[BBMW]

All those multibillion dollar facilities were build without a direct tax dollar contribution. Why should this need one?

Let 'em build it, but let them pay for it themselves. If the casino owners think this is a good deal in terms if driving business onto their properties, let them kick in on there own. But tax money, including tourist derived tax money, should not be involved.

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Folks get it straight. It is reasonably simple. Las Vegas is not Cleveland or Buffalo or Indianapolis or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or wherever. It is a unique place.

It does not move to the same rules and has skills and capabilities that are not present in other cities. Partucularly not in fly over country.

Our primary industry is a set of multi-billion dollar facilities catering to the hedonistic side of human beings. We no longer even suggest we are going to make them rich...merely happy. If we do not believe our legislators can make a reasonable deal with Sheldon we should elect better legislators.

It is madness to oppose the stadium in Las Vegas...madness.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by BBMW

All those multibillion dollar facilities were build without a direct tax dollar contribution. Why should this need one?

Let 'em build it, but let them pay for it themselves. If the casino owners think this is a good deal in terms if driving business onto their properties, let them kick in on there own. But tax money, including tourist derived tax money, should not be involved.

Because it is not feasible to make the money from the stadium itself. You provide a new draw to make money for them all. You could try and syndicate all the major strip properties but some would decline for one reason or another and you would end up with only partial participation. And those not participating get the good news as well as those who do. This way you get partial participation from Sands and the Raiders covering their costs with stadium revenues and the rest of the costs being spread among the major participants by a strip tax.

I see little difference between this and the convention center. That is also a joint endeavor run off room tax and facility revenue. A state agency it serves the overall needs and has tight ties to the strip community and local government.

[xusafpilot]

The LVCA purchased and demolished the former Riveria Resort in order to expand the Las Vegas Convention Center. "Uncle" Sheldon owns the Sands Convention Center/Venetian/Palazzo resorts. He DOES NOT want the competition. This is why he is pushing so very hard for a majority tax payer funded but with no tax payer profits. If this stadium idea is such a success, why are private investors NOT investing 100% into this proposed stadium?

As usual, the unsophisticated Nevada politicians will fall for this nonsense and lick "Uncle" Sheldon's toe fungus, much like the media licks the buttocks of Donald Trump!

One might want to research the term "Trick Roll". The stadium proposal as it now stands is just that, the tax payer stuck with the bill at the end of the day. Do remember, NFL stadiums have a useful lifespan of about 10 years before they become out of date. The Georgia Dome in Atlanta, a rather unattractive but functional dome opened in 1992 will soon be demolished to be replaced by the Mercedes Benz Dome for that Atlanta Falcons.

Tax payer money used for billionaire's play toys.

At least the new T-Mobile Arena and the hockey team is 100% privately financed! That I respect!

The NFL is Money Ball.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by xusafpilot

The LVCA purchased and demolished the former Riveria Resort in order to expand the Las Vegas Convention Center. "Uncle" Sheldon owns the Sands Convention Center/Venetian/Palazzo resorts. He DOES NOT want the competition. This is why he is pushing so very hard for a majority tax payer funded but with no tax payer profits. If this stadium idea is such a success, why are private investors NOT investing 100% into this proposed stadium?

As usual, the unsophisticated Nevada politicians will fall for this nonsense and lick "Uncle" Sheldon's toe fungus, much like the media licks the buttocks of Donald Trump!

One might want to research the term "Trick Roll". The stadium proposal as it now stands is just that, the tax payer stuck with the bill at the end of the day. Do remember, NFL stadiums have a useful lifespan of about 10 years before they become out of date. The Georgia Dome in Atlanta, a rather unattractive but functional dome opened in 1992 will soon be demolished to be replaced by the Mercedes Benz Dome for that Atlanta Falcons.

Tax payer money used for billionaire's play toys.

At least the new T-Mobile Arena and the hockey team is 100% privately financed! That I respect!

The NFL is Money Ball.

1992 was 25 years ago almost. Your 10 year "useful lifespan" comment is completely devoid of any factual evidence. Some stadiums last longer than others, there's no doubt. Candlestick Park was in operation for 50 years give or take. The proposed stadium will remain relevant for well over 10 years. I think the key to this being a reasonable deal will be getting the Raiders to sign a 30-year lease. If you can make sure you don't lose them for that time period the stadium won't be a colossal blunder.

[NLVgal]

Goodell indicates that even if the stadium gets through the legislature, he wants the Raiders to remain in Oakland. I've mentioned the NFLs antipathy for Vegas more than once. Roger G. says because he doesn't want a city to lose their franchise twice. Whatever dude. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

NFL

[beachhead]

I just don't see why people want to go into debt to import this type of behavior into Las Vegas:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/raiders-f...143756556.html

Isn't there enough of it already?

[SportyandMisty]

I think it is useful to understand what makes a stadium out-dated. The concrete is fine - it doesn't start to crumble.

For those of you who are closer to this, what makes the stadium out-dated? I'm no expert.

My impression is out-dated typically means "not enough boxes we can lease to big companies for lots of $$$ so they can entertain their clients and customers." Or it means "the transportation network can't handle the traffic." Or it means "architectural limitations preventing the stadium's use for things like rock concerts." Or it means "inadequate infrastructure for the press & TV." Or they no longer have the largest video board. or the sound system. Or something like that.

If I'm correct about the above, it seems to me that the stadium architects could and should design the structure so it can more easily be updated with the newest technologies -- for example, systems for the hearing impaired, restrooms for the gender-challenged, child-care facilities, dog-care facilities, more-than-ample parking, commercial chef's kitchens etc etc etc.

Can't a stadium be future-proofed so it can more easily be renovated 10 years from now??

[robr2]

Stadiums can be renovated but there is no way to know what the future holds. But that isn't specifically the issue. Stadiums become outdated in terms of revenue generation capability, not outdated facilities or infrastructure.

One article I read said it best. 60 years ago, Art Mooney and George Halas weren't billionaires and team ownership and success was a long term goal. In the 60's and 70's, owners like Ralph Wilson and Lamar Hunt made their money elsewhere and didn't care about team profits. Today's owners such Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft run their teams like capitalists and expect the squeeze every drop of revenue from the teams and facilities. The only way to do so is the regularly update or replace the facility they play in. Jones and Kraft look at teams like the Bengals and Bills who complain about revenue sharing but the latter two didn't sell naming rights on their new stadiums (the Bills finally did this year.)

Kraft built a shopping destination around Gillette Stadium to generate money from the giant empty parking lots. The new Rams stadium is also going to be surrounded by shopping and dining in order to generate money. It's all about generating revenue.

[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

Goodell indicates that even if the stadium gets through the legislature, he wants the Raiders to remain in Oakland. I've mentioned the NFLs antipathy for Vegas more than once. Roger G. says because he doesn't want a city to lose their franchise twice. Whatever dude. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

NFL

He also said the same type of stuff for St. Louis and they are in LA now.

[zumaboy]

Originally Posted by xusafpilot

The Georgia Dome in Atlanta, a rather unattractive but functional dome opened in 1992 will soon be demolished to be replaced by the Mercedes Benz Dome for that Atlanta Falcons.

Tax payer money used for billionaire's play toys.

The Georgia Dome has retired its debt, so it is actually a successful model for a publicly-funded NFL stadium. Of course, now they're ready to tear it all down and start again...