Tuesday, March 28, 2017

What's a New Stadium Really Worth to Rays?

Of all the fallout included in Sunday's post, "New Non-News on Rays' Stadium Location Search...and What Comes Next," the one piece of writing I couldn't quite cram in came at the bottom of John Romano's column.

He gets around to the real issue in the Stadium Saga, how the heck are the Rays going to afford a new stadium without taxpayers making it rain millions on them?

It's a well-covered issue on this blog, including a 2012 post that ironically came after a John Romano column proclaiming the Rays "are as good as gone."  I asked, "how many more fans are needed to warrant the investment (in a new ballpark)":
Thirty-thousand?  That would bump the Rays up to 15th out of 30 teams and would mean an extra 870,000 fans a year.  But 30,000/game seems unsustainable given the fact that the Marlins only drew 27,400 in their first season and playoff teams like Cincinnati and Baltimore only drew 28,978 and 26,610, respectively, this year despite their modern stadiums.

Twenty-five thousand?  That would bump the Rays up to 24th in the league in attendance and mean 465,000 more fans a year.  But there's a big question if the Marlins could draw that many next year or if the Rays - by moving from a county with 900,000 residents to a county with 1.1 million residents could either.

Twenty-three thousand?  Is it worth $500-600 million for 303,000 fans a year?  If the ticket average is $25, that's $7.5 million a year for the Rays.  Add parking and concessions and maybe it's $15 million a year for the Rays.  Might just be cheaper for Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties to hand the team an annual tax credit.
Romano's 2017 take on the same issue questions how much revenue the team would need to make a real investment in a new ballpark:
For the Rays, this has always been a mathematics question. If they can boost their revenues $15 million a year in a downtown Tampa location, then they would invest a certain amount in construction. If a new stadium on the Trop site only boosts their revenues $5 million a year, then one might assume their investment would not be as high.

The difference at the Trop site is there is an abundance of property that does not have to be purchased, and the Rays currently hold the development rights through their stadium use agreement.

Those rights could go a long way toward deferring the team's costs, and they would allow the Rays to be partners in whatever development goes up around the stadium.

This doesn't mean a site in downtown Tampa won't suddenly become available at a better asking price, but the odds seem a lot less likely than a week ago.

What's now clear is that St. Pete is still a viable location, and that Hillsborough voices are less optimistic than in the past. All of which makes the Trop site seem a lot more attractive today.
Of course, readers of this blog knew Pinellas always had viable locations, since its got the most available tax money. And, if we are to learn anything from Atlanta, it's that MLB teams don't care quite as much about ballpark location if they can make a bundle of profit on real estate and ancillary development.





FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Sunday, March 26, 2017

New Non-News on Rays' Stadium Location Search...and What Comes Next

As the dust settles on the non-news news that the Rays' top choices for a new ballpark location are not available and Stu Sternberg's diagnosis that the team's future in Tampa Bay is very much "unknown," it's a good time to remind Shadow of the Stadium readers that you already knew all this from years of posts on this site.

You knew there was not going to be a "pitch-perfect" stadium location anywhere; you knew the "great" prospects around Ybor City and Channelside were deeply flawed; and there was never an easy solution to any of the challenges the Rays have identified.

But as the news cycle churns, Times' columnist John Romano echoed those sentiments this week, writing Sternberg's comments were more or less "inevitable":
If you're a realist, you understand that this was never going to be a pretty process. It involves too much money, too many government layers and far too many variables when it comes to finding suitable land in a market that is close to being built-out.
But what I disagree with Romano on, is his assertion that Sternberg's comments were "significant."  They simply are not significant, and they are simply not news.

Why the comments were not significant

Sternberg's brief quotes in Marc Topkin's original Times article were either one of two things:
  1. Passing comments from an owner increasingly-frustrated taxpayers aren't tripping over themselves to hand over land and build the team a stadium.
  2. Or, calculated comments meant to further distract & divert attention from the team's biggest challenge, as identified by Shadow of the Stadium since 2010: land isn't the biggest problem in the Stadium Saga; funding is.
I'm inclined to give Sternberg the benefit of the doubt, and believe it was Option No. 1.  But another thing readers of this blog know is pro teams never let a good opportunity go to waste, and the Rays are no strangers to distracting the conversation from their impending problem of how to pay for a new stadium.

         WATCH: Why you shouldn't feel too bad for Rays

Field of Schemes elaborates on Sternberg's distraction/diversion strategy, one that was executed by so many other pro teams previously:
It’s not a sure strategy, but it’s certainly worked in the past, and it sure appears to be the endgame he’s preparing for — with the aid of the Tampa Bay Times, which assigned five people to work on this story and didn’t bother to quote a single person who wasn’t either a Rays official or a local politician in favor of building a new stadium. Oh, journalism.
Regardless of what Sternberg intended by his comments, the fact remains that this is just more of the status quo in the Stadium Saga.  No news to see here.

What Sternberg's comments actually accomplished

Well, we of course got a few days' worth of newspaper columns out of it, including the Times' Martin Fennelly penning this head-scratching paragraph: "Tampa Bay needs major league baseball. Major league baseball needs Tampa Bay."  I'm just not sure that's true.

But even more fired up were the area's sports talk hosts, who never miss an opportunity to wax poetic about the Rays' plight.  And that gets politicians fired up too.

Hillsborough County's stadium cheerleader-in-chief, Ken Hagan, suggested to the Times that Pinellas was to blame for dragging their feet years ago, then added he had concerns about the team's "ability to have a significant investment'' in the ballpark.

If Hagan didn't hate this blog so much, he would have known by now the public cost of a Rays stadium in Hillsborough County looks to be immense.  I mean, everyone else around the county - including a very hands-off Bob Buckhorn - seems to acknowledge it.

What Hagan's comments actually accomplished

If you really want to read into Hagan's epiphany about the actual cost of a stadium and pretend its news, here's John Romano's take on what it could indicate:
This could simply mean that the Rays are not willing and/or able to make a sizable contribution to the building of a stadium. It might mean Tampa and Hillsborough County officials recognize it will be difficult to persuade taxpayers to pony up as much money as the Rays expected.

It might mean Hagan, as the point man for the Hillsborough effort, is already anticipating a Rays return to St. Petersburg, and he's beginning to assign blame ahead of time. It has not gone unnoticed that Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn has never made the Rays a top priority, which could be construed as a shrewd politician recognizing this deal was going to be difficult to pull off.
Buckhorn's pullback from the Stadium Saga was first noted here way back in 2013, when it was clear to me a controversial stadium standoff (coupled with the lack of funding) wasn't worth risking his political future.

But Hagan has only doubled down in recent years, suggesting taxpayers should open up their pockets to help the Rays move to Tampa, holding private meetings with the team and refusing to disclose details, then encouraging the county to start talking money with the team when St. Pete was under the impression the two sides of the bay would cooperate before the wound up in a bidding war.

Last week's comments were the first time he expressed much of any doubt in Tampa's ability to land the team.

So what happens next?

Well, the Rays aren't ready to do much of anything in the next few months, most likely because of the lack of political opportunity. A strong season or shift in Tallahassee priorities could change that.

But in the meantime, Pinellas remains light years ahead of where Hillsborough is in terms of courting the team.  Readers of this blog understand they've always been, simply because of funding.

Mayor Kriseman responded to Sternberg's comments with a short statement:
But one thing is for sure: Tampa and St. Pete are fully engaged in the tug-of-war the team has been seeking for nearly seven years.  St. Pete is already suggesting general revenue dollars could go to the Rays, on top of the increasingly-valuable development rights they're dangling in front of the team.

And at the end of the day, the Rays will end up not where they can pack the biggest crowd through the turnstiles...but where they can make the most money on land development and real estate, for that's what pro teams have learned can lift your franchise values over a billion dollars.





FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Looking at Spring Training & Rowdies Crowds

As you recover from a weekend full of Spring Training, the Grand Prix of St. Pete, the Valspar Championship, countless other Tampa-area sporting events...and oh yeah, March Madness.....here's a pair of sports business reads from the last week you shouldn't miss:
  1. Can Tampa Bay Support MLS?  Times' columnist John Romano echoes some of the concerns made by this blog about adding a fourth big-league team to a sports market already stretched very very thin.  He also wonders about that $150 million expansion price tag, on top of $80 million in supposedly-self-financed stadium renovations.
  2. Spring Training Attendance Down: Watchdog blogger Tom Rask is not impressed by the attendance numbers from the start of spring training.  Especially as the Blue Jays seek tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers to renovate & expand their Dunedin home.  Anecdotally, I've been able to get Tampa Yankees tickets pretty easily online at the last minute (despite $40 million in renovations this winter) and there have been a lot of empty seats seen in Florida stadiums during some recent telecasts.  Hmmmmm.





FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Ken Hagan Does Not Like This Blog

Shadow of the Stadium's favorite Tampa-area stadium cheerleader, Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan, finally answered a few questions about his secret talks with the Tampa Bay Rays (and other topics).

Check out the sometimes-uncomfortable video and fact-checking here.

Hagan has been ignoring my interview requests for years now, and I'm sure this story won't improve the relationship.  But public "servants" need to answer to the public.  And as a watchdog, these were important questions that needed answering.

Highlights include:
  • Arguing why his flip-flopping on public funds for a new Rays stadium wasn't a flip-flop;
  • Contending that raising the hotel tax (and possibly rental car tax) doesn't count as raising taxes;
  • Acknowledging he shouldn't be conducting county business on his personal cell phone;
  • Blowing off a question about all the other things bed tax revenues could pay for, other than stadiums.
So again, check out lots of material on WTSP.com here.  The full story airs tonight at 11pm on 10News, Tampa Bay's CBS.






FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Sarasota: "Braves Stadium Will Totally Pay for Itself, Trust Us!"

When Sarasota County's director of economic development, Jeff Maultsby, told a group of journalists Monday that a $21+ million investment in a new Braves spring training stadium would pay for itself with new tourism revenues, my 10News WTSP colleague, photojournalist Tim Burquest, decided to ask where he got the return-on-investment information.

This is what happened next:


Maultsby struggled to answer a series of questions on the topic, and when Burquest made a request Monday for the public documents that would contain such tourism revenue projections, none were produced. On Tuesday, the county informed us that no such documents existed.

Maultsby suggested during the Monday press conference that a new Braves stadium would draw more Georgia tourists, who might typically frequent the Panhandle, down to Sarasota County. The $75 million stadium hinges on the state contributing $20 million, which might not be the easiest sell, especially to lawmakers who may

RELATED: Why you should never believe an economic impact report

10Investigates has been fighting for public records and transparency for months, which may have helped the county preserve some taxpayer leverage in the recently-announced stadium deal.

You can read other spring training-related documents on Sarasota County's website here.

But one document you won't find on the county's site is the guarantee that the Orioles will build their promised Cal Ripken Jr. youth baseball academy, as promised when they got tens of millions in stadium subsidies from the county in 2009.  That's because the county failed to get it in writing.  The academy was never built.






FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Monday, February 27, 2017

Maybe Sarasota Was Listening When I Warned Them About Those Crafty MLB Teams

County officials are unveiling the proposed framework for a deal to build the Atlanta Braves a new spring training stadium home in North Port, and many recent changes to the language in the proposal reflect warnings about tax dollars issued by WTSP-TV earlier this month. The team is planning on relocating to North Port if it can finalize a $75.4 million stadium deal, financed by three different government entities and a private developer.

Taxpayers across the country often has little insight as to the private negotiations between local governments, developers, and professional teams prior to the execution of a deal. But 10Investigates fought to obtain draft negotiating documents under Florida’s public records laws, and published a list of some risks the Braves and a North Port developer were looking for the county to take on in the deal.

Some of those risks appear to have been eliminated by the county during recent negotiations, including language that left Sarasota County on the hook for any potential cost overruns, and an option for the Braves to buy out of their contract after only 20 years in North Port.

New language was also added that guarantees the county use of the stadium, otherwise controlled at all times by the Braves, for up to 10 non-profit events each year.

But other potential concessions to the team remain in the proposed agreement, including annual county subsidies for capital improvements to the stadium. The county has similar language in its contract with the Baltimore Orioles, who train in Sarasota.

The letter of intent commissioners will discuss Tuesday also calls on the county to take ownership of the stadium from the developer while an MLB team (or teams) call it home, then giving it back to the developer afterward. That means the county is essentially borrowing the property for the purpose of helping the Braves avoid the typical property taxes that most other local businesses and homeowners pay in Sarasota County.

A county spokesperson added Sarasota has ad valorem tax exemption program for qualifying businesses that is not just limited to professional sports.

The developer and Braves are also asking to be exempt from sales taxes on construction material, another concession that most local businesses and homeowners would not be afforded.

The proposal also allows the Braves to retain all revenues from the stadium, but exempts them from having to pay Sarasota County any rent for the first 30 years of their stay there, instead paying only $2.0-$2.5 million per year to the developer to help pay off the corporation’s debt service on the stadium. One initial draft version called for annual payments between $3.75 and $4.5 million.

Sarasota County also stands to gain from a promotional partnership with the Braves, but the proposed contract only requires the Braves to “work with the county” on an annual plan. As the county learned the hard way with its Baltimore Orioles spring stadium negotiations, if it isn’t in writing, promises don’t count.

Sarasota County commissioners will discuss the letter of intent for the $75.4 million, 6,500-seat North Port stadium - and the $21.3 million desired in county funding - Tuesday morning at their regular meeting.

A message left with the Braves had not yet been returned Monday.






FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

House Speaker Says "Zero" Chance Bucs Get State Subsidies This Year

Florida Speaker of the House, Richard Corcoran, told me last week that there was "zero" chance the Buccaneers get the roughly $10 million in state subsidies they're seeking for their ongoing Raymond James Stadium renovations, even though they are the only professional team seeking money from the state this year: Here's more on the "scheme" he's referring to, that made it easier for pro sports teams to get multi-million-dollar tax breaks. Ironically, a conservative legislature has still denied the funding every year since the law changed. 2017 looks to be no different, thanks to Corcoran and some like-minded counterparts of his in the Senate.




FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

A Few Tweets Following Disclosure of Rays' Cash to Kriseman Campaign

Following several years of controversy as he tried to help the Rays explore their options in Hillsborough, St. Petersburg's mayor collected on a little bit of the debt:
It doesn't look like that even includes the $1,000 each from Rays presidents Brian Auld and Matthew Silverman, so the total from the team and executives appears to be even higher.  We're still waiting, however, to hear anything of consequence from the Rays.







FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Secret Documents Reveal What Braves are Asking From Sarasota


After a protracted public records battle with Sarasota County, I finally obtained public records exchanged between the county and the Atlanta Braves that reveal several concessions the major league team appears to be seeking from the county during negotiations over its future spring training home.
 
Sarasota County had previously claimed the records were confidential, but 10Investigates pressed county leaders on their “trade secrets” public records exemption to obtain several draft agreements between the two parties over the past two years.

The county says it has not agreed to any of the terms of the deal yet, other than contributing bed tax revenues to a new stadium, making annual contributions to a capital improvements fund, and assuming ownership of the facility after construction is completed.
 
But comparing the Braves’ initial letter of intent to its most recent letter, several significant changes were made during the course of negotiations for their proposed deal:
  • A "community benefits" clause was removed from the agreement, which would have allowed Sarasota County to host public meetings, conventions, conferences, non-profit events, and amateur sporting events at the facility when the Braves were not using it. However, a county representative says that is a non-negotiable.
  • A "construction materials sales taxes" clause was added, asking Sarasota County to use "reasonable best efforts" to ensure construction materials will be exempt from state and local sales taxes. However, that may run afoul of state law since the county will not be the owner of the facility during construction.
  • A clause was added to ensure the Braves "shall have no obligation to provide its financials to (the county) or any other third party during the term of such debt."
  • A "cost overruns" clause was added to require Sarasota County to pick up an additional $20 million in project financing if state financing cannot be secured. However, a county representative says there is "no deal" without the state funding.
  • The Braves also got the county to agree to contribute a yet-to-be-disclosed annual amount to a capital improvement fund for repairs and replacements to the facility and surrounding player housing. In original drafts, the team was responsible for all capital improvements.
  • The county will also be asked to ban street vendors within half a mile of the ballpark.
Sarasota learned the hard way in 2009, while negotiating with the Orioles, that anything not in writing is far from guaranteed. 10Investigates exposed how a promised Cal Ripken youth facility was never delivered because the county never got it in writing.
 
Other notable clauses in the latest draft contract sent to the county:
  • The county would assume ownership of the facility, but provide the Braves with year-round control of the facility. This insures the team will not have to pay property taxes.
  • The Braves also retain "all revenues" from events held at the "public" facility, including parking on county property.
  • The Braves will pay for the day-to-day maintenance and operating expenses to operate the facility.
  • The Braves will pay the developer somewhere between $3.75 million and $4.5 million per year for rent, but according to documents, the team "wants to make no up-front capital contribution to development/construction of the Facility."
  • The 30-year lease is actually a 20-year lease, since the Braves can opt out anytime in the final 10 years of the contract, provided they give the county 12 months' notice and pay off any outstanding public debt (if any still exists) on the project. Here's more on the 2014 state law that made it easier for MLB teams to break spring training leases.
The project is estimated to be complete by January 2018 and is expected to be financed by four parties:
  • The West Villages is donating $7 to $9 million worth of land, plus $12 to $20 million in infrastructure costs;
  • The City of North Port will contribute $4 to $5 million;
  • Sarasota County plans to contribute approximately $22 million from its bed tax collections;
  • The state is being counted on to pay for $20 million in construction.






FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Catching Up on Lost Reading: Rowdies/Rays, Stadium Subsidies, and More

So much good sports business reading...so little time.

Here are a few good links I've come across in recent weeks worth some attention:
  1. Tampa Bay Times: St. Pete may have to choose between Rays and Rowdies - I couldn't agree more, even if Bill Edwards decides to foot the entire $80 million stadium bill and $150 million MLS expansion fee himself.  As I've written before, there's just not enough disposable income and population to support another major pro team in Tampa Bay, let alone St. Pete.
  2. Fangraphs: Relocation less common in MLB than other leagues - Past performance isn't an indicator of future performance...except when it gives a glimpse into MLB's hesitance to move franchises around, despite its proclivity to threaten to do so.
  3. Bloomberg: Brooklyn is dumping the Islanders - Apparently, the Barclays Center is realizing it was losing money on hockey and despite an "ironclad lease," the Islanders could be homeless by 2018.
  4. Tampa Bay Times op-eds: the case for and the case against public spending on sports stadiums.
  5. Bloomberg also chimed in on the case for spending money on pro stadiums.
  6. Joe Henderson: Build your own damn stadium, ballpark, or arena - Good questions why struggling municipalities continue to be expected to pay for billionaires' businesses.





FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Poor Braves Will Have to Buy Their Own Furniture...But Won't Release Documents That Would Prove It

So the Braves finally found a county (on their fifth try) to build them a spring training park...
The plan is to get the county, state, city of North Port, and a private developer to split the cost four-ways.  That's correct, only four ways:
The best part of the day was the Braves suggesting that taking the burden of furniture and equipment (you know, like baseballs) off the taxpayers' shoulders counts as "paying their fair share."

But the second-best part of the day came after I do what I do...and requested documents.

See, the Braves and Sarasota County are suggesting they're exempt from certain Florida public record laws because of trade secrets...one of the same exemptions used by rapper Pitbull and public agency Visit Florida to deny our 2015 public records request into the artist’s taxpayer-funded tourism contract. That story ultimately cost three of the agency’s top executives their jobs.

Officially, county spokesperson Jason Bartolone responded that the Braves “have asserted confidentiality rights” under Florida State Statute 288.075, which aims to protect proprietary business information and trade secrets in public-private economic development deals.

Of course, it doesn't do a great job always protecting the taxpayer....who could use a little help after we showed how Sarasota County failed to get all of the Baltimore Orioles' 2009 spring training promises in writing, ultimately resulting in the failure to ever get that promised economy-driving Cal Ripken youth academy built.

I have some questions if the Braves are really allowed to use this exemption...read more about it here on WTSP.com.





FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Friday, January 13, 2017

Hillsborough County Can't Stop Negotiating Against Itself Over Rays

Earlier this week, I reported how "Pinellas and Hillsborough leaders were doing everything possible to create a Rays bidding war." But there were a few interesting nuggets in that story worth even further discussion.

In addition to failing to communicate with his counterparts across the bay, Hillsborough Commissioner Ken Hagan continued to play into the Rays' hand by throwing out an artificially-high estimates for the cost of a stadium ($550-$700 million), getting the sticker shock out of the way now so when the number comes down to, say, $500 million, later...officials may actually suggest it's a better deal than they had anticipated.

But there's no way the Rays are actually eyeing a $550-$700 million stadium in a region that's been subsidy-adverse. Hagan said the team may choose to go without an upper deck and retractable roof (they will), bringing the cost down.

Yet those high numbers - coupled with Hagan's prediction that the Rays would bring $200-$250 million to the team (even though they've refused to discuss it publicly since 2008) - leaves a $250-$500 million funding gap (plus any cost of land acquisition)!  And Hagan's tone and comments suggested he had that part of the equation under control.

See, at a time the team isn't saying anything publicly, Hagan is negotiating against himself - and Pinellas.  That only serves to drive the public contribution on a stadium up, possibly over $250-$300 million. Then, when the team reduces its $700 million stadium plan down to $500 million, they only have to contribute $200 million. See how this slippery slope can work?

