Friday roundup: D-Backs, Angels hedge on new stadium plans, NJ demands 76ers repay 0.5% of tax breaks, and other foolishness

Another busy Friday where I need to squeeze in the news roundup when and where I can! (Also, yeah, New Yorkers already knew this about Mike Bloomberg, who also was responsible for this.)


9 comments on “Friday roundup: D-Backs, Angels hedge on new stadium plans, NJ demands 76ers repay 0.5% of tax breaks, and other foolishness

  1. Is every Econ prof required to give the same non-sensical talking points?

    Smith acknowledges that growth comes from productivity, then obfuscates the facts that A) productivity comes from investment [meaning that the theory that money spent at stadiums is money lost elsewhere is mostly BS], and B) sports teams are an especially strong local growth engine because they have fallout (jersey sales, food/bev, etc. happening during typical non-working hours).

    Hate on CSL all you want, but the Fred Smiths of this world are even worse, in terms of talking point propaganda and deceptive math.

    • So say ye Michael Bloomberg.

      You must have unlimited discretionary income as well. A very nice thing indeed!

      Are we to engage in what discretionary income is? Please see Miriam Webster. Or is Miriam the portrayer of “fake definitions.”

      Screw this month’s discretionary spending on things like movies, dinner out or a weekend trip with the family or a sporting event. I’ll just use my mortgage or car payment instead. I’m sure the mortgage company is down with it.

      My next month’s conversation with the mortgage company: “Yah, yah, I couldn’t make last month’s mortgage payment, because I had to take the family on a week’s vacation to Hawaii. But don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll be fine.”

      Oh God, here comes that supply-side economic theory. Now I’m going to hear how that new Ferrari you bought brings benefits that trickle-down to us common folk. Excuse me while I go the urinal in the restroom to practice the “trickle-down” theory.

      CSL. Chimney Sweeping Log. Can’t Stop Laughing. Current Stinking Logic. Take your pick.

  2. The Ray’s have said jan 2022 is the deadline to get the Montreal deal done. Its right before kriesman leaves office. IGreat move because in late 2023 the 2028 lease expiration isn’t so onerous.

    • That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that there was any kind of hard deadline.

      Are we to believe that the Rays will end all negotiations on 31 Jan 2022 if this is not “done” by then? If Montreal/Bronfman/Taxpayers come back with a fully funded and agreed stadium deal in March of 2022, will Sternberg refuse to take the call?

      • Sternberg just announced the deadline yesterday. I’m interpreting it as a “two-minute warning” (as in Chapter 4 of FoS) to try to drum up some urgency that otherwise might not exist, given how far off 2028 is.

  3. Building a stadium (or factory or concert venue etc) to attract a professional sports team “might” produce growth in a given area. But in order to know that that is possible you would need to know how much of the discretionary income in your city is bleeding away to other cities because fans are so desperate for (insert sport here) that they are travelling to distant cities to spend money on it – and travelling to those cities SOLELY because of the sport.

    Then you need to know how many of those fans would still do that (to support their existing team in the neighbouring city) if they had the option of supporting a “local” team.

    And then you need to know how much of the discretionary spending you could redirect into local coffers with the addition of a sports franchise would simply be cannibalized from other local options anyway.

    Finally, some form of adjustment to the net tax revenue and discretionary spending that could be generated locally from the addition of a professional sports need be made to account for the “home town” fans who will travel to see their team play on the road… thus spending money elsewhere that they likely would not have done if the team did not exist. Note that this could be a negative number as more fans of other teams could come to your shiny new stadium than fans of the home team that travel.

    It’s really no different than opening a Walmart or McDonalds… You don’t necessarily generate significant new revenue simply by opening another outlet. If the proposed new outlet is too close to an existing one that is already serving the population in the area you are considering building, then you will not see the kind of revenue growth you would if you put the new store in an area that is dramatically underserved. You may just be serving the same number of customers (or close to it) and carrying the expenses of a second outlet.

    That is not growth in anything but operating expenses.

  4. I would like to suggest a contest to name an award to be presented annually to the professional sports franchise with the most moxie in extracting/extorting subsidies from their host.

    I can’t think of a good name for this award, but clearly the first recipient has to be the Sixers… using money derived from tax breaks to apply for new tax breaks on a practice facility (in a neighbouring state that your league doesn’t even play in anymore!!!) should be some kind of historic high water mark.

    Hats off boys, you literally have no shame.

  5. New Jersey my birth state and one of the three most corrupt states with Illinois and a Louisiana heading that unholy political trinity. Good for the state and Sixers, they deserve one another.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *.
NOTE: Both personal attacks on other commenters and trolling (posting inflammatory remarks solely to start a fight) are not allowed in comments, and will be deleted. Any commenters who repeatedly ignore these rules may be placed on moderation, or banned.

HTML tags are not allowed.

792,179 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments