Are the Weavers hedging their bets?

[ChriswUfGator]

DW....the point Chris seems to be making is that the Jaguars are at best a no sum game for Jax...it is easy to see that publicly-funded stadiums don't add up, but the team as a whole is another story!

They are one and the same Tufsu, the team wouldn't be here without the taxpayer support.

You're trying to draw a distinction where none exists. The taxpayer outlay we're discussing is directly Jags-related.

[tufsu1]

so is your only financial  issue with the Jags the stadium itself?

[Captain Zissou]

"There are more important considerations for them," Mallot said. "However, being an NFL city is certainly among the evaluations, and one of the big reasons Jacksonville is such a terrific location."

He said having the Jaguars was one of the most important pieces of the puzzle for companies such as Fidelity National, Main Street America and Deutsche Bank in decisions to move to Jacksonville or open offices here.
Jerry Mallot, executive vice president of the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce

The main reason Deutsche Bank came here was low cost.  

[ChriswUfGator]

so is your only financial  issue with the Jags the stadium itself?

My only issue is that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are an entertainment and ego or "QOL" thing. The old threadbare justification about how football teams are some magical economic panacea for their respective municipalities is pretty much complete B.S. that has been thoroughly debunked over the past decade by a string of studies on it. So I was just pointing out that, if you want a meaningful discussion, then we need to talk about the real function. Because the economic impact is almost always negative, not positive.

But I have no issue with the Jags. This is a democracy, and if people want a football team then we should have a football team. Like I said, I don't think we should get rid of parks, statues, and fountains either, and those don't generate any return for taxpayers. That's hardly the dispositive consideration. But we should get away from pretending that the reason we do it is because the economic benefits outweigh the costs.

[hillary supporter]

so is your only financial  issue with the Jags the stadium itself?

My only issue is that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are an entertainment and ego or "QOL" thing. The old threadbare justification about how football teams are some magical economic panacea for their respective municipalities is pretty much complete B.S. that has been thoroughly debunked over the past decade by a string of studies on it. So I was just pointing out that, if you want a meaningful discussion, then we need to talk about the real function. Because the economic impact is almost always negative, not positive.

But I have no issue with the Jags. This is a democracy, and if people want a football team then we should have a football team. Like I said, I don't think we should get rid of parks, statues, and fountains either, and those don't generate any return for taxpayers. That's hardly the dispositive consideration. But we should get away from pretending that the reason we do it is because the economic benefits outweigh the costs.

Very well put.
I acknowledge that its my ego, my pride when i say," I LOVE THE JAGUARS!!!"
God, I'd die if they left. I remember when i was up in NYC and i had ordered my Jag jacket (pre copyright infringment) and a friend got some tics to Giant stadium as the giants were out of the playoffs. We went and i wore my Jags jacket and EVERYONE LOVED IT! I fell in Love w/ jags teal then and there!
Sorry, i will get back to the thread. I know Chris favors the home team!

[PeeJayEss]

Last I checked, grammar Nazism wasn't any more popular than real Nazism. Do you want a Sieg Heil! or something?

And as to the rest of your post, what would you call building a stadium for a private business with taxpayer funds, maintaining it with taxpayer funds, and then giving the private business the revenue generated by the stadium built by taxpayer funds, then? The business generated by the team is largely self-contained within the stadium built and maintained by taxpayers, where the private business gets to keep the revenue. There have been numerous studies showing that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are generally a net negative for the municipality, your horse was dead before it ever left the starting gate on this one.

Like I said back in my first post, if you want to discuss this, let's at least drop the delusion that it pays for itself and discuss the real reasons, which are nothing more than ego and entertainment. If that is deemed worth it, then fine, we live in a democracy don't we? But drop this nonsense about it being some boon for the local economy. It's not.

Yes, grammar nazism, you caught me. Or perhaps the entire meaning of your question reverses with the wrong pronoun selection. I wanted to clarify before responding so that my comments would not be misconstrued, something you are clearly not worried about. Or you are just a proofreading refusalist! These labels sure are easy to develop. That said (and staying off topic - and when I get back on topic it will actually still be off the topic of this thread, but I digress), grammar nazism sure is more popular than real nazism. If I had to pick one, it would be the grammar variety.

Now, my first argument (which you clearly shattered by pointing out my National Socialist Grammar leanings) was that the Weavers can be considered charitable for giving away their money, regardless if their business has benefited from government money. I find this position to be at least reasonable.

As for the economics of the Jags, all I'm saying is widen your gaze. The issue of ROI for a government is much more than two lines on a budget. Yes, quality of life is a strong argument, but its not the only one. The city benefits if its people benefit, and there is a great deal of money changing hands outside of Everbank due to this team. You are simply writing that off.

The paper quoted by Dog Walker discusses the economic change in cities that have basketball, football, and baseball teams over a 30 year period. So we are to assume from their research that all the changes in a metro area over 3 decades is due to professional sports teams (many of which have been in place for over 100 years)? So the decline of urban areas in the US over the past 30 years is because they had sports teams? Was there economic growth across the board in every area of the country without sports teams or something? Why did they choose that particular mixture of sports? Did it have anything to do with the fact that hockey is growing while baseball and basketball are declining? Why 30 years? Did every professional sport start 30 years ago? Drawing such strong conclusions with certainty based off loosely correlated data is cause for concern. I'm not disagreeing, but that study seems suspect. You can draw any conclusion you want by changing things such as the sport combination, timeframe, etc. You need to follow all the money and how it relates to a particular franchise to really get this study right.

The other arguments in the literature against stadium-building are that the economics are a zero-sum game. Which is true, but that zero sum is global. When Jax gives a company incentives to move their business downtown, we profit at the expense of the suburbs or another city (but no new money is created - if anything there is less in general as we are allowing the company to keep more). The same is true of money spent by citizens. Having the Jags will simply redirect the money you were going to spend from one business to the Jaguars (or local bar to watch the game or comcast for cable, or publix for chips and dip, etc). Whether this "fixed budget" assumption is true is debatable: maybe you will simply save less money each year because the Jags are in town. Even if it is true, you are still bringing in some out of town money (hotels, airlines, naming rights, people from the burbs - I'm kidding its all called Jacksonville city here). You're still taking that money from somebody else, but somebody outside of Jacksonville so who cares right? I don't know that this is enough to cover the city's cost of maintaining the team, but I'm not going to say outright (as you are) that is does or does not.

Do I think a professional sports team is the best use of money? No, but its hardly just flushing money down the drain to appease the mob.

[Captain Zissou]

3: QOL is a fancy name for the ego and entertainment justification for taxpayer funding of a private sports business.

Does this mean you are not in support of QOL?

[Wacca Pilatka]

I'm inclined to believe that the intangible, psychological benefits of a pro sports team are greater to a smaller market city, in the sense of boosting its national profile, giving the city a degree of national credibility as a growing community, instilling pride in its residents, perhaps even in encouraging young people dreaming of living in a "big-time" market to stay in town and preventing brain drain.  For those reasons, I think the Jaguars are far more important to Jacksonville than, e.g., the Nationals to Washington.  I'd say the same of the Thunder for Oklahoma City and (although they are gone and obviously not anywhere near as important to that city's boom as the banks) the Hornets for Charlotte in the late 80s.  And I hate to argue from the negative, but I believe that if the Jaguars were to leave (not that I think that's happening), the effect on the city and its national profile would be psychologically cataclysmic.  It will create a reputation for Jacksonville as the city that couldn't handle being big-time, and it may well have an indirect, deleterious effect on business or residential location decisions.

Incidentally, while I wholeheartedly agree with all the comments made upthread about how people going to Jaguars games are shuttled in and out without there being any benefit to downtown due to the traffic direction system, I surely do not agree with the implication that JSO's traffic machinations are the Jaguars' decision.

[ChriswUfGator]

3: QOL is a fancy name for the ego and entertainment justification for taxpayer funding of a private sports business.

Does this mean you are not in support of QOL?

Of course not, just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's money raining into my pocket.

I'm all for the Jags and enjoy having them here.

[ChriswUfGator]

Last I checked, grammar Nazism wasn't any more popular than real Nazism. Do you want a Sieg Heil! or something?

And as to the rest of your post, what would you call building a stadium for a private business with taxpayer funds, maintaining it with taxpayer funds, and then giving the private business the revenue generated by the stadium built by taxpayer funds, then? The business generated by the team is largely self-contained within the stadium built and maintained by taxpayers, where the private business gets to keep the revenue. There have been numerous studies showing that taxpayer-supported professional sports teams are generally a net negative for the municipality, your horse was dead before it ever left the starting gate on this one.

Like I said back in my first post, if you want to discuss this, let's at least drop the delusion that it pays for itself and discuss the real reasons, which are nothing more than ego and entertainment. If that is deemed worth it, then fine, we live in a democracy don't we? But drop this nonsense about it being some boon for the local economy. It's not.

Yes, grammar nazism, you caught me. Or perhaps the entire meaning of your question reverses with the wrong pronoun selection. I wanted to clarify before responding so that my comments would not be misconstrued, something you are clearly not worried about. Or you are just a proofreading refusalist! These labels sure are easy to develop. That said (and staying off topic - and when I get back on topic it will actually still be off the topic of this thread, but I digress), grammar nazism sure is more popular than real nazism. If I had to pick one, it would be the grammar variety.

Now, my first argument (which you clearly shattered by pointing out my National Socialist Grammar leanings) was that the Weavers can be considered charitable for giving away their money, regardless if their business has benefited from government money. I find this position to be at least reasonable.

As for the economics of the Jags, all I'm saying is widen your gaze. The issue of ROI for a government is much more than two lines on a budget. Yes, quality of life is a strong argument, but its not the only one. The city benefits if its people benefit, and there is a great deal of money changing hands outside of Everbank due to this team. You are simply writing that off.

The paper quoted by Dog Walker discusses the economic change in cities that have basketball, football, and baseball teams over a 30 year period. So we are to assume from their research that all the changes in a metro area over 3 decades is due to professional sports teams (many of which have been in place for over 100 years)? So the decline of urban areas in the US over the past 30 years is because they had sports teams? Was there economic growth across the board in every area of the country without sports teams or something? Why did they choose that particular mixture of sports? Did it have anything to do with the fact that hockey is growing while baseball and basketball are declining? Why 30 years? Did every professional sport start 30 years ago? Drawing such strong conclusions with certainty based off loosely correlated data is cause for concern. I'm not disagreeing, but that study seems suspect. You can draw any conclusion you want by changing things such as the sport combination, timeframe, etc. You need to follow all the money and how it relates to a particular franchise to really get this study right.

The other arguments in the literature against stadium-building are that the economics are a zero-sum game. Which is true, but that zero sum is global. When Jax gives a company incentives to move their business downtown, we profit at the expense of the suburbs or another city (but no new money is created - if anything there is less in general as we are allowing the company to keep more). The same is true of money spent by citizens. Having the Jags will simply redirect the money you were going to spend from one business to the Jaguars (or local bar to watch the game or comcast for cable, or publix for chips and dip, etc). Whether this "fixed budget" assumption is true is debatable: maybe you will simply save less money each year because the Jags are in town. Even if it is true, you are still bringing in some out of town money (hotels, airlines, naming rights, people from the burbs - I'm kidding its all called Jacksonville city here). You're still taking that money from somebody else, but somebody outside of Jacksonville so who cares right? I don't know that this is enough to cover the city's cost of maintaining the team, but I'm not going to say outright (as you are) that is does or does not.

Do I think a professional sports team is the best use of money? No, but its hardly just flushing money down the drain to appease the mob.

Yes, as you have pointed out twice now, Mein Fuhrer, my syntax was improper, as anyone with two brain cells who read it would have immediately understood when my meaning was clear and obvious notwithstanding my scrivener's error. Believe it or not, people can normally read through typos. And most of them even do it without taking pleasure in using a grammatical error as a distraction when they don't agree with an opposing viewpoint. Just the same, I'm sure everyone appreciates your extensive efforts in making my post handicap accessible. Sieg Heil!

As to the remainder of your straw-man, I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team, only that those benefits are generally found not to equal the tax dollars invested. This was my point from the beginning, notwithstanding your attempt to reframe it and replace it with the Grammar Chancellory.

[Timkin]

ROFLMAO at last posting , Chris.. Especially Colonel Klink    Priceless, brother    LOL

[PeeJayEss]

Yes, as you have pointed out twice now, Mein Fuhrer, my syntax was improper, as anyone with two brain cells who read it would have immediately understood when my meaning was clear and obvious notwithstanding my scrivener's error. Believe it or not, people can normally read through typos. And most of them even do it without taking pleasure in using a grammatical error as a distraction when they don't agree with an opposing viewpoint. Just the same, I'm sure everyone appreciates your extensive efforts in making my post handicap accessible. Sieg Heil!

As to the remainder of your straw-man, I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team, only that those benefits are generally found not to equal the tax dollars invested. This was my point from the beginning, notwithstanding your attempt to reframe it and replace it with the Grammar Chancellory.

So...my first response was three paragraphs that contained a single clause reference to "hey dude maybe you mistyped this one minor thing. I realize what you're trying to say but it could be misconstrued. Did you know there is an edit button next to your post?" To this you responded with a reference comparing me to perpetrators of genocide. So we started somewhere reasonable.

Then, in my five paragraph response, I used a whole paragraph to poke fun at your comical throwing about of the nazi label. To this one you responded with a post dedicated almost exclusively to hammering away the nazi thing (though you did manage to contradict yourself in the topical argument). Also, you said I was trying to reframe and replace the debate (in a post dedicated entirely to not responding to my arguments, no less!).

So that's 2 "Hail Victory"s, 2 unrelated photos, half a dozen references to Nazis, 1 to the handicapped, some exclamation points, and 0 response to the majority of what I wrote. And you have literally not even hinted at responding about the Weavers. So now I have to write this post that is mostly off topic (which was already off the topic) to point all this out.

These two things:

I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team

the real reasons, which are nothing more than ego and entertainment.

are contradictory.

I'm not saying you're wrong that building stadiums is a bad investment, I just don't think you're giving this issue a full and fair accounting. That and you're kinda being a dick about it. That's all.

[Timkin]

o my :/

[ChriswUfGator]

Yes, as you have pointed out twice now, Mein Fuhrer, my syntax was improper, as anyone with two brain cells who read it would have immediately understood when my meaning was clear and obvious notwithstanding my scrivener's error. Believe it or not, people can normally read through typos. And most of them even do it without taking pleasure in using a grammatical error as a distraction when they don't agree with an opposing viewpoint. Just the same, I'm sure everyone appreciates your extensive efforts in making my post handicap accessible. Sieg Heil!

As to the remainder of your straw-man, I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team, only that those benefits are generally found not to equal the tax dollars invested. This was my point from the beginning, notwithstanding your attempt to reframe it and replace it with the Grammar Chancellory.

So...my first response was three paragraphs that contained a single clause reference to "hey dude maybe you mistyped this one minor thing. I realize what you're trying to say but it could be misconstrued. Did you know there is an edit button next to your post?" To this you responded with a reference comparing me to perpetrators of genocide. So we started somewhere reasonable.

Then, in my five paragraph response, I used a whole paragraph to poke fun at your comical throwing about of the nazi label. To this one you responded with a post dedicated almost exclusively to hammering away the nazi thing (though you did manage to contradict yourself in the topical argument). Also, you said I was trying to reframe and replace the debate (in a post dedicated entirely to not responding to my arguments, no less!).

So that's 2 "Hail Victory"s, 2 unrelated photos, half a dozen references to Nazis, 1 to the handicapped, some exclamation points, and 0 response to the majority of what I wrote. And you have literally not even hinted at responding about the Weavers. So now I have to write this post that is mostly off topic (which was already off the topic) to point all this out.

These two things:

I have never denied that there are undoubtedly some ancillary economic benefits to supporting a sports team

the real reasons, which are nothing more than ego and entertainment.

are contradictory.

I'm not saying you're wrong that building stadiums is a bad investment, I just don't think you're giving this issue a full and fair accounting. That and you're kinda being a dick about it. That's all.

1: Grammar Nazis aren't perpetrators of genocide. They're worse.

2: If you want to play PHI-1101, then fine let's break it down with some basic venn diagrams. The class of 'real reasons' does not include all of the classes of 'all reasons' and 'any reasons' for something happening, and therefore the statement is not a contradiction. In fact, my use of the phrase 'real reasons' by its very nature implies my acknowledgement of the existence of alternate reasons, while at the same time expressing that these alternate reasons are not the real reasons we should be considering. So I'm afraid you don't get your gold star for this one.

3: As to your final observation, it would seem the pot black hole is calling the kettle black.

[I-10east]

The largest bank in the Southeast, and the three largest banks in Florida were headquartered in Jacksonville for the 100 years before we had the Jaguars

Then mega banks like BOA decided to acquire the smaller banks (like Barnett) throughout America, making a near monopoly. That was gonna happen regardless of the Jags being here.