Right, this is a perspective, not an analysis. It offers no real data and makes one very specifically false statement. It said "The average stadium generated $145MM per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community". This is patently false because this leads one to believe that not one stadium in the country has any sales OR business revenue tax on tickets, beer, food, etc. We all know this isn't true.
And then the author talks about how the billionaire owner didn't "need it". What they need or don't need is completely irrelevant to a financial analysis. This is just an opinion piece.
Why is what a billionaire needs or doesn’t need irrelevant to a financial analysis? The more s/he has, the less they need, right? In the form of subsidies, interest rates, % of concessions, etc. it’s like Bezos, he doesn’t “need” anything in the form of subsidies to expand or build headquarters. He could, like NFL owners, pay fully out of pocket. If you or I go to a bank seeking a loan to buy or open a business, what we have and need will certainly be a part of the financial analysis.
First, you don't make capital investment decisions based on what the contra-party needs or doesn't need. You make them based on what you perceive the value of the investment to be. Second, it's a question of leverage. Now if the Vikings had no options but to stay in MN, then leverage is with the city as to how much they would/not choose to invest. But if the Vikings could get up and leave, which most teams can, then the leverage goes to the team. Some city would pay or help the team specifically if the financial analysis shows it was a net positive tax payer investment.
Look simply at the Browns in 1995. The city chose to invest in Jacobs Field and Gund Arena, leaving the Browns in old Cleveland Stadium. Modell was going broke and Baltimore offered him $50MM plus a stadium to move there. Cleveland had no leverage and lost the team, then spent 4 years working with the League to get a team back.
... then spent 4 years with the League and getting an even shittier team back......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Right, this is a perspective, not an analysis. It offers no real data and makes one very specifically false statement. It said "The average stadium generated $145MM per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community". This is patently false because this leads one to believe that not one stadium in the country has any sales OR business revenue tax on tickets, beer, food, etc. We all know this isn't true.
And then the author talks about how the billionaire owner didn't "need it". What they need or don't need is completely irrelevant to a financial analysis. This is just an opinion piece.
Why is what a billionaire needs or doesn’t need irrelevant to a financial analysis? The more s/he has, the less they need, right? In the form of subsidies, interest rates, % of concessions, etc. it’s like Bezos, he doesn’t “need” anything in the form of subsidies to expand or build headquarters. He could, like NFL owners, pay fully out of pocket. If you or I go to a bank seeking a loan to buy or open a business, what we have and need will certainly be a part of the financial analysis.
First, you don't make capital investment decisions based on what the contra-party needs or doesn't need. You make them based on what you perceive the value of the investment to be. Second, it's a question of leverage. Now if the Vikings had no options but to stay in MN, then leverage is with the city as to how much they would/not choose to invest. But if the Vikings could get up and leave, which most teams can, then the leverage goes to the team. Some city would pay or help the team specifically if the financial analysis shows it was a net positive tax payer investment.
Look simply at the Browns in 1995. The city chose to invest in Jacobs Field and Gund Arena, leaving the Browns in old Cleveland Stadium. Modell was going broke and Baltimore offered him $50MM plus a stadium to move there. Cleveland had no leverage and lost the team, then spent 4 years working with the League to get a team back.
Don’t things like available capital, liquidity, collateral and other assets that an owner has come under consideration when they’re seeking financing from banks, Wall Street, private equity investment trusts, etc. and cities, states and towns impacted or asked to contribute in some manner whether its tax breaks, bonds, PILOT, etc.? Who is the you when you say “You don’t make capital investment decisions based on what the contra party needs or doesn’t need?”
Show me a net positive tax payer investment in a heavily subsidized stadium. Example?
I asked for an analysis. I said I'm interested in it. I didn't say it was a NPV positive. I don't know if it is or isn't. I said analysis on Olympics show it is not worth it, but that's not really a fair comparison.
Right, this is a perspective, not an analysis. It offers no real data and makes one very specifically false statement. It said "The average stadium generated $145MM per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community". This is patently false because this leads one to believe that not one stadium in the country has any sales OR business revenue tax on tickets, beer, food, etc. We all know this isn't true.
And then the author talks about how the billionaire owner didn't "need it". What they need or don't need is completely irrelevant to a financial analysis. This is just an opinion piece.
Why is what a billionaire needs or doesn’t need irrelevant to a financial analysis? The more s/he has, the less they need, right? In the form of subsidies, interest rates, % of concessions, etc. it’s like Bezos, he doesn’t “need” anything in the form of subsidies to expand or build headquarters. He could, like NFL owners, pay fully out of pocket. If you or I go to a bank seeking a loan to buy or open a business, what we have and need will certainly be a part of the financial analysis.
First, you don't make capital investment decisions based on what the contra-party needs or doesn't need. You make them based on what you perceive the value of the investment to be. Second, it's a question of leverage. Now if the Vikings had no options but to stay in MN, then leverage is with the city as to how much they would/not choose to invest. But if the Vikings could get up and leave, which most teams can, then the leverage goes to the team. Some city would pay or help the team specifically if the financial analysis shows it was a net positive tax payer investment.
Look simply at the Browns in 1995. The city chose to invest in Jacobs Field and Gund Arena, leaving the Browns in old Cleveland Stadium. Modell was going broke and Baltimore offered him $50MM plus a stadium to move there. Cleveland had no leverage and lost the team, then spent 4 years working with the League to get a team back.
Don’t things like available capital, liquidity, collateral and other assets that an owner has come under consideration when they’re seeking financing from banks, Wall Street, private equity investment trusts, etc. and cities, states and towns impacted or asked to contribute in some manner whether its tax breaks, bonds, PILOT, etc.? Who is the you when you say “You don’t make capital investment decisions based on what the contra party needs or doesn’t need?”
The "you" is the generic you. What one chooses to invest in is about the expected return vs the risk AND what that else that money could do instead. The other parties financial position only comes into play in terms of default considerations.
Right, this is a perspective, not an analysis. It offers no real data and makes one very specifically false statement. It said "The average stadium generated $145MM per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community". This is patently false because this leads one to believe that not one stadium in the country has any sales OR business revenue tax on tickets, beer, food, etc. We all know this isn't true.
And then the author talks about how the billionaire owner didn't "need it". What they need or don't need is completely irrelevant to a financial analysis. This is just an opinion piece.
Why is what a billionaire needs or doesn’t need irrelevant to a financial analysis? The more s/he has, the less they need, right? In the form of subsidies, interest rates, % of concessions, etc. it’s like Bezos, he doesn’t “need” anything in the form of subsidies to expand or build headquarters. He could, like NFL owners, pay fully out of pocket. If you or I go to a bank seeking a loan to buy or open a business, what we have and need will certainly be a part of the financial analysis.
First, you don't make capital investment decisions based on what the contra-party needs or doesn't need. You make them based on what you perceive the value of the investment to be. Second, it's a question of leverage. Now if the Vikings had no options but to stay in MN, then leverage is with the city as to how much they would/not choose to invest. But if the Vikings could get up and leave, which most teams can, then the leverage goes to the team. Some city would pay or help the team specifically if the financial analysis shows it was a net positive tax payer investment.
Look simply at the Browns in 1995. The city chose to invest in Jacobs Field and Gund Arena, leaving the Browns in old Cleveland Stadium. Modell was going broke and Baltimore offered him $50MM plus a stadium to move there. Cleveland had no leverage and lost the team, then spent 4 years working with the League to get a team back.
... then spent 4 years with the League and getting an even shittier team back......
Why you have to go and bring reality into this conversation?
Show me a net positive tax payer investment in a heavily subsidized stadium. Example?
I asked for an analysis. I said I'm interested in it. I didn't say it was a NPV positive. I don't know if it is or isn't. I said analysis on Olympics show it is not worth it, but that's not really a fair comparison.
I’m interested too. I don’t think you’ll find an analysis that shows “a net positive taxpayer benefit.” I think what you will find are net worth of billionaire NFL owners increasing.
Right, this is a perspective, not an analysis. It offers no real data and makes one very specifically false statement. It said "The average stadium generated $145MM per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community". This is patently false because this leads one to believe that not one stadium in the country has any sales OR business revenue tax on tickets, beer, food, etc. We all know this isn't true.
And then the author talks about how the billionaire owner didn't "need it". What they need or don't need is completely irrelevant to a financial analysis. This is just an opinion piece.
Why is what a billionaire needs or doesn’t need irrelevant to a financial analysis? The more s/he has, the less they need, right? In the form of subsidies, interest rates, % of concessions, etc. it’s like Bezos, he doesn’t “need” anything in the form of subsidies to expand or build headquarters. He could, like NFL owners, pay fully out of pocket. If you or I go to a bank seeking a loan to buy or open a business, what we have and need will certainly be a part of the financial analysis.
First, you don't make capital investment decisions based on what the contra-party needs or doesn't need. You make them based on what you perceive the value of the investment to be. Second, it's a question of leverage. Now if the Vikings had no options but to stay in MN, then leverage is with the city as to how much they would/not choose to invest. But if the Vikings could get up and leave, which most teams can, then the leverage goes to the team. Some city would pay or help the team specifically if the financial analysis shows it was a net positive tax payer investment.
Look simply at the Browns in 1995. The city chose to invest in Jacobs Field and Gund Arena, leaving the Browns in old Cleveland Stadium. Modell was going broke and Baltimore offered him $50MM plus a stadium to move there. Cleveland had no leverage and lost the team, then spent 4 years working with the League to get a team back.
... then spent 4 years with the League and getting an even shittier team back......
Why you have to go and bring reality into this conversation?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What spending? If you’re referring to the infrastructure bill, I don’t think a dime has been disbursed. But anyway, what are all those repub gubners and legislatures doing about inflation?
Previous guy spent four years talking about infrastructure...Joe gets it done in 10 months.
This is disingenuous. While it is a great hot take on owning Trump, we have yet to see how the money will be spent, if it will be wasteful and if it will deliver as advertised. Sure the bill outlines how the money will be spent, but seeing is believing. Joe did sign an infrastructure bill in 10 months and I won't criticize that progress, but infrastructure is far from "done".
Previous guy spent four years talking about infrastructure...Joe gets it done in 10 months.
This is disingenuous. While it is a great hot take on owning Trump, we have yet to see how the money will be spent, if it will be wasteful and if it will deliver as advertised. Sure the bill outlines how the money will be spent, but seeing is believing. Joe did sign an infrastructure bill in 10 months and I won't criticize that progress, but infrastructure is far from "done".
disagree. Juggs isn't saying Joe got new roads built in 10 months. he said the bill got signed in 10 months, something Trump talked about and failed at over 4 years.
Previous guy spent four years talking about infrastructure...Joe gets it done in 10 months.
This is disingenuous. While it is a great hot take on owning Trump, we have yet to see how the money will be spent, if it will be wasteful and if it will deliver as advertised. Sure the bill outlines how the money will be spent, but seeing is believing. Joe did sign an infrastructure bill in 10 months and I won't criticize that progress, but infrastructure is far from "done".
disagree. Juggs isn't saying Joe got new roads built in 10 months. he said the bill got signed in 10 months, something Trump talked about and failed at over 4 years.
we had infrastructure week how many times under trump? so many times that it became a joke and a metaphor for his entire inept administration.
remember whenever the next shit show happened under trump everyone said that "it must be infrastructure week."
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,761
Biden vs Trump on getting things done. LOL, no brainer!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,324
Previous guy spent four years talking about infrastructure...Joe gets it done in 10 months.
This is disingenuous. While it is a great hot take on owning Trump, we have yet to see how the money will be spent, if it will be wasteful and if it will deliver as advertised. Sure the bill outlines how the money will be spent, but seeing is believing. Joe did sign an infrastructure bill in 10 months and I won't criticize that progress, but infrastructure is far from "done".
Nothing I said is "disingenuous." If you think I implied that roads and bridges were already fixed, I just don't know what to tell you.
This is part of the problem with the dem base. They expect change to happen overnight. That is not the way things work...especially for a bill like this that will take years for people to actually see the results. Getting this bipartisan bill done is a HUGE accomplishment.
Previous guy spent four years talking about infrastructure...Joe gets it done in 10 months.
This is disingenuous. While it is a great hot take on owning Trump, we have yet to see how the money will be spent, if it will be wasteful and if it will deliver as advertised. Sure the bill outlines how the money will be spent, but seeing is believing. Joe did sign an infrastructure bill in 10 months and I won't criticize that progress, but infrastructure is far from "done".
Nothing I said is "disingenuous." If you think I implied that roads and bridges were already fixed, I just don't know what to tell you.
This is part of the problem with the dem base. They expect change to happen overnight. That is not the way things work...especially for a bill like this that will take years for people to actually see the results. Getting this bipartisan bill done is a HUGE accomplishment.
It may end up being another example of Dems fixing the destruction and clusterfuckedness of the previous repub Administration and getting no credit for it, none, zip, zero, zilch.
Previous guy spent four years talking about infrastructure...Joe gets it done in 10 months.
This is disingenuous. While it is a great hot take on owning Trump, we have yet to see how the money will be spent, if it will be wasteful and if it will deliver as advertised. Sure the bill outlines how the money will be spent, but seeing is believing. Joe did sign an infrastructure bill in 10 months and I won't criticize that progress, but infrastructure is far from "done".
Nothing I said is "disingenuous." If you think I implied that roads and bridges were already fixed, I just don't know what to tell you.
This is part of the problem with the dem base. They expect change to happen overnight. That is not the way things work...especially for a bill like this that will take years for people to actually see the results. Getting this bipartisan bill done is a HUGE accomplishment.
It may end up being another example of Dems fixing the destruction and clusterfuckedness of the previous repub Administration and getting no credit for it, none, zip, zero, zilch.
Considering the dems are horrible at messaging, and how it may take 3-4 years to see real results (sorry static!); I think the odds are actually better of republicans getting the credit for this.
Previous guy spent four years talking about infrastructure...Joe gets it done in 10 months.
This is disingenuous. While it is a great hot take on owning Trump, we have yet to see how the money will be spent, if it will be wasteful and if it will deliver as advertised. Sure the bill outlines how the money will be spent, but seeing is believing. Joe did sign an infrastructure bill in 10 months and I won't criticize that progress, but infrastructure is far from "done".
Nothing I said is "disingenuous." If you think I implied that roads and bridges were already fixed, I just don't know what to tell you.
This is part of the problem with the dem base. They expect change to happen overnight. That is not the way things work...especially for a bill like this that will take years for people to actually see the results. Getting this bipartisan bill done is a HUGE accomplishment.
It may end up being another example of Dems fixing the destruction and clusterfuckedness of the previous repub Administration and getting no credit for it, none, zip, zero, zilch.
Considering the dems are horrible at messaging, and how it may take 3-4 years to see real results (sorry static!); I think the odds are actually better of republicans getting the credit for this.
You beat me to it. If we start seeing positive results from this in or by 2024, the GOP will refer to this as Trump's infrastructure plan and few will push back on that narrative because 'Merica.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,324
Previous guy spent four years talking about infrastructure...Joe gets it done in 10 months.
This is disingenuous. While it is a great hot take on owning Trump, we have yet to see how the money will be spent, if it will be wasteful and if it will deliver as advertised. Sure the bill outlines how the money will be spent, but seeing is believing. Joe did sign an infrastructure bill in 10 months and I won't criticize that progress, but infrastructure is far from "done".
Nothing I said is "disingenuous." If you think I implied that roads and bridges were already fixed, I just don't know what to tell you.
This is part of the problem with the dem base. They expect change to happen overnight. That is not the way things work...especially for a bill like this that will take years for people to actually see the results. Getting this bipartisan bill done is a HUGE accomplishment.
It may end up being another example of Dems fixing the destruction and clusterfuckedness of the previous repub Administration and getting no credit for it, none, zip, zero, zilch.
Considering the dems are horrible at messaging, and how it may take 3-4 years to see real results (sorry static!); I think the odds are actually better of republicans getting the credit for this.
You beat me to it. If we start seeing positive results from this in or by 2024, the GOP will refer to this as Trump's infrastructure plan and few will push back on that narrative because 'Merica.
It is interesting because you've already seen McConnell start doing this. But Trump could fuck that up as he is railing against it calling it a non infrastructure plan. Marge Green and the other maga dopes are following suit. So maybe those people will screw up the traditional way the GOP operates...
Comments
... then spent 4 years with the League and getting an even shittier team back......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
in case you forget where you come from.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
All part of the Daily Denial, the Daily Diversion, and the ever popular Daily Lie.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
www.headstonesband.com
remember whenever the next shit show happened under trump everyone said that "it must be infrastructure week."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This is part of the problem with the dem base. They expect change to happen overnight. That is not the way things work...especially for a bill like this that will take years for people to actually see the results. Getting this bipartisan bill done is a HUGE accomplishment.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I don't think there ever was a vote or bill brought to light?