When Death Smiles Upon You the Infantryman smiles back
WVdolphan "Ireland gets it.
And those who also get it, know that Ireland gets it. Those who are clueless are still concerned about cornfed and the running game"
WVDOLPHAN "The last thing this team should be worried about is the OC(offensive corn). When you add it all up, its really a pretty solid OC"
The problem is that the NFL comes with hands out begging for public money. No government entity in California is going to hand a billionaire owner and the NFL free money to build a stadium. That's political suicide here.
And if you're an owner paying your own way, do you want to bring your team to the biggest frontrunning city in all of sports? You don't win in LA, you don't sell tickets.
You'll know when the NFL is really serious about coming to LA when Roski's plan for a stadium in City of Industry gets considered. At least the cost of the land doesn't kill you there.
The political process has included end-runs by the 49ers: getting the state to grant an override of our city charter's public bidding requirement and paying signature gatherers for a pro-stadium "citizen's" initiative. Santa Clara residents were told the initiative was to enable them to vote on the stadium, but the city council had already agreed to put a measure on the ballot. The ballot language reads like an advertisement, promoting the benefits and barely mentioning the costs.
The best source of objective information is the city's economic report presented at the June 2, 2009 council meeting (http://santaclaraca.gov/ftp/csc/pdf/...esentation.pdf). It shows that the stadium will result in a more than 2 to 1 loss for the city. The deal requires the city to direct $114 million to the stadium and commit 15 acres of city land. In return, the projected revenue is only $57 million — an overwhelmingly negative return on
When reading the 49ers' campaign material, keep in mind that they list costs in net present value but list benefits in future value, an accounting trick that makes the benefits appear greater.
The most damaging hit is to the city's general fund, which pays for services to residents. The staff report shows that the stadium deal will result in a net $67 million loss to our general fund. Money that should flow into it from the Redevelopment Agency will be redirected to the stadium. And yes, that loss includes all of the rents, projected taxes and other income that the city will receive from the stadium.
Unfortunately, these facts are not seeing the light of day. The 49ers are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to convince Santa Clara residents that their general fund will not be affected and that no tax dollars will be spent.
The deal could get even worse because the 49ers get to say how much they will pay for stadium operation and maintenance. The city cannot require them to pay more if the maintenance is insufficient. Although the city is not obligated to make up the difference, who else will?
As an investment, the stadium subsidy will result in a minimal economic benefit, increasing the city's economic activity by only 1/1000. Most stadium jobs will be part-time and low wage. Construction jobs will only last a few years, and only 7 percent are projected to go to Santa Clara residents.
The subsidy includes extending the 49ers' sweetheart deal for rent of city land for their training center. They pay about $26,000 per year for 11.2 acres, less than many Santa Clara residents pay for their home mortgage or rent. Nearby businesses pay $1.4 million and $1 million per year for rental of city property less than half that size — over 100 times as much per acre.
Robbie picked a terrible spot. He may have expected the area would grow and thrive. I know he planned to encourage and perhaps contribute to adjoining ventures. But he died before any of it could play out.
At this point there's no reason to head to that area other than the rare days of a game, and therefore any excuse not to attend will win out. IMO, the Heat would be wobbling in obscurity if they picked that spot from the outset of the franchise in 1989. Nothing would evolve the same way. No energy. Riley wouldn't have come, or wouldn't have stayed. The inevitable lows would be extreme embarrassment, as the Marlins experienced. The Heat eventually made a magnificent astute choice on the water of a great city, and have been rewarded with extended relevance, and hopefully dominance. Although the Bulls and that defense were the one team that scared the heck out of me...
I've mentioned it many times, but I always envision that visitor bus ride, away from the airport. They've got to be laughing like hell, playing a so-called road game with no threat of natural antagonism from the teeth of a great city. The Orange Bowl was spice for blocks in every direction and it carried to every row of the stadium.
The FASTEST way to kill this franchise is to put it in the heart of downtown Miami where the fan base will have major issues with attendance, safety, accessibility, etc.
Joe Robbie had it right that the geographic "center" of this fan base is the Dade-Broward line. That is more the case NOW than in 1987. South Florida's population has been moving steadily northward and westward over the last 30 years. The Dolphins are drawing more from Pembroke Pines and Plantation than from Hialeah.
Don't even try to bring up the heat. Apples and oranges. They draw 20,000 and it's a MONSTER crowd. 20,000 at a Dolphins game is Bankruptcy. Bball is a different situation altogether.
ANY new stadium for this team had better be around the I-595/I-75/Sawgrass junction if it wants to draw its historic fan demographic in the future. This is a REGIONAL team, like it or not.
Last edited by iwastherein72; 05-08-2013 at 04:05 AM.
Ryan Tannehill. Ah, what a relief. Life is good.
All I can say is if the Dolphins ever moved, which I feel they won't, the name "Dolphins" and the colors better stay with the city of Miami so we can get a new team like Cleveland did with the Browns.
Las Vegas, NV would be a good location for a NFL team, imo. Not for the dolphins, but for another team. lol
I also dont think Goodell wants to do another divisional realignment like the NFL did in 2002. Very complicated when you consider rivalries and TV contracts and overlapping markets. Just a bad idea imo.
Point taken. However, Santa Clara is not Los Angeles. The NFL will still be talking about returning to LA five years from now. My point is on some level, the NFL likes being able to use LA as the boogeyman every time a team needs a new stadium.
The Dolphins are not coming to LA anytime in the next decade.