Jump to content

Low payroll even during construction of new stadium


fanfish
 Share

Recommended Posts

So wrong on so many levels.

 

1) The Marlins are not being the great benefactors they'd have you believe. They're offering payment in the form of "future rent payments" meaning that if the stadium doesn't get built, the $200 million they're pledging doesn't exist. In real life terms, they're a college frat asking the owner of a property next door to build a house they can use on that empty property. Because they're a college frat, they don't have the money now, but once the house is built, they'll throw keg parties and stuff like that and use that money to pay the land lord rent. Becuase, eventually, they'll make enough money in their keg parties to come close to paying off maybe half of what the land lord took on, they feel that they themselves are paying for it because that money could have been spent on things like more beer instead of rent. When, in actuality, no house means no keg parties which means no money...so who's really "paying" for it? (And 2003 and Ferry, I realize it's more complicated than this scenario, but in its essence, its really not all that different. If it makes you sleep better, pretend the land lord's at the door getting a sur-charge from the frat and that he makes the frat endure expenses not typically associated with your normal tenant).

 

2) Your idea of sports is so skewed by the "losers" mentality of the piss poor market. Every team in a new stadium that did it "right" (Phillies, Giants, Astros, Tigers, Cardinals...basically everyone who campaigned for a new stadium, got it, and isn't named the Pirates) plays in front of pretty much capacity crowds and weekend sellouts. Some of them, gasp, even have wait lists for season tickets or only sell premium seats as a season ticket. Hell, even teams in old stadiums that desperately need redoing out draw us. Just because people don't go to games in Miami doesn't mean we're not, on paper, a much more desireable market than many of the aforementioned teams. Just from recollection, I believe the Miami/Marlins market is something like the 6th largest media market in MLB and of course Miami is one of the 4 major metropolitan cities in the US (New York, LA, Miami, Chicago)

 

3) Finally, the ownership is too poor to compete. Once the stadium is in place (*knock on wood*) the revenue sharing check Loria receives will be no longer and he instead will be asked to kick money IN. Do you realize the implications of this? A handout turns into an open hand! The spin we're fed on that could leave you dizzy.

 

Plus, your stance also ignores that two of the most notoriously stingy franchises (The A's and Twins) look like the Yankees compared to Jeffrey Loria. And in the case of the A's, the situation is alarmingly similar.

 

I beg to differ with your rationale.

 

1. Yes, they're contributing "non-existing" money to pay for their share of the stadium. However, your characterization of it is incorrect. Even though the money does not exist now it will exist and $200M is significant money when you look at it in terms of "rent" or "payments." And if the stadium doesn't get built, then the team isn't here and their $200M will be spent elsewhere, or pocketed because they found other income streams. Your frat house analogy is incorrect. Think of it more like a construction loan. You don't have the money to build a house on a vacant lot. So a bank fronts you the money, which you have to pay back over time. You don't have the money today, but over 20 years that money will go back to pay the bank. Same here, in simple terms. The County fronts the bonds to fund the construction and owns the facility, the team pays rent to the facility as a way to cover the construction costs. Now, if the bank doesn't give me a construction loan, then I don't have a house and the money I would have spent to pay off the loan would not exist either, or I would have gotten a loan to build a house in North Carolina for half that amount and I would have saved half of my expected loan payments. That doesn't mean that I'm still not "contributing." To continue the analogy further, now imagine that on the weekends you're not home, the house is "rented" as a vacation home, except the proceeds of that "rent" goes straight to pay off the construction loan. That's still more money coming in. I'd be upset if the Marlins played at a new facility for "no-rent" or for "nominal rent", but if they're paying a "fair-share" of rent (and by fair-share I mean a percentage of the amount of time they're using the facility) then I don't have a problem with it. But to say they are not contributing because they don't have the money today is not correct.

 

2. Your assertion that Miami is one of the four major metropolitan cities in the United States is down right wrong, if not self-centered and idiotic. Let's just rank the MLB TV markets that are out there to see that Miami doesn't even crack the Top 10:

 

(1) New York City , (2)Los Angeles , (3)Chicago, (4) Philadelphia, (5) San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, (6) Dallas/Ft. Worth, (7) Boston/ Southern New Hampshire, (8) Washington, D.C., (9) Atlanta, (10) Houston, (11) Detroit/Windsor, (12) Tampa/St. Petersburg/Sarasota/Bradenton, (13) Phoenix, (14) Seattle/Tacoma, (15) Minneapolis/St. Paul, (16) Miami/Ft. Lauderdale.

 

That makes South Florida the 16th largest MLB TV market, smack dab in the middle.

 

Then, in terms of metropolitan population, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale does not register in the Top 4 "major metropolitan cities" in the US. While the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach MSA is listed as having a population of 5,422,200, ranking it 6th behind NYC, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Dallas-Fort Worth, you have to remember that the MSA includes the West Palm Beach-Boynton Beach-Boca Raton subgroup. If WPB is to be treated as its own MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area), then Miami-Ft. Lauderdale would barely crack the Top 10. Now take into account other MSAs and you'll see that other markets in MLB are split. If the entire Washington-Baltimore market were combined, it would climb above this MSA. Same would hold true for the Boston-Providence MSAs (Boston and Providence are roughly equidistant to Miami and WPB). So to say we are part of the "Big 4" is wrong. If baseball isn't drawing down here when, on paper, we look good, then the problem isn't with ownership or facilities, it's with the market. There is a reason why Los Angeles has been without the NFL for over 10 years and the city hasn't fallen off the face of the earth. We're talking about "King Sport" in LA, and they seem to be doing just fine!

 

Regarding rent: I understand, created money is created money and earmarking it for rent is an opportunity cost, but it's not like a simple construction loan at all. Moreover, the Marlins make it appears that what they are doing is overly generous when in truth it is pretty standard practice among teams that receive public financing for the stadium.

 

I still stand by my analogy, they're asking for a huge handout, intending to pay back only a percentage over a very long period of time and then acting as if they're paying for all of it.

 

As for the rankings, I misspoke, I said it was off the top of my head, I guess I was wrong. Personally, I'd love to see sources as I swear the MLB Marlins media gives them a larger base market than Boston, of that I am almost certain, because that's the kind of thing that sticks with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By modern MLB standards, Loria's contributions, which are of an EXISTING AND NON-EXISTING nature, are significant. Even more so considering the Marlins' existing revenues and his rumored personal assets.

But those assets won't come into play once a profitable ballpark is built as the entire philosophy of franchise ownership has changed. Teams used to run by wealthy families and run entirely by coaches who were respected former major leaguers. It was more often an act of philantrophy. Now baseball is big business with ties to other big businesses. Owners buy teams as a tax shelter and part of the marketing mix of their other businesses. See the revered McGowan San Francisco project in which the city gave him profitable lands and utilities to support the real estate mogul's plans for a neighborhood anchored by a new ballpark. Or harken back to what has put the Marlins into the position they are in. Huizenga used the Marlins to advance his media interests, selling his cable sports network and the Marlins [to billionaire John Henry, who wouldn't fund the team and sought out the same handouts the significantly poorer Loria is chided for asking for] shortly after renewing their contract together. That's modern Major League Baseball ownership. It's about equal parts of profit and recognition. And to advance those interests, they've rearranged the front office. It's former ballplayers who have acumen, brilliant business managers, computer geeks and trusted assistants (Samson in our case) that run these operations. And they do so as efficiently as possible. Owners and their assistants no longer ask "how can I make this team better?", they ask "how can this team make me better?" or "how can I make this team better to make me better?". When you start thinking about teams in such a context, you don't fund teams any more, you operate them. You construct processes to utilize the team's assets in the most efficient and productive manner. What, if any, private assets that may be drawn upon are expected to have significantly higher returns, thus any private assets would be utilized in stadium construction or marketing. TSwift (and many others') suggestion of investing in player payroll is at best a small return investment (and that's ignoring that there seems to be no definitive link between pay and there are practices in one can exploit that such as relying on arbitration and pre-arbitration talent.)

So, in review: Owners do not, have no interest, and do not benefit from funding a team's payroll.

But TSwift is absolutly right in one respect. There's going to be a loss of supporting funds in coming years. We won't be getting that huge revenue sharing check. And we may end up paying into that pot. Or we may end up getting a smaller slice. Each team is pay into the system, but in the end, it's the 15 top earners of local revenue that see their revenues transferred to the bottom 15. With nearly every team in the league in profitable ballparks and expanding their media networks, local revenues are growing as well as the league and its ventures. Those top 15 aren't be hit hard and very few of those bottom 15 are rely on those funds. It's funny that TSwift, so optimistic of the market (which runs in contrast to his pessimism over what Loria will do differently than other teams did when their stadiums were built or opened), suggests this could be the Marlins' downfall. While the Marlins may not be able to fulfill the whole promise their new stadium and role in South Florida sports would allow, it's going to bring in significant resources to the MARLINS from which their ownership group and assistants can draw from to make the team make them better.

 

Captain Obvious to the rescue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now now now don't misinterpret my assertion that we're in a sizeable market to mean that in and of itself means we're in good shape. Quite the contrary, I think the business of baseball has escaped our organization and we will (under our current philosopy) limp into the new stadium (if it ever gets done) and become the new Pirates.

 

There's a mamoth difference between business acumen and sports business acumen, and clearly the latter escapes our ownership. They're content to pocket big in the short term and ignore long term negative implications. What that leads me to conclude is for a far different debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely...the only thing that changed from 2002 to 2007 is personal choice. In the billion dollar business of baseball, you have to be a truly awful business man to lose 8 figures annually, especially when you receive a revenue sharing check equal to or surpassing the proce of your onfield product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding rent: I understand, created money is created money and earmarking it for rent is an opportunity cost, but it's not like a simple construction loan at all. Moreover, the Marlins make it appears that what they are doing is overly generous when in truth it is pretty standard practice among teams that receive public financing for the stadium.

 

I still stand by my analogy, they're asking for a huge handout, intending to pay back only a percentage over a very long period of time and then acting as if they're paying for all of it.

 

As for the rankings, I misspoke, I said it was off the top of my head, I guess I was wrong. Personally, I'd love to see sources as I swear the MLB Marlins media gives them a larger base market than Boston, of that I am almost certain, because that's the kind of thing that sticks with you.

 

You don't understand how the financing mechanism works and you're ignoring the Marlins are pledging the franchise against their payments. There is no handout, this is no different than any municipal project financed by tax free municipal bonds, for which there is a market.

 

All the money the state, city and county would put in comes from either tourist related taxes which by law can only be spent on professional franchise stadium construction or a portion of sales taxes that wouldn't be collected unless the stadium is built.

 

You (the collective "you") have to understand the stadium will not belong to the Marlins, they are merely tenants. They can't own the stadium because it sits on city/county land (among several reasons). Swift, really, this is a very complex deal with a huge number of parts to it. If you don't want to believe me, talk to SoFlaFish who has the right credentials and can explain it to your satisfaction. Loria isn't screwing anyone by putting 20% down and the rest in rent, in fact doing it that way makes the whole deal work (providing a predictable and guaranteed - by pledging the franchise - flow of cash to pay off the bonds).

 

They just aren't asking for a huge handout.

 

This is a very good deal for everyone concerned - the city, state, county and the Marlins. The marketing value to the city of Miami and the GMVCB of having the name "Miami" mentioned a hundred times a day all over the world over the next 30 years is probably worth more than the price of the stadium when it comes to tourism alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding rent: I understand, created money is created money and earmarking it for rent is an opportunity cost, but it's not like a simple construction loan at all. Moreover, the Marlins make it appears that what they are doing is overly generous when in truth it is pretty standard practice among teams that receive public financing for the stadium.

 

I still stand by my analogy, they're asking for a huge handout, intending to pay back only a percentage over a very long period of time and then acting as if they're paying for all of it.

 

As for the rankings, I misspoke, I said it was off the top of my head, I guess I was wrong. Personally, I'd love to see sources as I swear the MLB Marlins media gives them a larger base market than Boston, of that I am almost certain, because that's the kind of thing that sticks with you.

 

You don't understand how the financing mechanism works and you're ignoring the Marlins are pledging the franchise against their payments. There is no handout, this is no different than any municipal project financed by tax free municipal bonds, for which there is a market.

 

All the money the state, city and county would put in comes from either tourist related taxes which by law can only be spent on professional franchise stadium construction or a portion of sales taxes that wouldn't be collected unless the stadium is built.

 

You (the collective "you") have to understand the stadium will not belong to the Marlins, they are merely tenants. They can't own the stadium because it sits on city/county land (among several reasons). Swift, really, this is a very complex deal with a huge number of parts to it. If you don't want to believe me, talk to SoFlaFish who has the right credentials and can explain it to your satisfaction. Loria isn't screwing anyone by putting 20% down and the rest in rent, in fact doing it that way makes the whole deal work (providing a predictable and guaranteed - by pledging the franchise - flow of cash to pay off the bonds).

 

They just aren't asking for a huge handout.

 

This is a very good deal for everyone concerned - the city, state, county and the Marlins. The marketing value to the city of Miami and the GMVCB of having the name "Miami" mentioned a hundred times a day all over the world over the next 30 years is probably worth more than the price of the stadium when it comes to tourism alone.

I didn't know that the Marlins had offered 20% upfront. That's got to be around 100 Million. Plus I read about them offering to cover cost overruns. That could easily be another 50-100 Million. Have they reall pledged this much real money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By modern MLB standards, Loria's contributions, which are of an EXISTING AND NON-EXISTING nature, are significant. Even more so considering the Marlins' existing revenues and his rumored personal assets.

But those assets won't come into play once a profitable ballpark is built as the entire philosophy of franchise ownership has changed. Teams used to run by wealthy families and run entirely by coaches who were respected former major leaguers. It was more often an act of philantrophy. Now baseball is big business with ties to other big businesses. Owners buy teams as a tax shelter and part of the marketing mix of their other businesses. See the revered McGowan San Francisco project in which the city gave him profitable lands and utilities to support the real estate mogul's plans for a neighborhood anchored by a new ballpark. Or harken back to what has put the Marlins into the position they are in. Huizenga used the Marlins to advance his media interests, selling his cable sports network and the Marlins [to billionaire John Henry, who wouldn't fund the team and sought out the same handouts the significantly poorer Loria is chided for asking for] shortly after renewing their contract together. That's modern Major League Baseball ownership. It's about equal parts of profit and recognition. And to advance those interests, they've rearranged the front office. It's former ballplayers who have acumen, brilliant business managers, computer geeks and trusted assistants (Samson in our case) that run these operations. And they do so as efficiently as possible. Owners and their assistants no longer ask "how can I make this team better?", they ask "how can this team make me better?" or "how can I make this team better to make me better?". When you start thinking about teams in such a context, you don't fund teams any more, you operate them. You construct processes to utilize the team's assets in the most efficient and productive manner. What, if any, private assets that may be drawn upon are expected to have significantly higher returns, thus any private assets would be utilized in stadium construction or marketing. TSwift (and many others') suggestion of investing in player payroll is at best a small return investment (and that's ignoring that there seems to be no definitive link between pay and there are practices in one can exploit that such as relying on arbitration and pre-arbitration talent.)

So, in review: Owners do not, have no interest, and do not benefit from funding a team's payroll.

But TSwift is absolutly right in one respect. There's going to be a loss of supporting funds in coming years. We won't be getting that huge revenue sharing check. And we may end up paying into that pot. Or we may end up getting a smaller slice. Each team is pay into the system, but in the end, it's the 15 top earners of local revenue that see their revenues transferred to the bottom 15. With nearly every team in the league in profitable ballparks and expanding their media networks, local revenues are growing as well as the league and its ventures. Those top 15 aren't be hit hard and very few of those bottom 15 are rely on those funds. It's funny that TSwift, so optimistic of the market (which runs in contrast to his pessimism over what Loria will do differently than other teams did when their stadiums were built or opened), suggests this could be the Marlins' downfall. While the Marlins may not be able to fulfill the whole promise their new stadium and role in South Florida sports would allow, it's going to bring in significant resources to the MARLINS from which their ownership group and assistants can draw from to make the team make them better.

 

One additional point: I am suspicious of the economic impact that stadiums can have, but even its most vocal opponents suggest that simply moving tax revenue from one neighborhood to the next has an effect. In many cities this doesn't mean much, but in this case moving tax revenue from Huizenga's parking lots and businesses along the Broward County border into Dade County will help the county. (But more than their contributions to the project and providing infrastructure long-term? I don't know.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would take the time to read this if it didn't resemble The Matrix code.

 

 

Lets organize our thoughts into some paragraphs.

 

 

Please don't accuse me of taking a shot at you either. Your "Cult of Personality" stab was uncalled for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the condensed version:

 

- By modern MLB standards, Loria's contributions, which are of an EXISTING AND NON-EXISTING nature, are significant. Even more so considering the Marlins' existing revenues and his rumored personal assets.

- Owners and their assistants no longer ask "how can I make this team better?", they ask "how can this team make me better?" or "how can I make this team better to make me better?". When you start thinking about teams in such a context, you don't fund teams any more, you operate them.

- [Due to revenue sharing] the Marlins may not be able to fulfill the whole promise their new stadium and role in South Florida sports would allow, it's going to bring in significant resources to the MARLINS from which their ownership group and assistants can draw from to make the team make them better.

 

(My apologies for not separating my sentences with 3 line breaks)

 

 

And back to my tangent. TSwift, you're incredible. Just a few months ago you were claiming that revenue sharing checks should be included in the team's bottom line, and that Loria was not losing money and a liar. Now you claim that it shouldn't, that he is and an idiot. The only thing you're consistent on is your dislike of the ownership. Why twist well known facts like the upfront contribution to the ballpark, which were initially offered a year and half ago and been a major item in all stadium news since? Or the "loss" of tens of millions of dollars occurred before the recent restructuring. Please stick with the facts. There's plenty of reasons to dislike or distrust Loria and/or Samson or any one else in the front office. So don't lie. This reminds me of your claims of incredible ticket price raises throughout the stadium because your section was hit hard.

 

Plenty has changed since 2002. And that was the reason for the recent actions by the Marlins' front office. Since 2002, salaries and potential local revenues have increased such making a new stadium even more necessary than it was. Since 2002, there's been events throughout the league and by the league itself that would lend itself to a stadium stand-off and threats of relocation. Since 2002, this team has a World Series and lost in the regular season with a high payroll. Since 2002, this team let its one and only true asset - its minor league system and scouting ranks - deteriorate for short-term gain. These and many other events changed, and have led to the Marlins to form a strategy to meet their goals, perhaps at expense of the gratification of Joe Fan, but with him at heart as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wrong on so many levels.

SoFlaFish, Marlins2003 and others have outlined how bizarre and off-base the keg-party analogy was, so I don't really need to respond myself, other than to say that it didn't make any sense, and that I stand by my statement that the Marlins are offering as much or more money than any team this side of New York City.

 

You've already admitted that you were wrong about your claims about the city of Miami, the most absurd being that Miami is one of the top 4 markets in the country, so I don't need to harp on that either. Miami is one of the top 3 party cities. But to call it one of the top major cities is just off. I would say there are 7 clear "major" cities in the US: New York, LA, Chicago, Philly, San Francisco, Washington, and Boston, more or less in that order. Miami is not there, unless you are talking about nightlife. Miami is definitely not there for sports--again, people in Miami go to the beach, while people in Boston go to baseball games. When you think of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, you think of baseball fans. When you think of New York and LA, you think of basketball fans. When you think of Philly and Washington, you think of football fans. When you think of Miami, there is no thought of sports, you think of the beach and the bars. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's face facts. Miami doesn't have a sports identity, at all.

 

And combining Miami with West Palm to make it a top 5 "major" city population-wise is just silly. Philly is only 20 miles further from New York than Miami is from West Palm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wrong on so many levels.

SoFlaFish, Marlins2003 and others have outlined how bizarre and off-base the keg-party analogy was, so I don't really need to respond myself, other than to say that it didn't make any sense, and that I stand by my statement that the Marlins are offering as much or more money than any team this side of New York City.

 

You've already admitted that you were wrong about your claims about the city of Miami, the most absurd being that Miami is one of the top 4 markets in the country, so I don't need to harp on that either. Miami is one of the top 3 party cities. But to call it one of the top major cities is just off. I would say there are 7 clear "major" cities in the US: New York, LA, Chicago, Philly, San Francisco, Washington, and Boston, more or less in that order. Miami is not there, unless you are talking about nightlife. Miami is definitely not there for sports--again, people in Miami go to the beach, while people in Boston go to baseball games. When you think of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, you think of baseball fans. When you think of New York and LA, you think of basketball fans. When you think of Philly and Washington, you think of football fans. When you think of Miami, there is no thought of sports, you think of the beach and the bars. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's face facts. Miami doesn't have a sports identity, at all.

 

And combining Miami with West Palm to make it a top 5 "major" city population-wise is just silly. Philly is only 20 miles further from New York than Miami is from West Palm.

 

may I point out that comparing the NE cities to the tri-county area is sorta silly? you are talking of a different type of area here of more spread out areas then up north? I understand that distance is not too far between philly and new york like that but you are talking of two of the most well defined cities and oldest cities in the country where if you go back 40 years my folks could of shown your dirt roads in miami, west palm, fort lauderdale. :whistle

 

Not saying you are wrong and he is right. I just wished to point out the youth of the whole area is rather different you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The corridor between NY and Philly is different than the corridor between Miami and West Palm. The NY/Philly corridor readily separates the two cities. There is quite a bit of country side between those two cities. I know the area extremely well, having gone to school in central Jersey and Manhattan. It is urban, with no real rural breaks, between Miami and West Palm. I would say Miami/West Palm is much more contiguous than NY/Philly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wrong on so many levels.

SoFlaFish, Marlins2003 and others have outlined how bizarre and off-base the keg-party analogy was, so I don't really need to respond myself, other than to say that it didn't make any sense, and that I stand by my statement that the Marlins are offering as much or more money than any team this side of New York City.

 

You've already admitted that you were wrong about your claims about the city of Miami, the most absurd being that Miami is one of the top 4 markets in the country, so I don't need to harp on that either. Miami is one of the top 3 party cities. But to call it one of the top major cities is just off. I would say there are 7 clear "major" cities in the US: New York, LA, Chicago, Philly, San Francisco, Washington, and Boston, more or less in that order. Miami is not there, unless you are talking about nightlife. Miami is definitely not there for sports--again, people in Miami go to the beach, while people in Boston go to baseball games. When you think of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, you think of baseball fans. When you think of New York and LA, you think of basketball fans. When you think of Philly and Washington, you think of football fans. When you think of Miami, there is no thought of sports, you think of the beach and the bars. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's face facts. Miami doesn't have a sports identity, at all.

 

And combining Miami with West Palm to make it a top 5 "major" city population-wise is just silly. Philly is only 20 miles further from New York than Miami is from West Palm.

 

Again, so wrong for so many reasons.

 

The people criticizing my analogy are, of course, those who relentlessly attempt to defend any move from the front office. The facts remain the same. The money is not there unless the stadium is built, the Marlins are pledging very little "real money" and instead paying opportunity costs. That's it. And that's what many teams in new stadiums do, so for the Marlins to pretend that their situation is so drasticlally different is insulting to educated fans.

 

Secondly, Philly to New York is asinine. Philly is it's own major metropolitan city. But West Palm is a "suburb" of sorts of Miami. There is localized mass transit (Tri-Rail) connecting the two, Miami is the sports capital of South Florida. Any part of South Florida therefore, is a draw for the Marlins. It's much the same as your constantly referenced Boston. As a city in and of itself, Boston isn't capable of supporting the Red Sox in the manner in which they operate, but all of New England is Red Sox territory. Jersey sales, hat sales, ticket sales, TV viewers. That's why it's totally relevant to look outside of Miami for viewership (FYI, 60% of the Marlins season ticket base comes from outside of Miami) but moronic to say that it's disqualified because of the relative proximity of Philadelphia and New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, Philly to New York is asinine. Philly is it's own major metropolitan city. But West Palm is a "suburb" of sorts of Miami. There is localized mass transit (Tri-Rail) connecting the two, Miami is the sports capital of South Florida. Any part of South Florida therefore, is a draw for the Marlins. It's much the same as your constantly referenced Boston. As a city in and of itself, Boston isn't capable of supporting the Red Sox in the manner in which they operate, but all of New England is Red Sox territory. Jersey sales, hat sales, ticket sales, TV viewers. That's why it's totally relevant to look outside of Miami for viewership (FYI, 60% of the Marlins season ticket base comes from outside of Miami) but moronic to say that it's disqualified because of the relative proximity of Philadelphia and New York.

 

 

"Suburb" of Miami? Outright laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I said nothing about any "keg party" analogy, only commenting that ignoring requisite tax and municipal (local and county) requirements is a mistake and leads people to the wrong conclusions.

 

It seems to me it isn't the educated Marlins fans who are insulted, rather it's the uneducated ones who want the rules to be different than they are.

 

I really wish we had an accountant among us who was familiar with how government financing works so he or she could independently explain why things work the way they do. SoFlaFish is the closest we have, a lawyer with governmental land use experience who tries to give impartial comment, who I don't think has ever presented himself as a "friend" of ownership, but rather a fan of the Marlins and that's all.

 

I've been trying for three years to do it but obviously I've failed miserably if people don't understand that municipalities just can't give away public land or the tax consequences of government issued bonds or why government must "own" the stadium and why the tenant has to pay "rent" (which is really a lease backed by the security of the underlieing asset, in this case the franchise itself) or the role of an unrecognized but highly influential bond-underwriting constituency, not to mention the banking community, various local, county, state and federal agencies who all become part of the mix, bureaucrats of every description, planners, movers and shakers, political cronies, the GMCVB, the Beacon Council, the list is endless.

 

The fact is about the last people pulling the strings here or shaping policy are the Marlins. And to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

 

I really feel if people don't get it by now it's because they don't want to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the kind words, Marlins2003. I will not consider myself a "friend" of the current ownership, but I'm not so naive as to think that they are some nefarious backroom dealers out to scam us the fans or anyone else. I try to explain things based on my experience of having to deal and negotiate with local government EVERY DAY as part of my job. It's what I do, I'm a local government lawyer and registered lobbyist in several municipalities and counties of South Florida (for full disclosure, I am not registered in Miami-Dade County).

 

TSwift25, you tried to make a simple analogy that was too simple. I tried to change the terms of your comparison by bringing it to simpler terms that were closer to the actual situation. A true "handout" would be the county building the facility, on county land, followed by a quit-claim deed to the Marlins for the facility, and then having the Marlins "pay back" only a percentage of the "loan" in "rent payments." Another way to call this a "handout" would be if the Marlins paid no rent or a nominal rent, like $1.00 per year for 99 years. But, again, that is not what is happening.

 

The Marlins are going to be tenants of a government owned facility. Their $232M in rent payments may translate to a prorated share of their use of the facility. The County will be free to schedule other events at the facility and derive profit from them (i.e., the WBC, concerts, a bowl game, an NCAA Regional, a convention, etc.).

 

Marlins2003 knows how frustrated I get trying to explain things here. I know that I have a level of knowledge and expertise in the situation that some of you don't have (plus, I'm much closer to the "fire" than you guys would know, or that I'm at liberty to disclose).

 

By the way, one week ago I was in a meeting with the assistant zoning director for Miami-Dade County on a matter for one of my clients. I sat down with the attorney on the other side of my deal and the topic turned to the "future" Government Center Baseball Stadium. The Miami-Dade official was very incredulous as to how they were going to fit a stadium there. His words were, "I think there's a royal palm in left field that's going to get in the way."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why it's totally relevant to look outside of Miami for viewership (FYI, 60% of the Marlins season ticket base comes from outside of Miami) but moronic to say that it's disqualified because of the relative proximity of Philadelphia and New York.

You have a lot of nerve calling somebody's post moronic after comparing the Marlins $210M contribution to a frat hosting a keg party.

 

"Suburb" of Miami? Outright laughable.

Agreed.

