Stephen Ross donates $200 million to Michigan

Good for the U of M... bad for The Dolphins bid for a new stadium :lol:

"djphinfan wrote:

I don't understand why you think he should offer more to the city of Miami than he already has?.. Was it not a great deal?

Are you operating under the assumption that he would have received zero long term financial benefit from stadium improvements?

Because if so, there's no point continuing the conversation.

"djphinfan wrote:

Like I said, nothing has changed..

Why are people so pissed at this angle, it's business, and he's being by fair considering all the variables, y'all know that, are you that spoiled to want to have it all funded for you when the market shows their ass at the stadium...

There is no vision on the part of the Miami community and it's officials, they don't get what it means to have a competing venue...

Wait til the college playoff system disses us along with more superbowls..

People are pissed because thats the nature of people right now. Especially people in South Florida. They got bent over by Jeff Loria, and they want to make someone pay. They want another Wayne Huizenga to further put the stadium underwater.

"ckparrothead wrote:

It's pretty simple. Any public good he does for the city of Miami, he wants them to pay for. But then he turns around and does public good for the University of Michigan free of charge. He treats the city of Miami like a moocher, and treats the University of Michigan like a doting grandfather.

Miami as a football market is a moocher. I'm not sure how this can be debated. Now whether you think Miami should continue with that path, its certainly debatable. I'm not necessarily counter to the arguments that they're better off telling the Dolphins to kick rocks. But when you look at the cost other markets are paying for an NFL franchise, Miami isn't paying enough.

"brandon27 wrote:

Good for the U of M... bad for The Dolphins bid for a new stadium :lol:

Yeah that's the other thing. The optics on this are extremely poor, and he's going scorched earth on whatever chances he had at being able to revisit the stadium funding idea at a future date.

I believe it's been reported that half of the $200 million will go to the business school and half to the athletics program. Steve Ross is willing to spend $100 million to help out the University of Michigan athletics program even though it gives him no direct financial benefit, but he's not willing to foot the bill for stadium upgrades that would have given him direct financial benefits, because it also would have given the city of Miami some benefits and he couldn't stand the idea of them getting a free ride.

Let's take the motivation thing completely aside for a moment. Let's take all of the judgments about Steve Ross out of it. Let's discuss this purely in terms of what will most efficiently get those stadium upgrades done.

Is this a move that makes it EASIER to get those stadium upgrades at some future point?

No.

Is this a move that may make it HARDER to get those stadium upgrades at some future point?

Absolutely.

So why should anyone who wants those stadium upgrades to happen eventually, one way or another, be a fan of this?

"Desides wrote:

You left out the part where he spends more money to form a PAC to get rid of the guy who had the least to do with his bid for free money losing.

I don't follow local politics. Is the guy he ousted a R or D? Ross leans D heavily.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Miami as a football market is a moocher. I'm not sure how this can be debated. Now whether you think Miami should continue with that path, its certainly debatable. I'm not necessarily counter to the arguments that they're better off telling the Dolphins to kick rocks. But when you look at the cost other markets are paying for an NFL franchise, Miami isn't paying enough.

I find no real value in this kind of subjective discussion about whether an entire town should be classified with some negative connotation like "moocher" or not.

You're not disputing anything I said in the post you quoted, though. I'll say that.

"jdang307 wrote:

I don't follow local politics. Is the guy he ousted a R or D? Ross leans D heavily.

No he doesn't.

"ckparrothead wrote:

I find no real value in this kind of subjective discussion about whether an entire town should be classified with some negative connotation like "moocher" or not.

You're not disputing anything I said in the post you quoted, though. I'll say that.

I'm not disputing at all. I was just pointing out that this shouldn't be anything that is controversial. The guy has a hell of a lot more loyalty to the school that gave him an education en route to becoming the biggest developer in America, than the market in which he bought a football team just a few years ago.

The word "moocher" wasn't brought up by me. There is a negative connotation, but it really is a matter of semantics. When you go market by market, and look at what is being provided to NFL franchises, Miami is near the bottom. Of course the owner isn't going to feel any type of loyalty of obligation to that market. Certainly not even close to the obligation he should feel to his alma mater. One is business, one is personal. I'm not sure why anyone would believe Ross should have some type of personal affection for the Miami market.

"jdang307 wrote:

I don't follow local politics. Is the guy he ousted a R or D? Ross leans D heavily.

Ross is pretty pragmatic in terms of his political affiliations. He's going to back whomever helps his business interests the most.

Other than his recent flirtation with Romney last year, I'm seeing primarily Dem donations every year previous. In fact, the NFL is heavily Repub (3-1) with the Dolphins leading the Dem support, with most of it from Ross (when I checked 2011 numbers).

Maybe he had a recent change of heart then, since when I last looked he was primarily donating to D's. Or just disliked our President.

"ckparrothead wrote:

This is an excellent resource that explains some of the myriad ways that NFL owners can and do benefit financially from Super Bowls being hosted in their stadium. Thank you.

Would you please explain the myriad of ways NFL owners can benefit financially from hosting the game. Jerry Jones profited by owning the catering company that won the bid and multiple pizza stores. That doesn't seem to me to be tied in to him owning the stadium at all. I'm sure his catering company bids on many events all over the country and the article clearly states that the game didn't have to be played at his stadium for him to profit from SB Sunday pizza sales.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

I'm not disputing at all. I was just pointing out that this shouldn't be anything that is controversial. The guy has a hell of a lot more loyalty to the school that gave him an education en route to becoming the biggest developer in America, than the market in which he bought a football team just a few years ago.

The word "moocher" wasn't brought up by me. There is a negative connotation, but it really is a matter of semantics. When you go market by market, and look at what is being provided to NFL franchises, Miami is near the bottom. Of course the owner isn't going to feel any type of loyalty of obligation to that market. Certainly not even close to the obligation he should feel to his alma mater. One is business, one is personal. I'm not sure why anyone would believe Ross should have some type of personal affection for the Miami market.

Confusing statement, given the fact that you just argued that teams should pour out a lot of their time, effort and MONEY putting together Super Bowl bid proposals for no other reason than some sense of obligation they're supposed to feel for the city (since they don't get any money from Super Bowls, evidently).

Listen, if this is your point of view there's nothing for it but to agree to disagree. I think you're in a miniscule minority if you think it's perfectly alright for the owner of the Miami Dolphins to feel no real loyalty to his franchise's city or its fans, and to just look at the ownership of the franchise as a cold, detached investment holding. You feel that's ok. I'm pretty sure most people out there do not. I'm pretty sure most owners out there do not. I'm pretty sure Steve Ross would disagree with that (publicly) even if he felt different privately. I'm pretty sure Roger Goodell would have an issue with that statement's validity.

"smahtaz wrote:

Would you please explain the myriad of ways NFL owners can benefit financially from hosting the game. Jerry Jones profited by owning the catering company that won the bid and multiple pizza stores. That doesn't seem to me to be tied in to him owning the stadium at all. I'm sure his catering company bids on many events all over the country and the article clearly states that the game didn't have to be played at his stadium for him to profit from SB Sunday pizza sales.

Care to explain in detail how it is impossible for Steve Ross to benefit financially from hosting a Super Bowl so long as he doesn't own a catering company?

"ckparrothead wrote:

Are you operating under the assumption that he would have received zero long term financial benefit from stadium improvements?

Because if so, there's no point continuing the conversation.

No absolutely not, I think he will benefit most definitely from renovating sunlife, why do you say that?..it will be able to compete against the other major markets then, and get in the rotation of superbowls and college playoffs, along with increased attendance from making sunlife a more comfortable place in the blazing hot sun and humidity..Is it my ideal?, no, the ideal is getting a brand new one, but I'm dreamin in that one considering the markets lack of vision.

"ckparrothead wrote:

Yeah that's the other thing. The optics on this are extremely poor, and he's going scorched earth on whatever chances he had at being able to revisit the stadium funding idea at a future date.

I believe it's been reported that half of the $200 million will go to the business school and half to the athletics program. Steve Ross is willing to spend $100 million to help out the University of Michigan athletics program even though it gives him no direct financial benefit, but he's not willing to foot the bill for stadium upgrades that would have given him direct financial benefits, because it also would have given the city of Miami some benefits and he couldn't stand the idea of them getting a free ride.

Let's take the motivation thing completely aside for a moment. Let's take all of the judgments about Steve Ross out of it. Let's discuss this purely in terms of what will most efficiently get those stadium upgrades done.

Is this a move that makes it EASIER to get those stadium upgrades at some future point?

No.

Is this a move that may make it HARDER to get those stadium upgrades at some future point?

Absolutely.

So why should anyone who wants those stadium upgrades to happen eventually, one way or another, be a fan of this?

Because the deal he offered us was more than fair, and I want upgrades more than anyone.??

