Misc: John Oliver on Pro Stadium funding.

[Mr Janny]

My goodness, he's good at what he does.

http://deadspin.com/john-oliver-explains-the-biggest-scam-in-sports-1717440394

And here's some good numbers that someone posted in the comments.

https://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/nfl-funding-summary-12-2-11.pdf

 

[Dr.bannedman]

ah I love sports just like the ESPN deal....

Something needs to change

 

[Mr Janny]

ah I love sports just like the ESPN deal....

Something needs to change

It does. And hopefully it will. Hopefully, if LA actually does get a team, it will remove them as the bargaining chip that the NFL has been using them as, and other cities will grow a backbone. I'll freely admit to being a hypocrite on this one, though. I'm a Vikings fan, and am hugely glad that they got a deal done for a new stadium. Granted, it doesn't affect me, because I'm not a Minnesota resident, so it's not my taxes that are paying for it. I recognize all of the data that it's really not as big of an economic boon as the teams claim, and that it's basically extortion by the leagues, and I agree with it. I also know, as a fan, it's hard to let go of your team.

That said, I really hope the model changes.

 

[LindenCy]

That was pretty good. The taser bit was hard to believe that that actually happened.

 

[boone7247]

It does. And hopefully it will. Hopefully, if LA actually does get a team, it will remove them as the bargaining chip that the NFL has been using them as, and other cities will grow a backbone. I'll freely admit to being a hypocrite on this one, though. I'm a Vikings fan, and am hugely glad that they got a deal done for a new stadium. Granted, it doesn't affect me, because I'm not a Minnesota resident, so it's not my taxes that are paying for it. I recognize all of the data that it's really not as big of an economic boon as the teams claim, and that it's basically extortion by the leagues, and I agree with it. I also know, as a fan, it's hard to let go of your team.

That said, I really hope the model changes.

There are only two scenarios where I see this changing. The first the country is broke and we can't afford sports anymore, lets hope this doesn't happen. Two we develop a European model and you have promotion and relegation. We already have the infrastructure for this in all our sports with our college network. Next is just to make them professional (we are moving there slowly, at least for football and Basketball) then it would be to force the leagues to allow promotion and relegation. Then every market would have an opportunity to have high level professional sports. This will never happen, but it would be ******* cool if it did. Probably wouldn't work out good for ISU, but we would have the potential to be a 3rd division team or something like that.

 

[mb7299]

Great stuff, crazy that taxpayers pay for billionaires to make more money. There is the reason the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow.

 

[isufbcurt]

It seems like I am in the minority but I don't have a problem using public money to fund these stadiums.

 

[CyDude16]

There are only two scenarios where I see this changing. The first the country is broke and we can't afford sports anymore, lets hope this doesn't happen. Two we develop a European model and you have promotion and relegation. We already have the infrastructure for this in all our sports with our college network. Next is just to make them professional (we are moving there slowly, at least for football and Basketball) then it would be to force the leagues to allow promotion and relegation. Then every market would have an opportunity to have high level professional sports. This will never happen, but it would be ******* cool if it did. Probably wouldn't work out good for ISU, but we would have the potential to be a 3rd division team or something like that.

Promotion/relegation will never come to the U.S. In major sports.

 

[CyFan61]

Wrote a paper on public funding of pro sports stadiums a few years ago. Long story short, it adds zero value to local economies. It just shifts the expenditures. So if someone pays $100 to go to a sports bar down by the stadium, they would have spent it elsewhere anyway without the stadium.

Public funding of billionaire-owned stadiums is a total joke but politicians know self-preservation above all and voters will boot them out if they "lose" the Vikings.

 

[Mr Janny]

It seems like I am in the minority but I don't have a problem using public money to fund these stadiums.

if it were a better investment for the cities/counties/local folks, I wouldn't either. But studies show that the only ones who really benefit are the teams themselves.

And when cities are forced to my cuts to things like hospitals and schools, while paying for the stadium, evidenced in the video, that's a wrong model.

 

[isufbcurt]

if it were a better investment for the cities/counties/local folks, I wouldn't either. But studies show that the only ones who really benefit are the teams themselves.

See for me it is selfish reasons. I would rather have my tax money go to something I am interested in like a stadium.

 

[3TrueFans]

See for me it is selfish reasons. I would rather have my tax money go to something I am interested in like a stadium.

Stadiums would still get built without public money, probably not as often or as lavishly if the owners had to foot the entire bill, but they'd still get built.

 

[Mr Janny]

See for me it is selfish reasons. I would rather have my tax money go to something I am interested in like a stadium.

Do you think teams should be required to disclose their financials prior to receiving taxpayer monies? I mean, the reason they're asking for public assistance is because they're claiming they're losing money, but refuse to back it up with numbers. Should they have to prove their need first? Or how about the clauses that Oliver talks about? What I'm asking is do you support the system in its current format?

 

[dualthreat]

Wrote a paper on public funding of pro sports stadiums a few years ago. Long story short, it adds zero value to local economies. It just shifts the expenditures. So if someone pays $100 to go to a sports bar down by the stadium, they would have spent it elsewhere anyway without the stadium.

Public funding of billionaire-owned stadiums is a total joke but politicians know self-preservation above all and voters will boot them out if they "lose" the Vikings.

They probably would have spent that money back in their home town

 

[isufbcurt]

Do you think teams should be required to disclose their financials prior to receiving taxpayer monies? I mean, the reason they're asking for public assistance is because they're claiming they're losing money, but refuse to back it up with numbers. Should they have to prove their need first? Or how about the clauses that Oliver talks about? What I'm asking is do you support the system in its current format?

Nope. If they are a privately held company they should not have to disclose their financials.

The clauses like the one in the Bengals contract about getting amenities if 14 other stadiums have them is stupid. I agree those aren't needed.

I have a hard time believing that stadiums don't bring much economic benefit. I know people who have Vikings and Chiefs season tickets and if it weren't for going to those games they wouldn't go to either place. And when they go they stay in hotels, go to bars and eat in restaurants.

 

[Mr Janny]

Nope. If they are a privately held company they should not have to disclose their financials.

The clauses like the one in the Bengals contract about getting amenities if 14 other stadiums have them is stupid. I agree those aren't needed.

I have a hard time believing that stadiums don't bring much economic benefit. I know people who have Vikings and Chiefs season tickets and if it weren't for going to those games they wouldn't go to either place. And when they go they stay in hotels, go to bars and eat in restaurants.

Interesting. I assume you think that should apply to all levels of public assistance then.

Want welfare? Just claim you need it. Don't have to prove you don't have any money.
Want farm subsidies? Just make a request. They shouldn't be able to ask you if you're actually a farmer.
Want a Pell Grant? Just wait for the check. No need to fill out a FAFSA.

 

[boone7247]

Nope. If they are a privately held company they should not have to disclose their financials.

The clauses like the one in the Bengals contract about getting amenities if 14 other stadiums have them is stupid. I agree those aren't needed.

I have a hard time believing that stadiums don't bring much economic benefit. I know people who have Vikings and Chiefs season tickets and if it weren't for going to those games they wouldn't go to either place. And when they go they stay in hotels, go to bars and eat in restaurants.

Have a hard time with this, as numerous privately held companies that take government money have to at least share their books with the government. And they are taking a lot less money, and using it for good purposes like housing. I really wouldn't have a problem with the cities issuing bonds, if they got paid back, but they aren't. The teams keep all the revenue from the stadium, and the cities end up redirecting tax dollars to fund the payment of the bonds.

 

[CyArob]

All teams have to do is threaten to move to LA if their current city asks for financial info, and poof, more public funding is available.

 

[isufbcurt]

Interesting. I assume you think that should apply to all levels of public assistance then.

Want welfare? Just claim you need it. Don't have to prove you don't have any money.
Want farm subsidies? Just make a request. They shouldn't be able to ask you if you're actually a farmer.
Want a Pell Grant? Just wait for the check. No need to fill out a FAFSA.

You make a good point. But I don't think comparing those items to the issue at hand is comparing apples to apples.

No I think all of the items you mentioned above you SHOULD have to you need the help. The reason I say that is because those items were all designed to be "need based".

A city, county, state, etc. agreeing to use public money does not always happen because the team owner needs it (although in the Marlins case that is the reason given).

 

[Mr Janny]

All teams have to do is threaten to move to LA if their current city asks for financial info, and poof, more public funding is available.

Some team is going to have to fall on the sword, for sure. But, once the 2nd largest media market in the country is off the table, I suspect cities to feel a little more emboldened. LA versus St. Louis is a no brainer for these owners. There's far more money to be made in LA. But if the league tries to in turn use St. Louis as a bargaining chip when they want a new stadium in say Jacksonville or Tampa, something tells me it won't be quite as effective, and those cities might be willing to call the NFL's bluff. We can only hope, anyway.