Carolina Panthers Facilities

[southslider]

The only subsidy the City of Charlotte should consider giving is what it will take to leverage private investment to retrofit or demolish the current stadium for non-NFL use.

[cjd5050]

3 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

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.

1

Here I am saying that as a community we all share the same pie.  A pie that we make together.  You, on the other hand, are suggesting that there should be sides and groups in the community.   Either you're too ignorant to see how divisive your virtue signaling is or you know and don't care.   Since you used the term 'warfare' I'll leave you with that it is human nature to fight or flight and it's the reason why every community fails.  

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by cjd5050

[mad_park]

There is a 2nd thread in the Coffee House that a lot of this discussion should be moved to.

[J-Rob]

http://www.charlottefive.com/letter-future-ownership/

Don't think this has been posted yet.  Nicely done. @ricky_davis_fan_21

Be sure to share any feedback you get.

[49er]

It would be interesting to compare the economic impact of the Panthers and what the subsidy would be and then look at the 1.6 billion we offered Toyota. I hate to admit it, but both are big businesses trying to leverage public dollars. 

The common sense aspect of this is that the stadium IS perfectly capable of hosting an NFL team 10 times a year and can be renovated to add more luxuries. 

 

[teeg]

Good job @ricky_davis_fan_21!

[cjd5050]

Wonderful prose RDF

[jednc]

On 1/10/2018 at 7:20 AM, JSquare said:

Great point. Parking fee is big business. I bet that is why so many stadiums move outside of the city, then everyone has to drive there and park. I am not a football fan but still love that the stadium is in uptown because of the crowds it brings to the city for events. It would be a shame to loose that but the owners will most likely not care about that if they can get a better profit at a different location.

It is sad but most people who would own the panthers do not care about helping the city they just care about lining their pockets. 

I'm going to be cynical here and call BS. Are you saying if you could decide right now whether the stadium is built uptown vs suburbia, the only difference being the latter scenario means you get $8M/year, you would choose uptown? I REALLY hope any new stadium IS built uptown, but if I were given the above option, I would choose that $8M option all day long. I think it's probably unfair to paint someone as a "bad guy" because they would do the same (unless I'm misreading "they just care about lining their pockets").

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, jednc said:

I'm going to be cynical here and call BS. Are you saying if you could decide right now whether the stadium is built uptown vs suburbia, the only difference being the latter scenario means you get $8M/year, you would choose uptown? I REALLY hope any new stadium IS built uptown, but if I were given the above option, I would choose that $8M option all day long. I think it's probably unfair to paint someone as a "bad guy" because they would do the same (unless I'm misreading "they just care about lining their pockets").

People are also acting like pouring a 20,000 car concrete slab is free. Its not. It also has to be maintained and salaries need to be paid to staff it. etc. 

[jednc]

16 hours ago, Squid7085 said:

I agree with all this, except I think the former stadium site would be perfect for an MLB stadium. Being able to build infrastructure that supports both stadiums, and also building that "stadium" district you mentioned. Given the number of MLB games, that puts a lot more interest in building up that "stadium district" which would only benefit the new Panthers stadium. 

 

The only problem, getting one new stadium built is hard enough. It seems the bandwidth probably wouldn't be there for an ownership group to come up AND a new stadium to be built. But then again, Atlanta built two stadiums, and we want to be the new Atlanta, so... I do think the stars could align on this one. New stadium is built on the Charlotte Pipe location, during that time the MLB looks to expand, a plan is put together to build a stadium on the current site. Team is awarded, they begin play at BB&T, new panthers stadium opens and the old one is demolished. New MLB stadium goes up on the old site. It's a stretch, but not out of the realm of possibility for sure. We know the MLB is interested in the market, a plan like that sure would catch some attention.

 

A man can dream.

I like the way you think...

1 minute ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

People are also acting like pouring a 20,000 car concrete slab is free. Its not. It also has to be maintained and salaries need to be paid to staff it. etc. 

Good point. $7.5M/year then.  

[J-Rob]

26 minutes ago, jednc said:

I'm going to be cynical here and call BS. Are you saying if you could decide right now whether the stadium is built uptown vs suburbia, the only difference being the latter scenario means you get $8M/year, you would choose uptown? I REALLY hope any new stadium IS built uptown, but if I were given the above option, I would choose that $8M option all day long. I think it's probably unfair to paint someone as a "bad guy" because they would do the same (unless I'm misreading "they just care about lining their pockets").

My issue is that they want to make money (line their pockets) on a subsidized dollar.  I don't fault anyone for trying to profit financially,  but  I think I can make the argument that it is ethically compromising for a billionaire to do so on the taxpayers dollar.  Illegal? Obviously not. Outright wrong? Maybe not.  Highest ethical approach? No way.  To be clear, I am not talking about asking the city/county to donate some land.  I am talking about extorting the population for $500M to $1B.  That just doesn't seem right to me.   With that said, if the new owner wants to privately finance the stadium and build a bunch or parking decks I don't really have a problem with him/her doing so, despite the fact that I think the best location for the stadium is in Uptown.  I think it would be a mistake to move out of center city, but if it is privately financed at least I wouldn't hold a grudge over the owner wanting to make more money.

Edited January 12, 2018 by J-Rob

[DMann]

Seems to me that if it straddled the state line, NC would have problems contributing, as would the county and the city.  Who knows what SC would be willing to put up.

[cjd5050]

30 minutes ago, J-Rob said:

My issue is that they want to make money (line their pockets) on a subsidized dollar.  I don't fault anyone for trying to profit financially,  but I think I can make the argument that it is ethically compromising for a billionaire to do so on the taxpayers dollar.

1

Why does the amount of money the business owner have factor into your ethical assessment?    Shouldn't it be black and white?  Either you can or can't use taxpayer funds to grow your personal wealth...ethically of course...

Where is the ethical line get crossed for you?  What about the business owner with a net worth of $100 million and who uses taxpayer money to increase their wealth to $200 million.  Do you have an ethical argument there?  What about the executive director of a non-profit who bases a massive amount of their business on taxpayer funds and pays themselves a higher than market wage, while at the same time, not incurring the risk that a small business owner faces?  Any ethical dilemma there?

We either allow taxpayer funds to be leveraged for personal wealth gains or we don't.  But it's poor form to put up arbitrary rules on wealth that really often amount to what someone finds envious to the point of resentment.   

[RiverwoodCLT]

Build the  new stadium on Charlotte's Pipe's  land and where the present stadium,  let the  land go for a future  new MLB  stadium .

Edited January 12, 2018 by RiverwoodCLT

[J-Rob]

 

43 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

Why does the amount of money the business owner have factor into your ethical assessment?    Shouldn't it be black and white?  Either you can or can't use taxpayer funds to grow your personal wealth...ethically of course...

Where is the ethical line get crossed for you?  What about the business owner with a net worth of $100 million and who uses taxpayer money to increase their wealth to $200 million.  Do you have an ethical argument there?  What about the executive director of a non-profit who bases a massive amount of their business on taxpayer funds and pays themselves a higher than market wage, while at the same time, not incurring the risk that a small business owner faces?  Any ethical dilemma there?

We either allow taxpayer funds to be leveraged for personal wealth gains or we don't.  But it's poor form to put up arbitrary rules on wealth that really often amount to what someone finds envious to the point of resentment. 

 

The concept of materiality is an oft used and well established financial idea.  I am an auditor, and we use materiality to make decisions every day; not in determining right from wrong, but in determining significant from insignificant.   In nearly every situation you listed, at some point the harm done by a situation outweighs the positive, but trying to define that by a certain dollar threshold in a ethical sense is a fool's errand.  No world I have ever lived in is black and white.  There is obviously some gray area, and the poor form is to suggest that I am envious.  Honestly that comment is unjustified and antagonizing.   I understand a new owner might need public assistance in building a stadium, but my problem with that is when the driving force for a new stadium is not the condition of the current stadium, but instead a billionaire's desire to make more money.  I don't think there is anything wrong with me drawing a line in the sand based on the large dollar amount that a billionaire will try to extract from taxpayers, many of which are struggling. 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by J-Rob

[mad_park]

18 hours ago, Squid7085 said:

But then again, Atlanta built two stadiums, and we want to be the new Atlanta, so... I do think the stars could align on this one

Atlanta built the football stadium, Cobb County built the baseball stadium. 

[cjd5050]

2 hours ago, J-Rob said:

The concept of materiality is an oft used and well established financial idea.  I am an auditor, and we use materiality to make decisions every day; not in determining right from wrong, but in determining significant from insignificant.   In nearly every situation you listed, at some point the harm done by a situation outweighs the positive, but trying to define that by a certain dollar threshold in a ethical sense is a fool's errand.  No world I have ever lived in is black and white.  There is obviously some gray area, and the poor form is to suggest that I am envious.  Honestly that comment is unjustified and antagonizing.   I understand a new owner might need public assistance in building a stadium, but my problem with that is when the driving force for a new stadium is not the condition of the current stadium, but instead a billionaire's desire to make more money.  I don't think there is anything wrong with me drawing a line in the sand based on the large dollar amount that a billionaire will try to extract from taxpayers, many of which are struggling. 

3

There is a difference between weighing risk vs reward and judging something from an ethical spectrum.   By and large, ethics are black and white by the way.  But thanks for the long way around the park not answering anything.    

[CarolinaCrown]

11 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

There is a difference between weighing risk vs reward and judging something from an ethical spectrum.   By and large, ethics are black and white by the way.  But thanks for the long way around the park not answering anything.    

 

Edited January 13, 2018 by CarolinaCrown
No need for stooping to that level

[GeauxCLT]

12 hours ago, J-Rob said:

http://www.charlottefive.com/letter-future-ownership/

Don't think this has been posted yet.  Nicely done. @ricky_davis_fan_21

Be sure to share any feedback you get.

This Saints fan salutes you! Well written and spot on RDF.

[NcSc74]

My 2 cents,

I knew the Carowinds site would be considered.  I visited Jerry's world last summer and the city of Arlington is bulding an entertainment district next to the stadium.  If the Carowinds location is done right it's not a bad idea but I have no confidence anyone in the Carolinas know how to pull this off.  Hence "State Line Stadium" is being kicked around.  My suggestion would be One Carolina or something to that effect.  Also a financial commitment from both states would be needed.  Its only fair or a name change should be considered.  

As far as the stadium itself, I must admit that after watching the Vikings game yesterday I would love to have a domed entertainment facility in Charlotte.  Unless the Carowids site is built up to essentially to a town center complete with mixed use, mass transit connection, retail and entertainment center around the facility I would think an uptown location is choice number one.

Finally I'm going to address the elephant in the room.  NC and to a smaller degree Charlotte has taken some lumps publically/perception wise.  I think this timing is critical that the franchise and municipalities connected to the team get this right.  Charlotte has exploded mainly due to a favorable image to the public.  In this case the city CAN'T come across as having a small town mindset.  If we are to progress further than gamma status then this deal has to get done.  I know some folks don't like to hear it or look at it this way but I have done a ton of travelling and the one thing people tie a state or region to is a sports team.  Especially if that team is doing well.  It's crucial to recruiting relocation targets that a city and region can pull off mega deals, support local franchises and be looked at as a healthy market primed for growth.

Kind of long but wanted to wait until the season eneded and things settled down a bit.

[AuLukey]

http://www.espn.com/blog/carolina-panthers/post/_/id/29092/why-new-panthers-owner-shouldnt-ask-for-domed-stadium-to-host-a-super-bowl

 

This ESPN article explains why Charlotte does not need a new stadium to land a Super Bowl, why a new owner should not ask for a new stadium, and why the current stadium is all Charlotte will need for the foreseeable future.

 

I couldn’t have said it better myself. This is one of the first counter-stadium articles I’ve seen (from a credible source) and it has restored my faith in humanity.

 

[UPNoDa]

The ESPN staff writer states...."The new 65,000-seat domed stadium expected to house the Raiders in Los Angeles in 2020 includes $750 million from taxpayers and $200 million from the NFL’s G-4 Stadium fund. The Raiders are responsible for the rest."

uhumm....that should read "house the Raiders in Las Vegas" but I agree with his point.

[cjd5050]

8 hours ago, AuLukey said:

http://www.espn.com/blog/carolina-panthers/post/_/id/29092/why-new-panthers-owner-shouldnt-ask-for-domed-stadium-to-host-a-super-bowl

This ESPN article explains why Charlotte does not need a new stadium to land a Super Bowl, why a new owner should not ask for a new stadium, and why the current stadium is all Charlotte will need for the foreseeable future.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. This is one of the first counter-stadium articles I’ve seen (from a credible source) and it has restored my faith in humanity.

 

Not sure how much I agree with the benefit of owning the stadium to the new owner.  The new owner is going to pay for it and it's not a gift.  Would have been better if they were buying a team that was leasing.

Of course, Max Muhleman doesn't think the Panthers need a new stadium.  He is behind all of the PSLs and doesn't want to be burned at the stake.   If they could stop quoting Muhleman and  Sabates I would be so happy.

I do like the idea of pushing for a Super Bowl in the current stadium as a 'gift' because that's what it would be.   That would actually be the ultimate litmus test for the region.  If the event is a success they can sell a new stadium to land additional Super Bowls.  Might also help Charlotte build that convention hotel that many here want.  

 

[deleted]

9 hours ago, AuLukey said:

http://www.espn.com/blog/carolina-panthers/post/_/id/29092/why-new-panthers-owner-shouldnt-ask-for-domed-stadium-to-host-a-super-bowl

 

This ESPN article explains why Charlotte does not need a new stadium to land a Super Bowl, why a new owner should not ask for a new stadium, and why the current stadium is all Charlotte will need for the foreseeable future.

 

I couldn’t have said it better myself. This is one of the first counter-stadium articles I’ve seen (from a credible source) and it has restored my faith in humanity.

 

There was this recent article also:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article197014409.html

I thought this was even better.

 

[InSouthPark]

9 hours ago, AuLukey said:

http://www.espn.com/blog/carolina-panthers/post/_/id/29092/why-new-panthers-owner-shouldnt-ask-for-domed-stadium-to-host-a-super-bowl

 

This ESPN article explains why Charlotte does not need a new stadium to land a Super Bowl, why a new owner should not ask for a new stadium, and why the current stadium is all Charlotte will need for the foreseeable future.

 

I couldn’t have said it better myself. This is one of the first counter-stadium articles I’ve seen (from a credible source) and it has restored my faith in humanity.

 

FYI: David Newton is not a credible source.   He is a flat out terrible "journalist".   

And Charlotte isn't getting a Super Bowl without a new stadium.  End of discussion.  It is below the weather threshold, not enough hotels, and a 22 year old stadium.  Not. Happening.