Proposed Changes to Baseball Contract Could Kill The Deal

Last updated Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:56 PM CDT in News

By Steve Caraway
The Morning News

    SPRINGDALE -- The possibility of the Wichita Wranglers leasing Springdale's planned stadium isn't dead, but it is on life support.

    The Wranglers will not be able to live with the changes the Springdale City Council made Tuesday night in the proposed lease, said Perry Webb, president and chief executive officer of the Springdale Chamber of Commerce.

    "The changes made in the contract would cost the team about $600,000 per year," Webb said Wednesday. "No team could live with that."

    Jonathan Dandes, president of the Wranglers, said the relations have been amiable with the city before, but the actions Tuesday night came in an acrimonious atmosphere.

    "If the council doesn't want us, they need to tell us and stop wasting time and money," Dandes said Wednesday afternoon. "We'll go away. We're big boys and girls. We can handle it."

    Council members in a special Tuesday meeting made at least nine major changes to the proposed lease with the Wranglers. Dandes told the council in a meeting on Aug. 24 small points in the original contract could be clarified, but the major points were not negotiable.

    Council members discussed points in the contract for three hours, sometimes heatedly questioning representatives of the stadium design firm and the bond companies.

    "I thought there were some comments made which were derogatory," said Mayor Jerre Van Hoose.

    Council members were making aspersions about the Wranglers' parent companies, Rich Baseball and Rich Food Products, Webb said.

    "For the last 30 years, this has been the most successful minor league baseball owner in the country," Webb said. "It is inexcusable to say they are not trustworthy."

    A few actions by council members were political posturing, Webb continued.

    "Some of the council members have plans to run for other political offices," Webb said. "Their posturing is becoming a detriment to the project."

    Some council members are tying to scuttle the project on purpose, Webb added.

    "They may say they are for the stadium, but they are doing everything they can to kill it," Webb said. "We will not let this die."

    The Wranglers are still interested in making a deal with the city, Dandes said, but he repeated the assertion that major negotiation is over.

    "We have negotiated for a month with the mayor and representatives from the city," Dandes said. "We are not going to throw all of that out."

    The attitude by the council did not reflect the contacts the team had with other Springdale residents.

    "We have received dozens of e-mails welcoming us to Springdale," Dandes said. "We've received at least 20 suggestions for names. We don't want to come to the city in an antagonistic, adversarial way."

    The revised lease is a good contract and should be accepted, said Ray Dotson, councilman.

    "I have never seen the council more united on a subject," Dotson said. "All of us are behind this."

    Jesse Core, who is running against Dotson for the council, used the opportunity to assess the work of the group.

    "They are getting bogged down on this," Core said. "That is fairly typical of this council. They need to get this done and stop dragging their feet."

    The facility would be built with $50 million from a bond sale approved in a July election by 13 votes. The bonds will cover buying the land, building a stadium for $33 million, extending sewer and water lines to the site, improving roads and paying the cost of the bond issue. The bonds are scheduled to be paid off by the extension of a 1 percent sales tax.

    The clock is ticking on the contract. If an agreement can't be reached soon, there may not be enough time to build the stadium before opening day in Spring 2008.

    The council is scheduled to vote on the contract Tuesday night, or could meet earlier, Van Hoose said.

    Meeting Information

    Changes in the Springdale Baseball Lease

    The Springdale City Council made several changes Tuesday night in its proposed lease contract with the Wichita Wranglers:

    The council will oversee the stadium, not the public facility board.

    The city will retain naming rights and revenue from those rights.

    The team will give up exclusive rights to concessions at the stadium.

    The city will receive 10 percent of the revenue from any of the team's nonbaseball events at the stadium.

    The city would pay the team 15 percent of the concession revenue for city events for the use of essential concession workers.

    Complimentary tickets handed out by the team for a consideration, such as advertising, would count toward attendance figures.

    The city would receive 10 complimentary tickets per baseball game.

    Utility cost over $200,000 per year would be divided, with the team paying 75 percent and the city 25 percent.

    The team would pay 75 percent of the real estate taxes for the stadium, if any are ever levied.

    Source: City of Springdale

    Razorback Central
    July 5th, 2009
    Henry Leaves Razorbacks

    Reader Comments (24 comment(s))


    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.

    Mark Kilpatrick wrote on Aug 31, 2006 5:12 AM:

    " Watch the city council blow this deal , my opinion is the city council should leave town and the Wranglers come to Springdale. If Springdale wanders why they are behind cities like Rogers and Bentonville. Fayetteville has the U of A , Rogers and Bentonville has upscale shopping and possitive growth. Springdale has a City Council that cant agree on squat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

    Whatever wrote on Aug 31, 2006 5:29 AM:

    " The council should be as assertive as they have been. We are talking millions here and last I checked the Chamber President wasn't an elected official "

    Doug Jones wrote on Aug 31, 2006 6:33 AM:

    " Bobby Stout said possibly the most insightful thing that anybody on this council has ever said. "We can't agree on the definitin of a sign, we have no business negotiating this contract." The citizens have been waiting for some sign of intellignece from anyone on the council. Who knew it would come from the most unlikely candidate of all. The legacy of this dysfunctional group of ladies and gentleman will be their complete inability to accomplish anything without hours of petty arguments and name calling. They are going to kill this deal. I guess Ray Dotson now sees that we aren't in the negotiating driver's seat like he thought we were. This stadium could have been the economic stimulus that this city has needed for years. It's clear that Mike Overton is opposed to anything that might be good for Springdale's growth. We need to use the election in November to "CLEAN HOUSE!" I am normally opposed to voting just for the sake of change, but this council has hit rock bottom and started digging. I think in this case, we don't have any choice. I guess the bright side is that it couldn't get any worse than it is now. "

    Neighbor wrote on Aug 31, 2006 7:40 AM:

    " I can't believe you all are letting Perry Webb run your city and control your tax dollars. "

    AG wrote on Aug 31, 2006 8:01 AM:

    " I can't believe what I am reading. This great vaccum cleaner of a baseball stadium may not float? What a sad day do you think maby now we can get back to building streets and forget this great "TAX VACCUM" of a stadium. as for Mr. Dotson "HANG IN THERE" we don't need this thing. It will never make enough money to keep from coming back to the tax payer for more money. If anyone can show me in writeing how this thing will make it own it's own I would like to see it. "

    crazy wrote on Aug 31, 2006 8:57 AM:

    " last i checked the stadium would be paid for by SALES TAX!! this means that it will be paid mostly by those who spend the most, ie. the wealthier folks in town. it won't affect my income or property tax. do some research on rich baseball. our council is now insulting one of the most successful private businesses in the country. why would the rich's want to come in and do all this work to run a team only so the city can gouge them for their efforts. way to go council.... i guess rogers will probably end up with the increased tax base and new developments when they come through and act like reasonable people. we're acting like the rich's have no alternative..... do you really think thats reality? "

    No Dog in the Fight wrote on Aug 31, 2006 9:14 AM:

    " Which team put out “feelers” about coming to town if a stadium was built in Springdale? Then there are reports about what Springdale can do for this “team” and what Wichita was willing to do to keep the team there. Deal shopping or corporate welfare? I applaud the Springdale City Council for being good stewards of city coffers and trying to minimize the impact of the operating costs to the city. However they may have gone overboard. I am puzzled however; if this is such a good deal why private corporations and individuals are not jumping on the band wagon and creating an additional revenue source for the stadium. Why isn’t Mr. Perry Webb an outspoken supporter of the deal leading the way as president of the Chamber creating an organization or partner as you will to ask for donations from leading corporate businesses and citizens to help fund the stadium operating costs? We have many highly visible and successful corporations in this area that could contribute to such a fund. We also have many highly respected and successful businessmen and residents who could also contribute. Also there are common folks who would probably donate if asked. Many of the most successful projects have been made possible because of a partnership between government and the private sector. I believe this could be one of them, but not at the expense of the little guy. "

    Jumbo wrote on Aug 31, 2006 9:35 AM:

    " Let's cut the emotional crap and get down to the facts. Springdale is years behind in road and other infrastructure improvements. Don't believe me, go down Luvene between 40th & 48th street. Travel 412 between 4:00PM and 6:00PM. Travel Johnson Road south towards Tyson. Springdale needs more growth like we all need more constipation. When Springdale catches up on building a supporting infrastructure for travel within the City from North to South and East to West, then we can look at the refinements for society, such as Pro Ball Parks, etc. If the team owner's rent payment of $325,000 a year had to pay back the cost of construction of a $50 million ball park, it would take 153 years, give or take a year or two. Do the math! Springdale sales tax is higher than surrounding cities now. When Mike Beebe is elected, the city will lose even more sales tax income due to him eliminating the grocery tax! Ha Ha! "

    Freeman Hunt wrote on Aug 31, 2006 10:59 AM:

    " The initial deal was terrible. I'm glad that the council isn't allowing the taxpayers to be hosed. (Not that making taxpayers foot the bill for private development is such a great deal in the first place...) "

    Jack Bauer wrote on Aug 31, 2006 11:04 AM:

    " Wealthier folks are not feeling the brunt of this tax increase. The poor are. Wealthier folks tend to spend their money on the internet, or at high dollar venues in neighboring towns. The poorer folks tend to shop IN town. This stadium is being built on THEIR backs - public money to benefit PRIVATE enterprise. If their business is so great, why can't they build their own stadium? Why rely on public WELFARE to do so? And "economic stimulus" simply hasn't occured from building public stadiums. The studies are out there on this, and they show that the "stimulus" just doesn't happpen - it is a net negative on a local economy, actually, because you have to increase taxes to get it, but there is no real positive impact otherwise because these stadiums merely suck business away from other venues, like movie theaters - they don't add anything. Why do we think Springdale will be any different? This has been a boondoggle from the start. Using public money, generated from taxes levied mostly against the poor and middle class, to benefit a bunch of rich guys and their PRIVATE business, as well as land owners such as Gary George, who own much land around the stadium site and stand to make out like bandits from this deal... Shameful. THEY are the true benficiaries, which is why they are the ones who have been pushing it so hard. "

    BB wrote on Aug 31, 2006 12:12 PM:

    " Yep Leave it to some amateur city council folks to mess up a free bowl of soup. Perhaps the Wranglers ought to stay in Wichita as the illiterate "chicken rustlers" of Springdale aren't ready for a professional anything. "

    Taxpayer wrote on Aug 31, 2006 12:18 PM:

    " Hey keep'em in Wichita, I don't blame the council why subsidize the Rich Family~!!!! "

    Cluck Cluck Cluck wrote on Aug 31, 2006 12:32 PM:

    " Like chickens scrambling for feed, the city council of Sprigndale is looking for scraps and leftovers to take the place of the soon to be missing Tax Revenue when SAMS Club leaves Springdale.(Why are they leaving Springdale again?) Look at your home prices in Springdale, compared to the rest of the regions. There are reasons people want to live elswhere, this is just one of them. This deal would benefit not only Springdale, but Washington and Benton Counties both. The Greedy got greedier, and the stubborn got stupider(?). Politics has no place in this discussion/negotiation, and the Council should step back and realize that. And to the Jumbo's point, Yes, when Bebee IS elected, and we follow all of the other progressive states lead and eliminate the Tax on grocery (Hence my short drive up 540 to Jane, MO to save my money and get lower gas at the same time!) Springdale is in serious trouble. I have lived here all of my life, and other then the Dog Food Smell in the Air of Springdale, or the self pro-claimed title of Chicken Capital of the World, what else is Springdale known for? Why not make them knonw for AA Baseball? It can't hurt to try, and we will never know if we don't try. "

    Jack wrote on Aug 31, 2006 1:25 PM:

    " Sam's Club isn't leaving Springdale because of home prices. They are leaving Springdale because of more political dirty pool. The guy who owns ALL the liquor stores in Springdale got his buddies on the Council to reject Sam's Club's attempt to sell liquor in their store. That's right - the council used the power of our city govenrment to help a PRIVATE individual avoid free market competition. Is that the American way? Hardly. Now Sam's is leaving as a result. And I don't blame them one bit. The stadium boondoggle is no different. If building a stadium was such smart business, the team would to do it THEMSELVES, and not ask the taxpayers of our city to give them what amounts to corporate welfare - public money to set up a private business? Again, is that the American Way as envisioned by our Founders? Hardly. They would be appalled at such a scheme. "

    taxes, taxes, taxes wrote on Aug 31, 2006 1:41 PM:

    " You are deadd on Jack!!! "

    Cluck Cluck again... wrote on Aug 31, 2006 3:59 PM:

    " Just remember Jack and taxes...The majority of voters approved the Sales Tax Extention to develop the Ballpark. But you are also correct on the city council favoring the private Liqour Store Owner. That could not have been more obvious... When are these clowns up for re-election? One more thing to keep in mind, look at Cardinals Stadium. That was tax Money, and it is very profitible fot STL. Given the chance, and while not in the same league, this could be a very good investment for Springdale. Instant gratification, no, but given a couple of years, it's like paying down the loan on your home. It will still be valuable, you just have to put equity in it. Last note to Jack, I was not implying that the Home values are lower in Springdale due to SAMS Leaving town, it is the "Other" reason's, but that is a whole different discussion. "

    Jack wrote on Aug 31, 2006 4:31 PM:

    " Cluck Cluck Cluck -------- The facts just don't support the idea that stadiums do any good for a local economy. Both Liberal and Conservative studies have shown this repeatedly. Here is one from the liberal Brookings Institution: http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815761112/html/R1.html ------ And here's more: "Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist sums it up: "There are very few fields of economic research that produce unanimous agreement. Yet every independent economic analysis of the impact of stadiums has found no predictable positive effect on output or employment."" ---- Still more ---- But what about jobs, all the waiters and ticket sellers and beer salesmen? Coates and Humphreys found that having a pro team in a city raises wages for hotel workers by $10 a year, but reduces wagers for workers in restaurants and bars. Further, a pro team "had a statistically significant negative impact on the retail and services sectors of the local economy." A city lost on average 1,924 jobs due to the presence of a pro team. "Our conclusion," Coates and Humphreys write, "and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city's economy." "

    Jack wrote on Aug 31, 2006 4:35 PM:

    " And still more: "When arguing that a stadium will enhance the local economy, team owners and politicians do not address the effect of taxes, assuming that the capital is free, that it is ex nihilo, coming from nowhere. The deadening effects of the taxes are ignored. Keating says, "After all, the resources gobbled up by the government and spent on a stadium are not created out of thin air." Economist Edwin S. Mills at Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management writes of the tax's negative multiplier, "Everybody who pays a dollar in taxes to support the facility must reduce his or her spending."" ----- So basically, every major study and economist, on all sides of the political spectrum, have found ZERO economic benefit, and in fact a NEGATIVE impact, from these stadiums. And these are PRO ball teams. I'll bet a AA ball team, which would bring in far less outside fans, will be even worse. Why ignore all the evidence and assume Springdale's result will be different? This is a shameful deal, and unethical - duping the public to provide funds for a PRIVATE entity while only enriching the team and the landowners who own the land around where the stadium will be built. Utterly shameful. May this deal fall through and die the unceremonious death it deserves. "

    JD wrote on Aug 31, 2006 4:38 PM:

    " You guys realize that MOST (virtually all) AA teams play in stadiums owned by a municipality, right? Very few own the stadium themselves except in wierd situations where the city actually owns the franchise TOO. Even NFL teams play in facilities owned by municipalities and not self-owned. "

    Oh my wrote on Aug 31, 2006 5:32 PM:

    " This is absolutely hillarious to me. Do you people not realize that it will give us something TO DO! We could be going to a minor league baseball game. It would ACTUALLY be a reason WHY people would want to come to Springdale. Rogers AND Fayettville both bring people to their communities because of their shopping, restaurants, etc. This is about the quality of life. If we don't build it here, the team simply will go somewhere else. Then, the people who WOULD have come to the stadium in Springdale WILL be going to Rogers or to another city. "

    Jack wrote on Aug 31, 2006 9:10 PM:

    " Oh my ------ So now it's okay to force the public to give corporate welfare via an extra tax on working people to a PRIVATE business because it will give us "something to do!" Forcing others who disagree(half the town) to fork over their hard-earned money with new taxes because you want "something to do" is a pretty despicable position, don't you think? If you want "something to do", why don't you get those who agree with you to pool your money together and build the stadium that way? Why force others, at the point of a gun(which is what taxes are), to give you "something to do"? Especially when this kind of force is far from what the intended role of government was supposed to be in America... The Founders never envisioned certain citizens using the power of the ballot box to force the rest to give their money to a bunch of rich people - to make them even richer! For a private enterprise. That's what this deal is. And you're also asking us to do this even though every single study done on the subject finds either NO economic benefit to the community, or even NEGATIVE economic benefit to the community. And "economic benefit" is how they sold us this bill of goods in the first place! But it isn't, and never was, real. "

    Rusty Turner, Editor, The Morning News wrote on Aug 31, 2006 10:08 PM:

    " I'm enjoying the spirited debate here. Just one point that needs to be made: The liquor permit for Sam's Club had nothing to do with the City Council. The hold up came when the application came before the Arkansas Beverage Control Board, a state committee whose members are appointed by the governor. Liquor permits are not within the jurisdiction of any city council, including Springdale's. Just wanted to set the record straight. "

    SW Wash. Co. wrote on Sep 1, 2006 9:25 AM:

    " Had to laugh at the "Dog Food Smell" comment by Cluck Cluck Cluck. It's one of the main things I remember from when we lived in Springdale. Maybe the city council should address THAT ! To Jack... Don't you know that once you use one fabricated argument (liquor store/city council tie), you bring the veracity of all your arguments into question ? "

    Jack wrote on Sep 1, 2006 11:44 AM:

    " Yes, I was mistaken on that point - and I thought I had thanked Rusty for clearing that up last night, but apparently that comment did not get posted here. The point remains the same, though, no matter which board was responsible - a private business owner used the power of government to stifle free-market competition. And that is plainly wrong, and IS the reason Sam's chose to move. As to the veractiy of my other arguments, you can look up the studies yourself on the internet if you don't believe me, and I directly quoted several of them. The rest of my arguments were theoretical and not based on anything you'd have to fact check - about the idea of the role of government and forcing taxpayers to pay for the enrichment of a private enterprise. How anybody can convince themselves that that's okay is beyond me. "


    *Member ID:
    *Password:
      Forgot Your Password?
     

    Not already registered?
    Register Now

    E-Edition


    Click here to get it all!

    Sponsors

















    Media Partners

    Fayetteville Free Weekly

    Stephens Media

    Arkansas News Bureau

    La Prensa

    Hawgs Illustrated

    Washington County Newspaper

    McDonald County Press

    KUAF

    Channels 40/29