ALSO READ: Three Things the Rays' Stadium Saga Needs in 2017

As for that tug-of-war, St. Pete Mayor Rick Kriseman is doing his part to avoid it by not talking money until the team chooses its choice location.  But Hagan and Hillsborough aren't playing by the same rules, and the lack of communication does nothing to protect taxpayers.

But I warned you this was coming.

In fact, the Times' editorial board, which more recently opined that stadium spending is often a good use of tax dollars, even issued caution against this St. Pete/Tampa tug-of-war, urging collaboration nearly a year ago:
The independent stadium efforts taking place in both Pinellas and Hillsborough counties "should be complementary rather than competitive efforts, and the common goal should be keeping a regional asset that benefits the entire area."
There are some legit questions that need to be asked of Hillsborough's stadium negotiator-in-chief...but Hagan refuses to acknowledge my interview requests and makes a point to show up to meetings 30 seconds late and leave 30 seconds early.  That way, the "public servant" is able to ensure reporters cannot approach him easily at public events.

Well, my invitation remains open, Commissioner.




FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Pinellas, Hillsborough Doing Everything They Can to Create Rays Bidding War

Elected leaders in both Hillsborough and Pinellas counties vowed to do anything possible to keep the Rays in the region long-term. But my latest report for WTSP-TV reveals there's been zero coordination between the two sides as they each compete to build the Rays a new ballpark, even disagreeing on informal ground rules to prevent a bidding war.

As the Rays' stadium saga enters its 10th year, officials in both Hillsborough County and St. Petersburg have been meeting privately with the team to discuss possible stadium locations.

Hillsborough's lead negotiator, County Commissioner Ken Hagan, told WDAE-AM on Monday {audio starts at 7:30 mark here} he has worked with the Rays to narrow a list of sites down to "one or two" that would connect Tampa's downtown, Channelside, and Ybor neighborhoods together.

Hagan, who has repeatedly refused WTSP's interview requests, also said the county's bankers in New York have been meeting with the Rays' banking team to discuss stadium financing, possibly a bigger challenge for the region than finding an appropriate site.

RELATED: Hagan, Rays avoid transparency

But that conflicts with what St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman said he was hoping for to avoid a potential bidding war between Hillsborough and Pinellas.

"When we start getting into detailed conversations about financing," Kriseman said, "what we set ourselves up for is a bidding war, and then the taxpayers are the losers when that happens.”

St. Petersburg has been meeting with the Rays privately as well, and seems to hold a distinct advantage over Hillsborough County when it comes to available funding streams for a new stadium, since Hillsborough is already paying for two other stadiums and a convention center.

Kriseman has also been bullish on the possibility of a new stadium next to the existing stadium, so redevelopment at the Tropicana Field site could help fund the project.

When asked why he hasn't sat down at the table with the Rays and Tampa/Hillsborough officials, Kriseman said he expected each side to pitch its best site and let the Rays choose their favorite. Kriseman said he hoped both counties would then rally around the chosen site and hope the financing fell into place.

"We’re not getting into a bidding war because that doesn’t do any of us any good," Kriseman said.

St. Pete has even enlisted Dick Vitale in its "Baseball Forever" campaign.

But strictly looking at location, Hillsborough may have an advantage. The possibility of a stadium within walking distance to both Channelside and Ybor City may be difficult to pass up. However, the financing would be a major challenge there.

“For this to work, the team’s going to have to be at the table with at least $200 million, maybe $250 million," Hagan said on WDAE.

He added the overall cost of a stadium might be in the “550 to 700 million-dollar range," depending on things like whether it would have a retractable roof and an upper deck.

But that leaves a funding gap of at least $300-400 million. Hillsborough County's tourist tax would likely fund only about $75-80 million of construction.

Hagan said in 2010 that he objected to any public funding going toward a new stadium, but has changed his tune in recent years, telling WDAE "there will have to be some public money involved, hopefully primarily tourist tax dollars.”

RELATED: How Ken Hagan flipped on Rays stadium subsidies

Hagan suggested tax dollars could contribute toward a project's "infrastructure" and "perhaps mass transit."

The Rays have also not responded to WTSP's requests for comment regarding possible funding and preferred locations.

But the team has two more years to explore both sides of the bay. And given the lack of political opportunity for substantial subsidies right now, it appears they may continue to take their time.


Following his interview with me, Kriseman tweeted the following:






FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook