadium closer to them.

 

I live up in those northern suburbs and it's pretty cool seeing the stadium being built so nearby. I have never minding driving down to Turner Field - it's pretty easy if you ask me - but having the stadium be up here (literally walking distance from my wife's office and our old apartment) is fun. Plus, unlike Turner Field, the new stadium will have all sorts of stuff built up around it.

[reillymcshane]

If a team was required to put away $10M a year into a stadium fund, at 5-6% interest, you would have around $500M in 25 years. Perhaps that's not enough to build a modern stadium (especially in 25 years), but it's a great start.

 

I know this will never happen, because this means taking money out of the players and owners pockets, and we want to spend now because it might help us win, but it's how I wish things were done.

[1992casey]

Turner Field was value engineered. In order to save costs up front, it wasn’t built for a long lifespan. When a structure is value engineered, a “company will typically use the least expensive components that satisfy the product's lifetime projections.”

 

Here’s the letter written by the D’backs (pdf).

 

It’s pretty apparent that the situation in Phoenix is a lot more complex than whether or not taxpayers should be funding stadiums. A lot of it is about existing agreements, contracts that have already been signed, accusations of failure to follow through, etc.

 

While the D’backs management hasn’t necessarily exuded competence over the years, it seems to me that they’re making a pretty good case that the Maricopa County Stadium District has been incompetent and has failed to follow through with commitments.

 

That doesn’t mean that every issue that the team raises is valid. For example, I don’t buy into the concern that their stadium will be the 4th oldest in the National League when the new Atlanta facility opens. So what. Rankings mean little, especially when so many facilities were built in the same approximate time period. Also, the D’backs feel entitled to a rent reduction because they paid for cost overruns. To me, they signed the contracts, and they have to live with them.

 

But if the D’Backs are required to live up to their end of the deal, the same should apply to the Stadium District. If the District is supposed to be raising funds for stadium upkeep, then that’s what they ought to be doing.

 

According to this letter, income earned by the District is supposed to go toward stadium maintenance and repairs. This income would include rentals, investment earnings, tax receipts, etc. The D’backs state that the District has generated $91 million in 18 years: $62 million in rent paid by the team, $11 million for non-baseball event rentals, and $18 million “primarily from carry-over tax receipts and investment earnings.”

 

The $11 million from non-baseball events appears to be what’s most troublesome. The D’backs point out that MLB stadiums currently average $4.5 million annually from non-baseball events. $11 million divided by 18 years comes out to $611,000 annually.

 

Unlike most teams, the D’backs don’t have the power to rent out the stadium themselves. Instead, the District employs a booking manager to do it. The D’backs point out that there have been two stand-alone concerts in the history of the stadium and that 2016 was the first time that Chase hosted a bowl game since 2006. Also, the stadium has lost Motocross and Monster Truck, two of its “long-standing, highest revenue generating events.”

 

A lot is being made of “state of the art.” Chase may or may not be state of the art right now, but without improvements, I doubt that Chase or any other ballpark will be state of the art in eight to twelve years. The D’Backs bring it up to point out that the $187 million is for maintenance rather than keeping the facility “state of the art.”

 

At this point, I think the bottom line is that “teams holding taxpayers hostage” and “entitled multimillionaires” can be valid general arguments. But they’re also buzzwords that are so general that they really can’t really tell the story. The D’Backs bring up a lot of points worthy of discussion. Some are probably valid, and some are probably less so. To properly judge the situation, we really need to be examining the D’Backs letter along with an eventual response from the Maricopa County Stadium District.

[Thurston Fluff]

To properly judge the situation, we really need to be examining the D’Backs letter along with an eventual response from the Maricopa County Stadium District.

 

Bingo. So far we have one side of the story to go on and broad assumptions on how these things generally work. I am sure we will soon see Maricopa County say they have kept their side of the bargain or that they aren't because the team hasn't kept up it's side of the bargain. It will be a huge mess that eventually gets hashed out in court. This is what happens when pubic money is spent on private businesses ventures.

