Rays clear one hurdle; now things get really tough

So my prediction was pretty close. If anyone watched, I think Leslie Curran was clearly not thrilled with the state of affairs (she asked the Rays to delay the whole question) but in the end Curran voted with the majority of her colleagues to move the process along. So the vote was 7-1, not 6-2 as a I thought.

Now, let's forecast here into the future.

My sense today is that on the July 17 vote, only one vote appears like it could change. While most of the council (except Polson) has agreed with Mayor Rick Baker's thinking that Aug. 7 is the real drop dead date, Jeff Danner is saying July 17 is his drop dead date.

Assuming, he doesn't change his mind, and assuming he doesn't have all the info he needs then (city staff are targeting a Aug. 1 clean-up date), that means he should vote "no." But, again, if nothing else changes, the vote should move on to Aug. 7, 6-2.

Now on Aug. 7 (assuming the county and the city are all happy on the $$$$) the Rays need five votes to make the ballot. They appear to have two for sure (Dudley and Bennett). And I think they have to be pretty confident Wengay Newton will come along.

So from the remaining five (Polson, Kennedy, Curran, Danner, Nurse), they need two.

Believing Polson is not going to change his mind, the Rays need two of the remaining four. And if Danner votes no on July 17, is it possible he votes yes on Aug. 7? I guess it's possible, but probably a little iffy.

That potentially means the Rays need two of the remaining three.

That's a much more difficult proposition. (And is worth watching).

Nurse has all but said he's against the Rays' plans. And Curran hasn't exactly seemed delighted by the idea either. Good night St. Petersburg.

Comments

[Trey Parker and Matt Silverman]

Xenu will move all hurdles. Xenu works for the Rays. See his message to POWW here-
http://www.scientomogy.com/xenu.php
Xenu's picture is only missing the cowbell.

[Will Ferrell]

I think we should send Cowbells to all the members of the council to show our support. The Cowbell will show solidarity to the non-believers.

Go Cowbell, and Go Stadium!

[Dave in St Pete]

Aaron,

From your lips to Gods' ear!

Will it pass the next vote? Very high probable.

But then I too think that in the end Danner and Curran are no votes, Polson already is and won't change and I doubt Nurse will approve in the end.

Ding Dong it's dead!

[Let us vote NO!!]

Wow, sure is hot & sticky out. And a lightning strike just hit across the street. Glad I'm not outdoors right now!!

[XENU]

Xenu will protect you and keep you cool. He will make your cowbell not conduct electricity. All Hail Xenu!!

[Rick K (the real one)]

It will be interesting to watch.

While it is obvious there are some politicians on the council who will place pandering above responsibility, I think, in the end, a majority of Council will not cast the vote that starts the process that culminates with the Rays leaving town.

I think the responsibility of being on the City Council will outweigh the short term personal political calculations for the majority. They will not vote to derail a plan to bring BILLIONS of $$ to the local economy.

[John]

Rick K (the real one)

Care to wager on that? If you lose, you can never blog on any website ever again, and likewise for myself should I lose.

August 7th: (If the BOCC hasn't already shot this down by then)

Bennett - Yes
Curran - No
Dudley - Yes
Newtown - Yes
Polson - No
Nurse - No
Danner - No
Kennedy - No (he's the swing voter)

5-3 against, the deal is dead, and we can get back to our lives in this great city.

I still believe the Rays are smart enough to know when they have zero chance of getting this passed, and will likely abandon this sham before it gets that far, so that they can come back in a year with another plan. But it will not be on our waterfront. I think they got that message loud and clear.

[John]

I also liked watching Silverman & Kalt squirm in their seats when council was looking at their parking scenario whereas the city would have to legislate a downtown parking zone that would levy a surcharge on ANYONE parking downtown (a NEW tax) to hand over to the Rays, in addition to having to force downtown parking lot owners to comply, for which the city has absolutely no authority to do in the 1st place.

It just gets more ridiculous with each new meeting.

[Scott Dennison]

I agree with you Rick K... the pols will ultimately vote to straddle both sides as long as possible.

There is no downside to letting the citizens vote on this stadium issue. There is no upside to them voting with the haters that do not want the citizens to have their say.

So it will go to the ballot in November.

As for the issue itself, the Ray's need to step up their game in presenting a clear, undeniable plan that makes sound business sense. There are enough clear minded business wise folks who will say yes if the model makes sense. (including me).

But for those who think that taxes will be reduced should the stadium initiative fail - they are sadly mistaken.

The tourist tax will still be collected.

The sales taxes will not be reduced.

If anything the costs associated with maintaining downtown and the (abandoned) trop site will go up - however tax collections from the facility and the nearby businesses (think Ferg's, etc) will not be, as there will be no team to attract those revenues.

The trop will become the "worlds largest indoor flea market", surrounded by green benches.

Property values will drop even further.

The city of St Petersburg will return to being known as a sleepy suburb of Tampa.

Then the entire city commission will be voted out as inept anyway.

Let the people vote - let the chips fall where they may. Lets all hope the Ray's realize that the vote is in their hands.

[John]

Scott, you're dreaming.

The city council made it clear to the Rays that if this goes to a vote, and they lose, they are DONE. Even council chair told the Rays yesterday point blank "Are you SURE this is what you want?". The referendum will, if it goes that far, be worded something like this:

"Do you want to allow the Rays to lease the Al Lang site for a term of 30+ years or do you want Al Lang's current density preserved"

Which means, if they lose, our waterfront is off-limits for good. The Rays, in my opinion, go for the July 17th meeting by shuffling a few numbers around, get scolded once again my council and then abandon their plan with Rick Baker as their mouthpiece saying "We're going back to the drawing board, and will present a new plan in the future", thus leaving Al Lang a sitting duck for future "plucking".

[Dave in St Pete]

John,

You have the right of it.

I believe the council will end up killing the 'deal' so that it preserves the Rays chances in the future.

[Ray F]

My Proposal:

Rays Contribute- $200m

Also, agree to build a parking garage within a quarter mile walk to the stadium.

Also, sign a lease through 2050 and agree to a ticket surcharge to the city.

Also, change the name to the St Pete Rays.

I think they'll win if they concede those changes.

[Rick K will bet]

John, YES!

I accept your bet.

I do not believe the City Council will deprive the citizens of a chance to vote on this.

Of course, I have said the same thing all along.

If something is uncovered in the deal that we don't already KNOW about. Some huge environmental stumbling block (requiring more than just a few millions in cleanup); construction bids that increase the development costs by tens of millions; developers bids for the Trop site that leave gaps of tens of millions of dollars; or the unwillingness of Major League baseball or one of its unions to support the new proposals.

Any of the above have the potential to submarine this deal.

I think most of us expect all the MLB unions to mirror the commissioner's take on this.

So, really, unless something BIG happens, I don't see the Council stopping the citizens from voting on this.

And I am willing to bet that if this survives to the July 21 and August City Council meetings, a majority of Council will vote to put it on the ballot.

I will bet blog posting rights. I will bet cash. I will bet personal chores.

Bring all your bets, ladies and gentlemen . . . .

[John]

Ray F,

They could contribute all 450 million, it still will not pass because of the location. People don't want that "thing" on their waterfront. Period. One day, folks like you will thank us for preserving something beautiful for future generations.

This is why we didn't cover Ft. Desoto with condos, same with Caledisi. That's why we have the number ONE rated downtown waterfront park system in the entire country. This is why we consistently have two of the top-rated beaches in the country. This is not San Fransisco Jr. It is not Boston. It is St. Pete, and the reason people love this area so much is because we're not one of those cities. And we will fight tooth & nail to protect it.

See all those red signs in town? They say "no new WATERFRONT stadium", not no new stadium or we hate the Rays. No new WATERFRONT stadium. Come August, or perhaps Nov, you WILL see what I'm talking about.

[Rick K]

I think John is wrong about the waterfront. Many, many people in this City see the proposed stadium as a chance to IMPROVE our waterfront.

We have long found it absurd that it is so sparsely visited.

I think Ray's proposals are interesting.

I think the Rays could do a couple of things to help their cause.

1. Have some local economists do studies indenpendently reporting upon the likely economic impact of the $1.2 Billion in new spending on these two developments and the likely $1 Billion in tax generation

2. Get MLB to commit in writing to an All Star game.

3. Come up with some form of guarantee, beyond the construction cap gaurantee.

4. Take naming rights off the table, by NOT letting anyone else name the field or stadium. Instead, it should be called St. Petersburg Waterfront Park"

I think Ray's idea of increasing the Rays contribution may happen. I would like to see the Ray's keep the name "Tampa Bay Rays."

Mainly because I want the Bucs, Lightning and Storm to keep the regional label.

But the Rays could sign a "$50 million" naming rights agreement with the City, agreeing to Pay the City $50,000,000 for the rights to call the ballpark (forever) St Petersburg Waterfront Ballpark.

That would probably do it.

[John]

I think Rick K is passionate about his position, but his views are not in line with the majority. Regardless of polls, regardless of "deals" regardless of "naming rights". People aren't going to be swayed into giving up a chance to have more open waterfront (or a future use of Al Lang field) for a "gimmick" such as "St. Pete Waterfront Park" nor would the Rays give up that much potential revenue for such a gimmick.

And the back-door whispered threats of leaving town as well as no All-star game in St. Pete UNLESS....is not helping their position with voters

[Thomas]

John may be wrong about the waterfront, but we KNOW Rick was wrong about this:

Rick is never going to be accountable or answer questions. It's not what he does.

But, if you are actually interested, here's how it went down:

According to sales tax receipts, Hillsborough County reported January 2001 sales of about $1.44 billion. In January 2000 they reported roughly $1.4 billion.

There was growth but not more than is seen in any year-to-year comparison. In fact, it was less than the average growth by year.

Now, people certainly did come to Hillsborough specifically to attend the Super Bowl in 2001. However, in the end, all of their spending yielded no net increase in sales tax receipts from the previous January when there was no Super Bowl in Hillsborough.

John F. Sugg, Investigative Reporters and Editors and the Society of Professional Journalists award winner, has written some excellent pieces on this topic while he was doing research prior to Atlanta hosting a Super Bowl.

[Ray F]

Wow John,

Did you forget to take your fiber? I think a lot of the opposition is against the financing situation.

I think if you poll people about whether they're more concerned about taxes or the preservation of waterfront, I think the majority would say taxes. I appreciate your heated response and letting me know how "I WILL" see what you mean.

Thanks for setting me straight.

..and are you referring to me getting older and going on a stroll down our waterfront parks by saying I'll thank the citizens???

I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I can't miss what was never there. There's a stadium there if you haven't checked and 99% of the people in this city never saw that stretch of land without a stadium on it. Maybe the people who have come and gone since Al Lang was built would be upset at not wanting baseball played there. Did you ever think of that, John???

[John]

Oh and Rick K, that parcel of land may be sparsely utilized at the moment, however it used to be the center of action downtown, you know, before the Rays "in the best interests of their partners, namely the City of St Pete and its citizens" took away spring training. Al Lang used to sell out many FSL & Spring Training games a year, and now that site does indeed sit empty, because your Rays made it that way. There was no reason Spring Training and MLB could not co-exist. And if you think Port Charlotte is a worthy market of "expanding our fan base", I'd call you a liar. As councilmembers stated to the Rays yesterday, "people around here do not forget". And we will not forget should this go to referendum.

[John]

Ray F

Your basis for argument begins with the words "I think"...???

Do a little less thinking, sit back, relax and just watch, my friend. I have absolutely no fear that my kids will be utilizing "Al Lang Park" or going to spring training games at a remodled "Progress Energy Park" in 20 years. None, Zero, Zilch, Zip.

I know that reality makes you crazy, and I'm sorry but that's da fact, Jack.

[Tampa is Calling]

Time for the BIG BOYS to step in and get a deal done in a REAL city ... as soon as the Rays leave St Pete the downtown area will relive what happened when Webb City went t!ts up

St Pete = Ham & Egger sports town

the only thing left is the Kids & Kubs! LOL

[Ray F]

Fact and Jack don't rhyme. Why do people think they do???

I reject your "reality" and substitute my own.

I happen to disagree with you, but my world isn't going to crumble if we don't build a new waterfront stadium. I know the fact that it really doesn't "bother" me bothers you.

...and what team will want to train in St Pete after the citizens give MLB the big double tall boy???

[Rick K]

John:

The last 10 years have seen about 15 games a year (each lasting around 3 hours or less) being played at Al Lang field.

Your position makes no sense. If 15 games of baseball at Al Lang field was valuable during tourist season, then why the heck wouldn't 81 games of baseball at Al Lang outside the normal tourist season be even better?

You anti's crack me up.

NO BASEBALL on the WATERFRONT where we used to have baseball before the mean Rays took it away! It was great, and we wish we had it back, but NO, we don't actually want it!

Whatever, dude.

Whatever.

[Peter Gammons]

You are a friggin' IDIOT if you think that any team would move to Al Lang/Regress Energy for Spring Training

we're not in the 70's .... teams move into NEW stadiums and training facilities these days

still laughing that anyone really believes someone would move here WITHOUT also getting a new training facility .... and who's gonna pay for that??? LOL

what we do need?
MORE COWBELL!!!

[John]

Ray F,

You're right, there's not a single team in MLB who'd want to train on St. Pete's beautiful waterfront if we remodeled AL Lang for them, at a fraction of the cost of this monstrosity. Nah, they'd rather train in the desert of Arizona, I'm quite sure. While we're at it, we don't need Vinoy park either, let's let the owners of the Vinoy fill that up with more condos.

Screw the airport too, that's just a playground for the rich (but baseball is not). Let's let a developer do a mixed-use development on that, too. We'll keep a fraction of it for a park, to silence that silly majority.

Once all those people up north see how "great" our waterfront ballpark is on their TV set, they'll want to move here in droves!! We'll tear down all those ugly mom & pop motels on the beach and turn them into high rise condos just like Sand Key did.

When we run out of room, we'll convince county voters to partially develop Ft. Desoto too.

Meanwhile, the area between MLK & 16th St downtown will continue to languish or be turned into "affordable housing" to house all the waiters, valets, police and school teachers who can no longer afford to buy a house in this city. We'll call it the "Tropicana Housing Authority"?

But hey, that's just progress, right?

[John]

Ahhh Rick K has resigned to "whatever" when he can't spin someone's OPINION. Rick, you have no facts, you have no purpose, you have no argument.

This will not happen on our waterfront. I said I'd wager and I accept the wager. Perhaps we up the ante and put it in writing?

If the Rays are shot down by any gov't entity or the voters, you're moving out of Pinellas County. If the Rays get their waterfront stadium, it will be me who moves.

Deal? And if so, send me your email address so we can make an appt to get together in front of a notary to sign our wager.

Deal?

[Rick K to Dave, Hello Dave, Hello]

John, I cannot agree to move from Pinellas County.

But I can agree to probably 99% of all possible proposals you can think up.

How about in addition to never posting again, we add money (or volunteer time) to the other's favorite charity.

One of my favorite charities staffs a concession stand at the Trop. I'd love to see you at the new stadium or the Trop (if the voters defeat the ballot issue in November) wearing a paper hat!

[John]

Ahhh, ok Rick,

How about 50 grand?

I'll take a home-equity loan on my house since it's paid off. We'll take your 50k and my 50k and put it in a trust fund, to go to a local charity of our chosing. Winner gets their money back, loser pays the charity.

Put your money where your mouth is, or continue your whining. Your choice.

[Tony Jannus]

LOL ... great take Johnny Boy --- everyone knows that our big ole airport in St Pete gets about 6-7 flights per day!! ROTFLMAO

the Rays stadium gets more use in the off-season and during road trips than that single runway airport

[Ray F]

so... John, you're all for remodeling Al Lang (at the cost of millions) in hopes of luring a new spring training team??? Sounds kinda two-faced to me.

No new waterfront stadium for our current team, but lets build a new waterfront stadium to attract a new team??? hmmm

With regards to the Airport, I'm glad the rich people have a place to galavant in there bi-planes and cessnas. They deserve to have the largest plot of land on our waterfront to cater to their growing needs.

It sounds to me, like you're the one bothered by all this and I'm sorry you let it hit you so deep. Like I said earlier, don't forget your fiber in the a.m. next time.

[John]

Oh Ray, you can't fool me with the silly 'fiber' crap.

And I didn't say "build a new stadium for Spring Training" I said remodel Al Lang, but you just keep reading whatever you want into people's posts, the end result will be the same.

Ray, care to join the wager between Rick K and myself? I'm guessing you don't have the balls.

[Rick K to John's bet]

John, I do not have $50 K that I can afford to wager, on anything, really.

But I am definitely willing to bet.

Let us clarify the bet, though.

I am betting that the City Council will not fail to let this come to a vote in November, unless something HUGE comes up (as described by me earlier).

I am even willing to bet that the County Commission does NOT pull the plug on these proposals prior to a City Council vote on August 7.

I am not yet willing to vote about the outcome of a public vote in November, if there is one.

As the stakes, you have recommended that the other be forever banned from blogging.

I accept that.

I also recommend we bet $1000 in cash, or 100 hours of volunteer time to the other's favorite charity. Also, we will bet $500 in cash or 50 hours of volunteer time working for a political cause identified by the other.

If you are serious about betting, reply.

But don't try to go beyond what I feel is reasonable and claim that I am afraid. Can you meet my terms, or are you only willing to pretend to be uninterested unless the stakes are beyond my means?

[John]

Rick, I'll take your bet but only on the final outcome, since that's all that really matters in the end, right?

$1000.00 is yours from me if the Rays are playing in a new waterfront stadium on the Al Lang site in 2012. You pay me $1000.00 if that is not the case.

That's what the Rays have repeatedly stated their goal is, so that's what the bet it is.

Deal?

