$900 million for 30,000 seats in Tampa

[tmwiese55]

Someone had like one line that mentioned a good point. Most large businesses negotiate concessions from local governments to reside in certain states. I mean you just saw this with big headlines with the Foxconn thing, but most of the time this stuff flies under the radar because they don't have publicity and name recognition of the pro sports teams. Well, and because it's usually smaller dollar amounts. There was one in Madison a few years ago for a pharma type company to build a place downtown that the city was paying something like 50 mil to make it happen, it ended up falling through for unrelated reasons if I remember correctly. Mercury Marine in FDL had a big negotiation like this around 15 years ago to keep them there instead of move to someplace like Oklahoma. So, it happens all the time, not just for sports. Still, no way i'm advocating for public to fund this stuff. Just saying this isn't out of the ordinary. Essentially it seems to me a mixed setup similar to the Bucks arena is a reasonable middle ground so everyone is kind of chipping, maybe a standard of owner/private fund at least 50% type thing would make sense.

 

To what somewhere in time just said, what the studies have shown is that the citizens or folks there in Chicago would basically spend the same or at least close to the same amount of money in some other form of entertainment/dining, etc. They wouldn't just sit on the money and not spend it. What would go away though is the taxes from the players and team though which is largely funded by TV revenues and other national streams ( not just local tix, concessions, etc). And yes maybe those specific bars in the Wrigleyville area would lose out or go under, but someone else somewhere else in Chicago would benefit from people's disposable income being freed up.

[Baldkin]

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.

 

Do you think the 5 counties are getting a cut of ticket sales at Miller Park? Hint: They aren't.

[fondybrewfan]

I live outside of the 5 county area paying for the stadium. The only recreational activity I pay for in Milwaukee are Brewer Games and I am not going to shift that to some other item in the 5 county area so Miller Park can count my $50 a ticket as economic impact.

 

The same can be said for virtually every visiting team fan; they aren't coming to Milwaukee and spending money on hotel rooms, food, etc if there team was not playing the Brewers in Milwaukee.

[tmwiese55]

Yup, there is definitely some impact. It's just not at the level touted. I don't live there either, so every dollar I spend on Brewers games, usually for the tickets/concessions plus any time at bars/restaurants, Poto, and usually getting a hotel a couple times a year is money MKE wouldn't be getting. But I'd be spending it in Madison or somewhere else.

[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.

 

Do you think the 5 counties are getting a cut of ticket sales at Miller Park? Hint: They aren't.

 

No, they aren't. But my point is that if the stadium isn't gifted to the team, then it's not wealth redistribution.

 

With Miller Park, we bought a stadium to benefit the citizens of Milwaukee and Wisconsin, just like Milwaukee County did when they tried to lure a major league team here with the Braves (or Browns or Cardinals or whoever else they could entice). Publicly financed stadiums are not a new thing.

 

Major league teams make money, but that's true of lots of industries that rely on public money. There's a whole slew of hot-button political issues where taxpayer funding buys stuff that is upsetting to one group or another.

 

Mark Attanasio and Stuart Sternberg are going to be rich wherever they park their baseball teams. If the residents or elected officials in the Tampa area want to have baseball, the Rays have given them an artist rendering of how they can do it.

 

That's not to say that Tampa Bay people should accept the offer. Twenty years into their franchise, the Rays don't seem to have a lot of local interest. Maybe they want a team, and maybe they don't.

 

I just don't get the uproar over public funding of stadiums, especially from Brewers fans, who have watched games in publicly funded buildings their whole baseball lives.

[liveforoctober]

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.

 

I think what they are saying is the money will be spent irregardless. If you and three friends go to a game this weekend you will spend ~$200 total on tickets/food/beer/parking etc. If you and three friends can't go to the game this weekend because there is no arena and sports team in the area ... you will go grab a case of beer and some snacks and rent a pontoon boat for the afternoon and spend ~$200.

 

Economic impact = the same

[JCREW]

I think what they are saying is the money will be spent irregardless. If you and three friends go to a game this weekend you will spend ~$200 total on tickets/food/beer/parking etc. If you and three friends can't go to the game this weekend because there is no arena and sports team in the area ... you will go grab a case of beer and some snacks and rent a pontoon boat for the afternoon and spend ~$200.

 

Economic impact = the same

 

For some people, that's true. For me, the only entertainment for which I will shell out more than $100 in a weekend is baseball. There are plenty of things I like to do, but I'll only do them for free or cheap. Baseball gets me to spend money.

[istanbultaye]

There is also the point that, although your spending on the pontoon boat most likely stayed in Wisconsin, it was probably in a different region/county of Wisconsin than if you had spent that money on Brewers baseball.

[JimH5]

The counterpoint to the pontoon boat scenario is that I'm willing to spend $200 on baseball and $0 on boating or golf or wine or soccer. The money isn't burning a hole in my pocket, destined to be spent locally.

 

If we live in an area without baseball, maybe I'll make more trips to baseball towns to spend it there. And in retirement, maybe I'll move to a baseball place.

 

Having Miller Park and the Brewers here makes Mikwaukee more attractive to me.

[homer]

 

With Miller Park, we bought a stadium to benefit the citizens of Milwaukee and Wisconsin, just like Milwaukee County did when they tried to lure a major league team here with the Braves (or Browns or Cardinals or whoever else they could entice). Publicly financed stadiums are not a new thing.

 

True, but County Stadium cost $5.9 million to construct which is roughly $54 million in current dollars. Compare that to Miller Park which cost $400 million to build ($550 million in current dollars).

[istanbultaye]

So Miller Park took 290m in public funding, and the ownership of the stadium was set to be a split based on the contributions of the team vs the public funding. Due to the updates over the years, the split has slightly increased the Brewer's share so it appears to be about ~31% owned by the Brewers presently.

 

http://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/262635291.html

 

The Brewers seem to pay a little over a mil per year in lease, and the Miller naming rights are ~2M per year, I would assume that goes back to the public funding side of things, but haven't seen anything that goes into the accounting details. I would also guess that the concerts and various other non-baseball events the revenue goes to the stadium not to the team as well?

[JimH5]

 

With Miller Park, we bought a stadium to benefit the citizens of Milwaukee and Wisconsin, just like Milwaukee County did when they tried to lure a major league team here with the Braves (or Browns or Cardinals or whoever else they could entice). Publicly financed stadiums are not a new thing.

 

True, but County Stadium cost $5.9 million to construct which is roughly $54 million in current dollars. Compare that to Miller Park which cost $400 million to build ($550 million in current dollars).

 

And the 21st century baseball fan isn't going to go to the kind of place that was perfectly suitable in 1953.

[Gladbach]

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.

 

I think what they are saying is the money will be spent irregardless. If you and three friends go to a game this weekend you will spend ~$200 total on tickets/food/beer/parking etc. If you and three friends can't go to the game this weekend because there is no arena and sports team in the area ... you will go grab a case of beer and some snacks and rent a pontoon boat for the afternoon and spend ~$200.

 

Economic impact = the same

 

I think purchasing over the internet may be changing this assumption. Nowadays, people may still spend the same "entertainment" dollar amount, but it's no longer a Brewer game-related versus somewhere else in Milwaukee trade-off. Now the trade-off might be more Brewer-game related versus internet sales related, which i think would increase the economic impact of sports stadiums.

[MrTPlush]

Economic impact the same? Nah, won’t buy that...definitely not the Brewers. Hotels are filled with fans from out of town, bars a hopping because of the games and offering shuttles. The Brewers draw an incredible amount from outside those five counties, especially in the summer. I’m not convinced the trade off of the Brewers left is close to equal. The out of towners money is a total lose without the Brewers. In the summer I would think many in the five counties would be incredibly likely to use some of that entertainment money elsewhere. Whether that entertainment south (Six Flags, Chicago burbs, Chicago) or elsewhere in Wisconsin (Dells, Door County, North). There is an impact.

[homer]

 

With Miller Park, we bought a stadium to benefit the citizens of Milwaukee and Wisconsin, just like Milwaukee County did when they tried to lure a major league team here with the Braves (or Browns or Cardinals or whoever else they could entice). Publicly financed stadiums are not a new thing.

 

True, but County Stadium cost $5.9 million to construct which is roughly $54 million in current dollars. Compare that to Miller Park which cost $400 million to build ($550 million in current dollars).

 

And the 21st century baseball fan isn't going to go to the kind of place that was perfectly suitable in 1953.

 

That isn't really the point. The point is that 60 years ago it was easier to sell a publicly financed stadium to the citizens because the outlay wasn't as significant as it is today.

