HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Sports » Sports (Group) » Richardson: State, city s...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:37 PM

Richardson: State, city should help support 'coveted' NFL franchise

Raleigh, N.C. — Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson and Charlotte officials want the state to put $62.5 million toward the cost of more than $250 million improvements to the team's 17-year-old stadium.

Asked Wednesday why the team couldn't pay its own way, Richardson said, in short, because they don't have to. NFL teams, he said, "are so coveted, they don't have to pay. There are only 32."

The team has tentatively agreed to contribute $62.5 million to the effort, while the city would chip in $125 million. Charlotte Deputy City Manager Ron Kimble said they had reached a "business agreement" for the city's share of the cost to be repaid by raising the food and beverage tax by 1 to 2 percent inside Charlotte's city limits. Such a move also requires legislative approval.

Richardson said he had met with encouragement in meetings with legislative leaders and Gov. Pat McCrory. Richardson, who is 76, has said he needs the stadium improvements to make the team attractive to buyer who would keep it in Charlotte after his death.

http://www.wral.com/panthers-owner-city-seek-legislative-approval-/12100989/

Richardson is exactly right in explaining why teams don't pay their own way. It isn't because they can't afford it or a terrible business investment (IOW, a reason given by some opponents as to why they don't so therefore they ask for subsidies--it is a terrible investment from a public financing POV) it is because they don't have to because there is a very small supply of NFL teams and a high demand from cities to host a NFL franchise. It is why relocation threats are effective because if the host city doesn't cough up the $$ another city will.

Refreshingly honest remark by a NFL owner.

10 replies, 713 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Richardson: State, city should help support 'coveted' NFL franchise (Original post)
JonLP24 Feb 2013 OP
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #1
JonLP24 Feb 2013 #2
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #3
Upton Feb 2013 #5
JonLP24 Feb 2013 #10
mythology Feb 2013 #7
Upton Feb 2013 #4
Auggie Feb 2013 #6
hughee99 Feb 2013 #8
Auggie Feb 2013 #9

Response to JonLP24 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:43 PM

1. get rid of the monopoly and let anyone start a team

republicans should love that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:48 PM

2. That is actually probably the only way to stop this stadium madness

Since entry is fixed and hard to get into (for reasonable reasons such as standings, # of playoff teams, etc) it effects the supply. If anyone could start a team, it removes the incentive to cater to the demands of teams. Look at how often new stadiums are created and why in the Premier League. Plus teams rarely relocate.

Unfortanately there is no way to tell the NFL to change the way they do business unless you have congressional action which the public will oppose and there are no legal ways to challenge since taxpayers cannot legally be considered consumers(if they were, the way NFL teams shakedown cities would violate anti-trust laws).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:53 PM

3. you lost me

The public should like that because there would be more teams, more jobs because they would need more players

and why would taxpayers not be considered consumers??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:09 PM

5. The EPL has 20 teams in a country about the size of Oregon..

of course they don't relocate..where in the heck are they going to relocate to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:28 PM

10. That is a reason why they don't relocate

If a team threatens to move, a response would be, "So what? There's a team down the street."

Either way, they can't use a relocation threat for public financing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:00 PM

7. There's virtually no way that would work on any meaningful level

The cost of starting a league would be astronomical.

Not just all of the physical infrastructure, but human resources as well and tv contracts. There's a reason that none of the alternatives to the NFL have succeeded since the AFL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:04 PM

4. Put it to a vote..

I realize that's not the case here in Carolina, but the people of Santa Clara passed Measure J (937 million for the new 49ers stadium) in 2010 with 58%...if the voters say YES, what's the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:32 PM

6. Haven't most of these improvements, historically, been the addition of luxury suites?

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

The money that's earned from those do not go to revenue sharing around the league but stays with ownership. Taxpayers are simply funding the bill for franchises to earn more. The threats are bribes.

Upton is right. Let taxpayers decide just how they want to be fucked up the ass.

Yeah ... a lot of edits

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auggie (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:33 AM

8. Why would the taxpayers care about revenue sharing?

What do they care if the extra money goes to Minnesota or Jacksonville? It's likely better for the local community financially if it doesn't get shared with other teams.

If they're building luxury suites and that money doesn't go to revenue sharing, doesn't that make it more attractive to a potential buyer to keep the team where it is? I'm sure the upgrades will generate SOME revenue for the local area, but I'm sure it's still a losing proposition for the community. Let them vote on it.

On a side note, I've seen a number of communities do such things and pay for it with a small increase is local food/beverage taxes. Why is it that a 1-2% increase for stadium enhancements doesn't seem to be a big deal, but when you tell people it's going to health insurance instead, they go friggin' nuts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:26 AM

9. Let them vote on it -- we're all in agreement.

They just have to be careful to make the right agreement. As the cities of Oakland and Jacksonville have discovered, parking, concessions and rent aren't enough to repay the loans they give to NFL franchises.

Oakland Pays $14 Million for NFL Raiders as Cops Fired

Oakland, California, the fifth-most crime ridden city in America, faced a $32 million budget deficit in fiscal 2011. It closed the gap by shrinking its police force by 18 percent, shedding 138 officers including 80 dismissals.

Untouched was the $14 million that the city pays to stage 10 games a season for the National Football League’s Oakland Raiders and to host Major League Baseball’s Athletics in the O.co Coliseum. The funds include operations and costs related to a swap contract, and are supplemented by $10 million from surrounding Alameda County, based on data compiled by Bloomberg from public records.
“If someone calls 911, you’re looking at an indeterminate amount of time before an officer can respond,” says Barry Donelan, 40, a sergeant who is president of the Oakland police union. “Citizens are suffering.” Reversing a renewed rise in violent crime is out of the question, he says.

Now the city is under pressure to replace the 46-year-old structure to keep the Raiders. The team’s owners may move to nearby Santa Clara and share an under-construction, $1.2 billion venue with the San Francisco 49ers, or to Los Angeles, where the City Council has backed a $1.5 billion stadium hoping to lure the NFL. Losing the Raiders would leave Oakland with about $122 million in debt after a refinancing in 2012, which originated 17 years ago in part to bring the team back from Los Angeles.

Oakland mirrors dozens of other U.S. cities and states whose taxpayers provide publicly owned facilities and financial subsidies to teams in the NFL, the most popular U.S. sports league with more than $9 billion in annual revenue. Jacksonville, Florida, also fired police officers and cut services while lowering the Jaguars’ rent 11 times since 1993 and deferring $12.3 million in rent payments.


MORE: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-20/oakland-pays-17-million-for-nfl-raiders-as-cops-get-cut.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread