Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago

$43 million in unexpected financing costs.


That is a nice little euphemism for "exorbitant interest rates levied by skittish investors wanting to ensure they get something -- anything -- back on their money."
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
By the way, Shawn, thanks for the excellent article. It solidly busts the myth that stadiums are good for the economy. These studies that seem to demonstrate the benefits of stadiums are commissioned by the people wanting to build the stadium and are thus sunnily optimistic at best, downright self-serving at worst.

Sure, you might create a few jobs, but the jobs you create tend to be shitty, while the real money flows to the overpaid athletes who maintain their true domiciles in other areas and spend the bare minimum time possible in the team's home city. People love to side with the athletes against the fat cats, but the reality is a lot of the athletes make more from playing than the owners make for owning, which is why the owners do everything possible to pass on on the risk inherent in their wastefulness onto taxpayers.

Like I said, extravagantly expensive hobbies. Little more than vehicles for rich men to show off their wealth and have a little fun on the side.

I don't begrudge any man his chance to make an opulent paycheck, but I do resent being forced to fork over my own cash to facilitate that opportunity for him. I don't think the taxpayers should function as an insurance service for risky corporate ventures.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I didn't think you'd have a response Rourke. Good work!
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
What are you talking about?
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
13 years ago

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



[sarcasm]
UserPostedImage
Formo
  • Formo
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
13 years ago

To the contrary, it is 100 percent reasonable and in fact should be a firm prerequisite to purchasing an NFL franchise. If you can't fund your own stadium, tough: you either live without or you don't receive the franchise.

The reason why these team owners ask for state funds is because they know full well that the return on investment is abysmal on these things -- below the rate of inflation. It is a form of fraud as far as I am concerned. These men won't invest their own money, and they can't find any private investors to finance their projects, because they are fully aware what an irresponsible, counterproductive use of the money it is; so they foist it off on gullible taxpayers. What so many fans fail to grasp is that sports teams are nothing more than extravagantly expensive, low-profit-margin hobbies for billionaires. A couple of years ago they leaked the Cowboys' profit/loss statements. That team netted a deplorable $10 million on a nearly $1 billion annual budget. In any other industry, that would be grounds for immediate termination of -- at the very least -- the CEO. It would probably result in a whole-scale bloodletting among the executives.

It gets worse. For all the talk about the taxpayers getting back their investment, a significant proportion of stadiums -- in all sports -- are shuttered before the mortgages are even paid off. Not only do these stadiums not turn a profit, they don't even break even. It is almost impossible to fill them with events other than games (if they even sell out for the games), and the rest of the time they sit empty, a fixed cost that returns no revenue. There is a reason why most civic centers and arenas are owned by municipalities: no private corporation is silly enough to build and maintain one. It requires the coercive power of government to get them built.

And yes, all of this applies to the Green Bay Packers too. The reason why they resorted to their bogus novelty stock sale was because obtaining other sorts of funding was impossible or unreasonably expensive. So they settled on handing out worthless trinkets with no cash value in exchange for donations. I actually have no problem with this. In my opinion, if you aren't willing to risk your own money, you can't fool a private investor into funding your project, and you can't even cajole your fans into making donations to the building fund, you have no business compelling millions of taxpayers, many of whom may have no interest in your team whatsoever, to cough up the cash for you. At least the Packers had the integrity (this time, anyway) to limit the damage to people with an active rooting interest in the team. I still think the people of Brown County were silly for letting themselves get taxed in exchange for tickets only 8000 of them will be able to win.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



Exactly. Why would we, taxpayers, expect a owner to build something that A) he most likely isn't liquid enough to afford and 😎 knows it will put him in the meat-grinder financially? Especially when the norm in this instance is public funds almost always go towards these castles. This is what I meant by reasonable, and Wade is probably right, realistic would maybe be the better term.

Lets not forget supply and demand here.. The NFL is a hot ticket and there are many markets that want a franchise. I would be interested to see how much public money from those markets would go towards a new stadium? Obviously MN 'leaders' (and I use that term loosely) don't want an NFL franchise, or at least take that 'privilege' for granted.

And of course, we are talking in broad generalizations. In this case, there wasn't much, if any, general fund public money going towards a new stadium. Gambling profit percentages and reworking a current MPLS tax were the 'public' money being asked for.

I agree with your last paragraph 100%, though. Sports memorabilia tax statewide would be the ideal tax/public money for the stadium. It taxes those vistors from out of state/country and it taxes those who choose to be taxed and those that would care for the team as you already said. But, alas, this is the MN legislature we are talking about here.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
I think the Packers did the right thing with making Lambeau Field a year round attraction. The Packers are "publicly" owned, so I'm fine with us taxpayers chipping in. Then again, how about if they got all the shareholders together to pitch in to renovate the stadium? lol

I wonder if it would be possible for the Vikings owner to build a stadium and then lease it out to Minnesota year around for attractions when the Vikings are not using it? It seems silly to have a stadium that costs so much to be used less than a dozen times per year. There has to be better options available.

BTW, I do agree, the owner/s of a team should finance the stadium... after all I can't ask Green Bay (reasonably) to finance a portion of the costs to replace the transmission in my car. Granted, the Packers offer an bring a lot to Green Bay, far more than my car, ... you get the point.

Edit,10 things to know about the Vikings stadium situation
 

UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago
good read Zero.

While I would prefer the Vikings to stay in MN I can see the benefits to the franchise if they pick up and move to LA. If I recall there are a couple of groups vying to a franchise out there. I think one of them was willing to privately fund their new stadium plus play the huge fee to get the new team.

LA, 2nd largest, at 3.7 million has a lot more muscle than Minneapolis, # 48, at 382,000.
Metroplex difference is even greater. 13 million people vs 3.3 million.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Los Angeles lost the Rams and Raiders, why bring another team there?

At least when the Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas the name was a better fit than the Los Angeles Lakers or what seems to be inevitable, the Los Angeles Vikings. Hey, the Vikings and Lakers will have similar color schemes in the same city!!!
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

That is a nice little euphemism for "exorbitant interest rates levied by skittish investors wanting to ensure they get something -- anything -- back on their money."

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



Hehe...my first thought was something different: lawyer and CPA costs. "Billable hours" can be a wonderful thing....if you don't have to write the checks.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (17h) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (21h) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (21h) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (22h) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (22h) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (22h) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (22h) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (22h) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (22h) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (22h) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (22h) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (22h) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (23h) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (23h) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (23h) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (23h) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Van Ness played most of season with broken thumb
wpr (9-Apr) : yay
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy says Steelers likely to protect Packers game. Meaning, no Ireland
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Struggling to figure out what text editor options are needed and which are 'nice to have'
Mucky Tundra (8-Apr) : *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Who?
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Texas’ WR Isaiah Bond is scheduled to visit the Bills, Browns, Chiefs, Falcons, Packers and Titans starting next week.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Spotting ball isn't changing, only measuring distance is, Which wasn't the issue.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : The spotting of the ball IS the issue. Not the chain gang.
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Will there be a tracker on the ball or something?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
11h / Random Babble / bboystyle

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.