For $325m, the Angels sign...

[Taylor]

23 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

Nice fleecing Arte. Estimated value $900M.  

I feel so sad for the city of Anaheim.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, wopphil said:

What happens after 30 years? If they bought everything, dont they get to stay indefinitely? 

I didn’t read all the details but maybe there is an agreement on taxes that goes through 2050?

[Don]

2 minutes ago, wopphil said:

What happens after 30 years? If they bought everything, dont they get to stay indefinitely? 

Arte and his homies own the stadium and the land now. The Angels organization, in return, has agreed not to leave the city of Anaheim any time before 2050.

[Taylor]

Hopefully Arte doesn't increase parking to Dodger Stadium levels. I'm not a millionaire yet.

[yamsi12]

I hope they take away the mayor and city council members parking spots, suite, etc.

[Dtwncbad]

What is the fastest a new stadium could be built?  Not saying this means they build a new stadium, just curious if it is being considered how fast it could happen. 

[Erstad Grit]

Can this stadium pitch?

[Don]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

What is the fastest a new stadium could be built?  Not saying this means they build a new stadium, just curious if it is being considered how fast it could happen. 

I'd guess a lot of that depends on the design and permitting phases. If it's a brand new concept, it takes a while to develop the design. If it's mostly based on some sort of existing design, then the time to develop that gets a lot shorter. Permitting, who knows, but it is OC. Completely unresearched speculation on my part, but I'd say 3-5 years would be pretty quick if they decided to go in that direction today.

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

What is the fastest a new stadium could be built?  Not saying this means they build a new stadium, just curious if it is being considered how fast it could happen. 

Ask the A's about that one. They've been trying to get a new stadium forever.

And the last one they had proposed, the day they announced it they said it would be open in like 9 years, because of all the bureaucratic red tape and environmental stuff that has to happen before they even put a shovel in the ground.

Actual construction I think takes 2.5 years or so.

[Pancake Bear]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Ask the A's about that one. They've been trying to get a new stadium forever.

And the last one they had proposed, the day they announced it they said it would be open in like 9 years, because of all the bureaucratic red tape and environmental stuff that has to happen before they even put a shovel in the ground.

Actual construction I think takes 2.5 years or so.

Is a new stadium more likely in your opinion or renovation?

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 minute ago, Sean-Regan said:

Is a new stadium more likely in your opinion or renovation?

it's way too early for me to even guess at that one. But you should ask Alicia (@arobwriter). She is really the one on this story. I just do the baseball.

[Dtwncbad]

Just an observation but my guess is all the environmental impact stuff would likely take way longer in situations where you are putting a new stadium in a new location (versus replacing an existing stadium that already is on the site).

I actually don’t care too much if they renovate   or build new.  I just want it done fast.

[Buttercup]

It’ll be interesting to see how close in value Cole is to Angel Stadium. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

10 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Just an observation but my guess is all the environmental impact stuff would likely take way longer in situations where you are putting a new stadium in a new location (versus replacing an existing stadium that already is on the site).

That's probably a fair point. I think the A's are going to end up going that route, after all else has failed.

[eaterfan]

25 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

What is the fastest a new stadium could be built?  Not saying this means they build a new stadium, just curious if it is being considered how fast it could happen. 

The Rams broke ground on their stadium in January 2016, I think. It will open in July 2020. It's a year behind schedule because of the heavy rains they got the first winter. There are a lot of differences that I think could lead to a faster build in Anaheim. 

1. Rams stadium had to be built about 100 feet below the ground because of the flight path with LAX. Angels won't have to dig.

2. Rams stadium is designed to hold 70k (expandable to 100k) plus it has separate concert venue built in. Angels stadium would presumably be much smaller.

3. Rams stadium will have a "canopy." That takes time to build. Angels stadium will likely be open air. 

Some things that may cause more delays for the Angels than the Rams:

1. Rams stadium is only a construction site. They don't have to deal with the team currently playing there. 

2. Kroenke has F.U. money and is spending it on this. He is paying crews to work round the clock. Not sure Arte wants to get it done ASAP no matter what the cost. 

[Claude]

7 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Just an observation but my guess is all the environmental impact stuff would likely take way longer in situations where you are putting a new stadium in a new location (versus replacing an existing stadium that already is on the site).

I actually don’t care too much if they renovate   or build new.  I just want it done fast.

A new stadium would cost around $1.2B if it’s built with all of the bells and whistles. That’s what they need to do. Screw renovations. But who’s going to pay for it.

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, Calzone 2 said:

A new stadium would cost around $1.2B if it’s built with all of the bells and whistles. That’s what they need to do. Screw renovations. But who’s going to pay for it.

Mexico?

[Angelsfan1984]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That's probably a fair point. I think the A's are going to end up going that route, after all else has failed.

The problem for the A's as was the Raiders, was that a stadium authority was responsible for the ownership and insurance for the stadium. The City was unwilling to take responsibility for it or pay for the coverage on it. So the teams owners, who don't have a say in anything basically are throwing their hands up. the City doesn't want the liability for it and the stadium authority couldn't care less.

I think Moreno taking ownership of the land and presumably the liability is going to go a long way in him being able to do what he wants and how he wants to do it.

[aznhockeyguy]

23 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Hey guys, if anyone would like to comment on this for the updated version of the story, drop an email to Alicia Robinson, who is our reporter covering this.

arobinson@scng.com

Thanks!

She did a very good job of writing the article.  Correct me if I'm wrong but here's what's going to happen and why it's happening.

What does the City of Anaheim get?

1) 325 million upfront

2) No longer required to maintain and upkeep the stadium and surrounding parking lots as the city owned the stadium and surrounding land. 

3) The city no longer have to do an annual 700k payment to a maintenance fund.

4) No more super favorable lease terms to Arte for said stadium.  

5) Increased tax base/income as the surrounding area gets developed with more housing/commercial space.

6) A parking structure as said development will take up parking space.

7) A baseball team until at least 2050.

8+) Other ancillary benefits that is yet to be determined but so far has been: using local companies for the construction/remodel of the stadium, low income housing as the area gets developed, and additional parks.

Why would Anaheim do this? 

Depends on your viewpoint.  Anaheim was giving some money to Arte via super favorable lease terms while paying for upkeep and maintenance, all so that the city can have a baseball team.  According to the article, the city has only made ~600k in 2 decades from the stadium and surrounding land, but this can be construed in accounting.  Without knowing further details into what goes into that figure or how it was derived, I'm not really sure if that's good or bad (I'm an accountant). 

If you're a fan of not giving public subsidies to sports team owners like myself, you can definitely chalk it up to a win as this gets Anaheim out of the stadium leasing business, while also increasing the city's tax base as the site gets developed.  However, the price they got for said land is about 33% of fair market value according to some estimates and to me it's one last subsidy to Arte to keep the team in Anaheim until 2050. But after that, Arte or whomever owns the team at the time can threaten to move again to get more subsidies from somewhere else. Also, I listed item number 8 as a benefit, however according to the article the low income housing and parks will have a dollar value that will be subtracted from the purchase price, meaning most likely the city will need pay back some of the money that they're getting right now after those items are built.   

 

What does the Angels/Arte get?

1) Ownership via a partnership of stadium and surrounding land: Expect more and more events outside of baseball to maximize revenue.

2) Via the partnership 153 acres of valuable Orange County land at ~33% of fair market value according to some estimates.

3) Stadium certainty until 2050.

Why did Arte and the Angels do this?

I can see why Arte would do this, he essentially used the Angels' leverage to get him and his partners valuable land for 33% of fair market value in some valuations.  After the deal is signed, Arte can essentially said screw it and sell the team, saddling the new owners of the team with the obligations of the stadium remodel/build and staying here until 2050.  Arte and his partners will get to keep the land and Arte will get to keep the proceeds of selling the team.  I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happens, as baseball attendance and ratings are declining and the TV money might not be there anymore.  For the Angels, I think it's a fair question whether or not this will affect the team's spending this offseason.  Now that the Angels are responsible for the stadium remodel/construction, I wouldn't be surprised to see some belt tightening in terms of spending.  

Of course all of this is speculation, but based on the article these are some of the items I've concluded, but hopefully these will help you guys with what this deal means.  

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

31 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

it's way too early for me to even guess at that one. But you should ask Alicia (@arobwriter). She is really the one on this story. I just do the baseball.

What's her AngelsWin handle? 

[Dtwncbad]

12 minutes ago, aznhockeyguy said:

She did a very good job of writing the article.  Correct me if I'm wrong but here's what's going to happen and why it's happening.

What does the City of Anaheim get?

1) 325 million upfront

2) No longer required to maintain and upkeep the stadium and surrounding parking lots as the city owned the stadium and surrounding land. 

3) The city no longer have to do an annual 700k payment to a maintenance fund.

4) No more super favorable lease terms to Arte for said stadium.  

5) Increased tax base/income as the surrounding area gets developed with more housing/commercial space.

6) A parking structure as said development will take up parking space.

7) A baseball team until at least 2050.

8+) Other ancillary benefits that is yet to be determined but so far has been: using local companies for the construction/remodel of the stadium, low income housing as the area gets developed, and additional parks.

Why would Anaheim do this? 

Depends on your viewpoint.  Anaheim was giving some money to Arte via super favorable lease terms while paying for upkeep and maintenance, all so that the city can have a baseball team.  According to the article, the city has only made ~600k in 2 decades from the stadium and surrounding land, but this can be construed in accounting.  Without knowing further details into what goes into that figure or how it was derived, I'm not really sure if that's good or bad (I'm an accountant). 

If you're a fan of not giving public subsidies to sports team owners like myself, you can definitely chalk it up to a win as this gets Anaheim out of the stadium leasing business, while also increasing the city's tax base as the site gets developed.  However, the price they got for said land is about 33% of fair market value according to some estimates and to me it's one last subsidy to Arte to keep the team in Anaheim until 2050. But after that, Arte or whomever owns the team at the time can threaten to move again to get more subsidies from somewhere else. Also, I listed item number 8 as a benefit, however according to the article the low income housing and parks will have a dollar value that will be subtracted from the purchase price, meaning most likely the city will need pay back some of the money that they're getting right now after those items are built.   

 

What does the Angels/Arte get?

1) Ownership via a partnership of stadium and surrounding land: Expect more and more events outside of baseball to maximize revenue.

2) Via the partnership 153 acres of valuable Orange County land at ~33% of fair market value according to some estimates.

3) Stadium certainty until 2050.

Why did Arte and the Angels do this?

I can see why Arte would do this, he essentially used the Angels' leverage to get him and his partners valuable land for 33% of fair market value in some valuations.  After the deal is signed, Arte can essentially said screw it and sell the team, saddling the new owners of the team with the obligations of the stadium remodel/build and staying here until 2050.  Arte and his partners will get to keep the land and Arte will get to keep the proceeds of selling the team.  I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happens, as baseball attendance and ratings are declining and the TV money might not be there anymore.  For the Angels, I think it's a fair question whether or not this will affect the team's spending this offseason.  Now that the Angels are responsible for the stadium remodel/construction, I wouldn't be surprised to see some belt tightening in terms of spending.  

Of course all of this is speculation, but based on the article these are some of the items I've concluded, but hopefully these will help you guys with what this deal means.  

 

Stick to Arizona hockey.

[AngelsLakersFan]

16 minutes ago, aznhockeyguy said:

If you're a fan of not giving public subsidies to sports team owners like myself, you can definitely chalk it up to a win as this gets Anaheim out of the stadium leasing business, while also increasing the city's tax base as the site gets developed.  However, the price they got for said land is about 33% of fair market value according to some estimates and to me it's one last subsidy to Arte to keep the team in Anaheim until 2050.

Sure it's 'under market value' but what really is the value of that property with an empty stadium sitting on top of it? First you gotta pay to remove the stadium, then find someone willing to develop the land. Sure you probably come out ahead in the long run but I'm not sure it's worth it.

[ukyah]

6 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Stick to Arizona hockey.

all of that writing for some really poor conclusions.

arte isn't selling the angels before a "new" stadium is built or the redevelopment. the angels will be worth considerably more after all that is completed. what if jerrah had sold the cowboys before his stadium was built? these guys aren't that stupid.

[Angel Oracle]

At least now the Dogs aren't the only baseball team in town to also own the place they play in.

[Dtwncbad]

I like the part where Arte steals the stadium at 33% of value but then sticks the new owner with the huge financial burden of owning the stadium.