Friday roundup: NM United owner still wants biggest USL subsidy ever, Bears owners levy gambling gripes, Coyotes arena could make planes crash

And now for the news that slipped through the cracks of the week:

I’m going to be traveling next week, so prepare for a possible light posting schedule. Though if past history is any guide, whenever I go on vacation, all kinds of news immediately happens, and I’ll have my laptop with me, so maybe it’ll just be a normal week from your perspective. We’ll all find out together!

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

21 comments on “Friday roundup: NM United owner still wants biggest USL subsidy ever, Bears owners levy gambling gripes, Coyotes arena could make planes crash

      1. Clearly the “trickle-down economic theory” as it applies to sports stadia in US cities is something you fail to grasp. As does 9 out 10 sports economists. As does FoS. This is obviously an academia, left-wing, socialist led plot, conspiracy to stop the spending of my tax dollars on sports stadiums for billionaire franchise owners. Freedom for my Bills!

        Disclaimer. I am not a paid spokesperson nor am I in any way associated with Pegula Sports and Entertainment, LLC.

    1. Of course, as you know Ben, is an issue of conflict of interest and not profession.

      He could be a zookeeper or an architect. But that he works for the NFL on stadium issues should be noted.

  1. I caught some of David Samson’s comments the other day, and they are generally related to the As raising ticket prices.

    Essentially, he was saying the new Marlins ownership “projected” a whole bunch of things would happen. They raised prices, negotiated a new tv deal, and … saw attendance drop. And their revenue with tv isn’t what they hoped for.

    So they had to slash payroll and he suggested they probably will need to again this off-season.

    Which will lead to lower attendance and lower viewership.

    And baseball may not be sustainable in Miami at this pace.

    Not that he’s a beacon of great things, of course. Or sees anything more than we can overall.

    It’s just interesting to hear it said from a former executive, and to realize just what a vicious circle it is.

  2. The Tennessean quite a jumble. Also, why would Nashville need a retractable dome? All the other cities in that region, CIN, STL, ATL make do without. For team with no owner and no business plan, they’re awfully greedy.

    1. Perhaps the retractable dome is to keep the sun out of the batters’ eye, since the stadium is oriented in a southwest direction (home-centerfield) to have views of the river. LOL

  3. Much the same argument about Phoenix airport runways was raised when a nearby site was proposed for the Cardinals’ stadium. It was actually a large factor in getting the football stadium moved out to Glendale. The issue isn’t that it will make planes crash, but having a clear space in front of the runway in the event of a disabled aircraft is important. Putting 60,000 people in that spot just wasn’t considered a good idea. This was also a time when 9/11 was still very much on people’s minds, and a stadium under a flight path was thought to be a tempting target.

    I also remember some commenter noting that this would be a good time to move the airport halfway to Tucson, where it belonged, to accommodate the stadium. Moving one the state’s most valuable economic resources to build a football arena was also not considered a great idea.

    1. clear space in front of the runway in the event of a disabled aircraft to keep it from CRASHING

  4. This same concern came up in the build up to the ScoFi Englewood stadium. But it was done by the competing, downtown LA, stadium plan from AEG to try and KO that one. They even got Tom Ridge to play along.

  5. Surely we’ve had enough examples of new stadiums both in downtowns and outside to get an idea of the actual ensuing development.

    I’d suspect there’s not a lot in either case. But we always hear that the wind is too strong or the grass is too long or the seats too narrow for development to kick in.

      1. I’m having trouble imagining a football stadium existing now that makes me say “let’s go shopping/dining there.” Foxboro has the fake Pats Place mall. I suppose there are a couple similar models.

        The model of large empty concrete building plus large empty parking lot isn’t too charming. But NFL fans like it for tailgating…so why move downtown???

  6. 47.7% of Tempe taxpayers are against the Coyotes proposed arena.

    Taxpayers Icy at Thought of Paying for a New Arizona Coyotes Arena

    https://www.dataorbital.com/the-blog/taxpayers-icy-at-thought-of-paying-for-a-new-arizona-coyotes-arena

    1. Thanks for that.
      I don’t know enough about polling to be sure and I don’t know how it compares to the public opinion prior to other arena deals, but to me that seems like a lot more support for the proposal than I would have actually expected.

      If the owners are able to sell it as “but we’re investing $1.7bn!!” they may be able to pull it off.

      I’ve noticed that the Coyotes-oriented sportswriters seem to be totally in the bag for Meruelo. I guess that’s typical, but it doesn’t help.

      1. True about the reporter.

        Here are the details (PDF) on that survey.

        https://mcusercontent.com/5a280d25318f2afe3f311adb6/files/eb38bb84-9713-27d1-e0b6-f4328bce28ff/Public_Toplines_PHXSports_Live_090221.pdf

    2. Thanks for the link NMG.

      One of the issues with so called straw polls is that you never know who is answering or how representative their views are.

      If you file a plan to build anything anywhere, you are going to hear mainly from people who are either totally in love with or totally against the idea.

      You don’t really know how the general public feels about it unless you put the notion on a ballot. Even then, you risk having people who don’t really care all that much about it not bothering to vote.

      I would have expected higher numbers against the proposal. Do you think the 48% is truly representative?

      1. When 59% do not support any funding and/or tax breaks, and 61% state that another venue is not needed — as there is already more than 20 –, I think the 48% is a little low because of that “10%” that are undecided.

        Seems like the numbers are not in the Coyotes favor.

Comments are closed.