#46 President Joe Biden

CM189191

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

They say “socialist” like it’s a bad thing. 

Right? 

And do they even understand what it is? 

Yeah.  Socialism are things I don't like.  It's pretty simple.  For example, the Pittsburg Steelers are commie socialists, as is stuffed cabbage and Barack Obama. 

Considering how much public funding goes into football stadiums, the NFL is probably one of the biggest commie socialist recipient of taxpayer money in the nation. 

Still pissed about US Bank stadium. Half a billion dollars in tax dollars just hand it over to some rich asshole. 

But think of all the jobs and how increasing his net worth will actual help out all the people's 401ks out there...jeez you must be a real deal socialist criticizing capitalists taking advantage of what they have earned.

I don't know that all city leaders are irrational.  The question is whether the economic activity generated by a pro football team creates more jobs and tax revenue than the tax money it uses to build the stadium (which I believe the city owns, not the team).  If it does create more value, then it's an easy decision.  Considering that MN now gets super bowls, that's a shit ton of revenue right there, on top of the concerts and other events.

So CM, is there an analysis of the trending of this investment so far?

We do know that Olympics absolutely lose money in the States.  The number of facilities that are needed and are never used again is pretty high. 

Raises a couple other questions too:

If the return on stadium investment is so beneficial, why can't they secure private funding?

What's the opportunity cost of those tax dollars spent?  Half a billion dollars would buy a lot of infrastructure, food, health care, and housing.

Halifax2TheMax

Dated and a long read but interesting. I think “no” as well. Taxpayers subsidizing billionaires. Particularly the NFL, 8 home games a year, 10 if you count pre-season and typically built in the middle of nowhere. The model has changed with Patriot Place and Philly’s complex but those areas are dead on non-game days and are typically corporate service industry jobs (bartenders, waitstaff, retail, etc.).

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

mrussel1

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

They say “socialist” like it’s a bad thing. 

Right? 

And do they even understand what it is? 

Yeah.  Socialism are things I don't like.  It's pretty simple.  For example, the Pittsburg Steelers are commie socialists, as is stuffed cabbage and Barack Obama. 

Considering how much public funding goes into football stadiums, the NFL is probably one of the biggest commie socialist recipient of taxpayer money in the nation. 

Still pissed about US Bank stadium. Half a billion dollars in tax dollars just hand it over to some rich asshole. 

But think of all the jobs and how increasing his net worth will actual help out all the people's 401ks out there...jeez you must be a real deal socialist criticizing capitalists taking advantage of what they have earned.

I don't know that all city leaders are irrational.  The question is whether the economic activity generated by a pro football team creates more jobs and tax revenue than the tax money it uses to build the stadium (which I believe the city owns, not the team).  If it does create more value, then it's an easy decision.  Considering that MN now gets super bowls, that's a shit ton of revenue right there, on top of the concerts and other events.

So CM, is there an analysis of the trending of this investment so far?

We do know that Olympics absolutely lose money in the States.  The number of facilities that are needed and are never used again is pretty high. 

Raises a couple other questions too:

If the return on stadium investment is so beneficial, why can't they secure private funding?

What's the opportunity cost of those tax dollars spent?  Half a billion dollars would buy a lot of infrastructure, food, health care, and housing.

I was reading (because this interests me) that the debt facility is really healthy as of 2019.  Now of course the last year plus has been totally lost economically.  I'm sure many of the businesses were not able to open and of course concerts and other things were cancelled altogether.  So I think an analysis is probably corrupted at this point, and may be for a few more years.

As far as your question about private funding, it raises a good question.  My understanding is that the cost was 1.1 and the city plus the state contributed $500MM.  The rest was the league/Vikings and some private money I believe.  However, a private investor cannot benefit from the adjacent economic activity.  They have no access to the tax revenue like the city and state does.  So a private investor is only going to be interested in what the actual facility can do.  

I can only agree with your last point to a certain degree.  The role of a city and state is not just to feed the poor.  It's to stimulate the economy as well.  There is no real "opportunity cost" in your statement because there is no economic opportunity there.. maybe a bit in infrastructure but that's fundamentally the same argument I'm making.  

Halifax2TheMax

A more recent perspective.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

Halifax2TheMax

Interesting about seat licenses in Atlanta. President Biden needs to do something about this. I can’t afford the $200 ticket and $15 beers.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/economic-benefits-nfl-stadium-boom-vastly-overblown-131446171.html

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

A more recent perspective.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

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. 

Bentleyspop

brianlux said:

^^That's right bros.  Freakin' pinkos!

And what about the S.F. Giants.  I mean, come on, San Francisco Giants.  Obviously commies. 

Same thing with Cincinnati Reds.  Reds?  How blatant can you get?  COMMIES!

You're a little off.
Being that they are from San Francisco they are clearly gay commie socialist pinkos. Just like everyone who would dare to live in such a liberal commie socialist city.

mrussel1

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

^^That's right bros.  Freakin' pinkos!

And what about the S.F. Giants.  I mean, come on, San Francisco Giants.  Obviously commies. 

Same thing with Cincinnati Reds.  Reds?  How blatant can you get?  COMMIES!

You're a little off.
Being that they are from San Francisco they are clearly gay commie socialist pinkos. Just like everyone who would dare to live in such a liberal commie socialist city.

I agree!  Thank God we don't have any of them posting 'round these here parts.  

Although Bri is right about the "Reds".  Apparently they think we're stupid and don't see their subversive actions, trying to bring in a DH to the NL so they are more "inclusive".  They're also for a salary cap, I bet!  Hippie Commies, no less.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A more recent perspective.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

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.

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A more recent perspective.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

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.  

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A more recent perspective.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

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......

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A more recent perspective.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

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?”

Halifax2TheMax

Show me a net positive tax payer investment in a heavily subsidized stadium. Example?

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

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. 

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A more recent perspective.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

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.  

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A more recent perspective.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

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?

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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.

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A more recent perspective.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

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?

in case you forget where you come from.....

shecky

Halifax2TheMax

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?