March 5, 200719 yr Swift, when Samson says "pledged" he doesn't mean "spent" he means they will be collateralized or used as further $s promised in the event of failure on the Marlins part. First they promise to pay their obligations out of revenues, and further will pledge the franchise itself, but even beyond that they will pledge the naming rights and the suite $ but all that only comes into play IF they fail make their rent payments and the franchise is foreclosed on. All the lender cares about is being paid, not the source. The more collateral the Marlins offer the better the credit rating and the lower the interest rate. Don't be confused and think the money will already be spent. It won't be. As for the contention above of $200 million in cost overruns over the projected $490 million cost the job is going to bid out in such a way that the general contractor will be legally responsible for bringing the job in on time and in schedule and any overruns outside of an agreed upon number will the responsibility of the contractor. It's common practice and is called job order contracting. The GC, working with the architect will bid accordingly and will be obligated to carry insurance indemnifying the project. Usually there's a 10% contingency. Check around, this is how almost every big project is bid out these days (unfortunately not the case with the PAC but that's why the Marlins have demanded control).
March 6, 200719 yr Swift, when Samson says "pledged" he doesn't mean "spent" he means they will be collateralized or used as further $s promised in the event of failure on the Marlins part. First they promise to pay their obligations out of revenues, and further will pledge the franchise itself, but even beyond that they will pledge the naming rights and the suite $ but all that only comes into play IF they fail make their rent payments and the franchise is foreclosed on. All the lender cares about is being paid, not the source. The more collateral the Marlins offer the better the credit rating and the lower the interest rate. Don't be confused and think the money will already be spent. It won't be. As for the contention above of $200 million in cost overruns over the projected $490 million cost the job is going to bid out in such a way that the general contractor will be legally responsible for bringing the job in on time and in schedule and any overruns outside of an agreed upon number will the responsibility of the contractor. It's common practice and is called job order contracting. The GC, working with the architect will bid accordingly and will be obligated to carry insurance indemnifying the project. Usually there's a 10% contingency. Check around, this is how almost every big project is bid out these days (unfortunately not the case with the PAC but that's why the Marlins have demanded control). Thanks for 'splainin' things. The 490 Million figure is not realistic, even assuming a best case scenario weather wise, which would delay things and increase costs further. I say that there's no GC out there willing to bid 490 if they're on the hook for anything over 540. And I'm sure you know you know that insurance companies aren't exactly rushing to compete against each other in this market. Insurance can be had, but it's expensive, and just another factor to increase any GC's bid. But how this gets worked out is something that I'm optimistic about. I think the impetus and will is there from MLB. They'll figure out a way to cover the overruns amongst the parties. The bigger issue is the assumption that the team can draw the numbers you bandy about. This metropolitan area has proven that it will not turn out in number to support anything other than a football team. They did not turn out even to support a winner in baseball. It is a reach to assume that they'll be they're in a new stadium, beyond year 1, if the team is anything other than a champion. And the law of averages says that they will be something other than that.
March 6, 200719 yr Team Season G Total Average Miami Heat 1988-89 41 612,754 14,945 Miami Heat 1989-90 41 615,238 15,006 Miami Heat 1990-91 41 615,328 15,008 Miami Heat 1991-92 41 613,583 14,965 Miami Heat 1992-93 41 614,923 14,998 Miami Heat 1993-94 41 617,242 15,055 Miami Heat 1994-95 41 598,761 14,604 Miami Heat 1995-96 41 606,091 14,783 Miami Heat 1996-97 41 615,160 15,004 Miami Heat 1997-98 41 614,864 14,997 Miami Heat 1998-99 25 378,813 15,153 Miami Heat 1999-00 41 707,325 17,252 Miami Heat 2000-01 41 678,186 16,541 Miami Heat 2001-02 41 655,549 15,989 Miami Heat 2002-03 41 628,242 15,322 Miami Heat 2003-04 41 624,812 15,239 Miami Heat 2004-05 41 815,143 19,881 From 1988 to 1999 the Heat played at the Miami Arena, seating capacity of 16,640 for basketball games, meaning they averaged 90% capacity or more every season there. From 1999 to present they played (play) at AA Arena, seating capacity of 20,000, averaging 76% of capacity in their worst season (2003-04). (note: I got the capacities from Wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong). Seems to me Miami hasn't had any trouble supporting a basketball team either. Give the Marlins a stadium with a roof so people won't be threatened by rain delays and the support will be there. I am 100% certain of this. At 76% capacity (the Heat's worst season in attendance) the Marlins would average over 28,000 per game. Is that being optimistic? I don't think so. I think the inaugural season we can easily average 25,000 or above.
March 6, 200719 yr Team Season G Total Average Miami Heat 1988-89 41 612,754 14,945 Miami Heat 1989-90 41 615,238 15,006 Miami Heat 1990-91 41 615,328 15,008 Miami Heat 1991-92 41 613,583 14,965 Miami Heat 1992-93 41 614,923 14,998 Miami Heat 1993-94 41 617,242 15,055 Miami Heat 1994-95 41 598,761 14,604 Miami Heat 1995-96 41 606,091 14,783 Miami Heat 1996-97 41 615,160 15,004 Miami Heat 1997-98 41 614,864 14,997 Miami Heat 1998-99 25 378,813 15,153 Miami Heat 1999-00 41 707,325 17,252 Miami Heat 2000-01 41 678,186 16,541 Miami Heat 2001-02 41 655,549 15,989 Miami Heat 2002-03 41 628,242 15,322 Miami Heat 2003-04 41 624,812 15,239 Miami Heat 2004-05 41 815,143 19,881 From 1988 to 1999 the Heat played at the Miami Arena, seating capacity of 16,640 for basketball games, meaning they averaged 90% capacity or more every season there. From 1999 to present they played (play) at AA Arena, seating capacity of 20,000, averaging 76% of capacity in their worst season (2003-04). (note: I got the capacities from Wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong). Seems to me Miami hasn't had any trouble supporting a basketball team either. Give the Marlins a stadium with a roof so people won't be threatened by rain delays and the support will be there. I am 100% certain of this. At 76% capacity (the Heat's worst season in attendance) the Marlins would average over 28,000 per game. Is that being optimistic? I don't think so. I think the inaugural season we can easily average 25,000 or above. It's good that you're optimistic.
March 6, 200719 yr Swift, when Samson says "pledged" he doesn't mean "spent" he means they will be collateralized or used as further $s promised in the event of failure on the Marlins part. First they promise to pay their obligations out of revenues, and further will pledge the franchise itself, but even beyond that they will pledge the naming rights and the suite $ but all that only comes into play IF they fail make their rent payments and the franchise is foreclosed on. All the lender cares about is being paid, not the source. The more collateral the Marlins offer the better the credit rating and the lower the interest rate. Don't be confused and think the money will already be spent. It won't be. As for the contention above of $200 million in cost overruns over the projected $490 million cost the job is going to bid out in such a way that the general contractor will be legally responsible for bringing the job in on time and in schedule and any overruns outside of an agreed upon number will the responsibility of the contractor. It's common practice and is called job order contracting. The GC, working with the architect will bid accordingly and will be obligated to carry insurance indemnifying the project. Usually there's a 10% contingency. Check around, this is how almost every big project is bid out these days (unfortunately not the case with the PAC but that's why the Marlins have demanded control). Thanks for 'splainin' things. The 490 Million figure is not realistic, even assuming a best case scenario weather wise, which would delay things and increase costs further. I say that there's no GC out there willing to bid 490 if they're on the hook for anything over 540. And I'm sure you know you know that insurance companies aren't exactly rushing to compete against each other in this market. Insurance can be had, but it's expensive, and just another factor to increase any GC's bid. But how this gets worked out is something that I'm optimistic about. I think the impetus and will is there from MLB. They'll figure out a way to cover the overruns amongst the parties. The bigger issue is the assumption that the team can draw the numbers you bandy about. This metropolitan area has proven that it will not turn out in number to support anything other than a football team. They did not turn out even to support a winner in baseball. It is a reach to assume that they'll be they're in a new stadium, beyond year 1, if the team is anything other than a champion. And the law of averages says that they will be something other than that. MVP, putting me aside for a minute, don't you think the same team that got the Washington, DC deal done are pretty astute people and when they come up with a number, it's one that (pardon the pun) you can take to the bank? Don't believe me. Believe the hundred or so number-crunchers and construction experts, architects and some of the largest construction companies in America who will be bidding on this job that what is planned can be built within acceptable tolerances for that number. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by purposely undercalculating the costs or the timeline for construction. Nothing. If Joe Arriola was still city manager and he was still trying to deliver the construction project to one of his cronies that might be the case, but he's gone. You've got Burgess' guy running Miami city hall (Pete Hernandez) and the two of them want to get this deal done. They want this done without reproach. Miami doesn't need any more black-eyes. The Beacon Council wants this done right. The convention bureau wants this done right. MLB, and right on down the line. You can be as negative as you want and you can think me naive or stupid or whatever you want and you can think Loria is the worst owner in America but the guys driving this bus are all pros at getting this kind of stuff done and will succeed again. They are in the success business. Failure is not an option. And they wouldn't be making the effort if probably million of dollars in market research hadn't told them baseball downtown in a retractable roof stadium will work in South Florida. I'm not saying you're calling me a fool but if it makes you feel better go ahead. But common sense should tell you none of what is happening right now is a fantasy or the players involved aren't the best of the best because they are. IF MLB thought baseball wouldn't work here they'd be doing this in Portland or Charlotte or wherever. This deal gets done unless the democrats in Talahassee decide to make this a political issue to embarrass Crist. But I think even Gelber, for all his protests in the past, understands circumstances are different now. If he gets on board it's a done deal.
