Take that money and invest in our school systems that keep losing money every year? Both college and high schools.
Should we build a new dome or.....
- Thread starter hangmanbobbyjaggers
- Start date
if we put more money into another stadium I will be upset, I was not happy with dome situation when they did it in the 90s, they have a nice facility, be happy with what you got and quit asking us to foot the bill
That is tough one there.....Schools and Pro Sports facilities are always wanting more tax payer money. Flip a coin the money will be wasted wherever it goes.
If they are going to build a dome, let it be paid for by those who want it.
Last edited:
What the heck does that even mean? The proper use, or should I say improper use, of They're, Their, There is rampant and indicates either the lack of the knowledge of its proper use or the lack of the desire to really care. Either way, it's pitiful and almost as bad as using the A in referencing the Class of a particular school. Come on, do your part to raise the bar on using proper English.
Unless, of course it is being used for comedic effect...
A side from the grammar discussion... What many don't realize is the Dome and the New OUTDOOR stadium are being built on a tax in St. Louis City on Hotels and Rental cars. If the New OUTDOOR stadium is not built, the tax goes a way. This is a specific tax on tourism in the city and has zero impact on how much money the schools get. Now take the NFL out of St. Louis and lose the millions is tax revenue that the city makes on game days (parking, tickets. concession), that WILL have a direct impact on the money the city has to spend on other areas like schools.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1997/06/summer-taxes-noll
A stadium can spur economic growth if sports is a significant export industry—that is, if it attracts outsiders to buy the local product and if it results in the sale of certain rights (broadcasting, product licensing) to national firms. But, in reality, sports has little effect on regional net exports.
Sports facilities attract neither tourists nor new industry. Probably the most successful export facility is Oriole Park, where about a third of the crowd at every game comes from outside the Baltimore area. (Baltimore's baseball exports are enhanced because it is 40 miles from the nation's capital, which has no major league baseball team.) Even so, the net gain to Baltimore's economy in terms of new jobs and incremental tax revenues is only about $3 million a year—not much of a return on a $200 million investment.
Sports teams do collect substantial revenues from national licensing and broadcasting, but these must be balanced against funds leaving the area. Most professional athletes do not live where they play, so their income is not spent locally. Moreover, players make inflated salaries for only a few years, so they have high savings, which they invest in national firms. Finally, though a new stadium increases attendance, ticket revenues are shared in both baseball and football, so that part of the revenue gain goes to other cities. On balance, these factors are largely offsetting, leaving little or no net local export gain to a community.
One promotional study estimated that the local annual economic impact of the Denver Broncos was nearly $120 million; another estimated that the combined annual economic benefit of Cincinnati's Bengals and Reds was $245 million. Such promotional studies overstate the economic impact of a facility because they confuse gross and net economic effects. Most spending inside a stadium is a substitute for other local recreational spending, such as movies and restaurants. Similarly, most tax collections inside a stadium are substitutes: as other entertainment businesses decline, tax collections from them fall.
Promotional studies also fail to take into account differences between sports and other industries in income distribution. Most sports revenue goes to a relatively few players, managers, coaches, and executives who earn extremely high salaries—all well above the earnings of people who work in the industries that are substitutes for sports. Most stadium employees work part time at very low wages and earn a small fraction of team revenues. Thus, substituting spending on sports for other recreational spending concentrates income, reduces the total number of jobs, and replaces full-time jobs with low-wage, part-time jobs.
A second rationale for subsidized stadiums is that stadiums generate more local consumer satisfaction than alternative investments. There is some truth to this argument. Professional sports teams are very small businesses, comparable to large department or grocery stores. They capture public attention far out of proportion to their economic significance. Broadcast and print media give so much attention to sports because so many people are fans, even if they do not actually attend games or buy sports-related products.
A professional sports team, therefore, creates a "public good" or "externality"—a benefit enjoyed by consumers who follow sports regardless of whether they help pay for it. The magnitude of this benefit is unknown, and is not shared by everyone; nevertheless, it exists. As a result, sports fans are likely to accept higher taxes or reduced public services to attract or keep a team, even if they do not attend games themselves. These fans, supplemented and mobilized by teams, local media, and local interests that benefit directly from a stadium, constitute the base of political support for subsidized sports facilities.
A stadium can spur economic growth if sports is a significant export industry—that is, if it attracts outsiders to buy the local product and if it results in the sale of certain rights (broadcasting, product licensing) to national firms. But, in reality, sports has little effect on regional net exports.
Sports facilities attract neither tourists nor new industry. Probably the most successful export facility is Oriole Park, where about a third of the crowd at every game comes from outside the Baltimore area. (Baltimore's baseball exports are enhanced because it is 40 miles from the nation's capital, which has no major league baseball team.) Even so, the net gain to Baltimore's economy in terms of new jobs and incremental tax revenues is only about $3 million a year—not much of a return on a $200 million investment.
Sports teams do collect substantial revenues from national licensing and broadcasting, but these must be balanced against funds leaving the area. Most professional athletes do not live where they play, so their income is not spent locally. Moreover, players make inflated salaries for only a few years, so they have high savings, which they invest in national firms. Finally, though a new stadium increases attendance, ticket revenues are shared in both baseball and football, so that part of the revenue gain goes to other cities. On balance, these factors are largely offsetting, leaving little or no net local export gain to a community.
