Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The True Adonis on February 01, 2016, 01:59:07 PM
-
http://sportige.com/the-nfl-is-even-more-greedy-than-usual-in-this-super-bowl-01-29-2014/
That isn’t stopping the league and the owners from pocketing public money, with And through it’s money making schemes, with 68% of NFL stadium construction costs since 1923 coming from taxpayer money
-
Big surprise. Like any Olympics/World Cup/Pam-Am Games - last money in/first money out. SOP.
-
http://sportige.com/the-nfl-is-even-more-greedy-than-usual-in-this-super-bowl-01-29-2014/
That isn’t stopping the league and the owners from pocketing public money, with And through it’s money making schemes, with 68% of NFL stadium construction costs since 1923 coming from taxpayer money
Yes, Adonis. That's because it brings in way more in revenue globally along with taxes. Its a win win for the state and federal government just like the lottery. Its also a massive job creator
-
Yes, Adonis. That's because it brings in way more in revenue globally along with taxes. Its a win win for the state and federal government just like the lottery. Its also a massive job creator
No. It's a win for the NFL, and that's it. Everyone else is one the hook. ::)
-
Yes, Adonis. That's because it brings in way more in revenue globally along with taxes. Its a win win for the state and federal government just like the lottery. Its also a massive job creator
I think there are more important things to spend money on and better ways of generating revenue.
-
EVERY major pro sports team gets the local tax base to help pay for building the venue.
I have mixed feelings about it, but, that's life in the good ol' USA.
This...
-
'San Francisco Super Bowl: crooked accounting, mass surveillance and a screwjob for taxpayers & homeless people'?
boingboing linky: http://boingboing.net/2016/01/30/san-francisco-super-bowl-croo.html (http://boingboing.net/2016/01/30/san-francisco-super-bowl-croo.html)
-
The economic impact of having a sports team is probably huge though. I have no idea, but I have to think there is a lot of tax revenue generated from a city having a professional team.
Having tax payers pay for it might make sense IF the people there want the sports team.
-
http://sportige.com/the-nfl-is-even-more-greedy-than-usual-in-this-super-bowl-01-29-2014/
That isn’t stopping the league and the owners from pocketing public money, with And through it’s money making schemes, with 68% of NFL stadium construction costs since 1923 coming from taxpayer money
Maybe you can get ole Bernie to kill the construction of stadiums that create revenue for a city and jobs as well.
INVESTING IN STADIUMS
By Paul Tagliabue in NFL Report
Building new football stadiums is no simple task. It takes commitment, creativity, funding, and hard work across a wide spectrum of interests to develop the public-private partnerships necessary to produce modern stadium facilities.
To help meet this challenge, the NFL clubs recently improved and expanded their ability to support new stadium construction.
Since the late 1980s, NFL owners collectively have made–and will continue to make–substantial contributions toward stadium projects in a manner unmatched by any other sports league. These investments include commitments by the local NFL club owner supplemented by the use of other NFL funds that normally would go to visiting teams under our revenue-sharing rules. This collective funding is the NFL’s share of the public-private partnership that is formed to finance stadium construction.
Under the previous program, the use of visiting-team revenue in stadium funding meant that the home team was allowed to keep over a specific number of years the standard 34 percent share of club-seat premiums that normally goes to the visiting team–as long as those funds were used to reduce stadium construction loans. This revenue-sharing policy enabled NFL owners to help each other and their communities build new stadiums.
Over the past year we studied ways to improve this program. At our March league meeting this year, the teams approved Resolution G-3, revising the way these league stadium investments are made and strengthening our ability to contribute to stadium projects in large-market cities.
The new procedures are designed to assist current NFL teams with stadium projects in their existing markets. The program allows such teams to qualify for upfront loans from the NFL in the amount of 34-50 percent of the private contribution to a public-private stadium project. Stadiums in the major markets qualify for the 50 percent loan.
These loans are approved by a vote of the clubs on a case-by-case basis and will be repaid to the league principally out of visiting team club-seat premiums. However, the loans also will be backed by PSLs (permanent seat licenses), if PSLs are sold to help fund a stadium project, and by the league’s network television revenue. The balance of the loan would have to be repaid to the league by the team if the team is sold before the loan is retired.
The revised program creates more favorable terms for the private contribution to NFL stadium projects by shifting the burden of our club-seat financing arrangements from individual teams to the league. This increases our ability to participate in the building of new stadiums, especially in our largest cities. We also expect the policy to produce a positive impact in terms of securing other necessary construction financing for these projects.
At our May league meeting, the first loans under the new program were approved by a vote of the clubs. The league investments will help fund new stadiums for the New England Patriots, Philadelphia Eagles, and Denver Broncos.
We believe new stadiums in our existing cities are a good for everybody–teams, fans, and communities. Among other factors, new stadiums enhance franchise stability, which was a major part of our thinking in formulating the G-3 Resolution.
As a league we are committed to working as partners with our communities to address these important stadium issues. The expanded NFL financing program will improve our ability to develop the type of public-private stadium projects that work in the best interests of all concerned.
-
The economic impact of having a sports team is probably huge though. I have no idea, but I have to think there is a lot of tax revenue generated from a city having a professional team.
Having tax payers pay for it might make sense IF the people there want the sports team.
It is, but the ROI for the tax payers who funded it is negligible. Like negative.
-
there is no revenue created beyond a property tax but everything is property taxed
-
It has little impact on local economy. You're better off building a wallmart.
-
It has little impact on local economy. You're better off building a wallmart.
Wal-Mart isn't the best thing for many established , local small business.
It's often said that when Wal-Mart rolls in, everything unique and special in your town, rolls out.
-
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/20/1365048/-Sports-Stadiums-Have-No-Impact-on-Municipal-Economies-So-Why-is-it-We-Still-Subsidize-the-NFL
Leeds studied Chicago – as big a sports town as there is – with five major teams.
“If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,” said Leeds.
-
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/20/1365048/-Sports-Stadiums-Have-No-Impact-on-Municipal-Economies-So-Why-is-it-We-Still-Subsidize-the-NFL
Leeds studied Chicago – as big a sports town as there is – with five major teams.
“If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,” said Leeds.
Maybe, BUT , Crack dealers and cheap ho's don't provide for a solid economic base either ;)
-
Yes, but the owners don't own the publicly funded stadiums. The city does and the teams lease the stadium from the city. Owners that own the stadium use privately raised funds. With that said it's still a shitty deal for the city and they can get better returns by building a shopping mall.
-
Who do you expect to pay for 'bread and circuses'...the elites? hahahaa.....
-
The economic impact of having a sports team is probably huge though. I have no idea, but I have to think there is a lot of tax revenue generated from a city having a professional team.
Having tax payers pay for it might make sense IF the people there want the sports team.
Not really. An economist said a shopping mall generates about the same revenue.
-
The economic impact of having a sports team is probably huge though. I have no idea, but I have to think there is a lot of tax revenue generated from a city having a professional team.
Having tax payers pay for it might make sense IF the people there want the sports team.
Anytime they've looked at it it is always a huge loss for the taxpayers even considering additional revenues and taxes. Lots of rosy projections that turn out to be lies years later. Public private back washing like this should be outlawed, it's always a screwing for the public and a handout to the rich.
-
I like how Coach tries to bad mouth Socialism but he is just fine with the military and tax payers paying so he can watch black and white criminals run around with balls, watching a childrends game which is consists of full on displays of blatant homo-eroticism.
-
Yes, Adonis. That's because it brings in way more in revenue globally along with taxes. Its a win win for the state and federal government just like the lottery. Its also a massive job creator
I suspect that it very much depends on where the team is located. All of the NY teams (Giants, Jets, Mets, Yankees, Rangers, Islanders, Knicks, and Nets) probably bring in huge sums of money for NYC. But that's because there is close to 9 million people located within just five boroughs. Thus, I assume the pay out is probably worth it in the end.
I wonder if the same could be said for smaller cities that pay big bucks for sport stadiums. Is the cost-benefit worth it? I have no idea.
-
I like how Coach tries to bad mouth Socialism but he is just fine with the military and tax payers paying so he can watch black and white criminals run around with balls, watching a childrends game which is consists of full on displays of blatant homo-eroticism.
Congrats, you're a candidate for dumbest post of the evening.
-
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/20/1365048/-Sports-Stadiums-Have-No-Impact-on-Municipal-Economies-So-Why-is-it-We-Still-Subsidize-the-NFL
Leeds studied Chicago – as big a sports town as there is – with five major teams.
“If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,” said Leeds.
Find another source other than an extreme leftist rag.
-
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/20/1365048/-Sports-Stadiums-Have-No-Impact-on-Municipal-Economies-So-Why-is-it-We-Still-Subsidize-the-NFL
Leeds studied Chicago – as big a sports town as there is – with five major teams.
“If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,” said Leeds.
Interesting. The evidence is the evidence. But I suspect it ALSO matters where the sport team is located. You would need to verify similar results across different cities.
-
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7299
www.DiscoverTheNetwork.o rg Date: 2/1/2016 6:59:58 PM
DAILY KOS (DK)
PO Box 3327
Berkeley, CA
94703
URL :http://www.dailykos.com/
Political weblog aimed at leftist readership
Supports Democratic Party candidates and agendas
Founded by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
See also: Markos Moulitsas Zúniga Netroots Nation
The political weblog Daily Kos (DK) was launched on May 26, 2002 by its founder, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, who continues to maintain the site from his Berkeley, California residence. “Kos” is pronounced “kose,” like the second syllable of Zúniga's first name. Over the course of its first year, DK attracted more than 1.6 million unique visits and about 3 million total page views. Since then, its traffic has grown exponentially. In June 2014 alone, for instance, the site drew more than 6.4 million unique visitors, 16.3 million total visits, and 37 million page views.
In November 2004, Zúniga described DK as a “Democratic” and “partisan” blog with just “one goal in mind: electoral victory” for the Democrats. “Recogniz[ing] that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum,” added Zúniga, Daily Kos “happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Brad Carson and Martin Frost, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama.”
DK's unwavering allegiance to the Democratic Party was on full display in 2004, when the site raised some $500,000 for 15 Democrat candidates whose campaigns were in need of financial support. Two years later, using the online fundraising political action committee ActBlue, DK raised another $1.4 million for 17 Democrats.
Zúniga and a small group of select contributors post directly to DK's front page each day. Apart from this, most of the site's content appears in its “diaries”—entries written by registered users who are limited to two postings per day. The titles of these diary entries are listed in the right-hand column of the front page, in reverse chronological order. Those that are highly recommended by DK's so-called “trusted users” are granted longer display times. Popular or controversial diaries commonly elicit hundreds and even thousands of reader comments.
DK's front-page posts and diary entries often consist of excerpts from news stories from outside sources, interspersed with commentary by the author of each post or diary. Some posts are “open threads,” which invite readers to comment on any issue they wish to address. And occasionally there are “live threads” of commentary on significant events—such as debates or elections—as they happen in real time.
According to DK, nearly all of its contributors are “ordinary citizens interested in talking about and participating in the political process.” Most of them “fall on the liberal side of the U.S. political spectrum,” though “people of conservative views are welcome to come and debate.”
Over the years, a number of prominent individuals have contributed commentary to Daily Kos. These include such notables as Barbara Boxer, Jimmy Carter, Wesley Clark, John Conyers, Jon Corzine, Richard Durbin, Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Barack Obama, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, Charles Schumer, Joe Sestak, Cindy Sheehan, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, and Lynn Woolsey.
DK currently subdivides its front-page posts into four main subject categories:
(1) The Labor category contains posts that typically: promote unionization; contend that tax cuts for “those at the top” mean “less money for road repairs … medical research and ... schools”; favor an increase in the minimum wage; claim (falsely) that female employees are paid less than equally qualified and credentialed males; allege that “systemic racism” pervades the American workplace; condemn “income and wealth inequality”; demand paid sick leave for all workers; and depict corporations as heartless entities that “care more about profit than about workers' lives.”
