Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Aren't you the same poster who felt the Dodgers should give "charity" to an 86 year old fan who's seats were being increased 500 percent? Wasn't there money on the line for the Dodgers? Why DO you like a blue collar team like the Bills? You should switch to Dallas or Washington who are all about the mighty buckaroos. Don't expect sympathy after we've watched corporations like Enron and World Com bilk thousands of loyal "less successful" employees out of their life savings. I feel sorry for the true Jet fans. 292156[/snapback] No, that wasn't me. I'm a Bills fan because I'm from Hamburg. I have no choice And as for the idiot employees at Enron and WorldCom, they got burned by being greedy and sinking their ENTIRE life savings into one nest egg. Sucks to be them. I sold my EDS stock the day I left the company (or rather, the day they threw me out ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Entertainment, huh? Been to a Broadway show lately? How about a U2 concert with premium seats going for +150 a pop. Supply and demand dictate price, and obviously there's ample demand even with the price increases we're starting to see. BTW, the NFL's mass appeal was built on television, not in-stadium attendance. The total number of NFL seats available on any given Sunday (about 1 million, league-wide) is a drop in the bucket versus the 25 million households that tune in each week. 292241[/snapback] No doubt entertainment has become more expensive (I'm going to a U2 show tomorrow night). But there's a difference between expensive and PSL outrageousness. I guess a got a problem with building a stadium with taxpayer money, and then charging a PSL for the right to buy season tickets. And you're right, the NFL was built on television. The next deal with be close to a billion a year. And NFL merchandise is still something like a 2 billion dollar a year business. Yet the NFL bends the average fan over with PSLs. Since in-game attendance is only a "drop in the bucket," maybe they could give their most avid supporters a break. The NFL earns billions of dollars from being "expensive." Building outrageously costly stadiums while pushing the costs directly to the taxpayer and consumer is another level of greed. In the end it will only server to alienate and erode the fan base that made the NFL successful to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Building outrageously costly stadiums while pushing the costs directly to the taxpayer and consumer is another level of greed. In the end it will only server to alienate and erode the fan base that made the NFL successful to begin with. 292341[/snapback] I wouldn't hold my breath on a sizeable number of 18-54 year old American males tuning into more "affordable" sports on Sunday afternoons. XFL, anyone? The day NFL games go to "pay per view" will be the day the whole thing implodes. Charging big bucks for PSL's in the wealthest city in America may be distasteful to most of us in "blue collar" Buffalo, but it's actually amazing the Jets held out as long as did in NOT doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 I wouldn't hold my breath on a sizeable number of 18-54 year old American males tuning into more "affordable" sports on Sunday afternoons. XFL, anyone? The day NFL games go to "pay per view" will be the day the whole thing implodes. Charging big bucks for PSL's in the wealthest city in America may be distasteful to most of us in "blue collar" Buffalo, but it's actually amazing the Jets held out as long as did in NOT doing this. 292358[/snapback] And what is stopping them from making the decision to move teams out of blue collar towns in favor of cities like Los Angeles, based not on fan support, but on TV and Luxury seat markets? The amazing thing about the Jets is that they've gone their entire existance without having their own stadium, so it's not like they were holding out. It's more like it took them this long to gain the support to get this thing built. And the support they have looks shady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 And what is stopping them from making the decision to move teams out of blue collar towns in favor of cities like Los Angeles, based not on fan support, but on TV and Luxury seat markets? The amazing thing about the Jets is that they've gone their entire existance without having their own stadium, so it's not like they were holding out. It's more like it took them this long to gain the support to get this thing built. And the support they have looks shady. 292376[/snapback] Didn't they play at Shea Stadium? And the Polo grounds for that matter? And there's nothing stopping them from leaving blue-collar towns. Does it suck? Sure, but that's life. Life sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammered a Lot Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 ...."The governer is encouraging our members to approve the plan, but ultimately, it's up to them." Right! http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/22893.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Time for a little civil disobediance, Thoreau-style. Beyotches! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 how often do you hear of a public funded project coming in lower than the reported cost? if they said how much it would really cost, they would have had a more difficult time securing public funds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Well, we got HSBC and the improvements to RWS from the state. That was approaching $200 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Didn't they play at Shea Stadium? And the Polo grounds for that matter? And there's nothing stopping them from leaving blue-collar towns. Does it suck? Sure, but that's life. Life sucks. 292384[/snapback] They shared Shea with the Mets, and if they were in the Polo grounds, they shared it with the Giants. They've never been the primary tenent in a stadium. And there are plenty of ways to stop the teams from moving out of blue collar towns. Too bad we've been programmed to say "life sucks" instead of taking action against the idiots who let this happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeRay Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Imagine that? Who would have known? Why do I have visions of the "big dig" all over again? 10 more years before I retire and I've lived my entire life in NYS (WTF was I thinking?) As soon as I retire, I am so out of this pathetic sesspool of political incompetence and corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 They shared Shea with the Mets, and if they were in the Polo grounds, they shared it with the Giants. They've never been the primary tenent in a stadium. And there are plenty of ways to stop the teams from moving out of blue collar towns. Too bad we've been programmed to say "life sucks" instead of taking action against the idiots who let this happen. 292432[/snapback] Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the OWNERS called OWNERS because they actually OWN the teams? That would make the teams their property not the fans'. Which means they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their teams. How would you like it if someone said to you...."You know what? We like you as a neighbor. We like you so much that you're not allowed to sell your house and move. EVER." I thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Would it be possible to put all of these threads on the same topic in one place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Would it be possible to put all of these threads on the same topic in one place? 292485[/snapback] and i make a motion for johnnyB to be the moderator of the newest TBD forum "New York State Government Discussion Forum" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammered a Lot Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 Well, we got HSBC and the improvements to RWS from the state. That was approaching $200 million. $200 million peanuts. I believe Javitts Center in NY City just got a plane load of money for improvements and now the Jets hijacking of the state and city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the OWNERS called OWNERS because they actually OWN the teams? That would make the teams their property not the fans'. Which means they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their teams. How would you like it if someone said to you...."You know what? We like you as a neighbor. We like you so much that you're not allowed to sell your house and move. EVER." I thought so. 292481[/snapback] Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the owners subject to the laws of the counties, states, and country in which their business operates. Business are subject to Anti-trust rules, SEC laws, and IRS laws, are they not? So the NFL is subjected to regulation, right? And don't the the majority of these owners rely on taxpayers to build them stadiums so that they can make their enormous profits, when, in fact, they can afford to build and run their own stadiums? Don't you think it's about time that communities that sacrifice improvements to their own infrastructure, health care, and education to subsidize a billion dollar monopoly wise up and say, "you want the money, here are the new rules." Why can't the taxpayers expect to protect themselves in the same way we expect owners to protect themselves? And to answer your off-base question, I financed and pay for my own house. There are obligations under those agreements that I must meet before selling it. Stopping the movement of franchise is so simple, it's ridiculous. Make it illegal to make stadium deals that benefit a specific team as it's primary tenent. If the taxpayers build the stadium, by law all the concessions, the parking money, the luxury box money, even the PSLs go back to the taxpayers. The owners keep the gate. That would force politicians to make better deals for their taxpayers, end the fight between communities that end up in franchise moves, and force the NFL and its owners to finance its own playgrounds. Taxpayers could then build stadiums when it makes fiscal sense, rather than emptying its coffers in a form of corporate blackmail. Too bad so many fans have been brainwashed into believing that free enterprise requires the government subsidization of billion dollar businesses. Too bad we've come to accept that politicians and the taxpayers are supposed to get bent over backwards in deals like this. Like you said, life sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 $200 million peanuts. I believe Javitts Center in NY City just got a plane load of money for improvements and now the Jets hijacking of the state and city. so $200 million for an area with about 1 million people is fine, but $500 or even $800 million for an area with 10 times that many people is no good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 If the new stadium is going to be used for the Olympics, does that mean it is going to have a track running around the field and in turn the first row of seats is a mile away from the sidelines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonabb Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 First, the costs for RWS improvements were under $100 million. Second, that money was made available when this state was doing better, unemployment was not very high and jobs were available (see Clinton presidency). Third, should the entire state, including fiscally strapped residents everywhere be paying nearly $1 billion, that BILLION, for a stadium for a franchise that makes much more profit than Buffalo's AND is not as important to the NYC as the Bills are to WNY? Basically, it's a huge gamble aimed at getting the Olympics, which 99.9% of New Yorks won't be able to attend because they'll be living somewhete in the south where taxes are fair and jobs are plentiful!!!!!! So when Paris wins the Olympics, we'll have jack squat to show for it but the Jets will have a nice new stadium on our billion dollars. By the way, that's $53 per resident for this stadium. So my household will pay $159 for the Jets to have a stadium they don't need. F this state, I can't wait to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the owners subject to the laws of the counties, states, and country in which their business operates. Business are subject to Anti-trust rules, SEC laws, and IRS laws, are they not? So the NFL is subjected to regulation, right? And don't the the majority of these owners rely on taxpayers to build them stadiums so that they can make their enormous profits, when, in fact, they can afford to build and run their own stadiums? Don't you think it's about time that communities that sacrifice improvements to their own infrastructure, health care, and education to subsidize a billion dollar monopoly wise up and say, "you want the money, here are the new rules." Why can't the taxpayers expect to protect themselves in the same way we expect owners to protect themselves? And to answer your off-base question, I financed and pay for my own house. There are obligations under those agreements that I must meet before selling it. Stopping the movement of franchise is so simple, it's ridiculous. Make it illegal to make stadium deals that benefit a specific team as it's primary tenent. If the taxpayers build the stadium, by law all the concessions, the parking money, the luxury box money, even the PSLs go back to the taxpayers. The owners keep the gate. That would force politicians to make better deals for their taxpayers, end the fight between communities that end up in franchise moves, and force the NFL and its owners to finance its own playgrounds. Taxpayers could then build stadiums when it makes fiscal sense, rather than emptying its coffers in a form of corporate blackmail. Too bad so many fans have been brainwashed into believing that free enterprise requires the government subsidization of billion dollar businesses. Too bad we've come to accept that politicians and the taxpayers are supposed to get bent over backwards in deals like this. Like you said, life sucks. 292528[/snapback] Look, no one's twisting the arms of the people of these cities. Don't like the stadium deal? Don't make it. Just be prepared to have the team move. Is it hardball? YES. Is it mean? Absolutely? is that what business is about? You betcha. I say again, the teams belong to these owners. They have invested equity into them, therefore, they own them. What businessman in his right mind is going to take a deal from city A that says "We'll build you a stadium, but we get the revenue" when city B says "we'll build you a stadium, but YOU cna have all the revenue"? Pretty simple, no? If you said you'd accept deal A in the owner's position, you're a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts