|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Dec 20, 2015 11:30:18 GMT -5
At some point taxpayers stop doing these money pits, right? I say that as a Rams fan observing the Rams situation. Technically I'm a neutral party, as I'm not from Missouri or California, but if I were a taxpayer in St. Louis or Missouri, I'd be insulted by having to fork over more cash 20 years after the EJD (which I personally think is a dump, but thats just my opinion). You look in other situations as well, like the Falcons and Braves leaving there stadiums.
So whats the breaking point?
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Dec 20, 2015 12:28:27 GMT -5
Think it depends on the team, location, and sport.
Using my NFL teams town as an example, if the Rockies wanted another stadium that was gonna cost taxpayers 5-700 million I'd be hard pressed to think the public would stand for it. If the Broncos wanted it, I could pretty much guarantee they'd pass that with a smile on their faces.
Same thing is happening in St. Louis. If this was the Cardinals (the baseball team, not the Cards that moved to Arizona) don't you think this would have been approved already.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 20, 2015 12:53:00 GMT -5
I'm shocked the debacle with the Marlins' stadium where the owner promised a winning team for a new stadium, went on a big free agent spree to get it built, then traded everyone the year after the stadium was built to save money didn't kill it forever, to be honest. If that didn't, then there will always be the "Well, if *YOU* don't build it, some OTHER CITY will and then THEY'LL have a pro sports team instead" will always get cities to pay up.
|
|
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Dec 20, 2015 15:00:59 GMT -5
Ban public funding of stadiums? Not sure if that would even work.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 20, 2015 16:02:01 GMT -5
Honestly, I can't see a future where every team pays for their own stadium......ever. But I do think that a fair compromise should be that if the state helps fund the stadium anywhere over 50%, they should get the naming rights, and any money off their sale. That's the silliest thing, to me. Asking for help/leveraging help to build a stadium, and then sell the right to the name the next day and pocket that money.
I do think it helps a lot of cities though. Someone else brought up the team/sport mattering, and I agree with that in a very different manner. The Cardinals, for instance, bring out 45-50,000 people, 81 times a year. And if they make the playoffs, more. So you're talking bars, taxis, parking garages, restaurants, hotels, etc etc who get a noteworthy bump 75-90 (cancellations/playoffs) times a year. Versus the Rams, who bring 55-62,000 people in 10 times a year. To me, the difference is very, very easy there. A good baseball team helps the city commerce immensely. I remember when the Cardinals made their run in 2011, and the news mentioned the 3-5 million dollars they expected with a WS appearance. I mean, people wanted to get anywhere near the stadium, and crazy money was spent. Having it go 7 games, they probably wildly outproduced that expectation.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 20, 2015 20:22:11 GMT -5
The average sports fan who risks losing their team isn't thinking rationally about how a publicly funded stadium is a revenue blackhole for everyone but the owner. They're thinking "I want my team to stay in town so I can go to the games." and "I'LL REMEMBER THIS ON ELECTION DAY!"
It makes no sense whatsoever for the municipality, but city officials will often cave to public pressure because they care more about re-election than what's really best for the city.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 20, 2015 20:26:10 GMT -5
Gotta post this
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 77,809
|
Post by bob on Dec 21, 2015 14:28:24 GMT -5
The average sports fan who risks losing their team isn't thinking rationally about how a publicly funded stadium is a revenue blackhole for everyone but the owner. They're thinking "I want my team to stay in town so I can go to the games." and "I'LL REMEMBER THIS ON ELECTION DAY!" It makes no sense whatsoever for the municipality, but city officials will often cave to public pressure because they care more about re-election than what's really best for the city. This is why I strongly opposed giving the ultra rich new owners of the Bucks public cash for a new stadium after they threatened to move the team. The most aggravating part of this is that all the officials involved in the decision are saying how great it is, hell a guy running for re-election mentioned his part in this idiocy in a television ad. Most owners can easily afford new arenas for their team but are too damn cheap to want to and threaten to move it and f*** over John Q Taxpayer.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,218
|
Post by Push R Truth on Dec 21, 2015 16:04:20 GMT -5
When rich people get tired of taking free money.
So basically never
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 16:11:56 GMT -5
When rich people get tired of taking free money. So basically never Pretty much this. Most owners can afford financing the stadiums themselves, but would rather accept kickbacks and support from other people than spend their own money on a project. That's just the way it works. I mean, some cities do need new venues badly (like Seattle, because Key Arena's been around since the Stone Age), but often, it's very frivolous, and the benefits are often overplayed. I mean, the Atlanta Braves are ditching a 20 year old stadium and moving to a rural county with very little in infrastructure just for more control of everything around their venue.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,302
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 21, 2015 17:29:04 GMT -5
Probably never, but it should. Listen, the bullshit over the Colts leaving Baltimore was basically this personified but on an amplified scale. The Orioles and the Colts were sharing a stadium and it was inadequate for either of their purposes. Both teams were actively losing money. The Colts tried to leave once and Bob Irsay bought the team to PREVENT them from leaving Baltimore. It was only after he started losing money hand over fist and he was legally blocked from exploring more options in Baltimore that he ran out of town.
The petulant reaction of the people of Baltimore should have been a lesson to municipalities being held hostage. Who was made the villain for the Colts leaving? Bob Irsay, the guy who had to leave to A) keep from going bankrupt and B) keep the state of Maryland from literally stealing his team from him through imminent domain. THAT guy was made to be the bad guy by the public. The people that forced his hand kept getting reelected for another decade or so. They did not pay the price for letting the team get away.
For that matter, who was the bad guy when the Browns left Cleveland? Art Modell was, that's who. How often has city officials ever truly paid the price for a team leaving? I would really like to know. I'm not saying it has not happened. I'm just saying that it isn't such a sure bet that they cannot risk it.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 21, 2015 18:08:56 GMT -5
The average sports fan who risks losing their team isn't thinking rationally about how a publicly funded stadium is a revenue blackhole for everyone but the owner. They're thinking "I want my team to stay in town so I can go to the games." and "I'LL REMEMBER THIS ON ELECTION DAY!" It makes no sense whatsoever for the municipality, but city officials will often cave to public pressure because they care more about re-election than what's really best for the city. This is why I strongly opposed giving the ultra rich new owners of the Bucks public cash for a new stadium after they threatened to move the team. The most aggravating part of this is that all the officials involved in the decision are saying how great it is, hell a guy running for re-election mentioned his part in this idiocy in a television ad. Most owners can easily afford new arenas for their team but are too damn cheap to want to and threaten to move it and f*** over John Q Taxpayer. For the same reason: Even though eventually it'll never end just because of the risk of losing their team, and officials will cave to it...and the Marlins situation made it clear we won't get a "You want public money, you have to have a $150 million payroll OR make the playoffs, or you have to pay the city x percent back a year. You make the playoffs or at least try to make it, we'll waive the fee that season" won't happen either. With that in mind, Just once, I'd like to see a city say "Okay, you want the fans to pay the money- they're going to have to pay? Fine. Make it even to the people paying. Every man, woman, and child in the area being given the sales tax increase we're using to pay for the stadium gets a free four-pack of tickets, with different games for different family members in the same house- every season until it's paid off." If you're making the people of the town pay for the stadium, it's only reasonable to make it so the people can go see the games in exchange.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 21, 2015 18:17:16 GMT -5
This is why I'm glad that the Giants and the Jets were two of the very, very few exceptions in the NFL that paid for MetLife in its entirety. I think they either went halfsies or the Maras and Tischs paid slightly more than Woody Johnson. But it was 100% privately financed, which is incredibly rare these days.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,302
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 21, 2015 18:41:06 GMT -5
Kraft fully financed Gilette without public funds as well. That wasn't the original plan, mind you, but still.
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Dec 21, 2015 18:59:36 GMT -5
Think it depends on the team, location, and sport. Using my NFL teams town as an example, if the Rockies wanted another stadium that was gonna cost taxpayers 5-700 million I'd be hard pressed to think the public would stand for it. If the Broncos wanted it, I could pretty much guarantee they'd pass that with a smile on their faces. Same thing is happening in St. Louis. If this was the Cardinals (the baseball team, not the Cards that moved to Arizona) don't you think this would have been approved already. The Cardinals for sure would have IF needed but the team owners themselves help pay for it. AS rich of a history and being a winning team like they are that team could get anything they wanted. For me that would be justified only because how much that team brings in and because of it popularity. As someone who lives in St. Louis, I have been on the fence about it. Do I want the Rams or the NFL to stay in St. Louis? Yes I do. Do I think it's a bunch of crap that the team itself isn't going to put a dime in the stadium? Yes. Stan putting money in another stadium in another state is wrong. The Stadiums should always have a % by the team that plays in it to fund it, it shouldn't become some bidding war on a team to relocate or not. There is no reason why they shouldn't when they know the city or state money could go for other things like education and so forth. Stan for example has more money that he knows what to do with so there is no reason why he isn't outside the fact from day one he knew he wanted to move the team the first chance he had. I feel St. Louis gave in on showing that we want the NFL and if it means giving a billionaire like Stan a free stadium. What should happen maybe the city can be in a % but the team should pay equal or more of the amount of the cost. The rest be covered by whoever buys the naming right and so forth. A team should only relocate if the said city show no desire in investing a % to the plan along with the team.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,766
|
Post by BRV on Dec 21, 2015 21:26:45 GMT -5
Kraft fully financed Gilette without public funds as well. That wasn't the original plan, mind you, but still. He also privately financed a $350 million entertainment and retail plaza that surrounds Gillette Stadium. So in total, Robert Kraft basically paid $675 million of his own money to construct a stadium and shopping center in Foxboro. Which is all sort of humorous because in 2009, the administration of former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick planned to use $9 million in federal stimulus money to construct a pedestrian bridge over Route 1 (the only road to get to the stadium) to connect to parking lots across the street, and people LOST THEIR FREAKING MINDS. I mean, the guy spent almost $700 million of his own money to build this gem in the middle of scenic nowhere, yet when they get a pittance to build a footbridge, people act like Kraft was reaching into their wallets and taking all of their money. From my perspective, I really have little issue with publicly-financed stadiums. This is just me talking, but for the entertainment value that the Patriots, Red Sox, Bruins, and Celtics provide me, I'm OK forking over a few extra dollars in taxes to keep them in the region. Maybe it's the fact that outside of the Patriots' brief flirtation with Hartford in the late 1990s, my teams have never seriously considered relocating and each of the teams have viable stadiums or arenas, but if one day the Celtics owners said, "Look, we need X-amount of dollars or we're becoming the Seattle Celtics," I'd be more than OK breaking out the checkbook and saying, "Whatever it takes to keep local basketball on my television from October through April." If that makes me a bad person, then so be it.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 23,998
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Dec 21, 2015 21:33:29 GMT -5
All stadiums should have the majority of their budgets come from the owners of the teams, not the taxpayers. These owners have enough play money to buy a sports team in the first place, they should break out the wallet for their stadiums. End of.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 22, 2015 0:48:54 GMT -5
As long as owners have the threat of relocation, never.
If you think of sports as entertainment spending rather than investment, and put it in the same frield as arts spending, ,then it ecomes a little more palatable of a thought. It's not going to make a city oney, but it will add to the amenities for a city to help draw people that wil make the city money (whether that actually happens depends on a lot of other factors, obviously). However, I think a decent compromise is that the city owns the stadium and the team has to pay for its use on the night (with obvious contracts in place to assure that the team has first use).
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Dec 23, 2015 16:51:44 GMT -5
Was there something wrong with the Georgia Dome that we needed a new one right next to it?
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 23, 2015 16:59:02 GMT -5
This video got me on my recent John Oliver kick. Guy is great.
|
|