Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN)

09-27-2011 , 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobboFitos
The economics of stadiums, of course, deserves its own separate article. But here's a small point, courtesy of my friend David Goldhill. Most stadiums — the Barclays Center included — are subsidized in some way by local government. The logic is this. An arena will bring a certain level of new economic activity to a neighborhood, which will generate tax revenues. So it makes sense for a city to put some portion of those expected revenues toward the construction of an arena. NBA owners love these deals. If there's no basketball season, however, then the tax revenue cities bank on to pay for their investment disappears. Goldhill says that in that case, owners really ought to reimburse the municipalities that gave them money. But has anyone even mentioned this possibility? The NBA plutocracy voted not to play basketball right after taking money from local taxpayers on the promise that they would play basketball. How do these guys sleep at night?
Eh. Pretty weak point. The municipalities are investing in an asset which generates an unspecified amount of revenue for them on a yearly basis. It's not a bond; the cash flow that the municipality receives is highly variable. Some years they make a lot, some years the make nothing. All of this is pretty obvious and is taken into account when the municipality weighs the pros and cons of subsidizing the stadium.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 11:54 AM
i think the idea that, in most cases, having a sports team/new stadium does much for a city's economy has pretty much been debunked at this point. owners would obviously love for this argument to persist so they can get their free building(s) out of the deal, but it doesn't appear to hold much water in reality. but if a city can afford it, and might risk losing a beloved team if they don't participate in this kind of scheme, then whatever i guess. but if they haven't already been doing so, cities should probably start negotiating harder against giving owners total sweetheart stadium deals.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 72off
i think the idea that, in most cases, having a sports team/new stadium does much for a city's economy has pretty much been debunked at this point. owners would obviously love for this argument to persist so they can get their free building(s) out of the deal, but it doesn't appear to hold much water in reality. but if a city can afford it, and might risk losing a beloved team if they don't participate in this kind of scheme, then whatever i guess. but if they haven't already been doing so, cities should probably start negotiating harder against giving owners total sweetheart stadium deals.
Exactly
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 04:10 PM
Public financing for stadiums gets a bad rap. Municipalities use tax money for all kinds of non-essential things that the public enjoys. Parks, Libraries, Concert Halls, Museums, the list goes on and on.

Yet sports stadiums always get singled out by elitists that completely ignore the fact that an absolutely massive chunk of the populace loves sports.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 04:14 PM
Because sports stadiums are both a ****load more expensive to build than that other stuff and events at them are a ****load more expensive to attend than that other stuff-- and that money usually goes into private hands.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 04:47 PM
Despite mass's often loose hands with guv't money, they've been good about not allowing franchise owners to hold them hostage over tax-funded stadiums.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 04:52 PM
for the sake of this thread, i really really hope Boston loses these next two games
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 05:07 PM
Why? What do the Red Sox have to do with the Hollywood Sports Guy?
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNoodleMan
Public financing for stadiums gets a bad rap. Municipalities use tax money for all kinds of non-essential things that the public enjoys. Parks, Libraries, Concert Halls, Museums, the list goes on and on.

Yet sports stadiums always get singled out by elitists that completely ignore the fact that an absolutely massive chunk of the populace loves sports.
I imagine there would be a lot of outrage if a city built a $300 million library or park and then charged people $80 to visit.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidcolin
Despite mass's often loose hands with guv't money, they've been good about not allowing franchise owners to hold them hostage over tax-funded stadiums.
Gotta give Bob Kraft a little bit of credit, too.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctyri
I imagine there would be a lot of outrage if a city built a $300 million library or park and then charged people $80 to visit.
.... And the 80$/visit went to an individual, not back to the state
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobboFitos
Gotta give Bob Kraft a little bit of credit, too.
He's a sweet owner, but he was trying to get them dollars like everyone else. He signed an agreement to build a partially tax funded stadium in Hartford after MA wouldn't agree on any of the previous proposals. Only when something with the Hartford site fell through did he agree to pay for the stadium in foxboro.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidcolin
He's a sweet owner, but he was trying to get them dollars like everyone else. He signed an agreement to build a partially tax funded stadium in Hartford after MA wouldn't agree on any of the previous proposals. Only when something with the Hartford site fell through did he agree to pay for the stadium in foxboro.
ok, he tried to be a douche, but then when he wasn't allowed to be a douche, he didn't get all uppity and move the team, ala seattle.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 06:58 PM
just great how much better the packers do it compared to everyone else
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-27-2011 , 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidcolin
He's a sweet owner, but he was trying to get them dollars like everyone else. He signed an agreement to build a partially tax funded stadium in Hartford after MA wouldn't agree on any of the previous proposals. Only when something with the Hartford site fell through did he agree to pay for the stadium in foxboro.
To lazy to look it up, but didn't he get the state to offer a ton of money for infrastructure (like completely renovating route 1) in result of his bluff to go to Hartford?
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-28-2011 , 04:20 PM
Grantland article about Crosby

I found this to be a good read. I dont follow hockey at all.

What a fail of a sport they have up there in Canada.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-28-2011 , 06:21 PM
he plays in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. and your link doesn't work.

speaking of failing...
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-28-2011 , 06:30 PM
enjoyed the podcast with Scott Van Pelt. SVP seems like a cool dude.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-28-2011 , 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 72off
he plays in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. and your link doesn't work.

speaking of failing...
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...osby-lost-year

amended link, I know he plays in Pitt (if he plays again), and lol hockey
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-28-2011 , 07:10 PM
I've read the majority of two Grantland articles today, a new record for a single day/week./month so I'm gonna go ahead and say they are improving their content.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-28-2011 , 10:13 PM
chilltown,

thumbs down to new avatar, bring back sawyer imo
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-29-2011 , 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobrakai111
To lazy to look it up, but didn't he get the state to offer a ton of money for infrastructure (like completely renovating route 1) in result of his bluff to go to Hartford?
If that's what it takes to get MA to fix a road-
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-29-2011 , 06:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loretta8
chilltown,

thumbs down to new avatar, bring back sawyer imo
Sawyer is on vacation.

Lucifer is taking over for the time being.
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-29-2011 , 07:31 AM
Nice little gem from the Hollywood Sports Guy regarding Evan Longoria:

"your next book should be called the extra 22% for the amount people think he is better than he actually is..... I'm not scared of him when he comes up."

Around 26 min in, http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=6850778

lololololololzzzzzzzzzz
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote
09-29-2011 , 09:41 AM
lol longoria has had so many big hits against the red sox
Sports Media Discussion (RIP ESPN) Quote

      
m