Marlins accept OB site

[Marlins2003]

So your point is that the city and county should cover the $30 million (not $60 million) state subsidy and that the city and county should cover all the increases in the construction costs over the past 3 yaers? I hope the city and county leaders are not as stupid as you want them to be.

I thought the state subsidy was $2 million per year for 30 years.

I only think the city and county should cover all the increases in costs because they are insisting on a terrible site. If they were sane and moved downtown, then I'd say all parties should contribute equally because it benefits all. The OB site benefits no one so only the fools who demand it be there should be paying.

 

On the parking garage, IIRC, in the previous OB deal the parking garage would be pay for itself with the parking revenues.. the Marlins were not getting the parking revenues.

You may be right, my memory on this is a bit vague. If so, I retract saying that parking revenue is an difference.

 

Yes it is correct that the original plan had a parking garage and the revenue from the garage went to service the debt on the bonds issued for its construction.

 

But once the parking garage debt service was retired revenue sharing kicked in, which could mean millions annually to the Marlins over the life of the lease. So in effect you're both right, but not taking into account the significant revenue surplus generated when prorated annually from the garage. It's not inconceivable that over the term of the lease both the city and the Marlins could net an average of $3 million a year from the garage.

 

That's a big chunk of change.

[freedrinks23]

Yes it is correct that the original plan had a parking garage and the revenue from the garage went to service the debt on the bonds issued for its construction.

 

But once the parking garage debt service was retired revenue sharing kicked in, which could mean millions annually to the Marlins over the life of the lease. So in effect you're both right, but not taking into account the significant revenue surplus generated when prorated annually from the garage. It's not inconceivable that over the term of the lease both the city and the Marlins could net an average of $3 million a year from the garage.

 

That's a big chunk of change.

Thanks for the details. I agree that's it's a big chunk of change. This is more evidence that it's absurd to think the Marlins have some ethical obligation to keep their OB commitment from 3 years ago when a) the costs have gone up, b) there is no state contribution, and c) there's no potential for future parking revenue. It's a completely different deal, the Marlins aren't "backing out" of any existing commitment by reducing their contribution. They're only being prudent given the poor attendance they expect from such a terrible site.

[anotherrealfan]

So your point is that the city and county should cover the $30 million (not $60 million) state subsidy and that the city and county should cover all the increases in the construction costs over the past 3 yaers? I hope the city and county leaders are not as stupid as you want them to be.

I thought the state subsidy was $2 million per year for 30 years.

I only think the city and county should cover all the increases in costs because they are insisting on a terrible site. If they were sane and moved downtown, then I'd say all parties should contribute equally because it benefits all. The OB site benefits no one so only the fools who demand it be there should be paying.

 

On the parking garage, IIRC, in the previous OB deal the parking garage would be pay for itself with the parking revenues.. the Marlins were not getting the parking revenues.

You may be right, my memory on this is a bit vague. If so, I retract saying that parking revenue is an difference.

 

Yes it is correct that the original plan had a parking garage and the revenue from the garage went to service the debt on the bonds issued for its construction.

 

But once the parking garage debt service was retired revenue sharing kicked in, which could mean millions annually to the Marlins over the life of the lease. So in effect you're both right, but not taking into account the significant revenue surplus generated when prorated annually from the garage. It's not inconceivable that over the term of the lease both the city and the Marlins could net an average of $3 million a year from the garage.

 

That's a big chunk of change.

$3 mill is nothing to sneeze at-but the big picture is still that the Marlins would not share in this for a while and thus lose nothing up front. Hopefully, a profitable team with stability would make this change in the contract not be a stumbling block. As it is, on an annual basis, the 3 mill represents just a bit more than one half of one percent of a $500 million building-and why that would cause the Marlins to back out does not compute. Except, as I feel, it was just an excuse that Loria needed to justify what he wants all along and that is to committ minimal funds or even nada. If it turns out that there is a need for the parking garage, it could be added on later. I would guess that there are other built in excuses Loria is waiting to pull out of his hat. He can always send Samson in to annoy and agitate everyone, and then when they kick little David's butt out of the commission room, Loria can say he just can't work with the City.

[Marlins2003]

...He can always send Samson in to annoy and agitate everyone, and then when they kick little David's butt out of the commission room, Loria can say he just can't work with the City.

 

He's very good at that

[miamibaseball]

i need say this the time deal need make soon so their move out of proplayer before 2010 so their no time for them play round miami gave them ground is time for marlins say yes

[rferry]

The whole situation is a joke. It changes week to week. Next week Samson will say, the OB is not a feasible site, we need to look somewhere else. I think the bottom line is MLB wants the Marlins in Miami, the city of Miami doesn't care, and Loria wants to move them to another state and get a free stadium

More likely, MLB wants a stadium as free as it will come, Marlins want a profitable stadium, and the city officials can't rally support it needs. If no one cared or was committed to market, this thing would have never gotten off the ground to begin with.

[rferry]

I think Marlins2003 is right that the Marlins won't be offering to pay for cost overruns. And like fawouls' said, this makes sense as it's the city and county that chose this awful site, not the Marlins. If the Marlins offer $205K or $215K they are being very generous.

It makes no sense for the city and county to cover cost overruns. All along the Marlins have agreed to cover the overruns including during the previous version of the OB stadium. This is just another way of reducing their contribution.

I seem to recall the Marlins demanding control of project in exchange for cost overruns. The point was to not let the city/county's contractors cash their blank check.

[Out of the Past]

I think Marlins2003 is right that the Marlins won't be offering to pay for cost overruns. And like fawouls' said, this makes sense as it's the city and county that chose this awful site, not the Marlins. If the Marlins offer $205K or $215K they are being very generous.

It makes no sense for the city and county to cover cost overruns. All along the Marlins have agreed to cover the overruns including during the previous version of the OB stadium. This is just another way of reducing their contribution.

I seem to recall the Marlins demanding control of project in exchange for cost overruns. The point was to not let the city/county's contractors cash their blank check.

All along the Marlins have had control of the construction and nothing that I've read says that this has changed.

 

The only thing that has changed is that in the past the Marlins agreed to cover the overrurns and now it looks as if they're back pedalling on that.

 

For years the one issue with the overruns was Lorias's refusal to get a letter of credit as collateral. IIRC the issue was resolved about three years ago after he put the team as collateral.

[Marlins2003]

For the record, I think people misunderstood, or are mis-characterizing what I said.

 

I was suggesting some middle ground (on a number of issues) is what is being discussed now. At this late stage and a deadline looming, the dynamics of the deal have to be fluid or it never gets done. You have to give to get.