Jump to content

- - - - -

Government Stadium Funding vs Panther Economic Impact

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1 reply to this topic

#1 TheMaulClaw



  • Joined: 10-December 08
  • posts: 3,686
  • Reputation: 1,167

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:52 PM

Seems there is a debate between two sides. I firmly believe that the state funding was in the best interest of the state, the Panthers, and the people. The Panthers over the life of the team has been good to the city especially from an economic perspective. They've provided a lot of economic cash flow through the city, much more then what they're receiving. I think Jerry Richardson tried to hold off as long as he could, but with his health it's the only way he can bind the team to city. I think those who oppose the funding might not understand the full scale of the microeconomics at play here. For example, if the Panthers packed their bags a lot of pubs, sports bars, restaurants would take a significant financial hit. Sports bars rely on football for survival, and the Panthers leaving would turn away a lot customers and put a lot of employees at risk.

I would think most Huddlers on here feel the same way as well.

#2 Doc Holiday

Doc Holiday


  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,287
  • Reputation: 910

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:07 PM

Just from a tax revenue generated perspective it would be idiotic for the state to not help the Panthers out.

A conservative estimate for the Panthers would put tax revenue generated every year from players salaries alone at nearly $40m a year. That's not including merchandise sales tax, food and beverage, hotels, car rentals ticket sales ect. State whining over $62m is hysterical