Jump to content

Ladies and gentlemen, your new stadium plan


Marlins2003

Recommended Posts

Regardind downtown being cheaper, yes I read why it's cheaper. My WTF comment was in reference to why on earth are we still insisting on OB if downtown is cheaper! The whole argument for going to OB over downtown on this forum has been that OB would be cheaper. Well, it's not. Thsi removes the one and only theoretical benefit of OB. So now we're not just building on a site that's less desirable, but we're also paying more money for it. IT MAKES NO SENSE! ugh.

 

I don't know if you read the actual County agenda item memorandum, but the only difference between the two sites is construction costs, in that in order for the club to be able to move into the ballpark for the 2011 season (April 2011), an OB site would allow for "expedited construction", which means that the project can be done in 29 months instead of 34 months. If you try to put the park downtown, the best case scenario is a September 2011 opening day, which is after the 2010 deadline imposed by Huizenga for when the year-to-year options are done.

 

Plus, I am still convinced that the downtown site would have been wrought with real estate nightmares, property condemnations, right-of-way abandonments and acquisitions, infrastructure delays, etc. The $20M price differential between the OB site and the GC site was all in construction expedition costs ($490M vs. $515M). Therefore, it's a wash.

 

Look, beggars can't be choosers. If you have $490M lying around and 40 acres (but no mule), then you can choose where to put the park. But until then, you've got to go with the cards you're dealt. That's real life real estate development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The City Commission just passed the "Global Project" thing that was written about in the Herald. I'm not sure what the next step is, but it certainly sounds positive. The vote was 4-1 and the 1 dissenting vote was a commissioner, whose name I can't remember, that was strongly in favor of the stadium but unhappy he had to vote on all of the other aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets see ...

 

1) Public financing increases significantly.

2) The Marlins contribution drops significantly.

3) The County Manager announces this great new breakthrough with a big grin on his face.

 

Does anyone know what day the County Manager's perp walk is scheduled for? :whistle

 

I have no idea where you are getting your facts from.

 

The "public financing" portion of the project has actually dropped because the County is no longer on the hook for servicing the debt, that will fall on the Marlins who now will be financing the $155M, which in the past was going to be done in the form of "lease payments."

 

The Marlins contribution actually increases up front, and the principal remains about the same. The only difference is that their obligations in interest payments can drop because (a) the term of the obligation drops from 30 years to 20 years and (b) they can get more favorable terms from private lenders than what would have to be shelled out in interest payments on the bonds (which is what would have funded the project). Plus, there shouldn't be a problem securing financing on this, especially with all the guarantees on the project. If I understand this correctly, instead of the County getting "rent" payments to service the Marlins contribution, the team will be paying the same (or less) to their private lender as debt service.

 

So, on that note, I have no idea what in the world you're talking about. But as I've seen in many other posts on this board, never let the facts get in the way of your own perceptions....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is the 25,000 seat for MLS? I remember a couple of weeks ago reading something about MLS being interested in a florida franchise.

 

They could just use Lockhart, or FIU right?

 

 

I read that Lockhart is going to be torn down after FAU builds their on campus stadium. (Similar to UCF, but one endzone left open)

 

And any expansion team that joins MLS, must have thier own soccer specific stadium, or have one built within a few years of joining. an MLS team could play at FIU, or even Dolphin stadium, but not permanently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last I remember, Ft. Lauderdale made an agreement with the Orioles to replace Lockhart with expanded spring training facilities. I don't know where that is at right now.

 

Guys, look for any reactions from County Commissioners between now and Tuesday. Any comments from any of them will give us a clue as to whether this idea from the City passes mustard.

 

I would expect a Sun-Sentinel article on that in a few hours. (No, don't ask me how as I don't have any sources; just my gut feeling based on recent history)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is the 25,000 seat for MLS? I remember a couple of weeks ago reading something about MLS being interested in a florida franchise.

 

They could just use Lockhart, or FIU right?

 

the mls will never go back to lockhart with a team with "miami" in its name. they probably wouldnt go back to lockhart under any circumstance anyway.

 

fiu is my guess... unless we dont get that team until 2011 (very likely because seattle, st. louis, philly and possibly las vegas are ahead of us in the expansion pecking order) and the soccer stadium isnt completed yet. in that case, theyd play at dolphin stadium for the first couple of years or so because the stadium will be empty during the summer. dolphin stadium was even designed with soccer in mind... the only reason why there weren't any world cup games there back in 94 was because of the marlins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea where you are getting your facts from.

The 1st sentence in the article states clearly ... "yet costs the county more long term." Further on it also states clearly ... "Yet the team would end up paying less in the long haul for the facility, now budgeted at $525 million. Before, the team's overall burden over many years would total $207 million. Now, it stops at the $155 million."

 

Those are the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And any expansion team that joins MLS, must have thier own soccer specific stadium, or have one built within a few years of joining.

Not anymore. They did away with that before the Seattle expansion, because Seattle was adamant about playing in Qwest Field. Apparently they built Qwest so that American football was secondary to soccer. :rolleyes:

 

But a soccer-specific stadium would be kickass. Anything to keep more profit away from H. Wayne Huizenga. :mischief

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... "Yet the team would end up paying less in the long haul for the facility, now budgeted at $525 million. Before, the team's overall burden over many years would total $207 million. Now, it stops at the $155 million."

 

The reason that it appears using this fuzzy math that it will cost the Marlins less is for a number of reasons:

 

1. the cost of building maintenance (which now falls on the Marlins) is not included.

 

2. Instead of rent over 30 years they are prepaying their portion of the commitment. The simple best analogy is if you buy a house for $100,000 and have a 30 year mortgage that house including interest winds up costing something like $236,000 (depending on the interest rate) vs buying the house for cash and capping its cost at $100k.

 

3. The Marlins contribution number does not include interest the Marlins would pay were they to borrow some or all of the $155 million they must put up. Since their finance costs, if there are any, and I say that only because it is unknown at this time what will be source of the $155 million, are off the ledger - aside from the deal itself, they aren't counted on the deal sheet.

 

For example, were the Marlins to borrow roughly 2/3, $100,000,000 for twenty years in the private equity market at say 5% annually, that $100 mil winds up costly them $158 million over the term.

 

So you add the $158 mil + the $55 million paid in cash and the total cost to the Marlins is $213 million. (Again were they to borrow roughly $100mil of their $155 mil upfront obligation)

 

The big difference is that the county no longer is offering bonds serviced by the Marlins rent payments (that were scheduled to be made over 30 years, hence more interest expense) as has always been the plan (until this new breakthrough offering), all that is shifted to the Marlins side of the equation.

 

In the long run it may actually cost the Marlins more over the term should they finance a large portion of their piece, but again that is unknown now and of no consequence to the city or county. It now completely falls on the Marlins shoulders.

 

From the comments you've made since this deal has been announced this explanation may not please you, but this is how it works. It's a better deal for all three entities - city, county and Marlins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can go with that explanation, Marlins2003. Then this would lead to the unspoken but obvious issue with this plan (as with the last plan) and that is capitalization. Do the owners have the scratch to make their committment? With the credit crunch I would have to think that the banks will be going over their accounts with a fine-tooth comb and performing a rectal exam for good measure ( :mischief ). Debt isn't exactly in right now. Samson is already rumoring about bringing in new investors. I hope those potential investors, assuming there will be, know who they're dealing with, or they could ask the last group of minority partners who dealt with Loria back when they owned the Expos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said this way back in the beginning of this thread but the Marlins will have zero problems financing this loan should they decide to take that route.

 

A $100 million loan with a major league franchise pledged against it as collateral and a rent-free lease for 30 years is a no-brainer. A 100% no-brainer.

 

There is always the chance that someone will come in and offer up enough money to satisfy both the minority investor's should they desire to be finally bought out and fund a significant portion of this debt, but I think it's unnecessary given the willingness among lenders to do this deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that said none of the money pledged to the stadium BY LAW can't be used for any other purpose that building professional sports franchise venues. In fact the voters of Miami-Dade already voted on it and said so.

 

Can't use it for school books or affordable housing or new roads regardless of what anyone tells you or what you see on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that said none of the money pledged to the stadium BY LAW can't be used for any other purpose that building professional sports franchise venues. In fact the voters of Miami-Dade already voted on it and said so.

 

Can't use it for school books or affordable housing or new roads regardless of what anyone tells you or what you see on TV.

i bet doing next vote next thur if i heard right their going some vote no by county commissioners i donot know how many vote needed to pass it i remember last year when county commissioners voted for money for marlins their few no vote like rolle and other feel money could us in their area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that said none of the money pledged to the stadium BY LAW can't be used for any other purpose that building professional sports franchise venues. In fact the voters of Miami-Dade already voted on it and said so.

 

Can't use it for school books or affordable housing or new roads regardless of what anyone tells you or what you see on TV.

i bet doing next vote next thur if i heard right their going some vote no by county commissioners i donot know how many vote needed to pass it i remember last year when county commissioners voted for money for marlins their few no vote like rolle and other feel money could us in their area

 

According to the Miami Herald article yesterday, they have confirmed that there are at least 7 of the 13 members in favor of the plan. That is already a majority. Furthermore, only 1 out the 10 commissioners that were spoken to was a sure no vote. I think those are pretty good odds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest iFesta Touch

The East-West MetroRail line won't be built for another 20 years at the earliest. Which is a damn shame.

 

The only hope for a mass transit connection (that isn't via bus) to a ballpark at the OB would be the street car and that's just my speculation.

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.



×
×
  • Create New...