NFL Week 17 thread -- Lumps of coal for you

[outofplace]

He deserves to lose every dollar of it, but two games is pure crap.

 

[DanOregon]

but muh job creation

If you say the stadium will "live" 40 years (generous I know), it would need to generate $75m a year to pay for itself, not taking into account upkeep, additional costs, the renovations 15 years down the road. And how many events will it host? But they'll get a Super Bowl, which has a chance to not be horrible since SB is creeping deeper into February.

 

[DanOregon]

I'd love to see ESPN hype its Christmas NBA line-up by saying ALL of their teams are still in the playoff hunt, but I know they won't because they don't want to offend the NFL.

 

[HanSenSE]

Gotta wonder what it means for the Royals as well. They had a deal for a new yard/"entertainment district" shot down at the ballot box recently.

 

[tapintoamerica]

If you say the stadium will "live" 40 years (generous I know), it would need to generate $75m a year to pay for itself, not taking into account upkeep, additional costs, the renovations 15 years down the road. And how many events will it host? But they'll get a Super Bowl, which has a chance to not be horrible since SB is creeping deeper into February.

I’d love to read similar declarations about current facilities when they were built. I suspect authorities promised the moon back then. But then the 50-year pledge turns into 25, the “need” based not so much on structure but on The New Biggest Thing, I.e. luxury suites or mixed-use development.

 

[tapintoamerica]

Gotta wonder what it means for the Royals as well. They had a deal for a new yard/"entertainment district" shot down at the ballot box recently.

That one pained me. Would have been a community asset — strategically located near the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. No added cost to taxpayers.
I’m not a resident, but one of the people involved is a good friend.

 

[FileNotFound]

It was super-refreshing for all those years to see Kansas City not be one of the cities whining for new stadia, because they did such a good job with Arrowhead and the K. Oh well. All good things come to an end.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

 

[TigerVols]

It was super-refreshing for all those years to see Kansas City not be one of the cities whining for new stadia, because they did such a good job with Arrowhead and the K. Oh well. All good things come to an end.

That’s the motto for 2025, no?

 

[Bubbler]

I don’t think anyone is honest about the economics of stadia.

I think those who over-promise economic benefit are full of ****. I also think economists who claim little to no benefit are also full of ****.

The truth is somewhere in-between. Depends on how often it’s used, how versatile the building is (does it have a roof? can it host concerts?), and how well it’s ingrained to its community.

But the notion that stadia do next to nothing? Nah. In Milwaukee, there’s an entire district of bars and restaurants north and south of ex-Miller Park that would not exist in those neighborhoods without the ballpark. The notion that those same bars and restaurants would merely exist elsewhere somewhere else in the city without a sports facility to sustain them is a dubious notion.

I don’t think stadiums are a waste of public money … if it’s done right. Indianapolis transformed its downtown due to its commitment to sports facilities. Other cities have had mixed results via the same model.

I do think the mixed-use model that I suppose started with the Braves stadium does fly in the face of “stadiums help the businesses in the immediate area” argument. Those mixed-use projects siphon business away from existing local businesses.

 

[qtlaw]

It’s 10 years later and I don’t really care that the 49ers are in some city 40 miles away. They still wear same jersey as before AND some other clowns are paying the bill.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

I don’t think anyone is honest about the economics of stadia.

I think those who over-promise economic benefit are full of ****. I also think economists who claim little to no benefit are also full of ****.

The truth is somewhere in-between. Depends on how often it’s used, how versatile the building is (does it have a roof? can it host concerts?), and how well it’s ingrained to its community.

But the notion that stadia do next to nothing? Nah. In Milwaukee, there’s an entire district of bars and restaurants north and south of ex-Miller Park that would not exist in those neighborhoods without the ballpark. The notion that those same bars and restaurants would merely exist elsewhere somewhere else in the city without a sports facility to sustain them is a dubious notion.

I don’t think stadiums are a waste of public money … if it’s done right. Indianapolis transformed its downtown due to its commitment to sports facilities. Other cities have had mixed results via the same model.

I do think the mixed-use model that I suppose started with the Braves stadium does fly in the face of “stadiums help the businesses in the immediate area” argument. Those mixed-use projects siphon business away from existing local businesses.

It’s not that those bars and restaurants would exist elsewhere, it’s that local patrons of them would be spending their disposable income at pre-existing bars and restaurants elsewhere. The outside money from tourists just doesn’t provide enough lift to offset all the associated costs of such a project.

Many years ago, when I was still an SE, a local businessman and real estate developer started pushing for a minor league baseball stadium here. I read everything I could about publicly-financed stadiums - I’m talking books and PhD theses by economists and economic impact studies by Chambers of Commerces. They all showed - at best - a neutral ROI.

The developer hired a stadium firm to help sell the project to our city leadership. They came to my office and did a huge PowerPoint about how great it would be.

I asked them “Have you ever been approached and said ‘Sorry, this project isn’t feasible and you are wasting money trying to do it?’” They said they had not. The meeting ended immediately. They told everybody who would listen afterwards I was the rudest member of the media they’d ever encountered.

To this day - some 20 years later - the real estate developer still hates me and blames my columns for nipping his stadium in the bud.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Also, as people dive into the fine print, this deal looks worse and worse for the taxpayers of Kansas.

The plan is to use state sales tax and liquor tax from the “stadium district” to pay off the $3 Billion in bonds. What do you think of when you hear “stadium district?” I bet it isn’t a zone of nearly 300 square miles.

Chiefs stadium subsidy hits $4.1B, could siphon off taxes from 293-square-mile swath of Kansas

 

[Bubbler]

It’s not that those bars and restaurants would exist elsewhere, it’s that local patrons of them would be spending their disposable income at pre-existing bars and restaurants elsewhere.

I don’t think that’s provable. Some people would spend that money elsewhere, some wouldn’t spend it at all.

Last night, I was at a game between two dog-ass NBA teams. There were probably 13-14,000 butts in seats. A lot of those people were patronizing restaurants and bars in the downtown area near the arena to the point where it was hard to get a table.

No one is going to convince me that all or even a plurality of those same people, on a Tuesday night two days before Christmas, are going to be spending those same dollars on restaurants throughout the wider scope of the city without sports entertainment as the catalyst for it.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I don’t think anyone is honest about the economics of stadia.

I think those who over-promise economic benefit are full of ****. I also think economists who claim little to no benefit are also full of ****.

The truth is somewhere in-between. Depends on how often it’s used, how versatile the building is (does it have a roof? can it host concerts?), and how well it’s ingrained to its community.

But the notion that stadia do next to nothing? Nah. In Milwaukee, there’s an entire district of bars and restaurants north and south of ex-Miller Park that would not exist in those neighborhoods without the ballpark. The notion that those same bars and restaurants would merely exist elsewhere somewhere else in the city without a sports facility to sustain them is a dubious notion.

I don’t think stadiums are a waste of public money … if it’s done right. Indianapolis transformed its downtown due to its commitment to sports facilities. Other cities have had mixed results via the same model.

I do think the mixed-use model that I suppose started with the Braves stadium does fly in the face of “stadiums help the businesses in the immediate area” argument. Those mixed-use projects siphon business away from existing local businesses.

Agreed. And it all depends on the type of project.

I remember what downtown Phoenix was like before the baseball stadium went in. That area is now a thriving destination area even in the off season. There's a real value to a city having a downtown that isn't a dystopian mess after 5pm.

(Now, the Chiefs' stadium deal? That looks about as bad as these gets.)

 

[Inky_Wretch]

I don’t think that’s provable. Some people would spend that money elsewhere, some wouldn’t spend it at all.

Last night, I was at a game between two dog-ass NBA teams. There were probably 13-14,000 butts in seats. A lot of those people were patronizing restaurants and bars in the downtown area near the arena to the point where it was hard to get a table.

No one is going to convince me that all or even a plurality of those same people, on a Tuesday night two days before Christmas, are going to be spending those same dollars on restaurants throughout the wider scope of the city without sports entertainment as the catalyst for it.

Most people have a fixed amount of discretionary spending for dining out and entertainment. If they spend it on gameday, they won’t spend it the other six days of the week. So it’s not new money, but shifted money, being spent.

Stadiums Shift Spending Patterns, Don’t Boost Local Economies

 

[HappyCurmudgeon]

25% of the games this week are on streamers.

Otherwise I know I my Christmas wish included watching Max Brosmer and Chris Oladokun starting a sanctioned NFL football game

 

[justgladtobehere]

I don’t think that’s provable. Some people would spend that money elsewhere, some wouldn’t spend it at all.

That's never to be shown to be true to any meaningful extent. People aren't sitting on discretionary money, waiting for a stadium or bar district to open up on their doorstep to spend the money.

And if downtown Phoenix is an example of it working, I don't think it's that great of a deal.

 

[tapintoamerica]

I don’t think anyone is honest about the economics of stadia.

I think those who over-promise economic benefit are full of ****. I also think economists who claim little to no benefit are also full of ****.

The truth is somewhere in-between. Depends on how often it’s used, how versatile the building is (does it have a roof? can it host concerts?), and how well it’s ingrained to its community.

But the notion that stadia do next to nothing? Nah. In Milwaukee, there’s an entire district of bars and restaurants north and south of ex-Miller Park that would not exist in those neighborhoods without the ballpark. The notion that those same bars and restaurants would merely exist elsewhere somewhere else in the city without a sports facility to sustain them is a dubious notion.

I don’t think stadiums are a waste of public money … if it’s done right. Indianapolis transformed its downtown due to its commitment to sports facilities. Other cities have had mixed results via the same model.

I do think the mixed-use model that I suppose started with the Braves stadium does fly in the face of “stadiums help the businesses in the immediate area” argument. Those mixed-use projects siphon business away from existing local businesses.

I don't doubt the math of the economics gurus who claim public subsidies for stadium construction cost more than they deliver in benefits. I also believe this doesn't have to be a dollar-for-dollar deal in order to be worthwhile.
"Make the billionaires pay for it" is a mantra I wish everybody could adopt in reality. But it isn't. State and local governments don't want to lose teams, and they know lesser places are willing to play the role of stalking horse. Pony up -- to continue the equine cliche train -- or watch them disappear.
You don't have to be a direct beneficiary of government to appreciate an idea has merits.

 

[justgladtobehere]

I don't doubt the math of the economics gurus who claim public subsidies for stadium construction cost more than they deliver in benefits. I also believe this doesn't have to be a dollar-for-dollar deal in order to be worthwhile.
"Make the billionaires pay for it" is a mantra I wish everybody could adopt in reality. But it isn't. State and local governments don't want to lose teams, and they know lesser places are willing to play the role of stalking horse. Pony up -- to continue the equine cliche train -- or watch them disappear.
You don't have to be a direct beneficiary of government to appreciate an idea has merits.

If that's the case, the politicians should stop lying. There won't be an honest debate until people know the economics.