March 6, 200719 yr Swift, when Samson says "pledged" he doesn't mean "spent" he means they will be collateralized or used as further $s promised in the event of failure on the Marlins part. First they promise to pay their obligations out of revenues, and further will pledge the franchise itself, but even beyond that they will pledge the naming rights and the suite $ but all that only comes into play IF they fail make their rent payments and the franchise is foreclosed on. All the lender cares about is being paid, not the source. The more collateral the Marlins offer the better the credit rating and the lower the interest rate. Don't be confused and think the money will already be spent. It won't be. As for the contention above of $200 million in cost overruns over the projected $490 million cost the job is going to bid out in such a way that the general contractor will be legally responsible for bringing the job in on time and in schedule and any overruns outside of an agreed upon number will the responsibility of the contractor. It's common practice and is called job order contracting. The GC, working with the architect will bid accordingly and will be obligated to carry insurance indemnifying the project. Usually there's a 10% contingency. Check around, this is how almost every big project is bid out these days (unfortunately not the case with the PAC but that's why the Marlins have demanded control). Thanks for 'splainin' things. The 490 Million figure is not realistic, even assuming a best case scenario weather wise, which would delay things and increase costs further. I say that there's no GC out there willing to bid 490 if they're on the hook for anything over 540. And I'm sure you know you know that insurance companies aren't exactly rushing to compete against each other in this market. Insurance can be had, but it's expensive, and just another factor to increase any GC's bid. But how this gets worked out is something that I'm optimistic about. I think the impetus and will is there from MLB. They'll figure out a way to cover the overruns amongst the parties. The bigger issue is the assumption that the team can draw the numbers you bandy about. This metropolitan area has proven that it will not turn out in number to support anything other than a football team. They did not turn out even to support a winner in baseball. It is a reach to assume that they'll be they're in a new stadium, beyond year 1, if the team is anything other than a champion. And the law of averages says that they will be something other than that. MVP, putting me aside for a minute, don't you think the same team that got the Washington, DC deal done are pretty astute people and when they come up with a number, it's one that (pardon the pun) you can take to the bank? Don't believe me. Believe the hundred or so number-crunchers and construction experts, architects and some of the largest construction companies in America who will be bidding on this job that what is planned can be built within acceptable tolerances for that number. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by purposely undercalculating the costs or the timeline for construction. Nothing. If Joe Arriola was still city manager and he was still trying to deliver the construction project to one of his cronies that might be the case, but he's gone. You've got Burgess' guy running Miami city hall (Pete Hernandez) and the two of them want to get this deal done. They want this done without reproach. Miami doesn't need any more black-eyes. The Beacon Council wants this done right. The convention bureau wants this done right. MLB, and right on down the line. You can be as negative as you want and you can think me naive or stupid or whatever you want and you can think Loria is the worst owner in America but the guys driving this bus are all pros at getting this kind of stuff done and will succeed again. They are in the success business. Failure is not an option. And they wouldn't be making the effort if probably million of dollars in market research hadn't told them baseball downtown in a retractable roof stadium will work in South Florida. I'm not saying you're calling me a fool but if it makes you feel better go ahead. But common sense should tell you none of what is happening right now is a fantasy or the players involved aren't the best of the best because they are. IF MLB thought baseball wouldn't work here they'd be doing this in Portland or Charlotte or wherever. This deal gets done unless the democrats in Talahassee decide to make this a political issue to embarrass Crist. But I think even Gelber, for all his protests in the past, understands circumstances are different now. If he gets on board it's a done deal. 2003, you misunderstand me. I've said that I'm optimistic about a deal getting done. I've even said in the past that I believe contingencies have been made should the politicos in Tallahassee not contribute, which I consider unlikely. I certainly don't think that you're naive or a fool. As for Loria, I don't know enough about the other owners to call him the worst, but I'm not inclined to call him the best. He has a bad history and I don't like his choice for President of the franchise, the gimp, but other than that I've also said that I expect he'll do the same thing that the most recent previous owners have done. Nothing more or less. I do think that the 490 number is too low, but it's all part of the negotiations. There is something to be gained by beginning with a politically correct number, and then adjusting it once the ink is dry in Tallahassee. I do take issue with your optimism about attendance and subsequent revenue streams through ticket sales, advertising, etc. It's just business, nothing personal.
March 6, 200719 yr Completely lost in the revenue sharing money argument is that the league pot actually increases when the Marlins move into a profitable stadium. The Marlins' revenue not only goes up, but so will their contributions to revenue sharing. Whether they get a cut of that will depend on where they rank among the 30 teams, if they are among the lowest 15 producers of local revenues, they will receive back a net positive amount. (That a good enough explanation for you, pierremvp?) However, of course, Swifty ignores that it's not 'he' as in Loria that can't afford more, it's we as in the Florida Marlins. Despite all the wishing and begging of the ownership's critics, there's been nothing in the modern history of the game to suggest another owner will do more than Loria has. And I'm still amused that despite the critics' concerns over the owners' finances, they're less than impressed with what they have done and promised to. I'm not ashamed to admit that I've questioned (and still do) whether the Marlins can be a top revenue producing club in the vein of many Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern clubs let alone the Northeast and big Pacific Coast clubs. However, as I've always contended, the first step is ensuring current and future fans that a team will be here. And it's not going to hurt the bottom line by any stretch of the imagination. A new stadium represents a new beginning for the club.
March 6, 200719 yr I should explain something that might be misinterpreted. In rereading what I posted yesterday, in an effort to keep it simple, I may have given people the impression the Marlins would be issuing bonds and that is not the case. The county will issue the bonds, not the Fish. For a number of reasons, both for issuer and for ultimate bondholder, this is advantageous. When I say the Marlins are pledging this or that, they are doing so in their contract with the county, not directly to the people or institutions who will hold the bonds. By putting everything - the franchise itself, naming rights, suites $$$, guaranteeing to pay cost overruns - on the table to the county it strengthens the package that the county will ultimately present to the bond market. But again don't confuse pledging and spending, they are two completely different things.
March 6, 200719 yr There is no way that a new stadium puts the franchise in a worse situation than it is now, or even anything remotely similar. Between MLB contracts, attendance, various revenue sources (we haven't even touched on advertising sold on every square inch of the place from cup holders to seatbacks to jumbotrons, to wall space above urinals and internet connections) within a couple of years of recapturing their losses between now and opening day (I'm assuming 10% in cost overruns they'll have to absorb) there's no reason why this franchise can't field a team in the $85-120 million annual payroll area starting somewhere around 2012-13 and still break-even. I'm wondering how you came up with your estimate? I ask because to me it seems extremely high. How much incremental revenues do you think will be generated in the new stadium from luxury suites, naming rights, stadium advertising, parking, ticket receipts, concessions, etc.? Some quick guesstimates on my part: Luxury suites: 70 suites @ $250k per year = $17.5 million Naming rights: $2.5 million Stadium Advertising: $10 million Ticket receipts: $15 million (*) Concessions: $12 million Parking: Not much unless Loria starts buying parking lots around the stadium The above adds up to $57 million. If you take the reduction in revenue sharing of about $25 million (using the Phillies example) that lives Loria +$32 million. Unless these estimates are waaaaaaaaaay off or unless I'm missing revenue streams that will generate many millions a year then I don't see how we can field a $100 million payroll and still break even. I think he could break even with a payroll in the $75 million range. What do you think I'm missing? (*) assuming an attendance increase of 15k per game and $12 increase in the average ticket price. I think dealing with the issue of a 100-200 Million cost overrun is the first flaw that I'll point out. I suspect that this issue is the key one in the negotiations right now. Saddling the franchise with a cost overrun of 100-200 Million would be crippling, and undermines the rest of your thoughts. But I hope that this issue gets worked out somehow to spread any cost overrun over a certain amount between the parties involved. According to the Burgess memo the team is responsible for all cost overruns over $490 million.
March 6, 200719 yr There is no way that a new stadium puts the franchise in a worse situation than it is now, or even anything remotely similar. Between MLB contracts, attendance, various revenue sources (we haven't even touched on advertising sold on every square inch of the place from cup holders to seatbacks to jumbotrons, to wall space above urinals and internet connections) within a couple of years of recapturing their losses between now and opening day (I'm assuming 10% in cost overruns they'll have to absorb) there's no reason why this franchise can't field a team in the $85-120 million annual payroll area starting somewhere around 2012-13 and still break-even. I'm wondering how you came up with your estimate? I ask because to me it seems extremely high. How much incremental revenues do you think will be generated in the new stadium from luxury suites, naming rights, stadium advertising, parking, ticket receipts, concessions, etc.? Some quick guesstimates on my part: Luxury suites: 70 suites @ $250k per year = $17.5 million Naming rights: $2.5 million Stadium Advertising: $10 million Ticket receipts: $15 million (*) Concessions: $12 million Parking: Not much unless Loria starts buying parking lots around the stadium The above adds up to $57 million. If you take the reduction in revenue sharing of about $25 million (using the Phillies example) that lives Loria +$32 million. Unless these estimates are waaaaaaaaaay off or unless I'm missing revenue streams that will generate many millions a year then I don't see how we can field a $100 million payroll and still break even. I think he could break even with a payroll in the $75 million range. What do you think I'm missing? (*) assuming an attendance increase of 15k per game and $12 increase in the average ticket price. Not to interject or validate either side, but that's been my contention all along. If you believe that all it will take for Loria to field a $100 million team is a new stadium, then you believe Loria to be a liar. No new facility can generate that kind of revenue so quickly. It'd be unprecedented growth (and extremely unexpected given the apathetic market). Again, this presupposes that the Marlins truly are paying all they can afford and simply minimizing their losses currently (since, after all, we have to take Loria at his word).
March 6, 200719 yr This is really a sickness with some people. How you can come to the conclusion that "...If you believe that all it will take for Loria to field a $100 million team is a new stadium, then you believe Loria to be a liar...." is beyond belief. You remind me of a character in Alice in Wonderland with your thinking. Polo, I have plans tonight I'll try to answer your question as soon as I can. I do think your are drastically understating both the advertising component and the increased shared revenues from all matter of things shared within MLB such as media contracts, merchandising, etc. The pot of gold will probably double over the next decade. Some say in as little as seven years (please note the years I am talking about). And one last thing remember the rent stays the same as revenues go up. But more later, I have to run.
