Nationals Park

[Philtration]

I still think that they should go with the name of Walgreen's Field.. It would be just, so... Fitting. Compliments of the internet..

Nice! I though that I saw that W from some place before but I did not put them together... until now.

[efin98]

...and takes away what should be the best affordable tickets in the place...

And doesn't matter in the end since it's not their job to be close to the action, just describe what is going on in the first place!

[Sean O]

The city of Washington owns the ballpark which it leases to the "private corporation." The money that DC "gave" was an investment and conservative projections have the city making a profit of upwards of $20 million a year + the redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood.

So Washington, even with the park half-full most nights, will be only the 2nd city to make a profit on a new stadium in history? Also, if it's $20m a year, that's 30 years in today's money until we break even.

And, not for nothing, but PPOR with those "projections", please.

There are situations where the government shouldn't be involved but this one is a win-win situation for almost everybody. Even those that moved received far more then they would have if a ballpark wasn't lanned for the area.

And, oddly enough, in the land where "the pursuit of happiness" is one of our primary rights, the government is allowed to take what's not rightfully theres as long as money is involved?

The only onces that suffer were those that never planned on moving and there were only like 8 inhabited residences and those business owners that can't restart their business elsewhere.

Thanks Nationals! Thanks Lerners!

Many of those are gay porn halls that are restricted from most neighborhoods because of proximity to schools or residences so basically they would only be able to stay in their existing location until the neighborhood rebounded (if ever) so they had a vested interest in seeing that the neighborhood never rebounded.

Because they were running their own businesses, which should be allowed in the US.

There is seriously something wrong with people in this country that are so selfish they care only about their own needs to the detriment of the greater good.

Hah! We each have rights that the government, at its fundamental level, cannot abrogate. The government here is saying "we don't care that you've chosen what you want to do, and we're forcing this on you unconstitutionally." There is nothing selfish about being victimized by a government that is taking away your rights.

[Smirkman]

So Washington, even with the park half-full most nights, will be only the 2nd city to make a profit on a new stadium in history? Also, if it's $20m a year, that's 30 years in today's money until we break even.

And, not for nothing, but PPOR with those "projections", please.



And, oddly enough, in the land where "the pursuit of happiness" is one of our primary rights, the government is allowed to take what's not rightfully theres as long as money is involved?


Thanks Nationals! Thanks Lerners!



Because they were running their own businesses, which should be allowed in the US.



Hah! We each have rights that the government, at its fundamental level, cannot abrogate. The government here is saying "we don't care that you've chosen what you want to do, and we're forcing this on you unconstitutionally." There is nothing selfish about being victimized by a government that is taking away your rights.

That's $20 million profit. Please redo your math as that comes to $1211 million total in 30 years.

I respectfully disagree. I not going to debate the issue of eminant domain with you as our opinions differ. I believe there are some things that must be gained through eminant domain like Central Park, freeways and yes in some situations stadiums.

D.C. Council Crafting Plan to Pay $150 Million for Soccer Stadium

By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 28, 2008; A01


A coalition of D.C. Council members is drafting legislation that would authorize Mayor Adrian M. Fenty to spend $150 million in public money to subsidize construction of a soccer stadium for D.C. United in Southeast Washington, city government sources said.

Under the plan being developed by Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) and Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the 27,000-seat stadium would be included in a larger, mixed-use development at Poplar Point, a 110-acre swath of parkland along the Anacostia River. The site is across the river from the Washington Nationals' baseball stadium.

The city would finance construction bonds with excess tax revenue being collected by the District to pay for the baseball stadium. D.C. United would be responsible for paying for any costs above $150 million, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan is still being finalized.

The legislation could be introduced at the council's next legislative meeting Tuesday, if all goes smoothly, the sources said. Gray, Evans and Barry are working to win majority support on the 13-member council, but the project could prove contentious. Debate over the baseball stadium's $611 million financing package dragged on nearly two years, dividing the council and residents.

In February, Fenty (D) floated essentially the same plan as the one being developed by council members, but he backed off after the proposal was made public. The mayor, who as a council member voted against the baseball package, has been reluctant to actively support the soccer project and is content to let the council take the lead, the city government sources said. Through a spokeswoman, Fenty declined to comment yesterday.

But at a meeting last night of the Anacostia Coordinating Council, a neighborhood group in Ward 8 that supports the stadium, business leader James Bunn asked Fenty to commit to the stadium project.

"We are moving forward and hope to have a deal that can be announced soon," Fenty replied.

The three council members have said they must act soon to keep the soccer team in the District. Team owner Victor B. MacFarlane has been talking with Prince George's County officials about moving the franchise to Greenbelt or New Carrollton if the District is unwilling to help build the stadium.

Council member Kwame R. Brown (D-At Large), chairman of the Economic Development Committee, met with Gray, Evans and Barry two weeks ago to discuss the financing plan. Brown, who is running for reelection, has been generally supportive of a stadium but has not committed to voting for it.

"There have been so many different scenarios, and that's one of the last ones that I've heard," Brown said of the $150 million plan. "I need to see exactly what that means. . . . I haven't been presented anything, nothing in writing. How are we going to do it?"

Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said she had not heard about the latest plan. When the stadium issue was broached a few months ago by Fenty, Cheh said, she voiced opposition to using public money.

"I just don't think we should be an ATM for sporting authorities, unless they can make a compelling case to me," Cheh said.

Calls to Evans and Gray were not returned yesterday, and Barry declined to comment.

United plays at 47-year-old RFK Stadium, where MacFarlane has said the team loses $10 million a year because it does not control ad revenue at the stadium under its agreement with the city. Plans for a new facility have been stalled since last summer, when the Fenty administration abruptly broke off informal discussions with MacFarlane.

The administration said MacFarlane's proposal, which included him taking control of the entire Poplar Point development, was not good for the city. Fenty aides ultimately awarded the development rights for Poplar Point to Bethesda-based Clark Realty Capital, which included a soccer stadium as an option in its proposal.

MacFarlane, meanwhile, opened negotiations with officials in Prince George's but has continued to talk with D.C. officials about Poplar Point. A request to MacFarlane's spokeswoman for comment did not yield a response yesterday.

D.C. United officials have been eager to complete a deal before the council goes on summer recess in mid-July, but the timetable is tight. After being introduced, the stadium legislation would require a public hearing, a committee markup and two council votes. Furthermore, the proposed financing plan represents a potential sticking point.

City financial officials project that the District will collect about $20 million more each year from taxes on businesses and stadium sales of tickets, food and merchandise than required to pay for Nationals Park. That additional money could be used to fund a soccer stadium, D.C. Chief Financial Natwar M. Gandhi has said. Business leaders, who have already been in contention with the Fenty administration over a reduction in the size of a commercial property tax cut, have said any excess revenue could go toward retiring the 30-year baseball stadium bonds early and relieving businesses of their tax burden more quickly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sean O]

So can somebody explain to me how a brand new park that is 70% full on average is so wildly profitable when every other park, save Metrodome, has hemorrhaged public money? It just seems a little bit odd to me.

Also, did the financial geniuses at the city account for the surefire drop in attendance for the next few years, since the ballpark will get old (and from what I've seen in pictures, it will get real old, real quick) and the team still isn't in a position to compete? And, is the Anacostia area growing faster than, say, the utterly failed neighborhood-building of Atlanta, Chicago (WS), Texas, etc.?

[six4three]

So can somebody explain to me how a brand new park that is 70% full on average is so wildly profitable when every other park, save Metrodome, has hemorrhaged public money? It just seems a little bit odd to me.

That's the question, isn't it? They say they'll earn these mountains of profit, but no details on how they'll succeed where everybody else has failed.

[Smirkman]

So can somebody explain to me how a brand new park that is 70% full on average is so wildly profitable when every other park, save Metrodome, has hemorrhaged public money? It just seems a little bit odd to me.

Also, did the financial geniuses at the city account for the surefire drop in attendance for the next few years, since the ballpark will get old (and from what I've seen in pictures, it will get real old, real quick) and the team still isn't in a position to compete? And, is the Anacostia area growing faster than, say, the utterly failed neighborhood-building of Atlanta, Chicago (WS), Texas, etc.?

Well, I guess that the others were not geniuses (not that DC is). You make alot of accusations and assumptions based on relatively weak data. Simple research will answer all of your loaded "questions." I stated earlier that they were conservative estimates. As I am sure you doubt or question what that means, but it simply means that they accounted for attendance fluctuations. There are numerous articles quoting those that did NOT support the building of the ballpark. Mayor Fenty is a prime example as he was the one most vehemently opposed to the ballpark. Just because something isn't the norm doesn't mean a new way of doing something won't achieve different results. Nobody thought the Olympics could be profitable until LA in '84.

BTW - I wasn't aware of Atlanta, Chicago or Texas' building of a ballpark was to build neighborhoods. They are all in residential areas (of varying styles) and only Atlanta is anywhere near a downtown. DC didn't build the ballpark to redevelop a neighborhood, they built it to add amenities and to increase the redevelopment efforts that were in place but slow to develop other than the DOT HQ and a few scattered office buildings. The entertainment and residential development plans exploded with the announcement of the ballpark. Additionally the city will benefit financially from the offshoot development that is not included in the financial projections. Without a doubt this ballpark is a financial success and no money came from the DC general fund. The ballpark was funded by a special tax that large business owners approved, but benefits the city (and the Nats obviously).

Note: The ballpark is not IN Anacostia (neighborhood). It is close to the Anacostia River.

[efin98]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some of the stadiums built with public money paid in part through bonds? And aren't those bonds to some extent fixed at a certain rate? And if so can't they determine what the minimum amount they need to pay over the course of the bond per year to establish a bare minimum they need to take in from the teams to pay off the bonds?

And from that can't they figure that the excesses from the revenues be considered "profits" since they are more than what is needed to pay off the bond for the year?

[Smirkman]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some of the stadiums built with public money paid in part through bonds? And aren't those bonds to some extent fixed at a certain rate? And if so can't they determine what the minimum amount they need to pay over the course of the bond per year to establish a bare minimum they need to take in from the teams to pay off the bonds?

And from that can't they figure that the excesses from the revenues be considered "profits" since they are more than what is needed to pay off the bond for the year?

If you use truly use public money for the construction (& land purchases) then no, because that money came from the government. The money in DC did not come from the local government. They just allocated it, thus creating a profit of any amount over what they had to spend on the ballpark.

FWIW - The metrodome was not profitable, but it did come in under budget. I believe PacBell/ATT Park in SF was/is profitable but that was funded with private revenues that are allocated by the team and not the city. In DC the city acts as the middleman. In fact many private enterprises lined up to allocate the funds, but DC recognized there was/ could be a profit and kept it for itself as the private enterprises were to retain any amount over the cost of the ballpark. One item I am unsure of is the cost of managing the contract and if the city's cost was included in the contract (I have not read the contract for 2 years) although it is likely that they did. This would be a direct cost that if it exists should be removed from any profit.

[Chevy114]

I heard the other day that we are still making money for certain things that were taked onto the bucs football stadium's half cent sales tax, I thought that was interesting.

[nymdan]

Only 35,830 at Nationals Park last night for the game against the Orioles. That's pretty bad that they're not able to fill up the stadium even with fans coming down from Baltimore.

I'd expect the Saturday and Sunday crowds to be bigger. Let's see what those numbers turn out to be.

[LetsGoMets687]

Only 35,830 at Nationals Park last night for the game against the Orioles. That's pretty bad that they're not able to fill up the stadium even with fans coming down from Baltimore.

I'd expect the Saturday and Sunday crowds to be bigger. Let's see what those numbers turn out to be.

This really hasn't been a good sign all season. If the Nats can barely average 29,000, imagine what their attendance will be in a year or two when the "new ballpark smell" wears off.

[Smirkman]

This really hasn't been a good sign all season. If the Nats can barely average 29,000, imagine what their attendance will be in a year or two when the "new ballpark smell" wears off.

There is no new ballpark smell. Washingtonians have been able to go to Baltimore for years. A new ballpark is nothing new. Attendance is not great, but for a terrible team it is ok. Washingtonians want a winner. Once this team gets better attendance will be in the top 1/3.

