In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1607
Online now 1600 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
This is about a power play for SOCCER? Now I've heard it all.
That's a bad example. The super dome was built in 1971 and has hosted the second most super bowls of any city at 9, behind Miami with 10...and that stadium was opened in 1987. The super dome has also hosted the Final Four more than any other location in the modern era.
So you're basically showing that new stadiums aren't needed to generate revenue for the city.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Chitown_Badger 15 months ago
If these stadiums are such moneymakers for cities, why do so many cities have buyers remorse from giving so much public money for the football/baseball stadiums? Cincinnati for the Bengals stadium, NY/NJ for both the old and new Meadowlands (yes the public still needs to pay off millions for the old Meadowlands), Miami for the Marlins new stadium, the Twin Cities soon for both the Twins and Vikings new stadiums, the list goes on and on. I'm sure Detroit/Michigan is still paying off public debt for the Tigers and Lions stadiums. These owners really don't need help for these stadiums, but they extort the public to essentially get a public grant.
If these owners want public money for stadiums, then the public should get a stake in the stadium and/or franchise.
The Marlins are going to be the poster child for cities telling owners to go fuck themselves.
This just in - Arthur Blank didn't become a billionaire by blowing all of his money and not leveraging his assets to his advantage.
The example I used was to show that having a big event brings in tons of millions of dollars to the local economy.
Which was disputed by a different poster....
The city DOES own part or all of the stadium in almost every account....
I think he means the City should get a say in personnel decisions, etc. Just owning the building doesn't really mean much if the team can just threaten to move, etc to leverage more benefits from the city.
My guess is that despite owning the building, the city doesn't set concessions prices or control any of the policies inside the stadium.
It's not that far-fetched. The NHL has failed in Atlanta multiple times. The Hawks are 6th in the East, by 24th in attendance. I don't know the culture in Atlanta, but it seems to me that the Altanta Spirit group has mismanaged both these teams. Atlanta is a "Big 4" city without a 4th team. Their NASL team (think AAA of American Soccer) drew between 3800-6000 for their full-slate of regular season games (stadium has a listed capacity of 5000). That seems to me that there's a demand for an MLS franchise. The only minor league teams I can think of that draw more are Orlando and San Antonio. By comparison, Detroit City was drawing ~1800 per game last summer.
It's not ridiculous to see an Atlanta MLS team drawing 17k+. If they can get a stadium like the Seahawks/Sounders, the sky is the limit (the Sounders drew 43,000 per game last season, and over 60,000 for games vs. LA and Portland).
MLS is a very healthy league now. Owners are making profits. Attendance is very good in some places. The teams that have attendance issues are New England, DC, San Jose, and Chivas. San Jose sells out their tiny stadium, and is building their own right now. New England plays in Foxboro, which is a joke, DC in RFK. Chivas is an after thought in SoCal (and hopefully they'll be sold and moved to another city, but that has to do more with the Tijuana Xolos rise than anything else).
Only stadiums blessed by the NFL will receive Super Bowls. If Atlanta isn't in the mix for super bowls, but will be with a new stadium...then his point is valid. However, is that $200m of added revenue every 5-6 years worth it?
Please stop talking about soccer in this discussion. It has zero bearing. And using stats about how Atlanta sucks in terms of caring about their other teams as a rationale for why they would be a huge draw and make tons of money with a soccer team makes no sense whatsoever and has nothing to do with this discussion.
Really, it's up to the people of Atlanta. If they want a new stadium, they will build a new stadium...if they don't want to build a new stadium and risk the team leaving, then they won't build the new stadium.
If no new stadium...The owner can move his team or keep them in Atlanta - it's his prerogative.
These silly red herring economic debates always pop up whenever this topic comes up...
It's been in a "warm weather" city 44 out of 47 times. I'm sure Atlanta will be considered moving forward. And 20 times it's been either NOLA or Miami and their stadiums are "old". So I think it's less about the stadium and more about the location.
the only way atl will get a superbowl is with a new stadium. and they will only get 1. it will never be in the rotation
atl sucks as a sports town.
tig ol bitties is my real name. probably banned for something stupid. F t R
You know it's gotten two already, right?
Nope...San Diego is out of the mix for a new Super Bowl until they get a new stadium. San Diego used to be on a 4-5 year rotation.
As the issue pertains to the stadium...It's about the stadium quality and not the age of the stadium. Of course, other factors contribute, as well...including hotels, transportation and that sort of stuff.
Exactly. Hell, Qualcomm Stadium hosted a Super Bowl in the 00's for God's sake. How much of that had to do with the stadium itself and how much had to do with the fact it's located in San Diego? Miami, New Orleans, San Diego - these aren't exactly palaces.
From what I've just read online, MLS' most valuable franchise (LA) is worth about $100M.
The NFL's most valuable franchise is worth $2.1B.
Not exactly apples to apples...
This post was edited by Fletch 15 months ago
Except...the city will NOT own the stadium.
That's the problem. The Falcons do not own the Georgia Dome, and are thus missing out on a ton of revenue.
If that's the case, then the team theoretically has far less expenses for maintenance, staffing, and other associated costs.
And are you suggesting that the city cough up a couple hundred million dollars so that the team can own the stadium and keep all the profits? Sounds like a great deal for the city.
There will always be two sides to this debate. I can see the Falcons point of view as well as the citys. There really isn't a fail safe solution either way, one side always ends up taking on more risk. We shall see what happens here.
The only way I support public money being used for a stadium is if that public money is paid back using profit from the stadium. With the vast majority of these deals, if the city gets rent money from the team (meaning the city may have partial or full ownership and there is a stadium authority), that barely covers maintenance and operating costs that the stadium authority is responsible for (although usually it does not even come close, like with Lucas Oil stadium). The city rarely if ever gets a cut of the NFL revenue generated by the stadium. The stadium authority may earn some additional money from other events, but that usually has to cover the yearly operating costs and maintenance. You end up with a situation where the NFL owner gets many millions of $ in profit from the new stadium, while the public only pays back the bonds used to fund the public portion of the stadium through taxes, with little or no money earned from the stadium itself.
Without having read the studies quoted above, don't the host cities benefit from the economic impact of the team? More people and businesses pay taxes because they benefit either directly (team employees) or indirectly (bars and restaurants, parking, etc), right?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports