Tom, some people's hobbies don't require poor and middle-class taxpayers to subsidize millionaires and billionaires and their for-profit billion-dollar businesses.
Nothing against sports, but the taxpayers shouldn't be funding pro teams.
Mark your calendars again, for I agree with Mark on this issue.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Then explain to me, o wise one, how having an NFL team makes a city "better." I refer to net benefit--it's at least theoretically possible to buy a ticket and go see a game. But is that worth the cost? Vegas has a little more than 600,000 residents. The stadium has (so far!) cost $1.8 billion. That works out to $3,000 per resident!
And will the stadium increase tourism? Not appreciably--and that money will flow right into the pockets of millionaires and billionaires anyway. Anyway, like Vegas needs MORE people in town on a Sunday afternoon!
Somehow, we've moved from why some folks refer to their team as "we", to the stadiums cost too much. I'm not a fan of public financing of stadiums, but football team do provide value to the city. Is it worth the cost of the stadium? We'll never really know the true value of a sports team, as it’s impossible to prove.
Now that Indy requires a voter referendum for such future stadium expenditures, I don't see a new stadium on our horizon or possibly every. Forever is a long time, however.
By the way, Kevin saying that Vegas has 600,000 people is quite disingenuous, unless Kevin doesn't know that there are 2.3 million in the metro area.
Yee-Hah ! ! !
------quote-----
Football is back in America and from the early results, it’s a touchdown for the well compensated NFL and its clearly relieved broadcasting partners.
Cementing a shifting trend away from years of declining ratings, the September 5 official season kickoff game was up double digits over 2018 and Sunday Night Football nudged up a touch over last year as well, even with a 33-3 blowout by the New England Patriots over the Pittsburgh Steelers.
_____ and _____
With a melded average of 8.6 in metered market ratings, ESPN’s flagship football show [Monday Night Football] is up a strong 19% from the September 10, 2018 two-game extravaganza that saw the Detroit Lions and the Raiders come up losers – a far cry from last night indeed. Actually, the 2019/2020 season premiere of MNF was the best the show has done in the early metrics since 2015, . . .
---endquote---
Ref: Deadline
AMERICAN FOOTBALL IS BACK ! ! !
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Somehow, we've moved from why some folks refer to their team as "we", to the stadiums cost too much. I'm not a fan of public financing of stadiums, but football team do provide value to the city. Is it worth the cost of the stadium? We'll never really know the true value of a sports team, as it’s impossible to prove.
Now that Indy requires a voter referendum for such future stadium expenditures, I don't see a new stadium on our horizon or possibly every. Forever is a long time, however.
By the way, Kevin saying that Vegas has 600,000 people is quite disingenuous, unless Kevin doesn't know that there are 2.3 million in the metro area.
I know that. I was referring to the population of the city itself--since the city, not the county metro area, is bearing the brunt of the financing. My reference to school districts was necessarily county-wide, since there is only one such district in the entire metro area. The money saved by not building the stadium could have been used district-wide. Also---does North Las Vegas derive any real benefit from the stadium? Does Henderson?
In any event, even if you use the 2.3 million figure, that's still around $750 per person, as in, every man, woman, and child, or about $3000 per family. My choosing to use the city population figure wasn't "disingenuous"--you don't have to seize EVERY opportunity to fling a dumb insult.
And the topic is germane to the overselling of football teams. In terms of civic benefit, that $1.8 billion is a LOT of scratch for 10-12 games a year. The only other use the stadium will be put to is UNLV football games, which are about as well attended as girls' junior high lacrosse games.
"The money saved by not building the stadium could have been used district-wide."
A worthy concept, of course. But, trust me on this, it doesn't work that way. The forces that conceive of such things don't think that way. Imagine the conference room, discussing the stadium. Somebody pipes up and says "Hey, this money could be better used to improve our schools." Everyone agrees, done. NOT. Because nobody in those circles thinks like that. And they'll have reasons that bringing the team to Las Vegas will have a trickle down effect on things, which it will. Maybe a trickle to schools? Who knows?
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I know that. I was referring to the population of the city itself--since the city, not the county metro area, is bearing the brunt of the financing. My reference to school districts was necessarily county-wide, since there is only one such district in the entire metro area. The money saved by not building the stadium could have been used district-wide. Also---does North Las Vegas derive any real benefit from the stadium? Does Henderson?
In any event, even if you use the 2.3 million figure, that's still around $750 per person, as in, every man, woman, and child, or about $3000 per family. My choosing to use the city population figure wasn't "disingenuous"--you don't have to seize EVERY opportunity to fling a dumb insult.
And the topic is germane to the overselling of football teams. In terms of civic benefit, that $1.8 billion is a LOT of scratch for 10-12 games a year. The only other use the stadium will be put to is UNLV football games, which are about as well attended as girls' junior high lacrosse games.
Kevin may wish to do more research. The publicly funded portion of the stadium is $750 million, not $1.8 billion. The stadium does not sit in Las Vegas, but instead well south of city limits. The public funding is being generated by a Clark County hotel tax increase, not by local citizens.................unless they hotel near home frequently.
I am amazed that Kevin is found to be wrong, not once but on several points. How can this be? The know all, self anointed brainiac is found out to be a liar? Stay tuned, more to come...
Originally posted by: David Miller
I am amazed that Kevin is found to be wrong, not once but on several points. How can this be? The know all, self anointed brainiac is found out to be a liar? Stay tuned, more to come...
Stalker has spoken!
Originally posted by: Candy Wright
"The money saved by not building the stadium could have been used district-wide."
A worthy concept, of course. But, trust me on this, it doesn't work that way. The forces that conceive of such things don't think that way. Imagine the conference room, discussing the stadium. Somebody pipes up and says "Hey, this money could be better used to improve our schools." Everyone agrees, done. NOT. Because nobody in those circles thinks like that. And they'll have reasons that bringing the team to Las Vegas will have a trickle down effect on things, which it will. Maybe a trickle to schools? Who knows?
I would prefer that things that need to be funded--like schools--are funded directly, rather than the powers that be using tax dollars for boondoggles that fatten up the wallets of rich people. Yeah, maybe some of it will "trickle down." Maybe that single mom can get a third job selling hot dogs at Raiders games.
But yeah, Republicans don't think in terms of using public funds to improve the lives of those who they deem to be the inferior classes. They only want to consider ways to further enrich billionaires, in the hopes of receiving a reward from them in return.
