By Sarah Talalay

South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Posted April 11 2006

 

Marlins' management flirted publicly with San Antonio officials last week during the team's opening series in Houston, but while both parties would like to move quickly it doesn't appear the relationship will lead to marriage anytime soon.

 

With a less-than-sellout crowd expected for today's home opener -- team officials are estimating 25,000 to 30,000 -- questions about the team's future linger, as do roadblocks to both staying and moving.

 

 

Team President David Samson says his focus is still to remain in South Florida in a new baseball-only stadium, but while talks continue with Miami-Dade County and the city of Hialeah, no deal is "palpable," he said. Samson said talks will continue with San Antonio and other cities -- no additional visits are planned -- to ensure the team has a place to play when the final option year of its Dolphin Stadium lease expires in 2010.

 

But for the Marlins to do more than contemplate a move, they must have Major League Baseball's permission to relocate. MLB officials have given no indication when they will let the team know if it can take the next step.

 

Samson and San Antonio officials say they would like an answer from MLB soon. San Antonio officials would like to ask Bexar County voters in November to extend the hotel and rental car taxes raised in 1999 for the San Antonio Spurs' arena in order to raise $200 million for a baseball stadium. A stadium deal would need to be hashed out with the Marlins first before a ballot measure could be approved, which must occur by mid-August to ensure a spot on the November ballot.

 

And Samson said for the team to move into a new stadium here or elsewhere by 2010, substantive negotiations need to begin within the next 60 days.

 

"If we lose 2010, that leads to an additional [financing] gap," Samson said. "Baseball is going to have its own time frame. I'm hopeful it will be soon."

 

Last week, MLB President Bob DuPuy told Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, the politician leading San Antonio's effort to lure the Marlins, and San Antonio Mayor Phil Hardberger that he would review the Marlins situation with Commissioner Bud Selig "within the next week and would stay in touch."

 

Wolff is now sounding more tepid about a deal.

 

"It was fun. They're pretty neat people, I think," Wolff said of the meetings with Samson and Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria in Houston. "But I don't know what will come of it."

 

It's unlikely the Marlins would be granted permission to move if there is any possibility of a stadium deal locally.

 

"Commissioner Selig has repeatedly stated his strong preference to keep the team in South Florida and is very disappointed that a stadium deal has not been reached," DuPuy said. "He continues to work toward that goal, while understandably allowing the Marlins to consider where they might play if those efforts remain unsuccessful."

 

There's no modern road map for relocation. Last year, the MLB-owned Montreal Expos were the first baseball team to move in 33 years when they became the Washington Nationals. No team had moved since the Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers in 1972.

 

If MLB does grant the Marlins permission to move -- approval of three-quarters of the 30 club owners is also needed -- significant obstacles remain.

 

The Marlins will need to know they can raise enough revenue from suites, sponsorships and TV and radio broadcast rights deals wherever they might target for a move. Wolff says he has garnered enough corporate interest to sell 39 suites in a new stadium.

 

"The TV is the biggest question mark right now," Samson said, declining to discuss his other findings about the San Antonio market.

 

San Antonio, the 37th largest television market in the United States, has 760,410 television households compared to 1.52 million households in the Fort Lauderdale-Miami market, which ranks 17th. Former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, who also is a former Univision executive, has reached out to Samson about potentially including Mexico in the television market.

 

Although the Houston Astros and the Texas Rangers could not a block a team from moving to San Antonio, as many as 155 of each team's games are broadcast to San Antonio viewers, according to an FSN Southwest spokesman.

 

It's doubtful both teams would be willing to give up such a large presence in the San Antonio market.

 

It's also unclear how a stadium financing deal would be structured in San Antonio. In South Florida, the most recent deal with Miami-Dade County and the city of Miami had the county issuing the bonds to finance a $420 million retractable roof ballpark up front with the Marlins paying rent from revenue that included their new long-term television deal with FSN Florida. But those stadium talks broke off last year.

 

Samson and Wolff say it's too early to tell if a similar arrangement could or would need to be struck in San Antonio. Wolff estimates a new stadium could cost $300 million and he doesn't believe it would need a roof. Some have called that figure optimistic. Samson says the Marlins have not done an estimate or made a decision about a roof. "We're in the middle of a final weather study right now," he said.

 

It is difficult to put a price tag on a new stadium without knowing its location -- land costs also need to be determined -- and Samson said a site hasn't been decided either.

 

Samson dismissed that talks with other cities are aimed at leverage locally. "If it had been about leverage we would have negotiated a deal somewhere and used it to get a deal somewhere else," he said.

 

He declined to discuss the public perception that a move is imminent.

 

All he would say is: "We are not moving until 2008, at the earliest."

 

There's a lot more dating left to be done.

 

Sarah Talalay can be reached at stalalay@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4173.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/basebal...-sports-marlins

When he says we arent moving out until 2008 at the earliest, do you think that would be before or after the season?

When he says we arent moving out until 2008 at the earliest, do you think that would be before or after the season?

 

Im guessing before. After 2007 season.

 

MLB as a whole stands to lose money if the team leaves South Florida. I doubt that 3/4 of the owners would vote to lose money. It makes no sense to leave South Florida. The only thing that makes sense is that Loria should go. When San Fran couldnt get a stadium for years a new owner came in with a new attitude and get a stadium built. New blood is needed.

But how are you going to get new blood in here? Loria has no intentions of selling this team and I doubt any of the owners or Bud would kick him outright. Its absolutely essential if any kind of stadium deal is going to happen here because these guys have burned all of their bridges, but getting them out is the issue..

It makes no sense to leave South Florida. The only thing that makes sense is that Loria should go. When San Fran couldnt get a stadium for years a new owner came in with a new attitude and get a stadium built. New blood is needed.

 

 

I agree new blood is needed to revive the talks. Loria really needs to pull Samson and hire a local professional to re-start the talks and explore new possibilities with local officials. New blood is the answer.

The Marlins are gone as gone can get from SoFla. They will become the San Antonio Whatevers for the simple reason that SA is their best option. It is the third fastest growing city in the country. MLB initiated this by calling on Judge Wolff and encouraging him to contact the Marlins back in November. MLB wants a franchise in San Antonio and they want it now. They wanted to put the Expos there previously and were told that SA was not ready at that time. The market is now ready and only getting stronger. MLB would ideally love to have a franchise in Mexico, but the Players Association will never go for that. San Antonio provides the desired marketing presence for the game to Northern Mexico. The market is growing so fast that in the 3 years that it will take to build a stadium, the market will be even better than what you see now.....by a lot. The Marlins would then enjoy a 4-5 year honeymoon and will make tons of money. After that the growth will have provided a lucrative market for the team through the foreseeable future.

TV market? Not a factor. Bud and MLB will carve out whatever is necessary to make it work. The Rangers owner has already said it needs to happen in San Antonio. McLane and the Astros, would on the surface, appear to be the ones with the most to lose. If McLane didnt want it to happen, he would be screaming bloody murder already. He isnt. The reason? Him and Bud are thick as blood. Both served together on the strike committee. With another CBA looming, it wouldnt hurt to have another small market club in the mix. The numbers that would be created by adding SA into MLB would also provide more of a case for the sharing of tv revenue similar to the agreement in the NFL. Dont think that Houston and Bud wouldnt love to win that battle against Steinbrenner and his camp. SA will help that.

Loria wants out of Miami. The elephant that is in the room that no one is talking about is hurricanes. The next ten years are forecasted to be VERY intense for hurricanes. Question......if you were a wealthy man with a valuable asset like the Marlins, would you be comfortable putting that asset at risk in hurricane prone area? I think not. Dont think for one minute that Loria didnt see the financial hardship put upon Saints owner Tom Benson by Hurricane Katrina. And that is the other factor........The NFL owners will soon tire of supporting the Saints in a financially decimated New Orleans. Before long, Benson will attempt to beat feet back to San Antonio. Bud Selig and MLB want to beat the NFL to San Antonio. Pretty smart when you look at it.

I wouldnt think that Miami would be without a team long, even after they lose this one. A new team, with new ownership would provide the atmosphere to get a stadium built down there.

Since you haven't been paying attention Samson said last week Hialeah is the best option they have on the table.

 

If you take Samson's word on how negotiations are going in South Florida, that tells you something about what they think of the offer from San Antonio. :thumbup

Since you haven't been paying attention Samson said last week Hialeah is the best option they have on the table.

 

If you take Samson's word on how negotiations are going in South Florida, that tells you something about what they think of the offer from San Antonio. :thumbup

 

 

 

I believe that to simply negotiating the best deal he can get in San Antonio. Posturing....plain and simple. Loria and Samsom dont want to be in SFla. If they did, they would have already broke ground on a stadium somewhere down there.

Since you haven't been paying attention Samson said last week Hialeah is the best option they have on the table.

 

If you take Samson's word on how negotiations are going in South Florida, that tells you something about what they think of the offer from San Antonio. :thumbup

 

 

 

I believe that to simply negotiating the best deal he can get in San Antonio. Posturing....plain and simple. Loria and Samsom dont want to be in SFla. If they did, they would have already broke ground on a stadium somewhere down there.

 

You can't break ground on a stadium when you don't have the proper funding in place.

When he says we arent moving out until 2008 at the earliest, do you think that would be before or after the season?

 

Im guessing before. After 2007 season.

 

MLB as a whole stands to lose money if the team leaves South Florida. I doubt that 3/4 of the owners would vote to lose money. It makes no sense to leave South Florida. The only thing that makes sense is that Loria should go. When San Fran couldnt get a stadium for years a new owner came in with a new attitude and get a stadium built. New blood is needed.

MLB is already losing a lot of money in South Florida. Because the Marlins generate so little revenue at Dolphisn Stadium, other teams must transfer some of theirs in MLB's revenue sharing plan. There are 28 owners (soon to be 29) out there that want to see that end. That will end if a new ballpark is built in any number of available markets. Of course, IF a new stadium is built in South Florida, they'd be even better off. But that 'if' represents uncertainty, therefore markets such as San Antonio must be explored, because the present situation is good for no one.

Since you haven't been paying attention Samson said last week Hialeah is the best option they have on the table.

 

If you take Samson's word on how negotiations are going in South Florida, that tells you something about what they think of the offer from San Antonio. :thumbup

 

 

 

I believe that to simply negotiating the best deal he can get in San Antonio. Posturing....plain and simple. Loria and Samsom dont want to be in SFla. If they did, they would have already broke ground on a stadium somewhere down there.

 

 

They wont take the offer in SA for a few years.

1. MLB doesnt want them to truly leave the south florida market

2. The Market size for TV and Radio is very very much smaller then in south florida (number 8 in the country)

3. Astros/Texans wont want another team taking their market share

4. MLB wants the WBC to be set in the "gateway" city to south america and the caribean.

5. Sampson and Loria wont put up 100 million upfront, they dont even have it.

 

I think what SA is doing here is securing themselves a chance for the future to aquire an expansion franchise. If they can prove themselves able to hold up and support a team as a minor market.

 

South florida is that golden market that Baseball drools over. Like LA is for football, so is miami for baseball. Besides Sampson and Loria has told SA and every other market up front that yes they do want to stay in south florida.

Originally posted by FishFan79: South florida is that golden market that Baseball drools over. Like LA is for football, so is miami for baseball. Besides Sampson and Loria has told SA and every other market up front that yes they do want to stay in south florida.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, there hasn't been any NFL in L.A. for 10+ years. Why, because of two reasons.

1st no new or remodel stadium, 2nd no fan support, that sounds familiar.

Originally posted by FishFan79: South florida is that golden market that Baseball drools over. Like LA is for football, so is miami for baseball. Besides Sampson and Loria has told SA and every other market up front that yes they do want to stay in south florida.

Correct me if I'm wrong, there hasn't been any NFL in L.A. for 10+ years. Why, because of two reasons.

1st no new or remodel stadium, 2nd no fan support, that sounds familiar.

:thumbup

so many teams thou in southern california market is saturated Chargers, Raiders, 49 ers, ..

so many teams thou in southern california market is saturated Chargers, Raiders, 49 ers, ..

 

?????????

 

Chargers are in So. Cal, however Raiders/49ers are in Northern Cal.

When you say "so many teams" are you referring to MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL?

Originally posted by FishFan79: South florida is that golden market that Baseball drools over. Like LA is for football, so is miami for baseball. Besides Sampson and Loria has told SA and every other market up front that yes they do want to stay in south florida.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, there hasn't been any NFL in L.A. for 10+ years. Why, because of two reasons.

1st no new or remodel stadium, 2nd no fan support, that sounds familiar.There hasn't been any NFL in LA for 10 years because market size doesn't matter as much in the NFL. Everybody takes a share of the communal TV revenue pot, so there's little incentive for individual owners to focus on their #1 revenue-generating tool--TV viewership.

 

It's great for parity and all, but only in the NFL will you see one team move from Houston to Nashville and another one open up in Jacksonville--all while the 2nd-largest TV market lies dormant.

There hasn't been any NFL in LA for 10 years because market size doesn't matter as much in the NFL. Everybody takes a share of the communal TV revenue pot, so there's little incentive for individual owners to focus on their #1 revenue-generating tool--TV viewership.

 

It's great for parity and all, but only in the NFL will you see one team move from Houston to Nashville and another one open up in Jacksonville--all while the 2nd-largest TV market lies dormant.

 

 

Actually, the owners of the NFL would LOVE to have a team in LA. A local team logically would increase viewership in the market, which means advertising is worth more and their TV contracts would increase. Of course, there aren't many owners who want to go to LA themselves, which is the problem. I think only Al Davis wants to be in LA, and no way the NFL lets him move there.

 

Also, the Jacksonville franchise was awarded while there were 2 teams in LA. They didn't start play until after LA was empty, but when it was awarded, the Rams and the Raiders were both still there and working on stadium deals.

so many teams thou in southern california market is saturated Chargers, Raiders, 49 ers, ..

 

?????????

 

Chargers are in So. Cal, however Raiders/49ers are in Northern Cal.

When you say "so many teams" are you referring to MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL?

 

 

Hmmm...don't they play a decent brand of college football in SoCal? Hey, they're not the Longhorns but the support for the two local teams isn't bad.

 

:mischief2

There hasn't been any NFL in LA for 10 years because market size doesn't matter as much in the NFL. Everybody takes a share of the communal TV revenue pot, so there's little incentive for individual owners to focus on their #1 revenue-generating tool--TV viewership.

 

Market size doesn't matter in MLB when for many reasons it doesn't produce revenue.