HawkShack.com

Just heard on John Clayton show that Chris Hansen's Arena Investment Group (includes Nordstroms and others, iirc) has agreed to self-finance (no public money required) a new arena in SoDo.

They also agreed to pay for an over-pass for something down there that would probably require it (Port of Seattle?), or maybe just the cost overruns or something.

I think this is a SIGNIFICANT new development, and big news for anyone that cares about the Sonics returning to Seattle. Personally I'm not a big NBA fan, but it would be fantastic for the city.

Here's a link to the story:

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/nba/ ... odo-arena/

I don't think the other owners will take kindly to Hansen's offer to self finance as they would be afraid of the precedent it would set. Can you imagine citizens in Milwaukee asking why if Seattle can self finance their arena, why can't they?

The owners definitely won't like that precedent, but it's high time it started working that way. I like professional sports as much as the next guy, but the way they hold cities hostage for money is deplorable. You want to make them a business partner (i.e. have them put up money), fine, but cut them in on the action for whatever product the venue puts on.

Hat's off to the Hansen group for the desire to handle it this way.

Always been my biggest Blanche as well. The idea that the city foots the majority of the bill ( meaning WE foot the majority of the bill) with the team reaping the bulk of the reward ( as well as holding fans of the teams over a barrel when it comes to attending the events or purchasing their paraphernalia) with the explanation that it improves hotel/bar/ shop economy has always offended me.

You want all the profit, pay for all of the Damn arena.

I don't disagree with any of the assertions that perhaps private funding *is* most appropriate for arenas that don't share revenue with the public, etc, but let's be honest- an NFL stadium and team *is* a significant win for a city.

I'm not saying it's necessarily worth the cost (that depends on the cost), but most (all?) of that cost, at least in Seattle's case, came from sales tax within the city, and mostly only on those things that benefit directly from the presence of the stadiums and teams.

Further, compare downtown Seattle, hell, the entire Puget Sound area, with and without the Seahawks and Mariners, and tell me they weren't worth the cost of keeping them.

Seattle is fortunate in that regard, not close to the rule...

The only way that we're going to fix the problem of taxpayers footing a large share of financing for big time professional sporting venues is if the federal government gets involved and passes some type of legislation prohibiting or severely limiting public money being spent on these ventures. Otherwise, owners will continue to play one city against the other.

A friend of mine said that the NFL lost a huge asset when they allowed the Rams to move to LA because they lost a powerful weapon of which they have used over the past 20 years to leverage public financing of their new stadiums.

HumanCockroach wrote:Seattle is fortunate in that regard, not close to the rule...

Perhaps, but there's nothing keeping other cities from following Seattle's example of how to do it correctly.

Your friend might be right. Once the precedent has been set, others will try to force owners into paying more if not all of it.
It depends on whether the NFL restricts movement of franchises when that happens or if they give them carte blanche if a city puts on the pressure.
If they allow freer movement of teams, then it won't have much effect, I would think.

burrrton wrote:Perhaps, but there's nothing keeping other cities from following Seattle's example of how to do it correctly.

Not all cities are created equal. The big markets have a huge advantage in that they have a large corporate presence and more advertising opportunities. Others, say Portland OR, will struggle to acquire private financing if they want to build a stadium. That is, unless they have a set-up like the Packers have where they do not have a majority owner and can raise funds by selling stock in the team. The Packers financed their stadium renovations with all private funding, plus they didn't whore off their naming rights like nearly every other team does.

That would be one of the problems with the feds getting involved. It would deny a city like Portland to make a pitch for a big league team as they wouldn't be allowed to help out with public financing and there isn't enough private money to pull it off.

Not all cities are created equal. The big markets have a huge advantage in that they have a large corporate presence and more advertising opportunities. Others, say Portland OR, will struggle to acquire private financing if they want to build a stadium. That is, unless they have a set-up like the Packers have where they do not have a majority owner and can raise funds by selling stock in the team. The Packers financed their stadium renovations with all private funding, plus they didn't whore off their naming rights like nearly every other team does.

That would be one of the problems with the feds getting involved. It would deny a city like Portland to make a pitch for a big league team as they wouldn't be allowed to help out with public financing and there isn't enough private money to pull it off.

True, and you know River, what a big sports fan I am, however the use of the Billions for sports stadiums is getting nauseating. The Rangers want a new stadium already! Come on, how many kids could we educate with kind of money?? When is enough enough!

Big markets have a huge advantage in virtually every aspect- that will never change.

My point is public money from the right sources to help bring a great asset to a city may not work everywhere, but it's not a strategy that will only work in Seattle.

With regard to Portland, why would they struggle to acquire private financing any more than Seattle would? They're both small-ish cities all things considered.

Perhaps, but there's nothing keeping other cities from following Seattle's example of how to do it correctly.

True, so long as they don't mind losing the team to another city willing to foot the bill... There's certainly something to be said about having an owner not seeking to rape a city, unfortunately for most cities that isn't the case. Seattle was fortunate, not stronger, or more intelligent than other cities dealing with these owners. Ultimately, some owners are tied to cities, teams, history and fans, some are tied to dollars and nothing more. Simply the nature of the beast. That said, I'm not sure how anyone could be supportive of the way those owners hold cities and fans over a barrel to line their own pockets.

burrrton wrote:Big markets have a huge advantage in virtually every aspect- that will never change.

My point is public money from the right sources to help bring a great asset to a city may not work everywhere, but it's not a strategy that will only work in Seattle.

With regard to Portland, why would they struggle to acquire private financing any more than Seattle would? They're both small-ish cities all things considered.

When Portland was going up against Washington, DC for what are now the Nationals, one of the big drawbacks Portland had was their lack of a corporate presence. I saw a comparison where Seattle had a far larger corporate presence. The other problem with Portland is that they'd make two small markets out of one mid size market (Seattle).

RiverDog wrote:When Portland was going up against Washington, DC for what are now the Nationals, one of the big drawbacks Portland had was their lack of a corporate presence. I saw a comparison where Seattle had a far larger corporate presence. The other problem with Portland is that they'd make two small markets out of one mid size market (Seattle).

I'm sure there's more to it than I'm aware of, but Portland has a huge presence with Intel and Nike- is it the raw number of large corporations that would be the difference maker? I might be missing the gist of the argument.

HumanCockroach wrote:True, so long as they don't mind losing the team to another city willing to foot the bill... There's certainly something to be said about having an owner not seeking to rape a city, unfortunately for most cities that isn't the case. Seattle was fortunate, not stronger, or more intelligent than other cities dealing with these owners. Ultimately, some owners are tied to cities, teams, history and fans, some are tied to dollars and nothing more. Simply the nature of the beast. That said, I'm not sure how anyone could be supportive of the way those owners hold cities and fans over a barrel to line their own pockets.

To whatever degree they're simply lining their pockets, we don't really disagree, but then, people making money is what delivers pro sports to us, right? No owner is doing it as a write-off, and the players aren't doing it for $30K/yr, right?

Either way, though, why should we care to protect cities that don't want to pay anything for a team from losing that team? Or in other words, if a pro team is worth having to the city (aka the public), isn't some public contribution warranted?

Why do we think the public shouldn't have to pay anything for what (apparently) is considered something worth keeping?

A contribution is warranted, the whole enchilada( plus profits from that enchilada)? No way, no how.

There's a difference between equal investment, and straight up prison rape. Far to many of these situations are the latter.

A contribution is warranted, the whole enchilada( plus profits from that enchilada)? No way, no how.

I agree, but in theory, shouldn't that be a decision each city gets to make?

It already is, not in theory, but reality. Doesn't mean I have applaud the raping while they're doing it.

burrrton wrote:I'm sure there's more to it than I'm aware of, but Portland has a huge presence with Intel and Nike- is it the raw number of large corporations that would be the difference maker? I might be missing the gist of the argument.

It's been awhile ago, but I can distinctly remember the Seattle-Portland comparison, and Seattle had a much larger corporate presence (Microsoft and Amazon trumps Nike and Intel, I suppose). There wasn't a lot of individuals living in the Portland area that could be considered potential owners. Portland was at a disadvantage vs. Washington DC in everything except for a working stadium plan.