DexterDew Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/f...lines-frontpage I came accross this article about how the NFL is using Los Angeles as a bargaining tool with all the other municipalities so that the owners of other teams (and also the NFL) gets the tax payers to foot some or all of new contruction for stadiums. What they are doing to Louisianna and New Orleans is just plain wrong. Sure, they could use a new stadium, but at what cost? All of these cities and states that are running in the red are expected to take money out of the depleated coffers to subsidize millionaires/billionaires already profitible business. "How much is enough?" Unlike the federal government, who can print as much money as they want and still run huge deficits, cities and states have to make tough decisions when it comes to what programs will get cut because there isn't enough money to fund them (here in California, Arnold renegged on his promise of giving the teachers the $2 billion, with a "B", that they were owed this year when the teacher's union deferred the money until 2005 to help the state ballance the budget... which, of course, was "ballanced" with the issuing of billions of dollars of bonds that Arnold called a special election for, that we will be making interest and principle payments on for 30 years! Nice Bookkeeping). The point is coming very soon when the taxpayers will just say "no" to subsidizing owners of pro sports teams. If not, it will just incubate the shrinking of the middle class and the consolidation of wealth to the wealthiest 1%. What I think will happen in LA is that they will get a new franchise (or Al Davis will try and move back) by the end of the decade. There will be a very rich person who will own the team, the stadium and the developemental rights in the immediate area. Of course, a 33 team league is going to creat problems (eleven weeks of having three teams on a bye?), but the NFL will figure something out for the hundreds of millions of dollars that the new owner will write a check for, just to be in the exclusive company of Davis, Snyder, Jones, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 (edited) http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/f...lines-frontpageThe point is coming very soon when the taxpayers will just say "no" to subsidizing owners of pro sports teams. 680181[/snapback] That point has already come in San Diego. It took 8 years, a voter approval, and multiple law suits to get Petco Park built for the Padres. Now the Chargers want a new stadium, but the city is broke. The city could ask for a tax hike, but the voters are unlikely to pass that. Right now the Chargers are trying to float the idea of the city giving them the land for the stadium site and the Bolts developing it to generate revenue for all concerned. The lawyers and politicians will have a field day with all this before it becomes reality. What a mess! Edited February 1, 2005 by Chargerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Hello L.A. Vikings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Same deal here in Indy. The Colts moving to L.A. was used by the local media and ESPN to "scare" everyone. Strangely, Jim Irsay never used L.A. to pressure the city into building the new stadium. He denied he would move the team vehemently. The NFL is definitely using that threat, especially the mandate that there will be a team in L.A. by 2008, to keep the locals willing to fork out the cash. The question is, which city will blink? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Irsay's flirtation with Los Angeles was not subtle; at one point he applied for membership at the Riviera Country Club in Pacific Palisades. In December, he and Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson announced a deal to build a $690-million stadium. Taxpayers, in order to pay back bonds funding the bulk of the project, are expected to contribute $46 million annually for the next 30 years. Whoever wrote that article has not done his research on the Indy part. The media made a big deal out of a few things Irsay did, suggesting a move was imminent. Mortensen even went on ESPN with a completely bogus story about the Colts moving. Throughout it all, Irsay stated over and over that he was not moving. He acknowledged something needed to be done to improve revenue, but stated over and over that his committment was to Indianapolis. As for the taxpayers having to contribute $46 million annually for the next 30 years, that is dead wrong. The agreement calls for that money to come from a pull-tab slot machine parlor in downtown Indy. Although there has been some criticism of this, it is still not clear if the proposal is dead. Regardless, there are several more ideas as to where the money will come from. Nothing has been decided yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordo Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/f...lines-frontpage ... What they are doing to Louisianna and New Orleans is just plain wrong. ... 680181[/snapback] And exactly why is that? http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/f...lines-frontpage ... .... Sure, they could use a new stadium, but at what cost? All of these cities and states that are running in the red are expected to take money out of the depleated coffers to subsidize millionaires/billionaires already profitible business. "How much is enough?" ... 680181[/snapback] The Saints ARE NOT the reason the state of Louisiana is in financial difficulty. In 2002, the team had $402 million economic impact on the city and surrounding area, and helped create and support almost 5,000 jobs. The Bureau of Government Research calculated that the state received over $17 million in tax revenues from the team in 2003. Shall I go on? Save yourself some face and do a little research next time before spewing this same tired old crap. You're as bad as Blanco and her cohorts when it comes to misinfo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Like your Sig by Ken Wells Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Red Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 It was Indy, then St. Louis, then Baltimore, then Houston and now Los Angeles. Eventually these cities that are 'decoys' get a team as their offers eventually become too good to ignore. I believe John Moog (sp?) is in charge of the LA plan to get a team. He was the guy running the Maryland Stadium Authority when the Browns announce their move to Baltimore, so he's got experience and knows what it takes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Irsay's flirtation with Los Angeles was not subtle; at one point he applied for membership at the Riviera Country Club in Pacific Palisades. In December, he and Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson announced a deal to build a $690-million stadium. Taxpayers, in order to pay back bonds funding the bulk of the project, are expected to contribute $46 million annually for the next 30 years. Whoever wrote that article has not done his research on the Indy part. The media made a big deal out of a few things Irsay did, suggesting a move was imminent. Mortensen even went on ESPN with a completely bogus story about the Colts moving. Throughout it all, Irsay stated over and over that he was not moving. He acknowledged something needed to be done to improve revenue, but stated over and over that his committment was to Indianapolis. As for the taxpayers having to contribute $46 million annually for the next 30 years, that is dead wrong. The agreement calls for that money to come from a pull-tab slot machine parlor in downtown Indy. Although there has been some criticism of this, it is still not clear if the proposal is dead. Regardless, there are several more ideas as to where the money will come from. Nothing has been decided yet. 680216[/snapback] Oh yes... Robert Irsay, the man who moved the Colts in the dead of night. Let's take his word for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Oh yes... Robert Irsay, the man who moved the Colts in the dead of night. Let's take his word for it. 680530[/snapback] :cough: ahem :cough: It's Jim Irsay, not Robert. And Jim has been a pretty good guy since taking over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Oh yes... Robert Irsay, the man who moved the Colts in the dead of night. Let's take his word for it. 680530[/snapback] Robert Irsay is dead. He has been for some time. His son owns the team now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Robert Irsay is dead. He has been for some time. His son owns the team now. 680605[/snapback] Like father, like son... OK, I admit I have no basis for my above comment. But it still bugs me that The Colts did that, it's worse than what Al did to Oakland and FAR worse than the BROWNS MOVING TO bLT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Like father, like son...OK, I admit I have no basis for my above comment. But it still bugs me that The Colts did that, it's worse than what Al did to Oakland and FAR worse than the BROWNS MOVING TO bLT. 680617[/snapback] I think it's great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Red Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Like father, like son...OK, I admit I have no basis for my above comment. But it still bugs me that The Colts did that, it's worse than what Al did to Oakland and FAR worse than the BROWNS MOVING TO bLT. 680617[/snapback] Well, it's real easy to hate the old dead fat guy, but he was almost forced to 'sneak' out of town. It was known he was looking to Indy. What most people don't know is that the Maryland General Assembly was planning a vote on claiming eminent domain over the team so that the State could simply take the team from Irsay. Irsay 'snuck' out to avoid being in Maryland if/when this passed. Prior to that he ran a proud franchine into the ground. A perenial playoff team went to perenial doormat overnight under his ownership. That is why everyone hated him well before he left town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Well, it's real easy to hate the old dead fat guy, but he was almost forced to 'sneak' out of town. It was known he was looking to Indy. What most people don't know is that the Maryland General Assembly was planning a vote on claiming eminent domain over the team so that the State could simply take the team from Irsay. Irsay 'snuck' out to avoid being in Maryland if/when this passed. Prior to that he ran a proud franchine into the ground. A perenial playoff team went to perenial doormat overnight under his ownership. That is why everyone hated him well before he left town. 680686[/snapback] and probably why Baltimore tried to take the team from him. But that was a good bit of trivia I did not know about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DexterDew Posted February 1, 2005 Author Share Posted February 1, 2005 That point has already come in San Diego. It took 8 years, a voter approval, and multiple law suits to get Petco Park built for the Padres. Now the Chargers want