http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2008/12/09/mls2pdx_rollin_with_the_heav Comments On: MLS2PDX: Rollin' with the Heavies by Mark Evans en-us Copyright 2009 Portland Mercury. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Portland Mercury readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Portland Mercury. webmaster@portlandmercury.com (Portland Mercury Webmaster) Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Smiley you are the one setting up strawmen here and no amount of pointing out your fact free ways seems to deter you from your task.

What would you have to city do with PGE Park? Let me guess - more souless condos?
Posted by Finnegan]]> Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:06:45 -0800 Portland Mercury
Portland too can become a world-class city, like Columbus, Ohio, or Thornton, Colorado. It's win, win, win, for us. And you. Your existing civic institutions are insufficient to meet your needs -- and we at Shortstop LLC have the answer.


Posted by Shill Finnegan Paulson]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:29:10 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by Amy J. Ruiz]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:20:46 -0800 Portland Mercury
What Portlanders need to decide is whether they want to have enhanced sports teams and venues in their future or whether they prefer to pass on this opportunity (and risk that their existing teams and infrastructure may stagnate and eventually whither away). There is realistically no way that the stadiums will be able to be built without at least some help from the city.

Certainly government help is needed to pay for or subsidize vital services like education, healthcare services, transportation infrastructure like bike lanes and public transit systems and bridges, and those needs should be prioritized above others. But a better question is whether that is the only purpose or possibility of local government. Are folks going to be satisfied with a city that only has those services, and otherwise leaves everything else up to the free markets? As an individual you could live your whole life not spending any money to buy a nice piece of clothing, or to take a trip to another city, or to go to a museum or go out to eat at a restaurant, and sure you would have saved yourself some money – but would you really have made the most of your opportunities?

Sports stadium deals are sometimes winners and sometimes losers. An example of a loser is the Oakland Coliseum, re-built for the NFL Raiders, which was a giveaway to the team and still costs the city something like $20 million annually to pay off the construction bonds (in other words, the team extorted the city into paying for massive stadium renovations in order to bring the team back from LA without agreeing to share some of the risk, and now the revenue being generated is not enough to cover the costs). An example of a winner is the San Jose arena for the NHL Sharks, built back in the early 90’s it took great political will to garner public support to float the construction bonds, but it has been a tremendous success by any metric (attendance, revenue, public opinion) and looking back seems like a no-brainer to San Jose residents who previously had never had a major league sports franchise. HP Pavilion as it is called is now the centerpiece of a redevelopment proposal to bring further jobs and housing and public transportation infrastructure to their downtown.

What Portland needs to decide is whether Paulson’s proposal is a fair and equitable one for the city – I don’t see it as a matter of affordability as the dollar amounts under discussion are relatively small, and whether or not Portlanders want their city to be the kind of place where you can go out and enjoy a world class sporting event. New urbanism is predicated on making communities dense, sustainable, and enjoyable places to live, work and raise a family. Without having a place for civic institutions, that vision is always going to be a limited one, so the question is what should those institutions be and what’s a reasonable proposal to bring those visions to fruition?

Posted by Matt in SF]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:34:55 -0800 Portland Mercury
The NFL, whose average franchise valuation has topped $1 billion for the first time, is looking to cut costs and the league will offer a voluntary separation package to 150 staffers over the next 60 days. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says the league intends to reduce its staff of 1,100 by at least 10% to 15% and salaries will be frozen at least through 2009.

Similar layoffs have been announced by Major League Baseball, the NBA and NASCAR teams, and the NHL reportedly has implemented a hiring freeze.

While consumers are cutting back on non essentials, corporations, which have long pumped billions of dollars into sponsorships as well as pricey suites and season tickets, also are curtailing expenditures. Numerous corporations have pulled their ads from the Super Bowl. Golf and tennis are heavily reliant on sponsorship revenue like NASCAR. The LPGA cut three events from its 2009 schedule, and the PGA Tour and tennis is considering following suit.

College sports are not immune as the weak economy likely will mean delayed stadium construction, lower booster donations and weaker financial performance of school endowments.

Oregon’s unemployment rate is 7.3% tied with the most corrupt state in the nation Illinois and Ohio 7.3% with only Alaska at 7.4%, D.C. 7.4%, California 8.2%, Nevada 7.6%, Rhode Island 9.3%, South Carolina 8.0% higher than Oregon with more layoffs being reported in this state daily.

Major League Soccer is heavily reliant on sponsors and butts in the seats.

Now sell me today on a kick ball team in Portland, major renovations to PGE Park and a new baseball stadium on the backs of taxpayers, with packed stands, substantial sponsorship money when Pitiful Paulson cannot answer the one simple question.

"Will the Paulson family be guaranteeing the performance... with its personal assets?"

Posted by Tony Columbo]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:34:46 -0800 Portland Mercury
Meanwhile, yes, Mark is very open about being a sports commenter who loves the Timbers and wholeheartedly supports this idea. Reporting has not been turned over to him. He can trumpet soccer all he wants, and I'll still be digging into the city policy end of things. So take a deep breath. And while you're at it, read the recent column I wrote referring to stadiums as risky public investments, and this whole situation as a controversial political hot potato. http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/ha…
Posted by Amy J. Ruiz]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:23:44 -0800 Portland Mercury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position. While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Posted by Smiley]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:17:29 -0800 Portland Mercury
Merritt Paulson's proposal itself lists the subsidies needed, existing and additional subsidies, and city documents list the numerous subsidy sources, but there is no mention of that anywhere in the Mercury.

The truth is that if you add up the subsidy Portlanders are being asked to pony up the cost is incredible. If the new upgrades go through, just the PGE Park portion, adding the existing debt to the proposed debt, $28 million plus another $40 million at 6 percent interest, Portlanders and Oregonians will be paying a subsidy of $22.93 per person per game. That is based on most optimistic estimate by Merritt Paulson of selling out all 17,000 seats for all 15 games per season for every game for the next twenty years that he seems to be committing to. And that estimate is low as he or whoever the current owner is will certainly be back to the trough to ask for more in that time.
Posted by Smiley]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:45:32 -0800 Portland Mercury
And I welcome a discussion about whether government should be in the business of investing in upgrades to government owned entities in order to reap greater profit for the taxpayer.

By this logic we should never fix a pothole, do streetscape improvements, invest in public transportation. And the PDC most certainly should not exist. Using public dollars to help local businesses???? NEVER.
Posted by Finnegan]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:32:41 -0800 Portland Mercury
Your second link disproves your first.

Year No. of telecasts Avg. rating No. of viewers
2008 26 0.2 253,000
2007 25 0.2 289,000
2006 21 0.2 263,000

which is remarkably stable. This also doesn't include viewership from new television deals inked with ESPN Deportes, Telemundo/Telefutura and HD Net which did not exist in 2006, so it's an apples and oranges comparison DUE TO THE GROWTH IN THE LEAGUE.

So far this season, the NBA has averaged 17,008 attendance per game. But in the 2007/08 season, the NBA averaged 17,396. That's a WHOPPING 2.2% drop in attendance year/year.

This is the downside of having your argument-by-google rely on blog arguments-by-google.

So the big news is that MLS lost less than 2% of their paid attendance during a massive downturn in the economy which appears to be similar to other leagues.

Thank you for your support.

Posted by Daaaaave]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:13:25 -0800 Portland Mercury
It is interesting that there is so much news lately contradicting this optimism, mentioning "worrying" TV ratings and declining attendance:

http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/mls-tv-ratings-worrying/505
http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/60481
Posted by WWE rules]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:38:49 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by Amy J. Ruiz]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:57:05 -0800 Portland Mercury
http://bojack.org/2008/09/what_is_paulson_…


http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandcityhal…

Check out the city study that states the funding source. The car and hotel rental tax they mention funnels the $2.1 million to pay for the upgrades.

Shame on the Mercury for being such asshats with the poor reporting on the financing for Merritt Paulson.

That's you Amy.
Posted by Smiley]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:44:50 -0800 Portland Mercury
"And then we have to hope Paulson's business model is strong enough to pay us back. That sounds risky to me." is not a "neutral" statement. Proving the ability to gain profit and pay off your debts is the core of any business model. The city is a potential investor and this is due diligence. What's "risky" about a bog standard piece of putting together a business venture? This task force was put together and publicized like this so that we could have the due diligence you're looking for and Mark Williams didn't pursue in the Glickman/PFE deal.

