- 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.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Yahoo article on Marlins new stadium: Owners "swindlers"
- Thread starter Watt
- Start date
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.
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.
On topic, this ticks me off. I mean, politicians stealing money is one thing. We've almost come to expect it. But a team's owners? Talk about ruining the spirit of the game and screwing over your fans in the process...
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.
On topic, this ticks me off. I mean, politicians stealing money is one thing. We've almost come to expect it. But a team's owners? Talk about ruining the spirit of the game and screwing over your fans in the process...
Exposfan
New member
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.
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.
rymflaherty
New member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 3,716
- 0
Just as long as they **** of Dolphins Stadium.
No more infield to deal with during the early season.
No more infield to deal with during the early season.
miguelcabrera
New member
Exposfan said:
i wouldnt call the cardinals a small market team
Rickzcards
New member
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.
bradical
Active member
piggy1918 said:
That's what happens when you pay immigrant non-unionized labor about $5 US per day for work. They did not have to pay out for benefits or insurance either.
The man hours alone for the Burj Dubai should have been $4-$5 billion.
matchpenalty
New member
Rickzcards 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 the city/state. Than all these black hole worthless programs that just lose money.
Rickzcards
New member
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:
Pine Tar
Active member
This kind of thing happens in Corporate America all the time. So baseball is no exception
zach
New member
Exposfan said:
It was one of the things that George Steinbrenner would complain about when it came to the revenue sharing.
stalegum
New member
matchpenalty said:
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
New member
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:
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
New member
matchpenalty said:
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
New member
stalegum 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. Tax on tickets pays the interest. There will be ample sales tax collection from beer, jerseys, and baseball cards too. Intangibles include urban renewal in a somewhat depressed portion of downtown and simple enjoyment from fans. A stadium can pay for itself. One argument against state funded stadiums is people would spend money they would have used on sports tickets elsewhere. This is likely true but odds are additional income taxes from new hires as a result of this added economic activity would be minuscule relative to a team's payroll taxes. No doubt there is a government subsidy aspect to stadiums. Ironic many of the folks complaining about this are on public assistance themselves.
matchpenalty
New member
stalegum said:
Montreal Stadium is a horrible example. Heck I just even there and toured it a few weeks ago. Great city. The Stadium was built to attract the Olympics. The blunders with it were endless. Have you been there? It's not even close to the downtown area. The cost for Olympic Stadium factors into all the things with it. Like the massive tower that wasn't even finished till 11 years after the Olympics ended. The Stadium also has Olympic pool stuff built into it. That held around 10,000 people and 9 different pools. Also a hockey arena was built on the site for events. Along with other stuff.
It was a bad baseball stadium once it got converted to one after the Olympic games. I give them credit to try and make it useful, but it didn't work. Roof idea was terrible. Never worked. Now it just has permanent roof on it sealing it. It's cool to see, but you can just see all the wasteful spending they did on it. That was no fault of the baseball team.
stalegum
New member
f2tornado said:
This is a classic "free lunch" argument. You can have it all, without actually paying for it. It is a fallacious argument, because it suggests that ballplayer salaries, and the tax revenue that goes with it, somehow would not exist if not for this new stadium.
The Minnesota Twins, and their players, and their paychecks, existed long before Target Field opened. Where did the ballplayer's tax revenues go when they played in the Metrodome? If the State of Minnesota is going to divert $8,000,000 of income taxes from the State's general fund to pay off stadium debt, what government programs that $8,000,000 previously supported are going to get cut? There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as a publicly-funded stadium that "pays for itself."
f2tornado said:
New stadium projects (like Target Field and PPL Park) are sold under the guise that they will, somehow, spur economic development in the surrounding areas. These developments rarely, if ever, actually happen. For example: The Cardinals got the City of St. Louis to float them a sweetheart loan deal for their new ballpark. As part of the deal, the team agreed to turn the site of the old Busch Stadium (right next door to the new Busch Stadium) into a "Ballpark Village" of offices, retail, restaurants, et al. Four years after New Busch Stadium opened, the site of the Ballpark Village is still a vacant lot.
Ironically, the stadium projects that actually DO regenerate depressed areas are, more than likely, ones that were privately financed. AT&T Park in San Francisco was built with $0 in subsidies. Economic development of the surrounding neighborhoods has been organic and with little-to-no government planning.
Similar threads
