Bears, Chicago at Loggerheads Over Proposed Stadium

[RiverDog]

This issue is worth it for us Seahawk fans to keep an eye on. There's no way the league will ever allow an iconic franchise like the Bears to move out of the Chicago area as to do so would be analogous to the Yankees moving out of NYC and would be a disaster for the game, so the Bears don't have a lot of options.

But for us here in South Alaska, we don't have that kind of leverage should the Hawks try similar tactics when it comes time for a major overhaul of our current facility, which is approaching a quarter century old. Don't forget, the Kingdome was less than 25 years old when it was imploded.

Chicago Bears told to 'pay for their own damn stadium' after proposal has taxpayers footing $2 billion

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/chica ... r-AA1nLbmy

I've always felt that the league and the player's union should start a stadium fund, with both sides contributing a percentage of their player salaries/profits that could be tapped when a team meets a set criterion, one being the size of the market and ability to attract private financing, for a new or improved stadium. There's no way that taxpayers should be footing the bill in a business where both the owners and the players are incredibly rich, and it's the small market teams that are most subject to the extortion tactics that are used by the owners with threats to move the franchise.

 

[chrispy]

This is an interesting topic to me. To get a school built and financed, a metro usually has to pass a bond with a majority or super majority depending on state and local laws. A stadium can be passed with a public vote, but it normally falls well short. The next step is to find government officials that are willing to commit public funds even though the vote failed. A city council or state legislature can budget money without public approval.

A quick search will reveal dozens of situations where a stadium is approved after a failed vote, followed by the public official/s that led the campaign losing their next election, and then being hired by the franchise, stadium corporation, league or some other entity connected to the venture. It's become an operating procedure that can consistently get public funding (against the public's will) while re-distributing huge amounts of money (now billions, stadiums worth 100s of millions are a thing if the past) to leagues and owners and (indirectly and to a lesser amount) players and nearby business owners. A minority of the population agrees to the expense. A very small minority of the population benefits financially. The entire population bears the cost.

Many economic studies have been done to justify the expense and show increased tax revenue pays for the expense. However, post-audits normally show this to be un-true. Stadiums have been financed with 30 year financing but (as noted above) many aren't kept longer than 25. ...or they're renovated at a cost to the public in a similar manner to a new one. The most recent I recall reading was the Packer's renovation. It was originally thought to pay for itself but now it looks not to be the case.

It's a scam.

In Seattle, the process was different for a few reasons. Paul Allen put up a lot of private money and committed future profits to public causes. He was an owner unlike others both because of his mentality but also because of his relative wealth. The Sonics had recently moved. The threat of the Seahawks moving was felt much differently than most cities. Lastly, the stadium has been successfully used for other events (Sounders) that increase revenue. Most NFL stadiums don't have positive cash-flow. In 2021 the stadium and remaining debt from the Kingdome was paid off.

The imminent sale of the Seahawks will probably instigate discussion of stadium renovation or construction. It's important for Seahawks fans to be aware of the exceptions of how Lumen Field was originally financed and how it differs from many other stadium projects.

 

[NoGain]

Mike Florio talks about this topic a lot. He says the days of taxpayers footing the bills for stadiums where they have any choice in the matter are over. KC was a perfect example. They are the most successful franchise winning-wise in the NFL now, and have a dedicated fan base, yet public financing for stadium renovations for Arrowhead were soundly defeated in a vote.

I think there's a general feeling out there in the public that our economic system no longer works for at least half the population. And it's really backed up by the data. We're experiencing both a tremendous transference of wealth from the have-nots to the haves, as well as from young adults to older adults. This is just the backdrop that exists when it comes to things like public financing for new stadiums and stadium renovations.

I'm not sure what the answer is now, other than pay for the stadium yourself in some such manner.

 

[RiverDog]

This is an interesting topic to me. To get a school built and financed, a metro usually has to pass a bond with a majority or super majority depending on state and local laws. A stadium can be passed with a public vote, but it normally falls well short. The next step is to find government officials that are willing to commit public funds even though the vote failed. A city council or state legislature can budget money without public approval.

A quick search will reveal dozens of situations where a stadium is approved after a failed vote, followed by the public official/s that led the campaign losing their next election, and then being hired by the franchise, stadium corporation, league or some other entity connected to the venture. It's become an operating procedure that can consistently get public funding (against the public's will) while re-distributing huge amounts of money (now billions, stadiums worth 100s of millions are a thing if the past) to leagues and owners and (indirectly and to a lesser amount) players and nearby business owners. A minority of the population agrees to the expense. A very small minority of the population benefits financially. The entire population bears the cost.

Many economic studies have been done to justify the expense and show increased tax revenue pays for the expense. However, post-audits normally show this to be un-true. Stadiums have been financed with 30 year financing but (as noted above) many aren't kept longer than 25. ...or they're renovated at a cost to the public in a similar manner to a new one. The most recent I recall reading was the Packer's renovation. It was originally thought to pay for itself but now it looks not to be the case.

It's a scam.

In Seattle, the process was different for a few reasons. Paul Allen put up a lot of private money and committed future profits to public causes. He was an owner unlike others both because of his mentality but also because of his relative wealth. The Sonics had recently moved. The threat of the Seahawks moving was felt much differently than most cities. Lastly, the stadium has been successfully used for other events (Sounders) that increase revenue. Most NFL stadiums don't have positive cash-flow. In 2021 the stadium and remaining debt from the Kingdome was paid off.

The imminent sale of the Seahawks will probably instigate discussion of stadium renovation or construction. It's important for Seahawks fans to be aware of the exceptions of how Lumen Field was originally financed and how it differs from many other stadium projects.

Nice summation.

I do want to bring up how our local venues got built. The first was in the mid 60's when due to the promise that MLB would award Seattle with a franchise, the voters in King County approved what would later become the Kingdome.

In 1995, the Mariners wanted a new stadium and threatened to move if one wasn't approved. It was put to a public vote in the city of Seattle on Sept. 19th of 1995, and failed. However, that was just before the M's went on a magical run that ended just short of the World Series. Had the vote been taken a month later, it almost certainly would have passed. After the season was over, the WA state legislature stepped in and passed a stadium funding bill that although it had been rejected by voters, had a lot of public support.

After Ken Behring attempted to move the Seahawks and was forced to sell the team, Paul Allen said that he would buy the team providing the public help fund a new stadium and insisted on a statewide vote, paying for the vote himself. The measure narrowly passed.

The Sonics had an arena remodel financed by the city of Seattle but a few years later when the team was bought by Clay Bennett, he proposed a grandiose new facility be built in Renton using public money that in my opinion he knew would be rejected then used that rejection to justify his moving the team to OKC.

Anyhow, that's just some background info on how this issue has fared here in our region.

 

[RiverDog]

Mike Florio talks about this topic a lot. He says the days of taxpayers footing the bills for stadiums where they have any choice in the matter are over. KC was a perfect example. They are the most successful franchise winning-wise in the NFL now, and have a dedicated fan base, yet public financing for stadium renovations for Arrowhead were soundly defeated in a vote.

I think there's a general feeling out there in the public that our economic system no longer works for at least half the population. And it's really backed up by the data. We're experiencing both a tremendous transference of wealth from the have-nots to the haves, as well as from young adults to older adults. This is just the backdrop that exists when it comes to things like public financing for new stadiums and stadium renovations.

I'm not sure what the answer is now, other than pay for the stadium yourself in some such manner.

I agree.

I voted for such issues in my younger days, including the one to finance what is now Lumen Field, but not anymore. Even a diehard fan like me can't justify spending several billion dollars on these luxurious facilities while they line their pockets with huge profits and obscene player salaries. It's no different that these Arab kings and sheiks building their own huge private palaces while their populace is starving to death.

But there is an inequity. Los Angeles was able to build their new stadium with 100% private money, but they are in a very large market. Finding private funding in a small market like Kansas City, even with a very successful team on the field, is out of the question.

The league is very much into equity when it comes to the playing field. They need to repeat such a process when the issue is stadium funding.

 

[NoGain]

When you think about it, the Hunt family, who own the Chiefs, are collectively worth about 25 billion dollars. And they're coming to the public looking for handouts for stadium renovations?

 

[Maulbert]

This is an interesting topic to me. To get a school built and financed, a metro usually has to pass a bond with a majority or super majority depending on state and local laws. A stadium can be passed with a public vote, but it normally falls well short. The next step is to find government officials that are willing to commit public funds even though the vote failed. A city council or state legislature can budget money without public approval.

A quick search will reveal dozens of situations where a stadium is approved after a failed vote, followed by the public official/s that led the campaign losing their next election, and then being hired by the franchise, stadium corporation, league or some other entity connected to the venture. It's become an operating procedure that can consistently get public funding (against the public's will) while re-distributing huge amounts of money (now billions, stadiums worth 100s of millions are a thing if the past) to leagues and owners and (indirectly and to a lesser amount) players and nearby business owners. A minority of the population agrees to the expense. A very small minority of the population benefits financially. The entire population bears the cost.

Many economic studies have been done to justify the expense and show increased tax revenue pays for the expense. However, post-audits normally show this to be un-true. Stadiums have been financed with 30 year financing but (as noted above) many aren't kept longer than 25. ...or they're renovated at a cost to the public in a similar manner to a new one. The most recent I recall reading was the Packer's renovation. It was originally thought to pay for itself but now it looks not to be the case.

It's a scam.

In Seattle, the process was different for a few reasons. Paul Allen put up a lot of private money and committed future profits to public causes. He was an owner unlike others both because of his mentality but also because of his relative wealth. The Sonics had recently moved. The threat of the Seahawks moving was felt much differently than most cities. Lastly, the stadium has been successfully used for other events (Sounders) that increase revenue. Most NFL stadiums don't have positive cash-flow. In 2021 the stadium and remaining debt from the Kingdome was paid off.

The imminent sale of the Seahawks will probably instigate discussion of stadium renovation or construction. It's important for Seahawks fans to be aware of the exceptions of how Lumen Field was originally financed and how it differs from many other stadium projects.

The Sonics moved a full decade (2008) after the referendum on what became Lumen Field (1997).

 

[chrispy]

Latest on this topic....

Nevada Supreme Court rejects 2024 ballot measure on A's Las Vegas stadium funding

The Nevada Supreme Court on Monday struck down a proposed ballot initiative that would allow voters to decide whether to repeal up to $380 million in public funding for a new MLB stadium in Las Vegas.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[chris98251]

Latest on this topic....

Nevada Supreme Court rejects 2024 ballot measure on A's Las Vegas stadium funding

The Nevada Supreme Court on Monday struck down a proposed ballot initiative that would allow voters to decide whether to repeal up to $380 million in public funding for a new MLB stadium in Las Vegas.

www.cbsnews.com

Money Talks, who is buying this, everywhere the people have the right to contest taxes for stadiums.

 

[jammerhawk]

These stadium debates are somehow just another way where the football team can blackmail it's community into paying money to help a poor starving billionaire(S) improve his bottom line with his/their team.

The whole issue over who pays for new stadium or the substantial renovation of an older facility quickly devolves into a political discussion. Frankly these billionaires need to find other and more creative ways of paying for their new stadiums than asking the community to pay up through taxation so they can make more money. In the end greed seems to be an underlining feature of these discussion and for sure there is no harm in a poor starving billionaire reaching out to to see if someone will give him money with manageable conditions. Having the community pay for something that helps the community in term of it's lifestyle maybe something that community wants to do but it is clearly understandable why some communities just say no thanks.

The despised Rams owner Kroenke (?sp?) funded his own mega expensive new stadium in LA himself, he wanted to be in that key market and L.A. wasn't going to help him pay for his new facility.. It's possible each owner could afford these new facilities on their own nickel. In the end it's a community decision.

 

[RiverDog]

These stadium debates are somehow just another way where the football team can blackmail it's community into paying money to help a poor starving billionaire(S) improve his bottom line with his/their team.

The whole issue over who pays for new stadium or the substantial renovation of an older facility quickly devolves into a political discussion. Frankly these billionaires need to find other and more creative ways of paying for their new stadiums than asking the community to pay up through taxation so they can make more money. In the end greed seems to be an underlining feature of these discussion and for sure there is no harm in a poor starving billionaire reaching out to to see if someone will give him money with manageable conditions. Having the community pay for something that helps the community in term of it's lifestyle maybe something that community wants to do but it is clearly understandable why some communities just say no thanks.

The despised Rams owner Kroenke (?sp?) funded his own mega expensive new stadium in LA himself, he wanted to be in that key market and L.A. wasn't going to help him pay for his new facility.. It's possible each owner could afford these new facilities on their own nickel. In the end it's a community decision.

Big markets like LA and Chicago can afford to play hard ball with these owners. But mid and small market teams, such as Jacksonville, which just approved about a billion dollars in public financing for a new stadium, are at a genuine risk of losing their franchise.

I'm not the type that advocates government interfering or regulating private business. But I'd support some sort of nationwide legislation that prohibits public funding of these stadiums and arenas.

 

[GeekHawk]

Don't forget, the Kingdome was less than 25 years old when it was imploded.

The Concrete Wart should have never been built in the first place. It was a monument to the '70s era of utilitarian downsized expectations. The only redeeming value it ever had was a roof to keep the rain off. It's hard to believe that edifice lasted almost 25 years before being put out of its (and everyone else's) misery.

 

[jammerhawk]

My sense is there is no reason to legislate a prohibition in using tax dollars in funding new stadiums but there should be some requirement to repay those taxpayers from funds made by the stadiums and thus an opening of the book of the facilities affected.

 

[RiverDog]

The Concrete Wart should have never been built in the first place. It was a monument to the '70s era of utilitarian downsized expectations. The only redeeming value it ever had was a roof to keep the rain off. It's hard to believe that edifice lasted almost 25 years before being put out of its (and everyone else's) misery.

The Kingdome was an eyesore. It was built during an era from 1960-1990 where aesthetics wasn't even an afterthought. Multipurpose and economy was the trend, with stadiums like Riverfront in Cincy, Three Rivers in Pittsburgh, the Vet in Philly, Shea in NYC, Busch in StL, et al. All of those stadiums were eyesores.

But it served its purpose. Without the Kingdome, we would have never gotten the Seahawks, and it was built for what is now a bargain basement price: $67M.

Plus, it was a blast to watch a game there. We didn't care about how it looked.

 

[projectorfreak]

Well I sure hope mcdonald and grubb can kick some serious ass for the next 5 years or so so we can keep my team
Im an old fart and I was 10 we got an expansion team and I'd like to keep em
Not like im obsessed or anything , (psst ,,, I really am)
I , not the state or city or king county need the seahawks to stay right the hell here
I'd be the guy watchin what is now okc till we got another team if they left and that would suck balls , footballs

 

[chris98251]

The Kingdome was an eyesore. It was built during an era from 1960-1990 where aesthetics wasn't even an afterthought. Multipurpose and economy was the trend, with stadiums like Riverfront in Cincy, Three Rivers in Pittsburgh, the Vet in Philly, Shea in NYC, Busch in StL, et al. All of those stadiums were eyesores.

But it served its purpose. Without the Kingdome, we would have never gotten the Seahawks, and it was built for what is now a bargain basement price: $67M.

Plus, it was a blast to watch a game there. We didn't care about how it looked.

or the Mariners, it was the sell of the time, Sick Stadium was not going to cut it, hell they even used the Capacity to leverage the Sonics playing there, remember we had just won the World Championship and Seattle Coliseum only help 11012 people or so. They did play some games there during the renovations and the Tacoma Dome.

 

[Chukarhawk]

The Kingdome was an eyesore. It was built during an era from 1960-1990 where aesthetics wasn't even an afterthought. Multipurpose and economy was the trend, with stadiums like Riverfront in Cincy, Three Rivers in Pittsburgh, the Vet in Philly, Shea in NYC, Busch in StL, et al. All of those stadiums were eyesores.

But it served its purpose. Without the Kingdome, we would have never gotten the Seahawks, and it was built for what is now a bargain basement price: $67M.

Plus, it was a blast to watch a game there. We didn't care about how it looked.

that place was living hell for opposing teams. You think it was loud at the new stadium? try that concrete sphere.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

Lumen is well designed and aging really well. The only thing that seems dated in it is the smaller screens that can probably be rectified if they ever re-do the hawks nest.

I did see some chat a year or so ago on Sounders sites that it might get a major upgrade after the world cup but who knows.

They'd be crazy to ever move from that location though. Its a great spot with great links to light rail, I-5, Sounder trains and lots of restaurants/bars near So-Do and downtown. Plus the hawks are really well supported and charge top dollar.

 

[RiverDog]

or the Mariners, it was the sell of the time, Sick Stadium was not going to cut it, hell they even used the Capacity to leverage the Sonics playing there, remember we had just won the World Championship and Seattle Coliseum only help 11012 people or so. They did play some games there during the renovations and the Tacoma Dome.

The reason I didn't include the Mariners is that after the Pilots moved after just one season, the state won a lawsuit against the American League, and they were going to have to either give Seattle a new team or pay a huge sum of money. And yes, I went to an NBA Championship game held in the Kingdome, also went to a Sweet 16 tourney there, boat shows, home shows, et al. They got a lot of use out of that $67M.

 

[fenderbender123]

If a new stadium is a good investment for the city's economy, then let the people who benefit from it pay for it. Motel and restaurant owners. The owner of the sports team, etc.

The vast majority of people living there aren't going to economically benefit. They will still be paid the same. So imposing taxes is just straight up BS. Even imposing taxes on people for paying for a motel room is BS, because most of the time they aren't there to see a sports game.

If building a new stadium is too costly for the owner compared to the return, then don't do it. Stop wasting time and resources on stupid shit.