Portland funding gap more like $26 million (not an April Fools thread)

I went to the Oregonian's website to look for any recent articles I may have missed.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/letters_to_the_editor_mls_fund.html

Someone needs to write a positive letter to the editor.

It's hard to argue with this one, though:

Would MLS go for that?

 

Dude, why are you quoting random editorials now? If you really want to find some crazy anti-soccer stuff, check the editorials and commens of pretty much any American paper. You might as well throw in some quotes from Jim Rome while you are at it.

We all know how to use google and read articles. We don't need your help and we'll get a less biased representation of the state of things than the picture you are trying to paint here with your selective sourcing and readers digest summaries of the situations veiled as half-sincere requests for discussion.

Why should we consider you to be in any special position to be able to summarize for us the situation in Portland?

 

All I did was summarize what I have read. If you know more, please tell us. Inside information is appreciated. Thanks.

Also, I quoted the most positive editorial. That person seems to be a soccer fan and thinks Portland is very pro-soccer. He/she just doesn't agree with the stadium plan.

 

Positive or negative, I fully discount that as a source or even a representation of the pulse on the issue. Many better informed letters were written to the O that were not printed.

I realize though these sources and maybe MLSR are what you and pretty much any one else at arms length has access to as far as information on the issue. It is important though to clarify that this compliation of articles from several local papers that have frequently been wrong isn't a real valuable exercise. But go ahead and analyze the crap out of letters to the editors and even the comments sections if that's what you want to do with your time.

 

Fenerbace, I think you've made your feelings clear. I can only assume you feel strongly about this because you know something different than what has been said in these articles from your local media. If you have any inside information on the subject, please share it with us. If you are not allowed to share it, then just say so.

I don't read nor support MLSR.

 

Nor do I.

 

http://www.portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=123862322457081100

 

It seems to me that the baseball stadium is what is screwing everything up. At least that's how it looks to this soccer-biased fan. Without the baseball stadium, I bet the city and the Paulsons together could fund the necessary PGE Park upgrades.

What are the scenarios where a baseball stadium isn't even part of the deal? One idea I keep reading about is to just keep the Beavers at PGE Park along with the MLS Timbers. We know MLS likely won't go for that, though. Could they build a cheaper baseball stadium in the suburbs? How about Vancouver, WA? Or maybe just sell the franchise to an owner in another city? Are the Beavers profitable and worth keeping for the Paulsons?

 

Without the baseball stadium, they lose an owner. Without the baseball stadium, the stadium is shared with baseball and doesn't get upgraded to maximize profit.

 

I think we all wish the two projects wouldn't need each other and he could negotiate them separately. Unfortunately, without it, there is no deal.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aiY0Dfcik.8s

 

Absolutely nothing new, valuable or factual in those quotes which are just opnions and statements of the council member who was in the no voting minority.

What is somewhat useful in that otherwise regurgitated article is that it corrects the mistake made in the title of this thread - that the gap is indeed just $15m, not $26.8m.

Also, off the record from Paulson is that some of the $5m savings on the franchise fee (was $35m in the end, not $40m) would be used to offset the $15m gap if necessary.

So now we are talking less than $15m, and perhaps as little as $10m that needs to be found. If that's not found immediately, what are the chances that MLS would allow Paulson to defer the restaurant and other minor upgrades so that the package goes through to convert the stadium.

Obviously MLS likes the Portland Market, ownership, rivalries, etc, so with Seattle playing in an NFL stadium and Vancouver sharing BC Place, I think MLS would certainly entertain Paulson deferring the restaurant upgrade if it means eliminating the gap and still playing in Portland in 2011.

Anyway, everybody should keep in mind that there is a lot of posturing by the City to pressure Paulson to find the money privately, and Paulson and MLS to have the city fund the gap. But Leonard has said publicly and privately that while several possible scenarios exist, this will go through either way.

 

Fenerbace, The first article in this thread explains where they get the $26 million figure from. It's not just the $15 million from the URD that was axed by Saltzman.

 

So you are now questioning the credibility of the article you just posted?

Bloomberg says "$15m gap", the other article says $26.8m (which was wrong by the way) but you seem predisposed to want to believe the higher number for some reason .

Anyway, neither number is correct because they don't account for the discounted franchise fee.

Seriously, you don't need to get constantly worked up by what is really posturing to get the best deal. As Leonard said, there isn't really a question about this getting done.

 

I might be reading the two articles incorrectly, but it seems like the Bloomberg article just references the $15 million from the axed URD, while the first article talks about additional shortfalls due to the city's financing strategy.

 

that article just talked about the hard market for the zero-coupon bonds to be sold. until the bonds absolutely can't be sold, it isn't a shortfall. the only true piece of the deal that says "TBD" under funding sources is the $15 million originally slated to come from the westside URA.

 

you are WRONG. it is just 15m, the other ~12 million you are talking about was already said to be privately financed by paulson. these articles are the same regurgitated crap, no new information is being provided. paulson has said that he would be willing to put the 5 million saved on the franchise fee toward the 15 million gap. that would take it to around 10.

 

That $12.5 million is not what they're adding to $15 million to get $26.8 million. It's the $11.8 million described here:

From here.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/04/06/daily21.html

 

It's not worth anything, but hadn't the Blazers been in favor of renovations and the new stadium before the last vote?

 

Yes, they were in favor (or at least didn't express disapproval). Then, at the last meeting where the city council voted 3-2 to move forward with the stadium agreements, the Blazers said they were opposed.

 

Did they say they were opposed to the soccer stadium, or just opposed to the proposed location of the new minor league baseball stadium?

 

They said they supported the renovation of PGE Park and bringing MLS, but they didn't want the AAA stadium being forced on them at the Rose Quarter. They have their plans for the 24/7 live district and didn't want the baseball stadium to rule out theirs.

However that said they really tried to stab the Leonard, Adams and Paulson in the back by going along with it the whole way only to pull out all the stops at the 11th hour.

Basically they supported the process because it got the council to go on record supporting the demolition of the Memorial Colesium, as well as formalizing and declaring scarce development dollars for the Rose Quarter. They most likely felt that if they could torpedo the Paulson plan at that point then their plan could take over all the money and development rights.

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/123915750976320.xml&coll=7

The quote above speaks to Earthshaker's question about the Blazers waffling.

This quote below says that more taxpayer money will be required. However, the Blazers have been trying to get something going in the Rose Quarter for a while now ... and they are the Blazers, so there shouldn't be as much public backlash.

A Portland architecture journalist comes out against demolishing Memorial Coliseum: http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portlandarchitecture/2009/04/save-memorial-coliseum.html

Are the Beavers even profitable? I know the Timbers actually make some money in the USL.