“If an alternative process is established, we’re going to be guided by the court’s procedures, subject to of course, our ultimate right to approve any owner submitted to us.”

– MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig – July 12, 2010

As this reporter documented here in May 2010, the still impending sale of Major League Baseball’s (MLB) Texas Rangers has suffered no shortage of legal and financial machinations and maneuvers, including political manipulation, for many, many months. Yet, it has been nearly a year and a half since Texas Rangers owner, Tom Hicks, defaulted on a $525 million loan in March 2009, eventually ending up in bankruptcy.

Unfortunately to date, the sale of the Rangers still awaits finalization and most importantly, the investment group to be awarded the final sale of the club has yet to be determined by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and ultimately to be approved by MLB and its respective owners.

But Mr. Selig’s above referenced recent quote indicates that despite the length of time and resources expended by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake for the Rangers’ numerous creditors, Bud Selig will fight all obstacles in securing the group he sees fit to own and run the Texas Rangers; namely the Greenberg-Ryan Group. It is comprised of Pittsburgh sports attorney, Chuck Greenberg and present Texas Rangers president and minor league team owner, Nolan Ryan and their entity, Rangers Baseball Express, LLC.

It unfortunately takes far more than a good score keeper to not only understand but to keep track of all of the twists and turns in this case, Texas Rangers Baseball Partners, 1043400, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, (Fort Worth), even since May 2010.

The upshot is that there will be an auction in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on August 4, 2010. However, prior to that date on July 22, 2010, the Rangers shall emerge from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection, initiated on May 24, 2010. At that hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge D. Michael Lynn will hold the Ranger’s reorganization confirmation hearing.

Additionally, Judge Lynn will hear complaints on July 20, 2010, regarding new auction rules for the August 4^th date. It concerns creditors’ issues primarily due to MLB’s acceptance of the lowest of the three bids previously offered for the Rangers, and its clear preference to award the club to Greenberg-Ryan.

The two previous higher bids were from former sports agent, Dennis Gilbert in collaboration with Dallas businessman, Jeff Beck and the other came from Houston businessman, Jim Crane.

Crane, whose bid was the highest, backed through lender, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., previously filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court stating that MLB deliberately blocked his negotiations with the Texas Rangers. In fact, Selig wrote an April 30, 2010 letter to J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. in response to that motion, reiterating his “best interests of baseball” motives, in his attempt to diffuse the matter; albeit unsuccessfully.

And since creditors are owed approximately $576 million on first and second-lien debt, that includes interest, by Tom Hicks’ HSG Sports Group, LLC, they want every opportunity to be given the best chance to recoup their losses.

However, an 11^th hour wrinkle has also emerged, which perhaps may be the best resolution of all; according to various financial experts, legal representatives, sports industry analysts and many involved with some business facet of MLB.

And that magic bullet would be none other than Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban. Cuban made a bid for the Chicago Cubs three years ago, when it was up for sale by the Tribune Co. At that time speculation surfaced that Cuban’s brash outspokenness and aggressive management style would clash with that of MLB’s.

It seems pretty ironic now, given that a former MLB owner, one George M. Steinbrenner, who was eulogized this past week, was but praised for having some of those very same qualities, which Cuban seems to also behold.

Mark Cuban’s recent interest in the past couple of weeks in the Texas Rangers is especially intriguing in that he may have interest in placing his own bid before the August 3, 2010 deadline for acceptance of bids for the August 4^th auction.

Or, Cuban may ask to become just one of the investors of a group, by supplementing the capital of one of the other investment group’s bid, since the new auction guidelines require that to qualify a bid must now clear the Greenberg-Ryan bid by $20 million.

Cuban recently stated, “With some of the court rulings, it’s changed the economics of everything…I wanted to make sure that I was at the table, just in case.…I’m hoping I’m more of a backstop than anything else.”

It would be hard to believe that Mark Cuban would want to be anyone’s backstop, no more so than would George Steinbrenner.

But one thing is more certain in this whole messy scenario as concerns the sale of the Texas Rangers and that is that there will be no lack of drama and last minute antics by all parties involved; especially given Cuban’s entry into the fray and just under the wire.

And if U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Lynn still has anything to say about it he said plenty when asked on July 12, 2010 about Bud Selig’s public remarks about his preference for the Greenberg-Ryan bid, “I don’t believe MLB can frustrate this process any longer.” Hopefully Judge Lynn is right, this time.

Once again, stay tuned…

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi

Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

Back in 1989, it was but a no-brainer for George W. Bush to inject himself into the proposed purchase of the then flailing Major League Baseball (MLB) Texas Rangers. His goals in mind were to propel himself into the governor’s mansion in Austin, TX and eventually to the presidency of the United States, while even making a little bit of cash along the way. And he succeeded on all fronts.

And just a dozen years after the sale of the Rangers by Bush and his investors in 1998, the Texas Rangers organization is again immersed in financial wheeling and dealing, with an upside down ledger. For its expected imminent sale by owner, Thomas O. Hicks, has been met by a major snag from both his creditors and Major League Baseball (MLB), which has injected itself into the middle, with its purported takeover of the Rangers in the very near future.

Should MLB proceed to seize the club, it could be facing an involuntary bankruptcy by creditors, and tied up in court indefinitely while owners of MLB’s 29 other clubs incur the cost of operations of the Rangers. But that prospect does not seem to deter MLB commissioner, Bud Allen Selig, as he believes that MLB’s taking control of the Rangers will offset any bankruptcy proceedings; but another gamble.

But in order to fully appreciate the present predicament of a franchise that has mightily underachieved since arriving in Texas in 1972, from Washington as the Senators, and reaching the post-season only 3 times since, it is worth retracing some highlights of how the Rangers wound up in such a mess.

George W. Bush, with the help of then-commissioner of MLB, Peter Ueberroth, gathered a group of wealthy Texas investors who had political and business connections to his father, then-president of the U.S., George H.W. Bush. In 1989, George W. Bush initially invested his $106,302.00 for a 1.8% stake in the club and later took out a $500,000.00 loan to up his ante to a total of $606,302.00, increasing his interest to 11.8% in the Rangers. While the club eventually sold in 1998 for $250 million, Bush and his investors’ purchase price was a cool $25 million.

In short order, plans for a new stadium were under way, financed completely by Arlington taxpayers, including a surcharge on game tickets and state tax exemptions, totaling over $200 million. And all profits went directly back to the owners. Of note, however, this model of commandeering stadium construction on the backs of taxpayers has been replicated over and over again both before and since, throughout cities across the U.S., with no greater beneficiary of such corporate profiteering than the New York Yankees.

By the time the Rangers Ballpark in Arlington was opened in 1994, George W. Bush was nearly governor of Texas, as he put his assets into a blind trust, with his interest in the Rangers being the exception.

The upshot being that for his original $606,302.00 investment, George W. Bush got a 25-fold return on his original investment, clearing a $15 million profit. And such got him the capital and gravitas he curried for his run to the White House.

Enter billionaire, Tom Hicks, co-founder and CEO of Hicks, Muse, Tate & First, Inc. from 1989 to 2004, a nationally prominent private equity firm specializing in leveraged acquisitions, including multi-media broadcast entities, banks and real estate. And it was the Hicks Sports Group, LLC of HMTF that purchased the Texas Rangers Baseball Club in 1998 for that $250 million.

Hicks also purchased the National Hockey League’s (NHL) Dallas Stars Hockey Club in 1996, which went on to win a Stanley Cup Championship in 1999. Since then Hicks has been noted for his controversial purchase of a 50% interest in the Liverpool Football Club, an English Premiership League team known as “Britain’s Most Successful Football Club”, purchased in 2007 and much to the dismay of British fans.

Similarly to the Rangers, Hick’s is selling his interest in these other franchises as well. He wants double the price he paid for the Liverpool club and is currently working with NHL commissioner, Gary Bettman, on the sale of the Stars.

But the sale of the Rangers has proven to be far dicier. Bud Selig and MLB have far more to worry about, however, than Tom Hicks at this point, as MLB is now the intermediary in the ongoing negotiations with prospective buyers of as well as the Texas Rangers’ creditors. But a $525 million loan default, threats of court decisions from potential litigation, bankruptcy and the future fiscal health of the team that includes keeping it afloat, will rest with MLB.

What’s next? MLB taking over the Los Angeles Dodgers, while its owners, Frank and Jamie McCourt duke out their divorce decree?

Yet, MLB makes no apology for its policy of sequestering its own books from both the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and the public-at-large. For MLB to hold itself in higher regard than Tom Hicks, an evident capitalist who pushed the envelope only as far as his creditors would allow, and at the time with the blessings of MLB, is but the height of arrogance.

However, MLB has invoked its “not in the best interests of baseball” rule, by virtue of the commissioner’s charter, as reason to interfere with the proposed sale of the Texas Rangers. And in that effort, it is willing to accept the least lucrative bid made for the club’s purchase. MLB is determined to guarantee that the Greenberg-Ryan Investment Group which includes Rangers’ president, Nolan Ryan, will ultimately become the eventual owner, in spite of two legitimate and higher bids that were made.

But the “not in the best interests of baseball” rule is a reach at best, given the challenges that MLB will embark upon such as with Monarch Alternative Capital, which has a 57% interest in the Rangers’ debt along with 40 other creditors’ liens against the Rangers, that includes the CIT Group, Inc. They want to make good on the sale of the team in order to recoup their losses and have no fear of tying up the sale in court no matter how long it takes.

And it is there that the rub begins for Bud Selig, who himself appropriated more than $25 million in MLB loans to the Rangers in 2009, $16 million of which went to salaries alone, to keep the Rangers going until June 2010. And since 2009, MLB has embedded itself in Rangers’ management decisions. For example, 1^st-round 2009 draft pick, starting pitcher Matt Purke, declined the Rangers’ market value offer and opted to attend Texas Christian University instead, as it was reported that MLB would not permit the Rangers to tender an offer to him for more than the minimum ‘slot system’ specifies, in order to sign him.

If there is no resolution by creditors or a closing date set for the sale of the team soon, this June too could put salaries and bonuses for MLB draftees as well as projected trades for the July 31^st trade deadline in jeopardy, as well as put the future of the Texas Rangers franchise in peril for years to come.

MLB and Bud Selig calling all of the shots by fiat presents a clear conflict of interest in terms of the free marketplace. And clearly this is but a bailout by MLB with ramifications similar to those of the U.S. federal government in bailing out financial institutions, car manufacturers and insurance companies. Not only does the government incur a financial stake in these companies but is but purchasing the right to dictate corporate policy. And MLB is no different in that regard in this case.

Yet, on its face, the intricacies are more far reaching than MLB’s takeover of the then Montreal Expos in 2004, now the Washington Nationals. In this matter, after the layers are peeled back, we can see that the “not in the best interests of baseball” rule does not necessarily include taking on Wall Street brokerages, the multi-national banking industry and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, all the while showing favoritism towards a specific group that wishes to purchase the team.

Volumes have thus far been written over the past year concerning an over-leveraged Tom Hicks. Yet, the same can be said of the entire U.S. economy and its players from Wall Street to Capitol Hill. While that is no excuse for alleged corporate malfeasance, with respect to MLB, cooler heads should prevail. And sometimes that should actually mean that the integrity of the game stands for something other than its bottom line.

In light of the Rangers’ 87-75 2009 win-loss record, far better than in years past, it would be a shame for the hopes and talents of some of its young players to be squandered by reckless decisions on behalf of Bud Selig and MLB. And hopefully, the remaining MLB owners will weigh in and fall on the side of common sense. Stay tuned.

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi

Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

In 2006, this reporter shed light on the seemingly unfair labor practices taking place in the Central American country of Costa Rica, in a factory operated by the Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., Inc., and now a subsidiary of the multi-national corporation, Jarden Corp. As we embark upon the 2010 Major League Baseball (MLB) season, let us take another look back on this important issue regarding free trade and on that which has transpired since.

At that time, Rawlings was a subsidiary of K2, Inc., primarily a snowboard and in-line skate manufacturer. Then in 2007, Jarden absorbed all of K2's holdings and Rawlings became one of the many assets of Jarden's portfolio.

The Jarden Corp.'s holdings, prior to 2007, had primarily been in the consumer household goods industry, such as with Mr. Coffee®, Oster®, Holmes® and CrockPot®. It became pro-active in the purchase of outdoor clothing and camping equipment companies such as ExOfficio and Coleman and then with the purchase of K2, which owned Rawlings, Jarden became a force in the professional sporting goods industry as well.

But much like the way corporate takeovers can surface rapidly and on a global scale, with what appears as little hands-on management, corporations' goods are then subject to manufacture in far-off lands with little oversight, too. And unfortunately, this accomplished strategy, having culminated primarily over the past 25 years, has enjoyed the muscle and delight of the U.S. government and other state governing bodies of countries throughout the world. Unfortunately, global trade does little to improve the standard of living and human condition of the citizens living in such impoverished countries, where many global giants relocate.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Since this last report, to wit, Costa Rica has become a member of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). Costa Rica, the oldest democracy in Central America, held a voters' referendum in 2007, giving its citizens a voice as to whether they would like to join DR-CAFTA.

The United States Congress rushed through DR-CAFTA in record time, over several months in 2005, but never expected a country such as Costa Rica to actually fight its demands or to obstruct its rush-through process; for all six other CAFTA countries – El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic – were all on board by 2007. As it were, approval for DR-CAFTA was barely passed by Costa Rican voters, and it was not until January 1, 2009 that Costa Rica formally became another Free Trade Zone in Central America.

Few working for or playing in MLB, or for that matter most people living in the U.S., are aware that Free Trade Zones are but a win for the U.S. government and multi-national corporations operating offshore, only. Such corporate entities are not required to pay taxes or tariffs, are allowed to import their supplies duty-free, and electricity and water usage are subsidized. Yet, they are not responsible or required to enforce labor and environmental policies, that would be required had they remained doing business in the U.S.

The following contains parts of the 2006 article, that encapsulates the story of Rawlings Sporting Goods, Inc. and its subsidiary, Rawlings de Costa Rica, S.A., and its manufacture of some 2.2 million baseballs each year made by hand. These laborers work for MLB's gain, its billionaire owners, and multi-millionaire players, who largely remain mum on this topic to date:

As America's National Pastime has continued to rake in record high revenues over the past several years – in the billions of dollars each season – MLB continues to remain deaf to its critics concerning the manufacture of its Official Baseball, apparel and other accessories, with regard to unfair labor practices in the Third World.

In 2004, a 60-page report produced by the National Labor Committee (NLC), an international labor rights organization, entitled, Foul Ball, initially exposed the poor working conditions of the Rawlings baseball factory in the remote city of Turrialba, Costa Rica.

MLB had a tepid response to such claims. Then, following the report, life-long consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, wrote a letter to both MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, and then-Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) Executive Director, Donald Fehr, to address Rawlings' labor practices. Selig referred Nader's letter to his legal department and Donald Fehr said he was unaware of such claims. Neither man ever followed up.

In 2005, the United States government entered into the DR-CAFTA, allowing for further tax breaks, duty-free tariffs and Free Trade Zone status for U.S. corporations doing business in Central America, without providing for any policing of unfair labor practices in such offshore locales. Although the Agreement contained language to that effect, there is no enforcement mechanism or political will to instill such.

And instead of it taking the lead in calling-out such a worldwide problem, MLB, through its silence, therefore remains complicit in such exploitation by multi-national corporations throughout the Third World, and especially those that are U.S.-based.
___________________________________________________________________________________

The facts are quite stunning as to what goes into the manufacture of a Major League baseball and the sometimes physically debilitating toll workers take in order to produce some 2.2 million balls utilized each MLB season, in addition to the Minor Leagues and the NCAA College World Series, with which the Jarden Corp., on behalf of Rawlings, also exclusively contracts.

Rawlings has been operating its baseball factory out of Costa Rica since 1988, as it gradually transitioned its factories from the country of Haiti, during its period of government unrest in the late 1980's. Since 1990, Rawlings has produced all of MLB's baseballs in Costa Rica, with its non-professional baseballs manufactured in China.

Although Rawlings also contracts with the National Football League (NFL) and the National Basketball Association (NBA) in producing some of its balls and accessories, the baseball itself perhaps best symbolizes all-things-American and is therefore worthy of the attention it garners from critics of the Rawlings factory.

The approximate 600 workers at the baseball factory in Turrialba are either "sewers" who stitch the cowhide covers onto the baseball's sphere, or they are "assemblers" or "winders", responsible for assembling the core's parts, made of two kinds of rubber and cork, and the winding of the ball's four different grades of yarn. Those who stitch are required to complete 108 stitches into the cowhide leather of each ball by hand.

Each sewer must complete one ball every 15 minutes. They are required to reach a minimum quota of 156 balls per week, in a factory without air conditioning, in temperatures exceeding 100°, requiring permission to use bathrooms, and prohibits workers from speaking to each other on the factory floor. The hours that workers put in average 11 -12 per day and they must always reserve their Saturdays for the factory, in the event an "emergency order" comes through. If not available on Saturday, they are subject to termination.

The gross wages per worker average $1.50 per hour. Workers can earn up to an additional $8.00 per week if they reach the threshold of completing 180 baseballs in one week. Baseball factory workers earn more than the country's minimum wage but are subject the Costa Rican Labor Ministry for any increases in the minimum wage. Provided they reach the minimum weekly ball quota each week, workers are compensated an additional 25-30 cents per baseball by Rawlings. Should they not reach the minimum quota they again risk being terminated.

The physical impact endured by the sewers has left about one-third of them with carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive stress injuries, including permanent disability, after just two or three years of stitching. And sadly, most MLB players have no knowledge that every baseball manufactured is done so solely by hand under such conditions. Should a worker miss any length of time greater than a couple of days of work, due to illness or injury, they can be easily replaced due to the desperate employment situation. And their healthcare, thereafter, is in doubt.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Costa Rica, always reliant upon its agriculture to sustain its people and to provide jobs, was dependent upon coffee and sugar cane as its main exports. Yet, in the past several years, as prices for coffee in particular rose, a good part its coffee exports, including its sugar cane industry, lost out to Nicaragua, as even cheaper labor costs prevail there. Some labor experts directly blame the impact of DR-CAFTA on the erosion of the agricultural industry in Costa Rica; the opposite of DR-CAFTA's supposed intent.

Because of the loss of agricultural jobs, the baseball factory now largely sustains the city of Turrialba and its population of 30,000. Rawlings has its workers over a barrel, as they know jobs are scarce, with many more willing to endure such a tough and pressurized work environment.

The NLC as well as the International Labor Committee (ILO) have called upon Rawlings of Costa Rica, S.A. to modify some of its working conditions. Rawlings was asked to provide ergonomics training for workers in order to reduce repetitive stress injuries; to provide workers with a better wage and to increase the amount of incentives based upon levels of production. Yet, Rawlings U.S. deferred to Rawlings de Costa Rica, S.A. and the Costa Rican government.

And the NLC emphasizes the need to allow the workers the right to organize in order to regulate problematic issues, without fear of being fired or reprisal, such as forced overtime or forced layoffs after 3 months, before workers can earn any legal rights. Currently, the workers are well aware that any talk of labor unions will get them dismissed and fear that the factory will go the way of its agricultural industry and relocate to a country where labor is cheaper.

Unfortunately, as the result of doing business abroad, corporations are still subject to the labor laws of the respective country in which they do business. In the case of Costa Rica, there remains a lack of oversight, follow-up or initially filed documents by the Labor Ministry for worker complaints, throughout all industries.

With respect to collective bargaining, it is permissible by law, but is discouraged in the workplace, with employers encouraging workers to join "solidarity associations" instead. These groups are allowed to assemble but are prevented from collective bargaining and are partially financed by the employer.

Ralph Nader previously demanded that MLB and the MLBPA, "Adopt internationally recognized workers' rights standards and effective enforcement mechanisms, as a core condition governing all of its product sourcing and license agreements." Yet, much like the U.S. government's claim it cannot fully enforce its Free Trade Agreements, MLB can make the same claim when it comes to its licensees or subcontractors. Thus, passing the buck becomes an accepted practice and it is chalked it up to the price of doing business in the U.S. and abroad.

Ralph Nader, at the time, went on to say that, "We cannot tell you that it comes as a shock to us that MLB properties do not have any workers' rights guidelines in their licensing agreements. Nor are we surprised by the irony of the Players Associations' Strike Fund being supported by royalties from products which might be made by Third World workers stripped of their own rights. The irony is bitter."

MLB stands pat in that, "Our agreements routinely include provisions that require our partners to comply with applicable laws including those related to employment and workplace safety. At the same time, I am sure you understand that we are not in a position to actively regulate the practices of each and every separate company with which we do business." No, but they could start with the ball; its centerpiece.
______________________________________________________________________________

It is not too late for MLB and its superstars to take a stand on workers' rights, regardless of lax U.S. laws in the world of Free Trade and its Agreements' legal loopholes. And important to note – although it has only been 1 year since DR-CAFTA has been realized in Costa Rica – its exports to the U.S. fell 15%, imports from the U.S. to Costa Rica fell 30%, unemployment rose to 7.8% from 4.9% in 2008 and Foreign Direct Investment from other countries fell approximately 30%. Economists will conveniently blame the global recession on these bleak figures, but it represents many Costa Ricans' worst nightmares coming true.

The sweatshop culture in the U.S. ended with the enactment of labor laws and the rise of labor unions. However, one must ask that private industry as well as the U.S. government be held accountable. For not only are both culpable in the permanent export of U.S. jobs, but both stand by – eyes wide open – as workers in other countries, without many of the freedoms U.S. citizens enjoy, are blatantly exploited. For there is no "free trade," as someone ultimately pays.

Take a stand MLB! Perhaps now is the time for Rawlings to go.

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

"Considering the fact that so many state governments – probably between 40 and 50 – don't consider it immoral, I don't think that anyone should. It may be a little immoral because in reality it is a tax on the poor; the lotteries. But having said that, it's now a matter of national policy. Gambling is good."

No, that high profile quote is not attributable to a member of the U.S. Congress, a state governor nor other public official or public figure. Most people had no clue who said it until it was published on December 11, 2009 in a Sports Illustrated interview that writer, Ian Thomsen, had with National Basketball Association (NBA) Commissioner, David Stern. In it, Stern reveals that his stance on legalized sports betting has softened.

But having been the NBA's face for the past 25 years, Stern has no less been a shrewd businessman. Moreover, as a studied attorney, he knows the meaning of precedent and its value in proving one's case.

As such, the prevailing precedent Stern created was his steadfast endorsement of the prohibition of legalized sports betting. And therefore, as he has now seemingly opened Pandora's Box, if but a crack, his juxtaposition may not be greeted with such warm and fuzzy feelings by the commissioners of the other professional sports leagues as well as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

For it was but a few short months ago, in July 2009, when the NBA joined suit with the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Hockey League (NHL) and the NCAA in successfully defeating the state of Delaware in its attempt to legalize single game sports betting in its state.

The case in Delaware was based upon the legal theory that the 1992 federal law, known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) was not applicable to it. In three court hearings, the last before the full 12-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, found that Delaware was not entitled to offer sports betting a la Las Vegas style sportsbooks sports betting.

So, Delaware had to settle for NFL only 3-game parlay style betting, which links together two or more individual wagers, but is dependent on all of those wagers winning together, in order for the gambler to profit. In addition, all sports bets must be waged solely at Delaware's race tracks, Dover Downs and Delaware Park. Aside from a hit that the NFL took, however, the other leagues prevailed in winning their case.

In brief, states that offered lottery style or legalized sports betting from 1976-1990 were exempt from the PASPA, and it provided a 1-year grace period for states, who had allowed sports betting over the previous 10-year period, to create legislation permitting sports wagering. Delaware, Oregon, Montana and Nevada had such exemptions. But Delaware did not act within that 1-year period, thus creating its present dilemma.

Since Delaware offered a 3-game parley lottery on NFL games in 1976, it was offered no more than that which it had previously enjoyed.

The leagues, including the NBA, however, played no small role, along with several members of the U.S. Congress, in winning the case. They all appealed to U.S. Attorney General, Eric holder, in their opposition to grandfathering in any sports wagering of any kind. And in the end, Delaware came up short, where its last act would only be to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It does not have any such plans at this time.

Back in 2007, Commissioner Stern agreed to hold the NBA's 2007 All Star Game in Las Vegas, NV, which remains the only state in the Union which allows single bets to be taken at sportsbooks for every league in professional and college sports and for every team. The only exceptions are the NBA's Sacramento Kings and the Boston Celtics along with the teams they are playing against on any given day. And such limitations are only with respect to specific casino properties.

The reason for that is that the Palms Hotel and Casino is owned by Joe and Gavin Maloof, who also own the Kings and previously owned the WNBA's Sacramento Monarchs. The other exception is Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., which owns a minority interest in the Boston Celtics. As Harrah's own numerous Las Vegas casino hotels, no sports bets may be taken at those Harrah casinos which have sports books, on Celtics games or their respective opponents, as mandated by the NBA. Prior to 2008, the Palms Casino was not permitted to have sports betting on any NBA teams, but the NBA Board of Governors ruled to allow the Palms to join the rest of the Strip properties, doing so in October 2008.

And during 2007, David Stern had talks with Las Vegas Mayor, Oscar Goodman, regarding the mayor's interest in acquiring an NBA franchise for his city. But the future looked bleak at that time. Now, the NBA's Summer League is a fixture there as well as a training ground for USA Basketball and the U.S. Olympic team. And by 2008, Stern had decided to allow the NBA owners to decide whether there will be a future for an NBA club in Las Vegas.

Fast forward to 2009 and Stern now says, "Las Vegas is not evil. Las Vegas is a vacation destination resort and they have sports gambling." He apparently has come a long way from the 2007 All Star Game when he was adamant about blocking any potential ownership opportunities for his league in Las Vegas. Apparently, the Maloof brothers have done a nice job convincing him otherwise.

The Tim Donaghy referee scandal, also in 2007, put a crimp in Stern's possible growing interest in a potential marriage with games of chance. At that time, Stern ordered the drafting of new policies with respect to NBA referees' off-season limit on gambling at legalized casinos. It is now permissible. However, sports betting is off-limits any time of the year. Ironically, Tim Donaghy's alleged gambling addiction started in legal gambling casinos, now endorsed for NBA referees by David Stern himself.

However, NBA referees are now more closely scrutinized and monitored in their off-court and off-season behaviors, requiring more invasive background and credit checks, while under the employ of the NBA.

And now it makes even more sense as to why Stern would insist that Tim Donaghy was a "rogue" or lone referee with regard to passing on inside information to illegal bookmakers and organized crime syndicates. Yet, both the FBI and the NBA's own internal investigation found that any of Donaghy's malfeasances did not alter game outcomes. Still, Donaghy was convicted and served 15 months prison time, including a fine of $500,000.00 and $30,000.00 in required restitution to the NBA.

Assuming that Stern had a grand scheme all along to eventually cash in his chips for a piece of the gambling revenue empire for the NBA, Donaghy merely mucked up the works temporarily, as Stern necessarily went into high gear damage control or virtual denial.

It was by mere coincidence, however, that the FBI even stumbled upon Donaghy, and obviously not through the lax mechanisms in place in Stern's house, which was neither equipped nor anxious to reveal any corruption in his ranks. An investigation by the federal government into the Gambino Crime Family is what prompted the FBI's findings; and was flawlessly staged as a complete surprise and seemingly unfathomable to the NBA's Stern.

And although David Stern might be out of step with the other professional leagues' commissioners, as concerns legalized sports betting, with the exception of his joining them in the Delaware lawsuit, he is right in line with multi-national corporations, global investors, foreign governments, U.S. state governments and gamblers of all kinds in the U.S. and throughout the world.

If anything, one must agree that David Stern is a master at playing both sides of the fence and therefore may not be as inconsistent as many have criticized him for being since the Sports Illustrated article broke.
Hypocrite or merely an evolved businessman wanting to cash in his chips, so to speak?

It is estimated that in the U.S. alone, nationalized legal sports betting income taxes and sin taxes could generate over $40 billion over 10 years. And that does not include the take that the NBA would stand to gain from ancillary revenue streams.

With the United Kingdom, Australia, other European entities as well as China in the sports betting business, many in the U.S. Congress, for example, believe legalized sports betting and online gaming would but eliminate illegal off-shore gambling and would be a win-win both for the government and private enterprise, while removing the organized crime quotient.

But whether such comes to pass in the near future, remains to be seen, although cash-strapped states remain hopeful. Yet, in this economy it is anyone's bet. Yes "gambling is good." But is it not ultimately about greed?

And the NBA's appearance of duplicity will continue to have its critics:

"Apparently, the NBA is not as a concerned about the integrity of the league when their teams' owners' money is at stake." – Delaware House Majority Leader Peter C. Schwartzkopf (7/28/09)

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

At a time when rumor and innuendo in sports journalism has arguably never been more pervasive, one would hope that the current active senior statesmen of their craft would still have an interest in maintaining their once high standards.

As prominent newspapers in cities large and small are folding, to wit, Denver's Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, sports coverage is being depleted. In addition, many regional newspapers are sharing content and sending fewer personnel to cover Major League Baseball games this season. In Los Angeles for instance, only two newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Daily News of Los Angeles are covering the Dodgers; down from 12 a decade ago.

The New York Times is cutting back on MLB road trips for the NY Yankees and the NY Mets, in the publishing capitol of the world. The Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun are sharing stories for coverage of the Baltimore Orioles and the Washington Nationals.

Over all, the number of baseball writers in the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) is down 65 writers from 2008 and its total is now 725, including non-active members. That does not include those sportswriters who are not members of the BBWAA.

The argument will wane as to whether this is all relative specifically to the economy, exacerbated by the expanse of the internet. Perhaps newspaper proprietors, generally corporate holding companies that preside over numerous assets and businesses, are using the economy as an excuse to downsize.

Whichever it is, however, when a journalist perhaps sees the writing on the proverbial wall, does he or she then deliberately bend the rules to remain relevant? Such apparently appears to be the case as evidenced in a July 27, 2009 NY Daily News column written by highly regarded sportswriter Bill Madden. The piece was titled, "MLB Commissioner Bud Selig Mulling Pardon For Hit King Pete Rose." The NY Daily News still enjoys the fifth largest newspaper circulation in the U.S. and remains an exclusive property of publisher Robert Zuckerman.

In Madden's column, published the day after the 2009 Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony, he "broke" the story that MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, "is said to be seriously considering lifting Pete Rose's lifetime suspension from baseball."

The source of his information? Madden goes on to say, "The tipoff that Selig may now be inclined to pardon baseball's all-time hit king was Hank Aaron's seemingly impromptu interview session with a small group of reporters ... on Saturday."

Aaron also spoke publicly regarding his stance on steroid users. But what Madden honed in on was when Aaron spoke about Pete Rose. Aaron said, "I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there." That quote was apparently enough for Madden to frame a complete story and to put the whole broadcast media and press corps in a tizzy.

Here is his own logic: "It is no secret that Selig considers Aaron one of his closest friends and values his opinions over perhaps all others ... It was also learned that in a meeting of the Hall of Fame's Board of Directors, two of Rose's former teammates on the Board, Vice Chairman Joe Morgan and Frank Robinson, also expressed their hope that Selig would see fit to reinstate Rose."

Madden goes on to say, "Another Hall of Famer familiar with the situation" also joined the chorus for Pete's admission back into baseball, which potentially could allow his admission into the Hall. And Madden added, "According to another source, the behind-the-scenes lobbying process began five years ago, but stalled because Selig was still not satisfied that Rose was 'reconfiguring' his life."

This prompts the question: was that Madden's version of a journalist's "who, what, when. where, why, and how?" Not to those journalists who take such questions seriously.

Madden apparently had doubts himself when on the following day, July 28, 2009, he wrote a NY Daily News column titled, "MLB Commissioner Bud Selig Will Not Ease Up on Pete Rose." Since Madden's first article's title was fancied to purport fact, it came as a surprise that the very next day he would write a column almost as if someone other than himself had written the supposed news the day before.

However, prior to his near "retraction" article on July 28th, Madden's name bounced across America from television and radio networks to new media outlets online to other newspaper dailies, and Madden was promoted as the guy who got the "scoop." Pretty clever, eh?

As momentum built, before sunset on July 27, 2009, it was a "fact" that Selig was entertaining reinstatement for Rose. And everyone knew that Bill Madden got the exclusive.

The only problem? No one had told Bud Selig about his supposed intention. And for a guy covering NY sports for 30 years, Madden erased any doubt that he was not now well known. Unfortunately, no so for his best work, but for arguably committing a neat publicity stunt of sorts.

Given the climate of broadcast and newspaper outlets offing their talent near retirement age, it makes sense in some circles that Madden would want to gain instant and unabated relevance. And few ever read or heard about Madden's follow-up column the next day on July 28th which he began with, "Despite growing sentiment from a number of influential Hall of Famer's — most notably Hank Aaron — that 20 years has been a sufficient sentence for Pete Rose for betting on baseball, Bud Selig insists nothing has changed from his stand point."

But most curious is Madden's conclusion in the first paragraph as he denotes, "And I'm coming to the belief that he's going to remain so as long as Selig is commissioner." He goes on to state, "The image Selig has been carefully crafting for himself over the past two years is that of no-tolerance ... So how would it look now if he pardoned someone who broke baseball's cardinal rule?"

You have to love this guy. A day later he draws a conclusion as if the original article never existed, but based upon his own reporting and history with Bud Selig on the Pete Rose saga. So the only conclusion we can conclude is that Bill Madden knew better, but needs to be part of the national spotlight, whether his reportage is accurate or not or even belies what he really knows.

The underlying point of citing Bill Madden here is that it sets a bad precedent not only for sport journalists but the state of journalism generally. For if a guy, supposedly well regarded and one of the most powerful sports writers in New York City, has to stoop to such rubbish to bring unearned attention to himself, then what kind of example does it set? It goes against the Journalist's Creed, which is incumbent for the survival of the Fourth Estate.

And you will be interested to know that Bill Madden is one of three finalists for the J.G. Taylor Spink Award to be voted upon this November and to be awarded at the 2010 Hall of Fame induction ceremonies. The award is the highest one bestowed by the BBWAA to its membership. However, winners are not "inducted" into the Hall of Fame but rather "enshrined" by way of a permanent exhibit within the Hall's library. And Spink Award recipients also enjoy lifetime membership on the Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee that elects those players who are past their 15 years of eligibility on the ballot, as well as non-player candidates.

So why Madden's self-scribed hype? To keep his job? To get another job? To win the Spink Award? Or to do it because he can get away with it given his good reputation? Whatever the reason, he certainly was not thinking of his journalist brethren and those who strive to report the facts and for whom it still matters. It would be refreshing to hold on to that last bastion of good journalism, given the times in which we live.

It was 30 years ago when baseball legend, Willie Mays, was banned from Major League Baseball (MLB). Four years later, NY Yankee great, Mickey Mantle, met with the same fate as did Willie. And what was their supposed fall from grace? They each became promotional spokesmen for two Atlantic City casino hotels.

Willie Mays had a deal with the Park Place Casino – now Bally's Park Place – and Mantle contracted with Del Webb's Claridge Casino Hotel. The roles both played were as pitchmen for the resorts as they appeared in television and print ads for the respective properties.

At the time, it was MLB Commissioner, Bowie Kuhn, who made both then Hall of Famers "permanently ineligible" to participate in any capacity with MLB. In 1985, after Kuhn's retirement, then newly appointed Commissioner Peter Ueberroth exonerated both Mays and Mantle, thereby lifting their banishment. Ueberroth proclaimed, "A lot of people will misinterpret my position as being soft on gambling. My stance is as strong as any Commissioner's going back to Judge Landis. But there's a need for new rules."

And the argument could be made back then that both Mays and Mantle were not front-men for gambling, but rather were promoting entertainment interests of hotel resorts.

Fast forward to sometime around 2006 when MLB supposedly relaxed its rule on permitting direct relationships with gambling casino interests and its MLB teams. However, most such deals blossomed for this year's 2009 baseball season that includes large casino hotel properties as well as many lucrative agreements with Indian reservation hotel casinos.

Sponsorships and the financing of such throughout professional sports as well as amateur athletics are drying up by virtue of the worst recession in 70 years. Added to that is the negative public perception that corporations receiving federal tax bailout dollars should not be dabbling in multi-million dollar contracts for advertising at sports venues nor buying skyboxes and over-priced season tickets at stadiums.

However, there now appears to be a new revenue stream, largely untapped, yet quickly assembled by many MLB teams and with Commissioner Bud Selig's blessings. But in order to fully appreciate the precariousness of such contracts that MLB has already approved, it is helpful to revisit MLB Rule 21:

(a)Any player or person connected with a club….or who being solicited by any person, shall fail to inform his Major League President and the Commissioner
(d)Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared "permanently ineligible."

And now the question must be asked. How does MLB oversee such sponsorships between MLB teams and those casino operations which allow legal sports betting on their premises, such as Harrah's Entertainment, which has become a major sponsor for the NY Mets' new Citi Field, most prominent in its outfield stands?

Harrah's is now a Signature Partner of the Mets and has a 12,000 square foot 900 seat capacity full-service restaurant called the Caesar Club. Harrah's hopes to recreate the atmosphere it provides at its Caesar's Atlantic City property. Harrah's will also benefit from naming and branding rights and orchestrate theme nights for baseball fans throughout the season.

It is important to note that Harrah's casino hotel properties that it owns in Las Vegas, such as Caesar's Palace, the Flamingo Hotel and Casino, Bally's and its Rio Hotel and Casino which is host to the World Series of Poker, among others, all have sports books where sports betting on all professional and amateur sports is legal. And such includes sports betting on MLB.

At the new Yankee Stadium, the Mohegan Sun Hotel & Casino also has a presence in its center field stands. Its Mohegan Sports Bar is a 4,900 square foot full-service restaurant with major signage and a naming rights deal with the Yankees. In addition, Seminole Hard Rock Entertainment will own and operate the NYY Steak restaurant as well as the stadium's new Hard Rock Café. The Seminole Nation is the primary proprietor of all Hard Rock Café and hotel casino properties worldwide, with the exception of the Hard Rock Hotel and Casinos in both Las Vegas and London.

The casino sponsorships for both the Yankees and the Mets are quite lucrative and in the millions of dollars, although MLB clubs do not necessarily accurately disclose the amount of their sponsorships, nor are they required to do so. But the NY teams are hardly in the minority when it comes to lining up for casino riches in the form of sponsorships. The Milwaukee Brewers inked a deal over the winter with the Potawatomi Bingo Casino of the Potawatomi Tribe.

The Brewer's deal with the Potawatomi Tribe is just second to its deal with Miller-Coors Beer. And in MLB's logic according to MLB's Chief Operating Officer, Bob DuPuy, "There is no sports book associated with Potawatomi and casino gambling is now part of the entertainment landscape in 40-plus states and a number of clubs have had advertising and sponsorship relationships with local casinos."

Perhaps DuPuy does not realize that Harrah's is in the sports betting industry?

In Detroit there appears to be a long-standing conflict of interest with respect to the ownership of the Detroit Tigers as well as the Motor City Casino, purchased by Ilitch Holdings, Inc. in 2005, which purportedly owns both entities simultaneously.

Michael Ilitch and his wife, Marion Ilitch, are listed as the Tigers' owner and the Motor City Casino owner, respectively. The question arose when it was revealed that Marion Ilitch is Vice Chairman of Ilitch Holdings, Inc. which also owns the Detroit Tigers. But Ilitch friend and Commissioner Bud Selig overlooked the proprietary conflict and asked his staff to stand-down.

There is indeed no shortage of casino sponsorships throughout the major and minor leagues of baseball. The Atlanta Braves, the Arizona Diamondbacks, the Los Angeles Angels, the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Florida Marlins and the Chicago Cubs all have contractual sponsorships with Indian casinos, gambling interests or state lotteries.

So what impact does this state of affairs have on the "best interests of baseball?" One could say that it was precipitated by Commissioner Ueberroth's comments"…there's a need for new rules." Or did Bud Selig's multi-billion dollar empire become too greedy for MLB's own good by accepting a strong presence of gambling partnerships throughout the leagues? Has the appetite for big bucks clouded Selig's judgment and has he crossed the line?

For MLB must be careful not to step on that 3rd rail; that which endangers its integrity. After all, MLB itself has already gambled on fan loyalty after nearly 20 years of the Steroid Era, also on Selig's watch.

And finally, if the apparent overlap between gambling interests and MLB is not clear to the MLB Commissioner, then why is he so clear on keeping Pete Rose "permanently ineligible" and forever denying his chance of realizing his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame?

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

As previously chronicled in this series of reports subtitled, MLB Goes to Harlem Seeking Welfare, on the public financing of the new Yankee Stadium in Bronx, NY, a borough of New York City, the issues it encompasses and the various impending outcomes may have a broad impact for cities across the United States.

Moreover, public-private partnerships have become intentionally blurred when it comes to taxpayers ultimately funding of Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Football League (NFL), the National Basketball Association (NBA) and other professional sports' stadiums and venues.

Balance sheets, land assessments, funding arrangements via questionable ethical relationships if not borderline illegal ones between public officials and corporate entities are now being revealed as more than troublesome with respect to the new Yankee Stadium. And it may eventually take an act of the U.S. Congress to unravel that which appears to be an egregious violation of the public trust on behalf of NYC and the New York Yankees.

As last reported here in July 2008 in NYC, Yankees Redefine Crookery in Part 2, the NY Yankees a/k/a/ Yankees Global Enterprises LLC, had requested that an additional $366 million in tax-free bonds be appropriated, to the already ballooning $1.3 billion cost of the new Yankee Stadium tallied thus far, and financed primarily through such funding instruments.

But in order for any new approval for any such new appropriations, the process must be cleared again by a host of multiple New York City, New York state and federal agencies. However, unanticipated by the NY Yankees is that not only could such a request be denied but that they have opened up a proverbial Pandora's box of quagmires now being given scrutiny with a fine tooth comb by both the State of NY and a powerful Congressional committee.

On July 4, 2008, during the NY Yankees game at Yankee Stadium versus the Boston Red Sox and broadcast on the YES cable network , the NY Yankees own broadcast outlet, play-by-play announcer, Michael Kay, was speaking about how the current stadium would be replaced starting with the 2009 season. And he stated at the top of the 2nd inning that "And across the street they're building a new ball park which the Steinbrenner family is paying for."

Perhaps Kay should go to Capitol Hill and testify under oath and relay such news to those investigating the suspicious circumstances under which the NY Yankees obtained all of their dough. He may get a chance in September 2008 when additional hearings will be held by the House Committee of Oversight and Government Reform's Sub-Committee on Domestic Policy. After all, Kay would be in good company along with notable others associated with MLB who have been less than forthright before Congress.

But sadly, most New Yorkers either already believe that which Kay and others have reiterated or have no idea about anything going on in Yankee Land. Yet, such may set important precedents for future building projects and land takings both in NYC and other municipalities.

But far more importantly, and at a time when NYC and NY state are both eliminating important public services due to budget shortfalls, it is incumbent for taxpayers to know far more comprehensively, than that which the local tabloids have recently and but occasionally provide, about this complex web of wheeling and dealing.

For the new Yankee Stadium is no longer a house that Ruth built but one that New Yorkers citywide and statewide will be paying for and for generations to come. And in that regard a brief context of the back-story is in order and to understand in the interest of public policy.

Prior to the NY Yankees' initial approvals required from public agencies, the last of which were not completed until 2006, the Yankees put into motion key lobbyist law firms and former public officials who had prior governing positions from City Hall to the Internal Revenue Service to the U.S. Department of Treasury. And it was through such seemingly conflicts of interests that have driven the realized stadium.

Initially, the NY Yankees had to clear a hurdle by the IRS, which many now consider questionable, for the $941 million gain in triple tax-exempt bonds with a favorable low interest rate. Such will save the Yankees close to $150 million in saved interest alone.

Bond buyers get a considerably less lower set interest rate of return, when exempt from federal, state and city income taxes and therefore the NY Yankees benefit from an interest rate approximately 25% lower than taxable bonds.

Bruce Serchuk, a partner at the law firm, Nixon Peabody LLP, was retained by both the NYC Industrial Development Agency, and the NY Yankees to lobby the IRS. Serchuk was a former lawyer in the Office of the Chief Counsel at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and in the Office of Taxation Policy at the Department of the Treasury. He was instrumental in providing NYC lawyers help with submitting the request that allowed such payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOTs).

In June 2006 the IRS granted that request to NYC in a private letter ruling. In spite of regulations that changed that very year which further restricted publicly financed stadiums using tax-exempt bonds, it got the attention of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's Sub-committee on Domestic Policy and precipitated a March 2007 hearing.

Yet, instead of putting a cap on spending by the NY Yankees and NYC's Industrial Development Agency (IDA), an arm of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, which operates at the Mayor's behest, NYC was granted another $190 million in tax-exempt financing for the new stadium's 3 parking garages.

But in order to get this increased financing, the garages were termed by NYC officials as "Civic Facility Projects." Additionally, the IDA created a specious not-for-profit organization, referred to as the Bronx Community Initiative Development Corporation as a "special purpose LLC" that was needed as a bridge to complete the garage financing.

Tishman Speyer Properties, now a global multi-national conglomerate, was hired by the NY Yankees for the construct of the new stadium. Anthony Mannarino, who now is in charge of Tishman's stadium development, was previously the Executive Vice President of the NYC Economic Development Corporation from 1990-1994 and its acting President in 1994.

None other than former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and one of his former NYC Police Commissioners, Howard Safir, are both listed in court documents as security consultants for the new stadium project as Giuliani Security & Safety Partners, a division of Giuliani Partners, LLC and Safir-Rosetti Security, respectively.

There are far too many lobbying interests and reciprocal relationships to detail in this one report, but suffice it to say that the NY Yankees and NYC officials have easily spent upwards of $500,000.00 of taxpayer dollars in lobbying costs for their back-scratching stadium behemoth.

Most of the lobbying expenses were accorded in a final deal which Mayor Giuliani had ratified prior to his departure from City Hall in 2001. It allocated $25 million over a 5 year period from 2002-2007 to be used by the NY Yankees in any way they saw fit for the planning stages of the new stadium on the taxpayer's dime. And unfortunately far more than new stadium expenses were charged to the taxpayers, which had nothing whatsoever to do with stadium planning. But the NY Yankee organization could not help itself and applied for every last dime of that $25 million.

The puppet master of the whole deal is former NYC Deputy Mayor of Economic Development, Planning and Administration, Randy Levine, from 1997-2000, and now President of the NY Yankees. Prior to Levine's leaving his office in 2000, he was given the primary responsibility to craft a financing structure document for Mayor Giuliani and the new Yankee Stadium.

And prior to becoming Deputy Mayor, Randy Levine was a chief labor negotiator for MLB Commissioner Bud Selig. To make matters worse, Levine was granted a waiver from the NYC Conflict of Interest Board which oversees NYC's Conflict of Interest Law. And as a direct result of that waiver, throughout Randy Levine's term as NYC Deputy Mayor, he maintained a consulting contract with MLB.

In September 2008 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's Sub-Committee on Domestic Policy whose Chairman is Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will concentrate on those federal agencies formerly involved in the previous financing approvals and the newly requested $366 million in additional funding requested by NYC and the NY Yankees in June 2008.

Those agencies include the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the IRS, and the National Park Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior along with the NY Yankees, the NYC Department of Finance, and the NYC Economic Development Corporation. Those involved agencies have all been required to submit specific documentation to Congressman Kucinich's committee by August 6, 2008 in preparation for the atest hearing which took place on September 18, 2008 on Capitol Hill.

The issue that will continue to be explored will be the conflicting land value assessments which were supplied and used as a basis for the original $941 million tax-free bonds. It has come to the attention not only of Rep. Kucinich but New York State Assemblyman, Richard Brodsky, that the unjustified land assessment valuations may be the smoking gun in the now $1.3 billion house of cards which may bloat to upwards of $2 billion before all is said and done.

The NY Yankees claim that the land upon which the new stadium sits is worth $275.00 per square foot, more than most lots on waterfront property on Manhattan Island, the heart of NYC. The NYC Department of Finance claims that the land is worth $204 million versus NYC's commissioned independent assessors who value it at $21 million. And land just across the street from the new Yankee Stadium, according to the NYC Department of Finance's latest assessments and the latest average market value of such land in that area of the Bronx, is but $36 per square foot.

According to NY State Assemblyman, Richard Brodsky, who heads the NY State Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions and who is also holding hearings on this issue on the state level has said that, "This issue goes to the heart of whether it is a public project or a private project…There is substantial discrepancy on a whole host of levels that we are going to proceed to investigate thoroughly and fairly, but we are going to get to the truth."

And as the ongoing story of this slippery slope of either trickery or merely free market big business, depending on one's point of view, this journalist will pick up the case in September 2008 and report back in Part 4 of this series.

And just in case you were wondering, "Everything is politics."—Thomas Mann (1950)

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: Dgrassi@cox.net

Complicit in Drug Culture

Major League Baseball (MLB) and drugs. The two have been linked for decades and their relationship has never waned. The drug ingredients are different, the players acquiring them have changed and the performance benefits have been enhanced.

But MLB has not learned much in the past couple of decades when it comes to the integrity of the game, in obeying
the law and in protecting the best interests of its athletes, its most precious commodity.

In 1985, Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney, J. Alan Johnson, implicated 19 MLB players for possession of and use of cocaine. Then-MLB Commissioner, Peter Ueberroth, imposed penalties on 11 of the 19, while none were criminally prosecuted. Similar to the BALCO case and to the recent Mitchell Report, the depth of the problem among athletes using cocaine or illegal drugs made for sensational headlines.

But the way in which the drug culture was arguably enabled by MLB and its subsequent punishments were laughable and was perhaps the precursor to the abuse of steroids and HGH in the 1990's and into the 21st century.
Although it was documented at the time that at least 40% of MLB players were recreationally using cocaine in the '80's, only a handful were punished. But such star players such as Keith Hernandez, Dave Parker, and Lonnie Smith were punished not by the federal government but by MLB. They were required to perform 100 hours of community service and to avail themselves to drug testing. Four other players were suspended for 60 days. Since the drug dealers were nabbed by the feds, MLB was off the hook and essentially did what it felt was appropriate for the "good of the game."

Fast-forward to 2003 when grand jury testimony was taken in the federal BALCO investigation involving MLB's Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Benito Santiago, Olympic medalist Marion Jones and NFL star Bill Romanowski, to name but a few of the few implicated. Again, only a handful of athletes from the entire professional athletic world were threatened and eventually given immunity, in order to take down BALCO President, Vic Conte, personal trainer, Greg Anderson and the illicit sale, distribution and administration of illegal performance enhancing substances.

Marion Jones will serve 6 months in prison neither for buying and illegally using controlled substances nor for her check fraud to the tune of $200,000.00, but for lying under oath to a federal grand jury about the use of drugs. Ditto for Barry Bonds. His scheduled perjury trial is to be held in April 2008.

The latest fiasco with "personal trainer," Brian McNamee, former NY Mets clubhouse employee, Kirk Radomski and MLB stars Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte following former Senator George Mitchell's report on behalf of MLB, is but another failed attempt at exposing the so-called truth. But truth has been absent from baseball for a very long time. Moreover, implicating only 30 active players for a grand total of 89 for using performance enhancing drugs over the past decade is not only laughable but terribly sad. Given the resources and legal expenses tallied around $20‒30 million and paid to George Mitchell's law firm by MLB, the Mitchell Report's omissions should raise as many eyebrows as its contents.

But more importantly is the absence of a cry for accountability from MLB by the federal government in essentially allowing it to be in the drug business. For its owners and its teams' staff members not to admit any wrong doing is beyond arrogance. A lack of efforts to look into those areas in which there was first-hand knowledge of possible illicit drug use or non-credentialed employees working in the area of strength training was but blind neglect.

To wit, according to the Mitchell Report, San Francisco Giants General Manager, Brian Sabean, was alerted by the Giants' staff athletic trainer, Stan Conte, that a player had asked him about whether he should buy steroids from Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, as far back as 2002. Additionally, the Giants' longtime equipment manager, Mike Murphy, found syringes in the locker of catcher Benito Santiago.

Conte said he reported both incidents to Sabean immediately. Sabean told Conte that if he had a problem with Bonds' trainer he should handle it himself. But it was obvious to Conte that it was not his place to confront Barry Bonds. And apparently no one else in the Giants organization felt it was their place either, as per their MLB obligation to report illicit drug use.

Brian Sabean stated in the Mitchell Report that he "was unaware of the obligation to report drug use to the Commissioner's Office." Former Mets General Manager, Steve Phillips, and Kirk Radomski's employer, also plead ignorance on reporting illicit drug use to the Commissioner's Office. Ironically now, Phillips is paid by ESPN to analyze and to inform the public about MLB's policies.

Greg Anderson was given full accessibility to the Giants' clubhouse. Stan Conte did not believe it was proper let alone legal. But in order to placate Bonds, the Giants also accorded him two additional trainers, Harvey Shields and Greg Oliver. All three traveled with the team. In fact, Oliver and Shields were added to the Giants' payroll to account for their presence in the clubhouse, whereby they could advise other players as well.

Peter Magowan, CEO and Managing Partner of the S.F. Giants asked Sabean whether the Giants "had a problem" with regard to steroids after reading the news concerning the BALCO case and Greg Anderson, according to the Mitchell Report. But Sabean told Mitchell he did not recall that conversation.

The issue was not only that of illicit drugs permeating the Giants' locker room but the issue of personal trainers, such as Greg Anderson giving out advice about steroids. None of Bonds' trainers were certified to give out that advice nor licensed to either dispense of or speak about drug administration. Their certifications and schooling as personal trainers is also in question.

The lack of background checks on supposed strength coaches and personal trainers was rampant in MLB until 2004 when MLB limited access to clubhouses by personal trainers and ancillary clubhouse personnel not on the payroll. Due to the BALCO case, MLB did it more for security reasons, as the vetting of a trainer's certification and background still has many lapses, to say the least.

In 2004, Sandy Krum, former assistant athletic trainer for the Chicago Cubs, was terminated, he believes, for informing Cubs' General Manager Jim Hendry that head athletic trainer, Dave Groeschner, was operating without an Illinois state required license. Unlike a personal trainer, an athletic trainer works under the auspices of a medical doctor and 43 states require such a license. Additionally, athletic trainers are not authorized in Illinois or NY to give injections to players. Coincidentally, Groeschner followed Cubs Manager Dusty Baker from San Francisco. In 2005, the Cubs fired Groeschner. Dusty is now with the Cincinnati Reds.

We have heard ad naseum about the McNamee-Clemens soap opera which will be played out before the Congressional House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 13, 2008. But little light has been shed upon the underlying facts about how McNamee helped weave his own web, in which the Toronto Blue Jays and the NY Yankees play no small part.

McNamee earned an undergraduate degree from St. John's University in NY where he played on the baseball team as a catcher but did not have enough talent for MLB. He then followed his father's lead and joined the NYPD in 1990. He was an officer for three years, serving two years undercover and then quit the force. He was suspended for 30 days at the end of his service for allowing a prisoner to escape from custody, but said he took the fall for someone else.

Former St. John's school mate, Tim McCleary, was the assistant General Manager of the Yankees in 1993 and hired McNamee as the bullpen catcher, where he stayed until 1995. McNamee then decided to get into personal training. In 1998, McCleary was hired by Toronto, and he then hired McNamee as a strength coach and where he met Roger Clemens. He also befriended Jose Canseco who at the time was also a Blue Jay.

After Clemens was traded to NY in 1999, McNamee joined him in 2000 when the Yankees put him on the payroll as a strength coach as well until 2001, when allegations immerged of rape and illegally giving the involved woman GHB ‒the date-rape drug‒ a nearly fatal dose. Charges were not filed as the woman did not want to pursue them supposedly because she was having an affair with one of the Yankees' married players. But McNamee was spotted having sex with a nearly comatose woman in one of the team's hotel pools on the night of a Devil Rays game in St. Petersburg in October of 2001. His account to police was filled with inconsistencies, including denying he was the man in the pool when spotted by security and another Yankee staffer. Again, McNamee was the victim.

GHB is illegally used by athletes to recover from strenuous workouts and was also part of McNamee's medicine cabinet. Even so, Clemens gave McNamee the benefit of the doubt about the alleged rape. The Yankees, however, let McNamee go before the 2002 season without disclosing the reason. But Clemens hired him as his personal trainer and employed him through June 2007. Andy Pettitte also paid McNamee for his training services during that time.

McNamee's credentials were never checked by either the Toronto Blue Jays or the NY Yankees. During their employ of his services he was never a certified strength coach. He may have been a personal trainer, but certification is not legally required to be a personal trainer, although such certification only requires an exam and no course work or field training.

McNamee's credentials are dubious at best, not to mention his phony PhD that he acquired in 2000 from an implicated internet diploma mill known as Columbus University, supposedly located in Louisiana, and since sold off to another entity in another state due to its being nailed by authorities.

