Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

161–170 of 290 posts

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

#161
I am from Brazil.

You should not build any stadiums for a private team using public money, the only stuff you should build with public money is stuff aiming for public use (example: community centers, bicycle race tracks that anyone can use, public olympic swimming pools for anyone that wanna learn and train, and so on).

The World Cup stadiums are right now mostly abandoned, and giving us lots of trouble, some of them saw like 3 games during the tournament, and were never used again, it is a waste of money and land.

Other stadiums now we found out that were just a means to funnel corruption money in certain people pockets, and even the stadiums that ARE in use, don't made the government profit.

The World Cup in fact made the country lose money, the tourist spending don't covered all the money we lost. (and no, it didn't drove the economy either, one of the effects of the World Cup is that the government defaulted on many companies, that were forced to also default, and so on, resulting in my parents shop being defaulted too, and now we are in deep shit, including struggling to buy food sometimes, my parents are unsure when a potential new costumer shows up, if they sell because we desperately need the money, or if they refuse the sale because we've been defaulted too much and cannot afford another default).

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

#162

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…

Soccer flows, but still seems boring.

It's all boring...

Shirling though... Now that's a sport.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gu3mbl8SAk

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

#163
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…

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 purchase the shares at 2 .5 cents per share.

3) "As is the case with holders of Outstanding Shares, a purchaser of Common Stock in the Offering will not receive any Packers merchandise, through the purchase of Common Stock. However, purchasers will play a key role in facilitating the continued viability of a professional football team in Green Bay and will have the opportunity to have a voice in the Corporation’s governance. In addition, shareholders will receive an invitation to the Corporation’s annual meeting and have the opportunity to purchase exclusive shareholder merchandise."[1]

Or in the words of Tom from "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels", "You get a gold plated Rolls-Royce, as long as you pay for it."

So what do you get? A piece of paper. The right to vote. The ability to purchase specially branded merchandise. It's not even really a fan club.

[1] http://media.broadridge.com/documents/GBP+2011+Offering+Docu...

[2] http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/01/13/are-the-green-ba...

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

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard about an exemption for baseball , although that came from judicial corruption rather than being a legislative effort. Confirm that there's a specific legislative exemption for football too?

[1] 15 U.S. Code § 1291 - Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of professional football leagues [2] 26 U.S. Code § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1291 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501 There are also a few more places the Code references football: https:/…

Football and baseball are not equivalently exempt. Baseball enjoys far broader exemption. The NFL does have some conditional exemptions, but not in the same scope [1]. Recently, the US Supreme Court said exactly as much [2] in a very specific scenario.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Sc...

[2] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-661

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

#165
post #78
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 Green Bay Packers are a non-profit corporation in a private sports league. Business competition within a league is prima facie absurd.

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

#166
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…

Symphony orchestras, ballets and performing arts centers also tend to be not-for-profit entities.

I'm happy to see my tax dollars go to schools, parks, community arenas and playfields, and, yes, performing arts centers.

For profit, successful (or at least extremely valuable) sports franchises ... not so much.

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

#167
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 support both football and baseball. Oakland has the last multi-purpose stadium for MLB and NFL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.co_Coliseum

Baseball needs a large oval and foot ball needs a rectangle. The compromise to support both baseball and football leads to a suboptimal solution for both.

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

#168
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…

The things you listed that typically lose money are funded BECAUSE they can't be profitable on their own. Not IN SPITE of it. Professional sports can more than afford to fund their own stadiums, they just CHOOSE not to.

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

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#170
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…

The NHL (ice hockey) and NBA (basketball) share some stadiums. The NFL (football) and MLB (baseball) used to share a few but I think only one or two still do, if any.

But you will find things like monster truck events, dirt bike racing. or concerts at sports stadiums quite often.

Post reply on HN