I was envisioning Roger Sterling speaking while I was reading your post. It made me very happy.
Spending Stephen Ross' money
shiieeet, I was envisioning Clay Davis speaking while I was reading your post :P
The black knight from Monty Python when I was reading your post. Mearly , a flesh wound....
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.
That's my favorite Alaskan bird.
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?
Publicly-supported football stadiums are a terrible idea. There are any number of position papers that back that up too.
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).
I just hate the thought in general... Supporting local businesses is just a horrible idea..
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.
The public ended/ will end up paying for way more than what people were expecting for the new Marlins stadium.
like i said below, two sides to every coin
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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
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).
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.
... 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.
If he is practicing sound business, then how are the opponents of using taxpayer money doing any different? They are simply practicing sound fiscal responsibility by voicing their opposition to spending their money on something they do not support
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."
And I agree.
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.
DIdn't they just build the Dolphins a new stadium recently? Why do they need a new one?
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?
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
Are you thinking of the Heat?
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?
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:
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.
Signed in just to give you an interweb hi-five. Couldn't agree more
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.
It's been done for almost a week now
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.