Orton's Arm Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 It is time we stop this blackmail of taxpayers by the wealthy. If football is a business, the taxpayers should not be forced to pay for their profits. The NFL wants the public to share the costs and provide the investment, but is not willing to share the profits or control in return. They want the taxpayers to pay for the operation of their business, but yet explicitly forbid the taxpayers from being a team owner. If we want to buy tickets and things like seat licenses as individuals, that is our free choice. But the costs should not be forced on every taxpayer. The federal government should remove all special exemptions from sports businesses and disqualify any state and local government unit from receiving any federal funds in any year they give huge exemptions or spend public money to directly support a for profit enterprise. That is what is called Free Enterprise. You've hit the nail on the head. It should be illegal for any state or local government to give money or other subsidies to an NFL team. Ending public subsidies would--as others have pointed out--increase owners' costs. The salary cap should be lowered to reflect those increased costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 You've hit the nail on the head. It should be illegal for any state or local government to give money or other subsidies to an NFL team. Ending public subsidies would--as others have pointed out--increase owners' costs. The salary cap should be lowered to reflect those increased costs. Government subsidy of business is more pervasive than you realize. Luxury boxes? 100% tax deductible so you and I subsidize them. It's the one big knock on Toronto being in the NFL. Customers can't write that crap off. How about the minimum wage? When you work 40 hours and still are below the poverty line you have no choice but to go on public assistance. Again taxpayers covering for businesses. Lower tax rates on investment income. Subsides for oil exploration as if oil companies would stop looking for oil if the govt. didn't pay them. Write offs for corporate jets, the list is endless. So why wouldn't NFL owners expect tax money to fund their operations? We hand money out like halloween candy to the wealthy. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Government subsidy of business is more pervasive than you realize. Luxury boxes? 100% tax deductible so you and I subsidize them. It's the one big knock on Toronto being in the NFL. Customers can't write that crap off. How about the minimum wage? When you work 40 hours and still are below the poverty line you have no choice but to go on public assistance. Again taxpayers covering for businesses. Lower tax rates on investment income. Subsides for oil exploration as if oil companies would stop looking for oil if the govt. didn't pay them. Write offs for corporate jets, the list is endless. So why wouldn't NFL owners expect tax money to fund their operations? We hand money out like halloween candy to the wealthy. PTR Actually only up to 50% deductible, but your point is valid. It should be zero. Same for corporate jets. As for everyone still talking about "moving to LA". There is no viable stadium project in that city. No one is moving there for the foreseeable future. The cost would be too high--any team moving would have to build a stadium or sell a big chunk of his team to a developer in LA who may build one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Also keep in mind that the NFL is a tax exempt 501(c )... Edited July 7, 2013 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Actually only up to 50% deductible, but your point is valid. It should be zero. Same for corporate jets. As for everyone still talking about "moving to LA". There is no viable stadium project in that city. No one is moving there for the foreseeable future. The cost would be too high--any team moving would have to build a stadium or sell a big chunk of his team to a developer in LA who may build one. Supposedly a franchise in hand would jump start stadium building in L.A. So let's say AEG buys the Rams and puts then in the Collesium or Rose Bowl until the new stadium is built. Could happen. And even with the Rams, an AFC team like the Raiders or Chargers could still follow PTR Edited July 7, 2013 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Supposedly a franchise in hand would jump start stadium building in L.A. So let's say AEG buys the Rams and puts then in the Collesium or Rose Bowl until the new stadium is built. Could happen. And even with the Rams, an AFC team like the Raiders or Chargers could still follow The Raiders belong in the Coliseum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 PSL' s will go through the roof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luvnlfe Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Truth is somewhere in the middle...the NFL has become a economic development engine...jobs/secondary businesses/improving the odds of attracting new businesses are just a few reasons football is bigger than just lineing the pockets of the owners...although it sure does that as well...i can understand government chipping in to find/keep a franchise...but the kind of outrageous money being thrown around today can do a lot more good in other places...if the government is going to prop up some of these owners then the owners need to pay a price...like giving up the ability to blackout games...or some percent of the capacity for a price the average guy can afford...just looks like another case of messed up priorities...in the end this really isn't about fans...it's a lot more about money and influence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Local governments can and do give incentives for business. And that's okay as long as there is a decent return. But there comes a point where you are giving away money. That's what this has become. In a way you can't blame the Rams. After all the whole reason they are in St. Louis is they where willing to bend over for Georgia Frontiere. Why shouldn't they keep asking for more until they are told "no"? PTR Edited July 7, 2013 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Supposedly a franchise in hand would jump start stadium building in L.A. So let's say AEG buys the Rams and puts then in the Collesium or Rose Bowl until the new stadium is built. Could happen. And even with the Rams, an AFC team like the Raiders or Chargers could still follow PTR None of those teams are for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 None of those teams are for sale. Does a team have to be for sale in order to move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I don't get how the Rams and Falcons want or think they need new stadiums again No reason why they can't get 30 years out of a stadium considering how much they cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I don't get how the Rams and Falcons want or think they need new stadiums again No reason why they can't get 30 years out of a stadium considering how much they cost The Rams don't think they need a new stadium. Their lease expressly states their stadium must be in the top 20% of the league. Since a number of new stadiums have been built since the Rams took up residence at EJD, it no longer meets the terms of the lease. It's a dumb clause that all but meant the Rams were going to get out of their lease at some point. WTG, politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 From Beerball's post in a different thread, one of the arguments against blackouts is the public funding/subsidizing of NFL stadiums. If you take that away, you also remove any argument you might have regarding no TV blackouts. If the NFL owners "own it", then they "own it" and can tell local TV to pizz off if they haven't sold out by whatever date they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Shouldn't you be more upset at the corrupt politicians who actually give them our money? You mean those who are bought and paid for by the rich and powerful? It is well documented why the word pandering fits them so well. Yet give no pass to those behind the money. The politicians we have are simply the ones that the "money" gave us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Does a team have to be for sale in order to move? An owner would have to sell a large piece of the team to an LA developer in order for them to build the stadium. Without ownership revenue for debt servicing, a stadium builder can't possibly cover their debt renting the new stadium to an NFL team 8 days a year. They would never be able to raise capital without convincing lenders they will have a significant, steady source of income. Only NFL ownership provides this. Edited July 7, 2013 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 An owner would have to sell a large piece of the team to an LA developer in order for them to build the stadium. Without ownership revenue for debt servicing, a stadium builder can't possibly cover their debt renting the new stadium to an NFL team 8 days a year. They would never be able to raise capital without convincing lenders they will have a significant, steady source of income. Only NFL ownership provides this. This is why many people believe that a stadium will never be built in LA. Many others believe that it will be necessary for the LA stadium to have two NFL tenants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) This is why many people believe that a stadium will never be built in LA. Many others believe that it will be necessary for the LA stadium to have two NFL tenants. Count me in with the former. 1.5 billion plus purchasing a large share of the team---looking at up to 2 billion for the developer with a huge monthly nut to cover. I don't see how anyone can convince lenders this is a sound business decision and worth the risk. There is no precedent for it. Edited July 7, 2013 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You herd it hear last Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Count me in with the former. 1.5 billion plus purchasing a large share of the team---looking at up to 2 billion for the developer with a huge monthly nut to cover. I don't see how anyone can convince lenders this is a sound business decision and worth the risk. There is no precedent for it. I'm sure there's many chinese billionaires that have taken a number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I'm sure there's many chinese billionaires that have taken a number. The NFL owners decide who joins the club. It's not strictly a matter of how much money one has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts