OT Seattle?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Voodoo said:
You're making wild assertions, neither of them are based on facts though. No team has a 50 year lease or commitment, no the city doesn't have all the bargaining power. Unfortunately usually the owners do because they can threaten to take their team away from the city if they don't cough up tens of millions of dollars. It's hard for an elected official to bargain with them when there's a lot of pressure from fans to do what's necessary to keep the team in town. The billionaire doesn't need to worry about getting reelected.

You still didn't even respond to the point that the city doesn't economically benefit from it. If they did why wouldn't the owners just fund it and collect all that theoretical money from parking spots? It's because that's an economic fallacy and they know that.

They are smart and want the city to take on part of the economic risk for them as they know that there's very little profit year over year from running a team. The true profit is not from running the business of an nba team, no the profit is made when they sell the team.

For example the Rockets owner paid $85 million in 93, and he's listed the team for $1.65 billion in 2017.
Click to expand...
Uh, yes, i know the owner will make money from the sale.

That's not true for nfl franchises though. Those teams can and do make money.

The city would economically benefit from it if they assessed a tax for each ticket sale.

Hey look! It's the internet. I can find an article that had investment guys that say what I say too! Some high level investment guys here!

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/rundown/public-money-used-build-sports-stadiums

Give me a break dude. I'm not saying that it would be fool proof. Just theoretically, it should work. Establish a tax per ticket. The cities can do so for hotels and motels too. There have been studies that there isn't much change in hotel bookings for tourism if increased. You're absolutely right that is might not though. In theory it should! I'm not saying every plan works out.

The 50 year was exaggeratted. 20 or 30 years is not unreasonable. Owners arent gonna start a team if they don't think they can make money on it. And they surely aren't going to invest in a place they don't think would succeed. If the city loses out, oh no! At least they can say they tried. The truth is people are going to bitch about the govt no matter if they are left or right.
 
Last edited:
dviss1 said:
Again, until it's built... Not sure what we're arguing about...
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to argue. Just thought I may have missed something because it sounded like the plan was for private financing and that's what you said you wanted.
 
e_blazer said:
Didn't mean to argue. Just thought I may have missed something because it sounded like the plan was for private financing and that's what you said you wanted.
Click to expand...

I was basically pleading for it to actually happen.
 
because what will happen is that they'll all of a sudden turn into the Golden State Warriors by pure luck, win multiple championships while we struggle through mediocrity forever and pain!

and you know those seattle fuckers are douchebags to the 10x level
 
I will still root for the Blazers, even if I am a Seattle fucker/douchebag.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
because what will happen is that they'll all of a sudden turn into the Golden State Warriors by pure luck, win multiple championships while we struggle through mediocrity forever and pain!

and you know those seattle fuckers are douchebags to the 10x level
Click to expand...
Not all of them are douches. I hate douches no matter where they're from, not cities..
 
blue9 said:
Uh, a tax of ticket sales means the public is paying for the stadium. No, I'm NOT down with that.
Click to expand...
You do realize that if it's privately funded then a portion of the ticket sales is part of the income the owner uses to offset the cost of construction right? No matter how you slice either income to offset cost or tax on the ticket sales the "customers" aka "public" is paying for it.
 
Schilly said:
You do realize that if it's privately funded then a portion of the ticket sales is part of the income the owner uses to offset the cost of construction right? No matter how you slice either income to offset cost or tax on the ticket sales the "customers" aka "public" is paying for it.
Click to expand...
I do understand that. But why should the city front the money for a billionaire or conglomeration of millionaires? It's a business - let the business owners pay the operating costs and recoup them from their customers. If they can't run a successful business why should the tax payers be responsible for covering the costs of their failure?
 
Bottom line:

We don't pay for Nordstrom's new consultation stores do we? You know, the stores that literally have no clothes?

It's their "brick and mortar" business and they pay for their own buildings.

What is different about stadiums? Nothing IMO. They are certainly brick, and certainly mortar, places that you purchase products from.

Build your own store.
 
Last edited:
Billionaires need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and pony up for their own businesses.

When the fuck did we start to swallow this bullshit? It's the whole reason Seattle doesn't have a team.

Clay Bennett could've built his own stadium.
 
dviss1 said:
Billionaires need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and pony up for their own businesses.

When the fuck did we start to swallow this bullshit? It's the whole reason Seattle doesn't have a team.

Clay Bennett could've built his own stadium.
Click to expand...
Whoa whoa whoa. Leave swallowing out of this. That took men a long period of convincing, we don't want to ruin it.
 
Last edited:
dviss1 said:
Billionaires need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and pony up for their own businesses.

When the fuck did we start to swallow this bullshit? It's the whole reason Seattle doesn't have a team.

Clay Bennett could've built his own stadium.
Click to expand...
If you're a billionaire, and you have the opportunity to get someone else to pay for something for you, you take that opportunity whenever possible. One of many reasons they're billionaires, I'm sure.

The reason they can get cities to pay for these stadia is because the citizenry generally wants the team more than the owner wants the specific city. As long as they have the leverage, they're going to use it.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
If you're a billionaire, and you have the opportunity to get someone else to pay for something for you, you take that opportunity whenever possible. One of many reasons they're billionaires, I'm sure.

The reason they can get cities to pay for these stadia is because the citizenry generally wants the team more than the owner wants the specific city. As long as they have the leverage, they're going to use it.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't make it right and that still doesn't mean we have to settle for it. We didn't do that with PA did we?

In 2025 when the RG lease is up do you think he'll try and shake us down for stadium improvements?
 
dviss1 said:
That still doesn't make it right and that still doesn't mean we have to settle for it. We didn't do that with PA?

In 2025 when the RG lease is up do you think he'll try and shake us down for stadium improvements?
Click to expand...
No doubt. That's why I said "as long as they have the leverage". When cities say no, they remove the leverage from the billionaires.
 
When cities say no, they run the risk of losing a team. See what happened to Seattle. See how long LA was without a football team. As long as we have the free market, billionaires will do things that make them billionaires. Cities can say no, but they run the risk of losing their team.
 
Sedatedfork said:
When cities say no, they run the risk of losing a team. See what happened to Seattle. See how long LA was without a football team. As long as we have the free market, billionaires will do things that make them billionaires. Cities can say no, but they run the risk of losing their team.
Click to expand...

All cities should say no. Then what?
 
dviss1 said:
All cities should say no. Then what?
Click to expand...
Then one desperate city will say yes, and get a team they otherwise wouldn't. A lot more likely then everyone standing strong together.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Then one desperate city will say yes, and get a team they otherwise wouldn't. A lot more likely then everyone standing strong together.
Click to expand...

No. The question was:

What if ALL cities say no?

All of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top