Senator fighting 49ers move

[Deeko]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2661759

My opinion? F*ck you, if you want to keep the 49ers, pony up what they want for the new stadium. If you won't provide and another town will, then they go - if you want them to keep their name, fine, they'll take the new name.

Just because you're a fan doesn't mean you can strongarm them into staying.

 

[herkulease]

Feinstein's problem is that for years, the bay area has been called the "San Francisco" Bay Area. So I don't see how her little bill with do much. Hell various government reports refers to the Bay Area as the San Francisco bay area, which Santa Clara is a part of.

Anyhow from what I read the city wants mix use with the stadium and the Niners do not. It increases their bill. The city has they might be able to help out on infrasture but hasn't given anything solid.

And yeah I agree, if they make a huge fuss out of it, they'll just change their name. to Bay area or silicon valley Niners.

 

[BoomerD]

Fvck the professional sports teams and their blackmail. If they want a multimillion $$ stadium to play in, BUILD IT YOURSELF, and collect the fvcking revenues yourself. Quit trying to hold the local residents hostage so you can rake in the bazillions of $$$ you get from ticket sales, consession sales, etc...

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Fvck the professional sports teams and their blackmail. If they want a multimillion $$ stadium to play in, BUILD IT YOURSELF, and collect the fvcking revenues yourself. Quit trying to hold the local residents hostage so you can rake in the bazillions of $$$ you get from ticket sales, consession sales, etc...

How is this blackmail? The costs for infrastructure are being estimated at more then how much the actual stadium is going to cost. The team doesn't wanna spend that much, asks the city for help. City says no, so the team is going to move somewhere thats cheaper.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Fvck the professional sports teams and their blackmail. If they want a multimillion $$ stadium to play in, BUILD IT YOURSELF, and collect the fvcking revenues yourself. Quit trying to hold the local residents hostage so you can rake in the bazillions of $$$ you get from ticket sales, consession sales, etc...

How is this blackmail? The costs for infrastructure are being estimated at more then how much the actual stadium is going to cost. The team doesn't wanna spend that much, asks the city for help. City says no, so the team is going to move somewhere thats cheaper.

His point is that professional sports teams should buy the land and build their own damned stadiums since they are the ones benefiting. Then they can control everything and get revenue from everything.....but they don't want that since they can push off a large part of their costs onto the local taxpayer's back the way the system works now. Getting stadiums built by the tax payers so the pro sports teams can rake in the bucks is a sham.

 

[touchmyichi]

Yeah I agree that its absurd that he's fighting it, but I too completely disagree with the 49ers move. Hell, I even LIVE in San Jose (practically part of Santa Clara) and I think it should stay in San Francisco.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: touchmyichi
Yeah I agree that its absurd that he's fighting it, but I too completely disagree with the 49ers move. Hell, I even LIVE in San Jose (practically part of Santa Clara) and I think it should stay in San Francisco.

Word. I live in Cupertino. They belong in SF and it's a legacy. Sure moving to SC might mean the games will be only 15 min away, but so what. I don't mind if the A's move though =)

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Fvck the professional sports teams and their blackmail. If they want a multimillion $$ stadium to play in, BUILD IT YOURSELF, and collect the fvcking revenues yourself. Quit trying to hold the local residents hostage so you can rake in the bazillions of $$$ you get from ticket sales, consession sales, etc...

How is this blackmail? The costs for infrastructure are being estimated at more then how much the actual stadium is going to cost. The team doesn't wanna spend that much, asks the city for help. City says no, so the team is going to move somewhere thats cheaper.

His point is that professional sports teams should buy the land and build their own damned stadiums since they are the ones benefiting. Then they can control everything and get revenue from everything.....but they don't want that since they can push off a large part of their costs onto the local taxpayer's back the way the system works now. Getting stadiums built by the tax payers so the pro sports teams can rake in the bucks is a sham.

I agree with that, but I just don't see how its blackmail.

You do have to admit that having a popular pro sports team not only brings in profits for the team/owner, but the surrounding areas in business, tourism, etc.

Again, I agree with these points and am happy that the kings over here in Sacramento aren't getting a new stadium built with a bs tax hike.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Fvck the professional sports teams and their blackmail. If they want a multimillion $$ stadium to play in, BUILD IT YOURSELF, and collect the fvcking revenues yourself. Quit trying to hold the local residents hostage so you can rake in the bazillions of $$$ you get from ticket sales, consession sales, etc...

How is this blackmail? The costs for infrastructure are being estimated at more then how much the actual stadium is going to cost. The team doesn't wanna spend that much, asks the city for help. City says no, so the team is going to move somewhere thats cheaper.

His point is that professional sports teams should buy the land and build their own damned stadiums since they are the ones benefiting. Then they can control everything and get revenue from everything.....but they don't want that since they can push off a large part of their costs onto the local taxpayer's back the way the system works now. Getting stadiums built by the tax payers so the pro sports teams can rake in the bucks is a sham.

If they are the only ones benefiting then why should anyone care if they move?

 

[virtuamike]

I hate York.

 

[Deeko]

Having a sports team MILDLY increases an area's business. Do you think anyone in the world would ever know of, or go to, Green Bay, Wisconsin if it weren't for the Packers?

Cities wouldn't do it if they didn't benifit too.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Fvck the professional sports teams and their blackmail. If they want a multimillion $$ stadium to play in, BUILD IT YOURSELF, and collect the fvcking revenues yourself. Quit trying to hold the local residents hostage so you can rake in the bazillions of $$$ you get from ticket sales, consession sales, etc...

How is this blackmail? The costs for infrastructure are being estimated at more then how much the actual stadium is going to cost. The team doesn't wanna spend that much, asks the city for help. City says no, so the team is going to move somewhere thats cheaper.

His point is that professional sports teams should buy the land and build their own damned stadiums since they are the ones benefiting. Then they can control everything and get revenue from everything.....but they don't want that since they can push off a large part of their costs onto the local taxpayer's back the way the system works now. Getting stadiums built by the tax payers so the pro sports teams can rake in the bucks is a sham.

Yip, ever wonder why the Denver Broncos got rid of the "D" logo on the helmet? they were preparing to move if the city of Denver didnt pony up and pay for most of the cost of replacing Mile High stadium.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: herkulease
Anyhow from what I read the city wants mix use with the stadium and the Niners do not.

If it were solely dedicated to football, how many times would it be used per year?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Having a sports team MILDLY increases an area's business. Do you think anyone in the world would ever know of, or go to, Green Bay, Wisconsin if it weren't for the Packers?

Cities wouldn't do it if they didn't benifit too.

Some areas certainly need the sports teams, but other places, such as SF, don't benefit that much more by offering huge subsides and essentially paying for a new stadium since they are already large tourist cities anyway.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Fvck the professional sports teams and their blackmail. If they want a multimillion $$ stadium to play in, BUILD IT YOURSELF, and collect the fvcking revenues yourself. Quit trying to hold the local residents hostage so you can rake in the bazillions of $$$ you get from ticket sales, consession sales, etc...

How is this blackmail? The costs for infrastructure are being estimated at more then how much the actual stadium is going to cost. The team doesn't wanna spend that much, asks the city for help. City says no, so the team is going to move somewhere thats cheaper.

His point is that professional sports teams should buy the land and build their own damned stadiums since they are the ones benefiting. Then they can control everything and get revenue from everything.....but they don't want that since they can push off a large part of their costs onto the local taxpayer's back the way the system works now. Getting stadiums built by the tax payers so the pro sports teams can rake in the bucks is a sham.

Yip, ever wonder why the Denver Broncos got rid of the "D" logo on the helmet? they were preparing to move if the city of Denver didnt pony up and pay for most of the cost of replacing Mile High stadium.

yeap.

you know hwo gets to pay for it. fricken tax payers

 

[Amused]

Yes, taxes pay for the stadium. But those taxes are returned many fold in increased tax revenues.

It's basically an investment of tax dollars that, in every case, has a triple digit return rate.

It also boosts local business, so it not only increases revenue, it helps local residents as well.

To argue against it simply because tax dollars are used is a fruitless argument.

You can argue against the use of tax dollars in a libertarian manner, but not in a fiscally conservative manner. You'll lose on the facts.

 

[InlineFive]

 

[cubby1223]

The Yankees & Mets are financing their new stadiums. I applaud that. The public funded stadiums are bull-crap. The Milwaukee Brewers are the perfect example of a team royally screwing over the taxpayers. I want to say it was like a $300 million proposal given to the state legistature, which approved it, then half-way through the construction, they went back and said it was going to take another $150 million or something, and at this point, the state has to finish building the stadium. Then the owners continues to put out a crap team with the lowest payroll in baseball. Couple years pass, and the owners then sell the team for hundreds of millions of dollars more than what the organization was worth before the new stadium, and the owners got to keep all the money.

I forget exactly where wonderful commisioner Bud Selig worked into this, he was a previous owner of the Brewers.

So yeah, screw the teams who blackmail the cities for publicly funded stadiums.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes, taxes pay for the stadium. But those taxes are returned many fold in increased tax revenues.

It's basically an investment of tax dollars that, in every case, has a triple digit return rate.

It also boosts local business, so it not only increases revenue, it helps local residents as well.

To argue against it simply because tax dollars are used is a fruitless argument.

You can argue against the use of tax dollars in a libertarian manner, but not in a fiscally conservative manner. You'll lose on the facts.

I've never actually seen evidence of this. I've read that this contention is, in fact, a myth.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes, taxes pay for the stadium. But those taxes are returned many fold in increased tax revenues.

It's basically an investment of tax dollars that, in every case, has a triple digit return rate.

It also boosts local business, so it not only increases revenue, it helps local residents as well.

To argue against it simply because tax dollars are used is a fruitless argument.

You can argue against the use of tax dollars in a libertarian manner, but not in a fiscally conservative manner. You'll lose on the facts.

I've never actually seen evidence of this. I've read that this contention is, in fact, a myth.

Probably a myth, since a lot of the times, sports teams also get the city to give property tax breaks and don't share ticket/concession sales. Sure, local businesses might give a little more in taxes from the increased business, but not enough to offset the amount of money wasted on a new stadium by a city.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
The Yankees & Mets are financing their new stadiums. I applaud that. The public funded stadiums are bull-crap. The Milwaukee Brewers are the perfect example of a team royally screwing over the taxpayers. I want to say it was like a $300 million proposal given to the state legistature, which approved it, then half-way through the construction, they went back and said it was going to take another $150 million or something, and at this point, the state has to finish building the stadium. Then the owners continues to put out a crap team with the lowest payroll in baseball. Couple years pass, and the owners then sell the team for hundreds of millions of dollars more than what the organization was worth before the new stadium, and the owners got to keep all the money.

I forget exactly where wonderful commisioner Bud Selig worked into this, he was a previous owner of the Brewers.

So yeah, screw the teams who blackmail the cities for publicly funded stadiums.

I think baseball is one of the few sports where a team can't just get up an leave, so it makes it a little harder for baseball teams to blackmail a city into getting money for a stadium.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes, taxes pay for the stadium. But those taxes are returned many fold in increased tax revenues.

It's basically an investment of tax dollars that, in every case, has a triple digit return rate.

It also boosts local business, so it not only increases revenue, it helps local residents as well.

To argue against it simply because tax dollars are used is a fruitless argument.

You can argue against the use of tax dollars in a libertarian manner, but not in a fiscally conservative manner. You'll lose on the facts.

i have that many times it is just the oppisiot.

with the huge tax breakes many time the city is still in debt from it even after its tore down and such.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes, taxes pay for the stadium. But those taxes are returned many fold in increased tax revenues.

It's basically an investment of tax dollars that, in every case, has a triple digit return rate.

It also boosts local business, so it not only increases revenue, it helps local residents as well.

To argue against it simply because tax dollars are used is a fruitless argument.

You can argue against the use of tax dollars in a libertarian manner, but not in a fiscally conservative manner. You'll lose on the facts.

I've never actually seen evidence of this. I've read that this contention is, in fact, a myth.

Probably a myth, since a lot of the times, sports teams also get the city to give property tax breaks and don't share ticket/concession sales. Sure, local businesses might give a little more in taxes from the increased business, but not enough to offset the amount of money wasted on a new stadium by a city.

Not only do the local government get taxes from souvenir, ticket and concession sales... Not only does the local government see increased revenues from increased local business... but a local sports franchise increases how attractive a city is to new business and residents.

To say the few hundred million a city spends on a stadium is not returned in increased revenues is to deny reality. Especially for a growing medium sized city.

 

[dr150]

Who cares about pro football.

While I may be partial to my local team, I'm much more partial to watching good football and good games!

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: dr150
Who cares about pro football.

While I may be partial to my local team, I'm much more partial to watching good football and good games!

millions of people do.