Lend a billionaire a helping hand... - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Jorn · #16 09-17-2013, 01:28 PM

It's like the Olympics, mega vanity projects by public servants.

panZZer · #17 09-17-2013, 03:15 PM

Yea So? This is EXACTLY the crap that the people YOU support do every chance they get.

The folks who are part of the reality club can breathe easy Willard didn't get in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruchase

Like the title says:

Meet Three Billionaires Asking Taxpayers To Buy Them New Stadiums | ThinkProgress

aklim · #18 09-17-2013, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruchase

The team owners need the market as much as the market needs them - if not more. Yes, there is a risk that the team will pick up and leave. However, in a scenario where the public owns the stadium, they could subsidize the lease at even for $1 per year. However, the public gets all parking & concession revenue (net of any management fees), while the team pays a percentage of their profits back to an account specifically set up for maintaining the stadium. So if they're unprofitable, then they're only on the hook for $1.

Under the current system, the public builds the stadium, then essentially steps back and lets the team generate revenue from ticket sales, concession and parking. That makes no sense - it's like the public is taking on all the investor risk, while the team owner reaps the invester benefits. If the team is not profitable, they usually leave anyway.

If the team is unprofitable and leaves, what will you do with the stadium? It will become a white elephant.

Under the current system, you forget that motels get filled, stores get patronized, etc, etc.

Jorn · #19 09-17-2013, 04:05 PM

And BTW this scheme doesn't only works for stadiums, how many WalMart's are funded by tax-payers?

ruchase · #20 09-17-2013, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panZZer

Yea So? This is EXACTLY the crap that the people YOU support do every chance they get.

The folks who are part of the reality club can breathe easy Willard didn't get in.

ruchase · #21 09-17-2013, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

If the team is unprofitable and leaves, what will you do with the stadium? It will become a white elephant.

Under the current system, you forget that motels get filled, stores get patronized, etc, etc.

The contract for the rental subsidy associated with the team playing out of the stadium would include a clause that the team must play over there for 'X' amount of years, unless they are not a going concern (supported by a CPA opinion audit). In that event, the owners would also be bound under a non-compete clause for the term under the original rental subsidy so they just couldn't go and start another team elsewhere.

There is no iron clad contract that would prevent a stadium from sitting vacant. However, this happens anyway, and the city is left with a vacant crumbling stadium. Only difference is the ownership has reaped all the benefits in the earlier years, and then leaves abruptly once the team is not a going concern.

ruchase · #22 09-17-2013, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

And BTW this scheme doesn't only works for stadiums, how many WalMart's are funded by tax-payers?

Good point. Once thriving suburbs are now filled with bust WalMarts and K-Marts. To add insult to injury, these mega-stores already killed the mom & pop businesses, so the people in the community are the ultimate losers.

cmbdiesel · #23 09-17-2013, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

If the team is unprofitable and leaves, what will you do with the stadium? It will become a white elephant.

Under the current system, you forget that motels get filled, stores get patronized, etc, etc.

Shootin' from the hip again?

Or do you got some numbers that show enough Big Gulp sales and Motel 6 stays to offset a few hundred million....?

The point seems to be that building a stadium with public money so some uber-wealthy prick can reap the benefit might not be in the public's best interest.
Even if they get a bi-weekly boost at their local gas pumps for 16 weeks out of the year....

These *uckers got a lot of nerve asking for money at this point with our economy. I'd tell them to go pound sand.

cmbdiesel · #24 09-17-2013, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruchase

The contract for the rental subsidy associated with the team playing out of the stadium would include a clause that the team must play over there for 'X' amount of years, unless they are not a going concern (supported by a CPA opinion audit). In that event, the owners would also be bound under a non-compete clause for the term under the original rental subsidy so they just couldn't go and start another team elsewhere.

There is no iron clad contract that would prevent a stadium from sitting vacant. However, this happens anyway, and the city is left with a vacant crumbling stadium. Only difference is the ownership has reaped all the benefits in the earlier years, and then leaves abruptly once the team is not a going concern.

The states and cities need to buy the teams... then they would be building themselves a stadium.

ruchase · #25 09-17-2013, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

The states and cities need to buy the teams... then they would be building themselves a stadium.

They might as well - it's not much difference than a popular college sports team - only difference is the athletes will be paid. Alternatively, the public would have a controlling stake in the team, and just have a management agent (like the owner) run the team compensation.

Whatever the case, these mega rich pricks should NOT be reaping the benefits of public funds while average folks struggle to make ends meet.

aklim · #26 09-17-2013, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Shootin' from the hip again?

Or do you got some numbers that show enough Big Gulp sales and Motel 6 stays to offset a few hundred million....?

The point seems to be that building a stadium with public money so some uber-wealthy prick can reap the benefit might not be in the public's best interest.
Even if they get a bi-weekly boost at their local gas pumps for 16 weeks out of the year....

These *uckers got a lot of nerve asking for money at this point with our economy. I'd tell them to go pound sand.

I forgot about the rule that I cannot ask a question if you disagree.

You got numbers from a neutral source that proves otherwise.?

Over the years, I wouldn't be sure. In 10 years, no. When you add up the receipts from a motel stay and the other contributions from related business it will be more than just a Motel 6 cost. How much,I don't know and here is a shot from the hip. YOU don't either. One more shot. Unlike you I am not bitter and envious of someone rich to label them pricks till I know them to be. I only need to know one thing. Will my sinking $X net me more revenue than that when adding up direct and indirect revenue. I don't care who it benefits if I can get get my money back plus a few bucks.

aklim · #27 09-17-2013, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

The states and cities need to buy the teams... then they would be building themselves a stadium.

One more thing for the incompetent ti manage?

aklim · #28 09-17-2013, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruchase

They might as well - it's not much difference than a popular college sports team - only difference is the athletes will be paid. Alternatively, the public would have a controlling stake in the team, and just have a management agent (like the owner) run the team compensation.

Whatever the case, these mega rich pricks should NOT be reaping the benefits of public funds while average folks struggle to make ends meet.

Why would I let you have a controlling interest in my team? Because you know anything about sports?

What difference does it make if the numbers work out? If they don't, the city should walk. It is that simple

sloride · #29 09-17-2013, 08:50 PM

The Chicago Cubs are owned by a Billionaire family and wanted to spend seven hundred million of their own money and had trouble doing it. They happened to be from the other party in charge of the city. So go back and follow the money if a Billionaire needs a stadium and contributes to the right campaign it gets done ie:you give me fifty thousand I give you seven hundred million of tax payer money. If a Billionaire needs to renovate an existing stadium and does not contribute to the correct campaign it does not get done ie: you have to give me money before you can spend it your project.

cmbdiesel · #30 09-17-2013, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruchase

They might as well - it's not much difference than a popular college sports team - only difference is the athletes will be paid. Alternatively, the public would have a controlling stake in the team, and just have a management agent (like the owner) run the team compensation.

Whatever the case, these mega rich pricks should NOT be reaping the benefits of public funds while average folks struggle to make ends meet.

Read a little of the link I posted about Green Bay and the Packers.
Very interesting, and a sound business model as well.
Really a big benefit to the entire region.