Salguero, not the team, is throwing out that idea.

The Dolphins remain one of the least likely teams in the NFL to move. All teams in the AFC East are pretty rooted, and the NFL doesn't want to screw up the geography of the realigned divisions.

 

I don't think there is any chance they get public money. The economy is better, but now it's crystal clear the Marlins scammed the everliving **** out of Miami-Dade County, and that's going to stick in everyone's mind. The other article in the Herald pretty much has the key quote:

This guy is pretty much the biggest backer you could get in the government, and he's pretty heavily couched his support and given himself an out.

 

Saying that the next owner after Ross isn't guaranteed to not move the team is pretty much common sense. We don't know how long Ross will have the team or to whom he'll sell. It's just Salguero exploiting fear of the unknown so he can have another "I TOLD YOU THIS YEARS AGO" moment of overinflated self-importance.

 

I have to think that Norman Braman is going to be all over this, and he puts his money where his mouth is. Besides, raping the tourists is going to hurt the hotel and convention business, and I'd be willing to bet that the county has to end up selling general revenue bonds to pony up its share. I'd like to see the numbers so we can evaluate the impact on the tax base.

 

Sounds like a good deal for both parties imo.

Basically, the County would have to pony up 100 million and would finance it through bed taxes+stadium rent.

 

I don't think that really matters. It's public funding being used on a sports team, and the immediate comparison is the Marlins running their scam. It's not likely to be popular with the electorate regardless of how different and more honest it is, the Marlins have almost certainly poisoned the well

 

I think what Dpate is saying is that the voters are by and large going to have hard time separating the two deals. If this goes up to vote, the difference between the organizations isn't really going to be the issue and instead it could be about, last time we gave a sporting team a bunch of money we couldn't walk right for a year.

 

If any of you are worried about upped hotel taxes hurting tourism, let me say this. As a native Upstate NYer, who freezes his arse off every winter, SoFla will always been an attractive venue for people like myself to visit, a few extra bucks be damned.

I'm more interested today in seeing some mock-ups of what they're planning. Unless my financial situation changes for the worse, I plan to start a tradition of an annual visit down there for a game, starting this Fall. Been there twice already, and while I still love it, it's clear the stadium could be configured better to up the homefield advantage.

 

The electorate is the body of voters in a given jurisdiction. In this case, the electorate would be the eligible voters in Miami-Dade County.

Disgustipate is right when he basically says that this is a supreme longshot due to the Marlins. The Marlins have singlehandedly chilled public funding for sports stadiums countrywide. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case, it's an obstacle.

 

He's saying that people are going to be wary about another stadium deal. Many people don't take the time to learn the facts, so they'll just think "we're not going to get screwed again." Obviously you want people to take the time to learn the difference but that doesn't always happen, especially if you're dealing with non-sports fans.

 

Have you ever seen a political ad? You're basically arguing why logic and rational thought doesn't work for people when dealing with political issues, which is a mystery, but not a new one.

 

I didn't read it as Ross ceding ownership of the stadium.

My interpretation -- and I could be wrong -- was that in addition to helping finance the stadium upgrade via hotel tax increase, the Dolphins/Ross would ask the local government to assist (e.g. help finance) in the operation of the stadium going forward. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me personally, since -- as Armando points out -- the Dolphins own the stadium and there is no lease holding them there.

Which is why Armando's suggestion of securing a 30-year agreement tying them to the stadium would seem to make sense.

Personally, if there has to be public funding, I think the Dolphins are going about the upgrade in of the best ways possible. The hotel tax stinks for visitors and hotel operators, but at least it's not saddling every local tax-paying citizen with the bill. But then there's the "as long as [Ross]'s government partners begin helping him with the cost of running the facility" part that could indeed get into the general public's pockets going forward.

Certainly an uphill climb. "We own the stadium. Please chip in a few hundred million to upgrade it, and then share in the cost of operating it going forward."

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to run your extremely profitable business this way? If I ever won the mega Powerball three times, I'd buy an NFL franchise.

 

The Dolphins are trying to go around having the public vote. They want to use a bed tax that would be voted on by the city council in which they're asking the money from.

 

Of course it is and never think different because its refreshing and how it should work...but it just doesn't work like that unfortunately.

 

How did you reach this conclusion? I didn't see anything that suggests he would cede ownership. Sounds like he just wants the city to cover operating costs.

EDIT: Just saw your response above.

 

Sure, but in principle is the same deal. The taxpayer subsidizing a private business.

 

It makes sense IMO because it won't require immediate outlays by the city. They're essentially spreading out the costs over a long period of time. So there won't be some massive $300M outlay on the budget.

I do agree, this is probably the best way to go about getting the stadium upgraded. Its a lot more believable that the city spending a few hundred million over a long period of time is worth having Super Bowls and BCS championships. At least much more believable than telling the people of Miami that those events would be worth the $1B to build a new stadium.

 

It isn't really cut and dry. You're essentially weighing the cost against what you project the benefit to be. But that benefit is not easily quantifiable. Then you have the entire aspect of the officials actually being obligated to the people of Miami, or obligated to the special interests that give them money to campaign to the people of Miami.

 

Both. The Marlins stealing from the city is really just a reminder of how these deals very often end up being a ripoff.

 

I think its a good time to share this article I came across regarding Ross' real estate dealings in NYC. I would encourage everyone to read it:

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120603/REAL_ESTATE/306039978

I think what we are seeing here is an example of whats mentioned in the article. Ross is trying to make this as appealing to the city as he can.

 

In a sense, yes. It will be structured differently. There will be concessions. It should be more appealing than the Marlins' proposal. But they are still asking to receive subsidies from the taxpayer.

 

Well, to a certain degree. The maintenance costs could very well come from the taxpayer. But raising taxes on tourists is essentially the same as raising taxes on residents. You're making it more expensive to travel to Miami, which theoretically could reduce tourism, or cause people to spend less when in Miami.

 

I don't think gutting the seats would force them to play elsewhere. The Saints replaced every seat in the Superdome in a few weeks. This would obviously be much more work, but I think it could be finished from January to August.

Would be interesting if they did have to play somewhere else though...Citrus Bowl in Orlando? What other South Florida stadium holds at least 45,000? Guess they could add bleachers to FAU.