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

#251

Post by roel_v » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 8:29 AM UTC

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…

"The county paid $110 to cover parking construction"

That doesn't seem too bad for an entire parking lot (ducks)

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

#252

Post by tragic » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 8:43 AM UTC

sehr wrote: post #58

voidlogic wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>without a vote by the shareholders, who are all fans Doesn't the German football team system work like this too? I think it at least does for Bayern.

Yep! The club/members have to own >50% of the club to compete in the German pro leagues In the past, private ownership wasn't even allowed but that changed in the 90s. Even cooler, the 2 largest football clubs on earth, Real Madrid & Barcelona are completely fan owned. They even vote for the presidency of the club! So refreshing compared to American sports, though without a salary cap their competitions are 1000x mor…

I guess the biggest difference is that, in European soccer (especially in lovely England), the clubs are vastly more powerful than the leagues and governing bodies of the sport. In the NFL, NBA etc, the opposite seems to be the case - the teams are more like suppliers to the league.

Both systems, to put it mildly, have their warts.

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

#253

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 8:45 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…

[deleted]

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

#254

Post by douche » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 9:35 AM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #86

scoofy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems extremely anti-competitive. I wonder if that rule could be challenged.

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

It's been tried a few times... Probably the best challenge was the USFL, but they couldn't make a go of it over the long term, and that was when the NFL media machine was much less entrenched. The ESPN 30 for 30 film "Small Potatoes: Who Killed The USFL?" is pretty interesting (especially given that Trump was a key player in that drama)[1]

[1] http://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=small-potatoes-who-kill...

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

#255

Post by douche » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 9:49 AM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #216

adventured wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That makes me feel better, actually. It's obscene money, and I don't agree with the subsidy. But, the players get beat up, and CET. Some commit suicide. Fans paying high ticket prices, parking, meh whatever, make them pay more instead of begging from taxpayers though.

The rank-and-file football player, arguably, is underpaid, particularly in comparison to their colleagues in MLB or the NBA. I think the median salary for non-rookie deal NBA players is north of $5 million/year now. Baseball is similarly outrageous for veterans that reach free agency (the Red Flops were handing out $10 million deals like candy the last couple of years). Not to mention that those deals are guaranteed, unlike the NFL, where players are routinely cut when injured or just before they reach thresholds where bonuses kick in. s

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

#256

Post by douche » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 9:58 AM UTC

jarrettch wrote: post #203

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…

Soccer has it's dull games too. Watching teams park the bus or just kick the ball around to kill time. Thrilling stuff! Also, as a fan of all sports, I have to say there is probably nothing more entertaining(at least to me) than the NFL Red Zone Channel. Almost no stop in the action, skip most replays, see all the big plays, often in real time. Of course playing fantasy football plays a big part in that. Hockey is a…

Hockey is like soccer in some ways, with the important difference that they have sane substitution rules. In hockey, you have line changes every couple minutes, so when they are out there on the ice, they are going balls-to-the-wall the majority of the time. None of this jogging around, diving, booting the ball out of bounds, conserving energy that you see in pro soccer, because the players have to play the entire game, barring one or two rare substitutions.

When I played in high school, our soccer league had unlimited substitutions, and, even though the skill level was pretty low, the games were more entertaining to watch than professional soccer, because people were actually trying. You start dogging it, and you'd get the hook.

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

#257

Post by douche » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 10:16 AM UTC

sampo wrote: post #60

Touche wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...

As someone who recently moved to the US, should I first try to learn about American football, or about baseball?

NCAA March Madness is coming up - it's probably the most exciting event in basketball, possibly all of US sports. There's always surprises, some team that comes out of nowhere to make a big run, some heavy favorite that goes down in flames, buzzer beaters, human-interest stories, the minor gambling aspect of filling out a bracket in the office pool.

College basketball can also be some of the most entertaining basketball to watch. There's a lot more variation in style and strategy than you typically see in NBA or international ball. As long as you don't get stuck seeing too many Big Ten style grind-it-out defensive slugfests.

It's kind of like the World Cup, with less flopping.

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

#258

Post by BuckRogers » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 10:51 AM UTC

It looks pretty clear, unless you have the NY or LA market, you're going to pay some team to play in your city. Dallas, Atlanta, SF, NE are runners up on getting a team to invest their own money.

You would think at being the 3rd largest market, Chicago would be in the same situation as NY/LA, but I'm assuming the systemic corruption led to the bad deal on Soldier Field.

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

#259

Post by valleyer » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 11:06 AM UTC

theoracle101 wrote: post #226

philwelch wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Fans in the U.S. don't take too kindly to it either. See fan reactions to relocations of the Baltimore Colts, Cleveland Browns, St. Louis Rams, etc.

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

#260

Post by yeehong » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 11:37 AM UTC

Because NFL have been allowed to set up artificial caps on the number of franchises that can exist, owners have repeatedly used the threat of relocation to extort municipalities into paying for stadiums.

While European soccer clubs are punished by relegation into a lower league for sustained mediocrity, the pro sports monopolies in the U.S. ensure that even the most poorly-managed franchises are still immensely profitable.