Recommended Posts

Why does everybody think it would go to SC if it moved? Why wouldnt it go up to Cabarraus county on some of the Speedway land,  They have massive field of dirt parking for races, no idea of the acreage but its plenty big with parking all over the place, 85 has been widened, 485 is close by, 

Im not a fan of the Smith family being the majority owner though, they love govt money and will take as much as they want or threaten to move until they get what they want.  If you remember, cant remember how long ago it was, maybe 10 years ago, Bruton threatened to move the speedway unless Cabarrus county let him build his drag strip and gave him more money. Nascar is dying and hurting bigly. The son screwed up the MLS bid.     

 

If the stadium had to move out of uptown, id prefer it to go to this site and not include the Smith family

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


7 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

^^^ Actually the Titans stadium in Nashville is best of both worlds. Across the river from downtown but easily walkable to the entertainment district and rest of downtown. But also for tailgaters a sea of parking around it.

Great location, particularly with the nearby pedestrian bridge.  I don't love the stadium though (think BOA is nicer).  

If they build something new in the current location, Williams Brice makes the most sense as a temporary home.  It's close and has plenty of seats.  The only reason they played at Clemson initially was because the AD at the time refused to let them play there.  It also reinforces 2states/1team. 

Not sure if it would be for sale but the current Charlotte Pipe land would seem pretty ideal for a new stadium eventually.

I don't see a need for a new stadium in the next 10-15 years.  Unlike most people on the board, I hope they do not build a domed stadium.  Fall in the Carolinas is ideal football weather and the game is better on grass, IMO. 

  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JBS said:

Great location, particularly with the nearby pedestrian bridge.  I don't love the stadium though (think BOA is nicer).  

If they build something new in the current location, Williams Brice makes the most sense as a temporary home.  It's close and has plenty of seats.  The only reason they played at Clemson initially was because the AD at the time refused to let them play there.  It also reinforces 2states/1team. 

Not sure if it would be for sale but the current Charlotte Pipe land would seem pretty ideal for a new stadium eventually.

I don't see a need for a new stadium in the next 10-15 years.  Unlike most people on the board, I hope they do not build a domed stadium.  Fall in the Carolinas is ideal football weather and the game is better on grass, IMO. 

  

nothing like the smell of smelted iron during the game. mmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

As for that stateline site only a small corner is in South Carolina so there will not be no participation from SC and quite frankly Hwy 51 goes from 4 lanes back to 2 once its get into SC.  

^^ This is exactly what I was going to state.  I don't see the town of Pineville really getting on board with this, and SC would completely shrug it off.

If the new owners are going for a more suburban location, I feel the land bound by Brown Grier Road to the south, Steele Creek Road to the west, and I-485 to the north would be better.  The site has approximately 325 acres and both Brown Grier Road (aka W. Arrowood Rd) and Steele Creek Road both have interstate access. Plenty of space for 20,000 parking spaces plus additional commercial and entertainment development.  Both Road frontages have direct access to 485, just need widening. 

site.thumb.JPG.277bfc0fced6778f0fcd339b0c6343b0.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Unfortunately that site of Brown Grier is slated to be developed into a Pulte home townhome community. It just won a rezoning not sure if the whole parcel but a big one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

This whole saga really sucks.  BofA is a perfectly legitimate venue for football that is capable of producing revenue numbers in line with some of the newer domed venues such as the ones in Phoenix, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis according to Forbes estimates of revenue.  And it already has many of the same upgrades that new stadiums have such as the mega video boards, ribbon boards, etc.  In fact multiple independent experts interviewed by the local media have said that there really is no need for a new stadium because BofA already has so many of these upgrades incorporated.  One of them said that the only things really missing are sideline suites and a party deck which could both be easily incorporated into BofA by reconfiguring the lower bowl like Hard Rock Stadium in Miami (not that it really means much, but it's exactly the same message that I have been evangelizing).

 Sabates' group, who, in my estimation is probably the front runner for purchasing the team is gunning so hard for a new stadium that they have already stated their intention to move the team if the city doesn't pony up based on excerpts from an interview posted in the Observer.  So Charlotte which has a stadium that is viable based on expert opinion including talking heads in the sports management world and based on revenue numbers posted in Forbes, yet it faces the possibility of losing the team if it doesn't oblige in spending what is likely to be massive amounts of taxpayer money.  And this money would likely have to come in the form of a new bond issuance which would likely require a referendum.  According to Ron Kimble, the dedicated revenue source for tourism related projects, the hotel tax, has not generated enough to cover the city's share of a new stadium should the city be asked to cover 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.  

So Charlotte will very likely face a choice in the coming year-take on massive new debt obligations which may hinder its ability to fund legitimate citywide needs and may have the added consequence of lowering your credit ratings to build an unnecessary stadium, or risk losing one of the most integral parts of your community identity and one of the few rallying points in a community that is otherwise fractured by inequality, segregation, and lack of economic mobility.

Sabate doesn't doesn't have enough cash to buy the team, his net worth is 'only' 200-400 million. While the NFL does allow groups to buy teams, the primary owner, like JR is now, is required to own at least 30% of the team. Additionally, the NFL does not allow an owner to borrow money to buy the team, so no Felix. 

Additionally, more of topic, BOA does not need to be replaced, I posted earlier in the other thread. 

JR has stated many times prior that when he would sell the team, the contract would include stipulations for the Panthers remaining here. Not sure how that will work out now. But JR does get to pick who he sells to and the other NFL owners just have to approve the sale. 

On the new owner taking the city/state hostage for a new stadium, between Amazon, the Auto factory, and everything else I am just sick and tired of that crap. It would be great if the states could come together and agree, no more of this incentive crap. If a company wants to move, let them, but let it be for the laws, regulations, atmosphere, and location. Not because the city/state sold it's soul. 

/End rant

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think for ~half the cost of a brand new stadium (plus land costs, infrastructure improvements, etc.), the new owners could suggest adding a roof to the stadium along with other general improvements.  The inherent cost savings could allow the design of the roof to be flexible and iconic, and having such an innovative solution in the downtown area could garner worldwide recognition, on top of allowing a number of new events (SB, FF, concerts, etc.) to be held as previously discussed.

 

I will leave you with the only somewhat scholarly article I could find on adding a roof/domed structure to an existing stadium:

https://www.aurecongroup.com/en/thinking/insights/future-proofing-world-leading-sports-stadia/stadium-transformation-the-ins-and-outs-of-roofing-existing-stadiums.aspx

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

BofA is a perfectly legitimate venue for football that is capable of producing revenue numbers in line with some of the newer domed venues such as the ones in Phoenix, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis according to Forbes estimates of revenue.  And it already has many of the same upgrades that new stadiums have such as the mega video boards, ribbon boards, etc.  In fact multiple independent experts interviewed by the local media have said that there really is no need for a new stadium because BofA already has so many of these upgrades incorporated.  One of them said that the only things missing are sideline suites and a party deck which could both be easily incorporated into BofA by reconfiguring the lower bowl like Hard Rock Stadium in Miami (not that it really means much, but it's exactly the same message that I have been evangelizing).

1

Except for the massive difference between Charlotte and Phoenix/Indianapolis and Minneapolis being able to schedule events without consideration of weather.  In turn, allowing them to schedule events that BofA simply can't.  

Video boards and Ribbon boards have nothing to do with revenue.  Revenue for team owners is [Club Seats/Suites x Number of NFL Games] and  [All Seating x Non-NFL Events].  

44 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

Sabates' group, who, in my estimation is probably the front runner for purchasing the team is gunning so hard for a new stadium that they have already stated their intention to move the team if the city doesn't pony up based on excerpts from an interview posted in the Observer.  

2

Why do you put the Sabates group as the front-runner?  They are the most vocal for sure but I don't see any reason why they should be considered the front-runner.  

44 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

So Charlotte will very likely face a choice in the coming year-take on massive new debt obligations which may hinder its ability to fund legitimate citywide needs and may have the added consequence of lowering your credit ratings to build an unnecessary stadium, or risk losing one of the most integral parts of your community identity and one of the few rallying points in a community that is otherwise fractured by inequality, segregation, and lack of economic mobility.

 

Unnecessary to whom?  As you said, the Panthers are an integral part of the community fabric and keeping them may very well be an essential item to many of the taxpayers.  Taxpayers may very well find it acceptable to take on debt obligations to keep the team.  Just like taxpayers take on debt obligations for other things, often for things they see no actual benefit.  

Charlotte can absolutely afford the luxury of a NFL stadium even if many find it distasteful to spend that kind of money on such a luxury.   It can also do this while focusing on other community efforts.    The moment Charlotte starts to weigh every potential spend against the progressive cry of inequality, segregation, and lack of economic mobility is the moment people should mark in their calendar as the start of the decline.   

There is a massive amount of confidence in the future of Charlotte and its trajectory.   But this confidence is based a large part on doing more of the same.  If every business, and yes the Panthers are a business, has to run the gauntlet of 'what about muh social issues' Charlotte starts to evolve to a place where businesses don't consider for relocations and growth.   Charlotte can do both.

Edited by cjd5050

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billion dollar stadium subsidy = full build out of transit plan (plus existing transit tax revenue plus federal grants)

(roughly)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Except for the massive difference between Charlotte and Phoenix/Indianapolis and Minneapolis being able to schedule events without consideration of weather.  In turn, allowing them to schedule events that BofA simply can't.  

Video boards and Ribbon boards have nothing to do with revenue.  Revenue for team owners is [Club Seats/Suites x Number of NFL Games] and  [All Seating x Non-NFL Events].  

Why do you put the Sabates group as the front-runner?  They are the most vocal for sure but I don't see any reason why they should be considered the front-runner.  

Unnecessary to whom?  As you said, the Panthers are an integral part of the community fabric and keeping them may very well be an essential item to many of the taxpayers.  Taxpayers may very well find it acceptable to take on debt obligations to keep the team.  Just like taxpayers take on debt obligations for other things, often for things they see no actual benefit.  

Charlotte can absolutely afford the luxury of a NFL stadium even if many find it distasteful to spend that kind of money on such a luxury.   It can also do this while focusing on other community efforts.    The moment Charlotte starts to weigh every potential spend against the progressive cry of inequality, segregation, and lack of economic mobility is the moment people should mark in their calendar as the start of the decline.   

There is a massive amount of confidence in the future of Charlotte and its trajectory.   But this confidence is based a large part on doing more of the same.  If every business, and yes the Panthers are a business, has to run the gauntlet of 'what about muh social issues' Charlotte starts to evolve to a place where businesses don't consider for relocations and growth.   Charlotte can do both.

With respect to the stadium/revenue issues, the revenue estimates Forbes mentions, to my knowledge, include all sources of team revenue whether it be large-scale events or home football games.  My point in bringing up places like University of Phoenix stadium is to suggest that even though they host many major events such as CFP games, Superbowls, and Final Fours, the Panthers still have similar or higher revenue numbers  despite BofA stadium's inability to host said major events.  This directly contradicts Sabates' argument that a new stadium is needed in order to produce the revenues that will justify a purchase of the team.

As for your statement about revenues not being generated from video boards and ribbon boards, it is not correct to say they produce no revenue.  They cycle advertisements on them and use them to create a more immersive fan experience so as to incentivize fans to come to the stadium rather than staying at home and watching on TV.  In that regard, they are directly tied to team revenue. However the Panthers also did a full renovation of the luxury suites and various other things to improve their revenue picture, I just did not mention them explicitly in my list of improvements.  Nonetheless, the Panthers have, for all intents and purposes,  a modern open air stadium with the exception of the sideline suites and a party deck which I previously mentioned.

With regard to the Sabates group being the lead group, I don't know if they are the lead bidders right now, it just seems that way (probably due to the fact that Sabates has been the most vocal).

As for the NFL stadium being an unnecessary expenditure, I maintain that it is unecessary to build a new stadium from a revenue standpoint based on current revenue numbers and expert opinion from multiple consultants in the sports world who have been interviewed by local news media.  However it may be necessary in the sense that it may be the only thing that keeps the team in Charlotte if an intransigent owner delivers an ultimatum threatening to move the team if the city does not oblige in funding a new stadium.  Compared to other obligations the city has, however, I will bet you'd be hard pressed to find many people other than maybe sports ownership groups that would argue that a new football stadium (for a team who already owns a relatively modern stadium outright) trumps those  other needs.  The $500 million that the public will likely have to pump into a new stadium could be used for schools, public transit, roads etc.  Now you are correct in saying that if this were put to referendum, the community may decide that keeping the Panthers is enough of a priority that they are willing to vote in favor of it at a bond referendum, but I have serious doubts as to whether that would pass given the polls that showed a lack of support for public funding in the previous round of improvements (IIRC the against:for ratio was about 2:1).  

Furthermore, it is by no means certain that the city can muster enough financial resources to both fulfill all the current/future communal needs of the city and fund a new stadium despite the rosy picture of Charlotte's growth trajectory as you suggest.  For starters, the hundreds of millions of dollars it will cost to build a new stadium million is not something that the city can just simply pluck from under the couch cushion. $500 million is not an insignificant amount, and the debt service on that amount, assuming the funds would come in the form of bonds, is going to be quite large.    

