Author Topic: Ridiculous. NFL Stadium construction is funded by taxpayers to the tune of 68%  (Read 6658 times)

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
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

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Big surprise. Like any Olympics/World Cup/Pam-Am Games - last money in/first money out. SOP.   

Vince G, CSN MFT

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • GETBIG3.COM!
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
A

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum

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.  ::)

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.

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.

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61674
  • It’s All Bullshit
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...

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum
'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

Coffeed

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Athletes representative for Grifted Nutrition.
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.

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61674
  • It’s All Bullshit
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.

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum
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.

Marty Champions

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 36515
there is no revenue created beyond a property tax but everything is property taxed
A

USMC 1371

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 111
It has little impact on local economy. You're better off building a wallmart.

Howard

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15401
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.

USMC 1371

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 111
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.

Howard

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15401
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  ;)

El Diablo Blanco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31841
  • Nom Nom Nom Nom
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.

Voice of Doom

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3643
  • Everything is under control.
Who do you expect to pay for 'bread and circuses'...the elites?  hahahaa.....

El Diablo Blanco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31841
  • Nom Nom Nom Nom
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.

Never1AShow

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8334
  • World Record Holder in French Toast Diving
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.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
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.


SF1900

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 49831
  • Team Hairy Chest Henda

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.

X

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61674
  • It’s All Bullshit
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.

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61674
  • It’s All Bullshit
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.

SF1900

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 49831
  • Team Hairy Chest Henda
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.
X

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61674
  • It’s All Bullshit
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.