Trying to make sense of what happened on Friday the 13th

 

 

1. The City of Miami Commissioners decided to continue the meeting on March 12 after a tied vote of 2-2. (Commissioners Regalado and Sarnoff against and Commissioners Gonzalez and Sanchez in favor of the baseball agreements)

 

2. We all knew Regalado was against the stadium, but who knew this guy, Sarnoff was going to pop out of obscurity on the day of the vote and appoint himself "chief negotiator on the spot" for the City. Did he want the spotlight? Couldn't he have talked with the city manager about his concerns way ahead of time. No, he wanted to be seen and heard in the biggest stage of his life. He wanted his name in the paper and on TV as an " advocate for the taxpayers of the city", right? Give me a break.

 

3. Sarnoff suggestions:

 

a) Split evenly with the Marlins the first $6 million of the parking garages cost overruns. Any additional overruns would be the responsibility of the Marlins. However, to compensate for their expense, the Marlins would keep a percentage of the profits of the retail center to be built within the ballpark grounds.

 

Marlins answer: They would take the garage that $94 million can build. They want no part of the cost overrun they probably know is coming.

 

Possible solution: The Marlins should re-evaluate the design and cost analysis of the garages and adjust it to make sure that they can be built within the $94 million range. Once they are sure it can be done, accept to to be responsible for the cost overruns. This acceptance of the risk could be used as leverage for other negotiations.

 

b) Since the value of the team will increase with the construction of the stadium, the City and County should share the profits if the team is sold.

 

Marlins response: No. In order to consider this suggestion, the entire agreement would have to be re-negotiated.

 

Possible solution: Expand the provision that already exists in the agreement which gives the County a share of the profits of a sale if the team is sold within a specified number of years. Make sure the City gets something also. This should not be too hard to do if indeed there are no plans to sell the team.

 

c) The city and County should also benefit from the naming rights money.

 

Marlins response: No, in order to consider this suggestion they would need to re-negotiate the entire deal.

 

Possible solution: This is the only one that makes sense. If the stadium belongs to the County and is being paid by the three parties, they all should share in the naming rights according to their contributions.

 

4. City Commissioner Michelle Spencer-Jones, a stadium supporter was not at the commission meeting. I know that she is on maternity leave and I don't know how she's feeling, but unless she is ill, she should have been there.

 

5. I was under the impression that a super majority 4-1 vote was needed to pass the agreement in the City, but I've heard that a 3-2 vote (3 of the 5 or 60%) would have been enough, hence the importance of Commissioner Spencer-Jones attendance. If only a 3-2 vote is needed, passage of the agreement would have a better chance in March with Spencer-Jones there. If a 4-1 vote is needed, re-negotiations will then be required because of Sarnoff.

 

6. Very interesting note in the Herald: In the County Commission Meeting a super majority (9 of 13) is needed to "to wave the bidding process" and only a simple majority (7 votes) is needed to pass the actual stadium agreement.

 

In this way Sorenson, Gimenez, Heyman, Martinez, and Souto can all vote against the stadium and it will still pass by a 8-5 vote (simple majority), as long as at least one of them votes in favor of waving the bidding process, which would them be approved by a 9-4 vote (super majority).

 

Bottom line..... more negotiations are needed and it would be in the Marlins interest to give in a little here and a little there so that the commissioners can hold up something and show "the suffering taxpayers in these hard times" what they got for them. They should take this opportunity to meet with all of the Commissioners again to see what can be done to prevent another Sarnoff-type-ambush in the County meeting.

thanks for the recap. i think sarnoff makes fair points, but my primary gripe is bringing it up at the last minute. did he just think the marlins would accept those material changes during the hearing without examining the impact of those changes (forcing a re-examination of the whole deal)?

 

in the end, the marlins will have a tough time rejecting sharing money from the naming rights or allowing the city/county to share in any profits from a sale of the team. one point sarnoff did make, that I find quite interesting, is that he used the example of a potential sale of only a small percent of the team - implying that the team might look to sell off minority interests. what does anyone make of this? i do agree with his point that the city/county should share in the profits of not only a sale of the entire team (which I thought was restricted for a period of time), but the sale of any minority interest as well.

