View Poll Results: Who should fund new stadiums for professional sports teams
The team owners 18 72.00%
The host cities of the teams 1 4.00%
Private corporations 4 16.00%
Other 2 8.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Stadium Funding

We have 3 teams here (MN) vying for public money to build single-sport stadiums. Just getting some opinions.

I support a stadium for the U of M, because right now they play in the Dome downtown, and I think football belongs on campus. The Twins should have an indoor/outdoor stadium, but I think they should fund a high percentage of it, and be forced to stay here f-o-r-e-v-e-r. The Vikings should be fine in the Dome.
I think it should be the 50% team owners. They are making the most money. 30% private corporations name the stadium after them. It doesn't matter because people will still call it by the old name anyhow. 20% city/town since they are getting money from all the taxes for hotels, car rentals, restaurant taxes etc.. but they have to use more police for traffic/crowd control 10% the fans themselves in higher ticket prices. I know ticket prices are already high but if you really are a fan and want to see this team then pay the price.
Location: Chicago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything."
ó Malcolm X
I think team owners should be responsible for stadiums for professional teams, and if they can get corporations to help, great.

I think for state college/university teams, the state should pay.

If a city is trying to attract a new/expansion team, I think the city should pay-because there are going to be expenses involved in moving, and there will be money needed to build fan support. Saying "we want you here, so come here and build your own stadium" isn't so attractive to a team.
The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
-Speckla

But at least the pews never attend yoga!
30% private corporations name the stadium after them. It doesn't matter because people will still call it by the old name anyhow.
Originally Posted by YolyC
Cellular field? What a silly name. My uncle told me that last week when I went to visit them...

I'm from Minnesota too and I think the teams should only get a new staidum if they are any good, if they suck, they don't deserve one. It's like giving someone a raise for sucking. I voted for team owners though...really they all have millions of bucks...and I very rarely go to any sporting event, I enjoy them, I just don't go...so I'm with YolyC on raising the ticket prices-those who go should pay a little more. And I would be more than happy to pay 10 bucks or whatever the few times I go. But if it came down to the Twins or the Vikings leaving, BUILD THE STADIUM! I like watching them on TV or hearing it on the radio--and I could probalby still do this if they moved states, but it just wouldn't be the same.
feed people - www.thehungersite.com
Universities should always pay for their own stadiums. I'm surprised it would be any other way.
When are women going to face the fact that they donít know their own bodies as well as men who have heard things?

Don Langrick
Bonsai Culturist
Universities should always pay for their own stadiums. I'm surprised it would be any other way.
Originally Posted by mrspoppers
(I'm going with my knowledge of the Arizona universities, but I believe it fits for state universities in general.) Public universities are set up as services to the community, and receive state funding. They are given strict budgets by the state board of regents, and are allowed to spend according to that. This means, one school could be newer than the other and have a great stadium built when the school was made, but the other isn't going to get extra money from the state to help. If it's a football stadium, yeah, the school can probably use money from ticket sales and corporate sponsorships to build a stadium, but if the gym used for volleyball's falling down, the state should help pay for it.

Some schools are lucky enough to get corporate sponsors like Nike to pay for their stadiums, and that's great for them, and obviously doesn't require additional state help.

Private schools should always have to pay for their own work (or get sponsorship) since they are not supported by the state as a service, but are money making institutions.
The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
-Speckla

But at least the pews never attend yoga!
I think it should a combination of the team owners and the league. I don't want my taxes going to some sports team that I have no interest in. Case in point: the LA NFL franchise. I do not want to pay taxes to get a team. I hate football. If a corporation wants to donate some money to call the stadium The Campbell Soup Bowl that is fine with me.

As for Universities, my alma mater is paying for a new basketball stadium from alumni donations. We have A LOT of rich alumni.
Do you know why they call it "PMS"? Because "Mad Cow Disease" was taken.
--Unknown, presumed deceased
I think it should a combination of the team owners and the league. I don't want my taxes going to some sports team that I have no interest in. Case in point: the LA NFL franchise. I do not want to pay taxes to get a team. I hate football. If a corporation wants to donate some money to call the stadium The Campbell Soup Bowl that is fine with me.

.
Originally Posted by curlyincali
I feel the same way about the San Diego Sucky Chargers! I don't care if they move away and they definitely don't deserve a new stadium. They haven't been contenders for the Super Bowl since 1994, and until they step up their play on the field, no ****ing stadium!
I think it should a combination of the team owners and the league. I don't want my taxes going to some sports team that I have no interest in. Case in point: the LA NFL franchise. I do not want to pay taxes to get a team. I hate football. If a corporation wants to donate some money to call the stadium The Campbell Soup Bowl that is fine with me.

.
Originally Posted by curlyincali
I feel the same way about the San Diego Sucky Chargers! I don't care if they move away and they definitely don't deserve a new stadium. They haven't been contenders for the Super Bowl since 1994, and until they step up their play on the field, no &%$@#! stadium!
Originally Posted by Gabby
They have no reason to complain. Qualcomm is great when compared to the Coliseum. At least its not in the 'hood!

The Rams sucked when they were in LA, too. They diodn't deserve a stadium. The Raiders were never our team and their fans are thugs.

Guano - Hey, NetG! I dig your "big unit" avatar but he's not the same without the mullet.
Do you know why they call it "PMS"? Because "Mad Cow Disease" was taken.
--Unknown, presumed deceased
Many don't know about this, but when Bush was part owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, he got the city of Arlington to foot part of the bill for a new stadium for his team. He also used politics to get the rights of eminent domain to force people out of their homes/land so he could build the site.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...shstadium.html
"Time wounds all heels."
As for Universities, my alma mater is paying for a new basketball stadium from alumni donations. We have A LOT of rich alumni.
Originally Posted by curlyincali
I believe that's how UW paid for their big football stadium expansion. The football program brings in a lot of money to the school so it was all worth it.
When are women going to face the fact that they donít know their own bodies as well as men who have heard things?

Don Langrick
Bonsai Culturist
Many don't know about this, but when Bush was part owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, he got the city of Arlington to foot part of the bill for a new stadium for his team. He also used politics to get the rights of eminent domain to force people out of their homes/land so he could build the site.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...shstadium.html
Originally Posted by Austin
This isn't anything new. It's the accepted method of paying for a stadium in general. I disagree with it, but it's how most new baseball stadiums have been done, unfortunately.

I love that my taxes aren't paying for the stadium in Phoenix, yet I get to go there. The taxes are only in the Phoenix area. I'm so selfish!
The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
-Speckla

But at least the pews never attend yoga!
I agree, the method isn't "new". I meant that many don't know about Dubya's antics a few years back with the Rangers.
"Time wounds all heels."
I agree, the method isn't "new". I meant that many don't know about Dubya's antics a few years back with the Rangers.
Originally Posted by Austin
I think that's been well publicized by the Democrats as well.
Good to know. I thought most of it was here in TX. When I've mentioned it to a few out of state people they said they never heard about it.
"Time wounds all heels."
As someone who doesn't live in a major league city, can I say I vote for a combination... owners, cities, private corporations.

One thing you all should remember is these sports teams bring in a lot of tourist dollars to your cities. We live about 3 hours north of Pittsburgh. If we go down to a baseball game, hockey game, etc., we usually spend the whole weekend. This entails spending money on a hotel, meals, drinks, and, of course, shopping. These teams bring in what we like to refer to as "new money" to your cities; i.e., money that wasn't earned there... just spent there. I'm sure that is why the cities help the teams out with building new stadiums--to keep them there. The draw into your cities can cover hundreds of miles.
3b/c
As someone who doesn't live in a major league city, can I say I vote for a combination... owners, cities, private corporations.

One thing you all should remember is these sports teams bring in a lot of tourist dollars to your cities. We live about 3 hours north of Pittsburgh. If we go down to a baseball game, hockey game, etc., we usually spend the whole weekend. This entails spending money on a hotel, meals, drinks, and, of course, shopping. These teams bring in what we like to refer to as "new money" to your cities; i.e., money that wasn't earned there... just spent there. I'm sure that is why the cities help the teams out with building new stadiums--to keep them there. The draw into your cities can cover hundreds of miles.
Originally Posted by munchkin
LA doesn't need any NFL tourist dollars. They only play for 16 weeks and half the time they are on the road. It is so not worth it! We have a lot of tourists without it. We already have a baseball team, a hockey team, a soccer team, a basketbal team and whatever the heck you want to call the Clippers. I'm not sure but we may even have a LaCrosse team.

If the City of LA ever decides to use tax payer money to fund a football stadium, I'm following NetG's plan and moving to Burbank or Beverly Hills or Santa Monica or any other place that is not part of the City of LA.
Do you know why they call it "PMS"? Because "Mad Cow Disease" was taken.
--Unknown, presumed deceased
LA and New York City are two examples of possibly not needing extra tourist dollars, but there are a lot of other cities... Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, etc... that are medium sized cities that depend on having certain things such as sports to draw tourists to their cities. As I said, they draw from hundreds of miles and it does bring in a lot of money.
3b/c
I think stadiums are oogly-looking - esp. in medium-sized and smaller cities. They wanted to put one right in the middle of our park last year, and I live in a small city (about 40,000 people). It didn't get passed because no one wanted to pay for it. Good thing, I don't want my money going to something like that. Guess that's partly because I hate sports! :P

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com