|
|
Current Stadium & Arena Deals MLB Stadiums & Arenas (1990-Present) Current Naming Rights Deals |
Summary of Current Major League Baseball Stadium Deals (from conception to completion) Updated September 4, 2003 Figures compiled by Shawn McCarthy, League of Fans.
League of Fans Sources: FieldOfSchemes.com, National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School's "Sports Facility Reports", Cato Institute, ballparks.com, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and wire and newspaper reports published on or before September 4, 2003. --------------------
Stage of Progress for Current MLB Stadium Deals (from conception to completion)
Stage #1 = Announcements, Rumors and/or Threats with no Proposal Currently on the Table:
Stage #2 = Proposal on the Table, Subject to Vote, Approval, or Financing:
Stage #3 = Proposal Approved, Advanced Planning Underway, Financing Secured:
Stage #4 = Stadium Under Construction: -------------------- (listed alphabetically by franchise) -----
Boston Red Sox Status (Stage #1): "New Red Sox owners John Henry and Tom Werner have wasted no time in increasing the revenue potential of Fenway Park. For 2003, Fenway debuts 280 new seats atop the famed ‘Green Monster.' The seats are located 310 feet away from home plate and 40 feet above the playing field. In addition to adding a total of 400 new seats to the ballpark, Fenway has added new restroom facilities and a new food court and picnic area under the right field grandstands. Talks of building a new $650 million stadium complex next door to the existing ballpark have been placed on hold by the new ownership." - from National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School's "Sports Facility Reports" (6/6/03) "Despite having made substantial renovations to Fenway Park over the offseason, Boston Red Sox execs are still not saying what their long-term plans are for the 91-year-old ballpark. One increasingly likely scenario is that they'll do nothing, at least for the time being: ‘You know the state of the economy ... I don't even think a public/private [stadium] partnership should even be on the radar screen,' Sox CEO Larry Lucchino told the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce yesterday. Given that the last time the Sox tried to raise private funds for even a share of new stadium construction costs they were smacked down hard, the team may content itself with nightly sellouts at Fenway for now." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (5/22/03) For the near future, the Red Sox will continue to play at Fenway Park. Strong opposition from various citizen organizations, neighborhood groups and small business owners have helped to stall the previous ownership's plans for a new stadium. The Boston Globe (part owner of the Red Sox) editorialized in 2002 in favor of renovation rather than their previous stance over the past several years for a new stadium. -----
Florida Marlins Status (Stage #1): The Marlins were reportedly a candidate for "contraction" before the new MLB collective bargaining agreement eliminated the possibility until 2007. The Marlins are now considered a candidate for relocation. Leading candidates for relocation are Washington D.C., Northern Virginia and Portland, OR. The "winner(s)" of relocation would need the groundwork laid for a new taxpayer-financed ballpark, plus another stadium to play in during construction. "A report in the Miami Herald on the Florida Marlins owners' hopes for a new stadium indicates the following: the team owners are willing to pay for part of a $450 million facility but ‘aren't ready to say how much'; Miami city manager Joe Arriola ‘doubt[s] very seriously we could contribute toward construction" but "could help with land and infrastructure'; Arriola ruled out using tax money, but said bond issues ‘could make sense.' (Herald reporter Barry Jackson apparently failed to ask how the bonds would be paid off.) Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria, who formerly failed in efforts to shake down Montreal for a new stadium when he owned the Expos, wants to start construction by 2004 on the site of Miami Arena - built in 1988 at $52.5 million in public expense, then abandoned in 1999 when both the Miami Heat and Florida Panthers got even newer facilities." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (4/21/03) "... the Marlins and the University of Miami have discussed the possibility of renovating the Orange Bowl and using it as a joint football/baseball facility. One scenario has the Marlins playing several seasons at the Orange Bowl while pursuing another stadium in South Florida. The team would use attendance at the Orange Bowl to help gauge how the team would draw if a new stadium were built in downtown Miami. University of Miami representatives indicated that the city has committed $16 million in bond money toward the renovation of the Orange Bowl. Recently, Miami- Dade county mayor Alex Penalas announced that the county is studying plans to raise finance to build a new ball park for the Marlins. Any local government contribution to the potential $450 million project would be contingent on the Marlins changing their name to the Miami Marlins. In addition, county funding would have to be supplemented with a contribution from the Marlins." - from National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School's "Sports Facility Reports" (6/6/03) "There's once again talk of a new Miami stadium for the Florida Marlins, though no one seems especially eager to pay for it. Last week, Miami city manager Joe Arriola said team president David Samson (son-in-law of owner Jeffrey Loria) had offered $100 million toward construction costs, but that he "hadn't seen" any actual money. Arriola further suggested that revenues from luxury suites and other stadium income could be used to pay off stadium bonds, which isn't likely to make Loria happy, as those revenue streams are precisely the reason he would want a new building." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (7/16/03) -----
Kansas City Royals Status (Stage #1): The Kansas City Star reported that on April 8, 2002, Missouri Governor Bob Holden endorsed a proposal to use $294 million in state money for renovations to the Jackson County-owned Truman Sports Complex which includes Kauffman Stadium (Royals) and Arrowhead Stadium (NFL's Chiefs). The state contributes $3 million per year to the complex. For the plan to take effect, the Missouri State Legislature must approve the proposal and voters in the state of Kansas and the state of Missouri would have to renew a bi-state sales tax for cultural projects, which would generate an estimated $300 million. Half of the bi-state money would go for renovations at the Truman Sports Complex, and half would go for cultural projects in both states. This proposal was tied to state subsidies for a new ballpark for the St. Louis Cardinals. Kansas City area legislators upset at the Cardinals repeated attempts to secure legislative approval to force state taxpayers to subsidize a new ballpark in St. Louis insisted that Kansas City must be part of any proposal for stadium funding. The push for the renovated Royals and Chiefs stadiums along with the new Cardinals stadium collapsed on May 17, 2002 as the Missouri state legislature declined to vote on the bill prior to adjournment. -----
Los Angeles Dodgers Status (Stage #1): "L.A. real estate developer Alan Casden says if he's successful in buying the Los Angeles Dodgers from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, he'd knock down Dodger Stadium and replace it with a new stadium near the Staples Center in downtown L.A. ‘They knock down stadiums all the time,' Casden told the L.A. Times. ‘Dodger Stadium is not an antique. It's not Frank Lloyd Wright. It's a nice place to play baseball, but there are far better.' Casden also said he could build a new stadium without public money, financing construction with the proceeds of housing complexes he'd build on the Dodger Stadium site." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (7/11/03) "Developer Alan Casden is considered a longshot to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers and carry out his plan to tear down Dodger Stadium, but it's enough to have the Los Angeles Conservancy considering having the ballpark declared a historical landmark." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (7/12/03) -----
Minnesota Twins
New Stadium Estimated Cost (from latest proposal):
City Public Subsidy: Status (Stage #1): After defeats in recent years of various stadium referendums in the city of St. Paul as well as in the Minnesota State Legislature, the future of the franchise is uncertain. A general opposition in Minnesota for taxpayer subsidies for sports stadiums (and the fact that according to Forbes, owner Carl Pohlad is worth $1.7-1.8 billion) hasn't given the Twins the needed leverage to pull off a deal. Carl Pohlad has put the Twins up for sale since MLB's failed contraction attempt for 2002 that was offering a buyout of the voluntary Pohlad for $160 million. Now with contraction off the table until 2007 with the signing of a new MLB collective bargaining agreement, the possibility of relocation takes form. Several ideas and plans are swirling around the Twin cities in attempts to secure funding for a new ballpark to replace the Metrodome (1982). The most advanced proposal was put forth by the Minnesota legislature and called for a $330 million ballpark to be built in St. Paul with half the cost going to the public through added taxes to food, beverages and entertainment. User fees such as revenues from naming rights, personal seat licenses and access charges to media going to help fund the public's contribution. In addition, a public referendum would be required for the plan to pass and the Twins would cover any cost overruns. The plan also allows for $40 million in stadium-related infrastructure in St. Paul. The Twins have never shown support for this bill. And on July 11, 2002 the city of St. Paul ended its discussions with Carl Pohlad after being unable to agree on an alternate financing plan. In addition, a planned September 3, 2002 referendum on a 3% bar and restaurant tax hike to finance the city's share of construction costs was called off. -----
Montreal Expos Status (Stage #2): Having been targeted for "contraction" prior to the 2002 season, the Expos survived but were bought out by Major League Baseball. The MLB collective bargaining agreement agreed to on August 30, 2002, eliminates the possibility of contraction until 2007. The Montreal Expos are now the lead candidate for relocation. Leading candidates for relocation appear to be Washington D.C., Northern Virginia and Portland, Oregon. The "winner(s)" of MLB's bidding war for relocation would need the groundwork laid for a new taxpayer-financed ballpark, plus another stadium to play in during construction. "One day after it voted down a stadium-financing bill to lure the Montreal Expos, the Oregon state senate reversed itself and approved the plan, 16-11, on Saturday (8/23/03). The main difference: an amendment that would require that a private entity (as yet unnamed) would be on the hook for the $150 million in stadium payments if revenues from the tax-on-players-and-team-execs plan fell short. Now all that stands in the way of the Portland Expos is finding a private guarantor, finding another $150 million in public funds from Portland-area taxes, and convincing MLB that Portland could successfully host a big-league ballclub." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (8/24/03) "The sputtering bidding war for the Montreal Expos got another lease on life yesterday (8/12/03), as Oregon legislators used a move called a ‘gut and stuff' to insert stadium funding language into an unrelated bill that had already passed the state senate." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (8/13/03) "... Arlington, Virginia, one of several proposed locations for a new stadium in the D.C. suburbs, wants no part of the deal. The county's board of supervisors drafted a letter to the Virginia Baseball Stadium Authority last night (7/17/03), saying since residents were hopelessly split on the stadium plan, the board would oppose any rezoning to enable a stadium to be built there." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (7/18/03) "MLB may not be the only one that can play hardball in the continuing skirmish over the Montreal Expos. D.C. council finance chair Jack Evans now says he'll hold off on a stadium finance bill until MLB commits to giving his city the Expos." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (6/24/03) "D.C. mayor Anthony Williams' $339 million stadium plan has been battered from all sides, with the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute issuing a report that stadiums are bad investments for cities; D.C. chief financial officer warning that the financing plan could face a $2 million a year shortfall if the team plays too poorly to sell enough tickets; and both Republican opponents and community groups say the district should restore other budget cuts before building a stadium. Oh, and the city council has expressed little interest in funding Williams' plan, with council finance chair Jack Evans noting: ‘There is great support locally for baseball and not great support for public financing for baseball.'" - from FieldOfSchemes.com (6/14/03) -----
New York Mets Status (Stage #1): "For 2003, the city of New York invested $19.1 million dollars to renovate Shea Stadium., Major League Baseball's fifth oldest park. This is well above the average $3.5 million normally spent each year by the city. The increase is due to the fact that a new stadium for the Mets now appears to be many years away due to the city's budget crisis. Improvements to Shea for 2003 include upgrades to the park's electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems. In addition, the sky boxes along the left field line have been upgraded and the left field bleachers have been replaced and expanded." - from National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School's "Sports Facility Reports" (6/6/03) "New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon says he doesn't intend to seek city subsidies for a new stadium right now: ‘The economy is such that we don't think it's realistic to even ask for a ballpark at this very moment.' City subsidies for not building a stadium, now that's another story: in a deal approved in the waning days of the Giuliani administration, the Mets and Yankees are getting $5 million a year apiece from the city to fund "planning" for new buildings, even if they never get built." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (3/10/03) Three days prior to leaving office on December 31, 2001 former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani hammered out an agreement with the owners of the Mets and Yankees. The $1.6 billion deal calls for $800 million ($400 million for each franchise) in taxpayer funds to be redirected toward the building of two retractable roof baseball stadiums next to the teams' current homes in the Queens and Bronx boroughs. New Mayor Michael Bloomberg has indicated that stadium-building is not a priority right now as NYC faces a $4 billion budget deficit and $40 billion in debt. However, Bloomberg promised to honor a provision in the two-stadium agreement that requires the city to give each team a $5 million a year rent reduction for the next five years for "design and other planning costs." In a letter to Mayor Bloomberg, New York City Comptroller William Thompson revealed that Giuliani misled the public when he said that the deal contained "no escape clauses" for the Yankees or Mets. As it turns out, Giuliani amended each team's current lease providing them with escape clauses. All provisions of the plan must be approved by the New York City Council. New York is generally reluctant to subsidize sports franchises, especially when they can't use financial troubles (since they have none) or threats to move (which wouldn't be taken seriously) as leverage. -----
New York Yankees Status (Stage #1): "With a $6.4 billion city budget deficit, plans for publicly financed stadiums for both the Yankees and the Mets, first proposed by former mayor Rudolph Giuliani (See details above: New York Mets), are now, at least temporarily, in doubt. The Yankees, however, are moving ahead with plans for a $800 million stadium without a firm commitment from the city of New York for public funding. Team representatives have indicated that the lack of financial backing from the city threatens to delay the new ballpark's opening from April 2007 to at least 2008." - from National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School's "Sports Facility Reports" (6/6/03) -----
Oakland Athletics Status (Stage #1): In 2001, a plan was put forth in Santa Clara County to build a stadium and move the A's to South Bay. It included use of $149.5 million in public funds mostly from Santa Clara's Redevelopment Agency. Put on hold indefinitely in November 2001, the plan called for the A's to pay back $94.5 million of those subsidies in the form of rent and other means. The A's would also have the San Francisco Giants to deal with as they claim territorial rights in Santa Clara based on a late-80s rumors of moving to that region. In February, 2001, Bud Selig reaffirmed the Giants territorial rights to the South Bay, but noted that to stay competitive, the A's would need a new stadium. In March 2002, the Oakland City Council, facing a $30 million budget shortfall next year, held its first public airing of a report released by HOK sports, the architecture firm responsible for designing most of the new stadiums across the country over the past decade. In the report, HOK selected the 12.5 acre "Uptown" area north of City Hall as its choice for the best site for an Alameda County baseball stadium, which would cost at least $352 million. Mayor Jerry Brown, generally an opponent of taxpayer-financed stadiums, has been in negotiations with developers to build housing on the same Uptown site. "One proposal calls for a 42,000 seat baseball-only stadium that would cost $400 million of which $200 million would be publicly financed and $146 million would be provided by the team." - from National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School's "Sports Facility Reports" As talks continued about building a new stadium for the A's in Oakland, the team extended their lease in their current stadium through 2007, but the team can buy out the remainder of the lease at any time by giving 120 days notice and a payment of $250,000. -----
Philadelphia Phillies
New Stadium Estimated Cost:
City, State Public Subsidy: Status (Stage #4): In December, 2000, the Philadelphia City Council approved a $1 billion two-stadium deal for the Phillies and the NFL's Eagles. The Consumer Education and Protective Association (CEPA), Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group, Green Party and taxpayer-financed stadium opponents sued to block the project, charging the city with violating its home rule charter, illegally issuing stadium bonds without a public referendum, and entering into a lease agreement without publicly disclosing its full financial terms. The suit was thrown out in February 2001. Construction began on the Phillies ballpark in July 2001 and is scheduled to be ready for opening day 2004. The Phillies sold stadium naming rights on June 17, 2003 to Citizens Bank. The ballpark will be called Citizens Bank Park. -----
San Diego Padres
New Stadium Estimated Cost:
City Public Subsidy: Status (Stage #4): Construction was suspended on the Padres new ballpark because of a federal investigation into city councilmember Valerie Stallings who bought stock in team owner John Moores' company right before voting for the city's ballpark financing package. In late January, 2001, Stallings resigned, pleading guilty to two misdemeanors and clearing the way for construction to resume in February 2002. In June, 2000, after clearing and construction had already begun on the stadium, Padres president Larry Lucchino said that if the city doesn't come up with even more money for the ballpark, "the question of relocation will have to be addressed. I think that's a viable prospect." A former ballpark backer has charged the city with misleading the voters in its $225 million stadium referendum which voters passed in 1998. The Padres have been breaking the agreements in the project that, among other things, called for a cap in the public subsidy. The plan now carries a $303 million taxpayer price-tag with no further voter inquiry, and faces more threats to raise the subsidy. There are also questions about whether city hotel tax revenues, which would be used to pay off the ballpark financing, will meet the city's optimistic projections over the 30-year life of the bonds. "We could be looking at a city near bankruptcy in the next 5 years if we don't get a handle on financing," said former San Diego Mayor Maureen O'Connor, "It's unfortunate that they started building that ballpark knowing they didn't have financing. Where is the auditor? Where is the city attorney? You don't start building a house until you have the financing to complete it." "Another hidden subsidy has been uncovered in the deal for the San Diego Padres' new stadium, set to open next year. In 1999, the city of San Diego condemned three blocks near the stadium site, and agreed to sell them to the team at the then-market price of $17.7 million; now, four years later, Padres owner John Moores plans to resell the land for double what he paid for it. While California law prohibits developers from profiting on ‘speculation' on seized land, the 1998 stadium agreement calls for all such profits to be poured back into the stadium project - potentially reducing the team's share of construction costs." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (4/10/03) "The San Diego city council has informed the Padres that they'll need to upsize the ‘Park-at-the-Park,' a planned public park at the team's new stadium, set to open next year. The team's original proposal, approved by voters in 1998, called for a park of 3 to 4 acres, from which fans could watch games for free; the latest team proposal reduced the size of the park to 1.8 acres. The council and the ballclub could also be headed for a showdown on proposed development surrounding the stadium: after initially proposing low-rise buildings, the Padres now say they need to build a pair of 20-story buildings beyond the outfield wall - on land seized by the city via eminent domain - to recoup their investment." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (4/26/03) In January 2003, the Padres sold stadium naming rights to Petco (Petco Park), and are scheduled to begin play at the new stadium in 2004. -----
St. Louis Cardinals
New Stadium Estimated Cost (from latest proposal):
City, County, State Public Subsidy: Status (Stage #2): "The St. Louis Board of Aldermen agreed in October 2002 to eliminate a 5 percent entertainment tax on Cardinal tickets to free up $3.4 million a year for the team that it could use toward its lease payments to the investors who would build and own the new stadium." - from St. Louis Post Dispatch (3/12/03) "At the end of the club's 29-year lease in the new park, the Cardinals must either repay the money with interest or give the state an ownership share in the stadium. Given the likely value of a 30-year-old stadium whose sole tenant will almost certainly be demanding a new facility, I hope those legislators aren't expecting a check...." - from FieldOfSchemes.com (12/12/02) Missouri's House Budget Committee voted to cut $12 million for a highway ramp for the St. Louis Cardinals' proposed new stadium from the state's 2004 budget on Tuesday. The full House could still reverse the decision, and the state transportation department could still build the ramp with other funds. The Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums, meanwhile, has launched a referendum campaign to require a public vote on any new county stadium subsidies, following its successful ballot move for a similar requirement on city expenditures last November. The Cardinals management still does not have its $275 million private share of the planned $402 million project. "Part of the delay came in April, when the Cardinals fired the private company it had hired five months earlier to help the club secure private financing." - from St. Louis Post Dispatch (7/9/03) Construction on the new stadium is scheduled to begin in December 2003, and is to be completed by April 2006, but it is unclear if that will actually happen due to problems securing private financing and questions about St. Louis County's contribution to the project. The owners of the Cardinals, collectively worth $4.3 billion, and politicians in favor of the taxpayer-financed stadium have been focused throughout the process on keeping the issue away from voters as it is believed that most residents are against a publicly-subsidized stadium and most Cardinals fans see no problem with Busch Stadium. ### |