From The Fan Seat

            Recently, Mayor Adams released a letter to the people of Portland and the fans of the Portland Beavers on his website. The letter or posting was titled, “The challenge of finding a new home for the Portland Beavers”. In it, Mayor Adams goes on to list a host of reasons why a new ballpark for the Portland Beavers did not come to fruition for our fair city.

            He uses Pro-Forma Data provided to him from the Portland Beavers as a guide to financing the new ballpark. In it he says, 

“Public financing options are constrained, given the figures in the Portland Beavers’ pro forma.“

Additionally the attendance estimates he stated would be, 

“Expected to draw an average of approximately 4,500 people per game to a new stadium in the Rose Quarter in 2011”

             Using the data from the attendance estimates Mayor Adams gives the following revenue expectations for a new ballpark:

“Ticket sales for Triple-A baseball games in a new stadium would generate approximately $3.4 million in revenue in 2011. A 6 percent user fee like the one currently charged on spectator events in Portland—and used to pay back bonds—would generate approximately $204,000 a year in 2011”

Mayor Sam Adams did he even bring in a specialist for a $60 Million dollar project?

          I discovered glaring problems with the estimates provided by the Mayor and the Pro-Forma data. Attendance figures estimated are not just a little sluggish but below any possible realistic expectations. Secondly, the estimates are given by the Mayor and Pro-Forma data falls below prior published and researched data provided in other documentations from their own office.

            The attendance estimates are extremely important when funding a new ballpark; for one it will be used not only for ticket sales estimates but sales of parking, concessions and merchandise. It also helps in figuring out foot traffic, mass transit ticket sales and miscellaneous sales for surrounding area stores and restaurants. The payments back to the city’s bonds taken out to help finance the construction are based on a tax by the number of ticket solds, under estimating the ticket sales makes it appear almost impossible to pay back those bonds issued.

            New ballparks receive something known as ballpark boost; a huge increase in ticket sales and attendance due to the opening of a new ballpark. New ballparks receive huge increases because it is much like IKEA’s grand opening when people waited outside all night to go in, it is new and people love to see something new. It also receives a lot more media attention; construction is seen by people for a year or more and it builds ups expectations. It comes down to free publicity.

            Historically in the Triple-A, since the 1988 all the following new ballparks that have opened in cities with existing Triple-A teams have received the following attendance boosts:

           Buffalo had the highest in 1988 with a 138% increase in attendance from the last year in their old ballpark. The lowest was Indianapolis, who saw only a 47% increase in attendance. On average a new ballpark boosts attendance by 88% since the late 80’s for Triple-A teams and cities.

          The Pro-Forma Data estimates that ticket sales for a new ballpark in Portland would average around 4,500 a game. With 72 home games that is a 324,000 yearly attendance average.

         The Pro-Forma Data was created in 2009 and must use the 2008 attendance data figures for estimates. I compared the Pro-Forma Data against actual Portland Beaver’s attendance figures to see what Portland’s ballpark boost was expected to be by the Portland Beavers and the Mayor’s office.

           In 2008, Jeff Cohen/Edward Shaw Economics Research Associates produced a memo researching a new ballpark for the Portland area and within the document they even state on Page 27:

Historically, the Beavers have averaged approximately 5,500 attendees. AAA franchises that move into new stadiums within the same market average an attendance increase of approximately 25-50 percent.

4,500 estimated average attendance is 324,000 annually however again from the same research group’s Memo on page 28 they estimate the following:

• Annual Paid Attendance (all events) - 425,000 to 475,000

Despite this research the Pro-Forma data puts the Portland Beavers as having a drop in attendance with a new ballpark by 100,000 people annually. It is almost as if the Pro-Forma data ignores the research created for Merritt Paulson.

            I have created a comparison between:

• The Pro-Forma Data as used and referenced by Mayor Sam Adams.
• Shaw’s Economic Research’s the low 25% attendance increase based it off of 2008 Portland Beavers attendance records. I use the low estimate of 425,000 annual attendees.
• My own lowest new Triple-A Ballpark boost of 47% as experienced by Indianapolis.

* I am not sure what the maximum collectable is for parking as spaces might not be available to meet the estimated 90% of attendees visiting the ballpark. (90% estimated off of the Pro-Forma Data).

            Mayor Adams states that the Pro-Forma Data shows a collection of only $204,000 dollars in 2011 yet I looked all over the Pro-Forma data and it shows a collection of ticket tax revenue of $32,656 for suite tickets sells and $251,349 for General and Club seats. Besides not getting the correct number off of the Pro-Form Data correctly (you just have to read it) if you use the low 25% increase in attendance figures the Admission Tax is $284,005 total and a Triple-A low of 47% increase has the Admission Tax revenue at $468,883. The park suddenly begins to look more feasible in paying for itself.

            Mayor Adams is also misleading when he only references revenue received from the new ballpark in the form of the ticket admission tax yet the Pro-Form Data shows Rent as an expense to the Portland Beavers. The rent for the ballpark is put at $625,000 the first year and going up $25,000 a year and a total of $3,275,000 in the first 5 years of operation, just in rent. It is misleading on Mayor Adams part because he decides to show public expense and funding on the ballpark but then only shows revenue in the form of a ticket tax, a slowly decreasing revenue stream which he shows. That data by itself without rent, misleads readers into thinking the park can not pay back city funds.

Merritt Paulson, it is his Pro Forma Data, is he to blame?

            Who is misleading the data, is Mayor Adams or is it Merritt Paulson? Why go so low on attendance that it puts a normally positive number of attendance in the 50% range in the negative, taking away all the bump and boost in attendance enjoyed by every ballpark throughout America? Was the new ballpark never expected to happen, was it deliberate on Merritt’s part to keep the Pro-Forma data below realistic expectations and prior data so he could have an excuse to not go through with having two teams at one time? Was he hoping to sell the Beavers to help fund the MLS expansion, setting them up to fall deliberately?

            Speculate all you want, we will probably never know why the Pro-Forma Data is poisoned as much as it is but you can bet it is poisoned. I can’t think any rational and knowledgeable person could possibly come to a conclusion that a new ballpark would decrease attendance by 12 or 17%. Is everybody half-assing a possible $60 million dollar construction project and a boost to local economy and employment and not checking these numbers?

            If you think that a 47% increase in attendance is unrealistic in Portland Beavers attendance you have to take in consideration the following facts:

• The Portland Beavers are just one of two Triple-A teams that share a park with a rectangle sport. However, Fresno’s park is designed ballpark first soccer 2^nd.
• The Portland Beavers are the only Triple-A team that plays on artificial turf.
• The Portland Beavers play in the oldest ballpark in Triple-A built in 1926. The second oldest is McCoy at 1946 then Rosenblatt at 1948 and set to be torn down after this season. After 2010, there will be only 3 pre-1980 ballparks in Triple-A;  McCoy (1946), Cheney (1960) and Herschel Geer Stadium (1978) .
• PGE Park was not originally designed for baseball and baseball wasn’t an option from 1926 up to 1957 because it would be shoehorned in.
• In 2009, the top 9 attended Triple-A parks, only 2 of the 9 ballparks were built before 2000.
• In 2009, the 9 lowest attended Triple-A parks, only 2 of the ballparks were built after 1990.

•  Albuquerque’s last year in attendance with their old ballpark was 351,000 and ranked 20^th in Triple-A baseball. In 2003 they were #4 in Triple-A attendance with almost 600,000 attendees a 69% increase in attendance in both 2008 and 2009 the Portland Beavers had attendances higher than Albuquerque’s last year with an old ballpark with 369,000 and 392,000. Portland ranked 23^rd in 2009 for Triple-A attendance and 20^th in 2008.

            A lot of people have emotional speculations and grossly underestimate the popularity of the Portland Beavers. Some say Portland is not a Triple-A town and that is why attendance is low; yet Portland since 2001 and out of 30 Triple-A teams has always hovered around 20th place in attendance and not until this year ever been in cellar.

            Even with all the facts listed above working against attendance: largest capacity stadium, oldest ballpark, multi-sport stadium, a team that has left and come back on several occasions, a stadium that houses baseball as a second thought; Portland ranked in the middle of attendance consistantly in the Triple-A.

You can view the excel Pro Forma Data on the excel sheet for yourself and see all the differences when compared to the memo’s estimates and the 47% lowest ballpark boost experienced by Triple-A and see how much the financing and revenue changes.

Pro Forma Data Comparison