Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by tgb29 » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 4:51 AM UTC

I think the Raiders should be moved to Las Vegas. The theme of the stadium vision should be conservation of the region's resources and the project should lead to a stronger initiative on renewable energies for Las Vegas. Lake Mead, the lake that flows to the Hoover Dam, has lower water levels every year and the issue of its real sustainability hasn't been fully addressed. Fortunately, The sun shines often, and outside of Vegas there are areas of the Desert with high winds. The gambling issue will be better for the NFL as the league continues to grow and become a global brand. If there are any problems with the gambling, then smart regulations can be implemented with the trends of electronic currency in mind. The stadium should have the ability to host other events so that football doesn't need to be the main revenue driver. Most importantly, the groups who made their money through gambling would be able to give back to the city, and their capital should be respected.

I'm biased because I enjoy Las Vegas, Laughlin, and Northest Arizona and I like the green energy developments in the area. I agree that the project would be a great challenge.

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

#232

Post by bigger_cheese » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 5:00 AM UTC

ocean3 wrote: post #219

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…

If you don't enjoy some sport then it can be boring. As a cricket fan that too "Test" cricket(the one which takes 5 days) to complete i find "Soccer" or Football as its know here boring. Cricket even has regular scheduled breaks for commercials. I used to love football at one time, but too many boring draws and player behavior led me away from it.

I was about to say the same thing. I'm a huge test cricket fan (only form of cricket I really like to watch). For me part of the appeal of Test Cricket (6 hours a day for 5 days) is that the Australia summer is too damn hot to do anything else. The big match (Boxing Day Test) coincides nicely with the break week many jobs have between Xmas and New Year. So the fact that you have a bunch of downtime from work combined with it being too damn hot to want to do much else makes vegging out on couch with a beer (or several) and the cricket on the box all that more appealing.

I do not know a lot about American football but I recall hearing or reading somewhere that the breaks in play make it a more popular spectator sport. As it allows for discussion and analysis of the prior event in a way more freeflowing sports do not.

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

#233

Post by lumpypua » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 5:05 AM UTC

Thirdegree wrote: post #113

moheeb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you nailed it. " They can be seen as a form of religion, in some sense. " In my family it was Sunday School with mom and then football with Grandpa and Dad. Football is kind of like drinking...even if you don't like it at some point it is easier to just pretend and fit in.

And if you do it enough, you might end up liking it anyway.

Happened to me. I like drinking and (college) football, especially together, even though I can see the negative utility of both.

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

#234

Post by dionidium » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 5:13 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #201

georgefrick wrote: post #4

Money a city gives towards a stadium should be returned in the form of shares in the team. Otherwise no deal. St. Louis should be selling their shares to LA for a profit right now...

With taxes they are partners. That's the reasoning behind public financing. I think a better alternative is just tax breaks. The team can build a stadium but gets huge tax cuts on everything for a certain period of time to justify the build cost. I also don't understand why stadiums have such limited lifespans. Wrigely field in nearly 100 years old.

"Wrigely field in nearly 100 years old."

And it's a dump. I mean, I get why people think it's charming, but it's a pretty uncomfortable place to watch a game compared to modern stadiums.

Warning: I'm a Cardinals fan, so take that for what you will.

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

#235

Post by dionidium » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 5:16 AM UTC

patmcguire wrote: post #119

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.

From St. Louis as well. It was weird when the Rams left. There wasn't much of an attitude of how great of fans St. Louis has and what a betrayal it is. It was more resignation. "Well, we're St. Louis, what did we expect?"

Also from St. Louis. I don't agree with this. r/stlouis wouldn't shut up about it, for example, and the opinions ranged all across the board.

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

#236

Post by dionidium » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 5:21 AM UTC

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.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, public money funds all sorts of entertainment and cultural endeavors, from operas to art museums to 5K fun runs and so on and so on.

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

#237

Post by malz » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 5:38 AM UTC

astronautjones wrote: post #181

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…

"Now when I watch football again, I am painfully aware of [...] the incessant commercials" You are not their target audience, I'm afraid

I am generally unaware of the commercials, but after watching a game I always have a strange craving for Budweiser and Viagra.

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

#238

Post by trendroid » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 5:39 AM UTC

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…

All of this is totally true for cricket and even worse(8 fucking hours filled with commercials like american football). My whole country(India) has somehow convinced itself that its a lot of fun when the real reasos are that most of them aren't aware of good alternates and even if they are aware, India isn't doing well in any of those.

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

#239

Post by ec109685 » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 5:59 AM UTC

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…

How do you sell more season tickets to raise money? There are only so many seats and like you said, ticket rights are passed down from generation to generation. And like other folks said, there is a sales tax.

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

#240

Post by thetruthseeker1 » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 6:09 AM UTC

I dont agree with the way the title is worded: as if to indicate that it is wrong in principle to build a stadium for NFL team. I think this is a case of a bad business deal or contract. The NFL clearly had a better contract here. If the deal was worded such that St. Louis Ram's teams were obligated to play there for X years or something else that guarantees cash flow, probably the city wouldn't have had such a loss. It is just poor deal making.