You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Raiders will file relocation papers; 1/30-Investor pulls out
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Boltstrikes


Moderator
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 7223
Location: LA MIRADA, CA
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TXsteeler wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
TXsteeler wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


And the cities will smart leaders/voters will let teams leave and Pro sports teams will end up having to pay for their own stadiums when only a handful of cities will be willing to pay for them.


Which will be fine for the team and NFL, plenty of cities would jump at the chance of having a pro football team.


Not if people stop electing idiots to run their cities. It's an established fact amongst economists that sport's teams don't bring enough wealth to a city to offset the costs of giving these billionaire owners welfare stadiums.


If it financially made sense then I'd be all for cities funding stadiums. Cities shouldn't foot the bill to bring a business in though. If a team can't be successful in a market without public funding then they shouldn't be a business.

Maybe these stadiums are just a tad bit over zealous?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TXsteeler


Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 2514
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PapaShogun wrote:
TXsteeler wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


And the cities will smart leaders/voters will let teams leave and Pro sports teams will end up having to pay for their own stadiums when only a handful of cities will be willing to pay for them.
If Gillete Stadium was a zillion years old now I don't think New England would let the Patriots leave. They'd foot the bill for a new venue. If Kraft didn't want to finance all of it himself.


Sure, but if the people were smart they wouldn't put up with it, all it would take is a few of the big cities to get together and sign some sort of agreement. Pittsburgh, Dallas, Green Bay (obvs), New York, etc. Agree to never pay for a stadium again. The NFL could maybe get away with leaving one of them, but they could never leave all of them. They could essentially force the NFL to play by new rules and there would be nothing the NFL could do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Boltstrikes


Moderator
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 7223
Location: LA MIRADA, CA
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why does it have to be an agreement. Just vote in your city. Stop allowing business to extort you for your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Non-Issue


Joined: 13 Jan 2016
Posts: 1577
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


I'm not sure that's really a fact. I think the landscape is changing a bit. San Diego just let the Chargers walk. Oakland is about to let the Raiders walk. And I think the St Louis voters would have let the Rams walk if they actually had the chance to vote (which is why the city/state went around the voters).

It's a matter of economics. When people are struggling to put food on their table, they dont want to hear about a tax increase to pay for a stadium for a billionaire so he can bring his team in and hold the city hostage every 25 years.

It's making less and less sense to the tax payers who end up on the hook. I am sure there will always be cities willing to pay. Dont get me wrong. But I think that there will be fewer and fewer as time goes on. At least not willing to pay the lions share of the cost. I think cities are starting to look for a more equitable share of costs and if they dont get it, they just let the team walk.
_________________

Kiltman on the sig!

2016 Adopt-a-Ram Jared Goff:
Comp:99 Att:185 Yards:969 TD:5 INT:7 Rating:65.7


Last edited by Non-Issue on Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Non-Issue


Joined: 13 Jan 2016
Posts: 1577
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boltstrikes wrote:
TXsteeler wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
TXsteeler wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


And the cities will smart leaders/voters will let teams leave and Pro sports teams will end up having to pay for their own stadiums when only a handful of cities will be willing to pay for them.


Which will be fine for the team and NFL, plenty of cities would jump at the chance of having a pro football team.


Not if people stop electing idiots to run their cities. It's an established fact amongst economists that sport's teams don't bring enough wealth to a city to offset the costs of giving these billionaire owners welfare stadiums.


If it financially made sense then I'd be all for cities funding stadiums. Cities shouldn't foot the bill to bring a business in though. If a team can't be successful in a market without public funding then they shouldn't be a business.

Maybe these stadiums are just a tad bit over zealous?


I agree. I think stadiums have turned into a projection of the owners junk. BIGGER BIGGER SHINIER FLASHIER. All at the taxpayers expense.

Most of the NFLs revenue comes from ad time and merch from what I understand. Why not start making smaller stadiums? 40k seat venues? Less of a footprint geographically, easier to fill up, easier on the pocketbook. Hell, most fans prefer watching from home anyway.
_________________

Kiltman on the sig!

2016 Adopt-a-Ram Jared Goff:
Comp:99 Att:185 Yards:969 TD:5 INT:7 Rating:65.7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lancerman


Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Posts: 8685
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah I think if you leave it up to a vote most citizens will vote against it. It really comes down to shenanigans. And if every city refuses to do it, it's not going to be mandatory.

All it would take is California, Texas, New York/New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to say agree not to ever pay for a stadium and it would kill the policy.
_________________
Signature
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scar988


FF Fanatic
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 30321
Location: Marietta, GA
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Non-Issue wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


I'm not sure that's really a fact. I think the landscape is changing a bit. San Diego just let the Chargers walk. Oakland is about to let the Raiders walk. And I think the St Louis voters would have let the Rams walk if they actually had the chance to vote (which is why the city/state went around the voters).

It's a matter of economics. When people are struggling to put food on their table, they dont want to hear about a tax increase to pay for a stadium for a billionaire so he can bring his team in and hold the city hostage every 25 years.

It's making less and less sense to the tax payers who end up on the hook. I am sure there will always be cities willing to pay. Dont get me wrong. But I think that there will be fewer and fewer as time goes on. At least not willing to pay the lions share of the cost. I think cities are starting to look for a more equitable share of costs and if they dont get it, they just let the team walk.


It also depends on the team. The Falcons new stadium cost $1.5 billion. The city of Atlanta contributed $200 million to that, but of that $200 million, the majority of it went to road projects to improve traffic around the stadium, buying the lands around the stadium using eminent domain and making sure the plumbing and such underneath the stadium was upgraded to current city codes. Basically, it was used to improve the area around the stadium not to build the stadium itself.

The other 1.3 Billion was paid for with PSLs (300M), corporate sponsorships (900M) and the NFL's Stadium fund (200M). The Falcons might still have another 100M in over-runs too that they have budgeted for. But they only had the state on the hook for things that actually affected the people and it was paid for using excess from the hotel-motel tax (normally it brings in ~$45M/year to Atlanta. To pay for the stuff around the new stadium, which will hold super bowls and NCAA championships, it's more than worth it because it will pay for itself).
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
candyman93


Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 59121
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Non-Issue wrote:
BayRaider wrote:
Non-Issue wrote:
Every city in the US should use St Louis as a profound lesson in why they shouldn't be footing the bill for NFL stadiums. Those tax payers are currently paying for an empty stadium.

Good for Oakland and good for San Diego. I think St Louis would have done the same had the state actually let it go to a vote rather than circumventing the tax payers.


If you want a team in your city, this is going to have to be how it is though. Whatever cities what a team the most will pay the most. Every team will have to deal with this eventually as their stadium gets older.


I'm not sure that's really a fact. I think the landscape is changing a bit. San Diego just let the Chargers walk. Oakland is about to let the Raiders walk. And I think the St Louis voters would have let the Rams walk if they actually had the chance to vote (which is why the city/state went around the voters).

It's a matter of economics. When people are struggling to put food on their table, they dont want to hear about a tax increase to pay for a stadium for a billionaire so he can bring his team in and hold the city hostage every 25 years.

It's making less and less sense to the tax payers who end up on the hook. I am sure there will always be cities willing to pay. Dont get me wrong. But I think that there will be fewer and fewer as time goes on. At least not willing to pay the lions share of the cost. I think cities are starting to look for a more equitable share of costs and if they dont get it, they just let the team walk.


Won't shock me if we see teams contract.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oregon Ducks


Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 20802
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I looooove football and would loooooove for my Chargers to come to Portland, but not with taxpayer money. There are many more important things that the state can use funds in than fund a billionaire's pet project.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
UniversalAuthor


Joined: 31 Dec 2013
Posts: 2272
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bank of America to bankroll Raiders stadium in Las Vegas

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/nfl-vegas/bank-america-bankroll-raiders-stadium-las-vegas
_________________

UniversalAuthor Signature Banners Click There
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raiderrocker18


Joined: 09 Dec 2014
Posts: 5148
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For Petes sake let's just get something done.

Sin City Raiders

Just Wynn Baby
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 55990
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

UniversalAuthor wrote:
Bank of America to bankroll Raiders stadium in Las Vegas

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/nfl-vegas/bank-america-bankroll-raiders-stadium-las-vegas
Please, for everything that is good in this world, please let us have the BOFA Dome.
_________________

Live like you're down 3-1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
titansNvolsR#1


Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Posts: 13692
Location: Manila
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iPwn wrote:
UniversalAuthor wrote:
Bank of America to bankroll Raiders stadium in Las Vegas

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/nfl-vegas/bank-america-bankroll-raiders-stadium-las-vegas
Please, for everything that is good in this world, please let us have the BOFA Dome.


I don't get it. What's the BOFA Dome?
_________________
Quote:
There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sryan66611


Joined: 18 Feb 2016
Posts: 53
Location: las vegas
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

titansNvolsR#1 wrote:
iPwn wrote:
UniversalAuthor wrote:
Bank of America to bankroll Raiders stadium in Las Vegas

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/nfl-vegas/bank-america-bankroll-raiders-stadium-las-vegas
Please, for everything that is good in this world, please let us have the BOFA Dome.


I don't get it. What's the BOFA Dome?


B of A Dome Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
Page 11 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group