Jump to content

SOUNDS OR STRUEVER BROTHERS?


southsideJ

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


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Maybe the mayor's office should disclose more so it would be clear. Or maybe they just see it as an opportunity to pile on to a popular position (criticize a sports team) without any ramifications. Remeber, Purcell is always planning for the next election. This is obvious to anyone that has spent much time around him.

And he has a history of taking positions that are politically expedient without always coming clean with the facts. Remember when he wanted to charge everyone for sewer (including lawn irrigation) without consideration of whether they were actually using it ? It took Ms. Cheap or some columnist calling him out as he tried to distort that facts for political advantage. BTW, he ultimately dropped the idea after her column set the record and the facts straight.

Publicly criticizing the Sounds is easy to do. In typical fashion it seems to me that Purcell has found away to be FOR the ballpark and AGAINST the Sounds. I think it is a clever political move but not a very courageous or intellectually honest one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that a ballpark is probably not going to happen on this site, I was wondering what everyone thinks should go there? I know that there is still talk that SB is still interested in the site and there was an idea thrown out there about an ampitheater or a city park, but I was thinking how about an aquarium/marine science museum? There is a real nice aguarium here in Virginia Beach and I know that Chatanooga's aquarium is a sucess. It seems like a good family oriented thing to have downtown and especialy near the river. It is just an idea but I was wondering what other ideas were floating around out there. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeeper12,

You can spin it anyway you like but clearly the Sounds have not been telling the truth and have not paid the $750,000 to HOK for the inital portion of the design and drawings. It does not matter where SBER is or was in the process because without this one central component which is the WHOLE REASON the site was up for this development, it is a mute point. I do not diasagree that the mayor's office should have been more involved and I personally am not a fan of this administration but clearly after all of the wrangling and posturing, the Sounds had (and still have if they would agree to SBER's proposal) the opportunity to get themselves a new park. If they (the Sounds) do not have another plan for relocation, in my estimation they will be out of business totally within 2 years, maybe less. Lawyers are not stupid, they do not put out written memos detailing reasons for defaults, etc. unless there is factual evidence to back up their claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeeper12,

You can spin it anyway you like but clearly the Sounds have not been telling the truth and have not paid the $750,000 to HOK for the inital portion of the design and drawings. It does not matter where SBER is or was in the process because without this one central component which is the WHOLE REASON the site was up for this development, it is a mute point. I do not diasagree that the mayor's office should have been more involved and I personally am not a fan of this administration but clearly after all of the wrangling and posturing, the Sounds had (and still have if they would agree to SBER's proposal) the opportunity to get themselves a new park. If they (the Sounds) do not have another plan for relocation, in my estimation they will be out of business totally within 2 years, maybe less. Lawyers are not stupid, they do not put out written memos detailing reasons for defaults, etc. unless there is factual evidence to back up their claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of laughing to myself here because I'm really not a big fan of the Sounds (the front office not the team) yet I'm one fo the few that seem willing NOT to jump on the "beat up the Sounds" bandwagon....OK, you suggest I'm trying to "spin" something. Actually, I'm just trying to counter what I see as some very effective spinning going on by the mayor's office and SBER. You say that it didn't matter where SBER was in the process but that COMPLETELY ignores the reality that SBER had to have their $220 million deal just as buttoned up as the Sounds ballpark work in order to have a closing (with TIF) that met the deadline; nobody including SBER has ever indicated they were ready. So, Producer, if you had been the Sounds spending or authorizing hundreds of thousands (and soon millions) on DD's and CD's wouldn't you have been a little squeamish if 6-8 months (last Oct/Nov) into the process your development partner was still trying to figure out what to develop (remember all the public handwringing and shuffling by SBER) ? Would YOU have just ignored the prospect that SBER wasn't making enough progress to at least keep up with you in the design/pricing process and just continued to increase your exposure into the millions for a bunch of plans that would be useless if SBER didn't perform? (Remember, if the Sounds ultimately had to replace SBER (assuming the city would even allow that) they would essentially have to start over w/ design (millions wasted) to accomodate the adjacent development input of the new partner.) Or, would you have tapped the brakes a bit (w/ the architects) and waited for SBER to catch up (they still haven't) with you so your capital outlays would have been more likely to yield something ? Just curious whether you think that would have been good business judgment or whether you have some new insight or knowledge of where SBER really was in their progress that hasn't yet been reported.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds (no pun intended) like you are more of a Purcell basher and would like to take he and his adminstration to task over this. I'm not a big Purcell fan but the point of my input was less to criticize Purcell and really more to suggest that SBER probably doesn't deserve any special treatment despite the obvious failures of others (Sounds and Mayor) that contributed to the current mess Again I agree that they needed more and better involvement but let us not forget that this is the Sounds project, not SBER and they and only they were ultimately responsible to keep this project moving forward and they did not. I confess to having not read the actual MOU but I believe SBER had a shared responsibility with the Sounds to make this project happen.

