GARRY BREDEFELD: Grizzlies owners should keep up their end of deal

Published online on Monday, Oct. 26, 2009

The on-going saga regarding the downtown stadium, unfortunately, continues. Ten years ago, the drama was about getting the stadium built, and finally it was completed. Half a million people visit the stadium annually and what was once an empty lot now generates property taxes, new businesses, jobs and community pride over a first-class stadium that is owned by the citizens of Fresno.

Now the ownership of the Grizzlies complain the city negotiated too good of a deal for the taxpayers in 2000 and that the rent of $1.5 million dollars is too high.

Jerry Duncan, in his Oct. 21 commentary, argues in support of reducing their rent and states no other Triple-A baseball team pays nearly as much (true) and reducing the rent is not a taxpayer subsidy (false).

He also states the ownership of the Grizzlies is "one of the most efficiently run teams in baseball." Obviously this isn't the case as they are going back to the public trough, with hat in hand, asking for more money from the taxpayers.

Having helped craft the deal the Grizzlies owners are now complaining about, let me provide some background.

In 2000, the City Council and the prior owners of the Grizzlies decided to build a first-class multi-purpose stadium. Each agreed to commit significant financial resources to get it done. The city would commit about $1.9 million annually for the stadium and own it. The Grizzlies would pay $1.5 million for rent and operate it.

Both parties debated about naming rights. It was decided the Grizzlies would get naming rights and pay a large amount of rent for those rights. The Grizzlies ownership sold the naming rights to Chukchansi for $16 million and now receive about $1.1 million dollars annually for 15 years. No other Triple-A baseball team has received this much money from naming rights.

So while they made a good business deal for themselves with naming rights, the city also made a good deal for the taxpayers by getting the rent we do. It's noteworthy that the city didn't ask to renegotiate the naming rights deal after the Grizzlies got $16 million.

To further protect the city, city leaders had the owners sign a 30-year nonrelocation agreement, and if they did not meet their financial obligations, the city would pursue legal ownership of the team and keep it in Fresno.

The bottom line is this: A deal is a deal.

The new Grizzlies owners bought them in 2005 and then successfully negotiated the naming rights. They knew the rental agreement with the city and all provisions in the contract. Now they want City Hall and the taxpayers to subsidize their operation to enhance their bottom line.

All of the bailouts, whether they're on the federal, state or local level, need to stop. If the Grizzlies need more revenue, they need to find ways to make it more appealing for baseball fans to visit the stadium, not seek public handouts.

They need to improve marketing, reduce costs for concessions, provide other venues to attract people to the stadium besides baseball fans and truly make it the multipurpose stadium it was designed to be.

All struggling businesses have to find innovative ways to cut costs and enhance revenues. They don't ask for bailouts from government entities and neither should the owners of the Grizzlies.

Mr. Duncan and his colleagues on the council had the taxpayers bail out Granite Park ($12 million) and the Metropolitan Museum ($5 million), so I understand how he has no trouble with taxpayer-funded bailouts for the Grizzlies.

In fairness, Mayor Ashley Swearengin has correctly hired two independent, well-regarded professionals to analyze the Grizzlies operating revenues and expenses. Once their work is completed, let's collaboratively help them improve their business model so they continue to be successful.

But city leaders must also have the resolve and leadership to say "no" to any further bailouts nor let the city be held hostage to threats from the Grizzlies ownership or anyone else.