A sports lease expert said Wednesday the Reds' proposal for a new stadium - rejected by Hamilton County - is not out of line with recent deals for new ball parks.
"It's equivalent of what's in the market place," said Martin J. Greenberg, who teaches sports law at Marquette University. CP:John Allen
"The Reds aren't asking for anything new under the sun. They're doing what the leagues are telling them. Get the best stadium deal you can."
Baseball sources say the Reds' proposal might not even break into the top five of stadium deals, given the club is not getting its first choice of site and won't get into the facility when it wants.
It's virtually impossible to compare deals because of the difference in communities, teams and local politics. For instance, Major League Baseball believes the Colorado Rockies have one of the top three deals in the game. But the lease was designed to lure an expansion franchise to Denver, not for the oldest team in baseball.
But MLB sources say there is nothing in the Reds' proposal not contained in other 1990s deals. There is even precedent for wanting a deal similar to an NFL team, another of the Reds' wishes.
Before Baltimore got a football team, the Orioles put in their Camden Yards' lease a "favored nation," clause, which guarantees the baseball team "fairly comparable," lease terms with any football team playing next door. With the Ravens in town, some elements are in dispute and it's headed to arbitration.
One aspect of the Reds' proposal that is not comparable with any other baseball deal is the club's demand for $300,000 per game in delay penalties starting in 2002. Some teams have penalties, but smaller.
With the deal already hinging on a feasibility study of the site between Cinergy Field and the Crown, County Commission President Bob Bedinghaus said such large penalties won't be considered by the county and are non-negotiable, which is news to Reds Managing Executive John Allen. When the county turned down Mr. Allen's proposal, it didn't say anything about the penalties.
"If that's a problem, we can talk about it," Mr. Allen said. "Hey, I'm an open man. If we can't play in there by 2002, we can talk." The county has indicated it can negotiate on the nearly $34 million the Reds want in reimbursement fees during the middle 10 years of the lease.
In one of the most recent deals, the Milwaukee Brewers net nearly $4 million each year for maintenance. In the first '90s deal, the White Sox receive $2 million. The county doesn't like either comparison because the Sox deal is so old and the Brewers are putting up $90 million compared with the Reds' $30 million.
"The theory behind reimbursement is maintenance," said Mr. Allen, who has proposed the Reds pay much of the estimated $7 million annual upkeep. "We think it's something we can get by with in a small market."
The small-market Brewers get 100 percent of all stadium revenue, and don't have Cincinnati's ticket surcharge or admission tax. The Reds and county will probably share non-baseball income.
MLB sources say the deals in Milwaukee and Houston are better in key ways than what the Reds proposed. The Astros are offering no upfront money in Houston, while getting their downtown site. But Mr. Bedinghaus said the Astros aren't applicable to Cincinnati because Houston has to go the extra yard because it lost the NFL Oilers to Nashville.
PREVIOUS STADIUM STORIES
REDS PAGE