Correct me I am wrong (and I am sure you will) but how could SBER have the TIF closing, financing all set without the input, financing, and CD's, etc. from the Sounds. I never disputed that SBER would ultimately need all that from the Sounds but SBER could have very easily generated a binding bank commitment letter (w/ stadium CD's and GC contract review as a condition of closing) back in October for their $220 million development which would have given the Sounds no reason not to move forward w/ designs/pricing as originally planned; to my knowledge this never happened; if it had, believe me, we'd all be reading it. For arguments sake, can we agree that SBER has a strong track record for these kinds of projects and having completed several already are probably more capable of pulling off what is needed in a timely manner if given the goods to work with. We can agree that they have a good resume but despite that good resume they appear to have failed to figure out how to develop the adjacent property within the time frame in the MOU Are we not getting into a chicken and egg proposition here? Of course we are, that's the whole point: both sides needed to perform on a parallel track. The question is did one side appear to be falling in the ditch prompting the other to begin cutting it's losses ? If I were in the Sounds position I would have had these discussions BEFORE we started down the path and if I pick a partner for a business proposition I make sure that it is a win/ win for both sides. did the Sounds do that? I'm sure they did have those discussions and given the fact that nobody disputes (even now) the quality of SBER's resume, in hindsight they appear to have been reasonably diligent in picking a partner. What I think you and others have to remember is that a good resume is no guaranty of future performance...kind of like our mutual funds' historical performance :wacko: who knows but if they cannot run their business model any better that this then they do not deserve to stay in business and certainly do not qualify for another company to bail them out. Again, development is an inherently risky business and I think the Sounds made a prudent assessment that SBER would perform and not put themselves (SBER) in the position of losing over a million bucks by not being in a position to at some point late last year at least be in a position to deliver a bank commitment letter; but again, a great resume is no guaranty.

Again, I'm not advocating cutting the Sounds any slack; they have to take responsibility for their partner picking and any decision to slow down, that although may have been rational, nonetheless caused them to default. So, I think the city got it right. However, regardless of SBER's purported losses I don't think they deserve any special treatment as the city moves forward with discussions on how to develop this property next time around; let them propose just like everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes! Just read the article about the visitor center starting, and how it's playing havoc with the Sounds. I get the strong sense that the team's days in Nashville are numbered. Regardless of what really happened (we'll never know the whole story) and who's at fault (they all are), Yeager is certainly being portrayed as the goat in this mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes! Just read the article about the visitor center starting, and how it's playing havoc with the Sounds. I get the strong sense that the team's days in Nashville are numbered. Regardless of what really happened (we'll never know the whole story) and who's at fault (they all are), Yeager is certainly being portrayed as the goat in this mess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mayor Bill Purcell has said the property would be handed over for the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan, which is being done by Metro Parks and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers."

so what exactly does this mean? does this mean that no development will go on the site? will it be park land only, or is there a chance for future urban construction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mayor Bill Purcell has said the property would be handed over for the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan, which is being done by Metro Parks and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers."

so what exactly does this mean? does this mean that no development will go on the site? will it be park land only, or is there a chance for future urban construction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.