[Leroy Jenkins]

Thomass-
Why would Tampa, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, San Diego, Houston, Jacksonville, and every other city that has hosted a Super Bowl keep trying to host more? Thomas please answer that question for me. I would really like to know. I mean if it was such a pain in the butt and doesn't produce revenue Then why would these city's want it?

[John]

And please don't come back at me with "well if there's unforseen delays, blah blah"

You don't bet on a superbowl with ridiculous stipulations like "well, if the quarterback gets injured, the bet is off"..

[Rick K to John]

John, I may, in time, be willing to bet on the outcome in November.

Not yet.

And you can keep whatever money I put up.

Whatever money you put up will go to charity.

I see this as putting our money where our opinions are, not as a chance to get richer.

[XENU]

Xenu needs Albert Whitted to land his ships. Xenu thinks Sailboat will serve as honing beacon. We shall tune in to the sound of cowbell. All hail Xenu.

[Ray F]

Hey John,

You're remodeling idea is not an option to lure a team. If you had your choise- between a brand new house, or a remodeled house- which would you choose??? Exactly. We would have to build a brand new facility (see Bright House Field).

I never bet. I never will. Maybe you can afford to drop 50k at the indian casino when the party bus drops by the trailer park to pick you up, but I don't.

As far as having ba11s, if you want to attack me personally, I will meet you personally and we can settle it like men. So... as long as we both agree that is a stupid idea, we can discuss the issue and not who has ba11s or not.

Keep it above the belt John.

[John]

Yes but Rick just a second ago you were gung ho to bet me, now, "maybe, in time"???

I just offered you a simple wager based on the Rays OWN PLANS!!!!!

LMAO point taken, even the people for this aren't sure of ANYTHING!!!

I'll take that as a no.

[John]

Ray F, spare me the chest pounding, testosterone filled nonsense.

Put your money where your big mouth is or just shut up.

[Leroy Jenkins]

John you are soft! Be a man!

[John]

Hey Leroy, you want to wager? It appears Rick K & Ray F don't feel confident enough to bet, so stop with name calling and put your money up?

The bet stands, $1000.00 to you or your favorite charity that the Rays WILL NOT be playing in a waterfront ballpark on the Al Lang site in 2012, as per their own plans.

[Ray F]

I'm sorry, I can't shut up. I have the same right to say what I want as you. You're just wanting me to bet money and that goes against my style. Sorry.

I prefer to watch you get in a tiff over my comments. That's me winning. If you stay civil and present ideas or opinions or facts or views- I would have more respect for you.

...but you want to throw money out the window over a baseball stadium and you're genuinely bothered by it. That's the ultimate chest-pounding.

"I can buy and sell you- hear me roar!!!"
ha

[Leroy Jenkins]

John
I never brought up money! I just said that you are soft! Be a man and stop hiding behind your computer or checkbook! John you are a loser and always will be. I don't bet and never have and never will. Sorry john. Even though you are giving the money to charity. Sorry!

[Thomas]

A cynic might say that cities bid to host the Super Bowl because mindless lemmings like you believe everything your told about the wonderful impact without ever actually researching the real impact of the game.

A politician might say that he brought the fans a Super Bowl as part of a campaign for re-election without addressing how it actually impacted the city.

I personally would say that your question is primitive and doesnt address my point. I referenced real data from a real event. It invalidated the over hyped claims. Your juvenile retort was "well they all do it, so it must be good!".

It's not isolated to Tampa Bay either.

After Miami last hosted the game in 1999, a study by the national firm PFK Consulting found the city’s hotel occupancy rate that January was only 3.25 percent higher than the combined January average of 1998 and 2000 when the Super Bowl was played elsewhere.

[Ray F]

so Thomas,

Would you say that based on that study, hotel occupancy WAS affected by the Super Bowl?

[Leroy Jenkins]

Thomass
Really? You have no clue! You stick to your opinion. Its your opinion. I will stick with mine and the other 21 cities that try to get a superbowl in there city every year. The funny thing is. You think you are smarter than the people that run those cities!

[Yes to stadium]

Thomas I owned two bars in Ybor during the 2001 superbowl. Between the two bars during superbowl week, I made 800,000 more dollars than I did any other week during that year. Thats just two bars. Thomas that was the best week my two bars ever had. But hey you think the superbowl doesn't produce revenue?

[Thomas]

Dude,

Are you all mental?

It's not my opinion - it's the published numbers from Hills.Co.

The 2001 Super Bowl didn't result in a significant increase in sales tax receipts. In fact, it was less than the average Y2Y increase.

Period.

Arguing that point is moot. It's historical data - not a msg board opinion. It's wonderful that your bars did good numbers during those weeks. However, in total, for the county - it was not a significant money maker.

[Rick K to Thomas]

I have decided I will devote about 30 minutes (no more) to this exercise, for the intent of demonstrating to everyone how credible Thomas is not. I will clearly demonstrate, in this post, why I will not be responding to Thomas' posts in the future. Thomas is a pretender, a liar, and a cheat.

Thomas posted in this thread at 10:39 am on June 6 about matters that Thomas claims "prove" that I (Rick) will "never going to be accountable or answer questions. It's not what he does."

As "proof" Thomas posts some statistics about the Super Bowl that was held in Tampa in 2001, and claims that I have never responded to them.

Thomas has made nearly this same post at least five other times on these blogs in the last day or so. Each time, he says I refuse to respond to him, and each time, he posts the same statisitics.

You will even notice, in reading Thomas' 12:31 pm June 6 post (right above this one), that Thomas trys to bully another poster. Thomas screams, "Are you all mental?" Then he tells us that "Arguing that point is moot."

I know that Thomas really, really wishes his distoritions were moot. But they are not.

Thomas first posted this plagiarized "proof" of his about Super Bowls in these very blogs, at 5:22 pm May 20. He posted the exact same plagiarized proof at 6:20 pm, in the same thread.

You can find both of his posts in that thread, along with my reply.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/ballpark/2008/05/poww-says-the-s.html#comments

My reply can be found at 9:23 am on May 21 in the very same thread, only 7 posts after Thomas' second instance of plagiarizing someone else's work and presenting it as his own.

So, first of all, the six or seven or how ever many times that Thomas has claimed that I NEVER replied to his Super Bowl post, Thomas was not stating the truth. He has been, for days now, telling untruths.

But let's move to Thomas' point about the Super Bowl. While he does not attribute the thought to its author, I am quite familiar with the work.

The work was written by one of the Economics professors at our very own University of South Florida, one Dr. Phillip Porter. Porter is one of the very small minority of economics professors (represented in these threads by the ANTI's as an undisputed unanimous majority of economists) in the US who fall into the school of thought that public investments in large scale events do not pay off.

If you check this link below you will find a brief overview of Porter's work. You can also google him, and find hundreds of references to his studies and claims.

http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/02/tampa-super-bowl-swindle.html

The “pushing rope” blog I just linked to includes a a pull quote from the good professor, as follows:

"And 2001 the average January sales tax in the year before and the year after was $1,392,283,772 compared to January 2001 the Super Bowl year its was $1,440,387,270."

That 1,440,387,270 figure is the same as Thomas’ figure, and it appears Thomas has rounded up the 2000 figure.

Folks, even though I am learned economist, and Thomas is not, YOU do not need to be trained in Economics to know, right off the bat, that Thomas' quoted figures leave much to be desired. Let's just ignore his repeated lies about my failure to respond to him back on May 20. Let's ignore his wholesale theft of Professor Porter's work.

[Rick K to Thomas # 2]

Instead let's focus on Thomas' and the Professor's "support" for their assertion.

A quick layman’s analysis leads us to conclude, immediately, that Thomas’ “facts” are severely lacking. The professor’s too.

There is a VERY GOOD reason that the professor (copied by Thomas) use only the data for sales taxes in Hillsborugh in January. They use this statistical fact because it gives a misleading impression. In other words, it tends to support their incorrect and unproven contention.

(Which is ridiculous on its face - their contention is that Super Bowls do not produce net positive economic benefits to the Regions who host them)

I shared Thomas' stolen observation with my 16 year old son. He is not the sharpest crayon in the box, but he has been well trained to spot assertions and arguments with more holes than swiss cheese!

My son pointed out, right away, that The Professor's numbers leave too much out.

1. They isolate only the month of January (ignoring all other months)

2. They isolate only Hillsborough counties (ignoring all other counties in the Region)

3. They isolate only sales taxes (ignoring non-taxable economic transactions)

4. The numbers attempt to dismiss the increase in sales tax collections indicated with their own statisitic by asserting (without any additional proof) that the increase in sales tax collections from January 2000 to January 2001 is “all” attributable to economic growth and none of it is attributable to the Super Bowl.

[Rick K to Thomas # 3]

So let's look at what Thomas FAILED to tell us.

1. Thomas focuses only on January. Again, he does this either out of ignorance or because he intends to deceive. Super Bowl 35 was played in Raymond James Stadium on January 28, 2001.

There are three time periods of economic impact from a Super Bowl. Roughly, these include the Super Bowl preparations, the Super Bowl event, and the post-Super Bowl impact.

