“If I wanted food stamps or free healthcare, I would need to prove to the government that I needed the help. Since the Mariners are asking for corporate welfare, they should have to shoulder that same burden.” –Nathalie*
So, the old Corps-are-Peeps-TOO-my-Friend! Defense...
Hmmm. I LIKE it.
*you’d make a fine Welfare Queen!
(Cadillac, or Lincoln?)
Sorry, thinking like a Commoner ^^^ there.
Bentley or Bughatti?
of course, just ignore that King County/Seattle agreed to the upkeep costs in the original contracts. They agreed to pay the maintenance. They agreed to keep the stadium in the top tiers of stadiums in the country. But now, you want them to back out of their legal obligations. Got it. Think about if your landlord told you that you need to pay the roof portion over your apartment or that the cost of replacing your deck is up to you. Or the plumbing needs to be updated and you are on the hook for it....none of which you agreed to when you signed the lease.....no different.
Which is why they call them 'Negotiations,' nador.
@3 This is about a NEW contract, not the original contract. It's time to pass the cost of the stadium onto the Mariners for their portion of the year. I'm all for concert and event promoters paying their share.
@3 - "King County/Seattle agreed to the upkeep costs in the original contracts."
Yes, and now that contract is expiring, and a NEW contract is being negotiated.
Oh hey guys look what I found, it's the original 1996 lease currently binding the club and the Public Facilities District!
Seems the PFD keeps a .pdf just lying around on a web site where anyone can look at it, pretty crazy!
So what's this here, in Article 3, section 2, "Operations and Maintenance"? Let's have a look:
The Club is solely and exclusively responsible the Operations and Maintenance of the Leased Premises in accordance with the Applicable Standard during the Operating Term. "Operations and Maintenance" shall mean the provision of all labor, materials, and non-capitalized equipment which are required to operate the Leased Premises on a routine and daily basis and to keep and maintain the Leased Premises (i) in good order and repair whish is of a routine, regular, and preventive measure and (ii) clean and free of debis. Operations and Maintenance shall not include replacement or major repair required as a result of ordinary wear and tear, unless otherwise expressly specified herein. Examples of Operations and Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, such items as:
a. performing all preventive or routine maintenance, including that which is stipulated in operating manual for the Leased Premises (and the equipment, fixtures, and systems therin) as regular, periodic maintenance procedures;
b. regular maintenance procedures for all Ballpark systems, including the HVAC, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems;
c groundskeeping and routine maintenance of the surface of the playing field, including mowing, seeding, fertilizing, drainage system components, marking lines, intalling and removing bases and the pitcher's mound;
d. keeping all portions of the Leased Premises clean and free from debris;
e. touch-up or limited painting performed as routine or preventive maintenance;
f. readying the playing field for the upcoming Season;
g. maintaining 24-hour security of the Leased Premises; and
h. staffing the Leased Premises during events (other than PFD meetings described in Article 3.4)
The club agrees and undertakes to perform all Operations and Maintenance in a manner consistent with the Applicable Standard. The Club is solely and exclusively responsible for and shall pay all costs and expenses associated or incurred in connection with its Operations and Maintenance of the Leased Premises (collectively, "Operations and Maintenance Expenses"), specifically including, but not limite to, payment of all utilities and taxes related to Operations and Maintenance and the Club's possession and operation of the Ballpark, but specifically excluding the payment of costs required to comply with the Operating Conditions as described in Aritle 3.3. The Club covenants and agrees to provide sufficient funding, including maintaining the Reserve Letter of Credit in accordance with Article 8.1, to satisfy these oblications.'
The Mariners never claimed “they couldn’t make ends meet”. They simply believe that the county, the entity that owns the staidium, should pay for a percentage of the maintenance costs.
It would help your credibility if you reported things accurately. If you don’t think the county should pay a dime... fine. But framing it as the Mariners claiming poverty is a Trumpian lie. Do better.
Oh, hey, the draft terms of the new agreement are right there online for anyone to look at, too!
What a world, eh?
Let's take a look at what it says under "Ballpark Operations and Maintenance", shall we?
"The Club is responsible for the performance and cost of all O&M necessary to fulfill the Management Plan and to meet the Applicable Standard, subject to normal wear and tear. The PFD must approve any outsourcing to a third-party of Ballpark O&M responsibilities for the entire Ballpark, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, provided the third-party operator has at least ten years’ experience operating and maintaining at least five other Major League Baseball ballparks, National Football League stadiums, National Basketball Association or National Hockey League arenas."
Strange, not a word in there about the PFD (a joint agency of King County and Washington State, btw) or any other government agency paying a percentages of O&M costs. What's up with that I wonder?
Please don’t give them any ideas. Last time a stadium was on the ballot they started winning all of a sudden. As soon as the second or was it third vote went through they went back to their modus vivandi default mode.
Yeah. I just came it to tell nador up there he is fucking liar and an idiot because, no, the city and county are not contractually responsible for maintenance. This has been proven over and over. But Dumbshits on talk radio keep putting out the same bullshit talking points about this mythical contract they’ve never read.
In fact as robotslave pointed out the contract explicitly says the god damned club is. And THAT’s why these piles of shit billionaires want to renegotiate a new contract in the first place and why we’re even debating this because that’s what billionaires do — suck on the teet of the public coffer.
And they lead dipshits like nador up there around by the fucking nose all they have to do is dangle “muh sportz team!” in front them and run a turd up a flag pole and watch who salutes.
Thank you robotslave, reminds me of what journalism used to look like.
@10 Let's hear it for robotslave! Bravo! Mariners, go fund your own fucking stadium already.
Where's the "like" button?
Keep hammering at this, Nathalie. These chvmps don't deserve a dime from us.
Nathalie, I can't believe you don't have empathy for the Mariners' tragic plight...did you know we're one of only two teams never to even make it to the World Series??? That alone scars the Mariners' psyche, including multi-millionaire owners who have been psychologically damaged irreparably by the M's results year after year after year after.....
If Seattleites Built the stadium, why can't Seattleites watch the Seattle Mariners on broadcast (free) teevee?
I know, we do get to listen to the Games on the radio (unless, of course, those Seahawks happen to be playing at around the same time.)
So, who's sticking up for Joe Sixpack?
Do WE hafta do it -- ourselves?!
So what happens if the Mariners pack up and leave? They're not obligated to stay in Seattle. What happens to the stadium? Who pays for maintenance then? And could Seattle get another tenant that would bring in crowds like the Mariners do?
The M’s are also in the process of negotiating a new deal for the naming rights to the stadium. State Farm just entered into a $175 million deal for the Altanta Falcons stadium, so there is a lot of potential revenue out there.
The M’s will find the money to maintain the stadium if forced to do so. What ese are they gonna do, move to Bozeman?
@19 I believe the ownership group is still partially on the hook for a term even if the team leaves but if not the city could then actually rent that albatross out to paying tenants and events or sell the property for millions and tear it the fuck down. Who cares? Either way it’s win win.
@7 not that I'm siding with the Mariners, but the repairs they're talking about (the roof mechanisms, etc) seem to be "capital" in nature and outside O&M.
Well, we could get all internet-lawyer and dig into the capex sections of the current contract and renewal agreement (and those are rather long sections), but given the fact that the Club's current strategy is to refuse to sign unless the County independently guarantees extra funding, it looks like all parties share an understanding that the terms of both the existing and proposed contracts stipulate that the Club is responsible for the cost of the work in question.
What I'm tired of here is the line of argument "well it's the City's property, they should pay to maintain it," as if the stadium were a 2-bed walk-up apartment and the Mariners were a couple of 28-year old bartenders. That's not how stadium lease agreements work.
I think your Mariners should have the same deal that the Cowboys gave Arlington, TX. The city was on the hook for up to 250 million in infrastructure upgrades and to help the Cowboys in land acquisition, the Cowboys covered all other costs and let the council know that they not only would not oppose a special tax district on them but they guaranteed it would pay off the bonds. The billion dollar plus (and there was a lot of plus even without all of the expensive artwork in there) stadium was built and then the recession hit. The result was... Tax revenue was down in every city EXCEPT Arlington. Their's went up. The Cowboys own the stadium free and clear so any problems with it are not in any way the city's responsibility. And everybody seems happy with the deal. The bonds are paid for, the city budget went up and still left a surplus, and the cowboys can't complain about the cost of running the stadium. Oh and the bonds are paid off.
Someone (kristofarian? robotslave?) already called it---this is just another game of chicken for more corporate money at the texpayers' expense.
That arrangement would have required the Mariners to buy the land and pay for the design and construction of the facility. Kinda late for that, you know?
And sure, the Mariners could go hat in hand to Wall street to raise the billion-plus dollars it would take to buy the facility outright (the proposed lease extension alone is worth ~$800 million). But as far as I know the County/State Public Facilities District isn't offering to sell, and The Mariners aren't offering to buy.
And the simple reason for that, I think, is that everybody involved understands the Club can't afford it.
The Cowboys are worth ~5 billion, net stadium debt service. The Mariners are worth around ~1.5 billion, without any stadium debt to service. Though it can be hard to get a grip on otherworldly numbers like these, it turns out a few billion dollars here and there DOES make a difference.
You could try googling "Mariners Networth" Nathalie. Its not a tax return, it shows revenue, income, expenses etc.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.