March 7, 200719 yr There is no way that a new stadium puts the franchise in a worse situation than it is now, or even anything remotely similar. Between MLB contracts, attendance, various revenue sources (we haven't even touched on advertising sold on every square inch of the place from cup holders to seatbacks to jumbotrons, to wall space above urinals and internet connections) within a couple of years of recapturing their losses between now and opening day (I'm assuming 10% in cost overruns they'll have to absorb) there's no reason why this franchise can't field a team in the $85-120 million annual payroll area starting somewhere around 2012-13 and still break-even. I'm wondering how you came up with your estimate? I ask because to me it seems extremely high. How much incremental revenues do you think will be generated in the new stadium from luxury suites, naming rights, stadium advertising, parking, ticket receipts, concessions, etc.? Some quick guesstimates on my part: Luxury suites: 70 suites @ $250k per year = $17.5 million Naming rights: $2.5 million Stadium Advertising: $10 million Ticket receipts: $15 million (*) Concessions: $12 million Parking: Not much unless Loria starts buying parking lots around the stadium The above adds up to $57 million. If you take the reduction in revenue sharing of about $25 million (using the Phillies example) that lives Loria +$32 million. Unless these estimates are waaaaaaaaaay off or unless I'm missing revenue streams that will generate many millions a year then I don't see how we can field a $100 million payroll and still break even. I think he could break even with a payroll in the $75 million range. What do you think I'm missing? (*) assuming an attendance increase of 15k per game and $12 increase in the average ticket price. Not to interject or validate either side, but that's been my contention all along. If you believe that all it will take for Loria to field a $100 million team is a new stadium, then you believe Loria to be a liar. No new facility can generate that kind of revenue so quickly. It'd be unprecedented growth (and extremely unexpected given the apathetic market). Again, this presupposes that the Marlins truly are paying all they can afford and simply minimizing their losses currently (since, after all, we have to take Loria at his word). First, your attendance math is flawed, because it only calculates your $12 increase for the additional 15K a night. That would be spread across the board. So, you're looking at close to $30 million incremental for attendance of 30K a game (remember...you have to assume you're not going to get 30K a game in DS with $12 ticket increase, otherwise this isn't techincally incremental from the stadium). I think for a brand spanking new stadium, this figure is realistic for at least the first year. I think the concessions bring in substantially more money than you've calculated. I'm not sure where you've gotten your figures, but if you estimate $10 a person in concession, that comes out to over $24 million in revenue for average attendance of 30K over the season. I've heard that the margins on concessions are astronomical, and that the vast majority of this goes to the club. And, that average seems very low considering the price of a beer, hotdogs, etc. Right now, the Marlins receive little, if none of this, since the concessions were outsourced by DS (and Huizenga) to a third party for steady revenue streams. Also, what about club merchandise? With larger attendance, shouldn't these revenues go up too? This has to be significant. The club surely gets a piece of the unis and shirts sold at the stadium. What about "new stadium" related activities...don't these generate income (like amusement rides, etc....not saying it is substantial, but something to consider if Loria can generate $1 Million a year from a kids area with video games, etc.) I thought that the new stadium would have 5000 parking spots. That may be high, but, assuming it isn't, that's over $4 million a year ($10/spot). With respect to your advertising, $10.5 million seems very low as well. In a brand new stadium, that figure should be higher. Naming rights are funny, because they are never done on a one-year basis, but are sold for longer periods, say 10 years. I wouldn't be suprised if Loria received more than $2.5 million a season just to name it Burger King Field. What about naming to parking lot too? DS did it with Toyota (which the Marlins don't receive a penny). I will say that your luxury box estimate is probably the most Loria could get in his wildest dreams. The Busch suites went for about $180,000 (however, they are sold out for the next decade), and that is a baseball crazy town. Here, there may not be enough corporate sponsorship to bring in that kind of money for 70 boxes. In summary, I honestly think the new stadium could bring in close to $100 million in incremental revenue. Whether that can relate to a $100 million payroll, I don't know. But, I think it is possible, particularly in the first few years of the stadium's existence. More importantly, these revenue streams (particularly season tickets, luxury boxes, naming rights, and advertising deals) will be consistent and will give the Marlins much needed cash flow stability.
March 7, 200719 yr This is really a sickness with some people. How you can come to the conclusion that "...If you believe that all it will take for Loria to field a $100 million team is a new stadium, then you believe Loria to be a liar...." is beyond belief. You remind me of a character in Alice in Wonderland with your thinking. Polo, I have plans tonight I'll try to answer your question as soon as I can. I do think your are drastically understating both the advertising component and the increased shared revenues from all matter of things shared within MLB such as media contracts, merchandising, etc. The pot of gold will probably double over the next decade. Some say in as little as seven years (please note the years I am talking about). And one last thing remember the rent stays the same as revenues go up. But more later, I have to run. Then show me established precedent. No more "I surmise" or "it is likely" or "I'd expect." Give me facts that show that this rapid growth has happened before. I've looked and looked and the only tangible evidence I can find in the recent past is a payroll increase of $15-$20 million (Phillies going from $65-$70 to $85-90). Which would mean we'd go from $15-$20 million in payroll to $40 million. If you're going to tell me that the Marlins are $60 million worse off in their lease than other teams, then I'll get the soap-box and violin ready.
March 7, 200719 yr You all make some good points....but you are all putting the cart before the horse. The first step and most important step is to get a stadium deal done. Then get a stadium built, while selling tickets. The attendance and subsequent revenue streams from all sources can only then be speculated upon. And then, we would have to speculate on how much, if any, Loria will spend on payroll based on all this speculation. There's no sense in getting caught up in the numbers.....before we even have a stadium deal. . . It does make for a somewhat interesting discussion while we all anxiously wait for both the the season to begin and for a stadium deal to be done. But let's not overdo it. I include myself.
March 7, 200719 yr First, your attendance math is flawed, because it only calculates your $12 increase for the additional 15K a night. That would be spread across the board. Wow, I screwed that up. After fixing that screw up I agree with the Marlins could have a $100 million payroll in 2012 and break even.
March 7, 200719 yr This is really a sickness with some people. How you can come to the conclusion that "...If you believe that all it will take for Loria to field a $100 million team is a new stadium, then you believe Loria to be a liar...." is beyond belief. You remind me of a character in Alice in Wonderland with your thinking. Polo, I have plans tonight I'll try to answer your question as soon as I can. I do think your are drastically understating both the advertising component and the increased shared revenues from all matter of things shared within MLB such as media contracts, merchandising, etc. The pot of gold will probably double over the next decade. Some say in as little as seven years (please note the years I am talking about). And one last thing remember the rent stays the same as revenues go up. But more later, I have to run. Then show me established precedent. No more "I surmise" or "it is likely" or "I'd expect." Give me facts that show that this rapid growth has happened before. I've looked and looked and the only tangible evidence I can find in the recent past is a payroll increase of $15-$20 million (Phillies going from $65-$70 to $85-90). Which would mean we'd go from $15-$20 million in payroll to $40 million. If you're going to tell me that the Marlins are $60 million worse off in their lease than other teams, then I'll get the soap-box and violin ready. I think Del and Polo have kind of worked alot of this out although the one area I know the most about I feel confident in commenting on. But before I do on Philadelphia as an example, what makes it and similar situations not a practical comparison is neither Philly nor other teams operated under the horrendous lease arrangements they inherited from baseball's king of folly, John Henry. Philadelphia hasn't been stripped of merchandising, concession or parking revenues all these years as the Marlins have, in fact I think anyone who tries to use other franchise's operating numbers as benchmarks against which the Marlns should be compared is making a primary mistake. In other words if that basic comparison is flawed every conclusion drawn from the comparison will be by definition flawed as well. As I said, Del and Polo have worked out some of the revenue disparity issues (and note my range was $85-120 beginning in 2012) but the one area where I think everyone misses the boat is the advertising and cross-marketing revenues that this venue will generate. Thinking of the stadium's proximity to 95 and the crush of people working downtown it wouldn't be hard to conceive of a scenario where there's $6-10 million (annually) of advertising sold affixed to the outside of the stadium and that's before you ever walk through the gates. By 2010 or so you'll have wi-fi, you'll have radio and tv broadcasts at your seat, and not of this game, but probably any/every game being played in the MLB (all on a pay per use basis) and I don't mean just in the suites, you'll have it and the corresponding advertising everywhere. If you think the recent makeover of Dolphin stadium is a marketing wonder it will be antiquated by the time this new park opens. There's probably $10 million in advertising sales per level just in the concession areas and ramps (just break it down, assume four ramps, three levels, perhaps 270o around the stadium, how many flat screens, billboards, pillars, etc., that can be sold, the numbers are staggering) and when you enter the field area you'll be overwhelmed by a marketing show that makes today's Jumbotron's look like an etch-a-sketch on Barney. Ads on every step, every cupholder, seatback, wall, foul pole, you name it. They say there's an ass for every seat, well they'll be an ad for every possible square foot that can be marketed. The other thing I think some want to ignore because it doesn't fit their pessimistic scenarios is that there's an ongoing escalation player salaries which will drive payroll up significantly. All this sales and marketing will be the price you have to pay for the Marlins to plunk down $25 million a year for a Cabrera or fillintheblank. What is currently probably a $60-85 million payroll today will probably be 100+ million by 2012. It's just the nature of the business.
March 7, 200719 yr Team Season G Total Average Miami Heat 1988-89 41 612,754 14,945 Miami Heat 1989-90 41 615,238 15,006 Miami Heat 1990-91 41 615,328 15,008 Miami Heat 1991-92 41 613,583 14,965 Miami Heat 1992-93 41 614,923 14,998 Miami Heat 1993-94 41 617,242 15,055 Miami Heat 1994-95 41 598,761 14,604 Miami Heat 1995-96 41 606,091 14,783 Miami Heat 1996-97 41 615,160 15,004 Miami Heat 1997-98 41 614,864 14,997 Miami Heat 1998-99 25 378,813 15,153 Miami Heat 1999-00 41 707,325 17,252 Miami Heat 2000-01 41 678,186 16,541 Miami Heat 2001-02 41 655,549 15,989 Miami Heat 2002-03 41 628,242 15,322 Miami Heat 2003-04 41 624,812 15,239 Miami Heat 2004-05 41 815,143 19,881 From 1988 to 1999 the Heat played at the Miami Arena, seating capacity of 16,640 for basketball games, meaning they averaged 90% capacity or more every season there. From 1999 to present they played (play) at AA Arena, seating capacity of 20,000, averaging 76% of capacity in their worst season (2003-04). (note: I got the capacities from Wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong). Seems to me Miami hasn't had any trouble supporting a basketball team either. Give the Marlins a stadium with a roof so people won't be threatened by rain delays and the support will be there. I am 100% certain of this. At 76% capacity (the Heat's worst season in attendance) the Marlins would average over 28,000 per game. Is that being optimistic? I don't think so. I think the inaugural season we can easily average 25,000 or above. These are horrible attendance numbers for the NBA. Except for the 04-05 Season. Not so much anymore, since they have been contenders and won a championship, but the Heat are usually in the bottom 2 for game attendance in the NBA. Just for some perspective.
