Jump to content


Pictures Buried Deep Within the Website


Entendu
 Share

Recommended Posts


This stadium should be awesome. It's just too bad they had to take our tax dollars to pay for it

 

That is incorrect. Miami-Dade will pay bond principal and interest with a combination of rent paid by the Marlins ($155 million over 35 years) and the existing hotel bed tax of 6%, 1% of which is dedicated to professional sports facilities (the other 5% is dedicated to convention and tourist development.) The hotel bed tax is paid almost exclusively by tourists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This stadium should be awesome. It's just too bad they had to take our tax dollars to pay for it

 

That is incorrect. Miami-Dade will pay bond principal and interest with a combination of rent paid by the Marlins ($155 million over 35 years) and the existing hotel bed tax of 6%, 1% of which is dedicated to professional sports facilities (the other 5% is dedicated to convention and tourist development.) The hotel bed tax is paid almost exclusively by tourists.

And us here in Broward didn't pay a cent.:arms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor will any of the general public in south Florida pay a cent unless they stay in a Dade county hotel or motel or some other short-term rental subject to the bed tax.

 

I should note that there is a guarantee by Miami-Dade county that general revenues (including property tax revenues) back the obligation, but that kicks in only in the event that bed tax revenues are insufficient. The probability of needing general revenues isn't zero but it's close to it because bond principal and interest on it are a fixed amount while bed tax receipts will slowly grow over time, providing an increasing margin of error.

 

Since the $5 mill/year or so that the Marlins will pay in rent is obviously an overhead factor in the Marlins' ticket price equation, people who actually use the stadium will be indirectly paying a part of the cost, which is eminently fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor will any of the general public in south Florida pay a cent unless they stay in a Dade county hotel or motel or some other short-term rental subject to the bed tax.

 

I should note that there is a guarantee by Miami-Dade county that general revenues (including property tax revenues) back the obligation, but that kicks in only in the event that bed tax revenues are insufficient. The probability of needing general revenues isn't zero but it's close to it because bond principal and interest on it are a fixed amount while bed tax receipts will slowly grow over time, providing an increasing margin of error.

 

Since the $5 mill/year or so that the Marlins will pay in rent is obviously an overhead factor in the Marlins' ticket price equation, people who actually use the stadium will be indirectly paying a part of the cost, which is eminently fair.

 

 

Any idea what they pay now?

 

We get diddly from the lease agreement now on so many things at Joe Robbie, and yet our ticket prices are cheap, cheap, cheap. The new pond brings so much more generated revenue, and yet our ticket prices have skyrocketed. Literally. For those that haven't already tasted it, go to the web site and check season ticket prices for 2011, then check out equivalent seating prices for the new pond. I don't care how they spin it, it's a huge increase. I believe once they announce the mini plans and then the single game prices there are going to be alot of very unhappy people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The existing lease says that they pay 5% of ticket revenue on the first 1.5 million tickets (so say the footnotes in the leaked financials,) 7% above 1.5 million. Attendance was 1.53 million last year (we beat Toronto and Oakland.)

 

Average ticket price was 19.06 in '09. Probably very similar in '10. That would be just under $1.5 million in rent for '10.

 

So, $5 mill, give or take represents a significant increase in that particular cost. One that Loria (and most everyone else, perhaps not to include you but I don't want to make any assumptions) no doubt is supremely happy to even have the opportunity to pay, the alternative being to fly to San Antonio or wherever.

 

But, it is what it is, a $3.5 million increase in their cost of doing business. Not a huge increase in the grand scheme of a $120 mill+/year operation, but a cost that must be recovered. If you assume they will sell out, that's 3 million tickets (81 x 37,000 = 2,997,000.) To cover the $3.5 million increase in rent, the average ticket price has to rise by $1.17, or about 6%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

Tons of cheap seats, not a one of which has an obstructed view. Unlike legacy dumps like Fenway or Wrigley, designed before they figured out how to avoid steel beam supports. Not to mention many others which have no excuse other than poor design.

 

About half of the stadium is $20 or less, probably averaging about $15. Considering that when I was a teenager I paid $1.50 in the '60s for a left field bleacher seat to see the Twins in Metropolitan stadium and that inflation has been about 700% since, that same seat in that same crappy, glorified minor-league stadium (thankfully long since torn down) would be about $12 today. I thought it was great at the time, but I was a just a kid, happy to see major league baseball under any circumstances.

 

$10 or $15 or $20 for any seat in what will be an absolute gem of a stadium is a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at http://www.seats3d.c...lorida_marlins/ there are literally thousands and thousands and thousands of $10, $12.50 and $15 dollar tickets, comprising virtually the entire outfield and the entire upper deck.

 

There are plenty of relatively cheap tickets, the premium prices are charged for premium locations. How can people be upset by that?

 

and those seats are going to be pretty decent because of the way the park is designed

That is something I came away impressed with while in Milwaukee. Not a bad seat in the house. No matter where you sit, you feel like you're on top of the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible that the Marlins will have obstructed view seats.

 

If I have any complaint with the stadium, it's that they are building it so small that the support columns are actually within the seating area. I think most, if not all, of retractable roof stadiums are designed so this does not happen. In the Marlins case, it's likely a necessity due to the size of the site and cost concerns, but I still think that it's an eyesore to see those massive concrete super-columns in an otherwise aesthetically pleasing ballpark. I also think that some of those columns, particularly those in right field, will end up blocking portions of the field.

 

The design of the park is far from flawless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The existing lease says that they pay 5% of ticket revenue on the first 1.5 million tickets (so say the footnotes in the leaked financials,) 7% above 1.5 million. Attendance was 1.53 million last year (we beat Toronto and Oakland.)

 

Average ticket price was 19.06 in '09. Probably very similar in '10. That would be just under $1.5 million in rent for '10.

 

So, $5 mill, give or take represents a significant increase in that particular cost. One that Loria (and most everyone else, perhaps not to include you but I don't want to make any assumptions) no doubt is supremely happy to even have the opportunity to pay, the alternative being to fly to San Antonio or wherever.But, it is what it is, a $3.5 million increase in their cost of doing business. Not a huge increase in the grand scheme of a $120 mill+/year operation, but a cost that must be recovered. If you assume they will sell out, that's 3 million tickets (81 x 37,000 = 2,997,000.) To cover the $3.5 million increase in rent, the average ticket price has to rise by $1.17, or about 6%.

 

 

 

Completely agree with that part, as I've been saying all along. BUT It was the things that were said to us previously (before the vote to secure the funding) by Samson on the increased pricing (which we all knew was coming) and then the huge surprise when we found out exactly what it was going to be. And your 6% estimate it ain't. Nor is it the 10%-15% that Samson told us. It was triple digits for comparable seating for us. Can't really comment on what it was for others. Go check out the pricing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at http://www.seats3d.c...lorida_marlins/ there are literally thousands and thousands and thousands of $10, $12.50 and $15 dollar tickets, comprising virtually the entire outfield and the entire upper deck.

 

There are plenty of relatively cheap tickets, the premium prices are charged for premium locations. How can people be upset by that?

 

 

 

Because we were talking comparable seating. Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

Tons of cheap seats, not a one of which has an obstructed view. Unlike legacy dumps like Fenway or Wrigley, designed before they figured out how to avoid steel beam supports. Not to mention many others which have no excuse other than poor design.

 

About half of the stadium is $20 or less, probably averaging about $15. Considering that when I was a teenager I paid $1.50 in the '60s for a left field bleacher seat to see the Twins in Metropolitan stadium and that inflation has been about 700% since, that same seat in that same crappy, glorified minor-league stadium (thankfully long since torn down) would be about $12 today. I thought it was great at the time, but I was a just a kid, happy to see major league baseball under any circumstances.

 

$10 or $15 or $20 for any seat in what will be an absolute gem of a stadium is a deal.

 

 

 

Okay. Guess we will have to wait and see. But I am predicting this to be one of the new and improved excuses of why folks aren't going to the games after the first year or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frisaro back in January:

 

To ensure that there will be no obstructed views in the building, team officials will sit in every single seat at the ballpark. In some early testing, it was detected that a railing blocked the view of home plate in the Vista Level. To accommodate, the builders switched to a thinner -- but still sturdy -- cable railing.

 

"We're sticking to our promise that we will sit in every seat and make sure there are no obstructed views," Samson said.

 

The architects designed it so that the columns won't block any view. The only possible problems are unexpected stuff like railings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the things that were said to us previously (before the vote to secure the funding) by Samson on the increased pricing (which we all knew was coming) and then the huge surprise when we found out exactly what it was going to be. And your 6% estimate it ain't. Nor is it the 10%-15% that Samson told us.

 

I have no idea what was said nor the basis for the overall increase. My 6% estimate was with regard to their increased rent only.

 

I'll guess that any percentages that were thrown around were overall averages, which would mean that any given comparable seat or section could vary significantly from the average. As has apparently happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frisaro back in January:

 

To ensure that there will be no obstructed views in the building, team officials will sit in every single seat at the ballpark. In some early testing, it was detected that a railing blocked the view of home plate in the Vista Level. To accommodate, the builders switched to a thinner -- but still sturdy -- cable railing.

 

"We're sticking to our promise that we will sit in every seat and make sure there are no obstructed views," Samson said.

 

The architects designed it so that the columns won't block any view. The only possible problems are unexpected stuff like railings.

 

Because we took seats on a railing, we asked that question. Railings are designed so that they wouldn't be in the way. I can only assume they meant for adults. Children, or very short people, may have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the things that were said to us previously (before the vote to secure the funding) by Samson on the increased pricing (which we all knew was coming) and then the huge surprise when we found out exactly what it was going to be. And your 6% estimate it ain't. Nor is it the 10%-15% that Samson told us.

 

I have no idea what was said nor the basis for the overall increase. My 6% estimate was with regard to their increased rent only.

 

I'll guess that any percentages that were thrown around were overall averages, which would mean that any given comparable seat or section could vary significantly from the average. As has apparently happened.

 

I'm guessing that you are taking the full season ticket prices for the "cheap seats" and then calculating that as the single game prices? If so, your numbers are seriously flawed. If not, where are you getting the single game pricing at? As far as I know, they haven't even released the partial plan prices yet, which although higher than full season, are still going to be lower than single game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...