I'm not sure what kind of proof of attendance would satisfy you. Here's a link

http://www.gregs-mom.com/USLAttendance.htm

showing an average attendance of 8,500 for the Portland Timbers last season, with 4 games breaking 10,000 fans. In addition, exhibitions against Monarcas (Mexico), AC Milan's youth team (Italy) and Sunderland and Coventry City (England) have also all drawn more than 10,000 in attendance. And I'll stress again this this is for a 2nd tier product. Two top-tier Mexican teams, Cruz Azul and Chivas, played in front of a sold out crowd a few years ago. Here's a picture of what PGE Park looked like for the Women's World Cup (with added bleachers on the south and east sides of the stadium).

http://soccercityusa.com/oct2-pano2m.jpg

And another of the turnout for the World Cup Final at Pioneer Courthouse Square.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h192/jam…

Support for the current product is proven. Support for top-tier soccer is, in my mind, in arguably strong. We have a strong backbone of youth leagues. A strong history of success as players and as teams in our colleges (U of Portland, Oregon State). What else do you require?

Complaining that you've not yet seen data which you know has already been put on the agenda of future meetings seems more like griping than objective reportage. The supporters of this deal are ultimately only looking for patience and an open mind (and that means real objectivity, not just numerous protestations of neutrality) as Paulson presents his plan and the task force gathers information.
Posted by Daaaaave]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:28:38 -0800 Portland Mercury
++++

Amy, I think your questions are right on point and deserve good answers.

Revenues like ticket surcharges (or whatever they are discussing) are not an exact science and are bound to vary from year to year; therefore, someone (government, team owner, or a combination) will need to make up the difference if there ever is one.

As far as your interest in what metrics there are for these kind of deals, there are plenty of new stadia that have been built for MLS over the last 5-8 years to compare to. The financing plans have varied from complete financing by local government (Chicago's stadium in Bridgeview, Illinois) to complete financing by the team owner (Red Bulls Arena in suburban NY, of which government only provided the land), to somewhere in between, which is where most of the deals have landed. Most of these MLS stadium deals have cost in the $60-150 million range, and have been for only one stadium, not two - so Portland's plan looks to be pretty decent, especially if there is redevelopment money that can be tapped for the AAA stadium.

Overall the league is on a significant upward trajectory with growing attendance and revenue figures, substantially increasing investment in the league from new owners, new stadia, new sponsors and media partners, etc. I think the last 5+ years has seen roughly $1 billion in new investments - which is unprecedented for soccer in the U.S. MLS is executing a business plan (Don Garber is widely credited in the industry for being a leading sports businessman and is only casually a soccer guy) which calls for slow and steady growth over a period of years (and even decades) with heavy investment in infrastructure and revenue-stream generation (coming from stadium-related revenues like tix, parking, concessions, naming rights, concerts and other events, etc. along with shirt sponsorship), but already the changes from just 5-6 years ago are quite significant.

The down side to MLS is that in most markets (esp. the larger ones) it is still relegated to the back pages and has a much smaller following than the traditional sports franchises. In smaller markets like SLC (which might compare closely to Portland) where there is not as much competition from other teams, MLS has received much greater attention which has lead to a much larger fan base than one might expect for a smaller market. This overall dynamic will probably not change overnight, but MLS can be successful (and even modestly profitable) right now without being a sports juggernaut, and soccer as a whole is well-positioned to increase it's market share over time due to a variety of reasons that might take a long time to go into.

In general, sports as an industry does not make lots of money - just like performing arts institutions don't tend to be wild profit machines. Even the NFL and MLB tend to just break even on their operations (due to high expenses), but healthy teams can take care of themselves, and they can provide a positive benefit to communities and become much loved institutions over time. Paulson is also being smart in that his modest investment now could end up paying off down the road with a much higher-valued franchise. Teams were selling for $10 million back in 2002 and are selling for $30-45 million in recent years which is a growth on the order of 300+% making Apple stock look like a comparatively weak performer.

Anyway, I hope you'll continue to keep an open mind about this proposal while you get more information. And, as an out of state MLS fan I would love to visit Portland sometime for a Timbers game, so for purely selfish purposes I hope that this all works out in the end.

BTW - I'm impressed by your coverage with the live blogging and everything.
Posted by Matt in SF]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:42:13 -0800 Portland Mercury
Fuck yeah, I'll pay an extra grand a year in property taxes for that!
Posted by Paulson's butt plug]]> Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:17:18 -0800 Portland Mercury
Let's see the data that backs up 15,000. What's the attendance prediction for the Beavers in a new stadium? How much revenue does that translate into? What are the other sources of revenue, and how steady are they? How does the recession impact any of this. (Can we even sell a bond for a stadium in this environment? The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey couldn't find a buyer for a recent one.) How would a losing year for either team impact any of this?

What happens if the average is 14,000? Does the deal need to be extended? If we average 16,000, do the taxpayers realize an additional benefit for shouldering the risk?

I'm looking forward to seeing what the task force and Paulson lay on the table.
Posted by Amy J. Ruiz]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:01:22 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by BlackedOut]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:19:57 -0800 Portland Mercury
But you knew that.

This is Smiley's math people (all numbers rough): The City of Portland owes about $3.2 million a year on the stadium to satisfy payments on the 1999 bond (most of which were done to bring Civic up to seismic code and infrastructure stabilization, something that would have been required to have any events at Civic, now PGE, in future years. It is called public investment in a publicly owned facility).

Merritt pays about $1.1 million a year to rent the stadium for 72 home Beaver games and 16 home Timbers matches and assundry other exhibitions.

Now according to Smiley. Merritt is "getting $2.2 million in taxpayer dollars every year" because he is "only" paying $ 1.1 Million a year for rent.

That is some fuzzy ass math.

That is like me saying that I am giving my tenant a $500 subsidy each month on the house I rent to him for $1075 a month but my total monthly mortgage payment is $1,575. Never mind I took a second to pay for a new kitchen in the house plus a new furnance and to shore up the foundation. In Smiley's world I should be able to charge my tenant that extra $500 a month (even though the market won't bear that) and if he won't pay I will call him a beggar and evict him. Thus leaving my house empty with not tenant and I now have a $1,575 a month rent payment with no money coming in at all.

Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Posted by Finnegan]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:00:07 -0800 Portland Mercury
Amy, Daaaaave has a good point. The numbers do point to the fact that the city would support a franchise. What makes you think an MLS franchise wouldn't draw 15K fans a year?

Also why aren't you talking about the stadium? It is a city owned facility. The rest of that neighborhood has improved vastly over the years. Why would it not be in the city's best interest to improve the stadium? A nice new downtown stadium would do wonders to the property values over there right? Would it not? We have a MLS tenant who would pay rent to play there...why is it not in the city's interest to invest in the stadium that the city owns? Seems like the plans call for some year round business at the stadium. Right now it's a spring/summer only facility.
Posted by BlackedOut]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:00:11 -0800 Portland Mercury
Maybe a payment to each spectator every time one of the players falls down, pretending to be injured.
Posted by Little Richie Paulson]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:05:54 -0800 Portland Mercury
What happens to a stadium bond if it can't be paid back "through revenue sources directly related to the operation of the two facilities"? In other words, what if Portlanders ultimately don't care enough about the teams to buy enough tickets to pay off the bonds? The city's still responsible for paying them off, but at what expense? Would Paulson step up? Or would Portland have to scrape together public resources to meet the bond obligation?"

This is why public testimony and data/projections concerning interest in these teams, and historic numbers for the current teams would he very helpful. A "what happens?" maximalist argument to the negative is generally a scare tactic. More effective would be a good faith effort to predict precisely how much Portlanders care. It "sounds risky" because you choose to emphasize your concerns and amplify the "what ifs" to their limit.

I'll put the converse to you, Amy. If you've seen the turnouts on events from the Women's World Cup to exhibition games with international teams to standard 2nd tier league matches on nice summer days, all of which hosted attendances of 10,000+, what makes you doubt Portland's ability to meet Paulson's conservative projections of 15,000 paid tickets/game necessary for him to meet his financial projections?
Posted by Daaaaave]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:52:31 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by Daaaaave]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:43:17 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by Smiley]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:11:01 -0800 Portland Mercury
As for PGE Park. Folks, THE CITY OWNS THE STADIUM. Meritt Paulson is asking for public investment in a publicly owned facility.

This is very different than asking for public dollars for a privately held entity.

Let's say the council chooses not to upgrade a facility they own to world class status in order to attract MLS here as well as international exhibitions. What's the future of the stadium owned by us, the taxpayers?

Will it become another Memorial Colesium? Limping along, universally considered a blight?

We need to frame this discussion not as one of "new stadium for a Paulson vs doing nothing" but much more of "what do we, the People of Portland want to do with a stadium we own?"

We have a guy willing to pony up $40 million of his own cash to bring a second major league team here. Not to mention the substantial yearly operating costs. We would be insane not to provide him with an upgraded facility that we already own thus making our investment in the facility that much more valuable. Yeah we will double the bonds on the stadium but we are gonna quadruple the rent.
Posted by Finnegan]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:35:07 -0800 Portland Mercury