Languish.org

A new report came today in the papers.  A baseball team would be viable in Montreal if a new stadium is funded with 2/3 public funds.

Quebec city new arena is 90% publically financed.

F1 racing is almost 100% financed by Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa, a small part comes from a special tax on hotels, IIRC.

Apparently, Montreal business community is in favour of this plan.

Imho, if it's financed by public funding, businesses should put their money where their mouth is.  Agree to a special property tax on all greater Montreal businesses, enough to finance the costs of the new stadium.  They want it, they pay it.

No way I'm paying (again) for Montreal.  We are already funding all their silly art projetcs.

Besides, baseball is about the worst of the major sports franchise out there.  Wages are totally out of control, teams keep shuffling to where public funds are, and thanks to Jeffrey Loria, baseball popularity sank to a new low in the last years of the Expos.  I seriously doubt it can be revived enough to fill a 60 000 places stadium.

Public funding of professional sports facilities doesnt make sense.  Public funding of public sports facilities makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2013, 02:35:23 PM
Public funding of professional sports facilities doesnt make sense.  Public funding of public sports facilities makes a lot of sense.

I agree.  I think it's great to have soccer fields and small arenas for kids to play hockey.  I also might be encline to agree that a basketball court has its use in some places.

But the issue is about professional sports, wich requires its own facilities.

I don't like it, but it's the way things are these days. 

I am totally against it, especially to attract new franchises.

I support it as long as the public funding body or bodies retain ownership interest in the facility.

Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2013, 03:29:57 PM
I don't like it, but it's the way things are these days. 

what you mean is that your Republican principles will go away to fund something you happen to like? :)

Quote from: Grey Fox on December 12, 2013, 03:30:43 PM
I am totally against it, especially to attract new franchises.

Me too.  Except for the Nordiques.  :P
(nah, not even then, I think the Colisée deal is a bad deal for Quebec city).

Professional sports franchises are a finite good.  If a sufficient majority of the community sees value in having one in their city, then paying for a facility is often the price you have to pay.

I don't really have an opinion. When companies plan to establish operation somewhere they are sometimes in a position to negotiate some kind of special deal with the city ("An IKEA in Smallville? Yes please!") and I don't think it's a problem that companies can shop around for the best deal. Now cities tend to make piss-poor decisions in those cases when it's about stuff like pride or "putting the city on the map" (which is often the case with arenas and sports), but that's what cities do and people are free to elect different leaders (which they don't).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 04:08:05 PM
Professional sports franchises are a finite good.  If a sufficient majority of the community sees value in having one in their city, then paying for a facility is often the price you have to pay.

Are there really referendum on wether or not it should be done?  I mean, before the fact?  It seems to me it's usually a done deal, than a group of citizens tries to oppose the project and force a referendum on the subject.

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2013, 04:19:31 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 04:08:05 PM
Professional sports franchises are a finite good.  If a sufficient majority of the community sees value in having one in their city, then paying for a facility is often the price you have to pay.

Are there really referendum on wether or not it should be done?  I mean, before the fact?  It seems to me it's usually a done deal, than a group of citizens tries to oppose the project and force a referendum on the subject.

I believe they do so in California. I know it was the case for 49ers to move to Santa Clara.  On the flip side though I believe eminent domain was key element for Barclay's Center in Brooklyn with most residents against it. My details on that are fuzzy though and filtered through a family member who lost their apartment that they had planned to retire in.

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2013, 02:30:40 PM
Besides, baseball is about the worst of the major sports franchise out there.  Wages are totally out of control, teams keep shuffling to where public funds are, and thanks to Jeffrey Loria, baseball popularity sank to a new low in the last years of the Expos.  I seriously doubt it can be revived enough to fill a 60 000 places stadium.

The economics of baseball are actually pretty good.  TV contracts are quite lucrative because there is a lot of inventory to sell and a nice demographics to target.  Franchise values are on par with the NFL.  The problem is that compared to NFL the weaker franchises are less economically viable because there is less profit sharing.  But well run smaller market franchises can and do thrive.  The real question is not whether the franchise can be made viable - with proper marketing and support and a committed local ownership group it can - but whether the susidies are really the best use of public money.

My 2c MLB really owes it to Montreal to give the city a second chance based on the disgraceful way they dealt with the Expos situation, and it would be nice to see big-time pro baseball back in the town where Jackie robinson made his integrated debut.  But totally understandable if the city decides it has other priorities with the $$

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 04:08:05 PM
Professional sports franchises are a finite good. 

They are a finite good in part because of exemptions from antitrust/competition rules that might otherwise apply.

I think for multi-use civic arenas, that the local government retains ownership interest in then there is no problem with public financing. If anything it's a sign of a successful city when you start building civic arenas, but it has to make sense with your financial situation. A city can definitely make money off of the ownership and operation of a big venue that attracts concerts and various other attractions as well as special sporting events (bowl games, NCAA basketball tournament rounds, Super Bowls etc.)

But paying for a facility that will primarily only be available to one team, and where that team also gets to probably have a lot of office and etc space, solely as a means of enticing that team to move to your town/not leave your town, I'm less receptive to that. I can approve of that if the long term lease on the facility is such that the city makes money on the deal, and is just eating all the upfront costs of building and financing it with bonds or whatever, or if there are ancillary developments in the surrounding neighborhood that create sufficient tax base improvements to make the deal a net positive.

From what I've seen the norm is that many of these arrangements where it is all tied up with one team as an enticement, the local government gets hosed. I liked that the Steinbrenners self-funded construction of the new Yankees stadium, that's really the appropriate way to do that sort of thing. Plus it means extra revenue for them as full owners of the facility (Pinstripe Bowl!)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2013, 04:44:15 PM
They are a finite good in part because of exemptions from antitrust/competition rules that might otherwise apply.

I don't understand the connection.  Please explain.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 04:54:12 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2013, 04:44:15 PM
They are a finite good in part because of exemptions from antitrust/competition rules that might otherwise apply.

I don't understand the connection.  Please explain.

Otherwise there would be open entry for anyone with enough $$ to sign major league level talent.

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2013, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2013, 03:29:57 PM
I don't like it, but it's the way things are these days. 

what you mean is that your Republican principles will go away to fund something you happen to like? :)

That doesn't contradict his Republican principles.

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2013, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2013, 03:29:57 PM
I don't like it, but it's the way things are these days. 

what you mean is that your Republican principles will go away to fund something you happen to like? :)

Not really.  It's just something cities or counties have to do in order to stay competitive these days.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2013, 04:58:43 PM
Otherwise there would be open entry for anyone with enough $$ to sign major league level talent.

And there have been competing football leagues and there are minor league basketball leagues. 

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 12, 2013, 03:35:03 PM
I support it as long as the public funding body or bodies retain ownership interest in the facility.

I think that's pretty reasonable.  The idea that the public should just pay for a facility and then give it as a gift to a billionaire is unappealing to me.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2013, 04:44:15 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 04:08:05 PM
Professional sports franchises are a finite good. 

They are a finite good in part because of exemptions from antitrust/competition rules that might otherwise apply.

Would antitrust law require NFL teams to play teams from other football leagues, provided that it wasn't waived?

Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 05:36:29 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2013, 04:44:15 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 04:08:05 PM
Professional sports franchises are a finite good. 

They are a finite good in part because of exemptions from antitrust/competition rules that might otherwise apply.

Would antitrust law require NFL teams to play teams from other football leagues, provided that it wasn't waived?

No, it would require the NFL to pay each such league $1.

FWIW, I'm in general agreement with you and OvB on this.

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2013, 03:28:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2013, 02:35:23 PM
Public funding of professional sports facilities doesnt make sense.  Public funding of public sports facilities makes a lot of sense.

I also might be enclined to agree that a basketball court has its use in some places.

:D

Can't they do a cost-benefit-analaysis as with other big projects?

Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2013, 08:43:49 PM
Can't they do a cost-benefit-analaysis as with other big projects?

How do you quantify civic pride due to being the home of a franchise?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2013, 08:43:49 PM
Can't they do a cost-benefit-analaysis as with other big projects?

How do you quantify civic pride due to being the home of a franchise?

By paying a consultant a half-million dollars to make something up.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2013, 08:43:49 PM
Can't they do a cost-benefit-analaysis as with other big projects?

How do you quantify civic pride due to being the home of a franchise?

However important the city thinks it is. +0.1 or some such.
Though far more important I would hope is practical money matters.

So you want them to do a cost/benefit, and for the benefit they put in however much they want.  :hmm:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 08:50:41 PM
So you want them to do a cost/benefit, and for the benefit they put in however much they want.  :hmm:

I'm not a civil servant. I have no idea how important they think it is. They would have ways of justifying a number however.

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2013, 02:30:40 PM

Besides, baseball is about the worst of the major sports franchise out there.  Wages are totally out of control, teams keep shuffling to where public funds are, and thanks to Jeffrey Loria, baseball popularity sank to a new low in the last years of the Expos.  I seriously doubt it can be revived enough to fill a 60 000 places stadium.

Most baseball stadiums today only usually have like 45,000 people.

Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2013, 05:01:11 PM

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2013, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2013, 03:29:57 PM
I don't like it, but it's the way things are these days. 

what you mean is that your Republican principles will go away to fund something you happen to like? :)

Not really.  It's just something cities or counties have to do in order to stay competitive these days.

So. any subsidy to any corporate entity for wich goal, as determined by a political party, is to increase the competitivity of the city or county is legitimate in your eyes?

Isn't that dangerously close to socialism?

If your government tells you health care insurance is a necessity to be competitive with the rest of the world, will you buy it?

Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2013, 08:52:33 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2013, 08:50:41 PM
So you want them to do a cost/benefit, and for the benefit they put in however much they want.  :hmm:

I'm not a civil servant. I have no idea how important they think it is. They would have ways of justifying a number however.

The cost part is relatively easy (though a lot of government-funded projects end up running over budget), but the benefits really can only be calculated accurately in retrospect--beforehand, the financial benefits are basically a matter of the assumptions of whoever is doing the analaysis.  At best, it's a guess;  at worst, it's a reflection of someone's biases.

Neil, Yi:

Neil's question is to the point.  Yes - competing leagues can be formed, but that is an enormous entry commitment because the new league most start off the bat with multiple franchises in multiple cities all offerring competitive talent.  In the present economic environment for sports it is probably an impossibility.   Note that no effort to form a competing league in major US sports has even got off the planning stage since the early 1980s.

What might be possible would be to form a new team in single city and then seek schedule games with regional rivals, even if on a exhibition basis.  But league rules prohibit that and the antitrust exemption prevents challenge under the Sherman Act as a restraint of trade.

America is incredibly Socialist about sports.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2013, 01:15:27 PM
What might be possible would be to form a new team in single city and then seek schedule games with regional rivals, even if on a exhibition basis.  But league rules prohibit that and the antitrust exemption prevents challenge under the Sherman Act as a restraint of trade.

This doesn't sound like a stupendous advantage.

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2013, 11:40:00 PM
So. any subsidy to any corporate entity for wich goal, as determined by a political party, is to increase the competitivity of the city or county is legitimate in your eyes?

No.

QuoteIsn't that dangerously close to socialism?

Not really.  Crony capitalism, maybe

QuoteIf your government tells you health care insurance is a necessity to be competitive with the rest of the world, will you buy it?

No.

It's only socialism if it goes to people that you don't like.

Quote from: derspiess on December 13, 2013, 02:43:47 PM

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2013, 11:40:00 PM
So. any subsidy to any corporate entity for wich goal, as determined by a political party, is to increase the competitivity of the city or county is legitimate in your eyes?

No.

QuoteIsn't that dangerously close to socialism?

Not really.  Crony capitalism, maybe

QuoteIf your government tells you health care insurance is a necessity to be competitive with the rest of the world, will you buy it?

No.

Then it's only about sports.  If it's really about the economic value of the project, anything could be financed.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2013, 02:36:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2013, 01:15:27 PM
What might be possible would be to form a new team in single city and then seek schedule games with regional rivals, even if on a exhibition basis.  But league rules prohibit that and the antitrust exemption prevents challenge under the Sherman Act as a restraint of trade.

This doesn't sound like a stupendous advantage.

It's enormous. 
The ability to use contract to control league scheduling it what makes exclusive leagues possible.
If you look at the early history of baseball, the creation and strict enforcement of contractual scheduling rules by the centralized league authority is what made the initial major league monopoly possible.

Quote from: viper37 on December 13, 2013, 02:57:57 PM
Then it's only about sports.

Well yeah, professional sports is sort of a special case for me. 

QuoteIf it's really about the economic value of the project, anything could be financed.

I wasn't just talking about economics.  It's a part of the equation.  But for me having professional sports teams make a city more livable.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2013, 02:36:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2013, 01:15:27 PM
What might be possible would be to form a new team in single city and then seek schedule games with regional rivals, even if on a exhibition basis.  But league rules prohibit that and the antitrust exemption prevents challenge under the Sherman Act as a restraint of trade.

This doesn't sound like a stupendous advantage.

:huh: That sounds like a humongous advantage, and I don't know anything about baseball.  There is a network effect in play here:  the value of the team is non-existent unless it has someone credible to play with.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2013, 04:37:02 PM
It's enormous. 
The ability to use contract to control league scheduling it what makes exclusive leagues possible.
If you look at the early history of baseball, the creation and strict enforcement of contractual scheduling rules by the centralized league authority is what made the initial major league monopoly possible.

I guess I just don't see the huge profits to be gained by defecting from the cartel and scheduling a game against the Birmingham Stallions.  Who would want to watch that?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
I guess I just don't see the huge profits to be gained by defecting from the cartel and scheduling a game against the Birmingham Stallions.  Who would want to watch that?

According to some, like author John U. Bacon, college football players are worth millions to their schools. Hire a team of them, and make the millions for yourself.