View Single Post
Old 07-05-2008, 07:53 PM   #36
SeattleUte
 
SeattleUte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
SeattleUte has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
I think you are correct, and perhaps this is where SU has some dirt to stand on. In general, the government financing will be better than private...also, with private financing, there is often the hassle of giving up a piece of ownership equity in whatever venture is being financed. Personally, I have no idea what the specific terms would be for one of these stadium deals, but to your question, my guess is that going through the gov is going to be more favorable than going through private VC in almost every instance.

Another issue wherein it is beneficial to go through the gov....some of these stadia require eminent domain (see Dodger Stadium at Chavez Ravine....whoops, sorry poor hispanic farmers). Also, I would imagine that permitting and construction is greatly expedited when the local gov is helping to finance the land.

That being said, the local government has a vested interest in the long run to provide the better financing....local jobs, revitalized neighborhoods, tax revenues from locals and visitors, civic pride, etc...similar to student loans, wherein the government has a vested interested in helping to educate its citizenry (although I am sure those CGers here who are against "socialism" are repaying their government loans at the higher market rate, not the lower, subsidized rate.....)

The Cowboys situation that mikewaters referenced is drastically different from the Lakers or Jazz. Jerry Jones was asking for a massive subsidy, with no obligation for him to repay.

Just my limited perspective. It would be interesting to get 8Ball's take, since he clearly has been following the Seattle issue closely. Also, mikewaters has referenced the Dallas situation a few times, so he could likely provide more color around the terms of the Dallas deal.

I get SU's point, but he is way off base and he knows it. If taxpayers were subsidizing these costs, then owners would not be selling their naming rights to ridiculous companies (Minute Maid Field, Energy Solutions Arena, SafeCo Field, FexEx whatever it is called)...also, they would not be building more and more luxury suites.....ticket prices have gone up every season and are reaching stratospheric levels for NBA games...and several owners have lost money (see the gasol deal as exhibit A).

If he is angry, he should be angry at teams like the Cowboys, not teams like the Lakers.
The whole reason the Sonics left is that Davud Stern came to Seattle begging for a $300 million handout and Seattle voters said when hell freezes over. Stern even lost his cool when the Washington speaker of the House saud,"NBA, we're not giving you a red cent. Learn to run your business responsibly like everyone else."

That Triplet says opposing handouts to the NBA is racist really takes the cake. It costs a thousand bucks to take your wife and kids to the game and buy them a hot dog.

Really, can the NBA be called anything other than a failure? The owners lose money and only high rollers and organized crooks can afford to go. In popularity it is closer to the NHL than the NFL. 99 percent of the games are unwatchable. Nobody busts their asses until the playoofs..

And then like NPR the NBA has to be massively subsidized to survive.

The NBA is a cancer.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be.

—Paul Auster

Last edited by SeattleUte; 07-05-2008 at 07:55 PM.
SeattleUte is offline   Reply With Quote