OT: Shaking down taxpayers for stadiums

[PP2]

I am disgusted. And the country/media is more worried about same sex marriage than stealing our tax dollars for billionaires personal gain. It's enough to make me want to start a revolution but I would be labeled a "terrorist".

I personally think that the same-sex marriage agenda was merely a tool to keep the more important issues off the table, and to prevent any real political progress.

 

[deters]

That stadium isn't that old. What upgrades are they doing?

It was opened in 1995 or something. Brand new video boards which are gonna be like third largest in NFL. Will also have an improved sound system, concessions, concourses and team store, as well as upgraded luxury suites and lounges. . Expected around $85 million but can exceed $100 million. They desperately need HD screens because the current ones are atrocious. Its a move not only for the Bucs sake, but also with intentions of hosting the Super Bowl and NCAA Championship.

 

[Froob]

But but but they're losing money! You don't need to see the books, just believe them

 

[venecol]

It was opened in 1995 or something. Brand new video boards which are gonna be like third largest in NFL. Will also have an improved sound system, concessions, concourses and team store, as well as upgraded luxury suites and lounges. . Expected around $85 million but can exceed $100 million. They desperately need HD screens because the current ones are atrocious. Its a move not only for the Bucs sake, but also with intentions of hosting the Super Bowl and NCAA Championship.

I can't stand the Glazers.

 

[upstater1]

My favorite stadium boondoggle story is this one: ESPN.com - Ceremony for Twins' new park rescheduled after bridge collapse

Politicians couldn't get to the site of a tax-payer funded baseball stadium groundbreaking ceremony because the bridge to that area of town collapsed and killed people. The bridge was deemed obsolete in 1990.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Even Forbes doesn't think it's a good deal, and they love to side with the billionaires.

Publicly Financed Sports Stadiums Are A Game That Taxpayers Lose

 

[Jackson 2]

My favorite stadium boondoggle story is this one: ESPN.com - Ceremony for Twins' new park rescheduled after bridge collapse

Politicians couldn't get to the site of a tax-payer funded baseball stadium groundbreaking ceremony because the bridge to that area of town collapsed and killed people. The bridge was deemed obsolete in 1990.

Misplaced priorities.

 

[Jackson 2]

Bucs just shook down us taxpayers in Tampa, but at least they hit the tourist first for the tax revenue needed. While their upgrades are severely needed, it just ruffles my feathers that these billionaire owners don't pay for their own ****.

JC, imagine being shaken down by the freaking Buccaneers?

 

[patfanken]

It is a great source of pride for me that Gillette is just one of two NFL stadiums that were built WITHOUT massive tax support (GB is the other). IIRC the State did pay for the transportation and road changes, like they would do for any major private construction project. Plus THAT money has been long since been paid back out of parking fees with interest. So Gillette hasn't cost the state a dime, and should really be a blueprint of how to fund any new stadium development.

Instead the serial corruptors at 353 Park Ave continue to try and shake down states and municipalities in order to take already limited local funds to help pay for the vast majority of their stadiums. This policy borders on the criminal, and if not criminal, it is certainly immoral and unjust. But as Pats fans, we should not be surprised, because we have seen what the that toxic group can do.

 

[deters]

JC, imagine being shaken down by the freaking Buccaneers?

It sucks especially since we helped fund their stadium. But, on the flip side, if they improve the stadium, we're certain to get another Super Bowl and in running for NCAA Football Championship. That will bring lots of money to the area in return. I remember when the Steelers Cardinals game was here few years back and it was fun. I live only 15 minutes from the stadium so I got to enjoy a lot of the festivities.

 

[MainePatsFan26]

This whole thing reeks of the NFL wanting to shift the blame for why the team has to move to Los Angeles. It's not the team's poor play or lackluster management, but the fans and city who wouldn't approve a new stadium to keep their team. This is typical Roger commishing: blame the fans to protect the brand.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

It is a great source of pride for me that Gillette is just one of two NFL stadiums that were built WITHOUT massive tax support (GB is the other).

Just keep in mind that building it w/o massive tax support was Kraft's last resort. It's not like he is some shining knight who would never try to rape the taxpayers. If you want to have pride in something about that, have it (as crazy as it is to say that, I know!) in the MA legislature, which held firm on refusing such a "deal".

 

[The Brandon Five]

It is a great source of pride for me that Gillette is just one of two NFL stadiums that were built WITHOUT massive tax support (GB is the other). IIRC the State did pay for the transportation and road changes, like they would do for any major private construction project. Plus THAT money has been long since been paid back out of parking fees with interest. So Gillette hasn't cost the state a dime, and should really be a blueprint of how to fund any new stadium development.

Instead the serial corruptors at 353 Park Ave continue to try and shake down states and municipalities in order to take already limited local funds to help pay for the vast majority of their stadiums. This policy borders on the criminal, and if not criminal, it is certainly immoral and unjust. But as Pats fans, we should not be surprised, because we have seen what the that toxic group can do.

Saw this today:

NFL exec: 'Not fair' to ask billionaire owners to finance stadiums

Grubman, a recent guest on the "Bernie Miklasz Show," got into a debate with the host when Miklasz intimated that if he were worth $7 billion, he would choose to not burden the people of his city by asking for as much public money as possible to build a new stadium. Grubman had a sharp response to Miklaz.

"I don’t believe you, and you don’t believe yourself," Grubman said. "What you just said is, 'If I’m worth $7.2 billion, the difference between $400 million and $300 million as a public contribution isn’t going to change anything, and I’m going to work with them at $300 million even if it’s not $400 million.' I call B.S. on that."

The conversation, which then shifted to the topic of billionaire St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke and his stadium plans in Los Angeles, only got more tense.

"That’s not life. Life is: [Kroenke’s] got options," Grubman added. "Everyone has options, and they have to weigh those options against one another, and it’s not fair for you to bring up a person’s net worth to say that makes the difference between $400 million and $300 million."

Whether he is right or wrong, for us non-billionaires, Grubman sounds awfully out of touch.

Gee, I was kinda thinking that the guy with $7.2 billion can make do with $0 million of public contribution to his for-profit venture.

 

[meatface]

How much of that new 49ers stadium was publicly financed?

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk