Financial woes
jaymar
including the JS a few days after my post), the GB Packers need financial
help.
Unfortunately, there is a myth that TV contracts and revenue sharing
provide an equal footing for all NFL teams. That is simply not true. Most
NFL teams still make their profits (or, in the case of the GB Packers,
their operating revenue) from ticket sales. (If you care about this issue,
you already know about the studies on this--I don't have time to do your
homework for you here.)
The big debate about financing renovations to Lambeau Field will center on
why taxpayers should pay the tab for a private business.
First of all, the Packers are not a private business but non-sports fans
in the state will have a hard time understanding this. (Even many avid NFL
fans have a hard time understanding this.)
But most importantly:
IF ANYONE, in this great state, does not believe taxpayers pay for the
expansion/relocation of hundreds of private businesses a year, they just
haven't been paying attention.
The state of Wisconsin (along with every other state in the union)
provides tax credits, grants, and loans to private businesses every day in
order to atttract or retain the business. Some of this financial help is
in the form of straight out money, some in the form of grants (which are
straight out money couched in the form of legislative mumbo-jumbo about
providing money to "vital" interests), and some in the form of extremely
low-interest loans which may be marked paid if the business provides a
certain number of jobs to the community by a certain deadline.
In addition, there are infrastructure costs paid by all taxpayers for
business development. Go down and ask the owner of the family-owned men's
clothing store on your main street (if it still exists) whether he, and
the other downtown business owners, were in favor of paying taxes to fund
the street and utility and planning costs for the shopping mall built on
the edge of town.
Unfortunately, the approach to funding GB stadium renovations is all
wrong. A special tax funding district in Brown County will not cut it.
Each county within the state has the right to establish a special sales
tax to provide "property relief". HOWEVER, each county can also vote to
set up a special taxing district, with approval from the state
legislature, to fund other items. This is the approach that should be
taken. Each county, if urged by their residents, should decide whether to
seek special taxing district status to benefit the GB Packers. This
individual county approach accomplishes two things: it provides for more
local control and a county-wide referendum before seeking the special
taxing district status AND each county could also seek some sort of sunset
clause: that is, a clause triggering an automatic referendum vote within
that county after five years on whether to continue the special taxing
district/status.
In addition, the state should consider establishing a checkoff category
for the Packers on the state income tax forms, as they have for election
funds and DNR funds. Some of us consider the GB Packers much more of a
treasure than career politicians. (But, I expect they'll find that out
soon.--LOL)
jaymar
A treasure is often that which we believe is a treasure. And when many men
from many tribes commune in their belief in such a treasure, it's gold
glitters even more.
spor...@my-dejanews.com
>>Unfortunately, there is a myth that TV contracts and revenue sharing
provide an equal footing for all NFL teams. That is simply not true. Most
NFL teams still make their profits (or, in the case of the GB Packers,
their operating revenue) from ticket sales. (If you care about this issue,
you already know about the studies on this--I don't have time to do your
homework for you here.)>>
If the Packers are financially desperate, so is every other team. I don't know
of too many teams that are able to build or upgrade stadiums (stadia?) without
any kind of public assistance. In fact, I defy you to find an NFL stadium that
was built entirely with the owner's funds.
****************************************>
Jay V. (spor...@my-dejanews.com)
Pack fan in NYC
University of Wisconsin Alumnus ********>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bob
>If the Packers are financially desperate, so is every other team. I don't know
>of too many teams that are able to build or upgrade stadiums (stadia?) without
>any kind of public assistance. In fact, I defy you to find an NFL stadium that
>was built entirely with the owner's funds.
Jack Kent Cooke Stadium was built with private funding.That is why the
stadium had to be sold with the Redskins. They still received some tax
breaks from Maryland on the property, but the money was raised by
Cooke.
Even Paul Allen, who could afford to buy ALL of the teams in the NFL
(minus GB due to stock considerations) has Washington St. helping to
pay for his new stadium.
*****************************************************
The Packer Fans Mailing list
send e-mail to wclis...@fanciful.org
put
"subscribe packerfans"
(no quotes) in the message body
Kay Wallen
: In article <36b488ed.6984102@news>,
: rabe...@home.com (Bob) wrote:
: > On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:11:23 GMT, spor...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: >
: > >If the Packers are financially desperate, so is every other team. I don't
: know
: > >of too many teams that are able to build or upgrade stadiums (stadia?)
: without
: > >any kind of public assistance. In fact, I defy you to find an NFL stadium
: that
: > >was built entirely with the owner's funds.
: >
: > Jack Kent Cooke Stadium was built with private funding.That is why the
: > stadium had to be sold with the Redskins. They still received some tax
: > breaks from Maryland on the property,
: I consider tax breaks to be giving them public money because you're
: essentially taking away money from the public by letting the team keep it.
But the usual tax break is taxing it at a equal or slightly higher rate
than the land was getting by itself. The public gets no less money, they
get the same amount had the stadium not been there. It's supposed to be
offset by the increased spending in the area.
I think a tax break is the least offensive way of giving them money.
--
Serafino
by the Jack Kent Cooke family fortune. I may be mistaken about this, but if
it is indeed true, this would be the one and only stadium not to have been
funded by the local Gov't/taxpayers.
Serafino
Tom
that was to do some of this rebuilding of the structure of Lambeau Field.
At any rate, instead of putting up a tax for the people of Green Bay, and
surround communites to pay. Why don't they make a Room Tax or a Resturaunt /
Bar tax in Green Bay and surrounding communities. That way when the people
come to Green Bay, to go to the game, they will be the ones funding the
changes that seem to need to take place.
Just my two cents worth.
GoPack2
jaymar wrote:
> As I was saying a week ago (and I thank all the "experts" for weighing in,
> including the JS a few days after my post), the GB Packers need financial
> help.
>
> Unfortunately, there is a myth that TV contracts and revenue sharing
> provide an equal footing for all NFL teams. That is simply not true. Most
> NFL teams still make their profits (or, in the case of the GB Packers,
> their operating revenue) from ticket sales. (If you care about this issue,
> you already know about the studies on this--I don't have time to do your
> homework for you here.)
>
spor...@my-dejanews.com
rabe...@home.com (Bob) wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:11:23 GMT, spor...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >If the Packers are financially desperate, so is every other team. I don't
know
> >of too many teams that are able to build or upgrade stadiums (stadia?)
without
> >any kind of public assistance. In fact, I defy you to find an NFL stadium
that
> >was built entirely with the owner's funds.
>
> Jack Kent Cooke Stadium was built with private funding.That is why the
> stadium had to be sold with the Redskins. They still received some tax
> breaks from Maryland on the property,
I consider tax breaks to be giving them public money because you're
essentially taking away money from the public by letting the team keep it.
> *****************************************************
> The Packer Fans Mailing list
> send e-mail to wclis...@fanciful.org
> put
> "subscribe packerfans"
> (no quotes) in the message body
>
****************************************>
spor...@my-dejanews.com
Bob wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 01:07:13 GMT, spor...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <36b488ed.6984102@news>,
> rabe...@home.com (Bob) wrote:
>> stadium had to be sold with the Redskins. They still received some tax
>> breaks from Maryland on the property,
>
>I consider tax breaks to be giving them public money because you're
>essentially taking away money from the public by letting the team keep it.
>>Had they
not built it where they did the state (or county, or whoever) would
still be collecting taxes on 50 acres of undeveloped land, probably
NOT to the same tune as what they get for the stadium, even with the
deal.>>
Hoo boy, you should free lance for all those teams who need new stadiums. Now
you're talking about the perceived benefits, not whether the city or state
actually put up any money.
BTW, the state also paid for about $70 million in infrastructure for the new
stadium. But I guess roads to the stadium benefit the overall community as
well, huh? ****************************************> Jay V.
spor...@my-dejanews.com
spor...@my-dejanews.com wrote: : In article <36b488ed.6984102@news>, :
rabe...@home.com (Bob) wrote: : > On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:11:23 GMT,
spor...@my-dejanews.com wrote: : > : > >If the Packers are financially
desperate, so is every other team. I don't : know : > >of too many teams
that are able to build or upgrade stadiums (stadia?) : without : > >any
kind of public assistance. In fact, I defy you to find an NFL stadium : that
: > >was built entirely with the owner's funds. : > : > Jack Kent Cooke
Stadium was built with private funding.That is why the : > stadium had to be
sold with the Redskins. They still received some tax : > breaks from
Maryland on the property,
: I consider tax breaks to be giving them public money because you're
: essentially taking away money from the public by letting the team keep it.
>>But the usual tax break is taxing it at a equal or slightly higher rate
than the land was getting by itself. The public gets no less money, they
get the same amount had the stadium not been there. It's supposed to be
offset by the increased spending in the area.>>
The state also chipped in for $70 million in infrastructure costs.
>I think a tax break is the least offensive way of giving them money.
So you admit they gave them money then. ;-)
spor...@my-dejanews.com
>>At any rate, instead of putting up a tax for the people of Green Bay, and
surround communites to pay. Why don't they make a Room Tax or a Resturaunt
/ Bar tax in Green Bay and surrounding communities. That way when the
people come to Green Bay, to go to the game, they will be the ones funding
the changes that seem to need to take place.>>
I'm not from Green Bay so I don't know a heck of a lot about the city's tax
base, but I was wondering if GB has a large enough tax base or sales base to
make up for the millions that would be needed by the team.
If the Packers need $50 million to $60 million, can they make that much from
just taxing its hotels and bars? During the season, maybe they'll do OK, but
unless GB has a thriving convention or tourist biz (which it may) it seems
like it will be a struggle.
Bob
>In article <36b488ed.6984102@news>,
> rabe...@home.com (Bob) wrote:
>> stadium had to be sold with the Redskins. They still received some tax
>> breaks from Maryland on the property,
>
>I consider tax breaks to be giving them public money because you're
>essentially taking away money from the public by letting the team keep it.
Kind of.... The 'Skins pay about 40% of the property taxes on JKC
stadium that they would normally be assessed on a property worth $350
million. The biggest part of the deal was not assessing them during
construction, which saved millions in putting the stadium up. Had they
not built it where they did the state (or county, or whoever) would
still be collecting taxes on 50 acres of undeveloped land, probably
NOT to the same tune as what they get for the stadium, even with the
deal.
Bob
He didn't fund it completely, but he did pay for the vast majority of
it.
As was said in other posts, they got some pretty decent tax
concessions from Maryland when they built it, but no cash.
Kevin Thomas
: I'm not from Green Bay so I don't know a heck of a lot about the city's tax
: base, but I was wondering if GB has a large enough tax base or sales base to
: make up for the millions that would be needed by the team.
: If the Packers need $50 million to $60 million, can they make that much from
: just taxing its hotels and bars? During the season, maybe they'll do OK, but
: unless GB has a thriving convention or tourist biz (which it may) it seems
: like it will be a struggle.
I'm not from Green Bay either but I believe they're already trying (or
already are) to tax the hotel business to build some kind of coliseum for
other sports venues. (Green Bay is not a one-horse town as the trolls like
to portray).
Lambeau Field and Milwaukee County Stadium were built with public
assistance so I don't understand the hysteria of the public being asked to
help update both of these facilities. There may be good reasons not to,
but the precedent is there and it's not like it hasn't been done before.
Personally, I would like to have open gaming and let the casinos pay for
such projects. I'm tired of driving to Iowa and Illinois just to play
poker once in a while. No use even talking about this option, it'll never
happen within the next 10 years.
If we could tax Spike for every moronic comment he makes, maybe we'd have
the grand-daddy of all stadiums. (I *STILL* want to hear Spike tell us how
the Packers have never been to 4 Superbowls. LOL) :-)
Dustan Setner
news:794mq6$3...@newsops.execpc.com...
>spor...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: just taxing its hotels and bars? During the season, maybe they'll do OK,
but
>: unless GB has a thriving convention or tourist biz (which it may) it
seems
>: like it will be a struggle.
>
>I'm not from Green Bay either but I believe they're already trying (or
>already are) to tax the hotel business
Already are.
> to build some kind of coliseum for
>other sports venues. (Green Bay is not a one-horse town as the trolls like
>to portray).
They want to replace the old Arena with a state-of-the-art Arena/Convention
Center. I don't know the exact breakdown of HOW it's going to be paid for,
but I believe the existing "hotel tax" will be raised, and Joe Average
Taxpayer will foot some of the bill, too.
There was a big ruckus when the vote was being passed. On one hand,
Blue-Collar Bill says he doesn't like taxes, and loathes the idea of paying
even *more* for something he probably won't use more than once a year or so.
On the other hand, Big-Picture Bob realizes that in order for revenue to
come IN to the area, you need a state-of-the-art facility to attract events
and to expand the current low capacity. Fortunately, there were far more
Big-Picture Bob's voting that day.
I believe the Packers fall into that same category. All of the revenue that
they generate isn't apparent, but it's there. And the community needs to
(and will) protect that asset. Part of that is the general
maintenance/upgrade costs that isn't pretty and no one likes to think about,
but it's there. If the Packers were to leave Green Bay, it would affect
*hundreds* of businesses.
>Lambeau Field and Milwaukee County Stadium were built with public
>assistance so I don't understand the hysteria of the public being asked to
>help update both of these facilities.
See above. You can expect a healthy amount of bitching, as with any "public
assistance", because they tend to be the most vocal. However, when it
counts, you can be sure that those with the big-picture in mind will make
their presence felt.
> There may be good reasons not to,
Not really. As we know, the Packers don't have an "owner", per se, that
*could* conceivably foot the bill. There's no choice, really. The people
who realize what the Packers mean to the city & state will probably be more
than willing to *voluntarily* help them out financially (this was my
thinking when I bought stock), seeing as how we'll get that $$$ back in one
form or another.
Those who don't follow sports or don't want to pay higher taxes "just
because" will probably never understand why a professional sports
organization such as the Packers is important for the well-being of their
community. They'll grumble, but some of that will be lessened by the fact
that GB doesn't have a singular owner to distrust or place blame. You
certainly can't bitch about the taxes and claim that the "owner" should pay
for it in this case, now can you? Who's to profit from this endeavor? Even
the most narrow-minded person will be forced to come to that conclusion
sooner or later.
>but the precedent is there and it's not like it hasn't been done before.
>
>Personally, I would like to have open gaming and let the casinos pay for
>such projects.
Yep, but the Oneidas won't like that one bit. This probably won't happen.
> I'm tired of driving to Iowa and Illinois just to play
>poker once in a while. No use even talking about this option, it'll never
>happen within the next 10 years.
Well, I don't understand why we can make an exception for native Americans
when it comes to gambling (Oneida Bingo & Casino, etc. etc.) but not for
something that is also important to the entire community. But, you're
right. It'll never happen. I can just picture Apusanakwat (or whatever)
now.
Kevin Thomas
: Maybe it's because they won't be spending 1930's or whatever dollars... How much
: did Lambeau Field cost? I bet it was less than $500,000. When the Packers get
: ready for a new NFL quality stadium, it could realistically cost upwards of a
: billion dollars.
Lambeau was built in 1950 (or so) for 1 million (or so).
: Does Wisconsin have a state lottery?
By law lottery proceeds can only go for property tax relief.
The politics in each city can be very different. After what we went
through in Milwaukee for the baseball stadium I doubt if Lambeau is going
to have much luck with public assistance. They were talking about
improving Lambeau right after the Superbowl when the euphoria was at its
peak but just about anyone could turn into a Packer-Hater if you linked
such improvements with public assistance.
: You never made a mistake? Well they didn't show up for SBXXXII, that's for sure.
: At least I can understand the differences between the costs of building a
: stadium in the 40's or 50's vs. now...
Of course I make mistakes. I'm not an expert on football and don't need to
pretend to be one like you, Spike. I don't need to resort to name calling
and I don't need to go to the Cowboys newsgroup just to out-troll the
trolls in my newsgroup. You got something to say? Go ahead and say it
without insulting our intelligence. Each team has a percentage of fans who
are twits. Must you be in that grouping?
Bob
>Hoo boy, you should free lance for all those teams who need new stadiums. Now
>you're talking about the perceived benefits, not whether the city or state
>actually put up any money.
Depending on how they want to do the deal I might work for some of
them :)
Actually the perceived benefits are about the only way to measure the
stuff. When San Diego put together the group to get a new baseball
only stadium for the Padres they went to check out Baltimore,
Arlington, Denver and other cities that have built them to see how it
helped the surrounding areas. That's how you have to sell the stuff.
(and it got them a $400m complex).
>BTW, the state also paid for about $70 million in infrastructure for the new
>stadium. But I guess roads to the stadium benefit the overall community as
>well, huh? ]
Actually if you've been to that part of Maryland, yes, the roads will
help. Rush hour into the city sucks up there.
jaymar
<dse...@netnet.net> wrote:
> >Personally, I would like to have open gaming and let the casinos pay for
> >such projects.
>
> Yep, but the Oneidas won't like that one bit. This probably won't happen.
The Oneidas actually wanted to enter into a deal to provide revenue to the
Packers but the NFL frowns on that. Like no one bets on football
games--duh.
Each of the 72 counties in the state could decide to set up a special
taxing district in which one-tenth of one penny would be added to the
sales tax in that county to fund the GB Packers. Mandatory five year
referendum to continue the tax each year.
Think about it. Local control, local choice.
jaymar
Jerome Jahnke
jay...@discover-net.net (jaymar) wrote:
> Each of the 72 counties in the state could decide to set up a special
> taxing district in which one-tenth of one penny would be added to the
> sales tax in that county to fund the GB Packers. Mandatory five year
> referendum to continue the tax each year.
>
> Think about it. Local control, local choice.
Think about it, millions of dollars in unsold shares of stock, not only do
you help out the Pack, you get to vote. Have you gotten yours yet? If not
kwitcherbitchin. The Pack has a built in revenue generator, don't piss off
municipalities by forcing a tax to support a football team, that is just
plain stupid.
Jer,
daryn kobylinski
Jerome Jahnke wrote in message ...
No, go ahead, tax me, then the viking fans in Wisconsin can have a vote in
the Packer organization. You guys in here ever here about a little piece of
history called the Boston tea party. It's called Taxation Without
Representation. For Christs sakes this is a game, not the government.
Jerome Jahnke
<dary...@fullfeed.lse.com> wrote:
> No, go ahead, tax me, then the viking fans in Wisconsin can have a vote in
> the Packer organization. You guys in here ever here about a little piece of
> history called the Boston tea party. It's called Taxation Without
> Representation. For Christs sakes this is a game, not the government.
Hey John Hancock, you do realize that any tax issue is done by your
representatives, you know that the words representation and
representatives share the same root... It is a stupid idea, but if it
passes your representatives did indeed represent you, they may have sold
you down the river, but you voted fer em, and if you didn't you didn't
campaign hard enough for your candidate.
The Taxation Without Representation that we revolted against really was
different.
Jer,
jaymar
> Jerome Jahnke wrote in message ...
> >In article <jaymar-0402...@ndial173.ecol.net>,
> >jay...@discover-net.net (jaymar) wrote:
> >
> >> Each of the 72 counties in the state could decide to set up a special
> >> taxing district in which one-tenth of one penny would be added to the
> >> sales tax in that county to fund the GB Packers. Mandatory five year
> >> referendum to continue the tax each year.
> >>
> >> Think about it. Local control, local choice.
>
> No, go ahead, tax me, then the viking fans in Wisconsin can have a vote in
> the Packer organization. You guys in here ever here about a little piece of
> history called the Boston tea party. It's called Taxation Without
> Representation. For Christs sakes this is a game, not the government.
Hmmm, does that mean you are opposed to replacing the HUMP dome with a new
stadium? Now, let's see--how was the Target Center built? Hmmmmm---where
did the NHL Minnesota Wild get their money for their new building?
My plan actually allows local control in each county. It is more
representative of the wishes of the people in each area of the state than
stadium deals in which the state legislature, rather than the governing
body of each county, makes the decision.
jaymar