NYT: The N.F.L. and the Business of Ripping Out the Heart of Oakland

[Sticksboi05]

3 hours 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?

 

What is this proving? Tons of stupid things are repeated by people on a daily basis, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

42 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

It's stilly to me for people to think of a city identified by men playing children's games.

 

Are you referring to Congress and D.C?

[Sticksboi05]

I don't think Mark Davis wanting to move is evil or unprecedented, but man some of you guys seem like you shake your head when companies get sued for knowingly letting chemicals into kids toys.

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

9 minutes ago, Sticksboi05 said:

 

What is this proving? Tons of stupid things are repeated by people on a daily basis, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Why is it stupid?

Does it not add value, and prestige to a city? Does it not add a sense of community? Does it not provide recreation and tourism value? 

There is no doubt that having a football team can being a city many intangibles, which is EXACTLY why Oakland wanted the Raiders to stay. It's why the article in the OP talks about the NFL ripping the heart out of Oakland. A heart is worth something, but for Oakland just not something worth paying fof or supporting.

5 minutes ago, Sticksboi05 said:

I don't think Mark Davis wanting to move is evil or unprecedented, but man some of you guys seem like you shake your head when companies get sued for knowingly letting chemicals into kids toys.

 

 

Did you even know you were jumping that shark when you started typing or did it just kinda happen?

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

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?

I don't think the free market really applies to either government spending or to an organization exempted from anti-trust laws.

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

I don't think the free market really applies to either government spending or to an organization exempted from anti-trust laws.

Sure it does, the law of supply and demand absolutely applies here; there are only a few NFL team, and fewer yet teams that are up for relocation, there are lots of cities that will pay to get one. The franchise IS the commodity. Which is why there are cities that are willing to spend to attract an NFL franchise because know what a team can bring to a city.

 

Supply: 1 team

Demand: lots of cities.

Result: someone is going to be willing to pay.

[No Excuses]

I mean what do cities and counties, already strapped for cash, have to lose right? All those at-risk kids displaced from their schools in Clark County, NV now have a shiny new football team to keep them distracted!!

 

I love that our priorities are completely straight in America and we don't question the morality of billionaire owners not having to spend dick to get their shiny for-profit toys built for them.

[No Excuses]

8 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

What should they identify with?

 

I don't know. Maybe infrastructure, investments into good public education, revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods. Things that actually increase the value and prestige of cities, making them attractive to both locals and outsiders.

 

But of course, when I travel to thriving cities like Toronto and Portland, I keep telling myself. "These places, despite their great public amenities, are total dumps because they lack the soul of a football team".

[AsburySkinsFan]

26 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I don't know. Maybe infrastructure, investments into good public education, revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods. Things that actually increase the value and prestige of cities, making them attractive to both locals and outsiders.

 

But of course, when I travel to thriving cities like Toronto and Portland, I keep telling myself. "These places, despite their great public amenities, are total dumps because they lack the soul of a football team".

Yes because people rally around infrastructure!

Oddly enough BOTH of the cities you cited have professional sports teams that are heavily identified with the city.

[No Excuses]

58 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yes because people rally around infrastructure!

Oddly enough BOTH of the cities you cited have professional sports teams that are heavily identified with the city.

 

LKB already covered this, but there are legitimate arguments to be made for cities to think about adding arenas. In Toronto, the baseball stadium and basketball/hockey arena are right in the middle of the entertainment district. They host events/games throughout the year, and support tons of local busineses. Same applies to DC in some respects. I think Nats Park was key in revitalizing Navy Yard, but even a decade into it, Navy Yard isn't some fantastic neighborhood yet and is quite lacking in lots of things that are essential for making a good city neighborhood.

 

There is legitimately no sound argument for heavy investments into a football stadium by a city when it will be used for barely a fraction of the year. It's literally a plot of land that exists for the sole purpose of entertaining people a few times a year. 

 

Do I think much value is being added in Las Vegas through public funding of a stadium, when schools are being shut down and students are being put in worse situations? No. Absolutely ****ing not.

 

No one living in a big city gives more of a **** about a football team than being able to get to work on time and having access to good public amenities. And for what it's worth, as cities become more and more liberal, with social circles in which football isn't that popular, you probably won't see this kind of crap happening too often.

[The Sisko]

10 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

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?

The model of pandering to sports teams or any employer to relocate to your area is fraught with problems that disadvantage the taxpayers. You know, the people that actually pay the bills and expect public services in return. Remember them?

 

First, it's inevitable that it becomes a race to the bottom...

State A "So State B offered you no property taxes for 10 years to stay? We'll do 20 years, plus throw in roads and other infrastructure."

State B "They offered what? We'll match that and give you 1 million in cash every year."

State A "We'll see their million plus another million." etc....

 

Second, most of these agreements can be severed in one way or another, leaving the community with an empty monstrosity with no real use outside of football games to go along with their empty coffers. Ditto that for big box stores and other employers. But if it's so bad and the taxpayers want it, why shouldn't business be allowed to fleece them? Again, there's the exception to anti-trust law in making them legal monopolies which aside from other benefits, gives them more leverage than the typical business. So it's a bad idea in general, but for sports teams, it's a bad idea on steroids.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

9 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Why is it stupid?

Does it not add value, and prestige to a city? Does it not add a sense of community? Does it not provide recreation and tourism value? 

There is no doubt that having a football team can being a city many intangibles, which is EXACTLY why Oakland wanted the Raiders to stay. It's why the article in the OP talks about the NFL ripping the heart out of Oakland. A heart is worth something, but for Oakland just not something worth paying fof or supporting.

Did you even know you were jumping that shark when you started typing or did it just kinda happen?

 

It is stupid because it takes limited government funds and just ****ing hands them over to a billionaire as opposed to spending them on things like schools, police, and roads. Seriously, read about Hamilton County one day. The Bengals' stadium deal is a cancer there.

 

Does it add value and prestige? Maybe Debatable. Probably not. Oakland is experience a boom thanks to spillover from San Francisco. Oddly, when the Raiders and A's were dominant in the 70s, Oakland was one of the last desirable zip codes in the country.

 

Does it add a sense of community? Not really. Nearly every study shows that cities spend money on stadiums that are largely used by wealthier suburbanites who are not on the hook for the taxes imposed. Cities are asking their citizens to subsidize the entertainment of suburbanites.

 

Does it not provide recreation and tourism value?  Absolutely not. Every economic study on this shows that the same amount of entertainment dollars are spent regardless of whether a sports team is there or not. If the Bills were gone, people in Buffalo would go to more movies or pro wrestling or Monster Truck Shows.

 

Oakland's destiny is not tied to the Raiders. It is tied to the continued existence of Silicon Valley millionaires pricing out everyone in San Francisco. If that continues, Oakland's future is far brighter than nearly any city in the country as it essentially becomes the spillover zone for middle class and upper middle class people who want to live in a city in the Bay Area but have no hope of affording Predicto-land.

 

In all seriousness, San Francisco no longer really has an NFL franchise. The 49ers play on the other side of the moon. Is that impacting the City?

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yes because people rally around infrastructure!

Oddly enough BOTH of the cities you cited have professional sports teams that are heavily identified with the city.

 

People rally around what they rally around. Generally, it's an image that the citizens create. Sports teams should be the spice in a city. If it's the central point of identification, that city is probably dying.

 

In my industry (healthcare), all eyes are turned to one city, and it's going to blow your mind when I tell you what one it is.

 

Are you ready?

 

You are really going to think I'm nuts....

 

Anyway....

 

It's Nashville. And Nashville has freaking embraced that image as the US Capital of Healthcare. No one is opening satellite offices there or  planning conventions there because of the freaking Titans. (Is that where the Titans play? It just occurred to me that I don't actually know if they do or not).

 

[Kosher Ham]

Titans play in Nashville...kind of. They are across the river from downtown. Panthers however do play downtown...barely. That area is hit or miss within blocks like any city. Some businesses have been impacted others were not there anyway when they built the place. 

Parking garages make a killing, restaurants are busier when they have games, hotels certainly clean up. 

The community on one side is doing great, the other side...about the same. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The general impression I get is that when failing cities lose sports franchises - it's a crushing psychic blow whatever that ultimately means. See Cleveland with the Browns. Or Baltimore. Or Buffalo....are the Bills still leaving? I lost the plot there.

 

LA doesn't seem to care if there's 1 or 2 or 0 NFL teams within its confines (whatever those are) at any point.

 

Oakland is technically losing the Warriors is 2019. Is that ripping out the city's heart?

 

Where is the heart of the NY Giants? New York or Seacacus?

 

[The Sisko]

17 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Where is the heart of the NY Giants? New York or Seacacus?

 

 

I'd say on the opposite bank of the river Styx, but that's just me. 

[Gamebreaker]

3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yes because people rally around infrastructure!

Oddly enough BOTH of the cities you cited have professional sports teams that are heavily identified with the city.

 

But not massive, expensive football stadiums that the owners didn't pay for, but the citizens did. Your argument does not explain why the citizens should foot the bill on a stadium with little to no pay-off. A great example of this is difference between what FedEX Field has done for Landover, MD (Answer: not a damn thing), and what Verizon Center has done for Chinatown in D.C.(Answer: a whole lot). 

[mcsluggo]

4 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Sure it does, the law of supply and demand absolutely applies here; there are only a few NFL team, and fewer yet teams that are up for relocation, there are lots of cities that will pay to get one. The franchise IS the commodity. Which is why there are cities that are willing to spend to attract an NFL franchise because know what a team can bring to a city.

 

Supply: 1 team

Demand: lots of cities.

Result: someone is going to be willing to pay.

 

i dont think you understand what the term free market means

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

But not massive, expensive football stadiums that the owners didn't pay for, but the citizens did. Your argument does not explain why the citizens should foot the bill on a stadium with little to no pay-off. A great example of this is difference between what FedEX Field has done for Landover, MD (Answer: not a damn thing), and what Verizon Center has done for Chinatown in D.C.(Answer: a whole lot). 

 

Verizon Center is fascinating because of it's private dollars though. I would argue that the city building a Verizon Center is largely a choosing of winners and losers: This neighborhood gets a shot in the arm; this one does not.

1 minute ago, mcsluggo said:

 

i dont think you understand what the term free market means

 

I also don't think he really understands how a professional league operates. Cities aren't bidding to buy these teams. They are bidding to spend oodles of taxpayer money for the honor of being "major league."

 

I do like to think we are at the saturation point, but who knows? The saga of the stadiums in Atlanta and the Rangers' stadium is Arlington is just depressing.

[No Excuses]

DC isn't immune to waste of tax payer money on ****ty sports projects. Ted Leonsis is getting the government to pick up the tab for a $55 million gym. 

 

DC United is getting a brand new stadium by Waterfront. The DC government picked up the tab for about $200 million of this. Just an insane thing to do for a team that doesn't even turn a profit itself.

 

Dan Snyder is going to fleece this city when he gets his DC relocation.

 

I really wish these things were put to a public referendum.

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

 

i dont think you understand what the term free market means

I don't think you understand what's for sale or how it's bought.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

28 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I don't think you understand what's for sale or how it's bought.

 

What is for sale?

 

In all honesty, explain to me whtat Arlington, TX is buying by spending hundreds of millions on a new stadium for the Rangers - right next to the gorgeous 20 year old stadium for the Rangers.

[AsburySkinsFan]

9 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

What is for sale?

 

In all honesty, explain to me whtat Arlington, TX is buying by spending hundreds of millions on a new stadium for the Rangers - right next to the gorgeous 20 year old stadium for the Rangers.

The rights to have the team located in your city. Or they could not and let another city claim them.

[mcsluggo]

a "market" that actively, collusively and jealously forbids new entrants, lobbies extensively (and successfully) for immunity from antitrust scrutiny,  and as a result operates as an exclusive but unregulated monopoly ...   meets NONE of the requirements that are outlined for a "free market".  it looks much more like the "market" for electricity in 1950s Warsaw, than the market for toothpaste in 20-teens USA.   

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

The rights to have the team located in your city. Or they could not and let another city claim them.

 

They should.

 

As we've repeatedly discussed, having a team located in your city has zero economic impact. With the deals, these municipalities cut, the teams are actually have a negative impact on the cities.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/cincinnati-s-worst-stadium-deal-ever-seeks-lower-borrowing-costs

 

Nearly 10 percent of Hamilton County's outlays per year are to make Mike Brown richer. They are unable to cut property taxes because of this albatross. They can't fund schools.

 

But they have pride, I guess.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

6 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

They should.

Maybe they should, but then, why are we sitting here crying about the NFL "ripping out their heart"?

 

Seems to me like they don't see the team as a smart investment, and they're willing to let them walk. Another city DOES want them, so the team is willing to.move rather than stay for a worse deal.

 

Seems like a win-win for both. Team gets the best deal they can, Oakland saves themselves from making a bad deal. Maybe it's a loss for Vegas, who may be entering into a bad deal, but that's their prerogative. 

 

Edit: I think sports cars are over priced. I'd never drop 40+k on a vehicle when a 22k vehicle can get me to and from work just fine. If everyone thought the way I did, no one would sell those cars. But not everyone does. Some people want the sports car, damn the cost. All the power to them. I won't make what I perceive to be a bad deal, but I won't begrudge the dealer for finding someone who will, nor will I project that it's an equally bad deal for someone who may love driving a sports car.