March 7, 200719 yr This is really a sickness with some people. How you can come to the conclusion that "...If you believe that all it will take for Loria to field a $100 million team is a new stadium, then you believe Loria to be a liar...." is beyond belief. You remind me of a character in Alice in Wonderland with your thinking. Polo, I have plans tonight I'll try to answer your question as soon as I can. I do think your are drastically understating both the advertising component and the increased shared revenues from all matter of things shared within MLB such as media contracts, merchandising, etc. The pot of gold will probably double over the next decade. Some say in as little as seven years (please note the years I am talking about). And one last thing remember the rent stays the same as revenues go up. But more later, I have to run. Then show me established precedent. No more "I surmise" or "it is likely" or "I'd expect." Give me facts that show that this rapid growth has happened before. I've looked and looked and the only tangible evidence I can find in the recent past is a payroll increase of $15-$20 million (Phillies going from $65-$70 to $85-90). Which would mean we'd go from $15-$20 million in payroll to $40 million. If you're going to tell me that the Marlins are $60 million worse off in their lease than other teams, then I'll get the soap-box and violin ready. I think Del and Polo have kind of worked alot of this out although the one area I know the most about I feel confident in commenting on. But before I do on Philadelphia as an example, what makes it and similar situations not a practical comparison is neither Philly nor other teams operated under the horrendous lease arrangements they inherited from baseball's king of folly, John Henry. Philadelphia hasn't been stripped of merchandising, concession or parking revenues all these years as the Marlins have, in fact I think anyone who tries to use other franchise's operating numbers as benchmarks against which the Marlns should be compared is making a primary mistake. In other words if that basic comparison is flawed every conclusion drawn from the comparison will be by definition flawed as well. As I said, Del and Polo have worked out some of the revenue disparity issues (and note my range was $85-120 beginning in 2012) but the one area where I think everyone misses the boat is the advertising and cross-marketing revenues that this venue will generate. Thinking of the stadium's proximity to 95 and the crush of people working downtown it wouldn't be hard to conceive of a scenario where there's $6-10 million (annually) of advertising sold affixed to the outside of the stadium and that's before you ever walk through the gates. By 2010 or so you'll have wi-fi, you'll have radio and tv broadcasts at your seat, and not of this game, but probably any/every game being played in the MLB (all on a pay per use basis) and I don't mean just in the suites, you'll have it and the corresponding advertising everywhere. If you think the recent makeover of Dolphin stadium is a marketing wonder it will be antiquated by the time this new park opens. There's probably $10 million in advertising sales per level just in the concession areas and ramps (just break it down, assume four ramps, three levels, perhaps 270o around the stadium, how many flat screens, billboards, pillars, etc., that can be sold, the numbers are staggering) and when you enter the field area you'll be overwhelmed by a marketing show that makes today's Jumbotron's look like an etch-a-sketch on Barney. Ads on every step, every cupholder, seatback, wall, foul pole, you name it. They say there's an ass for every seat, well they'll be an ad for every possible square foot that can be marketed. The other thing I think some want to ignore because it doesn't fit their pessimistic scenarios is that there's an ongoing escalation player salaries which will drive payroll up significantly. All this sales and marketing will be the price you have to pay for the Marlins to plunk down $25 million a year for a Cabrera or fillintheblank. What is currently probably a $60-85 million payroll today will probably be 100+ million by 2012. It's just the nature of the business. I know very little about the marketing end of the stadium construction, and I seriously doubt the validity of anyone's claims regarding the intricacies of who assumes costs and in what proportion with such a murky definition of ownership -v- occupancy. However, I do know that all you're envisioning is not realistic to expect of the new stadium. The team/county/state is nickel-and-diming a (by today's standards and the South Florida climate) standard baseball only stadium. My understanding is the design (which I still think is in the hands of HOK) has been reworked at least three times (not counting the site specific adjustments) just to make it more cost effective (read: less flamboyant). I'm sure marketing is in the fore-front of everyone's mind when designing this, but I really don't think the Marlins are going to have spinning colors and the world's largest and second largest HD jumbotrons, to say nothing of the cost of assembling exterior marketing signs. Even then, I'd say it's reasonable to assume that the team wouldn't get the lion's share of the external marketing applied to the stadium or the area around the stadium, I'd assume Miami (or whoever acts as the controlling party) would take the biggest part. And you know what, that's fine with me. I don't care if this stadium is going to be Miami Arena 2.0, it's going to be a baseball only facility and that's all I want. PS: 2003, you do realize that the biggest money maker for MLB teams is not the suite sales, or the tickets or the advertising dollars in stadium. It's the television, radio and internet money, to say nothing of online sales. Baseball's a multi-billion dollar industry because of the national TV contracts, XM radio deals, the impending DirecTV deal and other contracts of national significance. All 30 teams are (thanks to revenue sharing) at least reasonably placed on the same footing to start, those extra steps are taken by teams in unique circumstances, but there's absolutely no reason to assume that teams are so intrinsically different that you are unable to find a reasonable comparison across the baseball land-scape. The Marlins have to stop hiding behind their lease, the A's have just as atrocious a situation and they're able to field a payroll we'd kill for.
