Dilemma of a Sonics fan

[Trembling Eagle]

Again I may be off base but I don't think the average person cares. I admit I'm biased because I don't care.
BTW I live in the area.

Are you a sports fan? You may be right that the average person doesn't care, but I think the opinion of the average sports fan is what matters in this discussion.

Exactly. Just like the average person doesn't care about theater. But, theater fans rally around their art being funded... and I agree with them, but sports need to be funded too because they are important as well. They just get a bad rap because of how high paid the athletes are and the scumbag owners. It doesn't take away from the fact that they are important to communities.

What are some of the ways pro sports benefit communities would you say?

I have no problem with athletes making as much money as they can, the more the better. But I have a hard time understanding why pro sports can't fund themselves with their own revenue.

Why should my tax dollars go toward funding them and their arenas? Make a gigantic park in the middle of the city instead where kids can play ball.

[<<<<<]

From an economic standpoint, they stimulate commerce near the stadium/arena and are generally considered to contribute to "quality of life" which can influence property values, etc.

If you don't think there are some benefit to be had, you may not be looking at it entirely objectively.  If there wasn't value, it wouldn't exist.

Visit Green Bay once.  I think you'd change your mind.

[jamesp]

From an economic standpoint, they stimulate commerce near the stadium/arena and are generally considered to contribute to "quality of life" which can influence property values, etc.

If you don't think there are some benefit to be had, you may not be looking at it entirely objectively.  If there wasn't value, it wouldn't exist.

Visit Green Bay once.  I think you'd change your mind.

I think sports teams do add to the sense of community in an area. Just look at how so many newer Sun Belt cities got franchises in the 80s and 90s. People love sports as entertainment and cities with sports teams are considered almost more legitimate in the eyes of average Americans.

Green Bay is pretty awesome since it's like the only non-profit, community owned American sports team and the only sports team remaining in a small town, yet they still might be one of the most famous and popular teams.

[Trembling Eagle]

From an economic standpoint, they stimulate commerce near the stadium/arena and are generally considered to contribute to "quality of life" which can influence property values, etc.

If you don't think there are some benefit to be had, you may not be looking at it entirely objectively.  If there wasn't value, it wouldn't exist.

Visit Green Bay once.  I think you'd change your mind.

No, I'm open enough to know there must be some benefit but why can't they pay for themselves if they're so popular?

[Gilly]

I think the argument that owners have is that they shouldn't have to front all the money and pay to field a team when it's a community asset. They'll pay to field a winning team if the public gives them money to build a stadium and make it worthwhile for them financially. I don't have a problem with that at all. I do have a problem that professional leagues have put all of their games on cable tv and that ticket prices rise sky high when stadiums open.

[<<<<<]

No, I'm open enough to know there must be some benefit but why can't they pay for themselves if they're so popular?

Don't get me wrong, I agree completely.  People have to help pay for stadiums nowadays, but they can't even afford healthcare.  Definitely some screwy priorities going around.

[namethebats]

It looks like they'll have to do $300 million in renovations to Key Arena before they get another team in there. If the legislature approves funding and they don't get a team within five years, Bennett has to pay another $30 million.

I don't know if the legislature's going to approve the money - they already shot down funding earlier this year.

The sonics will be playing in an $87million arena next season.  The $120 mil that's being thrown around was the total package that was approved by voters that includes all the infrastructure upgrades, a $20mil practice facility that will be used by multiple entities and (by my companies estimation) about $17mil in upgrades to the actual arena itself.

Hopefully their voters are still in a giving mood when Clay Bennett tells them how lousy the arena is 5-10 years from now.

[Trembling Eagle]

I think the argument that owners have is that they shouldn't have to front all the money and pay to field a team when it's a community asset. They'll pay to field a winning team if the public gives them money to build a stadium and make it worthwhile for them financially. I don't have a problem with that at all. I do have a problem that professional leagues have put all of their games on cable tv and that ticket prices rise sky high when stadiums open.

Ok, but I don't want to pay for it. If I'm ever given a choice (via vote) whether my tax dollars will go to support a sports stadium I'll vote "no" every time.

[namethebats]

Don't get me wrong, I agree completely.  People have to help pay for stadiums nowadays, but they can't even afford healthcare.  Definitely some screwy priorities going around.

I don't have a problem with chipping in to some extent, but there are plenty of arenas that got built mostly through private/corporate funding (The Fleet Center in Boston comes to mind).

I've been to Green Bay during Packers training camp, and it seems like the ideal relationship between a team and the community.  

[Gilly]

I don't have a problem with chipping in to some extent, but there are plenty of arenas that got built mostly through private/corporate funding (The Fleet Center in Boston comes to mind).

Stadiums that are privately funded are in huge markets with not only local fans but fans all across the globe. Owners of those teams don't have to worry about their team being profitable and businesses want any opportunity that can to be involved with that team.

Ok, but I don't want to pay for it. If I'm ever given a choice (via vote) whether my tax dollars will go to support a sports stadium I'll vote "no" every time.

Not that sports is more important than education, but that's like somebody without children voting no to education funding because they don't use it. Education > Stadiums. But, it's the same attitude.

[namethebats]

I don't have a problem with chipping in to some extent, but there are plenty of arenas that got built mostly through private/corporate funding (The Fleet Center in Boston comes to mind).

Stadiums that are privately funded are in huge markets with not only local fans but fans all across the globe. Owners of those teams don't have to worry about their team being profitable and businesses want any opportunity that can to be involved with that team.

That's probably true of most of them. But Portland only had to contribute about 15-20 percent of the funding for the Rose Garden, and their reach is as regional as the Sonics', if not more so.

[<<<<<]

I've been to Green Bay during Packers training camp, and it seems like the ideal relationship between a team and the community.  

Absolutely agree 100%.

[Gilly]

Portland's owner is also the 42nd richest man in the world.

[<<<<<]

Millionaire households by county:

1. Los Angeles County (CA) 268,000
2. Cook County (IL) 171,000
3. Orange County (CA) 116,000
4. Maricopa County (AZ) 113,000
5. San Diego County (CA) 102,000
6. Harris County (TX) 99,000
7. Nassau County (NY) 79,000
8. Santa Clara County (CA) 74,000
9. Palm Beach County (FL) 71,000
10. King County (WA) 68,000

So let the millionaires pony up for it.  Not like there aren't enough of them.

[Andy]

I take back everything I said in this thread.  Even I can't root for a team/logo this lame: