It's been like two days.
here's one vote for "John Beilein's head in a Futurama jar"
It's been like two days.
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...
of simply investing those funds in some conservative investment vehicles. I'm sure, that rainy day money will come in handy. I mean have you even taken a look at the Michigan facilities upgrade schedule. It's pretty incredible. I can't imagine some of it wasn't based on a certain commitment of support.
I lived in Ann Arbor for 10 glorous years, and enjoy every repeat visit. But each time I return, the campus always looks different, and there is some building activity taking place.The fact is, that donations, grants and campus construction are a way of life and tax-free.
...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!
...wut? Tie the tinfoil hat a little too tight today or something?
The title of this post would fit nicely into the previous thread. How can we double up Ross's money?
Let it all ride on Michigan this weekend - that would make the game even more interesting.
to build a stadium with other peoples money.
If you could build a house with the taxpayers picking up half the tab, would you?
That's not a good example because one is commonplace, and the other is not. A better example would be "if you were laid off and the government wanted to give you free money for a year, would you take it?" or "If you were 67 and the government wanted to give you a monthly check until you die, would you take it?" Both of those things actually happen all the time, just like tax payers taking on a chunk of a stadium expense. It's not like Ross is asking for something unprecendented here.
I think he seems like a decent enough guy, $300+ million donated to M so far...
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.
Re: the Dolphins.
I guess black comedy is a form of entertainment.