In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1359
Online now 738 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.
From an NY Times article
"Blank acknowledged that the Georgia Dome, which would be demolished, remains functional. But with the bonds applied to its construction scheduled to be paid off in 2017, when the Falcons’ lease will expire, he is hoping to secure a deal for the next three decades.
“We need a long-term solution to keep the Falcons competitive in terms of the fan experience,” said Blank, alluding to attracting fans to games despite the rise of technology that makes viewing a game on TV at home an immersive experience.
While the Falcons would essentially operate the building, which would host the marquee sports events and concerts now held at the Dome, and retain all revenue, they would assume some risk, like cost overruns."
It's going to be demolished before it's paid off?
They need to stay competitive in terms of the fan experience? If people like going to the games, they like going to the games. New stadium prices rise on average 25%. A better "fan experience" is hardly going to justify that.
So they would retain the revenue, but assume just some risk? Sweetheart deal for the falcons.
If it's paid through hotel motel taxes, that's not as bad, but that could hurt the convention business and end up costing the city in that area.
Why not just give them the Georgia Dome then? That wouldn't cost $300 million.
I wonder what Arthur Blank would do if the city said: "We won't give you one cent for building a new stadium. However, we will just hand over the Georgia Dome. You can do with it as you like, demolish it and build a new one, rent it out, keep the Falcons there, we don't care, except you can't move the team to another city." Something tells me he wouldn't take that deal, since he knows he'll get a better deal if he squeezes the city to build him a new stadium.
You're still in this thread? You've got some serious cognitive dissonance, thinking that just because there's disagreement that must mean that the answer lies somewhere in between (see: Argument to Moderation / Gray Fallacy).
It IS in fact black and white: either publicly financing a stadium is a sound economic decision for a city or it isn't. I'd like to see one piece of evidence on your part that says it actually makes economic sense for a city to do so. And your, your $187m article about the SB in NO doesn't mean anything because it doesn't evaluate long-term economic impact of building a stadium.
Stadiums get financed because billionaires use their leverage to put public pressure on officials who fear that they'll lose their political careers if they become "the guy who let _____ get away." It's a con.
Interesting question. But no owner would ever agree to that long term because they need that threat to be able to get what they need. Blank could be blowing smoke on this LA thing, but if they city calls his bluff and they're wrong, well, ...
I think what the studies chris14 have posted have found is that the net economic benefit is very small to negative. You have the city paying, say, $300 million for a stadium (which ends up at $500 million or more over the life of the 20 year bond), while at the same time the Stadium Authority might lose money managing the stadium (one example of this seems to be at Lucas Oil stadium). The local residents end up with a relatively fixed amount they would spend on entertainment, so they'd either spend it on something else local if that pro sports franchise wasn't there (most of that amount), or go elsewhere. The real question then is how much do you want to spend (by the public) for some jobs related to the sports franchise and some tourism dollars.
I'd say, if the city is a destination city anyway, and the stadium would definitely add some of the most marquee events (like the Super Bowl multiple times) being hosted by that city when they otherwise wouldn't, then it may be a decent deal. But if you aren't going to get a lot of big events with the new stadium (Cincinnati's NFL stadium, the Marlins stadium), then it could be a very bad deal.
The funny thing about a team moving to LA is there isn't a stadium there yet either, and the group(s) that want to build a stadium won't build one until a team is definitely moving to LA.
Good post. And the 187 is most likely a revenue estimate. It does not mention the costs to the city for hosting such an event. Revenue by itself is not a good indicator of value. Like the Olympics...sure it may bring in $500 million (yay!), but in most cases it costs the countries more than what it brings in (oh).
And sports teams are something that a city is very emotionally tied to, so they're less rational about how they treat them. Consider if coke said they would move unless the city ponied up tens of millions of dollars for something they wanted. Think the city would go for it?
This post was edited by Chitown_Badger 15 months ago
FYI, while the city is part of the conversation and will have some skin in the game, it is the state that owns the Ga Dome. The legislature is seriously split between Atlanta and the rest of the state. The Rest of the State may say hell no in this instance, viewing a new stadium as something that only helps Atlanta.
Just another twist.
Maytag tried that in Iowa actually.
You're still arguing with yourself? Go bitch about billionares to someone else you miserable troll.
You stay classy.
Still waiting for that credible study info. I even have university access to journals, so a link to a paywalled article will suffice.
No way the legislature is going to vote for the $100 million increase. Too much backlash from constituents. The mayor is going to find a way for the city to come up with it though.
Go yell at some more clouds. Billionares, damn you!
That picture never fails to make me laugh.
It's semi-cute that you'd rather try and distract from being forced into an evidence-based argument on the economic impact / ethics of public stadium financing, but also kind of sad because you're a fellow MSU alum (I presume).
Edit: moved links to attachments:
The part I take the most pleasure in is posting links from conservative think tanks that I viciously disagree with on probably every single other issue except that of public stadium financing. Which actually makes me wildly curious about your political leanings, because it seems like ponying up public tax money for stadiums would be anathema to conservatives because it's more taxation, and for recreation to boot....and also a bad idea to liberals because we tend to have pretty disparaging opinions about said billionaires threatening to move their wildly profitable teams if they can't get even more concessions from their city. Which leaves you as a...crazy person?
The trials of the Phoenix Coyotes, the least popular hockey team in the NHL, offer a lesson in public debt and defeat
A Closer Look at St
Despite what many people believe, professional sports venues typically do not spur large-scale economic activity.
A Hail Mary pass? THE Falcons, Atlantas largest indoor sports arena,...
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by chris14 15 months ago
Ah, now you've convinced me.
Haha it just kills you that a stranger won't tell you that you're right. It's rather telling of your obsessive need to be correct, on a meaningless topic, on an Internet message board. Kinda pathetic.
Oh man, this post is so wildly entertaining (and predictable) that I wish I had the foresight to pre-empt you by posting the roadmap:
"A Guide to Internet Message Boarding like a Surly Teenager"
1) Make argument
2) Argue with other people
3) Throw out passive-aggressive insults to try and derail/distract
4) Go straight to point-blank insults
5) Go for the tried-and-true "pathetic message board argument" approach while hilariously glossing over the hypocrisy of having done said arguing up until step 5 (and likely having done said arguing in previous threads and will continue to do so in the future).
Interestingly, your sentence stumbled on the correct semantic description of my motivation with an incorrect interpretation: I DO have an obsession with being correct, if "correct" means believing the truth, even if that means your original hypothesis was a total load of jackassery. I was super interested in this thread because of my strong opinion (I only ever read anecdotal statements about the economics of stadium financing) that billionaires were pulling a con job. It would have been super illuminating to find someone posting rigorous data that strongly indicated that I was very much in the wrong.
Oh, and I found another study that actually studied the Super Bowl's economic impact directly! I'll have to read it later, but the Economist's summary states that
"This paper by Victor Mathesen and Robert Baade argues that the true economic impact is around one-quarter of that amount. It marshals several arguments: that optimistic surveys count gross rather than net spending, that they fail to take into account the substitution effect (ie that people might simply spend on the Super Bowl what they would have spent on some other regional activity, or that the Super Bowl might enrich one area at the expense of others) and repatriation of income by non-resident vendors or workers. The true impact of Super Bowls on regional economies between 1970 and 2001, they find, was around $92m."
I have a really long reading list for tonight!
THIS week in the paper Is...
0000000016 00000 n
0000001138 00000 n
0000000596 00000 n
0000001220 00000 n
0000001348 00000 n
0000001481 00000 n
0000001645 00000 n
0000002172 00000 n
0000002208 00000 n
0000002255 00000 n
0000002495 00000 n
0000002572 00000 n
0000003501 00000 n
0000006171 00000 n
0000007024 00000 n
The state of Minnesota paid 48% of the cost of TCF bank stadium, which goof fans said would lead to constant sell outs, increased student interest, and a much more competitive football team...including BCS bowl trips. That's all happening, right?
Three years after opening a new football stadium, the University of Minnesota is scrambling to get students -- and fans in general -- interested in going to the games
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Chitown_Badger 15 months ago
Haha you're obsessed with being right. You have spent the better part of your day researching articles to prove to someone else that you're right. And you keep doing it! How important is it to you that a person you've never met tells you that your opinion is correct? Evidently, very. But then again I guess that's just tRCMB for ya.
Falcons will cough up another $100 million. New retractable roof stadium is now a done deal.
They will demolish the Georgia Dome.
The Atlanta Falcons have indicated they would be willing to kick in at least $100 million more for construction of a new stadium, a move that could...
They don't need a new stadium to host Gold Cup matches. It's already coming to the Georgia Dome.
Atlanta is one of 13 cities that will host the Gold Cup, the regions premier soccer tournament, this summer.
it's the biggest reason why tNFL will never fill the LA market.
One of these days a city has to stand up to the NFL and dare them to leave. I thought it might be Minnesota and to the credit of the legislature they bargained much harder than the Vikings expected--but I feel extending the public credit line to build palaces enjoyed by a few people ten days a year is crazy.
more or less, san diego has done that with the Chargers. The city is taking their good old time with the new stadium issue. The back and forth has been going on for almost 12 years now.
interestingly, it sounds like the city will be able to sell the land at where the current stadium is and where the sports arena (where the clippers played)...and make enough money from that to finance the new stadium.
This post was edited by tVargMan Prime 14 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports