1 So they are pocketing the Yankee money ha? Seems the Yankees are supporting every poor sister in Baseball.

2 Well, they were named after a pointy nosed fish.

3 They do it for the box seats. Seriously, do you think they care about their communities? They just want to drink booze and ignore a game in comfortable conditions. The stadium -- and its exorbitant cost -- is a secondary issue.

4
This happens all over the nation.  Denver had to pay for the Pepsi center and the new Investco field and Coors field.  Meanwhile, players, owners, etc... rake in millions and billions.

Not that I have a problem with sports figures making huge sums of money.  Supply and demand.  But, shouldn't they pay for their own damn stadiums?

5 So they are pocketing the Yankee money ha? Seems the Yankees are supporting every poor sister in Baseball.

Posted by: nevergiveup at August 26, 2010 10:36 AM (0GFWk)

They have to if they want someone to play against.

6 LOLOL That 2049 money is already spent, losers!!!! LMFAO

7

Gabe,

 

Even worse here in Pittsburgh.

The Penguins built a new Arena, The Consol Energy Center, across the street from the old Civic Arena.

Anyway, the Penguins on the development rights to the area surrounding the old arena, however the building itself is owned by the Sports Authority.

Anyway, the plan was to tear down the Civic arena and make it half parking lots and have shops. 

Well the ass hats in our local government now are making a push to reuse the old arena, which is a piece of shit and will probably collapse in a few years anyway.

The fucking incompetance of this people boggle the mind. None of the resuse plans put forth make enough money to even do the basic maintenance at the arena.

Instead these idiots are grand standing and holding up the development of future consumer businesses that will employ hundreds.

In the end if they decide to reuse the Civic Arena, it will be on the taxpayers dime, because as i said, none of the plans are money makers and won't be able to pay for maintenance and upkeep.

What the f happened to this country.  we used to have no problem letting the old go and embracing the new. We used to be innovative and forward thinking.

 

8
If we tax payers are forced to pay for the stadiums, that means we own the stadiums.  We should get a return on our investment.

Where's our rent money?  Where's our dividend $$$$$$?

9 Seems the Yankees are supporting every poor sister in Baseball. Posted by: nevergiveup at August 26, 2010 10:36 AM

And who is paying the freight for the Yankees?

Do they take no taxpayer support? (I honestly haven't paid attention and don't know who paid for their stadium.)

If "sports" teams can't support themselves, the professional ball-sports should simply vanish. And every idiot politician who pees away public funds to keep teams fat, happy and performing in opulent stadia should vanish, too.

It's nothing more than welfare on an incomprehensibly large scale.

10 Another reason for me to hate football.  And detest politicians.

11 A common theme in these stadium debates is that the new facility will spur economic revitalization of the surrounding area. Is there ever a case where this has actually happened in real life? Because I honestly can't think of one.

12 My city did bought their baseball team a stadium several years back also.  Now they have a nice stadium to house what is essentially a minor league team.  Hint: it's the only 6th place team in the majors and probably the worst franchise in all major sports.

13 It is my understanding the yankees got tax breaks and some state funding for the new stadium, but the papers are pretty quiet about it up here. Yankee bashing can lead to a real drop in sales. Bashing the Mets is considered ok though, because they suck.

14 My city did bought their baseball team a stadium several years back also.  Now they have a nice stadium to house what is essentially a minor league team.  Hint: it's the only 6th place team in the majors and probably the worst franchise in all major sports.

Posted by: Karl Hungus at August 26, 2010 10:47 AM (/Mla1)

The Mets?

15 11 Another reason for me to hate football.  And detest politicians.

Marlins = Major League Baseball

And this is actually an improvement for what that sack of shit MLB Commissioner Bud Selig did when he was still owner of the Brewers.  He conned Wisconsin politicians into paying for a new stadium for the team when their books pretty much said they were insolvent.

16

Something else like this happened in pittsburgh.

When the Steelers and Pirates decided they needed to tear down Three Rivers Stadium, they wanted the city to build them each a new park. Well the city had a referendum, and it was voted down. But guess what?

Here is the details from wikipedia

"Originally, a sales tax increase was proposed to fund three projects: Heinz Field, PNC Park, and an expansion of the David L. Lawrence Convention Center. After the rejection of this proposal in a referendum, the city developed Plan B.^[11] Similarly controversial, the alternative proposal was labeled Scam B by opponents.^[12] The Steelers' pledge toward the new stadium was criticized for being too little, even after it was raised from $50 million to $76.5 million.^[5][13] Other local government members criticized the $281 million of public money allocated for Plan B.^[5][14] One member of the Allegheny Regional Asset District board called the use of tax dollars "corporate welfare".^[15] The plan, totaling $809 million, was approved by the Allegheny Regional Asset District board on July 9, 1998, with $233 million allotted for Heinz Field.^[15][16] Shortly after Plan B was approved, the Steelers made a deal with Pittsburgh city officials to stay in the city until at least 2031.^[12] "

And everyone here knows the Rooney's could have paid for it themselves. The owner, Art Rooney, now ambassador to Ireland has a lot of his money in tax shelters over there.

Even worse, the land it is built on was sold to them by the city at a price extremely below the value of the land as it is right on the river at the Confluence.

I'm sure every city has stories like this.

It is unbelievable. I understand sports teams and stadiums make jobs for people, but if the owners have the cash to pay for all or part of the stadium , then they should have too.

 

17 I hate politicians who push for these stadium deals with a passion. This kind of corruption, and yes that is what it is, should be absolutely illegal.

The problem is that a lot of the local citizens feel like it should be done and they think the money is "free".

I guess when about 45% of them don't pay any taxes it is. So there's the answer. It is just more bread and circuses (and in this case truly) for the masses left for someone else to pay for it.

18
A smart conservative or Republican could promote a fresh idea to help tax payers regain their investment:  A savvy and honest politician (laughs) could campaign for a new rule or law that promotes the idea that:  Publicly funded/privately owned stadiums must PAY the tax payer back after the stadium is paid-for and profitable.

Each and every tax payer should receive a piece of the action via a quarterly check.

19 13 My city did bought their baseball team a stadium several years back also.  Now they have a nice stadium to house what is essentially a minor league team.  Hint: it's the only 6th place team in the majors and probably the worst franchise in all major sports.

At least you can score some coke from the Pirate Parrot while watching the game to help dull the pain.  And I think the Pirates, as much as they suck, are still *slightly* better than the Detroit Lions or LA Clippers.

20 The truth is that had those slimy politicians not come through with the stadium funding, the team would have indeed, moved elsewhere to a more accommodating city, leaving behind, an everlasting hole in the local economy that would have lead to hundred's of business failures. A legendary rock and a hard place scenario. Over the long haul, the $2.4 billion price tag on the stadium may well have been a bargain, compared to the economic devastation of losing the team. Now, that hardly justifies the blackmail type tactics of the team owners, but nonetheless, it is reality.

21

This isn't news.  Same thing happened all over the country in the last couple of decades, including here in Philly with the fabulously rich but barely makin it Philthadelphia Eagles.

The real story is that the citizens and taxpayers of all of the aforesaid cities and states eat up the lies fed to them by the oligarchs--with a spoon.  Mmm mmm good.

22 The Mets?



I was thinking the Nationals, but I don't know about their stadium situation.

23
Barney Frank has our rent money.

24 Question: does anyone know if the various tracks in NASCAR are funded like pro ball parks?

25

Stupid Yinzers.

I loved the Igloo as much as the next guy, but it's decrepit.  And with modern computing and VR technology, it can live forever if you send in architects and engineers with video cameras to cover every square inch.

It's not Hagia Sophia.  It's not Ground Zero.  It's an aging sports arena of little historical importance outside of it's retractable roof.  It doesn't need to be "preserved."

(If anything, it's tainted since the only cup won there was by the excerable Red Wings.)

yeah, you're right, we won all three cups at away games/

 they are making a claim it is an historical something or other because of its construction and the steel beam that holds it up.

it's time to let it go, besides the Consol Energy Center is freaking beautiful.

26 with all these new stadiums you would think they would really be courting the family.  It has gotten so expensive to go to a baseball game that families can go maybe only once a year now.  (at least that's what I'm hearing)

27 What's the deal with the word "gifting"? Did I miss the memo where "giving" no longer means the SAME EXACT THING?

28

At least you can score some coke from the Pirate Parrot while watching the game to help dull the pain.  And I think the Pirates, as much as they suck, are still *slightly* better than the Detroit Lions or LA Clippers

we've had bad luck with out mascots. one of the older pirate parrots got caught skinny dipping with an underage girl at night in a public pool they broke into.

And one of the Pirate Pierogies got fired for saying the pirates suck on face books.

29 underwater bike trails

Don't be a hater, Gabe.

30 Who did they con? 80 people show up for Marlins games. Hell, when they won both their World Series', they still didn't draw shit. I guess the non-attendees should be pissed, because there are a shitload of them. Miami is the Dolphins then pretty much the rest.

31 Ironically, the last baseball stadium to be built without public funds since Dodger Stadium was San Francisco's Pac Bell Park

32 Teams moving out and leaving behind a hole in the economy is a myth just like teams moving in give a boost to the economy.

Nobody has ever been able to show a boost to the economy from any sports franchise coming in. The economic fact is that people have a set budget they can spend on "entertainment". They will spend that amount on what ever entertainment is available whether it is baseball, or what ever else is available.

33

Ben,

I was going to Pitt during the stadium referendum.  The lefties at the Post-Gazette actually put a pro-referendum editorial on the front page of the paper.

(For those not familiar, the referendum was on a 1% sales tax in the six counties surrounding Pittsburgh.  It lost in all six counties.  The vote was only close in Allgeheny County, which contains Pittsburgh.  It was a BLOWOUT loss in the suburban counties.)

Yeah, i remember that. I remember how pissed my family was about it.

It's funny, the city is trying something else. They are essentially broke, and now they want to merge the City of Pittsburgh with Allegheney County. That way they can get their hands on the suburban tax dollars.

The City of Pittsburgh is undergoing massive financial problems because of Pensions.

34 We have a brand new Single A stadium in my city. The newspaper and all the local pols agreed that it was a great idea to put 18 million public dollars into the project. Not so bad. Then that agreement fell apart a year later when a private partner left the deal, so then the City and newspaper decided that the same interest in the team/stadium was now magically "worth" spending 60 million dollars of taxpayer cash, cheap loans, super favorable lease agreements, etc.
Amazing how that works.

"Sure, it's a great deal at 18 mil, but an absolute steal at 60!"

35 Teams moving out and leaving behind a hole in the economy is a myth just like teams moving in give a boost to the economy.

Nobody has ever been able to show a boost to the economy from any sports franchise coming in. The economic fact is that people have a set budget they can spend on "entertainment". They will spend that amount on what ever entertainment is available whether it is baseball, or what ever else is available.

Posted by: Vic at August 26, 2010 10:58 AM (/jbAw)

This.

36 Bread and circuses the oldest trick in the book to appease the populace.

The problem is that the bulk of the populace can't afford tickets to the games.

37 Question: does anyone know if the various tracks in NASCAR are funded like pro ball parks?
Posted by: akornzombie at August 26, 2010 10:53 AM

At least the established tracks -- Daytona, Charlotte, Atlanta, etc.-- were privately funded. At most, they may have gotten tax breaks from their localities.

California Speedway was built with private money IIRC, though the promoters were essentially given the site. As it was "toxic" land -- formerly holding a steel mill -- all that paving effectively sealed in the bad stuff in the ground.

38 Over the long haul, the $2.4 billion price tag on the stadium may well have been a bargain, compared to the economic devastation of losing the team.

You can't possibly be serious.  The "devastation" wrought by losing the Marlins?  There have been dozens of studies done on the economic impact of professional sports franchises.  On average, it's about the same as a moderately sized department store.  These stadiums are vanity projects for local politicians that are all too happy to spend your money on something you think is good for you, despite all evidence to the contrary.

39 37 Huh. Years ago Virginia had a referendum on raising the sales tax. They spent million on the propaganda campaign. They really thought they were going to win. They lost huge. How they  thought that they could win a referendum on a tax increase is beyond me. People's money has to be taken by force with guns, jail time, wage garnishment, house seizing, etc. Not even the libtards would just give them money, they just think everybody else should. They are all moochers.

40 Over the long haul, the $2.4 billion price tag on the stadium may well have been a bargain, compared to the economic devastation of losing the team.

Sorry, I don't agree. If the Marlins left Miami, you can use the same analogy as if a tree falls in a forest. No one would hear it and not many would care.

41 44 Over the long haul, the $2.4 billion price tag on the stadium may well have been a bargain, compared to the economic devastation of losing the team.

You can't possibly be serious.  The "devastation" wrought by losing the Marlins?  There have been dozens of studies done on the economic impact of professional sports franchises.  On average, it's about the same as a moderately sized department store.  These stadiums are vanity projects for local politicians that are all too happy to spend your money on something you think is good for you, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 26, 2010 11:04 AM (+lsX1)

Don't forget the VIP seating, meet-n-greets with athletes and perks.

42 O/T the picture of the "restoring honor" stage on Drudge looks like a guillotine. Too bad it's not.

43 The Yankees don't get a lot of public support outside of low interest loans.  They don't need it. Most of the money the city and state pays has to do with road improvements and such around the stadium

44 I've made 10 grand Scalping tickets to the new Twins Park. Thank You Hennepin Co. Taxpayers

45 I've made 10 grand Scalping tickets to the new Twins Park. Thank You Hennepin Co. Taxpayers Posted by: Zippo at August 26, 2010 11:13 AM -------------------------------------------------------------- Didn't they also raise the hotel tax as well?

46

Dade County government is unreformable.

Commissioners are elected from single-member districts and an incumbent hasn't lost an election in 16 years.

Thank God for "Save Our Homes" or the cretinous commissioners would rape us with property tax increases.

47 "They" (the team and politicians) pulled this very same stunt in Seattle 15 years ago. After a referendum soundly rejected public money for a new Mariners stadium (this was back when the voters there weren't completely insane), the county and city councils did it anyway. And that's why I'm worried about a possible Alaskan Way tunnel. We've told them over and over not to do it, but we can't trust the pols to listen, thanks to Safeco Field.

48

I love Pittsburgh, and would move back there in a heartbeat if I had the means, but it's politics are beyond dysfunctional.

Of course, I live in Harrisburg now, which is even worse.

I'd love to move back too, but it sure as hell wouldn't be back to the city.

Pittsburgh is full of conservative minded people that vote D simply because that's what's always been done there.  Plus, they're big union folks, even though unions and their pensions are almost single handedly what is causing the disasterous financial shape the city is in.  My parents are some of those people.

49

local governments gifting them a new stadium

I dislike verbing a noun in a man.  Won't tolerate it.

50 I've made 10 grand Scalping tickets to the new Twins Park. Thank You Hennepin Co. Taxpayers
Posted by: Zippo at August 26, 2010 11:13 AM

I love the name of their basketball and baseball stadiums. They took advantage of their large French population there. "Targay" is a pretty French word.

51 @55

Pretty sure it was just a sales tax. 3cents on $20 is how it was sold.

Didn't really care because I don't live in Hen. Co. nor shop/spend there.

Just chose my spots well and profited. Considering going in double for next year. Unf I think the Twins are in decline

52 This drives me nuts. My Mets financed the construction of their ballpark entirely by themselves (the city only paid for off-site infrastructure improvements) and are now suffering financially for it (signing Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo notwithstanding). The Giants did the same thing. Even the Twins tossed in some money for their ballpark.

53 Politicians FL Marlins Conned Taxpayers Into Gifting Them a Stadium
The FL Marlins aren't the ones that did this.  They are a business looking to make money.  It is the politicians who didn't say, "Oh, hell NO!"

54 Same shit happened here in a very small market, Rochester, NY with not one but two of our minor league franchises.

We had a baseball stadium that had been there since forever for the AAA ballclub the redwings. They were at best a mediocre club, usually finishing out of the playoffs(the fact that the parent club was the orioles didn't help, peter angelos is the fucking antichrist. but I digress) every season. Attendance usually didn't fill 1/3 of the stands on a weekend game.

Well the team owner of the time starts crying about wanting a new stadium or he's leaving. And he wasn't subtle about it in the lease. Gimme your tax dollars or I'm taking the team and leaving. City caved. Pushed a huge stadium that was sold as being "multiusage". Once the stadium plans were out, the owner of the local AHL hockey club decided that it would be a good time to get a minor league soccer club in there as well, and suddenly we had a soccer club now too that will share space with the baseball team. Also promised for the stadium was outdoor concerts and other large venue events.

Well, stadium gets built. Soccer club starts immediately agitating for its own stadium and lo and behold tax payer dollars come streaming in and now we have a soccer stadium.

Liberal politicians in these cities, is there any other kind?, are always crying about corporate welfare. Well, here it is, and they enabled it. Once again their religion of hypocrisy costs us big time.

55 I dislike verbing a noun in a man.  Won't tolerate it.

Especially when there's a perfectly good verb that means the exact same thing: "to give".

56 The smartest thing the people of Southern California did was tell the NFL to pound sand when the league said "you'll get a team when you build us a stadium."

Fuck that.  You're runnin' a for-profit business.  Pay your own expenses.

57 Ooooh! Underwater bike trails!

58 The Philadelphia Eagles and Phillies did the same thing.  Give us a new stadium, or maybe we'll go elsewhere.  Only the Flyers and Sixers paid for their own. 

This is also the reason baseball is such a fraud sport.  No salary cap, and teams get profit sharing.  So the bad teams stay bad and the good teams stay good.  And the owners don't care.

Sham, fraud, shenanigans.  Bring on football.

59 ALL professional sports are teh suck.

60 Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Pro Debate Team, Bacon Raconteur at August 26, 2010 11:28 AM

And now, my AAA team, the Norfolk Tides (who had a stadium built years ago) are part of the evil Orioles "Birdland". The only time to see the team when they're any good is to go in the first two weeks of the season. After that, they get sucked up into the talent black hole that is the Orioles of recent years. Our team starts losing to Rochester (Rochester? They Suck!), the Bulls (yes, THOSE Bulls), and the Mud Hens (yes, THOSE Mud Hens).

61

During my prime baseball loving years of the 70s and 80s, the powerhouse teams were the Pirates, Orioles, Royals, Expos (now the Malignant Tumor on America Nationals), and Brewers.  Don't know if we'll ever see small-market teams dominate the game again.  

So I guess the thinking is if they can get the tax-suckers to pay for the stadium, they'll have more money to chase down free agents or operate their minor leagues, thus providing a better product.   

Now if the Zell family can get a consortium to tear down Wrigley, salt the earth, and build a new subterranean stadium on the North Side, I'd gladly advocate it be funded by the City of Chicago. 

62 69 ALL professional sports are teh suck.

I think it's just baseball and basketball, but I see your point.

63 To avoid any fair use issues w/ USA today I found this in the ever reliable wiki:

The second portion, underwritten by JP Morgan, is for $91 million, $80 million of that for construction. That carries an 8.17 rate, but repayment doesn't begin until 2025.

Yet that grace period comes with a big price: $83 million a year for three years starting in 2038. Then, starting in 2041, six years of payments totaling $118 million annually. Total cost to retire the debt: $1.2 billion.

Somebody somewhere is getting a pretty sweet kickback.  You'd think the Florida AG would be all over this.  Psssst: you need ten bucks?  I got it for you, but you need to give me $130 back.

64

Jeff, I've been to a few Tides games myself.  Enjoy the games but does every minor league park blast music basically non-stop? 

65 ALL professional sports are teh suck.

Posted by: Vic at August 26, 2010 11:36 AM (/jbAw)

No they are not. The Florida Marlins are a terribly run franchise in a market that does not appreciate them. However, since 1997 they have won two World Championships. They just need to be in a market that appreciates them more without all the fucked up political shenanigans in reference to building stadiums. So, in your opinion, should we just abolish all major professional sports in this country? I think that there would be 150-200 million Americans that would strongly disagree with that.

66 I voted against the stadiums in Houston just for that reason.  Owners and supporters always used the plea that a sports team and new stadium will create jobs and be economically good for the city.

Fat Eddie Rendell said that about the new Eagles/Phillies stadiums.  Look at my town now.  We're Detroit-East.

67 Great --but lengthy-- write-up on sports venues and related issues at City Journal.

If communities would just stand fast against this nonsense collectively, they would not be used as leverage against each other and teams would have to start paying their own way.

68 [Marching] Sports, sports, sports, sports . . . .!

69 Verbing nouns weirds language.

70 80 Verbing nouns weirds language.

Does "fisting" fall into that category?

71 MONOORAIL!!!!

72 Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at August 26, 2010 11:41 AM

I guess. If they're not shilling for sponsors between innings. I particularly hate the AC/DC opening for Josh Bell when he comes up to the plate. So uninspired.

I like to do the 3rd base patio parties with a professional group I'm involved with. Beer, food, and your very own bathroom. The sever guy, James Pitnick, is awesome.

73 And now, my AAA team, the Norfolk Tides (who had a stadium built years ago) are part of the evil Orioles "Birdland". The only time to see the team when they're any good is to go in the first two weeks of the season. After that, they get sucked up into the talent black hole that is the Orioles of recent years. Our team starts losing to Rochester (Rochester? They Suck!), the Bulls (yes, THOSE Bulls), and the Mud Hens (yes, THOSE Mud Hens).

Posted by: Jeff Weimer at August 26, 2010 11:37 AM (1Mn8Z)

--The Tides are no longer affiliated with the Mets?

74 If you look at all the leaked materials, you'd find that even with the largesse given to baseball teams via publicly-built stadiums and other free giveaways a lot of baseball teams are NOT doing so well.

Just compare the Pirates and the Rays.  There's a nicely written article on Slate that examines the two teams and highlights how - in the current structuring of Major League Baseball - small market teams are better off LOSING than improving themselves into playoff contenders...

75 Posted by: logprof at August 26, 2010 11:50 AM (BP6Z1)

Nope, lost their affiliation 4 years ago to the Buffalo Bisons and the Orioles picked them up.

76

How in the hell did the taxpayers of Miami get screwed like this?

Miami is one of the worst bandwagon fan sports towns in the country. Look at the attandance for any U Miami game, Marlins, or Dolphins game.

The Marlins fans suck. They are 6 games out of the NL wildcard but they currently have the 3rd worst attendance in the majors.

http://tinyurl.com/mtj4k7

Could their 18k average attendance fill a decent sized minor league stadium?

The voters need to fire every member of govt that approved this.

77 They did this crap 6 or 7 years ago in Orlando, too. For the Magic, I mean. Absolutely had to have a new taxpayer funded arena or they were leaving. I moved out of the city before they ever devised a solution, but I see that the new arena's been built.

78

Think I'll play the devil's advocate.

In Az, we had a team, the Cardinals, that sucked for 18 years until a new stadium was built. And all the arguments showing up here were used then.  Why shoud we pay for a new stadium for the Cardinals -- the very fact that they can't afford to do this on their own proves that they are superfluous to Arizona.

Well, the stadium was built anyhow and three seasons down the road the Cards were in the Super Bowl.  There's a connection between the two events.  Just as in Miami the previous stadium (ASU's Sun Devil stadium) WAS the problem.  The north side  the stadium which gets direct sun exposure was absolutely unbearable, all the way towards the end of October.  All of which meant the Cards would have to play four of their first six games on the road, which always ruined their season before it even got started.

It also gave the Cards a red headed stepchild aspect, like they really didn't belong in AZ.  Once the new stadium was built, these two problems were corrected and the Cards also got better.  And it also gave west Phoenix, the red headed stepchild of the city of Phoenix, something to raly around. 

Of course, in the NFL the argument against taxpayer funding of a private enterprise is easily parried by awarding the cooperating city the Super Bowl.  This is something MLB can't do. 

 

 

79

No they are not. The Florida Marlins are a terribly run franchise in a market that does not appreciate them. However, since 1997 they have won two World Championships. They just need to be in a market that appreciates them more without all the fucked up political shenanigans in reference to building stadiums. So, in your opinion, should we just abolish all major professional sports in this country? I think that there would be 150-200 million Americans that would strongly disagree with that.

Posted by: Samuel Adams at August 26, 2010 11:41 AM (Jx0x6)

The Marlins bought the 1997 World Series. Many if not most baseball fans consider that championship illegitimate.

80 A common theme in these stadium debates is that the new facility will spur economic revitalization of the surrounding area. Is there ever a case where this has actually happened in real life? Because I honestly can't think of one.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 26, 2010 10:47 AM (P9+0W)

Indianapolis, for one. Downtown Indianapolis was nothing before construction of the RCA Dome. Downtown Cleveland around the Gateway Complex. Downtown Columbus, Ohio around Nationwide Arena.

81 So they are pocketing the Yankee money ha? Seems the Yankees are supporting every poor sister in Baseball.

Posted by: nevergiveup at August 26, 2010 10:36 AM (0GFWk)

Because the Yankees local television revenue swamps those of every other team. Typically, only the Red Sox come close. Baseball does not share revenue the way  the NFL does, nor does baseball have a salary cap the way the NFL does.  The Players Union prevents either from happening. So large market teams like the Yankees can swamp small market teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates. 

What little revenue sharing exists in baseball is not enough to enable the smaller market teams to compete for championships. Typically, teams like the Cleveland Indians, Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals end up being glorified farm clubs for the Yankees and Red Sox because they usually lose their best players in free agency to the Yankees and Red Sox. If the Pittsburgh Pirates have a $50 million payroll on its own, adding $30 million from "revenue sharing" to bring the Pirates' payroll  up to $80 million still won't enable the Pirates (even without Bob Nutting) to compete with the Yankees $200 million+ payroll.  Small market owners typical philosophy is that if $30 million won't make any competitive difference anyway, they might as well pocket it and not spend it on players. I don't agree with it, but it's certainly not irrational.

If youw ant to fix baseball, first fix the problems with revenue disparity and lack of a salary cap.

82 Well, the stadium was built anyhow and three seasons down the road the Cards were in the Super Bowl.  There's a connection between the two events.

Even if you were able to prove that correlation equals causation in this case, which you clearly did not, you then have to answer the next question.  Was it worth it?  Can going to a super bowl justify the $312 million of taxpayer funding that went into the stadium? 

With a little hindsight, maybe you can tell us whether or not there has been an economic boom in Phoenix due to the relative success of the Cardinals.  There must be some record of companies relocating or expanding local workforces in celebration of the game.  Property values must have skyrocketed due to all the sad sacks from Detroit and Cleveland wanting to move closer to a winning franchise.  Excess sales tax revenue from a titanic wave of Larry Fitzgerald replica jersey purchases have surely made a big dent in the stadium debt service.  There must be some evidence of return on investment, right?

83

A common theme in these stadium debates is that the new facility will spur economic revitalization of the surrounding area. Is there ever a case where this has actually happened in real life? Because I honestly can't think of one.

As much as I detest the local frat-boy/hipster culture that's emerged in Lower Downtown Denver since Coors Field was built, construction of that stadium really did help to revitalize the immediate area and give suburbanites a reason to spend their money downtown.  

Prior to Coors Field's construction, LoDo was largely a crime-infested rathole of flophouses populated mostly by winos and a few starving artists in the old lofts. Denver's mayors and city council had tried all kinds of tricks and fads to encourage a semblance of commercial activity, and none of them succeeded.  The stadium completely changed the commercial infrastructure and made downtown Denver a popular place to hang out at night and on the weekends; in the late 70s and early 80s, it was largely deserted during off-work times.  A lot of commercial investment and infrastructure development that's happened in downtown Denver since the early 1990s never would have happened if Coors Field hadn't been built.

The Pepsi Center and Invesco Field, on the other hand, aren't really connected to any commercial/residential centers and so their impact has been largely redundant.

84 With a little hindsight, maybe you can tell us whether or not there has been an economic boom in Phoenix due to the relative success of the Cardinals.  There must be some record of companies relocating or expanding local workforces in celebration of the game.  Property values must have skyrocketed due to all the sad sacks from Detroit and Cleveland wanting to move closer to a winning franchise.  Excess sales tax revenue from a titanic wave of Larry Fitzgerald replica jersey purchases have surely made a big dent in the stadium debt service.  There must be some evidence of return on investment, right?

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 26, 2010 02:09 PM (+lsX1)

Ever heard of "amenities?" People don't want to live some place where there's nothing to do. If you can't get people to live in your city, then you can't get companies to locate there either. Sports teams are considered major amenities.

85

And everyone here knows the Rooney's could have paid for it themselves. The owner, Art Rooney, now ambassador to Ireland has a lot of his money in tax shelters over there.

Posted by: Ben at August 26, 2010 10:49 AM (wuv1c)

Actually, that's not true, and as a Pittsburgher you should know that. The Rooneys are not independently wealthy.  Unlike most other NFL owners, their main source of income is the team.  They usually plow any profit back into the Steelers. An NFL team on its own usually does not generate enough of an income stream for the entirety of the massive expense of a stadium.  Owners who build their own stadiums usually do it with money from outside the team's revenue stream, typically out of their own pockets or that of other companies they own.

86 Ever heard of "amenities?" People don't want to live some place where there's nothing to do. If you can't get people to live in your city, then you can't get companies to locate there either. Sports teams are considered major amenities.

This is maybe the dumbest of arguments for taxpayer funding of professional sports facilities, particularly in a city like Phoenix.  Professional sports teams are considered major amenities by professional sports teams looking for a handout and the local politicians eager to give it to them.  If not being able to attend a home NFL game on 8 Sundays a year causes companies to shun your city, there are probably bigger issues to deal with.

87

The Marlins bought the 1997 World Series. Many if not most baseball fans consider that championship illegitimate.

I thought their methods were pretty crass, but let's be honest--were they any different from any of the Yankee teams in the Steinbrenner era, or the recent Red Sox clubs, or the Braves during Bobby Cox's run (granted, only one World Series win, but 14 straight division titles doesn't just happen from a great farm system)?  Just because they only did it for 1-2 years as opposed to a decade-plus, in a system without a salary cap, the teams with the greatest resources are typically going to have the best teams because they can afford the talent. 

Doesn't always mean they'll win it all, of course, as the aforementioned Braves and the chokeaholic Mets have demonstrated.  The Indians could have beaten the Marlins in 1997 if they had simply played better baseball.

88 This is maybe the dumbest of arguments for taxpayer funding of professional sports facilities, particularly in a city like Phoenix.  Professional sports teams are considered major amenities by professional sports teams looking for a handout and the local politicians eager to give it to them.  If not being able to attend a home NFL game on 8 Sundays a year causes companies to shun your city, there are probably bigger issues to deal with.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 26, 2010 02:25 PM (+lsX1)

Then you add that to the 81 home baseball games you don't have, plus basketball and hockey games you don't have, and pretty soon you get the town in Footloose.

Sounds like you just don't like sports.

89 A lot of commercial investment and infrastructure development that's happened in downtown Denver since the early 1990s never would have happened if Coors Field hadn't been built.

Yes but did it help the overall economy? Sure the immediate area benefits. Hell that would happen if the built a damn huge new city hall there.

The question is "has it benefited the taxpayer in the long run?". In every study that has been done the answer to that has always been no.

90

Then you add that to the 81 home baseball games you don't have, plus basketball and hockey games you don't have, and pretty soon you get the town in Footloose.

Sounds like you just don't like sports.

Hmm, cogent analysis.  Fact is though, I'm a huge sports fan.  I'm also a huge fan of government not wasting my money on ridiculous vanity projects for the benefit of one, economically insignificant business.

By the way, why would both Nike and Adidas USA both locate their headquarters in a city with no NFL or MLB franchise?  Sounds like they just don't like sports (not to mention dancing!).

91

Yes but did it help the overall economy? Sure the immediate area benefits. Hell that would happen if the built a damn huge new city hall there.

Depends on what you mean by "overall."  If you mean the whole Denver metro area, then no--the stadium has been a giant suckhole for suburbanites to ramp up debt on their credit cards watching a largely mediocre baseball team, in a bunch of cookie-cutter sports bars and dance clubs.  No business ever located to the metro area just because Denver had a baseball team, even though one of the really troglyditic arguments the Pena administration and Denver media made was that Denver needed a baseball team to be a "world class city."  In other words, they played on the insecurities of local residents, and a bunch of transplanted Californians who thought Denver needed to be like Los Angeles to be a decent city.

But that Coors Field has had a net positive economic impact on downtown Denver (not just LoDo) is beyond dispute--it's the watershed for all the commercial development that's taken place in downtown since 1993, which has made downtown the kind of viable residential and commercial area that it never was from the late 1950s to late 1980s.  As I mentioned earlier, I don't like the culture that's emerged, but it's a sight better than what was there before.

92 Yes but did it help the overall economy? Sure the immediate area benefits. Hell that would happen if the built a damn huge new city hall there.

The question is "has it benefited the taxpayer in the long run?". In every study that has been done the answer to that has always been no.

Posted by: Vic at August 26, 2010 02:33 PM (/jbAw)

Not every study, by any nmeans.  Probably about half of them.  Most of them differ on how you define economic activity or how you define entertainment.

Most of the studies done by colleges find little or no benefit to the community, but they define economic activity narrowly and enterainment broadly. They also typically have an agenda -- a lot of the professors who do these studies either don't care about sports or know nothing about it.

Other studies find that sports complexes do benefit the community considerably.  Many of those studies are funded by teams and so they are questioned.

The argument that a sports complex takes development away from another part of the area is usually crap inasmuch as that can be said about pretty much any development.

93 Hmm, cogent analysis.  Fact is though, I'm a huge sports fan.  I'm also a huge fan of government not wasting my money on ridiculous vanity projects for the benefit of one, economically insignificant business.

By the way, why would both Nike and Adidas USA both locate their headquarters in a city with no NFL or MLB franchise?  Sounds like they just don't like sports (not to mention dancing!).

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 26, 2010 02:42 PM (+lsX1)

Um, "huge sports fan," you do realize that Portland has an NBA team that plays in a publicly-funded arena? And they are trying to get an NHL team?

94 Um, "huge sports fan," you do realize that Portland has an NBA team that plays in a publicly-funded arena? And they are trying to get an NHL team?

Gosh, thanks for the news!  The Rose Garden is a perfect example of the folly of public financing for these venues.  The taxpayers of Portland subsidized the second wealthiest person on the planet to upgrade the "amenities" offered by the city.  Bear in mind that the one financing consortium for this arena that was really interested in making a profit went bankrupt because the debt service was too high.  These amenities, just like Amtrak or the Post Office or public pensions are not sustainable - not even close.  Why do you think Portland doesn't have an MLB franchise after decades of mayoral lobbying for one?  The public refuses to fund a stadium.  Why are you so insistent that wealthy owners of sports franchises deserve welfare?

95 Gosh, thanks for the news!  The Rose Garden is a perfect example of the folly of public financing for these venues.  The taxpayers of Portland subsidized the second wealthiest person on the planet to upgrade the "amenities" offered by the city.  Bear in mind that the one financing consortium for this arena that was really interested in making a profit went bankrupt because the debt service was too high.  These amenities, just like Amtrak or the Post Office or public pensions are not sustainable - not even close.  Why do you think Portland doesn't have an MLB franchise after decades of mayoral lobbying for one?  The public refuses to fund a stadium.  Why are you so insistent that wealthy owners of sports franchises deserve welfare?

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 26, 2010 04:45 PM (+lsX1)

And why are you so insistent that building sports complexes is so easy and cheap that anyone can do it? The building codes, practices and standards of the cheap stadiums of the early 1900's won't work now.

And you just helped me to prove my case. Sports complexes by themselves don't have enough of a revenue stream to fully finance or pay off their construction.  The requirements for building them are simply too expensive. And the individual revenue streams their sports generate usually go to the sports team tenants, who usually plow it back into the team. Otherwise the revenue stream cannot pay off the sports complex, which is why private investors go broke.

It is the team itself that is an economic generator for the city, far outside the revenue stream of the complex itself.  People will want to eat before and/or after a game, which means restaurants and bars.  People will also want to get to gether to watch the team in big games, which means more business for sports bars. People will come from out of town to see the team, which means more business for hitels and possibly even new hotels. People will want to buy the team's apparel, which means shops. All of which mean sales transactions which the state and city can tax.

And all of which enables a city and/or state to pay off a sports complex and even profit from the presence of the team.

All of which also depends on the team's lease agreement. Indianapolis' agreement with the Colts, for instance, is of almost no benefit to the City of Indianapolis. All revenue from the stadium -- ALL of it -- goes to the Colts. Even the economic development dollars the Colts generate are directed back to the Colts through a TIF district. But Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, for instance, all have better structured lease agreements with their teams.

And that is simply the "precious" free market at work. If you want a professional sports team, you have to pay for it.  The owners of said teams demand the price. If you don't pay it, chances are someone else will -- there will always be a someone else -- and then you lose the team. Indianapolis had to pay such a high price to keep the Colts because otherwise they were going to leave -- likely for Los Angeles -- and the NFL had and has no desire for a team in Indianapolis. Same with St. Louis.

You can say "no public money" for a sports complex all you want; it means you will have no team. Seattle said "no public money" and now has no SuperSonics.  Granted, Sonics owner Clay Bennett was intent on stealing the team for Oklahoma City. As I understand it, Seattle fans are furious over losing the Sonics. And they will hold their elected leaders accountable. 

Even if you say, "no public money," fans will still expect their leaders to keep their teams; they will turn on their leaders of they don't, which is precisely what would have happened in Pittsburgh if the Steelers, Penguins and Pirates had not gotten their venues.  Sometimes, even if you do say, "OK, we'll provide public money," you can still lose the team, as Art Modell's move of the Browns out of business incompetence and spite shows.

You can hate it all you want, but that is the reality of it.  You want a team, you have to pay for it. When faced with the actual prospect of losing their teams, most fans would gladly spend public money to keep them.  Even if they don't, they will turn on elected leaders who still fail to retain their teams. That is the reality of it.

96

Doesn't always mean they'll win it all, of course, as the aforementioned Braves and the chokeaholic Mets have demonstrated.  The Indians could have beaten the Marlins in 1997 if they had simply played better baseball.

Posted by: Red Rocks Rockin' at August 26, 2010 02:28 PM (/Pw+r)

Marlins should not have even been there.

97 You can say "no public money" for a sports complex all you want; it means you will have no team. Seattle said "no public money" and now has no SuperSonics.  Granted, Sonics owner Clay Bennett was intent on stealing the team for Oklahoma City. As I understand it, Seattle fans are furious over losing the Sonics. And they will hold their elected leaders accountable.

So you're saying that $200 million is a reasonable price to pay to keep some Sonics fans happy?  Sorry dude, it has to end somewhere, the people of Seattle were tapped out after building new football and baseball stadiums.  Seattle will be fine and the idea that the public is outraged at state or city officials for not foregoing road and bridge maintenance to subsidize a hobby for the chairman of Starbucks is beyond absurd.

Even if you say, "no public money," fans will still expect their leaders to keep their teams; they will turn on their leaders of they don't, which is precisely what would have happened in Pittsburgh if the Steelers, Penguins and Pirates had not gotten their venues.  Sometimes, even if you do say, "OK, we'll provide public money," you can still lose the team, as Art Modell's move of the Browns out of business incompetence and spite shows.

This argument is nonsensical.  Are you trying to say that elected leaders should spend whatever it takes to keep their job, even if the team leaves anyway?  Who cares what the fan expects, if you can't afford to go to a game, you don't go.  If you can't afford to build a new stadium, you don't build it.  Fans are not the only voters and to say that fans only cast votes in regard to support of their teams is demonstrably wrong.

You can hate it all you want, but that is the reality of it.  You want a team, you have to pay for it. When faced with the actual prospect of losing their teams, most fans would gladly spend public money to keep them.  Even if they don't, they will turn on elected leaders who still fail to retain their teams. That is the reality of it.

You accidentally struck the truth here.  Many fans would gladly spend other people's money to subsidize their interest.  This is exactly the same line of retarded thinking that has bloated public spending on everything.  I know what the reality is, but my fondness for something doesn't mean I should be blind to it's cost.

98

So you're saying that $200 million is a reasonable price to pay to keep some Sonics fans happy?  Sorry dude, it has to end somewhere, the people of Seattle were tapped out after building new football and baseball stadiums.  Seattle will be fine and the idea that the public is outraged at state or city officials for not foregoing road and bridge maintenance to subsidize a hobby for the chairman of Starbucks is beyond absurd.

Except if you had your way it would have stopped before it started. Then no Sonics, Seahawks or Mariners. I guess that's OK with you. You gotta gotta Footloose..

And your mischaracterizing what I said. I said that (as I understand it) the Seattle public is outraged at the loss of the Sonics, not the fact that they did not spend new public money for (the rather weird-looking) Key Arena. There is a difference.

People want their teams, but usually at little or no additional cost.  That necessitates creative solutions. Pittsburgh's plan for a new tax for new stadiums for the Steelers and Pirates was voted down because it was a new tax. The "Plan B," as it was called at the time, was to direct tax money from an existing entertainment tax.  Contrary to some comments on this blog, the public of Allegheny County was generally (albeit not wholeheartedly) supportive of the Plan B effort. It got them what they wanted and did not require new tax money to do it.  The effort for the Penguins arena got public money from the commonwealth (existing tax money, which was only fair, as it had done the same thing for the Philadelphia sports venues), but also from the Pens' owners and anticipated revenue from a casino slated to open up. Again, creative solutions.

Your argument that stadium money is being diverted from roads and bridges is a non-sequitur.  You can argue that about any public spending. I'd rather have  my tax money go to a stadium than to a worthless public school bureaucracy or a welfare mom with 8 kids by 6 different fathers.

This argument is nonsensical.  Are you trying to say that elected leaders should spend whatever it takes to keep their job, even if the team leaves anyway?  Who cares what the fan expects, if you can't afford to go to a game, you don't go.  If you can't afford to build a new stadium, you don't build it.  Fans are not the only voters and to say that fans only cast votes in regard to support of their teams is demonstrably wrong.

[...]

You accidentally struck the truth here.  Many fans would gladly spend other people's money to subsidize their interest.  This is exactly the same line of retarded thinking that has bloated public spending on everything.  I know what the reality is, but my fondness for something doesn't mean I should be blind to it's cost.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 26, 2010 06:16 PM (+lsX1)

You do realize than fans vote? Fans are not the only voters, but they do vote. You do realize, for instance, that the residents of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland) voted 70% to 30% in favor of extending a sin tax for the purpose of building Cleveland Browns Stadium? A sin tax which was originally passed by another voter referendum to build the Gateway Sports Complex (Jacobs Field and Gund Arena)? You do realize that votes in Hamilton County, Ohio (Cincinnati) voted for a new tax to build Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ballpark? These are people voting to spend their own money for these sports facilities.

No one says be blind to the cost of sports facilities. But you seem to be blind to the cost of not having those facilities -- no teams.  A good portion of the public disagrees with you. They want their teams.  Whether they want to spend public money is another issue. Whether they want to spend new public money is another issue still.  But the bottom line is, no stadium, no team. And the public is usually not willing to go without their team.

99 I am not blind to the cost of not having those facilities, I'm just saying that the cost of not having them is far less than the cost of having them.

Above you mentioned that it was impossible for a team to build it's own stadium because, "sports complexes by themselves don't have enough of a revenue stream to fully finance or pay off their construction."  Which I agree with, which is also a good reason not to build it.  You try to qualify it by saying that the teams are an economic multiplier.  Unfortunately, the rosy predictions put forth by proponents of professional sports welfare never, ever pan out.  The fact is that if economic development were the goal, there would be dozens of more effective ways to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

If a population wants to squander money this way that's their business, but somebody pays for it.  It's either a new tax or a foregone service somewhere else.  It will not and never has payed for itself.