Super Bowl is another grift

A place to talk Steelers football and what else is going on around the NFL
Dan Smith--BYU
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:33 am

Super Bowl is another grift

Post by Dan Smith--BYU » Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:46 am

Billionaires fleecing the hoi polloi is the new norm. From Zero Hedge:

"This year the game is in Miami, and the scams are starting to seep into public consciousness. As the Miami Herald is reporting, the NFL booked 1 million dollars’ worth of rooms at the J.W. Marriott Marquis hotel and Aventura’s Turnberry resort for the Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers players and coaches—and sent the city the bill.

Even though the NFL is a gargantuan corporate operation and both teams are owned by billionaires, Miami (where 27 percent of children live below the poverty line) is on the hook for the hotel accommodations. This is just part of a $4 million welfare package with which the city has gifted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who makes 10 times that amount in yearly salary. That $4 million does not include the costs of the police and security presence required to host the game. Rodney Barreto, the chairman of Miami’s Host Committee, said to the Herald, “These are basically things we have to do to get them to come. If we’re not doing it, another city is.”

I don't care what they sell at what price in a free market. But this shit and the stadium deals have to stop. Oh right, Pittsburgh voted against stadiums in the 1990s but they did it anyway.



Orangesteel
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:23 pm

Post by Orangesteel » Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:45 am

It’s total horseshit. This is the most overhyped sporting event in the world.

Id take the Masters or The Open Championship over the Super Bowl any day of the week and twice on Super Bowl Sunday.

Dan Smith--BYU
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:33 am

Post by Dan Smith--BYU » Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:40 pm

I agree. The tennis tournaments and March Madness are better too. So are the late NBA and NHL playoffs. The hype about the commercials is old too and the halftime shows are tired.

User avatar
Professor Half Wit
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:23 pm

Post by Professor Half Wit » Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:32 pm

A cheap off-topic point, but "hoi" (οἱ) is the masculine plural nominative definite article, thus, "the hoi polloi" says "the the many."
"Just don't kill us."

Dan Smith--BYU
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:33 am

Post by Dan Smith--BYU » Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:58 pm

I'm just happy to get the meaning right. A lot of people think hoi polloi means the high and mighty when it means the opposite and I've seen that mistake in "respectable" publications.

In any case Roger Goodell is still a piece of shit.

User avatar
El Kabong
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:18 pm

Post by El Kabong » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:29 pm

Dan Smith--BYU wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:46 am
Oh right, Pittsburgh voted against stadiums in the 1990s but they did it anyway.
Common misconception. They held a referendum that asked if people wanted to raise the sales tax in order to pay for the new stadiums. The referendum was defeated. So they took existing tax dollars and put them toward the stadiums, whereupon everyone ever after goes "hey, we voted against using tax dollars for the new stadiums!" No, you voted not to raise the sales tax, not that no government money could be used.

Dan Smith--BYU
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:33 am

Post by Dan Smith--BYU » Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:20 am

Technically true, but a shell game that clearly went against the spirit of the vote.

User avatar
Steelafan77
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:49 am

Post by Steelafan77 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:52 am

wrote:Even though the NFL is a gargantuan corporate operation and both teams are owned by billionaires, Miami (where 27 percent of children live below the poverty line) is on the hook for the hotel accommodations. This is just part of a $4 million welfare package with which the city has gifted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who makes 10 times that amount in yearly salary. That $4 million does not include the costs of the police and security presence required to host the game. Rodney Barreto, the chairman of Miami’s Host Committee, said to the Herald, “These are basically things we have to do to get them to come. If we’re not doing it, another city is.”
It's made to sound so sensationalized. This is something that's gone on for many decades. Anyone thinking Billionaires remain billionaires by spending their own money? I have some beach front property to sell you in Oklahoma. :lol:

steeledge
Posts: 1165
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:25 pm

Post by steeledge » Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:57 pm

Dan Smith--BYU wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:20 am
...a shell game that clearly went against the spirit of the vote.
Oh, and that never happens in government...

:mrgreen:

Quixotic
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:35 pm

Post by Quixotic » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:09 pm

Dan Smith--BYU wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:58 pm
I'm just happy to get the meaning right. A lot of people think hoi polloi means the high and mighty when it means the opposite and I've seen that mistake in "respectable" publications.

