HumanCockroach wrote:Seattle is fortunate in that regard, not close to the rule...
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.
Perhaps, but there's nothing keeping other cities from following Seattle's example of how to do it correctly.
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.
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).
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.
A contribution is warranted, the whole enchilada( plus profits from that enchilada)? No way, no how.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests