razor150":llvplwnt said:It is a nice opinion and all, and I agree with it. However, as long as there are cities and states out there willing to fund the stadiums teams will always use that as a weapon to get taxpayers to fund stadiums. Paul Allen saved the Seahawks while at the same time saying he would only do it if the tax payers paid for part of the Stadium. Now that is much better option than most owners give cities, but it still is a threat that we would lose our team if we didn't pony up a lot of dough.
Fudwamper":302hg1xr said:Why would I as employee pay for my workplace? Cities need to grow a sac and stop funding stadiums.
I'm with you on this one.RiverDog":1tnvmtfp said:The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.
Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?
v1rotv2":29g7jzv3 said:The one greatest reason the owners want publicly funded stadiums is that they can walk away from them when they want to move the team. It's pretty tough to move the team when you own the stadium. There would not be any moves if the owners had to take that hit.
RiverDog":1cmehrfb said:The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.
Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?
CPHawk":1tzyec66 said:RiverDog":1tzyec66 said:The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.
Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?
The players do chip in. Every Sunday, by playing the game and getting us the fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat, and a bunch more money per year on shirts, jerseys, shorts and hats.
Jiggy":2y75e719 said:CPHawk":2y75e719 said:RiverDog":2y75e719 said:The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.
Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?
The players do chip in. Every Sunday, by playing the game and getting us the fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat, and a bunch more money per year on shirts, jerseys, shorts and hats.
Owners do chip in. Every day by building world class training facilities, hiring world class doctors, coaches, training staff to get the players to the game every Sunday to play the game and get us fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat .....
RiverDog":5esqpl4s said:The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.
Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?
CPHawk":3h3oqli3 said:Jiggy":3h3oqli3 said:CPHawk":3h3oqli3 said:RiverDog":3h3oqli3 said:The only thing I'd criticize Sherman for in his statement is that the players ought to be pitching in, too. If in their last collective bargaining agreement, they decided to lower their demands by 5% and the owners by an equal amount and dedicate that 5% to a stadium fund, that's 10% of revenue that today tops $10 BILLION dollars, meaning that the two sides could be contributing a combined $1 billion per year, more than enough to finance a new stadium every 1.5 years, and with the way the NFL's revenue stream is growing, it will surely outpace the increased cost of stadium construction as in 10 years, the NFL is estimating that their revenue will top $27 billion annually.
Or are Sherman and the other players so greedy that they wouldn't agree to a 5% reduction in their salaries which IMO are just as obscene as owner's demands for taxpayer support?
The players do chip in. Every Sunday, by playing the game and getting us the fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat, and a bunch more money per year on shirts, jerseys, shorts and hats.
Owners do chip in. Every day by building world class training facilities, hiring world class doctors, coaches, training staff to get the players to the game every Sunday to play the game and get us fans to pay $10 a beer and 350 for a seat .....
Actually we the fans pay for all of that. The NFL is a multi billion dollar company, they can pay for the stadiums up front, they will make back the money multiple times, and not just from football but f m all the other events held there.