8 ms·

A really great example is the stadium in St. Louis that the city helped pay for to keep the Rams in town.. The Rams left a few years later for LA, and the city

A really great example is the stadium in St. Louis that the city helped pay for to keep the Rams in town.. The Rams left a few years later for LA, and the city is stuck with 144M debt bill to pay on an empty stadium. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight/with-nfl-rams-gone-st-louis-still-stuck-with-stadium-debt-idUSKCN0VC0EP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insig...

microcolonel 8y ago
It baffles me why anyone lets their municipal and county governments even touch the building of stadiums in the first place. It seems to me that this is entirely not the concern of the authorities.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > this is entirely not the concern of the authorities Sports fans are religious. Teams, for better or worse, have the power to rally voters in a way that makes them politically powerful.
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    Also being known as the politician who "let" their team go is a political death sentence.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Put another way...Being the politician who does the right thing for her / his constituents is a political death sentence.
    - drb91 8y ago
      Not everywhere; even the raiders fans in Oakland appear to be OK with letting the team move to LV because of how shitty the team has treated the city.
      - rhcom2 8y ago
        Do you think the quality of the team effects that?
      - dasil003 8y ago
        Meh. They'll be back.
      - masonic 8y ago
        How the Raiders treat their own season ticket holders is reprehensible.
  - extralego 8y ago
    Not true. There is no way citizens are voting to have their taxes spent on this.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      You'd be very, very, very surprised. Not sure about the US, but in countries in Europe and Latin America that I know of, that's very much the case -- sports fans (soccer in this case of course) are a very vocal group, and have much influence on politics, and always push for more government spending on stadiums.
      - extralego 8y ago
        OK, count me very, very, very surprised. If it happens there, I’m sure it happens all over the US.
      - parthdesai 8y ago
        What are you talking about? In Europe, clubs have to pay for their own stadium. Arsenal paid for their stadium when they moved from Highbury to Emirates. Tottenham is paying for renovation of White Heart Lane. Real Madrid will be paying out of their own pocket for renovation to Bernabeu. Fc Barcelona will be paying out of their own pocket to renovate Camp Nou. I'm not aware the barbaric culture of billionaires using tax payers money to build a stadium and then keeping the profits from it anywhere outside US.
        dizzy3gg 8y ago
        West Ham have had favours and Real Madrid have had a stupid amount of help from Madrid since forever.
        coldtea 8y ago
        >I'm not aware the barbaric culture of billionaires using tax payers money to build a stadium and then keeping the profits from it anywhere outside US. You'd be surprised. "Taxpayers have criticised a "ridiculous" deal which means West Ham United will pay just a fraction of the £2.3m annual business rates bill on its London Stadium home.Owners E20 Stadium revealed the Hammers will only pay additional rates on the retail and office space in the 66,000-capacity ground after they secured the lease for just £2.5m a year in rent last year. Costs for the rest of the arena will have to be covered by E20, a joint venture between publicly funded London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council." "English club Manchester City received more than $170 million in public funds for its Etihad Stadium, where it moved in 2002, because the grounds were built to host the Commonwealth Games. Tottenham Hotspur, another English club, will reportedly receive some sort of public aid, whether through tax breaks or other forms of relief, to build a new version of its White Hart Lane. West Ham is moving into London’s Olympic stadium, also built with public funds, though the club will pay a small amount of the conversion costs and will also pay annual rent (in two of these instances, you’ll notice, the stadiums were built for other events and are being utilized by clubs, which isn’t altogether a bad thing). And in Spain, Barça, Real Madrid, the world’s second most valuable franchise, and other clubs are under a European Union investigation for receiving improper tax breaks." "When Juventus inaugurated the Juventus Arena in 2011 instead of the old Delle Alpi it became the first club in Italy to have stadium ownership while other clubs in Italy still rent a stadium from the local council. The main reason is for municipally owned stadiums is regulation and financial power of Italian clubs but this is starting to change now". Even when you read about "renting" it, the deals are more than generous (nowhere near the costs), and accompanied with huge tax breaks and easy state or municipally-supported loans in tons of cases. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-the-billions-brazil-spent-on-world-cup-stadiums-worth-it/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-the-billions-brazi... (And let's not even discuss e.g. Greece and other soccer-obsessed countries)
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  San Diego did just that, and said no to the stadium the Chargers wanted, next to downtown (they were willing to build a different stadium elsewhere). So they left for LA.
  - nitwit005 8y ago
    I gather from this thread that LA has a lot of stadiums now.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      It is the second biggest city in the country. And technically, many of them are not in the City of LA, but the LA Metro Area.
      - grogenaut 8y ago
        People seem to forget, LA somehow lost their previous teams. Maybe people in LA have better options than just getting drunk and burning up a Sunday and don't attend much. I've noticed USC fills their stadium only when they're spectacular. Whereas other teams across the country fill it up when they're only OK (most of the big 10). Anecdotal but probably understandable via stats.
    - majormajor 8y ago
      The outlier here is that the new Rams/Chargers stadium (and retail/residential/office that it includes) in LA is privately funded. (Actually, CA in general doesn't spend as much on stadiums as other places have been.) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-20170113-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-201... >For decades, Angelenos went without a hometown NFL team in part because they were notoriously loath to spend taxes on one. Rams owner Stan Kroenke, worth $7.4 billion according to Forbes, made the league's return to Los Angeles possible because he was game to use his own money to develop the $2.66-billion Inglewood stadium that, starting in 2019, will be home base of his team and the Chargers. >Inglewood will ultimately pay the project an estimated $60 million as a reimbursement for the development of roadwork, utilities and public parks on the site of the property. >James T. Butts Jr., mayor of Inglewood, said he would not have agreed to a new NFL stadium if it required fans to chip in. >"From our first talks, we made it clear that was not something we were going to do," Butts said. "We wanted a model that basically insulated the city from the buffeting winds of both the economy and ticket sales, and we have that now." It's an open question who it'll work out for: both the Chargers and Rams were in LA before, before leaving for perceived greener pastures. The Rams' owners seem to be hedging their bets this time with the multi-purpose real-estate nature of the stadium. But will STL or SD really be that badly off? We'll see if they end up spending money in the future to get a team back... LA didn't, though.
vermontdevil 8y ago
And St Louis was about to pony up for a second one to keep the team. Fortunately Kronke did the city a favor and left anyway. The city has rejected another request for a MLS stadium. I guess they are wising up.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Why don't they just put the MLS team in the empty Rams stadium?
  - ggg9990 8y ago
    Play association football in a stadium intended for gridiron football? Are you a madman?
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Or he's not an American and doesn't know those teams, so just assumes they play the same sport and asks the most logical question given that. How about that? Not to mention that in a pinch, a stadium can always be changed to fit a different sport (if the space is enough), for much less than to build another one.
      - umanwizard 8y ago
        I am guessing he was joking.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - joemag 8y ago
        That was sarcasm. Many cities have NFL and MLS teams share stadium. The two fields are almost identical dimensions.
  - tbihl 8y ago
    Back when I used to live in DC, the soccer team played in an old football stadium (RFK)(and they may still). It was cool in a sort of eerie way, watching in a mostly empty hulk of a stadium that was clearly progressing in partial decay. Plus, the stands were metal, so you could feel them swaying when everyone jumped together.

microcolonel 8y ago

It baffles me why anyone lets their municipal and county governments even touch the building of stadiums in the first place. It seems to me that this is entirely not the concern of the authorities.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> this is entirely not the concern of the authorities Sports fans are religious. Teams, for better or worse, have the power to rally voters in a way that makes them politically powerful.
- rhcom2 8y ago
  Also being known as the politician who "let" their team go is a political death sentence.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    Put another way...Being the politician who does the right thing for her / his constituents is a political death sentence.
  - drb91 8y ago
    Not everywhere; even the raiders fans in Oakland appear to be OK with letting the team move to LV because of how shitty the team has treated the city.
    - rhcom2 8y ago
      Do you think the quality of the team effects that?
    - dasil003 8y ago
      Meh. They'll be back.
    - masonic 8y ago
      How the Raiders treat their own season ticket holders is reprehensible.
- extralego 8y ago
  Not true. There is no way citizens are voting to have their taxes spent on this.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    You'd be very, very, very surprised. Not sure about the US, but in countries in Europe and Latin America that I know of, that's very much the case -- sports fans (soccer in this case of course) are a very vocal group, and have much influence on politics, and always push for more government spending on stadiums.
    - extralego 8y ago
      OK, count me very, very, very surprised. If it happens there, I’m sure it happens all over the US.
    - parthdesai 8y ago
      What are you talking about? In Europe, clubs have to pay for their own stadium. Arsenal paid for their stadium when they moved from Highbury to Emirates. Tottenham is paying for renovation of White Heart Lane. Real Madrid will be paying out of their own pocket for renovation to Bernabeu. Fc Barcelona will be paying out of their own pocket to renovate Camp Nou. I'm not aware the barbaric culture of billionaires using tax payers money to build a stadium and then keeping the profits from it anywhere outside US.
      - dizzy3gg 8y ago
        West Ham have had favours and Real Madrid have had a stupid amount of help from Madrid since forever.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >I'm not aware the barbaric culture of billionaires using tax payers money to build a stadium and then keeping the profits from it anywhere outside US. You'd be surprised. "Taxpayers have criticised a "ridiculous" deal which means West Ham United will pay just a fraction of the £2.3m annual business rates bill on its London Stadium home.Owners E20 Stadium revealed the Hammers will only pay additional rates on the retail and office space in the 66,000-capacity ground after they secured the lease for just £2.5m a year in rent last year. Costs for the rest of the arena will have to be covered by E20, a joint venture between publicly funded London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council." "English club Manchester City received more than $170 million in public funds for its Etihad Stadium, where it moved in 2002, because the grounds were built to host the Commonwealth Games. Tottenham Hotspur, another English club, will reportedly receive some sort of public aid, whether through tax breaks or other forms of relief, to build a new version of its White Hart Lane. West Ham is moving into London’s Olympic stadium, also built with public funds, though the club will pay a small amount of the conversion costs and will also pay annual rent (in two of these instances, you’ll notice, the stadiums were built for other events and are being utilized by clubs, which isn’t altogether a bad thing). And in Spain, Barça, Real Madrid, the world’s second most valuable franchise, and other clubs are under a European Union investigation for receiving improper tax breaks." "When Juventus inaugurated the Juventus Arena in 2011 instead of the old Delle Alpi it became the first club in Italy to have stadium ownership while other clubs in Italy still rent a stadium from the local council. The main reason is for municipally owned stadiums is regulation and financial power of Italian clubs but this is starting to change now". Even when you read about "renting" it, the deals are more than generous (nowhere near the costs), and accompanied with huge tax breaks and easy state or municipally-supported loans in tons of cases. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-the-billions-brazil-spent-on-world-cup-stadiums-worth-it/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-the-billions-brazi... (And let's not even discuss e.g. Greece and other soccer-obsessed countries)
s73v3r_ 8y ago
San Diego did just that, and said no to the stadium the Chargers wanted, next to downtown (they were willing to build a different stadium elsewhere). So they left for LA.
- nitwit005 8y ago
  I gather from this thread that LA has a lot of stadiums now.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    It is the second biggest city in the country. And technically, many of them are not in the City of LA, but the LA Metro Area.
    - grogenaut 8y ago
      People seem to forget, LA somehow lost their previous teams. Maybe people in LA have better options than just getting drunk and burning up a Sunday and don't attend much. I've noticed USC fills their stadium only when they're spectacular. Whereas other teams across the country fill it up when they're only OK (most of the big 10). Anecdotal but probably understandable via stats.
  - majormajor 8y ago
    The outlier here is that the new Rams/Chargers stadium (and retail/residential/office that it includes) in LA is privately funded. (Actually, CA in general doesn't spend as much on stadiums as other places have been.) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-20170113-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-201... >For decades, Angelenos went without a hometown NFL team in part because they were notoriously loath to spend taxes on one. Rams owner Stan Kroenke, worth $7.4 billion according to Forbes, made the league's return to Los Angeles possible because he was game to use his own money to develop the $2.66-billion Inglewood stadium that, starting in 2019, will be home base of his team and the Chargers. >Inglewood will ultimately pay the project an estimated $60 million as a reimbursement for the development of roadwork, utilities and public parks on the site of the property. >James T. Butts Jr., mayor of Inglewood, said he would not have agreed to a new NFL stadium if it required fans to chip in. >"From our first talks, we made it clear that was not something we were going to do," Butts said. "We wanted a model that basically insulated the city from the buffeting winds of both the economy and ticket sales, and we have that now." It's an open question who it'll work out for: both the Chargers and Rams were in LA before, before leaving for perceived greener pastures. The Rams' owners seem to be hedging their bets this time with the multi-purpose real-estate nature of the stadium. But will STL or SD really be that badly off? We'll see if they end up spending money in the future to get a team back... LA didn't, though.

vermontdevil 8y ago

And St Louis was about to pony up for a second one to keep the team. Fortunately Kronke did the city a favor and left anyway. The city has rejected another request for a MLS stadium. I guess they are wising up.

umanwizard 8y ago
Why don't they just put the MLS team in the empty Rams stadium?
- ggg9990 8y ago
  Play association football in a stadium intended for gridiron football? Are you a madman?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Or he's not an American and doesn't know those teams, so just assumes they play the same sport and asks the most logical question given that. How about that? Not to mention that in a pinch, a stadium can always be changed to fit a different sport (if the space is enough), for much less than to build another one.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      I am guessing he was joking.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - joemag 8y ago
      That was sarcasm. Many cities have NFL and MLS teams share stadium. The two fields are almost identical dimensions.
- tbihl 8y ago
  Back when I used to live in DC, the soccer team played in an old football stadium (RFK)(and they may still). It was cool in a sort of eerie way, watching in a mostly empty hulk of a stadium that was clearly progressing in partial decay. Plus, the stands were metal, so you could feel them swaying when everyone jumped together.