As much as they dreamed of seeing Montreal regain its place in major league baseball, sports fans were probably not surprised Thursday to learn that MLB had thrown overboard the controversial shared custody plan of a team between Montreal and the Tampa area.
The idea of bringing an MLB team back to Montreal had quickly gained popularity since the early 2010s.
The Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal had published a study (doubtful, it must be said) trumpeting that a team could be acquired at a bargain price and that the Montreal market could easily sustain an MLB concession.
Stephen Bronfman maintained in the media that money was not a problem for him and his associates and that his group was ready
. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has regularly declared that Montreal is among the favorite candidates for an expansion team.
Stephen Bronfman’s group had in turn published a study stating that the Montreal market would rank 15th among the 27 MLB cities. And polls announced that a very high proportion of sports fans and large Quebec companies intended to buy seats in the team’s new stadium.
Consultations had been organized with target groups to help designers give a Montreal touch to the future stadium.
In short, the question was no longer whether Montreal was going to get a team back, but rather when the first game was going to be played. The wave was high and strong.
For the first time, there was a real possibility of seeing an MLB team owned by Quebec interests and whose baseball operations would have been carried out by Quebec talent.
This promising project, however, deflated in June 2019. Instead of pulling a cat out of its bag, Stephen Bronfman pulled out a two-headed monster. An unknown creature.
We then learned that the Quebec investors had no intention of running a baseball team. Instead, they wanted to buy some Rays stock and open their doors part-time to an American owner.
In an Excel file, the idea of dipping your straw in two milkshakes probably seemed brilliant. A team playing its matches local
in two different cities would possibly be able to double his income from TV and local sponsorships.
In addition, the scarcity of local matches (about 40 in each city, instead of the usual 81) was perhaps going to boost ticket sales. However, this aspect of the case was not certain. The vast majority of sports fans attach themselves to a team because it defends the colors of their city.
Above all, building a stadium in Bridge-Bonaventure, near Peel Basin, would enhance the value of the neighborhood that Mr. Bronfman and his partners intended to build around it. That was where the motton
, as we said in Slap Shot.
The problem is that, seen from the outside, this project had many holds against it.
The vast majority of fans opposed it, which was already a strident alarm bell. Another large percentage of people didn’t believe it and thought it was actually a strategy, either to get the Rays to move to Montreal, or to cause the construction of a stadium to ensure the Rays’ permanence in Tampa.
For his part, Rays owner Stuart Sternberg has never been able to explain why Tampa baseball fans, who shun the team even during playoff races, would suddenly rush to attend games. games from early April until mid-June.
Moreover, using taxpayers’ money to build a baseball stadium is already a very bad idea, and it was proposed to build two for one team. It was decidedly the straw-in-two-shakes approach. The Tampa market is moribund. And that of Montreal, where there has been no major baseball since 2004, was highly uncertain in the context of shared custody.
Why would MLB bend over backwards to make this shared custody a reality, when several North American cities are lining up to host a full-time team? Looking at the project from this angle, the concept of shared custody had a real chance of failing in both cities in the medium term.
This affair could have turned into one of the most resounding fiascos in the history of North American professional sports. The leaders of the major professional championships already live nightmares when they have to move a team from one city to another. Imagine the transfer of a team based in two cities…
Finally, Messrs. Sternberg and Bronfman seem never to have cared about the opinion of the players in this story. At least not publicly.
How could we believe that the players, who spend their time traveling, would want to move their families every year in the middle of the season? And how could anyone believe that the MLB Players Association, which is one of the most powerful unions in the world, would agree to disturb the quality of life of its members?
In addition, MLB players have been locked out since the beginning of December, and this first labor dispute in 27 years promises to be tough and long. The end of this battle will not be conducive to such player concessions, especially since the concept of shared custody does not exist anywhere else.
After announcing the death of the project, Stuart Sternberg said he believed that splitting a team between two cities represents the future of North American professional sports. He may be right.
But the future can be very long. Stephen Bronfman spoke a little later. The Montreal billionaire said to himself upset, exhausted and disappointed
by the news.
He lamented thatin one phone call, the incredible substantive work accomplished
on both sides of the border in recent years has fallen through.
This column is written with all due respect. Both men believed in their project and they put a lot of effort and resources to make it happen. This should be welcomed.
At the same time, the list of pitfalls was so strong that we can’t help but wonder how they could have believed that these two stadiums and this two-headed team were really going to see the light of day.
A year ago, a source familiar with MLB customs explained to me that the owners’ executive committee never really says yes or really no when presented with an idea.
And he predicted exactly what happened on Thursday. This project never left square one
, he said.
This is exactly where everyone ends up. Better to be alone than in bad company, as my grandmother used to say.
