Left Behind On Stadium Issue By Perennial Basement Dweller

Their stadium is also a public facility, unlike ours. It's now time for Ross to step-up and spend the $ 200 or so million he said he would. If not then its no one's fault but his.

 

Boy ,Kahn dropped a whole 10 million dollars on the project!!!!!!..wow, he's a totally awesome owner.


Ross was willing to spend 250 million of his own, and people *****..ridiculous,

That's ok, the city of Miami cannot be happy with losing two superbowls already...I'll tell you what, there are some very important suits in New York, Houston and San Fran who are freaking stoked that the superbowl landed in their town..I laugh at those who think its not important to your community.

 

Why does this engender "O, how the mighty have fallen" style whining? These situations are only superficially similar. All your post needs is hand-wringing about why the Dolphins can't be more like the Heat.

The Dolphins asked for nearly 10x the money the Jaguars are getting from the city of Jacksonville. They didn't have one of their other sports teams pull a massive scam on the taxpayers just a few years ago, and could approve approximately $40 million dollars in money out of hand, without a special election. The Dolphins almost certainly could get that from Miami-Dade. That's not even getting into the part about the Dolphins attempts to get money basically being derailed by back-room politics the Jaguars didn't have to subject themselves too.

 

Their city agreed to 63 mill, Ross asked for what 125??, I think it was less than that, and I'm sure the provisions he was taking to make sure the city got that back were very friendly.

 

There's a bit of a difference between getting new scoreboards and:

Getting a roof over the seats
Adding new scoreboards
Seating re-arrangements

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/05/3381834/miami-dolphins-dont-plan-to-invest.html

I've seen sources describe it as $350 million instead, but regardless. It's not comparable.

The Jaguars deal is about $40 million from the city.

http://www.jaguars.com/news/article...nk-Field/46db4f44-646d-4e96-aa2c-b68cd42f3f23

I'm not sure if the provisions being friendly or not is all that important. It's the amount of money that mattered, there's no way in hell Miami-Dade was going to go along with that without tangible measures of public support in wake of the Marlins disaster.

 

The city of Jacksonville has given a lot more than this $40M.

Im not a fan of whining, but the fact remains that the Dolphins have received almost nothing from the market they occupy, and that absolutely is out if the norm for an NFL team, whether rightfully or wrongfully.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

The total was 375 mill for the renovations, they were willing to pay the "majority", those numbers don't compute Pate..

 

It's a public-owned stadium as well, so I think it's quite a bit different in that regard.

The Dolphins should be able to get some sort of financial support from Miami-Dade, but I'm not sure the local government should have done anything differently.

 

So much for them moving to England.

 

You would think the counties in south florida would understand the importance of locking the team into the community for the next 25 years...apparently not with the voters that did vote.

 

You know, Disgust, while most of your posts are informed, I just couldn't get through reading your post because of what I felt was a rude condescending tone towards the poster to whom you were replaying. Using words to describe them as "whining" and characterizing the person you are responding to as some sort of hand-wringing wretch just doesn;t feel okay.

Can we discuss this without putting people down for their viewpoints? Put downs, FYI, are not limited to openly calling someone a name, in my opinion. It is any tone or form of communication that directly or indirectly derides, diminishes or marginalies the person with whom we are in discussion. That's just plain disrespect rather than discussion.

I get that something's annoying you about this issue, but still.

For the record, I don't have a feeling about this stadium stuff, either way. (I'm not a Florida taxpayer.)

 

It's inherently whiny and childish. The Jaguars are getting something the Dolphins aren't, and we're supposed to draw some sort of conclusion on how that is unfair or how the Dolphins are worse than the Jaguars now in some area and it's ridiculous. It's also the poster in questions M.O.

 

It's also good to note that the city is paying for this out of a fund that can be used for a number of things while the Dolphins wanted to create a tax to raise funding so they could get their money. The Dolphins plan wasn't going to take anything away from the city or county. While the Jags plan is taking from an already created fund maybe having been derived from direct taxpayer money. That I don't know. But somehow...these situations are similar? The Jags paid out of pocket while the Dolphins got denied for wanting to hold an involuntary fundraiser for tourists. Do the Jags even have to pay the money back?

 

I wouldn't think so, the Jaguars technically aren't receiving any money. The stadium is owned by the city, so it is the city council voting to renovate a public property while one of the tenets pitches in some money.

 

So....basically the public doesn't mind 40 million dollars being paid out as long as they can say the stadium belongs to "Us" vs. paying out money to a privately owned stadium which the public can't say that it "Owns" despite the fact that the private stadium would likely generate more revenue for the municipality and the state than the public one? Am I following that correctly?

 

You may be correct on the money, but the "public" does not directly enter into either situation. There theoretically wasn't any expression of public opinion in either deal, it was politicians acting in a fashion they thought most fell in line with public opinion. The Dolphins stadium deal had people vote on it but I don't know if the results at that point would be reflective of the final results.

 

Can we make that assumption? The City of Jacksonville is local to Jacksonville and know what their constituents want. The Speaker of the House isn't from Miami, so how can he accurately act on behalf of the "public" if it technically isn't a part of the "public" in question? This is also inspite of agreeance from actual politicians represent the "public" in question. Sounds like Miami has a representation problem.

 

You know, I really wish some of these guys would take a course in finance and administration.. Most of the ones I have seen post have as much knowledge of that as they do about quantum physics.

 

Yes, I don't think the City of Jacksonville had a concrete idea what the public felt about upgrading the stadium. I think there is a safe assumption that doing it would not damage their political careers- In that public support would be high enough, or opposition not vociferous enough that it was an easy decision for them to make politically. They didn't need to run polls or anything for that amount of money upgrading a major city property.

I'm not sure how Miami has a representation problem. Putting the stadium issue to a referendum is reasonable.

 

Being publicly owned for all practical purposes just means the team doesn't have to pay property taxes. The Dolphins tried to give the stadium to Miami-Dade. The county would be worse off owning it.

I think this is a somewhat fair point. Though I will say that the local government isn't helpless to what happens at the state level.

 

Sure, but if billionaire GOP donor Stephen Ross isn't able to pull enough water, I'm not sure what the local government is going to do. They agreed to a referendum, which in the current climate I don't think you can ask for much more. This is the legacy of the Marlins stadium deal.

 

The local guys can do a lot of things to pressure the speaker of the Fl. house. Politicis is largely horse-trading.

Their timidness is the legacy of the Marlins deal, but thats not really a legitimate reason to not make a deal that is good for the county. As it stands, they will likely end up getting a much worse deal down the road.

 

And pay the rest back. What owner promises to do that these days.
Not a single one!

 

I don't know if it's that good of a deal. The Falcons are asking for nearly the same amount of money as the Dolphins are in contributions for a brand new stadium estimated to cost them roughly a billion dollars.

 

I don't think anyone with any business sense can refute that the deal that was being offered was incredible..Im honestly not sure that the government in this case even understands what it means to improve the stadium relative to the economy, I think their close minded.

 

Not necessarily true.

The most obvious difference is that Atlanta is on the hook for a fixed amount. They are issuing bonds and paying interest. Miami-Dade is not issuing any bonds. The Dolphins would receive a cut of a tax increase every year. If that amount falls short, the Dolphins are responsible for the shortfall. There is no lump sum paid out to the Dolphins like other deals. The team is taking out a loan, and they're able to secure that loan because of the additional revenue stream from the City. So when you hear that the Dolphins can get ~$289M, thats essentially the max, and only if the Miami economy grows at a high-rate. But when you hear the Falcons are getting $300M, thats the amount the city is borrowing and giving to the Falcons. That doesn't include the interest the city will be paying on that money they are borrowing. Since Miami wouldn't have borrowed, they wouldn't be paying any interest.

All things included, I've seen estimates that the Falcons deal will cost Atlanta ~$600M.

This doesn't even take into account the guarantees that Miami will receive a certain number of events, or that they will be paid back some of the monies.

The devil of these deals is in the details, and the Mayor did a good job ensuring that Miami isn't getting screwed like Atlanta.

 

I really wonder the difference for a county/city with 100% private owned stadiums vs 100% public owned stadiums...

with a public owned stadium, the cost to maintain/run/use the facility is probably astronomical... while with a private owned stadium, the county/city just collects MASSIVE property taxes from the owner and have no overhead in running/maintaining the facility...

would love to see the bottom lines... see if there is any validity to this complaint people have about using public money to help boost an economy by funding a private business, especially one that benefits the county/city so much...

 

Am I wrong or is this the guy who didnt even bring the stadium bill to the floor?

 

nope not wrong, so they will help the heat out and possibly give them money, but **** the dolphins?

 

What??? He's not serious, that building doesn't need anything done, it's great..

 

That is the biggest troll job in history.