Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Why do taxpayers pay billions for football stadiums?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

    Your arguments are sound except for one point that you miss. Those cities want the NFL, the people support those teams. If they don't build those stadiums another city will. 1. You refuse to listen as to why that is. That team is a matter of civic pride and identification. 2. Some of these cities you say are unhappy will turn right around and build another stadium when the time comes. 3. How do you think Oakland feels about losing the Raiders for a second time but this time it is farther away. Las Vegas is eager to build a stadium to accommodate them. Oakland has been defied as the home of the Raiders for a long time. San Diego was the home of the Chargers. Both of those cities were foolish not to build a new stadium to keep these teams. 4. We will see how it works out but I think both cities will feel a big difference with them gone. I would not be surprised if both cities built new stadiums trying to attract a team. I doubt that will work. How much will that cost them to build a stadium and not have a team to fill it? Look at what a small city Green Bay, WI is. 5. If it was not for the Packers no one would have ever heard about them. How bout dem Saints? The pride New Orleans puts into that team is amazing and it was a big factor in helping them recover from Katrina. San Antonio would be delighted to build a stadium to attract a team even though they have two in their area. Oklahoma City would build a stadium in a minute if it thought it could get a team. Indianapolis thanks its lucky stars that it has the Colts. Columbus, OH would build a stadium for a team even with Cleveland and Cincy so close. Louisville, Kentucky would build a stadium for a team. There is no shortage of cities willing to step up and build a stadium for a team in spite of all of your gloom and doom predictions. 6. You say that the NFL doesn't deserve the subsidies. 7. How about the subsidies the oil and gas industry gets even while making record profits? 8. Yes, the NFL took a small step back this year but they will come roaring back with even bigger TV contracts and greater attendance. 9. If I were you and I lived in a town that had an NFL team, I would just move to a city that doesn't have one so that this doesn't just drive you crazy. 10. As for me, I am an NFL fan and I will be watching and even attending games when I can.
    1. Pride is nice, but that doesn't mean the taxpayer should pay 78% of the cost. Pride doesn't pay the freakin bill. And not every tax payer is willing to accept the increase of tax without the benefits to them. Not everyone is an NFL fan. But every tax payer pays. Speaking of pride...when is there going to be pride for teachers and schools again....well there was another mass shooting so here it comes with prayers and concerns. But we won't sign a blank check because they aren't covered in plastic and thrown on a TV screen.

    2. They can't they are borderline bankrupt. If the Bears threaten to leave the State of Illinois would have to cease 15% of their prisons to bankroll the owners wealth.

    3. I don't think they had a choice considering the city's finances are a mess and the lofty demands can't be met. The owner intently makes the deal less desirable. Do you want to pay Moncrief 8 million dollars to keep him just because the Jets are willing to pay?

    4. Thinking and feelings are subjective. Don't come at me with sentimentality to combat REAL DATA. Sentimentality doesn't pay the bills.

    5. I doubt the people of Clarksville TN could care less that people in California don't know who they are. And their city is bigger than Green Bay. I'm sure cities would rather have Amazon over the New York Giants. And you know what Amazon would be more beneficial than the Giants while not requiring the tax payer to pay for 78% of the cost of their facility.

    6. I have never said that. I think the proportion is out of whack. And I have provided data to back it. You on the other hand are talking about team pride and feelings.

    7. Don't deflect save that tactic for when Luck comes back. I do have a problem with any industry getting unproportionate subsidies.

    8. Says who your feelings and thoughts. GIVE ME DATA not talking points.

    9. Who thinks like this? The level of play for the Colts doesn't dictate whether the LOS deal was bad. It was a bad deal. The worst in fact up until that time. And my feelings about the level of play factor NOTHING into it. DATA does. Not feelings. But cold. hard. facts. At least BnG brought data. You are just spewing nonsense. And this point is the data I use to prove my case.

    10. Good for you. And I enjoy watching the game. But just because I enjoy something doesn't mean I ignore whats wrong with it. WE ALL KNOW that isn't the case with you when you rail on Irsay and Luck ALL the dang time. But you still enjoy it. Good for you. I hope things are better for the cites. But please stopping pooping rainbows and sunshine on these stadium deals. Because it isn't all rainbows and sunshine. Unless they open that dang LOS roof.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post

      1. Pride is nice, but that doesn't mean the taxpayer should pay 78% of the cost. Pride doesn't pay the freakin bill. And not every tax payer is willing to accept the increase of tax without the benefits to them. Not everyone is an NFL fan. But every tax payer pays. Speaking of pride...when is there going to be pride for teachers and schools again....well there was another mass shooting so here it comes with prayers and concerns. But we won't sign a blank check because they aren't covered in plastic and thrown on a TV screen.

      2. They can't they are borderline bankrupt. If the Bears threaten to leave the State of Illinois would have to cease 15% of their prisons to bankroll the owners wealth.

      3. I don't think they had a choice considering the city's finances are a mess and the lofty demands can't be met. The owner intently makes the deal less desirable. Do you want to pay Moncrief 8 million dollars to keep him just because the Jets are willing to pay?

      4. Thinking and feelings are subjective. Don't come at me with sentimentality to combat REAL DATA. Sentimentality doesn't pay the bills.

      5. I doubt the people of Clarksville TN could care less that people in California don't know who they are. And their city is bigger than Green Bay. I'm sure cities would rather have Amazon over the New York Giants. And you know what Amazon would be more beneficial than the Giants while not requiring the tax payer to pay for 78% of the cost of their facility.

      6. I have never said that. I think the proportion is out of whack. And I have provided data to back it. You on the other hand are talking about team pride and feelings.

      7. Don't deflect save that tactic for when Luck comes back. I do have a problem with any industry getting unproportionate subsidies.

      8. Says who your feelings and thoughts. GIVE ME DATA not talking points.

      9. Who thinks like this? The level of play for the Colts doesn't dictate whether the LOS deal was bad. It was a bad deal. The worst in fact up until that time. And my feelings about the level of play factor NOTHING into it. DATA does. Not feelings. But cold. hard. facts. At least BnG brought data. You are just spewing nonsense. And this point is the data I use to prove my case.

      10. Good for you. And I enjoy watching the game. But just because I enjoy something doesn't mean I ignore whats wrong with it. WE ALL KNOW that isn't the case with you when you rail on Irsay and Luck ALL the dang time. But you still enjoy it. Good for you. I hope things are better for the cites. But please stopping pooping rainbows and sunshine on these stadium deals. Because it isn't all rainbows and sunshine. Unless they open that dang LOS roof.
      I will only answer one of these. They would rather have Amazon than the Packers? You have lost your mind completely.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

        Yes, they did. I think they will regret that big time and will have votes in the future to build new stadiums. Especially when they see those sell out crowds that will come to LA and Las Vegas when the new stadiums are built. I think eventually San Diego and Oakland will also lose their baseball teams. The revenue lost will be staggering and both cities are in decline as is St. Louis.
        No data. No ground to stand on.

        San Diego is one of the fastest growing cities in America, and if you think it is that way because of the Chargers then there is no use talking to you.
        http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uscities_growth.html

        They are experiencing job growth.
        http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...120-story.html

        I'm not looking up Oakland. But my guess is you think the Warriors will leave too.

        St.Louis lost population. And so did Pittsburgh, Memphis, even Chicago saw a recent decline. But doesn't Chicago have two baseball teams, a basketball team, and a football team (granted the Bears play horrible football so I can see the confusion)? Why aren't people flocking to Chicago to live? Because the state can't afford education or crime prevention.

