John Oliver - Stadiums

[Free_Salato_Blue]

An interesting bit on the racket of Pro teams demanding new stadiums.
I knew the taxpayers in Cincy got screwed by cronie government and team owners but not futuristic hologram machine screwed.

 

[LineSkiCat]

I'm just not sure how many more John Stewart clones we need. And fix your damn teeth you limey f***

Not that I don't disagree with his statement, Actually heard this last night after all the shows before passing out.

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

It's only a matter of time before the sports bubble bursts.

 

[KingOfBBN]

I've always been against the tax payers having to pay for a stadium while a billionaire owner doesn't spend his own cash. Do we get a buy in for part ownership? Get a piece of the profits? No? We just get the pride of you keeping your team here while threatening us to leave if we don't pay?

Dicks.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Pretty well spot on, with just a tad hyperbole. The hyperbole comes in the form of suggesting these stadiums have no economic impact on the cities, when thats certainly not the case. I know he mentioned a study, but thats not the majority view.

I still oppose actual public money being used. Give the teams property tax breaks, etc; but not money.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Pretty well spot on, with just a tad hyperbole. The hyperbole comes in the form of suggesting these stadiums have no economic impact on the cities, when thats certainly not the case. I know he mentioned a study, but thats not the majority view.

I still oppose actual public money being used. Give the teams property tax breaks, etc; but not money.

Tax breaks are money, even if they're not cash. And it's ridiculous that the public finances this stuff. The NFL's no team in LA move was/is brilliant. And the Marlins thing is just a fiasco. I wish the FBI investigation had yielded some tangible crimes rather than just piling on more run of the mill BS and corruption.

I don't think that you're right about the majority view of the benefits of stadiums. Just run a quick search and almost answer (from various sources citing various studies) is little or no impact.

Futuristic hologram machines. What a crock.

 

[We-Todd-Did]

60 minutes did this years ago. They profiled Green Bay, where the issue was in the open and people were fine with it, and Chicago, where it was an absolute ream job on taxpayers.

 

[KingOfBBN]

I honestly can't believe more fans don't tell these dbag owners to shove their stadium up their ***.

This idea that you need a new arena all the time is tiresome. It's like a woman threatening to leave you and go out with a guy she met on Facebook. Fine. GTFO and I'll help you pack. Good luck finding someone to care as much about this "new team."

 

[.S&C.]

I've always been against the tax payers having to pay for a stadium while a billionaire owner doesn't spend his own cash. Do we get a buy in for part ownership? Get a piece of the profits? No? We just get the pride of you keeping your team here while threatening us to leave if we don't pay?

Dicks.

And then you're told you don't matter by countless people, regardless of the fact that without you the games are non existent, because the athletes would all be working regular jobs. Without fans, their talents are only good for backyard showoff time.

Another reason why I loathe dick head athletes. Just respect what you got.

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

I've always been against the tax payers having to pay for a stadium while a billionaire owner doesn't spend his own cash. Do we get a buy in for part ownership? Get a piece of the profits? No? We just get the pride of you keeping your team here while threatening us to leave if we don't pay?

Dicks.

For once I can whole heartily agree with you.
It's extortion for the benefit of a few. The city officials must get some sweet box seats to shove the burden on the taxpayers.
It would suck if you aren't even a fan of the team and have to pay extra taxes for it. i.e. !YUM center
The lowliest pleb in ancient Rome got in the Colosseum for free bread and circuses.

 

[KingOfBBN]

And then you're told you don't matter by countless people, regardless of the fact that without you the games are non existent, because the athletes would all be working regular jobs. Without fans, their talents are only good for backyard showoff time.

Another reason why I loathe dick head athletes. Just respect what you got.

I can't blame you. This as well as the egomaniacal mentality that most pro athletes possess as well as their insane salaries despite barely being able to read and form a sentence is why pro sports doesn't have the same appeal to me as it once did.

I hate the NBA and I've become very sick of the NFL mostly because it's filled with greedy morons.

 

[DSmith21]

Cities have to weigh the full economic impact of having a given sport team versus not having it. These teams cause tens of millions to be spent in sport cities each year and generate very healthy payroll taxes for the city. It also greatly boosts real estate values near a given venue creating more property tax. It supposed to be a win-win for both parties, although one side may win a little more. The Kentucky Derby and its lead up events are supposed to be worth over $128 million to the state.

http://www.wave3.com/story/16496850/ky-derby-festival-economic-impact-nearly-128-million

 

[Glenn's Take]

Forget pro teams. Look at the Yum Center for U of L and they can't even move. There are NBA teams that would kill to have that lease agreement.

 

[MaxPowerrr]

The PBS deal in Hamilton County is the textbook example for "awful stadium deals". One of the commissioners who pushed it through and got booted from office was immediately hired by the Bengals and still works for them.

Of course at least in that deal the team could legitimately threaten politicians and local fans with leaving town to relocate the franchise. I'm still not sure what leverage UL had/has over the local government to get the same type of deal with the YUM! Center.

 

[KingOfBBN]

The PBS deal in Hamilton County is the textbook example for "awful stadium deals". One of the commissioners who pushed it through and got booted from office was immediately hired by the Bengals and still works for them.

Of course at least in that deal the team could legitimately threaten politicians and local fans with leaving town to relocate the franchise. I'm still not sure what leverage UL had/has over the local government to get the same type of deal with the YUM! Center.

I am still amazed that Louisville got that deal considering they're not even close to even being the most popular team in their own state and don't even have a 70% hold on their own city's fandom. That arena deal made no sense unless you were getting an NBA team to come there.

 

[P.PattersonISwalkingthruthatdoor]

The thing is, the leagues aren't afraid to play hardball when it comes to this. The NBA moved to touching Oklahoma rather than compromise with Seattle voters.

 

[WayneDougan_rivals170043]

In Charlotte the people voted against the stadium for the Bobcat Hornets. No matter, the council then voted for it anyway.

 

[WayneDougan_rivals170043]

This is one area where I'm advocating the federal government to step in. "Oh, you want some federal funding for schools and roads? End any and all giveaways for professional sports team and you can have some".

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Tax breaks are money, even if they're not cash. And it's ridiculous that the public finances this stuff. The NFL's no team in LA move was/is brilliant. And the Marlins thing is just a fiasco. I wish the FBI investigation had yielded some tangible crimes rather than just piling on more run of the mill BS and corruption.

I don't think that you're right about the majority view of the benefits of stadiums. Just run a quick search and almost answer (from various sources citing various studies) is little or no impact.

Futuristic hologram machines. What a crock.

Its a loss of revenue, not an actual expenditure of funds. Minor distinction but a big difference.

Studies most likely done as negotiating leverage against franchises, or by politicians pushing a different agenda. They make a difference. Why do you think cities fight tooth and nail to get them? Now some cities may be stupid about where they decide to place the stadium, thereby reducing or negating its impact. But thats a different issue.

 

[.S&C.]

This is one area where I'm advocating the federal government to step in. "Oh, you want some federal funding for schools and roads? End any and all giveaways for professional sports team and you can have some".

The counter is always the jobs jobs jobs.

Yea, crappy jobs. For that that bill? No thanks.

And we are giving all forms of government even more power today. YAY! CANT WAIT FOR MORE!!!

 

[WonderBraa]

I'll give em $5

 

[Bill Cosby]

Although inconvenient at times, it was pretty cool having the All Star game in Cincinnati. Wouldn't have happened without a stadium. Something small time cities like Louisville can't experience.

Cincinnati needs to renovate the ******** US Bank Arena and lobby for an NBA team.

 

[FtWorthCat]

You would have a hard time finding anyone in Arlington, TX that thinks Jerry World was a bad deal for the City. A lot of Dallas political leaders sure regret not coming up with a better deal at this point. I always like the clueless argument that "we could have used that money for schools and roads instead." Actually, no. The tax revenue coming into the City would go down if there was no stadium.

 

[Glenn's Take]

Didn't he do Jerry World with his own money?

 

[FtWorthCat]

In the Jerry World situation, the City came up with approximately $325 million through a 0.5% sales tax increase, 2% hotel tax, and 5% car rental tax. The City also issued bonds for another roughly $150 million. Tax revenue has exceeded expectations. Arlington also came out well in financing Rangers Ballpark. This is a City that is almost fully developed already, so they were struggling to find ways to increase revenue without huge tax increases. The article below explains it better than I can.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/cowboys-stadium/20100710-Tax-income-to-pay-Cowboys-Stadium-9172.ece

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

Helps to have college football playoffs @ AT&T stadium.

 

[Get Buckets]

Wouldn't have happened without a stadium. Something small time cities like Louisville can't experience.

Cincinnati needs to renovate the ******** US Bank Arena and lobby for an NBA team.

You mean like the Yum Center?

 

[TCPUKChamps]

The Yum! Center Video boards are a GD joke.

TS

Minor League City, Minor League Arena

 

[TCPUKChamps]

Versus:

 

[Big_Blue79]

The thing is, the leagues aren't afraid to play hardball when it comes to this. The NBA moved to touching Oklahoma rather than compromise with Seattle voters.

And the NFL's lack of a team in LA has resulted in several new stadiums.

"I want a new stadium."
"No."
"I'll move the team to LA."
"Have all of the monies."

Studies most likely done as negotiating leverage against franchises, or by politicians pushing a different agenda. They make a difference. Why do you think cities fight tooth and nail to get them? Now some cities may be stupid about where they decide to place the stadium, thereby reducing or negating its impact. But thats a different issue.

Many (maybe even most) are not commissioned. There is some evidence that publicly-funded stadiums can have a net-positive economic impact, but there is nothing supporting the blanket statement that they will in even most situations, let alone all. BTW, where do you think the "stadiums bring in rad money" studies are coming from?

 

[MaxPowerrr]

LA won't get a team IMO. Other teams will lose that leverage and they don't want that.

 

[Ron Mehico]

Why the hell does the second largest city in the united states not have an NFL team anyway? Completely bizarre. They have like two of every other sports team.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

And the NFL's lack of a team in LA has resulted in several new stadiums.

"I want a new stadium."
"No."
"I'll move the team to LA."
"Have all of the monies."



Many (maybe even most) are not commissioned. There is some evidence that publicly-funded stadiums can have a net-positive economic impact, but there is nothing supporting the blanket statement that they will in even most situations, let alone all. BTW, where do you think the "stadiums bring in rad money" studies are coming from?

Anyone can get a study to say anything, if youre willing to pay for it. No dispute in that.

The economic impact of a stadium/arena is clearly visible, especially if the correct parcel of land is used. Dont think it has economic impact? A statement from the NCAA about Indiana's RFRA made an entire state reconvene its legislature, and change a law it JUST passed. Why? They were terrified of losing the final four, and the money that comes with it.

Big stadiums bring big events, which bring big money. Above is a perfect example of how a statement of just being "concerned" caused big movement.

Or how about Nashville during the SEC tournament? Every hotel and restaurant was packed.

All said, I still disagree with using public funds to pay for a stadium. But its impact is tangible, and undeniable.

 

[Big_Blue79]

^ in certain circumstances, sure. How many cities regularly get the Final Four like Indianapolis? Or big college football like Jerry World? I'd argue those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Jacksonville Super Bowl aside (lol), how many of these publicly financed stadiums regularly draw in out of town visitors throwing around big bucks?

Throwing out the voluminous studies that find scant evidence of the purported financial gains of stadiums (relative to their cost) by just throwing out "money" is probably unwarranted. Have you vetted all those studies? And supporting the idea that publicly funded stadiums are a good idea with a couple of exceptional examples and the idea that it's "clearly visible," "tangible," and "undeniable" is not a valid counterargument. Of course you can see economic gains. No kidding. The real question is whether you see net gains. You can't just observe that by looking at an SEC tournament or two. That's why they have studies.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Why the hell does the second largest city in the united states not have an NFL team anyway? Completely bizarre. They have like two of every other sports team.

Well, as a SoCal resident, I can tell you that this is the worst fan base for sports. They are the epitome of fair-weather fans. They only care (the majority at least) if you're a contender. It was amazing to me seeing the lack of Lakers fans around the mid 2000s until the Gasol trade and then poof, they were everywhere again. Kings fans are the same. Dodgers fans usually consist of real fans, bandwagon fans, celebrities, and the trash (criminals, gangs) who just want to fight.

Plus, everyone in L.A. seems to be from somewhere else and there are way too many options for things to do compared to a lot of other states that don't have as good of weather or as many options.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Big_Blue79]

^ I always thought Lakers fans were not fair weather (and almost compulsively optimistic to the point of insanity), but otherwise yeah. The real reason, though, is that the NFL loves having that leverage, and with it owners can extract more favorable terms from cities, maybe even to the point that they make nearly as much in a market like, say, Minneapolis than they would in LA (factoring in stadium costs, relocation fees, etc...). At least it's close enough to make them stay.

 

[Ron Mehico]

Well, as a SoCal resident, I can tell you that this is the worst fan base for sports. They are the epitome of fair-weather fans. They only care (the majority at least) if you're a contender. It was amazing to me seeing the lack of Lakers fans around the mid 2000s until the Gasol trade and then poof, they were everywhere again. Kings fans are the same. Dodgers fans usually consist of real fans, bandwagon fans, celebrities, and the trash (criminals, gangs) who just want to fight.

Plus, everyone in L.A. seems to be from somewhere else and there are way too many options for things to do compared to a lot of other states that don't have as good of weather or as many options.

Just my thoughts.

As a former resident of Arizona, I get that. Arizona was exactly the same way. However, that doesn't explain why there are 2 extremely successful NBA teams, 2 successful MLB teams, successful hockey team, etc. etc. There are millions and millions in LA, I'm sure they can find 50,000 to fill a football stadium. It just doesn't make sense. I mean you can easily say the same thing for Miami and the Dolphins are an NFL team everyone knows.

I mean you can easily look at USC football to see all you need to know if a football team can be successful in SoCal. What about the Chargers? The whole thing just makes no sense to me.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

^ in certain circumstances, sure. How many cities regularly get the Final Four like Indianapolis? Or big college football like Jerry World? I'd argue those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Jacksonville Super Bowl aside (lol), how many of these publicly financed stadiums regularly draw in out of town visitors throwing around big bucks?

Throwing out the voluminous studies that find scant evidence of the purported financial gains of stadiums (relative to their cost) by just throwing out "money" is probably unwarranted. Have you vetted all those studies? And supporting the idea that publicly funded stadiums are a good idea with a couple of exceptional examples and the idea that it's "clearly visible," "tangible," and "undeniable" is not a valid counterargument. Of course you can see economic gains. No kidding. The real question is whether you see net gains. You can't just observe that by looking at an SEC tournament or two. That's why they have studies.

Cant get even regional events without an arena. Ever look at the figures on what the SEC tournament brings to Nashville? Its incredible. Even the round 2 games in Louisville last year was a huge success, with all local bars/restaurants and hotels slammed. And itll be bigger this year with a regional final.

It a huge difference.

If cities like Indianapolis, Nashville, and Louisville can garner events; no reason why other cities cant.

 

[wildcat1973_rivals160373]

LA doesn't need a NFL team simply b/c of the tv and revenue sharing deals the NFL has in place. In no other league would a team survive in Green Bay, let alone be very successful.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Cant get even regional events without an arena. Ever look at the figures on what the SEC tournament brings to Nashville? Its incredible. Even the round 2 games in Louisville last year was a huge success, with all local bars/restaurants and hotels slammed. And itll be bigger this year with a regional final.

It a huge difference.

If cities like Indianapolis, Nashville, and Louisville can garner events; no reason why other cities cant.

No kidding. So should the city pick up that entire check and for how much? $25 billion? Obviously not. $50? Obviously. In between? Maybe commission smart people to examine what has actually happened in multiple cities around the country to see whether there is a net gain, then apply those lessons to the individual circumstances at issue. Anecdotes and gross gains do not tell the whole tale. And the whole tale is that there is scant evidence for net gains from stadium deals, where cities pick up the tab, billionaires (or hundred millionaires) make a ton, and local businesses benefit some but not enough to justify the public expenditure. No one is arguing that a stadium or arena is a bad thing on its own. They are arguing that public money spent on such stadiums that primarily benefit the insanely wealthy team owners is not justified by the increased local revenues.