Maryland Stadium Authority Pitches Plan to Borrow 1.2B for Stadium Upgrades for Orioles, Ravens.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Material costs alone could cause this number to be a lot higher than people think.

I think the 110M number includes the land, 85 acres of downtown real estate.

 

[Frobby]

33 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

This is what has me scratching my head because this amount of money could potentially build a new ballpark. And it’s not like OPACY or Ravens stadium are in a state of disrepair either. 

What exactly are the proposed renovations that are going to run up the costs to $1.2B? 

It’s worth mentioning that this bill gives the two stadiums authority to increase borrowings from $230 mm to $1.2 bb.   So, that would be up to $970 mm in new borrowing.   Nobody says they have to actually borrow that much, they just would have authority to do it.   And not necessarily all in one gulp.   Still, it seems very generous.   Maybe just an initial salvo so the legislature can cut it in half and say they did things to control spending?

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the 110M number includes the land, 85 acres of downtown real estate.

 

I wasn’t talking about that number.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I wasn’t talking about that number.

I know you were avoiding it.

But if you want to mention the cost of construction materials I think it is fair to mention that a lot of the original cost was real estate and not construction material related.

 

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I know you were avoiding it.

But if you want to mention the cost of construction materials I think it is fair to mention that a lot of the original cost was real estate and not construction material related.

 

Ok..so?  That has nothing to do with the costs today and the 1.2B number.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Ok..so?  That has nothing to do with the costs today and the 1.2B number.

Didn't say it did.  I was just comparing the two figures.  The total figure in 2021 dollars for the construction of the stadium is significantly lower than the figure they planning on asking for renovations.

If you don't think that information is interesting or useful, OK, I'm fine with that. 

 

[maybenxtyr]

I don't know how they would exactly funnel the money but this seems like a good way to do it. 

 

I'm definitely a small government person, so I don't like the idea of taxpayers footing the bill for spirts... especially in a situation where they are locked out because players and owners can't quite figure out how to divide up the pile.

 

 

[BohKnowsBmore]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

It’s worth mentioning that this bill gives the two stadiums authority to increase borrowings from $230 mm to $1.2 bb.   So, that would be up to $970 mm in new borrowing.   Nobody says they have to actually borrow that much, they just would have authority to do it.   And not necessarily all in one gulp.   Still, it seems very generous.   Maybe just an initial salvo so the legislature can cut it in half and say they did things to control spending?

Yea, this is an important point. One can certainly argue a lot of things (there shouldn't be much of a need, etc.), but important to stay grounded in facts. This is about overall limit for the MSA, not that they are issuing bonds up to this amount today. Probably not too hard to find, but I would guess that the enabling legislation hasn't been updated in some time.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Yea, this is an important point. One can certainly argue a lot of things (there shouldn't be much of a need, etc.), but important to stay grounded in facts. This is about overall limit for the MSA, not that they are issuing bonds up to this amount today. Probably not too hard to find, but I would guess that the enabling legislation hasn't been updated in some time.

I thought the thread title was pretty clear.  

[BohKnowsBmore]

20 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I thought the thread title was pretty clear.  

It's honestly not really...

 

Thread title:

"Maryland Stadium Authority Pitches Plan to Borrow 1.2B for Stadium Upgrades for Orioles, Ravens"
 

Text you quote in the OP:

Quote

 

A bill drafted by the MSA and expected to be introduced soon in the Maryland House of Delegates would increase the allowable bond debt for stadium projects from $235 million to $1.2 billion. Up to $600 million in outstanding debt would be allowed for projects at each club’s stadium at any given time.

The legislation would gradually increase the amount of state lottery proceeds that can be used to pay debt service on the bonds — from $20 million to up to $90 million per year. The legislation requires the teams to sign a lease long enough to pay off the bonds.

 

Thread title pretty clearly implies planned active borrowing against limit, while the quoted text from the OP suggests this is an increase in the ceiling of outstanding bond debt the MSA is authorized to take on. 

Basically title suggests charging something to the credit card, while the story says they're simply increasing total card limit.

[wildcard]

I think I read when they first talked about the new lease that it may include developing the area between Camden Yards and Ravens Stadium in to retail and entertainment venues to attract people to the the areas for more than games.   That means new parking structure also.

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

It's honestly not really...

 

Thread title:

"Maryland Stadium Authority Pitches Plan to Borrow 1.2B for Stadium Upgrades for Orioles, Ravens"
 

Text you quote in the OP:

Thread title pretty clearly implies planned active borrowing against limit, while the quoted text from the OP suggests this is an increase in the ceiling of outstanding bond debt the MSA is authorized to take on. 

Basically title suggests charging something to the credit card, while the story says they're simply increasing total card limit.

Right.   I don’t think C_o_c was being intentionally misleading, but the distinction should be kept in mind.   And one might ask, “why seek an increase in the borrowing limit if you’re not intending to borrow close to the new limit?”   That’s a legit question with several possible answers.  

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Right.   I don’t think C_o_c was being intentionally misleading, but the distinction should be kept in mind.   And one might ask, “why seek an increase in the borrowing limit if you’re not intending to borrow close to the new limit?”   That’s a legit question with several possible answers.  

Considering that I took the headline from the Sun yea, I don't think I was.

I most certainly agree that if they have come up with a specific number it is because they already have some sort of plan to use that amount of money.  Perhaps the estimate allows for some wiggle room to cover unforeseen additional expenses but I think it's going to be pretty close to their estimated costs.

[BohKnowsBmore]

38 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Right.   I don’t think C_o_c was being intentionally misleading, but the distinction should be kept in mind.   And one might ask, “why seek an increase in the borrowing limit if you’re not intending to borrow close to the new limit?”   That’s a legit question with several possible answers.  

I don't think C_o_C was being intentionally misleading either. I just don't agree with the suggestion that this distinction was perfectly clear from the title, that's all.

And agree on the bolded, however, what I would suggest as the most likely scenario is that the leaseholders (the teams) wanted to see something like this in place before agreeing to a new long-term lease, in order to de-risk a situation where they look to fund improvements let's say 5-10 years down the line and get told no by the legislature.

FWIW, the $600M number brings them in line with a recent increase in the limit re: the convention center, so that could be the source of the specific number.

https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2019/02/07/state-bill-would-create-borrowing-power-for.html

Quote

 

New legislation in the Maryland General Assembly could move the Baltimore Convention Center a step closer to expansion by giving the Maryland Stadium Authority the borrowing power necessary to pay for the project.

Senate Bill 799 would allow the stadium authority to issue up to $600 million in bonds to finance a convention center update. Previously, the authority's borrowing limit was capped at $55 million for projects at the center.

 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

Peter would have loved the idea of being able to watch the O's and drop a bet on a horse race at the same time.

Maybe they can get permission to add some slot machines and a blackjack table?

Maybe they could just retrofit all the seats with tablets that allow you to bet on aspects of the game that's right in front of them.  Put $500 on Trey Mancini striking out.  $1000 on a scoreless bottom of the 4th.  Bet the grocery money on the Astros covering the spread.

Combine that with bat giveaway day and we'll really have some fun.