Baseball Bean Counting
Everywhere you look these days it seems there is more hardball being played between MLB and the District.
A tipster called us to relay the latest squabble: A dispute over whether the Nationals owed the city any money under a provision in the baseball stadium agreement that said the city would receive $1 for every ticket sold over 2.5 million.
The Nats sold about 2.75 million tickets last season, but, as it turns out, President Tony Tavares sent a letter to the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission yesterday saying that the team did not owe the city a dime. Many of the tickets were discounted or freebies, so those didn't count toward the total, the letter stated, according to a source.
Sports Commission board member William N. Hall called Tavares and disputed the calculations, Hall said in an interview today. After discussing the matter, Tavares agreed to pay the city $213,996, Hall said.
"There was a question raised to the appropriate formula and brought to Tony's attention and within half an hour it had been corrected," Hall told my colleague Thomas Heath. "I view it as a mistake." When I called Sports Commission Chief Executive Allen Y. Lew, Lew told me it was "a non-issue."
All's well that ends well, I suppose. If only the stadium negotiations could be wrapped up so quickly.
By David Nakamura |
February 16, 2006; 2:36 PM ET
Previous: New Math at the Fenty Campaign |
Next: Mendelson v. Bolden
Posted by: Barbara | February 16, 2006 04:47 PM
Does anyone really believe this was an "honest" mistake? Just a coincidence it was more than $200,000 in MLB's favor? The lesson to learn -- and never was there a more important time to learn it -- is to hold on tight to your wallet any time you are dealing with these guys.
Posted by: Meridian | February 16, 2006 05:03 PM
Yeah, baseball's hardball, not like softball.
Anywone know what a "community benefit fund" is or who controls it? It strikes me as code for "slush fund", perhaps one necessary to buy a certain councilmember's vote.
Posted by: Mark | February 16, 2006 05:17 PM
You mean as in the revenue they magically just un-generated when it came time to pay up?
I think the lesson here is quite the reverse.
Posted by: revenue generator? | February 16, 2006 07:46 PM
Uh...so the elected representative of the people are now supposeed to ignore the people's wishes?
Wow.
I mean, wow.
Anyone have the new copy of Webster's Unabridged? I need to look up this new definition of the word "democracy" they seem to have established.
Posted by: stand up to the citizens? | February 16, 2006 07:48 PM
What is the bigger suprise? That the sports commission didn't bother to collect the money until the City paper wrote a column...or that MLB only pays after denying they owed the city any money.We need to see where this money ends up.
Also, the money does go to a slush fund controlled by the sports commission. I hope the Post will file an FOI request with the commission to see the records of this fund.
Posted by: John Capozzi | February 17, 2006 11:00 PM
What is the bigger suprise? That the sports commission didn't bother to collect the money until the City paper wrote a column...or that MLB only pays after denying they owed the city any money.We need to see where this money ends up.
Also, the money does go to a slush fund controlled by the sports commission. I hope the Post will file an FOI request with the commission to see the records of this fund.
Posted by: John Capozzi | February 17, 2006 11:24 PM
What is the bigger suprise? That the sports commission didn't bother to collect the money until the City paper wrote a column...or that MLB only pays after denying they owed the city any money.We need to see where this money ends up.
Also, the money does go to a slush fund controlled by the sports commission. I hope the Post will file an FOI request with the commission to see the records of this fund.
Posted by: John Capozzi | February 17, 2006 11:36 PM
What is the bigger suprise? That the sports commission didn't bother to collect the money until the City paper wrote a column...or that MLB only pays after denying they owed the city any money.We need to see where this money ends up.
Also, the money does go to a slush fund controlled by the sports commission. I hope the Post will file an FOI request with the commission to see the records of this fund.
Posted by: John Capozzi | February 17, 2006 11:39 PM
What is the bigger suprise? That the sports commission didn't bother to collect the money until the City paper wrote a column...or that MLB only pays after denying they owed the city any money.We need to see where this money ends up.
Also, the money does go to a slush fund controlled by the sports commission. I hope the Post will file an FOI request with the commission to see the records of this fund.
Posted by: John Capozzi | February 17, 2006 11:41 PM
What is the bigger suprise? That the sports commission didn't bother to collect the money until the City paper wrote a column...or that MLB only pays after denying they owed the city any money.We need to see where this money ends up.
Also, the money does go to a slush fund controlled by the sports commission. I hope the Post will file an FOI request with the commission to see the records of this fund.
Posted by: John Capozzi | February 17, 2006 11:46 PM
What is the bigger suprise? That the sports commission didn't bother to collect the money until the City paper wrote a column...or that MLB only pays after denying they owed the city any money.We need to see where this money ends up.
Also, the money does go to a slush fund controlled by the sports commission. I hope the Post will file an FOI request with the commission to see the records of this fund.
Posted by: John Capozzi | February 17, 2006 11:54 PM
What is the bigger suprise? That the sports commission didn't bother to collect the money until the City paper wrote a column...or that MLB only pays after denying they owed the city any money.We need to see where this money ends up.
Also, the money does go to a slush fund controlled by the sports commission. I hope the Post will file an FOI request with the commission to see the records of this fund.
Posted by: John Capozzi | February 17, 2006 11:57 PM
It would be better if MLB & the commission made the formula and actual paid admissions public so the taxpayers and Nationals' supporters could judge for themselves. Of course, MLB has rarely been forthcoming with the financial benefits it has accrued from the Expo/'tionals.
Posted by: Scott Bushnell | February 18, 2006 12:11 PM
everybody knows that the dc sports commission is the buttboy for major league baseball. whatever they want mr touhey begs for them. man, i bet touhey's got the best suite in the house.
Posted by: dell | February 18, 2006 10:55 PM
the suspense is killing us. when is this gonna wrap up? I supposes its good that MLB has not rejected the lease outright. but will this best of seven series between the council and MLB go to the eigth game?
www.dcbubble.blogspot.com
Posted by: dc bubble | February 19, 2006 08:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Keep those articles, commentary and columns coming - we cannot let the City or MLB think anyone has forgotton about the unsettled matters surrounding our Nationals. It's time for the City to stop playing politics, stand up to the citizens, and acknowledge what an asset and revenue generator the stadium and Nationals are to DC. Let's stop the political games and let the baseball games begin.