T master Posted May 8, 2012 Posted May 8, 2012 I was just reading the article on ESPN about the Vikings new stadium plans . In the interview it said that the new stadium was going to cost Minnesota tax payers approx. $975 mil . The have voted that the team was going to have to pay more this time which comes to the sum of $105 mil of the over all $975 mil , which they (the team) are not real happy about but glad the house passed the bill to build the stadium . Which has got me to wondering . The NFL makes Billions of dollars in revenue every year , the tax payers or fans which ever you want to call us pay out millions over the years to support the teams we so dearly love . These owners are multi million or billionaires , the NFL is definitely a multi Billion dollar company & the fans not only get hung for paying for the teams merch , tickets , but also have to foot the bill for the stadiums . Seeing as the NFL & the Owners are the ones with all the money (which is generated by the fans) & the players are making these rediculous contracts why should the tax payers be put on the line for so much shouldn't it be a half & half proposition ? Or at least 1/3 NFL , 1/3 owners , 1/3 tax payers . That way the NFL & team owners would be more apt to keep teams in there respective city b/c they would have more vested interest in that city .That way too if the team would move the NFL along with the owner of the franchise would have to spend a bit more if they threatened to move . Plus you wouldn't have rogue cities like L.A. that has already had it's chance at a NFL franchise (not to mention that the state is broke & they are having another sports stadium built for S.F. 49ers) not once but twice to get a 3rd chance to steal a team away from other cities with years of interest vested in their team . Too any other profits through concerts & such could be figured into either paying off the over all payment of the buildings then once they were paid for the profits could be some how put in a fund for up keep , taxes , or what ever else might come into play so that it is a more even split & the NFL as a whole doesn't wind up being the biggest beneficiary of a team . If the NFL would just change their by laws & allow things to be done again like in the case of the Packers then it could all fall on the people of the area B/C they would be owners of the team . Then not only would the region profit from the team but so would all involved , but the way it is now it doesn't seem as though the fans or tax payers in this case are getting a fair shake . I know to some this may be just rambling but we seem to here how our team the Bills might be moved , & the Vikings could be moved , then the Rams could be moved . If they are going to do that put the Rams back in L.A. , the Cards back in St. Louis , the Colts in Baltimore , & make expansion teams for all the other cities involved . WOW that would be a mess any way this is the end of my mind dump now the powers that be can well never mind !!!
apuszczalowski Posted May 8, 2012 Posted May 8, 2012 These Billionaires didn't get to where they are by spending all of their money. The reason they want Tax dollars to help pay for these stadiums is because, well, they can. From their point of view, they look at it as the stadium also being something that will help the surrounding area. Stadiums bring in huge groups of people to one place which means that surrounding businesses should see increased business, the stadium will bring in tax money to the local government, etc. Local Governments can use the building of a new stadium as a way to improve the infrastructure in that area and possibly open up new areas for development. If the owners are told they have to pay the entire cost for a new stadium to be built, they deserve the right to also be able to pick up their franchise an relocate it wherever they feel they can make a better profit. Alot of the tax money used to pay for the new stadiums being built aren't donations given to the team/owner, many of them are long term loans/bonds that are paid back by the team in the form of lease agreements or yearly payments. The NFl also has a program already that gives teams loans to help with the cost of building new stadiums. Theres always arguements about what tax money is spent on because not everyones tax dollars are spent on stuff they take advanatage of. I could be against my tax dollars funding public transportation because I own my own car and don't use it. I could be against my tax dollars going to upgrade sewers and water supply lines because I live outside the urban area and have a septic system and a well/cistern on my property. I could be against putting tax money towards a new basketball arena because I don't watch basketball, but be all for tax dollars being used for a new baseball stadium cause I support the local baseball team.