In any case Roger Goodell is still a piece of shit.
They confuse “hoi polloi” with “hoity toity,” which is not Latin as far as I know. Am I right on this, half wit?

Also, Roger Goodell is slime, scum, and vermin. Just to be clear.

VeritasSteel
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:19 pm

Post by VeritasSteel » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:13 pm

I've been lurking reading posts all I can say is oi. And I only signed up to comment on something that I figured I could push the narrative on. Football business and how it relates to cities. I will save the rest for those who have more passion about the comings and goings of coaches and the wrist circumferences of players.

I hate articles like this because the writer is gaslighting taxpayers instead of doing their research and educating the taxpayer on the realities of tax supported city budgets. I could fill this post with a lot of information that no one would read or care about- because, let's face it, you want to hate on billionaires because its easier than say reading a city's budget or how bond repayments work. I will instead say that the title of the article if researched correctly should have been

"City of Miami Invests $20 million in tax payers money in the form of its tourism budget and receives ~$400 million in tax revenue. "

Admittedly it doesn't draw the eyes like "Billionaires Bad Boy Club stiffs city into paying a hotel bill".

The Super Bowl generates a lot of cash on multiple levels and these cities know that they have to do something to bring that opportunity to their city. If you can't understand that the host city is investing less than 5% of its projected returns to (most of that in labor costs to its police force) to enhance the city then stop reading now and go get a book on how investments should work- it will be a better use of your time.

So while we are on it- can we just stop with the stadium narrative that says owners are building these edifices to their egos at the expense of the taxpayers. It's just not true. I could go into how Jerry Jones took advantage of the taxpayers angst in Dallas which minimized their contributions to less than 1/4 of the stadiums costs. Great for the taxpayers, some would say. But at the end of the bond the city doesn't own or have any sizable interest in what should be the largest tax generating structure in its taxable land area. So in ten years every dime generated by the stadium goes to Jerry from which he'll pay a little event tax and pat the city on the head and send them on their way. Yikes. Now this is extremely simplified but the local government cut itself out of the pie here because they positioned themselves temporarily in the transaction because they feared losing money over the possibility and effort to actually make some. For whatever reason- but mainly being short sighted on behalf of short sighted people.

What I mean is if a city has its shit together then when the stadium is built they own (most if not) all of it- which is HUGE. Then they can rent (lease, option, whatever) it out to the NFL team during the worst weeks of the year to be sitting in a stadium (covered or not). And if they planned it right the city should make at least 1/2 of their investment back in 7-10 years on the collateral pieces of the deal in tax revenues. This should be in addition to having most of the stadiums costs paid by NFL activities.

So let's go back and finish with the Super Bowl- ever notice that if the stadium is a dome or south of the Mason Dixon line that within 2 years of finishing construction the Super Bowl is there? Well if the stadium costs a Billion to build and the city is generating $400 million in hosting the Super Bowl then the NFL is essentially paying its part. Ever wonder why the NFL would put the SB in New York in February? Well they (the NFL or Bad Boy Billionaires League) used their high value marketing tool to generate tax revenues for the area in order to cover the costs of the stadium they said needed to be built. And if the Super Bowl was a success then within 15 years the SB will be back and generate another $400 million allowing for inflation- $500 million. So if you have a billion dollar stadium and the NFL with its SBs and the tenant paying their fair share the stadium should produce at least $900 million not counting the yearly tax revenues by the team.

So here's the problem. A city has a lot of moving parts and fluctuating budgets and a lot of charismatic but inexperienced people running them. In some cases they understand how to count money and make sure people get paid, but generally they are clueless on how to seize momentum in order to build things (without that lowest bidder crap) that are going to take the strain off of taxpayers while enhancing the city.

But in the hands of a properly run city government a NFL stadium and a Super Bowl are great enhancers of a city. I don't think anyone in Miami, SF, or Tampa is complaining or they wouldn't be putting their names in for more SBs. Trust me the people setting up these SBs (I know few) don't like the headache but respect that they might be getting an enhancement or two as a result. The other part of that equation is the money these cities spend on hosting the Super Bowl stays into their community in fixtures, local salaries and local businesses.

But hey believe what makes you feel comfortable- but in this regard big money isn't getting held up over a $1 million dollar hotel bill no matter the shame people want to say. Shame on those billionaires for bringing a $400 million dollar party to our city and hiring our people to put it on. Shame.

Jobu
Posts: 9499
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:58 pm

Post by Jobu » Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:13 am

VeritasSteel wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:13 pm
I've been lurking reading posts all I can say is oi. And I only signed up to comment on something that I figured I could push the narrative on. Football business and how it relates to cities. I will save the rest for those who have more passion about the comings and goings of coaches and the wrist circumferences of players.

I hate articles like this because the writer is gaslighting taxpayers instead of doing their research and educating the taxpayer on the realities of tax supported city budgets. I could fill this post with a lot of information that no one would read or care about- because, let's face it, you want to hate on billionaires because its easier than say reading a city's budget or how bond repayments work. I will instead say that the title of the article if researched correctly should have been

"City of Miami Invests $20 million in tax payers money in the form of its tourism budget and receives ~$400 million in tax revenue. "

Admittedly it doesn't draw the eyes like "Billionaires Bad Boy Club stiffs city into paying a hotel bill".

The Super Bowl generates a lot of cash on multiple levels and these cities know that they have to do something to bring that opportunity to their city. If you can't understand that the host city is investing less than 5% of its projected returns to (most of that in labor costs to its police force) to enhance the city then stop reading now and go get a book on how investments should work- it will be a better use of your time.

So while we are on it- can we just stop with the stadium narrative that says owners are building these edifices to their egos at the expense of the taxpayers. It's just not true. I could go into how Jerry Jones took advantage of the taxpayers angst in Dallas which minimized their contributions to less than 1/4 of the stadiums costs. Great for the taxpayers, some would say. But at the end of the bond the city doesn't own or have any sizable interest in what should be the largest tax generating structure in its taxable land area. So in ten years every dime generated by the stadium goes to Jerry from which he'll pay a little event tax and pat the city on the head and send them on their way. Yikes. Now this is extremely simplified but the local government cut itself out of the pie here because they positioned themselves temporarily in the transaction because they feared losing money over the possibility and effort to actually make some. For whatever reason- but mainly being short sighted on behalf of short sighted people.

What I mean is if a city has its shit together then when the stadium is built they own (most if not) all of it- which is HUGE. Then they can rent (lease, option, whatever) it out to the NFL team during the worst weeks of the year to be sitting in a stadium (covered or not). And if they planned it right the city should make at least 1/2 of their investment back in 7-10 years on the collateral pieces of the deal in tax revenues. This should be in addition to having most of the stadiums costs paid by NFL activities.

So let's go back and finish with the Super Bowl- ever notice that if the stadium is a dome or south of the Mason Dixon line that within 2 years of finishing construction the Super Bowl is there? Well if the stadium costs a Billion to build and the city is generating $400 million in hosting the Super Bowl then the NFL is essentially paying its part. Ever wonder why the NFL would put the SB in New York in February? Well they (the NFL or Bad Boy Billionaires League) used their high value marketing tool to generate tax revenues for the area in order to cover the costs of the stadium they said needed to be built. And if the Super Bowl was a success then within 15 years the SB will be back and generate another $400 million allowing for inflation- $500 million. So if you have a billion dollar stadium and the NFL with its SBs and the tenant paying their fair share the stadium should produce at least $900 million not counting the yearly tax revenues by the team.

So here's the problem. A city has a lot of moving parts and fluctuating budgets and a lot of charismatic but inexperienced people running them. In some cases they understand how to count money and make sure people get paid, but generally they are clueless on how to seize momentum in order to build things (without that lowest bidder crap) that are going to take the strain off of taxpayers while enhancing the city.

But in the hands of a properly run city government a NFL stadium and a Super Bowl are great enhancers of a city. I don't think anyone in Miami, SF, or Tampa is complaining or they wouldn't be putting their names in for more SBs. Trust me the people setting up these SBs (I know few) don't like the headache but respect that they might be getting an enhancement or two as a result. The other part of that equation is the money these cities spend on hosting the Super Bowl stays into their community in fixtures, local salaries and local businesses.

But hey believe what makes you feel comfortable- but in this regard big money isn't getting held up over a $1 million dollar hotel bill no matter the shame people want to say. Shame on those billionaires for bringing a $400 million dollar party to our city and hiring our people to put it on. Shame.
Someone gets it. Good post.

Dan Smith--BYU
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:33 am

Post by Dan Smith--BYU » Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:34 pm

This is the classic error pointed out by Milton Friedman. You're only focused on visible benefits and you're ignoring invisible harms.

When money is taken away from citizens for crony capitalists, that money is not spend on other goods and services and is not saved or invested in other ways. How this happens and the benefit is hard to describe because that multiverse is cut off by the imposition of the crony obligation.

There are downstream effects of cronyism that are devastating to communities.

The large city that grew the most in the fifty years before the Golden Knights was Vegas, and it had no pro sports teams. Chicago has had five for ages and is a stagnant mess.

If you want to learn more about the economic harms of pro sports stadiums (not to mention the obvious social injustice of subsidizing/bailing out billionaires) Reason magazine has some good abstracts that go into more detail.

Your argument sounds like the argument for bailing out Goldman Sachs.

Kodiak
Posts: 15301
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:10 pm

Study after study have all shown stadiums are bad deals for municipalities. The economic benefit rarely outweighs the cost.

But fans who drop $500 to take their family to a game maybe don't make the best financial decisions?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

VeritasSteel
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:19 pm

Post by VeritasSteel » Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:58 am

Respectfully— I love Milton Feldmans work and videos. What I learned most from him is we sometimes rely on the anecdotal information by others and fall back on status quo instead of looking at the true reasons of why things are the way they are. One cannot vilify the negotiations process by assuming that only illicit deals are being made just because the conversation is about a billion dollars. Tax Abatements happen business incentives happen, cities that suck have to offer more to get someone to do something it can’t.

50 years ago the template was a multipurpose stadium that would fit within a city and to hell with what was there. To get those things done a lot of maneuvering had to be done, thus the cronyism element. With the modern emphasis on stadium and area development with some new tools-imminent domain, public private partnerships and syndicated levels of financing a stadium or large development can be done with less shady effort.

Simply most of the blame on the ineffectiveness of a stadium can be placed on the people who own it- the government who represents the taxpayers. its not their fault, they are not in the business of maximizing the opportunity but doing just enough to please their constituents. it’s easier to put blame on billionaires shadiness than to ask governments to properly run their property. not absolving billionaires of any wrongdoing on their behalf but others cannot be let off easy.

Kodiak
Posts: 15301
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:32 am

VeritasSteel wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:58 am
Simply most of the blame on the ineffectiveness of a stadium can be placed on the people who own it-
Yeah. No. Respectfully agree with all the research that disagrees with you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Dan Smith--BYU
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:33 am

Post by Dan Smith--BYU » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:59 pm

There are two questions that needed to be answered in the affirmative to make the case for taxpayer funded support of billionaire enterprises.

The first is does it work to create economic growth.

The second would be if it's ethical.

As discussed here there is plenty of research that shows money put into stadiums, particularly single use stadiums, drains capital that would have otherwise been guided by the invisible hand and that this effectively stifles other ventures rising up organically.

As I pointed out, Vegas had tremendous growth in the 70 or so years before the Golden Knights.

As far as ethics go, if one were a complete sociopath one could argue that murdering the severely mentally impaired or chronically unemployed or anyone in a nursing home for six months would lead to economic gain. It would. But it shouldn't be done for obvious reasons.

Stadium projects fail because they detract from local economic growth AND It's simply wrong to tax the middle class to benefit billionaires.

I would say this to conservatives who support this kind of thing...if you do then don't bitch when Bernie Bros want their college debt cancelled. If billionaires are going to get bailed out then everyone should.

Kodiak
Posts: 15301
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:10 pm

Dan Smith--BYU wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:59 pm
I would say this to conservatives who support this kind of thing...if you do then don't bitch when Bernie Bros want their college debt cancelled. If billionaires are going to get bailed out then everyone should.
You mean bailed out like the banks? A loan that is paid back, plus interest? Because students already have that.

And when those students go out in the real world and create jobs and economic growth then they, too, may receive some incentives and tax breaks. There's no such thing as a free lunch. No one gets something for nothing. Even the many reasons not to invest in stadium deals, ultimately cities do it because they want to attract/keep teams. That's the something the owner has that the city wants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

User avatar
CORE-TEN
Posts: 8689
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:49 pm

Post by CORE-TEN » Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:50 pm

Kodiak wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:10 pm
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
I went on an interview a long time ago and the owner, in the middle of the interview, said he was hungry and wanted to have lunch - inviting me along. I said "sure." We had lunch, and he covered the bill. When we went back to the office, he met with colleagues and came back and told me I didn't get the job. IOW, his partner was interviewing another candidate and decided they wanted that guy instead of me.

