Sherman on Taxpayer Funded Stadiums

Preach it Brother Sherman!

http://usuncut.com/class-war/richard-sh ... -stadiums/

Love it.

Still waiting to disagree with one of Sherman's public statements on broader issues.

Hasn't happened yet. Not sure it's ever gonna happen.

One thing I do have to say, is that while Stan Kroenke is being blasted by everyone outside the NFC West for moving the Rams back to LA when there was a stadium proposal in St. Louis, calling him greedy and evil, they all seem to forget the biggest reason why the old guard owners were against the move: Kroenke, the 2nd richest owner in the NFL behind our own Paul Allen, is funding his $1.8b stadium BY HIMSELF. This is a bad precedent for the one percenters screaming poverty, and should be praised by fans tired of having to foot the bill on stadiums for fat cat owners.

The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.

Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?

That's crazy about Paul being rich enough to build the clink 32 times over.

The one greatest reason the owners want publicly funded stadiums is that they can walk away from them when they want to move the team. It's pretty tough to move the team when you own the stadium. There would not be any moves if the owners had to take that hit.

It is a nice opinion and all, and I agree with it. However, as long as there are cities and states out there willing to fund the stadiums teams will always use that as a weapon to get taxpayers to fund stadiums. Paul Allen saved the Seahawks while at the same time saying he would only do it if the tax payers paid for part of the Stadium. Now that is much better option than most owners give cities, but it still is a threat that we would lose our team if we didn't pony up a lot of dough.

razor150":llvplwnt said:

It is a nice opinion and all, and I agree with it. However, as long as there are cities and states out there willing to fund the stadiums teams will always use that as a weapon to get taxpayers to fund stadiums. Paul Allen saved the Seahawks while at the same time saying he would only do it if the tax payers paid for part of the Stadium. Now that is much better option than most owners give cities, but it still is a threat that we would lose our team if we didn't pony up a lot of dough.

Click to expand...

I honestly think that if both players and owners were to agree to fund a stadium account to the tune of a billion a year, then it would virtually remove the threat owners have been using to leverage new stadiums.

Why would I as employee pay for my workplace? Cities need to grow a sac and stop funding stadiums.

Fudwamper":302hg1xr said:

Why would I as employee pay for my workplace? Cities need to grow a sac and stop funding stadiums.

Click to expand...

So they need a moderator???

There are other vehicles besides subsidy example tax deferment such as often given to big manufacturers to come to a state. However to focus on sports team getting money doesn't give the full picture. Some kind of subsidy being it taxes or supporting money is NOT uncommon when it comes to items that brings a value to a city / state.

Seahawks employees people in Seattle, Seahawks helps fill the hotels in Seattle, Seahawks gives huge PR to Seattle, Seahawks helps put people in the restaurants in Seattle. The hotels, the restaurants, the vendors they all have people working for them thanks to the Seahawks. Seattle collect taxes from sales and lodging related to all this and employeed people buy houses and then there is property tax to be collected from the city. Tourists fly into SeaTac and rents cards / use the transit system etc etc - the revenue does NOT stop

Sometimes it is worth looking at the full picture and benefits as well....... you know if you want an unbiased opinion

Here is an example (note this is the amount up so on top of everything earned during the regular season and part of postseason):

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/cit ... iscal-year

Revenue was up just about $4 million in the fiscal year that ended June 30, driven by higher hotel and sales taxes from the World Series.

With all that said Seattle is one city that got something tangible for its citizens when they go to games. We are allowed to bring in outside food solely because Seattle put that in as a demand when they fronted the money

RiverDog":1tnvmtfp said:

The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.

Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one.
:2thumbs:

v1rotv2":29g7jzv3 said:

The one greatest reason the owners want publicly funded stadiums is that they can walk away from them when they want to move the team. It's pretty tough to move the team when you own the stadium. There would not be any moves if the owners had to take that hit.

Click to expand...

On the other end it would save taxpayers from paying for stadiums only to see the team abandon them because the taxpayers wont pay for another new stadium.

All sports teams are subsidized by the fans and the revenue they spend all over an area, why it USE to be an important aspect of a Team and that moving them was considered bad Karma. Fans have a investment emotionally and financially. Why I find it amusing when a City says we don't need them, then try to beg borrow or still in the effort to get one back after the team has left.

RiverDog":1cmehrfb said:

The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.

Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?

Click to expand...

The players do chip in. Every Sunday, by playing the game and getting us the fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat, and a bunch more money per year on shirts, jerseys, shorts and hats.

CPHawk":1tzyec66 said:

RiverDog":1tzyec66 said:

The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.

Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?

Click to expand...

The players do chip in. Every Sunday, by playing the game and getting us the fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat, and a bunch more money per year on shirts, jerseys, shorts and hats.

Click to expand...

Owners do chip in. Every day by building world class training facilities, hiring world class doctors, coaches, training staff to get the players to the game every Sunday to play the game and get us fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat .....

Jiggy":2y75e719 said:

CPHawk":2y75e719 said:

RiverDog":2y75e719 said:

The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.

Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?

Click to expand...

The players do chip in. Every Sunday, by playing the game and getting us the fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat, and a bunch more money per year on shirts, jerseys, shorts and hats.

Click to expand...

Owners do chip in. Every day by building world class training facilities, hiring world class doctors, coaches, training staff to get the players to the game every Sunday to play the game and get us fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat .....

Click to expand...

Actually we the fans pay for all of that. The NFL is a multi billion dollar company, they can pay for the stadiums up front, they will make back the money multiple times, and not just from football but f m all the other events held there.

Forced? Give me a break

This feels awful lot like Kanye West showing up to protest with the 99%ers...

RiverDog":5esqpl4s said:

The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.

Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?

Click to expand...

Are you proposing that players then own 50% of the stadiums and get 50% of concessions and gate receipts, or you just want them to pay out of pocket for nothing in return to help increase their boss' net worth?

NFL teams are businesses. Stadiums are capital investments. Unless you think McDonalds employees should be paying out of pocket to fix the fryer this comment does make any sense.

CPHawk":3h3oqli3 said:

Jiggy":3h3oqli3 said:

CPHawk":3h3oqli3 said:

RiverDog":3h3oqli3 said:

The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.

Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?

Click to expand...

The players do chip in. Every Sunday, by playing the game and getting us the fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat, and a bunch more money per year on shirts, jerseys, shorts and hats.

Click to expand...

Owners do chip in. Every day by building world class training facilities, hiring world class doctors, coaches, training staff to get the players to the game every Sunday to play the game and get us fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat .....

Click to expand...

Actually we the fans pay for all of that. The NFL is a multi billion dollar company, they can pay for the stadiums up front, they will make back the money multiple times, and not just from football but f m all the other events held there.

Click to expand...

Fair enough on the source of the money.

So if you're around to vote on the next stadium. Just vote no. If it fails and the owner stays, enjoy the higher price of attending a game to pay for the new stadium.

If he leaves, enjoy watching all the games on TV.