One promotional study estimated that the local annual economic impact of the Denver Broncos was nearly $120 million; another estimated that the combined annual economic benefit of Cincinnati's Bengals and Reds was $245 million. Such promotional studies overstate the economic impact of a facility because they confuse gross and net economic effects. Most spending inside a stadium is a substitute for other local recreational spending, such as movies and restaurants. Similarly, most tax collections inside a stadium are substitutes: as other entertainment businesses decline, tax collections from them fall.
Promotional studies also fail to take into account differences between sports and other industries in income distribution. Most sports revenue goes to a relatively few players, managers, coaches, and executives who earn extremely high salaries—all well above the earnings of people who work in the industries that are substitutes for sports. Most stadium employees work part time at very low wages and earn a small fraction of team revenues. Thus, substituting spending on sports for other recreational spending concentrates income, reduces the total number of jobs, and replaces full-time jobs with low-wage, part-time jobs.
A second rationale for subsidized stadiums is that stadiums generate more local consumer satisfaction than alternative investments. There is some truth to this argument. Professional sports teams are very small businesses, comparable to large department or grocery stores. They capture public attention far out of proportion to their economic significance. Broadcast and print media give so much attention to sports because so many people are fans, even if they do not actually attend games or buy sports-related products.
A professional sports team, therefore, creates a "public good" or "externality"—a benefit enjoyed by consumers who follow sports regardless of whether they help pay for it. The magnitude of this benefit is unknown, and is not shared by everyone; nevertheless, it exists. As a result, sports fans are likely to accept higher taxes or reduced public services to attract or keep a team, even if they do not attend games themselves. These fans, supplemented and mobilized by teams, local media, and local interests that benefit directly from a stadium, constitute the base of political support for subsidized sports facilities.
Then why must our great governor be so involved and worry about the new stadium if tax payers do not have to pay any money for it?
I don't really care what the people in STL decide to do with their stadiums or what funding methods work for them as a city as they don't expect the whole state to contribute. The whole stadium replacement frenzy going on in STL and other cities is so messed up. I think it's a waste to replace the dome in the first place, regardless of who pays for it, but the NFL wanting taxpayer help is so incredibly insulting and indicative of the level of greed that is so rampant in that organization.
we helped pay for the dome, i'm sure there going to expect us to kick in some again, I don't care about my English, punctuation or grammar
Essentially the portion that the State would contribute towards the new StL stadium is offset by income tax revenue collected from players and coaches and if the State did nothing and the Rams left it would create a shortfall on revenue. In addition after the facility is paid off all that revenue is available to be put to other uses. The other part of the State's contribution is in the form of tax credits that are set aside to encourage the revitalization of blighted areas such as the north St Louis riverfront.
The city's portion is paid for by a hotel and rental car tax and through a portion of a naming rights deal that is rebated back to the team through rebating a portion of game day taxes, one of the bone of contentions with the League is how this money is guaranteed.
The majority of the cost of the stadium is payed for via private investment, the Rams, NFL and fans via PSLs. Essentially St Louis is receiving the benefits of around $1 billion in development and paying just under $175 million.
It's not all butterflies and kittens. It is very detestable that a highly profitable entity such as the Rams chooses to essentially extort money from the public. Rich people hate to pay taxes. What are you going to do? A sports stadium doesn't provide as good of a rate of return as say investing in bringing in a large manufacturing plant. BUT it's not like there are any of those opportunities that this project is taking money away from. In addition an NFL team adds to the quality of life in a city and does have a positive impact on attracting business.
Ultimately this stadium has conservatively been shown to have a few hundred million dollar net positive impact on the State during the lifetime of the financing. It revitalates a stretch of St Louis that quite realistically would remain vacated without some type of supplemented development. It provides a regional NFL presence. From where I sit, I can't think of anything I'd rather see public money spent on.
The city's portion is paid for by a hotel and rental car tax and through a portion of a naming rights deal that is rebated back to the team through rebating a portion of game day taxes, one of the bone of contentions with the League is how this money is guaranteed.
The majority of the cost of the stadium is payed for via private investment, the Rams, NFL and fans via PSLs. Essentially St Louis is receiving the benefits of around $1 billion in development and paying just under $175 million.
It's not all butterflies and kittens. It is very detestable that a highly profitable entity such as the Rams chooses to essentially extort money from the public. Rich people hate to pay taxes. What are you going to do? A sports stadium doesn't provide as good of a rate of return as say investing in bringing in a large manufacturing plant. BUT it's not like there are any of those opportunities that this project is taking money away from. In addition an NFL team adds to the quality of life in a city and does have a positive impact on attracting business.
Ultimately this stadium has conservatively been shown to have a few hundred million dollar net positive impact on the State during the lifetime of the financing. It revitalates a stretch of St Louis that quite realistically would remain vacated without some type of supplemented development. It provides a regional NFL presence. From where I sit, I can't think of anything I'd rather see public money spent on.
Similar threads
