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

241–250 of 290 posts

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

#241

Post by ec109685 »

throwaway60453 wrote: post #72
whyenot wrote: post #16

I don't know. When cities get involved in a venture like this, it's usually because that is what their citizens want. For example, Levi Stadium in Santa Clara went before the voters, who approved it's funding model (1). On a moral level, I have a real problem with a sport that when played successfully leads to debilitating brain damage (2), but it's pretty clear I am in the minority on that. 1. Without going too far…

Excuse me, local resident here. Santa Clara City residents approved $400 million in financing. City Council went ahead with a promise for ... $1.3 billion so far. So most of it was not voted on at all.

Hasn't most of that been paid back already due to personal seat licenses?

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

#242

Post by ec109685 »

st3v3r wrote: post #40

Not just stadiums. This is why no city/state should be able to offer anything like this for any private entity, be they sports team, movie crew, or private company.

There is never a case when there is a net positive benefit for th city by enticing a corporation to move in?

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

#243

Post by dang »

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?

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11030464 and marked it off-topic.

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

#245

Post by ripberge »

gozur88 wrote: post #148
maxxxxx wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing I'd do is to take away the tax exempt status of the NFL.

I don't think it will matter. The NFL doesn't make money - the teams make money.

Not true. Roger Goodell made $44 million in 2013. Kind of shocking you can do that and still be considered a non profit.

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

#246

Post by quadrangle »

icebraining wrote: post #153
quadrangle wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions only come into existence because of capitalism. In a cooperative, the employees are the owners, so there's no such thing as a union. The NFL is certainly not maximally-regulated, in that more regulations are possible. But the key here is that corrupt corporate wealthy powerful people are always happy to claim that whatever they are doing to stay wealthy and powerful is actually based on some ideal whether that…

Unions only come into existence because of capitalism. In a cooperative, the employees are the owners, so there's no such thing as a union. What about unions of public workers? Even in the USSR there were unions. Worker cooperatives are not the only alternative to capitalism.

True, I really meant more like "capitalism naturally leads to unions" rather than implying that nothing else can do so. But unions don't exist within cooperatives. The bigger point is: Unions are a symptom of bigger systemic problems.

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

#247

Post by pauloday »

mikeash wrote: post #225
jessaustin wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a good way to get the right answer but it's not a very good way to get help.

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

#248

Post by knorby »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #30
Touche wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I post comments like that to be educated. Some have already offered explanations, so I'm happy to get your downvote if it means learning something.

Think about your question: "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." better framed as a question like such: "I'm not quite sure I understand the American fascinat…

Except he did provide context as he cited an article with a genuine criticism. Your suggestion is in all ways a loss of information.

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

#249

Post by jaggederest »

curun1r wrote: post #218
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…

If you're trying to game the system, why try to create a definition for family when one already exists that serves your purpose? Just have your team be owned by the Hominidae family.

Then you'll have bonobos showing up and claiming their percentage.

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

#250

Post by CaptainZapp »

skewart wrote: post #223
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…

  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 Elbe Philharmonie in Hamburg comes to mind. Budgeted originally at EUR 241M. They're now at 789 Million and counting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall

Post reply on HN