Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers?

Moderators: Dirk, CoreyGallagher, magnumt, ken6199, Yuri Vaultin, BombsquadSammy, Tarik Black, Mr. E, bwgood77, Rhettmatic, Duke4life831, KF10, GimmeDat, Knickstape1214, DayofMourning, Capn'O

Should the Public Fund Stadiums?

Yes
19
9%
No
190
91%
 
Total votes: 209

User avatar
M4P
Veteran
Posts: 2,754
And1: 806
Joined: Aug 29, 2008

Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#1 » by M4P » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:23 pm

If your state is going to the gutter, and overall infrastructure, healthcare, and education budgets are running on deficits, do you still believe that the public should shoulder the burden of billionaires? I'm actually surprised that this isn't illegal in the US.
baki wrote:Well the lineup is going to look like this:

PG - Lin/Marshall
SG - Young/Kobe (when he comes back)
PF - Boozer/Randle
SF - Davis/Clarkson
C - Hill

Is it still possible to bring in one more big name player? Any restrictions?

I'm thinking Marc Gasol.
HotTubMike
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,464
And1: 1,807
Joined: Apr 06, 2015
     

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#2 » by HotTubMike » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:27 pm

No
norcocredo
Junior
Posts: 337
And1: 322
Joined: Mar 14, 2015

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#3 » by norcocredo » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:28 pm

I don't think they should but I definitely see why they are.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
General Manager
Posts: 9,710
And1: 4,531
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Seattle
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#4 » by Cactus Jack » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:28 pm

**** no. I stand by that even having lost the Sonics. Owners can afford to build them themselves. The Warriors & Ballmer being the latest example of using all private money. The league brings in billions in revenue. Same goes for the NFL. The way they treated cities like St. Louis, San Diego & Oakland was terrible. It has to stop.

Quazza wrote:ALL FUTURE ERECTIONS WILL BE NAMED KEVIN FOR BEING SUCH A STAND UP GUY
azcatz11
Senior
Posts: 717
And1: 854
Joined: Apr 13, 2017
Location: Phoenix

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#5 » by azcatz11 » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:34 pm

Yes, if the voters vote for it. Absolutely. Why not?
Clemenza
Pro Prospect
Posts: 877
And1: 488
Joined: Jan 21, 2013
Location: California
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#6 » by Clemenza » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:36 pm

No the public shouldn't fund stadiums.. This more of a bad deal with the NFL where stadiums now cost $1.5 billion on up for only 8 home games and maybe a playoff game. NBA arenas get 40+ home games, concerts, conventions, maybe the nearest D-1 university will play games there, etc. IMO a new arena, public or privately funded, can change an entire area. Staples Center here in LA was ground zero for the transformation of downtown LA which is on a building boom- new bars, restaurants, clubs, hotels, condos, etc. The Bucks new arena looks like it might do the same for them in downtown Milwaukee. Golden State wants to do the same when they move across the bay to SF. Football stadiums don't do much in terms of new development surrounding it. You need parking galore for tailgating and whatnot.
User avatar
dautjazz
Head Coach
Posts: 7,382
And1: 3,485
Joined: Aug 01, 2001
Location: Miami, FL
 

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#7 » by dautjazz » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:39 pm

azcatz11 wrote:Yes, if the voters vote for it. Absolutely. Why not?


Because I live in Miami and I dont care about the Heat, Dolphins, Marlins, Panthers, or Miami's upcoming MLS team, so why should I and others in the state of Florida pay taxes for these, while the owners laugh all the way to the bank while making tens and hundreds of millions off these teams?
NickAnderson wrote:
How old are you, just curious.

by gomeziee on 21 Jul 2013 00:53

im 20, and i did grow up watching MJ play in the 90's.
User avatar
LookToShoot
Senior
Posts: 648
And1: 402
Joined: Jun 22, 2014
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#8 » by LookToShoot » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:40 pm

If it's worth it, sure. People can decide for themselves.
User avatar
DroseReturnChi
Starter
Posts: 2,023
And1: 342
Joined: Feb 12, 2012
       

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#9 » by DroseReturnChi » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:40 pm

Lol Dont owners profited billions of dollars just by owning a team? Why would taxpayers have to fund for it when the owners should be responsible for it?
God told Derrick to rise, so Derrick Rose.
User avatar
dautjazz
Head Coach
Posts: 7,382
And1: 3,485
Joined: Aug 01, 2001
Location: Miami, FL
 

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#10 » by dautjazz » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:41 pm

Clemenza wrote:No the public shouldn't fund stadiums.. This more of a bad deal with the NFL where stadiums now cost $1.5 billion on up for only 8 home games and maybe a playoff game. NBA arenas get 40+ home games, concerts, conventions, maybe the nearest D-1 university will play games there, etc. IMO a new arena, public or privately funded, can change an entire area. Staples Center here in LA was ground zero for the transformation of downtown LA which is on a building boom- new bars, restaurants, clubs, hotels, condos, etc. The Bucks new arena looks like it might do the same for them in downtown Milwaukee. Golden State wants to do the same when they move across the bay to SF. Football stadiums don't do much in terms of new development surrounding it. You need parking galore for tailgating and whatnot.


And the worst thing is that they will say that in 20-30 years that we need a new freaking stadium or some 500M renovation.
NickAnderson wrote:
How old are you, just curious.

by gomeziee on 21 Jul 2013 00:53

im 20, and i did grow up watching MJ play in the 90's.
azcatz11
Senior
Posts: 717
And1: 854
Joined: Apr 13, 2017
Location: Phoenix

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#11 » by azcatz11 » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:42 pm

dautjazz wrote:
azcatz11 wrote:Yes, if the voters vote for it. Absolutely. Why not?


Because I live in Miami and I dont care about the Heat, Dolphins, Marlins, Panthers, or Miami's upcoming MLS team, so why should I and others in the state of Florida pay taxes for these, while the owners laugh all the way to the bank while making tens and hundreds of millions off these teams?


The taxpayers voted for it. Too bad you don't agree with it. The majority did. Blame your fellow citizens.
User avatar
510TWSS
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,759
And1: 1,251
Joined: Aug 18, 2009
 

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#12 » by 510TWSS » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:45 pm

Unequivocally hell to the f'n no.
dc
Starter
Posts: 2,134
And1: 1,745
Joined: Aug 11, 2001

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#13 » by dc » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:48 pm

Of course the answers is no, but the bottom line is pro sports teams are a commodity. They add value to a city.

And if cities and their citizens are unwilling to fork out public money to subsidize their stadiums, then the teams' owners will threaten to move the team to a city that will. This has been going on for years now. It's nothing new. The question for these cities and their citizens more often than not is, "How much do you value your team? Are you willing to pay to keep it?"

On a side note, Joey "Lightyears" Lacob has gotten the new Warriors new $1B arena to be completely privately funded. Now the public loves that while other team owners and the NBA are likely less enthused about it because it sets such a "great example" for others to follow.
Brian Geltzeiler: You see Mark Jackson getting a head coaching job as early as next year?

Adrian Wojnarowski: Not if people make calls on him. Not if an organization is doing their homework and knows all the things he brings with him.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
General Manager
Posts: 9,710
And1: 4,531
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Seattle
   

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#14 » by Cactus Jack » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:51 pm

dautjazz wrote:
Clemenza wrote:No the public shouldn't fund stadiums.. This more of a bad deal with the NFL where stadiums now cost $1.5 billion on up for only 8 home games and maybe a playoff game. NBA arenas get 40+ home games, concerts, conventions, maybe the nearest D-1 university will play games there, etc. IMO a new arena, public or privately funded, can change an entire area. Staples Center here in LA was ground zero for the transformation of downtown LA which is on a building boom- new bars, restaurants, clubs, hotels, condos, etc. The Bucks new arena looks like it might do the same for them in downtown Milwaukee. Golden State wants to do the same when they move across the bay to SF. Football stadiums don't do much in terms of new development surrounding it. You need parking galore for tailgating and whatnot.


And the worst thing is that they will say that in 20-30 years that we need a new freaking stadium or some 500M renovation.

lol If even that. The Sonics had their arena renovated in 1995. Not even ten years later, the owner was demanding a new one. It's BS.
Quazza wrote:ALL FUTURE ERECTIONS WILL BE NAMED KEVIN FOR BEING SUCH A STAND UP GUY
dc
Starter
Posts: 2,134
And1: 1,745
Joined: Aug 11, 2001

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#15 » by dc » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:57 pm

DroseReturnChi wrote:Lol Dont owners profited billions of dollars just by owning a team? Why would taxpayers have to fund for it when the owners should be responsible for it?


Because they can threaten to move it to a city that will fund it. That's the game they play.

They're a commodity. They basically tell the city "It's a greater privilege for you to have us here than it is for us to be here. If you don't provide a shiny new place for us to play in, somebody somewhere else will."
Brian Geltzeiler: You see Mark Jackson getting a head coaching job as early as next year?

Adrian Wojnarowski: Not if people make calls on him. Not if an organization is doing their homework and knows all the things he brings with him.
User avatar
Howard Mass
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 50,448
And1: 6,876
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
Location: Longwood, Florida
Contact:
       

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#17 » by Howard Mass » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:07 pm

NBA and NHL Arenas are a bit different from NFL and MLB stadiums.

They have a lot more other uses for other events so I am more open to those and supported the Magic's new arena very strongly.

In that regard, I can see why the public would put in some money but the teams should pay a very good chunk for it.

The thing is that if you do not pay, some other city will.
seren
RealGM
Posts: 21,182
And1: 1,385
Joined: Jul 21, 2002

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#18 » by seren » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:13 pm

No. Absolutely not. Even considering this is idiotic. Build some dam facilities for kids instead.

Sent from my XT1575 using RealGM mobile app
Prince187
Rookie
Posts: 1,208
And1: 792
Joined: Mar 21, 2007

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#19 » by Prince187 » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:18 pm

hell no
kodo
RealGM
Posts: 10,442
And1: 5,541
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
Location: Wrigleyville

Re: Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers? 

Post#20 » by kodo » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:23 pm

This isn't any different than a city of state offering tax breaks to corporations & companies to set up shop there.

EG, Canada offers massive financial advantages to the games industry, which is why you find so much of the game industry going north of the border instead of staying in the US.

Ontario in particular has been attracting a significant number of game companies to the region by setting up generous tax incentives. I’ve had the opportunity to launch six tech companies on both sides of the border, and as someone who has mostly lived out of a suitcase, could have easily set up Big Viking Games anywhere in the world. But in the end, without a doubt, I chose to build the company out of Ontario.

Last year, through the support of the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC), gaming companies in Ontario received back between 35 percent to 40 percent of all dollars invested on developers, artists, and marketing costs. When you’re operating a company that’s comprised of 90 percent artists and developers like we are, that’s a huge sum of money.


On the federal side, the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) and the Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Incentive Program (SR&ED) offers new innovative tech companies from $50,000 to $500,000-plus each year to supplement development costs. What’s more, the Business Development Bank of Canada is a federally owned bank with more than $1 billion under management whose mandate is “to help create and develop Canadian businesses.” They aggressively support video game start-ups within Canada.


If a city or state wants a particular type of business, and the NBA is a business, they will use their tax money to make an attractive offer. And in the case of the NBA, it's arenas.

Return to The General Board