a new stadium, but the city is broke. The city could ask for a tax hike, but the voters are unlikely to pass that. Right now the Chargers are trying to float the idea of the city giving them the land for the stadium site and the Bolts developing it to generate revenue for all concerned. The lawyers and politicians will have a field day with all this before it becomes reality. What a mess! 680187[/snapback] i remember the saga all too well, i was in the 619/760/858 from '87-'02. i even worked at charger summer camp for three years while they were still training at spanos field at UCSD. so we both know that the ticket deal that spanos got for the unused tickets was a real classic case of using leverage/blackmail... and they still moved their summer camp our of town where are they going to get that much land? are they thinking mission valley by the current stadium, or is there room downtown by the new Petco? i think that san diego is going to have to get it's financial house in order real soon, there are a large number of retirees that are going to expect their pensions. by the by, do they have a mayor, yet, or is it still in the courts? "Kill all the lawyers" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 where are they going to get that much land? are they thinking mission valley by the current stadium, or is there room downtown by the new Petco? by the by, do they have a mayor, yet, or is it still in the courts? "Kill all the lawyers" 681018[/snapback] The Chargers are proposing to use the land where the current stadium stands now. Where they would play for the two years it would take to build a stadium is anybody's guess, but L.A. is the frontrunner I imagine. We have a sworn-in mayor at least until the law suits challenging the result run their course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrond Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 The people of New Orleans will have to decide whether they're better of with the Saints or without them. I think it's going to be close. A sh*thole like Philadelphia you could understand how those people would never let their team get away - the only other thing they have going for them is cheesesteak sandwiches. Yipee. Losing the Eagles would rip out their souls, if they have any. A city like New Orleans, on the other hand, has enough going for it in so many other ways that losing the Saints might not be all that big a deal except to the football fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DexterDew Posted February 1, 2005 Author Share Posted February 1, 2005 And exactly why is that? The Saints ARE NOT the reason the state of Louisiana is in financial difficulty. In 2002, the team had $402 million economic impact on the city and surrounding area, and helped create and support almost 5,000 jobs. The Bureau of Government Research calculated that the state received over $17 million in tax revenues from the team in 2003. Shall I go on? Save yourself some face and do a little research next time before spewing this same tired old crap. You're as bad as Blanco and her cohorts when it comes to misinfo. 680277[/snapback] I understand that the saints aren't the only reason the city and state are in financial peril. The debate is why the state has to pay for the renovations for the Dome, which they own, to the tune of $168 million dollars? If they don't, the team is threatening to leave. That sounds like blackmail. I guess the logic is that if the Saints could generate $400 million in an antiquated stadium, and with a non playoff team, I guess they would generate more money with the renovations and/or a winning team. Or host another Super Bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myhousekey Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 A city like New Orleans, on the other hand, has enough going for it in so many other ways that losing the Saints might not be all that big a deal except to the football fans. 681238[/snapback] So if the Saints leave town do you think the state will continue funding renovations to the Superdome? Lack of a new stadium (or renovations to the existing one) could cause financial losses in other areas. For example, what if "they" decide the Dome is too outdated and don't want to host the Sugar Bowl or a Super Bowl there anymore. Both are big $ items for the city. (And lets not even forget the New Orleans Bowl or the Bayou Classic). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DexterDew Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 So if the Saints leave town do you think the state will continue funding renovations to the Superdome? Lack of a new stadium (or renovations to the existing one) could cause financial losses in other areas. For example, what if "they" decide the Dome is too outdated and don't want to host the Sugar Bowl or a Super Bowl there anymore. Both are big $ items for the city. (And lets not even forget the New Orleans Bowl or the Bayou Classic). 681306[/snapback] I'm afraid that if the Saints leave town, the Superdome would face the same fate as the Astrodome. I completely agree that the Superdome is more than the Saints home, they are the most "important" tenant. The city of New Orleans, and the state of Louisianna are over a barrel on this one. There are not enough monster truck rallies, motor cross events, or arena rock concerts around to provide the necessary stimulus for the regional economy to replace the loss of the 10 or so Saints games (if they should move). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.