Secondly, taking on too much debt can reduce city's bond ratings resulting in higher interest rates and higher debt service costs on all future debt.  It is not inconceivable that a bond issuance for say $500 million to fund a new stadium would result in a downgrade of the city's debt by the debt rating agencies, which, in turn, would hurt Charlotte's overall financial health.  Compounding the problem is the fact that there is a very vocal group of residents in the area around Ballantyne  that want to break away from Charlotte and form a new city precisely because they believe Charlotte is too quick to throw away money on vanity projects like sports stadiums.   Their effort already has received at least some vocal support in the NCGA, and funding a new football stadium would send them into overdrive.  Since the area around Ballantyne provides much of the city's tax revenue, the city would lose a significant cash stream if they were allowed to break away.  This would further reduce Charlotte's ability to fund future needs and would most likely also result in severely damaged credit ratings.

My previous post was not meant to suggest that the Panthers or any other business has to run through the gamut of social issues as you stated.  The essence of my argument is that the city will, assuming the new owner demands a new stadium, potentially be placed in a tough spot with respect to all of its obligations whether they are financial obligations, obligations to the needs and wants of various constituencies, or the obligation to maintain some semblance of community identity to the extent that the Panthers represent that identity.  It is not just a progressive cry against inequality, segregation, or lack of economic mobility... Although if someone is so blind as to suggest that those issues aren't problematic or that they will not result in the decline of a city if left unaddressed, I don't know what to say. ;)

Edited by cltbwimob
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

I just wish they would put the $6B 'build it all now' up to a vote.  I would volunteer to campaign for that.  Would be the best thing to ever happen to this city if done.  

2001 all over again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

This is something Ive been curious about. What does a decade from now look like for the NFL, is a $1BN a worthy investment for something that will likely be less popular, and of less quality in a decade.

The best thing to do would be future proof the stadium and make it good for both Football and Soccer. If the hypothetical demise of Football ever comes, a lot of that will probably shift to Soccer. MLS prefers soccer specific stadiums, but it seems they are willing to make concessions to that. 

 

However, if the team does leave, that would probably put Charlotte even higher on the MLB list, even though rumors suggest they are already on the top of that list. The current stadium site would make a great location for a baseball stadium! I want the stadium to stay in Uptown, but baseball does a lot better in urban environments just due to the number of home games. 

Edited by Squid7085

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly just don’t think it’s necessary for another ten years. If they decide on a new stadium, I hope its around Uptown.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

With respect to the stadium/revenue issues, the revenue estimates Forbes mentions, to my knowledge, include all sources of team revenue whether it be large-scale events or home football games.  My point in bringing up places like University of Phoenix stadium is to suggest that even though they host many major events such as CFP games, Superbowls, and Final Fours, the Panthers still have similar or higher revenue numbers  despite BofA stadium's inability to host said major events.  This directly contradicts Sabates' argument that a new stadium is needed in order to produce the revenues that will justify a purchase of the team.

 

The numbers shown in Forbes is not the revenue but the Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments.  They are not the same.    There is also no logic or common sense that can explain your assertion that the stadium in Phoenix produces less than the stadium in Charlotte.  None.

 

15 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

As for the NFL stadium being an unnecessary expenditure, I maintain that it is unecessary to build a new stadium from a revenue standpoint based on current revenue numbers and expert opinion from multiple consultants in the sports world who have been interviewed by local news media.  However it may be necessary in the sense that it may be the only thing that keeps the team in Charlotte if an intransigent owner delivers an ultimatum threatening to move the team if the city does not oblige in funding a new stadium.  

3

Well if the people buying the team base their research off a Forbes listicle and what can be googled they very well may be inclined to agree with you.  Logic, on the other hand, says otherwise.  When you take on debt service that does not exist today you either need to increase revenue or lower costs.  One is a fixed in the NFL by and large.  

15 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

Compared to other obligations the city has, however, I will bet you'd be hard-pressed to find many people other than maybe sports ownership groups that would argue that a new football stadium (for a team who already owns a relatively modern stadium outright) trumps those other needs.  The $500 million that the public will likely have to pump into a new stadium could be used for schools, public transit, roads etc.  Now you are correct in saying that if this were put to referendum, the community may decide that keeping the Panthers is enough of a priority that they are willing to vote in favor of it at a bond referendum, but I have serious doubts as to whether that would pass given the polls that showed a lack of support for public funding in the previous round of improvements (IIRC the against:for ratio was about 2:1).  

2

You want to spend money on things like light rail and so do I but the reality is most people don't use it because of where they live.   You want money for roads and so do I but the reality is where I live we don't see money for roads because I'm in the wedge and our demographics don't line up.     At the end of the day, I think you really underestimate the number of people who pay more into Charlotte than they take.  Many, including myself, are happy to do so because that's how it works.  But the moment every call for a luxury which keeping the Panthers is,  is met with 'NO' that money needs to go over to here because poor people are still poor is the moment Charlotte goes down the path of failure.  

As for it not passing, that's fine.  I am not even a Panthers fan but I am a fan of Charlotte and I am a fan of living in a city that has pro sports.   At the end of the day 

15 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

Furthermore, it is by no means certain that the city can muster enough financial resources to both fulfill all the current/future communal needs of the city and fund a new stadium despite the rosy picture of Charlotte's growth trajectory as you suggest.  For starters, taking on too much debt can reduce city's bond ratings resulting in higher interest rates and higher debt service costs on all future debt.  It is not inconceivable that a bond issuance for say $500 million to fund a new stadium would result in a downgrade of the city's debt by the debt rating agencies, which, in turn, would hurt Charlotte's overall financial health.

 

Care to back this up?    Because the City of Charlotte can't muster financial resources to build a new stadium then it's not as strong of a city as everyone here seems to think and it sure as hell is not lined up for the success that everyone expects.  

15 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

Compounding the problem is the fact that there is a very vocal group of residents in the area around Ballantyne  that want to break away from Charlotte and form a new city precisely because they believe Charlotte is too quick to throw away money on vanity projects like sports stadiums.   Their effort already has received at least some vocal support in the NCGA, and funding a new football stadium would send them into overdrive.  Since the area around Ballantyne provides much of the city's tax revenue, the city would lose a significant cash stream if they were allowed to break away.  This would further reduce Charlotte's ability to fund future needs and would most likely also result in severely damaged credit ratings.

1

No.  The reason why Ballantyne and Matthews and folks to the North want to break away from Charlotte is that of mindsets like yours.     There is gaining momentum in Charlotte of a class war.  An expectation that affluent people continue to pay into the system but not take any withdrawals.   This mindset is very common here and common in cities before they turn.  From the idea that people in places like South Charlotte should fund mass transit but not it or roads or play social politics with CMS.  It's all the same game.  

But yes, the area surrounding Ballantyne provides much of the revenue and sees little in return.

15 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

My previous post was not meant to suggest that the Panthers or any other business has to run through the gamut of social issues as you stated.  The essence of my argument is that the city will, assuming the new owner demands a new stadium, potentially be placed in a tough spot with respect to all of its obligations whether they are financial obligations, obligations to the needs and wants of various constituencies, or the obligation to maintain some semblance of community identity to the extent that the Panthers represent that identity.  It is not just a progressive cry against inequality, segregation, or lack of economic mobility... Although if someone is so blind as to suggest that those issues aren't problematic or that they will not result in the decline of a city if left unaddressed, I don't know what to say. ;)

 

Communities have all kinds of people, even if people like you have a problem with some.  My point is the city does need to service the needs and wants of various constituencies and sometimes you provide a want over a need because of how much money they pay in.  After all, what do you do when the money leaves the city?  Just ask places like Buffalo how that went.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabates is a big mouth with nothing to substantiate the legitimacy of his bid. The owner will be part of the current ownership group, who are all extremely tight lipped. The speculation is contrived click bait from the Observer and Sabates trying to keep his name on the front page. We know nothing and there is no reason to continue the rampant speculation until we learn of the new owner. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

My point is the city does need to service the needs and wants of various constituencies and sometimes you provide a want over a need because of how much money they pay in.  

This logic is the rot of society. It's the same thinking that justifies wealthy donors buying elections and warping politics.

Our civic institutions are meant to advance the public good, not the interests of of those who can buy the most influence. 

If the new owner(s) threaten to relocate unless the city forks over hundreds of millions in tax dollars for a new stadium , it will not be "capitalism" or "business". It will be extortion.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Urbs42 said:

This logic is the rot of society. It's the same thinking that justifies wealthy donors buying elections and warping politics.

Our civic institutions are meant to advance the public good, not the interests of of those who can buy the most influence. 

If the new owner(s) threaten to relocate unless the city forks over hundreds of millions in tax dollars for a new stadium , it will not be "capitalism" or "business". It will be extortion.  

5

It's not the same thinking but thanks for trying.    Suggesting that you don't ignore people who contribute simply because someone else needs more is the rot.  Trying to shame someone who simply wants to get benefit from the community they contribute is what's shamful.  

 

This business has been in Charlotte for over 20 years.  They paid for the current stadium out of pocket and only looked for buy-in from the taxpayers 15 years in.  In their time they have contributed more the community than they have ever taken.  But they are a business.  If remaining competitive means a new stadium then they have every right to ask for one.  Charlotte does not have to participate but there will be other cities that do.  To call that ask 'extortion' is absurd.  

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, EllAyyDub said:

I would think for ~half the cost of a brand new stadium (plus land costs, infrastructure improvements, etc.), the new owners could suggest adding a roof to the stadium along with other general improvements.  The inherent cost savings could allow the design of the roof to be flexible and iconic, and having such an innovative solution in the downtown area could garner worldwide recognition, on top of allowing a number of new events (SB, FF, concerts, etc.) to be held as previously discussed.

 

I will leave you with the only somewhat scholarly article I could find on adding a roof/domed structure to an existing stadium:

https://www.aurecongroup.com/en/thinking/insights/future-proofing-world-leading-sports-stadia/stadium-transformation-the-ins-and-outs-of-roofing-existing-stadiums.aspx

Would that even be possible on the current site? Seems like the footprint is already pretty close to the surrounding roads. And retrofitting HVAC into it would be a nightmare. Not to mention the infrastructure upgrades needed to power those systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotiabank_Saddledome

Calgary hockey arena is 32 years old and the team and NHL pushed hard for a new building. Even tried to defeat the mayor running for re-election this year. Failed. Mayor wanted to prevent taxpayer subsidy of majority of new venue. He held firm, was re-elected and the team (and NHL) now can only threaten to move and hold breath until blue. Is this a new paradigm?

You may think football is popular but Canadians and hockey moves to another plane.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

The numbers shown in Forbes is not the revenue but the Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments.  They are not the same.    There is also no logic or common sense that can explain your assertion that the stadium in Phoenix produces less than the stadium in Charlotte.  None. 

First, my assertion is not that the stadium in Charlotte produces less than the stadium in Phoenix.  Such a statement would imply that the total revenue produced by the stadium in Charlotte is greater than the total revenue produced by the stadium in Phoenix which is not my assertion at all.  What I did assert is that the Panthers see more revenue as a team even though their home is BofA than the Cardinals see with their home being University of Phoenix Stadium (or whatever the hell it's called right now).  There is a subtle but distinct difference between the assertion you've erroneously attributed to me and the assertion that I actually made.  Since deliberately mischaracterizing what people say is part and parcel for your set of debate tactics, I will spell out what the difference is so that way there will hopefully be no confusion. The first assertion implies that every cent of revenue produced by BofA is a larger number than every cent of revenue produced by the stadium in Phoenix.  The second statement suggests that the revenue that the Panthers receive as a team from all sources of revenue is higher than the Cardinals receive as a team despite the fact that the Panthers play in a more antiquated stadium that is not a dome.  It is likely that the stadium in Phoenix produces higher total revenue than the Panthers stadium when all ancillary events besides Cardinals home games are considered, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the team sees all of that revenue.  Since nearly 2/3 of the Phoenix stadium was financed by public money, I'll bet some of that additional revenue goes to the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority and the City of Glendale.  Additionally the Panthers look to have higher revenues elsewhere in their business such as gate receipts, so it is perfectly logical to suggest that the Panthers have higher team revenues even though they play in BofA when compared to the Arizona Cardinals even though they play in the more state of the art venue.

Second, although it is true that the Forbes quoted revenue numbers are net of stadium revenues used for debt payments which is different from total revenue earned by the team, that does not necessarily imply that the Panthers do not rake in more revenue than the Cardinals.   Forbes publishes other numbers in their valuations listicle.  Lets take a closer look at how the Panthers compare to the Cardinals on a slightly more comprehensive set of metrics:

Revenue: Panthers=$385mil, Cardinals=$370mil; EBITDA: Panthers=$102mil; Cardinals=$87mil; Gate Receipts (including club seating): Panthers=$69mil, Cardinals=$59mil.

While none of these numbers specifically gives us any idea what the team revenue would be if the revenue numbers were not net of stadium revenues used for debt payments, all of them point in the same direction and suggest the Panthers do make more revenue even though they play in the older stadium.    Furthermore, another number that Forbes lists is Debt/Value ratio (including stadium debt).  For the Panthers, this number is 3% and for the Cardinals it's 7%.  Relatively speaking this is not a huge difference suggesting that even if the revenue numbers were to be recalculated to include stadium revenues used for debt payments, the Panthers would still have more overall revenue.  Another, perhaps better, comparison with regard to this metric is the Indianapolis Colts.  They showed $360mil in revenue for 2016, a full $25mil less than the Panthers.  Once again, that number is net of stadium revenues used for debt payments, but consider that their Debt/Value ratio is identical to the Panthers and their valuation is practically identical to the Panthers meaning that both have approximately the same debt level, and presumably have similar debt service charges. If the numbers Forbes publishes are accurate, and there is no reason to suspect they aren't, then it is almost certain that even if one were to add the stadium revenues used for debt payment back into the $360mil quoted to formulate an estimate of total team revenue,  the revenues obtained by the Colts would still be less than revenues obtained by the Panthers  even though the Colts play in one of the newest stadiums in the league.

Another metric that Forbes publishes which I believe is a telling is the portion of franchise's value attributable to its stadium.  The Panthers derive $279mil of their overall value from their stadium, while the Cardinals only derive $210mil from theirs, and the Colts derive $248mil in value from their stadium.  Assuming standard corporate valuation principles apply, if these state of the art stadiums produce so much more revenue for their teams than BofA, then they should also generate  significantly higher numbers in this category.

When taken together, all the above suggests that the Panthers at lowly Bank of America Stadium, as a team, can and do have a better revenue picture than some teams who play in state of the art stadiums.  But I assume your irrefutible logic and common sense will have something to say about that, so I am waiting.

19 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Well if the people buying the team base their research off a Forbes listicle and what can be googled they very well may be inclined to agree with you.  Logic, on the other hand, says otherwise. 

I also base the research I've done on the topic on the expert testimony of well renowned sports consultants interviewed by local media, including one who helped to bring the Panthers to town and designed the stadium financing plan when BofA was built.  So there is that.

19 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

You want to spend money on things like light rail and so do I but the reality is most people don't use it because of where they live.   You want money for roads and so do I but the reality is where I live we don't see money for roads because I'm in the wedge and our demographics don't line up.     At the end of the day, I think you really underestimate the number of people who pay more into Charlotte than they take.  Many, including myself, are happy to do so because that's how it works.  But the moment every call for a luxury which keeping the Panthers is,  is met with 'NO' that money needs to go over to here because poor people are still poor is the moment Charlotte goes down the path of failure.   

Assertions as to whether or not everyone gets to use a service provided by the city are irrelevant with respect to this specific conversation. 

At the end of the day I do not underestimate the number of Charlotte who pay more in taxes than they receive in revenues.  Practically all who live in the wedge do, and I am well aware of that fact.  That is precisely why groups like the ones around Ballantyne that want to deannex from Charlotte frighten me; I know what will happen to the city budget if they do.  That is why I shutter to think what will happen when/if the city chooses to pump several hundred million dollars into a new stadium.  And rest assured they are precisely the type of people who demand that money be spent on needs rather than luxuries.  If you don't believe me I encourage you to read some stories about the South Mecklenburg Alliance for Responsible Taxpayers, especially some stories from when they were first founded circa 2011. 

19 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Care to back this up?

LOL.  Do you ever care to back up any of your assertions? Do you care to back up your previous assertion that it does have the financial resources to fund a new stadium?  If I remember correctly you did not provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim. 

What I find interesting about your style of "debate" is that you trot out assertion after assertion and claim after claim with little to no evidence to support said assertions/claims other than a borderline narcissistic appeal to your own sense of what constitutes logic and common sense.  Then when someone asserts something contrary to your own assertions, you demand that they back themselves up.  That coupled with a steady diet of red herrings, strawmen, diversionary tactics,  gross mischaracterizations/overgeneralizations, and veiled ad hominem attacks...debate with you is quite comical.  BTW if you want, I can back these assertions up.

19 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

No.  The reason why Ballantyne and Matthews and folks to the North want to break away from Charlotte is that of mindsets like yours.     There is gaining momentum in Charlotte of a class war. 

No. The reason why people in Ballantyne want to break away is because they feel that Charlotte spends too much on luxury items such as stadiums.  They have since added to their plank include a host of issues, but the founding of groups such as the SMART was based upon their perception that the city was all too willing to spend money on thing like the arena and the HOF rather than focusing in on their needs in terms of things like infrastructure.  There is no indication that they want to break away due to some notion of class war or because of people with mindsets like mine, at least not explicitly.  In fact, they, like I, also lament the lack of economic mobility in Charlotte and cite it as one of the reasons they want to break away.  Although, to be honest I am not exactly sure how breaking away somehow translates to a better outcome in terms of economic mobility.  What they do want to break away from is a city which they perceive to be filled with people whose mindsets are like yours-those who are willing to suggest that sometimes luxuries such as a new publicly funded NFL stadium trump needs such as roads/schools.

The efforts to break away in the North is an effort by those who live in the northern towns to break away from Mecklenburg County, not Charlotte.  And that effort is premised on the notion that they received a raw deal with respect to the toll lanes on I-77.  I am not aware of any effort in Matthews to break away from anything, although I do know that they have at least considered separating themselves from CMS.

19 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Communities have all kinds of people, even if people like you have a problem with some.  My point is the city does need to service the needs and wants of various constituencies and sometimes you provide a want over a need because of how much money they pay in.  After all, what do you do when the money leaves the city?  Just ask places like Buffalo how that went.  

I am interested to know why you are suggesting that I have a problem with some people. I have no problems with anyone.  I am also interested to know why suggesting that a city should fund schools and infrastructure before funding stadiums or recognizing that inequality, segregation, and lack of economic mobility are problems that need to be addressed is somehow tantamount to progressive mumbo jumbo or some notion of engaging in class warfare?   I am one of the more conservative members of this forum.  Although I tend to lean a bit more democratic at the local and state level, I have not once voted for a democrat in a national election (although I haven't always voted republican either).  My other conservative credentials: I believe that unfettered access to abortion on demand is a travesty, I own multiple guns, my first job was a blue-collar construction job, and I have served in the military.  So to try to marginalize my opinions on any matter based on some conception that I am just another progressive or that I am somehow of a mindset to engage in class warfare is perhaps the most baseless notion of all your cockamamie notions.  However, my general conservatism doesn't preclude from realizing that lack of economic mobility, inequality, and segregation are all bad for society, and if left unaddressed they are precisely the types of things that lead to class warfare.  Ergo, my desire to see the scourge of these problems alleviated is not because I am of the such a mindset that I want to engage in class warfare, but rather a desire to see class warfare eliminated and a more prosperous society for all.

This suggestion that sometimes legitimate needs such as infrastructure/schools or engaging in efforts to foster greater economic mobility should take a backseat to luxury items such as a new publicly funded football stadium however...that is what fosters class warfare.

Edited by cltbwimob
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By roads-scholar
      U-P once had a thread on this topic.  The last reply was in 2007. 
      Drove by yesterday and took a look at this park.  Very impressive.  Kudos to Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties (the park straddles the county line) for teaming up on this one.  The big Dollar Tree distribution center dominates the park.  There's plenty of land for expansion but I worry about access to I-85. 
    • By Spartan
      There is some exiting news about some bike and ped improvement projects that might actually get built! Council decided to fund $2.3 million worth of projects around downtown that are detailed in the HJ article here. These projects are funded in part by the Broad Street TIF District and will will likely be implemented over the next 2-3 years. A pattern I've noticed is that they are partnering up with a lot of stormwater/drainage repairs as part of many of these projects. Kudos to the City for finding creative ways to combine standard repairs to make them better projects for everyone.
       
      The summary is as follows:
       
      North Church Street Streescape: This project will make the walk from the Marriott to Morgan Square much better. I'm not sure where they will find the room for these improvements without moving the curb into the street.
      -Cost: $546,654 -Add pedestrian-scale lighting (like you see on main street) -Add street trees -Add street furniture (benches, trashcans, planters)  
      Mary Black Rail Trail Extension: Connects the Rail Trail to the heart of downtown and to the Palmetto Trail to the north.
      -Cost $582,460 -Add pedestrian refuge island and crosswalks to Henry St Converse Street Cycle Track: Creates physically separated bike lanes behind on-street parking along the entire length of Converse Street. This might be the first cycle track in South Carolina, and among the first in the South
      Cost: $147,033 Main Street Improvements: Remove the curves on Main Street
      -Cost: $391,786 -Remove chicanes -Replace street trees -Install new lighting Wall Street "Festival Street" : The concept of a 'festival street' is used in many other places, notably another Wall Street in nearby Asheville. Here's a streetview so you can get a sense of the concept... just on a larger scale.
      -Cost $210,375 -add pavers the full length of Wall Street  
      Magnolia Street Sidewalk Improvements: Install new trees in tree wells by removing a few parking spaces
      Cost $158,929  
      Daniel Morgan Ave Road Diet: We've known this one has been in the works for a while. I'm glad it's finally being funded.
       
      -Cost: $190,417 -remove 2 travel lanes -Add Parking -Add bike lanes  
      St John Street Pedestrian Signal: This one would install a pedestrian-activated (HAWK) signal on St John St at Liberty Street. I'm not sure how this one will work, because the HAWK signal concept is intended for mid-block locations usully several hundred feet away from any intersection. But if they can figure out how to do it then it will be a great asset for that area.
      Cost: $75,000