1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Houston to bid for Super Bowl LI (UPDATE: Houston lands 2017 Super Bowl!)

Discussion in 'Houston Texans' started by Jet Blast, May 23, 2012.

  1. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,911
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    I like it.... in a way it forces them to make much needed upgrades to the stadium along the way in order to keep it as up to date as possible.

    There are already a few stadiums that were built around the time the Oilers left that are already getting replaced and "outdated" because they either never got the stadium updated or they did some salvage upgrades that weren't enough (Georgia Dome and Edwards Jones Domes both prime examples).
     
  2. Mattj

    Mattj Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    82
    I'm sorry but this in absolute shame. $50 million in county money for wifi, suite and club seat upgrades for the Super Bowl for a team that just pulled in $225 million in revenue. The Texans could spend $10 million a year over 5 years and it would be a "nothing burger" expense to them. Every year the team goes to the county and says it needs more $$$. I don't live in Harris County, but if I did, I'd be pissed. The stadium hasn't even revitalized the area. It's still a crap hole whereas the baseball/basketball/soccer stadiums have seen capital improvements around them.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. DonkeyMagic

    DonkeyMagic Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    21,524
    Likes Received:
    3,361
    insert fake outrage here.
     
  4. Ziggy

    Ziggy QUEEN ANON

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 1999
    Messages:
    36,740
    Likes Received:
    13,131
    Since so much is happening at George R. Brown for the Superbowl there's a lot of renovation going on in the area in preparation. If that all goes as planned then it might be worth it. Personally I don't see how a 1-off event can sustain all of it but if it's a sparkplug I'm for it. The timing doesn't seem to be great as the local economic trajectory has been thrown off but I'll keep my fingers crossed.

    That Reliant Stadium area though, yeah, that geography is a lost cause right now.
     
  5. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,617
    Likes Received:
    6,244
  6. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,911
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    Houston doesn't get two Super Bowls without the stadium... and the county still makes money as being a landlord to the Texans and the rodeo.
     
  7. Buck Turgidson

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    84,927
    Likes Received:
    83,114
    I'm sure he was campaigning against the publicly funded stadium back in the day.
     
  8. mick fry

    mick fry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,343
    Likes Received:
    6,875
    Surely this will expedite the field replacement issue?
     
  9. MystikArkitect

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    15,753
    Nah...there's real outrage to be had. 50 million for WiFi and seats I'll never even see? What I find humorous is the gall that the Texans have to expect it to be done with tax payer money.

    That fact that this is even a discussion is enough for outrage.
     
  10. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,911
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    Isn't it still being funded by the hotel/car rental tax?

    So most people complaining about taxes they'll never pay...again, fake outrage.

    Also, the Texans aren't the only "tenants" of the stadium that should be responsible for upgrades. The facility is owned/operated by the county... if they want to sell that to the Texans, whereby they now keep all event revenue in addition to collecting from the HLSR, then i'm sure McNair can make them an offer.
     
  11. Cannonball

    Cannonball Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    21,649
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    On one hand, no, the Texans don't own the stadium and really shouldn't be responsible for its upkeep or upgrades. On the other hand, they were part of the bid to bring the Super Bowl here, and if upgrading the stadium was part of that bid, they shouldn't be totally off the hook on the cost unless it was established beforehand who would foot the bill.
     
  12. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    The Rodeo sells more tickets than the Texans do and contractually has more say in NRG I think. It has more 'City and County Leaders' on the board too. If they think the improvements would benefit the rodeo and OTC then it would get done.

    The tax money is a drop in the bucket but what would the NFL do if they said no, move the 2017 Super Bowl? It's not like we are ever getting a third one.

    Seems like AT&T or Comcast would do the wi-fi for trade-out and advertizing.
     
  13. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,911
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    Sure, but not many people outside of Houston care or even know about the rodeo... and them by itself would not be enough to build a premier top-line stadium that requires such improvements (hell, they'd have probably remodeled the Astrodome again if the Texans never were awarded to Houston).

    And they definitely have nothing to do with the Super Bowl coming here.

    Who paid for the new video boards? It should be the same funding mechanism.
     
  14. Scarface281

    Scarface281 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    8,416
    Likes Received:
    3,003
    2017 would be the third one and I don't know why you say Houston wouldn't get another.
     
  15. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,095
    Likes Received:
    18,941
    Even some of the most ardent supporters of publicly funded stadiums/arenas are singing a different tune now. They never deliver what they promise...the economic benefit is illusory...and they continue to cost the public more and more money long after they're built.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-frederick/miami-marlins-stadium_b_2137937.html

    The Miami Marlins and the End of Publicly Financed Stadiums

    The public should never, ever agree to finance a professional sports stadium again.

    This cannot be repeated often enough.

    The public should never, ever pay for a stadium or arena for a pro sports team again.

    Is your city considering (or being forced to consider) paying for a new pro sports stadium?

    Just DON'T do it.

    This gravy train for pro sports team owners has to stop. Because they continue to demonstrate -- to ever greater degrees -- that they don't give a damn about these gifts and showing any good will back to the public and the fans.

    More importantly, these stadiums are white elephants that end up costing the public FAR MORE than they benefit. Harvard professor and stadium expert Judith Grant Long just published a new book showing that in 2010, American pro sports stadiums cost the public $10 billion more than originally forecast. And that's just additional expenses!

    If stadiums were such a great investment, then why wouldn't sports owners fully fund them themselves?

    The truth is that stadiums are such a bad investment for whoever pays for them and such a giveaway to the owners of teams who get to play in them that owners will literally lie to the public and extort the public in order to get a new one. (Even if the current one is less than 20 years old and perfectly fine.) And they'll still **** all over loyal fans.

    Nowhere is this truer than in Miami.

    Miami Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria and team president David Samson literally lied to the public about the team's finances, swearing up and down that they needed to get out of the football stadium they were playing in but couldn't afford to build a stadium on their own. Only after the Miami-Dade County Commission agreed to finance the lion's share of a new $634 stadium did documents get leaked showing the team was indeed profiting. In case you're wondering how Miami-Dade County commissioners could still agree to finance the stadium, so is the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC is looking into whether the team provided false information and/or bribed county commissioners.

    So now the public is stuck with an enormous, garish stadium that no one is attending -- in its inaugural season -- that will eventually wind up costing the public $2.4 billion. All of which stinks, but which would be somewhat more tolerable if Loria was committed to fielding a competitive team. Instead, in the first season, Loria did indeed spend the money he didn't have to spend on a new stadium on payroll, bringing in several great players. However, after these stars didn't align, Loria and Samson gave away virtually the whole starting lineup for peanuts.

    Instead of a $100+ million payroll, the Marlins are now looking at $20+ million. Which means that owner Loria can make a nice profit every season given the $100 million that the Marlins and other "small market" (ha!) teams receive from the larger market teams. So the fans in Miami who do care will be forced to sit through bad baseball for seasons to come. But Loria got his new stadium and fooled the public (well, at least the Miami-Dade County Commission) into thinking he'd field a competitive team year-in and year-out.

    What's happened in Miami is just the latest (and most gaudy) example of how pro sports owners fleece the public. But it ought to be the last.

    Whether it's cities cutting social services to pay off stadium debt (Cincinnati), cities building new stadiums for teams they don't have (Kansas City), cities breaking leases to tear down beloved stadiums for owners demanding new ones (Denver), cities tearing down historic ballparks (Detroit, St. Louis and many others) or cities funding stadiums because politicians voted against the will of the public (countless cities), the public always ends up paying more than it receives. And, as the case of Miami illustrates, pro sports owners couldn't care less.

    We all must agree to never, ever finance a pro sports stadium again.

    ____________________________________________________________

    This is another great article on the topic...I had some difficulty pulling over the text without including too much extraneous stuff from the page...

    http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/america-has-a-stadium-problem-62665

    America Has a Stadium Problem
    Despite every number suggesting they shouldn't, why do American cities keep building sports stadiums funded with public money?


    ______________________________________________________________

    But maybe more important is the question around this wifi decision...is it worth it? Does bringing the Super Bowl to town generate enough dollars to make it worth it?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-super-bowls-ecoomic-impact-super-hyped/

    The committee responsible for bringing Super Bowl XLIX to Arizona this weekend estimates that the game will give the Phoenix area's economy a $500 million jolt. But at least one economist who studies the financial impact of sports say that estimate is inflated by a factor of about five.

    This year's National Football League championship, played at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, likely will yield an impact of between $30 million to $130 million, according to estimates from Victor Matheson at the College of the Holy Cross.

    "It's a far cry from $500 million," Matheson said in an interview. "The economic impact studies do a fairly good job at measuring the economic impact that does occur but don't do a good job at measuring the economic impact that doesn't occur."


    Why the Super Bowl may not benefit its host city
    For instance, the 100,000 or so visitors that the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee expects to come to Arizona for the big game are displacing visitors that would have come anyway to the warm-weather state during January. Local residents who attend the game or spend money on Super Bowl-related purchases won't be spending elsewhere, said Matheson.

    PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that this year's Super Bowl, which matches the New England Patriots against the Seattle Seahawks, will generate $206 million in direct spending in the Phoenix area in tourism, lodging and transportation.

    "This year's projection is the second-highest on record, however the inflation adjusted result is approximately two percent lower than our estimate for Arizona's last Super Bowl in 2008; the market benefiting that year from pre-recession spending levels and a slightly higher profile game matchup involving a New York market team and the Patriots attempt at a perfect season," said Adam Jones of PwC US in a news release.

    One Arizona resident who won't be attending the game is Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers, who told the The New York Times he was worried that his cash-strapped city of 230,000 won't be able to afford the added costs that come with the Super Bowl, including $2.1 million in additional security. To make matters worse, approximately 40 percent of Glendale's debt is earmarked to paying off sports complexes.


    "Shouldering the direct costs of putting extra police on the streets while enduring cutbacks on city services caused by ill-advised investments in sports facilities clearly is a bitter pill for Weiers," said an Arizona Republic editorial.

    Weiers, who is in a high-profile spat with the Arizona Cardinals over who should fund upgrades to the University of Phoenix Stadium, couldn't immediately be reached for comment. The Host Committee and the NFL also didn't respond to emails requesting comment for this story.

    The debate over the economics of sports also is taking center stage in Boston, which is vying to host the 2024 Summer Games. Mayor Marty Walsh has vowed not to use public funds to build stadium if the city is selected. Critics such as the Boston Globe have accused the Games' backers of underestimating the costs.
     
  16. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,911
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    The Miami case is somewhat unique and troubling due to them actually falsely claiming their dire finances, when in fact they weren't that dire. Additionally, you have a historically bad sports town mixed with a young franchise that has been unable to build a diehard following despite two world series championships (in large part for the way the teams were dismantled right after winning), and you have a situation where the fans simply didn't flock over just because there was a new stadium.

    However, I'm not seeing a lot of other cities complaining about their "new stadium situation"... when the alternative would be to have no teams (or other events) at all (and LOL to the author claiming that St. Louis tore down a "historic" ballpark.... Busch II was a cookie-cutter dump, and Tiger stadium was literally falling apart).

    Certainly, some could say that stadiums don't "revitalize" the land around the park... but I also feel some of that is short-sighted "what have you done for me lately" rhetoric. East downtown (between Toyota center and MMP) was a waste-land with an ugly convention center for years... now its the best part of downtown to be, with the second of two huge hotels being built, a decent park, and multiple resident towers (unfortunately still with that ugly convention center). Stadiums don't do it all by themselves... you need a healthy economy, a growing population, and teams that are somewhat relevant that historically draw well... but to say they don't do "anything" is a bit extreme.

    Lastly, football stadiums certainly do not "revitalize" areas simply due to a decreased number of games and the usual need for increased land and parking availability to build them. They do, however have the capability to bring the biggest events to your city (Super Bowl, Final Four, Premeir college football games), and despite the last article crying "woe", Super Bowls and Final Fours still make a lot more money for the host city than they lose.
     
  17. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,095
    Likes Received:
    18,941
    Those revenues are significantly marginalized by the public DIRECTLY financing the very stadiums the games are played within; the various improvements that are required to be made to the city or the stadium; and the costs associated with hosting that many people at an event.

    The NFL takes most of those revenues home...not the host city. And now the NFL is asking host cities to kick back some of their tax revenues realized from hosting the event.

    I'll be excited the game is here...but at some point, enough is enough. The promised economic impact is drastically overstated by the leagues that benefit from this....and it's at the public's expense.
     
  18. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,617
    Likes Received:
    6,244
    Did you read the articles max posted.

    Or this:

    http://www.wthr.com/story/18389145/indianapolis-loses-more-money-than-expected-hosting-super-bowl

    or

    http://ktar.com/103/1801078/Glendale-mayor-Were-losing-money-by-hosting-Super-Bowl

    or

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/31/who-gets-rich-off-super-bowl.html

    Basically you are telling the owners take my money. It brings no economic gain to the city. The worst is football stadiums since they are used so infrequently.
     
  19. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,911
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    The Glendale article specifically sites that the 100,000 "visitors" for the Super Bowl would displace other visitors that would have come anyways. That also makes sense for cities like New Orleans, Miami, and San Diego. That would not be the case for cities like Houston, Indy, or Arlington... where there would not be tourists or that many people visiting if it were not for the big events. So certainly some of the numbers have to be looked at specifically for each individual host city (I don't hear anybody in Indianapolis complaining about their Super Bowl experience... which likely sets them up for another one, despite it not being tourist friendly and a cold weather city).

    IOW, a big event in Houston during February benefits this city more than one in San Diego, Phoenix or New Orleans.

    Also, as long as there are other cities that will keep willing to do it (San Antonio, Seattle, Oklahoma), teams will continue to have the leverage when it comes to getting new stadiums... although there will never be another stadium being built without a generous contribution from the team itself.
     
  20. Nick

    Nick Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1999
    Messages:
    47,911
    Likes Received:
    14,153
    And yet most cities "complaining" now would do it all over again if it meant the alternative was no NFL team.

    And be careful when you cite articles saying it brings "no" economic gain to the city... those articles are trying real hard to prove that, when the numbers still say that the city will profit more-so than having not hosted the event at all (they'r just not profiting "as much" as they expected to), and it won't prevent any of these cities (Indy and Glendale included) from putting in future bids to host the game again.
     
    #220 Nick, Mar 1, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2015

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now