This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
June 29, 2011
A brief intermission
I'm traveling from now until July 4, so posting will be light to nonexistent during that time. If anything important happens in the interim — the Vikings proposing to pay for a new stadium by holding the world's largest bake sale, say — feel free to talk about it yourselves in comments, and I'll chime in on my return.
What about these other lackeys I see here on the front page - these Dyle and Trumphour characters? Are they writing-impaired?? They need to start pulling their weight around here!
I kid. Have fun on your trip.
Posted by Dave on June 29, 2011 01:04 AM
Well, here's a good one for you:
In the HereWeBuild campaign in Sacramento, they announced a schedule of public meetings to discuss aspects of the plan, in public.
They've changed their minds; the meetings are private now. The public is no longer invited.
Read the comment thread here:
www.sacbee.com/2011/06/29/3734878/nba-lockout-could-be-bad-bounce.html#disqus_thread
Posted by MikeM on June 29, 2011 02:39 PM
Thanks for everything with this site Neil.
Have a great Independence Day (I think - I'm Canadian so not 100% certain).
Andrew T.
Doesn't your country celebrate Canada Day on July 1st? If so, Happy Canada Day on Friday.
Posted by Jessy S. on June 29, 2011 09:36 PM
It does! Thanks, buddy.
It's so weird to come to a message board where people are actually friendly (or at worst friendly-ish) with each other. Love this site.
I'll probably watch America's pastime with some Golden League baseball in a taxpayer-paid stadium if that counts for anything! If anyone from here sees me I'll say I'm just doing some research.
Now it's "Think BIG Sacramento!"
No, that's not me exclaiming and shouting, it's them.
www.sacbee.com/2011/06/29/3737543/sacramento-arena-economic-study.html
As I said, the meetings are no longer public. And they're being run by Goldman Sachs.
Posted by MikeM on June 30, 2011 12:17 PM
An interesting article about Teams financials. It looks at one NBA team but states the "accounting tricks" they use can be applied to all sports, so it is easy to make Profits look like paper losses
deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-how-and-why-an-nba-team-makes-a-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss
Well, the "Think BIG Sacramento!" group released its findings; a new downtown arena will produce $7B in activity for Sacramento, all from a $387M investment.
www.kcra.com/news/28408647/detail.html
If that was true, would the City even have half a chance to invest in this?
$7B. A figure so stupidly large, practically everyone will question it. I'll provide a link to the study when I find it.
Posted by MikeM on June 30, 2011 03:58 PM
And the faithful tried to Flash Mob it.
herewebuild.com/2011/06/30/herewepurple-today-is-flash-mob-thursday-show-up-at-the-meeting-on-the-economic-impact-of-the-sec-arena/
If this gets any stupider, I'm not sure I want to hear about it.
Posted by MikeM on June 30, 2011 04:01 PM
The actual report:
www.thinkbigsacramento.com/assets/Uploads/The_Economic_Engine_Report-Final.pdf
Posted by MikeM on June 30, 2011 04:27 PM
I would've said 7 gajillion while I was at it.
Posted by Brian on June 30, 2011 07:16 PM
Brian, Dr Evil definitely entered my mind when I read "Seven... BILLION... Dollars."
It seems to me that the party that wrote this report is completely unclear on the concept. When you start with a number THAT high, you're gonna get scrutinized. Why not put out a high number that sorta seems reasonable?
But, no, now people are saying, "Wow! $7B! The City doesn't need to get involved at all. It's a miracle!".
Yeah, that may not have gone the way they intended it to.
Posted by MikeM on June 30, 2011 07:24 PM
MikeM, I only have seen one person say "Wow! The City doesn't need to get invovled at all. It's a miracle!" and it's in the comment section at the Sacbee and they read a lot like you.
If I am wrong, I apologize.
Posted by John on July 1, 2011 12:41 AM
Well, a lot of those comments read about the same.
Hard to tell.
But has anyone seen a $7bn estimate over 30 years on one of these before? I can't recall one like that.
Posted by MikeM on July 1, 2011 12:49 AM
Here's another one Neil would probably be talking about today, if he was here...
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450604576415943084878506.html?mod=WSJ_RealEstate_MIDDLETopNews
How are those new stadiums workin' out for you, NYC?
Posted by MikeM on July 1, 2011 12:35 PM
www.kirotv.com/news/28423790/detail.html
An owner of an ahl team in Chicago wants to build an NHL/NBA arena in Seattle.
Posted by Kris on July 1, 2011 10:37 PM
Excellent news, Mike!
Since sporting venues are now so profitable (at least in Sacramento... at least in studies...), there will be a staggering lineup of billionaires hoping to be the one chosen for this 'investment' that can create a 60% return on capital in year one.
Thus taxpayers everywhere need not contribute.
Posted by John Bladen on July 2, 2011 07:01 PM
John, I asked around, and it turns out they figure this new arena will have triple the attendance of the old one -- hence the need for 375 additional employees to run an arena with about 1,000 more seats.
375 more employees from 1,000 more seats.
Looks pretty inefficient to me.
My main problem with all this is we have a lowball cost estimate ($387M) plus an impact that is far rosier than any of these I've ever seen... Doesn't that seem like some pretty weak foundations are being built?
We kinda have to guess what the Sept 8 report will say, only it's not very hard: A $7B return on $387M invested ie so epic, the City should fund the whole thing. I'll find that outcome ironic, if course: If the returns were that great, the City wouldn't even have a chance to invest. Oh, I suppose they might be allowed to BUY some of the bonds, but selling 'em? Forget it. They'd never have a chance.
The Sept 8 report is writing itself, though.
Posted by MikeM on July 5, 2011 01:59 AM