The TAXPAYERS pay for the stadiums?!
Status report Page 2,112
Quote: Aaron @ April 16 2010, 2:01 AM BSTThe TAXPAYERS pay for the stadiums?!
It goes something like this:
Some/many residents of a city want a baseball/football team to cheer for. The city would like one because of bragging rights, increased stature and the hundreds of millions of dollars it will pump into the local economy every year. Ticket sales, television money, hotels for out of town fans, concession sales, etc.
The city issues bonds and/or does something like levy a new 1% sales tax on things like hotel rooms, rental cars and other services that ostensibly will be paid for by non-residents. Somehow the city must raise the money to build a stadium if they ever want a team to consider moving there. There are always teams who are nearing the end of their contract with a city/stadium and are willing to be lured away by the promise of a new, huge, stadium somewhere else.
Once you land a team, the clock starts ticking. They probably signed a 10 or 20-year lease, but once it expires there's a good chance they'll twist the city's arm into building a new stadium by threatening to move the beloved team elsewhere.
San Antonio built the 65,000-seat Alamodome in 1993 because of demands for a new stadium by the San Antonio Spurs basketball team. It was designed to be large enough to accommodate a football team, but that dream was never realized and the Spurs moved into a new basketball-only stadium a few years later. So we have an unused (with the exception of rodeos and the occasional convention) stadium that is now considered too small for the NFL. Any future attempt to lure a team to town will require a new stadium.
The University of Texas at San Antonio is starting a college football program next year. They'll use the Alamodome until their own stadium can be built.
More stadiums, more money and more perfectly good structures to be imploded a few years down the road.
Blimey. That's a hell of a lot of money. And, as far as I'm aware, a quite, quite different concept to those which operate here.
(Although the model being applied to the 2012 Olympic white elephants isn't massively different, I suppose.)
Quote: DaButt @ April 16 2010, 2:21 AM BSTMore stadiums, more money and more perfectly good structures to be imploded a few years down the road.
Yeah, I often come across demolition videos on YouTube doing just that and just seems an incredible waste but it's market forces I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv2Y8SGp9aM
The US certainly don't need to build anything new when bidding for the 2018 World Cup because they know that there will be another new stadium along in a minute.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/north_america/countries/united_states.shtml
Texas alone has 13 stadiums of over 40,000 capacity capable of staging World Cup matches. 
Quote: Tuumble @ April 16 2010, 3:33 AM BSTYeah, I often come across demolition videos on YouTube doing just that and just seems an incredible waste but it's market forces I guess.
That was last weekend. I was willing to make the 300-mile drive to watch it, but then I saw that it was scheduled for 7 a.m. and decided that it wasn't worth the hassle.
Ellie is wearing a summer dress today with summer shoes, but is still wearing thick tights (partly cause the dress is quite short).
Quote: EllieJP @ April 16 2010, 9:08 AM BSTEllie is wearing a summer dress today with summer shoes, but is still wearing thick tights (partly cause the dress is quite short).
You little tease. 
Ha - it's not really a tease, just the fact I'm quite tall and don't want to subject peeps to bum cheek.
I think you'll find Chip has just had a heart attack!
*drool* bum cheek
Quote: bigfella @ April 16 2010, 9:17 AM BSTI think you'll find Chip has just had a heart attack!
laying in a pool of man mess.
Quote: john lucas 101 @ April 16 2010, 9:18 AM BST*drool* bum cheek
See how women think of bum cheek as a bad thing. Believe me it's nothing like this.
Morning, f**kers! Glad to see you've prepared the thread for me with a cheek-of-bum discussion. 
Quote: chipolata @ April 16 2010, 9:34 AM BSTMorning, f**kers! Glad to see you've prepared the thread for me with a cheek-of-bum discussion.
I'm sure 'f**kers' in this case is not meant in the pejorative sense.
Quote: john lucas 101 @ April 16 2010, 9:40 AM BSTI'm sure 'f**kers' in this case is not meant in the pejorative sense.
No, it was.