HawkShack.com

This article is pretty disgusting in the way it paints the relationship between the NFL and it's fans:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/the ... spartanntp

All we are to them is a dollar sign. I wish that all 32 NFL teams had an arrangement like the Packers do.

It's a goidq

RiverDog wrote:This article is pretty disgusting in the way it paints the relationship between the NFL and it's fans:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/the ... spartanntp

All we are to them is a dollar sign. I wish that all 32 NFL teams had an arrangement like the Packers do.

It's a good article with lots of truth to it. But the responsibility of keeping a franchise in town is a 2 way street.
You could read into this article that spanos was plenty willing to stay if he had a new building . In other words he was willing to forego 2 billion in windfall and less income forever if the community and NFL were willing to finance the new stadium. They never did. I feel for these fans. Were it not for Paul Allen there would be no Seahawks .

But it's got to be a public private cooperation for economic growth and quality of living that the community . They must be willing to invest heavily in short term to reaize long term benefits. Pro sports designate a world class city, even if it's somewhat of a loss leader on the books.overall it's a quality of living amenity.

Look no further than the sonics and idiots like Locke and Gregoire who played chicken with clay Bennett over an arena and allowed him to steal the team. Now guys like ballmer etc are willing to spend whatever it takes to get a team back and still can't get one.
IIt is what it is. You have to pay to play

It's a good article with lots of truth to it. But the responsibility of keeping a franchise in town is a 2 way street.
You could read into this article that spanos was plenty willing to stay if he had a new building . In other words he was willing to forego 2 billion in windfall and less income forever if the community and NFL were willing to finance the new stadium. They never did. I feel for these fans. Were it not for Paul Allen there would be no Seahawks .

But it's got to be a public private cooperation for economic growth and quality of living that the community . They must be willing to invest heavily in short term to reaize long term benefits. Pro sports designate a world class city, even if it's somewhat of a loss leader on the books.overall it's a quality of living amenity.

Look no further than the sonics and idiots like Locke and Gregoire who played chicken with clay Bennett over an arena and allowed him to steal the team. Now guys like ballmer etc are willing to spend whatever it takes to get a team back and still can't get one.
IIt is what it is. You have to pay to play

Hey look I love what SD did. They told a Billionaire to f-off and die! I love sports, but we need massive infusion of money to start educating our kids, instead of building single purpose sports stadiums. Sorry, I live 14 miles South of PDX, and I would give up the Blazers in a heart beat to bring in the NHL. However, the NHL is so arrogant, and thinks they are so special, they can go to Las Vegas and make it, come on. Hockey is niche market. It would make it in Seattle, Portland, and believe it or not, if not for the travel, Anchorage, Ak. They are drunk IMHO if they think LV is the new sports Mecca of the universe. SD loved the Chargers, but its has become the new sense of entitlement that these billionaires expect us to pay for their stuff. Wal Mart, Sports moguls, and Corporate heads, expect more and get more from the taxpayer than the worst welfare Queen. Lambeau Field is the last stadium still named in honor of a person, we need to get back to that. How about selling bonds to build charter schools. Schools that are gun, gang, and drug free zones. TELL THE CORPORATE EMPIRE TO *uck Off!

I love sports, but we need massive infusion of money to start educating our kids, instead of building single purpose sports stadiums.

We agree on more than you might think after reading this, but two things:

1. I think it's pretty clear a sports team is, or at least can be, a hefty public good. This doesn't mean you get back every dime you put in, but more that the city is better (or can be) in virtually every sense with a professional sports team as opposed to without it. Picture the sh*thole of SODO/south Seattle without the stadiums, for instance.

2. Lack of money is not the problem with public education in the United States.

Yeah teachers need more money. The average salary package in Washington state is 67k in wages and 23 k in benefits for a total compensation of 90 k. Assistant principals make 125k. Principal who know ? It's an important job but really? It's 9 months too.
The problem with education isn't money.
Subsidizing a pro team resulting in joy in the hearts of millions of fans and selling memorabilia, filling hotels and restaurants and paying many millions in taxes is a far better return on investment than dumping money down the utterly dysfunctional rathole known as public education or giving people money to sit on their as and do drugs(i.e. Welfare.

Hawktawk wrote:Yeah teachers need more money. The average salary package in Washington state is 67k in wages and 23 k in benefits for a total compensation of 90 k. Assistant principals make 125k. Principal who know ? It's an important job but really? It's 9 months too.
The problem with education isn't money.
Subsidizing a pro team resulting in joy in the hearts of millions of fans and selling memorabilia, filling hotels and restaurants and paying many millions in taxes is a far better return on investment than dumping money down the utterly dysfunctional rathole known as public education or giving people money to sit on their as and do drugs(i.e. Welfare.