 

The corridor between NY and Philly is different than the corridor between Miami and West Palm. The NY/Philly corridor readily separates the two cities. There is quite a bit of country side between those two cities. I know the area extremely well, having gone to school in central Jersey and Manhattan. It is urban, with no real rural breaks, between Miami and West Palm. I would say Miami/West Palm is much more contiguous than NY/Philly.

"Quite a bit of country side" is a bit of a stretch. The corridor from Trenton to Edison/Metropark area is pretty urbanized. Sure, on either side there's a lot of emptiness, like between Trenton and the shore, but you could obviously the same thing about about the Everglades. And the Bucks County Philly suburbs across from Trenton are relatively urbanized. Lots of New York commuters live out there. The South Jersey and Main Line suburbs are distinct form New York, but Palm Beachers consider themselves distinct from Miami, so I don't see it as much of a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God I hate this ownership

 

And again. How Samson continues to have a job is beyond me. Every time he talks I get angry.

I agree with you Thanks to nepotism Samson is able to keep any kind of job...Hate the moron!

 

Nepotism is no longer an issue. We don't know what happens on the day-to-day biz end that he so impresses Loria and the rest of the board with. There has to be something. Has to be. But for the life of me I just can't figure it out.

I honestly thought that Loria was keeping him on last year so Samson could continue his training for the race in Hawaii as a favor for an ex-step son. The comments he was making on the radio and his failure for securing a stadium deal was enough for a firing after that race, IMO. I will say the then City Manager of Miami had as much to do with that proposal failing, but that's not the point. The higher ups don't have to come out and explain to us why he still has the job. We may just have to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why it's totally relevant to look outside of Miami for viewership (FYI, 60% of the Marlins season ticket base comes from outside of Miami) but moronic to say that it's disqualified because of the relative proximity of Philadelphia and New York.

You have a lot of nerve calling somebody's post moronic after comparing the Marlins $210M contribution to a frat hosting a keg party.

 

"Suburb" of Miami? Outright laughable.

Agreed.

 

The corridor between NY and Philly is different than the corridor between Miami and West Palm. The NY/Philly corridor readily separates the two cities. There is quite a bit of country side between those two cities. I know the area extremely well, having gone to school in central Jersey and Manhattan. It is urban, with no real rural breaks, between Miami and West Palm. I would say Miami/West Palm is much more contiguous than NY/Philly.

"Quite a bit of country side" is a bit of a stretch. The corridor from Trenton to Edison/Metropark area is pretty urbanized. Sure, on either side there's a lot of emptiness, like between Trenton and the shore, but you could obviously the same thing about about the Everglades. And the Bucks County Philly suburbs across from Trenton are relatively urbanized. Lots of New York commuters live out there. The South Jersey and Main Line suburbs are distinct form New York, but Palm Beachers consider themselves distinct from Miami, so I don't see it as much of a difference.

 

I lived in Central Jersey (Princeton) for four years. I went to school there. The area is not urbanized. Neither is the area between Philly and Trenton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, Philly to New York is asinine. Philly is it's own major metropolitan city. But West Palm is a "suburb" of sorts of Miami. There is localized mass transit (Tri-Rail) connecting the two, Miami is the sports capital of South Florida. Any part of South Florida therefore, is a draw for the Marlins. It's much the same as your constantly referenced Boston. As a city in and of itself, Boston isn't capable of supporting the Red Sox in the manner in which they operate, but all of New England is Red Sox territory. Jersey sales, hat sales, ticket sales, TV viewers. That's why it's totally relevant to look outside of Miami for viewership (FYI, 60% of the Marlins season ticket base comes from outside of Miami) but moronic to say that it's disqualified because of the relative proximity of Philadelphia and New York.

 

 

"Suburb" of Miami? Outright laughable.

 

Its not laughable. When calculating metro areas, West Palm is normally incorporated with all of Dade and Broward County. I am not saying I agree with it, but it gets clumped together all the time. The same way Manchester, NH gets clumped with Boston. Do I think its a suburb of boston? NO, but its not laughable that he made that association.

 

I also read that about 50% of redsox tickets sales are out of state! That means people from RI, NH and the rest of New England are buying tickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...