Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Introducing 'Gail Kerr and Associates'
Posted by Matt Pulle on Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Comments (8)
Showing 1-8 of 8
like
dislike
This might be naive, or dissembling, but isn't there at least one large fundamental different between the two?
In the Predators case, the local owners are looking for more favorable terms on a lease agreement on an asset that the city owns.
In the Sounds case, non-local owners are looking for additional tax-payer financing to purchase and develop property that the team will own.
In the Predators case, the city loses its biggest tenant (or renter) that cannot be easily replaced. (Nashville will never get another major league franchise).
In the Sounds case, the city retains ownership of its asset (waterfront real estate) while negotiating from a position of strength - minor league ball clubs are both numerous and frequently relocated.
Now, I'm uncertain whether Gail Kerr is aware of these subtleties and not just an advocate for her friend, but Mr. Pulle does his readers a major disservice by failing to recognize the difference between the two situations.
Mike, you make some very good points and your overall analysis may be right. But it's definitely an open question whether the Sounds would end up receiving a greater handout than the Preds, who are in line to receive up to $7.4 million-a-year. So it seems a little slippery for Kerr to relentlessly shill for Freeman and condemn Gordon--when the difference between what the two want from the city is rather tiny.
Wow. Is she a columnist or a press agent, or both? Either way, her ham-fisted flackery is a disgrace to journalism. Not that 1100 Broad cares much bout that.
Actually, I'm sure you're right in saying that the $7.4 M increase in the reimbursement to the Preds is greater than the projected increased reimbursement to the Sounds (which I think is very small now).
The $7.4M to the Preds is an investment to guarantee future arena revenues, which exceed $7.4M. More precisely, it's $7.4M to prevent the loss of current revenues generated by the Preds' lease at the arena. In either scenario, the city's revenue stream is greater by making the lease changes because they're near-zero otherwise.
In the Sounds case, the (call it) $2.5M tax-increment-financing does not create an asset for the city. It would create an income stream of property taxes from property improvements on the riverfront site. The city can hold out for a better deal - they own the land, after all - and improve their future revenues by doing so.
The size of the "handout", then, is only relevant versus the return on that investment. In the Preds case, that return is substantial. With the Sounds, the money could legitimately be spent elsewhere while Nashville waits for a better opportunity.
Gosh, I don't think Matt went back through the archives before he wrote this one.
It was the same deal when the Titans came to town. Critics couldn't understand why the Sounds weren't being offered a stadium when the Titans were (primarily Larry Schmittou and his lackeys).
Some folks in Nashville just don't seem to get this difference between MAJOR league sports and MINOR league sports. The relative values of the franchises is completely different, as is the cost structure, the revenue potential and the "brand" value to the city. The city SHOULD pony up more to keep the Predators than the Sounds. They're a better value.
Matt sounds like the guy who complains mightily when his neighbor buys a brand new Lexus instead of purchasing Matt's Yugo with 100K miles. Sure, they're both cars, but ...uh, there's a bit of a difference.
First of all, if the Sounds are a Yugo, the Predators are, at best, a Nissan Sentra. Actually, unlike the Sounds, the Predators hemorrhage money ever year and have no detailed plan on how they will ever build their lagging fan base. So maybe the Predators are more like a Daewoo.
Honestly, I don't know if the Sounds deal is a good one or not. But there should have at least been a prolonged and reasonable debate.
