Falcons owner wants new stadium to replace decrepit Georgia Dome

Agree whole-heartedly with that. Same goes for college football, too.

 

The "economic benefit" of government-subsidized stadiums has been shredded in study after study. If you want to argue that yokels from places like Jacksonville and Charlotte want to feel "big league" and bend over (sans K-Y) for the NFL and others, I understand it.

Just another reason I love the city of Los Angeles, California. They've told the NFL what they can do with their franchise.

 

Very well-done.

Only three days until A_F pimping Vick again. (Hi BYH! )

Thank God for football!

 

I'm not endorsing cities and states ponying up all the money for a stadium. All I'm saying is they should partner with the team(s) in creating them.

What has happened, I fear, in too many cities is that the teams hold too many dates hostage, eliminating some events from possibly being held there. The fewer events held translates into fewer tax dollars being generated.

 

Big Falcons fan here.

To me, Blank is simply thinking ahead. Retractable roof would be perfect for Atlanta, which has gorgeous 65 degree fall days.

Seeing a game at the Georgia Dome doesn't give me warm fuzzies the way seeing a game "Between the Hedges" does, and I think that has everything to do with indoor-outdoor.

Why couldn't Blank get the Braves, dammit??

 

Here is the money quote from that article:


"That doesn't mean I want the best deal in the NFL by any means. On the other hand, I can't really live with the worst. So we would expect to have a financial structure that would be pretty typical today within the NFL."


Regardless of the money these teams make, *someone* has to have the worst deal in the NFL. It's simple logic, right? And these owners (Indy has used it) say it with a straight face.

Amazing.

 

A couple of points:

1. Starman, you are 100 percent correct. Make them pay for their own facilities. If a city of county or state wants to kick in the infrastructure, I think I'd be OK with that, because that would cost a lot less than the stadium. But funding stadiums for major league teams is nothing less than corporate welfare.

2. Freelance, you are correct about both the tax breaks and the fact that stadiums are, to an extent, multi-use. But when, say, Hyundai decides to open a new U.S. plant in Alabama, the local government does not pay to build the plant. They give a percentage off property taxes, perhaps, and agree to pay for a new off-ramp from the expressway or whatever. You want to do that for an NFL team? Fine. But $600 million for a stadium? No. As for governments ``investing'' in stadiums because of all the money the bring in, please check with any reputable economist. Pretty much all the recent studies show that the return is almost never worth the investment.

3. The Carolina Panthers privately funded their own stadium in Charlotte.

4. Fans are, for the most part, idiots. If Jerry Jones says he needs a new stadium, they'll vote for it, regardless of how poor the deal is for the government and how much it will cost in taxes. Busuncle hit a bull's eye by correctly pointing out that reporters and columnists without fail put on their short skirts and pick up their pom-poms when it comes to a new stadium. The recent campaign for a new Cowboys stadium in Arlington was sickening on so many levels -- having one mid-sized city bear the entire financial brunt of a project that even if you believe will produce significant revenue will do so regionally rather than locally, the fact that Jerry Jones ``donated'' more than $5 million to the campaign while the opposition raised only $50,000 primarily by individuals donating an average of $25 apiece, the misleading information spewed by stadium proponents, etc. -- but the way the local media swallowed all that (and then regurgitated it to the masses) was by far the worst.

5. The idea that ``tourist taxes'' on things like hotel rooms and rental cars don't affect the locals is incorrect. Driving up the cost of travel, especially an increase on the order of the one described in Phoenix, directly affects convention business, which brings more money into the local economy than, say, a football game. How much of a tax increase can a city stand before it starts losing that business and the stadium becomes financially counterproductive?

6. You'd think if the Greeks and Romans built structures that lasted thousands of years, a modern stadium would last more than 30.

That's all for now. Don't make me come back in there.

 

These quotes are mind-boggling:

"What I've done is just obviously dig into my own estate" to pay players, Blank added. "That's fine, short-term."

Okay, some quick math:

Revenue: $170 million
Player expenses: ($119 million (per article, 70% of revenue.. the cap is about $102 million, so I don't know where the disparity lies.. I thought the NFL had a hard cap)

Does he have $51 million in other expenses?

These guys are un-fucking-real.

 

Where would the Falcons go?

Portland? No stadium, and there's no way taxpayer money will be used to build one.

San Antonio? They have a stadium, but every franchise that wants a better deal uses SA as its option. They can't all go there.

Orlando? Do the Bucs and Dolphins let a third team in the state?

Los Angeles? Georgia Dome is already better than the Coliseum, and there's really no demand to bring the NFL back.

So what's left? Fargo? Raleigh-Durham? Oklahoma City?

 

And while you're at it, then, no tax breaks for arts organizations, hospitals, universities and churches. If you're up for that, fine. Otherwise, pro sports in a community benefits a great number of people -- probably more than are benefited by the local public TV station.

 

I think Detroit would support an NFL team

 

Cleveland's in the market for an NFL team. And they've got a nice stadium already.