15 worst owners in sports
-
like any type of relationship. don't take anything for granted.
-
Still, sports teams get deals for their facilities that most other businesses don't get. Now, mind you other types of businesses DO get support from city/county/state governments. I sit on the local economic development board and it is our function to make arrangements to bring business to town. A lot of times we and the city will bend over backward to bring in jobs.....but probably nothing like what a sports team gets.
-
My opinion is if people think a pro sports team shouldn't reveive public support, maybe they should move to a city that doesn't have a pro sports team.
Here in Chattanooga we have a AA baseball team. Just signed a contract with the Twins. Had been with the Dodgers for 3-4 years.
The point is the city owns the stadium and they know how important a AA baseball team is to the city. The team provides jobs and tax revenue. It's ignorant for people to think teams should pay for it all when there are multiple choices for team to go,
One would think Clevelanders. if anyone, would get it once the Browns moved. Model got a better deal. The city of Baltimore did what the city of Cleveland could/should have done.
Juist saying......if you have a team, be it NFL or AA Baseball, you need to keep it if you want to keep it.
My opinion is if people think a pro sports team shouldn't reveive public support, maybe they should move to a city that doesn't have a pro sports team.
Here in Chattanooga we have a AA baseball team. Just signed a contract with the Twins. Had been with the Dodgers for 3-4 years.
The point is the city owns the stadium and they know how important a AA baseball team is to the city. The team provides jobs and tax revenue. It's ignorant for people to think teams should pay for it all when there are multiple choices for team to go,
But government can't create jobs... didn't you get the memo?
It all depends upon the balance sheet. If stadium operations produce a better return on the depreciated capital employed to build the stadium than other investments, then sure. If not, then no.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
-
My opinion is if people think a pro sports team shouldn't reveive public support, maybe they should move to a city that doesn't have a pro sports team.
Here in Chattanooga we have a AA baseball team. Just signed a contract with the Twins. Had been with the Dodgers for 3-4 years.
The point is the city owns the stadium and they know how important a AA baseball team is to the city. The team provides jobs and tax revenue. It's ignorant for people to think teams should pay for it all when there are multiple choices for team to go,
But government can't create jobs... didn't you get the memo?
It all depends upon the balance sheet. If stadium operations produce a better return on the depreciated capital employed to build the stadium than other investments, then sure. If not, then no.
But government can't create jobs... didn't you get the memo?
It all depends upon the balance sheet. If stadium operations produce a better return on the depreciated capital employed to build the stadium than other investments, then sure. If not, then no.
I agree, jobs aren't created at the government level. What they can do is keep private industry jobs.
As long as there are legit cities willing to lure teams to their area, teams that have them and want to keep them need to meet the demand. Like I said earlier, one would think that fans of the Browns would get that. NFL teams generate millions of dollars of impact for their city. It makes sense for the city to grant some cuts, be it tax breaks, discounts on stadium rent, whatever.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
Sorry, peen, I forgot to use sarcasm pink for my memo comment..
As for stadium economics... better bring in a lot of "millions".
Any new NFL stadium will be over $500 million, but we'll assume that figure.
Take a 20-year life and a 3% interest rate and the loan cost alone is over $33 million per year.
Maintenance is not free, but may be relatively cheap at first... say 1% of the build price or $5 mil. But it will ramp up exponentially with age. We can worry about that later. Then there are also other costs like Insurance, Utilities, Taxes...
If we get 10% of a ticket price in "taxes" averaging $150 for 65,000 capacity for 10 games a year, that's $9.75 mill. After our first year Maint cost plus "other" expenses maybe we net $4 mil?
Only $29 mil to go and we break even... year 1.
The Browns agreed last fall to finance a $120 million renovation of FirstEnergy Stadium that is expected to be completed in two years. Cleveland agreed to pay the team $2 million interest free over the next 15 years to cover their capital repair obligations under the terms of the lease that runs through 2029.
Indians officials estimate they'll need around $60-to-70 million in taxpayer help to cover capital repairs that their field will need between now and 2023.
The Cavaliers say their arena needs an estimated $55-to-65 million in capital repairs and replacements through 2023.
-
My opinion is if people think a pro sports team shouldn't reveive public support, maybe they should move to a city that doesn't have a pro sports team.
Here in Chattanooga we have a AA baseball team. Just signed a contract with the Twins. Had been with the Dodgers for 3-4 years.
The point is the city owns the stadium and they know how important a AA baseball team is to the city. The team provides jobs and tax revenue. It's ignorant for people to think teams should pay for it all when there are multiple choices for team to go,
But government can't create jobs... didn't you get the memo?
It all depends upon the balance sheet. If stadium operations produce a better return on the depreciated capital employed to build the stadium than other investments, then sure. If not, then no.
But government can't create jobs... didn't you get the memo?
Most if not all businesses don't believe that for a moment. As noted, I sit on the local economic development board. There is hardly a business out there (of any size) that does not want some concession from government when it comes to location or expansion. Without those "concessions" they threaten to go somewhere else that will give them. So, these "job creators" undoubtedly believe in the involvement of government to bring/keep jobs in a town.
-
But government can't create jobs... didn't you get the memo?
It all depends upon the balance sheet. If stadium operations produce a better return on the depreciated capital employed to build the stadium than other investments, then sure. If not, then no.
I agree, jobs aren't created at the government level. What they can do is keep private industry jobs.
As long as there are legit cities willing to lure teams to their area, teams that have them and want to keep them need to meet the demand. Like I said earlier, one would think that fans of the Browns would get that. NFL teams generate millions of dollars of impact for their city. It makes sense for the city to grant some cuts, be it tax breaks, discounts on stadium rent, whatever.
I agree, jobs aren't created at the government level. What they can do is keep private industry jobs.
Government jobs are created at the government level. How many jobs are dependent on government or quasi-government in say, Columbus Ohio?
Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.
(and compare that number say to the numbers of jobs in that arena that existed in like 1960.
As long as there are legit cities willing to lure teams to their area, teams that have them and want to keep them need to meet the demand. Like I said earlier, one would think that fans of the Browns would get that. NFL teams generate millions of dollars of impact for their city. It makes sense for the city to grant some cuts, be it tax breaks, discounts on stadium rent, whatever.
-
I suppose I could've read the rolling stones standards for making it on this list. Again just their standards because things like being in the fracking biz does not make an owner bad from an objective view.
I suppose I could've read the rolling stones standards for making it on this list. Again just their standards because things like being in the fracking biz does not make an owner bad from an objective view.
I think their standards were non-objective. If they didn't like what someone was doing, they said so. I doubt they laid down criteria or guidelines.
-
Haslam hasnt been the owner long enough to be on the list. Beyond that and more importantly I think he's done and admirable job especially considering all the person controversy. He shouldn't be on that list.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login