Rays admit new stadium deal remains “in effect.” Here’s what that means.

Despite claiming that new stadium deal is dead, the Rays admit that legally it survives.

The Tampa Bay Rays have responded to the letter from Pinellas County Commission chair Kathleen Peters, which insisted the Rays must either indicate in writing that they intend to move forward under the Agreement as executed, or provide a clearer Notice of Termination no later than December 1, 2024.

In the Rays response, President Matt Silverman admits the new stadium deal remains “in effect” — essentially confirming they have not formally terminated the new stadium deal, despite their insistence they can no longer afford it both verbally and in writing — but stops short of meeting the county’s demands.

Before getting to the requested response, Silverman first addresses claims made by the Commission that have painted the Rays in a bad light, but fails to bring new information to the table.

Key takeaway: It’s another poorly worded letter with no new information

Let’s take the letter one paragraph at a time.

In her earlier letter, Commissioner Peters had referenced a conversation between Commissioner Scott and Rays co-President, Brian Auld, where a public statement of support for the new stadium deal was requested but not received. Silverman somewhat disputes that claim, saying “Auld did not waver from our commitment to the new ballpark project,” but he does not address the allegations from Peters.

Next, Silverman addresses the County claim that the Rays were violating “spirit of our new ballpark agreements” by playing the 2025 season in Tampa. The agreement says that if they are forced out of their stadium by an event such as a hurricane they should make every effort to play elsewhere in the County, and only if that’s not possible would they look for a Hillsborough County site. Silverman says the Rays had followed that process, but he doesn’t spell out just how the Rays came to eliminate alternative Pinellas County sites.

Finally, Silverman acknowledges that the Rays had indeed negotiated under the presumption the new stadium project could afford delays — such as a potential 2030 completion date for the new ballpark — but reiterates their claims that the team would not have signed on to the new stadium project if they thought the county’s approvals could not be completed before the November elections.

One might observe that intentions are not part of a legal document, which is what leads Silverman to his conclusion, stating, “In response to your question regarding the status of the various agreements, they are in effect until a party terminates or outside dates are reached. The Rays have fulfilled its obligations to date and continue to wait for decisions and actions by the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County.”

What can we learn from the Rays letter?

First, and foremost until we hear otherwise, the Rays have not formally terminated the new stadium agreement, despite their frequent claims the deal cannot proceed due to a lack of funds.

Instead, the Rays clearly intend to force the City or County to trigger the automatic termination clause first.

The government would likely trigger automatic termination by failing to commence the bonds within 30 days of the Rays meeting their prerequisites to receive the bond funds; those steps are not due until March 31, 2025 and are covered in detail in this previous article. Accordingly, the City and County may not be contractually obligated to issue the bonds until the end of April 2025.

The County meets again on December 17, 2024 and the City Council meets again on January 9, 2025. Whether those meetings lead the elected officials to approve the bonds, request government staff pursue a settlement, or tell the Rays to take a hike remains to be seen.

Second, we can see the continued trend of the Rays not offering very clear information in writing, failing to address the various talking points head on. Instead of saying the Rays are in or out of the new stadium deal, they say the legal document is “in effect.” They claim that Auld “didn’t waver” but it’s not clear what commitment the the project he confirmed.

Ultimately, speaking in vague generalities protects the Rays from having made any firm commitment in one way or another. It’s a strategy the team has long employed — you might recall the words “Tampa Bay” did not appear on the Rays jersey from 2008-2023 — and they appear to continue to think it serves their interests, even if it frequently leads to frustration for everyone else involved.