[paul253]

Economic impact the same? Nah, won’t buy that...definitely not the Brewers

 

I agree. There is this assumption that if I don’t spend money for a baseball game I’ll just go spend the same amount somewhere else. If i am planning on going to a game and spending, say,, $150 on parking and tickets and dinner and beer at a bar ahead of time, and then all of a sudden it falls through for some reason, I am probably more likely to just stay in and save the $150. Or perhaps I’ll go somewhere else, maybe a local beer garden, and spend less than I would have had I go to the game. It’s the same argument that people make when talking about the possibility of an NHL team here. They say “well that’s just money that will be taken away from some other local entertainment option”. Why is it assumed I’ll spend my money on another option vs just saving it?

[danzig6767]

Economic impact the same? Nah, won’t buy that...definitely not the Brewers

 

I agree. There is this assumption that if I don’t spend money for a baseball game I’ll just go spend the same amount somewhere else. If i am planning on going to a game and spending, say,, $150 on parking and tickets and dinner and beer at a bar ahead of time, and then all of a sudden it falls through for some reason, I am probably more likely to just stay in and save the $150. Or perhaps I’ll go somewhere else, maybe a local beer garden, and spend less than I would have had I go to the game. It’s the same argument that people make when talking about the possibility of an NHL team here. They say “well that’s just money that will be taken away from some other local entertainment option”. Why is it assumed I’ll spend my money on another option vs just saving it?

The parking and ticket money goes directly to the Brewers.

 

Then given where Miller Park was built, it isn't exactly in a place where tons of people before and after the game will go visit surrounding businesses, unlike say a downtown arena where more people are in walking distance to all kinds of restaurants and bars.

 

I usually attend about 5-7 Brewers games a year and people i've gone with, we often tailgait, but rarely ever visit a business after unless it's one of those opening day party buses. Obviously some people do, but i'm pretty sure that fewer do compared to a park or arena in walking distance from restaurants and bars.

 

FWIW, I'm glad Miller Park is where it is. I love to tailgait on a nice summer afternoon or night. I often enjoy that as much as the game itself and i believe so do tons of other fans. Without the ability to tailgait in large numbers, i really think it would lessen attendance. People in the Milwaukee have to endure awful weather for 1/2 to 2/3rd of the year, so for lots of people, being able to get together in groups on a nice summer day/night and tailgait for an hour or two before the game, it enhances the overall experience of attending the game.

[homer]

Better yet the...

 

... get ready for it...

 

... Charlotte Rays.

 

(I'll show myself out...)

 

 

Did you know she was born in Milwaukee? Also she is still alive? I didn't know either of these things until 30 seconds ago.

 

 

RIP Charlotte Rae

[GAME05]

A major sports team or three is also used by the city to market to big businesses thinking about relocating to an area and helping it stay on the map as a major city as opposed to just a big city. There's a cache to it. It's the same for why a city builds so many parks.

 

I'm in North Carolina now. I feel like a Charlotte team would be about the same draw as the Devil Rays in Tampa. Nobody cares about baseball around here. The Durham Bulls and the Hurricanes are in Raleigh because that city is full of Yankees who go to the games. And it's hard for me to see baseball's popularity on the rise as if millions of people are dying to become bigger fans.

[jerichoholicninja]

A major sports team or three is also used by the city to market to big businesses thinking about relocating to an area and helping it stay on the map as a major city as opposed to just a big city. There's a cache to it. It's the same for why a city builds so many parks.

 

I'm in North Carolina now. I feel like a Charlotte team would be about the same draw as the Devil Rays in Tampa. Nobody cares about baseball around here. The Durham Bulls and the Hurricanes are in Raleigh because that city is full of Yankees who go to the games. And it's hard for me to see baseball's popularity on the rise as if millions of people are dying to become bigger fans.

 

That is an interesting point in regards to relocation or expansion for any teams in MLB. There are plenty of places that should have the population numbers and corporate dollars to support a major league team but is there actually any interest by the people who would attend games? Baseball is not a sport on the rise. The areas with the biggest "serious" youth participation have got to be Florida, Arizona, and southern California. Baseball has already failed in Florida for two teams. I don't think the DBacks are a failure but they don't seem to have a great fan base. And southern California has enough teams already.

