Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Sports and Socialism.; One stadium at a time.
Topic Started: Jul 20 2005, 05:55 AM (276 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Should your tax dollars support private ventures?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnSto...s20050720.shtml
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
John Stossel is exactly right on this one. Just another business subsidy cloaked in an emperor's clothes of "civic good". On top of which the baseball anti-trust exemption lets them extort these stadia out of cities with the threat of moving the team to another "more deserving" city. Other sports use similar tactics, but not quite as flagrantly. In the area I live in, we continue to suffer under this corporate welfare with both new baseball and football stadia, a new field house for the largest local university, and a pro hockey team trying to get their turn at the trough with a new arena.

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Which is why I love Green Bay!

Every city should have followed their model.

(full disclosure: I was a project design architect for BankOne Ballpark, Posted Image
which was a publicly funded projected with a county tax. But as Chico Escuela said, "Baseball's been bery bery good to me".)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
I'm sorry, but a professional sports enterprise should pay their own freight.

They should either builf their own arenas, or rent from other private concerns or the municipality. Never should public monies be used for private sports projects, IMO.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I agree, Jolly.

THeres a great site that tracks this stuff. www.fieldofschemes.com
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Why not have the city own and operate the stadium and the team, and directly receive profits from the ticket sales, hot dogs and beers, network contracts, and sports wear franchising?

I realize that this is not the "function" of a municipality, but what argument would you have against making it a truly "public sports project"? Hasn't it worked in Green Bay, solidified the fan support, and ensured that the city is not susceptible to such blackmail?

::still fuming over the Dodgers' betrayal of Brooklyn::
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Of course, this is why the Rams left Anaheim for St. Louis. They wanted a new publicly financed stadium and Anaheim said no. The deal they got in St. Louis was, in my opinion, a complete robbery of the public's money.

It is also why the NFL is not in LA. They want a new publicly financed stadium and for years the City has been saying no.

I have no trouble with revenues generated from/by the stadium being plowed back in (i.e. stadium parking fees pay off bonds for stadium parking facilities). But I do not think other public funds should pay for stadia. After the Rams left anaheim, the City and the Angels (Disney) negotiated a major renovation of the stadium. $110 million or so. (The city owns the stadium but the Angels operate it). Of this, about $30 million came from the City, but all paid out of revenues the revamped stadium itself created. The rest was Dinsey's money. I have no trouble with this. It is standard pirvate sector development theory and practice.

While I don;t want my tax money used for such things, I think this is a decision for the individual community to decide and if this is how they want to spend their money, more power to them.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I hail from the city who should be the poster child for why the public should not fund sports arenas.

The Reds and Bengals not only had to tear down the only 30 year old Riverfront Stadium (shamefully renamed Cinergy field..but that's another rant), they each had to have their own new state-of-the-art venue, and placed on the exceptionally valuable riverfront real estate, no less.

'We have to have these stadiums to field competitive teams in this small market' was the cry. 'If we don't get them we must consider relocating the franchise'. We should have let them.

So, a 'temporary' half-cent sales tax was passed in the county to provide the $500M (that is from recollection.. I'm not sure of the actual figures anymore) the stadiums would cost.

Low and behold, in the fifth year for the Bengals' new stadium and the third for the Reds', what we have to show for it is...... the Bengals and the Reds.

The Bengals have improved some, but even a blind squirrel gets an acorn now and then. Show us the playoffs please. The Reds? Anyone who follows baseball can tell you how badly they are sucking for air this year.

So.. what we have seen is no significant increase in performance from the teams, a worsening in the case of the Reds.. but the teams' profits are way up! The public has been soaked to make the teams profitable.

:veryangry:

Go figure.

I have developed a fondness for minor league baseball. Cheap tickets, great seats, exceptionally clean stadiums, small crowds and unspoiled players.
Check it out.. the level of play is about the same, but you can sit 10 feet from the action.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Jul 20 2005, 03:46 PM
::still fuming over the Dodgers' betrayal of Brooklyn::

IT - you're probably aware that a Brooklyn developer bought the New Jersey Nets and intends to move them to a to-be-built stadium in Brooklyn.

What you may not realize is that the spot where he wants to build the stadium is the exact place that Walter O'Malley wanted to build his new stadium (when he wasn't able to he moved the team).
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Why not have the city own and operate the stadium and the team, and directly receive profits from the ticket sales, hot dogs and beers, network contracts, and sports wear franchising?

I realize that this is not the "function" of a municipality, but what argument would you have against making it a truly "public sports project"? Hasn't it worked in Green Bay, solidified the fan support, and ensured that the city is not susceptible to such blackmail?


Because if the city owns the stadium, they ARE subject to blackmail of the team moving. The way it eventually works is that the rent is reduced to near zero.

The reason it works in Green Bay is because the Packers, unlike most other sports franchises, are publicly owned and are not part of a larger conglomerate. The people of Green Bay own a large percentage of the shares in the Packers, and presumably would fire any executive who tried to move the team elsewhere.

The Celtics are publicly owned, too, but with far less public control (due to the corporate structure of the deal). Other than those two, I can't think of any other baseball, basketball, or football teams that are publicly owned and aren't part of a large conglomerate (like the Knicks, who are owned by Cablevision).
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2005, 04:03 AM
Quote:
 
Why not have the city own and operate the stadium and the team, and directly receive profits from the ticket sales, hot dogs and beers, network contracts, and sports wear franchising?

I realize that this is not the "function" of a municipality, but what argument would you have against making it a truly "public sports project"? Hasn't it worked in Green Bay, solidified the fan support, and ensured that the city is not susceptible to such blackmail?


Because if the city owns the stadium, they ARE subject to blackmail of the team moving. The way it eventually works is that the rent is reduced to near zero.

The reason it works in Green Bay is because the Packers, unlike most other sports franchises, are publicly owned and are not part of a larger conglomerate. The people of Green Bay own a large percentage of the shares in the Packers, and presumably would fire any executive who tried to move the team elsewhere.

The Celtics are publicly owned, too, but with far less public control (due to the corporate structure of the deal). Other than those two, I can't think of any other baseball, basketball, or football teams that are publicly owned and aren't part of a large conglomerate (like the Knicks, who are owned by Cablevision).

Counsellor:

Please re-read (and this time more carefully) what I actually wrote, and then formulate your answer.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
OK. I hereby revise my remarks. Let the record so reflect. I was fooled by your Green Bay analogy, because, unless I'm mistaken, the Packers are owned by individual stockholders, not by Green Bay itself.

Know many municipalities that want to spend several hundred million dollars on a sports franchise? (Above and beyond stadium costs.)

Know many municipalities that could negotiate with a superstar in an efficient way, on an issue that's such an unbelievable hotbutton to rabid fans?

Know many sports leagues that would allow a municipality to own a franchise, given the logistical hurdles above and given the fact that ownership confidentiality would be difficult if not impossible to maintain?

Regardless of whether you think it's the job of a city or not, I think it's probably impractical.

And remember what happened when Oakland tried to use eminent domain to condemn the Raiders, although that's clearly not the same thing at all.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
From http://www.packers.com/history/fast_facts/stock_history/:

Quote:
 
Stock & Financial History

Of all the reasons that make the Green Bay Packers and their story so incredible and unique, the most significant is simply this: The team is literally owned by its fans.

Presently, 111,921 people (representing 4,749,925 shares) can lay claim to a franchise ownership interest.

Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are ever paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value, and there are no season ticket privileges associated with stock ownership. No shareholder is allowed to own more than 200,000 shares, a safeguard to ensure that no one individual is able to assume control of the club.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply