In the era of nationwide televised sports, I see a team moving being more likely than back in the days when the games weren't all televison.
Florida Legislature does not pass Dolphins Stadium renovations, CEO states Dolphins future "clearly
- Thread starter salsadancer7
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 78
- Views 7K
Along with the Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, Minneapolis Lakers, Baltimore Colts, and Philadelphia Athletics. And the Boston Celtics, which moved to San Diego and became the Clippers in 1978.
Last edited:
those teams have their deals done (Canadians i guess) but with no Stadium deals. gotta go where you have the cash flow and if that is 2,000 miles away they go.
poor Art tried to get a new Stadium from 1984 till he left he had to go. and this comes from a near life long Browns fan if they built the 1984 proposed dome Stadium they would have never left,but the politicians back there left him hi and dry.
I agree. I dont see why if you want to have a new stadium that the owners cant pay for it. Theres no reason why citizens have to be taxed. That should never be an issue.
It's an exercise in splitting up facts until they say what people want, apparently.
I don't see why they wouldn't move should the options present themselves.
Since the "sports explosion" in the mid 90s wher sports has become big business. Merchandising, stadium revenues, broadcast rights, ticket sales... teams are swimming in cash. Nowadays, am speaking since 2000, if a team is threatening to move, its because they have a beef about something.. and its usually they can't get a new stadium funded by someone else.
These multi-million franchises can and should fund them themselves.. and if you can't. then go to the bank like everyone else.
"We're worth 3/4 of a billion dollars and we want a free stadium.. waaa waaa waaaaa"
In the words of Yosemity Sam, "ahhh shut up!"
Cheers, K
These multi-million franchises can and should fund them themselves.. and if you can't. then go to the bank like everyone else.
"We're worth 3/4 of a billion dollars and we want a free stadium.. waaa waaa waaaaa"
In the words of Yosemity Sam, "ahhh shut up!"
Cheers, K
Playing devil's advocate here, but you and others seem to conveniently ignore the economic impact of such a facility - to the tune of billions of dollars over the life of the structure - ESPECIALLY one in contention for the Super Bowl. The benefit to the city should outweigh the taxes or whatever means to help pay for it. If it doesn't then they should be content watching a team leave for greener pastures. It's all business. If they try and play hardball to reduce the city's outlay, then they should be prepared for the possibility they may lose.
If we were to get a stadium in Vegas (I've watched us promise everything up until it's time to break ground but have everything fall apart just short of that for 20+ years) I'd gladly pay a reasonable amount more in taxes on our car, house, sales tax, whatever for a period of time to help fund it. If the city doesn't think the benefits outweigh the costs, then they should say so and move on, as should the team.
If we were to get a stadium in Vegas (I've watched us promise everything up until it's time to break ground but have everything fall apart just short of that for 20+ years) I'd gladly pay a reasonable amount more in taxes on our car, house, sales tax, whatever for a period of time to help fund it. If the city doesn't think the benefits outweigh the costs, then they should say so and move on, as should the team.
Forgive me if someone else already responded to this,but it was the Buffalo Braves ?who became the then San Diego,now Los Angeles Clippers.
If the teams want the tax payers to build them a stadium, then the concessions and ticket prices should be regulated by the local state goverment.
Why pay $9 for a beer when our tax dollars went to pay for it.
Why pay $9 for a beer when our tax dollars went to pay for it.
It's the same thing with the Chicago Cubs,the owner wants to update & renovate Wrigley Field(I don't know if tax money is involved with this),but the people who own those bleachers on the buildings around Wrigley Field are fighting the proposed upgrades because they fear that the upgrades will block the view of their bleachers & cause them to lose money. The owner is threatening to move the cubs over that. The BIG problem is that our economy has not really recovered & the money just is not there to build new stadiums or upgrade existing ones. Roger Goodell is also holding cities who use to host the Super Bowl hostage,like Miami,San Diego,& the Los Angeles metro area because they don't have "billion dollar palaces" to host the NFL. The new toy that the NFL & Goodell wants is the "retractable roof." Of course,not any retractable roof will do,The Skydome/Rogers Centre in Toronto is tooooooooooooooo old. The cost conscious replacement of BC Place's inflatable roof for a unique retractable roof(complete with building a temporary stadium for the BC Lions to play in until the new roof was finished) sends the wrong message apparently(can you say Minnesota Vikings?). Look at Atlanta,they are replacing a domed stadium that is only 20-25 years old. The stadium that the Dolphins play in was a technological marvel when it was opened. Now,just because some players got wet from rain during a Super Bowl game,the Dolphins' stadium is unacceptable for another Super Bowl,but it is completely acceptable for the Super Bowl to be played in freezing weather because the stadium that the Giants & Jets play in is brand new. Seattle's stadium is new,why don't they have a Super Bowl played there? Is it because it rains alot in Seattle & the stadium there doesn't have a roof?
I believe there was a study not too long ago that showed those economic benefits were grossly overstated. And that tax increase wouldn't be temporary - it'd be forever.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Wow,speaking of Vikings........
Vikings announce agreement with University for home games
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/vikings-announce-agreement-university-home-200203939--nfl.html
They could very easily do to the Metrodome what Vancouver & the BC Lions did to BC Place by replacing their inflatable roof(the Metrodome & BC Place both have/had the same kind of inflatable roof built by the same architect) with the kind of retractable roof that BC Place has. It is high time that Roger Goodell & the NFL owners publicly recognize & acknowledge that today's economy doesn't allow for new billion dollar palaces,unless the NFL & NFL owners pay for it out of their own pocket.
The same goes for the Dolphins.
Vikings announce agreement with University for home games
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/vikings-announce-agreement-university-home-200203939--nfl.html
They could very easily do to the Metrodome what Vancouver & the BC Lions did to BC Place by replacing their inflatable roof(the Metrodome & BC Place both have/had the same kind of inflatable roof built by the same architect) with the kind of retractable roof that BC Place has. It is high time that Roger Goodell & the NFL owners publicly recognize & acknowledge that today's economy doesn't allow for new billion dollar palaces,unless the NFL & NFL owners pay for it out of their own pocket.
The same goes for the Dolphins.
Recent super bowl brought in $480m to New Orleans. How much is that kind of event happening multiple times in Miami over the next couple decades?
...and make the tax increase not permanent as part of the legislation. Seems like an easy one to fix
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
this is a example of the of the political leaders not negotiating they get a Super Bowl for building a domed stadium. same in Cleveland the should have built a roof on it duh.
with a dome it can be used for other things also.
hi fellow resident of Vegas
we know why we don't have new buildings.... the in fighting of the casinos. looks like MGM is going for a 20,000 seater now. we will see how it plays out there has been so many buildings talked about it's hard to keep up.
side bar
UNLV should drop football too funny imo.
He was on a roll. We respect that kind of thing.
Besides, believe it or not he is kind of right.
Last edited:
Go tell that to the tax payers of Miami.
The only way I would ever agree to fund a stadium on the public dime... the state/city gets a cut of all revenues (tickets, parking, concessions) until the stadium is paid off.
Multimillion dollar franchises shouldnt be crying poor...and the economic spinoff argument is just a cheap cop out.
Its like me saying, dont move Steve you're a good neighbor you bring up the prestige of the street..... here's a free house!
Miami has had 10 Super Bowls 5 in past 25 years( 25 years life of a stadium). for them not to build is foolish.
building a new stadium anywhere has been made harder as they have tapped out(imo) with taxes on hotels,rental cars.etc for other projects.tossing $5 on a ticket is reasonable to help pay for it. but some public monies would still be needed.
building a new stadium anywhere has been made harder as they have tapped out(imo) with taxes on hotels,rental cars.etc for other projects.tossing $5 on a ticket is reasonable to help pay for it. but some public monies would still be needed.
