Scott Walker just lost my vote

[Seawytch]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Yup...

Money for Nothing

It’s a pattern that has been repeating itself over the last 20 years among the nation’s professional sports leagues: Demolish an old sports stadium and then build a glitzier one. Some say these new stadiums particularly reflect the success of the National Football League, whose total revenue since 1995 is $99.4 billion. But a large part of the funding for most of these stadiums comes not from the pro leagues but from taxpayers.

Some critics see it as a form of corporate welfare, and what few people realize is that even after a stadium is torn down, taxpayer dollars can still go to paying off its debt.

For example, at the time it was demolished in 2000, the Seattle Kingdome, home to the Mariners and the Seahawks, had an outstanding government debt of $83 million, and when Giants Stadium was demolished in 2010, it had a government debt of $266 million, which isn’t scheduled to be paid back until 2025.​

When it comes to football stadiums, cities keep building giant facilities, with state and local governments paying, on average, for 57 percent of construction costs. That translates to over $6 billion taxpayer dollars to build fancy football stadiums since 1995.[...]

The Minnesota Vikings’ billion-dollar U.S. Bank Stadium is scheduled to open in July 2016. And given that the average life span of a new football stadium has dropped to just 30 years, the Vikings’ stadium will likely be demolished around the time the last of the public bonds financing its construction are paid off.​

I do agree with you, I still don't get why they had to destroy these 30 ~40 year old domes. Hell Wrigley field is still fine over being a 100 plus years old.

But my point is, you are right they have the tax payers by the balls. Either they pay or they leave.

If we pay, we should own them...Like Green Bay.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Yup...

Money for Nothing

It’s a pattern that has been repeating itself over the last 20 years among the nation’s professional sports leagues: Demolish an old sports stadium and then build a glitzier one. Some say these new stadiums particularly reflect the success of the National Football League, whose total revenue since 1995 is $99.4 billion. But a large part of the funding for most of these stadiums comes not from the pro leagues but from taxpayers.

Some critics see it as a form of corporate welfare, and what few people realize is that even after a stadium is torn down, taxpayer dollars can still go to paying off its debt.

For example, at the time it was demolished in 2000, the Seattle Kingdome, home to the Mariners and the Seahawks, had an outstanding government debt of $83 million, and when Giants Stadium was demolished in 2010, it had a government debt of $266 million, which isn’t scheduled to be paid back until 2025.​

When it comes to football stadiums, cities keep building giant facilities, with state and local governments paying, on average, for 57 percent of construction costs. That translates to over $6 billion taxpayer dollars to build fancy football stadiums since 1995.[...]

The Minnesota Vikings’ billion-dollar U.S. Bank Stadium is scheduled to open in July 2016. And given that the average life span of a new football stadium has dropped to just 30 years, the Vikings’ stadium will likely be demolished around the time the last of the public bonds financing its construction are paid off.​

I do agree with you, I still don't get why they had to destroy these 30 ~40 year old domes. Hell Wrigley field is still fine over being a 100 plus years old.

But my point is, you are right they have the tax payers by the balls. Either they pay or they leave.

So, its the job of government to keep sports team where they are? And I highly doubt they ever would have left, a load of crap line thrown out there to make buck fans stand up and yell for the stadium. As for the bipartisan support, I don't see how that makes it better, both parties take bribes.

So the chicago cardinals didn't leave chicago and become the LA rams?

The LA rams didn't leave los Angeles to st. Louis?

The Oakland raiders didint leave Oakland to los angles and go back?

The Cleveland browns didn't leave Cleveland to Baltimore?

The Minnesota Lakers didn't leave Minnesota to los Angeles?

And on and on...

You are ignorant of sports franchise history

 

[theHawk]

I don't like taxpayer money for professional sports either, but Walker is hardly the only one to go along with that.

I'm certainly not going to run and vote for Queen Cankles over this.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/u...-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

I do not live in WI, but I despise every wealthy whore bastard who abuses our system and gets a politician to grant massive corporate welfare so as to socialize the cost and privatize the profits of a fucking worthless sports stadium.

Only the illegal alien catastrophe angers me more than this, and Walker should never have done this, especially now. $250 MM for a stadium that will pay back $6.5 MM / year? What kind of fucking idiot math is that?

Why do you hate making a profit?

Your math skills suck!!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Another fucking liberal, gets called out on his bullshit and not a peep from him.

 

[Jackson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/u...-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

I do not live in WI, but I despise every wealthy whore bastard who abuses our system and gets a politician to grant massive corporate welfare so as to socialize the cost and privatize the profits of a fucking worthless sports stadium.

Only the illegal alien catastrophe angers me more than this, and Walker should never have done this, especially now. $250 MM for a stadium that will pay back $6.5 MM / year? What kind of fucking idiot math is that?

I read where there would be income of $3 for every $1. You also have to figure in hotels, restaurants, entertainment and the jobs that would be created. Those jobs in turn increase to the tax base and lower the unemployment figure. Seems like a Win Win.

 

[AceRothstein]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Yup...

Money for Nothing

It’s a pattern that has been repeating itself over the last 20 years among the nation’s professional sports leagues: Demolish an old sports stadium and then build a glitzier one. Some say these new stadiums particularly reflect the success of the National Football League, whose total revenue since 1995 is $99.4 billion. But a large part of the funding for most of these stadiums comes not from the pro leagues but from taxpayers.

Some critics see it as a form of corporate welfare, and what few people realize is that even after a stadium is torn down, taxpayer dollars can still go to paying off its debt.

For example, at the time it was demolished in 2000, the Seattle Kingdome, home to the Mariners and the Seahawks, had an outstanding government debt of $83 million, and when Giants Stadium was demolished in 2010, it had a government debt of $266 million, which isn’t scheduled to be paid back until 2025.​

When it comes to football stadiums, cities keep building giant facilities, with state and local governments paying, on average, for 57 percent of construction costs. That translates to over $6 billion taxpayer dollars to build fancy football stadiums since 1995.[...]

The Minnesota Vikings’ billion-dollar U.S. Bank Stadium is scheduled to open in July 2016. And given that the average life span of a new football stadium has dropped to just 30 years, the Vikings’ stadium will likely be demolished around the time the last of the public bonds financing its construction are paid off.​

I do agree with you, I still don't get why they had to destroy these 30 ~40 year old domes. Hell Wrigley field is still fine over being a 100 plus years old.

But my point is, you are right they have the tax payers by the balls. Either they pay or they leave.

So, its the job of government to keep sports team where they are? And I highly doubt they ever would have left, a load of crap line thrown out there to make buck fans stand up and yell for the stadium. As for the bipartisan support, I don't see how that makes it better, both parties take bribes.

So the chicago cardinals didn't leave chicago and become the LA rams?

The LA rams didn't leave los Angeles to st. Louis?

The Oakland raiders didint leave Oakland to los angles and go back?

The Cleveland browns didn't leave Cleveland to Baltimore?

The Minnesota Lakers didn't leave Minnesota to los Angeles?

And on and on...

You are ignorant of sports franchise history

The Cardinals left Chicago for St. Louis who left St. Louis for Arizona.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Yup...

Money for Nothing

It’s a pattern that has been repeating itself over the last 20 years among the nation’s professional sports leagues: Demolish an old sports stadium and then build a glitzier one. Some say these new stadiums particularly reflect the success of the National Football League, whose total revenue since 1995 is $99.4 billion. But a large part of the funding for most of these stadiums comes not from the pro leagues but from taxpayers.

Some critics see it as a form of corporate welfare, and what few people realize is that even after a stadium is torn down, taxpayer dollars can still go to paying off its debt.

For example, at the time it was demolished in 2000, the Seattle Kingdome, home to the Mariners and the Seahawks, had an outstanding government debt of $83 million, and when Giants Stadium was demolished in 2010, it had a government debt of $266 million, which isn’t scheduled to be paid back until 2025.​

When it comes to football stadiums, cities keep building giant facilities, with state and local governments paying, on average, for 57 percent of construction costs. That translates to over $6 billion taxpayer dollars to build fancy football stadiums since 1995.[...]

The Minnesota Vikings’ billion-dollar U.S. Bank Stadium is scheduled to open in July 2016. And given that the average life span of a new football stadium has dropped to just 30 years, the Vikings’ stadium will likely be demolished around the time the last of the public bonds financing its construction are paid off.​

I do agree with you, I still don't get why they had to destroy these 30 ~40 year old domes. Hell Wrigley field is still fine over being a 100 plus years old.

But my point is, you are right they have the tax payers by the balls. Either they pay or they leave.

If we pay, we should own them...Like Green Bay.

But you do know owning a piece of the Packers is just a novelty , it can't be sold.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

I think this scenario has happened over and over...state by state. Rich guys want stadiums, promise good jobs and neighborhood revitalization. They have to include the neighborhood revitalization because it looks weird to spending Elevety Million on a Stadium across from the worst part of town. They open with jobs as a hot dog vendor and other well paying shit. And then charge an arm and a leg for tickets too.

 

[Wyatt earp]

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Yup...

Money for Nothing

It’s a pattern that has been repeating itself over the last 20 years among the nation’s professional sports leagues: Demolish an old sports stadium and then build a glitzier one. Some say these new stadiums particularly reflect the success of the National Football League, whose total revenue since 1995 is $99.4 billion. But a large part of the funding for most of these stadiums comes not from the pro leagues but from taxpayers.

Some critics see it as a form of corporate welfare, and what few people realize is that even after a stadium is torn down, taxpayer dollars can still go to paying off its debt.

For example, at the time it was demolished in 2000, the Seattle Kingdome, home to the Mariners and the Seahawks, had an outstanding government debt of $83 million, and when Giants Stadium was demolished in 2010, it had a government debt of $266 million, which isn’t scheduled to be paid back until 2025.​

When it comes to football stadiums, cities keep building giant facilities, with state and local governments paying, on average, for 57 percent of construction costs. That translates to over $6 billion taxpayer dollars to build fancy football stadiums since 1995.[...]

The Minnesota Vikings’ billion-dollar U.S. Bank Stadium is scheduled to open in July 2016. And given that the average life span of a new football stadium has dropped to just 30 years, the Vikings’ stadium will likely be demolished around the time the last of the public bonds financing its construction are paid off.​

I do agree with you, I still don't get why they had to destroy these 30 ~40 year old domes. Hell Wrigley field is still fine over being a 100 plus years old.

But my point is, you are right they have the tax payers by the balls. Either they pay or they leave.

So, its the job of government to keep sports team where they are? And I highly doubt they ever would have left, a load of crap line thrown out there to make buck fans stand up and yell for the stadium. As for the bipartisan support, I don't see how that makes it better, both parties take bribes.

So the chicago cardinals didn't leave chicago and become the LA rams?

The LA rams didn't leave los Angeles to st. Louis?

The Oakland raiders didint leave Oakland to los angles and go back?

The Cleveland browns didn't leave Cleveland to Baltimore?

The Minnesota Lakers didn't leave Minnesota to los Angeles?

And on and on...

You are ignorant of sports franchise history

The Cardinals left Chicago for St. Louis who left St. Louis for Arizona.

really? Didn't know that one, so they went from chicago to st.Louis to Arizona to LA to st. Louis?
Kind of funny

 

[The sheeple sea]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Yup...

Money for Nothing

It’s a pattern that has been repeating itself over the last 20 years among the nation’s professional sports leagues: Demolish an old sports stadium and then build a glitzier one. Some say these new stadiums particularly reflect the success of the National Football League, whose total revenue since 1995 is $99.4 billion. But a large part of the funding for most of these stadiums comes not from the pro leagues but from taxpayers.

Some critics see it as a form of corporate welfare, and what few people realize is that even after a stadium is torn down, taxpayer dollars can still go to paying off its debt.

For example, at the time it was demolished in 2000, the Seattle Kingdome, home to the Mariners and the Seahawks, had an outstanding government debt of $83 million, and when Giants Stadium was demolished in 2010, it had a government debt of $266 million, which isn’t scheduled to be paid back until 2025.​

When it comes to football stadiums, cities keep building giant facilities, with state and local governments paying, on average, for 57 percent of construction costs. That translates to over $6 billion taxpayer dollars to build fancy football stadiums since 1995.[...]

The Minnesota Vikings’ billion-dollar U.S. Bank Stadium is scheduled to open in July 2016. And given that the average life span of a new football stadium has dropped to just 30 years, the Vikings’ stadium will likely be demolished around the time the last of the public bonds financing its construction are paid off.​

I do agree with you, I still don't get why they had to destroy these 30 ~40 year old domes. Hell Wrigley field is still fine over being a 100 plus years old.

But my point is, you are right they have the tax payers by the balls. Either they pay or they leave.

So, its the job of government to keep sports team where they are? And I highly doubt they ever would have left, a load of crap line thrown out there to make buck fans stand up and yell for the stadium. As for the bipartisan support, I don't see how that makes it better, both parties take bribes.

So the chicago cardinals didn't leave chicago and become the LA rams?

The LA rams didn't leave los Angeles to st. Louis?

The Oakland raiders didint leave Oakland to los angles and go back?

The Cleveland browns didn't leave Cleveland to Baltimore?

The Minnesota Lakers didn't leave Minnesota to los Angeles?

And on and on...

You are ignorant of sports franchise history

And the buffalo bills have been saying they're leaving buffalo for years, I may be ignorant of sports franchise history, but this is politics, and people lie. It just shows how far the Republican party has fallen when no one complains that the government pays for a private stadium. As for the financial part, I stress again that EVERYTIME the government says its making a smart investment that will pay itself off it NEVER does. You seem to be ignorant of political history, I'd say that's the bigger crime.

 

[The sheeple sea]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/u...-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

I do not live in WI, but I despise every wealthy whore bastard who abuses our system and gets a politician to grant massive corporate welfare so as to socialize the cost and privatize the profits of a fucking worthless sports stadium.

Only the illegal alien catastrophe angers me more than this, and Walker should never have done this, especially now. $250 MM for a stadium that will pay back $6.5 MM / year? What kind of fucking idiot math is that?

I read where there would be income of $3 for every $1. You also have to figure in hotels, restaurants, entertainment and the jobs that would be created. Those jobs in turn increase to the tax base and lower the unemployment figure. Seems like a Win Win.

The stadium is not full 24\7 I highly doubt that PERMANENT new jobs will be made for other businesses. They don't build new restaurants for when there's a concert in town or a hotel for when there's a game. Your grasp on economics is frightening. When there is a game local businesses may have a slight boost or a busy period and then business as normal. I can't see it being close to making back that 300 million, the figures that most support building the stadium are the figures being deposited into the politicians bank accounts by the owner, its a lot cheaper to pay politicians 20 million and make them build your stadium that pay 300 million to build it yourself.

 

[Jackson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/u...-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

I do not live in WI, but I despise every wealthy whore bastard who abuses our system and gets a politician to grant massive corporate welfare so as to socialize the cost and privatize the profits of a fucking worthless sports stadium.

Only the illegal alien catastrophe angers me more than this, and Walker should never have done this, especially now. $250 MM for a stadium that will pay back $6.5 MM / year? What kind of fucking idiot math is that?

I read where there would be income of $3 for every $1. You also have to figure in hotels, restaurants, entertainment and the jobs that would be created. Those jobs in turn increase to the tax base and lower the unemployment figure. Seems like a Win Win.

The stadium is not full 24\7 I highly doubt that PERMANENT new jobs will be made for other businesses. They don't build new restaurants for when there's a concert in town or a hotel for when there's a game. Your grasp on economics is frightening. When there is a game local businesses may have a slight boost or a busy period and then business as normal. I can't see it being close to making back that 300 million, the figures that most support building the stadium are the figures being deposited into the politicians bank accounts by the owner, its a lot cheaper to pay politicians 20 million and make them build your stadium that pay 300 million to build it yourself.

You are having a hard time with reality there, friend.

 

[AceRothstein]

Yup...

Money for Nothing

It’s a pattern that has been repeating itself over the last 20 years among the nation’s professional sports leagues: Demolish an old sports stadium and then build a glitzier one. Some say these new stadiums particularly reflect the success of the National Football League, whose total revenue since 1995 is $99.4 billion. But a large part of the funding for most of these stadiums comes not from the pro leagues but from taxpayers.

Some critics see it as a form of corporate welfare, and what few people realize is that even after a stadium is torn down, taxpayer dollars can still go to paying off its debt.

For example, at the time it was demolished in 2000, the Seattle Kingdome, home to the Mariners and the Seahawks, had an outstanding government debt of $83 million, and when Giants Stadium was demolished in 2010, it had a government debt of $266 million, which isn’t scheduled to be paid back until 2025.​

When it comes to football stadiums, cities keep building giant facilities, with state and local governments paying, on average, for 57 percent of construction costs. That translates to over $6 billion taxpayer dollars to build fancy football stadiums since 1995.[...]

The Minnesota Vikings’ billion-dollar U.S. Bank Stadium is scheduled to open in July 2016. And given that the average life span of a new football stadium has dropped to just 30 years, the Vikings’ stadium will likely be demolished around the time the last of the public bonds financing its construction are paid off.​

I do agree with you, I still don't get why they had to destroy these 30 ~40 year old domes. Hell Wrigley field is still fine over being a 100 plus years old.

But my point is, you are right they have the tax payers by the balls. Either they pay or they leave.

So, its the job of government to keep sports team where they are? And I highly doubt they ever would have left, a load of crap line thrown out there to make buck fans stand up and yell for the stadium. As for the bipartisan support, I don't see how that makes it better, both parties take bribes.

So the chicago cardinals didn't leave chicago and become the LA rams?

The LA rams didn't leave los Angeles to st. Louis?

The Oakland raiders didint leave Oakland to los angles and go back?

The Cleveland browns didn't leave Cleveland to Baltimore?

The Minnesota Lakers didn't leave Minnesota to los Angeles?

And on and on...

You are ignorant of sports franchise history

The Cardinals left Chicago for St. Louis who left St. Louis for Arizona.

really? Didn't know that one, so they went from chicago to st.Louis to Arizona to LA to st. Louis?
Kind of funny

They are two different franchises.

Cardinals
Chicago > St. Louis > Arizona

Rams
Cleveland > LA > St. Louis

 

[Wyatt earp]

I do agree with you, I still don't get why they had to destroy these 30 ~40 year old domes. Hell Wrigley field is still fine over being a 100 plus years old.

But my point is, you are right they have the tax payers by the balls. Either they pay or they leave.

So, its the job of government to keep sports team where they are? And I highly doubt they ever would have left, a load of crap line thrown out there to make buck fans stand up and yell for the stadium. As for the bipartisan support, I don't see how that makes it better, both parties take bribes.

So the chicago cardinals didn't leave chicago and become the LA rams?

The LA rams didn't leave los Angeles to st. Louis?

The Oakland raiders didint leave Oakland to los angles and go back?

The Cleveland browns didn't leave Cleveland to Baltimore?

The Minnesota Lakers didn't leave Minnesota to los Angeles?

And on and on...

You are ignorant of sports franchise history

The Cardinals left Chicago for St. Louis who left St. Louis for Arizona.

really? Didn't know that one, so they went from chicago to st.Louis to Arizona to LA to st. Louis?
Kind of funny

They are two different franchises.

Cardinals
Chicago > St. Louis > Arizona

Rams
Cleveland > LA > St. Louis

Thanks, I made a major mistake, had a brain fart... After I posted it and thinking about it.

 

[candycorn]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Milwaukee only has the bucks and brewers, the packers don't play half of their home games there no more. Not sure how much revenue the bucks pump into the local economy but I am sure it is a big chunk of change.

With Houston, the Texans gave them national perstige, that they lacked after the oilers left.

And of course the taxpayers can put that "national prestige" in the bank, pay their mortgage with it and purchase food. My mistake.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Milwaukee only has the bucks and brewers, the packers don't play half of their home games there no more. Not sure how much revenue the bucks pump into the local economy but I am sure it is a big chunk of change.

With Houston, the Texans gave them national perstige, that they lacked after the oilers left.

And of course the taxpayers can put that "national prestige" in the bank, pay their mortgage with it and purchase food. My mistake.

You are a woman, but us guys would be so pissed off if the bears and cubs left chicago, the packers left green bay, the giants left new York, red socks left fenway...

We would be mad as hell.

Its tradition ...

 

[candycorn]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Yup...

Money for Nothing

It’s a pattern that has been repeating itself over the last 20 years among the nation’s professional sports leagues: Demolish an old sports stadium and then build a glitzier one. Some say these new stadiums particularly reflect the success of the National Football League, whose total revenue since 1995 is $99.4 billion. But a large part of the funding for most of these stadiums comes not from the pro leagues but from taxpayers.

Some critics see it as a form of corporate welfare, and what few people realize is that even after a stadium is torn down, taxpayer dollars can still go to paying off its debt.

For example, at the time it was demolished in 2000, the Seattle Kingdome, home to the Mariners and the Seahawks, had an outstanding government debt of $83 million, and when Giants Stadium was demolished in 2010, it had a government debt of $266 million, which isn’t scheduled to be paid back until 2025.​

When it comes to football stadiums, cities keep building giant facilities, with state and local governments paying, on average, for 57 percent of construction costs. That translates to over $6 billion taxpayer dollars to build fancy football stadiums since 1995.[...]

The Minnesota Vikings’ billion-dollar U.S. Bank Stadium is scheduled to open in July 2016. And given that the average life span of a new football stadium has dropped to just 30 years, the Vikings’ stadium will likely be demolished around the time the last of the public bonds financing its construction are paid off.​

I do agree with you, I still don't get why they had to destroy these 30 ~40 year old domes. Hell Wrigley field is still fine over being a 100 plus years old.

But my point is, you are right they have the tax payers by the balls. Either they pay or they leave.

Factually wrong. When we lost the Oilers, we simply found other things to do. Nobody in Los Angeles seems worse off for not having the NFL there. Meanwhile, Jacksonville is still thought of as a place to stop on the way to Disney; getting a team has done little to improve their "national prestige".

It is strictly a vanity play by the mayors and governors. Just admit it.

 

[candycorn]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Milwaukee only has the bucks and brewers, the packers don't play half of their home games there no more. Not sure how much revenue the bucks pump into the local economy but I am sure it is a big chunk of change.

With Houston, the Texans gave them national perstige, that they lacked after the oilers left.

And of course the taxpayers can put that "national prestige" in the bank, pay their mortgage with it and purchase food. My mistake.

You are a woman, but us guys would be so pissed off if the bears and cubs left chicago, the packers left green bay, the giants left new York, red socks left fenway...

We would be mad as hell.

Its tradition ...

Stop being simple.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You have a major reading comprehension problem, that 6.5 million is just from players salary and the like....

From the link......

Mr. Walker praised the deal, passed with bipartisan support in the Legislature, as a sound investment that will return $3 in state taxes for every $1 invested.

While I lived there, Houston built 3 brand new stadiums, all with the promise of jobs, increasing the tax base, and rehabilitating the neighborhoods. Absolutely none of that took place; the neighborhoods are still in the same conditions they were before the stadiums and the city was furloughing employees well after the stadiums supposed benefits were supposed to have kicked in.

Milwaukee only has the bucks and brewers, the packers don't play half of their home games there no more. Not sure how much revenue the bucks pump into the local economy but I am sure it is a big chunk of change.

With Houston, the Texans gave them national perstige, that they lacked after the oilers left.

And of course the taxpayers can put that "national prestige" in the bank, pay their mortgage with it and purchase food. My mistake.

You are a woman, but us guys would be so pissed off if the bears and cubs left chicago, the packers left green bay, the giants left new York, red socks left fenway...

We would be mad as hell.

Its tradition ...

Stop being simple.

I know you think it's simple and silly, but my guess you never been to the Wrigley field. You never been to a bulls game and watched Michael work magic, you never been to fenway park, you never froze your ass off at old soldier field in December between the packers and bear's.

You never been to death valley in a Clemson game between the tigers and gamecocks...

I have