Preparations for the Super Bowl takes place far in advance of the game. As an example, The 2009 Super Bowl host committee in Tampa aims to spend $30,000,000 in the months leading up to the Super Bowl, according to the Maddux Report.

http://www.andelman.com/2008/06/backroom-sport-maddux-business-report.html

I think the link doesn’t go to the whole article, but I discovered the article in the print copy of the magazine, which is sitting on my desk. If you can find the print copy, the story is on pages 20 - 23. The Super Bowl Task Force has an $11,000,000 local budget.

The economic principle of substitution tells us that there is no reasonable basis for thinking that even one cent of that money would be spent in the Bay Area if the Super Bowl was not here.

So, instead of just focusing on January, a more comprehensive analysis of Super Bowl economic impact would take into account all three relevant time periods. If one just ones to (as professor Porter pretends to do) narrow your study down to the SUPER BOWL, then a much, much more accurate period of comparison would start the week before the Super Bowl and continue for a few weeks after the game. Examining this time period would allow us to include the latent effect of “re-spending” of Super Bowl related income. A limousine company chauffeur, for example, won’t get paid for the Super Bowl until a week or two after the game. Cops and fireman won't get their overtime checks for a few weeks, also. All these local people who received additinal income because of the Super Bowl then go out and spend some of their new money locally. And that additional expenditure (which would not happen without the Super Bowl) is also NEW money to the Bay area.

If one is honestly trying to calculate the economic impact of the Super Bowl, one needs to include that money. Additionally, different entities report taxable income to the State using different methods. Some hotels, for example, don't report and pay taxes on hotel stays until they are concluded. Some catering companies dont't count the money until the check clears, and so on.

Anyone who was seeking the TRUTH (instead of a predetermined outcome) would seek to include all this income which might not be included through a poor grab of the wrong statistics. Without going into the very detailed analysis true non-biased economists would employ, a layman can see that comparing the combined total of January and February, instead of just trying to pick an incomplete time period.

[Rick K to Thomas # 4]

2. In addition to citing an intentionally inaccurate time period for comparison, Thomas’ numbers also focus (or seem to focus) on Hillsborough county, seemingly excluding other counties. 71,921 people attended the Super Bowl that year. Several reports estimate that Super Bowls draw one out of town visitor who does not attend the game, for each two people who go to the game. Using that rule of thumb (which is expounded upon at the link to the Analysis of the Miami Super Bowl that I will provide in a few minutes, where the number of non game attendees was more like 2 for each 3 game attendees), another 35,000 or so traveled to Tampa Bay, but did not go to the Super Bowl.

That's about 100,000 people from outside the Bay Area who came here because of the Super Bowl. NONE of these people would have come here had it not been for the Super Bowl.

More than half these people, according to reports at the time (and easily verified today), stayed overnight in hotels and accommodations OUTSIDE Hillsborough County. (This makes sense, because there were only 18,000 hotel rooms in the County, some of which were already occupied prior to the Super Bowl or were occupied by non Super Bowl tourists.

Consider this little nugget lifted from a post 2001 analysis of tourism in Pinellas County, “Over 47,000 Pinellas residents are directly employed in tourism full time, and 75,000 are directly and indirectly employed by the sector. For 2001, the direct economic impact of tourism on the county was $2.6 billion, according to the St. Peters-burg/Clearwater Area Convention & Visitors Bureau. The significant contraction in tourism after 9-11 was almost completely offset by Super Bowl XXXV in January, which stimulated nearly $180 million in Pinellas tourism."

Super Bowl visitors stayed in Pasco County (anyone ever heard of Saddlebrook), Pinellas, Polk, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties. According to tourism reports issued in 2002 from Orlando counties, the Orlando area also housed about 5000 Super Bowl visitors during Super Bowl Week, and an estimated 9,000 Super Bowl visitors in the week after the Super Bowl.

So, obviously, Thomas’ attempts to focus on Hillsborough seem to be designed to mislead people.

[Rick K to Thomas # 5 - LAST POST]

3. Thomas' (really, the professor's stats focus on taxable transactions, to the exclusion of non taxable transactions. Super Bowls involve loads of spending which is not subject to sales tax.

Limousine services (which include sedans, limos, vans, SUV’s, buses, and the like) and charter bus rentals are not assessed sales tax in Florida. As this article from the February, 2008 issue of Busride Magazine reports, “Super Bowl XLII capped off the 2007/2008 NFL season at University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, AZ. Over 1,200 buses and motorcoaches and over 1,000 limousines and town cars transported at least 35,000 fans to the game.”

http://busride.com/article.asp?IndexID=918

Plus, there are strip clubs, groceries, tips, and loads and loads of other expenditures by Super Bowl tourists, none of which are taxed. Using 2009 pricing (available from local limousine companies), Game day limos will cost about $1500, on average. 2000 of those trips is 3,000,000 just for the day of the game. That doesn’t even get to trips to and from the airport, and on and on and on. Clearly, there are many non-taxable transactions that should be figured in also.

I could go on, but I am nearing the end of the time I set aside for this task. I will state this very plainly.

Thomas is not credible.

He has lied.
He has plagiarized.
He has presented slanted statistics to lead us to conclusions that are not true.

I will no longer reply to Thomas. Nor will I reply to any replies to THIS post by me. I have intentionally NOT linked to any hard to find numbers or sources. Everything I have included here can be found in a few seconds on Google. I have no interest in spoon feeding the naysayers who wish to resurrect Thomas.

However, if anyone wants to know what things a practical person would examine in attempting to measure economic impact of a Super Bowl, check out this after-analysis of the 2007 Super Bowl. You will notice that the report’s authors actually MEASURE the impact of the Super Bowl, instead of offering misleading/incomplete statistics and then “assuming away” the impact.

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/05/23/22/2007_SBXLI_Economic_Impact_Investigation_Executive_Summary.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

----

EDITOR's NOTE: I wrote this whole reply in Word, and tried to cut and paste it as a single reply to Thomas' 12:31 pm post from yesterday. But the site wouldn't let me.

I know this will bore 99.72 % of you. But I had to knock Thomas off his high horse.

To quote Porky, That's all folks!

[To Rick K]

The unibomber has spoken....

[Rick K]

Well, that is funny.

Not as funny as City Council chair's remarks after Councilman Kennedy finished reading his manifesto at the meeting, but funny all the same.

[Where is Thomas??]

Thomas is conspicuous by his absence.

[Where is Thomas]

I ask again, where is Thomas?

After talking all that trash, I thought for sure he would turn up here to defend his honor, apologize, or SOMETHING.

[Thomas]

You'll have to excuse me, I don't spend too many weekends on internet msg boards so I missed this... I'm glad you pointed it out though, because it's priceless....

Rick really wrote a novel trying to talk his way out of this. If you cant amazing them with intellect, baffle them with BS, right Rickster...

Councilman Kennedy might be proud of that effort - But too the rest of us, you just sound like a psycho.

The point was that there was not a significant increase - beyond average Y2Y - in sales taxes in Hillsborough County for Jan 2001 vs Jan 2000. None of your meandering babble changes that.

But I do really like this line: "I have intentionally NOT linked to any hard to find numbers or sources". Of course you didn't, what you did was post pages and pages of meaningless and random thoughts.

The sales receipts speak for themselves. Which is a nice transition to your silly claim that I "plagiarized" some professor. I've never even heard of that dude. Rick, citing published receipt numbers isn't plagiarism. I credited John F. Sugg for the one piece I referenced - even offering a brief bio of his background and awards. It's a cute way to try to disparage me though. Sad and inaccurate - but still very cute!

So in conclusion Rick, you really wasted a lot of time on a Saturday when all you had to do was acknowledge what the rest of us already know by simply saying: "Thomas - you were right."

[Truth Detector]

Thomas, nice try. Your plagiarized numbers don't even come close to doing what you say they do. You say your numbers prove that the impact from the Super Bowl has been overstated by some. You say YOUR numbers (actually Professor Porter's) "prove" that the Super Bowl did not have ANY positive economic impact. You have never been more thorougly trounced on these boards. You should bow to Rick!

[Thomas]

Oh my: You actually changed your name to "Truth Detector" so you wouldn't violate your "I'm not going to respond" clause. You are absolutely pathetic.

Also speaking of pathetic; The numbers don't "belong" to me or that professor guy or anyone else. The numbers are simply published by the county.

Sorry Rick - errrr - "Truth Detector" but you look like an even bigger psycho now. You should probably just stick to your "I'm not going to reply" thing and save yourself further embarrassment.

Cheers!

[Tammy Kindwell]

An awful lot of men bowed up like bountied roosters crowing about a bunch of nothing. Wagers on blog, 6000 word essays to prove points and senseless energy wasted when a solution is already in place...movethedome.com.

Grow up and be a part of the solution "gentlemen".

[LOL]

Movethdome needs a myspace page. Just sayin...

[XENU]

Xenu is the solution. All hail Xenu. Xenu will bring you cowbell.

[Truth Detector]

This move the dome thing is an obvious POWW ploy to distract people.

[skyline limousine]

how about that tampa bay lighting team

GO BOLTS