Expos to move to DC

[Rudey]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
The RPA has a study that is specific to the proposed football stadium on Manhattan's Far West Side.

Good reading.

I didn't look at the study, but the stadium in Manhattan is a totally different scenario and most economists do find benefits to it.

As for stadiums in general Arya, look up Allen Sanderson on the internet. He is one of the better sports economists.

And for all the nay-sayers, DC is definitely still in the picture and, in my opinion, will build the stadium (financed 50% privately) and get the team.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
This puts MLB in an interesting position. It probably won't be long before Congress starts making noises about revoking its (MLB's) legal monopoly status again.

This needs to be destroyed and is beyond ridiculous. Afterwards they should break up the USPS monopoly.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
This needs to be destroyed and is beyond ridiculous. Afterwards they should break up the USPS monopoly.

At least they don't own Major League Baseball like they do the Post Office. And at least parts of MLB make a profit.

They used to make noises about the NFL until those wonderful experiences with the other short lived pro football leagues (AFL, XFL, etc.)

But, you're right -- there are some things that you probably really can't just break up and expect the offshoots to thrive.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
At least they don't own Major League Baseball like they do the Post Office. And at least parts of MLB make a profit.

They used to make noises about the NFL until those wonderful experiences with the other short lived pro football leagues (AFL, XFL, etc.)

But, you're right -- there are some things that you probably really can't just break up and expect the offshoots to thrive.

Most, if not all parts, of the MLB profit actually. The owners release very little to no info and the media spreads their lies of losing money. Because of this they can force you to pay higher taxes and build them a stadium and then lowball players on salaries. In actuality, a team should provide the owner with approximately 40% profits every year.

MLB has an exclusion, if I remember right, regarding monopolies across state lines. Others leagues can be considered a monopoly but don't enjoy that aspect.

-Rudey

[Lil' Hannah]

A deal was approved...we're getting baseball. Huzzah!

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Rudey
Most, if not all parts, of the MLB profit actually. The owners release very little to no info and the media spreads their lies of losing money. Because of this they can force you to pay higher taxes and build them a stadium and then lowball players on salaries. In actuality, a team should provide the owner with approximately 40% profits every year.

Just to back this up . . . many teams run 'dummy' corporations to hide certain areas of profit, artificially lowering the books. Forbes magazine accounted for these in its infamous breakdown of baseball, and found that every team was making substantial dollars. Two of the more famous:

-The Cubs have a wholly-owned subsidiary, "Wrigley Premium", that deals exclusively in sales of premium seats to top games. Since the Cubs themselves can't charge more for certain games, they sell the tickets to the dummy company (at lower face value), then the dummy legally 'scalps' them to the consumer at mark-ups of between 100 and 1000%.

The cash goes directly to the Tribune Co., the owner of the Cubs, but does not have to be reported by MLB.

-The Angels, when they were crying poor, actually had three levels of dummy corporations to 'filter' out profits. Ticket sales, merchandizing, and players' salaries all went through three different companies. Since the reporting was done separately, the Angels could 'hide' everything except gate receipts. This allowed them to receive revenue-sharing dollars, even when they were in the 2nd-largest market.

This allowed baseball to pronounce that they wouldn't survive w/out those dollars, etc etc. Note that since Art Marrero has bought the team, the 'on the books' payroll has doubled with no crying about poverty.

[mu_agd]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Just to back this up . . . many teams run 'dummy' corporations to hide certain areas of profit, artificially lowering the books. Forbes magazine accounted for these in its infamous breakdown of baseball, and found that every team was making substantial dollars.

HBS has a case study on this that we used in the class i took there last semester. i was quite surprised to read about some of the stuff that goes on and how the teams are able to hide things. it was a pretty interesting read.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Just to back this up . . . many teams run 'dummy' corporations to hide certain areas of profit, artificially lowering the books. Forbes magazine accounted for these in its infamous breakdown of baseball, and found that every team was making substantial dollars. Two of the more famous:

-The Cubs have a wholly-owned subsidiary, "Wrigley Premium", that deals exclusively in sales of premium seats to top games. Since the Cubs themselves can't charge more for certain games, they sell the tickets to the dummy company (at lower face value), then the dummy legally 'scalps' them to the consumer at mark-ups of between 100 and 1000%.

The cash goes directly to the Tribune Co., the owner of the Cubs, but does not have to be reported by MLB.

-The Angels, when they were crying poor, actually had three levels of dummy corporations to 'filter' out profits. Ticket sales, merchandizing, and players' salaries all went through three different companies. Since the reporting was done separately, the Angels could 'hide' everything except gate receipts. This allowed them to receive revenue-sharing dollars, even when they were in the 2nd-largest market.

This allowed baseball to pronounce that they wouldn't survive w/out those dollars, etc etc. Note that since Art Marrero has bought the team, the 'on the books' payroll has doubled with no crying about poverty.

Wow, that sounds like something the mafia would do.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Wow, that sounds like something the mafia would do.

Why? Every single corporation plays with their accounting. The MLB can hide what it wants as long as it loses its monopoly-exempt status.

-Rudey

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by Rudey
Why? Every single corporation plays with their accounting. The MLB can hide what it wants as long as it loses its monopoly-exempt status.

-Rudey

True dat. Fair play.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Rudey
Why? Every single corporation plays with their accounting. The MLB can hide what it wants as long as it loses its monopoly-exempt status.

-Rudey

This is exactly the truth - the real issue, for baseball fans, shouldn't be that it happens, but rather that some teams suck at it and get plastered for it.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=1492

This is a great article from BP - read it, and lament how your team might be getting hoodwinked by much smarter owners.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Kameny wants Council to relocate gay clubs
Leaders say District is cracking down on nightlife
By JOE CREA
Friday, December 31, 2004

In response to the slated displacement of six gay clubs in southeast Washington, local gay activist Frank Kameny plans to write a letter to the D.C. Council telling them they have a “moral obligation” to relocate the gay establishments that are scheduled to be put out of business to make room for the city’s new baseball stadium.

Kameny argues that the D.C. Council “exiled” gay clubs to the O Street SE area of Washington during the 1970s and are now obliged to relocate the businesses, possibly at the site of the recently demolished Washington Convention Center, 900 Ninth St. NW.

“They exiled us there [O Street] in an out of sight, out of mind philosophy and they have a moral obligation, regardless of whatever zoning officials say, to relocate the businesses,” said the longtime gay-rights activist who said he will send his letter to the Council next week.

The likely displacement of the O Street gay clubs, Ziegfeld’s and Secrets, the Follies Theater, the Glorious Health & Amusements, Club Bath and Heat, which opened this week and was previously named La Cage Aux Follies Bar & Nightclub, represents an extreme example of what some say is a crackdown by the District Council and others on D.C. nightlife.

Rest of article here: http://www.washblade.com/2004/12-31/...ews/kamaey.cfm

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6966989/

'Gay enterprise zone' pitched for D.C.
By Tim Lemke
Washington Business Journal
Updated: 7:00 p.m. ET Feb. 13, 2005

Gay activists and business owners want the D.C. Council to help find a spot in the city to relocate six sexually oriented businesses that likely will be displaced by the Washington Nationals' new baseball stadium.

advertisement
For the first time since the council approved plans for a ballpark along South Capitol Street in Southeast, gay activists will formally ask members of the council to play a role in finding new homes for businesses along O Street -- some of the most popular and controversial destinations for gays in the city.

Among their suggestions during a Feb. 28 panel discussion will be creation of a "gay enterprise zone" in the District. Councilmembers Jim Graham, D-Ward 1, and Kwame Brown, D-at large, are expected to attend.

The new ballpark is planned for land bordered by N Street to the north and South Capitol Street to the west. More than half of it is vacant, but the site includes a stretch of O Street that is occupied by six dance clubs, strip clubs and adult-movie theaters catering to gay customers. The businesses are owned by Robert Siegel, an ANC commissioner who operates businesses under the name Glorious Health and Amusements. He declined to comment on the future of his businesses, some of which the city would have to acquire to pave the way for the stadium.

At this point, however, neither Mayor Tony Williams' office nor the D.C. Office of Planning and Economic Development has reached out to any business owner in the area. They're waiting for a final land analysis from D.C. CFO Natwar Gandhi.

Gay activists say closing the O Street businesses would effectively kill a popular gathering center in the District, and put at risk HIV awareness campaigns and other programs formed in the neighborhood.

In a letter to Williams, long-time gay activist Frank Kameny says the city has a "moral obligation" to help relocate all the businesses to a single site near a Metro station and with adequate parking.

"We are dealing with a gay community institution ... and that is the way that the D.C. government should deal with it -- the institution -- not them -- the businesses," Kameny writes. "The D.C. government has an obligation to provide for them collectively."

Activists say they want the council to craft one-time legislation that would supercede any regulations governing where the businesses can locate. Under current zoning, the affected O Street clubs would not be allowed to relocate within 300 feet of one another, or within 600 feet of a school, library or church. That's too restrictive, Kameny says.

Other activists -- including members of The Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, which is hosting the panel discussion -- are taking a less aggressive tone. Club President David Meadows says the meeting will be a simple "back-and-forth discussion about the future of these businesses."

Of equal concern to the future of the O Street businesses, Meadows says, is the possibile shuttering of three popular gay clubs -- Nation, Wet and The Edge, located on M Street, north of the ballpark footprint. Those clubs could close if the city acquires land outside the actual ballpark site, as part of a master plan for the entire Anacostia waterfront.

No one rules out the possibility of acquiring businesses outside the ballpark footprint. But officials generally agree that if the city displaces a business, it should help with relocation.

Graham, who chairs the council's Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Committee, doesn't even know whether the council even has the power to one-time waive regulations. Zoning experts say the chances of sexually oriented businesses getting a zoning variance are slim.

Council members and gay activists said they expect discussions to become tense, in part because some residents oppose the sexual nature of the businesses and creation of a so-called "red light district" in the city.

"This is going to take some careful consideration of what to do," says Graham. "The solution is not immediately obvious."