Sternberg talks stadium

Rays prinicpal owner Stuart Sternberg was at Tropicana Field for Saturday's game and talked a bit about the stadium situation. Here are some excerpts:

As for the new stadium issue?
"It's been touch-and-go obviously the last couple months. We continue to work really hard and probably have worked too hard on it for the last year, year-and-a-half. And it's still a work in progress.''

As for commissioner Bud Selig's comments that the Rays can't be successful at Tropicana Field?
"Bud has been extraordinarily supportive not just through the process of the stadium but everything we have been doing. He gives a lot of interviews and he speaks about a lot of things and he's been through 25 or 27 new stadium projects so specific to what we have going on here, I don't know that you want to take every word and hang on it. But we've spoken a great deal about it, he understands the situation and knows that we need to have something done within a period of time. I'm very happy with the building. The way the building is playing right now, you get 25,000, 30,000, 35,000 people in here, it's a nice place, a great facility for that. But long-term it doesn't give us the opportunity, mid-term and long-term, to sustain what it is we've begun to build here.''

So what would you do if it fails, and what is Plan B? "You don't throw good money after bad, whatever work and whatever money we've put into it to this point,  and I can sit here and tell you it's substantial, the money has been a quite a bit and most importantly, the organization and the amount of work a number of people have done, has been substantial. So you don't just keep throwing money after it, and more importantly, time and energy, just because of what you've done. As far as Plan B, you're looking at it. It always was. The nice thing is we have a Plan B. Our lease is not up, it's not raining in here. The humidity is fine. It's 72 degrees. We fortunately made the difficult decisions over the last few years to refurbish the place and put a lot of dough into it, because you always sort of need a Plan B.
But for how long? "At least five years and not 15. I'm probably down to at least four years and not 14 at this point. The building itself can't sustain the length of its lease (through 2027) just A) from an upkeep standard and B) what it would do for us to recharge the fan base in addition to what we're doing right now.''

- MARC TOPKIN

Comments

[since1962]

j

".. at least 4 and not 14"
translates to 13 years life left in the Trop according to Sternberg.

Staging construction is not my specialty but the vast undeveloped tracts surrounding the dome WILL be used under ANY scenario as other lots downtown are used now for staging the "current" boom on much more tightly constricted sites.

[Joe]

It should be apparent after the last week of great baseball and huge crowds that what the Rays needed was pennant
fever. The worst team in baseball threw the least fans. Now that they are winnning, the crowds are building every week.

The Rays will draw at least 500,000 more fans this year than last.

[since1962]

so LESS seats ...

in a location soon to be rejected ...

to replace a stadium with "13" year life...

makes sense ?

[J]

1962, I'm not talking about construction staging.

The question I'm asking is that in 13 years you will need to build a new stadium on the Trop site. In the mean while you can't develop that future stadium portion of the site now.

Also you can't just propose developing parking garages and development without revisiting the Rays Lease because their lease includes the parking.

[get smarter]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/powerranking

Rays are Rated number two in Espn's power ranking..Amazing

At the beginning of this process you heard opponents say the Rays don't deserve a new stadium until they put a decent product on the field....you don't hear that one too often anymore.

[since1962]

j

Again not expert but the chosen developer A-M is doing exactly that type project in Aneheim.Ironicly Rays could play at Al Lang while waiting for new retractable roof stadium AT TROP SITE,their spring training site,other Pinellas outdoor fields?

No the current PROPOSALS would not work but that is just it.. THEY ARE PROPSALS.

Negotiations are occuring now for something about to be DEFEATED by voters.

Rays would have to RE negotiate lease to get LESS than City would have GIVEN at Trop site before voter defeat.

Glad to see admission of 13 yrs to accomplish

[Jon McPhee]

Other than a quote from Giants owner P. Magowan, what else is there that negatives the fact that after San Franciscans (twice,) San Joseans and Santa Clarans, Magowan and other business types somehow managed to scrape together $300 million and build their own bloody stadium? With minimal burden on the public purse? And that they are making a pretty good buck off it? And why, since the investment-sophisticated, professional-securitizer franchise owners could probably (and if I remember right, have acknowledged as much) write a check to cover the whole stadium cost, is the Giants experience not a model for our own fair community, even "in these tough economic times"?

Has anyone at the City or County run down a list of the Rays franchise's income streams that the owners might use to "securitize" the cost of their very own field of dreams? That would still involve the spending of a butt-load of money on demolition, site prep, construction, finishing and all that other stuff in the area, with profit for at least some of us. Maybe on a site that works for the community, after some work to repair the complete breakdown of trust the franchise owners' and city officials' high-handed dealings have managed to mis-manage so far?

What's to keep a more rational and paced process from achieving less-insane development, consistent with all the community planning and team-building that's been done via Vision 2020 and all those other charette-driven exercises in hopefully-not-futility?

I wouldn't trust anything Stuat Sternberg and Michael Kalt have to say these days any farther than I could "move the dome" with my ancient pickup. But is there just a public hint of recognition that the almighty "paired developments" could benefit from a little more thought? Is it even remotely possible that our elected officials and their staffs might be looking a little more carefully at the due-diligence aspects of all this? And maybe they're seeing that there is some backing in the community for them if they want to add the "No" word and "This is not going to float -- let's take another look at the options" to their negotiating vocabularies?

Or are we again to be treated to an Ed Armstrong end-around, short-circuiting the only opportunity to let just one-quarter of the voting Pinellans (those in St. Pete) who have any actual democratic voice and vote on any part of this scheme, actually vote on even the little bit they get a ballot voice on? When ALL the Pinellans, man, woman and child, might be expected to pay out of their emptied pockets hundreds to thousands of dollars EACH, for the taxes and other obligations this year's class of politicians might load their futures down with?

Just asking.

[J]

1962

One huge flaw in your thinking. The Trop needs to be intact during contruction of the new stadium. They can't play two 81 game seasons in a 7000 person Al Lang stadium, as you suggest. That is a impossibility.

Keep trying though.

[since1962]

Their spring training and ALL other Pinellas fields obsolete too I suppose?

[John]

J

It's quite simple, really. In a few years once the economy stabilizes and the Trop payoff is a little more reasonable, we partner with the Rays to replace the Trop on the east end of the property with a 36-40K seat, retractable roof, multiple-purpose LEED certified stadium.

Once the new stadium is built, we tear-down the dome and replace that with parking structures and convention related hotels/shopping/restaraunts, green space, etc.

The city and the Rays could walk hand-in-hand to the TDC and ask for that 4th cent bed tax together, which they'll be MUCH more receptive to, since we're asking for money to promote conventions & tourism, not just a new stadium/multiple-use venue.

We keep the Rays, we keep the current events already held there, we keep the new college bowl game, we solicit additional sporting events (final four, olyimpic tryouts, perhaps our own NBA team "The St. Pete Thunder"??)...We keep the a/c and protection from the elements when we need it. We get an outdoor ballpark when we need that.

Everyone wins.

[since1962]

YES

[John]

To add one more thing. There is no reason, once Stu comes to his senses and calls his press conference to wisely announce abandoning this current proposal "because we couldn't make the numbers work", that the city, the residents & fans, and the team start a planning and visioning process regarding a "Plan B" ASAP to show the Rays we are serious about having them in our city's long-term future.

Lets put a plan into action by starting the day these current proposals are no longer before us.

The Rays slogan "we are one team", should actually mean something for this community instead of we are red signs and we are blue.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

"Heavens to murgatroid"...compromise...negotiations..
could sanity be coming to these blogs?
If the Fans really want to KEEP the team, if Mr. Sternberg really wants a new stadium and is not simply posturing for a move to greener pastures..then it is time to get serious about plan b.
For the clones on this site just know that if Jim Rome heard Bill Foster's proposal I'm sure he'd say, "Rack Him!!!"

[J]

1962 (3:41)

I have no idea what your trying to say. If you think MLB can have a regular season in a spring training facility your crazy.

Those facilities aren't obsolete just incapable of housing ML regular emphasis on (regular season games).

[Jon McPhee]

Looks like we have a new and really virulent category of ANTIs:

ANTI-PLAN B.

What is it with true believers? You'd think Rush Limbaugh Himself had sworn his sacred honor (whatever that might be worth) to achieving the birth of the "Siamese-twin development."

[Rick K]

Idiocy.

[since1962]

j(5:48)

YOU ' RE

intransigent

[J]

No I can compromise but pointing out impossible ideas is part of the debate.

You simply can not hold ML games for two years in a spring training facility. You proposed this and it just can't work. Not the end of the world but you have to be a realist on some things.

Instead of updating your statement or understanding that my earlier statement that discussed the need to keep the current trop parking lot available for the future stadium re-build in plan B, therefore preventing much development around the current site you would rather just say......intransigent.

[John]

Great interview yesterday on Bay News 9 with Bob Stewart & Herb Polson....loved the "life support" and "life preserver" references.

If you have brighthouse, the interview is on channel 342 under politics/political show/june 22.

[Demetrios]

J

Of all the opinions that I read in this blog, you show the most common sense. I really enjoy your input.

I'd like to make a couple of points. One, you could temporarily expand the seating at Al Lang. Obviously there are other issues like costs, lack of premium seating, rain outs and so forth. So the seating issue MAY not be a negative, but overall, I cannot see how we could build next to the present site. If we do, there will be a huge increase in cost as this will need to be a/c'd and have a "true" retractable roof, not a "sail". We are talking 6-700 million in 2008 numbers, not 2012!

[since1962]

j

The 3:53 Pm post is a solution
which addresses your concerns but I suspect that too will be me with INTRANSIGENCE.

The Chairman of the BOCC from whom the CRITICAL 100 million must come said THIS deal is "on life support" yet proponents and Rays still cling to it: THE VERY DEFINITION OF INTRASIGENCE

[Rays Mike]

You all know where I stand, but my question for Sternberg concerning a Plan B would be IF they could average 30K a night EVERY night at the Trop, can they make enough revenue there to keep payroll at a competitive level? 2 of 3 weekend crowds below 20K for a team in it's first ever pennant chase doesn't say much for the drawing power of the Trop...

[Rays Mike]

So all of the ANTI's are OK that John's proposal will cost much more with a retractable roof, not to mention how much more raw materials and labor will be in 5 years? And if the convention center idea is so great, whay aren't any booked for the Trop now? BTW: There are zero NBA teams that play in baseball/football domes. The Pistons, Raptors, Spurs, Sonics all moved out of stadiums into their own arenas..

[John]

Poor Rays Mike has had too much Kool-Aid, he's even using Ricks "ANTI'S" phrase now.

How do YOU know it will cost more Mike? Do you have construction estimates for both sites to compare?

Seems to me the tables have turned on Rays Mike, Ray F and Rick K...and their half-dozen or so made-up names they use to cheerlead each other.

They are now the ANTI'S

ANTI - Common Sense
ANTI - Reality
ANTI - Compromise
ANTI - Fiscal responsibility
ANTI - Intelligent discourse
ANTI - Alternative thought process
ANTI - ANYTHING except a dead turkey
ANTI - Bringing the citizens, the city, the county and the Rays together on this issue, which is the only way it will get past the voters.

Good luck with your head in the sand.

[Rays Mike]

Easy, John. Did I ever say I was AGAINST the Plan B as a PLAN B, if in fact the AL Lang site is not used???? I am pretty positive that a stadium that will require more space, and more materials, not to mention a retractable roof, will cost more than one with a sail (not to mention all of the lost property and sales tax that could have been generated from the Trop site if redeveloped), but if you want numbers, I can give you an example of cost: The Marlins proposed new retractable-roof stadium current budget is $525 million - almost $100 million more than then the current Al Land proposal. Maybe I should use another "A" word besides ANTI to describe you guys...