The Mayor sets the record strait on why it's important for Miami to vote Yes..

How much in bonds are actually being issued??? There is no guarantee that bonds will be issued.

The debt is transferred, and in order for it to be transferred, the new owner needs to be a billionaire.

 

They always issue bonds. they (the county) Have NO MONEY. All of it is promised. it's all bull****.

 

They are promising a % of future tax revenues. They aren't guaranteeing anything upfront.

 

oh jeez. I wonder who will make up the shortfall?

especially when it's financed over 30 years.

no bed tax is paying for even 1/4 of the material for the renovation.

 

Theres no shortfall, because there is no guaranteed amount. The Dolphins get 75% of the increased tax, up to a set amount.

Certainly the Dolphins could come back and ask for more money in the future, but that shouldn't really be a consideration at this point.

 

Somebody has to pay for the renovations. Those bills will be due before the money is dispensed from taxes.

There are your bonds. There is the scandal.

 

The moral of the story is this, do you believe having the Dolphins and Sun life stadium benefits local economy?

If no, then the discussion is pointless... but if you realized that having the stadium there is a benefit, why is it so hard to see that investing in upgrades to that beneficial stadium is a plus for everyone?

Especially when you are not effecting any other budget to finance it?

Sent from my Galaxy S III

 

Yeah, its the Dolphins paying. They're able to get that kind of loan because of the added revenues coming in on a yearly basis from the tax increase. Without Miami-Dade giving them that money, the team can't get financing.

 

I don't understand why a bonds must be issued. The document linked above post(XX) says:

1. Dolphins will receive up to $7.5M only if $10M of revenue is collected from the bed tax.
2. If the bed tax doesn't generate $10M the Dolphins receive 75% and the county keeps 25% of the actual amount collected.
3. If the bed tax generates more than $10M the Dolphins still receive $7.5M and the county keeps $2.5M. After funding a shortfall account of $4M the county keeps the rest.
4. The 1st payment by the county (up to $7.5M) is made after the funds from the bed tax are deposited.
5. Stephen Ross signed a personal guaranty to cover all shortfalls in funding.

Edit: My bad. the document was posted here.

http://www.thephins.com/forums/show...stadium-deal&p=2041916&viewfull=1#post2041916

Here's the document.

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2013/04/10/00/24/1bOjYd.So.56.pdf

 

I read somewhere that they have SOME private funds. They better hope its not all in bonds because theyre still paying on bonds the Dolphins issued back in 87

 

Of course they can. It's called equity. the team has tons of it in that stadium and that logo that plays in the NFL.

Dig into that equity and pay for it.

 

That bank considers that when they determine credit worthiness.

 

One step closer to the referendum.

http://www.miamidolphins.com/news/a...69c?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

How much money are the players contributing to these very necessary renovations?

 

When, where do we vote?

 

are you a registered voter in Miami-Dade County ? If yes, then if the legislature gives its final okay, on Tuesday, May 14th, show up at your regular voting precinct between 7am-7pm and register your YES or NO. And if you are in line at 7pm no matter how long it takes you will be allowed to vote, just as happened in the presidential elections.

It's that simple.

 

"They say Sun Life needs $199 million in state funds and tourist-tax revenues as part of a $400 million project to upgrade jumbo monitors, reconfigure the seating and construct an open-air canopy.

However, the new baseball facility belongs to the public, at least on paper. Ross privately owns Dolphins stadium.

He wants a $3 million annual subsidy from the state’s general fund (enough to cover the team’s property taxes), and an overall hike in Miami-Dade’s mainland hotel tax to 7 percent from 6 percent.

That extra 1 percent would go toward remodeling the football stadium. Ross says he’d commit $201 million in private funds, although some of that would likely come from the NFL’s brimming coffers.

Despite anemic attendance, the Dolphins are still making a profit. Yet the team also has a heavy debt load, partially left over from a $210 million facelift done in 2007 by then-owner Wayne Huizenga."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/27/3201020/another-boondoggle-in-the-works.html#storylink=cpy

I wouldn't have voted for building the baseball stadium for the turd Loria, but at least the public owns that stadium. Huizenga just pumped over $200 million into Sun Life a few years ago- if Ross wants to pump in ridiculous money to upgrade jumbo monitors that were state of the art a few years ago, let him pay for it. I'v been there plenty of times, the screens are fine.

Major sporting events have wanted to come down to south Florida for decades, to the Orange Bowl and JRS, or whatever the name is this year (Sun Life). Ross seems to come across as if he's in a position to withhold Super Bowls, major soccer games, etc. unless he gets the money that he wants, which I don't really appreciate. There's enough taxes on hotels already- the common gouging solution of slapping another penny on top to pay for the renovations doesn't work for me. Let Ross jack up the price of beer and hot dogs by a buck each to pay for the upgrades, see how that goes for a while. It's something like 15 bucks already for a crappy hot dog and a large beer, what a deal. The sausage dogs at the Orange Bowl were cheaper and way better anyway.

 

Ross isn't withholding Super Bowls, the NFL has already told them they are unlikely to award Miami any more unless renovations are made. They have been saying that since the last SB was here and it rained. Wonder if snow next year in NY would change that at all?

 

Since the time that I was a little kid living down there, there have been numerous Super Bowls. I don't recall one during which it rained.

Now this is a weather problem:

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Beyoncé may have been sizzling hot in New Orleans, but the first cold-weather Super Bowl at MetLife Stadium may create a problem for performers.

There are no current plans for a halftime show during Super Bowl XLVIII because NFL officials are unsure how to stage the event in a cold-weather climate, a New York Post report said.

“The NFL is freaking out about these issues because they’ve never done a cold-weather Super Bowl,” a source told the Post.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/02/05/cold-weather-may-hinder-2014-super-bowl-halftime-show/

I'll put it this way- I'd rather have Ross pay for the upgrades to his facility, but imo the baseball stadium financing was a joke. Baseball isn't exactly a hot commodity in sofla, attendance is terrible. I've been to a few Marlins games- boring as hell. Want to
go to a real baseball game? Fenway Park. No comparison.

Loria screwed the city for a stadium and then gutted the team, class act.

 

Did you miss the Super bowl in 2007?

 

Pretty much this is the problem. the NFL got their collective panties in a wad because it rained during the Bears/Colts Super Bowl and the "fans" got a little wet. The NFL is the ones who are demanding Miami renovate the stadium before they'll get any more super bowls. The NFL wants upgraded lighting to allow for HD broadcasts and a roof of sorts so the "fans" won't get wet if there is an unlikely rain shower again. The seating as anyone who has ever been to game there knows is also a problem - your just too far away from the field. It was one of the last multipurpose stadiums built before everyone started returning to stadiums designed for a specific sport and as such all sports played there never quite fit.

Frankly I don't think they are asking much. They pay more in property taxes than any other NFL team and nearly every dime of that stadium has come from the current owner of the Fins. That is almost unheard of in todays NFL.

 

I looked it up, Colts and Bears. I don't remember the rain. Wiki said that it was the first SB ever played in rainy conditions- and that's what, about 40 years with some games outdoor and some indoor?

Bottom line- if Ross wants the public to fund the stadium improvements, let the public vote on it. Loria s*** the bed as per stadium funding, Ross is trying to avoid the stench. Since he owns the stadium, a loan would make more sense to me rather than giving him money.

As to Roger Goodell- sofla Super Bowls have been down here so often because they've been great for the NFL, as well as being great for sofla. 40 years later we absolutely, positively need a stadium roof, etc. for $400 million? Really?

 

It won't. The NFL knows that the SB is a cash cow for the city it is held in. They are going to leverage that as much as possible. If they give Miami a SB without any renovations, they'll never be able to leverage cities again.

 

It appears that the NFL has no issues with a snowy super bowl, and the impression that I get is they almost want one like that.

 

Then perhaps they should embrace the rain as well, Super Bowl rarity that it is anyway. In a perfect world a roof/cover is fine, but at what cost? It reminds me of the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Goodell doesn't hold all of the cards as per the SB anyway- people WANT to come to sofla for the SB in the winter, it's a compelling double whammy and it's good for the league, which is why we host it so often in the first place. It would probably be worse to have the sb in the hot humid summer time than to have it in the rain in jan/feb when the weather is nice.

 

I think their is some weird fascination with snow, and that football fans think it makes games magical. It doesn't make sense to me, personally.

 

Not that difficult to comprehend. Snow is the most visceral personification of playing in the elements. It bears a nostalgic effect. I have never seen snow but in some lifetime, some realm, I played football in it with family on a Thanksgiving afternoon before supper.

 

The vote is on right now for this, both the public and the state senate. The public for obvious reason, and the senate to decide to allow it or not if the public votes yes. The senate is trying to set some sort of guidelines on public money being used for stadiums, partly in response to Loria's deal which pissed off pretty much the whole state. They can't allow more deals like that to go through. In a nutshell, this is a loan. Ross puts up a chunk of his money, the city/state gives him a loan for the rest, payable far in the future. What I'm hearing from most people who oppose the deal is that they don't believe it will ever get paid back, since the date is 30 years from now. Compared to other stadium deals this is a great deal, on paper the state/city only loans the money, and it's all repaid by the team. In reality, well, we shall see.
I personally think the roof looks stupid and one SB with rain isn't that big of a deal, but apparently the NFL does, they complained about it almost immediately, in spite of the $300 million that Huizenga put into improvements for that game. What I totally don't understand is their hardline about our roof, but they gave the 2013 SB to an open air stadium in NY right after the rain complaints. Seems a bit odd at the very least. I hope they get a foot of snow that weekend.

 

The Super bowl in New York/Jersey is a bone being thrown to the NFL's pet teams in their back yard as a bone for the new stadium they built. Plain and simple.

 

They spent a billion dollars building that stadium in NY, of course they'll get a SB. The weather factor sucks, but a billion dollars is a billion dollars.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1624509-atlanta-falcons-reveal-potential-plans-for-new-stadium

 

If voters turn it down....its just going to setup a future billion dollar new stadium issue in some years. The renovation's Wayne did was only a partial job.

I'd take the deal and avoid the billion dollar response once Ross isn't owner. Put off that kind of deal for 30 years.

 

Yes, but it also shows that inclement weather really isn't a concern of the NFL during SB's. They merely want to dictate to other cities that the only way they will receive a SB game is if they meet the stadium requirements of the NFL. They really don't care if tourists or locale taxpayers pay for these upgrades or new stadiums. All they want to ensure is that their partners, (the rich owners), aren't forced to pay for the majority of the expenses related to upgrading or building a new stadium.

I went yesterday and early voted FOR the referendum. I did this only because I want to make sure the Dolphins are here for another 30 years. As far as providing money to help a billionaire owner upgrade his privately owned stadium, or because it might bring in more events to the stadium, I really didn't back the referendum because of these last two reasons.

Personally I think private stadiums should be paid for by the rich owners and I don't care if we ever get another SB in South Florida. I just want to watch the Dolphins play in Miami the next 30 years and the only way I can ensure this happens was to vote for the referendum. The rest of the BS surrounding the upgrades to the stadium are totally irrelevant to me. As I have stated numerous times, I see nothing wrong with the stadium the way it is right now and I think the idea of a covering over the stadium is a total waste of money.

 

Oh how I hope for two southern teams or dome teams play in the SB in Jersey and a freaking giant Alberta clipper rolls through and buries it. Rain my @$$ take that.

 

I wouldn't go that far. It definitely is a concern. But a city isn't going to get a SB simply because it has good weather.

I don't have a problem with private stadiums being subsidized, so long as the public gets a return on their investment. Spending $2B on Marlins stadium is a joke. There is no way that the public will get anything near that back in increased economic activity. I think Miami-Dade would make back $289M it invests in SunLife. Even the lowest estimates say that each Super Bowl will bring in ~$75M in additional economic activity.

 

It's certianly a better deal for Miami than Atlanta's new stadium, as cool as it will look, the Georgia Dome is only 20 years old. If it were a person it wouldn't be able to buy alcohol, yet they're building a $1 Billion+ new stadium? Last I checked Fenway Park is over 100 years old and its beautiful & perfectly fine with some occasional TLC. Imagine tearing down the Empire State Building and making a new version just because?

As much as I hate the idea of a billionaire basically getting "corporate welfare" or a bailout for something that'll cost around $400 million, it seems like a great deal compared to other cities that build expensive new stadiums and overdo it.

 

Here is the business leader presser regarding the jobs that will be created by the stadium project.

http://www.miamidolphins.com/media/...nference/f0e74612-3aab-488c-9498-4c3b66bd861e

 

I have no idea how a SB in South Florida would bring in an additional $75 million dollars. The fact is that the hotels in South Florida are full of tourists during the week of the SB, whether or not the game is played in South Florida. We haven't had a SB in a Miami since 2010 and yet hotel rooms have continued to be filled to capacity the last few years during the winter months. I think financial impact numbers are just thown out there because the NFL thinks people will believe anything they say in regards to the Super Bowl Game.

As I stated previously, I have already voted FOR the referendum because I want the Dolphins to remain in South Florida. I just don't buy all the other reasons being used to get approval for this referendum. If the Dolphins had not stated that they would agree to stay in South Florida if this referendum was approved, there wasn't a single other reason I would have supported it.

 

Yeah, the numbers the NFL throws out are $400-$500M in economic impact. The harshest critics of the stadium subsidies are the ones that estimate $75M. The city of Miami hired outside consultants that said the benefit would be much higher than

Its a basic economic concept. The more demand, the higher prices you charge. If 75,000 extra people need to stay in hotels, then hotels can charge more per room. The average annual income of SB attendees is over $220K. Not only is it bringing 50k more people to Miami, it is bringing in wealthy people. Those are wealthy people that are spending money at restaurants and nightclubs and everywhere else.

The ones that will feel this tax the most is the hotel industry, and they strongly support this plan. That should tell you enough about the economic impact.