Raiders’ Vegas stadium could hit hurdle

[RamFan503]

Let me just say that I have always been against most subsidies outside of tax breaks. I'm a card carrying libertarian.

Now then......

Also, Schwartz is Nevada's republican version of Bernie Sanders.

Only less popular. The saying about a snowball in hell comes to mind.

If he were elected and could refuse infrastructure it would give him power to negotiate for a less costly stadium.

He won't be and it won't.

Vegas is the city of dreams my friend. Build big and go for broke. If they subscribed to your logic there never would have been a city built in the middle of the desert on the hopes and dreams of Americans in the first place. We don't do safe out here.

Meh - dreams shmemes.... but you are right. You don't build a cheap version of a stadium in Vegas. That would be suicide for the project. EVERYTHING is over done in that city and intentionally so. That IS Vegas.

I've been to two Oakland games in Oakland sporting a Rams jersey and NEVER even had somebody say a word about my jersey or to me.

Same here except that I haven't been to AZ for a game but had ridiculous idiots in birkenstocks and tie die being total dicks to our group every time we have gone to Seattle for a game. Oakland fans were loud but actually pretty damn polite. LA Raiduh fans...... not so much.

The idea that Vegas economics work differently is the bending of facts - or actually, not even attempting facts.

Here is where I would disagree with you. Every city's economics work differently. And Vegas is a whole different monkey than virtually any other city.

 

[Akrasian]

Here is where I would disagree with you. Every city's economics work differently. And Vegas is a whole different monkey than virtually any other city.

compare
People keep saying that, without offering any evidence. FWIW, I lived in New Orleans for a dozen years - also a tourist destination - and ran a tourist related business for a large chunk of that time, including during Super Bowls and all other sorts of conventions. The economic boost related to the Super Bowl was nothing special. Not non-existent, but you have to factor in the additional expenses, which are always underestimated (seen that in New Orleans, seen that in Arizona when I lived there for 17 years after leaving New Orleans).

For what it's worth, here is an overview study of the economic impact of Super Bowl LI. Keep in mind, this report was done by a panel hired by the Super Bowl committee, so every assumption is favorable. http://www.housuperbowl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SB-LI-Economic-Impact.pdf

Even with every assumption favorable (i.e., overestimating number of visitors compared to what they would have had anyway, overestimating spend, overestimating amount of spend that stays local) they come up with a tax figure of $39 million that the state and local area would not have had otherwise. Figure the cost of operating a Super Bowl is over $30 million for the local area - you are talking a few million profit in the best case scenario. Not something to justify a half billion of spend.

In terms of a place like Las Vegas having different economic laws - poppycock. What matters is what amount of spend that is staying local is brought in by the facility, compared to the cost. Las Vegas already has a ton of convention space - at least some - probably a lot - of the spend will just be cannibalized from these spaces. A number of the weekends the stadium will be used by the local college football and college soccer teams - teams that can't come close to selling out their current facility. If this is paid for by a hotel tax, that means that all visits will be more expensive, motivating some to spend less, and some conventions to choose other locations. These are the same economic decisions made in EVERY NFL city. All NFL cities have a significant amount of tourist trade (well, maybe not Green Bay, unless you include Milwaukee). Vegas just has a greater percentage of its economy tied into it, but tourist facilities work the same whether in LA, or Seattle, or New Orleans, or St Louis, or Houston, or Vegas. People saying Vegas is somehow different doesn't change that.

A quality but not luxurious stadium would have gotten the same economic benefits as a palace, without requiring a massive amount of taxpayer spend, excepting infrastructure.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

i'm pretty sure cities aren't building stadiums as a monetary investment opportunity. they build them because they want a nfl team in town.

.

 

[VegasRam]

A quality but not luxurious stadium would have gotten the same economic benefits as a palace, without requiring a massive amount of taxpayer spend, excepting infrastructure.

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan "There you go again".

It's funded by visitors. Maybe you should lose one of your heads and quit overthinking this.

BTW, I've been paying for public schools for 50 years, and never had kids.
Life just ain't fair sometimes.

 

[Corbin]

Let me just say that I have always been against most subsidies outside of tax breaks. I'm a card carrying libertarian.

Now then......


Only less popular. The saying about a snowball in hell comes to mind.

He won't be and it won't.


Meh - dreams shmemes.... but you are right. You don't build a cheap version of a stadium in Vegas. That would be suicide for the project. EVERYTHING is over done in that city and intentionally so. That IS Vegas.


Same here except that I haven't been to AZ for a game but had ridiculous idiots in birkenstocks and tie die being total dicks to our group every time we have gone to Seattle for a game. Oakland fans were loud but actually pretty damn polite. LA Raiduh fans...... not so much.


Here is where I would disagree with you. Every city's economics work differently. And Vegas is a whole different monkey than virtually any other city.

Haha I can't imagine being to a Seattle game man! I have a feeling those turds wouldn't be fun to watch a game with! That being said I'm going to get up there one of these years! lol

 

[bubbaramfan]

Reading all this about the Raiders moving and building a stadium in Vegas just brings me back to all the crap that went back and forth with the Rams moving to LA and building their stadium. So much outlandish crap, but the Rams moved and the stadium is getting built.

Raiders will move and a stadium will get built for them in Las Vegas.

 

[Akrasian]

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan "There you go again".

It's funded by visitors. Maybe you should lose one of your heads and quit overthinking this.

BTW, I've been paying for public schools for 50 years, and never had kids.
Life just ain't fair sometimes.

Yet another fact free post on this. I've cited studies, and explained how a lot of the so called "new" business will be cannibalized from other sites in Vegas. Why not address these points with actual facts, instead of some variation of "Vegas is magically different?"

I've also pointed out how "funding by visitors" still costs business in other ways - unless you believe that no tourists or conventions have any sort of budget. You know, contrary to everything we know about human beings. To make it simple - when people find going to Vegas costs more, and have to go over their expenses at the end of the month - either alone, or with their spouse - more expensive hotel rooms will affect their future behavior. You seem to believe that the revenue is magical. You are mistaken.

 

[RamFan503]

compare
People keep saying that, without offering any evidence. FWIW, I lived in New Orleans for a dozen years - also a tourist destination - and ran a tourist related business for a large chunk of that time, including during Super Bowls and all other sorts of conventions. The economic boost related to the Super Bowl was nothing special. Not non-existent, but you have to factor in the additional expenses, which are always underestimated (seen that in New Orleans, seen that in Arizona when I lived there for 17 years after leaving New Orleans).

For what it's worth, here is an overview study of the economic impact of Super Bowl LI. Keep in mind, this report was done by a panel hired by the Super Bowl committee, so every assumption is favorable. http://www.housuperbowl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SB-LI-Economic-Impact.pdf

Even with every assumption favorable (i.e., overestimating number of visitors compared to what they would have had anyway, overestimating spend, overestimating amount of spend that stays local) they come up with a tax figure of $39 million that the state and local area would not have had otherwise. Figure the cost of operating a Super Bowl is over $30 million for the local area - you are talking a few million profit in the best case scenario. Not something to justify a half billion of spend.

In terms of a place like Las Vegas having different economic laws - poppycock. What matters is what amount of spend that is staying local is brought in by the facility, compared to the cost. Las Vegas already has a ton of convention space - at least some - probably a lot - of the spend will just be cannibalized from these spaces. A number of the weekends the stadium will be used by the local college football and college soccer teams - teams that can't come close to selling out their current facility. If this is paid for by a hotel tax, that means that all visits will be more expensive, motivating some to spend less, and some conventions to choose other locations. These are the same economic decisions made in EVERY NFL city. All NFL cities have a significant amount of tourist trade (well, maybe not Green Bay, unless you include Milwaukee). Vegas just has a greater percentage of its economy tied into it, but tourist facilities work the same whether in LA, or Seattle, or New Orleans, or St Louis, or Houston, or Vegas. People saying Vegas is somehow different doesn't change that.

A quality but not luxurious stadium would have gotten the same economic benefits as a palace, without requiring a massive amount of taxpayer spend, excepting infrastructure.

You seem to be under the assumption that I believe gov't has some kind of business subsidizing stadiums. I don't and they don't.

And though I didn't read your whole post, I think I get where you are coming from. We used to have a festival every year just down the street from our restaurant and brewery. On that weekend, we would do three to four times the business of most other weekends. But with staffing up and buying extra product and having impatient assholes wanting to get served in 15 minutes even though we had a line out the door, we made about the same profit as a decent weekend and my staff and I were way more stressed out - not to mention that it was when we got most of our bad reviews for inattentive service or long waits or having to sit at a dirty table because the dicks would just go sit at a FUCKING DIRTY TABLE!!! End of rant.

Poppycock? You must be older than me. The difference with Vegas is that you are not just talking about tourist facilities working the same way in every city - which they don't really anyway. You are talking about virtually an entire city built around it and everything that happens in the city and its economy is geared to and around tourism and gambling. You also can't compare deciding between Cincy and St Louis to deciding to have your convention in Vegas. MAYBE there will be a little of that from a tiny increase in room taxes - which again, I am against for this purpose - but the Porn Workers of America are not going to change their annual convention location because their rooms are now $1 per night more. The cost of convention facilities, travel by participants, hotel rates, amenities, entertainment, appropriate size of facilities will all play in to decisions about where to hold a convention. But a room costing a buck or two a night more making people steer to another destination than Vegas? Poppycock. Do the same thing in Cincy? Looks like St Louis just picked up a couple conventions.

Reno, for example, used to be geared around tourism and gambling. Now, with all the gaming at Indian casinos and other small cities, it was not in a position to compete with Vegas so it has been changing to a city of industry and transportation.

In Reno, you don't build a hotel with ridiculous fountains or mini Eifel Towers, or Pirate ships. In Vegas you don't dare build without them. A stadium in Vegas is simply going to be garishly grand. You can't get away with the same stadium in Vegas that you could in Oakland. It would be like trying to sell Yugos on Rodeo Drive.

There may be some cannibalizing of events like large concerts or boxing matches but I even doubt that. It's not a zero sum game. Whereas Vegas didn't have a stadium appropriate for ridiculous stadium concerts, they will now.

As I said, I am not for gov't funding of stadiums. But if you are committed, you simply don't build the same stadium in Vegas that you would in the Midwest or Northwest or........ It wouldn't fly.

 

[VegasRam]

Yet another fact free post on this. I've cited studies, and explained how a lot of the so called "new" business will be cannibalized from other sites in Vegas. Why not address these points with actual facts, instead of some variation of "Vegas is magically different?"

I've also pointed out how "funding by visitors" still costs business in other ways - unless you believe that no tourists or conventions have any sort of budget. You know, contrary to everything we know about human beings. To make it simple - when people find going to Vegas costs more, and have to go over their expenses at the end of the month - either alone, or with their spouse - more expensive hotel rooms will affect their future behavior. You seem to believe that the revenue is magical. You are mistaken.

Finally! An inapproptlriate rating.


My work here is done.

 

[RamFan503]

People keep saying that, without offering any evidence.

And to this point. I worked with the Portland area tourism board and the five city wide Columbia Gorge Chamber of Commerce's tourism committee. Have you ever put together one of these reports or studies? I have and they are mostly bullshit to get around to a conclusion that doesn't prove anything. Lies, damn lies, and then there are studies.

The CGCC was trying to get a NASCAR track built east of Portland. You should have seen the studies in favor and against. It was a riot. In the end, they simply wanted to be a NASCAR town. Or as @kurtfaulk so succinctly put it:

.

i'm pretty sure cities aren't building stadiums as a monetary investment opportunity. they build them because they want a nfl team in town.

.

 

[Akrasian]

And to this point. I worked with the Portland area tourism board and the five city wide Columbia Gorge Chamber of Commerce's tourism committee. Have you ever put together one of these reports or studies? I have and they are mostly bullcrap to get around to a conclusion that doesn't prove anything. Lies, damn lies, and then there are studies.

The CGCC was trying to get a NASCAR track built east of Portland. You should have seen the studies in favor and against. It was a riot. In the end, they simply wanted to be a NASCAR town. Or as @kurtfaulk so succinctly put it:

Yeah, I hate the lies of these white papers advocating huge stadium expenditures. It's theft from the gullible. If they just honestly said "This $750 million is the cost of becoming a big league NFL town. It's worth it for the prestige, and there will be some jobs, just not enough to pay for the cost." If they said that, then it would be more palatable.

Mind, I suspect they are wrong - I think the Raiders had burned their bridges. Once they were denied LA Vegas was the best option by far for them, so the government didn't need to give them such a huge subsidy to get the Raiders to move there. But I can understand there being disagreement over whether any was required, or whether a smaller amount would succeed.

 

[Farr Be It]

Nothing is going on.
Another day, praying for the sweet release of death.
Carry on.....

Yeah, well my prayer for your eternal existence cancels it out.

Every time a Politician says they are for education, they never are. Money always gets misappropriated and the Schools never see the money. In the United States of America our Schools should be cathedrals, however, unless you go to school in Palo Alto, it's never the case

'course, East Palo Alto could use an infusion of care, ...I mean cash.

I don't know, Denny. The schools around here are pretty nice facilities. $13,000- per kid, too. Money ain't the problem in these parts. Bad teachin'.

it's just a talking point for Politicians, who for the most part like our appendix, are apparently useless

Good news, Denny! According to scientists, just the politicians are useless!!

"Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University:

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

"Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.

"In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix--like the tiny structures called Peyer's patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract--takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual's own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is currently under investigation."

 

[jrry32]

Will a $1.8 billion stadium with the Raiders attract more new business to the state than a $1 billion stadium? Every neutral study I've seen on stadium economics says that stadiums are not cost effective ways of growing the economy. Making them fancier just makes it worse. Better to put that money into education, or into attracting job intensive industries to the area.

I suspect this guy is a crackpot. That doesn't mean that he's wrong that the stadium is a financial mistake for Vegas. But his way of fighting it - having it built, then denying it infrastructure as a way of throwing a hissy fit - that is insane.

As I recall, Akrasian, the main study I read on stadiums found that building a new stadium in a city where the team already played was a net loss, but bringing a team in with a stadium was a net gain. That's purely off memory, so my recollection could be flawed.

 

[Akrasian]

As I recall, Akrasian, the main study I read on stadiums found that building a new stadium in a city where the team already played was a net loss, but bringing a team in with a stadium was a net gain. That's purely off memory, so my recollection could be flawed.

I've never seen that. If you ever run across it again, I'd love to read it.

I'm skeptical, because while there are prestige and other benefits for the local area to have a team - economically teams are more of a small to medium business, with most of the local jobs low paying, part time, seasonal jobs (ushers, food stands, etc)

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm actually a little surprised that his campaign manager is letting him take on that hill, especially given the success of the Vegas Knights in the NHL making Vegas more sports crazy.

Seems like a real easy way for the opponent to score some easy votes.

Although I guess his base isn't really Las Vegas anyway.

Either way, seems like a poor move.

 

[London59]

Try again, you linked nothing but an opinion piece not an actual study. Hell this right here alone proves it.



So this so called study you cite says it has an impact on the local economies then throws out a huge opinionated BUT! That is nothing more than an op-ed. Both articles you listed are the same they're 100% opinions no numbers are weighed no statistics are introduced other than the bottom line costs to the public about the stadiums. Feel free to post actual studies instead of opinion editorials please.

Proves what? The pro reports were skewed and twisted numbers. As has been established, when it discusses revenue brought in, it doesn’t take into account that most hotels get filled anyway. It doesn’t take into account most cities have events that would bring in people spending money anyways. It doesn’t take into account added costs for policing events, traffic, locals avoiding the chaos, etc. Again, there is no doubt that these events generate revenue, they just don’t generate enough to pay for the high costs of building the venue and the continued costs associated with hosting events. More import than any of this, is the fact the Rams were briefly considered Vegas’s home team due to the short distance and many LA transplants. Stores like Target had tons of Rams gear. Now, all Raiders and no Rams. The Rams were on regular TV in Vegas as the local team even under Fisher when they sucked, so I wouldn’t have to buy the football package. Not anymore. This is personal for a Rams fan (me) and that is what is important! LOL, if only it could have been the Las Vegas Rams! We actually have the mascot here in the area. Nah, I still prefer LA since that is the team I grew up with.

 

[LesBaker]

As I recall, Akrasian, the main study I read on stadiums found that building a new stadium in a city where the team already played was a net loss, but bringing a team in with a stadium was a net gain. That's purely off memory, so my recollection could be flawed.

I think there is a difference between sports too. Baseball and basketball have way more games and so way more times/people coming into the area where the stadium is and spending disposable income there.

There are two main areas in and around downtown Cleveland where these is "entertainment" up and down a street. When the Cavs were winning 60 games, in the playoffs and NBA Finals every bar and restaurant was full on game nights even during the wek. Jobs were created because of that.

LeBron left and the Cavs went downhill right away. Those places were not full except weekends. Income was lost.

There are a few interesting articles about the economic impact he had.

So the stadium being built is only a part of the equation. If the team is winning and/or entertaining and people are coming to see them it's a win.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm actually a little surprised that his campaign manager is letting him take on that hill, especially given the success of the Vegas Knights in the NHL making Vegas more sports crazy.

Seems like a real easy way for the opponent to score some easy votes.

Although I guess his base isn't really Las Vegas anyway.

Either way, seems like a poor move.

I honestly don’t think he has an actual “campaign manager”. I’m sure someone has that title but his campaign is a train wreck.

 

[RamFan503]

I think there is a difference between sports too. Baseball and basketball have way more games and so way more times/people coming into the area where the stadium is and spending disposable income there.

There are two main areas in and around downtown Cleveland where these is "entertainment" up and down a street. When the Cavs were winning 60 games, in the playoffs and NBA Finals every bar and restaurant was full on game nights even during the wek. Jobs were created because of that.

LeBron left and the Cavs went downhill right away. Those places were not full except weekends. Income was lost.

There are a few interesting articles about the economic impact he had.

So the stadium being built is only a part of the equation. If the team is winning and/or entertaining and people are coming to see them it's a win.

Those two sports are also local centric. They don’t draw tourists anywhere near levels of the NFL or college football. Football games tend to be an event - probably BECAUSE they play so few games respectively.

People plan vacations around football games. I have not once heard of anyone planning a vacation around a non-playoff baseball or basketball game outside of baseball spring training where the weather is outstanding and the games are free (or at least they used to be).

My point is that football fans spend and spend big to fill out the event status of going to a game. Baseball and basketball fans..... not so much.