March 7, 200719 yr Team Season G Total Average Miami Heat 1988-89 41 612,754 14,945 Miami Heat 1989-90 41 615,238 15,006 Miami Heat 1990-91 41 615,328 15,008 Miami Heat 1991-92 41 613,583 14,965 Miami Heat 1992-93 41 614,923 14,998 Miami Heat 1993-94 41 617,242 15,055 Miami Heat 1994-95 41 598,761 14,604 Miami Heat 1995-96 41 606,091 14,783 Miami Heat 1996-97 41 615,160 15,004 Miami Heat 1997-98 41 614,864 14,997 Miami Heat 1998-99 25 378,813 15,153 Miami Heat 1999-00 41 707,325 17,252 Miami Heat 2000-01 41 678,186 16,541 Miami Heat 2001-02 41 655,549 15,989 Miami Heat 2002-03 41 628,242 15,322 Miami Heat 2003-04 41 624,812 15,239 Miami Heat 2004-05 41 815,143 19,881 From 1988 to 1999 the Heat played at the Miami Arena, seating capacity of 16,640 for basketball games, meaning they averaged 90% capacity or more every season there. From 1999 to present they played (play) at AA Arena, seating capacity of 20,000, averaging 76% of capacity in their worst season (2003-04). (note: I got the capacities from Wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong). Seems to me Miami hasn't had any trouble supporting a basketball team either. Give the Marlins a stadium with a roof so people won't be threatened by rain delays and the support will be there. I am 100% certain of this. At 76% capacity (the Heat's worst season in attendance) the Marlins would average over 28,000 per game. Is that being optimistic? I don't think so. I think the inaugural season we can easily average 25,000 or above. These are horrible attendance numbers for the NBA. Except for the 04-05 Season. Not so much anymore, since they have been contenders and won a championship, but the Heat are usually in the bottom 2 for game attendance in the NBA. Just for some perspective. I don't see how these numbers can be terrible when the capacity of the Arena is below 20,000. Unless I am wrong with that capacity, these numbers show 90% + attendance on AVERAGE, which is good.
March 7, 200719 yr As usual Swift you're wrong on almost every point you make but I give you this, you're consistent. The A's deal is not comparable except that they have a bad lease. They still control all the ancilliary revenue sources. All you want to do with your smarmy anti-marlins diatribes is expose yourself as the fraud you are. As for advertising and marketing you profess to know something about, for the life of me I can't figure what it is you think you know. Let me explain why installing hundreds of HDTVs throughout the facility, or exterior billboards or wi-fi and everything else I mentioned isn't going to cost the Marlins or the county a dime. Because in the same way Clear Channel was happy to pay the city of Miami Beach $300,000 for one three-sided billboard kiosk with an eight sq ft footprint on Lincoln Rd and residuals for years into the future, or put up bus stops all throughout the county at zero cost to the public, because when it comes to advertising sales and marketing it's just like real estate, it's location, location, location. National companies will be falling over themselves to get a piece of the action and will pay handsomely not just upfront but on an annual basis. I don't think you can imagine the battle that will take place for the beer taps in a new baseball stadium. Budweiser, if they win out, and they win out so often will probably pony up $2+ million just for right to sell their beer there not to mention the big chunk they'll gladly hand over for having that 80% exclusivity. The number two guy will probably pay $1 million just to be able to control the remaining 20%, silly as it sounds, that's how it works. Your contention about the Marlins or the county having to build out all this infrastructure is ridiculous. You think the county maintains all those ads on bus stops? You think they had to pay to build them? It's like saying the new stadium won't have food concessions because the Marlins can't afford fryolators. Telcom companies probably already have proposals in to wire the stadium, wi-fi companies, ditto. It's all about the venue and the opportunities offered and these kind of build-out opportunities don't come along that often. Why do you think all of a sudden you have all these commissioners lining up against this project? Because they are scrabbling to get in line for "their" piece of the pie. If they thought it wouldn't be successful they'd be much less vociferous in their approach. They smell a fortune to be made and are protecting the needs of their campaign contributors. OB site is back on the radar screen? To get all the vendor/contributors who are being thrown out of the airport a place do business which was the original plan. I understand you work overtime trying to be negative about every facet of the franchise and you do it with a passion. Too bad all this moaning and complaining and fiction just couldn't be channeled into something productive instead. You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to contruction or marketing so don't pretend you do. It really gets tiresome having to set the record straight after every one of your fables. It's a tough job but you can count on me to do, I guess because I'm just that kind of guy.
March 7, 200719 yr . National companies will be falling over themselves to get a piece of the action and will pay handsomely not just upfront but on an annual basis. I don't think you can imagine the battle that will take place for the beer taps in a new baseball stadium. Budweiser, if they win out, and they win out so often will probably pony up $2+ million just for right to sell their beer there not to mention the big chunk they'll gladly hand over for having that 80% exclusivity. The number two guy will probably pay $1 million just to be able to control the remaining 20%, silly as it sounds, that's how it works. After all the imports, fancy names, advertising and marketing, one thing always gets me. There is nothing better than a cold Bud (regular,not light). It is just always the smoothest best tasting beer in the world. Oh yea, I read the rest of the post-but I focus on the Bud.
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.