Carolina Panthers Facilities

[cjd5050]

12 minutes ago, 11 HouseBZ said:

This. Unless SC wants to contribute, which is never going to happen. 

Never thought of 'Carolina' as going after SC residents, although it does make sense if you think about it, but rather getting Raleigh/Greensboro to embrace the team.  

 

 

[SgtCampsalot]

58 minutes ago, alb1no panther said:

Big companies "extort" states all the time.  This is not novel.  Beating that drum is a lost cause unless there's something super unique about this situation.

Eh idk, while I do think blabbing out it as extortion is kind of fruitless, I do feel that just because it's the way things are in business and government doesn't mean we shouldn't call attention to it. It often takes decades or centuries to change a harmful cultural tradition, but that shouldn't stop the decrying of them by citizens.

[Dale]

Yeah, just because it's standard practice doesn't mean we ought to lay back and enjoy it.

[kermit]

If the litmus test for public investment in stadiums is ROI generated from entertainment spending and the associated real estate development then we would be foolish to spend any money on panthers stadium 2.0. A much better investment (based on this metric) would be MLB followed by NHL followed by MLS.

[cjd5050]

4 minutes ago, kermit said:

If the litmus test for public investment in stadiums is ROI generated from entertainment spending and the associated real estate development then we would be foolish to spend any money on panthers stadium 2.0. A much better investment (based on this metric) would be MLB followed by NHL followed by MLS.

That's the challenge with a 'litmus test' as it implies that there is some form of standardization to each of these projects.  There isn't.  Each project has unique circumstances the present both opportunities and challenges.  All I was saying is that comparing Charlotte to any other city or project does not make sense as they are not comparable projects.  

That said, I do agree that going after a MLS team would allow for the same type of trajectory change where that stadium would be located and mostly likely provide a higher ROI than a new Panthers stadium.  

[mfowler12]

 There's too many downstream impacts and assumptions that are hard to tie to ROI on a stadium. SC gets training camp - look at the improvements Wofford has made to their facilities because of this. Pro sports teams bring community events and services, pro athletes purchase very expensive real estate, donate to charity, etc. I'm not in the NFL, but I'm fairly certain the Shield has a monetary impact analysis that would show a positive ROI for a stadium. The need for a new stadium will happen, and Charlotte, the state, and even SC will have to figure out how much they can put towards it. The good thing right now is that our biggest threat to relocation (LA) got their team.

As far as the stadium itself - I've read about the changes that future stadiums might see happen- less seating, more adaptability for multi uses for the city and community, obviously much more suites and amenities. Heck, we can even use to create another light rail or dare I say commuter rail line out of uptown.

[tozmervo]

Are one of the future changes an increase in utilization? That's my biggest beef with NFL stadiums in particular, they sit dead and empty for about 355 days of the year. What a waste.

[BullDurhamer]

21 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

Are one of the future changes an increase in utilization? That's my biggest beef with NFL stadiums in particular, they sit dead and empty for about 355 days of the year. What a waste.

I couldn't agree more.  and if they were to needlessly build another stadium to sit empty 95% of the time, then the stadium should be placed out in fort mill or wherever.

while it's cool to have a stadium right here, it couldn't be a bigger waste of space in what will be prime real estate for as along as we all probably live.  it's kind of like having center placed cemeteries clogging up space that the actual living could use. 

[grodney]

3 hours ago, tozmervo said:

I don't know, I'm extremely skeptical that the net economic effect is favorable to municipalities. I've seen precious little evidence that stadiums represent a positive ROI for governments. There are certainly gross benefits - at least 8 days of the year - where we see increased sales/hotel tax revenue. And there better media recognition and branding notoriety with major league teams. But is all of that worth $1 billion+ stadiums? I don't think the numbers actually add up.

Here's the Vikings Stadium impact assessment.  There's more than just Vikings games (in fact, 289 total annual events, but NFL attendance is 60% of the total attendance), but the assessment tends to break out how much impact is from the Vikings themselves....such as " approximately $247 million of the $275 million in annual output and 3,000 of the 3,400 jobs supported are estimated to result from Vikings’ operations." and " Approximately $29.4 million in [annual] tax revenues...are estimated to be attributable to Vikings-related activities" and all of Appendix A which shows 130MM direct spending, 246MM total output, and 95MM personal earnings per year.  The page and assessment below also have lots of numbers for the actual construction phase as well.

http://www.vikings.com/stadium/new-stadium/economic-impact.html

http://prod.static.vikings.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/csl-full-021511.pdf

p.s. I'm not an expert and I don't hold an opinion either way, just linking and quoting facts.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by grodney

[InSouthPark]

17 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

Are one of the future changes an increase in utilization? That's my biggest beef with NFL stadiums in particular, they sit dead and empty for about 355 days of the year. What a waste.

Well if the city and state chips in money for the new stadium, they would dictate more control over what it is used for (like they do now getting their 4 rent free days for helping to fund improvements).  The current stadium was privately funded and they can do whatever they want with it. 

Plus what are you going to use a 76k seat stadium for other than football, soccer, and occasional concert? We don't have enough people to regularly have concerts like at the Linc or Georgia Dome.  And we don't have some ridiculous Jerry Dome to host NCAA events. 

[cjd5050]

5 minutes ago, grodney said:

Here's the Vikings Stadium impact assessment.  There's more than just Vikings games (in fact, 289 total annual events, but NFL attendance is 60% of the total attendance), but the assessment tends to break out how much impact is from the Vikings themselves....such as " approximately $247 million of the $275 million in annual output and 3,000 of the 3,400 jobs supported are estimated to result from Vikings’ operations." and " Approximately $29.4 million in [annual] tax revenues...are estimated to be attributable to Vikings-related activities" and all of Appendix A which shows 130MM direct spending, 246MM total output, and 95MM personal earnings per year.  The page and assessment below also have lots of numbers for the actual construction phase as well.

http://www.vikings.com/stadium/new-stadium/economic-impact.html

http://prod.static.vikings.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/csl-full-021511.pdf

p.s. I'm not an expert and I don't hold an opinion either way, just linking and quoting facts.

 

Thanks for the link.  Was shocked to see that the total tax revenue for the stadium over 30 years is  $830,500,000.  Personal income tax making up $327,700,000 of that.

[alb1no panther]

I'm not saying the race to the bottom is a good thing, but it's just how business is done.  It's super convenient to pick and choose the projects one doesn't like, but picking a common denominator [i.e., "extortion" or whatever other word] amongst most projects is superficial, and to me underscores a personal agenda.  As for actual, quant ROI, I'm pretty sure the stadium effects can be tracked; it's pretty standard business for actuaries.

Edited September 13, 2016 by alb1no panther

[mfowler12]

1 hour ago, tozmervo said:

Are one of the future changes an increase in utilization? That's my biggest beef with NFL stadiums in particular, they sit dead and empty for about 355 days of the year. What a waste.

Agreed..and I think to do that something has to change with the design. it can't be a 5 story enclosed complex or bowl. It  has to be completely reimagined.

[ChessieCat]

All of the NFC South teams are unique in having stadiums at or near their city center.  Why should the Panthers give up their prime location when they can simply renovate for the better?  People in Miami complain about their stadium being far from downtown.  Same with DC.  

Panthers president Danny Morrison said that the "The bones of the stadium were so well done we’re able to elevate the stadium with these renovations with our goal of having the best outdoor stadium in America." 

So why not renovate?  Here is the ultimate wish list:

1) Build a retractable roof like the US Open just did at Arthur Ashe stadium.  That could attract a Super Bowl.

2) Enclose the lower and upper decks so they are climate controlled.  Add more luxury suites on one side as the moderator mentioned.  That could attract Final Fours (if the state of NC addresses HB2 first).  Concerts, WWE, monster truck rallies, etc. could add more dates to the calendar to name a few.

3) Build a platform attached to the west side of the stadium over the existing railroad spur.  People could disembark from a future Airport Line that originates in west Charlotte and terminates one stop away at Gateway. A dream for UP transit nerds.  

Edited September 13, 2016 by ChessieCat

[kermit]

3 hours ago, mfowler12 said:

 I'm not in the NFL, but I'm fairly certain the Shield has a monetary impact analysis that would show a positive ROI for a stadium.

and there are about 50 studies that found negative returns.

I do agree however that there are a large number of intangibles associated with major league sports, mostly related to marketing opportunities for the city. Unfortunately the magnitude of those benefits decline pretty rapidly after the initial stadium gets built (e.g. after everybody sees Charlotte on Monday Night Football once cowtown reputation is shed). In short, getting that first stadium is a big deal, but the second one creates significantly fewer marketing benefits for the city.

The downside of building subtracting upper deck seats for suites is that fewer seats for 'the people' means less popular support for subsidies for the team.

Edited September 13, 2016 by kermit

[cjd5050]

2 minutes ago, kermit said:

and there are about 50 studies that found negative returns.

I do agree however that there are a large number of intangibles associated with major league sports, mostly related to marketing opportunities for the city. Unfortunately the magnitude of those benefits decline pretty rapidly after the initial stadium gets built (e.g. everybody has seen Charlotte on Monday Night Football). In short, getting that first stadium is a big deal, but the second one will have significantly less impact that the first.

The downside of building subtracting upper deck seats for suites is that fewer seats for 'the people' means less popular support for subsidies for the team.

I have read many of those studies.  The methodology used to determine returns is different for each one, as well as, the situation for each stadium project is different.  So there is that.  

For example, the Noll/Stanford study, which is referenced often does not include spin off development.  He goes as far as to suggest that the path forward for stadiums is away from single use and towards a mixed use project.  The challenge with this is a stadium that leads to the evolution of a surrounding entertainment district offers the same benefit of a stadium project were the district is included in the build.  For whatever reason, Noll sees those as different when they are not.  They just are created differently but with the same result.  Which in my opinion is faulty.  

As for the subtracting the upper deck seats as a negative...it depends on how you look at it.  Less seats means a higher likelihood of selling the game out and avoids blackouts.  Seeing as most fans watch the game on the TV rather than in the stadium...that's a net positive.  Going further, the addition of these higher revenue streams from club seats and boxes means less pressure to raise ticket prices for 'the people' making going to a game here and there much more approachable.  

[mfowler12]

To go a step further, eliminating seats may reduce butts in seats, but stadiums are starting to create other places inside the 'complex' to view the game - whether the game on the field or on a TV. This creates separate streams of revenue for concessions, cover charges, etc.to make up for less actual ticket sales. I think many people would pay to be 'inside' and not care if they were in a seat watching the action on the field.

[cjd5050]

Speaking of studies from respected Universities like Stanford in regards to how stadiums don't provide an ROI....

There has never been a case where researches from respected industries outright took bribes to produce studies that benefited one point of view.  Also knowing that Colleges and Universities are never places of research bias and researchers/professors never have a personal agenda or opinions that drive the output of their research.....

Ya, it's absolutely been proven that stadiums don't provide an ROI.  

[kermit]

^ gosh, I never thought about that before. I guess climate change and polio vaccines really are BS too. 

Could you point me towards the massive, well funded, anti-stadium lobby that is "bribing" and influencing the results of the vast majority of studies on this topic?

Edited September 14, 2016 by kermit

[Niner National]

Craig Depken, a professor of economics at UNC Charlotte is actually an "expert" with regards to stadium and sports ROI. I took a class of his in college actually, and he talked about this several times (although it wasn't the focal point of the class, so we never really got into the details.

In short though, he is against taxpayer funded stadiums. He was cited in a news story about the Vikings' new stadium in July: http://theweek.com/articles/629756/outrageous-ripoff-taxpayerfunded-stadiums

He also has done studies on the impact of stadium projects on surrounding property value:

We investigate the impact of a potential new sports venue on residential property values, focusing on the National Football League's Dallas Cowboys' search for a new host city in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. We find that residential property values in the city of Dallas increased following the announcement of a possible new stadium in the city of Dallas. At the same time, property values fell throughout the rest of Dallas County, which would have paid for the proposed stadium. These patterns reversed when the Dallas stadium proposal was abandoned. Subsequently, a series of announcements regarding a new publicly-subsidized stadium in nearby Arlington, Texas, had a deleterious effect on residential property values in Arlington. In aggregate, average property values declined approximately 1.5% relative to the surrounding area before stadium construction commenced. This decline was almost equal to the anticipated household sales tax burden, suggesting that the average expected amenity effect of hosting the Cowboys in Arlington was not significantly different from zero.

Clearly every city is different, but some of his work is an interesting read.

[cjd5050]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

^ gosh, I never thought about that before. I guess climate change and polio vaccines really are BS too. 

Could you point me towards the massive, well funded, anti-stadium lobby that is "bribing" and influencing the results of the vast majority of studies on this topic?

I linked to where Harvard researchers took bribes.  As for stadium studies...ya...it's a reach to think academia would put out research that was slanted against billionaire business owners out of personal bias.  Huge reach to think left leaning campuses would do such a thing.  

Of course climate change is real but there are 'studies' and 'research' that say it isn't.  Which proves my point that just because a study is done does not mean it's true.  You can make the numbers dance however you want if you try hard enough and have a personal bias to do so.  

 

[grodney]

In this thread, I'm having trouble discerning the sarcasm from the not.

Edited September 14, 2016 by grodney

[ah59396]

I know @birky has done a fair amount of research regarding public funding for stadiums and ROI.

I'll see if I can summon him for some insight.

[videtur quam contuor]

Andrew Zimbalist has been serving hot coffee on this topic for years. Here is his CV and I defy anyone to find someone deeper into this issue. A check of his work online will provide all you need to know. The expert of experts.

www.unc.edu/depts/exercise/csri/PDF/Curriculum%20Vita/Zimbalist.pdf andrew zimbalist stadiums

[CarolinaDaydreamin]

On 9/13/2016 at 2:33 PM, ChessieCat said:

So why not renovate?  Here is the ultimate wish list:

1) Build a retractable roof like the US Open just did at Arthur Ashe stadium.  That could attract a Super Bowl.

2) Enclose the lower and upper decks so they are climate controlled.  Add more luxury suites on one side as the moderator mentioned.  That could attract Final Fours (if the state of NC addresses HB2 first).  Concerts, WWE, monster truck rallies, etc. could add more dates to the calendar to name a few.

 

The Arthur Ashe stadium roof cost over $150 and a new roof over B of A would be 4 or 5 times larger and much heavier, potentially not even feasible. A Miami Dolphins style stadium renovation seems like a logical goal to me. Renovating seats, adding a canopy, purchasing a number of PSLs and adding lower level club seats. This is classic over negotiating with the public to come back and get a few hundred million to add to the renovations. I think the Panthers have planned to stay in BofA long term with this current renovation. If the Panthers move to a new stadium (OR CITY) I would be shocked if that happens in the next 15 years. The Atlanta stadium has been in the works for 10+ years and the Georgia Dome was never as close to as nice as BoA. Buffalo plays in a dump, Oakland plays in a Jail and San Diego plays in a stadium 35 years past its prime. There are plenty of other teams that would move before us.