The Rays’ latest communication with public agencies who they wish to fund their new stadium contained some easily defeated sleight of hand, yet also served as an important indicator of the franchise’s intention. That intention appears to be to shift all blame for the stadium deal falling apart onto the Pinellas County Commission and/or St. Pete City Council.
This Saturday, November 29th evening letter was sent in the evening after 6 P.M. to the Pinellas County Commission was signed only by Rays Co-President Matt Silverman. That is unlike this letter sent 10 days earlier to the same commission, which was signed by both Co-President Bryan Auld and Silverman. It was Auld alone who appeared at the November 21st St. Petersburg City Council meeting to answer questions from City Council ahead of their bond vote. Auld’s “I don’t believe we can make the economics around this arrangement work anymore” statement in response to a question from Council member Lisset Hanewicz led city council to delay their bond vote to fund a new stadium.
Whether Auld was not available to sign the latest letter, or the Rays are using an “alternating bad cop” strategy is unclear. What is clear is that the Rays will not be the ones to terminate any agreements because they want to hang on blame for them leaving around the neck of elected officials. There are also billions of other reasons for the Rays to not be the ones terminating, and we will come to them later.
The letter’s blame claims include a claim that County Commissioner Brian Scott’s recollection of a call he had with Auld is incorrect, references to “inaccurate comments made by Commissioner [Chris] Latvala,” and also suggests that Chief Assistant County Attorney Don Crowell’s “expectations” of what would happen at a October 29th County Commission meeting somehow matters in this debacle.
In his letter, Silverman quotes “the new Non-Relocation Agreement” (underlining added) in discussing their “decision to play at Steinbrenner Field” next season. But that agreement pertains to the new stadium, and doesn’t modify or terminate the current in-force Use, Maintenance and Operation agreement (UMOA) involving the Trop. The latter is referenced under recitals in the agreement Silverman cited.
“We would not have gone forward with the project if a future Pinellas County Commission had the ability to revoke the approval we all celebrated in July or to unilaterally delay the project’s completion into 2029,” Silverman wrote in bold face in his letter. It was the only portion of his letter that was in bold-face type, and he provided no reference to where in any agreement his “we would not have gone forward with the project” claim can be found.
As a matter of law, a county commission is a legislative body. There is a long history of case law affirming that “a legislature [any legislature] may not bind the hands of future legislatures.” If a commission could do so, a legislative body could make decisions for the next 100 years and then elections for those next 100 years would be largely meaningless.
Presumably, Sternberg and his employees are smart people, they know what’s legally binding and what isn’t. Therefore, the latest letter’s citation of an agreement involving the new stadium rather than the legally applicable UMOA, and the Rays’ now oft-repeated failure to understand that legislative bodies can not bind future legislative bodies, Silverman’s letter raises questions. Is this all posturing? Or are the Rays using bad lawyers?
Whatever the reason: why are they saying what they are saying?
The Rays knew that hurricanes are a risk at the time they entered into the agreement for a new stadium. Saying that Florida experiences hurricanes is akin to saying water is wet. The prospect of hurricane damage to the existing stadium (the Trop) was anticipated in Article XVI “Force Majeure” of its current in-force UMOA agreement. Silverman’s letter mentions what happens “in the event of a Force Majeure” before citing the new non-relocation agreement.
However, the term “force majeure” isn’t actually used in the agreement he cites — but it is used in the UMOA. Such misdirection further raises questions about why issues are being muddied rather than clarified.
“Earthquake, flood, hurricane” and even “labor dispute” are just a few of the events mentioned in the UMOA that could cause the Rays to not play in the Trop for a season. That agreement extends for a year for each year the Rays don’t play in the Trop, and the Rays knew before any hurricanes arrived this year that events such as hurricanes could delay the opening of the new stadium until the 2029 season. Which it now has.
Or in rather more detail: Hurricane Milton ripping the roof off the Trop caused the Rays to have to play elsewhere in 2025, which in turn in a very legally binding way extended the Rays stay in the Trop through the 2028 season.
Just as with the 1937 Hindenburg airship disaster, what began as a “flutter on the fabric” indicating trouble, the lighter-than-air StadiumBurg appears to have been brought down by skeptical county commissioners and tough questioning by St. Petersburg Council Member Lisset Hanewicz. The airship Stadiumburg has hit the ground hard and has become fully engulfed in flames. Thankfully, there have been no human casualties, but plenty of bruised egos and strong emotions.
Once the agenda of stadium boosters on city council had failed on November 22nd, stadium-boosting Council Member Copley Gerdes became verklempt, which is a good Yiddish word meaning “overcome with emotion, or choked up” that we think should be used more.
“Madam Chair, can I request a 10 minute recess,” Copley Gerdes asked after the defeat was complete. “Well, can we finish the CRA piece first,” City Council chair Deborah Figgs-Sanders responded. “I still request a ten-minute recess,” Gerdes insisted and persisted.
“You need a moment?” Sanders asked Gerdes. “Yeah,” Gerdes replied, sounding fatigued. “OK, he needs a moment,” Sanders responded and recessed the meeting like any good mother would do for a sensitive child.
It remains to be seen if Copley Gerdes’ bruised ego “Moment of Verklemption” leads to a future Moment of Redemption for the city council members who have acted as unquestioning stadium boosters to date. If the current stadium deal is dead, then it will never come before city council again.
But is the current deal for the new stadium really dead?
Despite claiming that a 2029 stadium opening will result in “significantly higher costs that we are not able to absorb alone,” it now appears clear that Rays owner Stu Sternberg will not terminate any agreements. If he did, he would lose the over $2 billion in taxpayer handouts that the redevelopment deal for the 65 acres around the Trop represents.
The Rays are thus offering elected officials the following options: either you put up more money for a stadium, or the Rays leave for good and Sternberg gets to keep the development rights worth billions that the city awarded him.
Maybe Sternberg wanted to have the Rays leave St. Petersburg all along? If he does, it now appears clear that he will blame others.
While such a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation no doubt pleases Sternberg, allowing those to be the only two options could make it significantly harder for MLB franchises elsewhere to get significant public funding for new stadiums in the future.
MLB franchises have struggled over the last dozen years to secure such public funding, and if voters around the country believe their elected officials will get suckered (perhaps willingly suckered) by shell game playing franchise owners, then MLB itself may step in and tell Sternberg that he can’t have his cake and eat it, too. Time will tell.
Our headline began with “St. Pete Stadium Saga” and that is appropriate given the origin of the word “saga.” The word comes from Old Norse and meant “narratives” — and it seems that narratives is what the failed stadium deal is now all about.
As always….the Guardian reports and the readers decide. Please like our Facebook page to find out when we publish new stories.