BTW how many fans do you think come down from Baltimore when the Orioles draw less at their own ballpark?

[GordonGecko]

Washingtonians want a winner. Once this team gets better attendance will be in the top 1/3.

That's EXACTLY what people said in Montreal. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[nymdan]

39,479 yesterday... not bad.

Washingtonians want a winner. Once this team gets better attendance will be in the top 1/3.

Maybe, but the fact they only drew around 20,000 for the second-ever game at Nationals Park shows that the interest level just isn't there. You would think even with a bad team, if the team had a decent-sized fan base, the second game ticket would be a hard one to get, with all of the people that couldn't make/couldn't get tickets for Opening Night.

Of course, it takes time to build a fan base, but it's also possible the interest level in DC just isn't there. People in Tampa kept saying that their poor attendance was because they fielded bad teams, but now that they're winning, they don't seem to be drawing anymore fans.

[PeteU]

. People in Tampa kept saying that their poor attendance was because they fielded bad teams, but now that they're winning, they don't seem to be drawing anymore fans.

Actually, there already has been a noticeable increase in attendance at Rays games, something to the tune of 36%, and the season is only about halfway done so far. Should the Rays continue their winning ways, conventional wisdom has the crowds only getting larger and larger as the pennant race heats up.

[J.R.]

Actually, there already has been a noticeable increase in attendance at Rays games, something to the tune of 36%, and the season is only about halfway done so far. Should the Rays continue their winning ways, conventional wisdom has the crowds only getting larger and larger as the pennant race heats up.

The three Cubs games had something to do with that. I agree though, let's see how it goes through this season and into next.

[Smirkman]

Actually, there already has been a noticeable increase in attendance at Rays games, something to the tune of 36%, and the season is only about halfway done so far. Should the Rays continue their winning ways, conventional wisdom has the crowds only getting larger and larger as the pennant race heats up.

This shows that you have to build a fan base at some time. Until this year the Rays had some talent but it didn't translate into wins. I imagine that if the Rays can win or be competitive for several years and build a fanbase that they will be able to withstand some down years. The Nats are similar except they have a larger fanbase that still has ties to other teams. The team needs to win in order to break those ties. There is no problem with the DC market and I find it funny how everyone is jumping on it when attendance per win has been high for all 3 1/2 years. This is not Denver where people were clamoring for a team for years. Baltimore was right around the corner and many Marylanders in the DC market still support the team. Many would switch if given a reason. In Baltimore the Ravens turned the town into a football town by winning the Super Bowl. All the Nats have to do is become competitive.

[PeteU]

The three Cubs games had something to do with that. I agree though, let's see how it goes through this season and into next.

I think the difference between that and previous years is that a lot more Rays fans are coming out.

In previous years, when the Rays had an opponent with a big traveling/transient fanbase such as the Yankees, Red Sox or Cubs, the visiting team would get 15,000 or more fans, and the Rays might get 10,000 tops.

Now I think that the casual Rays fans are starting to show up, you are seeing a lot more Rays fans at the ballpark rooting for the Rays, so it counteracts that visiting segment of fans.

[six4three]

That's EXACTLY what people said in Montreal. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Difference is that DC built a ballpark. That's the cost of being in the Majors, and had Montreal done that their attendance numbers would have been moot.

[six4three]

I think the difference between that and previous years is that a lot more Rays fans are coming out.

In previous years, when the Rays had an opponent with a big traveling/transient fanbase such as the Yankees, Red Sox or Cubs, the visiting team would get 15,000 or more fans, and the Rays might get 10,000 tops.

Now I think that the casual Rays fans are starting to show up, you are seeing a lot more Rays fans at the ballpark rooting for the Rays, so it counteracts that visiting segment of fans.

Can't be that many more Rays fans, unless the Yankees fans and Red Sox fans have stopped coming....

[efin98]

Can't be that many more Rays fans, unless the Yankees fans and Red Sox fans have stopped coming....

It's definately more TB fans there- I'm watching the Red Sox and Tampa fans are actually drowning out the Red Sox fans for the first time I can recall...it's gotta be at least a 50/50 split there if not more in favor of Tampa.

[Smirkman]

Last 3 games:

35,830
39,479
39,824

Not too bad. When your stadium only holds 41,000 it is hard to get those 22,000 early April weeknights to not kill the average.

[Chevy114]

Last 3 games:

35,830
39,479
39,824

Not too bad. When your stadium only holds 41,000 it is hard to get those 22,000 early April weeknights to not kill the average.

Also good numbers for a last place team! Ask the first place rays!

[LetsGoMets687]

Nats Striking Out on TV
MASN Programming Ranks Last Among U.S. Major League Markets

By Dan Steinberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 8, 2008; Page E01

The Washington Nationals are drawing the smallest U.S. regional television audience in baseball this season, attracting less than one-third the average number of households of any other team, according to an analysis of Nielsen Media Research data published yesterday by SportsBusiness Journal.

e Nationals, whose games are broadcast on either MASN or MASN2, are drawing a 0.39 average rating and an average of 9,000 households in the Washington market, according to the report. That's a decline of about 43 percent from last season's totals, and a significantly lower regional sports network audience than any other U.S. team has drawn this season. The figures do not include potential viewers outside the Washington market; MASN's reach stretches from Harrisburg, Pa., to Charlotte.
ad_icon

The Baltimore Orioles, whose games also appear on MASN and MASN2, are averaging a 3.05 rating and 33,000 households in the Baltimore market. Aside from the Nationals, the Kansas City Royals have attracted the lowest regional audience, approximately 28,000 households.

The Nationals have been beset by a string of injuries to their best-known players, and have the worst record in Major League Baseball. The team's average paid attendance in its new stadium is 29,754, which ranks 15th in the 30-team league.

A MASN spokesman cited the team's injuries and short history in Washington as contributing to the low television ratings, and emphasized the strong attendance of both the franchise and Major League Baseball as a whole.

"This is a marathon and not a sprint," Todd Webster, the spokesman, said. "The team is still relatively new. It is still building. Obviously they've had some tough breaks on the field with some injuries, but they have an outstanding ownership and management team in place and we expect that those ratings will improve. It is still the national pastime."

Webster said he doesn't believe the fact that all Nationals games are not on the same channel hurts the team's ratings. The Nationals referred all questions to MASN.

The Nationals own a portion of MASN, but are not the majority shareholders in the network. The Orioles are the majority shareholders, the result of the bargain that baseball struck with Orioles owner Peter Angelos when it relocated the Nationals franchise to Washington.

SportsBusiness Journal reported last month that Orioles broadcasts on MASN and MASN2 are drawing higher ratings in the Washington market than are Nationals broadcasts.

Network baseball ratings have dropped across the board this season, according to the report, but teams that have succeeded on the field have seen large increases in local ratings. The surprising Tampa Bay Rays, for example, have seen their ratings on FSN Florida jump more than 30 percent over last year's figures.

"If things turn around next year [for the Nationals], you'll find ratings on the mend," said Lee Berke, president and chief executive of sports television consulting firm LHB and a former executive with the MSG Network. "It doesn't strike me as unbelievably low given the situation the Nationals are in, which is a start-up team in a town that has a lot of divided loyalties. Things do turn around."

The Washington Capitals saw their local ratings spike during their late-season surge last season. The Capitals broadcasts drew a 0.78 rating and an average of 17,940 households on Comcast SportsNet and CSN+, more than double the previous year's audience. Wizards regular season games, also on Comcast SportsNet, averaged a 0.9 rating (20,700 households) in the Washington market. Through eight regular season games this year, D.C. United has averaged a 0.5 rating (11,500 households) on CSN, which has a business relationship with The Washington Post.

"Apart from the Redskins, which is a totally separate ballgame, these teams are going to rise and fall with their performance on the field, and they sort of have to battle the fact that, particularly with the Nationals, they haven't been there for decades," Berke said. "You've got a marketplace that's been conditioned to following the Orioles for several decades. The reality is, you're creating a new generation of baseball fans for Washington, D.C. That's tough."