Spending Stephen Ross' money

I was envisioning Roger Sterling speaking while I was reading your post. It made me very happy.

Your argument reminds me of a Pete and Pete episode in which the younger Pete is fighting the waves coming to the shore.

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.

I think the writer doesn't know the difference between unwilling to finance 100% of a new stadium and unable to finance 100% of a new stadium.

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.

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?

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-th...

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xg9RZ9G1kZwC&lpg=PA323&ots=tjARctShnY&dq=sport%20subsidies%20stadiums%20baade&lr&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q=sport%20subsidies%20stadiums%20baade&f=false

... 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. 

There most likely will be a lacrosse stadium built and will be named Ross Stadium. 

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.

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. 

The Tom Vu way!

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. 

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. 

DIdn't they just build the Dolphins a new stadium recently? Why do they need a new one?

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?

You creating a new thread when your views could have gone in the comments section of the original thread, is justified?

The Ross donation is awesome and hard to seperate from the issue here, but the whole "shared cost" of these stadiums by everyday taxpayers to line the pockets of the wealthy team owners is just horse shit. Don't do it.

There is NO correlation between stadiums and "shared benefit of the region." The jobs are transitory, non-skilled, low paying jobs and the "benefit" of cheering for a sporting team on a region/society is far far overvalued compared to the cost. It's bullshit.

If your team ownership says "Help us pay for a new arena or we walk." Let them walk. Use the windfall to enhance schools, infrastructure, use the money to help lower the costs of doing business in the area. Bring in young professionals, industry. The "benefits" of helping revitalize a region through those measures would certainly blow away the "benefits" of getting drunk and cheering on the Rochester Mud-Dicks every Sunday.

/nopolo

It's seems like most of the disagreement here is over the premise that the taxpayers are the ones asking for the stadium.  Seems like there's pretty universal consensus that if the taxpayers want the stadium, they have no business forcing Ross to foot the bill simply becuase he's rich, and it's fair for him to go to a higher-bidding municipality if he wants to.  On the flip side, if Ross is the one who's demanding the new stadium, it's not fair to force the bill on the taxpayer who will not reap the majority of the benefit.

Dude needs to get that deal with CBS done. Bummer for the people with Time Warner.

And the rules pertaining to this particular club membership rest on the idea that owning a franchise in the league, is like owning a McDonalds franchise. The interesting part about that  is this: McDonald's isn't about selling burgers, even if they keep track of every one sold. The corporation sets the standards for invidual ownership of franchises, and maintaining the look and face of the brand, while the corporation itself is concerned with real estate owned. 

And guess what, this is the way the NFL works. No corps allowed, except during the season and Super Bowl. They are the bottom line. The only franchise owned by a corporate entity in the NFL, ever,  is the Green Bay Packers. And the reason is, they were organized as a corporate owner from the beginning. 

Today, however, if you want to buy into this exclusive club, and the NFL is all about exclusivity, you have to adhere to extremely strict membership rules. And one of those is this:  NFL owners are all about making their private interest a public entity only when it comes to sharing the cost of building facilities and stadia to house their teams. They consider their teams public utilities when it comes to stadium construction, and everyone pays, even if you have no interest in football or whether your city needs or wants to build a new arena. 

You might wonder why the NFL thinks stadiums should be built using public money to support a private enterprise, and you might surmise that their argument is that their private enterprise benefits a wide group of businesses and entreprenuers as well as fans and the public at large. And this thinking is easily understood and makes quite a bit of sense. What doesn't make sense, however, is why the NFL takes this position in regard to stadium and facility construction to benefit their enterprise, but will not permit any public interest in the ownership of any franchise.

I mean the corporate brand has a monopoly interest. The court has decided that issue. 

And today the NFL, like never before, parses its business in such a way, that every dime it can possibly extract from the paying public and the emotional zealotry of its community of fan bases, is done with glorious delight. But no team can be owned except by an individual. And the reason is simple: individual owners are more easily accountable to each other and their collective interest in the league's success, because they are in league with each other. 

So, billionaires who can make $200 million donations to their favorite university, still expect people who have a minor or no interest in their business activities, to support their enterprise when it comes to building a new stadium or renovating one. After all, they might one day go  to watch an event there. They need to be held accountable for this,  like NFL owners. 

After the Marlins Park fiasco, the climate in south Florida is very hostile towards public funding for stadiums. Also, all the hype about new stadiums and major events bringing money to cities is way overblown. There is little proof of this, and recent examples mostly show a somewhat negative effect.

I'm somewhat skeptical of the real benefit of this donation, in particular to the AD. There simply isn't a project out there that will return any sizable amount of money to the department.

Any infrastructure upgrades are built with donations, but need to be managed with current cash flow, which probably means more increases in ticket prices. Compounding this is the O'Bannon lawsuit, which may change where a substantial portion of revenue is allocated.

If I were the AD, I'd be very reluctant to commit to any capital projects, even with 100% of building funds coming from donation, until I knew the outcome of the O'Bannon lawsuit. The only thing I would want to outlay new cash for would be, potentially, to retire or refinance debt. I'm guessing they didn't promise Mr Ross a plaque proclaiming his donation made the University of Michigan "free and clear owners" of Michigan Stadium...

...considering that the National Football League is pretty much pure American propaganda, frankly, the taxpayers should probably be paying for everything the NFL does.

The real shame is that greedy capitalist like Ross have figured out ways to skim a few bucks off of what should be a purely public enterprise.  Maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment incorporating the NFL as a branch of the US government?  Write your conressmen today!

The title of this post would fit nicely into the previous thread. How can we double up Ross's money?

to build a stadium with other peoples money.

If you could build a house with the taxpayers picking up half the tab, would you?

Space heaters for Dominic's and keeping the place open year round. Pitchers of mulled wine at Christmas? Pitchers of Nog? Hellz yeah. Heated patio tiles for the win

The stadium isn't even 30 years old.  If he wants a new stadium, then he shouldn't be upset if people don't want to pony up the cash.  I think Miami sports fans are pretty laid back anyway, so I can't see the excitement to pay more in taxes to finance the stadium.

If he wants more luxury boxes to get a Super Bowl and make more $$$, that's his desire, not the citizens of Miami.  And I have trouble buying the argument that they need a new stadium to get the Super Bowl.  It's Miami.  The NFL will still come back for Super Bowls, regardless of the stadium.

Entertainment isn't free. If you want premium local entertainment your city has to pony up some cash for it. Ross didn't even want Florida to take that money out of its coffers. He wanted them to raise the hotel tax 1% and use that money for the new stadium. There's a lot of intangibles that successful sports franchises bring to a city. Not everything can necesarily be measured by some economist.