Please, can we make this simple, was the deal he offered more than fair relatively speaking?

"ckparrothead wrote:

Confusing statement, given the fact that you just argued that teams should pour out a lot of their time, effort and MONEY putting together Super Bowl bid proposals for no other reason than some sense of obligation they're supposed to feel for the city (since they don't get any money from Super Bowls, evidently).

They do get money from SBs. 1/32nd of every SB held goes to the Dolphins. And the sense of obligation for Ross isn't a small thing. He has to sit in a room full of 31 other NFL owners and explain why his market is one of the only ones not paying to have an NFL franchise. Stephen Ross is part of the NFL cartel, and as the owner of the Miami team, his job is to get Miami to do what benefits the league.

The money for SB proposals is really a drop in the bucket, and barely worth considering. The Dolphins pay $20M/yr. in interest payments on renovations that they owe $235M on, for a stadium that is only worth $165M. Fixing their debt is, and should be, the #1 priority for the organization.

"ckparrothead wrote:

Listen, if this is your point of view there's nothing for it but to agree to disagree. I think you're in a miniscule minority if you think it's perfectly alright for the owner of the Miami Dolphins to feel no real loyalty to his franchise's city or its fans, and to just look at the ownership of the franchise as a cold, detached investment holding. You feel that's ok. I'm pretty sure most people out there do not. I'm pretty sure most owners out there do not. I'm pretty sure Steve Ross would disagree with that (publicly) even if he felt different privately. I'm pretty sure Roger Goodell would have an issue with that statement's validity.

Stephen Ross should not be compared to most of the other owners. Most owners get financial support from their market. Thats the point here.

Stephen Ross also has a fiduciary duty to the other parties that own the Miami Dolphins. He isn't the only person who owns the team. Certainly it would be great to have a single entity who wants to pump their life savings into the Dolphins, but thats not reality. Wayne Huizenga had the team on the block for a while. The NFL was against Ross owning a team for a while. Eventually it happened though - because there were no better options.

"Daben wrote:

There are probably tax reasons involved as well.

This ^^^

I'm sure when you factor in the tax deduction the difference between the 2 amounts is huge.

"djphinfan wrote:

No absolutely not, I think he will benefit most definitely from renovating sunlife, why do you say that?..it will be able to compete against the other major markets then, and get in the rotation of superbowls and college playoffs, along with increased attendance from making sunlife a more comfortable place in the blazing hot sun and humidity..Is it my ideal?, no, the ideal is getting a brand new one, but I'm dreamin in that one considering the markets lack of vision.

So then you admit that he is refusing to engage an investment that will benefit him in the long run, because it will also benefit the public and he objects to the public receiving a free ride?

Yet he just gave a free ride to the University of Michigan...to the tune of the same amount he refused to give to the city of Miami.

Are we just chalking up when he says he's committed to both projects as owners speak and lies?

I have no problem with him giving the two hundred mill that the Miami market rejected to his school and creating that personal legacy.

"ckparrothead wrote:

So then you admit that he is refusing to engage an investment that will benefit him in the long run, because it will also benefit the public and he objects to the public receiving a free ride?

Yet he just gave a free ride to the University of Michigan...to the tune of the same amount he refused to give to the city of Miami.

He's not refusing, he already offered,He wants a joint business decision because it benefits both, that's the standard in this business, there is no standard for him investing all of it.

I'm willing to bet he's still good for the two hundred mill and the same deal..Miami officials need to figure out what the dolphins and venue mean to them

"djphinfan wrote:

Huh?, when did he refuse to give Miami the 200 mill?

He refused to engage in $375 million worth of stadium upgrades that you yourself admit will benefit him financially in the long term, because to do so would have done the public a $200 million favor without charging them for it.

Instead, he did a $200 million favor for the University of Michigan...without charging them for it.

"ckparrothead wrote:

He refused to engage in $375 million worth of stadium upgrades that you yourself admit will benefit him financially in the long term, because to do so would have done the public a $200 million favor.

Instead, he did a $200 million favor for the University of Michigan.

No. He offered $200 million towards the stadium. That deal fell through so he donated it.

"ckparrothead wrote:

He refused to engage in $375 million worth of stadium upgrades that you yourself admit will benefit him financially in the long term, because to do so would have done the public a $200 million favor without charging them for it.

Instead, he did a $200 million favor for the University of Michigan...without charging them for it.

So then you have a major problem with the precedent that is already set, you have a problem with all the owners?

So unless he foots the bill for a poor football market, he's the bad guy?