        St.Louis is in decline ,not because the Rams left. That is an idiotic claim. They are in decline because the lack of manufacturing jobs. Lack of jobs because of tax increases. Tax increases like sports stadiums. The rise of microbreweries is only slightly effecting Busch. The Airline Deregulation Act killed TWA and Ozark Airlines. Local law makers have done nothing to make St.Louis bounce back like other Rust Belt Cities. SO NO NFL TEAM WOULD DRASTICALLY EFFECT THIS. It takes more. Which you would know if you really knew St.Louis.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

          I will only answer one of these. They would rather have Amazon than the Packers? You have lost your mind completely.
          You have lost your mind that is not what I said. You are a troll.
          "And you know what Amazon would be more beneficial than the Giants while not requiring the tax payer to pay for 78% of the cost of their facility."

          Are the Packers the Giants? And why not answer the other questions. Because talking points mean nothing without data.
          On top of that I agree. Green Bay would keep the Packers over an Amazon headquarters. And strictly speaking in business. They would have lost their minds completely. Because Amazon would make their city crack 200K, unlike the Packers. Amazon would generate tens of thousands of jobs, unlike the Packers.

          I know others would not agree with me. But Amazon would do more for this city than the Colts financially. Sure cheering for a team has merit. But make no mistake if we had to choose, we would grow to get a team back. Whereas the Colts are making the city grow to keep Carrier jobs or the like.
          Last edited by Major Cold; 02-15-2018, 12:18 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            I used the Packers because of the similar size of the cities. Who owns the Packers. A city would have to builf

            the equivalent to a stadium to get Amazon. There would be very little impact on surrounding businesses. I am not a troll unless you believe everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. You should get a job keeping the NFL out. you are out of touch with the real world.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Bluboy View Post
              I used the Packers because of the similar size of the cities. Who owns the Packers. A city would have to builf

              the equivalent to a stadium to get Amazon. There would be very little impact on surrounding businesses. I am not a troll unless you believe everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. You should get a job keeping the NFL out. you are out of touch with the real world.
              If you don't know anything about Amazon if you think they would have very little impact on surrounding businesses. You may not be the troll you use to be, but you crawl into those tendencies when you are completely wrong on something. You have said I am out of touch because I don't agree with your unsubstantiated claims that an NFL team is supreme in any city and can rescue them from the valley of hell. You will never convince anyone with thoughts and feelings. Painting a wide brush saying all cities are happy with the NFL's presence in their city is extreme. The fact that you paint me as anti-NFL because I don't agree with everything they do, or I don't think they are the best thing in the whole wide world, is unsubstantiated.

              According to you I am:
              1. out of touch
              2. out of my mind
              3. being driven crazy by the NFL

              All of this because I don't agree with you factless opinion. I can argue your side better than you. You don't respond to data on the topic, you simply disregard it and call the other party out of touch. You OldBlu are out of touch with facts regarding this situation.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Major Cold View Post

                If you don't know anything about Amazon if you think they would have very little impact on surrounding businesses. You may not be the troll you use to be, but you crawl into those tendencies when you are completely wrong on something. You have said I am out of touch because I don't agree with your unsubstantiated claims that an NFL team is supreme in any city and can rescue them from the valley of hell. You will never convince anyone with thoughts and feelings. Painting a wide brush saying all cities are happy with the NFL's presence in their city is extreme. The fact that you paint me as anti-NFL because I don't agree with everything they do, or I don't think they are the best thing in the whole wide world, is unsubstantiated.

                According to you I am:
                1. out of touch
                2. out of my mind
                3. being driven crazy by the NFL

                All of this because I don't agree with you factless opinion. I can argue your side better than you. You don't respond to data on the topic, you simply disregard it and call the other party out of touch. You OldBlu are out of touch with facts regarding this situation.
                Yeah, I see how much support you have here.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

                  Yeah, I see how much support you have here.
                  Where is all your support, exactly? Knife cuts both ways, Blu.

                  To add my data point in there, I think Blu is dabbling too far into the, "my opinion is fact" territory. I don't think you will see any city in the state of California vote to publicly fund a stadium for football or baseball or any other professional sport in the future. I think equating lack of professional sports teams with cities in decline is baseless and mostly ridiculous. The city of Oakland itself has it's struggles, but the Bay Area is booming. San Diego is a highly, highly desirable location and that isn't going to change because they don't have an NFL team.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

                    Yeah, I see how much support you have here.
                    I don't know what this means really. What is support and what is here?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by cdash View Post

                      Where is all your support, exactly? Knife cuts both ways, Blu.

                      To add my data point in there, I think Blu is dabbling too far into the, "my opinion is fact" territory. I don't think you will see any city in the state of California vote to publicly fund a stadium for football or baseball or any other professional sport in the future. I think equating lack of professional sports teams with cities in decline is baseless and mostly ridiculous. The city of Oakland itself has it's struggles, but the Bay Area is booming. San Diego is a highly, highly desirable location and that isn't going to change because they don't have an NFL team.
                      San Diego is desirable because it's on the Pacific Ocean....and was much better years ago when retirees made it a good place. We have none of that going for us..

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post

                        If only the intial cost wast the only thing the tax payer had to fit.

                        https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...debt/27802331/

                        In 2012 the NFL made over 9 billion dollars and yet they get over a billion dollars collectively in tax subsidies a year. If you think that is ok because it creates a model of jobs and business then I have a home to sell you in 2007. Don't worry the value will only increase so don't be shocked at the 120% increase in previous 10 years.

                        If you think giving 1 billion dollars to the NFL nationally is sustainable, meaning people will always come and view this industry. I invite you to look at the 10% decline in viewership this past year.
                        http://www.latimes.com/business/holl...104-story.html

                        If you think giving 1 billion dollars to the NFL nationally is sustainable, meaning people will always come and view this industry I invite you to look at the 3.1% in attendance past years. (check my math please I stink at it)
                        https://www.pro-football-reference.c...attendance.htm

                        The LOS was the worse deal in the league. Yes, it creates jobs. Yes, it brings in money. Sure the 20 million it costs to have a franchise here. Sure it is only 2% of the GDP. I have no problem with taxpayers fitting a portion of the bill. But, I don't want the owners to hijack a city into a horrible deal because they are threatening to leave. We pay 600 million for a stadium. We pay Goldman Sachs 100 million to restructure an absolutely horrible deal. Why does a corrupt slimy company (if you read the finance agreement on LOS you will see what I am saying) like Goldman Sachs get bailed out BY TAXPAYERS for mismanaging the industry, turn around and get hired to end the slimy deals they make, and then make 100 million off of it?

                        Do you really think LOS will last 33 years? Try 20-25. When the Irsay kids see an opportunity to go Vegas or Mexico City they will demand a new stadium that will cost twice as much. At least we won't be paying on the RCA dome by then right? I mean are we still paying 4.8 million for the Hoosier Dome? So that means we have been here before when the Irsay family con us to take another billion dollar loan for the next Indiana Stadium. But man look at those high paying jobs and successful businesses. Please don't look at yet another 3 school closing in the IPS district. The mass exodus of teachers in our state. And the collapsing roads like 65 and SR 52. Look at the growth, ignore the death. Build a soccer stadium, don't look at the glaring gaps in mental health support in our state.

                        "Hey, it's only 20 million" What about extra costs? Not just the financing fiasco. What about subsidies for the land, operational costs, capital improvement, city services, and lost property taxes? The 600 million dollars is only the tip of the iceberg with the cost to the taxpayer.
                        And it takes another recession and lost income from the luxury boxes and we are in trouble.

                        22 states had budget shortfalls in either 17 or 18. One of those states is New York...but hey they have pretty sports stadiums. Revenues growths are slowing across the nation.

                        Ask Illinois about the new White Sox stadium. Or DC with the Nationals new stadium. How do you think people in Hamilton County Ohio feel when they have increased property taxes because there is a shortfall for the Reds and Bengals stadiums. And man it sucks to be a Reds and Bengals fan anyway. Ask Phoenix how they like paying 25 million dollars a year for the Coyotes especially with a budget gap of 35 million.

                        78% of stadium construction and costs fall on the taxpayer. (according to a Judith Grant Long study). Florida isn't fitting the bill for the Jaguars they funded 125% of it. That is right they pay for the stadium and pay the owners to run the team. Kahn makes 377 million a year on them anyway. The value has increased around 180% since he purchased the team in 2012. But hey it is worth the jobs, right?


                        We hear that the NFL will make your city grow, but countless economists report it as hyperbolic. The Superbowl doesn't make your town a billion dollars. http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp...nSuperbowl.pdf

                        Talking points are used by NFL owners to convince the government officials to gamble the taxpayers money and people are convinced it is foolproof.

                        I encourage you to read up on it and don't just take the NFL's word for it. Because after all, they don't care about the cities they leave behind, why would they care about saving the taxpayer some money.

                        This is about whether the state or city paying for a stadium is good from an economic standpoint...or not. You bring up things like teachers leaving IPS, collapsing roads, mental health service deficiencies, budget shortfalls in other states, etc. That is not relevant. You bring up New York. Their budget is 168 Billion dollars...a year. A stadium or 3 over the course of 25 years isn't going to matter to them. And Illinois. They are in the red for ALL kinds of reasons totally unrelated to stadiums. I would stay very far away from Illinois if you want to make a point about budgets.

                        ...and focusing on what the NFL billionaires make is also irrelevant. If we want to discuss economic fairness in general, that's fine. That's not the topic. The question is if it's the right economic decision for Indy.

                        What does matter are the tax subsidies and additional costs for LOS...as compared to the economic benefit of having an NFL stadium. Nobody in this thread can answer that with certainty.

                        As for the value of a Super Bowl, even your article implies it might be worth 100 million to a city. For a single event on one Monday evening, that is not chump change brother. Imagine if we got two of them. As for the NFL's lack of current popularity, that's temporary. The NFL has been popular for decades and while nothing is guaranteed I am confident things will turn around. The biggest risk to the NFL are the brain injuries, actually, not the current political climate.

                        As for LOS being a horrible deal, I don't think so. We have decades of having a major attraction, major events go on at LOS, millions of people come to Indy to attend events at LOS. And they enjoy the city and some decide to move here and make it their home. The Indy MSA is growing and Indy is still considered the core to that.

                        As for hard data, who is most likely to have seen it? The city of Indianapolis and state officials must have seen the data...and they agree with me. Set aside all bias and consider that for a moment. You don't have the best information on the topic. They probably did. That isn't even fact, but it's about as close to a fact as we've seen in this thread.

                        ...so for the citizens, it's mostly going to be opinion. IMO the Colts presence in Indianapolis and the local businesses they support are why many businesses move to Indianapolis, why many successful people move here (I know some) and why some conventions come to town....and why the downtown has grown from nothing in the early 80's to a premiere city...starting when the Hoosier Dome was built. Funny how that works. The Hoosier Dome is built and the city turns around. I was downtown in the late 70's at Market Square Arena. You best be packing heat to walk a block away. Things have changed downtown and things like the Hoosier Dome made an enormous impact. The number of jobs and economic benefit of a nice downtown is measurable and far more significant than any investment the city has made for BLF and LOS. The fact is, it is truly a ripple effect and without LOS and BLF, Indianapolis would simply not be the same.
                        Last edited by BlueNGold; 02-15-2018, 08:05 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I'm not even a Colts fan and on top of all this...there are a lot of Indiana citizens who have gained a tangible benefit of enjoying the Colts over the years. They have families that come in from out of state to watch games and those people stay in our hotels. All of these people also purchase millions worth of Colts gear and those sales taxes go mostly to local business whether they are local or a visitor bringing money in from out of state. It's like some of you want Indy to emulate Anderson or Kokomo and become the next shell of a city.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X