Monday, July 13, 2015

John Oliver Calls Attention to the Stadium Subsidy Racket

Did you catch John Oliver last night?  He realized what many of us realized long ago - one can make true sport out of "taunting taxpayer-funded stadiums":

John Oliver may not break much new ground on his weekly show, but he shines an important spotlight on watchdog journalism from around the U.S. and beyond.
 
Time's summary included:
 Why are tax dollars being used to fund stadiums? “Sports teams are wealthy businesses with wealthy owners and they still get our help,” Oliver said. “Pretending you’re poor is wrong. It wasn’t okay when Mary-Kate Olsen went through her hobo phase, and it’s not okay now!”

To prove his point about how cities like Cincinnati and Milwaukee have bent over backwards to keep sports teams happy, Oliver noted that just six days after Detroit declared bankruptcy, they got approval to spend more than $280 million in taxpayer money for a new arena for the local NHL team — even though the Red Wings owner, Mike Ilitch, is the founder of the Little Caesar’s pizza chain and worth an estimated $5.1 billion. As Oliver noted, “That’s a little hard to swallow.”
Neil deMause, the Sultan of Subsidy-Smacking, tweeted:
The piece was really well done and it's worth 19 minutes of your time...but if you prefer condensed summaries, here's our 2-minute-long version of the stadium subsidy game in Florida.





FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

39 comments:

  1. Great segment by John Oliver about publicly funded stadiums... and if you still think the Rays will get something, pay attention to the segment with the Marlins.... this is yet another reason why Florida will NOT give the Rays a stadium.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Given the history of taxpayers being screwed by professional sports owners, it should stand to reason that the people of Montreal would be extremely eager to get taxed to the gills. The taxes are already beyond the pale. May as well increase the tax rate to 50% on the dollar to pay for a new baseball stadium. Apparently, their fine with getting dragged across the coals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry, governments over here are fully aware of our capacity to pay, the profitability of the MLB industry (and the sports in general) and what make sense and does not make sense.

      So far, private sector was always there to fund such projects (Habs, Impact and Quebec city) and a clear funding plan will be laid out to address it.

      Remember, we got rid of Loria/Samson, and looking at what the FL state did in Miami, this is exactly what we will not replicate. We keep that in mind all the time, for sure.

      Delete
    2. When it comes down to it, you'd be surprised at how little the "private sector" actually contributes to the bottom line.

      Delete
  3. Ahh Mr Anon Idiot again... someone who just spews garbage out and grammatically incorrect at that... quelle idiot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carl, you should get a job. You spend too much time kidding yourself that Montreal will get a MLB team. Let it go man. Go ice fishing or something. Maybe Montreal could obtain professional ice fishing team. They could be called the Montreal Rough Icer's. You can take that name to the bank!

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. I live in Clearwater - you'd know if you read my earlier comments - and my anger is towards all the Tampa Bay residents who don't support this team.

      Delete
    2. Carl,
      The lack of support is region wide.

      Delete
    3. I know.... I refer to all three cities as the Tampa Bay Region.

      If people in the region aren't going to support the team then they should be allowed to exist elsewhere.... Like I said, I'm in Clearwater and have a half-season ticket package and to see them struggle in attendance is awful. I'd be disappointed if they had to move but happy for them to be in a place like Montreal if they'll get support and a new stadium.

      Delete
    4. Carl,
      MLB was happy to put an expansion team here in 1998 and receive $160 million to distribute among the 28 incumbent owners at that time. And the owners of the TB Devil Rays were happy to sign a 30 year deal to play at the TROP. All the Rays have to do is make St. Pete whole as they break the lease, and they can go on their merry way.

      Delete
    5. The $160Mn doesn't enter in to these discussions - that was what the owners paid to bring the team here..

      And as far as making St Pete "whole" - what does that even mean in terms what factors in to it? I think that's what the powers that be are discussing...

      Delete
    6. Carl,
      Yep, that is what the 'powers that be' are discussing.

      Delete
    7. Uhhmmm - yeah - St Pete is NOT viable for a stadium. Whether the team moves across the bridge to Tampa or across the border, the powers that be are discussing exit fees.

      You're either just dense or stupid to not see that

      Delete
  5. If you look to the left of him a dude is wearing Rays gear, and is that the Suntrust tower to the right of him(?)...
    Anyways, obviously stadiums deals with cities are like car deals, some are better then others, everyone pays a different price for the same cars, and some cars last long, some need a transmission a few miles after the warranty is up. Though I (like many others) still believe that if it is a good deal then it's a good deal for everyone. Notice he used examples like the Marlins that built a park in an area where "the U" spent years trying to get out of & not teams like the Nationals where the stadium anchored a revitalized area from otherwise a slum...
    We should remember we live in a metropolis that has always cared to see positive progression for the better of the Tampa Bay, and haven't seem to have much Gov pork or scandals because of it. The great thing is that we are able to capitalize on tourist, and understand that places like Raymond James & Amalie is BIG bait...
    People on here like NO'ah would rather not have'em, though we should ask what if we didn't? Forget the property values, the influx of a good population that & will move here and buy houses & businesses, taxes, the extra business profits from out of towners that spend money here, etc.. Would we have a 2nd half to downtown Tampa in Channelside? Would we of benefited from 3 Super Bowls, an NCAA National Championship, a RNC, countless other events that have packed hotels, restaurants, and stores w/ out the bait?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, and being that the MLB ASG is tomorrow, let's not forget the impact the game will have on Tampa when downtown hosts it in 5-6 years because of a newly funded ballpark...

    ReplyDelete
  7. From Tampa Bay Times: MLB COMMISSIONER ENCOURAGED ABOUT POTENTIAL FOR NEW RAYS STADIUM
    By Marc Topkin, Times Staff Writer

    MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said today he is encouraged about political support and potential for a new stadium for the Rays in the Tampa Bay area. Manfred said his encouragement stems from a recent private conversation …

    ReplyDelete
  8. Continued: Manfred said his encouragement stems from a recent private conversation with Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn at a conference in which he senses there was support among area politicians.

    Manfred also said MLB is not at stage of considering relocation for the Rays, and won't unless he and principal owner Stuart Sternberg conclude that a new stadium is "not possible."

    Manfred also said MLB "absolutely feels the (Tampa Bay) market is viable" and the Rays' attendance issues are "facility related," in terms of the Trop building and location.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As long as 'political support' is not a euphemism for 'public funding' I'm cool with it.

      Delete
    2. So your saying Scott that Tampa & it's citizens should reap ALL the benefits the new ballpark will bring w/out any financial support, even the infrastructure around the outside?
      Isn't that the same thing as the city paying most and not getting a single cent back? #DoubleStandard

      Delete
    3. No, the citizens will pay for the benefits as they use them. Buying food or tickets or parking. The obvious differences here are too obvious.

      Manfred: I absolutely feel the market is viable.
      Moneyball old guys: We absolutely feel that this player "looks like a ballplayer."

      Conclusion: The gut feelings of old guys are more often than not horse sh*t.

      Delete
    4. 1. "Manfred said at the media session he had spoken with Buckhorn, but his office told the Times the two had not spoken, nor even met. When that was related to Manfred's spokesman, he said the commissioner was wrong, that he had talked with Kriseman at the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting." (back in early June)

      Of course the mayor of St Pete will say that... and note, the mayor said "he senses there was support among area politicians" - what is he Spiderman now? Either there is support or there isn't...

      Not only that but it's St Pete. Sternberg has repeatedly said that he doesn't care for a stadium in St Pete.... There's been no discussions with Mayor Bob Buckhorn or anyone else in Tampa



      2. '"Because of the nagging threat of a need to relocate and because of expansion, or the possibility of expansion, I think it's really important for us to look at markets that are out there that are interested in baseball," Manfred said.

      The sport intends to "examine their viability, think about what we can do to make them more viable, so that we have business alternatives that are available to us."'

      Only teams "nagging" for relo are A's and Rays

      Delete
    5. Check this interview with Jon Paul Morosi. Don't worry, it's in english except the last sentence. Morosi speak really well in french.

      http://www.rds.ca/videos/baseball/mlb/la-possibilite-de-demenagement-est-reelle-3.1139800

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 7/14/2015 4:48PM,
      MLB is a very profitable business that needs no taxpayer support. The money they make off consumers from TV, game, and memorabilia is gigantic and much greater than their expenses. They do not need and certainly do not deserve any welfare from the taxpayers.

      Delete
    7. Wouldn't a cities benefit from a stadium be a welfare from a sports team?
      If I food at your business, and it brought you more customers to your business, wouldn't you cut me slack on rent or something?
      It's called scratching backs!
      And lets not confuse stadiums built out in Timbucktwo in the 70's & 80's to what stadiums do for the surrounding areas today because of smarter plans...
      I guess if (I mean when) they build a new ballpark in Channelside, and it raises the surrounding property values & draws thousands of new real estate & businesses around it that Tampa shouldn't have a financial interest in that?

      Delete
    8. Many of the municipal benefits of pro teams are purely anecdotal & emotional. You'll struggle to find economists who think pro sports are worth the subsidies they typically cost.

      Delete
    9. Whata "political answer" NO'ah to their post of actual occurrences, I mean your "anecdotal" answer, lol...

      Delete
  9. New stadium wil be near outskirts of Ybor. You can take that to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should call Jon Paul Morosi. He does not seems to agree with you.

      http://www.rds.ca/videos/baseball/mlb/la-possibilite-de-demenagement-est-reelle-3.1139800

      Delete
  10. So this morning, I read that the expansion will help the Rays to get rid of two potential cities for relocation. Can we call that a stress relief therapy?

    Does that mean we will see a lobbying process initiated by the region of Tampa Bay in favour of a MLB expansion so it will give them more time to figure how to put more fans in a new stadium?

    http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/235532

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reread the article, mate

      Delete
    2. Stu could always use his share of the expansion fees to pay off the user agreement :P

      Delete
    3. Carl, that was my take on this specific sentence of the article:

      "If baseball were to expand for the first time since 1998, it would take two of the better cities out of any possible competition for the Rays."

      The lobbying part is a sarcastic comment about the fact that the region is still not at the solution stage of the process which is really sad.

      While Manfred comments this week are positive for the TB region and the future of the Rays, I suspect that it is sort of the last round of positive comments. Without some progress in the MOU process (and the attendances), Manfred tone will change within the next 12-18 months.

      The influentials MLB owners will start to ask questions because it is not sustainable.

      Delete
    4. "I sort of suspect, the last round."....Blah blah blah...Hyperbole....Nice Try....Lol, it's all sustainable. This is all part of the "game" when MLB wants a team to have a new stadium. Keeping dreaming and keep telling yourself what you want to hear. Just because you may think it, doesn't make it so. You can take that to the bank!

      Delete
  11. Montreal won't be getting a team. The Rays relocating there is out of the question. Not gonna happen. You can take that to the bank!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you insist on spamming these pages with the same basic statements, about Montreal never getting a team, the new stadium site being "officially" settled and everything else we can take to the bank, maybe you could take the time to actually sign your name.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, for the "les habaitants,' no teams will be pilfered. MLB recognizes that Tampa is a viable market with robust activity. We are a Super Bowl and Stanley Cup winning town! New stadium near Ybor! You can take the to the bank!

      Delete
  12. Two solid statements from you stated as fact. The two are mutually exclusive yet you link them.

    The Greeks banks are closed for business

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very enlightening. I'm sure the Rays are looking for plenty of subsidies.

    ReplyDelete