MLB & Washington State

[AndrewLyon 0]

I am trying to avoid polotics here, however here is the story.

 

 

Vote on Expos ballpark delayed

 

By HEATHER GREENFIELD, Associated Press Writer

November 9, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The District of Columbia Council delayed a vote on funding a new ballpark for the Expos, with Council Chair Linda Cropp proposing another new plan Tuesday.

 

Last week, Cropp said the new ballpark should be adjacent to RFK Stadium rather than at the site south of the U.S. Capitol called for in the agreement Washington signed with the Expos in September. That original deal called for $435 million to be spent on site acquisition, a new ballpark and refurbishing RFK Stadium as a temporary home for the team for the next three seasons.

 

On Tuesday, Cropp proposed that the ballpark remain at the site specified in the agreement, but said the city should pay $150 million and that a private entity be responsible for $350 million.

 

 

She promised a vote in two weeks on both the plan in the agreement and her proposal.

 

``I don't want to slow them down,'' Cropp said. ``If we could save businesses and taxpayers $350 million, it is extremely valuable to take this two-week period ``

 

Mayor Anthony A. Williams called the delay a setback but said he will push for enactment of the original plan, which requires approval from a majority of the council's 13 members.

 

``I believe the reason we're not having the vote today is because we have the votes,'' Williams said.

 

Under Williams' proposal, the district would pay about $11 million per year to finance $550 million in revenue bonds. Spokesman Chris Bender said that money would come from a gross receipts tax -- not the general fund used for areas such as schools and libraries. Companies near the stadium subject to gross receipt taxes would pay $4 million a year.

 

Williams and Bill Hall, the baseball committee chairman of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, said they are open to offers to blend the financing with a private company, but it would have to be a better deal for taxpayers than what's on the table now.

 

``My overriding interest is that it gets done in a way that's best for the city and gets done in a way that (upholds) our agreement,'' Hall said.

 

The Expos' agreement with Washington requires funding to be approved by Dec. 31. In addition, baseball owners must approve the move and baseball must defeat an attempt by the Expos' former limited partners to gain an injunction blocking a relocation. A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 6 in federal court in Miami.

 

Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

 

 

Updated on Tuesday, Nov 9, 2004 5:27 pm EST

 

 

 

 

Now for those of you who do not know the history, here is a quick recap.

 

MLB has been in Montreal since the 60's. After the strike in 94, fans felt robbed, and the team made no effort to join the community. Which has resulted in the fans going to see them, well at a very low number. Now MLB has a deal with the city of Washington to bring the team there. However, this change in site could be a violatation of this deal, and Washington does not get the team. Is MLB wrong for wanting to follow this deal to the letter? Or should they move the team regardless of how much Washington changes the deal.

[Webmaster 20]

In legal terms... business is business.

 

When dealing with something such as moving a baseball team, it's a MAJOR undertaking that requires a MASSIVE amount of money and risk by all parties involved.

 

That's part of the reason there are contracts and agreements. If one side violates the terms of the agreement, there is a price to be paid.

 

In regards to this deal, it looks like there are potential for it to go through. It might be slightly delayed, but still well within the time limits allowed for it. Both sides still seem interested in it, so even if the deadline passes, they might even decide to amend they're time frame.

[Sheng-ji 0]

Well the Expos are as good as gone.

 

And from a legal point of view, the only thing that Montreal really has a calim to, based on past decisions, is the actual name "Montreal Expos." The team itself is currently owned and ran by the baseball owners collectivly (which is what makes this situation a little different from other teams where an individual owns the team)

 

Still the point remains, contrary to popular belief you have no stake in an NFL team what so ever. If the San Fransisco 49'ers wanted to move to Orlando, they could. Montreal (unless the city actually owns the team, which I doubt they do.) has no real controll over the situation.

 

As far as robbing someone, I don;t think this is at the level of say the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore or Baltimore Colts to Indy moves either.

[AndrewLyon 0]

Well actually the city of Montreal was a minority owener. Unles MLB pretty well forced the Minority owners to accept that Hack, Jeffery Laura, deal to sell the Expo's for the Florida Marlins.

[Cougar 0]

I like the Expos, one of my favourite teams but now that they have moved to washington, I might not like them anymore.