Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
10 Pages<1234>»

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
wpr  
#21 Posted : Wednesday, April 18, 2012 6:53:38 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
Concerts wasn't the only option, just a mere suggestion. I've heard of some teams ripping up their field and putting a new one done over a BYE week, so I don't see how a concert trampling a field merits concern. Simply have events held from February through July only. The rest of the months are reserved for the NFL team.

The Packers did great with having the Packers Hall of Fame and the Atrium, why not do something like that too? Make it a year around attraction?

Combining Baseball and Football on the same field is just crap for the football players in my opinion. The Packers had something similar when playing in County Stadium (or whatever it was called) the old Brewers home. They complained about the uneven surface all the time.


Milw County Stadium was an example of what NOT to do. It was a lousy surface for the baseball players too. There have been other stadiums in the past that had outstanding ground crews that took care of the field.
Zero2Cool  
#22 Posted : Wednesday, April 18, 2012 6:53:41 PM(UTC)
Formo said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm mentally prepared that they are leaving.

According to the NFL Championship records, they were never there. ;-)
wpr  
#23 Posted : Wednesday, April 18, 2012 7:03:31 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
According to the NFL Championship records, they were never there. ;-)


genius.

evil genius but genius none the less.
DakotaT  
#24 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:55:52 AM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
genius.

evil genius but genius none the less.


No, a genius would have incorporated all of the chances the Queens had to get a championship but choked off the big games. They were in the NFC championship game quite a few times only to lose, not just the Super Bowl. By making them think about all of the woulda coulda's - you add an extra saucyiness to the evil you are inflicting.

See VR and I totally get this concept and it's how we entertain you all with our banter.

Nonstopdrivel  
#25 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:03:19 PM(UTC)
Formo said: Go to Quoted Post
That said, how is it reasonable for anyone to just ask a new NFL team owner to 'pay his own way'? It isn't.

To the contrary, it is 100 percent reasonable and in fact should be a firm prerequisite to purchasing an NFL franchise. If you can't fund your own stadium, tough: you either live without or you don't receive the franchise.

The reason why these team owners ask for state funds is because they know full well that the return on investment is abysmal on these things -- below the rate of inflation. It is a form of fraud as far as I am concerned. These men won't invest their own money, and they can't find any private investors to finance their projects, because they are fully aware what an irresponsible, counterproductive use of the money it is; so they foist it off on gullible taxpayers. What so many fans fail to grasp is that sports teams are nothing more than extravagantly expensive, low-profit-margin hobbies for billionaires. A couple of years ago they leaked the Cowboys' profit/loss statements. That team netted a deplorable $10 million on a nearly $1 billion annual budget. In any other industry, that would be grounds for immediate termination of -- at the very least -- the CEO. It would probably result in a whole-scale bloodletting among the executives.

It gets worse. For all the talk about the taxpayers getting back their investment, a significant proportion of stadiums -- in all sports -- are shuttered before the mortgages are even paid off. Not only do these stadiums not turn a profit, they don't even break even. It is almost impossible to fill them with events other than games (if they even sell out for the games), and the rest of the time they sit empty, a fixed cost that returns no revenue. There is a reason why most civic centers and arenas are owned by municipalities: no private corporation is silly enough to build and maintain one. It requires the coercive power of government to get them built.

And yes, all of this applies to the Green Bay Packers too. The reason why they resorted to their bogus novelty stock sale was because obtaining other sorts of funding was impossible or unreasonably expensive. So they settled on handing out worthless trinkets with no cash value in exchange for donations. I actually have no problem with this. In my opinion, if you aren't willing to risk your own money, you can't fool a private investor into funding your project, and you can't even cajole your fans into making donations to the building fund, you have no business compelling millions of taxpayers, many of whom may have no interest in your team whatsoever, to cough up the cash for you. At least the Packers had the integrity (this time, anyway) to limit the damage to people with an active rooting interest in the team. I still think the people of Brown County were silly for letting themselves get taxed in exchange for tickets only 8000 of them will be able to win.
Zero2Cool  
#26 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:27:57 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
I still think the people of Brown County were silly for letting themselves get taxed in exchange for tickets only 8000 of them will be able to win.


I don't understand. Are you talking about the property tax or sales tax and how is the only "exchange" was 8,000 seats? Do you really feel keeping the Packers in a competitive stadium netted only one benefit which is 8,000 additional seats?
Wade  
#27 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:04:39 PM(UTC)
Formo said: Go to Quoted Post
Wade, I get your point. And it's valid. I'm not as 'principled' as you are when it comes to something like this, but I normally would agree with you. And yes, I would love it if Zigy paid for the whole thing.. but lets face the facts and be reasonable here.. NFL team owners just don't pony up and pay the full tab on new/revamped venues. The ones that do have been very well established. That said, how is it reasonable for anyone to just ask a new NFL team owner to 'pay his own way'? It isn't.

That said, the fat lady hasn't sung yet (meaning that there's still 2 weeks in this session to pass another bill) but she's tuning up. Lester Bagley already threw down the gauntlet saying how it is stupid for the politicians to think that the Vikings brass will just accept the status quo in Minnesota. I'm mentally prepared that they are leaving.


Jeremy, did you mean "realistic" with the bolded word? If you did, then I'd agree with you. What is realistic isn't always reasonable, alas. As George Stigler, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, and many others have pointed out many times, when lots of people have a small interest in something (e.g. each taxpayer) and a few people have a really big interest in something (e.g., an NFL owner), the rules generally get written by the few. I'm not naive to think NFL owners are going to be paying for those low-ROI hobbies themselves any time soon.

In fact, I'm cynical enough to believe that the Minnesota politicos will eventually give in. When the billionaire rich guy debates with the bimbos/dolts that tend to hold state public office -- my money will be on the billionaire every time. Very few politicians have the fortitude of, say, Jesse Ventura.

So I'm believing you're going to get your stadium in the end. And I'll continue believing that until someone tells me the moving trucks have crossed the state line.

Wade  
#28 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:07:41 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
To the contrary, it is 100 percent reasonable and in fact should be a firm prerequisite to purchasing an NFL franchise. If you can't fund your own stadium, tough: you either live without or you don't receive the franchise.

The reason why these team owners ask for state funds is because they know full well that the return on investment is abysmal on these things -- below the rate of inflation. It is a form of fraud as far as I am concerned. These men won't invest their own money, and they can't find any private investors to finance their projects, because they are fully aware what an irresponsible, counterproductive use of the money it is; so they foist it off on gullible taxpayers. What so many fans fail to grasp is that sports teams are nothing more than extravagantly expensive, low-profit-margin hobbies for billionaires. A couple of years ago they leaked the Cowboys' profit/loss statements. That team netted a deplorable $10 million on a nearly $1 billion annual budget. In any other industry, that would be grounds for immediate termination of -- at the very least -- the CEO. It would probably result in a whole-scale bloodletting among the executives.

It gets worse. For all the talk about the taxpayers getting back their investment, a significant proportion of stadiums -- in all sports -- are shuttered before the mortgages are even paid off. Not only do these stadiums not turn a profit, they don't even break even. It is almost impossible to fill them with events other than games (if they even sell out for the games), and the rest of the time they sit empty, a fixed cost that returns no revenue. There is a reason why most civic centers and arenas are owned by municipalities: no private corporation is silly enough to build and maintain one. It requires the coercive power of government to get them built.

And yes, all of this applies to the Green Bay Packers too. The reason why they resorted to their bogus novelty stock sale was because obtaining other sorts of funding was impossible or unreasonably expensive. So they settled on handing out worthless trinkets with no cash value in exchange for donations. I actually have no problem with this. In my opinion, if you aren't willing to risk your own money, you can't fool a private investor into funding your project, and you can't even cajole your fans into making donations to the building fund, you have no business compelling millions of taxpayers, many of whom may have no interest in your team whatsoever, to cough up the cash for you. At least the Packers had the integrity (this time, anyway) to limit the damage to people with an active rooting interest in the team. I still think the people of Brown County were silly for letting themselves get taxed in exchange for tickets only 8000 of them will be able to win.


Agree with all of this. (Surprise, surprise. [grin1] )

But I have zero confidence that any significant number of Minnesota politicians are likely to be "reasonable" this way. The only Minnesota politician that had this kind of fortitude-of-reasonableness was, of all people, Jesse The Governor Ventura.

Pack93z  
#29 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:38:13 PM(UTC)


Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com...-and-not-money-view.html

As you watch the Super Bowl Feb. 5, spare a thought for the taxpayers in the host city of Indianapolis. The stadium in which the game will be played has been financed largely at their expense and, like so many sports venues built with public money, the cost just keeps growing.

Lucas Oil Stadium, where the Colts play eight regular season games per year, has every amenity: a retractable roof, state-of-the-art turf, seven locker rooms, 137 luxury suites, 1,000 flat-screen televisions. And well it should: It cost $720 million to build.

Of this, the Colts paid only $100 million. To cover the rest, local officials raised taxes on hotels, restaurants and rental cars, and issued bonds that soon led to ballooning financing costs.

As Bloomberg News reported Feb. 2, the cost overruns resulted partly from the city’s reliance on auction-rate securities, which became extremely expensive as the market for such bonds collapsed in 2008. Interest rates on some of the stadium bonds reached 15 percent at one point, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

All told, this led to about $43 million in unexpected financing costs. As projected deficits grew larger, the county board that operates the stadium had to reduce arts and cultural grants, and the city increased taxes on hotels even further.

Threat to Leave

In its outlines, this is a familiar story. With the Colts threatening to leave town in 2006, an economic-impact study done for Indianapolis suggested wondrous civic advantages would soon flow from a new stadium: Along with the expansion of an adjacent convention center, the project would create $2.25 billion in economic benefits over 10 years, 4,200 new permanent jobs and 4,900 construction jobs. And, of course, the team would stay. The stadium duly opened in 2008.

But like many studies of its kind, this one will probably turn out to be fantasy. Public funding for sports stadiums has been found, in dozens of studies over several decades, to fall short of its promised benefits and to cost taxpayers more than expected.

Robert A. Baade of the Heartland Institute, a research group in Chicago that promotes free markets, examined 48 cities over a 30-year period and found “no factual basis” for the argument that professional-sports stadiums and teams have a significant impact on economic growth. A study by Judith Grant Long, an associate professor of urban planning at Harvard University, found that public subsidies for stadiums are typically 40 percent more expensive for taxpayers than initially advertised.

And the debts linger: From the Kingdome in Seattle to the Astrodome in Houston to the old Giants Stadium in New Jersey, today’s taxpayers are on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in debt for stadiums that are no longer in use or no longer even exist. The RCA Dome -- which Lucas Oil Stadium replaced, and which was imploded in 2008 -- won’t be paid off until 2021.

All of this might be justified if hosting a team brought an abundance of jobs at a time of high unemployment. But the data suggest that this, too, is unlikely. A study by Jordan Rappaport and Chad Wilkerson of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that the net number of jobs created by hosting a pro- sports team “is almost certainly less than 1,000 and likely to be much closer to zero.” Another study concluded that hosting a sports team might actually destroy jobs.

Reducing Local Wages

Stadiums probably don’t help wages, either. Dennis Coates of the University of Maryland and Brad R. Humphreys, now at the University of Alberta, looked at about 30 years worth of data and found that new stadiums, and sports more generally, may actually reduce local incomes.

This is because spending on sports typically displaces spending on other forms of entertainment, and it tends to have a small multiplier effect, since so much of the money spent is funneled to small numbers of athletes and owners who often live elsewhere. New taxes imposed to pay for stadiums may also come at the expense of projects with greater economic potential, and the city may become less attractive to visitors as it boosts fees on hotels and rental cars to support the stadium. Finally, most of the permanent jobs that actually materialize at new stadiums aren’t high quality: They are typically part-time, seasonal and low-wage, and they often carry no benefits.

A sounder argument for public financing of sports arenas is that they can help drive investment to a specific area. For instance, they can lure money from the suburbs into a struggling downtown. Camden Yards, the baseball stadium that helped revitalize part of downtown Baltimore, is the oft-cited example. But building a stadium is usually an inefficient way to accomplish this. At Camden Yards, according to Roger Noll, an economics professor at Stanford University, the cost per job created was $125,000. Other redevelopment programs in Baltimore typically spent $6,000 per job.

Although the economic rationale for publicly financing stadiums is poor, an important fact remains: People really, really like sports. And they will often be willing to pay a high price to keep their favorite teams or lure new ones. Sports are part of what makes a city a city -- what would Boston be without the Red Sox, or Chicago without the Bears?

But this calculus is an ethereal one. What price could a city government place on its citizens’ love for their sports teams?

The answer is that public funding for new sports stadiums should be up to voters to decide. Cities should make sure the public has access to independent evaluations of the costs and benefits of building a stadium -- not just the inflated “economic-impact studies” done at the behest of team owners and publicized in the media. It should also be made clear exactly what other subsidies the sports teams will be getting: from cheap loans to cheap rent to cheap land.

Finally, in structuring a deal, cities should strive to use fees -- such as surcharges on tickets -- that place more of the cost on those who actually use the facilities, and the city’s share of the cost should, as much as possible, be dedicated to associated public-works improvements that will have benefits beyond game day. Most importantly, the teams should shoulder the heaviest financial burden in any deal.

If, confronted by an honest cost-benefit analysis, citizens vote to pay more in taxes or forgo other civic improvements, then, by all means, give them their retractable domes, their plasma TVs and their years of expensive enjoyment.
Pack93z  
#30 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:47:44 PM(UTC)
IMO.. MN missed the boat in not combining the costs of the new college stadium and the proposal for the Vikings.

Yes... it would have cost more for the Gophers.. but it would have been a more effect spending of the dollar overall.

286 million on a college stadium, of which ~ 48 % was publicly funded.

If they only could have overcome some of the differences back in the 2002 to 2004 time period... this topic may be moot at this point.

I have little issue with dividing baseball from football.. but I think it a shame that 2 stadiums were needed were one publicly aided properly designed stadium would do.

One could see this day coming.. between a college stadium, a new baseball stadium and now requesting dollars for a pro stadium all within a decade.. yes the taxpayers and the bean counters are probably balking at the idea of shelling out more funding.

Especially when looking at studies like the Colts above.

This may be the only time I give props to Jerry Jones.. he at least funded his castle.
Nonstopdrivel  
#31 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:52:51 PM(UTC)
Quote:
$43 million in unexpected financing costs.

That is a nice little euphemism for "exorbitant interest rates levied by skittish investors wanting to ensure they get something -- anything -- back on their money."
Nonstopdrivel  
#32 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:57:05 PM(UTC)
By the way, Shawn, thanks for the excellent article. It solidly busts the myth that stadiums are good for the economy. These studies that seem to demonstrate the benefits of stadiums are commissioned by the people wanting to build the stadium and are thus sunnily optimistic at best, downright self-serving at worst.

Sure, you might create a few jobs, but the jobs you create tend to be shitty, while the real money flows to the overpaid athletes who maintain their true domiciles in other areas and spend the bare minimum time possible in the team's home city. People love to side with the athletes against the fat cats, but the reality is a lot of the athletes make more from playing than the owners make for owning, which is why the owners do everything possible to pass on on the risk inherent in their wastefulness onto taxpayers.

Like I said, extravagantly expensive hobbies. Little more than vehicles for rich men to show off their wealth and have a little fun on the side.

I don't begrudge any man his chance to make an opulent paycheck, but I do resent being forced to fork over my own cash to facilitate that opportunity for him. I don't think the taxpayers should function as an insurance service for risky corporate ventures.
Zero2Cool  
#33 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:04:41 PM(UTC)
I didn't think you'd have a response Rourke. Good work!
Nonstopdrivel  
#34 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:07:09 PM(UTC)
What are you talking about?
DakotaT  
#35 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:34:14 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
What are you talking about?


[sarcasm]
Formo  
#36 Posted : Thursday, April 19, 2012 7:05:13 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
To the contrary, it is 100 percent reasonable and in fact should be a firm prerequisite to purchasing an NFL franchise. If you can't fund your own stadium, tough: you either live without or you don't receive the franchise.

The reason why these team owners ask for state funds is because they know full well that the return on investment is abysmal on these things -- below the rate of inflation. It is a form of fraud as far as I am concerned. These men won't invest their own money, and they can't find any private investors to finance their projects, because they are fully aware what an irresponsible, counterproductive use of the money it is; so they foist it off on gullible taxpayers. What so many fans fail to grasp is that sports teams are nothing more than extravagantly expensive, low-profit-margin hobbies for billionaires. A couple of years ago they leaked the Cowboys' profit/loss statements. That team netted a deplorable $10 million on a nearly $1 billion annual budget. In any other industry, that would be grounds for immediate termination of -- at the very least -- the CEO. It would probably result in a whole-scale bloodletting among the executives.

It gets worse. For all the talk about the taxpayers getting back their investment, a significant proportion of stadiums -- in all sports -- are shuttered before the mortgages are even paid off. Not only do these stadiums not turn a profit, they don't even break even. It is almost impossible to fill them with events other than games (if they even sell out for the games), and the rest of the time they sit empty, a fixed cost that returns no revenue. There is a reason why most civic centers and arenas are owned by municipalities: no private corporation is silly enough to build and maintain one. It requires the coercive power of government to get them built.

And yes, all of this applies to the Green Bay Packers too. The reason why they resorted to their bogus novelty stock sale was because obtaining other sorts of funding was impossible or unreasonably expensive. So they settled on handing out worthless trinkets with no cash value in exchange for donations. I actually have no problem with this. In my opinion, if you aren't willing to risk your own money, you can't fool a private investor into funding your project, and you can't even cajole your fans into making donations to the building fund, you have no business compelling millions of taxpayers, many of whom may have no interest in your team whatsoever, to cough up the cash for you. At least the Packers had the integrity (this time, anyway) to limit the damage to people with an active rooting interest in the team. I still think the people of Brown County were silly for letting themselves get taxed in exchange for tickets only 8000 of them will be able to win.


Exactly. Why would we, taxpayers, expect a owner to build something that A) he most likely isn't liquid enough to afford and B) knows it will put him in the meat-grinder financially? Especially when the norm in this instance is public funds almost always go towards these castles. This is what I meant by reasonable, and Wade is probably right, realistic would maybe be the better term.

Lets not forget supply and demand here.. The NFL is a hot ticket and there are many markets that want a franchise. I would be interested to see how much public money from those markets would go towards a new stadium? Obviously MN 'leaders' (and I use that term loosely) don't want an NFL franchise, or at least take that 'privilege' for granted.

And of course, we are talking in broad generalizations. In this case, there wasn't much, if any, general fund public money going towards a new stadium. Gambling profit percentages and reworking a current MPLS tax were the 'public' money being asked for.

I agree with your last paragraph 100%, though. Sports memorabilia tax statewide would be the ideal tax/public money for the stadium. It taxes those vistors from out of state/country and it taxes those who choose to be taxed and those that would care for the team as you already said. But, alas, this is the MN legislature we are talking about here.
Zero2Cool  
#37 Posted : Friday, April 20, 2012 5:07:29 AM(UTC)
I think the Packers did the right thing with making Lambeau Field a year round attraction. The Packers are "publicly" owned, so I'm fine with us taxpayers chipping in. Then again, how about if they got all the shareholders together to pitch in to renovate the stadium? lol

I wonder if it would be possible for the Vikings owner to build a stadium and then lease it out to Minnesota year around for attractions when the Vikings are not using it? It seems silly to have a stadium that costs so much to be used less than a dozen times per year. There has to be better options available.

BTW, I do agree, the owner/s of a team should finance the stadium... after all I can't ask Green Bay (reasonably) to finance a portion of the costs to replace the transmission in my car. Granted, the Packers offer an bring a lot to Green Bay, far more than my car, ... you get the point.

Edit,10 things to know about the Vikings stadium situation
wpr  
#38 Posted : Friday, April 20, 2012 5:44:32 AM(UTC)
good read Zero.

While I would prefer the Vikings to stay in MN I can see the benefits to the franchise if they pick up and move to LA. If I recall there are a couple of groups vying to a franchise out there. I think one of them was willing to privately fund their new stadium plus play the huge fee to get the new team.

LA, 2nd largest, at 3.7 million has a lot more muscle than Minneapolis, # 48, at 382,000.
Metroplex difference is even greater. 13 million people vs 3.3 million.
Zero2Cool  
#39 Posted : Friday, April 20, 2012 5:51:08 AM(UTC)
Los Angeles lost the Rams and Raiders, why bring another team there?

At least when the Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas the name was a better fit than the Los Angeles Lakers or what seems to be inevitable, the Los Angeles Vikings. Hey, the Vikings and Lakers will have similar color schemes in the same city!!!
Wade  
#40 Posted : Friday, April 20, 2012 7:29:00 AM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
That is a nice little euphemism for "exorbitant interest rates levied by skittish investors wanting to ensure they get something -- anything -- back on their money."


Hehe...my first thought was something different: lawyer and CPA costs. "Billable hours" can be a wonderful thing....if you don't have to write the checks.

Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
10 Pages<1234>»
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (4h) : Thanks. Took about 16-20 hours.
wpr (7h) : looks great.
Zero2Cool (13h) : avatars aren't displaying
Zero2Cool (14h) : plain look
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Bigbyfan

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

8h / Announcements / dhazer

22-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / shield4life

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Feb / Community Welcome! / wpr

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

19-Feb / Around The NFL / uffda udfa

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / warhawk

Headlines