 

This isn't some auto or whatever plant with say 500 to 1000 people or more getting good pay and benefits on a full time job. Most people working inside a stadium or basketball arena are selling concessions, collecting money in the parking lot, scanning tickets, an usher, etc at relatively low pay.

 

To be fair there are also a lot of support staff that are both full time and well paid. Scouts, maintenance workers, secretaries, sales, marketing, coaches and trainers all get paid and work more than the day of the game.

 

I think an argument can be made that a pro sports team creates many other jobs outside of the organization. Hotels, restaurants, bars, security, tourism.... all of that stuff.

 

That was one of the arguments for the Lambeau field renovations. What actually happened was they started hosting events themselves with their new space. Events that used to go to hotels, banquet halls, restaurants, bars and such. So those places paid special taxes to help Lambeau take away their business. I get that some of these places also benefit from having the tourist attraction but it isn't the huge boost it appears to be when you factor in these new stadiums also become competition for the places that helped fund their construction. Really I think it ends up being a push if not a small loss when you calculate in the tax hike for other places.

[ctmyers]

The Diamondbacks could feasibly move out to Scottsdale, near the new spring training facility and partner with the Salt River Indian community again. There is a ton of undeveloped land in that area and would be the most logical place to break ground for all parties if the District's lease were to be nullifed in court.

 

The wording of the document is pretty telling if you go through it. The end game is litigation in the hopes of negotiating a new deal somewhere else, rather than a plea for public funding. "Will soon be the fourth oldest stadium in the national league..." Ok, why disqualify half of the markets and use "soon" as a qualifier? To push the idea of an imminent, systematic problem that cannot be resolved in the short or long term.

[AZBrewCrew]

Kinda hard to justify spending all that money for a team that consistently averages under 25k in attendance. During the 2011 NLDS there were billboards around town advertising the "cheapest playoff tickets in MLB" (some as low as $7)

[StearnsFTW]

You know it is easy to call a bluff until the team gets together relocation proposals and plans. If you are the city are you really going to say "Try Me" is they threaten to leave and say no? These sports teams are huge to local communities bringing in a lot of money and many great jobs.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking for money to build a stadium. This isn't different from bringing in other businesses. You always see cities help businesses out to come to their city. However I have a hard time with what the D Backs are trying to do. They have a perfectly good stadium and are trying to get over $100mil? That I just can't agree with.

 

Yes these owners are swimming in money, but this is exactly how businesses work. These teams can leave and go to another city if they want. If you want them you have to pay up to keep them around.

Many great jobs? How many everyday taxpayers funding hundreds of millions in tax dollars land a great job at a stadium or basketball arena?

 

This isn't some auto or whatever plant with say 500 to 1000 people or more getting good pay and benefits on a full time job. Most people working inside a stadium or basketball arena are selling concessions, collecting money in the parking lot, scanning tickets, an usher, etc at relatively low pay. They are also even less than a typical part time job. Outside of extra playoff games, it's only 81 games in baseball, 41 in basketball, and 10 in football including two preseason games.

 

Plus, most of the time when states or cities try to lure away a business, it's via some tax breaks, not spending 500 million dollars building them a state of the art new facility, and better jobs come with it than seasonal part time jobs pouring beer and scanning tickets.

 

I fully get that there is also some emotional aspect to sports teams and the sports fans in those cities/states which gets factored in. It just really bothers me at the gall of so many of these very rich sports owners today and their swimming in billions leagues when they ask for new stadiums or arenas, especially given the financial times which so many citizens and cities face. So incredibly tone deaf. Even worse when they try holding a city hostage over a building which isn't falling apart, it's just not making them enough millions compared to fellow owners who more recently blackmailed the city they play in.

 

Jealousy sets in and they think, i want my new free toy also. Out comes the blackmail gun. Rinse and repeat.

 

I won't speak for him, but he may have meant many great jobs during construction.

 

I agree in general though, that taxpayers should not pay for ballparks/stadiums. At least not completely.