He did make some good points, but what he did and the way he went about it was EXTREMELY inappropriate. He is a self conceded arrogant piece of garbage and I would be shocked if he wins re-election when it comes up. You honestly think he would have pulled this crap if the 5th member was there?

Trying to make sense of what happened on Friday the 13th

 

 

1. The City of Miami Commissioners decided to continue the meeting on March 12 ...they did so so the meeting did not have to be re-advertised and no more public discussion/comments was required. All they really have to do is vote with all five attendance. Could be over in five minutes but they'll play it out for a while.

 

2. We all knew Regalado was against the stadium, but who knew this guy, Sarnoff was going to pop out of obscurity on the day of the vote and appoint himself "chief negotiator on the spot" for the City. ...Sarnoff has a lefty/artsy/intelligencia constituency and he got to look good for a day.

 

3. Sarnoff suggestions:

 

a) Absolutely correct.

 

b) Since the value of the team will increase with the construction of the stadium, the City and County should share the profits if the team is sold.

 

Sarnoff originally proffered that all profits should go against stadium debt and while he slightly modified his language in the second go around the impact would be the same because the stadium debt would always be more than the profit on the sale of the team. In other words he wanted 100% of the profits of the sale of the team above $250 million stripping Loria, or his estate if the sale was triggered by his death, of any profit whatsoever. The city and county would have their debt reduced by a hundred million or more, the Marlins would not get any debt relief, and they would continue to pay the same rent they were contracted to before the change of ownership.

 

c) The city and County should also benefit from the naming rights money.

 

Why? Obviously at least two negotiating teams were willing to let the Marlins keep the naming rights monies because of other things the Marlins had agreed to do in the agreement and now would strip away what the Marlins had already negotiated for without any offset.

 

4. Absolutely correct.

 

5. The required vote is a simple majority of city commissioners only.

 

6. Exactly.

 

Bottom line..... more negotiations are needed and it would be in the Marlins interest to give in a little here and a little there ...Yes and no. They shouldn't but they will.

Fantastic Recap, Fanfish. Really clarifies for those of us who got lost in the frustration of it all. Anyway, I am very happy w/ the results as I was extremely doubtful that it would pass. But instead we got the meeting moved, which is not a no. I'm happy.

 

Sarnoff does bring up some valid points. Those areas need to be revisited and ironed out considering the changes. And yes, he did go about it wrong. But it still needs to be addressed. I hope they can now work it all out and we can have our stadium next month. I'll be here hoping and praying. :crossfingers :pray

Forgive me for being a realist, but I think Sarnoff probably had to bring this up when he did. If Sarnoff had made his objections known and forced concessions in back-room meetings, how would he have been able to trumpet his accomplishments to his constituency? That's how local politics works: you need to make a public splash in order to show people that you're working on their behalf.

 

I do think that the Marlins should be throwing more into the kitty. If Loria is SO cash-strapped that he can't make more payments up front, then he absolutely should agree to pay a percentage of profits if he sells the team. The city and county are boosting the value of his asset by building a stadium with great revenue streams for the team; so it's only fair that the city and county share in the profits if Loria sells the asset. While I think it would be detrimental to the team to force profit-sharing on a year-by-year basis, I have no problem in forcing profit-sharing if Loria sells the team.

 

Of course, as a Marlins fan, I don't want Loria to agree to this provision for the simple reason that I really, really want Loria to sell to a new owner and Sarnoff's proposal would discourage Loria from ever selling the team.

Loria is kind of a douche at times, yes, but I find my anger toward him has subsided. His tight wallet approach to ownership has resulted in a more intelligent, thoughtful front office when it comes to the roster.

My biggest problems with Friday were:

 

1. Sarnoff bringing up major concerns at the WRONG time

 

2. Holding this meeting without the 5th member, since they should have known a tie was a possibility.

More time wasting imo

the marlins arent ever going to get a stadium.

and if they do...it wont be here.

and if they do...we wont be around long enough to see it.

the marlins arent ever going to get a stadium.

and if they do...it wont be here.

and if they do...we wont be around long enough to see it.

 

 

I think it will happen in March or it wont happen ever in Miami simple as that .

the marlins arent ever going to get a stadium.

and if they do...it wont be here.

and if they do...we wont be around long enough to see it.

 

 

I think it will happen in March or it wont happen ever in Miami simple as that .

It's pretty much come down to this no matter what.

Michael Putney ( no friend of the new stadium) said last Sunday on his TV show, "This Week in South Florida", that Commissioner Spencer-Jones should have made an effort to vote even if by phone. Then he added that she was under pressure by some pastors in her community to vote against the stadium deal.

 

Now we know why she didn't vote. She was originally a stadium supporter, now we are told that influential people in her community won't back her re-election efforts if she votes in favor of the stadium. She obviously wanted the problem to be decided without involving her. But it didn't happen.

 

Now she'll have to face the music and decide one way or the other.....which worries me, since we all know how politicians think. She obviously cares more about her political future than the stadium. However, she may have thought that Sarnoff would vote in favor of the stadium and therefore her vote would not be needed to approve the deal. In this manner, the stadium would have been approved without her vote while keeping the support of her community intact.

 

We may be in for a very rough time in the City Commission meetings. If Spencer-Jones succumbs to pressure and votes against the stadium, the Marlins will need to address the Sarnoff wish list and re-negotiate parts of the deal. If Spencer-Jones plans to vote in favor of the stadium, Sarnoff can be ignored.

 

I hope that City Manager Hernandez and Commission Chairman Sanchez are doing their homework and can find out how each commissioner plans to vote so that appropriate steps can be followed to pass the agreements in March.

the marlins arent ever going to get a stadium.

and if they do...it wont be here.

and if they do...we wont be around long enough to see it.

 

im going out on a limb here but i think...

 

if the marlins dont get their stadium they will renogotiate with new dolphins owner and extend the lease at dolphin stadium another 8 to 10 years. guys....they have NOWHERE to go.

 

plus, did you know that the marlins franchise is one of the most profitable in all of sports? why would they go anywhere? (i will find the si article where i read those statistics and post it later). alone in tv deals they make a killing.

 

at the end, of the day i think they will get their stadium...but dont buy into this "relocation" sh*t. its just a strategy. if they were really going to relocate they wouldve done it by now. NOBODY is going to build them a stadium.

 

and another scenario, if they cant they dont work it out with the city and county, is that loria will have to sell the team or partner up with someone who is willing to invest big bucks. there is also alot of influence from mlb...they want baseball in miami.

the marlins arent ever going to get a stadium.

and if they do...it wont be here.

and if they do...we wont be around long enough to see it.

 

im going out on a limb here but i think...

 

if the marlins dont get their stadium they will renogotiate with new dolphins owner and extend the lease at dolphin stadium another 8 to 10 years. guys....they have NOWHERE to go.

 

plus, did you know that the marlins franchise is one of the most profitable in all of sports? why would they go anywhere? (i will find the si article where i read those statistics and post it later). alone in tv deals they make a killing.

 

at the end, of the day i think they will get their stadium...but dont buy into this "relocation" sh*t. its just a strategy. if they were really going to relocate they wouldve done it by now. NOBODY is going to build them a stadium.

 

and another scenario, if they cant they dont work it out with the city and county, is that loria will have to sell the team or partner up with someone who is willing to invest big bucks. there is also alot of influence from mlb...they want baseball in miami.

 

you're not out on a limb at all...you're 100% right. in this economic climate, who has $500 million bucks. Vegas? Forget it...they've been hit harder than anyone.

 

what we saw at the commissioner's meeting was note a vote against the stadium, it was negotiation. the threat of relocation has been greatly reduced over the past 6 months, and commissioners know this. so they want to re-negotiate.

 

Samson was rightfully upset at the way that they did it, but let's face it - the commissioners thought the city could get a better deal. And it appears that they were right. because the team didn't respond by saying "if you don't take this deal, we're out of here", they said "if you don't take this deal, we've gotta re-negotiate". those are two very different things.

the marlins arent ever going to get a stadium.

and if they do...it wont be here.

and if they do...we wont be around long enough to see it.

 

im going out on a limb here but i think...

 

if the marlins dont get their stadium they will renogotiate with new dolphins owner and extend the lease at dolphin stadium another 8 to 10 years. guys....they have NOWHERE to go.

 

plus, did you know that the marlins franchise is one of the most profitable in all of sports? why would they go anywhere? (i will find the si article where i read those statistics and post it later). alone in tv deals they make a killing.

 

at the end, of the day i think they will get their stadium...but dont buy into this "relocation" sh*t. its just a strategy. if they were really going to relocate they wouldve done it by now. NOBODY is going to build them a stadium.

 

and another scenario, if they cant they dont work it out with the city and county, is that loria will have to sell the team or partner up with someone who is willing to invest big bucks. there is also alot of influence from mlb...they want baseball in miami.

 

you're not out on a limb at all...you're 100% right. in this economic climate, who has $500 million bucks. Vegas? Forget it...they've been hit harder than anyone.

 

what we saw at the commissioner's meeting was note a vote against the stadium, it was negotiation. the threat of relocation has been greatly reduced over the past 6 months, and commissioners know this. so they want to re-negotiate.

 

Samson was rightfully upset at the way that they did it, but let's face it - the commissioners thought the city could get a better deal. And it appears that they were right. because the team didn't respond by saying "if you don't take this deal, we're out of here", they said "if you don't take this deal, we've gotta re-negotiate". those are two very different things.

 

 

 

 

yup

 

check out this article http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/baseball/story/904998.html

the marlins arent ever going to get a stadium.

and if they do...it wont be here.

and if they do...we wont be around long enough to see it.

 

im going out on a limb here but i think...

 

if the marlins dont get their stadium they will renogotiate with new dolphins owner and extend the lease at dolphin stadium another 8 to 10 years. guys....they have NOWHERE to go.

 

plus, did you know that the marlins franchise is one of the most profitable in all of sports? why would they go anywhere? (i will find the si article where i read those statistics and post it later). alone in tv deals they make a killing.

 

at the end, of the day i think they will get their stadium...but dont buy into this "relocation" sh*t. its just a strategy. if they were really going to relocate they wouldve done it by now. NOBODY is going to build them a stadium.

 

and another scenario, if they cant they dont work it out with the city and county, is that loria will have to sell the team or partner up with someone who is willing to invest big bucks. there is also alot of influence from mlb...they want baseball in miami.

 

you're not out on a limb at all...you're 100% right. in this economic climate, who has $500 million bucks. Vegas? Forget it...they've been hit harder than anyone.

 

what we saw at the commissioner's meeting was note a vote against the stadium, it was negotiation. the threat of relocation has been greatly reduced over the past 6 months, and commissioners know this. so they want to re-negotiate.

 

Samson was rightfully upset at the way that they did it, but let's face it - the commissioners thought the city could get a better deal. And it appears that they were right. because the team didn't respond by saying "if you don't take this deal, we're out of here", they said "if you don't take this deal, we've gotta re-negotiate". those are two very different things.

 

 

 

 

yup

 

check out this article http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/baseball/story/904998.html

 

I'd also like to point out that - as much of a jerk as that commissioner was - at least two of his three terms were not really unreasonable. He wanted to cap the amount paid on the garage...the Marlins accepted that on the spot.

 

So then there's the other two. I think that his request for naming rights money will be tough, but honestly it seems totally reasonable to me that they want to dissuade Loria from flipping the team. The Marlins are sitting up there crying to the city about how this about the honor of keeping baseball in Miami, but let's not forget that the value of this team likely doubles once the ground is broken on this new stadium. I don't blame the city at all wanting a piece of that...I don't see what it's more fair that Loria gets it when he didn't want to pony up the money for the stadium in the first place.

Here's the echo: While Sarnoff had goods points, it was extremely inapproriate to say them on the day of vote.

 

Now to answer someone's justification for doing what he did at this meeting and not in a backdoor discussion, you don't know Sarnoff do you? This is the same guy who decided to destroy the beautiful Coconut Grove as a place to hang out at night and turn into an elitist place. He IS an elitist. As a result, I'm surprised. He continues to be an a%*hole.

He was wrong to bring it up the day of. He had two weeks since the city released the design schematics. He had several months during Braman's lawsuit. He had a full year since the working agreements were adopted.

 

And also there was absolutely no sense trying to drop a tax on Loria if he sold the team, or if the team sold in the event of his death, on the day of. It was unnecessary with the no-relocation clause in place. Emphasis on WAS, since it's now back on the table no thanks to that jackass.

im going out on a limb here but i think...

 

if the marlins dont get their stadium they will renogotiate with new dolphins owner and extend the lease at dolphin stadium another 8 to 10 years. guys....they have NOWHERE to go.

 

 

 

Your point is correct there appears to be very few options (maybe san antonio) but having the team another 8-10 years in dolphin stadium would not be good for the team all the same issues will be in play weather , weak revenue streams etc . The team that constantly guts the team will destroy what little fan base we have left . It is stadium or bust in terms of viability for the team

He was wrong to bring it up the day of. He had two weeks since the city released the design schematics. He had several months during Braman's lawsuit. He had a full year since the working agreements were adopted.

 

And also there was absolutely no sense trying to drop a tax on Loria if he sold the team, or if the team sold in the event of his death, on the day of. It was unnecessary with the no-relocation clause in place. Emphasis on WAS, since it's now back on the table no thanks to that jackass.

 

Actually, the "Sales Kicker" clause where the city and county would receive a portion of the proceeds if he team were to be sold, already is in the agreement. I believe Sarnoff just wants a bigger piece of the (potential) pie. And to look good.

He was wrong to bring it up the day of. He had two weeks since the city released the design schematics. He had several months during Braman's lawsuit. He had a full year since the working agreements were adopted.

 

And also there was absolutely no sense trying to drop a tax on Loria if he sold the team, or if the team sold in the event of his death, on the day of. It was unnecessary with the no-relocation clause in place. Emphasis on WAS, since it's now back on the table no thanks to that jackass.

 

Actually, the "Sales Kicker" clause where the city and county would receive a portion of the proceeds if he team were to be sold, already is in the agreement. I believe Sarnoff just wants a bigger piece of the (potential) pie. And to look good.

The way Sarnoff was speaking, he wanted every cent of profit from a potential sale.

The way Sarnoff was speaking, he wanted every cent of profit from a potential sale.

 

Exactly. While he spoke about "sharing in" he used $250 million as the benchmark (repeatedly) ignoring the Marlins $120+ cash million investment in a stadium they don't own plus the rest of their committed $$$ so in theory a sale potentially triggered by Loria's death could result in the the remaining owners and the Loria estate receiving less than the team was worth before the stadium was built.

 

I think the appropriate expression is "snake in the grass".

I don't think it matters that the Marlins don't own the stadium if they control the management of it and get all the revenues from it as I think is the case (not 100% positive) for the next 40 years. By the time the county gets management control and the revenues from the stadium it will likely be worthless.

The way Sarnoff was speaking, he wanted every cent of profit from a potential sale.

 

Exactly. While he spoke about "sharing in" he used $250 million as the benchmark (repeatedly) ignoring the Marlins $120+ cash million investment in a stadium they don't own plus the rest of their committed $$$ so in theory a sale potentially triggered by Loria's death could result in the the remaining owners and the Loria estate receiving less than the team was worth before the stadium was built.

 

I think the appropriate expression is "snake in the grass".

I just see the big picture as keeping the Marlins here-even long after Loria is gone. Why force Loria to keep ownership to avoid a potential net loss. The City thus gets nothing anyway and a new owner has the same obligations as the old owner with a much higher cost basis, thus a lower return on his investment. While it would be nice for the city to recognize a rapid return, and as someone pointed out there was already some provision for profit sharing, to bring it out at this time indicates to me that Sarnoff is posturing for his own political purposes. You can squeeze and squeeze, but at one point all parties have to show good faith and accept the terms-and I thought all the squeezing had taken place during months and months of negotiations.