WASHINGTON (AP) - Major league baseball's return to Washington might be for one year only.

 

The District of Columbia Council voted Tuesday night to require private financing for at least half the cost of a new ballpark for the Expos, a move that could cause the commissioner's office to reopen the search for a long-term home for the franchise.

Capping an 11 1/2 hour session filled with contentious debate, the council voted 7-6 to approve legislation to finance construction of a ballpark. But the bill contained the amendment on private financing, a provision not contained in the September agreement between the Expos and Washington Mayor Anthony A. Williams.

 

"We will review the amendments and the legislation as passed and have a response tomorrow," said Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer.

 

If the law stands, baseball's likely response would be to have the team play the 2005 season at Washington's RFK Stadium, where it would be known as the Nationals, while baseball's search committee resumes negotiations with cities that desire the team.

 

The Montreal Expos became the first major league team outside the United States when they started play in 1969, but attendance at Olympic Stadium slumped over the past decade and the franchise was bought by the other 29 teams before the 2002 season. In 2003 and 2004, some of the team's home games were moved to Puerto Rico to raise revenue.

 

From the start, baseball owners insisted a publicly financed stadium for the team be a component of any move.

 

Council Chair Linda Cropp offered the private-financing provision, saying it would be crucial for her support. She was considered the swing vote on the 13-member council.

 

Cropp said she was not satisfied with concessions offered by baseball that would have made the deal more financially palatable for the city. When the council gave its initial approval to the law on Nov. 30, it called for the city to issue $531 million in bonds to finance the plan.

 

"I have not seen the movement from Major League Baseball that I would have liked in the past two weeks," Cropp said. "My dream of dreams is that we will get enough private financing that the costs of building the stadium will be eliminated."

 

Jack Evans, baseball's most passionate advocate on the council, said the provision could be a deal breaker.

 

"This gives baseball an out," he said. "Changing the agreement will then negate the agreement, and then Major League Baseball will go somewhere else."

 

The council had until Dec. 31 to pass a stadium financing plan as part of the relocation deal Williams signed in September. Baseball owners approved the Expos' move Dec. 2. on the condition that financing be put in place consistent with the deal, and that arrangements to prepare RFK Stadium for use in 2005 satisfied baseball commissioner Bud Selig.

 

Williams left the council chambers after Cropp's amendment passed, and police blocked the door so reporters couldn't follow him. When they were able to get to his office, the mayor could not be found.

 

The measure allows the city to sell bonds to pay for a 41,000-seat ballpark about one mile south of the U.S. Capitol along the Anacostia River. The baseball relocation agreement estimates it will cost $435 million to build a new stadium and refurbish RFK Stadium as a temporary home for the team. Opponents claim the project will total more than $600 million.

 

Any costs other than the private financing would be covered by a gross receipts tax on the city's largest businesses, taxes on tickets, concessions and parking and rent from the team's owners.

 

Washington has been without a major league team since the expansion Senators moved to Texas following the 1971 season. The Expos' move would be the first major league franchise relocation since then.

 

The original Senators played in Washington from 1901-60 before moving to Minnesota to become the Twins. The expansion Senators called Washington home from 1961-71 before moving to Texas and becoming the Rangers.

 

Washington's new team would start play April 4 at Philadelphia and play its home opener April 14 against Arizona at RFK Stadium.

 

Las Vegas; Monterrey, Mexico; Norfolk, Va.; Northern Virginia; Portland, Ore.; and San Juan, Puerto Rico, also tried to land the Expos.

What a b*tch.

 

The stadium is already being paid by taxes on its users (largely, MD & VA fans) and large businesses. What do you want MLB/te new owners to finance? Road and subway improvements? The same road and subway improvements you'll have to contribute to if MLB heads to Northern Virginia?

What a b*tch.

 

The stadium is already being paid by taxes on its users (largely, MD & VA fans) and large businesses. What do you want MLB/te new owners to finance? Road and subway improvements? The same road and subway improvements you'll have to contribute to if MLB heads to Northern Virginia?

 

 

It's not being paid for by taxes on users. It's being paid for by a huge bond issue. Why can't the owners pay for half of the stadium? It's being built solely for their benefit.

This stadium is being payed for by Washington for their benefit. DC does better in the economics with a ballpark than sex clubs. Got it?

 

Whoever says stadiums don't benefit anyone but the team is idiotic....if that were the case there would be no new stadiums anywhere.

This stadium is being payed for by Washington for their benefit. DC does better in the economics with a ballpark than sex clubs. Got it?

 

Whoever says stadiums don't benefit anyone but the team is idiotic....if that were the case there would be no new stadiums anywhere.

 

Then all of those independent economists who have issued report after report saying that new ballparks bring no net economic benefit to a city must be idiots. Sorry. I'll take their word over yours. Stadiums don't bring any economic benefit, they just make the sports-loving constituency happy.

They bring good Construction jobs, maintenance jobs, hospitality jobs, and they double as a convention facility.

They bring good Construction jobs, maintenance jobs, hospitality jobs, and they double as a convention facility.

 

 

A convention facility??? NOT! If it was an indoor domed stadium, maybe you could make that argument, but not on a grass-field stadium. That's what convention centers are for.

 

Construction jobs - yes. Maintenance jobs - mostly janitorial work and a few engineers. Hospitality jobs - no (it doesn't take a ton of people to run a baseball club and most of those people are already hired with the Expos).

 

So you have some temporary construction jobs and more janitors, and for all of that the city (and most importantly, its taxpayers) has a huge debt burden. So we're talking increases in taxes to (in the long term) for more janitorial work. What a bargain. :thumbdown

Thank God the Marlins don't have to deal with those a**holes.

 

DC Mayor: The dream is almost dead......and that's being optimistic.

 

 

Oscar Goodman to be on ESPNEWS today. Didn't say what time though.

Q: If this does fall through where would Les Expos play 2005 or 2006?

 

I would assume they will play the 05 season in WAS. But what happens after that?

Unveiling of Washington Nationals Uniform Postponed

Wednesday December 15, 2004 9:25am

 

 

Washington (AP) - The Washington Nationals have postponed a news conference for Wednesday to unveil their new uniforms.

 

A team spokesman tells The Associated Press they'll issue a statement later Wednesday about why the event is being delayed.

 

It could be a sign, however, the deal between the city and Major League Baseball is in jeopardy. The D.C. council passed a stadium financing bill last night that requires half the construction cost be privately paid. The deal the mayor had made with baseball requires the stadium be financed entirely with public dollars.

 

Mayor Anthony Williams (website - news - bio) hasn't made any comment about council's vote. He's expected to hold a news conference later Wednesday. Baseball officials say they'll met later Wednesday to figure out its next step

Even those economists will tell you the greatest benefit of a stadium is to draw sales tax revenue from one part of the city to another. In this case, you're talking about moving sales taxes from Maryland and Virginia into DC.

 

The bonds for the stadium are to be paid for by taxes on large businesses and users of the stadium. By the estimates of the mayor and his opponents, the bonds will be paid off in 20 years solely from these sources. Leaving atleast another 10 years (the terms of the proposed lease is for 30 years) for the taxes to pay for cost overruns, repairs and projects. Not one cent will come from the few dozen who actually pay income tax in DC. The infrastructure around the stadium, well that's another thing, and the metro stop and roads have to be expanded if the city wants to continue their renovation of Anacostia waterfront anyway.

to comment on the hospitality issue:

 

there are at least, AT LEAST 100 jobs in the hospitality department. Not only are there concession workers, but the chefs in the sky boxes, the waitstaff, the managers of these people. It's unbelievable how many people in that industry will benefit from a new stadium.

I hope the teams moves after this season. :plain

The Nationals have decided to shut down their business and promotional operations. The uniform unveiling has been postponed indefinitely, as well.

 

ESPN.com story

to comment on the hospitality issue:

 

there are at least, AT LEAST 100 jobs in the hospitality department. Not only are there concession workers, but the chefs in the sky boxes, the waitstaff, the managers of these people. It's unbelievable how many people in that industry will benefit from a new stadium.

