Damn Nashville

"Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero" (sampsonite24) 09/05/2018 at 15:03 • Filed to: None

2

15

Yall just got FLEECED

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The new Nashville MLS team is only paying 25 MILLION of this 275 million dollar stadium. The rest are coming out of the pockets of Nashville tax payers. That really sucks. Sorry for your loss

facw > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 09/05/2018 at 15:11

1

That’s pretty absurd.

OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 09/05/2018 at 15:13

1

As a payer of these taxes...

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

No one wanted the transit plan we needed so screw it. Build all the stadiums. 

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars 09/05/2018 at 15:15

6

It just pisses me off when any team tries to do this. The city of bridge view Illinois is still paying for the soccer stadium the fire built back in like 04 or 05 and they will be for years. The owners of these teams have the money to privately fund these stadiums but they don't because they like to fuck over fans by making them think they're doing them a favor

fintail > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 09/05/2018 at 15:20

1

Don’t worry, it’ll trickle down. Subsidizing the ego-bo osting toys of inherited or lucky wealth always benefits all.

Could be worse, like in Seattle where voters rejected Safeco field, but it was pushed through anyway (and to this day has laughable traffic management).  And where the Kingdome was still being paid off years after it was imploded.

Ash78, voting early and often > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 09/05/2018 at 15:22

0

Please tell me the name will be awesome, like the “G Strings” or something

Seems crazy to me. Why not just borrow the Vandy or MTSU stadiums for a while to see how it goes?

facw > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 09/05/2018 at 15:22

3

Field of Schemes has the public subsidy as $75M + whatever the value of the land is (which I’d assume still works out to way less than $275M, not that giving $75M to the ultra-rich is great deal either). I’m curious how they came to the $275M figure.

Regardless public funding of stadiums is almost always a bad deal, and becomes even worse when you start talking about a deal like the recent Worcester AAA baseball stadium (or this stadium if it really is a $275M subsidy), where the stadium subsidy is more than the value of the team.  

MonkeePuzzle > Ash78, voting early and often 09/05/2018 at 15:24

0

Chariotoflove > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 09/05/2018 at 15:26

2

Cities do this all the time in an effort to become relevant. The c ity of Arlington rolled out the red carpet to the Texas Rangers years ago, and then they bent over again to attract the “Dallas” Cowboys. I don’t know how long the people of Arlington will be paying for the honor, or if the business they bring will ever offset the tax breaks.   What I don’t get is this kind of concession for an MLS franchise.  It’s hard to see how this could ever be a good business decision.

lone_liberal > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 09/05/2018 at 15:26

1

You wouldn’t want billionaires to put up their own money when they can get it from the tax payers, would you? 

Ash78, voting early and often > MonkeePuzzle 09/05/2018 at 15:27

1

Great, now Baby on Board is stuck in my head.

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > Ash78, voting early and often 09/05/2018 at 15:39

1

They will be sharing the titans stadium while their own soccer specific stadium is built. because one of MLS’s requirements for a pro team is a soccer specific stadiums, they dont like it when teams share. even though NYCFC and Atlanta are currently sharing stadiums

Chuckles > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 09/05/2018 at 15:40

1

If I was one of those taxpayers I'd be pretty livid, but that's like 50% because the deal is bad and 50% because I have no interest in soccer.

facw > Chariotoflove 09/05/2018 at 15:43

2

Note that Arlington has already committed to replace the Ranger’s stadium (built in 1994) with a new $1B retractable-roof stadium (with taxpayers fronting more than half of that) . I do not approve. Stadium supporters claimed that if they didn’t build a new stadium, the Rangers would move to Dallas (though no one in Dallas seems to have any interest in offering the Rangers a big handout).

In defense of Arlington, paying big money for the stadiums does potentially work better for them than other cities (this is not the same as working well). In a place like Nashville, if you build a fancy new stadium, you are probably just shifting people’s entertainment dollars around (they go to a game instead of out to a restaurant or something). In Arlington, money spent on the Rangers or Cowboys is probably money that would otherwise be spent in Dallas or Ft. Worth, so there is a real gain for them. On the other hand, they probably benefit less from any development boom (though these are much rarer than stadium proponents argue, and even places where there has been one, like DC, it’s hard to say how much is due to the stadium vs. normal growth). No one actually wants to be in Arlington, and frankly Arlington has very little interest in urban development.

Ash78, voting early and often > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 09/05/2018 at 15:44

1

Whoops, I forgot about the Titans...the NFL is completely off my radar :D

Chariotoflove > facw 09/05/2018 at 15:50

1

It’s true. Arlington has nothing other than its proximity to Dallas, and if it didn’t have those venues, no one from Dallas would drive out there. And though I don’t pay attention to the local politics, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that its entirely motivated by political gain.

And no, the Rangers would not be moving to Dallas. Heck, the city wouldn’t bend over for Daddy  Jerry to get the Dallas Cowboys back to Dallas. And thank goodness, btw, because game days at Fair Park would have made traffic around my house miserable.