Spending Stephen Ross' money
Stephen Ross makes his amazing 200 million dollar donation to the University and, for the good deed, he get's called out by a dope who thinks he should pony up the entire cost of a new NFL stadium in Miami. Nevermind that Ross has pledged to contribute huge amounts to the new stadium venture, just not the entire cost. Nevermind that the new stadium would benefit the entire region, and that cost should be equitably shared by those that benefit. Nevermind the difference between charitable contributions, such as the one he made to Michigan, and sound strategy in matters of pure business (wanting others to share risk when they will benefit). NEVERMIND ANY OF THAT. Ross has the money, so spend it on something that benefits me! ME ME ME. Where's my piece?
I can't tolerate these leeches and their percieved entitlement to other people's money.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^
I was envisioning Roger Sterling speaking while I was reading your post. It made me very happy.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:19 PM ^
shiieeet, I was envisioning Clay Davis speaking while I was reading your post :P
September 4th, 2013 at 5:52 PM ^
September 4th, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^
Your argument reminds me of a Pete and Pete episode in which the younger Pete is fighting the waves coming to the shore.
September 4th, 2013 at 4:26 PM ^
September 4th, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^
The writer of that article doesn't understand the basics of business. What Ross decides to do with his own charitable donations, has no bearing on business strategies and negotiations.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^
September 4th, 2013 at 3:23 PM ^
September 4th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^
The article is vague as to how much Ross was proposing he pay v. how much he wants from the city/area. It's been proven time and again that stadiums don't generate much economic benefit, certainly not enough to justify the millions of public dollars that pro sports owners demand. The pro sports owners derive a much greater economic benefit than the cities do, thus, why shouldn't they pay for most, if not all, of it?
That said, the connection between the donation and the Miami stadiums have absolutely nothing in common except for the man in the middle. He can spend his money however he wants.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:25 PM ^
I've never been a fan of local governments chipping in for new stadiums. These teams bring in gigantic sums of money and charge fans an arm and a leg to go to games, why should the tax payers who may not even like sports have to chip in to upgrade the facilities?
September 4th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^
Publicly-supported football stadiums are a terrible idea. There are any number of position papers that back that up too.
September 4th, 2013 at 4:22 PM ^
And if those position papers are correct, then the politicians negotiating with Ross over a new stadium should say no to significant taxpayer funding.
But if they are willing to say yes, Ross would be a fool to turn it down. I doubt he got to be where he is by turning down free money.
The problem isn't owners like Ross, it's local leadership being willing to fork over taxpayer dollars to get the feather of an NFL team in their cap. Sure, owners sometimes play hardball and threaten to move the team, but only because they know some city will be willing to cut a deal. If every city said no, owners would find have to find another way to fund their stadiums (or more likely scale them back).
September 4th, 2013 at 4:23 PM ^
I just hate the thought in general... Supporting local businesses is just a horrible idea..
September 4th, 2013 at 4:26 PM ^
You are correct, sir. I read a bunch of these for a project in undergrad. The community generally gets fleeced every time.
I makes sense too. I lived next to Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego for a couple of years. Basically, the stadium was really in use for eight days per year and had really low-revenue stuff like street legal racing about half the other weekends. I expect it was used about 40 days per year with very few people there for most of those days.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:27 PM ^
The public ended/ will end up paying for way more than what people were expecting for the new Marlins stadium.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/24/3199018/how-a-91million-loan-on-t…
September 4th, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^
like i said below, two sides to every coin
September 4th, 2013 at 4:26 PM ^
I mean people are taking shots at Ross but the guy spends money to make his team good. The Marlins spend money and then sold their players off at the first sign of trouble and make a killing off Miami.
We should be spending our time and pitch forks going after the Marlins ownership.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:29 PM ^
Ross does in fact have the money to purchase an entire new stadium by himself, however that would involve him liqiudating a lot of his assets...I see both sides to the argument, it is an investment to the area, but it is also an investment a lot of people do not care about (low paying stadium jobs)...The author has a valid opinion, but he simply failed to show both sides of the argument
September 4th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
I think you're missing the author's argument.
If the author was arguing "taxpayers shouldn't be paying for any part of a new stadium" then I would agree with you that there are two sides to that argument. But that was not the thesis of the article.
The author was arguing that Ross should fit the full bill for the new stadium because he's rich and has the money to donate $200MM to Michigan. That's a terrible argument, and what the OP and the rest of us are upset about.
This is like that argument "You drive a Mercedes so clearly you have money for _____." Whether or not that's true doesn't change whether or not that person thinks ______ is a good use of his money.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:53 PM ^
the fact remains that we do KNOW Ross has the money to purchase it alone....and since stadiums typically end up costing the taxpayers more money on interest than the principal of the loan, he makes a valid point as to why the private investor should poney up the money by himself...HOWEVER, he failed to make that argument as to why the taxpayers should not invest (as they did with the Marlins and ended up eating a massive cost) as I pointed out in my original post....owning a Mercedes and being worth over $4 billion are very different comparisons, wealth like that, while rightfully earned, is subject to criticism when looking for public dollars
September 4th, 2013 at 4:08 PM ^
If you think that's what the author is arguing, then why bring up the donation? What does that have anything to do with it? And would he be in favor of the taxpayers fitting the bill if Ross wasn't wealthy?
The answer to my last question is almost certainly no, so what is the point of bringing up Ross's wealth and his other uses of it? If his point is that taxpayers should never have to pay for stadiums (which I don't necessarily disagree with) then there's no need to bring up how wealthy Ross is or what other things he spends his money on.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
I have no problem with Ross donating all that money (why would anyone?). I also have no problem with municipalities in South Florida refusing to kick public funds into a stadium that would by and large be controlled by Ross and his team. Almost all studies have shown that new stadia or events like the Super Bowl (and the godawful debacle that the America's Cup has been for SF) have a negligible impact on local economies, that often their costs outweigh their benefits, and that owners have been able to extract far more money from local municipalities than is economically prudent. And Marlins Park, which has been a disaster, is certainly playing into this sentiment locally in Miami.
How is the author suggesting entitlement to Ross's money? Isn't he just suggesting that Ross shouldn't be entitled to the money of South Florida's taxpayers to build a stadium that likely won't produce a sufficient return on public investment?
On the stadium/super bowl stuff, see
http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/urban-nation-money-wise-stadiums-and-super-bowls-dont-benefit-cities
http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/hcx/Baade-Matheson_NFLMegaEvents.pdf
September 4th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^
Just because he donates money doesn't mean he should pay for his own stadium; what is illustrating is that he CAN pay for his own stadium. If anyone is getting any entitlements, it's Ross (and almost every other major pro sports owner).
September 4th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
I'm aware of the body of research that exists that stadia and casinos don't create the economic multiplier effect that is typically used to sell a project to taxpayers. If the taxpayers don't want to pay, based on that research, I have no problem with that, although they will likely lose their team to relocation.
This doesn't seem like your ordinary stadium fight. What seems to be happening in this case is that the region (even moreso than Ross) is demanding a new stadium so they become eligible for hosting Super Bowls. So they seem to think there is a benefit (even if the research says otherwise) - but they don't want to foot the bill.
If the NFL allows the market to play out, Ross will probably be presented an offer from a municipality that desparately wants an NFL team (hello, LA Dolphins) and is willing to pay for it. Ross is a smart businessman and knows there is no reason for him to pay for the entire stadium when he'll get one for free at some point.
September 4th, 2013 at 6:01 PM ^
I can understand the two points - both sides (Ross and the city) want to limit their contribution and have someone else risk more capital. But is owning the stadium really a great investment even for a team owner? There are 8 weeks that do pretty well, and the rest of the time - monster trucks rally, motocross, a few concerts (maybe) but not that much use for a football specific place.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
... Why should he be expected to do something just because he can? Could I financially support my lazy idiot of a sister? Yes. Will I? No.
Seperately, from what I hear that stadium is a dump.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
There most likely will be a lacrosse stadium built and will be named Ross Stadium.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^
that Ross ability to pay for a new stadium really is neither here nor there about asking for municipal money for the stadium.
OP is wronger than wrong with the "stadium that benefits the entire region" BS. and if you want the people who benefit to pay for it, well the person who by far will derive the most benefit is the owner. so...petard, hoist, etc.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^
Those are the south florida region's words, not mine. As I said in an earlier reply, I am fully aware of the lack of supporting evidence for stadia creating an economic multiplier effect. But the region is demanding it be eligible to host super bowls again and needs a new stadium to do so. Ross isn't demanding the Super Bowl - the region is.
I don't disagree with your premise, but in this case the governments can't demand something and then expect it to come freely.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
Some information on the how the money was to be raised for the Sun Life renovations per the bill that died in the Florida Legislature are here - LINK
According to this, $289 million or so of the money was going to come from raising the Miami-Dade hotel tax from 6% to 7%, and the Dolphins would have been eligible for up to $90 million in tax rebates. Had it gotten through the legislature, it would have had to survive a referendum vote in Dade County.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^
The Tom Vu way!
September 4th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^
Smart business man. If the all-mighty government is willing to give you something, why not take it? I'm sure he and his business have contributed many millions more in tax dollars than what the city is ponying up. If the writer is that mad about it, go after the mayor and the city decision-makers.
September 4th, 2013 at 3:57 PM ^
Not sure how the OPs gets off calling the author a "Leech" with "entitlement to other people's money" when the subject of author's article is criticism of a billionaire who's currently asking for taxpayers to give the billionaire more money.
If you’re going to into business with someone, you’ll first want to know what they’re doing with their other capital and other ventures, don’t you? Or is it really ‘not your business’? Well when someone goes to the public asking them to pony up tax money for a for-profit venture, then they, like a politician, become a public figure, susceptible to investigation and fair criticism about what they do with their money/other business practices that could affect the public's decision.
They're not unrelated.
September 4th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^
If the taxpayers don't want to support the project, I'm sure Ross will be fine with taking what the market will bring him, even if that's in a new location. He's not leaching, he's practicing sound business of getting the best deal he can for himself knowing that there are several bidders if he doesn't find the deal acceptable.
September 4th, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^
September 4th, 2013 at 5:13 PM ^
The opponents are doing the same. The difference here is no one is writing an article accusimg the tax-payers of anything, whereas the author is accusing Ross of something (what? I'm not exactly sure, but it seems like some combination of being cheap and hypocritical).
It's interesting to me how the argument in the comments section here has devolved from what the argument is in the article. It's like if I wrote an article saying "Fried Fish is unhealthy because it's seafood, and all seafood is unhealthy" and then someone posted my article saying how ridiculous I was, and a bunch of people bashed him by saying "no he's right, fried fish are totally unhealthy." Or maybe "Michigan will be good this year because of their experience on the interior O line" is a better example.
Nobody (or almost nobody) is asserting that the taxpayers should pay for a new stadium. That's the fried fish is unhealthy part. The author's mistake is the "why" section, which is "Because look how much money Stephen Ross has $200MM OMG."
September 4th, 2013 at 5:33 PM ^
September 4th, 2013 at 5:05 PM ^
He bought "The Miami Dolphins." And while it is well within his legal rights to move the team he bought if he wants to, it doesn't make it any less sleazy for any owner to blackmail a town with moving the squad after you've used the local fandom as cache for decades.
September 4th, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^
DIdn't they just build the Dolphins a new stadium recently? Why do they need a new one?
September 4th, 2013 at 5:08 PM ^
Didn't they just abandon the Orange Bowl for the fancy new digs of Joe Robbie Stadium? If they need a new one already maybe they should make the Joe Robbie architects & building contractors pay for it if the old one is so decrepit.
If it's build well, there shouldn't be any reason to replace a stadium for mayb 50-100 years, if not longer. They build these things out of steel & concrete, don't they?
September 4th, 2013 at 6:51 PM ^
Joe Robbie stadium has been opened since 1987, and been the Dolphins home since then
I think you're thinking of the Miami Hurricanes, who played in the Orange Bowl until 2007
September 4th, 2013 at 5:13 PM ^
Are you thinking of the Heat?
September 4th, 2013 at 4:11 PM ^
I had read a comment on another website suggesting that Ross couldn't have used all of that for the Dolphins stadium anyway because of NFL bylaws or something restricting how much personal income you can use. Can anyone confirm or deny that?
September 4th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^
Yes, it hints at that in this article:
September 4th, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^
The NFL's "G4" financing plan (which your link references) allows for the NFL to provide loans to teams of $200 million for constructing a new stadium or $250 million for renovation. Per the G4 plan, the NFL will only do this if the construction/renovation is both a public and private venture...Is there also a cap somewhere on how much a given team/owner can spend on a stadium?
Info re: G4 plan:
http://www.touchdownla.com/nfls-g4-financing-may-help-the-chargers-build-a-new-stadium/2011/12/2129
September 4th, 2013 at 4:14 PM ^
September 4th, 2013 at 4:19 PM ^
A new opinion piece is released that brings in a whole new angle, warranting a new thread, yes.
I suppose under your system we'd just have one big Michigan Football thread, since there is no use in creating a new thread on, say, Derrick Green when we can just go post information on his 2013 depth chart status on his 2012 HELLO post. Based on you being the first to complain, I'm guessing people wouldn't like your system.