PleaseBlitz Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Llevron said: Skins will be looking at moving next. Watch. The fans already hate him and he clearly doesn't give a **** about them either. God, please let that be true. It's the only way we're getting rid of Snyder. DC would have a new team within a year given the regions population and economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 24 minutes ago, Llevron said: Skins will be looking at moving next. Watch. The fans already hate him and he clearly doesn't give a **** about them either. You say that. But let the fans actually get it together and get mad. His only recourse will be to move. Honestly see him waiting 5 years and moving to Oakland once they have learned their lesson. And then 5 years later they will cycle another team in here. Rinse and repeat. The Redskins will never leave the DC/DMV area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 On 3/30/2017 at 9:33 AM, Busch1724 said: Why taxpayer funded stadiums and related projects should be considered acts of crime! They should ALL be privately financed. http://deadspin.com/oakland-taxpayers-will-still-be-on-the-hook-for-163-mi-1793801493 Wow. Oakland really got ****ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 On 3/30/2017 at 0:08 PM, Sticksboi05 said: Gotta respect Abe Pollin. Built MCI Center out of his own pockets for $200M. DC has actually been pretty lucky on the stadium front. That's probably all going to change in the next decade. I can almost justify a city investment in an arena. It's a legitimate anchor for a neighborhood in that it can bring 10,000+ people to that neighborhood over 200 times a year. (Any talk about it being an economic engine for a city or region is foolish of course). It's honestly hard for me to fathom a worse investment for a city than a football stadium. A massive footprint. Massive infrastructure. Massive upkeep. And if you are lucky, it's used 25 times a year. And they are typically on some kind of island of parking lots and highway interchanges. Is there a single restaurant that benefits from FedEx Field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 On 3/31/2017 at 9:50 AM, Llevron said: Skins will be looking at moving next. Watch. The fans already hate him and he clearly doesn't give a **** about them either. You say that. But let the fans actually get it together and get mad. His only recourse will be to move. Honestly see him waiting 5 years and moving to Oakland once they have learned their lesson. And then 5 years later they will cycle another team in here. Rinse and repeat. There are too many governments here that would get into a bidding war for the Skins. And the Skins are far too profitable to leave this market. Snyder has the second most valuable franchise because 1) he owns the stadium and 2) he has corporate partners coming out of his ears. Unless, he can convince the league to put him in New York, he's not finding #2 anywhere else. Snyder is ultimately going to want his version of Jerry World, and - if I had to guess - he's going to want to own it outright like Jerry does. But he ain't going to be buying the land and he's not building the infrastructure. That's where DC is going to come into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 5 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said: DC has actually been pretty lucky on the stadium front. That's probably all going to change in the next decade. I can almost justify a city investment in an arena. It's a legitimate anchor for a neighborhood in that it can bring 10,000+ people to that neighborhood over 200 times a year. (Any talk about it being an economic engine for a city or region is foolish of course). It's honestly hard for me to fathom a worse investment for a city than a football stadium. A massive footprint. Massive infrastructure. Massive upkeep. And if you are lucky, it's used 25 times a year. And they are typically on some kind of island of parking lots and highway interchanges. Is there a single restaurant that benefits from FedEx Field? Yup it's a city-version of getting the Olympics. A complete waste of $$$. At some point, cities will stop trying to get the Olympics and it'll be held in a neutral site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 I'm as against publicly funded (football) stadiums as anyone, but I don't see why people are hating the NFL for this. They have one city that is not interested in financially incentivizing them to stay, and one city that is VERY financially invested in luring them away. That seems like a no brainer to me. I'd do it in a heartbeat. The argument is that they shouldn't do it because they owe the people of Oakland something? They don't owe them ****. Those people have paid whatever they have paid for whatsoever product they've received. If I can do business in a new city for half the cost that I can do it where I am now, why shouldn't I move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Well it'd be nice if there was federal legislation preventing public monies going to privately funded business ventures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Sticksboi05 said: Yup it's a city-version of getting the Olympics. A complete waste of $$$. At some point, cities will stop trying to get the Olympics and it'll be held in a neutral site. I don't see that happening. 6 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said: Snyder is ultimately going to want his version of Jerry World, and - if I had to guess - he's going to want to own it outright like Jerry does. But he ain't going to be buying the land and he's not building the infrastructure. That's where DC is going to come into play. If he wants his version of Jerry World, it needs to look better than the rendering we saw last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 52 minutes ago, Vilandil Tasardur said: I'm as against publicly funded (football) stadiums as anyone, but I don't see why people are hating the NFL for this. They have one city that is not interested in financially incentivizing them to stay, and one city that is VERY financially invested in luring them away. That seems like a no brainer to me. I'd do it in a heartbeat. The argument is that they shouldn't do it because they owe the people of Oakland something? They don't owe them ****. Those people have paid whatever they have paid for whatsoever product they've received. If I can do business in a new city for half the cost that I can do it where I am now, why shouldn't I move? Well the NFL isn't at fault, it's general corporate greed. Yes, we get that business-wise it makes 100% sense to move, but maybe just once in a while, being decent can be prioritized over the bottom line. Mark Davis could've compromised with the city and paid for half and then maybe asked for some other incentives and still gone to sleep as one of the richest people on the planet. I will say though, Oakland's attendance numbers were overstated so they may be super iconic because of the 70s and 80s, but the fan support wasn't showing in attendance–granted I wouldn't want to go and end up being in a fight with some drunken idiot but nevertheless. Guess we were just spoiled getting MCI Center in downtown D.C. on the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 40 minutes ago, Busch1724 said: Well it'd be nice if there was federal legislation preventing public monies going to privately funded business ventures. Why? States and local municipalities make all sorts of financial deals to entice companies into the area. I guess Nanny Fed should stop that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, Sticksboi05 said: Well the NFL isn't at fault, it's general corporate greed. Yes, we get that business-wise it makes 100% sense to move, but maybe just once in a while, being decent can be prioritized over the bottom line. Mark Davis could've compromised with the city and paid for half and then maybe asked for some other incentives and still gone to sleep as one of the richest people on the planet. I will say though, Oakland's attendance numbers were overstated so they may be super iconic because of the 70s and 80s, but the fan support wasn't showing in attendance–granted I wouldn't want to go and end up being in a fight with some drunken idiot but nevertheless. Guess we were just spoiled getting MCI Center in downtown D.C. on the house. Why should Mark Davis voluntarily cut his income for a fanbase that simply doesn't support his product? And in the 70's and 80's the team was in LA...i.e. NOT OAKLAND. The only team fully embraced in the Bay Area is the 49ers. I just don't get the whole "corporate geed" narrative. An NFL franchise is a business in a hundred billion dollar industry, you don't succeed in that industry if your business model consists of slitting your own throat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Pretty sure they were called the Oakland Raiders in the 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Why should Mark Davis voluntarily cut his income for a fanbase that simply doesn't support his product? And in the 70's and 80's the team was in LA...i.e. NOT OAKLAND. The only team fully embraced in the Bay Area is the 49ers. I just don't get the whole "corporate geed" narrative. An NFL franchise is a business in a hundred billion dollar industry, you don't succeed in that industry if your business model consists of slitting your own throat. This. Wanting companies to "do right" by their employees? Sure I can see that. But by their consumers? Meh. You pay for their product. You aren't "losing" anything unless you're a season ticket holder. And if you are, well, sorry, there weren't enough of you compared to a different market. If Ford wants to move their plant to Cincinnati because they're willing to offer them a deal, we can talk about ramifications to their employees, families, etc. But to sit around and pretend that "the people of Michigan" deserve to "retain the legacy of such a storied corporation" would be preposterous. For good reason. And Mark Davis isn't just making his own decision here. The NFL has revenue sharing. 31 other owners stand to profit by making the best decision. He bears, at least in part, a responsibility to make the best decision for all of them (and it's literally Roger Goodell's job to convince him to do so). And it's just bad business to operate in a dump like Oakland. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Why? States and local municipalities make all sorts of financial deals to entice companies into the area. I guess Nanny Fed should stop that too? It's idiotic no matter what the company. It's just dumber for pro sports franchises because it's much harder to make the case that they bring any real jobs or economic growth. There are all sorts of reasons why spending through the tax code is lunacy but perhaps the biggest reason is that it's an endless race to the bottom in which the taxpayer loses and corporations, in this case wealthy sports team owners are the only winners. There is zero difference between the welfare government gives to an individual and that it gives to corporations. Well, no difference except that the former is explicit while the latter, typically done via tax breaks is much less obvious. Either way, it's welfare no matter how you slice it and it usually doesn't really "create" new jobs, but rather steals them from another state. So yeah, I'd like to see it abolished across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Ok....so answer me this; if public funds is such a horrible idea as many are want to claim then why do cities do it over and over and over and over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Is it possible for it to be both a bad deal AND something that the people want anyway? The city of Pittsburgh comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Ok....so answer me this; if public funds is such a horrible idea as many are want to claim then why do cities do it over and over and over and over again? Because most cities want an NFL team. It's entertainment. It's the one thing that can bring an entire city together. Look at a city like Buffalo. What would it be without the Bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, DM72 said: Because most cities want an NFL team. It's entertainment. It's the one thing that can bring an entire city together. Look at a city like Buffalo. What would it be without the Bills? Snowy But that's the point, cities want them. The people want an NFL franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Snowy But that's the point, cities want them. The people want an NFL franchise. But what people are saying, why should public funds be used to build these stadiums when the owners are rich enough to do it themselves? Yeah, we get to have an NFL team, but we'll never see a financial return on our investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 1 minute ago, DM72 said: But what people are saying, why should public funds be used to build these stadiums when the owners are rich enough to do it themselves? Yeah, we get to have an NFL team, but we'll never see a financial return on our investment. But that's not how business works. Owners *could* build their own stadiums. But there is one team up for grabs and several cities want them. So you have to sweeten the deal. Buffalo or Cleveland will never see the ROI, so it's a "bad deal". But it's worth it to the locals. Without the teams, those cities are devoid of any identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 1 hour ago, DM72 said: But what people are saying, why should public funds be used to build these stadiums when the owners are rich enough to do it themselves? Yeah, we get to have an NFL team, but we'll never see a financial return on our investment. Free market, supply and demand. I think the mistake is thinking of it like a return on investment. When you go to a sporting event do you expect a financial ROI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Vilandil Tasardur said: Buffalo or Cleveland will never see the ROI, so it's a "bad deal". But it's worth it to the locals. Without the teams, those cities are devoid of any identity. It's stilly to me for people to think of a city identified by men playing children's games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 22 minutes ago, Springfield said: It's stilly to me for people to think of a city identified by men playing children's games. What should they identify with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 On 3/31/2017 at 10:50 AM, Llevron said: Skins will be looking at moving next. Watch. The fans already hate him and he clearly doesn't give a **** about them either. You say that. But let the fans actually get it together and get mad. His only recourse will be to move. Honestly see him waiting 5 years and moving to Oakland once they have learned their lesson. And then 5 years later they will cycle another team in here. Rinse and repeat. The Redskins will never move. The name will be changed before this franchise moves from this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.