Do you think it's fair that tax dollars pay Kobe Bryant's $30 million salary

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

LOL. When Rocky weighs in with one of these it's always a good sign. Rocky, how do you feel about paying part of Boozer's salary with your tax dollars?

Energy Solutions Arena was not publicly financed. LHM paid for it. One reason it was done that way was to make it harder for a new owner to move the team. It's much easier to move a team if it isn't financially tied to the arena.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Energy Solutions Arena was not publicly financed. LHM paid for it. One reason it was done that way was to make it harder for a new owner to move the team. It's much easier to move a team if it isn't financially tied to the arena.

LHM used RDA funds to help pay for the land. He didnt pay for it all himself. The building was privately financed through some of his own cash and then mostly loans (not uncommon).

I believe there were bonds involved because towards the late 90s, LHM had ot refinance and at the time, S&P gave the investment a really high rating for a sports team. Possibly the highest one of any sports refinancing.

I still think ESA does not fall under SU's model, though, since, again, bonds are financing, not subsidy.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I still think ESA does not fall under SU's model, though, since, again, bonds are financing, not subsidy.

Having read the thread I realize I know very little about this topic, so let me ask a question. If the government is providing financing, what are the terms? In other words, is this a loan that could be had some where else? Could it be had for the same rate and the same terms?

I'm suspecting that the reason one gets government financing is because it is better than private financing. Same reason I financed as much of my education as I could on government loans. I think the the loans I got from the government as a subsidy and I know that there is a cost involved in the government offering me financing at well below market rates.

Is this analogous to what we are talking about here or no? If there is no benefit to public financing then why not finance privately? If public financing is on more favorable terms then there must be a cost to the tax, yes? Or is it simply a benefit conferred? I'm ignorant so DDD or anyone else please enlighten me.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Having read the thread I realize I know very little about this topic, so let me ask a question. If the government is providing financing, what are the terms? In other words, is this a loan that could be had some where else? Could it be had for the same rate and the same terms?

I'm suspecting that the reason one gets government financing is because it is better than private financing. Same reason I financed as much of my education as I could on government loans. I think the the loans I got from the government as a subsidy and I know that there is a cost involved in the government offering me financing at well below market rates.

Is this analogous to what we are talking about here or no? If there is no benefit to public financing then why not finance privately? If public financing is on more favorable terms then there must be a cost to the tax, yes? Or is it simply a benefit conferred? I'm ignorant so DDD or anyone else please enlighten me.

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.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

LHM used RDA funds to help pay for the land. He didnt pay for it all himself. The building was privately financed through some of his own cash and then mostly loans (not uncommon).

I believe there were bonds involved because towards the late 90s, LHM had ot refinance and at the time, S&P gave the investment a really high rating for a sports team. Possibly the highest one of any sports refinancing.

I still think ESA does not fall under SU's model, though, since, again, bonds are financing, not subsidy.

This is correct.

While LHM did use a large portion of his own wealth to help pay for the arena, it is a myth that he paid for it all by himself, as he did get some public assistance for it.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

First of all I am glad the citizens of Seattle voted against the new stadium. Seeings how Key arena was rebuilt in 1995. Yes the arena is only 13 years old and they wanted a new one.

Second, I absolutely hate the fact that there are publicly financed items in sport. The one thing that Seattle Ute is forgetting is that cities all the time give subsidies to business to bring them in. The land in Orlando that Disney sit upon was purchased for $50 an acre. Orlando owned the land and sold it to Disney so cheaply so it would bring in visitors. Detroit just subsidized the office buildings for Quicken Loans and is paying some of their taxes to get them to come to Michigan. This doesnt just happen in detroit and orlando it happens nearly everywhere.

Third, the NBA would be fine without public financing, just like the MLB, NHL and even the NFL. They just do the public subsidies because the cities are scared to lose their team. In fact, Ray Croc wanted to give the Padres to the city of San Diego but was forbidden by MLB because it wanted to have an owner where it could fleece the city for a new stadium. The NFL rewards publicly funded stadiums by having the superbowl there. That is why the super bowl has been played in Detroit, Jacksonville and soon to be KC.

Onwers in the NBA are making money hand over fist. First they have a salary cap. Second, they get their arenas for free. Larry Miller bought the Jazz for like 12 million and now they are worth something like 200 million.

The nba is definitely not a failure and definitely not a cancer.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It costs a thousand bucks to take your wife and kids to the game and buy them a hot dog.

A thousand bucks?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Second, I absolutely hate the fact that there are publicly financed items in sport. The one thing that Seattle Ute is forgetting is that cities all the time give subsidies to business to bring them in. The land in Orlando that Disney sit upon was purchased for $50 an acre. Orlando owned the land and sold it to Disney so cheaply so it would bring in visitors. Detroit just subsidized the office buildings for Quicken Loans and is paying some of their taxes to get them to come to Michigan. This doesnt just happen in detroit and orlando it happens nearly everywhere.

Would you consider this a wise investment for Orlando?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Would you consider this a wise investment for Orlando?

In their case yes.