D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
The team was able to increase local revenue, which it doesn't have to share with other franchises, by nearly 11 percent to $186.2 million.
http://pckrs.com/wc93
http://pckrs.com/wc93
The Packers are the barometer for the rest of the league, being the only team that discloses financial information. I assume that we are in the top third of teams in terms of NOI, mostly due to our consistent sell-outs and strong merchandise sales. None of the teams actually lose money consistently, so they are all somewhere in this spectrum of positive profits. What bugs me is that over 30 years (the current average stadium lifespan in the NFL), teams can't set aside more of this profit for new stadiums. What really needs to happen is that lawmakers need to sit down with the NFL and NFLPA to negotiate how salaries and profits are distributed so that teams can pay for their own stadiums without taxing Joe Smith.
I bought a share of Packers stock in 2011 to put my money where my mouth was about tax-payer funded stadiums. I wanted to support the renovation for my team. Teams should either fund their own stadiums or raise private capital.
Off my soapbox.
The Packers are the barometer for the rest of the league, being the only team that discloses financial information. I assume that we are in the top third of teams in terms of NOI, mostly due to our consistent sell-outs and strong merchandise sales. None of the teams actually lose money consistently, so they are all somewhere in this spectrum of positive profits. What bugs me is that over 30 years (the current average stadium lifespan in the NFL), teams can't set aside more of this profit for new stadiums. What really needs to happen is that lawmakers need to sit down with the NFL and NFLPA to negotiate how salaries and profits are distributed so that teams can pay for their own stadiums without taxing Joe Smith.
I bought a share of Packers stock in 2011 to put my money where my mouth was about tax-payer funded stadiums. I wanted to support the renovation for my team. Teams should either fund their own stadiums or raise private capital.
Off my soapbox.
I already did kick in several hundred bucks, and would consider it again if asked. That said, I think that the teams should pay 100%. They have the wherewithal. That's not in dispute. They just prefer to pay it out in player salaries and owner's compensation because nobody forces them to save for a new house.
Actually yes I would and I would consider kicking in 200 to make up for one stock holder that doesn't support the idea.I asked my buddy Joe Smith about this and he agrees with you 100%. His brother John said "what do I care Its Joe's problem not mine"
So you are an owner. If, during the next Lambeau renovation, they said "we are not going to implement a sales tax on the community, instead we are going to ask each owner to kick in 100 bucks" would you support that? After all, that's the biggest beef about publicly funded stadiums, the owners are the ones that should pony up.
As with almost everything else we discuss, I'd say it's a matter of degree. There is some number representing the tax benefits of having the team (e.g., visitors on game day), so having owners completely fund the stadiums isn't fair, either.
Unfortunately, that did not work here in the Twin Cities. Ziggy Wilf threatened to move the Vikings to LA, and the Mpls city council blinked. All the income from Super Bowls will not make up for that price tag. And, of course, the taxpayers are left with the bill.The Packers are the barometer for the rest of the league, being the only team that discloses financial information. I assume that we are in the top third of teams in terms of NOI, mostly due to our consistent sell-outs and strong merchandise sales. None of the teams actually lose money consistently, so they are all somewhere in this spectrum of positive profits. What bugs me is that over 30 years (the current average stadium lifespan in the NFL), teams can't set aside more of this profit for new stadiums. What really needs to happen is that lawmakers need to sit down with the NFL and NFLPA to negotiate how salaries and profits are distributed so that teams can pay for their own stadiums without taxing Joe Smith.
I bought a share of Packers stock in 2011 to put my money where my mouth was about tax-payer funded stadiums. I wanted to support the renovation for my team. Teams should either fund their own stadiums or raise private capital.
Off my soapbox.
A couple of points:I've done a lot of tax research on this in the course of my career, and the communities never ever get the payback. Not even close. From a pure dollar value, there are much better ways to spend taxpayer dollars. Having a sports team though is often thought of as a good "community" investment, bringing citizens together. Only small communities such as Green Bay come close to benefiting because so many of the fans come from outside of the county.
At the very least, the proportion should be limited to public infrastructure improvements (roads, sewers, parking, etc.) which is a more typical relationship that you would have between a private developer and a city.
There is no question in my mind that the taxpayers are funding the stadium district, whether or not this is what Harlan envisioned. Probably not. The initial stages were intended to put the franchise on firmer financial footing.Agreed HRE - good "couple of points".
I don't know whether Harlan's dream extended to the Disneyland type development that we're seeing unfold before our eyes. I also somehow see what is being proposed in the Lambeau district in the form of the restaurants and hotels proposed as not being intended for "the average Joe and the family". I sincerely doubt that I would be part of the preferred demographic at the Kohler hotel. There is a lot of money going into that area ... and it could be argued that the seed money came from tax dollars. In the grand scheme of things, a one-half of one-percent sales tax in Brown County for ... what 15 years? ... put a lot of money into the Packers reserve which has everything to do with their financial success today and, as you said... winning. The two things do indeed go hand in glove.
Here is an interesting point that was buried in there and immediately caught my attention:
"The question remains as to what degree the spending in this stadium district will cannibalize current spending elsewhere in the community vs. the amount of increase in out-of-area spending. Much of this depends on whether the district becomes a destination for outside spending on other than game weeks."
I'm immediately reminded of the Experimental Aircraft Association Fly-in held annually in Oshkosh - about 60 miles south of Green Bay on I-41. If you're not familiar with the E.A.A. Airshow, it is a biggie in the aviation world and pulls give-or-take a half million to three-quarters of a million aviation buffs to Oshkosh. If you've tried to get a hotel room in northeastern and east central Wisconsin, at the end of July...you know what I'm talking about.
The event is held at Wittman Field in Oshkosh. This airfield sits largely empty and lightly used for all but essentially 3 weeks out of the year, but has two runways that can accommodate the Concorde and Air Force One. In short, this airfield is a publicly funded playground for EAA and as a property tax payer in Winnebago County and the City of Oshkosh, the amount of funding to maintain this monument to excess has not escaped my attention.
I moved to Oshkosh first in 1979-80 and have lived here off-and-on since then. Continuously since 1993. (Married an Oshkosh girl and made the mistake of moving her back near "Mom". YOUNG GUYS...DON'T EVER DO THAT!!! Back in the day, EAA was a sight to behold. Folks from all over the world converging on Oshkosh generated untold millions as they flocked to the downtown area - well, they took over the city to be honest, but talk about GOOD people drawn by this event. At the time, I managed a bar downtown and the economic impact was highly evident in the business district. It was unbelievable AND fantastic.
Once I graduated from college and set out to points all over the state, I kind of lost touch with the EAA but when we moved back, EVERYTHING had changed. The EAA broadened their offerings on the grounds...restaurants were opened, merchants (beyond aircraft parts) were allowed to set up tents and they began to offer liquor and what-not (it's always the "what-not" that'll get you). Putting a HUGE dent into what "Chamber-type" folks like to call the economic impact of an event. The downtown business people have seen and continue to see dwindling revenues from this event...and me?...well, I can get home from work without being tied up in huge traffic jams for an extra hour. In short, the amount of welfare that the Winnebago County taxpayers toss in the general direction of the EAA frankly doesn't trickle down to anyone but the hospitality industry anymore. It pretty much stays in the pocket of the E.A.A.
The EAA comparison to the Packer Stadium development might be a bit extreme because as I said, I'm not believing that the likes of The Stadium View or Kroll's will be impacted much because the stuff proposed for that area may or may not be intended for the Game Day experience of those of us who live here. We'll still go gameday and fire up the grill in someone's backyard that we pay $20 to park in. For the sake of illustrating your point though ... I don't see Holmgren Way suffering much really.