Ah man I do not want to get into this argument again, but I will agree that money is not the issue in education. IMO it's the distribution of the money that is the problem.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... ating-team.
It looks like I was right. Spanos went above and beyond trying to make it work. The short sighted voters who turned down the initiative to build the stadium with cry in their beer forever cause they are never coming back.

Hawktawk wrote:http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000773226/article/roger-goodells-statement-on-chargers-relocating-team.
It looks like I was right. Spanos went above and beyond trying to make it work. The short sighted voters who turned down the initiative to build the stadium with cry in their beer forever cause they are never coming back.

Let him do what Paul Allen did North Hawk. We owe these billionaires nothing!
Its up to league to show the fans integrity, they NEVER HAVE! They never did for the Colts, the Cards, the Raiders 2X, the Browns, the Rams 2X, and now the Chargers. How you can defend this is a joke. Go talk to the Fans of St. Louis. Look at the Rangers, now they want a new stadium and they got it. Please, its time to tell them to get bent.

Paul Allen could wipe his AZZ with Dean Spanos bank account like its toilet paper and he still forced Seattle taxpayers and really anyone who came to town to stay in a motel etc to pay for half of THEIR stadium.
I can't recall the exact quote but he said we aren't footing the whole bill because we want the community to invest in this is to prove they still want the Seahawks in Washington.

The same Chargers fans burning jerseys in the street were the idiots who voted NO to their team staying by supporting the initiative 43% even though they knew the Chargers had NFL permission to leave even before last season.
They will spend a hell of a lot more on gas or travel expenses now than they would have in taxes had they approved the measure.They told Spanos to pound sand after he had spent 12 years looking for a new stadium and 50+ years in the community.

Call it blackmail or whatever. I call it you get what you pay for. Support your team in the stands and at the ballot box or you can whine when they are gone.

obiken wrote:Let him do what Paul Allen did North Hawk. We owe these billionaires nothing!
Its up to league to show the fans integrity, they NEVER HAVE! They never did for the Colts, the Cards, the Raiders 2X, the Browns, the Rams 2X, and now the Chargers. How you can defend this is a joke. Go talk to the Fans of St. Louis. Look at the Rangers, now they want a new stadium and they got it. Please, its time to tell them to get bent.

What are you talking about, Obi? The public paid for 70% of the cost of our stadium. Paul Allen chipped in just $130M on a total cost of $430M to build our stadium.

RiverDog wrote:
What are you talking about, Obi? The public paid for 70% of the cost of our stadium. Paul Allen chipped in just $130M on a total cost of $430M to build our stadium.

Exactly RD. I though it was half but either way..Hindsight is 20-20 but how has the investment the taxpayers of the state of washington made paid off in your opinion?
Obi?
U out there bud? Should we have told Paul Allen sorry man build it yourself? Its sort of like a really fancy port district. Its a public private partnership for economic development. You have to give to get and give to keep.
Pro sports franchises don't grow on trees.

mykc14 wrote: IMO it's the distribution of the money that is the problem.

Ayup.

Let him do what Paul Allen did North Hawk. We owe these billionaires nothing!
Its up to league to show the fans integrity, they NEVER HAVE! They never did for the Colts, the Cards, the Raiders 2X, the Browns, the Rams 2X, and now the Chargers. How you can defend this is a joke. Go talk to the Fans of St. Louis. Look at the Rangers, now they want a new stadium and they got it. Please, its time to tell them to get bent.

I think you mean Hawktawk. I haven't contributed to this thread until now.

Hawktawk wrote:Exactly RD. I though it was half but either way..Hindsight is 20-20 but how has the investment the taxpayers of the state of washington made paid off in your opinion?
Obi?
U out there bud? Should we have told Paul Allen sorry man build it yourself? Its sort of like a really fancy port district. Its a public private partnership for economic development. You have to give to get and give to keep.
Pro sports franchises don't grow on trees.

To answer your question, it was a very wise investment. I voted for it back in the 90's and I'd vote for it again today. The NFL puts Seattle on the map. The problem is that it's a seller's market for NFL franchises. If we didn't put up the bucks, someone else most certainly would have.

I'm almost to the point where I'd support some sort of national referendum that would ban public money being used on sports stadiums. Otherwise, the various wannabe's like San Antonio and Portland are always going to be competing with cities like Buffalo, a small market city that face a dilemma, either pony up or lose their football team.

The only problem is that in the long run, a ban on public money would hurt the small markets as they have less private money to draw from, so no way would a place like Kansas City or Cincinnati be able to compete with places like LA and Chicago. Public money is the only way for a small market to hold onto an NFL team.

You kind of contradict yourself Rd. You voted for public money to keep Seattle now you think it should be gone?
It ain't gonna happen . No team leaves without a lousy stadium and a lack of support within the community anymore.
You got to pay to play its how it is. It's harder to make that case with a perennial loser though.

Hawktawk wrote:You kind of contradict yourself Rd. You voted for public money to keep Seattle now you think it should be gone?
It ain't gonna happen . No team leaves without a lousy stadium and a lack of support within the community anymore.
You got to pay to play its how it is. It's harder to make that case with a perennial loser though.

It's not a contradiction so much as it is a conundrum. I don't know what the solution is. The idealist in me says that we shouldn't be paying for billionaire's playgrounds yet the practical part of me says it's the only way I'm going to have my football and with it my quality of life. So far, the practical side has won out.

The article was written by a guy that obviously does not live in San Diego. I do and what the author didn't bother to check was what actually happened here. Had he done so his article would have been strengthened.

What is never mentioned is Dean refused MULTIPLE offers by the city and only wanted his own plan which was DOA from the beginning. It would have cost the City over $1B. No single city can afford that. His first plan was for the city to give him free of charge 166 acres to build a 60 acre stadium. Duhhh anyone knows a transfer like that is illegal.

Dean Spanos only other proposal was downtown but included things that were known to be illegal. Even if approved it would have lost in the courts.

The city kept offering to negotiate a stadium on the same city owned property where the current stadium is. Its the same 166 acres Spanos wanted gifted to him free of charge. Deans response was the property his team played in for 56 yrs wasn't good enough and he would never play there again.

The city offered Spanos a $1per yr development lease on that same 166 acre property but because they wouldn't transfer ownership to him he ignored the offer. Spanos refused every city offer, the majority he simply ignored.

The article is deeply flawed. The Chargers wii be playing in a 30,000 seat soccer stadium with no luxury suites. Selling expensive PSLs requires a fanbase willing to pay for them. An NFL survey showed the Chargers to be 7th or 8th in NFL popularity in LA. He's lost his entire San Diego fanbase.

The real value Spanos gains is in the value of his franchise. Its probably worth $2B now. I doubt he will ever play in Inglewood with the Rams. He will try to get Carson to pony up $2.2B to build the stadium he and the Raiders proposed last year, only this time without the Raiders. If he can't get a stadium with Carson or Eli Broad in the City of Industry he will sell the team.

Bad teams have bad or inept owners.

Socalhawk wrote:The article was written by a guy that obviously does not live in San Diego. I do and what the author didn't bother to check was what actually happened here. Had he done so his article would have been strengthened.

What is never mentioned is Dean refused MULTIPLE offers by the city and only wanted his own plan which was DOA from the beginning. It would have cost the City over $1B. No single city can afford that. His first plan was for the city to give him free of charge 166 acres to build a 60 acre stadium. Duhhh anyone knows a transfer like that is illegal.

Dean Spanos only other proposal was downtown but included things that were known to be illegal. Even if approved it would have lost in the courts.

The city kept offering to negotiate a stadium on the same city owned property where the current stadium is. Its the same 166 acres Spanos wanted gifted to him free of charge. Deans response was the property his team played in for 56 yrs wasn't good enough and he would never play there again.

The city offered Spanos a $1per yr development lease on that same 166 acre property but because they wouldn't transfer ownership to him he ignored the offer. Spanos refused every city offer, the majority he simply ignored.

The article is deeply flawed. The Chargers wii be playing in a 30,000 seat soccer stadium with no luxury suites. Selling expensive PSLs requires a fanbase willing to pay for them. An NFL survey showed the Chargers to be 7th or 8th in NFL popularity in LA. He's lost his entire San Diego fanbase.

The real value Spanos gains is in the value of his franchise. Its probably worth $2B now. I doubt he will ever play in Inglewood with the Rams. He will try to get Carson to pony up $2.2B to build the stadium he and the Raiders proposed last year, only this time without the Raiders. If he can't get a stadium with Carson or Eli Broad in the City of Industry he will sell the team.

Bad teams have bad or inept owners.

Thanks for the inside info, Socal. I always appreciate hearing from those "on the scene" vs. outsiders like myself.

The part of the article that I think you will agree with is that the Chargers move to LA drastically increases the value of their franchise to the point that it really doesn't matter how many people attend their games, thus the decision to play in a 30,000 seat soccer stadium rather than someplace like the Rose Bowl. It's all about money. Screw the fans that actually show up and cheer their guts out for the team.

I wish the other 31 teams would be molded like the Green Bay Packers. The fans own the team due to a grandfather clause in the NFL's charter. The team was threatening to move so the fans banded together and bought it, financed stadium improvements, and so on, becoming one of the more successful franchises both on and off the field.