Houston Taxpayers To Pay For Stadium Upgrades that Kraft Pays On His Own Here

shmessy said:

1) You didn't understand a word. A town that PAYS a ransom to get or keep an NFL team is a cow town. Not the city that refuses to pay the ransom. Had the Pats moved to St Louis, Boston would not have been any worse than LA which hasn't had a team for two decades. Not having an NFL team does not make a city a cow town. PAYING a huge ransom for one while your city flounders DOES.

Click to expand...

fair enough

You have your view and I have mine.

Mine is that a city that won't provide a team incentives or tax breaks doesn't deserve a team.

Either they are lucky enough to have billionaire want to come, even if without the support of the community.

Of their market is so big and profitable that it cannot be resisted.

Teams shouldn't come to communities that don't want them.

BradyFTW! said:

Packer fans are probably the most rabidly loyal local fanbase in the NFL. And even they only passed a referendum to increase sales tax for Lambeau upgrades by a 53-47 margin. And that was 15 years ago, before the whole "stadium costs pay for themselves by stimulating the local economy" argument was thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

This isn't a politicized issue, other than where you're maybe trying to make it one. When it's left up to the voters, they've made their opinion clear: they do not want to hand their tax money to billionaires. I live in Los Angeles, and we've been without a team for ~20 years precisely because of an unwillingness to put tax money toward a stadium. I'm confident that Boston similarly has its priorities and general common sense in order. They were willing to let Kraft leave last time he threatened to, after all.

Click to expand...

Kraft was threatening to go to Hartford. I was perfectly willing to travel there instead of Foxboro, and most fans I talked to around here felt the same way.

mgteich said:

fair enough

You have your view and I have mine.

Mine is that a city that won't provide a team incentives or tax breaks doesn't deserve a team.

Either they are lucky enough to have billionaire want to come, even if without the support of the community.

Of their market is so big and profitable that it cannot be resisted.

Teams shouldn't come to communities that don't want them.

Click to expand...

Yes. We have completely opposite opinions on that.

NFL owners have become prostitutes.

There are the top shelf cities (the Tom Brady type) who don't have to pay for a love life and then there are the rest (the Warren Sapp type) who do.

Do you know WHY those cities are top shelf? Because they put their money into BUILDING their infrastructure/subways/schools/high tech enivironment - - instead of paying ransoms to the NFL.

The top shelf cities put their money towards subway systems, high tech infrastructure, schools, etc.

Love the Patriots but other than some assistance to improve the roads around there, don't believe the state should contribute a dime to them or give the Pats a break on taxes.

If Texas (who pay no income or property taxes) want to do that and "poor" Bob McNair can get a handout under those circumstances, that's Texas's problem. Just because they want to be fools doesn't mean MA has to be one too.

Just because someone else does it, doesn't make it smart. MA is spending the money where it should.

shmessy said:

Yes. We have completely opposite opinions on that.

NFL owners have become prostitutes.

There are the top shelf cities who don't have to pay for a love life and then there are the rest who do.

Do you know WHY those cities are top shelf? Because they put their money into BUILDING their infrastructure/subways/schools/high tech enivironment - - instead of paying ransoms to the NFL.

The top shelf cities put their money towards subway systems, high tech infrastructure, schools, etc.

Click to expand...

NY does not have 2 teams because it spends money on infrastructure and education. They have 2 teams because they have a huge market. PHI and CHI have teams for the same reason. This is true to a lesser extent in DAL, PITT and ATL.

NE does not have a team because Foxboro or Providence or Boston spends a lot on education. NE has a team because of a Sullivan and Kraft.

mgteich said:

NY does not have 2 teams because it spends money on infrastructure and education. They have 2 teams because they have a huge market. PHI and CHI have teams for the same reason. This is true to a lesser extent in DAL, PITT and ATL.

NE does not have a team because Foxboro or Providence or Boston spends a lot on education. NE has a team because of a Sullivan and Kraft.

Click to expand...

How did NYC, PHI, BOS and CHI become huge markets?

By building INFRASTRUCTURE and having top notch BUSINESSES and UNIVERSITIES first.

Guys who GET the girls are the ones with good looks and better looking bank accounts.

Guys who have to PAY for girls are the losers who can't get the girls based on their own.

Cities who dictate the terms to the NFL are the ones who have taken care of their own responsibilities first. The cities who are locked in the dungeon of torture and who have their wallets rifled through every few years (that Hoosier Dome was ANCIENT?) get dictated TO.

The India-No-Places, Cincinattis, Jacksonvilles, etc. of the league will ALWAYS be handcuffed to their ransoms and future ratcheting ups of the demands. It is because they are who they are.

Entertaining courtship offers is a sign of power. Paying a ransom is a sign of desperation and weakness.

It's how the world works, Mg.

FirstAndGoal said:

If Texas (who pay no income or property taxes) want to do that and "poor" Bob McNair can get a handout under those circumstances, that's Texas's problem.

Click to expand...

Texas pays property tax

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...austin-have-texas-cities-counties-worried.ece

By the way, Houstonians are not paying for their stadiums. Non residents pay the bill as they are funded by taxes on hotel rooms and rental cars. Houston was the first city to use these (additional) taxes as a means to fund stadiums for billionaire owners (they pay for Reliant, Minute Maid and the Toyota Center).

Sfpat said:

By the way, Houstonians are not paying for their stadiums. Non residents pay the bill as they are funded by taxes on hotel rooms and rental cars. Houston was the first city to use these (additional) taxes as a means to fund stadiums for billionaire owners (they pay for Reliant, Minute Maid and the Toyota Center).

Click to expand...

Thank you for that info. I believe that's the same strategy that is used for the part of the Boston Convention Center (BCEC). I would still term that as a tax - - but you are right, not one that is borne through local income taxes.

I still think there are great arguments on both sides. But one of the arguments I wanted to add was that politicians spend money like it's going out of style, we all know this. If they don't spend on an NFL stadium, they aren't going to lower taxes or necessarily spend it "wisely"; they're just going to waste it on something else. So sometimes, when something you're interested in gets its turn at the trough, you may as well just take the money and go with it. Because if you give up your turn, the interest group behind you is likely going to be advocating for free community college arts degrees or some other equally wasteful idea, and that's where that money will be spent instead.

Jlaff said:

I still think there are great arguments on both sides. But one of the arguments I wanted to add was that politicians spend money like it's going out of style, we all know this. If they don't spend on an NFL stadium, they aren't going to lower taxes or necessarily spend it "wisely"; they're just going to waste it on something else. So sometimes, when something you're interested in gets its turn at the trough, you may as well just take the money and go with it. Because if you give up your turn, the interest group behind you is likely going to be advocating for free community college arts degrees or some other equally wasteful idea, and that's where that money will be spent instead.

Click to expand...

I hear ya, Jlaff, but giving it to a billionaire NFL owner to do what he should be doing on his own is what THIS thread is about. There are some who think doing that is what cities should do for morale reasons. I, and others, completely disagree.

The subject of this thread is NFL owners getting taxpayer money (whether it be local or from visitors) in order to keep or entice them to certain cities.

shmessy said:

I hear ya, Jlaff, but giving it to a billionaire NFL owner to do what he should be doing on his own is what THIS thread is about. There are some who think doing that is what cities should do for morale reasons. I, and others, completely disagree.

The subject of this thread is NFL owners getting taxpayer money (whether it be local or from visitors) in order to keep or entice them to certain cities.

Click to expand...

Has the thought of attaching some Packers-esque community ownership to public money ever been tossed around?

Jlaff said:

Has the thought of attaching some Packers-esque community ownership to public money ever been tossed around?

Click to expand...

I would agree with that thought.

I still don't understand that whole Green Bay situation though. It sounds great, but I'm not understanding how the logistics work.

mgteich said:

LA will receive an average of $14 per ticket, plus sales tax on concessions and other sales. The local economy will also greatly benefit. LA taxpayers got all this for free. The council approved the deal 5-0 to get this moving fast. They've made their estimates of increase revenue and jobs. They are considerable.

So, there is an annualized economic benefit. If the taxpayers paid part of the bill, the revenue stream could have started ten years ago.

Click to expand...

I haven't done an analysis of this particular deal. I'll just say that there isn't a single NFL deal in the past that I'm aware of that has actually come anywhere close to the projections - and the vast majority turn out to be a very bad deal for the city/county/state from a financial perspective. Of course, there's the intangible benefit of having an NFL franchise to consider. I'll just say that I remain unconvinced that this will be even a break-even deal from a financial perspective for the county.

shmessy said:

I would agree with that thought.

I still don't understand that whole Green Bay situation though. It sounds great, but I'm not understanding how the logistics work.

Click to expand...

See the wikipedia page for the Packers. It's (oversimplifying somewhat) is basically run like any other not-for-profit entity. So there's no owner (i.e. anyone who owns the profits) but there is a board of directors and they hire the front office who hires the coaches, etc.:

Wikipedia on Green Bay Packers said:

Green Bay Packers, Inc., is governed by a seven-member Executive Committee elected from a 45-member board of directors. It consists of a president, vice president, treasurer, secretary and three members-at-large; only the president is compensated. Responsibilities include directing corporate management, approving major capital expenditures, establishing broad policy, and monitoring management performance.

The team's elected president normally represents the Packers in NFL owners meetings. During his time as coach Vince Lombardi generally represented the team at league meetings in his role as GM, except at owners-only meetings, where president Dominic Olejniczak appeared.[citation needed]

Shareholder rights
Even though it is referred to as "common stock" in corporate offering documents, a share of Packers stock does not share the same rights traditionally associated withcommon or preferred stock. It does not include an equity interest, does not pay dividends, can not be traded, has no securities-law protection, and brings no season ticket purchase privileges. All shareholders receive are voting rights, an invitation to the corporation's annual meeting, and an opportunity to purchase exclusive shareholder-only merchandise.[4] Shares of stock cannot be resold, except back to the team for a fraction of the original price. While new shares can be given as gifts, transfers are technically allowed only between immediate family members once ownership has been established.[3]

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.

shmessy said:

I hear ya, Jlaff, but giving it to a billionaire NFL owner to do what he should be doing on his own is what THIS thread is about. There are some who think doing that is what cities should do for morale reasons. I, and others, completely disagree.

The subject of this thread is NFL owners getting taxpayer money (whether it be local or from visitors) in order to keep or entice them to certain cities.

Click to expand...

Smess, giving it to them is definitely wrong. Some of these past deals that basically gave them a stadium was appalling. However, to provide or not to provide money for a large scale venue should be about sound business decision making. If it is quantified that a team/venue will bring in, say, 3 million to 4 million in annual net tax revenue for 20 years, it is worth considering if, say, 1 million a year is provided to make the venue a reality (or, more precisely, pay what little you can that still will make the revenue positive deal happen).
Local/state governments frequently make decisions to provide money to multi million dollar businesses. It may be up front or it may be in the fine print (tax exemptions/discounts, land discounts, the catchall 'infrastructure'). Good example, Tesla's Giga-Factorty. Cali, Nevada and several others threw money at Tesla but with much of it in the fine print.

Should governments be involved in these kinds of deals? It is definitely open for debate. Anytime a government makes a business deal it should be met with skepticism. But if these deals are to be, I don't see a pro sports venue investment as, essentially, any different than a car factory, Giga-factory or whatever business. If they can increase net tax revenues then monies paid into the project may be a wise business decision.

TheBostonStraggler said:

Smess, giving it to them is definitely wrong. Some of these past deals that basically gave them a stadium was appalling. However, to provide or not to provide money for a large scale venue should be about sound business decision making. If it is quantified that a team/venue will bring in, say, 3 million to 4 million in annual net tax revenue for 20 years, it is worth considering if, say, 1 million a year is provided to make the venue a reality (or, more precisely, pay what little you can that still will make the revenue positive deal happen).
Local/state governments frequently make decisions to provide money to multi million dollar businesses. It may be up front or it may be in the fine print (tax exemptions/discounts, land discounts, the catchall 'infrastructure'). Good example, Tesla's Giga-Factorty. Cali, Nevada and several others threw money at Tesla but with much of it in the fine print.

Should governments be involved in these kinds of deals? It is definitely open for debate. Anytime a government makes a business deal it should be met with skepticism. But if these deals are to be, I don't see a pro sports venue investment as, essentially, any different than a car factory, Giga-factory or whatever business. If they can increase net tax revenues then monies paid into the project may be a wise business decision.

Click to expand...

Good points there, Straggler, but earlier some of the pro-taxpayer funding for NFL teams argument was being put forth as "morale" based, not so much as business-based. That's what I had a problem with.

I'd be interested to see what kind of return the good people of Indianapolis, Cincinatti, Baltimore or St Louis have received for the hundreds of millions of municipal dollars they have given for their NFL teams' stadiums.

shmessy said:

Good points there, Straggler, but earlier some of the pro-taxpayer funding for NFL teams argument was being put forth as "morale" based, not so much as business-based. That's what I had a problem with.

I'd be interested to see what kind of return the good people of Indianapolis, Cincinatti, Baltimore or St Louis have received for the hundreds of millions of municipal dollars they have given for their NFL teams' stadiums.

Click to expand...

In the Indy deal the taxpayers paid for the stadium and the team keeps all stadium concession revenue. They also keep the concession revenue for events and conventions had in the stadium. I'm not sure what the city could possibly get from that besides the right to continue being one of the worst fan bases in the NFL.

shmessy said:

Good points there, Straggler, but earlier some of the pro-taxpayer funding for NFL teams argument was being put forth as "morale" based, not so much as business-based. That's what I had a problem with.

I'd be interested to see what kind of return the good people of Indianapolis, Cincinatti, Baltimore or St Louis have received for the hundreds of millions of municipal dollars they have given for their NFL teams' stadiums.

Click to expand...

Purchasing civic morale by way of a tax payer funded, huge stadium for sports is something I completely disagree with too. While having a pro sports franchise -- most specifically the elite of the elite, an NFL team -- does propagate the city's name and its image somewhat (a semi-quantifiable value), morale can't be quantified in the level of its psychological effect or its financial return. If a city starts a business decision of this magnitude off with "morale", they might as well give the team owner a blank check.

I don't know the specific deal or the expected ROI for Indy. But if they paid for the much or whole stadium and aren't getting back multiple revenue streams of parking, concessions, non NFL event money, venue rent money -- it's hard to see any way a positive ROI is achieved. If so I adamantly disagree with a deal like that using my tax money (even if it means letting the team move to another city).

I think both sides have valid concerns and points. But I also think we're talking way more about ideology than the actual deal itself.

There is a deal that can be good for tax payers. There's a deal that can totally **** them over too. To assume one way is always good and one way is always bad is silly. The devil is always in the details.

In this case, I'm not so sure how happy I would be if I were in Houston. The wifi upgrades are around $3-$5M. That's a lot of cash to spend on better free wifi for 70,000 fans 10 nights a year. In a city of over 2 million people, the benefit isn't really that great.

That leaves around $45M for upgrades to luxury suites and boxes. That's a huge number which will only affect a very small amount of fans. This deal also isn't about whether to keep the team or not. It's about whether they get to host a Super Bowl or not.

The only potential revenue stream would then be how much that Super Bowl generates in extra money. Super Bowl hosting committees will tell you it brings in hundreds of millions of dollars. That's good. But independent studies show otherwise, and some show that the potential gains are around 25% of what the NFL boasts, and 23% of Super Bowl hosts lose money. And the mayor of Glendale told ESPN they totally expected to lose money on the last Super Bowl.

So is this a great use of $50M of taxpayer funds? Probably not. I could see some scenarios where I'd totally be on-board, but this isn't one of them.