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

171–180 of 290 posts

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

#171

Post by etler »

NamTaf wrote: post #156

Why aren't stadiums shared multi-use endeavours? Here, square stadiums are used by rugby (union and league) in the winter and soccer in the summer. Oval stadiums are used by AFL in the winter and cricket in the summer. In between, they occasionally host concerts - for example, when there's away games, or mid-week, or between seasons. This seems like a way better approach than the NFL one. Is it just because NFL / bas…

They used to be very common. There used to be football and baseball shared stadiums as well as basketball and hockey shared stadiums too. I don't know why exactly it changed, I think everyone just wanted their own special place.

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

#172

Post by gozur88 »

georgefrick wrote: post #68
gist wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely. There is competition from other geographic areas. If a team can simply play one venue against another they do have the upper hand unfortunately.

We have the same problems with taxes. Corporations can play the states against each other in regards to 'bidding' with tax breaks. But I think citizens should do the same there; tax breaks in return for shares. Either way what really has to happen, is for gov't officials to resume responsibility for negotiating for the people instead of for themselves. That said, I make no argument it's a great choice. The public pro…

>Corporations can play the states against each other in regards to 'bidding' with tax breaks. But I think citizens should do the same there; tax breaks in return for shares.

The corporations hold all the cards in that negotiation, since they're bringing jobs. Particularly corporations that do non-polluting things like software development and financial services.

If a state said "we'll give you a break but we want equity in return" they'd just get crossed off the list.

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

#173

Post by beastman82 »

vermontdevil wrote: post #143
beastman82 wrote: post #22

I'm from St. Louis. The Cardinals also bilked > $500M towards their new stadium despite being the most profitable MLB team. The mayor went around telling everyone it was a good idea. Of course the touted economic benefits are usually an order of magnitude above reality. IMO basically capitalized on a huge inferiority complex.

$500M? The stadium cost $365M and most of it private money. The county loaned $45M for improvements. Busch Stadium had a final cost of $365 million when it opened in 2006. Of that cost, $45 million (12%) came from a long-term loan from St. Louis County. Private financing came in the tune of $90.1 million in cash from the Cardinals, $200.5 in bonds paid by the team, and $9.2 million in interest earned on the construct…

Roughly $520M.

http://www.lindenwood.edu/moPolicyJournal/issue02/articles/c...

>However, the Cardinals also receive significant returns through an estimated $520 million in public subsidies: $350 million from St. Louis City’s five percent admission tax 30-year waiver, $20 million from St. Louis City’s 25-year property tax abatement, $108 million paid by St. Louis County to retire the $45 million in stadium bonds, and $42 million from Missouri tax credits and highway ramp construction. Further, the Cardinals also receive an additional estimated $150 million in new stadium selling sources: $100 million over 30 years on stadium naming rights, $40 million from the Ballpark Founders Program that charges season ticket holders $2,000- $7,500 for new stadium seats, and $10 million from old Busch Stadium memorabilia sales

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

#174

Post by bmm6o »

NamTaf wrote: post #156

Why aren't stadiums shared multi-use endeavours? Here, square stadiums are used by rugby (union and league) in the winter and soccer in the summer. Oval stadiums are used by AFL in the winter and cricket in the summer. In between, they occasionally host concerts - for example, when there's away games, or mid-week, or between seasons. This seems like a way better approach than the NFL one. Is it just because NFL / bas…

> Why aren't stadiums shared multi-use endeavours?

Because nothing about this whole thing is rational. Sharing makes sense if the owners want to split costs and get year-round use out of it, but if every major sports team in the area can strong-arm its own special-purpose stadium from the local government, then they will.

There are exceptions, like sibling comments note. In LA, the Staples Center is actually shared by 3 teams (2 NBA, 1 NHL) and is also a popular concert venue. It works great for the city having the one building in the heart of downtown to build an ecosystem around rather than 3 or 4 similar ones spread out.

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

#175

Post by bmm6o »

bmm6o wrote: post #174
NamTaf wrote: post #156

Why aren't stadiums shared multi-use endeavours? Here, square stadiums are used by rugby (union and league) in the winter and soccer in the summer. Oval stadiums are used by AFL in the winter and cricket in the summer. In between, they occasionally host concerts - for example, when there's away games, or mid-week, or between seasons. This seems like a way better approach than the NFL one. Is it just because NFL / bas…

> Why aren't stadiums shared multi-use endeavours? Because nothing about this whole thing is rational. Sharing makes sense if the owners want to split costs and get year-round use out of it, but if every major sports team in the area can strong-arm its own special-purpose stadium from the local government, then they will. There are exceptions, like sibling comments note. In LA, the Staples Center is actually shared b…

And I don't recall the details of the deal to build the Staples Center, but as a city LA has been pretty steadfast about not providing public money for sports venues. This may have pushed the incentives to make sharing much more sensible.

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

#176

Post by jpindar »

NamTaf wrote: post #156

Why aren't stadiums shared multi-use endeavours? Here, square stadiums are used by rugby (union and league) in the winter and soccer in the summer. Oval stadiums are used by AFL in the winter and cricket in the summer. In between, they occasionally host concerts - for example, when there's away games, or mid-week, or between seasons. This seems like a way better approach than the NFL one. Is it just because NFL / bas…

Some NFL stadiums are also used for soccer, as well as concerts and such.

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

#177

Post by jimbokun »

v64 wrote: post #150
jimbokun wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Football is very boring. I used to enjoy it, at least when the Steelers are playing. Then I got into soccer, eventually getting a more expensive cable package to watch the Premier League. Now when I watch football again, I am painfully aware of the time between plays, the incessant commercials, and now the ever increasing number of "official reviews". Seems like every 3rd or 4th play, an official has to leave the fie…

> It's starting to all seem like Farmville. Something terribly boring, that somehow the general public has convinced itself is a lot of fun. Is it really such a crazy idea that people like things that you don't? I like football and don't like soccer. Some people have fun playing Farmville. There's no objective criteria for entertainment, everyones' brain is tickled in different ways by different activities.

"Some people have fun playing Farmville."

Do they? I had this in mind when I made that comment:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cleverest-explanation-as-...

Makes an interesting argument about Farmville's success being based more on creating social obligations, than on being inherently enjoyable. I was wondering if some of football's continuing popularity also rests on social obligations, like people in your municipality talking about the team, wearing the jerseys, posting messages on social media, participating in fantasy leagues, and using support of the team as a proxy for civic pride.

I suspect there are those, like yourself, who actually like watching the games. But I also suspect there are a large number of people who watch for social reasons.

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

#178

Post by dragonwriter »

jimbokun wrote: post #108
joelrunyon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't fathom how football still exists today as a popular sport Your first three points make sense, but don't lead to this conclusion at all. People are not going to rationally say "football leads to traffic so I'm not going to watch it anymore." Football is entertaining, which is why it has an audience. Whether or not the negatives you outlined above are funded by the gov't is an entirely different matter.

Football is very boring. I used to enjoy it, at least when the Steelers are playing. Then I got into soccer, eventually getting a more expensive cable package to watch the Premier League. Now when I watch football again, I am painfully aware of the time between plays, the incessant commercials, and now the ever increasing number of "official reviews". Seems like every 3rd or 4th play, an official has to leave the fie…

> It's starting to all seem like Farmville. Something terribly boring, that somehow the general public has convinced itself is a lot of fun.

"boring" and "fun" are subjective. That you find something boring doesn't mean that it is objectively boring and that those who find it fun have deluded themselves. It just means that people have different entertainment preferences. Which is, decidedly, not news.

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

#179

Post by TheGRS »

rickycook wrote: post #139
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

that's a pretty horrendous way to change what's morally wrong with the world

The alternative is to change a majority of people's minds that this is something morally wrong with the world, make cases to supreme court and/or lobby congress and eventually turn the tide in your favor. Not really sure which way is easier.

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

#180

Post by bdcravens »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #103
bdcravens wrote: post #82

> 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 plac…

> but [the Astrodome] will likely become a park to bridge NRG Center and Stadium Only because so many people are too sentimental for the damn thing to knock it down. It's likely to become a greater boondoggle than anything else that exists on the property.

costs to demolish have been estimated between $30m-$60m
Post reply on HN