PDA

View Full Version : Should tax payers front the bill?



GiantSinceBirth78
05-09-2012, 11:00 AM
Should tax payers assume part of the bill to rebuild stadiums? At first I was all for tax payers contributing, but after further review I find that owners should front 100% of the bill. My reasoning is pretty simple.

If a company wants to run a business they pay for the costs. If they cant afford it, get out of the business or take a loan like everyone else.

GMENAGAIN
05-09-2012, 11:03 AM
Eh, I think that it's a little more complicated than that . . . .

GiantSinceBirth78
05-09-2012, 11:08 AM
Indeed. But, look at the underlying principal. You have a business, you want to improve it or lose profit, you need to pay for your upgrades.

GiantSinceBirth78
05-09-2012, 11:11 AM
I think Minny got it right by making the owners pay for their stadium. The tax payers there want nothing to do with paying for that stadium. Are the tax payers receiving profit? nope.

Look at what the Giants org did to the fans and tax payers. Tax payers front half the bill on the stadium and then have to pay upwards of 20k to but a seat, then pay for tickets. Amazing.

Why? to pay for costs? Dig into your own pockets and pay for costs.

Your profit, your bill.

GiantSinceBirth78
05-09-2012, 11:13 AM
That about wraps up my half hearted rant.

2178
05-09-2012, 11:13 AM
I believe a very good point is raised here and is something that needs more exposure and debate. Other than public utilities, no business charges their customers for the infratructure to run their business. True, costs are passed onto customers via a pricing margin per saleable item over time to recoup construction cost and daily cost of doing business, but not via Taxpayer dollars.

Why should Aunt Mary's taxes pay for a stadium to be owned by a team for an activity she will never be a part of? Per the analogy above, if Aunt Mary goes to a store and buys an item, she pays that recoup margin by her own designs.
Sorry, Basketball venues, Baseball Stadiums, Football stadiums, need to be paid by their owners. UNLESS, as in the bold move in Minnesota, there is a provision that those footing even a portion of the bill for building the stadium, are forever enjoined from blackouts of primary events at the venue they paid for.

Just my 2 cents.

Morehead State
05-09-2012, 11:19 AM
Every city has a different situation. The loss of the Vikings would devistate the Twin cities.</P>


Can the city recoup the cost? These things have to be worked out.</P>


In the end, Minny will get its stadium. No way Ziggy moves it to LA. He's a good Giants fan. Therefore, a man of character.</P>

BigBlueHits
05-09-2012, 11:31 AM
so by your logic if I don't have children why do I have to pay school taxes? for the record I agree with you.

Bohemian
05-09-2012, 11:38 AM
I have a really hard time seeing fans pay for stuff that do not give them anything in return. I really think that property development projects, like stadiums have to show to contribute to the fans' bottom line... and so far, I just don't see it. I think that public-private partnerships are not a bad way to go, but there has to be some solid conditions and returns guaranteed for the fans and relevant communities.

GiantSteps13
05-09-2012, 11:44 AM
so by your logic if I don't have children why do I have to pay school taxes? for the record I agree with you.

Paying school taxes is not the same. The school district is part of the public sector and is not a business. I;m all for paying taxes for a new stadium but they could at least bring down season and single ticket prices for the fans especially if were flipping the bill a part of the stadium

BJacobs aka The Problem
05-09-2012, 11:52 AM
I believe if the stadium is partly built with tax money, then the blackout rule should be removed.

There are benefits to the city/community for having the stadium there that the city/community does reap rewards from. One example, jobs. The stadium creates jobs due to the games and events.

My biggest thing though, it's a slap in the face to ask for tax payer money to build a new stadium, then say, thanks for helping us build this, but now you have to fill up the stadium in order to watch the game. The taxpayers contributed, they should have the option of going to the game or watching it from the comfort of their own homes.

Bohemian
05-09-2012, 11:54 AM
so by your logic if I don't have children why do I have to pay school taxes? for the record I agree with you.

Paying school taxes is not the same. The school district is part of the public sector and is not a business. I;m all for paying taxes for a new stadium but they could at least bring down season and single ticket prices for the fans especially if were flipping the bill a part of the stadium

I was looking for making the trip to NY last fall, and I was specifically interested in going to my first Giants game, but the ticket prices were completely absurd. If the ticket had cost me under $100, I would have gone. The tickets were $150 and up... that is insane.

I really don't like Buffalo as a city, town, or whatever that depressing place is... so I just figure that my next opportunity I could just make the trip down to crappy Windsor, and cross the bridge to see the Lions play. I am not a big fan of the Lions, but they are an intriguing team.

I just wish that I could go and watch my favorite team without feeling like I am being ripped off.

THE_New_York_Giants
05-09-2012, 11:56 AM
It depends on if the city wants to own the stadium. There are pros and cons to it. However I think it's a disgrace that cities can use eminent domain to tear down peoples' homes just to build a new stadium.

Sundown
05-09-2012, 12:01 PM
It's absolutely absurd to ask tax payers (in a relatively weak economy) to front that bill. The people are going to pay more in taxes, most likely have to pay psl along w merchandise and concessions.... The owner makes over a billion and refuses to pay an additional 150mil? Hell he's getting that much in tv revenue alone. The owner is a greedy pos IMO

lamas
05-09-2012, 12:05 PM
I think Minny got it right by making the owners pay <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-0" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> their <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-16" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">stadium</layer>. The tax payers there want nothing to do with paying <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-1" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> that <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-17" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">stadium</layer>. Are the tax payers receiving profit? nope.

Look at what the Giants org did to the fans and tax payers. Tax payers front <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-10" style="background-color: Chartreuse; color: black;">half</layer> the bill on the <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-18" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">stadium</layer> and then have to pay upwards <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-12" style="background-color: Dodgerblue; color: black;">of</layer> 20k to but a seat, then pay <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-2" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> tickets. Amazing.

Why? to pay <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-3" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> costs? Dig into your own pockets and pay <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-4" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> costs.

Your profit, your bill.

You sure that tax payers paid for half of the new stadium? I think it was funded by Jets and Giants privately. (Old) Giants Stadium is another story.

Also, the reason ticket prices are so high is because of demand. Millions of fans fighting for 80,000 seats. The price goes up because people pay for it.

Bohemian
05-09-2012, 12:11 PM
It depends on if the city wants to own the stadium. There are pros and cons to it. However I think it's a disgrace that cities can use eminent domain to tear down peoples' homes just to build a new stadium.

As a person living outside the United States, I had no idea that that still existed in the United States. I have seen projects in the Caribbean, where the government and the private sector partner have been made to reorganize their plans around resilient communities. I have seen slums become working neighbourhoods due to their resilience against mega development projects, and that was only possible because of the inability of the state to apply eminent domain acquisition. In one case, I even know of a small group of families that got all kinds of perks, only because they would not move when the government wanted to vacation resort build in their area... so then ended up having free access to the resort and its facilities, in return for keeping us maintenance of their property in a manner consistent with the resort... which the resort mostly provided.

I am not the biggest libertarian around, but I am not cool with taking out people's homes to building non-essential services.

greenca190
05-09-2012, 12:11 PM
I think Minny got it right by making the owners pay <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-0" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> their <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-16" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">stadium</layer>. The tax payers there want nothing to do with paying <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-1" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> that <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-17" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">stadium</layer>. Are the tax payers receiving profit? nope.

Look at what the Giants org did to the fans and tax payers. Tax payers front <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-10" style="background-color: Chartreuse; color: black;">half</layer> the bill on the <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-18" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">stadium</layer> and then have to pay upwards <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-12" style="background-color: Dodgerblue; color: black;">of</layer> 20k to but a seat, then pay <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-2" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> tickets. Amazing.

Why? to pay <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-3" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> costs? Dig into your own pockets and pay <layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-4" style="background-color: Fuchsia; color: black;">for</layer> costs.

Your profit, your bill.

You sure that tax payers paid for half of the new stadium?* I think it was funded by Jets and Giants privately.* (Old) Giants Stadium is another story.

Also, the reason ticket prices are so high is because of demand.* Millions of fans fighting for 80,000 seats.* The price goes up because people pay for it.


I've actually been wondering this for some time as well. I could've sworn I heard it was privately funded by the two organizations, but who else does that? Then also, who pays taxes on it? New York? New Jersey? Both?

THE_New_York_Giants
05-09-2012, 12:21 PM
It depends on if the city wants to own the stadium. There are pros and cons to it. However I think it's a disgrace that cities can use eminent domain to tear down peoples' homes just to build a new stadium.

As a person living outside the United States, I had no idea that that still existed in the United States.* I have seen projects in the Caribbean, where the government and the private sector partner have been made to reorganize their plans around resilient communities.* I have seen slums become working neighbourhoods due to their resilience against mega development projects, and that was only possible because of the inability of the state to apply eminent domain acquisition.* In one case, I even know of a small group of families that got all kinds of perks, only because they would not move when the government wanted to vacation resort build in their area... so then ended up having free access to the resort and its facilities, in return for keeping us maintenance of their property in a manner consistent with the resort... which the resort mostly provided.*

I am not the biggest libertarian around, but I am not cool with taking out people's homes to building non-essential services.


Agreed 100%. The best example is the Cowboys stadium. They kicked about 100 people out of their homes and tore down a huge middle class neighborhood.

Bohemian
05-09-2012, 12:41 PM
It depends on if the city wants to own the stadium. There are pros and cons to it. However I think it's a disgrace that cities can use eminent domain to tear down peoples' homes just to build a new stadium.

As a person living outside the United States, I had no idea that that still existed in the United States. I have seen projects in the Caribbean, where the government and the private sector partner have been made to reorganize their plans around resilient communities. I have seen slums become working neighbourhoods due to their resilience against mega development projects, and that was only possible because of the inability of the state to apply eminent domain acquisition. In one case, I even know of a small group of families that got all kinds of perks, only because they would not move when the government wanted to vacation resort build in their area... so then ended up having free access to the resort and its facilities, in return for keeping us maintenance of their property in a manner consistent with the resort... which the resort mostly provided.

I am not the biggest libertarian around, but I am not cool with taking out people's homes to building non-essential services.


Agreed 100%. The best example is the Cowboys stadium. They kicked about 100 people out of their homes and tore down a huge middle class neighborhood.

I had no idea. I have always said that the middle-class are nothing but glorified working class, and the Dallas example really prove that. You would think that the middle class would have the political leverage to protect their private interests and vision... but it is sickening. Traditionally, it was the Chavez Ravine working class type communities that were victims of huge mega projects, like Dodger Stadium, but to think that the middle class would not have the ability to stop Jerry Jones is a scary thought. I know that we should do our best to keep politics out of this board, but the issue of private property and economic development is too important to put aside. The whole point of the revolutions all over this hemisphere was to protect the integrity of private interest from arbitrary power. If the people in Cochabamba, Chiapas and countless of other communities have been able to deal with similar issues, it is unfortunate that citizens of the most established democracy in the word are not able to do likewise... perhaps it is because they are too entrenched in their institutional lens. I really think that we have to start putting sports in perspective again... as much as I love to spend my weekends watching American football. I am an NFL junky, and NFL Network is what I mostly watch.... but I know that it is pathological in my part. A year without my Giants is hard to imagine... but I have to protest for my right to dignity before anything else.

galaxy10
05-09-2012, 12:49 PM
I think another factor is whether the stadium, its building, and subsequent running creates jobs and revenue for the city. Hopefully somebody has crunched the numbers on what the city is getting versus what the taxpayers lose in helping to pay for the stadium and a long term analysis is also probably in order.

FresnoGiant
05-09-2012, 12:49 PM
While I agree that the owners should be responsible for stadium costs, I have to disagree with the notion that the taxpayers don't profit from the local team. NFL franchises generate huge amounts of revenue for their local economy. The city (including taxpayers) profits through more jobs, increased tourism, merchandizing, etc.

Tha sad reality now is that many of the owners can not afford the cost of new stadium projects. Most are upwards of a billion dollars now, and not all the owners can foot that bill. The cities stand to lose too much if the team moves or shut down. So, they ask taxpayers to help out. I don't like it either, but it is a necessity.

jomo
05-09-2012, 01:01 PM
It depends on if the city wants to own the stadium. There are pros and cons to it. However I think it's a disgrace that cities can use eminent domain to tear down peoples' homes just to build a new stadium.

As a person living outside the United States, I had no idea that that still existed in the United States.* I have seen projects in the Caribbean, where the government and the private sector partner have been made to reorganize their plans around resilient communities.* I have seen slums become working neighbourhoods due to their resilience against mega development projects, and that was only possible because of the inability of the state to apply eminent domain acquisition.* In one case, I even know of a small group of families that got all kinds of perks, only because they would not move when the government wanted to vacation resort build in their area... so then ended up having free access to the resort and its facilities, in return for keeping us maintenance of their property in a manner consistent with the resort... which the resort mostly provided.*

I am not the biggest libertarian around, but I am not cool with taking out people's homes to building non-essential services.


Agreed 100%. The best example is the Cowboys stadium. They kicked about 100 people out of their homes and tore down a huge middle class neighborhood.

I had no idea.* I have always said that the middle-class are nothing but glorified working class, and the Dallas example really prove that.* You would think that the middle class would have the political leverage to protect their private interests and vision... but it is sickening.* Traditionally, it was the Chavez Ravine working class type communities that were victims of huge mega projects, like Dodger Stadium, but to think that the middle class would not have the ability to stop Jerry Jones is a scary thought.* I know that we should do our best to keep politics out of this board, but the issue of private property and economic development is too important to put aside.* The whole point of the revolutions all over this hemisphere was to protect the integrity of private interest from arbitrary power.* If the people in Cochabamba, Chiapas and countless of other communities have been able to deal with similar issues, it is unfortunate that citizens of the most established democracy in the word are not able to do likewise... perhaps it is because they are too entrenched in their institutional lens.* I really think that we have to start putting sports in perspective again... as much as I love to spend my weekends watching American football.* I am an NFL junky, and NFL Network is what I mostly watch.... but I know that it is pathological in my part.* A year without my Giants is hard to imagine... but I have to protest for my right to dignity before anything else.
The Supreme Court, in a "bi-partisan" way, trampled over property rights of Americans in a very disheartening decision a few years ago. The concept of eminent domain means that govenment can take back (purchase) someone's private property for the greater good of the community. That greater good used to mean schools, roads, railroads etc. The Supreme Court's last decision extended that "greater good" to mean economic vitality for the community. They ruled in support of steam rolling low income housing in favor of upscale retail space (which by the way hasn't done so wel). Judges from the left and from the right almost unanimously supported the ruling of the lower court. It left me scratching my head and looking for a glass of bourbon, no ice!

THE_New_York_Giants
05-09-2012, 01:02 PM
It depends on if the city wants to own the stadium. There are pros and cons to it. However I think it's a disgrace that cities can use eminent domain to tear down peoples' homes just to build a new stadium.

As a person living outside the United States, I had no idea that that still existed in the United States.* I have seen projects in the Caribbean, where the government and the private sector partner have been made to reorganize their plans around resilient communities.* I have seen slums become working neighbourhoods due to their resilience against mega development projects, and that was only possible because of the inability of the state to apply eminent domain acquisition.* In one case, I even know of a small group of families that got all kinds of perks, only because they would not move when the government wanted to vacation resort build in their area... so then ended up having free access to the resort and its facilities, in return for keeping us maintenance of their property in a manner consistent with the resort... which the resort mostly provided.*

I am not the biggest libertarian around, but I am not cool with taking out people's homes to building non-essential services.


Agreed 100%. The best example is the Cowboys stadium. They kicked about 100 people out of their homes and tore down a huge middle class neighborhood.

I had no idea.* I have always said that the middle-class are nothing but glorified working class, and the Dallas example really prove that.* You would think that the middle class would have the political leverage to protect their private interests and vision... but it is sickening.* Traditionally, it was the Chavez Ravine working class type communities that were victims of huge mega projects, like Dodger Stadium, but to think that the middle class would not have the ability to stop Jerry Jones is a scary thought.* I know that we should do our best to keep politics out of this board, but the issue of private property and economic development is too important to put aside.* The whole point of the revolutions all over this hemisphere was to protect the integrity of private interest from arbitrary power.* If the people in Cochabamba, Chiapas and countless of other communities have been able to deal with similar issues, it is unfortunate that citizens of the most established democracy in the word are not able to do likewise... perhaps it is because they are too entrenched in their institutional lens.* I really think that we have to start putting sports in perspective again... as much as I love to spend my weekends watching American football.* I am an NFL junky, and NFL Network is what I mostly watch.... but I know that it is pathological in my part.* A year without my Giants is hard to imagine... but I have to protest for my right to dignity before anything else.


The worst part is that cities have used this as a precedent so a lot of cities are tearing down homes to build shopping malls in prime locations now. The USA is in the ****ter, but for different reasons that have resulted from things like this. It has about 5 years left before there is a total collapse.

THE_New_York_Giants
05-09-2012, 01:04 PM
It depends on if the city wants to own the stadium. There are pros and cons to it. However I think it's a disgrace that cities can use eminent domain to tear down peoples' homes just to build a new stadium.

As a person living outside the United States, I had no idea that that still existed in the United States.* I have seen projects in the Caribbean, where the government and the private sector partner have been made to reorganize their plans around resilient communities.* I have seen slums become working neighbourhoods due to their resilience against mega development projects, and that was only possible because of the inability of the state to apply eminent domain acquisition.* In one case, I even know of a small group of families that got all kinds of perks, only because they would not move when the government wanted to vacation resort build in their area... so then ended up having free access to the resort and its facilities, in return for keeping us maintenance of their property in a manner consistent with the resort... which the resort mostly provided.*

I am not the biggest libertarian around, but I am not cool with taking out people's homes to building non-essential services.


Agreed 100%. The best example is the Cowboys stadium. They kicked about 100 people out of their homes and tore down a huge middle class neighborhood.

I had no idea.* I have always said that the middle-class are nothing but glorified working class, and the Dallas example really prove that.* You would think that the middle class would have the political leverage to protect their private interests and vision... but it is sickening.* Traditionally, it was the Chavez Ravine working class type communities that were victims of huge mega projects, like Dodger Stadium, but to think that the middle class would not have the ability to stop Jerry Jones is a scary thought.* I know that we should do our best to keep politics out of this board, but the issue of private property and economic development is too important to put aside.* The whole point of the revolutions all over this hemisphere was to protect the integrity of private interest from arbitrary power.* If the people in Cochabamba, Chiapas and countless of other communities have been able to deal with similar issues, it is unfortunate that citizens of the most established democracy in the word are not able to do likewise... perhaps it is because they are too entrenched in their institutional lens.* I really think that we have to start putting sports in perspective again... as much as I love to spend my weekends watching American football.* I am an NFL junky, and NFL Network is what I mostly watch.... but I know that it is pathological in my part.* A year without my Giants is hard to imagine... but I have to protest for my right to dignity before anything else.
The Supreme Court, in a "bi-partisan" way, trampled over property rights of Americans in a very disheartening decision a few years ago. The concept of eminent domain means that govenment can take back (purchase) someone's private property for the greater good of the community. That greater good used to mean schools, roads, railroads etc. The Supreme Court's last decision extended that "greater good" to mean economic vitality for the community. They ruled in support of steam rolling low income housing in favor of upscale retail space (which by the way hasn't done so wel). Judges from the left and from the right almost unanimously supported the ruling of the lower court. It left me scratching my head and looking for a glass of bourbon, no ice!The worst part is that cities have used this as a precedent so a lot of cities are tearing down homes to build shopping malls in prime locations now. The USA is in the ****ter, but for different reasons that have resulted from things like this. It has about 5 years left before there is a total collapse. The sole function of the USA government now is to protect the status quo. Keep the same people in power and keep the money in the same pockets. That is only sustainable for so long. The politicians don't care as long as they still have control and their benefits. They'd gladly kill half the population for their own jumbo jet.

JJC7301
05-09-2012, 01:46 PM
I think Minny got it right by making the owners pay for their stadium. The tax payers there want nothing to do with paying for that stadium. Are the tax payers receiving profit? nope.

Look at what the Giants org did to the fans and tax payers. Tax payers front half the bill on the stadium and then have to pay upwards of 20k to but a seat, then pay for tickets. Amazing.

Why? to pay for costs? Dig into your own pockets and pay for costs.

Your profit, your bill.
I normally fall on the side that owners/league should pay for 100% of it, but I do believe that there are exceptions. Stadiums can really help improve and revitalize a geographic area with Camden Yards in Baltimore being the perfect example.

It has to make sense, but unfortunately there are too many times where there's no "common" in the sense part.

SweetZombieJesus
05-09-2012, 01:51 PM
Generally I think tax payers should be asked very little of, such as in our case the roads and rail improvements made to the New Meadowlands.

Of course the Giants have an example of the extreme opposite in their history. Giants Stadium was owned by the state of New Jersey and the state collected not only rent from the Giants but made money on the parking and concessions. Even worse for the Giants they spend what, about $10 million on upgrading the luxury box tower and got nothing in return for it equity wise. In such a case I think one can argue whether it's a wise investment for the state, but this case is rare in the first place.

Something like in Minnesota where the taxpayers foot the bill for stadium after stadium I am completely against. The owners throw tantrums and threaten to move unless they get a new stadium, and offering to build a new stadium is often the bait used to entice a team to move.

The problem we have here is that landing an NFL team for an area/city that doesn't have one is a big coup, costs be damned. There is power and prestige to be had.

Heck, do we forget Brendan Byrne, NJ Governor, put his own damned name on the arena?

I've always wondered how much they really contribute to the local economy. Sales taxes, sure, property taxes, sure, rich athletes' salaries, sure, corporate income taxes... I get the impression that a state laying out to build a stadium is not a fair deal but to be honest I don't know the actual figures of what they get back over the 20-30 year lifespan of a stadium.

SweetZombieJesus
05-09-2012, 01:57 PM
You sure that tax payers paid for half of the new stadium? I think it was funded by Jets and Giants privately. (Old) Giants Stadium is another story.


Agreed -- the Jets and Giants took on huge debt to pay for the stadium by themselves. Same with the Yankees.

All the state had to eat for the Meadowlands was some debt still left on the old stadium (which I don't see how that's the Giants' fault it's the state's fault) and they agreed to pay for infrastructure upgrades around the stadium -- to rework the roads and finish the rail line.

In the case of Yankee Stadium the new stadium sits where there used to be a park and I there was a dance that had to happen of eliminating the park and tearing down the old stadium that the city had to pay for and then the Yankees paid to build the new park where the old stadium stood, something like that.

THE_New_York_Giants
05-09-2012, 01:58 PM
Generally I think tax payers should be asked very little of, such as in our case the roads and rail improvements made to the New Meadowlands.

Of course the Giants have an example of the extreme opposite in their history.* Giants Stadium was owned by the state of New Jersey and the state collected not only rent from the Giants but made money on the parking and concessions.* Even worse for the Giants they spend what, about $10 million on upgrading the luxury box tower and got nothing in return for it equity wise.* In such a case I think one can argue whether it's a wise investment for the state, but this case is rare in the first place.

Something like in Minnesota where the taxpayers foot the bill for stadium after stadium I am completely against.* The owners throw tantrums and threaten to move unless they get a new stadium, and offering to build a new stadium is often the bait used to entice a team to move.

The problem we have here is that landing an NFL team for an area/city that doesn't have one is a big coup, costs be damned.* There is power and prestige to be had.

Heck, do we forget Brendan Byrne, NJ Governor, put his own damned name on the arena?

I've always wondered how much they really contribute to the local economy.* Sales taxes, sure, property taxes, sure, rich athletes' salaries, sure, corporate income taxes...* I get the impression that a state laying out to build a stadium is not a fair deal but to be honest I don't know the actual figures of what they get back over the 20-30 year lifespan of a stadium.


They contribute a lot of public debt. I read an article recently that talked about the economics of building new stadiums, getting the world cup, and getting the olympics. Most of the time, the city either loses money or breaks even while local business who were told they would get more business often see about the same business and more taxes. I'll see if I can find the article. The FIFA world cup royally screws the host country as FIFA collects most of the profits from it while the host country gets next to nothing in comparison. Stadiums are just a public display of grandeur, wealth, and wonder. I know I'd be much happier if we just had old Giants stadium back. The new stadium is essentially the same thing as the old stadium. On an unrelated note, If you can host a super bowl in this stadium, there is no reason you couldn't have hosted one in the old stadium.

Jet-Blue
05-09-2012, 02:27 PM
I think Minny got it right by making the owners pay for their stadium. The tax payers there want nothing to do with paying for that stadium. Are the tax payers receiving profit? nope.

Look at what the Giants org did to the fans and tax payers. Tax payers front half the bill on the stadium and then have to pay upwards of 20k to but a seat, then pay for tickets. Amazing.

Why? to pay for costs? Dig into your own pockets and pay for costs.

Your profit, your bill.


Why do you feel "Tax payers" paid anything towards the stadium? It was just the 2 teams and the Jet and Giant PSL Holders, not the general tax payers. Not sure where you got your information

RoanokeFan
05-09-2012, 02:38 PM
Should tax payers assume part of the bill to rebuild stadiums? At first I was all for tax payers contributing, but after further review I find that owners should front 100% of the bill. My reasoning is pretty simple.

If a company wants to run a business they pay for the costs. If they cant afford it, get out of the business or take a loan like everyone else.

If the state is a partner, yes. They reap the benefits of payroll taxes, business taxes, and additional revenue income for all of the ancillary businesses and employment that support a sports stadium.

The GIANTS and jets built our stadium on state owned property. The state gets rental fees, taxes on food/beverages etc. So the State of N.J. maintains the "property" at a cost which I suspect is more than offset by they money they take in.

Businesses very often are given incentives to build or expand. Sports venues are cash cows for those in partnership.

RoanokeFan
05-09-2012, 02:38 PM
Should tax payers assume part of the bill to rebuild stadiums? At first I was all for tax payers contributing, but after further review I find that owners should front 100% of the bill. My reasoning is pretty simple.

If a company wants to run a business they pay for the costs. If they cant afford it, get out of the business or take a loan like everyone else.

If the state is a partner, yes. They reap the benefits of payroll taxes, business taxes, and additional revenue income for all of the ancillary businesses and employment that support a sports stadium.

The GIANTS and jets built our stadium on state owned property. The state gets rental fees, taxes on food/beverages etc. So the State of N.J. maintains the "property" at a cost which I suspect is more than offset by they money they take in.

Businesses very often are given incentives to build or expand. Sports venues are cash cows for those in partnership.

B&RWarrior
05-09-2012, 02:58 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane.

If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires.

With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium?

Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare.

If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.

Morehead State
05-09-2012, 03:20 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane. If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires. With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium? Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare. If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.</P>


I believe our stadium was completely privately financed. But don't forget it was built by two teams and the league gave a double donation (I think it was around $200MM per team).</P>


So it was much easier to build in our case. (Still don't understand why there isn't a sliding roof)</P>

jomo
05-09-2012, 04:34 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane. If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires. With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium? Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare. If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.</P>


I believe our stadium was completely privately financed.* But don't forget it was built by two teams and the league gave a double donation (I think it was around $200MM per team).</P>


So it was much easier to build in our case. (Still don't understand why there isn't a sliding roof)</P>There was also at least 20% patronage paid to the unions which added significantly to the total price tag.

Morehead State
05-09-2012, 04:40 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane. If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires. With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium? Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare. If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.</P>


I believe our stadium was completely privately financed. But don't forget it was built by two teams and the league gave a double donation (I think it was around $200MM per team).</P>


So it was much easier to build in our case. (Still don't understand why there isn't a sliding roof)</P>


There was also at least 20% patronage paid to the unions which added significantly to the total price tag.</P>


That must explain why its such a crap stadium for $1B plus.</P>

bg79
05-09-2012, 04:44 PM
This is a situation that always draws my ire. I was and almost always am on the side of the owners, as business owners in their battles with the players. But in these situations I don't want them receiving a dime in tax payer subsidies to pay for their private venues. The bad thing is that precedent has been set by other locales and for other sports in stupid attempts to lure teams or falling victim to fear of losing their team and thus paying for these stadiums with the public dime. Study after study has shown that sports teams have minimal if any effect on the local economy and do not offset the costs that they command in building their venues. The NFL frankly is in the least of positions to hold their hand out as the league is the wealthiest amongst all the leagues and thus the teams are as well. The NFL should give no interest loans out to the teams for financing their stadiums. If the whole point of it is they need the modern venue to make the profits they desire then they should have no problem repaying the NFL back. If they want to throw a fit and leave, let them. The only people that will care are the small minority of the total state population who are die hard viking fans and let California and their tax payers incur yet another thing to help bankrupt their state.

SweetZombieJesus
05-09-2012, 04:45 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane.

I'm sure LA said the same thing in 1994.

jomo
05-09-2012, 04:46 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane. If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires. With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium? Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare. If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.</P>


I believe our stadium was completely privately financed.* But don't forget it was built by two teams and the league gave a double donation (I think it was around $200MM per team).</P>


So it was much easier to build in our case. (Still don't understand why there isn't a sliding roof)</P>


There was also at least 20% patronage paid to the unions which added significantly to the total price tag.</P>


That must explain why its such a crap stadium for $1B plus.</P>Jerry Jones (spit on his shoes) got a much better deal for his money than we did but he didn't have the union vig.

RoanokeFan
05-09-2012, 04:47 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane. If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires. With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium? Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare. If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.</p>


I believe our stadium was completely privately financed. But don't forget it was built by two teams and the league gave a double donation (I think it was around $200MM per team).</p>


So it was much easier to build in our case. (Still don't understand why there isn't a sliding roof)</p>

I think the sliding roof was a Wellington Mara dying wish. Like cheerleaders, he felt some things needed to be the left alone. I am pretty sure he felt football was made to be played in the elements. Probably rooted in The Sneakers Game (NFL Championship) of 1934.

RoanokeFan
05-09-2012, 04:49 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane. If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires. With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium? Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare. If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.</p>


I believe our stadium was completely privately financed. But don't forget it was built by two teams and the league gave a double donation (I think it was around $200MM per team).</p>


So it was much easier to build in our case. (Still don't understand why there isn't a sliding roof)</p>


There was also at least 20% patronage paid to the unions which added significantly to the total price tag.</p>


That must explain why its such a crap stadium for $1B plus.</p>\\

Crap stadium?

RoanokeFan
05-09-2012, 04:51 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane. If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires. With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium? Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare. If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.</p>


I believe our stadium was completely privately financed. But don't forget it was built by two teams and the league gave a double donation (I think it was around $200MM per team).</p>


So it was much easier to build in our case. (Still don't understand why there isn't a sliding roof)</p>There was also at least 20% patronage paid to the unions which added significantly to the total price tag.

It's disgusting to think there was all of the extra money to guarantee labor peace and on on time completion date. It worked, but says a lot about "go along to get along" unionism.

Morehead State
05-09-2012, 04:53 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane. If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires. With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium? Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare. If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.</P>


I believe our stadium was completely privately financed. But don't forget it was built by two teams and the league gave a double donation (I think it was around $200MM per team).</P>


So it was much easier to build in our case. (Still don't understand why there isn't a sliding roof)</P>


There was also at least 20% patronage paid to the unions which added significantly to the total price tag.</P>


That must explain why its such a crap stadium for $1B plus.</P>


\\

Crap stadium?
</P>


The first time I went there I thought it was a nice stadium. I was sitting in 144 so the game was close.</P>


Last year we sat in 304 and I have never been so far away from the field in my life. It took like 10 minutes to adjust my eyes. Plus it's unbelievably boring.</P>


Jerry gets that awesome scoreboard, a sliding roof AND a cool design, and we get a gray, cold, mausoleum.</P>


And his stadium cost the same as ours.</P>

SweetZombieJesus
05-09-2012, 04:53 PM
I think the sliding roof was a Wellington Mara dying wish. Like cheerleaders, he felt some things needed to be the left alone. I am pretty sure he felt football was made to be played in the elements. Probably rooted in The Sneakers Game (NFL Championship) of 1934.


Yes, Wellington did insist football was meant to be played outdoors on grass.

They supposedly built this stadium to accommodate a roof if they wish, but it would have significantly increased the cost. While I like football in the elements, it would have made sense for the other stadium events like concerts and it could have made the stadium a mainstay in the Super Bowl hosting.

I'm really looking forward to the SB we host in a few years and hope it works out well... Personally I think the NFL should celebrate each of its stadiums and to hell with the corporate types who don't want to be cold at the SB...

Morehead State
05-09-2012, 04:55 PM
I think the sliding roof was a Wellington Mara dying wish. Like cheerleaders, he felt some things needed to be the left alone. I am pretty sure he felt football was made to be played in the elements. Probably rooted in The Sneakers Game (NFL Championship) of 1934.


Yes, Wellington did insist football was meant to be played outdoors on grass.

They supposedly built this stadium to accommodate a roof if they wish, but it would have significantly increased the cost. While I like football in the elements, it would have made sense for the other stadium events like concerts.
</P>


I heard it would be an additional $200MM. Sounds like a lot but this stadium was financed by two teams.</P>

chasjay
05-09-2012, 05:09 PM
As several have said, the economics of these issues are complicated. There are only a few of the many factors that I can think to mention.

You have the revenues generated for the local businesses and the taxes on those revenues. There is a real value to a city or metropolitan area in having a professional team when it comes to drawing other business to the area.

As for public funds going to promote private business, in the southern states I am familiar with, there are announcements every week of the states giving tax incentives and even money for facilities to lure industrial clients there. And even if a business invests only its own money into a new facility, it ties into the public infrastructure for water, sewer, roadways, etc. I'll agree that the states rarely contribute as much to a nuts and bolts industry as it costs to build an NFL stadium, but....I guess my point is just that it is very difficult to take a pad and pen and calculate exactly what the bottom line is, over time, for the use of public funds to finance stadiums and arenas. But I can easily believe that it would be worth the money that Minnesota might spend to keep the Vikings.

RoanokeFan
05-09-2012, 05:57 PM
I think the sliding roof was a Wellington Mara dying wish. Like cheerleaders, he felt some things needed to be the left alone. I am pretty sure he felt football was made to be played in the elements. Probably rooted in The Sneakers Game (NFL Championship) of 1934.


Yes, Wellington did insist football was meant to be played outdoors on grass.

They supposedly built this stadium to accommodate a roof if they wish, but it would have significantly increased the cost. While I like football in the elements, it would have made sense for the other stadium events like concerts.
</p>


I heard it would be an additional $200MM. Sounds like a lot but this stadium was financed by two teams.</p>

I think if the 2014 Super Bowl is a huge success, which it should be in the largest media market in the world, we won't see the retractable roof. This is a huge test for the NFL to have more championship games in cold weather climates.

THE_New_York_Giants
05-09-2012, 06:17 PM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane.

If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires.

With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium?

Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare.

If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.
If the New York Giants (baseball) and Brooklyn Dodgers could move, theoretically so could everyone else.

BlueSanta
05-09-2012, 06:34 PM
The 1 distinction that needs to be made here is the difference between funding and borrowing.

The Giants stadium was not funded by taxpayers but its fair to say the borrowing of money to build the stadium was effectively borrowed against taxpayers. If the Giants and Jets defaulted, the taxpayers would be on the hook. Its way more complicated than this, but in essence that is how it works.

In all truth though there is no blanket way to solve stadium issues. Saying "owners should always pay for their own stadiums" isnt realistic for all situations just as saying taxpayers should help pay isnt a fair solution. It has to be taken on a case by case situation.

bg79
05-09-2012, 06:57 PM
The 1 distinction that needs to be made here is the difference between funding and borrowing.

The Giants stadium was not funded by taxpayers but its fair to say the borrowing of money to build the stadium was effectively borrowed against taxpayers. If the Giants and Jets defaulted, the taxpayers would be on the hook. Its way more complicated than this, but in essence that is how it works.

In all truth though there is no blanket way to solve stadium issues. Saying "owners should always pay for their own stadiums" isnt realistic for all situations just as saying taxpayers should help pay isnt a fair solution. It has to be taken on a case by case situation.




Why wouldnt that be realistic? The NFL is a multi billion dollar organization, why not have NFL teams go to them with their hand out instead of to their local governments? What you'd probably see is teams actually use their facilities a lot longer than they do now since they'd actually have to pay for them themselves. You can start splitting hairs on the other sports but the NFL can certainly afford to loan their franchises money to build their stadiums.

BK07071
05-09-2012, 08:26 PM
I believe a very good point is raised here and is something that needs more exposure and debate. Other than public utilities, no business charges their customers for the infratructure to run their business. True, costs are passed onto customers via a pricing margin per saleable item over time to recoup construction cost and daily cost of doing business, but not via Taxpayer dollars.

Why should Aunt Mary's taxes pay for a stadium to be owned by a team for an activity she will never be a part of? Per the analogy above, if Aunt Mary goes to a store and buys an item, she pays that recoup margin by her own designs.
Sorry, Basketball venues, Baseball Stadiums, Football stadiums, need to be paid by their owners. UNLESS, as in the bold move in Minnesota, there is a provision that those footing even a portion of the bill for building the stadium, are forever enjoined from blackouts of primary events at the venue they paid for.

Just my 2 cents.


Your 2 cents and my five grand as well as others that shelled out dough for our PSL's help pay for that stadium. They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?To me all we did is give the owners a stack of green backs to build their stadium and you could kiss that dough good bye. You'll never see a dime of it come back to you as any sort of investment!!!!

RoanokeFan
05-09-2012, 08:37 PM
I believe a very good point is raised here and is something that needs more exposure and debate. Other than public utilities, no business charges their customers for the infratructure to run their business. True, costs are passed onto customers via a pricing margin per saleable item over time to recoup construction cost and daily cost of doing business, but not via Taxpayer dollars.

<font color="#0000FF">Why should Aunt Mary's taxes pay for a stadium to be owned by a team for an activity she will never be a part of</font>? Per the analogy above, if Aunt Mary goes to a store and buys an item, she pays that recoup margin by her own designs.
Sorry, Basketball venues, Baseball Stadiums, Football stadiums, need to be paid by their owners. UNLESS, as in the bold move in Minnesota, there is a provision that those footing even a portion of the bill for building the stadium, are forever enjoined from blackouts of primary events at the venue they paid for.

Just my 2 cents.

Isn't that like asking why should people pay local school taxes if they don't have children or whose children attend private schools or are home schooled? The state, regional, and/or local governments all benefit from attracting business to their locals. That's why many governmental entities provide tax incentives.

n420p69
05-09-2012, 08:39 PM
Taxpayers should not be financing a billionaire's stadium under any circumstance

RoanokeFan
05-09-2012, 08:39 PM
I believe a very good point is raised here and is something that needs more exposure and debate. Other than public utilities, no business charges their customers for the infratructure to run their business. True, costs are passed onto customers via a pricing margin per saleable item over time to recoup construction cost and daily cost of doing business, but not via Taxpayer dollars.

Why should Aunt Mary's taxes pay for a stadium to be owned by a team for an activity she will never be a part of? Per the analogy above, if Aunt Mary goes to a store and buys an item, she pays that recoup margin by her own designs.
Sorry, Basketball venues, Baseball Stadiums, Football stadiums, need to be paid by their owners. UNLESS, as in the bold move in Minnesota, there is a provision that those footing even a portion of the bill for building the stadium, are forever enjoined from blackouts of primary events at the venue they paid for.

Just my 2 cents.


Your 2 cents and my five grand as well as others that shelled out dough for our PSL's help pay for that stadium. They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?To me all we did is give the owners a stack of green backs to build their stadium and you could kiss that dough good bye. You'll never see a dime of it come back to you as any sort of investment!!!!


Theoretically you "get that back" when you sell the PSL's for a profit. If you think the PSL's were such a bad "investment" why did you pay for them?

BK07071
05-09-2012, 08:53 PM
I believe a very good point is raised here and is something that needs more exposure and debate. Other than public utilities, no business charges their customers for the infratructure to run their business. True, costs are passed onto customers via a pricing margin per saleable item over time to recoup construction cost and daily cost of doing business, but not via Taxpayer dollars.

Why should Aunt Mary's taxes pay for a stadium to be owned by a team for an activity she will never be a part of? Per the analogy above, if Aunt Mary goes to a store and buys an item, she pays that recoup margin by her own designs.
Sorry, Basketball venues, Baseball Stadiums, Football stadiums, need to be paid by their owners. UNLESS, as in the bold move in Minnesota, there is a provision that those footing even a portion of the bill for building the stadium, are forever enjoined from blackouts of primary events at the venue they paid for.

Just my 2 cents.


Your 2 cents and my five grand as well as others that shelled out dough for our PSL's help pay for that stadium. They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?To me all we did is give the owners a stack of green backs to build their stadium and you could kiss that dough good bye. You'll never see a dime of it come back to you as any sort of investment!!!!


Theoretically you "get that back" when you sell the PSL's for a profit. If you think the PSL's were such a bad "investment" why did you pay for them?

Because you couldn't get your season tickets unless you bought the PSL's too and how can you sell the PSL's without giving up your season tickets. No one is going to buy season tickets and than shell out another five or six grand for PSL's that were already purchased. They'll tell you that they'll buy your tickets butt don't want to shell out any dough for the PSL's because the tickets are a hefty enough price&gt;

BK07071
05-09-2012, 08:53 PM
I believe a very good point is raised here and is something that needs more exposure and debate. Other than public utilities, no business charges their customers for the infratructure to run their business. True, costs are passed onto customers via a pricing margin per saleable item over time to recoup construction cost and daily cost of doing business, but not via Taxpayer dollars.

Why should Aunt Mary's taxes pay for a stadium to be owned by a team for an activity she will never be a part of? Per the analogy above, if Aunt Mary goes to a store and buys an item, she pays that recoup margin by her own designs.
Sorry, Basketball venues, Baseball Stadiums, Football stadiums, need to be paid by their owners. UNLESS, as in the bold move in Minnesota, there is a provision that those footing even a portion of the bill for building the stadium, are forever enjoined from blackouts of primary events at the venue they paid for.

Just my 2 cents.


Your 2 cents and my five grand as well as others that shelled out dough for our PSL's help pay for that stadium. They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?To me all we did is give the owners a stack of green backs to build their stadium and you could kiss that dough good bye. You'll never see a dime of it come back to you as any sort of investment!!!!


Theoretically you "get that back" when you sell the PSL's for a profit. If you think the PSL's were such a bad "investment" why did you pay for them?

Because you couldn't get your season tickets unless you bought the PSL's too and how can you sell the PSL's without giving up your season tickets. No one is going to buy season tickets and than shell out another five or six grand for PSL's that were already purchased. They'll tell you that they'll buy your tickets butt don't want to shell out any dough for the PSL's because the tickets are a hefty enough price&gt;

THE_New_York_Giants
05-09-2012, 09:23 PM
I believe a very good point is raised here and is something that needs more exposure and debate. Other than public utilities, no business charges their customers for the infratructure to run their business. True, costs are passed onto customers via a pricing margin per saleable item over time to recoup construction cost and daily cost of doing business, but not via Taxpayer dollars.

Why should Aunt Mary's taxes pay for a stadium to be owned by a team for an activity she will never be a part of? Per the analogy above, if Aunt Mary goes to a store and buys an item, she pays that recoup margin by her own designs.
Sorry, Basketball venues, Baseball Stadiums, Football stadiums, need to be paid by their owners. UNLESS, as in the bold move in Minnesota, there is a provision that those footing even a portion of the bill for building the stadium, are forever enjoined from blackouts of primary events at the venue they paid for.

Just my 2 cents.


Your 2 cents and my five grand as well as others that shelled out dough for our PSL's help pay for that stadium. They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?To me all we did is give the owners a stack of green backs to build their stadium and you could kiss that dough good bye. You'll never see a dime of it come back to you as any sort of investment!!!!


Theoretically you "get that back" when you sell the PSL's for a profit.* If you think the PSL's were such a bad "investment" why did you pay for them?

* Because you couldn't get your season tickets unless you bought the PSL's too and how can you sell the PSL's without giving up your season tickets. No one is going to buy season tickets and than shell out another five or six grand for PSL's that were already purchased. They'll tell you that they'll buy your tickets butt don't want to shell out any dough for the PSL's because the tickets are a hefty enough price>

If Wellington was still alive, there would have been no PSL's.

RoanokeFan
05-09-2012, 09:25 PM
I believe a very good point is raised here and is something that needs more exposure and debate. Other than public utilities, no business charges their customers for the infratructure to run their business. True, costs are passed onto customers via a pricing margin per saleable item over time to recoup construction cost and daily cost of doing business, but not via Taxpayer dollars.

Why should Aunt Mary's taxes pay for a stadium to be owned by a team for an activity she will never be a part of? Per the analogy above, if Aunt Mary goes to a store and buys an item, she pays that recoup margin by her own designs.
Sorry, Basketball venues, Baseball Stadiums, Football stadiums, need to be paid by their owners. UNLESS, as in the bold move in Minnesota, there is a provision that those footing even a portion of the bill for building the stadium, are forever enjoined from blackouts of primary events at the venue they paid for.

Just my 2 cents.


Your 2 cents and my five grand as well as others that shelled out dough for our PSL's help pay for that stadium. They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?To me all we did is give the owners a stack of green backs to build their stadium and you could kiss that dough good bye. You'll never see a dime of it come back to you as any sort of investment!!!!


Theoretically you "get that back" when you sell the PSL's for a profit. If you think the PSL's were such a bad "investment" why did you pay for them?

Because you couldn't get your season tickets unless you bought the PSL's too and how can you sell the PSL's without giving up your season tickets. No one is going to buy season tickets and than shell out another five or six grand for PSL's that were already purchased. They'll tell you that they'll buy your tickets butt don't want to shell out any dough for the PSL's because the tickets are a hefty enough price&gt;

If Wellington was still alive, there would have been no PSL's.

We have no way of knowing that.

Jet-Blue
05-09-2012, 11:13 PM
Not to get to far of topic, but the best you are most likely do with your PSL is break even if you try and sell it. No real "investment" there. I been watching the Second hand market and it seems the ones that are selling them are getting about what they paid or a little less.

GiantSinceBirth78
05-10-2012, 01:05 AM
The 1 distinction that needs to be made here is the difference between funding and borrowing.

The Giants stadium was not funded by taxpayers but its fair to say the borrowing of money to build the stadium was effectively borrowed against taxpayers. If the Giants and Jets defaulted, the taxpayers would be on the hook. Its way more complicated than this, but in essence that is how it works.

In all truth though there is no blanket way to solve stadium issues. Saying "owners should always pay for their own stadiums" isnt realistic for all situations just as saying taxpayers should help pay isnt a fair solution. It has to be taken on a case by case situation.


Can you name a situation when it is not realistic to ask a team to pay for there own stadium? I don't think you can back that comment up.

Redeyejedi
05-10-2012, 01:36 AM
It's absolutely absurd to ask tax payers (in a relatively weak economy) to front that bill. The people are going to pay more in taxes, most likely have to pay psl along w merchandise and concessions.... The owner makes over a billion and refuses to pay an additional 150mil? Hell he's getting that much in tv revenue alone. The owner is a greedy pos IMOWouldnt u want to create jobs in a weak economy.

THE_New_York_Giants
05-10-2012, 01:40 AM
It's absolutely absurd to ask tax payers (in a relatively weak economy) to front that bill. The people are going to pay more in taxes, most likely have to pay psl along w merchandise and concessions.... The owner makes over a billion and refuses to pay an additional 150mil? Hell he's getting that much in tv revenue alone. The owner is a greedy pos IMOWouldnt u want to create jobs in a weak economy.
ironically they outsource a lot of those jobs to out of state construction companies who charge less because a lot of their workers are illegal immigrants.

B&RWarrior
05-10-2012, 01:40 AM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane.

If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires.

With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium?

Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare.

If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.
If the New York Giants (baseball) and Brooklyn Dodgers could move, theoretically so could everyone else.

Poor comparison. In today's world of sports with how large TV contracts and mercandising revenues are and the money that can be made in major metropolitan areas, why in world would any owner leave NY?

THE_New_York_Giants
05-10-2012, 01:45 AM
IDK who paid for the Giants new stadium but in a market like NY it wouldn't make sense for the general tax payer to pay anything. With over 20 million people in the NY metro area the threat of moving away is not realistic. The market is too big and too lucrative. The NFL will always have at least 2 teams in this market. The idea that the public has to pay private ownership to stay in any city and make millions is insane.

If any team attempted to levy a tax in any state that l lived in I would vote no. If they move so be it. I am totally against the gov't subsidizing the business endeavors for mega-millionaires and billionaires.

With the many fiscal problems most municipal gov'ts face I don't see how any bill could be passed to help pay for a football stadium. Are you going to cut education, cut social programs, cut gov't jobs, and yet pay for a football stadium?

Most of these owners are conservative and rightly so they are protecting their interests. I find it laughable that these arch-conservatives are looking for gov't welfare.

If the city gets to share in the profits from ticket sales and parking lot fees and a percentage of the vendors that are located in the stadium then it may make sense, economically speaking. The deal could be profitable long term.
If the New York Giants (baseball) and Brooklyn Dodgers could move, theoretically so could everyone else.

Poor comparison. In today's world of sports with how large TV contracts and mercandising revenues are and the money that can be made in major metropolitan areas, why in world would any owner leave NY?
same reason they did. The Islanders are looking at moving and they are 15 minutes outside of the city.

SweetZombieJesus
05-10-2012, 07:47 AM
I think if the 2014 Super Bowl is a huge success, which it should be in the largest media market in the world, we won't see the retractable roof. This is a huge test for the NFL to have more championship games in cold weather climates.


I would LOVE to see the Super Bowl make the rounds to places like Soldier Field and Lambeau.



Poor comparison. In today's world of sports with how large TV
contracts and mercandising revenues are and the money that can be made
in major metropolitan areas, why in world would any owner leave
NY?



The Rams and Raiders both fled Los Angeles in 1994 and the 2nd largest
city in the US which is also the TV and film capitol still has no NFL
team 20 years later.



We're very far removed from the baseball Giants and Dodgers leaving, and
that move was prompted by baseball trying to expand westward, but that
was shocking that those two storied franchises would pick up and move.



Plenty of surprise relocations -- like the Colts packing moving vans in the middle of the night and abandoning Baltimore.



Would you really be surprised if the Jets decided they wanted the
spotlight to themselves instead of being in the Giants' shadow and
moved to LA?

SweetZombieJesus
05-10-2012, 07:54 AM
Why wouldnt that be realistic? The NFL is a multi billion dollar organization, why not have NFL teams go to them with their hand out instead of to their local governments? What you'd probably see is teams actually use their facilities a lot longer than they do now since they'd actually have to pay for them themselves. You can start splitting hairs on the other sports but the NFL can certainly afford to loan their franchises money to build their stadiums.


Most Forbes-type data is concentrated on the individual franchises, but from what I can find without making a major project out of it the league itself seems to pull in about $8 billion a year in revenue (not profit) and is worth around $25 billion to buy out.

Now let's say all 32 teams needed to borrow an average of $1 billion which is probably going to be the average for new stadiums. You can see the NFL would have to mortgage itself to the hilt to make it happen and probably wouldn't be able to.

That seems like a lot but Apple for example is sitting on $100 billion in its war chest in cash. Apple could buy the NFL several times over if it wanted to.

SweetZombieJesus
05-10-2012, 07:59 AM
They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?


When/if you give up your season tickets you sell your PSLs. The "investment" part comes because you theoretically can sell your PSLs for more than you paid.

Reality so far is that the PSLs are going for roughly what they were sold for. But 10 years from now, who knows.

However, if you keep your tickets during the lifetime of this stadium, yes at the end you get nothing and no credit towards a new stadium's PSLs. So they are encouraging you to (a) sell before the current stadium is at end-of-life, or (b) waste this kind of money every time they build a new stadium.

bandwgn86
05-10-2012, 08:14 AM
I think Minny got it right by making the owners pay for their stadium. The tax payers there want nothing to do with paying for that stadium. Are the tax payers receiving profit? nope.

Look at what the Giants org did to the fans and tax payers. Tax payers front half the bill on the stadium and then have to pay upwards of 20k to but a seat, then pay for tickets. Amazing.

Why? to pay for costs? Dig into your own pockets and pay for costs.

Your profit, your bill.they received 78 million from Rogers corporate to play 8 games over 5 years (Rogers are suckers but that's a different thread) since it's time to renew the partnership they should up the anti add another game or 2 and bend them over for 150 mil this time...

B&RWarrior
05-10-2012, 09:25 AM
They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?


When/if you give up your season tickets you sell your PSLs.* The "investment" part comes because you theoretically can sell your PSLs for more than you paid.

Reality so far is that the PSLs are going for roughly what they were sold for.* But 10 years from now, who knows.

However, if you keep your tickets during the lifetime of this stadium, yes at the end you get nothing and no credit towards a new stadium's PSLs.* So they are encouraging you to (a) sell before the current stadium is at end-of-life, or (b) waste this kind of money every time they build a new stadium.


It makes sense from a business perspective to try to get gov't to subsidize the cost. If you can get cash flow w/o giving up equity then why not do it. If I've got a product in high demand then I would leverage its demand in securing financing. "If you don't help I'll leave. How bad do you want me?" That's what my poker face would say even if I have no intentions of leaving.

If any of us were owners we'd do the same. If the people are willing to foot the bill for a stadium I as an owner am not going to get in the way.

From the public's perspective state partnerships with professional sports franchises should only be done if they are directly profitable. Don't talk to us about the economic byproducts of having the team in our city, no you have to give up a slice of the pie.

THE_New_York_Giants
05-10-2012, 09:34 AM
They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?


When/if you give up your season tickets you sell your PSLs.* The "investment" part comes because you theoretically can sell your PSLs for more than you paid.

Reality so far is that the PSLs are going for roughly what they were sold for.* But 10 years from now, who knows.

However, if you keep your tickets during the lifetime of this stadium, yes at the end you get nothing and no credit towards a new stadium's PSLs.* So they are encouraging you to (a) sell before the current stadium is at end-of-life, or (b) waste this kind of money every time they build a new stadium.


It makes sense from a business perspective to try to get gov't to subsidize the cost. If you can get cash flow w/o giving up equity then why not do it. If I've got a product in high demand then I would leverage its demand in securing financing. "If you don't help I'll leave. How bad do you want me?" That's what my poker face would say even if I have no intentions of leaving.

If any of us were owners we'd do the same. If the people are willing to foot the bill for a stadium I as an owner am not going to get in the way.

From the public's perspective state partnerships with professional sports franchises should only be done if they are directly profitable. Don't talk to us about the economic byproducts of having the team in our city, no you have to give up a slice of the pie.
Not to mention the massive TV contracts as far as revenue goes. There was a time when a football game lasted a little over 2 hours. Now because of commercials they can go as long as 3.5 hours.

Redeyejedi
05-10-2012, 09:52 AM
It's absolutely absurd to ask tax payers (in a relatively weak economy) to front that bill. The people are going to pay more in taxes, most likely have to pay psl along w merchandise and concessions.... The owner makes over a billion and refuses to pay an additional 150mil? Hell he's getting that much in tv revenue alone. The owner is a greedy pos IMOWouldnt u want to create jobs in a weak economy.
ironically they outsource a lot of those jobs to out of state construction companies who charge less because a lot of their workers are illegal immigrants. Not just talking about the construction jobs those are temporary.its the things around the stadium that generate revenue and Jobs as well. Public transportation, Police, Security, Bars, Restaurants, Hotels. In 15 years the Tax money spent on building the stadium will be retrieved from the tax money around the stadium.

Redeyejedi
05-10-2012, 09:54 AM
They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?


When/if you give up your season tickets you sell your PSLs.* The "investment" part comes because you theoretically can sell your PSLs for more than you paid.

Reality so far is that the PSLs are going for roughly what they were sold for.* But 10 years from now, who knows.

However, if you keep your tickets during the lifetime of this stadium, yes at the end you get nothing and no credit towards a new stadium's PSLs.* So they are encouraging you to (a) sell before the current stadium is at end-of-life, or (b) waste this kind of money every time they build a new stadium.


It makes sense from a business perspective to try to get gov't to subsidize the cost. If you can get cash flow w/o giving up equity then why not do it. If I've got a product in high demand then I would leverage its demand in securing financing. "If you don't help I'll leave. How bad do you want me?" That's what my poker face would say even if I have no intentions of leaving.

If any of us were owners we'd do the same. If the people are willing to foot the bill for a stadium I as an owner am not going to get in the way.

From the public's perspective state partnerships with professional sports franchises should only be done if they are directly profitable. Don't talk to us about the economic byproducts of having the team in our city, no you have to give up a slice of the pie.
Not to mention the massive TV contracts as far as revenue goes. There was a time when a football game lasted a little over 2 hours. Now because of commercials they can go as long as 3.5 hours.Thats why Soccer isnt popular in the US. The TV companies keep it down because their are no stoppages for commercials.

LT_was_good
05-10-2012, 10:00 AM
They gave us a line of bullsh*t that it would be an investment. Investment???? How???? You explain that one to me. If you sell your season tickets you sell them at face value or whatever you can get but what about the five grand that we shelled out for the seat licenses! How do we get that back?Or do we get it back?


When/if you give up your season tickets you sell your PSLs. The "investment" part comes because you theoretically can sell your PSLs for more than you paid.

Reality so far is that the PSLs are going for roughly what they were sold for. But 10 years from now, who knows.

However, if you keep your tickets during the lifetime of this stadium, yes at the end you get nothing and no credit towards a new stadium's PSLs. So they are encouraging you to (a) sell before the current stadium is at end-of-life, or (b) waste this kind of money every time they build a new stadium.


It makes sense from a business perspective to try to get gov't to subsidize the cost. If you can get cash flow w/o giving up equity then why not do it. If I've got a product in high demand then I would leverage its demand in securing financing. "If you don't help I'll leave. How bad do you want me?" That's what my poker face would say even if I have no intentions of leaving.

If any of us were owners we'd do the same. If the people are willing to foot the bill for a stadium I as an owner am not going to get in the way.

From the public's perspective state partnerships with professional sports franchises should only be done if they are directly profitable. Don't talk to us about the economic byproducts of having the team in our city, no you have to give up a slice of the pie.
Not to mention the massive TV contracts as far as revenue goes. There was a time when a football game lasted a little over 2 hours. Now because of commercials they can go as long as 3.5 hours.Thats why Soccer isnt popular in the US. The TV companies keep it down because their are no stoppages for commercials.

I've never heard this before, although it wouldn't surprise me. What I wonder, though, is how is soccer such a huge business internationally? Is the revenue less based on TV compared to U.S. sports? Or is it just so popular with such a monopoly internationally that it doesn't matter?