Washington Nationals Tickets - Buy MLB Nationals Game Tickets here

 

More on the Washington Nationals

After several years in a holding pattern, MLB began actively looking for a relocation site for the Expos. Some of the choices included Oklahoma City, Washington D.C., San Juan, Monterrey, Mexico, Portland, Oregon, Northern Virginia, and Norfolk, Virginia. In the decision-making process, Commissioner Bud Selig added Las Vegas, Nevada to the list of potential Expos homes. Portland and Las Vegas have since become the front-runners for potential future homes of the Florida Marlins, should that team relocate in 2008 at the earliest.

On September 29, 2004, MLB officially announced that the Expos would move to Washington D.C. in 2005. The move was approved by the owners of the other teams in a 29–1 vote on December 3 (Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos cast the sole dissenting vote). In addition, on November 15, 2004, a lawsuit by the former team owners against MLB and former majority owner Jeffrey Loria was struck down by arbitrators, ending legal moves to keep the Expos in Montreal.

The move was announced despite opposition from Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos. From 1972 to 2004, the Orioles were the sole MLB franchise in the Baltimore-Washington metropolis. Obtaining the Orioles' cooperation was essential: the Baltimore and Washington regions had always been considered part of the same market, one which the Orioles' had had exclusive control over since 1972 (the original Washington Senators had waived their exclusivity rights to the region to allow the Orioles, then the St. Louis Browns, to move to Baltimore in 1953). On March 31, 2005, a deal was struck between Peter Angelos and Major League Baseball in order to protect the Orioles against any financial harm the Nationals might present to the Orioles' market (Washington is approximately 35 miles south of Oriole Park at Camden Yards, where the Orioles have played their home games since 1992). Under the terms of the deal, television and radio broadcast rights to Nationals games are handled by the Orioles franchise, who formed a new network (the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network) to produce and distribute the games for both franchises on both local affiliates and cable/satellite systems.

The Ballpark Controversy
The team's relocation to Washington was contingent on a financing plan for the Nationals' stadium — a plan that was the subject of much debate on the D.C. City Council.

The ballpark proposal is controversial; many city residents oppose government subsidies for a multi-billion-dollar private business and would prefer the land and money to focus on schools rather than a ballpark. Three Council members who supported Mayor Anthony Williams's plan were ousted in September 2004's Democratic party primary. An opinion poll conducted by the Washington Post found that approximately two thirds of District residents oppose the mayor's stadium plan.

Some controversy arises over the fact that the city is helping finance a $581 million dollar stadium without state or county support, despite the fact that a large portion of the team's fan base is drawn from the surrounding Maryland and Virginia suburbs.

During December 2004, the move to Washington itself was called into question when the D.C. City Council sought to change details of the stadium's financing. When the council voted on December 14 to require 50 percent private financing for any new stadium, MLB ceased promotional activities for the Nationals and announced that they would consider looking for a new market.

Eventually, the council passed an amended plan on December 21, 2004, that proved slightly more financially favorable to the city, while remaining acceptable to MLB. Mayor Williams signed the stadium financing package on December 30.

During the 2005 season, a private financing plan for construction of the stadium was negotiated between the city and a syndicate of bankers led by Deutsche Bank. The negotiations of the details ran into another problem in November 2005. The bankers requested a letter of credit or other financial guarantee of $24 million US, $6 million for each of four years, ensuring payment of lease revenues against various risks including poor attendance and terrorism. The city requested that Major League Baseball provide this guarantee, which has not happened as of December 2005.

Major League Baseball had agreed at the time that the franchise was moved to Washington, D.C., to sell the team to an owner or ownership syndicate. Several dates for sale of the team have been set and missed. As of December 2005, the team is still owned by Major League Baseball. Eight syndicates have made offers for the team, of which three are considered front-runners. Major League Baseball, in November 2005, stated that it would not select an owner until the stadium financing plan was finalized, but finalization of the plan has been stalled due to the letter of credit issue. This delay has been harshly criticized by city residents and leaders as reported in the Washington Post.

On December 22, 2005, the Post reported that Major League Baseball had specifically instructed bidders not to offer to pay cost overruns on the stadium if they were selected as the owners. Bidders were also told not to communicate with the press about these issues.

In February 2006, the DC City Council imposed a $611 million cap on the stadium.

View Washington Nationals Tickets

See All MLB Baseball Tickets | All RFK Stadium Event Tickets

Finally, on March 5, Major League Baseball signed a lease for a new ballpark, to the city's $611 million cap. MLB also agreed to contribute $20 million toward the cost of the stadium, although it did not agree to cover stadium overruns. Further, MLB added the condition that excess ballpark tax revenue earmarked for debt service for the bonds to be available for cost overruns. Two days later, on March 7 the DC City Council, by a vote of 9 to 4, approved a construction contract for a state-of-the-art stadium with a contemporary glass-and-stone facade, seats for 41,000 fans and a view of the U.S. Capitol, and affirmed its demand that public spending on the project be limited to $611 million. The votes were the final actions needed to satisfy the terms of the deal struck in September 2004.

Viability of Washington Baseball Market
Due to the history of Washington franchises (See Washington Senators), there are doubts about whether Washington will actually be a better market for a pro baseball team than Montreal long term. Major League Baseball does not express such doubts, and proponents of the move argue that the failure of previous franchises has more to do with poor business decisions and financial management on the part of their owners than with any lack of popular support in the region itself.

Some analysts have pointed out that Washington may be less suited than some other cities to support baseball because it is primarily an African-American city (59%), and that African-Americans generally support baseball less than whites. Past Washington Senators teams have blamed poor attendance partially on lack of attendance by African-Americans. Washington has larger and whiter suburbs than it did in the 60s, so some analysts believe this will be a less important factor than in the past. Still, both versions of the Senators only finished in the first half of the American League in attendance in 9 out of 71 seasons; the worst percentage of any team in Major League Baseball history that played for more than two seasons, including the Expos. The only season the Senators finished with more than one million in attendance was 1946, when baseball attendance was radically up nationwide due to the return of servicemen from World War II.

Though partially a product of the team's surprising 2005 first half showing, the Nationals' midseason attendance totals exceeded the Expos' 2004 total attendance. The final attendance for the 2005 season was 2,731,993; the 2005 total in Washington, D.C. exceeded the previous three seasons in Montreal combined (2002-2004) and was 11th in MLB. Nevertheless, Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf - MLB's point-man on the Nationals - later expressed disappointment in the first season's attendance, noting that it compared unfavorably with the first seasons of recent expansion teams (http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/news_story.asp?ID=145306). The counterargument to Mr. Reinsdorf is that the Nationals did not have a good local radio contract (broadcasting on a station with a weak signal which could not be heard in most of the region), did not have a good local TV contract (most cable users did not have access to the games), and spent little or no money on advertising.