(2) The Comics category features cartoon commentary on whatever are the issues of the day. For instance, some of these comics: suggest that the U.S. criminal-justice system and police forces nationwide are awash in racism; portray Republicans and conservatives as closet racists and exploiters of the poor; characterize capitalism and corporations as inherently corrosive to the well-being of ordinary people; accuse the United States of having illegally and immorally tortured suspected terrorists during the pre-Barack Obama era; and portray white people as racially insensitive.
(3) The Elections category focuses on various political candidates and races across the United States—always with a preference for Democrats and progressives.
(4) The Economics category features posts that routinely: praise the virtues of wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, and massive government expenditures on infrastructure and social-welfare programs; portray Republicans as doing “everything they can to deliver for corporate America at the expense of the American people”; and depict the U.S. as a nation where “the growing concentration of wealth,” coupled with “a significant reduction in taxes” on the rich, “has meant less money to spend on investments for the public good, like education and the protection of children.”
In April 2004, DK initiated dKosopedia, which it describes as “a collaborative project of the DailyKos community.” Modeled after Wikipedia, this “political encyclopedia” is “written from a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take.” All DK readers are invited to contribute to dKosopedia, which, as early January 2015, contained more than 14,300 articles.
In 2006 a number of DK readers and writers organized the first Yearly Kos, an annual political convention for left-wing activists and bloggers. That initial gathering was held in Las Vegas, and a year later its venue was Chicago. In 2008 Yearly Kos was renamed Netroots Nation, and it continues to be a major annual happening for the Left. Numerous high-profile speakers have addressed these Yearly Kos/Netroots Nation events, including, among others: Tammy Baldwin, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Anna Burger, Wesley Clark, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine, Howard Dean, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Keith Ellison, Al Franken, Al Gore, Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Luis Gutierrez, Benjamin Jealous, Van Jones, Paul Krugman, Dennis Kucinich, Gerald McEntee, Eliseo Medina, Jerrold Nadler, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Sestak, Richard Trumka, Tom Udall, Elizabeth Warren, Randi Weingarten, and Tim Wise.
Moreover, Daily Kos has become involved in political polling. In 2008 alone, for instance, DK commissioned at least 155 separate polls—more than any news outlet in the United States.
-
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/20/1365048/-Sports-Stadiums-Have-No-Impact-on-Municipal-Economies-So-Why-is-it-We-Still-Subsidize-the-NFL
Leeds studied Chicago – as big a sports town as there is – with five major teams.
“If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,” said Leeds.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1997/06/summer-taxes-noll
Another article about sport stadiums and taxes.
The economic rationale for cities' willingness to subsidize sports facilities is revealed in the campaign slogan for a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers: "Build the Stadium—Create the Jobs!" Proponents claim that sports facilities improve the local economy in four ways. First, building the facility creates construction jobs. Second, people who attend games or work for the team generate new spending in the community, expanding local employment. Third, a team attracts tourists and companies to the host city, further increasing local spending and jobs. Finally, all this new spending has a "multiplier effect" as increased local income causes still more new spending and job creation. Advocates argue that new stadiums spur so much economic growth that they are self-financing: subsidies are offset by revenues from ticket taxes, sales taxes on concessions and other spending outside the stadium, and property tax increases arising from the stadium's economic impact.
Unfortunately, these arguments contain bad economic reasoning that leads to overstatement of the benefits of stadiums. Economic growth takes place when a community's resources—people, capital investments, and natural resources like land—become more productive. Increased productivity can arise in two ways: from economically beneficial specialization by the community for the purpose of trading with other regions or from local value added that is higher than other uses of local workers, land, and investments. Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.
-
The stadiums generally are a bad deal for tax payers. They don't create jobs, unless you're referring to the temporary construction jobs until the project is finished (Selling popcorn seasonally isn't a real job).
NFL stadiums are the worst because if a team doesn't use the stadium for home playoff games its used 10 times (8 regular & 2 preseason games) for its intended purpose and MAYBE 5 more times for concerts. A lot of public money being spent to use the venue for 13 events a year.
How many local economies collapse when a sports team leaves? There are examples (Cleveland Browns, LA with the Rams and Raiders,now St.Louis, or Seattle with the NBA) and the cities do fine post team.
Im a sports fan and Id be devastated if my team left, but the stadium is hardly ever a good deal for the tax payers.
-
It's a shame taxes are taken from wealthy heterosexuals to fund a homosexual sport. I'm surprised IFBB shows haven't started taxing us. As long as I'm alive, I never want to look at my pay stub and see a 5% "thong tax".
-
It is, but the ROI for the tax payers who funded it is negligible. Like negative.
Just like most taxes, really.
-
Nfl is only 8 games a year. For the rest of the year the stadium is used to hustle used cars and monster track rallies. It's not really a boost for a city. Most stadiums aren't even in the city they represent. Look at NE, SF, Cowboys, Giants etc.
-
Don't care, I pay for your disability and social security the least you limp dicks can do is pay for a football stadium so I can enjoy my off time a little more before I go back to supporting you.
-
-
The irony is that 99% of those that pay taxes to build the stadium can't even afford tickets to watch one game. Only in America bitches !!!!
-
I think there are more important things to spend money on and better ways of generating revenue.
Such as?
Enlighten us with your economic wisdom.
-
Wal-Mart isn't the best thing for many established , local small business.
It's often said that when Wal-Mart rolls in, everything unique and special in your town, rolls out.
and did you know that some cities will gaurantee the profits of that Walmart just to get it into there town, I'm not really sure but I don't think that's very good business to be in for cities
-
While I do like football, I have to agree that tax payer funding of stadiums seems pretty asinine.
-
Such as?
Enlighten us with your economic wisdom.
Personally I think we have too many cooking shows so that's out.
-
unfortunatly idiot people will move to a city because they like sport teams wich lead to night life traffic tickets hotel restarant money ect
its not the stadium alone
sports fans all over the dam place they all suck too
cheif economist
-
Here we go again. Nutsack is Back with his copy/paste faggotry.
-
The money it will bring to Los Angeles will have so little impact it doesn't matter.
-
I'd happily pay that tax and more like it :D
Since the ancient Greeks, the masses have yearned to see a spectacle played out before their eyes in a big stadium. The Romans were famous for it and the Gladiators of the Colliseum live on today in the NFL and MMA arenas.
The need to see blood battles is as old as human nature.
Howard thinly unveiling his man love for Kirk Douglas and gladiator movies like Spartacus
-
The irony is that 99% of those that pay taxes to build the stadium can't even afford tickets to watch one game. Only in America bitches !!!!
Some teams like the Packers are 100% season tickets, yet take tax dollars.
Using tax dollars to fund billionaires private businesses, land of the free.
-
Some teams like the Packers are 100% season tickets, yet take tax dollars.
Using tax dollars to fund billionaires private businesses, land of the free.
Yes, because all of the profits go to them. Genius.
Flip a burger.
-
Yes, because all of the profits go to them. Genius.
Flip a burger.
Most of them do.
If you are signing checks for millions a year, then yes, you are probably making a decent amount.
Last count of 31 owners (The Packers have shareholders) 18 of them are Billionaires... With a B.
Billionaires taking money from working stiffs seem ok to you Coach?
Seems to me that it's socialism... Taking money from the masses and giving them to the wealthy class.
-
Most of them do.
If you are signing checks for millions a year, then yes, you are probably making a decent amount.
Last count of 31 owners (The Packers have shareholders) 18 of them are Billionaires... With a B.
Billionaires taking money from working stiffs seem ok to you Coach?
Seems to me that it's socialism... Taking money from the masses and giving them to the wealthy class.
You make it sound like the billionaires are taking money from these people.
But these people are paying to go a game and buy the jerseys and the sports cards and hats.
I own exactly 0 NFL hats shirts or other apparel, nor do I pay for the NFL network or cable TV sports package. And I never had anyone try to force me to buy any of that...
So, I'm not going to blame some nameless rich guy for shoving pro sports down my throat.
-
You make it sound like the billionaires are taking money from these people.
But these people are paying to go a game and buy the jerseys and the sports cards and hats.
I own exactly 0 NFL hats shirts or other apparel, nor do I pay for the NFL network or cable TV sports package. And I never had anyone try to force me to buy any of that...
So, I'm not going to blame some nameless rich guy for shoving pro sports down my throat.
I'm not talking about the money making by people choosing to buy things.
I'm talking about a billionaire getting a city to take local tax dollars in the billions of dollars (The new LA stadium will be 2.9 BILLION dollars to build) and it coming from tax payers because a BILLIONAIRE doesn't want to spend money on one themselves.
It's insane really.
-
Some teams like the Packers are 100% season tickets, yet take tax dollars.
Using tax dollars to fund billionaires private businesses, land of the free.
The new trend are PSL. Teams charging thousands to tens of thousands for the right to purchase season tickets. They're making an extra couple hundred million on day from these stadiums. None of that goes back to the city.
-
Yes, because all of the profits go to them. Genius.
Flip a burger.
Flip a burger = pick that up ten times, now put it down. You are a mouth breathing simple son of a bitch.
You complain about paying for health insurance, yet giving tax dollars to billionaires is ok.
-
I'm not talking about the money making by people choosing to buy things.
I'm talking about a billionaire getting a city to take local tax dollars in the billions of dollars (The new LA stadium will be 2.9 BILLION dollars to build) and it coming from tax payers because a BILLIONAIRE doesn't want to spend money on one themselves.
It's insane really.
My guess it has more to do with politicians than what the people want. The influx of cash and growth just seems like low hanging fruit for some politician to put that feather in their hat.
But honestly, I have no idea... if a city is big enough to financially support/warrant a sports team then it's probably a foregone conclusion that enough people will be in favor. After all, people with jobs want something to do. I mean, I think, who is voting against a stadium in or near their city? It's probably mostly people with jobs who care about the negatives associated with the impact that stadium will have. That, to me, seems like a voting minority.
-
The new trend are PSL. Teams charging thousands to tens of thousands for the right to purchase season tickets. They're making an extra couple hundred million on day from these stadiums. None of that goes back to the city.
Si.com has an interesting article about Joe Robbie and how he was the first to build a stadium via private funds and psl's.
Even if the owner fiances the new stadium out of pocket, there is usually a deal with local governments that results in tax cuts and maintenance fees. Somehow the public gets shoehorned into making some sort of contributions (although private funded is far better than publicly funded).
-
It feels like we are criticizing people who are good at making money for making money.
If a money making opportunity screws the tax payer, then the real threat is the city council or government people that allow it.
-
Most of them do.
Really? It's still a corporate business. I'm quite sure they draw a salary from it. You say they take most of the profits? What do you think the profit margins are and what percentage of that do you think they draw?
If you are signing checks for millions a year, then yes, you are probably making a decent amount.
It's ok to make a decent amount. They're smarter than us, they assume the risk but they also create the jobs and allow businesses to operate within the stadium to create even more jobs. And the problem is?
Last count of 31 owners (The Packers have shareholders) 18 of them are Billionaires... With a B.
Good for them. I'm sure ANYONE on here would jump at the chance to trade places with one of them.
Billionaires taking money from working stiffs seem ok to you Coach?
They're not
Seems to me that it's socialism... Taking money from the masses and giving them to the wealthy class.
-
I'll give you that they are smarter than you Coach.
I never said being a billionaire was bad.
What I said was that being a billionaire and taking tax payer dollars so they don't have to pay for something is patently wrong.
It's just like taking tax payer dollars and giving it away in welfare.
It's just welfare to be people who already have money and definitely don't need it.
My guess it has more to do with politicians than what the people want. The influx of cash and growth just seems like low hanging fruit for some politician to put that feather in their hat.
But honestly, I have no idea... if a city is big enough to financially support/warrant a sports team then it's probably a foregone conclusion that enough people will be in favor. After all, people with jobs want something to do. I mean, I think, who is voting against a stadium in or near their city? It's probably mostly people with jobs who care about the negatives associated with the impact that stadium will have. That, to me, seems like a voting minority.
It's a feel good pile of crap. Definitely political.
It's stupid though. Like I mentioned, the money influx into LA for an NFL team is absolute pennies compared to the economy of the area.
18 million people in the greater LA area and we think selling a million and 1/2 tickets and crap a year makes sense? Just for the teams to leave again.
At least when they used the LA memorial coliseum it made sense as it's been there for 100 years.
-
I'll give you that they are smarter than you Coach.
I never said being a billionaire was bad.
What I said was that being a billionaire and taking tax payer dollars so they don't have to pay for something is patently wrong.
It's just like taking tax payer dollars and giving it away in welfare.
It's just welfare to be people who already have money and definitely don't need it.
It's a feel good pile of crap. Definitely political.
It's stupid though. Like I mentioned, the money influx into LA for an NFL team is absolute pennies compared to the economy of the area.
18 million people in the greater LA area and we think selling a million and 1/2 tickets and crap a year makes sense? Just for the teams to leave again.
At least when they used the LA memorial coliseum it made sense as it's been there for 100 years.
Exactly. If we HAVE to spend tax dollars on entertainment, why not billions funneled to video games? At least the govt and people could potentially get the money back and the video game company could also make a profit.
The way its set up with Sports teams, the people get screwed. Its funny, because all it takes is a measley 100 yards for a childrens game to be played. They have enough High School stadiums already built across the country for the moron NFL teams to play their children's game in. Maybe they oughta consider that. Go play in the ghettos and see if they can generate supposed revenue for that town.
-
Seems like a Super Bowl brings a shit ton of money to the local economy through hotels, taxis, restaurants, strip clubs, etc.
It's not like these are open 8 times a year. Concerts, college football games, boxing matches go on all through the year. Concessions bring in a grip of money. Beers are expensive.
-
I'll give you that they are smarter than you Coach.
I never said being a billionaire was bad.
What I said was that being a billionaire and taking tax payer dollars so they don't have to pay for something is patently wrong.
It's just like taking tax payer dollars and giving it away in welfare.
It's just welfare to be people who already have money and definitely don't need it.
It's a feel good pile of crap. Definitely political.
It's stupid though. Like I mentioned, the money influx into LA for an NFL team is absolute pennies compared to the economy of the area.
18 million people in the greater LA area and we think selling a million and 1/2 tickets and crap a year makes sense? Just for the teams to leave again.
At least when they used the LA memorial coliseum it made sense as it's been there for 100 years.
I would venture to say that they're "smarter" than all of us otherwise those who want to be that same position would.
This is a good explaination of what I'm saying. It does more good than harm.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy
-
I would venture to say that they're "smarter" than all of us otherwise those who want to be that same position would.
This is a good explaination of what I'm saying. It does more good than harm.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy
Albert Einstein was smarter and he didn't have a billion dollars.
-
-
Albert Einstein was smarter and he didn't have a billion dollars.
But Einstein would know that not all taxpayer funding is forgivable grants, some of it is loans. He'd also know the benefit of tax revenue generation from public entertainment events.
So if an NFL team has a payroll of $200,000,000 and tax on that is 8%......what idiot would advocate funding video games?
Don't bother trying to answer. I used to think you were trolling, but now I realize you really are just brick stupid
-
The NFL? Screw 'em.
-
I would venture to say that they're "smarter" than all of us otherwise those who want to be that same position would.
This is a good explaination of what I'm saying. It does more good than harm.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy
No. It doesn't. Your own wiki link even talks about it.
It doesn't do more good than harm at all.
-
TA, I completely agree with you on this one.
Jeff Lurie, current owner of the Philadelphia Eagles bought the team for approximately 200 million (If I recall correctly). Lincoln Financial Field cost approximately 500 million, half of which was payed with taxpayer dollars (and it is a horrible stadium simply unable to generate any real revenue as they can NEVER host a Super Bowl--not that I care).
Total investment for Lurie? Approximately $450 million, and the team was valued at over 1 billion at the highest estimate. Not a bad way to make half a billion dollars.
http://www.phillymag.com/citified/2015/03/23/public-financing-sports-stadiums/
-
I have mixed feelings about the topic. Stadiums create some revenue for local economies, but I take issue at taxpayers being charged twice.
-
I have mixed feelings about the topic. Stadiums create some revenue for local economies, but I take issue at taxpayers being charged twice.
Better to think than feel. I think buying a house for someone else to live in that owes you no allegiance is ignorant and wasteful. Especially when they charge you to come "visit" them. Screw the NFL and other like sports.
-
Better to think than feel. I think buying a house for someone else to live in that owes you no allegiance is ignorant and wasteful. Especially when they charge you to come "visit" them. Screw the NFL and other like sports.
You don't want to subsidize businesses owned by millionaires?
-
I doubt the sports team owns the stadium. If it's city property like the roads or the courthouse then of course the taxpayers fund it. The question then becomes whether those who use the stadium are paying the city enough to offset construction, upkeep, and associated costs. If you're accountant enough you could subtract predicted associated tax revenue that would otherwise not have been generated.
-
The NFL itself is a tax exempt non profit org. The teams though are not. So the NFL has a lot of loopholes to make money for the teams. Wonder how the gov even allows the NFL to be considered non profit when their leader Goodell makes $40 million a year.
-
The NFL itself is a tax exempt non profit org. The teams though are not. So the NFL has a lot of loopholes to make money for the teams. Wonder how the gov even allows the NFL to be considered non profit when their leader Goodell makes $40 million a year.
It's not tax exempt anymore.
That changed this year.
Mostly because of the bad PR.
-
The NFL itself is a tax exempt non profit org. The teams though are not. So the NFL has a lot of loopholes to make money for the teams. Wonder how the gov even allows the NFL to be considered non profit when their leader Goodell makes $40 million a year.
If the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan have tax exempt churches, then why shouldn't the NFL be tax exempt?
That's fucking racist.
-
Chruches should stay tax exempt. Making them pay taxes only serves to give them more power and influence in government and gives them extra lobbying power.
Best to let Religion die a natural death, which it will in time. No reason to invite their hooks into government via taxes.
-
Chruches should stay tax exempt. Making them pay taxes only serves to give them more power and influence in government and gives them extra lobbying power.
Best to let Religion die a natural death, which it will in time. No reason to invite their hooks into government via taxes.
You're an idiot.
A complete toolbag.
-
You're an idiot.
A complete toolbag.
And you are mentally inept who doesn't understand why its best to keep a strong separation between church and state.
-
Chruches should stay tax exempt. Making them pay taxes only serves to give them more power and influence in government and gives them extra lobbying power.
Best to let Religion die a natural death, which it will in time. No reason to invite their hooks into government via taxes.
I'm pretty sure they already have a major influence in all US politics tax exempt or not.
-
I'm pretty sure they already have a major influence in all US politics tax exempt or not.
It is dwindling every day.
Look at how little people care about the President's religion today. There is maybe 20% of the voting public who puts their faith above the freedom and liberties of the country.
That percentage will continue to shrink.
While people may call themselves "Christians", they are keeping that in church and out of politics more and more.
-
Chruches should stay tax exempt. Making them pay taxes only serves to give them more power and influence in government and gives them extra lobbying power.
Best to let Religion die a natural death, which it will in time. No reason to invite their hooks into government via taxes.
So you think Jesse, Sharpton, and Farrahkan have lobbying power?
All 3 of those race pimps should be in jail. They're as racist and crooked as you are stupid.
Eat cock you fake atheist knob gobbler