this is a thread about nothing... Mike brown just said he understand the trouble of getting a stadium contract.

This isn't the first the the raiders have moved or the 2nd

(03-29-2017, 10:51 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: this is a thread about nothing... 

Seinfeld thread.

(03-28-2017, 09:44 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Sorry, but how exactly is this reasonable? 

Why should tax payers have to foot the bill for an owners stadium? 

NFL owners have been taking advantage of the general public for far too long. Teams are moving cities because the owners get butt hurt and don't want to pony up money for THEIR stadium when the public votes the stadium tax down. Im honestly glad St. Louis and Oakland voted their stadium tax proposition down. Im glad some of these citizens have the balls to stand up to such greedy owners and the NFL in general. 

The NFL is becoming a joke and society is so twisted these days. How about instead of NFL owners expecting the public to pay for their multi billion dollar stadiums by tax, we offer up a tax that will help out schools or some sort of social service that will improve the cities social or developmental landscape? 

Shit makes me sick. 

I saw last night that the city of Oakland still owes $95 million for the last renovations they did to the Coliseum.  Their payments are over $10 million each year... that is $10 million that does not go to hire extra teachers, police officers, firefighters, repair schools, etc.  The idea that these guys can't afford to build their own stadiums is ridiculous. 

(03-29-2017, 11:37 AM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I saw last night that the city of Oakland still owes $95 million for the last renovations they did to the Coliseum.  Their payments are over $10 million each year... that is $10 million that does not go to hire extra teachers, police officers, firefighters, repair schools, etc.  The idea that these guys can't afford to build their own stadiums is ridiculous. 

The NFL had better watch alienating longtime, loyal fans, and placing themselves on that ivory pedestal.....it's precisely the reason most NASCAR events are half (or more in some cases) empty these days.  The core fans and historic venues were forsaken to pursue the almighty dollar in bigger markets.  The fad wore off, and they came crashing down when the fairweather fans quit going, and once die hard fans had long since spoken with their wallets.  I used to attend 3 to 4 races a year.  Now, I go to Darlington to support the historically significant track and its great hospitality, and rarely even watch on tv anymore.  It can happen to the mighty NFL too.

All this on the anniversary of the Colts leaving Baltimore. Excuse me, I said that wrong...sneaking out of town in the middle of the night in the middle of a blizzard. Yes, I'm from Bawlmer, and yes, I'm still bitter.

(03-29-2017, 11:43 AM)Wyche Wrote: The NFL had better watch alienating longtime, loyal fans, and placing themselves on that ivory pedestal.....it's precisely the reason most NASCAR events are half (or more in some cases) empty these days.  The core fans and historic venues were forsaken to pursue the almighty dollar in bigger markets.  The fad wore off, and they came crashing down when the fairweather fans quit going, and once die hard fans had long since spoken with their wallets.  I used to attend 3 to 4 races a year.  Now, I go to Darlington to support the historically significant track and its great hospitality, and rarely even watch on tv anymore.  It can happen to the mighty NFL too.

It's not just greed, but also ego taken to an extreme level.  I am all for capitalism, but there is this mindset in this country that nothing is ever "enough".  And incremental increases are no longer acceptable like they were in the past.  Everything has to grow by leaps and bounds.  The television contracts, the stadium deals, the corporate sponsorship... everything has to be substantially bigger than it was even last year or the year before. The problem is that it does leave the average person feeling left out.

Because of my great grandfather who introduced me to baseball, I am a lifelong Yankee fan.  The Yankees has the most revered home in all of sport, but decided to tear it down and build a monument dedicated to whatever corporate ticketholders could shell out the most money.  Entire sections of the stadium were marketed to corporate interests at $250-300k per seat for the year.  On top of this, those fans don't even sit in the seats because the "place to be" is their private club so the stadium looks half empty most nights.  An average fan used to be able to take his family to multiple games per year, now a terrible seat in the outfield goes for $200 each.

As long as owners are going to expect public financing, than they have an obligation to that public.  You own the team, you own the stadium, walk away whenever you want... on the other hand if you took public financing, there is no way you should be able to leave and stick the city with debt.  The Raiders or the NFL should have to write a check to cover whatever is still owed for the previous renovations.

(03-29-2017, 12:18 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: It's not just greed, but also ego taken to an extreme level.  I am all for capitalism, but there is this mindset in this country that nothing is ever "enough".  And incremental increases are no longer acceptable like they were in the past.  Everything has to grow by leaps and bounds.  The television contracts, the stadium deals, the corporate sponsorship... everything has to be substantially bigger than it was even last year or the year before. The problem is that it does leave the average person feeling left out.

Because of my great grandfather who introduced me to baseball, I am a lifelong Yankee fan.  The Yankees has the most revered home in all of sport, but decided to tear it down and build a monument dedicated to whatever corporate ticketholders could shell out the most money.  Entire sections of the stadium were marketed to corporate interests at $250-300k per seat for the year.  On top of this, those fans don't even sit in the seats because the "place to be" is their private club so the stadium looks half empty most nights.  An average fan used to be able to take his family to multiple games per year, now a terrible seat in the outfield goes for $200 each.

As long as owners are going to expect public financing, than they have an obligation to that public.  You own the team, you own the stadium, walk away whenever you want... on the other hand if you took public financing, there is no way you should be able to leave and stick the city with debt.  The Raiders or the NFL should have to write a check to cover whatever is still owed for the previous renovations.

Why would the Raiders or the NFL cut a check to Oakland for renovations to the same stadium that the city also leases to the Oakland Athletics?  

(03-29-2017, 10:47 AM)Wyche Wrote: He would easily become the most hated man in all of the Greater Cincy Metro area if he moved the team after shitting on the loyal fans for over a quarter century.

He's already the most hated man in Cincinnati, so why would that make any difference to him?

(03-29-2017, 12:18 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: It's not just greed, but also ego taken to an extreme level.  I am all for capitalism, but there is this mindset in this country that nothing is ever "enough".  And incremental increases are no longer acceptable like they were in the past.  Everything has to grow by leaps and bounds.  The television contracts, the stadium deals, the corporate sponsorship... everything has to be substantially bigger than it was even last year or the year before. The problem is that it does leave the average person feeling left out.

Because of my great grandfather who introduced me to baseball, I am a lifelong Yankee fan.  The Yankees has the most revered home in all of sport, but decided to tear it down and build a monument dedicated to whatever corporate ticketholders could shell out the most money.  Entire sections of the stadium were marketed to corporate interests at $250-300k per seat for the year.  On top of this, those fans don't even sit in the seats because the "place to be" is their private club so the stadium looks half empty most nights.  An average fan used to be able to take his family to multiple games per year, now a terrible seat in the outfield goes for $200 each.

As long as owners are going to expect public financing, than they have an obligation to that public.  You own the team, you own the stadium, walk away whenever you want... on the other hand if you took public financing, there is no way you should be able to leave and stick the city with debt.  The Raiders or the NFL should have to write a check to cover whatever is still owed for the previous renovations.

Wow, you said mouthful there.  Agree 100%.  As a fan of both football and motorsports, I can tell you the parallels are beyond striking.....people will get fed up eventually. Replace owners with track owners, sanctioning body, CEO, and local hotels/restaurants/campgrounds.....and you have essentially the same scenario about 7 or 8 years ago.  We may have already seen the crest of the wave in the NFL.....

(03-29-2017, 12:40 PM)Whatever Wrote: He's already the most hated man in Cincinnati, so why would that make any difference to him?

Probably true....even more reason to quit giving that piece of shit my money!

(03-29-2017, 12:38 PM)Whatever Wrote: Why would the Raiders or the NFL cut a check to Oakland for renovations to the same stadium that the city also leases to the Oakland Athletics?  

Because at one point the city of Oakland negotiated with the Raiders and the NFL in good faith, put hundreds of millions of dollars into a stadium where the Raiders and NFL could host their games, and are not stuck with nothing.  If they can send $50 million checks to each franchise as part of their "relocation fees", they could do the right thing and help out the citizens of Oakland.

Look, I get it, based on your comments (some of which don't make economic sense) you are going to tow the corporate line no matter what.  So at this point I will bid you a good day and say we will have to agree to disagree.

The thing that sucks is that the situation is a no win for those trying to get back at Mike Brown.

If the stadium tax comes to another vote, those voting against it in order to stiff Mike Brown are essentially fooling themselves because if it does fail, he will just pick up and go to a new city, get his stadium paid for, and then we lose the Bengals.

The guy is getting his new stadium paid for no matter what.

(03-29-2017, 12:48 PM)Wyche Wrote: Wow, you said mouthful there.  Agree 100%.  As a fan of both football and motorsports, I can tell you the parallels are beyond striking.....people will get fed up eventually. Replace owners with track owners, sanctioning body, CEO, and local hotels/restaurants/campgrounds.....and you have essentially the same scenario about 7 or 8 years ago.  We may have already seen the crest of the wave in the NFL.....

Yeah, kind of got up on a soapbox there...

(03-29-2017, 12:55 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Yeah, kind of got up on a soapbox there...

Nah, not really.....I meant that as to say you were spot on.

.....take a look at this, and tell me if you don't see some eerie similarities.  Foreshadowing, perhaps?

http://dkconcepts.com/fortheloveofracing/the-problem-with-nascar

(03-29-2017, 12:52 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: The thing that sucks is that the situation is a no win for those trying to get back at Mike Brown.

If the stadium tax comes to another vote, those voting against it in order to stiff Mike Brown are essentially fooling themselves because if it does fail, he will just pick up and go to a new city, get his stadium paid for, and then we lose the Bengals.

The guy is getting his new stadium paid for no matter what.

The NFL created one of these biggest brands in the US and are attempting to take  their brand now to Europe and Mexico. They created it so they reap the rewards. Thus, the owners benefited holding all of the cards. (all owners). It is business. It can also go the other way if they damage the game by allowing too any rule  changes, games too long or create ticket prices too high.

One thing some don't understand is by cities involvement in building stadiums, it keeps ticket prices lower. If owners were forced to pay 100%, the investment dollars get passed straight through to ticket holders. In the end, consumers pay for everything either through taxes or price hikes.

(03-29-2017, 02:21 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The NFL created one of these biggest brands in the US and are attempting to take  their brand now to Europe and Mexico. They created it so they reap the rewards. Thus, the owners benefited holding all of the card. (all owners). It is business. It can also go the other way if they damage the game by allowing too any rule  changes, games too long or create ticket prices too high.

One thing some don't understand is by cities involvement in building stadiums, it keeps ticket prices lower. If owners were forced to pay 100%, the investment dollars get passed straight through to ticket holders. In the end, consumers pay for everything either through taxes or price hikes.

Exactly. The entire purpose of professional sports is to make money showcasing elite talent. At the end of the day, these teams don't owe the cities anything. That's why people shouldn't get so attached to a particular sports team. If a team leaves your city, just pick a different team or stop watching altogether. It's just sports.

(03-29-2017, 01:58 PM)Wyche Wrote: Nah, not really.....I meant that as to say you were spot on.

.....take a look at this, and tell me if you don't see some eerie similarities.  Foreshadowing, perhaps?

http://dkconcepts.com/fortheloveofracing/the-problem-with-nascar

I just read some quotes from Stephen Ross, who voted against the Raiders relocating.  He talked about how the team does have an obligation to the city and the fans, but also said that citizens have other things to spend money on.  That if you're going to own a team you should have deep enough pockets that you don't have to rely on public financing.  This is the same guy who just spent $500 million of his own dollars for stadium upgrades.  Much respect.

(03-29-2017, 02:21 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The NFL created one of these biggest brands in the US and are attempting to take  their brand now to Europe and Mexico. They created it so they reap the rewards. Thus, the owners benefited holding all of the cards. (all owners). It is business. It can also go the other way if they damage the game by allowing too any rule  changes, games too long or create ticket prices too high.

One thing some don't understand is by cities involvement in building stadiums, it keeps ticket prices lower. If owners were forced to pay 100%, the investment dollars get passed straight through to ticket holders. In the end, consumers pay for everything either through taxes or price hikes.

That is not a valid argument because not all people are sports fans.  Why should someone who has no interest in sports at all supplement the entertainment of those who do?  It's not like everyone paying taxes for schools or roads, having a football team does not benefit society as a whole.

(03-29-2017, 03:49 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I just read some quotes from Stephen Ross, who voted against the Raiders relocating.  He talked about how the team does have an obligation to the city and the fans, but also said that citizens have other things to spend money on.  That if you're going to own a team you should have deep enough pockets that you don't have to rely on public financing.  This is the same guy who just spent $500 million of his own dollars for stadium upgrades.  Much respect.

I saw that yesterday myself.....might just become a Dolphins fan, even though I've only been to Miami once.

(03-29-2017, 12:50 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Because at one point the city of Oakland negotiated with the Raiders and the NFL in good faith, put hundreds of millions of dollars into a stadium where the Raiders and NFL could host their games, and are not stuck with nothing.  If they can send $50 million checks to each franchise as part of their "relocation fees", they could do the right thing and help out the citizens of Oakland.

Look, I get it, based on your comments (some of which don't make economic sense) you are going to tow the corporate line no matter what.  So at this point I will bid you a good day and say we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't tow the corporate line at all.  However, I don't have moral double standards based on economic strata, either.  

For example, I don't hold any umbrage towards Whit for leaving.  Very similar situation to Oakland moving.  The guy was beloved in the community, had 3 different contract extensions, made millions here and would have made millions more here.  He left to make more money elsewhere.  There's nothing to be angry about.  He fulfilled his contract. He doesn't owe anybody anything.  I would have loved it if he had stayed for less money, but he was in no way obligated to.

 Similarly, the Raiders fulfilled their lease agreement.  Had they broken their lease to move, then I 100℅ agree that they owe Oakland money.  However, they fulfilled the deal, simple as that.  They don't owe anything.

Furthermore, Oakland went through this shxt with the Raiders before.  They knew what the score was when they wooed them back to Oakland.