CodeMonkey Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Plans like this, need people that are smart and good ambassadors. I'll find out Dennis Rodmans schedule and his interest in moving this forward. Pulling 800 mil together should be a cakewalk....... Plus, it will take pressure off the Donald and his need to finance the team purchase. Since the stadium will be in place. Maybe Rodman could get Kim Jong-un to put up the funds.
Mr. WEO Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) In the San Fransisco model the Niners pay almost $25 Million a year to the stadium owner, but in return, the Niners keep the concession sales and ticket revenue (split with visitor under NFL rules). I read this in The Atlantic " In California, the City of Santa Clara broke ground on a $1.3 billion stadium for the 49ers. Officially, the deal includes $116 million in public funding, with private capital making up the rest. At least, that’s the way the deal was announced. A new government entity, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, is borrowing $950 million, largely from a consortium led by Goldman Sachs, to provide the majority of the “private” financing. Who are the board members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority? The members of the Santa Clara City Council. In effect, the city of Santa Clara is providing most of the “private” funding. Should something go wrong, taxpayers will likely take the hit. The 49ers will pay Santa Clara $24.5 million annually in rent for four decades, which makes the deal, from the team’s standpoint, a 40-year loan amortized at less than 1 percent interest. At the time of the agreement, 30-year Treasury bonds were selling for 3 percent, meaning the Santa Clara contract values the NFL as a better risk than the United States government" http://www.theatlant...xpayers/309448/ "Although most of the capital for the new stadium is being underwritten by the public, most football revenue generated within the facility will be pocketed by Denise DeBartolo York, whose net worth is estimated at $1.1 billion" The idea here is not to use PUBLIC funds as they did in Santa Clara, but private funding (whether it is $4000 per person x 200,000 people or larger investors). After 30 or 40 years the investors are paid off and the team stays put with a new state of the art facility. The NFL team (Buffalo Bills) keeps the concessions and ticket revenue to offset their lease/rent overhead. Huh? You really think this new stadium will be around 30 or 40 years from now? And will still be "state od the art" keeping the team local? And the Bills currently, I believe, keep all ticket sales, concessions and parking--and their rent is no where near 25 million per year. Edited April 3, 2014 by Mr. WEO
BringBackFergy Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Huh? You really think this new stadium will be around 30 or 40 years from now? And will still be "state od the art" keeping the team local? And the Bills currently, I believe, keep all ticket sales, concessions and parking--and their rent is no where near 25 million per year. There is a middle ground: Maybe for a $4000 contribution each private investor/owner of the stadium is guaranteed $2000 back (these are rough figures obviously but makes illustration easier). In that case, the annual rent comes down significantly. Quite sure some investors/owners wouldn't even care about repayment so long as there is a commitment to stay. Annual rent paid could be used toward property taxes, insurance, etc. The team still keeps all tix sales, concessions, etc.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 . . . I think what is more likely is the state provides an interest free loan to the new owner or trust which they can use as a write off . . My youngest brother Darryl claims he got rich writing off the interest he paid on an interest-free loan, so I suppose it could happen.
Mr. WEO Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 There is a middle ground: Maybe for a $4000 contribution each private investor/owner of the stadium is guaranteed $2000 back (these are rough figures obviously but makes illustration easier). In that case, the annual rent comes down significantly. Quite sure some investors/owners wouldn't even care about repayment so long as there is a commitment to stay. Annual rent paid could be used toward property taxes, insurance, etc. The team still keeps all tix sales, concessions, etc. The current Bills rent is only $800,000 a year (plus 50% of dollar amount in ticket sales over the league average for the precious year). So this current lease is actually a huge gift to the Bills. You would have to decide right away if you were going to pay back everyone (plus interest if it is a bond) or no one. Also, you would have to decide if the entire amount needs to be raised before ground is broken or if this entitiy is going to take a loan to start construction and simply hope that the fans come through.
CodeMonkey Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 The current Bills rent is only $800,000 a year (plus 50% of dollar amount in ticket sales over the league average for the precious year). So this current lease is actually a huge gift to the Bills. You would have to decide right away if you were going to pay back everyone (plus interest if it is a bond) or no one. Also, you would have to decide if the entire amount needs to be raised before ground is broken or if this entitiy is going to take a loan to start construction and simply hope that the fans come through. No decision to be made there. No one in their right mind would give a loan to a group that has "hope" as their business plan
Recommended Posts