|
chupacabraTERROR posted:They should just leverage the gently caress out of the stadium like any sane person would Someone tell the Chargers where mortgage rates are
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Anything is better than Manhattan, land of the mythical $12 Bud Light bottle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Doesn't Kroenke have to pay for the relocation fees and stadium out of pocket though? Isn't that like $2bio?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
*NFL CMTE SAID TO FAVOR PLAN BACKED BY CHARGERS, RAIDERS: RTRS that just flashed on Bloomberg. Does that mean the Rams stay in St Louis?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:My vote is for rugby tackling rules. Nothing below the shoulders, nothing below the waist. Forces clean tackles, none of this stupid catching ankles. Hopefully you mean nothing above the shoulders
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
quote:The mayor of Los Angeles won't be advocating for the addition of a second team. lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That all makes sense to me. Pretty douchey to drop the stupid "I don't need this, so if you want it, you come to me" business bullshit tho. I dunno it's all kinda bullshit right considering that all the stadium plans in LA were privately funded. The whole 'tourists will pay for it!' bullshit is so stupid and naturally for something that the public is putting the most at risk for they're getting a tiny slice of the profits.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Kroenke gets almost all of the benefits though, because he's the majority owner. Adelson is just a financier making an investment here. He's got no reason to make it if the juice isn't worth the squeeze, and on his end, the juice isn't worth much. Personally I think the concession should be in the stadium price if anything. If they don't want to pledge the full $750m then maybe back off on building some big gaudy desert palace. I'm not arguing that it's not a great deal for Sheldon Adelson, just that it's a terrible deal for the people of Las Vegas.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I don't think it's bad at all. $50 million a year isn't a lot, and I think adelson made a pretty good case for why it's not going to be very noticeable for people living in the city. And having an NFL team and a top tier stadium for their college program is a hell of a perk. Come on we all know that public funding for stadiums is a bad idea. If you want we can dig through all of the various studies and news articles saying why it's a bad deal or you can watch John Oliver on it. More importantly the idea of it not being noticeable and thus a 'free' stadium for the people of Las Vegas is just wrong: you're telling me there's not better infrastructure that this money could be spent on? There's no better municipal project to spend $750mio on than a stadium that'll be used maybe 5% of the year?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Bingo. When people make all their analysis about local businesses and poo poo, they tend to forget having a local NFL team loving owns. It's why cities are going to continue to pay to get teams to come, much to the chagrin of people who want a pound of flesh from the owners on principle. It only owns if you're a football fan (or a billionaire that convinces the city to pay for part of your stadium). As much as we all love football public funding for stadiums is a massive tax that benefits us at the expense of the majority of the public that doesn't care about football. This also sounds shady as poo poo: quote:An oversight committee meets Thursday to continue discussing a hotel tax hike to fund the stadium. Proponents from Majestic Realty and the Las Vegas Sands casino want to finish negotiations and get approval from Nevada lawmakers within weeks to prepare their pitch for the NFL’s consideration.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You could say the same about welfare spending and public transportation if you don't use it. It's not just football fans. There's all kinds of concerts and things that are available with a stadium that large. There'll probably be some major UFC fights and boxing matches as well being Vegas, and those will be incredible spectator events. They'll also certainly get a super bowl, with all the attention and side events that come along with that. Then there's the soccer friendlies between actual good teams that are fun as hell to watch. A stadium brings a whole bunch of entertainment options that cover the base of pretty much everyone at the expense of a 1% increase in taxes aimed at people who stay in hotels. It's cool and good. No really it isn't. Lots of research bears this out. People aren't going to Vegas for football or soccer friendlies and there's already UFC fights and boxing matches there! But it really sounds like you want a stadium in Vegas so there's no point in arguing about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:And we've looped back around to where we started. Sorry that's my mistake. Meant to say 'people won't go to Vegas for football or soccer friendlies'
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I meant that we're back to discussing the financial benefits. Like the stadium needs to pay itself and then some or it's bad. It's not an investment. It's a toy. But as far as toys go it's a fuckin sweet one. The whole point is that cities should not be buying toys
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:lol China Basin was a poo poo hole before AT&T park was built, so I'm not buying that poo poo as ironclad. In addition, the local taxpayers are barely chipping in. Guess what, that wasn't built with public funding!!!!! The argument isn't whether ballparks are good for the city, it's whether the city and taxpayers should pay for them and literally everything points to saying they shouldn't. The burden to clear is that there's not better municipal investments that you should pay with. Like for example in the Vegas case, an expansion of the convention hall because guess what conventions are in Vegas year round. Finally the idea that any part of SF wouldn't have been developed regardless of a ballpark given what's going on with real estate there is hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:yes, I know and it's irrelevant. One of the main arguments against public funding of stadiums is that the revival that can take place in the surrounding area is a myth. Yes it's a luxury tax on out of towners but again the point is for the city as a whole there are better choices of how to spend that tax revenue. At the end of the day if you want to vote for a stadium that's your right and obviously if you post on a football forum your utility function is pretty unique and you'll benefit a lot more from the stadium than the average person in Vegas so it makes sense. It just doesn't for the city as a whole and I don't know why people continue to try and argue that it does. At least more and more people are becoming aware of the issue
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Neil Armbong posted:Still so scummy that a minority investor reaps all benefits. Eh I wouldn't worry too much. 1) Governor has to agree to send it to the legislature and then it has to get by the Nevada legislature by a 2/3 majority 2) Then the NFL actually has to agree to have a team in Vegas But yeah for the moment let's laugh at these loving hilarious terms again: quote:At a meeting stoked with enthusiasm and a few minor squabbles, the 11-member committee unanimously supported the stadium developers’ preferred funding option, which requires a $750 million public investment, eliminates a 39 percent public contribution cap and allows the private partners to reap all stadium profits during the lifetime of the Raiders’ lease. Holy poo poo it's amazing how people (well not the actual people instead a group of 11 who have vested interest in this poo poo) agree to willingly get hosed. Like it sounds Adelson et. al like they could just massively decrease the actual cost of the stadium and reap all the same profits while committing much less capital. Jesus on further reflection that is such a bad deal. Conceptually if this passes the private investors could put in nothing, build at $750mio stadium, and collect all profits. It's a heads you lose, tails you lose scenario Adun fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
To get back to the topic, who exactly is Las Vegas competing with for the Raiders? Oakland is offering no public funding (thankfully) so is there anyone else out there that's willing to pay to move the Raiders?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:I'd like to see Mark Davis petitioning foreign governments to pay for his stadium. "no welfare, Señor Rubia". We're going to build a stadium and MEXICO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:That's supergenius Alex Smith, to be fair. I was in London last year during one of the games and I worry that people there seem to view games as some fun yearly thing to get drunk and dress up and go to (saw people wearing Bears jerseys to a Jets/Dolphins game) but not really a sustainable thing
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Sorry Vegas
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
I hope someone keeps track of how many of the 16 yes votes ends up working for an Adelson company
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Bacon Taco posted:I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further. Gonna be funny to see the Raiders and Chargers compete to see who can offer Adelson the best deal
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Dr_Strangelove posted:Dude is a mound of warm suet with a combover A mound of warm suet that also probably just managed to get the estate tax repealed right before he croaks. The motherfucker.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Lending against stadium construction seems pretty smart considering how much teams have been making from selling PSLs
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Miko posted:I've lived through 1-15, I think I'll manage. lmao Coles notes
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:That the source of Vegas' tax money is rich tourists doesn't change the fact that it could be better spent on things which will actually benefit the residents. But of course it would make too much sense for Las Vegas to let its citizens vote on it like San Diego did. Much easier for Sheldon Adelson to buy off a couple dozen lawmakers in a special session. warcrimes posted:Yes and I trust local and state govts to spend the money wisely. California has a lottery system in place which generates hundreds of millions in revenue since the 80s and was specifically instituted to help schools. Cali spends more on education that some states's entire budgets yet the school system is almost dead last in rankings. How much worse would California's school system be without lottery revenue? And yeah you're right to mistrust the ability of local and state governments to spend money wisely, I mean Vegas is blowing a couple hundred million on a useless sports stadium! Adun fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:You can tell we live in a good society when we have people sincerely advocate for a public policy of bread and circuses except without the bread. Bread and circuses except the people of Rome are paying for it instead of caesar
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:I'm not paying a single penny for it. hth. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. You're absolutely indirectly paying for it either through reduced spending from tourists, any budgetary shortfalls versus their optimistic projections, or just simply from spending money on a boondoggle stadium instead of any other more useful project. Even if the city decided not to build anything else the increased debt load will increase future borrowing costs. Las Vegas, the thirtieth largest metro area in the US, has now committed the most public money ever to a stadium. Adun fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:"reduced spending from tourists"? Because they paid an extra $5 a night for a room? That's some pretty impressive hyperbolic reaching, my fellow. You seriously don't think it will affect tourist spending at all? Are you just being willfully dense? To think that taxes have no effect on spending decisions is insane. On a small scale let's say a family of four budgets $2000 for a four night stay in Vegas. 2 rooms, 4 nights, so there's $40 out of their budget that they would've spent elsewhere. Or how about let's say a company decides to host a convention in Vegas. 1,000 attendees in 1,000 rooms for four nights. That's now $20,000 more to budget for and hell, maybe you're just better off doing it in Reno. At least you've got Lake Tahoe right there. Also lolol 1/3 of attendance at preseason games to tourists quote:Or was it? Getting to that number required some rather unusual assumptions. One was that a third of the 65,000 fans at any Raiders game — including preseason games — would not be Las Vegans but out-of-towners. They would stay in a hotel for 3.2 days and spend collectively, on an annual basis, $375 million. In other words, 217,000 people each year would fly to Las Vegas for the primary purpose of watching the Raiders play football. Even if there were that many seats set aside for tourists (highly unlikely), that seems implausible. Adun fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
TBeats posted:Vegas is still going to get your money. Anyone who goes to vegas and doesn't budget enough that $40 won't make a huge difference is the same type of person who would go into debt for football tickets. This is a stupid as argument because we're not talking about individual cases we're talking about the aggregate
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
TBeats posted:The aggregate of what? Because your argument was $40 on a hotel is $40 not spent elsewhere. How does that affect the overall aggregate? Because instead of being spent in the economy of the city of Las Vegas it will be spent to repay debt incurred in construction of the stadium and all profit from the stadium goes to the people who finance it, either Sheldon Adelson or Goldman Sachs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:So move to vegas and recall their elected officials and vote down the proposal? If you care so much Sorry are you trying to give me poo poo for arguing on an internet message board?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:It was only cause you keep saying the same thing over and over. I agree with you, anyway. Yeah I get irate about it because government subsidies for billionaires is the last thing we need and none of this poo poo makes economic sense yet owners still successfully hold cities hostage over it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:"$12?!?! Sweet sassy molassy, cancel our Cirque plans and have Charles start up the Lear, we're out here!" I know I'm not going to change your opinion on this but I'll try one last time. Las Vegas is planning on issuing $750mio in general obligation bonds to build the stadium. That means that any short falls in revenue (IE the hotel tax doesn't cover the full debt service cost) are going to have to be made whole by the city. Projections from the stadium committee obviously say that the hotel tax AND increased spending from visitors to the city will make up for the difference so it's not just the hotel tax, it's the hotel tax plus generous assumptions about the number of new visitors that will come to Vegas because of the stadium which apparently is being estimated at around 450,000. Now assuming 4% interest and 30 year amortization using Excel it looks like each year the debt service cost is $43 million. $12 a night might not be a lot, but $43 million a year is a poo poo load of money and you'd be crazy to think they wouldn't have an effect on people's decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
TBeats posted:I thought the whole point was that it's stupid to placate rich people? He's not saying that Vegas should keep costs low to help corporations booking hotel rooms. His point is that for a corporation booking a block of 500 rooms or whatever that incremental $5-10k per night could mean the difference between booking in Vegas or booking in Orlando or Chicago or whatever which costs Las Vegas tax revenue
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Guys don't let another old casino executive selling a raw deal tear us apart. We still have at least four years of this left.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:So what does this mean? Is Vegas still likely happening, just without Sheldon? I'd say it's still likely but definitely less likely than it was a week ago. 1. Goldman isn't writing a $650million check and they'll have to market and sell the additional debt issuance. On the margin this is tougher than having one guy fund it but it should be pretty doable. It does make the deal more susceptible to any adverse shocks. 2. Pissing off one of the most powerful people in Vegas can't help
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, none of this makes sense. Sounds like Mark Davis tried to force Adelson's hand and it backfired
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:People vote for their perceived self-interest, and while only some a minority of people have kids in public schools at any given time, most people needs sports to distract them from the drudgery of their lives. Well the people of Vegas didn't actually vote for it. There was no public referendum and instead it got rammed through city council This is a terrible deal for Vegas especially because they have to make up any short falls in funding for this stadium that's only going to be finished in like 4 years. So it ties the local government even more to tourist revenue at a time when we're probably at ~40% chance we hit a recession within the construction timeline of this stadium There's a decent chance that this turns out so poorly Adun fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Elected officials would have severed their support if a majority of their constituents mad it clear that their re-elections were imperiled by their support. I'm not aware of any marching in the streets or widespread public outcry, maybe I missed that. That's not how it works in local government because after you get voted out you can get a sweet gig working for the people who just built the stadium you approved. Especially in a place like Vegas
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 17:38
|
|