Titans New Stadium Discussion

[ChesterCopperpot1]

1 hour ago, tgo said:

 

It actually frees up a lot of money (nearly 1.8B) from the city's general fund which is an unfunded liability linked to the city's maintenance obligations of the current stadium. So it will free up money for the city to use on other things over the next couple decades. 

You know more about this than I do, but I’ve seen a lot of belly aching from people talking about how much public $$ will go to fund the stadium. I am generally against big public tax breaks for stadiums like this. But I know this is the way the game is played these days: if we don’t put out, another city will. One thing I have agreed 100% with @BudsOilerson. There would be no shortage of cities with arms wide open. There are only 30 cities in the world that house an NFL franchise. Pretty rarified air when you think about it. 
 

but people arguing about the tax money are missing the point that the tax money being use would not exist without the stadium. So it’s not like the argument “that money can be used elsewhere” works because that money literally wouldn’t exist. 

[BudsOilers]

Using tax money to build stadiums is the price for being in the NFL business.  Not one city has ever won trying to play hard ball with the NFL.  

[japan]

5 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

You know more about this than I do, but I’ve seen a lot of belly aching from people talking about how much public $$ will go to fund the stadium. I am generally against big public tax breaks for stadiums like this. But I know this is the way the game is played these days: if we don’t put out, another city will. One thing I have agreed 100% with @BudsOilerson. There would be no shortage of cities with arms wide open. There are only 30 cities in the world that house an NFL franchise. Pretty rarified air when you think about it. 
 

but people arguing about the tax money are missing the point that the tax money being use would not exist without the stadium. So it’s not like the argument “that money can be used elsewhere” works because that money literally wouldn’t exist. 

They will have to do a good job explaining that first of all the money isn’t just for the stadium but for that whole district across the river. Secondly, they need to explain how much money the city was going to have to cough up if the Titans simply re-upped at the current stadium. Would have been over 1 billion of improvements. 

[ChesterCopperpot1]

4 minutes ago, BudsOilers said:

Using tax money to build stadiums is the price for being in the NFL business.  Not one city has ever won trying to play hard ball with the NFL.  

Sadly you are correct. 

[titaninpgh]

SoFi and MetLife stadiums were built entirely with private funds. It can be done, but only by the richest owners and in cities where the event potential makes it worth the private cost. Cost of land donation, subsequent tax breaks, and surrounding infrastructure improvements paid for by cities admittedly complicate the math for these.  
 

49ers and Falcons stadium were both built recently with <$220M in public funds. 
 

Lucas Oil Stadium was an atrocious deal for Indiana residents. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by titaninpgh

[ChesterCopperpot1]

5 minutes ago, titaninpgh said:

SoFi and MetLife stadiums were built entirely with private funds. It can be done, but only by the richest owners and in cities where the event potential makes it worth the private cost. Cost of land donation, subsequent tax breaks, and surrounding infrastructure improvements paid for by cities admittedly complicate the math for these.  
 

49ers and Falcons stadium were both built recently with <$220M in public funds. 
 

Lucas Oil Stadium was an atrocious deal for Indiana residents. 

The Adams Family is rich. It’s not Stan Kroenke rich. Id venture to say it’s in the bottom 5 of the richest nfl owners. 

[BudsOilers]

3 minutes ago, titaninpgh said:

SoFi and MetLife stadiums were built entirely with private funds. It can be done, but only by the richest owners and in cities where the event potential makes it worth the private cost. Cost of land donation, subsequent tax breaks, and surrounding infrastructure improvements paid for by cities admittedly complicate the math for these.  
 

49ers and Falcons stadium were both built recently with <$220M in public funds. 
 

Lucas Oil Stadium was an atrocious deal for Indiana residents. 

 

In fairness, MetLife stadium's deal deserves an * as public agencies gave up revenues they previously shared from parking, luxury suites and advertising.  

 

What I think is interesting is how teams have created subsidiaries to manage the venue and find another way to get revenue they don't have to share.

[titaninpgh]

The Raiders stadium financing offers an example of what happens if the hotel tax doesn’t produce the expected revenue:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/stadium/allegiant-stadium-room-tax-revenue-lagging-behind-needed-amount-2259135/
 

Much less likely to be an issue now without covid impeding travel. 

[ctm]

21 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

You know more about this than I do, but I’ve seen a lot of belly aching from people talking about how much public $$ will go to fund the stadium. I am generally against big public tax breaks for stadiums like this. But I know this is the way the game is played these days: if we don’t put out, another city will. One thing I have agreed 100% with @BudsOilerson. There would be no shortage of cities with arms wide open. There are only 30 cities in the world that house an NFL franchise. Pretty rarified air when you think about it. 
 

but people arguing about the tax money are missing the point that the tax money being use would not exist without the stadium. So it’s not like the argument “that money can be used elsewhere” works because that money literally wouldn’t exist. 

There are some economists that disagree that the money wouldn't exist.  Specifically they argue that sales tax revenue generated at the stadium and surrounding area are replacement dollars for revenue that would be generated by alternative entertainment spending.  In other words of the money wasn't spent at the stadium, it would be spent elsewhere.  I'm not trying to pass judgement on the merits of the argument but you frequently hear it. Probably will here before the debate is over

 

 

 

[ChesterCopperpot1]

Just now, ctm said:

There are some economists that disagree that the money wouldn't exist.  Specifically they argue that sales tax revenue generated at the stadium and surrounding area are replacement dollars for revenue that would be generated by alternative entertainment spending.  In other words of the money wasn't spent at the stadium, it would be spent elsewhere.  I'm not trying to pass judgement on the merits of the argument but you frequently hear it. Probably will here before the debate is over

 

 

 

I’m talking about the 1% increase in hotel tax. That increase doesn’t happen without the stadium. 1% of all hotel rooms sold in Nashville goes to the stadium. 

[IowaOiler]

2 hours ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

but people arguing about the tax money are missing the point that the tax money being use would not exist without the stadium. So it’s not like the argument “that money can be used elsewhere” works because that money literally wouldn’t exist. 

 

The money would exist, it just wouldn't be in the governments hands.  I'm always against big public expenditures for these types of deals, but I live in a state with no professional sports teams.  It's almost always a loss for the public, but as people have mentioned, it's a status thing and Nashville is trying desperately to feel like it belongs in the second tier of major US cities.

[ChesterCopperpot1]

2 hours ago, BigTT said:

according to this Tits are 23rd in VALUE of franchise.  For what's it's worth. https://www.sportico.com/feature/nfl-team-values-ranking-list-1234684165/

 

And the TIts main owner Amy Adams is worth 1.3 Billion ranking 26th of the owners.  https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-richest-owners-net-worth-ranked/

I said bottom 5. Pretty close guess on my part. 

[Titans279]

3 hours ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

I’m talking about the 1% increase in hotel tax. That increase doesn’t happen without the stadium. 1% of all hotel rooms sold in Nashville goes to the stadium. 

They could pass a 1% increase in that tax even if the Titans leave town and they’ll still make more revenue. It’s not true that this is all money that wouldn’t exist without the public subsidies for the Titans. 

[Supernope]

since it's a dome they can also use it to reduce the homeless camp issue

[Starkiller]

31 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

They could pass a 1% increase in that tax even if the Titans leave town and they’ll still make more revenue. It’s not true that this is all money that wouldn’t exist without the public subsidies for the Titans. 

No, they couldn’t. The state government literally had to pass a law to give the city of Nashville the right to increase the hotel tax by 1% to fund the new stadium.