$900 million for 30,000 seats in Tampa

[MNBrew]

- From what I remember in the "Diff'rent Strokes" and "Facts of Life" days, Charlotte Rae's full name was Charlotte Rae Lubotsky, as in the Lubotsky Tires franchise that was well-known at that time (late '70s).

 

- Ybor City is the old Cuban part of Tampa. Cool area, very happening, lots of restaurants & clubs.

 

- More importantly, they NEED the Rays to be playing in Tampa, NOT St. Petersburg. Tampa is a very active, happening place. St. Pete's very quiet. I'd still prefer to see the ballpark hold 35k-40k-plus rather than 30k. That's a bit concerning.

[danzig6767]

I don't have an issue with public financing for a stadium. Milwaukee County Stadium and Miller Park were public projects.

 

I think the teams should have some skin in it, along with a commitment to stay at least as long as there is debt on the facility, but we are not "building facilities for rich owners" as much as we are building places for us to watch major league baseball.

 

If citizens of the Tampa/St. Pete area want a baseball facility, they can build one.

There should be a referendum though where citizens actually get to vote on whether they want to pay the hundreds of millions, and that goes for any pro sports facilities.

[fondybrewfan]

Milwaukee might be only 10-15 years away from the stadium being an issue again; I hope not but by that time Miller Park will be 30ish years old and that is probably old by today's standards. I like to think that since they have been doing so many updates annually that Miller Park can be around for 40 years, who knows.

[istanbultaye]

I would also hope Miller Park can stay in service for 40 years. One of the annoying things that has gone on with a lot of the past stadium deals is putting up stadiums and then just 15 years later they are already going back for more? Even 20 years is ridiculously short of a lifespan for a 9 digit plus construction project in my opinion.

[tmwiese55]

The positive right now is that going to MP now it still feels perfectly fine and not outdated. I don't see any reason they should have an issue anytime soon, see no reason it can't go another 15 years at least. Just keep small updates and don't let things fall into crappy condition that make parks look outdated. Things like bathrooms, lights, little stuff like that

[fondybrewfan]

I would agree, Miller Park is the perfect size in an ideal location that has been updated well. So long as no structural issues arise I hope it sticks around for a very long time. But 10 years from now maybe Mark A sells the team and a new owner sees a 30 year old stadium and wants a brand new shiny toy in Milwaukee or somewhere else.

[Baldkin]

I would also hope Miller Park can stay in service for 40 years. One of the annoying things that has gone on with a lot of the past stadium deals is putting up stadiums and then just 15 years later they are already going back for more? Even 20 years is ridiculously short of a lifespan for a 9 digit plus construction project in my opinion.

 

Other than Turner Field, what new stadium has been rebuilt in the last 30 years?

[FVBrewerFan]

I don't have an issue with public financing for a stadium. Milwaukee County Stadium and Miller Park were public projects.

 

I think the teams should have some skin in it, along with a commitment to stay at least as long as there is debt on the facility, but we are not "building facilities for rich owners" as much as we are building places for us to watch major league baseball.

 

If citizens of the Tampa/St. Pete area want a baseball facility, they can build one.

There should be a referendum though where citizens actually get to vote on whether they want to pay the hundreds of millions, and that goes for any pro sports facilities.

 

So you would have been fine with the Brewers leaving Milwaukee?

[brooks_quichenick]

There should be a referendum though where citizens actually get to vote on whether they want to pay the hundreds of millions, and that goes for any pro sports facilities.

 

So you would have been fine with the Brewers leaving Milwaukee?

 

How does "the people who would be forced to foot the bill having a say in the matter" equal "oh so you want the Brewers to skip town??"

[FVBrewerFan]

There should be a referendum though where citizens actually get to vote on whether they want to pay the hundreds of millions, and that goes for any pro sports facilities.

 

So you would have been fine with the Brewers leaving Milwaukee?

 

How does "the people who would be forced to foot the bill having a say in the matter" equal "oh so you want the Brewers to skip town??"

 

Because the referendum would have been a "no" for Miller Park, and I think you would agree Mark A wouldn't have stayed at County Stadium long term.

[jerichoholicninja]

I would also hope Miller Park can stay in service for 40 years. One of the annoying things that has gone on with a lot of the past stadium deals is putting up stadiums and then just 15 years later they are already going back for more? Even 20 years is ridiculously short of a lifespan for a 9 digit plus construction project in my opinion.

 

Other than Turner Field, what new stadium has been rebuilt in the last 30 years?

 

Texas Rangers ballpark, technically Tampa's if the actually do get a new one, the Diamondbacks were trying to get a new one.

 

I looked into some football stadiums and it's a borderline joke the short life spans some of them had.

RCA Dome (Colts) - 25 years

Edward Jones Dome (Rams) - still standing but the Rams only played there 20 years and wanted a new place after about 15 years

Silverdome (Lions) - only played there 25 years

Metrodome (Twins and Vikings) - only lasted about 25 years

 

All of these crappy domes were built within a couple years of each other so maybe the plan all along was for them to have a short lifespan but 25 years seems like an incredibly small amount of time for such an expensive project to be planned for.

[jerichoholicninja]

There should be a referendum though where citizens actually get to vote on whether they want to pay the hundreds of millions, and that goes for any pro sports facilities.

 

So you would have been fine with the Brewers leaving Milwaukee?

 

How does "the people who would be forced to foot the bill having a say in the matter" equal "oh so you want the Brewers to skip town??"

 

That's exactly the logic the politicians and owners use. If we don't get the money we'll leave. And somehow the owners don't wind up looking like the bad ones.

[MVP2110]

It's true. Without Milwaukee funding Miller Park the Brewers would not be here. If someone wants to take a Hardline I get that stance, but then we have no baseball team. The demand for these sports teams is higher than the supply of them.

[Invader3K]

I think funding Miller Park, at the time, was the right call, but we've learned a lot about public projects and local economics over the past 25 years. These stadium projects almost never lead to all the touted economic growth that is predicted to happen. It almost always boils down to vague notions like "civic pride" to really justify them.

[FVBrewerFan]

I think funding Miller Park, at the time, was the right call, but we've learned a lot about public projects and local economics over the past 25 years. These stadium projects almost never lead to all the touted economic growth that is predicted to happen. It almost always boils down to vague notions like "civic pride" to really justify them.

 

I believe there is an economic impact, but it's impossible to prove the amount. So I don't bother using that as an argument. It's just something I want. I don't care about art museums, libraries, or parks but acknowledge Milwaukee is a better place having them.

 

Yes, Owners should pay for stadiums. But, like with the Bucks arena there is competition for these teams, so these days it's usually a combination. But a referendum? Yea, there would be no Miller Park or Milwaukee Brewers if there had been a referendum.

[MrTPlush]

Local governments should definitely foot part of the bill. In my opinion the state level should pay a huge chunk of a stadium cost. If a stadium lasts 40 years the state income tax alone should pay for half the cost of the stadium. Of course that depends on said states income tax, some don’t even have one. Now when it comes to city’s helping pay that’s where is can get dicey. Obviously there are direct financial gains, but this is when economic improvement etc. is trying to be claimed. As someone mentioned there definitely is, but hard to say to what degree.

 

Saying the owners should foot the bill is silly. They are just like any other company that seeks financial incentatives to reside where they are. Why? Because having one of these franchises is a big deal and it does bring in a lot of money for the local governments.

 

Do the teams need to foot more of the bill? A lot of times I think they do. Hard to know without being on the inside and seeing the specifics. In general the state and local governments should be putting nine figures down for these teams. They bring that type of value on income tax alone.

 

In my opinion the Bucks new arena funding was a pretty good example of how things should be done.

[brooks_quichenick]

Having so many regular working people defending the most blatant upward redistribution of wealth schemes over and over again is something I just can't wrap my head around. Trust me, these billionaires will be fine using their own money to build stadiums for their absurdly easy revenue stream. What really needs to happen is solidarity between local governments/citizens to turn down billionaire owners using them as bargaining chips with threats to move. Eventually, if no one agrees to pay for it, billionaires will just have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and pay for their own stadiums, after which they can continue making completely unnecessary amounts of money.

[JimH5]

Having so many regular working people defending the most blatant upward redistribution of wealth schemes over and over again is something I just can't wrap my head around. Trust me, these billionaires will be fine using their own money to build stadiums for their absurdly easy revenue stream. What really needs to happen is solidarity between local governments/citizens to turn down billionaire owners using them as bargaining chips with threats to move. Eventually, if no one agrees to pay for it, billionaires will just have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and pay for their own stadiums, after which they can continue making completely unnecessary amounts of money.

 

Does the plan call for the team to own the stadium, but the taxpayers pay for it? I'm not sure where the redistribution of wealth happens without that.

[SomewhereInTime]

Having so many regular working people defending the most blatant upward redistribution of wealth schemes over and over again is something I just can't wrap my head around. Trust me, these billionaires will be fine using their own money to build stadiums for their absurdly easy revenue stream. What really needs to happen is solidarity between local governments/citizens to turn down billionaire owners using them as bargaining chips with threats to move. Eventually, if no one agrees to pay for it, billionaires will just have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and pay for their own stadiums, after which they can continue making completely unnecessary amounts of money.

 

Enjoy watching your teams leave town then, while hurting numerous local businesses and putting many people out of work.

[SomewhereInTime]

I think funding Miller Park, at the time, was the right call, but we've learned a lot about public projects and local economics over the past 25 years. These stadium projects almost never lead to all the touted economic growth that is predicted to happen. It almost always boils down to vague notions like "civic pride" to really justify them.

 

I believe there is an economic impact, but it's impossible to prove the amount. So I don't bother using that as an argument. It's just something I want. I don't care about art museums, libraries, or parks but acknowledge Milwaukee is a better place having them.

 

Yes, Owners should pay for stadiums. But, like with the Bucks arena there is competition for these teams, so these days it's usually a combination. But a referendum? Yea, there would be no Miller Park or Milwaukee Brewers if there had been a referendum.

 

Agreed, I feel like one of the biggest overlooked factors is the massive negative economic impact from losing a team. Not just the positive impact of the new stadium.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think funding Miller Park, at the time, was the right call, but we've learned a lot about public projects and local economics over the past 25 years. These stadium projects almost never lead to all the touted economic growth that is predicted to happen. It almost always boils down to vague notions like "civic pride" to really justify them.

 

I believe there is an economic impact, but it's impossible to prove the amount. So I don't bother using that as an argument. It's just something I want. I don't care about art museums, libraries, or parks but acknowledge Milwaukee is a better place having them.

 

Yes, Owners should pay for stadiums. But, like with the Bucks arena there is competition for these teams, so these days it's usually a combination. But a referendum? Yea, there would be no Miller Park or Milwaukee Brewers if there had been a referendum.

 

Agreed, I feel like one of the biggest overlooked factors is the massive negative economic impact from losing a team. Not just the positive impact of the new stadium.

The data when studied about pro sports economic impact does not support either of these notions.

 

https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities

 

There are a lot of things economists disagree about, but the economic impact of sports stadiums isn't one of them.

 

“If you ever had a consensus in economics, this would be it," says Michael Leeds, a sports economist at Temple University. "There is no impact."

 

Leeds studied Chicago – as big a sports town as there is, with five major teams.

 

“If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,” Leeds says. “A baseball team has about the same impact on a community as a midsize department store.”

[JosephC]

I can still remember when local politician's here in Wisconsin exclaimed what an economic disaster it would be if the Bucks left Milwaukee for Seattle. It was very disappointing that no journalist asked them about Seattle, and why it didn't just shrivel up and die after they lost the SuperSonics.

[SomewhereInTime]

Miller Park seems to have an economic impact

 

https://www.biztimes.com/2013/industries/arts-entertainment-sports/study-validates-economic-impact-of-miller-park/

 

I know this is an old article and many here have probably read it already, but has it been disproved?

[SomewhereInTime]

As for Chicago, they had 3.2 million fans attend Cubs games last year, if we say maybe $30 a ticket average that's 96 million spent on tickets alone. Add another $10 a person for concessions (again probably quite a low estimate) and you're over 120 million in revenue alone before a single $90 jersey is sold or a single beer is poured at any nearby bar or restaurant in Wrigleyville. If we add up all revenue from all Chicago teams, you're easily into the billions of dollars range in revenue.

[TooLiveBrew]

As for Chicago, they had 3.2 million fans attend Cubs games last year, if we say maybe $30 a ticket average that's 96 million spent on tickets alone. Add another $10 a person for concessions (again probably quite a low estimate) and you're over 120 million in revenue alone before a single $90 jersey is sold or a single beer is poured at any nearby bar or restaurant in Wrigleyville. If we add up all revenue from all Chicago teams, you're easily into the billions of dollars range in revenue.

Like the article I shared states, the folks who are experts in running these types of numbers consistently find that the economic impact of sports teams is surprisingly (at least to me) not very much. The general alternative I recall seeing in various articles over the years is that consumers still pump about the same $ into the economy, it just goes to other businesses/entertainment sources.

 

“A baseball team has about the same impact on a community as a midsize department store.”

 

That seems an incredible line, but this was from an economist who specifically studied Chicago & their teams.

 

Part of what I think is at play here is the seasonality, & fact that there are only 81 (or slightly more for playoffs) games that take place in any given 365-day year.