Jacksonville City council approves new Jaguars Stadium

[ramssuperbowl99]

19 minutes ago, kgarrett12486 said:

There is a reason that stadium's pricetag ended up where it did lol. I'll share an example of one of the items that did get caught/rectified thankfully. Let's just say that the contractor they hired to pour the concrete footings of the stadium didn't take into account the soil tests that were conducted. They poured the footings way more shallow than plan. They didn't even last a few months, which was a blessing in disguise as would have been a disaster, as they already had crews on site building on them. 

Long story short, they had to completely start fresh on all that. That cost/loss alone was enourmous. 

That fits with my experience. It was a nice stadium, but walking through it I didn't notice much of anything that was lavish or extravagant or really even much different from other modern stadiums. That explains where the money went appreciate it.

[FrantikRam]

13 hours ago, skywindO2 said:

this is false. There's zero evidence ever there's economic benefit for taxpayer funded stadiums. 

 

 

Another way of looking at it is:

A team needs a stadium to play

Does having the team at all help the local economy?

This answer might not be straight forward across the board, but in general its going to be a yes, and its just common sense. I think where people get hung up is old stadium vs new - but if you're an owner, and you know the city benefits from having your team as much as some cities do, it just makes sense for tax payers to help fund it. Again, that won't be straight forward across the board.

If you don't think an NFL team benefits a city's economy, you can find multiple examples of that with a quick and easy search.

[skywindO2]

1 hour ago, kgarrett12486 said:

One of the most poorly constructed stadiums of recent memory. I could go on for days about the corners they cut and issues that we saw/heard when it was being built. The company I worked for at the time wrote the builders risk insurance policy on it. 

We lost our ***. 

I've only heard second hand accounts of it but I've heard it's impossible to navigate, possibly by design? Like, if you have upper level tickets, you can't even go to the food or shops in the lower level concourse. Is that true? 

[LinderFournette]

1 hour ago, FrantikRam said:

 

Another way of looking at it is:

A team needs a stadium to play

Does having the team at all help the local economy?

This answer might not be straight forward across the board, but in general its going to be a yes, and its just common sense. I think where people get hung up is old stadium vs new - but if you're an owner, and you know the city benefits from having your team as much as some cities do, it just makes sense for tax payers to help fund it. Again, that won't be straight forward across the board.

If you don't think an NFL team benefits a city's economy, you can find multiple examples of that with a quick and easy search.

Not to mention this deal actually has Development in the city of Jacksonville around where the stadium is.  

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

2 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

 

Another way of looking at it is:

A team needs a stadium to play

Does having the team at all help the local economy?

This answer might not be straight forward across the board, but in general its going to be a yes, and its just common sense. I think where people get hung up is old stadium vs new - but if you're an owner, and you know the city benefits from having your team as much as some cities do, it just makes sense for tax payers to help fund it. Again, that won't be straight forward across the board.

If you don't think an NFL team benefits a city's economy, you can find multiple examples of that with a quick and easy search.

Not really, since it's not a public thing, it's a private entity, the public can't just go into this stadium whenever they want. I'm a firm believer that if billionaire owners can't afford to renovate their stadiums, they shouldn't be owners in the first place. I can't wait for the day when it becomes the norm that taxpayers stop paying for stadiums. These MF'ers have more money than any of us can imagine yet they can't renovate their own stadiums? GTFOH.

Edited Thursday at 03:53 PM by AFlaccoSeagulls

[NudeTayne]

Oh the smallfolk and their allegiances

[FrantikRam]

5 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Not really, since it's not a public thing, it's a private entity, the public can't just go into this stadium whenever they want. I'm a firm believer that if billionaire owners can't afford to renovate their stadiums, they shouldn't be owners in the first place. I can't wait for the day when it becomes the norm that taxpayers stop paying for stadiums. These MF'ers have more money than any of us can imagine yet they can't renovate their own stadiums? GTFOH.

 

That's everything though....I mean tax payers pay for the postal service....have you ever had to go pick something up from one of their facilities? Everything has hours where something is unavailable.

Its just bizarre to me that people think a billionaire should pay billions for something because they have the money. You say "have more money than any of us can imagine", but you're also talking about them spending more money than any of us can imagine.

This isn't a great one for one, but just by comparison.....I've worked with people who submit gas receipts for work for driving somewhere even though they make over six figures. The person is already getting paid for their job, but have the mindset of "I did this for work, I'm not paying out of my pocket for it".

I think that mindset is fine....but I'd also expect a billionaire to not want to pay billions of dollars if they can avoid it in a similar vein. In both cases they would be spending money to make money (your job is paying you after all). This just reeks of holding wealthy people to a different standard which is....a choice I guess.

[MWil23]

12 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

 

That's everything though....I mean tax payers pay for the postal service....have you ever had to go pick something up from one of their facilities? Everything has hours where something is unavailable.

Its just bizarre to me that people think a billionaire should pay billions for something because they have the money. You say "have more money than any of us can imagine", but you're also talking about them spending more money than any of us can imagine.

This isn't a great one for one, but just by comparison.....I've worked with people who submit gas receipts for work for driving somewhere even though they make over six figures. The person is already getting paid for their job, but have the mindset of "I did this for work, I'm not paying out of my pocket for it".

I think that mindset is fine....but I'd also expect a billionaire to not want to pay billions of dollars if they can avoid it in a similar vein. In both cases they would be spending money to make money (your job is paying you after all). This just reeks of holding wealthy people to a different standard which is....a choice I guess.

It’s more that they leverage leaving the market and have the taxpayers holding the bill while their team value goes up exponentially, they line their pockets with profit margins, they promise nonsense, and if the people don’t like it or can’t swing it, they move the team.

They have almost no risk and reap billions doing this.

Edited Friday at 10:44 AM by MWil23

[ramssuperbowl99]

8 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

That's everything though....I mean tax payers pay for the postal service....have you ever had to go pick something up from one of their facilities? Everything has hours where something is unavailable.

I don't have to spend $250+ on tickets to show up at my post office.

11 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

Its just bizarre to me that people think a billionaire should pay billions for something because they have the money.

They should pay for the stadium where the team plays because they own the team.

There's no double standard here. I don't want my tax dollars spent on your house, just like I don't want my tax dollars spent on a football team's house. You live there, you pay for it.

12 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

This isn't a great one for one, but just by comparison.....I've worked with people who submit gas receipts for work for driving somewhere even though they make over six figures. The person is already getting paid for their job, but have the mindset of "I did this for work, I'm not paying out of my pocket for it".

I think that mindset is fine....but I'd also expect a billionaire to not want to pay billions of dollars if they can avoid it in a similar vein. In both cases they would be spending money to make money (your job is paying you after all). This just reeks of holding wealthy people to a different standard which is....a choice I guess.

Employees are not owners. Private businesses expensing the cost of doing business is not the same as a government handout. This is nonsense.

12 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

 In both cases they would be spending money to make money (your job is paying you after all).

You know you're talking completely out of your *** when you have to resort to pretending teams specifically not spending money on stadiums is an example of "spending money to make money".

lol if you're gonna bootlick at least try to be coherent.

[4thandInches]

Using the postal service as a counter, lmao

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

2 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

Its just bizarre to me that people think a billionaire should pay billions for something because they have the money.

It's not just "because they have the money", it's because this is literally their business. They should be responsible for the upgrades, not the public. Imagine if Home Depot wanted to make improvements to their store in your city but demanded you pay for it.

2 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

You say "have more money than any of us can imagine", but you're also talking about them spending more money than any of us can imagine.

So then let's put this in terms of % of your net worth, yeah? This stadium renovation is $1.4B, the owner of the Jaguars' net worth is $12.2B, so this would be 10% of his net worth to pocket? And if that seems like a lot to you, well remember it's his choice to make such a costly renovation in the first place. Most renovations are like 1% of the net worth of these individuals, which they will make up for like the next day or next week.

2 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

This isn't a great one for one, but just by comparison.....I've worked with people who submit gas receipts for work for driving somewhere even though they make over six figures. The person is already getting paid for their job, but have the mindset of "I did this for work, I'm not paying out of my pocket for it".

So then if this is part of his job, he can pay for it, then write it off as a tax expense as part of the business. I'm no expert in tax law, but that's what you're comparing to here with gas receipts - in no way is that comparable to the taxpayer footing a bill for your gas.

2 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

I think that mindset is fine....but I'd also expect a billionaire to not want to pay billions of dollars if they can avoid it in a similar vein. In both cases they would be spending money to make money (your job is paying you after all). This just reeks of holding wealthy people to a different standard which is....a choice I guess.

Why would we NOT hold people to a different standard when they make and are worth more money in a single day than I will ever see in my lifetime, yet demand I help foot the bill for their side projects? How does that make any sense? This is the same line of thinking where small business owners go "I can't afford to pay my workers $15/hour because my business wouldn't succeed" and if that's the case maybe business isn't for you, but demanding billionaires pay for their own stadium upgrades seems like a pretty straight forward thing rather than them paying nothing while taxpayers fund it all.

At least in this case taxpayers are only footing over half the bill, so that's....progress?

Edited Friday at 12:07 AM by AFlaccoSeagulls

[Tony7188]

14 hours ago, kgarrett12486 said:

There is a reason that stadium's pricetag ended up where it did lol. I'll share an example of one of the items that did get caught/rectified thankfully. Let's just say that the contractor they hired to pour the concrete footings of the stadium didn't take into account the soil tests that were conducted. They poured the footings way more shallow than plan. They didn't even last a few months, which was a blessing in disguise as would have been a disaster, as they already had crews on site building on them. 

Long story short, they had to completely start fresh on all that. That cost/loss alone was enourmous. 

This is very surprising. The contractor that got the project is supposed to have QC checks to make sure that the workers accurately follow the plan. A miss like this should've had a big cause for concern. 

[El Ramster]

9 hours ago, Tony7188 said:

This is very surprising. The contractor that got the project is supposed to have QC checks to make sure that the workers accurately follow the plan. A miss like this should've had a big cause for concern. 

It does t matter though because Stan paid for it. 

[FrantikRam]

18 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I don't have to spend $250+ on tickets to show up at my post office.

They should pay for the stadium where the team plays because they own the team.

There's no double standard here. I don't want my tax dollars spent on your house, just like I don't want my tax dollars spent on a football team's house. You live there, you pay for it.

Employees are not owners. Private businesses expensing the cost of doing business is not the same as a government handout. This is nonsense.

You know you're talking completely out of your *** when you have to resort to pretending teams specifically not spending money on stadiums is an example of "spending money to make money".

lol if you're gonna bootlick at least try to be coherent.

 

 

I'm glad you brought up your tax dollars. Your tax dollars do pay for plenty of housing. Federal tax dollars for the housing stipend that service members get, for example. And while that is obviously going to be more palatable for a lot of people, I have a friend who was in the air force who prior to having kids, was able to save most of his paychecks while stationed overseas (not deployed - stationed) because the stipend was so good. He didn't need it at all. My wife works for the state of Ohio, and for every single state employee they contribute 14% of her pay (coming from my tax dollars) for a retirement better than 99% of people that work in the private sector.

Bootlick? No....I'm just a fan of consistency, and I'm not a fan of holding rich people to a different standard just because they are rich.

Go look at how Google and Amazon end up choosing where to build their data centers and the cost behind those.

If you go down the "but my tax dollars" rabbit hole, there is a lot more to take issue with than a stadium. But people have blind dislike for billionaires and makes them an easy target.

 

I think the confusion might be a stadium to begin with versus a renovation - but to me, its the same thing and part of the cost to have an NFL team to begin with.

[FrantikRam]

17 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

It's not just "because they have the money", it's because this is literally their business. They should be responsible for the upgrades, not the public. Imagine if Home Depot wanted to make improvements to their store in your city but demanded you pay for it.

So then let's put this in terms of % of your net worth, yeah? This stadium renovation is $1.4B, the owner of the Jaguars' net worth is $12.2B, so this would be 10% of his net worth to pocket? And if that seems like a lot to you, well remember it's his choice to make such a costly renovation in the first place. Most renovations are like 1% of the net worth of these individuals, which they will make up for like the next day or next week.

So then if this is part of his job, he can pay for it, then write it off as a tax expense as part of the business. I'm no expert in tax law, but that's what you're comparing to here with gas receipts - in no way is that comparable to the taxpayer footing a bill for your gas.

Why would we NOT hold people to a different standard when they make and are worth more money in a single day than I will ever see in my lifetime, yet demand I help foot the bill for their side projects? How does that make any sense? This is the same line of thinking where small business owners go "I can't afford to pay my workers $15/hour because my business wouldn't succeed" and if that's the case maybe business isn't for you, but demanding billionaires pay for their own stadium upgrades seems like a pretty straight forward thing rather than them paying nothing while taxpayers fund it all.

At least in this case taxpayers are only footing over half the bill, so that's....progress?

 

 

Go look at the number of places that have closed because of minimum wage going up. That's a thing, and not because they're saying they can't. Plenty have actually had to shut down.

Probably splitting hairs, but I'll give you the renovation aspect being a debate. Building the stadium....the Home Depots of the world get plenty of tax breaks to come to your area, and an NFL team is a lot more rare than a Home Depot. Part of an NFL team even choosing a place to begin with, my first prerequisite would be covering the cost of the stadium if I was an owner. Supply and demand.

I still think the NFL is unique enough where even the renovation makes sense to be covered - the nicer a stadium is, the more likely people are to go. The more people, the better for businesses in and around the stadium and sponsors.

The city can also benefit from concerts, the Super Bowl, etc.