Miklasz asks “is it too late to put the old Busch back together again?”
Local sports writer Bernie Miklasz had a great column in yesterday’s St. Louis Post Dispatch.
I don’t normally reprint full columns but the Post-Dispatch’s links expire in a couple of weeks. So, to keep a permanent record, here is his must-read column:
The old Busch Stadium is down. All that remains are scattered debris and a circular outline of where a ballpark used to stand. And that’s unfortunate. We should have stopped the wrecking ball, if for no other reason than to help the team’s owners.
I say this because I had no idea the new Busch stadium would create such financial hardship for team chairman Bill DeWitt and his partners. Actually, for years the media and fans were told the opposite: that the owners needed a new ballpark to increase revenue and payroll. And the new ballpark will open in 2006, so this should be a happy time, yes?
Well, one of DeWitt’s associates called me last week to talk on background and he politely made the point that the team can’t increase payroll for 2006 for a simple reason: The owners have reached into their own pockets to pick up much of the cost for building the new ballpark, and resources are limited.
Thursday I wrote a column criticizing the owners for holding the line on payroll, a position that may force general manager Walt Jocketty to search under sofa cushions and car seats for loose change if he wants to hire some new relief pitchers.
And just to make one point perfectly clear, I’m not asking the owners to go berserk and spend irresponsibly. I just would like to see Jocketty have some reasonable payroll flexibility to find what he needs to keep the 2006 roster up to standard, because the goal is to win the World Series.
Imagine what Jocketty could do with an extra $10 million in payroll. I’m not asking DeWitt to be George Steinbrenner, OK? But with the cost of baseball salaries on the rise this off-season, Jocketty could use some wiggle room on the payroll. It’s a reasonable request.
Anyway, back to the owners’ plight. DeWitt and associates are responsible for funding about 77 percent of the cost on the $388 million project, and they’ll be paying about $15 million annually for the next 22 years to retire the stadium bonds. But public money, including a $30 million tax break, is part of the deal. And fans contributed $40 million in the owners’ seat-license program.
To frame this in the proper context we have to go back to the beginning, to the sweet deal that Anheuser-Busch gave DeWitt and partners in selling the team in 1995.
For a sale price of $150 million, the new owners got one of baseball’s most storied franchises, Busch Stadium, four parking garages and land beneath two nearby hotels. In less than a year, the new owners sold the garages for $91 million and received an additional $9 million for the land. After this benevolence from the brewery, the new owners entered the baseball business with a terrific head start.
DeWitt and the partners have been good for baseball in St. Louis, and baseball in St. Louis has been good for them. The value of the franchise has increased every year, and the Cardinals were valued at $370 million by Forbes magazine before the 2005 season. With a new ballpark in play, the franchise value will undoubtedly jump again in 2006.
The owners are paying for a substantial part of the new Busch for a reason: They believed it was a positive and necessary investment that would pay off handsomely for them.
As team president Mark Lamping said of the new stadium two years ago, “We’re going to have premium seats and luxury boxes generating significantly more money.”
Right. And the owners and management said repeatedly that they needed the revenue boost from the stadium, and the new radio deal, in order to field the kind of team the fans have come to expect.
“We’d have a lot more money to put into the payroll,” DeWitt said of a new stadium back in 2002. “We’ve made some projections on payroll in a new ballpark and payroll here (at the old Busch), and it’s significantly different. It means a lot.”
These words pleased Jocketty, who at the time said: “The biggest challenge I have this off-season is trying to rebuild a pitching staff with very limited resources. And if we were in the new stadium right now, I guarantee you we’d be in a position to raise our payroll significantly to the point where we probably could re-sign all the guys we have as free agents.”
Uh, not so fast there, Walt …
Jocketty might be confused these days. Because in 2004 DeWitt said: “The new stadium will provide us with increased revenues and the ability to have a higher payroll. We should be in a more competitive position.”
Wasn’t the OLD Busch Stadium a money pit, and a drain on the owners’ finances? Oddly enough, while competing at the old Busch from 1996-2005, these owners consistently raised payroll.
But now that the new Busch is just about here – complete with higher ticket prices, more premium seats, and all the revenue-enhancing amenities – the payroll is staying the same.
I’m sorry to ask, but is it too late to put the old Busch back together again?
I don’t want to see DeWitt and his partners suffer through the incredible hardship of having to compete in a new ballpark.
Miklasz raises some very good points about the arguments used to get the new stadium — the old stadium was a money pit and we need to compete with other teams. Now that it is too late it is beginning to look like St. Louis may have been snookered.
I enjoy watching baseball games in person. I’m not a devoted fan but on the times I’ve gone to the game I had a great time and paid close attention to what was happening on the field. While we like a winning team I think St. Louis fans have proven they’ll support the Cardinals win or lose. Sure, they’ll bitch about players or management making bad decisions but they will still line up to buy tickets. Only now they’ll pay more for the right to watch a game and with salaries not increasing as expected, maybe we won’t be so competitive after all. But the team owners will have more money in their pockets and their investment will be worth substantially more. Seems par for the course…
On a somewhat related note, my State Representative, Jeanette Mott Oxford, and Fred Lindeke will be in court on Wednesday December 14th at 9am:
The attorney for Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums will be pleading our appeal related to the lawsuit involving the St. Louis County bonds toward building of the new Cardinals stadium.
If you can attend to show support for Mott Oxford and Lindeke go to the Wainwright Building, Division One.
I don’t always agree with the view of the economists at the St. Louis Federal reserve but I found an interesting article on public funding of stadiums from 2001:
Cities go to great lengths to lure a new team to town or to keep the home team home. They feel compelled to compete with other cities that offer new or updated facilities; otherwise, the home team might make good on its threat to leave. The weight of economic evidence, however, shows that taxpayers spend a lot of money and ultimately don’t get much back.
I highly recommend reading the full article. Please remember, just because you love baseball and the Cardinals doesn’t mean you must love the team’s owners or that we must give them what they ask for. As responsible citizens it is our duty to educate ourselves, question leadership and challenge assumptions.
– Steve
