Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

southsideJ

SOUNDS OR STRUEVER BROTHERS?

SOUNDS OR STRUEVER BROTHERS?   38 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Nashville attempt to move forward with plans for a downtown minor league baseball park with the Sounds or with Stuever Bros.?

    • SOUNDS
      10
    • STRUEVER BROS.
      20
    • GET RID OF BOTH AND START OVER
      8

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

41 posts in this topic


For me personally, I am tired of the rhetoric from the Sounds. Of course SBER wants to make money, that is why they are in business, but do the Sounds think there is a more qualified developer to build the ballpark AND the surrounding development. Not many based upon SBER's track record. If SBER can provide 1/10th of what they are doing currently on the waterfront in Baltimore, I say give them the shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that both parties failed to do something within the alloted timeframe to perform under the MOU with the city:

1) The Sounds failed to spend the money necessary to get the construction plans 100% complete (but I'm sure they spent a fortune just to get to DD's).

2) SBER failed to get their adjacent development plans far enough along to attract (or name) an equity partner and construction lender, both of which were necessary to secure and close on the needed TIF loan.

So, in order to choose sides I think one has to evaluate both of these failures in order to determine if perhaps one caused or contributed to the other.

If I had been the Sounds 6-7 months ago (when SBER was still shuffling uses) I wouldn't have continued spending hundreds of thousands of additional dollars on CD's knowing that SBER was still without an equity partner for the $200 million development and still unsure of what they were going to build (condos, hotels office??) to generate the needed TIF loan. Why waste money on detailed plans/CD's for a ballpark that is unlikely to get built ? Remember, the Sounds had no assurances from the city that if SBER failed to perform they'd be given any new opportunity to find a new partner.

I think the irony here (considering the growing frustration with the Sounds) is that although the Sounds weren't 100% done with their drawings they were probably well ahead of the plans SBER had done for the adjacent development. If I am wrong about this I'm sure Michael Hayes will quickly correct me. But I'd be willing to bet a donut that none of the SBER development concepts are any further along that Schematics. For those following along it goes Conceptuals, Schematics, DD's and then CD's. The Sounds are being criticized for only having DD's and not CD's. See the irony ?

So, isn't it odd that everyone is beating up the Sounds for being further along in the development process than SBER ? SBER may be spending more money than the Sounds on PR to manage public sentiment but I don't see how an objective consideration of the facts warrants rewarding them with any special consideration if this deal falls apart.

Richard, you are much more aware of the details than I. What piece of the puzzle am I missing or where is my logic flawed ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your logic is sound (no pun intended) but why would the ballclub choose SBER without some kind of advance working agreement? Maybe this is a power play or maybe SBER has knowledge that another AAA team would be interested. Something here just does not make sense to me if everything is above board. Thanks for your insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me personally, I am tired of the rhetoric from the Sounds. Of course SBER wants to make money, that is why they are in business, but do the Sounds think there is a more qualified developer to build the ballpark AND the surrounding development. Not many based upon SBER's track record. If SBER can provide 1/10th of what they are doing currently on the waterfront in Baltimore, I say give them the shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your logic is sound (no pun intended) but why would the ballclub choose SBER without some kind of advance working agreement? Maybe this is a power play or maybe SBER has knowledge that another AAA team would be interested. Something here just does not make sense to me if everything is above board. Thanks for your insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why would the mayor's office respond with this:

Maybe they know something we do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


:shades:

Haven't they already been given a shot ? What did the Sounds not do that contributed to SBER's failure to produce a TIF loan for the last 14 months ? SBER fiddled and fuddled and first said the would do condos, then few condos, then apartments, then hotels with a condo all the while never getting far enough along with any of it to generate a TIF loan. I'll bet their current hotel and condo plans are still not much further along than coneptual or schematic in detail. They still haven't idetified a partner or lender. Why should we give them another shot without some significant monetary consideration ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that the Sounds have signed the deal with SBER. Now let's see what the metro council does next week.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I think it's time to throw them both out and consider alternative uses for that site. Unless, of course, someone steps up quickly with some real money at risk to guaranty performance. No more promises and pointing to fancy resumes after so much time. That's what any sensible private property owner would do and the city should take heed IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, if the city did indeed decide to pursue this thing with a new team, if they would try to reach an agreement with the Sounds for the city to keep the rights to the team name and logo. I would think that would be in the best interest of the Sounds too--fresh start for them to put this ugly mess behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears that the Sounds have signed the deal with SBER. Now let's see what the metro council does next week.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:shades:

It seems the Sounds want a less expensive ballpark, but I don't think you want anything

less than first class to be built on that spot of ground!

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that both parties failed to do something within the alloted timeframe to perform under the MOU with the city:

1) The Sounds failed to spend the money necessary to get the construction plans 100% complete (but I'm sure they spent a fortune just to get to DD's).

2) SBER failed to get their adjacent development plans far enough along to attract (or name) an equity partner and construction lender, both of which were necessary to secure and close on the needed TIF loan.

So, in order to choose sides I think one has to evaluate both of these failures in order to determine if perhaps one caused or contributed to the other.

If I had been the Sounds 6-7 months ago (when SBER was still shuffling uses) I wouldn't have continued spending hundreds of thousands of additional dollars on CD's knowing that SBER was still without an equity partner for the $200 million development and still unsure of what they were going to build (condos, hotels office??) to generate the needed TIF loan. Why waste money on detailed plans/CD's for a ballpark that is unlikely to get built ? Remember, the Sounds had no assurances from the city that if SBER failed to perform they'd be given any new opportunity to find a new partner.

I think the irony here (considering the growing frustration with the Sounds) is that although the Sounds weren't 100% done with their drawings they were probably well ahead of the plans SBER had done for the adjacent development. If I am wrong about this I'm sure Michael Hayes will quickly correct me. But I'd be willing to bet a donut that none of the SBER development concepts are any further along that Schematics. For those following along it goes Conceptuals, Schematics, DD's and then CD's. The Sounds are being criticized for only having DD's and not CD's. See the irony ?

So, isn't it odd that everyone is beating up the Sounds for being further along in the development process than SBER ? SBER may be spending more money than the Sounds on PR to manage public sentiment but I don't see how an objective consideration of the facts warrants rewarding them with any special consideration if this deal falls apart.

Richard, you are much more aware of the details than I. What piece of the puzzle am I missing or where is my logic flawed ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Great post, Richard! You shed more light on my point above about Purcell. From where I "sit", he's abdicated his mayoral duties to see this project through. Of course, I'm not surprised. No doubt, the topic of publicly-funded sports facilities is still a scorching one, but let's not forget that the city is the third partner in the agreement. As such, (IMO) Purcell has a responsibility to Nashville's citizens to explain the costs as well as the benefits (educate the electorate?) as to the use of their money. This was never done prior to this fallout, nor is there any reason to believe it will happen now. You're right that the mayor is just as much at fault as the other two parties to this agreement. I believe this project is dead, and the land will sit another five years unutilized. Already there are members of the council and wannabemayors who are sounding quite greedy. (Prediction alert: Purcell will punt this thing to the next mayor, and the council will ask an exhorbitantly huge amount of money for the property. It will ultimately NOT be sold/developed. Then Barnhardt and his crowd will cry for this thing to be a public park, and it will become non-rev for the city of Nashville. In effect, all this hand-wringing about money will end up yielding bubkis to the city. Of course, there are those who would say "but they got a park out of it." True, but with Shelby Bottoms to the east and Bicentennial and Riverfront Park to the immediate north, is that the best use for that land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard, Thanks for adding even more color to the picture.

I think we're basically saying the same thing with regard to SBER and the Sounds. They both fell short of their obligation. I don't disagree with all your explanations as to why SBER elected to change course; I'm sure their decision making was very rational. However, in the midst of all the mud flying at the Sounds I just thought it would be fair for someone other than Yeager to point out that SBER didn't do what they said they were going to do when they signed on. And IMO their failure to even be close enough by last Oct to identify the scope, the lender and the equity partner created enough reasonable uncertainty to the Sounds to justify shutting down the design team.

Interestingly, SBER said this in today's CP :

Yeager again said that Struever had failed to secure financing for its portion of the project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard, Thanks for adding even more color to the picture.

I think we're basically saying the same thing with regard to SBER and the Sounds. They both fell short of their obligation. I don't disagree with all your explanations as to why SBER elected to change course; I'm sure their decision making was very rational. However, in the midst of all the mud flying at the Sounds I just thought it would be fair for someone other than Yeager to point out that SBER didn't do what they said they were going to do when they signed on. And IMO their failure to even be close enough by last Oct to identify the scope, the lender and the equity partner created enough reasonable uncertainty to the Sounds to justify shutting down the design team.

Interestingly, SBER said this in today's CP :

Yeager again said that Struever had failed to secure financing for its portion of the project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a litigation attorney, I find this dispute interesting. What's in it for Metro if they cut the Sounds off and put all their eggs in the Streuver basket? With no guarantees that SBER would stay engaged, Metro may end up with nothing. Do you think (as I do) that several of the government leaders (who were quoted by the Tennessean) sound greedy with their expressed intent to reject the deal? As if $3 million weren't a nice amount to get for that property. Also, do you think there is any internal pressure on Purcell to broker a deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a litigation attorney, I find this dispute interesting. What's in it for Metro if they cut the Sounds off and put all their eggs in the Streuver basket? With no guarantees that SBER would stay engaged, Metro may end up with nothing. Do you think (as I do) that several of the government leaders (who were quoted by the Tennessean) sound greedy with their expressed intent to reject the deal? As if $3 million weren't a nice amount to get for that property. Also, do you think there is any internal pressure on Purcell to broker a deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It turns out that the delay tactics may work the team into a default anyway plus a lawsuit from the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purcell wants private development on the site as I've been told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a novel idea. I hope the Sounds deal falls through, and SBER builds a top-notch development on the site. The Sounds can purchase a chunk of the readily-available land in Suphur Dell for their stadium; that always sounded more appealing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's state land and Bredesen has always been more friendly to sports teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not schooled on the specific former Sulphur Dell site, but I was thinking of the land between 3rd and 4th, north of the French Lick greenway which isn't state owned. I believe it's for sale. [parcel 08213032100]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.