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

221–230 of 290 posts

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

#221

Post by sandworm101 »

nostrademons wrote: post #99
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…

Apparently the limit is now 5% per individual, 30% per family, and stakes can be owned by irrevocable family trusts: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/25... The loophole-finder in me wonders if it would be possible to create "The Mitochondrial Eve Family Trust", for all descendants of mitochondrial Eve, by invitation only. Assets could then be contributed into this trust in exchange for season…

It depends on the state. Some still have rules against eternal trusts (google "rule against perpetuities") but the trend is now towards the supernatural. So it might fly as an Alaska trust.

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

#222

Post by swehner »

giarc wrote: post #36

I live in Calgary and our NHL arena is nearing the end of it's life. Our mayor, Naheed Nenshi, has been very vocal about public funding for arena's and is holding the owners group and the NHLs 'feet to the fire' so to speak. >I have said for a long time — and continue to strongly believe — that public money must be for public benefit and not private profit. [0] I don't think he's necessarily against using public mone…

The NHL strike a few years ago had hardly any effect on people.

They just went out to restaurants more, and bars.

So hockey's loss = someone else's gains. If not, Calgary should be fine without a stadium for those games

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

#223

Post by skewart »

JackFr wrote: post #124

It's not an unreasonable position for a municipality to chose lose money on a stadium. They typically lose money on symphony orchestras, ballets and performing arts centers. That one is considered low culture and the other considered high culture is not relevant is we assume that the people are being ably represented. But what seems to infuriate people is that orchestras and ballets are typically not owned by billion…

Except for the fact that those "high culuture" institutions tend to stick around a lot longer instead of bolting town as soon as the owners spot a more profitable deal. Also, I doubt there are as many concert halls where the public has sunk anything near the kind of money that frequently gets sunk into NFL stadiums. The Disney Concert Hall in LA, which I think was one of the most expensive ones recently built, bad a total budget of less than $300 million. (The county paid $110 to cover parking construction, getting revenues in return, the rest was covered by private donors, primarily the Disney family and Eli Broad.)

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

#225

Post by mikeash »

jessaustin wrote: post #187
mikeash wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are better ways to get people to educate you than to be a condescending jerk and waiting for angry responses.

This might be related to Cunningham's Law?

It's definitely a similar theme. I think the Law isn't quite right, though. Posting the wrong answer might be the easiest way to get the right answer, but I don't think it's the best, even from a purely selfish view. But maybe that's just me being idealistic.

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

#226

Post by theoracle101 »

philwelch wrote: post #193
stplsd wrote: post #35

I am from Europe and this looks almost surreal for me. It is unheard of here that team simply packs players and go to other city. Sport culture and sport business so different in USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Wimbledon_F.C._t...

This was literally blasphemy in the UK, so not sure what you're point is?

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

#227

Post by jacalata »

jonathankoren wrote: post #163
nostrademons wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the limit is now 5% per individual, 30% per family, and stakes can be owned by irrevocable family trusts: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/25... The loophole-finder in me wonders if it would be possible to create "The Mitochondrial Eve Family Trust", for all descendants of mitochondrial Eve, by invitation only. Assets could then be contributed into this trust in exchange for season…

As a Green Bay Packer Shareholder, there's a lot wrong with your idea. As per the 2011 Offering Document[1]: 1) The limit isn't 5% per individual, 30% per family. It's 200 shares. Total. 2) Shares can only be transferred to immediate family, defined as "the spouse, children, mother, father, brothers, sisters, or any lineal descendant of a shareholder". An improper transfer will give the Corporation the right to purch…

He was talking about the rules for other teams (pointing out that the minimum stake has gone down from 30% to 5%, apparently). The Green Bay model is explicitly banned for every other team.

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

#228

Post by jacalata »

samstave wrote: post #70

Douchebags. Got it. HAHA - yet again, criticizing GS on HN results in downvotes. So now we have to worry about GS VC shills on HN as opposed to just eglin shills on reddit?

I have no idea what you are talking about and downvoted you for the drive-by stupidity, not because I (necessarily) disagree with you.

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

#229

Post by oldmanjay »

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…

Soccer comes off as slow hockey played by people who are afraid to get hit.

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

#230

Post by jacalata »

adventured wrote: post #204
gozur88 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What infuriates people is these deals are always sold to the public as some sort of net-positive redevelopment, instead of what's really happening, which is a transfer of tax money to team owners. With orchestras and ballets and performing arts centers everybody knows up front you have an ongoing financial liability. And the numbers are smaller.

> which is a transfer of tax money to team owners It's primarily a transfer of money to players. In the next ten years players will earn around $50 to $55 billion in income. That's drastically beyond anything owners will either earn via operations or extract through capital gains via a sale. Take the Houston Texans for example. They're stated as the 7th most valuable NFL franchise per Forbes, generating $114m in oper…

Somehow, the valuation of the team increased by $600 million in that year. The teams are capturing plenty of the money going around. I'd be willing to bet that the players pay more tax than the owners per dollar extracted, too.
Post reply on HN