Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Charlotte “unlikely” to contribute taxpayer money for new Panthers headquarters


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, 3838 said:

The 3000 lb elephant in the room so to speak, is the worn out threat of moving. The problem with that is there are few to places left to "run to" that are not already suffering from budget shortfalls. Translation : no tax money. And forget San Antonio or Austin...like the Jerry Jones/Janice McNair cabal is going to let that happen. Gillette Wyoming? Omaha Nebraska? Roswell New Mexico? The Charlotte TV market is larger than roughly a dozen markets with existing NFL teams  Sorry haters, the Carolinas are "stuck" with the Panthers.

👆☝️👊

Panthers aren't going anywhere, period.  

Hopefully the knothead Mayor and cast of dolts on CLT City Council can figure that out before handing out a bunch of our cash to a billionaire....  🤦‍♂️

Voting season coming fast folks...

...be sure to vote the issues, not the party ticket 👊.

Edited by SizzleBuzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 4Corners said:

There is nothing more American than a filthy rich white guy shaking down a city struggling to pay front line workers, teachers, and police/fire depts to build an obscene and excessive mega stadium for his sports team.  Disgusting 

Like Bob Johnson...?

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Don't care.  Incentives are necessary if you want your community to thrive.   Just as building roads and infrastructure are necessary.   Otherwise, we can watch the best and brightest move away to places that do provide incentives.  

I do think that sports teams get more than they deserve as they don't bring in as much revenue as they think they do.  But I support incentives in general as a necessary evil.  

Incentives can be an important tool when used properly. However, the economic impact of the Johnson and Wales campus which was opened in Charlotte at roughly the same time as the Panthers began playing here is far more verifiable than any similar impact by the team.

To take that idea one step further, pretty much any credible economist will tell you that small businesses are far greater job creators and engines of economic growth in aggregate than big businesses, which just seem impressive because a few of them can point to impressive individual numbers, yet the same politicians who are inclined to honk on mightily about the virtues of small business consistently penalize them by voting for tax incentives for big businesses like Google and the Panthers.

When cities and states reward big businesses with tax breaks, they put smaller businesses at a competitive disadvantage to behemoths like Amazon et al. If capitalism has a single underlying principle, it has to be that FAIR competition in the marketplace is good for everyone. Don't like your cable provider? The way the industry has effectively roadblocked competition for generations is a case study in what lack of real competition winds up looking like.

The reality is that every time government subsidizes big businesses, it is working against your economic interests as a consumer and unfairly giving greater advantage to those businesses that least need it, and inefficiently utilizing said incentives in a way that actually leads to suboptimal outcomes for job creation and economic growth.

If tax incentives are to be used as a tool of government policy (and whether they should or should not be is really a seperate discussion), the arguments that are backed by actual verifiable data and math say such incentives should be almost exclusively directed towards smaller businesses, not multinational behemoths and sports teams. That these organizations have perfected the art of extracting incentives from governments at every level points not to sound government policy, but the effectiveness of lobbying (read:legalized bribery) and their mastery of the use of the prisoner's dilemma to play one city or state off another to extract the largest concessions possible.

  • Pie 5
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo. It's crazy watching all the same folks who extoll the virtues of almighty capitalism also gleefully cheer for socialism for big business. Except the profits are never socialized, just the costs. It's a helluva gig if you can get it. Meanwhile, folks wonder where all the small businesses are going...

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Bingo. It's crazy watching all the same folks who extoll the virtues of almighty capitalism also gleefully cheer for socialism for big business. Except the profits are never socialized, just the costs. It's a helluva gig if you can get it. Meanwhile, folks wonder where all the small businesses are going...

I would be perfectly happy with government subsidies for NFL teams if they were all like my second favorite NFL team:

The Green Bay Packers. You want socialized costs? Fine, let's socialize the profits, otherwise GTFO.

But that will never happen since everyone knows socialism of anything is a horrible idea. I mean we can all see what a horribly run organization the Packers have always been. Lord knows they could learn a thing or two from a model of privately owned sports success like the Browns.

Now everyone who hates socialism voluntarily withdraw from Social Security, Medicare and any VA benefits you might have from serving in the military before presenting your counterarguments, lest ye be guilty of naked hypocrisy.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

That these organizations have perfected the art of extracting incentives from governments at every level points not to sound government policy, but the effectiveness of lobbying (read:legalized bribery) and their mastery of the use of the prisoner's dilemma to play one city or state off another to extract the largest concessions possible.

Either that or the Charlotte City Council are a bunch of pussies and afraid to call the bluff of the team owner (unlike the Governor who did call his bluff)...

...Panthers were never going to L.A., the chance was exactly 0.00%.  

Votes have consequences, keep it in mind when the upcoming polling takes place 👊.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I would be perfectly happy with government subsidies for NFL teams if they were all like my second favorite NFL team:

The Green Bay Packers. You want socialized costs? Fine, let's socialize the profits, otherwise GTFO.

Where do you think the "profits" generated by the Green Bay Packers go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:
14 hours ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Where do you think the "profits" generated by the Green Bay Packers go?

Back to the city, which is why I brought them up as the example.

The city of Green Bay has no claim to any of the revenues or profits (nor do they participate in the losses for that matter) generated by the Packers.

The Packers have a long-term joint-lease with the city and stadium-authority that requires them to make payments in order to conduct operations within Lambeau Field.  They also have certain financial obligations as it goes to field and stadium maintenance.  Also, from time to time they do contribute cash when the city/stadium-authority makes upgrades to or expands Lambeau.

The Packers also have a charitable foundation from which they make hundreds of cash grants (generally less than $10k per) to a wide swath of local organizations — the aggregate of all contributions is slightly less than $2 million, foundation financials here:  https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/391577137_201903_990PF_2020112517457883.pdf

The Packers are very well run and are almost always profitable but those net-earnings are retained/reinvested by the Packers, they are not turned over to the city.

 

 

4D7E0C83-AE66-42AA-AD97-E987FD25BC85.jpeg

Edited by SizzleBuzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2022 at 10:41 AM, 3838 said:

The 3000 lb elephant in the room so to speak, is the worn out threat of moving. The problem with that is there are few to places left to "run to" that are not already suffering from budget shortfalls. Translation : no tax money. And forget San Antonio or Austin...like the Jerry Jones/Janice McNair cabal is going to let that happen. Gillette Wyoming? Omaha Nebraska? Roswell New Mexico? The Charlotte TV market is larger than roughly a dozen markets with existing NFL teams  Sorry haters, the Carolinas are "stuck" with the Panthers.

Oh and he would have to get 3/4 of the other owners to approve moving away from one of the fastest growing cities in the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2022 at 10:49 PM, 1of10Charnatives said:

Sports stadiums should never have been publicly funded to begin with. All major sports leagues are private businesses and extremely profitable ones at that. Why scarce public dollars should ever be spent to subsidize facilities for these teams is just the most obvious proof of our distorted priorities in a sports obsessed culture. 

Before anyone puts forward the tired economic impact arguments that have been trotted out ad naseum in the past, they should know these arguments have been largely debunked by economists as not being backed by any hard verifiable data.  If you can't back it up with hard math, it's an opinion.

Ask yourself this: How much money do you want taken out of the state budget for roads, your kids schools and public parks in your town to build a sports stadium for a team where every recognizable public figure associated with that team makes way more than you do?

If it was such a great, surefire investment, then he'd want to build it for himself and pocket all of the money. Right?

Tepper's record for property development seems to echo his ability for team development. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just because all draft picks are a gamble doesn't mean you don't have a better chance at hitting on a better player the higher you're drafting. It would literally be like someone saying, I'll give you 1 or 2 free spins on a slot machine, and you say you'll take the 1 because you're not likely to win anything anyways with 1 or 2, so why bother? The Cowboys desperately wanted T-Mac, but because they were 4 picks behind us, they weren't able to get him.  If you told Cowboys fans that had they lost 2 more games last year in a lost season, that it would get them the player they wanted so badly, would they in retrospect go back and lose those games to get their guy? 95% of them would take that trade off in a heartbeat, and the others who wouldn't are the fans who would rather enjoy an extra win or two in a poo season to then set themselves up to be better for the next decade. I also think the fans who argue against this thinking, get too caught up in the "well that means you're going to be rooting against us late in the season even if we still have a shot at the playoffs." Which isn't true, it's saying if you're telling me right now we'd make the playoffs but lose in the first round, that I'd rather end up 8-9 or 9-8 and just miss the playoffs because in our opinion, the benefits that come along with that outweigh the benefit of the players getting 1 game of playoff experience.
    • In relation to tanking. I think you can count on one hand the number of people here who actually want us to lose football games. When accounting for it across the fanbase it amounts to maybe 2% of the entire Panthers fanbase. But you engage with some internet trolls and think haters are coming out of the woodwork and hey look at that it's all a conspiracy that leads to Bryce Young haters. Do you hear yourself sir? If it sounds ridiculous that's because it is. I mean at this point do you see Bryce haters in your dreams? As far as the culture of this franchise goes we seem to be doing better in that department via what we are building right now and with the people we have in place. But we also shouldn't just make assumptions just yet either. The rubber still needs to meet the road. And going back to previous seasons I think we can acknowledge although tanking obviously isn't a thing there were some times where we thought our culture was improving but really it wasn't. Yes I'm looking directly at some of those wins under Wilks. If the culture had truly changed we would not have lost to the Steelers who have been mediocre for years at home the way we did and they were starting Mitch Trubisky ffs. We did not change our culture for the better and we won games that ultimately meant nothing. It was just a brief mirage. We've done this for years now. The harsh truth of the matter is the Panthers have not had a winning season or been to the playoffs in going on 8 years but in those years they've been trying to convince themselves they aren't poo but in the process all they've done throughout most of that time period is squander better draft position and we were still the worst team in the league for our troubles. At the end of the day we should be able to just be adults and reconcile with that. And no that isn't being "pro tank" or any other boogeyman term it's simply recognizing reality.
    • He's an asset in a game manager role. But as soon as you have to ask him to go out there and try to make plays and not just take what the defense is giving him... well, Darnolding happens.
×
×
  • Create New...