Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 290 posts

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#81

Post by frandroid »

nhebb wrote: post #55
onetwotree wrote: post #42

The Green Bay packers have an interesting approach to this problem, although it requires a fanatical fan base and special ownership provisions, and the fact that the team can't leave Green Bay (without a vote by the shareholders, who are all fans, which will never, ever, happen). When they want to improve their stadium, they issue stock and sell more season tickets. This works because Packers stock cannot be sold or…

The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be repeated elsewhere. "The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires clubs to be wholly owned either by a single owner, or small group of owners, and requires that at least one owner owns a 1/3 stake in the team. The Packers are granted an exemption to this rule, as they have been a publicly owned corporation since before the rul…

A team's fans could form a corporation which would be a single owner, but I'm sure the NFL would find a way around that pronto.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#82

Post by bdcravens »

> Houston’s iconic Astrodome, once dubbed the Eighth Wonder of the World, sits empty a decade after the facility housed 25,000 evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and nearly 20 years after the Oilers left.

It's worth noting that the Astrodome sits in the NRG complex, next door to the NRG Stadium where the Texans play, and in the same parking lot as the NRG Center, where events like the Houston Livestock and Rodeo take place. Just this week they were planting grass outside of the Astrodome to beautify it for the upcoming Rodeo. (NRG Arena is in the same complex) In other words, it's not the isolated abandoned property that other properties in the article describe. (it's not finalized, but it will likely become a park to bridge NRG Center and Stadium)

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#83

Post by prawn »

cowardlydragon wrote: post #53

Convert them to exotic hanging gardens of babylon public spaces then. Or water parks. or something similar. There has to be SOMETHING you can do with a structure like that.

At one point, ignoring the significant maintenance costs, you could buy a huge stadium in Detroit for less than my house is worth. A friend and I would joke about living in the corporate suites and raising livestock and crops on the interior field.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#84

Post by uremog »

sampo wrote: post #60
Touche wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...

As someone who recently moved to the US, should I first try to learn about American football, or about baseball?

Football. But only if you like sports. If not, just forget it and tell people you don't watch.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#86

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

scoofy wrote: post #78
nhebb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be repeated elsewhere. "The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires clubs to be wholly owned either by a single owner, or small group of owners, and requires that at least one owner owns a 1/3 stake in the team. The Packers are granted an exemption to this rule, as they have been a publicly owned corporation since before the rul…

That seems extremely anti-competitive. I wonder if that rule could be challenged.

Private company, go start yer own football league if you don't like it, etc.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#87

Post by tamana »

scoofy wrote: post #78
nhebb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be repeated elsewhere. "The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires clubs to be wholly owned either by a single owner, or small group of owners, and requires that at least one owner owns a 1/3 stake in the team. The Packers are granted an exemption to this rule, as they have been a publicly owned corporation since before the rul…

That seems extremely anti-competitive. I wonder if that rule could be challenged.

It's a League. The entire reason for its existence is to be anticompetitive (in business).

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#88

Post by rst »

scoofy wrote: post #78
nhebb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be repeated elsewhere. "The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires clubs to be wholly owned either by a single owner, or small group of owners, and requires that at least one owner owns a 1/3 stake in the team. The Packers are granted an exemption to this rule, as they have been a publicly owned corporation since before the rul…

That seems extremely anti-competitive. I wonder if that rule could be challenged.

The NFL got Congress to write them a specific exemption in the anti-trust laws, so it's very, very doubtful.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#89

Post by rmxt »

draw_down wrote: post #62
rmxt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sports are a form of entertainment....entertainment can and does drive spending.... and spending can contribute to more jobs and more tax revenue. Seems fair that sports are, in turn, a public concern. That isn't to say that building a stadium or hosting the Olympics is inherently a profitable affair.

Except, whoops, the bucks only ever go to sports teams.

What of all the employees of the stadium? Of all the travel to and from the stadium? Of the merchandising deals? And any other numerous subsequent results... what does the money that goes to the employees or third-parties count as? They don't get paid in company scrip.

That's akin to saying that the money for any government funded project only go to the party directly responsible for building/supporting it, and all of the consequences from the initial project are inherently zero.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#90

Post by function_seven »

frandroid wrote: post #81
nhebb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be repeated elsewhere. "The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires clubs to be wholly owned either by a single owner, or small group of owners, and requires that at least one owner owns a 1/3 stake in the team. The Packers are granted an exemption to this rule, as they have been a publicly owned corporation since before the rul…

A team's fans could form a corporation which would be a single owner, but I'm sure the NFL would find a way around that pronto.

That's what the NFL rule specifically prevents. They require a single human owner, or a small group where one of the humans has at least a 1/3 stake.
Post reply on HN