The Twins have been pulling the same job. We haven’t fallen for it here either. They say “we will leave.” So far, there haven’t been any serious takers - the Triad was a joke.
HEY - maybe if the Royals move because they don’t get a stadium, the Twins could move down there! Or if the Twins do move away, someone up here could buy the Royals!
Spiritus Mundi,
I hear you. I was up in Seattle on vacation and they tried to place some sort of tax on my rent-a-car in addition to the local taxes. So I ask “what is this for?”, and it turns out to be a tax to fund some new bas/foos/bask/ etball statdium of some sort.
I don’t get it. I want to rent a car in your city, so that I can spend my hard earned vacation money enjoying what you have to offer and you basically force me to pay for your sports stadium? Ridiculous.
In the end we got the tax taken off, 10% off the price of the car and a car upgrade.
You’re making it sound like the car rental place decided, on its own, to assess you this tax.
I’m very surprised that they offered to (A) Pay the tax themselves, and (B) give you a price break and discounted service just because the city levied a tax on their business and a customer didn’t like it. Are you sure there wasn’t some other reason for the nice treatment?
I have the perfect solution to this whole question.
How about if a bunch of rich guys get together, pool their money, build a stadium, and charge admission? No cost to the taxpayer, only those who really liked sports would feel the need to participate, and they could even rent it out for events other than sports! It might even make a few bucks.
It would still generate all that lovely revenue we the people are always going to get. Right after we pay off the corporate bonds to build the sky boxes for rich people so they can watch other rich people play a kid’s game.
Whaddya think?
Regards,
Shodan
I doubt anyone’s saying building a stadium is wrong… just building it for private enterprise with public money. If they make so much money off of it, why don’t they pay for their own stadium?
I admire the way LA has (so far, to my knowledge) told the NFL to bug off if they demand public money for a new stadium to put a new football team in LA. LA doesn’t need an NFL team, and if they figure they’ll make enough money in LA, the new team can pay for their own stadium.
Especially when they are closing down a great many public schools in Pittsburgh, claiming they can’t afford to keep them open…but they can afford new stadiums?
:mad:
Let me address TexasSpur’s point. He is right that the arena built will become a convention center as well, holding several different events and shows. However, the stadium/arena is contracted these days so that owner of the team who has primary use of the stadium/arena gets a piece of revenue when the arena is used for other purposes, this despite the fact the owner puts nary a dime in the building of the stadium. The owners all but giggled when it was pointed ot to them by TV newsmagazine shows.
Also, about the new arena in Dallas: the city raised its share of the money by taxing hotel rooms and car rental (as has already been mentioned). And the city has capped their contribution at $125 million dollars. The entire cost for the building is (a mindboggling) $420 million dollars. That is $295 million was put up by the owners of the Stars and Mavs.
Not to mention that, in Cleveland for example, within a 30-block radius of Public Square in the middle of downtown, you have:
Jacobs Field (baseball-only, built with public money)
Gund Arena (multi-use, built with public money)
Music Hall (multi-use, owned by the city)
Cleveland Convention Center (multi-use, owned by the city)
Browns Stadium (multi-use, built with public money)
CSU Convocation Center (multi-use, built with state money)
Browns Stadium alone cost the taxpayers of Cleveland in excess of $300 million. The Jacobs/Gund complex is still not solvent, and in fact because of flaky contracts, the Cavs and the Indians have paid very little rent (in fact, one year the Gunds claimed that Gateway Corp. owed them money).
I’m against public money being used for sports stadiums, but I thought I’d add a bit on the economics of these new stadiums.
The reason so many older stadiums are being torn down and replaced with new ones is that the older ones don’t fit with new revenue models. Specifically, they lack skyboxes and superboxes, which are huge revenue generators.
Some of them are also hideously expensive to re-wire with modern cabling for cameras, speakers, electronic displays, etc.
Um, the thing about skyboxes and superboxes being huge revenue generators? The revenue goes to the owners of the team not to the city, not to the taxpayers who are paying for these stadiums. The skyboxes actually keep the taxpayers out of the games they are paying for by setting re-f—in’-diculous ticket prices, leaving the three richest people in town to take visiting guests up to the skybox.
Well, there’s lots of ways to look at that. One would be that the fat cats in the skyboxes enable the lower ticket prices for the public. Assuming the team isn’t getting rich (and most of the teams that are fighting for this stuff aren’t - they are going broke), then it helps the poor out tremendously to come up with a scheme in which a few very rich people pay stupendous amounts of money to watch the game.
But I don’t want to be seen as defending sports teams, because most of them are examples of corporate welfare of the worst sort. I was just trying to explain why the old stadiums aren’t doing the job.
cmkeller said:
Not to mention the fact that it’s only 28 years old! I swear teams feel like they want a new stadium as soon as the present one is paid for. The Orlando Magic have been complaining about their arena and it was opened in 1989! According to a 1999 story from http://www.ballparks.com, Orlando’s TD Waterhouse Centre hadn’t turned a profit since 1994-95! (Part of the problem was the cost of making ice for the Solar Bears hockey team which folded recently.) How would a bigger place do any better? Would they really get that much money from more luxury boxes? Will they really save that much money by not playing ice hockey anymore?
From Enderw24:
Baseball owners would probably call that collusion! 
Los Angeles told the NFL, “We ain’t paying half a billion bucks to build a football stadium.” So the new team went to Houston.
Staples Center, home of the Lakers, Clippers and Kings, cost $330 million, but only $58.5 million came from public funds. It’s a beautiful place inside, but with three levels of luxury boxes, the upper-most seats are further away from the court (or ice) than at any other basketball/hockey venue. Go [url=""]here and click on a team logo and you will get a seating diagram. Click on a section and a window will open to show you what the court (or ice) would look like from the top row behind the goal. You’ll need binoculars to read the numbers on the players’ uniforms. Those seats cost $21 for a Laker or King game, but only $10 for a Clipper game.
Other entertainment companies get breaks from the government. When Disney decided to renovate Disneyland and build California Adventure, they managed to talk the state into building new exit ramps from I-5, one of which goes directly into the new Disney-owned parking structure. The city of Anaheim increased the motel room tax to 15% to pay for street infrastructure improvements. I think that’s justified since a good portion of Disney’s visitors are form out-of-state. (OTOH, they never had a chance to vote for or against it, did they, no more than they did the local sales tax.)
Go here and click on a team logo and you will get a seating diagram.
Where is there a single example of a new facility, with new skyboxes, actually resulting in LOWER ticket prices down in the bowl?
Don’t some states like New York and California tax athletes based on the salary they earn in thoses states?
According to my father-in-law, a retired state tax accountant: All states tax professional athletes based on the percentage of their total games that they play in that state. New York Jets players and coaches pay New Jersey state income tax based on 1/2 their salary, plus New York tax based on 1/16 of their salary to account for their annual trip to Buffalo, and so forth. They’re off the hook when they visit states with no income tax. Non-player-payroll income, such as for endorsements and card signings, is taxable in the state where it’s earned. Exhibition games don’t count, btw.
Much-higher taxes in Canada may be part of the reason the NFL has never expanded there, and why the NHL has trouble keeping teams there, and are certainly part of the Expos’ and Blue Jays’ difficulty in attracting free agents.
I’ve said this in other threads and in other places, but the solution is to have governmental ownership of the team. If the taxpayers foot the bill for the stadium then they’re entitled to recoup their costs instead of having the money go to the owners first. Its also a good way to insure that the team won’t leave.
For example, the Columbus Clippers of minor league baseball’s International League are owned by Franklin County, Ohio. The county has owned the team for over 25 years, with few complaints, according to a recent article in Baseball America.
Taxes go to support parks, libraries, cultural events such as orchestral music, art, etc…
In some of these, private citizens and enterprises profit. Not to the degree of pro sports(unless you’re in Montreal), but profit nonetheless.
Baseball, and the other, lesser sports, enrich the community. A ball team can be a matter of great civic pride(or great embarrassment, if you’re in Tampa Bay) The team employs many people in the city, and it offers entertainment to it’s citizens on a scale that theater and symphonies cannot match(in terms of patrons). The team is good for the city. If your city doesn’t have a team, well, that’s just sad!
Now as to why a city or state should put up so much dough to keep a franchise intact… If that city doesn’t, some other city will. LA without the Dodgers (and Lakers, I quess) would be just a barren desert
Just curious, but how does this help? Sports have free agency and a community would still have to pony up some significant dollars to sign players. All the money required to operate the team would be tax dollars, and running a pro sports franchise is an expensive affair. If they don’t spend the money then the team is not competitive and the fans don’t go.