|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 13, 2013 2:00:27 GMT -6
Montreal’s impossible dream of bringing baseball back is realistic, report says If it seems a thoroughly implausible, slightly lonesome crusade, that’s because it is. This tale doesn’t need windmills and portly, donkey-borne sidekicks to be a properly constituted quixotic adventure. Warren Cromartie of Florida, and occasionally Montreal, but never of La Mancha, doesn’t care. “This is my destiny,” he says of his efforts to bring Major League Baseball back to the city it abandoned nine years ago. An outfielder and first baseman with the Montreal Expos in the 1970s and ’80s, Cromartie’s love affair with Quebec is well-documented. But it wasn’t until he came to Montreal in 2012, for a gala reunion of the 1981 Expos squad – which lost the National League Championship Series in the infamous “Blue Monday” game – that he understood his vocation. “A few other guys on the team said, ‘Cro, you’ve got to do it now.’ As I went on, I felt more and more, being in touch with the city … getting close to the fans, that I’m in it,” he said. “This is what I’m supposed to be doing.” On Thursday, Cromartie and some fellow believers marshalled some new evidence that baseball is more than viable in Canada’s second-largest urban centre. The argument goes like this: The economic and fiscal context has changed radically since the Expos departed for Washington with a whimper in 2004, and people still love the game. There are several ifs and not a few buts. A $400,000 feasibility study confirms what baseball fans in Montreal already knew: a rebooted Expos franchise will only work in a downtown stadium, which the government will have to help pay for. The project also needs a patron, or as Cromartie put it: “A clean-up hitter … a champion.” “The ideal owner,” he added with typical candour, “is a guy who’s got some pockets.” The first step will be to find that owner – or group of owners – Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal president Michel Leblanc said approaches have already been made to everyone who had anything to do with baseball in Montreal, and another round of visits will happen in January. Cromartie and his partners want a short-list of stadium sites by late 2014, and hope to be in a position to start haggling with relocation candidates in early 2015.
The Montreal project wants an American League team – the Tampa Bay Rays and Oakland Athletics are said to be possibilities – and won’t begin construction of a stadium until one is acquired. The total cost is north of $1-billion – $525-million for a team, $500-million for the ballpark. At least $335-million in government help would be needed to build an open-air, baseball-only urban ballpark with 36,000 seats and 60 luxury boxes. To buttress the contention a new MLB team will put bums in seats, a poll released with the study shows nearly 70 per cent of respondents would welcome baseball back, and suggests a team could draw 27,000 to 31,000 per game – a mark the Expos reached in only four of their 35 seasons. “If the population is there and the private investment is there, then we’ll see how we deal with government,” Leblanc said. The study argues that MLB’s national television deal and revenue-sharing scheme would ensure a middle-of-the-pack, $75-million payroll could be paid for before a single ticket was sold and the government would be repaid in eight years. A spokesman for provincial Minister of International Affairs Jean-François Lisée declined to comment, saying the minister had not yet seen the feasibility study. Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, an avowed Expos fan, made optimistic noises about the study, but told reporters “it’s a little premature to talk about public funds.” Given Montreal’s decaying infrastructure and the political storm touched off by the $400-million spent on an NHL-ready arena in Quebec City, it seems unlikely local governments will sign on any time soon. Cromartie hears the naysayers – “we have a lot to prove” – but knights errant are more preoccupied with the romantic view, and with fulfilling their destiny. Even if armed only with a baseball cap and a dugout’s worth of determination and charm. www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/feasibility-study-pegs-cost-of-bringing-baseball-back-to-montreal-at-more-than-1-billion/article15912646/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 13, 2013 2:09:00 GMT -6
Meanwhile super agent suggests the Tampa Rays relocate to Montreal Boras suggests Rays should relocate to Montreal Agent Scott Boras reiterated Wednesday that baseball should consider relocating the Tampa Bay Rays to another city, suggesting Montreal would be a perfect place. “The hope in baseball is you’d have a consistent product annually, you have a group of people in ownership that are putting winning baseball on the field, and you’d certainly have to say Tampa Bay has done that,” Boras said. “My point was that baseball, collectively, to protect the game, to protect the market, and you have a product that is so successful and the market is not responding to it, what is the reason? The reason is not the performance of the franchise or the players. The reason has to be there’s a dynamic operating here that is not consistent with what other markets do in baseball. “Clearly if you win and you’re successful, your fan base rewards. So my suggestion of New Jersey or Montreal or somewhere ... The idea is for the betterment of the game. I think we have to look at markets that aren’t rewarding playing the game at a high level.” Boras said Montreal, which lost the expansion Expos in 2005 when MLB moved the team to Washington, would be a “tremendous environment” for baseball. “I remember in ’94, when you go back and look at their attendance rates and the market, the people and the Canadian rivalry, I really thought baseball was in a good place,” he said. “The players enjoyed playing there. It’s a beautiful city.” Boras said New Jersey may be more problematic with television rights, a potential problem with the Mets and Yankees already there. www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-agent--boras--tampa-bay-20131211,0,2993863.story
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 13, 2013 2:15:19 GMT -6
A little more info Baseball could return to Montreal — with a new stadium
‘We need a champion ... with assets,’ former Expo Warren Cromartie saysMajor League Baseball moved the Montreal Expos to Washington in 2005, but the slow, painful death of the troubled franchise began years before. In the wake of that saga, skeptics can be forgiven for doubting the chances of Montreal landing another MLB team. But proponents trying to bring baseball back to Montreal are forging head undeterred. A feasibility study unveiled Thursday said, based on the information collected and a conservative analysis, the return of baseball would be financially viable under "a set of realistic assumptions." They include "a modest but competitive payroll, average ticket prices in line with league averages, (and) a local broadcasting rights deal in line with other similar MLB markets."The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal launched the study last March with the Montreal Baseball Project, a grassroots group founded by former Expo Warren Cromartie. Ernst & Young, which conducted the study, was also asked to look at the possibility of building a new stadium close to downtown. The return of MLB to Montreal can be profitable, said Michel Leblanc, head of the Board of Trade. "The project is viable, first of all, because there would be a strong demand for season tickets. That's what the poll revealed, that's what our analyses revealed," Leblanc said. The study raises a question that skeptics will inevitably ask: "Why would this time be different than the last." One of its answers is that "the business of baseball has changed fundamentally over the last 10 years," such as the fact that teams share significant revenue from a new national television broadcast deal. The study estimates the project would cost $1.025 billion — $525 million to acquire an existing team and $500 million to build a new stadium. The league has made it clear that it wouldn't be acceptable having a team return to play at Olympic Stadium, the study said.
It proposes a hybrid financing model of private and public funds — $335 million in government money for a stadium. It suggests the government would recoup its investment in eight years through income taxes on Montreal players' salaries and other taxes. The project as they see it is to bring back a competitive team to Montreal, with a payroll of about $75 million, ideally that is part of the American League, Leblanc said. The best option for Montreal would be an open-air stadium with a capacity of about 36,000, the study said. It examined five potential sites, although it didn't make any recommendations. Three met its criteria: land adjacent to the Bonaventure Expressway, the Wellington Basin, and the area around the Montreal Children's Hospital.
"We have five sites we looked at. We have nothing definite right now," Cromartie said.
"But we're going to continue to look for the best possibility for the site, easy access for fans, in and out." They're also looking for a "big player, a cleanup hitter," Cromartie said. "Me and Michel Leblanc, we need champions or a champion to make this happen. A champion with passion. A champion with integrity. A champion with assets because we can't get it done without it." Leblanc said he got a sense that politically and privately people want Montreal "to step back up again. "And I have an impression that even in the political realm this project is seen as a very mobilizing project for Montrealers and for Quebecers. So I got a sense that if the numbers are right, if the analysis is done with rigorous assumptions, that we might have a go from all stakeholders. "But again, the pressure is on the private sector. The pressure is will the private sector invest, will they be there? And then we'll look at what are the other supports that are needed." The city will look at the feasibility study "with a lot of interest," said Montreal mayor Denis Coderre. "I have a positive outlook on the feasibility study, but at the same time I think it's a bit premature to talk about public finances," said Coderre, who called himself a 'huge baseball fan." "I think Montreal is a baseball city, Montreal is a major-league city. I will meet with people from the private sector because they are saying two-thirds of the money will come from the private sector."The Board of Trade, the Montreal Baseball Project and the law firm BCF have created a company called Montreal Homerun Project Inc. to pursue their efforts. Richard Epstein, business lawyer at BCF, laid out a preliminary timeline for the next steps, which includes scheduling meetings with current financial contributors. In the first six months of next year, they want to identify leaders to become lead investors in the project. Then they plan to carry out a site selection study and identify sources of financing for the project, he said. "After these steps have gained traction we'll be able to identify prospective teams for relocation to Montreal," Epstein said www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Baseball+could+return+Montreal+with+stadium/9278693/story.html
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 13, 2013 2:23:39 GMT -6
So to recap 335M in public funds is needed given Montreal's small market status, an owner must be found and either Oakland or Tampa Bay has to fail in getting a new stadium. Tampa does have 14 years left on their lease at their current stadium(counting next year). Oakland can leave anytime. Also last weekend it was revealed in court documents Bud Selig turned down the Oakland A's request to move to San Jose. However Selig could change his mind once the A's work out compensation to the Giants. Oakland also unveiled a new plan for new A's/Raiders stadiums that they have no idea how to pay for. www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/12/11/6397/selig-rejected-as-move-to-san-jose-in-june-but-can-still-unreject-it-later-if-he-wants/#comments
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Dec 15, 2013 15:35:17 GMT -6
Needs to get done to stay in the bay but go to san jose. Better place for the A's
335m would be enough for a retro park if the team and league wanted to kick in money for montreal.
They should seriously consider it in montreal and get rid of the olympic crap hole they seem to love so much.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 16, 2013 23:10:19 GMT -6
^^^ MLB doesn't kick in $$$ to help teams build stadiums. Only NFL does that with their G-3 program. Most Montreal fans are under the impression that if someone brings MLB back it will be Bell since they lost out on the NHL and need content more than ever.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 16, 2013 23:20:49 GMT -6
Business leaders pitch Oakland waterfront ballpark Turning the heat up on Lew Wolff and MLB, Oakland business and political leaders unveiled plans for a new $500-million, 38,000-seat ballpark at the Port of Oakland, for the Oakland Athletics. This gives the A's two potential ballpark sites in the city of Oakland: Coliseum City, which would contain new facilities for the A's and the Oakland Athletics, and this waterfront site. It also would appear to fulfill a criteria set by MLB Commissioner Bud Selig: that Oakland needs to develop a usable site for a new A's ballpark, or the city would run the risk of losing the team. There is one other possible outcome should it become clear a San Jose ballpark is truly out of the picture: a sale of the team to a local business group (led by Clorox chairman and CEO Don Knauss and former Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream boss T. Gary Roger, who have worked on the ballpark plan as well). New Oakland Athletics ballpark This is not an ideal site: there's a lot of remediation needed. But it is available -- the tenant at the Howard Terminal is vacating the property -- and would be a nice addition to the Jack London Square area. From the San Francisco Chronicle: The group will soon ask the Port of Oakland to give it control over the 50-acre Howard Terminal site. It says it has raised enough money to start an environmental review and get the regulatory approval process going, and it's come up with drawings of what the stadium might look like. Project backers say the ballpark requires only 14 acres, leaving ample space for retail development or other uses that would help pay for a stadium, as well as parking. And though it's too early to say if public money would be required, there has been talk of the port providing the land for the ballpark at nominal cost in hopes of spurring economic activity in the area. The ballpark is currently priced at $500 million, but there will be plenty of other costs involved, as the aforementioned remediation and the potential extension of the BART line to the ballpark along existing rail lines. The ballpark is also close to Interstates 880 and 980, so there's plenty of access. If anything, the release of ballpark plans and the news that MLB reportedly told the A's a San Jose move would not be allowed puts the future of the Athletics into an advanced state of uncertainty. If San Jose is indeed out, Oakland must deliver on one of the two ballpark sites if the Bay Area is to keep the A's. www.ballparkdigest.com/201312166878/major-league-baseball/news/business-leaders-pitch-oakland-waterfront-ballpark
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 16, 2013 23:27:06 GMT -6
Slamming door on one Oakland stadium plan, Lew Wolff opens door to anotherFor the first time in nearly a decade, A's co-owner Lew Wolff said Oakland might have a viable location for a new ballpark, but it's not the waterfront site being pushed by local business leaders -- it's the Coliseum complex. Reacting to newly-released details of the bayfront plan, Wolff on Monday said that a stadium on Port of Oakland property looking out toward the Bay was "absolutely impossible." But in a departure from years of declaring that he had exhausted all his options in Oakland, Wolff told this newspaper, "That doesn't mean there isn't a place in Oakland where you could do something."
The most likely location, he said, "would be where we're at right now. On land controlled by (the city and county)."Wolff's comments come with his efforts to move the team to San Jose mired in court, where anxious officials of that city are squaring off with Major League Baseball, which has rejected the current proposal to build a stadium there. The result is a team stuck in limbo, a fact Wolff tacitly acknowledged in the interview. Rather than continue his critiques of the aging Coliseum, Wolff emphasized that the team has "an excellent relationship" with the joint Oakland-Alameda County board that runs the Coliseum complex and would like a longer-term lease than the recently signed two-year extension. When told of Wolff's comments, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said, "I think that's progress, and we'll reach out and continue to talk to him." San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said he knew nothing about the Oakland sites other than that the city has been working on them for a very long time. "They've struck out time and time again," he said. "Now it's time for San Jose to get a chance to bat." The A's landing spot is no clearer today than it was in 2005, when Wolff last considered building a stadium in East Oakland. After failing to secure stadium deals in Oakland and Fremont, Wolff turned to San Jose only to become locked in a stalemate with the San Francisco Giants, who control the territorial rights to the Bay Area's largest city and don't want to surrender its sizable corporate base. Major League Baseball has been mulling the A's proposal to move south for more than four years. Earlier this year, San Jose sued to try to force the league's acquiescence by targeting its valuable exemption from antitrust laws. Wolff's refusal to outright dismiss the Coliseum site comes on the heels of Oakland business leaders renewing their push for a privately-financed stadium at the 51-acre Howard Terminal site just north of Jack London Square. The consortium, which includes Clorox CEO Don Knauss and developer Mike Ghielmetti, commissioned a recently-released artist rendering of a gleaming 38,000-seat ballpark overlooking the Oakland Estuary on land owned by the port. They also are working to secure control of the site and begin environmental reviews and permit applications in hopes that Wolff and his partner, John J. Fisher, will jump on board or sell them the team. But Wolff reiterated that the team is not for sale and that his studies of the site showed that it would require an expensive environmental cleanup and present access issues with the nearest BART station nearly a mile a way. " It may get an A in artist renderings, but it's an F in implementation," he said. "We know that we can't do a ballpark on that site." Advocates say the environmental hurdles can be overcome and that the stadium would provide an anchor for future development in the city center and along the waterfront, where more than 3,000 homes are slated to be built before the end of the decade. "Nothing that Lew Wolff says about the Coliseum will keep us from moving forward with our plan," one source close to the Howard Terminal group said. In recent months, city officials in Oakland have been pitching both the waterfront and Coliseum complex as viable locations for a new A's stadium. At the Coliseum, the city is negotiating with a development group headed by real estate titan Colony Capital for an ambitious project aimed at transforming the site into a sports and entertainment hub with new stadiums, shops, homes and a hotel. However, several officials, including members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, remain skeptical of the plan. A's fans fighting to keep the team in Oakland were quick to note that Wolff has made prior statements that turned out not to have much relevance. In September, he said it was important that the A's have a downtown stadium, which caught people's attention because he didn't' specify that it had to be downtown San Jose. Still his most recent comments opening the door just a little to the Coliseum complex had Oakland fans hoping that, after four years of inertia in San Jose, he was finally giving the city another shot. "It sounds like good news," said Jim Zelinski of Save Oakland Sports. "That's the first time I've heard in eight years that Oakland could still conceivably be in the game." www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_24737487/slamming-door-one-oakland-stadium-plan-lew-wolff
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Dec 17, 2013 7:30:56 GMT -6
^^^ MLB doesn't kick in $$$ to help teams build stadiums. Only NFL does that with their G-3 program. Most Montreal fans are under the impression that if someone brings MLB back it will be Bell since they lost out on the NHL and need content more than ever. "MLB doesn't kick in $$$ to help teams build stadiums" No they don't but the Canadian government does especially when it comes to Montreal/Quebec/, Hold on to your taxes dollars folks I can see this happening!
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Dec 17, 2013 10:32:13 GMT -6
^^^ MLB doesn't kick in $$$ to help teams build stadiums. Only NFL does that with their G-3 program. Most Montreal fans are under the impression that if someone brings MLB back it will be Bell since they lost out on the NHL and need content more than ever. i dont think thats true, im pretty sure they chipped in on at least one stadium maybe im wrong but it wasnt as large as an NFL loan. Was it the nationals stadium? or did they just guarantee something.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Dec 17, 2013 10:36:23 GMT -6
The MLB not letting them go to San Jose for the A's is absolutely insane. Just let it happen and man up negotiate the deal. Selig is such a bad commissioner. I think he is worse than bettman, no way bettman wouldnt have already worked that out. There is ZERO difference between a team playing in San Jose or Oakland, the MLB knows this, the Giants KNOW this. ITs going to happen in San Jose, Selig needs to get the other owners together and put the pressure on San Fran and they will fold on a decent settlement. Absolutely ridiculous.
If any team is going to Montreal it should be Tampa. Works out better, The Jays would benefit from having a canadian in division rival.
They need to build a park though, the love for that giant deteriorating craphole olympic stadium is mindblowing.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 17, 2013 11:08:05 GMT -6
^^^ MLB doesn't kick in $$$ to help teams build stadiums. Only NFL does that with their G-3 program. Most Montreal fans are under the impression that if someone brings MLB back it will be Bell since they lost out on the NHL and need content more than ever. i dont think thats true, im pretty sure they chipped in on at least one stadium maybe im wrong but it wasnt as large as an NFL loan. Was it the nationals stadium? or did they just guarantee something. The Nationals at the time were still owned by MLB so that's different. They weren't actually helping a team owner build a stadium, they were the team owners themselves. Remember MLB owned the Montreal Expos their last 2 years in Montreal and in the beginning years(don't recall how many) in Washington until they were sold to the Lehner family. The guarantee part was MLB promised to cover cost overruns. Overall Washington still got absolutely screwed in the new stadium deal. It was probably the worst stadium deal in MLB history(for the new retro parks).
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 17, 2013 11:15:09 GMT -6
^^^ MLB doesn't kick in $$$ to help teams build stadiums. Only NFL does that with their G-3 program. Most Montreal fans are under the impression that if someone brings MLB back it will be Bell since they lost out on the NHL and need content more than ever. "MLB doesn't kick in $$$ to help teams build stadiums" No they don't but the Canadian government does especially when it comes to Montreal/Quebec/, Hold on to your taxes dollars folks I can see this happening! Don't get your hopes up. While the Montreal mayor would be willing to do it the provience won't as long as PQ is in power. Long term don't see Oakland or Tampa leaving. I don't think MLB wants to return to Montreal unless they are absolutely forced to. If Oakland left congress would step in and try to take away MLB's antitrust exemption for not allowing the move to San Jose. It wouldn't be popular to move a team that could be an elite franchise with a new park to a small by baseball standards foreign market that speaks a funny language. I don't think MLB wants to leave Tampa either. It's a big TV market and MLB will do everything they can to stay there.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 17, 2013 11:24:56 GMT -6
The MLB not letting them go to San Jose for the A's is absolutely insane. Just let it happen and man up negotiate the deal. Selig is such a bad commissioner. I think he is worse than bettman, no way bettman wouldnt have already worked that out. There is ZERO difference between a team playing in San Jose or Oakland, the MLB knows this, the Giants KNOW this. ITs going to happen in San Jose, Selig needs to get the other owners together and put the pressure on San Fran and they will fold on a decent settlement. Absolutely ridiculous. If any team is going to Montreal it should be Tampa. Works out better, The Jays would benefit from having a canadian in division rival. They need to build a park though, the love for that giant deteriorating craphole olympic stadium is mindblowing. Don't agree with you on Selig/Bettman, Selig never has done anything like an insane sunbelt experiment. But I do agree Bettman would have worked this out. Selig is waaaaaay more indecisive than Bettman. It takes FOREVER for Selig to make decisions even when he makes the right one. Selig rules by concensus and will NOT step on anyones toes and hurt their feelings. There certainly is a difference between Oakland and San Jose. San Jose is where the corporations and $$$ are the Giants don't want to risk losing even a small portion of that and know Selig is spineless. If you owned the Giants you'd do the same thing. Personally I don't care if they get a new stadium in the Coliseum parking lot or in San Jose. Just end this farce and get out of that crap hole Oakland Coliseum. What I think is going to happen is that MLB will TRY to work it out in Oakland since it's the path of least resistance and Selig always prefers that path. The water front site won't work but maybe the Coliseum site can. The realestate market is picked up in Oakland so maybe they can do enough housing to make it pay off for Wolf. If not then I could see MLB saying to the Giants we have no other options accept a fair payoff or under the best interest in baseball clause we will force a relocation of the A's to your current park.(this was the rumor a month ago on how MLB would force the Giants to give up San Jose)
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Dec 17, 2013 21:24:31 GMT -6
i dont think thats true, im pretty sure they chipped in on at least one stadium maybe im wrong but it wasnt as large as an NFL loan. Was it the nationals stadium? or did they just guarantee something. The Nationals at the time were still owned by MLB so that's different. They weren't actually helping a team owner build a stadium, they were the team owners themselves. Remember MLB owned the Montreal Expos their last 2 years in Montreal and in the beginning years(don't recall how many) in Washington until they were sold to the Lehner family. The guarantee part was MLB promised to cover cost overruns. Overall Washington still got absolutely screwed in the new stadium deal. It was probably the worst stadium deal in MLB history(for the new retro parks). gotchya but how was it a bad deal the owner wants a roof now?!?!
|
|