 

Most of those 100 jobs are concessions worker, who are minimum wage workers. And even at that, concessions workers are outsourced. There's a company that provides concessions workers and they just move them from event to event, so you're really talking about shifting work in some cases as opposed to creating new jobs. I know I've seen Marlins stadium workers working plenty of other events around S. Florida. Ultimately, still, you're talking about spending hundreds of millions for the added impact of a couple of hundred seasonal minimum-wage jobs. This isn't exactly getting a corporation to move it's headquarters to your city.

 

http://www.libertocracy.com/Webessays/Spor...sive_sports.htm

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=975

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html

 

And I could go on, and on.

 

If stadiums were that profitable, then why did the city of Toronto just take a bath when selling Sky Dome to the Blue Jays? It's a 14-year-old retractable-roof stadium WITH a hotel, and the city lost hundreds of million on it.

Because the city of stadium had so horribly mismanaged the Sky Dome that they had to turn over its rights 5 years ago to pay off the debts.

 

Even if the city had hired competent bureaucrats, not friends of the mayor, the facility still would have lost some value. I can't trade in '98 Accord for more than I paid for it. Certainly not with the '99-'05 Accord models available to potential buyers.

Most of those 100 jobs are concessions worker, who are minimum wage workers. And even at that, concessions workers are outsourced. There's a company that provides concessions workers and they just move them from event to event, so you're really talking about shifting work in some cases as opposed to creating new jobs. I know I've seen Marlins stadium workers working plenty of other events around S. Florida. Ultimately, still, you're talking about spending hundreds of millions for the added impact of a couple of hundred seasonal minimum-wage jobs. This isn't exactly getting a corporation to move it's headquarters to your city.

 

 

you're talking to someone that is in that business. There are management companies that are hired to manage the food & beverage. The people that work the concessions, etc. are full/part time employees. Some are temps, but the majority are not. When I worked for the Tampa Bay Lightning, I had 20 people working for me, and that was just in the private club.

 

My point with this on the stadium issue, is that there will be more revenues and taxes from upgraded luxury boxes which in fact bring in sponsorships and local business dollars.

If Gammons is to be believed, and I have my doubts on that one, we now know of the alternative location should MLB do the unbelievable and pull out of D.C. :plain

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1948596

 

 

Cropp, mayor to meet Monday

 

ESPN.com news services

 

 

ESPN's Peter Gammons has learned that Major League Baseball is attempting to negotiate some sort of compromise with Linda Cropp, the chair of the District of Columbia Council who earlier this week introducted an amendment that could endanger the Expos' move to Washington.

 

The proposed move hinges on the city having a stadium financing package acceptable to Major League Baseball in place by Dec. 31. Cropp's amendment to the mayor's stadium financing plan requires that at least half the stadium funding come from a private source. The amendment was approved late Tuesday night.

 

Major League Baseball, calling the amendment "wholly unacceptable," responded to the adoption of Cropp's provision by shutting down the team's business and promotional operations.

 

A source told Gammons on Saturday that the clock is ticking on negotiations to re-open the stadium deal. Dec. 31 has been set as the drop-dead date because Marion Berry takes office at the first of the year and will kill any park.

 

The source told Gammons that if the deal does not get renegotiated, commissioner Bug Selig will refuse to let the team play at RFK Stadium, home to the NFL's Washington Redskins, and could instead make the team play two seasons in Norfolk, Va. The situation is embarrassing, the source said, but baseball has no one to blame because it announced the team would move before having a deal in place with the politicians, a deal in place with Orioles owner Peter Angelos and a deal in place for their media.

 

In the meantime, Washington mayor Anthony Williams plans to meet with Cropp on Monday at Cropp's request, her spokesman, Mark Johnson, confirmed Friday night.

 

Both Cropp and Williams took to the airwaves Friday, appearing on several live radio shows.

 

"I'm willing to do anything to get a team here, within limits," Williams said on WAMU radio.

 

Cropp said she is not worried that the delay could tarnish the city's image as a place to do business.

 

"I take exception with people who say the district is doing anything unusual," Cropp said. "Debate, dialogue and lots of different opinions" are to be expected.

 

"I hope it's saying that the district won't just take anything" from Major League Baseball, she said.

 

Several private financiers have pitched funding schemes that could pay for as much as the full cost of building the stadium, city officials said. Cropp said she is talking to a coalition of banks that would like to work with the city, but she offered no details.

 

Washington businesses also weighed in Friday, sending a letter to Williams, Cropp and baseball commissioner Bud Selig.

 

"We concur that partial private financing for the stadium would be optimal," William A. Hanbury wrote on behalf of the D.C. Business Coalition. "However, the business community has already committed to play a defining role in funding the new ballpark and our commitment to that objective remains firm."

 

Hanbury asked baseball and city officials to work to resolve the crisis.

 

Businesses earning more than $5 million have agreed to pay between $5,000 and $16,000 per year to help pay for stadium construction bonds. Their maximum payment is down from $48,000 annually in the original legislation.

 

 

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report

hey bob,

 

you work for aramark?

*cough* council members bribed by Angelos *cough*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec20.html

 

 

Cropp Adds Baseball to Tuesday's Agenda

 

By David Nakamura

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, December 20, 2004; 1:13 PM

 

D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp today added baseball to the council's agenda at its final scheduled meeting of the year tomorrow, clearing the way for a possible reconsideration of legislation passed last week that requires private funding for at least half the cost of a new baseball stadium.

 

Cropp's move means that the 13-member council could have an opportunity to amend the provision, which has been rejected by Major League Baseball and could jeopardize the future of the Washington Nationals. However, Cropp also could pull the legislation from the agenda any time before tomorrow's meeting, set to begin at 10 a.m. at the John A. Wilson Building.

 

If the bill remains on the agenda, Cropp or any of the six other council members who voted in favor of the stadium financing package last week could move to reopen debate. That would require seven votes. If the bill is reopened, any council member could offer to amend the legislation.

 

Cropp has said she would place the bill on the agenda only if she found reason to do so in talks with baseball officials or Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D). Those discussions began shortly after 1 p.m. today.

 

Baseball officials have said they are open to private financing but they would like a guarantee that the city would revert to the original deal agreed to by Williams, which relies largely on public funding, if no private money is found.

 

The Nationals, formerly the Montreal Expos, are scheduled to open their 2005 season at RFK Stadium in Washington, but baseball officials have said the team might not play in the nation's capital at all if the impasse over a new stadium remains unresolved.

 

The legislation the council approved last week by a vote of 7 to 6 stipulated that Natwar M. Gandhi, the city's chief financial officer, has 120 days to solicit private financing proposals. Any that he can certify would be forwarded to the council, but if no private proposal is approved, the stadium project would be killed.

 

Several private funding proposals already have been broached to city officials.

 

One proposal from the Gates Group, a Cleveland-based private equity firm, would give the city $100 million in exchange for revenue generated from a special parking district around the stadium. Another proposal would allow developers to build larger buildings near the stadium in exchange for a payment to the city. And a third plan would have the city sell space on the ballpark's first floor to retail stores that would face the street.

 

This morning, council members David A. Catania (I-At Large), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) and Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4), all of whom voted against the stadium legislation, held a news conference urging Cropp to remain firm in her position. Ward 7 council member-elect Vincent C. Gray, who will take office in January, also participated.

 

"It's shameful for people to run around saying Linda Cropp will lose baseball," Gray said. "If the deal on the table loses baseball, good riddance."

 

Mark Tuohey, chairman of the D.C. Sports & Entertainment Commission, met with Cropp's staff this morning and said he had new details to discuss later in the day with the chairman.

 

Meantime, a town hall meeting on the baseball issue is scheduled for 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. today at the headquarters of the AFL-CIO at 815 16th Street NW.

Yay.

 

WTOP is reporting that Williams and Cropp will have an plan that keeps the Nationals in town and allows everyone to claim victory. Except for Adrian Fenty.

Presenting the home uniform top of a team that may never play a single game:

 

 

 

http://www.ballparktour.com/Uniforms.html

 

Some guy bought them from a merchant who put them out a bit early and put them up on Ebay.

That uni isn't too shabby.

They should put these on the jersey... cause they look so naughty.