What we anticipate seldom occurs, what we least expected generally happens. – Benjamin Disraeli

It’s Spring… Another Opening Day has come and gone. That means somewhere there are MLB clubs looking for stadium deals, and today we’ve got news on several of those fronts. The Royals could use the relocation hammer should things go poorly today for them. The Twins look to, yet again, get stadium funding passed. And, the Marlins took in an Astros game last night, and a relocation discussion broke out with officials from San Antonio. Here’s the details, and what could be at stake…

Royals

Today, Jackson Co. voters will determine whether there will be upgrades to Kauffman Stadium and Arrowhead Stadium (the Truman Complex). In a second vote, a rolling roof to cover both stadiums could be funded as well. By 7pm local time, we should know the outcome of these votes.

Here’s the breakdown of these proposals:

Redevelopment vote (renovation to Kauffman and Arrowhead to keep them “State of the Art”)

• Tax: A 3/8 cent sales tax in Jackson Co. that could run for up to 25 years.
• Total revenues projected: $425 million
• How much are the sports franchises kicking in?
• Royals: $25 million
• Chiefs: $75 million
• Other public funds: $50 million in tax credits from the State.
• Cost overruns: Covered by the teams
• Total cost to Kauffman upgrade: $250 million
• Aspects of the Kauffman upgrade: wider concourses, more toilets, more concession stations, suites, a food court, a restaurant and a 9,500-seat open-air pavilion. (see images and more details here)

Rolling Roof vote (will not take effect unless the above vote passes):

• Tax: Imposed on certain out-of-state goods shipped into Jackson County, falling primarily on businesses.
• Total amount: $170 million
• Other funds: Chiefs are kicking in $32 million.
• What the Chiefs get for these funds: Control naming rights

The possible outcome of vote #1 failing would be that Jackson Co. would be in default on their lease agreement (that, “State of the Art” provision) and that the Royals would be free to explore relocation options (with MLB permission, of course) in 2007.

Twins

The State and Local Government Operations Committee of the Minnesota State Senate approved a bill on voice vote last night that would do an end-around on voter referendum for a 0.15 percent county sales tax in Hennepin Co. to help fund a new stadium for the Twins. The bill now moves to the Taxes Committee, where it is reported that it will have a tougher go of it.

The battle for a new Twins facility has been going on since 1997.

To add to this thorny issue of removing the voters from the process is the fact that the price tag has increased from $478 million last year to a now $508 million. The reason for the cost increase? Material costs have risen.

Other details:

• Twins contribution: $125 million, but… it’s defrayed.
• Cost overruns: The Twins are to cover.
• Operating expenses: Covered by the Twins.
• Naming rights: The Twins

The key piece in this new deal is the exemption from a 1997 state law requiring a ballot issue on proposed local sales taxes. It’s apparent that the Twins don’t want that. After all, when did those that could care a less about baseball want their taxes raised to support, in this instance, the richest owner in baseball?

Marlins

Yesterday, the Marlins entertained officials from San Antonio at the Astros home opener in Houston. San Antonio has been very active in their pursuit of the Florida Marlins as they continue to be unable to arrive at a public component for stadium funding that would allow them a roofed facility that they alone would control (currently, they play in Dolphin Stadium with Wayne Huizinga controlling nearly every facet of revenue streams).

Here’s what San Antonio is offering:

• Tax: An extension of a Hotel/Motel (1.75% on hotel/motel stays) and Rental Car tax (5% on car rentals).
• Total revenues from tax: Up to $200 million.
• Tax continent: An Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) must be signed by the Marlins in which they agree to not pursue other relocation options. No MOU. No placing the vote to extend the tax on the Nov. ballot.
• Minority ownership: The SA officials say there must be a heavy local minority ownership component.

Other details:

• 3 sites have been proposed for the stadium. All are privately owned.
• Nolan Ryan has mentioned interest in ownership, as has Red McCombs, and the NBA Spurs

Here’s some of what the Marlins want (outside of pure funding dollars):

• Stadium footprint: 18.2 acres
• Parking space: 100-140 acres for surface parking

Gaps:

• The proposed price tag for the stadium: $310 million. This is without land, infrastructure and other soft costs. This seems extremely low. A more realistic figure would be at $400 million as the floor.
• The ownership equity component: In Florida it is currently $210 million, but Samson has repeatedly said that this figure is only on the table in South Florida and that it would be altered (downward) in other smaller markets, which SA would be.

The biggest issue facing the SA effort is DMA size. Currently, they are ranked 37th by Neilson. This has not been lost on David Samson, president of the Marlins:

“(Stadium) naming rights, suite deals, season-ticket ticket sales, corporate support — without all of that there is no franchise,” Samson said. “But TV revenue is the engine that keeps the train rolling.”

Added San Antonio Mayor, Phil Hardberger:

“The meeting went great and their interest in San Antonio is sincere,” Mayor Phil Hardberger said. “But our small media market is a significant obstacle. It’s there and you can’t sell yourself around it.”

Add to this the fact that the Astros and Rangers share a massive broadcast territory which is reported to cover all of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. This would add a compensation element to any relocation.The Marlins have a lease agreement in South Florida that runs till 2007. A series of one-year extensions could be used to extend that till 2010 (and, if push came to shove, maybe longer, although the Marlins have repeatedly said they will not be in Dolphin Stadium past 2010).

Where do we go from here?

I will be doing an article for The Hardball Times shortly on relocation options for those pining for new facilities where their current markets are failing to come up with what ownership deems “acceptable”. Are there really options left for these franchises? Stay tuned.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 4th, 2006 at 8:05 am and is filed under Baseball Insight. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.