- Thread starter
- #1
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=A ... ials082410
If only they could put some of that money into a BASEBALL TEAM.
If only they could put some of that money into a BASEBALL TEAM.
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Watt said:http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AlAxsO2NK6CEKMc1E2ax7s8RvLYF?slug=jp-marlinsfinancials082410
If only they could put some of that money into a BASEBALL TEAM.
Exposfan said:As much as I hate the Yankees(Steinbrenners) for thier overpaying every free-agent to sign with them I also think its a bigger problem with "small market" teams abusing the system saying they have no money when in fact that isn't even close to the truth.
Soon to be proven, again, by the Brewers trading Fielder saying they don't have the money to pay him when the Twins can afford Mauer and Morneau, and the Cardinals having the funds to keep Carpenter, Wainright, Pujols and Holliday.
piggy1918 said:Which would you rather have in your city.... a $1.5b skyscraper (the world's tallest building) that has a hotel, apartments, and office space; or a $2.4b stadium?
http://www.hdwallpapers.in/view/burj_kh ... x1050.html
Seems like the Burj Khalifa should have cost much more than it did, I would have guessed a building like that takes more planning, materials, time, and money than a ballpark.
Rickzcards said:And people think I'm crazy every time it is brought up here in Vegas, I'm against using tax payers money to build a stadium. The tax payers should never, EVER, have to foot the bill for a stadium.
Sure, it could be. But this story is a prime example of why not to. It would be one thing if the team owners paid it back but it is just one less expense to them.matchpenalty said:Rickzcards said:And people think I'm crazy every time it is brought up here in Vegas, I'm against using tax payers money to build a stadium. The tax payers should never, EVER, have to foot the bill for a stadium.
STATES AND CITIES BENIFIT greatly benefit from having a new stadium. The revenue generated from them can be massive. I'd much rather see cities spending tax money on something tangible and can generate revnue to the city/state. Than all these black hole worthless programs that just lose money.
Exposfan said:As much as I hate the Yankees(Steinbrenners) for thier overpaying every free-agent to sign with them I also think its a bigger problem with "small market" teams abusing the system saying they have no money when in fact that isn't even close to the truth.
Soon to be proven, again, by the Brewers trading Fielder saying they don't have the money to pay him when the Twins can afford Mauer and Morneau, and the Cardinals having the funds to keep Carpenter, Wainright, Pujols and Holliday.
matchpenalty said:STATES AND CITIES BENIFIT greatly benefit from having a new stadium. The revenue generated from them can be massive. I'd much rather see cities spending tax money on something tangible and can generate revnue to thyere city/state. Than all these black hole worthless programs that just lose money.
Those are always slanted to favor these tax watch dogs. That would rather see money put in these endless crappy programs that waste money like it's nobodies business. I grew up in Minnesota and we had all the Stadium fights. When North Stars left it was crushing. First chance they got to get a new team and build an new arena they did. For a NHL team even.stalegum said:matchpenalty said:STATES AND CITIES BENIFIT greatly benefit from having a new stadium. The revenue generated from them can be massive. I'd much rather see cities spending tax money on something tangible and can generate revnue to thyere city/state. Than all these black hole worthless programs that just lose money.
Just about every academic, peer-reviewed study on the subject proves that the revenues generated to government by taxpayer-subsidized stadium projects never come close to offsetting the amount of tax dollars spent to build them.
Most of the "jobs created" are low-paying, temporary/seasonal positions. And most of the leases are written so that the lion's share of additional revenues generated by the new stadium (i.e. naming rights, skyboxes & club seats, in-arena advertising, parking) are kept by the tenants (i.e. the teams).
About the only fungible benefit of stadium welfare, is the pride a city has in keeping/retaining a Major League team. That's about it.
matchpenalty said:Those are always slanted to favor these tax watch dogs. That would rather see money put in these endless crappy programs that waste money like it's nobodies business. I grew up in Minnesota and we had all the Stadium fights. When North Stars left it was crushing. First chance they got to get a new team and build an new arena they did. For a NHL team even. Twins new stadium is a huge hit. It will pay for itself. The Dome was paid off really quick. Just building the Stadium creates a lot of jobs. All these watch dogs that think it's worthless have no idea. You take Stadiums and vibe of teams out of a lot city it loses lots of unmeasurable stuff. They lose all the night life that with them and other stuff that people will spend going to a game.
stalegum said:And as for jobs, what are all those construction workers who built Target Field doing now that the stadium is built?
stalegum said:matchpenalty said:Those are always slanted to favor these tax watch dogs. That would rather see money put in these endless crappy programs that waste money like it's nobodies business. I grew up in Minnesota and we had all the Stadium fights. When North Stars left it was crushing. First chance they got to get a new team and build an new arena they did. For a NHL team even. Twins new stadium is a huge hit. It will pay for itself. The Dome was paid off really quick. Just building the Stadium creates a lot of jobs. All these watch dogs that think it's worthless have no idea. You take Stadiums and vibe of teams out of a lot city it loses lots of unmeasurable stuff. They lose all the night life that with them and other stuff that people will spend going to a game.
Again, the objective research contradicts your opinion. Taxpayer-subsidized stadium projects rarely "pay for themselves." If you don't believe me, ask the good people of Montreal who just finished paying off the debts for the stadium they built to host the '76 Olympics. After 30 years and $1.5 billion in debts, the stadium generated only a maximum of $20 million in business per year -- and that's when the Expos were still playing there!
The Metrodome is a bit of an exception to the rule. The Vikings wanted a domed stadium and the Twins wanted an outdoor ballpark to replace old Metropolitan Stadium. The Vikings got their dome, but the Twins didn't get their ballpark and grudgingly accepted The Metrodome as their new home. Because the Twins (along with the Minnesota Golden Gophers football team) were forced to play at the Metrodome, it was able to generate the adequate revenues to pay-off the debts early. But like I said, this is an exception because since then, the trend since has been to construct separate stadia for baseball and football. With only 81 dates of use per year, it will take the taxpayer's of Minnesota a little longer to pay off the debts of Target Field than it did for the Metrodome.
And as far as stadia being "an engine of economic development;" I am a supporter of the Philadelphia Union soccer club. We are a first-year expansion team in Major League Soccer and just moved into a beautiful 18,500 seat stadium in the economically depressed city of Chester, PA. The $120 million to construct PPL Park was defrayed with $77 million in subsidies from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Delaware County, on the guise that the stadium will "Kick Start Chester" with a massive redevelopment of the city's waterfront. Well, the stadium got built, but the shopping center, bars & restaurants, high-end housing, et al that was promised will more than likely never be built.
And as for jobs, what are all those construction workers who built Target Field doing now that the stadium is built?
f2tornado said:Indeed some stadium jobs are temporary, much like those generated in Obama's stimulus package. Target Field should be good for 30 years and that is 30 years of player salary taxes. The top tax rate in Minnesota is about 8% and likely going up. Take 8% of a $100M payroll and you have $8M/year. That is $240M in tax revenue alone just from player salary and this does not take into account assured salary inflation through the years. It is quite possible player salary taxes alone will pay for this field.
f2tornado said:Intangibles include urban renewal in a somewhat depressed portion of downtown and simple enjoyment from fans.