But I got a free lunch out of it.

I have more examples of free lunches billed to clients, or vendors. The "free lunch" meme is tired and old, usually used by those at the top to suggest those at the bottom have to "work' to get lunch. Which is bullshit. People at the top abuse the system the same if not more than those at the bottom. They just call it something different. Like they "deserve" it. Meritocracy is just a fancy name for "I have it, you don't."

955876
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:03 pm

But I got a free lunch out of it.
Just because you didn’t pay doesn’t mean the lunch was free.

I have to spot my in-laws all the time if we dine out. They got a free meal. I paid.

So your point doesn’t disprove “there is no such thing as a free lunch”.

Shocker you didn’t get the job...

Kodiak
Posts: 15301
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:19 pm

CORE-TEN wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:50 pm
I have more examples of free lunches billed to clients, or vendors.
You don't appear to understand what actually constitutes a "free lunch". And that surprises no one. And by the way, it's not a "meme" it's an actual concept you will find in countless economics books, should you be so inclined ever to pick one up.

If you're homeless and you go to a soup kitchen, THAT'S a free lunch. Lunch bought in to a meeting you have to attend is not a "free lunch".
Last edited by Kodiak on Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Kodiak
Posts: 15301
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:20 pm

955876 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:03 pm
Just because you didn’t pay doesn’t mean the lunch was free.
LOL that was such an epic fail. There are few things I despise more in the business world than the "free" lunch.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

User avatar
CORE-TEN
Posts: 8689
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:49 pm

Post by CORE-TEN » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:37 pm

Why don't you fucks address the point I was actually making, instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks?

Gawd, you have your heads so far up your capitalist asses you can't see the light of day. No surprise there. You'd worship a dollar bill before respecting a human.

955876
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:33 pm

The "free lunch" meme is tired and old, usually used by those at the top to suggest those at the bottom have to "work' to get lunch. Which is bullshit.
What you divide into a top and bottom I simply view as something that should be a given. But of course you have to work to get lunch.

It’s not bullshit.

Every day in Africa the fastest lion knows it must be able to outrun the slowest gazelle.

And every day in Africa the slowest gazelle knows it must be able to outrun the fastest lion.

Whether you are a lion or gazelle you need to get up each day running.

So ya, call me crazy for believing in having to “work for lunch”.

User avatar
El Kabong
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:18 pm

Post by El Kabong » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:03 am

I'm no economist, but I thought the point was that there is no such thing as a free lunch because while YOU didn't pay for it, SOMEONE did. Even with the soup kitchen example, the soup kitchen paid for it or received it from someone who did.

955876
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:04 am

El Kabong wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:03 am
I'm no economist, but I thought the point was that there is no such thing as a free lunch because while YOU didn't pay for it, SOMEONE did. Even with the soup kitchen example, the soup kitchen paid for it or received it from someone who did.
Ding ding.

Now there was a time years ago I was at a bachelors party weekend in Reno, NV. We had ended up getting separated as the night got into the wee hours. Ended up back at the strip club where we started. Spent the last cash I had in pocket on some lap dances.

Told the girl I wasn’t hitting the ATM inside the club. She said not to worry about it. Was late and didn’t feel like going back out to main part of the club. Said she was cool just staying back there dancing for me.

Now that’s pretty close to a free lunch. Aside from opportunity cost on her part.

VeritasSteel
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:19 pm

Post by VeritasSteel » Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:36 am

Dan Smith--BYU wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:59 pm
There are two questions that needed to be answered in the affirmative to make the case for taxpayer funded support of billionaire enterprises.

The first is does it work to create economic growth.

Stadium building alone does not create economic growth. The old model of "just build the thing" did not work. But what works is using the momentum from the stadium to facilitate change in an area. With the tools that developers and cities now have at their disposal transforming an area from crime ridden and with few to no taxpayers can be converted into a benefit to the city.

The second would be if it's ethical.

Respectfully, now that we can get the mafia and labor unions out of the deal (mostly) one can follow the ethical guidelines to get these deals done. Heres the issue though you have business people negotiating with non business people. Kinda like watching a pro team play a division 3 team. Business people are going to get all they can its part of what they do.

As discussed here there is plenty of research that shows money put into stadiums, particularly single use stadiums, drains capital that would have otherwise been guided by the invisible hand and that this effectively stifles other ventures rising up organically.

I would suggest producing this research. Who did the research? Did they consider imminent domain, PPPs, and syndicated financing? How old is it? Is it based solely on the stadium? Who and how are the properties generally managed and marketed? The issue here is two fold- if a city is surrounding their new property with blighted communities and taking a laissez faire attitude with the stadium then its going to be a bust- every time. But if they can control the area around it and put new parts in it then the stadium can be used to facilitate growth in parts of the city that have traditionally been a headache.

As I pointed out, Vegas had tremendous growth in the 70 or so years before the Golden Knights.

True Las Vegas has had tremendous growth but it was hit really hard by the recession so not everything was roses there. Vegas is unique in that the city and development are frequent bedfellows. It doesn't need a stadium or a team from a revenue standpoint because it was built getting its cut from a billions in gambling. I believe a good model for what I am talking about is what SF did with ATT park and how other cities have copied that development. That stadium was built in what was an old harbor attached to its manufacturing district, basically if you had a drug problem you could score, buy and use. and the city was powerless to stop it. The City approved the stadium and optioned the surrounding area for development and now its second behind the business district in tax revenues it generates. within the 7x7 mile square of SF. It has put nearly 50k new homes into a city thats famous for not having a lot. The point is the city didn't sit around settling for the stadium revenues, they had a full scale vision for the area and used the stadium's momentum to revitalize the area. The last time I was there (to see Cutch and the Bucs take the series) it was safe, had some great places to eat and drink and some beautiful condos near the stadium looked to be full. A win for the people and the city. If you go over to where Candlestick was- you could get mugged. Even before they tore it down

As far as ethics go, if one were a complete sociopath one could argue that murdering the severely mentally impaired or chronically unemployed or anyone in a nursing home for six months would lead to economic gain. It would. But it shouldn't be done for obvious reasons.

So a stadium deal is akin to killing a dying loved one? Your viewpoint on this might not be objective. The facts are that the ethics of doing business are spelled out pretty plainly- the results of the deal might cause people to question the business skills of the city depending how much they had to give up to get something done.

Stadium projects fail because they detract from local economic growth AND It's simply wrong to tax the middle class to benefit billionaires.

20 years ago I might have agreed. But the modern way of developing allows for these stadiums to be initiators for change if the city can see beyond the stadium and look at the area they are putting it. I am in Atlanta (under protest because I love Florida) and they have so many problems that they allowed one team to get away to a neighboring county and they overdid it on the football stadium that they didnt secure the surrounding area other that frankly should have all be redeveloped. Vine city is whats left of down town Atlantas open area drug market. A now that the new mayor is here she's trying to hold the city for her constituents instead of getting rid of the biggest crime area in the city proper. So now the neighborhood churches are gobbling up those parcels (because they have money because they aint paying taxes) and who knows what's going to happen there.

I would say this to conservatives who support this kind of thing...if you do then don't bitch when Bernie Bros want their college debt cancelled. If billionaires are going to get bailed out then everyone should.

I am not one to talk about politics unless provoked. The reality is this regardless if you are left wing or right- its still the same ugly bird. People on both sides fall for the same fear based okie doke just so someone can come alleviate their pain. Then when they realize that this person isnt the agent of change their posters said they were, then its time to find a scapegoat- usually it fluctuates between "liberal snowflakes" or the "1%".

Dan Smith--BYU
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:33 am

Post by Dan Smith--BYU » Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:57 am

You should read Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who hated the Wall St. bailouts and made a fortune shorting the housing market before it collapsed. He predicted it in the Black Swan before it happened.

Subsidies and bailouts make the billionaire (i.e. Jerry Jones or Goldman Sachs) antifragile at the expense of making everyone else in the neighborhood fragile. It's really besides the point if the stadium is a hit in the short term. The point is that a fair society does not do that. It's a gross misallocation of capital based on force, not mutual agreement between customer and seller. Also a society interested in growth and the invisible hand does not do that. An economy is best served by billionaires scared to death of competition rather than guaranteed asset growth through local monopoly.

We have gotten into the bad habit of socializing losses and privatizing gains. The Fed is a large part of this too. Billionaires need MORE skin in the game than the city.

And your boneheaded contention that I was comparing a stadium deal to killing a loved one is idiotic. I only brought it up to illustrate in stark terms that there are things you can do to improve the economy that are very unethical and that utilitarianism cannot be an argument for economic action alone.

User avatar
CORE-TEN
Posts: 8689
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:49 pm

Post by CORE-TEN » Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:08 pm

You guys are pathetic.

Vendors bring lunch precisely to attract attendees. They want to sell their product, so a "free lunch" is incentive. And it's free. Whether someone paid for it is irrelevant. It's free to me.

The concept is still bullshit. And what separates us from lions and gazelles is humanity and civility, but most free market proponents cherry pick to support their narrative. And even in nature there is empathy and shared resources, you dumbfucks. The analogy is worthless.

VeritasSteel
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:19 pm

Post by VeritasSteel » Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:40 pm

Dan Smith--BYU wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:57 am
You should read Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who hated the Wall St. bailouts and made a fortune shorting the housing market before it collapsed. He predicted it in the Black Swan before it happened.

We are not talking about bailing out a billionaire or funding a billionaires lifestyle. We are talking about stadiums and development around stadiums. The fact is the stadium belongs to the city and the development around it can fall under eminent domain in order for the city to leverage the full benefit. The benefits of tax revenues by regular people having a place to eat work and play near a place that should provide a backstop to crime has never been in question.

Subsidies and bailouts make the billionaire (i.e. Jerry Jones or Goldman Sachs) antifragile at the expense of making everyone else in the neighborhood fragile. It's really besides the point if the stadium is a hit in the short term. The point is that a fair society does not do that. It's a gross misallocation of capital based on force, not mutual agreement between customer and seller.

We are not talking about bailouts or propping up billionaires. You have these outdated studies done by shadow organizations 20 years ago. Let me explain underwriting as it pertains to the syndicated loan process. As a syndicated loan is a collection of bilateral loans between a borrower and several banks, the structure of the transaction is to isolate each bank's interest whilst maximizing the collective efficiency of monitoring and enforcement of a single lender. Its is a $5 trillion dollar loan market here in the states ($27 trillion worldwide)here's a link to a recent overview https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/syndicatedloan.asp

Most of these loans these stadiums are based on a city guaranteeing payment based on their credit rating and a bond issuance which serves as collateral on the transaction. The other half of the equation is the potential revenues the team in this stadium is generating? Are those team revenues enough to cover the loan during the term (10-year max)? If the principals of the loan (the city and billionaires) can't justify a 10-year repayment based on revenues- then there is no deal. The city is not paying for the stadium they are merely providing security to the deal and will refi it (hopefully to a local bank) on a 30-year bond note. But it should have the money to make these payments from the football activities (games, SBs, etc). There should not be a huge capital outlay from the taxpayer. These loans are usually 2 or 3 points over LIBOR and have 2-year graces so the stadium can get built. In the end, the city owns the stadium (and has a management and maintenance responsibility) and got it by using the billionaire to design, construct and provide the potential accounts receivables to push the stadium underwriting to funding. So how are the billionaires getting bailed out? Sure the city is going to work with the owner if times get tough and attendance falls off because he's covering the note. But if they are constantly putting events in the stadium they can build up enough of a reserve to cover these shortfalls and still be liquid


We have gotten into the bad habit of socializing losses and privatizing gains. The Fed is a large part of this too. Billionaires need MORE skin in the game than the city.

I feel like you're just ranting here laying another rabbit trail. We've all read Creature of Jekyll island and we know the monetary system is rigged to protect those who should be allowed to fail in order for them to innovate. We all know that subsidies kill industry because it takes away a companies competitive fire which should lead to better products at cheaper prices- which is why we aren't the steel producers that we once were. Yeah we know all this- but how does that relate to the transactions of building stadiums- it doesn't.

And your boneheaded contention that I was comparing a stadium deal to killing a loved one is idiotic. I only brought it up to illustrate in stark terms that there are things you can do to improve the economy that are very unethical and that utilitarianism cannot be an argument for economic action alone.

Your murdering sociopath comment was a Kobayashi Maru in that the scenario couldn't be won no matter what thought path the reader took. Serial killing vs mercy killing is still killing. My only means of escape was to treat it with irreverence and not let it distract from the topic at hand. Stadium and land development.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic