What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
74 Comments
- Briandrews15, on 01/30/2009, -1/+35That's how the market works. Investing is a risk.
If big investors think its too much of a risk for their money, then it probably is. - mrsteveman1, on 01/30/2009, -5/+24Cry me a ***** river, its a GAME.
- spiderman222, on 01/30/2009, -0/+18Yeah, spend millions of our public money on the stadium. Then charge us $10 for a beer at a game...or make it so unreasonably expensive that the regular Joes can't even afford to take their families there. Why do we allow this to happen?
- Khast, on 01/30/2009, -1/+17In Washington, the Mariners and Seahawks both got new Stadiums. The old stadiums were multi-use, and did bring in money for the state, whereas the new stadiums are predominantly used for sports, and bring the owners the income when rented.
The Seattle King Dome when torn down, the State of Washington still owed 10 million on the building....a total loss for the state. It would have maybe cost $2 million to repair the problems, but the F'ing sports teams whined and threatened to move.
I say, go ahead and move, I would've rather the King Dome, which had far more interesting events when you ***** weren't playing. - theskillwithin, on 01/30/2009, -2/+18***** That.
- audiluv, on 01/30/2009, -0/+14When my wife was a public school teacher in Chicago, her intercity school ran out of basic supplies three months into the school year. This while public funding renovated Soldier Field.
- macsox, on 01/30/2009, -0/+14I went to Ohio State. About the time I was leaving, there was a big push to commit public money to building a hockey arena, as the window for getting an NHL franchise was closing. Happily, it required a public vote.
Election Day came, and the initiative lost. Lots of hand-wringing...
...for about 24 hours. Then Nationwide said, basically, "JK! We'll pay for it!" And thus the BlueJackets were born.
Business is all about leveraging money to make themselves more money. If that's tax money, fine by them. - inactive, on 01/30/2009, -2/+15If the demand doesn't exist to support the stadium without public cash, then building it with public cash is still losing money...
- spartan777, on 01/30/2009, -1/+13soak the poor for the benefit of the uber-rich. taxes that pay for sports stadiums always affect the poor and middle class the most, and benefit the uber rich the most.
- inactive, on 01/30/2009, -2/+13This is why the federal government needs to outlaw these tax bidding wars between cities. Uber-rich owners holding communities hostage for government handouts is a form of economic terrorism.
- Wolfie351, on 01/30/2009, -0/+11What I can't stand is that the public pays for a stadium, then gets a tv blackout if the game doesn't sell out. You can't watch what you helped pay for
- GPulse, on 01/30/2009, -1/+9Kraft built Gillette Stadium without public cash.
- spiderman222, on 01/30/2009, -0/+7Maybe the whole crazy sports funding ideal will come crashing down with this recession? No more multi-million dollar contracts, etc. Who really pays for it all in the end?
- thelastcivilian, on 01/30/2009, -5/+11It's not the owners' fault. There's always someone who WILL give them money, so why not try to force the hand of local government through threat of relocation and save a few bucks in the process?
I would think that part of the problem is that public ownership of professional sports teams is for the most part not allowed by the leagues (the Green Bay Packers are the only exception to this if I'm not mistaken), so then the public is necessarily going to be put in a position of confrontation with a private investor. - Dumbledorito, on 01/30/2009, -0/+6Bush II made his fortune by buying shares in the Texas Rangers, getting taxpayers to pony up TIF money, then selling his interest when the value of the team rose due to a new stadium. I hope he told the taxpayers "thank you."
The team still sucked, though. - beachtrader, on 01/30/2009, -0/+6From Wikipedia:
Originally estimated to cost $650 million, the stadium's current construction cost is in excess of $1 billion, which would make it one of the most expensive sports venues ever built. To aid Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones in paying the construction costs of the new stadium, Arlington voters approved the increase of the city's sales tax by one-half of a percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent. The City of Arlington will provide $325 million in funding, and Jones will cover any cost overruns. Also, the NFL will provide the Cowboys with an additional $150 million, as per their policy for giving teams a certain lump sum of money for stadium financing. - brandita, on 01/30/2009, -0/+5Yea I think its funny that they can pay the players millions of dollars but can't afford a stadium. Then of course if they don't get their money they threaten to leave your city.
- gixxer600, on 01/30/2009, -1/+6***** that ***** either everyone gets in free or just say ***** them and take take that money and spent it on infrastructure or kids center and parks WTF man that's unfair
- digghasnoethics, on 01/30/2009, -0/+5In the UK its usually the team that needs to give the local council some form of kickback to be allowed to build a new stadium - usually in the form of some public works improvement or social housing. The idea that the local people should pay would be greeted with mirth.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Stadium - Taiyoryu, on 01/30/2009, -0/+4It's not a risk for investors when the public pays for a good portion of the cost, but don't have any ownership shares. Another example of socializing the loss and privatizing the profit.
- kooredaan, on 01/30/2009, -1/+5Studies over the years, from the Brookings Institute and beyond, have shown that the supposed extra revenue owners claim a new stadium will produce, doesn't exist. And it doesn't.
I love sports and going to sporting events, but there is absolutely no reason to have a fully funded publicly financed stadium in any city. Also there should be no reason to have one sport stadiums either. It is a complete waste of money.
If my tax moneys are going to go somewhere, I'd strongly prefer that they go to new parks or zoos or schools, etc.
Publicly financed stadiums is a scam. 90% of teams wouldn't come close to moving to another city and if they do (OKC Thunder), 90% of those will be looking to move again in 5-6 years. Clay Bennett (OKC Thunder owner) asked for a fully financed stadium. Didn't get it, but the people of Seattle offered a majority publicly funded one. He still said no. Moving from one of the largest and basketball enthused cities to a small market city will come back to haunt him in the long run.
Same with most teams. NYC should never have given the Yankees or Mets a single dime. Does anyone really think either of those teams thrive without being in NYC? I don't. They need NYC more than NYC needs them (and sadly I'm a Mets fan).
Do you think Al Davis made smart decisions moving the Raiders back and forth between LA and Oakland? The Rams are even supposedly looking to move to a new stadium/city because St. Louis isn't cutting it anymore.
Don't fall for these crazy owner's scaring the public of moving their team..... Ain't going to happen and even if it does, if you have a good fan base someone will jump right back in and take it.
Anyway, give me schools, zoos, parks, museums, etc over a publicly funded stadium any day of the week and I'd much rather go to see a ball game over a painting. - rightwingkiller, on 01/30/2009, -0/+4As already posted, Bob Kraft built Gillette Stadium for the Pats without Public money and has now expanded it to Patriot Place with shops, theaters and clubs.
What teh State paid for was what they should have covered, namely the needed improvements to the surroundimng roads and infrastructure.
The taxpayer should not be saddled with creating stadiums for multi-millionaires. - Richandler, on 01/30/2009, -9/+12The problem with asking private investors to partake in buying a system is the potential threat that if your team sucks, you won't be able to pay back financiers due to low attendance.
- danwgre, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3You think? That mentality didn't work out so good for San Antonio and their "Every Odd Year, Final-Four Dome"
- mrsteveman1, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3China
- josh42042, on 01/31/2009, -0/+3mother-*****
- masamunecyrus, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3Not true. Some teams like Detroit, the former Indianapolis Colts, and even the Cardinals have had owners who, as soon as a player shows some talent, they trade them so that they don't become expensive. The NFL makes a TON of money regardless of whether or not a team wins or loses, all based off of ad revenues. In addition to that, the NFL is run sort of Communistically, in which the money is dispersed throughout the league, so a team with a 0-16 record receives the same amount of cash as a 16-0 record team.
That said, football stadiums cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is a lot of money to make up. At least here in Indianapolis, there was a big stink about raising taxes for the football stadium, and I don't blame the people who are angry. The argument is, however, that the stadium is used for things other than just football, and the upcoming SuperBowl could potentially bring in over $1 billion to the state, which more than offsets the cost of the stadium. Of course, they probably won't refund the cost of the taxes, though. ;-) - MothBoy, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3It absolutely IS the owners fault. Their entire business model is built on extorting stadiums from cities by using the threat of moving. For the last 15 years, the primary threat used has been the open LA market. In that time 20 stadiums have been built and 2 more are scheduled to come on line in the next few years.
The value of NFL franchises (and other sports teams) goes up almost dollar for dollar the amount they are given for a new stadium. - grey580, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3We are going through the same ***** in Miami for the Marlins. They want tax payer dollars to pay for a new stadium. And right now I just can't see the justification for the city to give money for a new stadium for the Marlins. Especially when they already play in the Dolphins stadium.
Joe Robbie was able to build the Dolphins stadium without help from the city or county. I don't see why other teams can't do that themselves. - FlyingCaveman, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3You don't get to be a billionaire by spending your OWN money, Its much safer to risk OPM (Other Peoples Money).
- jsilver123, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2there are many stadiums that have been built without public funds!
- danwgre, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2The city of Arlington is a sports whore. I'm sure they are scheming ways at this moment as to how they can divert funds, so they can afford to move the Stars and Mavericks there as well.
- davefavic, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2Bob Kraft, owner of the Patriots, built the new stadium with his own money. Not a bad franchise, huh? Oh wait they employ the evil Bill Belicheck who must have stole the money for the stadium.
- inactive, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2Neither did the San Francisco Giants. Pac Bell Park is a gem, and the $20M per year mortgage is paid for by the team, from revenues of people WHO SUPPORT THE TEAM. Novel concept these days.
Thank you, Mr. Magowan, for saving my favorite baseball team. - itsJALbert, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2You allow it to happen because your (the fans) collective demand curve for beer is such that you're willing to pay the high prices. If beer didn't sell (in a quantity x price that comes close to maximizing their profit from beer sales) at $10, they wouldn't sell it for $10.
- digghasnoethics, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2Yep.
- chesterogilvie, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2It is amazing what he's done with the area. Foxboro Stadium was just a big, outdated stadium in the middle of a field surrounded by parking lots. I just went down to Patriots Place recently (PP is like a retail/entertainment/etc. stripmall surrounding the stadium) and it FAR exceeded my expectations.
- dmoney51, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2"I have yet to find a single economist who thinks there's any substantial impact from sports facilities." Maybe the economists don't see this but when the Bullets/Wizards and the Capitals moved back in to DC the area MCI/Verizon Center was in was about 1 step above a warzone, and now its the place to go in DC. Same thing with the stadium area in Detroit, you cannot tell me having those stadiums right there doesn't help open stores and resturaunts in the surrounds neighborhood.
Also, Ralph Kent Cooke built what is now FedEx Stadium with mainly his own money, and it is one of the worst stadiums I've ever been too, I wouldn't have minded some public money to build something that the area could be proud of or point to as a landmark. - MothBoy, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2OK, but since a major percentage of the value of a franchise is the new stadium that was built by taxpayers, then the taxpayers should assume that percentage ownership of the team.
Try bringing that up with an NFL owner and see what they say. - thurows, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2Colleges have the benefit of having alumni with deep pockets. Pro sports just want a hand out while they have another hand in your pocket.
- itsJALbert, on 02/11/2009, -0/+1Preface: As a left-leaning moderate economist, I can't say that I've ever been accused of being a Rush follower before.
They're not "demanding handouts from the government" if you define the government at some nebulous entity. They're saying, "Our team provides an economic benefit of <x> that we don't get paid for. Either recoup us some of that money that the city gains for free from us, or we'll move to a place that will."
Note: Obviously they make plenty of money in other ways, but they still provide a positive externality to the cities that they are not compensated for. How much it actually *is* is still a matter for debate... it varies wildly on whether you listen to figures from pro-stadium lobbyists or anti-stadium lobbyists.
As a simple and different explanation, imagine that you're a farmer, and I'm a beekeeper. My bees provide an extra $X worth of productivity to your farm due to them flying over and pollinating your plants. You're getting value that I'm not getting compensated for. If Farmer Bob across the way offers me $X-1 (and assuming costs of moving are negligible) to move my beekeeping operation next to his farm, that sounds fairly attractive. At this point, I tell you that "Y'know, I really don't want to bother with the hassle of moving and all... but Farmer Bob is offering me a good chunk of change to move over there. How about matching his offer?"
That's not terrorism, that's reasonable business sense in my book. Yes, sports owners come across as being douchey for this reason, but they didn't get to be billionaires by playing nice in the business world, they became super-rich by making profit maximizing decisions. - orithidon, on 01/30/2009, -0/+1So why doesn't the NFL front this distribution of funds into new stadiums?
Do you really think that $1B in revenue to the state would actually be returned to the taxpayers?
Tell me where the $1B would go.... Is it towards education, infrastructure, or charity? - itsJALbert, on 01/30/2009, -0/+1Players are paid near to their marginal revenue product, that is to say they're paid just about how much money they make the team. Without <10 million dollar star player> the team would do substantially worse, and fans would be less interested, spending less on tickets/merchandise/beer. If it wasn't worth it to the owner (who is a profit maximizing businessman) to pay the player 10 million, they wouldn't offer the players 10 million.
All the high prices fans complain about? They're high because that's what fans are willing to pay. - inactive, on 01/30/2009, -1/+2How is demanding handouts from the government "free market capitalism"? Or do you define "free market capitalism" as "whatever Rush tells me it is"?
- MothBoy, on 01/30/2009, -0/+1The last link is broken. Here is the corrected link:
http://www.greatamericanjobsscam.com/Chapters/Chap ... - mrmod, on 01/30/2009, -0/+1Giants stadium has brought a lot of revenue to the swamp it resides in
- DigitalisAkujin, on 02/02/2009, -0/+1Yea but in that argument you would have to have an elected body of people make marketing decisions. You can't just "do it". It takes competency and the approval of the people. Then what happens when there's a percentage of the population that doesn't like that. An elected official then has to think about their own performance in the next election. So lets say s/he takes that approach and creates a big thing out of it. It's gonna become a bigger issue than it should have been.
Maybe if they require that the team be publicly held but allow a private entity to have a 51% stake.
I think there's an argument that socialism could work in many industries (petroleum,banks,construction) but not this.... - Taiyoryu, on 01/30/2009, -0/+1A winning team does not mean they deserve tax money anymore than a losing team. In fact, a winning team with a profitable franchise should be able to buy their own facilities.
- Atomic1fire, on 01/31/2009, -0/+1Except in my opinion,
It would be much better to have the city buy the team, and just sell shares of the team to other people so they can make income off it, and then have the shares slowly be bought buy multiple people, until the team is no longer owned by the city,
That way they "hopefully" get the money back, and make extra on the side. - mrmod, on 01/30/2009, -0/+1Exactly. We're all over the finance people, and rightly so, but don't seem to care that players are getting upwards of $20 million a year to play for 6 months. Then, we're getting told to pay for their stadiums And endure ticket prices that prevent a middle class family of four from ever attending and getting even decent seats.
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is