- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Sports Teams Tax Subsidies
Posted on 9/10/20 at 9:48 am to Barstools
Posted on 9/10/20 at 9:48 am to Barstools
quote:
So you're literally saying St. Louis is better off without the Rams?
Got it, now I know not to take anything you say seriously.
I would say no doubt, everyone knew it at the time as well. (I lived across the river at the time, it was no secret and why they are not there today)
Huge money loss for St. Louis, and that's just on the leasing terms, let alone all the other costs that aren't factored in.
Rams made out on the deal, at least St. Louis stopped the bleeding. At best its cronyism.... most of it is just taxpayers subsidizing millionaire and billionaires.
This post was edited on 9/10/20 at 9:51 am
0
Posted on 9/10/20 at 9:48 am to Mo Jeaux
Ok so to bring a little sanity to the argument, I wanted to point out, not a single person has shown the numbers. The uga guy did the most, the articles posted by others are nothing more than opinion pieces.
I would really like to see a true economic impact study before making a decision either way.
I will say the libertarian in me says don't support any of this or any government funding of business or any form of government picking winners.
The realist in me says those fricks in baton rouge wouldn't lower taxes even if they weren't spending it on the dome or smoothie king center. Rather It be spent there than on some other bullshite item.
I would really like to see a true economic impact study before making a decision either way.
I will say the libertarian in me says don't support any of this or any government funding of business or any form of government picking winners.
The realist in me says those fricks in baton rouge wouldn't lower taxes even if they weren't spending it on the dome or smoothie king center. Rather It be spent there than on some other bullshite item.
Posted on 9/10/20 at 9:50 am to Mo Jeaux
yes, it actually is. Look at the rams, the chargers, the raiders and then even the teams that moved to the suburbs when the cities didn't give them stadiums.
It quite literally is the alternative. Either help the team or lose them to another city/ state. It's happened like 5 times this past year or 2. On what planet do you live?
It quite literally is the alternative. Either help the team or lose them to another city/ state. It's happened like 5 times this past year or 2. On what planet do you live?
This post was edited on 9/10/20 at 9:52 am
Posted on 9/10/20 at 9:52 am to Barstools
quote:
So you're literally saying St. Louis is better off without the Rams?
Got it, now I know not to take anything you say seriously
Why would you make such a claim, as if you somehow KNOW the answer?
Based on economic and other factors (some tangible, some intangible), St. Louis is EITHER better OR worse off without the Rams in town. I actually DON'T know the answer, but I would be willing to hear both sides of the argument.
You are fully dismissing the other opinion, even if facts were to back it up.
Posted on 9/10/20 at 9:55 am to Barstools
quote:
They collect taxes and use them invest and make more money or to use on social programs. I mean, do y"all really not know how these things work?
Probably better than you do... Most are not getting a return on their investment and it is a constant investment for them or the team threatens to move...
Posted on 9/10/20 at 9:56 am to JPinLondon
quote:
Why would you make such a claim, as if you somehow KNOW the answer?
Based on economic and other factors (some tangible, some intangible), St. Louis is EITHER better OR worse off without the Rams in town. I actually DON'T know the answer, but I would be willing to hear both sides of the argument.
You are fully dismissing the other opinion, even if facts were to back it up.
The St. Louis deal was basically a city/state taxpayer give away, which is why they're not there today. Everyone wants a billion dollar stadium that is only 10 years old that is funded by the taxpayer with no way of recouping even a single digit negative return.
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:00 am to The Maj
quote:
Probably better than you do... Most are not getting a return on their investment and it is a constant investment for them or the team threatens to move...
I was talking about governments in general. He was saying governments shouldn't take money and invest it at their will. I merely pointed out that's what governments do.
Try reading the posts again. Thanks.
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:07 am to Barstools
Something to chew on in regards to the Saints, the state-owned Dome:
Dome and Smoothie King Ctr 2017 Audited FS
Pertaining to an "economic impact statement", that's what is lacking, or I can't find it, concerning the Super Dome etc. My instinct tells me if the Dome and other State-owned boondoggles were economic juggernauts we would be inundated with the good news.
The only reports I see are the articles selling the initial deals/renewals of existing deals, etc., and there never seems to be a follow up report on rate of return, etc.
Dome and Smoothie King Ctr 2017 Audited FS
Pertaining to an "economic impact statement", that's what is lacking, or I can't find it, concerning the Super Dome etc. My instinct tells me if the Dome and other State-owned boondoggles were economic juggernauts we would be inundated with the good news.
The only reports I see are the articles selling the initial deals/renewals of existing deals, etc., and there never seems to be a follow up report on rate of return, etc.
This post was edited on 9/10/20 at 10:08 am
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:07 am to Barstools
You’re obviously far too intelligent to waste your time with us simpletons so why don’t you take that big brain to a liberal site where you’re more appreciated
This post was edited on 9/10/20 at 10:13 am
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:09 am to Barstools
quote:Yeah and govts are so great and efficient at investing.
I was talking about governments in general. He was saying governments shouldn't take money and invest it at their will. I merely pointed out that's what governments do.
This post was edited on 9/10/20 at 10:09 am
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:09 am to Barstools
quote:
I'm gonna get pretty far out here on a limb and say because the economic benefits are way more than the cost.
They are not Too Big to Fail
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:11 am to Barstools
quote:
Try reading the posts again. Thanks.
Do you have trouble following threads because you replied to me and I replied to you... It appears it jives with your understanding of government subsidies of professional sports teams which is a losing proposition for just about every governmental entity that does so...
Try to keep up...
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:21 am to Barstools
Jim Brown on the subject at the link. Pickings are slim when googling "NOLA Saints Economic Impact study". I wonder why?
Jim Brown - RE NOLA Saints Subsidies
Jim Brown - RE NOLA Saints Subsidies
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:23 am to TaderSalad
quote:
Maybe that's next on GOAT POTUS plate.
This is a local issue that the President (regardless of who it is) shouldn't be involved in. If San Fran residents want to subsidize the 49ers and their stadium, that's up to their voters.
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:24 am to Barstools
quote:
It quite literally is the alternative. Either help the team or lose them to another city/ state. It's happened like 5 times this past year or 2. On what planet do you live?
Do you think this proves anything? It’s actually a pretty strong point that cities are emotionally investing in stadiums more than they are economically.
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:25 am to MsState of mind
I think now that they lost more fans the tax payers will fight the higher taxes to pay for the stadiums.
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:33 am to Barstools
quote:
I'm gonna get pretty far out here on a limb and say because the economic benefits are way more than the cost.
When you have people upset about all this and not going to games, eating at restaurants, staying in hotels, buy souvenirs.
This mess is effecting innocent people that aren't even involved.. and may or may not agree with Police Brutality.
It usually costs me 2 or 3K to come down to a game and I try to make two a year... Plus I bring friends.
No more.. so that's 6K from one person not going into the Louisiana Economy.
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:42 am to Barstools
quote:
I'm gonna get pretty far out here on a limb and say because the economic benefits are way more than the cost.
I don't know how I feel about it. There are studies that come down on both sides. I do know for a fact that when Nats Park was built it turned a more seedy part of town into an area with nice apartments with several high profile defense contractors putting offices in the area (I think it's BAE and/or Lockheed but I can't recall.)
In fact, Nats Park did such a job in turning the neighborhood around that it is now accused of playing a significant role in the gentrification of the neighborhood it's in and in the city in general.
(This is an Undefeated article, don't click if you don't want LINK)
This post was edited on 9/10/20 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 9/10/20 at 10:45 am to Barstools
quote:
Message
Sports Teams Tax Subsidies by Barstools
The econonomic impact on the city of Atlanta was $400 million
Only IDIOTS believe this nonsense.
Posted on 9/10/20 at 11:00 am to Ole War Skule
quote:
Only IDIOTS believe this nonsense.
What?
Okay,lets start with the Georgia dome that was 100% paid for by the state of Georgia for $200 million.
WITHOUT the dome the city doesn't host the SECCG,Final Fours,loses the NFL and Super Bowls,Olympics.CFA bowl (now an NY6 bowl)
Don't ya think for a second that the economic impact of ALL those events was just a little higher than $200 million and the place paid for itself?
BTW the project was financed through hotel/motel and rental car taxes.No sales,property or income taxes were used.
Sorry,if your state is completely fricked up in the way you do things.The damn Superdome should have have been razed YEARS ago and replaced but you guys spend 100's of millions on a face lifts every 12+ years or so instead of a new facility...its a stupid way to do business
This post was edited on 9/10/20 at 11:04 am
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News