 

I keep reading that the people of Montreal are dying for baseball. Maybe that's true but they already gave up on one team. It doesn't really matter to me that the Expos and Olympic Stadium sucked, they gave up. Who's to say that won't happen again if they get the Rays and have to spend most years in 3rd place or get an expansion team and suck for 5 years.

[superfly]

I am convinced Ybor City is not even a real place. All this needs is sharks with lasers.

 

It's real...and it's sketchy.

[owbc]

A major sports team or three is also used by the city to market to big businesses thinking about relocating to an area and helping it stay on the map as a major city as opposed to just a big city. There's a cache to it. It's the same for why a city builds so many parks.

 

I'm in North Carolina now. I feel like a Charlotte team would be about the same draw as the Devil Rays in Tampa. Nobody cares about baseball around here. The Durham Bulls and the Hurricanes are in Raleigh because that city is full of Yankees who go to the games. And it's hard for me to see baseball's popularity on the rise as if millions of people are dying to become bigger fans.

 

That is an interesting point in regards to relocation or expansion for any teams in MLB. There are plenty of places that should have the population numbers and corporate dollars to support a major league team but is there actually any interest by the people who would attend games? Baseball is not a sport on the rise. The areas with the biggest "serious" youth participation have got to be Florida, Arizona, and southern California. Baseball has already failed in Florida for two teams. I don't think the DBacks are a failure but they don't seem to have a great fan base. And southern California has enough teams already.

 

I keep reading that the people of Montreal are dying for baseball. Maybe that's true but they already gave up on one team. It doesn't really matter to me that the Expos and Olympic Stadium sucked, they gave up. Who's to say that won't happen again if they get the Rays and have to spend most years in 3rd place or get an expansion team and suck for 5 years.

 

Baseball is not dying, it is extremely popular and is doing fine at retaining fans and TV viewership relative to other sports. Essentially all of MLB's current problem franchises are due to ownership or stadium or both. The Oakland A's are very popular despite their poor attendance. Tampa Bay does better on TV than attendance would suggest. Miami has a long history of bad ownership...baseball is incredibly popular in Miami as seen by WBC attendance, U of M baseball attendance, etc. There are tons of MLB fans in Miami. Arizona has never drawn less than 2 million fans in a season...the Brewers have drawn under 2 million five times since 1998.

 

I couldn't disagree more about the Expos, they are a huge opportunity to expand. Baseball is incredibly popular in Canada. One of the Jays' ALCS games was watched in part by 1 in 3 Canadians. Seattle gets overrun by visiting Jays fans who live in Vancouver BC nearly as much as Milwaukee does during Cubs series. Montreal did not give up on MLB, MLB gave up on Montreal--first in '94 and then in the declining years when they didn't even bother to have a local TV contract. Adding Montreal would be a huge hit for more than the nostalgia factor. It would be a big vote of confidence for Canadian baseball. It will happen sooner or later.

 

Anyway, interesting aside, the Mariners are threatening to not sign a new lease at Safeco Field unless the county agrees to pay $180 million in upgrades to the stadium. Currently it looks like they will not get anywhere near that figure and public sentiment is strongly opposed. So it will be interesting to see how that plays out. They will probably have to get by with a much smaller public handout than they might have gotten a few years ago before the public started getting suspicious of these deals.

[JosephC]

Anyway, interesting aside, the Mariners are threatening to not sign a new lease at Safeco Field unless the county agrees to pay $180 million in upgrades to the stadium. Currently it looks like they will not get anywhere near that figure and public sentiment is strongly opposed. So it will be interesting to see how that plays out. They will probably have to get by with a much smaller public handout than they might have gotten a few years ago before the public started getting suspicious of these deals.

 

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/in-safeco-field-deal-it-feels-like-the-taxpayers-are-the-ones-about-to-get-toasted/

 

$500 toaster. Owner and/or players can't afford that! But, but, but, but...that toaster will generate so much money in tax revenue that it will be worth every penny! It will be a good deal in the end.

[NeedMoreFans]

The stadium is dead and the Rays are stuck in the Tropicana Dome until 2027.

 

https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/rays/2018/12/11/rays-say-current-ybor-stadium-project-is-dead-remain-committed-to-tampa-bay-area-for-now/

[JosephC]

Great news. Chalk one up for the taxpayer.

 

Tampa politicians apparently much smarter than the ones in King County, Washington. At least for today.

 

Time for MLB to start talking about expansion again.