Poll of the Day > If an owner of one of the major sports teams in your city threatened

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sports exist for entertainment, not to extort the citizens of their region, many of whom may not even watch said sport. Our taxes built a new football stadium like ten years ago and I'm still pissed about it. And of course they then priced all the seats out of reach of most of the population. If the coaches and players want a new stadium then they can shell out a couple bucks from their multimillion dollar contracts or they can fuck off.

man101 posted...

Sports exist for entertainment, not to extort the citizens of their region, many of whom may not even watch said sport. Our taxes built a new football stadium like ten years ago and I'm still pissed about it. And of course they then priced all the seats out of reach of most of the population. If the coaches and players want a new stadium then they can shell out a couple bucks from their multimillion dollar contracts or they can fuck off.

what percent of that stadium by you did taxpayers pay for? like 90 percent of it? not the billionaire owner...etc...?

Smallville posted...

what percent of that stadium by you did taxpayers pay for? like 90 percent of it? not the billionaire owner...etc...?

It was 50/50 State and private funding. And of course once it paid itself off 50% of the future profits did not then go back into the state.

There have been studies on the ROI of stadium investments by public funds and it pretty much shows across the board that they're bullshit scams that allow rich investors to get richer under the pretense of providing (temporary construction and shit-paying permanent) jobs.

Depends what the business case looked like for the city. Stadiums are expensive, but also bring in a substantial amount of tourist dollars and other tax revenue. It may be a worthwhile investment, in which case it's fair game. If not, not so much.

man101 posted...

It was 50/50 State and private funding. And of course once it paid itself off 50% of the future profits did not then go back into the state.

There have been studies on the ROI of stadium investments by public funds and it pretty much shows across the board that they're bullshit scams that allow rich investors to get richer under the pretense of providing (temporary construction and shit-paying permanent) jobs.

i read this as well. That they much overestimate how much the new stadium will generate in revenue. yeah like none of the future profits go to the state..

All cities who want a sports team should pull a green bay packers. At least the money goes back into the city.

slacker03150 posted...

All cities who want a sports team should pull a green bay packers. At least the money goes back into the city.

what is their arrangement though? have vaguely heard of it. So they don't have a billionaire owner?

Smallville posted...

what is their arrangement though? have vaguely heard of it. So they don't have a billionaire owner?

"The Packers are the only community-owned franchise in North America's four traditional major leagues. Rather than being the property of an individual, partnership, or corporate entity, they are held by stockholders, more than 537,000 in total as of 2022. No one is allowed to hold more than 200,000 shares."

In situations like that, it should be that the city maintains full control over the facility, and that anyone showing valid ID stating their address to be within the city should be granted free access to games.

In reality, neither of these things happen. It's an absolute scam. Stadiums should be built to be enjoyed for at least 50 years but in many cases they're being replaced at about the 20-30 year point. It's embarrassing.

https://youtu.be/gGKJAZZS56g?si=xHJAmfTGiOojgVcf

rjsilverthorn posted...

"The Packers are the only community-owned franchise in North America's four traditional major leagues. Rather than being the property of an individual, partnership, or corporate entity, they are held by stockholders, more than 537,000 in total as of 2022. No one is allowed to hold more than 200,000 shares."

oh, cool. Any downside to this method or way of doing it, like packers people have said it is to the traditional method?

Bye! I never watched you anyway.

I would let them leave. I'm not even a sports person in the first place.

If it was a team not on my sig (Sox or non big 4) I wouldn't care but I would be pretty pissed if they let one of my sig teams go, they take enough to afford it, I would rather it go to one of my teams than a politician's pocket

I mean seriously wtf can you do about it? Buy it? So unless you got a spare Billion just lying around, either just find a new team to be a fan of or continue to root for them. Being from Jerz, they took the Nets (eventhough I'm a Sixers fan), and the Giants/Jets play here, but are considered NYC teams. So what we got left, Hockey?

pionear posted...

I mean seriously wtf can you do about it? Buy it? So unless you got a spare Billion just lying around, either just find a new team to be a fan of or continue to root for them. Being from Jerz, they took the Nets (eventhough I'm a Sixers fan), and the Giants/Jets play here, but are considered NYC teams. So what we got left, Hockey?

oh didn't realize that. They are called ny teams , but are like 30 mins away, what difference does it make?

First, there would first need to actually be a major sports team in my city. We only have minor league teams.

Second, I probably wouldn't care. So much tax money is wasted on useless crap that an extra few billion isn't going to make a difference.

Dikitain posted...

First, there would first need to actually be a major sports team in my city. We only have minor league teams.

Second, I probably wouldn't care. So much tax money is wasted on useless crap that an extra few billion isn't going to make a difference.

oh so you do think that even that stadium money makes no difference at all, a drop in the bucket?

The only argument I can see for taxpayers footing the bill is that stadiums generate a fuck load of revenue and create a ton of jobs. But it's a regional benefit with diminishing returns the further away from the stadium site you are.

And it's a shit argument because while a couple thousand folks might get a job or a bump in pay, a handful of already-wealthy business owners and millionaires will reap the most benefit so in short fuck no should taxpayers foot the bill. Fuck billionaires.

As a San Diegan, this already happened and I'm still pissed. Instantly stopped following the Chargers.

Colonel_Lingus posted...

The only argument I can see for taxpayers footing the bill is that stadiums generate a fuck load of revenue and create a ton of jobs. But it's a regional benefit with diminishing returns the further away from the stadium site you are.

And it's a shit argument because while a couple thousand folks might get a job or a bump in pay, a handful of already-wealthy business owners and millionaires will reap the most benefit so in short fuck no should taxpayers foot the bill. Fuck billionaires.

yea i read that the supposed great economic benefit of new stadiums is vastly overrated etc... you really dislike billionaire owners...etc.... does this feeling extend to also the athletes too?

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

As a San Diegan, this already happened and I'm still pissed. Instantly stopped following the Chargers.

they recently built a new stadium after a threatened move? What percent did the taxpayers pay , of the new stadium?

While they make an absurd amount of money for what they do, I do not believe athletes (and to that end actors,musicians, etc) are overpaid. They deserve the money they make because they are the entertainment. They're the ones putting asses in seats and bringing money into the stadiums/theaters.

If anything, the athletes deserve the money and if taxpayers are footing the bill for the stadium then the billionaire "owners" should be cut from the equation and revenue should be generated directly to the state to justify the tax-funded construction. Just make sports teams state-owned entities if they want taxpayers paying for stadiums

Colonel_Lingus posted...

While they make an absurd amount of money for what they do, I do not believe athletes (and to that end actors,musicians, etc) are overpaid. They deserve the money they make because they are the entertainment. They're the ones putting asses in seats and bringing money into the stadiums/theaters.

If anything, the athletes deserve the money and if taxpayers are footing the bill for the stadium then the billionaire "owners" should be cut from the equation and revenue should be generated directly to the state to justify the tax-funded construction. Just make sports teams state-owned entities if they want taxpayers paying for stadiums

billionaires should pay for all of it, do you think athletes should pay for any of it?

No. Why should they? They're employees. Do you pay for renovations to your boss's business?

GranTurismo posted...

they recently built a new stadium after a threatened move? What percent did the taxpayers pay , of the new stadium?

Snapdragon Stadium is owned by SDSU as part of their SDSU West expansion, so it was paid for by donations and bonds to be paid back by Stadium revenue.

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

Snapdragon Stadium is owned by SDSU as part of their SDSU West expansion, so it was paid for by donations and bonds to be paid back by Stadium revenue.

so but that is still mostly tax money paying for it right, just different wording? snapdragon like that asian ramen company, the only one i know that is remotely close to that name.

Smallville posted...

oh so you do think that even that stadium money makes no difference at all, a drop in the bucket?

In the grand scheme of things? Yes. If money was distributed more fairly then I would care, but when city budgets range in the tens of billions per year for seemingly no benefit to the citizens, what is another billion every 20 or so years?

Dikitain posted...

In the grand scheme of things? Yes. If money was distributed more fairly then I would care, but when city budgets range in the tens of billions per year for seemingly no benefit to the citizens, what is another billion every 20 or so years?

You do believe that that in your city that most of those tens of billions are wasted? You believe that most of that money is like corruption though, most of it is pocketed by individuals?

Smallville posted...

You do believe that that in your city that most of those tens of billions are wasted? You believe that most of that money is like corruption though, most of it is pocketed by individuals?

Again, I am in a smaller city so not "tens of billions" as far as my city is concerned is probably more like hundreds of millions. But on the whole, yes. Homelessness still exists, infrastructure is falling apart, traffic patterns suck, etc. If our money wasn't being wasted we wouldn't have to worry about any of those things.

Major league sports should have no access to tax money. They should actually be paying more taxes.

no, stadiums should not involve taxpayer money at all.

take those billions and fix the fucking roads instead.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

no, stadiums should not involve taxpayer money at all.

take those billions and fix the fucking roads instead.

just that stadium money is not nearly enough for all roads

It's enough for some roads. $1 billion is also enough to pay $1500 a month to cover rent for 15,000 households for a year (which would probably actually yield a considerable return on investment because simply housing homeless people is significantly cheaper than paying for them to be homeless), which is very obviously a better use of the money than a stadium.

Smallville posted...

oh, cool. Any downside to this method or way of doing it, like packers people have said it is to the traditional method?

I have no idea if it would even be viable today. They did this back in the 1920's in a relatively new league, the amount of money you'd need to raise today would probably make it substantially more challenging.

rjsilverthorn posted...

I have no idea if it would even be viable today. They did this back in the 1920's in a relatively new league, the amount of money you'd need to raise today would probably make it substantially more challenging.

What about this way makes it not feasible though?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e19FQR5BWwU

rjsilverthorn posted...

I have no idea if it would even be viable today. They did this back in the 1920's in a relatively new league, the amount of money you'd need to raise today would probably make it substantially more challenging.

If memory serves, it is also how a lot of European football teams are handled. I think it would be doable. The question would be would the NFL allow a new team like that to enter the league.

slacker03150 posted...

If memory serves, it is also how a lot of European football teams are handled. I think it would be doable. The question would be would the NFL allow a new team like that to enter the league.

I don't think the NFL would care, they get their cut regardless, I'm just not sure you could raise the billions of dollars needed for an NFL team through, what is effectively, crowd-sourcing. The costs associated to running a team have greatly out-paced inflation.

slacker03150 posted...

If memory serves, it is also how a lot of European football teams are handled. I think it would be doable. The question would be would the NFL allow a new team like that to enter the league.

I think it is more a matter of "would the NFL allow a new team period". Only one team has been added in the 21st century, and only 11 teams have been added since the NFL and AFL merged (2 of those being AFL teams that got in a few years after).

The only way I could see it happening is if one of the existing teams were sold to a city, which would never happen.

GranTurismo posted...

just that stadium money is not nearly enough for all roads

pretty sure the money spent on just one stadium could fix all the roads in that state it's in

ConfusedTorchic posted...

no, stadiums should not involve taxpayer money at all.

take those billions and fix the fucking roads instead.

They already tax you for the roads, politicians just take from that revenue and fill their pockets or spend it on other things instead of fixing the roads. If they spent tax money the way it should be spent we wouldn't have these problems, hell we could cut taxes and still have improved roads, infrastructure, programs, etc.

Dikitain posted...

I think it is more a matter of "would the NFL allow a new team period". Only one team has been added in the 21st century, and only 11 teams have been added since the NFL and AFL merged (2 of those being AFL teams that got in a few years after).

The only way I could see it happening is if one of the existing teams were sold to a city, which would never happen.

I think the NFL's focus on expansion now is outside the US, given the increasing number of international games each year. Overall though I was focusing more on the financial viability of that kind of ownership rather than the likelihood.

GranTurismo posted...

so but that is still mostly tax money paying for it right, just different wording? snapdragon like that asian ramen company, the only one i know that is remotely close to that name.

Well they're bonds issued through the CSU system and get paid back, it's not like tax funded stadiums ever have that tax money paid back directly. Snapdragon is a Qualcomm brand of systems on a chip. I guess they decided Qualcomm Stadium yet again would be weird.

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

Well they're bonds issued through the CSU system and get paid back, it's not like tax funded stadiums ever have that tax money paid back directly. Snapdragon is a Qualcomm brand of systems on a chip. I guess they decided Qualcomm Stadium yet again would be weird.

Never heard it called that, thought it might be some wording workaround......

GranTurismo posted...

Never heard it called that, thought it might be some wording workaround......

Never heard which? Snapdragon?

rjsilverthorn posted...

Never heard which? Snapdragon?

No the thing they're using to find it , bonds or whatever