Houston Taxpayers To Pay For Stadium Upgrades that Kraft Pays On His Own Here

Harris County taxpayers to pay the $50 million cost of installing WiFi and upgrading the suites at NRG Stadium.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...eds-50-million-in-upgrades-for-super-bowl-li/

In fairness, if the only team we could see was Houston we would also be willing to pay whatever was necessary to get Netflix streaming to the stadium.

Not a fan of corporate welfare. This is dumb.

they should put that money into upgrading that field!

I am sure the taxpayers will be able to use the WiFi for free.. since they paid for it.. you know.. /s

So will all the taxpayers that are paying to upgrade those suites be able to use them, then? What a joke.

Apparently folks here are well up on the politics and economics of stadium building in Houston. Yes, we COULD limit team ownership to those billionaires who are willing to use their own money to build and upgrade stadiums. The NFL is NOT going to do that. The NFL leaves open the option of having cities support their teams financially withe tax breaks and direct funding. There are many models.

I think it is easy for those in NE to say that other cities shouldn't contribute to stadiums. After all, we have a billionaire who uses his own money, and we have the most successful franchise in the NFL. Perhaps if one of these ingredients were missing then those in NE might also be willing to support a stadium.
=============
But maybe not. After all, folks in Boston were willing to allow the team to move to Hartford or St Louis. We have Kraft to thank. Perhaps other cities are not so willing to let their team leave.

WTF. FIX THE DAMN FIELD.

NFL should be forcing them to

The Brandon Five said:

Not a fan of corporate welfare. This is dumb.

Click to expand...

Dumber would have been to reject the proposal and lose the team. Tax money alone will easily pay beck the $50M, and that ignores the positive effect on the economy of having a team.

Yes, this kind of funding can be overdone. The alternative is to have all teams owned by billionaires who are willing fund everything out of their pockets.

mgteich said:

Apparently folks here are well up on the politics and economics of stadium building in Houston. Yes, we COULD limit team ownership to those billionaires who are willing to use their own money to build and upgrade stadiums. The NFL is NOT going to do that. The NFL leaves open the option of having cities support their teams financially withe tax breaks and direct funding. There are many models.

I think it is easy for those in NE to say that other cities shouldn't contribute to stadiums. After all, we have a billionaire who uses his own money, and we have the most successful franchise in the NFL. Perhaps if one of these ingredients were missing then those in NE might also be willing to support a stadium.
=============
But maybe not. After all, folks in Boston were willing to allow the team to move to Hartford or St Louis. We have Kraft to thank. Perhaps other cities are not so willing to let their team leave.

Click to expand...

Was that a parody post?

It's not just Harris County taxpayers who end up paying most likely. A portion of the financing was paid with hotel/car rental taxes. Plus the Rodeo. Houston loves its rodeo.

mgteich said:

The alternative is to have all teams owned by billionaires who are willing fund everything out of their pockets.

Click to expand...

And what is wrong with that?????

Are you advocating that the NFL should approve owners who do not have the wherewithal to fund their own stadiums, so that taxpayers foot the bill for stadiums and upgrades?

Is that the goal?

shmessy said:

And what is wrong with that?????

Are you advocating that the NFL should approve owners who do not have the wherewithal to fund their own stadiums, so that taxpayers foot the bill for stadiums and upgrades?

Is that the goal?

Click to expand...

The NFL does NOT restrict itself to owners who can buy the team, build its owns stadiums, and pay for upgrades for the life of the franchise. I understand that many believe that every city has a right to an NFL team with no cost paid by their taxpayers. Personally, I think that view is unreasonable. Many cities have
put up money to support their teams, from Green Bay owning the team to many others.

So, no, I don't think that fans in any way deserve a team with no possibility of paying taxes to support that team.

Texas and Mass have different politics.

mgteich said:

The NFL does NOT restrict itself to owners who can buy the team, build its owns stadiums, and pay for upgrades for the life of the franchise. I understand that many believe that every city has a right to an NFL team with no cost paid by their taxpayers. Personally, I think that view is unreasonable. Many cities have
put up money to support their teams, from Green Bay owning the team to many others.

So, no, I don't think that fans in any way deserve a team with no possibility of paying taxes to support that team.

Click to expand...

Thank you for making clear your opinion.

My opinion is NOT that "every city has a right to an NFL team with no cost to the taxpayers".

Every city can make whatever damn fool decision its people want to make as to the allocation of resources so that they become a perpetual hostage to irresponsible ownership.

It most certainly IS their right to do that, I guess.

And the fans of New England have every right to look down their noses at an Indianapolis (talk about an economic rape!) or a Baltimore or a Cincinnati or a Minneapolis.

The Greater Boston market is very fortunate (or maybe very in-demand enough) to have a Bob Kraft as an owner. It never used to be like that.

shmessy said:

And what is wrong with that?????

Are you advocating that the NFL should approve owners who do not have the wherewithal to fund their own stadiums, so that taxpayers foot the bill for stadiums and upgrades?

Is that the goal?

Click to expand...

Let's look at St Louis, LA, Oakland and San Diego.

The stadium will be privately built with no taxpayer funding, so the fans who don't go to the game will do fine. The taxpayers will do great. They will reap huge amounts of taxes and economic benefits FOR WHICH THEY HAVE PAID ZERO! So, those who see the games will pay an average of $140 per ticket, 10% of which goes to the taxpayers.

The people of St Louis are considering paying up to $400M to upgrade the stadium and keep the rams, or to draw another team if the rams leave. Citizens of both Oakland and San Diego are in similar situations.
========
BOTTOM LINE
Taxpayers should want a FAIR deal.

In LA (actually Inglewood) they will get a bonanza from the owners in extra taxes and economic growth, all paid for by those who go to the games

In St Louis, Oakland and San Diego, taxpayers will need to pay something to keep their team and get the taxes and the economic value of having a local NFL team. That is what the people of Houston have done.

Which situation is "fairer"?

shmessy said:

Thank you for making clear your opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes this is my opinion. If you were correct, then the cities of HOU, SD, OAK and St Louis wouldn't be considering how to pay for stadiums. I suspect there are more teams in this situation. If you were correct, the NFL would not have a fund that loans money to owner for stadium improvements.

So, sure the NFL would LOVE to have all their owners be billionaires who would commit to build their own stadiums and fund repairs and improvements for the next 50 years. Yes, they would. But I don't think that this is the reality. Do you?

mgteich said:

Yes this is my opinion. If you were correct, then the cities of HOU, SD, OAK and St Louis wouldn't be considering how to pay for stadiums. I suspect there are more teams in this situation. If you were correct, the NFL would not have a fund that loans money to owner for stadium improvements.

So, sure the NFL would LOVE to have all their owners be billionaires who would commit to build their own stadiums and fund repairs and improvements for the next 50 years. Yes, they would. But I don't think that this is the reality. Do you?

Click to expand...

The 4 cities you illustrate have enough problems to be desperate PAY an NFL franchise to stay located there.

The moral then is 'suck the blood out of the desperate'.

Boston is not so desperate. In fact, Boston told the NFL to take it or leave it.

Compelling stuff from both sides! I'm on the fence.

Jlaff said:

Compelling stuff from both sides! I'm on the fence.

Click to expand...

I certainly understand the desire to have a team in one's city, but some of these cities are economic hostages.....they dole out money to their team and their team leaves them anyway.

Maybe a city or a region should work on becoming an economic powerhouse first and then let the NFL fall over itself to move a franchise in. Indianapolis, St Louis, Cincinatti and Oakland are disposable napkins.....and they are treated as such.

It's a choice between being the master or the slave.