McNamee was advertising himself on the internet as Dr. McNamee, PhD in order to market his In-Vite nutritional supplements and his strength training services. He was also getting involved in other enterprises which Clemens was helping to bankroll to help out his career. Although McNamee made claims he was certified, he was not certified as a strength coach until nearly 2006.

According to Dr. Jeff Falkel, Chairman of the Executive Council Certification Commission of the National Strength and Conditioning Association, (NSCA) recently on Will Carroll's BaseballProspectus.com radio show, stated that McNamee did not even take his Certified Strength Conditioning Specialist exam until October 2005.

And unbelievably, MLB does not require certifications of its personal trainers or strength coaches but does require its staff athletic trainers be licensed only as required by law. The NFL, NBA, NHL and NCAA are also lax about certifications other than athletic trainers who work with medical physicians. They still do not require that their strength trainers be credentialed by the NSCA.

What we can conclude from this unveiling of the lack of professionalism and clubhouse culture throughout MLB is that without the cooperation of all of its participants, from the executive level on down to the groundskeepers, it cannot be trusted to police itself, based upon its putrid record thus far. And the business decisions made on the executive level from Commissioner to owner to GM to player to staff employees has been dismal and in disrepair.

Ultimately, greed has been the prevailing culprit, influencing both owners and players alike. But to single out a few super stars will never cure baseball or professional sports of its ills. It is shortsighted by MLB and not surprisingly so by our U.S. Congress. While there is no ready solution, using some common sense might be a good start.

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi

Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

As Barry Bonds comes ever closer to breaking the National Pastime's hallowed home run record, currently held by Hank Aaron at 755, the controversy regarding illicit performance enhancing drug use, which may forever taint Bond's entire career, does accomplish taking the focus off of Major League Baseball (MLB) and its own shortcomings.

The scrutiny which has been paid, in only just the past two years, over drug use among MLB players, while having been a black eye for MLB, is also convenient as Commissioner Bud Selig need not address myriad other issues which also play their part in preserving the integrity of the game.

For example, MLB has done little exploration into the variations in equipment over just the past 10 years or so and more specifically the wooden bat itself. A number of questions come to mind. Is it just coincidence that Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001 after he switched his bat's wood from that of ash to a hand-lathed maple? Is the accelerated breakage of bats over the past 5 plus years due to an acutely thinning bat handle with a larger barrel and lighter weight or is it the non-discriminate MLB approval process of the making and even storage of bats that makes them more vulnerable?

Is it a coincidence that prior to 2003, MLB welcomed smaller bat makers as suppliers to MLB players but suddenly instituted an exorbitant certification fee with nearly impossible to acquire insurance liability policies for smaller operations, costing thousands upon thousands of dollars? And is it not worth taking a look at why there is such a difference in the quality of bats Hillerich & Bradsby Co., the manufacturer of Louisville Sluggers, provides only specific big leaguers, but does not do so for others? In fact, the company proudly admits it.

Preserving the sanctity of the game is multi-faceted. Although technology and safety standards over time have essentially been a beneficial reward for players, it is hard to measure the consistency of the game of MLB if issues such as bat manufacture and its own baseball operations are done on a selective and arbitrary basis. And when it ultimately impacts the way the game is played and its future records, it should be routinely examined.

Hillerich & Bradsby, although deemed the official bat of MLB, is not the exclusive supplier of bats for its players. However, it is still the number one provider to MLB with about a 60% share of its bats supply and curries favor and power, due to its longevity and stature in the history of the game, not to mention the power which is bestowed upon it by MLB, which few other manufacturers enjoy.

In 2002, there were 48 MLB bat manufacturers, and surprisingly little thought was put into the verification process in order to become a bat maker supplier of MLB bats other than for the supplier to provide a sample bat made out of a single piece of wood. But in 2003, MLB went to the other extreme. In a form letter sent to all bat makers in December 2002, MLB stated it would start requiring that they carry $10 million worth of liability insurance, and indemnify MLB, its shareholders, directors, officers, employees and agents attached to various product liability issues.

In addition, the certification fee was increased to $10,000.00 per year, necessary to provide bat makers with the privilege of selling their bats to MLB players. Since that time, although the liability coverage has been reduced to $5 million per year, it still remains prohibitively expensive for boutique manufacturers, or most other domestic suppliers other than Hillerich and Bradsby, to do business with MLB.

MLB also requires that the insurance carrier providing coverage to bat makers must have a "best rating of A-8 or better." Carolina Clubs, a MLB certified bat maker from Florida, was nearly denied doing business with MLB, as to find a guaranteed insurance carrier of any kind in the hurricane-ridden state of Florida in the post-Katrina era is nearly impossible. However, virtually overnight in 2003, bat suppliers were whittled down to a mere 14 for that season. In 2007, there are supposedly 20-25 suppliers, although MLB makes it difficult to even corroborate such information.

According to the head of MLB Baseball Operations at the time in 2003, Sandy Alderson, "The administrative fee was originally intended to help us defray the costs of inspecting bats, approving bats and for all administrative work and testing." MLB needed $140,000.00 to approve the bats of 14 companies?

In 1862, MLB first restricted the diameter of the barrel, requiring it not exceed 2.5 inches. It was increased in 1895 to 2.75 inches in diameter, as it remains today. 1868 saw the limit put on a length of 42 inches, as it also remains today. No weight requirements, either minimum or maximum have ever been required. With those parameters, combined with improvements in technology and players' bat speeds, it could be argued that it is a far different game than even Babe Ruth played. For example, the Babe used a 42-ounce bat as opposed to the average weight of 32 ounces used by today's MLB players.

Ash bats were exclusively used for decades, after hickory was phased out, until 1997 when Sam Holman of Ottawa, Canada and his Sam Bat caught the attention of then Blue Jays star player, Joe Carter. He then supposedly talked up Holman's bats which eventually in 1999 found their way into the hands of Barry Bonds. Bonds went on a tear hitting 374 of his total home runs with the sugar maple bats from Sam Holman and broke Mark McGuire's 1998 home run season record of 70 by besting him with his 73 in 2001.

Holman's bats have been used by over 500 MLB players and he is expected to furnish Bonds with the bat used for his number 756. Given the proximity of Holman to some of the best maple tree forests in North America in Ottawa, Holman's business has thrived over the past ten years, although he is selling his business in order to retire. Ash trees also hail from a northern climate, and are harvested primarily from the New York-Pennsylvania area.

The arguments over the consistency and flight of the ball with either wood are never-ending, but there are distinct differences between the two woods. Ash supposedly has more flex, but is not as heavy a wood as maple, producing a bit less flight of the ball upon impact. Additionally, ash bats have less longevity than maple bats and break more frequently and are more apt to shatter, flake and splinter upon breaking.

Sugar or rock maple, considered the finest maple for bats, are more expensive, and range in price from $70.00 -$130.00 while ash bats range between $50.00 and $75.00, yet need to be replaced more frequently than maple. Most players using maple claim that the ball travels farther off of the barrel's "sweet spot" as opposed to ash. But because the wood itself is a heavier grade, the barrels are made slightly narrower than the ash bats in order to accommodate a lighter weight comparable to ash. And when maple bats do eventually break, they do so in large pieces as opposed to splinters.

The lack of restrictions on weight or the lack of prescribed storage care of bats by MLB, could have a profound impact on whether or not a bat breaks or explodes upon impact. Such endangers its players and spectators. Players go through an average of 60-70 bats a season. But the moisture content of the wood upon manufacture as well as in storage, whether the bat is hand-lathed or completely machine made, as well as the bat's weight and handle diameter, could all alter the bat's ultimate performance and longevity. Seattle Mariner, Ichiro Suzuki, for example, has his own humidor for his entire bat supply.

And why should a bat maker, such as Sam Holman, who produces several thousand bats each season to MLB as opposed to Hillerich and Bradsby's 750,000, foot a bill of $65,000.00 per year for liability insurance? The supposed interest in increasing liability insurance fees by MLB for bat makers is an easy way for MLB not to address the incessant breakage of its bats. Perhaps it is the quality of MLB bat inspectors, or a lack of a minimum quality standard of wood or the non-requirement of prescribed weight ratio of bat barrels to handles. But instead of MLB looking for a better standardization process for its bats, it would rather thrust the responsibility onto the bat makers, and thereby still leaving players and spectators at risk.

Also of note, according to Hillerich and Bradsby's Chuck Schupp, head of its professional division, "We have a priority list of players. A lot of it is based on a personal relationship. If someone is loyal to us, we'll take care of them." And although players are not required to sign exclusivity contracts with bat makers, as individual teams assume all costs for players' bats, Schupp says there is a "Louisville Slugger 'A' list." It includes Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Jason Giambi, Carlos Delgado and Ken Griffey, Jr., among select others.

If star players are treated preferably by Schupp for their Louisville Slugger bats, does that mean that average or up and coming players are at a distinct disadvantage while not getting the best product from the same manufacturer? Should not MLB perhaps look into that?

And finally, unless MLB and its Commissioner is willing to look at all matters of inequity in its sport, whether it be an issue between players, between equipment manufacturers and its players, between baseball operations and its suppliers or a lack of standardization when it comes to equipment, MLB should not be permitted to point the finger exclusively at the use of performance enhancing drugs as the sole threat to the sanctity of the game. For that is far from the only difference-maker in varying performance results in the game of MLB today.

And if MLB wants to be taken seriously in preserving the integrity of the game, it must do a far better job of it rather than its present lethargic effort. For certainly, they are not fooling the fans and the fans and the players deserve better.

Copyright © 2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

How often does it happen that a present Major League Baseball All-Star player gets treated with so little respect that he is told after his trade to another team that he will have to give up his starting position or else? After all, baseball has come a long way since free agency, forming its players' association, gaining arbitration for its players, and providing them access to high-powered agents nearly guaranteeing them a shot at multi-million dollar contracts.

But this latest faux pas on the part of Major League Baseball ownership concerns 2nd baseman Alfonso Soriano, formerly of the Texas Rangers and the New York Yankees, who has spent the entirety of his major league career playing 2nd base. He has been known, however, for his offense over the past five years which included his first three years, 2001- 2003, with the New York Yankees and his last two years, 2004 and 2005, with the Texas Rangers.

Yet, before all of the so-called expert pundits and baseballs' fans have at it with their generalizations about the latest supposed "spoiled professional athlete who should grow up," it would be wise to examine exactly which athlete they are attacking and the circumstances involved. Unfortunately, it is athletes such as the NFL's Terrell Owens who have now given all professional athletes a bad name.

The dilemma which has become the talk of the day and should play itself out by week's end, or around March 24, 2006, involves the controversial trade of Soriano from the Texas Rangers to the Washington Nationals on December 7, 2005, which became official on December 13, 2005. The Washington Nationals' General Manager, Jim Bowden, was looking to get some pop in the Nats' lineup and offered to trade outfielder, Brad Wilkerson, outfielder Termel Sledge and minor league pitching prospect, Armando Galarraga to the Rangers.

Prior to the trade, in all fairness to Bowden, he claims that before the Nationals signed off on the deal, he requested the Rangers' permission to speak to Soriano first, to specifically ask him if he would agree to change his 2nd base position to leftfield. The Rangers said no, supposedly pending players' physicals, and precisely because they knew of Soriano's history of not wanting to change positions in the past and did not want to kill the deal. According to Bowden, "We took it [to mean that] if we talked to the player [the Rangers felt] that the player would say no [to changing positions] and the deal would be killed." Soriano was never consulted about being traded either for that matter.

When Soriano originally signed his first Major League Baseball contract, with the New York Yankees in 2001, he was a shortstop, which he considered his natural position. Obviously, with shortstop, Derek Jeter, at that position, the Yankees were forced to find another position for him as he showed so much promise with his bat. When he filled in briefly at shortstop for a few weeks during Spring Training in the 2001 season when Jeter was nursing an injury, he proved to the Yankees that they had to have him in the lineup everyday. And when Jeter returned that spring, Soriano was moved to left field, albeit for a total of only five games. Soriano was expected to start the season there, but when 2nd baseman, Chuck Knoblauch, developed a mental block with the inability to throw to 1st base, the Yankees switched the two players' positions. Since that time, Soriano has never played any other position but 2nd base and has never played a regular season major league game in the outfield.

But upon arriving in Texas in 2004, when Soriano was traded by the Yankees for Alex Rodriguez, Rangers' manager, Buck Showalter, had another rising star in Michael Young, also a 2nd baseman, who needed to be added to the lineup. Unlike Bowden's approach, however, Showalter felt out the situation with Soriano changing positions. "We just talked about trying to make some plans and asked him how he felt about it. It wasn't something we were trying to cram down his throat." And Michael Young helped resolve the situation by volunteering to move to shortstop, as Soriano was adamant about not moving from 2nd base.

Given Soriano's known history of relishing his position at 2nd base in spite of steeped criticism of his defense, it makes Jim Bowden's deal for him seem ill fated from the onset, as it was well known throughout MLB of Soriano's reticence to change positions. And in the case of Soriano, Yogi Berra's philosophy could not hold more true as "Baseball is 90% mental, the other 50% is physical." Given Soriano's being so upset with the situation is enough to distract his offense, let alone learning a whole knew position as the season progresses.

But one would think that given his stellar offensive skills and his good attitude would have earned him some brownie points to not have been put in this position in the first place. A four-time All-Star from 2002-2005 and the MVP of the 2004 All-Star Game, Soriano has earned his notoriety and the $10 million he will earn this year, due to his record-high arbitration case. Although considered a defensive liability, Soriano's offensive stats are more than impressive. They include his breakout season in 2002 when he had 209 hits, 128 runs scored, 39 home runs, 102 RBI, 41 stolen bases, 51 doubles, a .332 batting average and 198 hits. In 2003, Soriano followed up with very comparable stats with a .338 batting average, 35 stolen bases, 38 home runs, 114 runs scored, 198 hits and 91 RBI.

In 2004 when he was with his new team, the Rangers, his offense dipped slightly but he finished with a respectable .324 batting average with 91 RBI and 170 hits. And in 2005, his batting average dropped off markedly to .268 but he still scored 102 runs, had 171 hits, 43 doubles, 36 home runs, 30 stolen bases and 104 RBI. Only time will tell how the grand expanse of RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C. and adjusting to the National League will impact his offensive skills.

Following the no-show of Soriano for the Nationals' Spring Training game against the Los Angeles Dodgers on March 20th, when he was written in the lineup by manager, Frank Robinson, to play leftfield, he will have another opportunity to redeem himself by showing up for the March 22nd game which the Nationals have against the St. Louis Cardinals in another pre-season matchup. It has been promised that the lineup card will remain the same according to Robinson.

Should Soriano maintain his refusal to play leftfield and thus refuse to play, according to Bowden, the Nationals will petition MLB's Commissioner's Office to place Soriano on the rarely used "disqualified list." This additionally presents Commissioner Selig with a new twist to the problem, in that MLB officially still owns the Nationals, as Selig has failed as of yet to get a deal done for new ownership. Becoming "disqualified" translates into Soriano losing his salary for 2006, losing any credit for 2006 service time and his chance to become a free agent at the end of the season would also be lost as he would remain the property of the Nationals.

Since Soriano chose to participate in the March 2006 World Baseball Classic (WBC) for the Dominican Republic team, should he decide to play leftfield, he now has less than two weeks in which to learn a non-infield position he has never officially played. Bowden claims that during Soriano's time away during the WBC he tried to work a deal to trade Soriano if the right offer came along. "We obviously will field offers, but we're not going to give the player away, Bowden said on March 20th. "If we can make a deal that makes sense, we would have. At this point we have not been given a trade proposal that makes any sense for the Nationals, he said.

Besides putting his manager, Frank Robinson, in an uncomfortable position, and giving Soriano an ultimatum of playing leftfield after the trade was completed, leaves the actions of Bowden questionable. Combined with the fact that the Nationals already had an All-Star 2nd baseman in Jose Vidro, and Bowden's admission that he had heard of Soriano's prior insistence on playing 2nd base prior to the deal with the Rangers, could put his own job in jeopardy when new ownership is finally decided. After all, the deal for Soriano was misguided at best and Bowden's theory that he alone could convince Soriano to change positions was foolhardy. It begs the question, excuses aside, which Soriano himself asked of Bowden, "Why didn't you try to talk to me before you made the trade?"

"Given my travel schedule and steroids and everything else, I've been sidetracked." This was a quote from Major League Baseball's Commissioner, Bud Selig, as given to the Washington Times on November 18, 2005. He was referring to the ongoing interview process of potential ownership for the Washington Nationals baseball team which was re-located to Washington, D.C. from Montreal, Canada, just prior to the 2005 season and now makes RFK Memorial Stadium its temporary home. But Mr. Selig's quote only references part of the ongoing troubles of a ball club in total limbo, forcing it into a state of unpreparedness for the 2006 MLB season. Not unlike the on-again off-again dash to finalize an agreement with the city of Washington, D.C. in December of 2004, the end of 2005 looms as a potential death knell to getting a stadium built, a lease agreement finalized and the installation of an owner or ownership group in the near future. In order for a General Manager, field manager and coaches to be named, the future owner must be chosen and ratified by 29 MLB owners. As long as MLB continues to haggle over the 2004 agreement with the city of Washington, D.C., which was rushed and was arguably a poorly drafted document according to D.C. City Council members and community activists, the Washington Nationals have less and less opportunities to sign free agents and attract management personnel. The agreement made between the city of Washington, D.C. and MLB last December was dependent upon the city to build a stadium for the Nationals by 2008. In order to do so, the city must raise the capital through the sale of bonds to publicly finance the $535 million price tag. However, the cost of the stadium has risen due to unanticipated construction and raw material expenditures and now the key features which the original plans called for such as an underground parking garage, escalators and elevators, improved roads outside the stadium and expanded Metro train platforms, jeopardize the success of not only the stadium but the gentrified area surrounding it. The aides of Mayor Anthony Williams, who negotiated the stadium agreement with MLB, estimated that the stadium of 41,000 seats would cost $395 million. However, no money was allocated for infrastructure such as the roads and Metro platforms as they assumed that the federal government or Metro itself would pick up the tab. Additionally, Natwar M. Gandhi, the city's CFO, raised the estimated cost since the water for the stadium was not included in the original agreement. The architects chosen for the stadium's design also escalated the original cost of $244 million to $337 million as land costs could now be as high as $98 million, but not certain. The ceiling now for the stadium, based upon whose calculator you believe but supposedly set by the City Council, now stands at $535 million. With a final stadium architectural plan still yet to be approved, the mayor believes that either MLB, the federal government, private developers or even the new owner should pick up the tab on the ancillary costs not accounted for in the $535 million bargain. Should MLB, private developers or the federal government not chip in, then the taxpayers of Washington, D.C. will be left holding the bill for the balance, which was what started all of the arguments a year ago. Therefore, millions of dollars earmarked for other projects for the city of Washington, D.C., such as improvements in homeland security first-responders, would be sacrificed. But it gets better. Have your eyes glazed over yet trying to comprehend the numbers? Well, here are some more. Also holding this whole thing up is a $6 million lease agreement which the city says that MLB is responsible for but is being contested by MLB. And the stadium's financing is contingent upon the lease agreement as bond raters will not provide grade ratings until the agreement has been executed. The complete financing plan must be in place prior to Christmas 2005 in order to begin the process of selling bon