Posted on Wed, Jan. 28, 2004

 

SPORTS BUZZ

Marlins: New home must be dome

BARRY JACKSON

bjackson@herald.com

 

 

Barry Jackson

 

 

 

 

Look for the Marlins to reject a big part of the city of Miami's latest stadium proposal. While the Marlins would consider a new ballpark next to the Orange Bowl, they have ruled out a stadium without a retractable dome.

 

''We're not considering a facility without a roof,'' President David Samson said. ''It should come as no surprise to anyone we've ever met with. For the Marlins to stay in South Florida, they need to play in a roofed facility. We will need to work with the city and county to make sure that gets accomplished.''

 

Samson said the Marlins are exploring other sites in Miami-Dade County, but none in Broward and Palm Beach.

 

DEBATING COSTS

 

The Marlins and the city continue to disagree about how much a domed stadium would cost. The city's consultant, Robert Dunn of the Hammes Company, said it likely would cost more than $450 million, and city officials say they cannot afford that.

 

Samson said the Marlins have consulted ''with people who have done baseball facilities'' and insists the tab would be $325 million ''if we are in control of all the costs of construction and design. We would have to show [local government] we're so confident that we will guarantee it.''

 

Although the Minnesota Twins' proposed retractable-roof ballpark reportedly will cost more than $500 million, Samson said the Marlins' costs would be less because ''of lower labor costs and weather'' factors.

 

Is the team's March 15 stadium deadline flexible? ''Not much,'' Samson said. ''We have bent over backward. We have taken a look at everything.''

 

 

Link

Samson said the Marlins have consulted ''with people who have done baseball facilities'' and insists the tab would be $325 million ''if we are in control of all the costs of construction and design."

 

Which probably isn't going to happen. The city will most likely want to grant construction contracts to their buddies, instead of going with the lowest bidder.

Samson said the Marlins have consulted ''with people who have done baseball facilities'' and insists the tab would be $325 million ''if we are in control of all the costs of construction and design."

 

Which probably isn't going to happen. The city will most likely want to grant construction contracts to their buddies, instead of going with the lowest bidder. Which is precisely why A) the Marlins could get it done for $350M and B) the city is dragging its feet. Will corruption win out in the end? Stay tuned!

While the Marlins would consider a new ballpark next to the Orange Bowl, they have ruled out a stadium without a retractable dome.

I just don't get it. It's like a starving man refusing a plate of food because the vegetables don't have hollandaise sauce. March 15th looms. :headscratch

 

The Marlins' business plan is to have a smallish facility that they can regularly fill. They believe they cannot sell tickets in the volume they need unless they provide a guaranteed environment for baseball which in South Florida means having a roof.

 

It's not about a starving man refusing food, it's about feeding him everyday. This idea that they are being greedy (not in your post) or getting more than they deserve ignores the neccesities required to be competitive for their share of the sports entertainment dollars in South Florida.

 

The Marlins season is right in the middle of South Florida's rainy season. If you are a parent wanting to buy Marlins tickets you also have to worry about the sun and your kids getting dehydrated or sunburned. There are simply just too many weather variables and too many other places to spend your sports dollars absent a roof.

 

I believe if the Marlins are doing the right thing by fighting for an all-weather stadium and to take control of construction. Without those two components, no deal will get done.

It's not tough to figure out. One of the top reasons people give for why they don't go to games is because of the weather. Eliminate that variable, and going to a Marlins game when it's supposed to rain doesn't look like such a risky proposition.

I don't disagree that a roof is a long-term necessity. In fact, I agree it is. In that way, the analogy is perhaps less than perfect. However, I just don't see there being any long-term without a stadium deal by March 15. Moreover, Miami is not a city to be muscled (cajoled?) into a deal by anything Samson says or doesn't say. At some point, the FO is going to have to realize with whom they are dealing (cf. comments of Hotcorner and jonnylons).

what has happened to the talk about a stadium that would accept a roof later on?

what has happened to the talk about a stadium that would accept a roof later on?

 

The longer they wait to build a roof the more it will cost and the greater the likelihood construction will interrupt use of the stadium. It's also easier to go to a lender once with a total deal than to go twice.

The longer they wait to build a roof the more it will cost and the greater the likelihood construction will interrupt use of the stadium. It's also easier to go to a lender once with a total deal then to go twice.

Good points.

what has happened to the talk about a stadium that would accept a roof later on?

You don't want to add on later if you can get it right now...

 

Besides, my understanding is that the Marlins feel that they could get the roof on the stadium with the money that is proposed for the site right now; it's simply that the Miami officials want to overcharge the Marlins for inferior work, and pocket the difference. The key here is the Marlins want to oversee the construction, Miami doesn't want that because it means less money for them to "misplace."

what has happened to the talk about a stadium that would accept a roof later on?

 

The longer they wait to build a roof the more it will cost and the greater the likelihood construction will interrupt use of the stadium. It's also easier to go to a lender once with a total deal than to go twice. If you've ever been to a Sunday afternoon game, you understand what not having a roof does to attendance. You absolutely roast during July and August. The only reason we don't get the "Saturday" turn-out on Sunday is the hot conditions.

 

 

The only way I go on Sunday is when I sit in the Publix Power Alley and get the two for one deal.

I support the Marlins play hardball to gain control of constrcution (if the Fish pay for overruns, they should run the construction) and to go for the roof. Just make sure it isn't made from fabric like a certain Olympic Stadium.