Now add 7-13% of all merchandise + food and beverage sales on game days going into owners pockets. Plus indoor outdoor, internet, Banner, billboard, print advertising revenue. And we are getting close or more likely exceeding the number that I quoted.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Note my analysis was about the total spent which includes all of this. Let's say the average guy spends $200 on a ticket and $100 on food and parking, plus advertisers spend another $100 per person and Adelson gets 10% of all that, that's an order of magnitude short.

I'll take the under.

Well finding numbers was easier than I thought.

Levi's Stadium generated $47 million last year.

Adelson and friends will get repaid their investment through the hotel tax under their proposal. All they are really doing is buying bonds and using the tax as the collateral. They are not really putting this money in as an investment in the equity sense. In exchange for that, they also get the revenues from the stadium. What a deal!

We might as well build the stadium 100% publicly from the start since we will in the end anyway. At least then we would get to control it. It would already be the most money a city would ever spend on a stadium with public funds.

Sorry, but Raiders are going to get the ticket revenue and concessions from their games. If not, Big Al is going to rise from the grave and strangle his kid. Stadium owners will get rent for the 10 games (2 preseason games at regular season ticket prices).

I would also imagine that the Raiders would pocket 100% of the revenue from PSLs for their season tickets.

Maybe he doesn't want to build a stadium himself because he knows it's a horrible investment?

And also:
Search
Southern Nevada Tourism Infrastructure Committee
LVCC

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/may...eam-but-not-s/

Plus with LA getting it's team, the NFL needs a new city to threaten relocation.

Maybe it was Pokeraddict that brought this up in another thread? Salient point:

What has not been said here is why MGM, CET, Wynn, Station, Boyd would ever do anything but fight this tooth and nail. They are now adding a hotel tax- which adversely impacts their business- while all the benefit goes to a direct competitor. Unless they think that having an NFL team and a stadium is such a good economic driver for the city at large that it will help them- and they all should have enough smart people in the room to disabuse them of that notion- it's a terrible move for them.

The tax is already in place. The money was already earmarked to upgrade the LVCC. (Specifically the Riviera area. Thus the implosion)
Adelson et all are trying to divert it's use.

Jesus. What a leech.

LOL

This isn't entirely accurate. There is already a tax that goes to the LVCVA, but it would increase:

http://vegasinc.com/business/2016/ju...n-las-vegas-c/

As for the opposition from other casino companies mentioned earlier, I think that will happen and probably did say that somewhere. However, Wynn is on board. Him and Adelson go way back and Wynn has put up the golf course as a potential site. Station might jump on board if they think their Tropicana site will get picked. MGM could do the same but I think that Rock in Rio property is unsuitable.

The hotels will see little benefit from a stadium. The occupancy rate is already near 100% on Saturday nights except for maybe between NFR and Christmas where there would presumably only be one home game. We already get a bowl game. It seems doubtful UNLV would draw and significant increase in road teams traveling. Hawaii seems to be the only game that brings any serious level of tourism. A Super Bowl is always a net loss.

The Raiders' goal will be to sell out with season tickets. A majority of teams are able to do this and those that do not only end up with perhaps 10,000 single game tickets at most. That will generate virtually no tourism. It isn't like people from Southern California are going to buy season tickets and drive up 10 weekends a year. For the handful that do, are they going to stay in a hotel? Meanwhile, 40 million tourists pay for a stadium they will never set foot in at casinos that mostly receive no benefit from it.

Ty addict.

Casinos companies don't **** on other casino companies deals. Because they all know they have a good thing going. Why rock the boat?
However, the use of that much lvcva money has drawn fire. Murren speaking out like he has is rare.

Do you mean Murren supports the Riviera convention center expansion and doesn't want those funds directed elsewhere? That is correct. MGM is a huge proponent of the convention center expansion. Wynn is also. While I have not seen anything stating so, surely Westgate, Icahn (owns failed project across Riviera Blvd), Stratosphere, SLS and Resorts are too. That convention center will raise property values and hotel demand all around it. Unlike a stadium, the convention center will have use 300 days a year +/-.

There are several big brand non-gaming hotels around there also. I can't find any comments from Caesars on the topic.

The only group on record opposing it AFAIK is Sands. They have been butting heads with LVCVA since the 90's. http://lasvegassun.com/news/2001/feb...or-two-mayors/.

Yeah, and I've paid taxes all my adult life to fund schools, and I don't have any kids. People paying taxes for no benefit is nothing new.

You don't feel like there is any benefit for taxpayers subsidizing the educating of children? The alternative is poor kids being unsupervised all day and no hope of becoming educated adults. You can pay the school taxes now or the welfare/incarceration ones later.

On the other hand, there is no downside to not building a stadium for an NFL team and a billionaire with public tax money.

I agree with all your points except for this one. I don't know if / how much hotels could benefit, but a 100% occupancy rate isn't a reason for them not to make more money. See events like EDC weekend where some hotels jack up their rate by over 100%. If a third tier place can charge $200/night instead of $100 because of higher demand, they would be very happy.

The old "I don't have kids, why do I pay for schools?" argument holds little merit, I don't think anybody really wants to live in a country where the majority of young adults are uneducated to a level where they can't perform tasks to help society maintain livability.

How is paying $100 for a ****ty seat, $8 for nachos, $10 for a hot dog and $15 for a beer (after having just been forced to foot their share of $750mega) beneficial to local taxpayers exactly?

Nachos better be a big serving and plenty of cheese ffs

I never said that. But I wouldn't mind if parents paid the lions share of it. Because there is no doubt in my mind that you and your kids benefit more than I do.

I'll take derail for a thousand Alex

X 10,000 agreed. If you choose to have kids, you should be financially responsible to a greater degree than someone who doesn't.

Would love to see parents pay a per child tax...

#NEVERGONNAHAPPEN

The per-child tax is the hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes for parents to raise a kid.

And you do know that in order to have a functioning economy and society we do need to populate it, and maybe penalizing people for doing that is counterproductive?

Dammit now I've joined the stupid derail. Ban me please.

We should spawn off the tax/schools conversation to its own thread.

Its approved:

Fox News

"A plan to build an NFL stadium in Las Vegas and lure the Raiders from Oakland crossed a major hurdle Thursday when a Nevada oversight committee voted unanimously to recommend $750 million in public funding for the project."

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/0...r-raiders.html

It's a disgrace. o/u on how much that committee got from Adelson?