Ross warns new owner will move team without renovations

It actually said that after you take out what hosting the event costs the cities, it's much less.

Houston cleared $5 million bucks last time.

 

The fact that he is a billionaire shouldn't be a consideration.

Infrastructure projects require capital. The city/county will have to pay interest on any capital used to fund those type of projects. That is the problem with infrastructure projects being used to drive jobs.

 

How much less? The only hard numbers have for the average impact is $70-100MM.

 

One day, you'll quit arguing about things you flat out make up....I hope.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/23840328/los-angeles-still-wants-an-nfl-team

 

lol..

10,000 posts later, again it is summed up in the most lamen's terms.

Now add the rotation of the BCS championship playoff rotation that wouldn't be in play without the renovations, or is that too much progressive thinking for one day.

 

All the platitudes aside, you realize that things like "having fun" and feeling "big league" directly create economic revenue. Where are you likely to take a job, in a city that is "big league" or one that isn't?

Not to mention that it is literally impossible to have no tangible increase in economic activity from a sports team in your city? I'm not sure how such a conclusion can be reached.

 

Wow. A city council resolution asking the NFL for a team.

When the city actually builds a stadium, or comes up with a solid proposal for how to pay for one, or even where it should be located, get back to me.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you haven't been paying attention because there's no reason for you to care about LA. but before you accuse me of lying, perhaps find something better than a September, 2013 blurb about a city council resolution.

The La Live/Farmers Field downtown concept is essentially dead following AEG's sale and the departue of Tim Liewicke to run the Raptors. The NFL has flat rejected plans to play at the Collisseum until a new stadium is built (the the city doesn't want to pay for). The City of Pasadena just had to fight a lawsuit against their own residents who wanted to bar the Rose Bowl from hosting NFL games.

The only viable stadium option is Ed Roski's plan to privately finance a stadium in the City of Industry. The only catch is that he'll only build it if he owns the team. So, until a team sells to Ed Roski, there is virtually no threat of anyone moving to LA. And even if Roski buys a team the NFL requires that real, good faith efforts be made in the current city before a move will be approved, so he'd have to spend a few years at least in the current city losing money and then would still have the unpalatable situation of having to play in the Colliseum or the Rose Bowl for a few years.

In short, despite some stupid city council resolution that does nothing, neither the City of LA, or Los Angeles County is actually doing anything concrete to obtain a team

 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/66544296/

 

So, are NY, LA and Chicago three of the highest paying most desirable cities because they have sports teams, or did the sports teams come second?

Are less people moving to LA because they don't have football? Is Green Bay some kind of economic mecca?

How about Detroit? Are people clamoring to move there?

The point is, that the cities that have sports teams are ones that could economically support them. In this case, the chicken came first. NY was a huge city with a large population, thus sports teams decided to play there.

 

Why. Would. They. Build. A. Stadium. If. They. Don't. Have. A. Team.

But by all means move the goalposts at will. You said they don't want a team, I just proved they do, now you say they must build a stadium to prove they want a team. Its ridiculous.

The NFL wants them to build a new stadium, the city wants the NFL to bring in a team first. Neither of those things mean LA doesn't want a team, in fact it means the opposite. So yes, you are making stuff up.

 

All things being equal, I would pick the city with an NFL team?

Yes, the only redeeming qualities of those cities are their NFL teams. Watching a game in Lambeau is certainly on my bucket list. There is no other reason I would ever travel there. I wouldn't even know what the hell Green Bay was if it wasn't for the Packers.

 

So, the city is specifically not doing the one thing that would guarantee them a team.

We can agree on that, right?

And if they want a team so bad, can we agree that they'd be taking actual steps to do what the NFL says is required? and can we also agree that they aren't taking any of those steps?

It doesn't appear they want it that badly. Or maybe they do, if they don't have to pay for it.

 

No.

Building a stadium will not guarantee them a team. Wanting a team and building a billion dollar stadium are not the same thing. Just stop.

 

Thats $30MM - $120MM in additional revenue, per SB. Assuming Miami gets four SBs, how exactly is that a bad deal for the people?

 

I mean its becoming comical the hyperbole people are going to at this point. On the most granular and rudimentary level, you can see the economic impact of an NFL team. The NFL salary cap is $130MM per team. What do players do with that money? They spend it. Thats money going directly into a city's real estate market, dealerships, restaurants, night clubs, etc. That is literally the most basic form of economic activity, before getting into any multiplication effects.

 

They are just grandstanding because people are still angry over the Marlins deal.

 

Not all of which trickles down to the local economy, nor are all the costs factored in. I live in New York and it was recently revealed that $5M from the state budget was spent on Super Bowl advertising.

 

There are 53 players on a team.

Even if all of them are married and have 2 kids, that's 216 extra people buying houses and going to nightclubs. And that's assuming they all buy houses and spend their time and money in so. Fla. during the off season.

 

Nobody is listening or even read that. I posted it twice.

 

And how much of that money is going to Miami-Dade and Miami Gardens? (It's a honest question because I'm not entirely familiar with the geography of South Florida.)

 

People want a lot of stuff in the abstract.

When it comes to pay for it, many times they decide they didn't need it after all.

Regardless, I'm tired of going back and forth with you on every conversation. This one wasn't even meant to be antagonistic until you made it so. It's clear we can't communicate. Please put me on ignore. Take care.

 

Its $130MM worth of wages being paid.

 

Its irrelevant how much "trickles back" to the government in the form of tax revenue. Whats relevant is how much is spent at the businesses that are located in the city.

 

As much as they are able to attract. They are at an inherent advantage either way.

 

And I guarantee none (or very little0 of that is being spent in Miami Gardens, and only a certain percentage in dade.

In fact, I think most players live in Broward, closer to the training facility in Davie.

 

Talking about the area as a whole, in response to your claim that having a sports team in a city provides "no tangible" benefit.

If your argument is that Miami Gardens has no attractions, then the next logical question is how much worse off they'll be without the Dolphins.

 

come on man, your going to hurt somebody with this elementary logic..

I'm not smart enough to articulate it in the fashion that you and stringer have done, but it's what I've been saying from the very beginning that this ridiculous non support by the fanbase and the politicians is nonsensical.

 

Are you making this stuff up as you go or do you have any links to back up your claims?

LOL I guess we are supposed to assume that they are only going to demand for this one renovation over the next 30 years. According to that logic we should be good for at least another 20 years from WHs renovations.

All things being equal I woould pick the city with 7-11s. Your point is nonsensical.

What I find comical is that you are the same person that argues in the pofo that the rich put a larger demand on gov services and have an obligation to pay a larger portion for that reason. Now you are arguing for corporate welfare because it serves a greater good to the community. Did you become a neocon and not tell anyone? (joke)

No hyperbole, fact hosting a stadium adds demands on the local municipality that have to be paid for somehow. If your not going to ask the stadium to pay its taxes how are you going to pay for the services that tax money is used to finance?

Both factors are relevant.

 

Those god damn republicans and those god damn liberals!*





*Contribution to thread.