PDA

View Full Version : 49ers getting a new stadium


tsiguy96
06-09-2010, 04:10 AM
went through a similar process as denver, voters approved to pay $114 million of the project. my question is, why do people have to subsidize the cost of a private enterprise stadium, as in what is in it for the fans other than having the team stay in that town? anything?

loborugger
06-09-2010, 08:02 AM
Well stadiums do attract other events to town, the Dem Natl Convention in Denver in '08 is a good example, but I doubt it pays off for the taxpayers in the end. It does smack of corporate welfare and is a bit bail-outish. Worse, the teams threaten to leave town if they dont get their new building.

enjolras
06-09-2010, 09:27 AM
Well stadiums do attract other events to town, the Dem Natl Convention in Denver in '08 is a good example, but I doubt it pays off for the taxpayers in the end. It does smack of corporate welfare and is a bit bail-outish. Worse, the teams threaten to leave town if they dont get their new building.

To be fair, Invesco really didn't play a role in that decision. It wasn't until the sheer magnitude of the Obama nomination became apparent that Invesco was tapped (just a few weeks before the actual convention). If Hillary had been nominated, it would have never been used at all. So in that regard, it was the Pepsi center and the expanded convention center that really drew the DNC.

That said, can you imagine Denver without the Broncos? That's why you build that stadium. Same goes for San Francisco I imagine. The economic impact of losing an NFL team is just to great.

Irish Stout
06-09-2010, 09:33 AM
Well stadiums do attract other events to town, the Dem Natl Convention in Denver in '08 is a good example, but I doubt it pays off for the taxpayers in the end. It does smack of corporate welfare and is a bit bail-outish. Worse, the teams threaten to leave town if they dont get their new building.

Keeping the team, especially an NFL team is worth it. Think of all the sales tax that would be lost in Colorado if they weren't selling all the little kiddies their orange and blue blankets.

True, the taxpayer never really sees a direct benefit in their pockets, but you hope that your elected officials will use the long term tax revenue streaming from events (DNC, Rush concerts, Broncos games, etc...) for the best benefit of the community at large (filling in some potholes on I-25 would be great dillweeds!). Overtime, you have to assume a new stadium pays for itself to the community... but you can never be quite sure. I'm sure that city and county of Denver officials heard plenty of arguments on both sides before the stadium was put up for a vote here in town.

tsiguy96
06-09-2010, 09:36 AM
Keeping the team, especially an NFL team is worth it. Think of all the sales tax that would be lost in Colorado if they weren't selling all the little kiddies their orange and blue blankets.

True, the taxpayer never really sees a direct benefit in their pockets, but you hope that your elected officials will use the long term tax revenue streaming from events (DNC, Rush concerts, Broncos games, etc...) for the best benefit of the community at large (filling in some potholes on I-25 would be great dillweeds!). Overtime, you have to assume a new stadium pays for itself to the community... but you can never be quite sure. I'm sure that city and county of Denver officials heard plenty of arguments on both sides before the stadium was put up for a vote here in town.

thats putting a lot of faith in a lot of retarded monkeys in higher office. i dont know if anyone in government is truly capable of spending money wisely and not just blowing it.

add to teh fact that NFL player contracts are getting absolutely outrageous, guess who gets to pay for that contract? you do, by going to the game. good luck taking your family to a game with good seats for less than $1000

loborugger
06-09-2010, 09:38 AM
To be fair, Invesco really didn't play a role in that decision. It wasn't until the sheer magnitude of the Obama nomination became apparent that Invesco was tapped (just a few weeks before the actual convention). If Hillary had been nominated, it would have never been used at all. So in that regard, it was the Pepsi center and the expanded convention center that really drew the DNC.

That said, can you imagine Denver without the Broncos? That's why you build that stadium. Same goes for San Francisco I imagine. The economic impact of losing an NFL team is just to great.

Is it? I have no idea. I wonder how accurately it can be quantified. The only city in the recent era to lose an NFL team is LA (twice) and they keep plugging along. But LA is a huge city. Better would be to look at St Louis when they lost the Cards - city is about the same size as Denver. But even then, that was the late 80s, before franchises began the 'build me a new stadium or I am leaving' routine.

jhns
06-09-2010, 09:52 AM
add to teh fact that NFL player contracts are getting absolutely outrageous, guess who gets to pay for that contract? you do, by going to the game. good luck taking your family to a game with good seats for less than $1000

Then stop supporting the team. It isn't the team that sets these prices. Just like any other business, the prices are set by what people are willing to pay. Instead of crying about it, do your part to change it.

As for the stadiums getting money from taxes, that is pretty easily explained. The stadium is used for events other than football. Those events generate money for the city. Football generates tons of money for the city. The population gets to vote on it anyway. I'm not sure what the complaint is. At least you guys are paying for something good. All of us here in Omaha have to pay for a baseball stadium built just for 2 weeks of college world series. There are many worse ways that they waste money.

hookemhess
06-09-2010, 09:59 AM
Stadiums certainly provide an impact on a city's economy. They create jobs, new spending, tourism and business.

CEH
06-09-2010, 10:02 AM
add to teh fact that NFL player contracts are getting absolutely outrageous, guess who gets to pay for that contract? you do, by going to the game. good luck taking your family to a game with good seats for less than $1000

Maybe the fans have spoken and hit Bowlen when it hurts the most. The club level seating is roughly half full right now. I think that has to do with the economy and the sagging record the last 4 years

Bowlen spent 25% of this own money to build this stadium and the club level seating is his PSL so things could be better in Broncoland

Steve Sewell
06-09-2010, 10:03 AM
went through a similar process as denver, voters approved to pay $114 million of the project. my question is, why do people have to subsidize the cost of a private enterprise stadium, as in what is in it for the fans other than having the team stay in that town? anything?

Having and NFL team is HUGE for local business. It's hard to quantify, but the cost of building a stadium to either keep or attract an NFL team are typically a lot less that the overall economic impact (over time) of having an NFL team.

HEAV
06-09-2010, 10:38 AM
Actaully the new stadium is going to be in Santa Clara. The team will still be the San Fransico 49ers, but they will be located in Santa Clara. Major revenue gain for Clara and major loss for frisco.

It'd be like if the Broncos got a new stadium in Colorado Spings.

Popps
06-09-2010, 10:47 AM
We'll see. I voted yes on a stadium prop that passed back in the 90s when I lived there.

Hope it happens, though.

Beantown Bronco
06-09-2010, 10:52 AM
I'm not sure what the complaint is.

Even when you have stadiums like Gillette being built without taxpayer money?

worm
06-09-2010, 10:52 AM
TSI = Wags