- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hornets Tax Exempt failed to clear the House...
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:26 am to TortiousTiger
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:26 am to TortiousTiger
quote:
they can't make that promise.
Bully pulpit.
0
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:27 am to Jester
quote:
Without the deals, you get not All Star game. That's the point.
the same deal that no other state does?
This post was edited on 4/27/12 at 11:28 am
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:28 am to TortiousTiger
Other NBA teams receive state subsidies, in one form or another.
This post was edited on 4/27/12 at 11:29 am
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:29 am to TortiousTiger
quote:
the same deal that no other state does?
We're not talking about other states. Like someone else stated previously, they may not structure their incentives in the same way, but they provide incentives.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:29 am to Jester
quote:
You have pushed me from somewhat agreeing with you to thinking you are just argumentative.
His name is Tortious Tiger
quote:
Being against these subsidies would the same as being against the state tourism department having a marketing budget.
That is an extremely unfair, and arguably biased, way of looking at it.
I don't think it's unfair, if the logical justification for this expense is tourism marketing, why shouldn't it be considered in that context? I have no problem with people disagreeing with the level of benefit, I'd love to see more concrete numbers myself. But I've been down this road before arguing over the benefit of the Saints. It's almost like arguing over Evolution.
This post was edited on 4/27/12 at 11:30 am
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:30 am to TortiousTiger
quote:
TortiousTiger
Whatever. It will get done.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:31 am to Jester
we're getting circular now.
if they want to insinuate that this is somehow tied to the lease or to the all-star game, that's fine, but there is no evidence of that.
the market value for a stadium lease is pretty easy for someone to figure out, so i dont know why we need some magical subsidy in the magical amount of 3-4 million dollars a year to sweeten a deal that is already done.
peace.
if they want to insinuate that this is somehow tied to the lease or to the all-star game, that's fine, but there is no evidence of that.
the market value for a stadium lease is pretty easy for someone to figure out, so i dont know why we need some magical subsidy in the magical amount of 3-4 million dollars a year to sweeten a deal that is already done.
peace.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:32 am to TigerinATL
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:37 am to TigerinATL
quote:
His name is Tortious Tiger
Well, if he's a lawyer, he's a bad one.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:38 am to TigerinATL
quote:
I don't think it's unfair, if the logical justification for this expense is tourism marketing, why shouldn't it be considered in that context? I have no problem with people disagreeing with the level of benefit, I'd love to see more concrete numbers myself. But I've been down this road before arguing over the benefit of the Saints. It's almost like arguing over Evolution.
It's apples and oranges, though.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:41 am to Jester
quote:
Well, if he's a lawyer, he's a bad one
hard to counter arguments that have no correlation to actual facts.
you've made up your mind. somehow, tom benson needs this 3-4 million dollars, or he is taking his all-star game and NBA team to be the San Antonio DOS SPURS.
facts be damned.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:42 am to TortiousTiger
quote:
we're getting circular now.
Maybe if you'd refute facts instead of doing nothing but saying "nah uh" the argument could progress. Repeating that the subsidy is $3 - $4 million every post is not he same as using facts to support your argument.
quote:
if they want to insinuate that this is somehow tied to the lease or to the all-star game, that's fine, but there is no evidence of that.
I see no evidence that you know anything about the Hornets ownership situation outside of this piece of legislation. So you're saying there is no evidence that this is all interrelated? Jindal and Landrieu having a public arse kissing session with Benson and Stern doesn't tell you anything about how interrelated all these events are?
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:42 am to TortiousTiger
quote:
you've made up your mind. somehow, tom benson needs this 3-4 million dollars, or he is taking his all-star game and NBA team to be the San Antonio DOS SPURS.
It's the NBA's allstar game actually. They can play it wherever they please and that city will realize substantial economic benefit.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:49 am to TortiousTiger
quote:
we do we get for this 3-4 million dollars?
(spoiler alert: nothing)
Tax revenue from players on the team
Jobs and revenue from jobs created by team / resulting from team (down to the owners of Walk-Ons, etc)
At least one more NBA All Star game (let's be honest probably 2)
National exposure during Hornets games (especially playoff games in the future)
It's a no brainer. People who are against this are anti-capitalist basically. The film subsidies are more controversial than this.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:50 am to TigerinATL
quote:
Maybe if you'd refute facts
what facts?
the fact that the hornets bring in 100 million in tourism dollars? who cares? who cares if they bring in a trillion dollars?
what impact does that on the situation? The state subsidy isn't correlated to any of it.
quote:
I see no evidence that you know anything about the Hornets ownership situation outside of this piece of legislation.
and i dont claim to.
quote:
So you're saying there is no evidence that this is all interrelated?
what evidence?
the ownership deal is DONE.
the only issue is supposedly the lease deal (which I also do not claim to have any specialized knowledge of).
if this 3.7 million dollars a year is supposedly tied to it, why in the frick does it need it's own legislation?
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:50 am to TortiousTiger
quote:
with this shitty reasoning, let's just give them the $100 million.
Dude we spent like $120 million to build the Arena for the sole purpose of one day attracting an NBA team.
We were so fortunate to get the team. Why the frick would we let the team walk over a measly $3 million a year which will be MORE than offset by taxes, advertising, jobs, etc.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:51 am to MinnesotaTiger
quote:
The film subsidies are more controversial than this.
the film industry would not be here without the subsidy.
is the same true for the hornets? of course not.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:52 am to TortiousTiger
quote:
once again, there are NO OTHER STATES paying subsides like this.
There are no other states that have two major league sports franchises playing in a city with a population smaller than 400,000.
There are no other states (other than California where the film industry is located) who have as many films being shot in it than Louisiana.
We still have a state income tax unlike many southern states. We aren't THAT willy-nilly with tax funds, bro.
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:53 am to MinnesotaTiger
quote:
Why the frick would we let the team walk over a measly $3 million a year which will be MORE than offset by taxes, advertising, jobs, etc.
if the team were actually in danger of walking and this 3.7 million dollars a year would be the situation, I might agree with you.
but those are not the facts.
This post was edited on 4/27/12 at 11:57 am
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:53 am to TortiousTiger
Let's connect parts of your post...
"The state subsidy isn't correlated to any of it."
"the only issue is the lease deal (which I also do not claim to have any specialized knowledge of"
VOILA, MAGIC,
"The state subsidy isn't correlated to any of it."
"the only issue is the lease deal (which I also do not claim to have any specialized knowledge of"
VOILA, MAGIC,
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News