BRAWNDO Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 These Billionaires didn't get to where they are by spending all of their money. The reason they want Tax dollars to help pay for these stadiums is because, well, they can. From their point of view, they look at it as the stadium also being something that will help the surrounding area. Stadiums bring in huge groups of people to one place which means that surrounding businesses should see increased business, the stadium will bring in tax money to the local government, etc. Local Governments can use the building of a new stadium as a way to improve the infrastructure in that area and possibly open up new areas for development. If the owners are told they have to pay the entire cost for a new stadium to be built, they deserve the right to also be able to pick up their franchise an relocate it wherever they feel they can make a better profit. Alot of the tax money used to pay for the new stadiums being built aren't donations given to the team/owner, many of them are long term loans/bonds that are paid back by the team in the form of lease agreements or yearly payments. The NFl also has a program already that gives teams loans to help with the cost of building new stadiums. Theres always arguements about what tax money is spent on because not everyones tax dollars are spent on stuff they take advanatage of. I could be against my tax dollars funding public transportation because I own my own car and don't use it. I could be against my tax dollars going to upgrade sewers and water supply lines because I live outside the urban area and have a septic system and a well/cistern on my property. I could be against putting tax money towards a new basketball arena because I don't watch basketball, but be all for tax dollars being used for a new baseball stadium cause I support the local baseball team. Interesting take.
Captain Hindsight Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 I feel like i read somewhere that the colts stadium was built before the old stadium was even paid off. If thats true thats messed up and no taxpayer money should have been involve for the new stadium
NoSaint Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) I feel like i read somewhere that the colts stadium was built before the old stadium was even paid off. If thats true thats messed up and no taxpayer money should have been involve for the new stadium The RCA dome broke ground in 82 and hosted its first event in 84. If not funded after 23 years of nfl use (plus all others) something went terribly wrong. It cost less than 100m to build. Edited May 10, 2012 by NoSaint
Captain Hindsight Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 The RCA dome broke ground in 82 and hosted its first event in 84. If not funded after 23 years of nfl use (plus all others) something went terribly wrong. Ill try to find the article. I may be wrong
BiggieScooby Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 These stadiums are byproducts of the growth of the sport. Coupled with the fact that many host other events, and sports they are now centers of economic interest and major areas of commercial commerce. The economic benefit from this spending is higher values of NFL teams and rising player salaries. Look no further than the NBA and NHL. In recent CBAs the owners faced with declining revenues and increased costs slashed player salaries. The NFL has been so innovative in driving revenue. Time will tell if the NFL revenues stagnate but when they do their will be a huge ripple effect. In order for the greedy NFL owners to drive revenue they will leave a dying Cleveland for Baltimore, move a game to Toronto, play a game in England, Mexico City, etc. the writing is on the wall, if revenues continue to grow only for larger markets than its inevitable that small market owners will look "outside" the market to drive revenue. Which leads me to back to Buffalo. With a deal expiring in Toronto after 2012, what better way to drive interest than to buy it by spending on player salaries.
NoSaint Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 Ill try to find the article. I may be wrong Perhaps an upgrade or renovation wasn't fully funded?
QCity Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 You got the figures wrong. The Vikings offered to pay $427M out of a total price of $975M (44%). The taxpayers voted and want them to pay $523M, which is $105M more than the Vikings want to pay.
Captain Hindsight Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 Perhaps an upgrade or renovation wasn't fully funded? Maybe. I may have just read it wrong. Im too tired to look now but ill try in the morning
jimmy10 Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) I feel like i read somewhere that the colts stadium was built before the old stadium was even paid off. If thats true thats messed up and no taxpayer money should have been involve for the new stadium There was a great NY Times piece on exactly this topic a few years ago. Many subsidized stadiums had debt that lived far beyond their usefulness. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html?pagewanted=all Edited May 10, 2012 by jimmyo
RyanC883 Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 I feel like i read somewhere that the colts stadium was built before the old stadium was even paid off. If thats true thats messed up and no taxpayer money should have been involve for the new stadium The stadiums in Pittsburgh (PNC and Heinz) were also built before 3 rivers was paid off. Although, whoever ordered that POS should have gotten a refund.
Toshiero Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 I believe if an OWNER wants a new stadium, then he should foot most of the bill period.
NoSaint Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) The stadiums in Pittsburgh (PNC and Heinz) were also built before 3 rivers was paid off. Although, whoever ordered that POS should have gotten a refund. How is that possible? it was like a $40m project that hosted 2 teams for 30 years. i havent read the previously attached article yet but..... that math seems crazy. skimmed the article real quick (really only a paragraph or two) its got to be all renovations or terrible accounting practices. Giants stadium had more debt than its original build cost when they left it. thats a whole different beast than turning over a stadium before the last build is paid which implies quick turnarounds. Edited May 10, 2012 by NoSaint
Recommended Posts