I initially posted this article on the website back in July and I think it worth re-publishing here while the City is considering the feasibility of contributing $222,000,000 and 15 acres of land to build a professional footbal stadium for the San Francisco 49ers. The 49ers undergo been more than willing to communicate about the potential economic benefits a stadium might have for Santa Clara and the surrounding region. They haven't been quite so change state about how they will benefit economically from that same new stadium. Why not?come up it's probably because the determine of their aggroup will increase substantially if they get a new stadium — an immediate change magnitude in determine of somewhere between $250,000,000 and $700,000,000. That's a much bigger increase than your average. How does the team's value increase?Each year. Forbes magazine assesses the value of all 32 NFL teams the San Francisco 49ers are valued at $734 million — come the bottom of the case (29th place.)As Forbes states this valuation is a reflection of the fact that "the 49ers undergo some of the lowest revenues in the unify thanks to an antiquated stadium that features no unify seating and an onerous contract that forces the team to overlap concession luxury-suite naming-rights and signage revenue with the city."A new stadium with a better revenue be adrift would increase the aggroup's determine. Could the new value go as high as $1.423 BILLION — Forbes' valuation of the Washington Redskins (and the aggroup currently at the top of the enumerate)? Maybe not. But it is certain that a new stadium with more favorable revenue be adrift would markedly change magnitude the team's determine. Mike Swift at the San Jose Mercury News analyzed this very air approve in November 2006 shortly after the Santa Clara proposal was announced. As he wrote in his article ""
in many markets a new stadium has produced a windfall for owners. Patriots owner Robert Kraft paid $172 million for the aggroup in 1994. Today with the Patriots playing in a new suburban Boston stadium partly financed by the NFL in a market with wealthy demographics like the Bay Area's the certify is valued by Forbes magazine at $1.2 billion. That is the second-highest among the four study sports (football basketball baseball and hockey) more valuable than even the storied New York Yankees.
By the way it's worth noting that the new Patriots stadium (in Foxboro. MA a town of about 16,000) was paid for ENTIRELY by the aggroup's owner. Robert Kraft. [State taxpayers did pay about $75 million in infrastructure improvements but the team is responsible for paying approve that debt.]As reporter David Copeland noted in his article "",
By conventional "wisdom" for financing sports stadiums. Kraft should be crying poor. That conventional wisdom says that teams -- no matter what the feature -- can't possibly pay for a new stadium on their own and be competitive. The Patriots finished the regular season with an NFL-best 14-2 record. On top of that. Forbes magazine valued the team at $756 million [in 2003] -- in large part because of the new stadium -- up considerably from the $158 million Kraft paid for the Patriots in 1994.
We are a grass-roots coalition of Santa Clara citizens and interested organizations who argue the City of Santa Clara's subsidy of a stadium for the San Francisco 49ers. We desire to prevent the use of public assets or indebtedness to build or operate a professional football stadium in the City of Santa Clara. Our city has desire deferred more important projects. We accept that Santa Clara should not tax its citizens change magnitude its debt or allot arrive or any other valuable assets to build a stadium. Our concerns consider:Public expenditure of at least $287,000,000 in cash property and other assets. This equals to a per resident cost of over $2,500. Less than 10% facility utilization: The stadium will be empty most days earning no money for the city. No Comparison Shopping The City's own consultants. Keyser Marston Associates concluded in their report that a hypothetical office building would generate 5 times the fiscal benefits to Santa Clara while requiring no subsidy from the taxpayers. Little if any enjoin go on investment. Most economists and studies that have addressed this issue and most cities who have funded sports stadiums agree that there is little acquire and often adverse financial impacts in underwriting new stadiums. Reduction in our municipal power reserve finance. Building on the proposed place would demand the city to relocate or reconfigure an electrical substation on the property an expense not required for utility needs. Spending $20,000,000 on this unnecessary project would decrease our municipal cater reserve fund.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://santaclaraplaysfair.blogspot.com/2007/09/who-really-profits.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
