Virginia is for Suckers: VA leg looking to spend $1B to lure Washington Commanders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure you understand how public finance works. Why wouldn’t Virginia bid on getting the new stadium? How do you think Maryland got FedEx from DC’s RFK?

That’s how these kind of projects are built, via public finance through bonds in which the future collected taxes (property or sales) are pledged for future debt payment. I worked on the deal for Nats Park (which almost went to Virginia in Pentagon City) and the Ravens stadium for example.

This proposal of how the state would pay for the stadium is completely normal.

FedEx Field is NOT publicly financed. It was built and is owned by the WFT/Commanders.

Actually, it seems Maryland's taxpayers were on the hook for about $128 million in today's dollars.

Still, that's a much better deal than Youngkin is offering. I thought these private-sector businessmen were supposed to be shrewd negotiators and good financial stewards? I guess Republicans only abhor public spending when it goes towards making government more functional or improving peoples' lives.

I didn't see Youngkin's name in the article. You might want to stop drinking this early in the day.

Wow. You’re really dumb.

DP. Oh, the deep deep irony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans love bread and circuses.

The legislation was proposed by a Democrat.

The OP and other idiots don't understand facts. All they have is total irrationality. The utter stupidity on this thread is staggering.

[Anonymous]

The Democrat who proposed this bill insists taxpayers won't be footing the bill. So I guess he's to blame if that turns out not to be true. Right, OP?

Still, Saslaw touted his plan as free of taxpayer burden.

“It does not create a penny of debt,” he told the committee.

[Anonymous]

Petition: No VA Tax Money for the new Washington Football Stadium
https://www.change.org/p/governor-of-virginia-glenn-youngkin-no-va-tax-money-for-the-new-washington-football-stadium?recruiter=1250358000&recruited_by_id=bae44910-8043-11ec-952b-6be2f09fadc8&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=15143240159_&utm_medium=copylink&utm_content=cl_sharecopy_32183211_en-US%3A3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans love bread and circuses.

The legislation was proposed by a Democrat.

The OP and other idiots don't understand facts. All they have is total irrationality. The utter stupidity on this thread is staggering.

Youngkin has been behind this from the get go. Snyder gave him a lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure you understand how public finance works. Why wouldn’t Virginia bid on getting the new stadium? How do you think Maryland got FedEx from DC’s RFK?

That’s how these kind of projects are built, via public finance through bonds in which the future collected taxes (property or sales) are pledged for future debt payment. I worked on the deal for Nats Park (which almost went to Virginia in Pentagon City) and the Ravens stadium for example.

This proposal of how the state would pay for the stadium is completely normal.

Public financing of football stadiums is a complete waste of taxpayer money. $1B for 8-10 games a year, at 100,000 at max attendance. 1 Million in total attendance. Yes, there may be a few extra events a year, but some of those are simply events that would be held elsewhere. In contrast, many MLB teams draw 2M plus in attendance over a year, excluding playoff games. Basketball/hockey arenas draw perhaps 1.5 Million a year. Moreover, NFL teams are richer and can afford to pay their own way.

Again - did you even bother to read the link? Taxpayers aren't footing the bill.

George Perry, a business professor at George Mason University spoke to WUSA9 about the legislation by phone. Perry, who worked as a sports marketing executive for 23 years (including more than one year with the Commanders) said on its surface, the legislation does not authorize a taxpayer funded stadium deal.

“It doesn’t appear so,” Perry said shortly after details of the legislation were released Thursday night. “It’s a creative way to finance a stadium without using direct taxpayer money.”

DP. I think you’re the one who didn’t read the article. The bonds are expected to be repaid through tax revenues generated by the stadium. If those tax revenues are less than expected because they are being overly optimistic about people’s willingness to trek out to the exurbs to watch a failing football franchise, those payments will still come due and how do you think they will be paid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure you understand how public finance works. Why wouldn’t Virginia bid on getting the new stadium? How do you think Maryland got FedEx from DC’s RFK?

That’s how these kind of projects are built, via public finance through bonds in which the future collected taxes (property or sales) are pledged for future debt payment. I worked on the deal for Nats Park (which almost went to Virginia in Pentagon City) and the Ravens stadium for example.

This proposal of how the state would pay for the stadium is completely normal.

Public financing of football stadiums is a complete waste of taxpayer money. $1B for 8-10 games a year, at 100,000 at max attendance. 1 Million in total attendance. Yes, there may be a few extra events a year, but some of those are simply events that would be held elsewhere. In contrast, many MLB teams draw 2M plus in attendance over a year, excluding playoff games. Basketball/hockey arenas draw perhaps 1.5 Million a year. Moreover, NFL teams are richer and can afford to pay their own way.

Again - did you even bother to read the link? Taxpayers aren't footing the bill.

George Perry, a business professor at George Mason University spoke to WUSA9 about the legislation by phone. Perry, who worked as a sports marketing executive for 23 years (including more than one year with the Commanders) said on its surface, the legislation does not authorize a taxpayer funded stadium deal.

“It doesn’t appear so,” Perry said shortly after details of the legislation were released Thursday night. “It’s a creative way to finance a stadium without using direct taxpayer money.”

DP. I think you’re the one who didn’t read the article. The bonds are expected to be repaid through tax revenues generated by the stadium. If those tax revenues are less than expected because they are being overly optimistic about people’s willingness to trek out to the exurbs to watch a failing football franchise, those payments will still come due and how do you think they will be paid?

And for those of you who don’t follow the NFL, Washington has the second lowest attendance in the league right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure you understand how public finance works. Why wouldn’t Virginia bid on getting the new stadium? How do you think Maryland got FedEx from DC’s RFK?

That’s how these kind of projects are built, via public finance through bonds in which the future collected taxes (property or sales) are pledged for future debt payment. I worked on the deal for Nats Park (which almost went to Virginia in Pentagon City) and the Ravens stadium for example.

This proposal of how the state would pay for the stadium is completely normal.

Public financing of football stadiums is a complete waste of taxpayer money. $1B for 8-10 games a year, at 100,000 at max attendance. 1 Million in total attendance. Yes, there may be a few extra events a year, but some of those are simply events that would be held elsewhere. In contrast, many MLB teams draw 2M plus in attendance over a year, excluding playoff games. Basketball/hockey arenas draw perhaps 1.5 Million a year. Moreover, NFL teams are richer and can afford to pay their own way.

Again - did you even bother to read the link? Taxpayers aren't footing the bill.

George Perry, a business professor at George Mason University spoke to WUSA9 about the legislation by phone. Perry, who worked as a sports marketing executive for 23 years (including more than one year with the Commanders) said on its surface, the legislation does not authorize a taxpayer funded stadium deal.

“It doesn’t appear so,” Perry said shortly after details of the legislation were released Thursday night. “It’s a creative way to finance a stadium without using direct taxpayer money.”

DP. I think you’re the one who didn’t read the article. The bonds are expected to be repaid through tax revenues generated by the stadium. If those tax revenues are less than expected because they are being overly optimistic about people’s willingness to trek out to the exurbs to watch a failing football franchise, those payments will still come due and how do you think they will be paid?

And for those of you who don’t follow the NFL, Washington has the second lowest attendance in the league right now.

Exactly. Here’s the big clue as to whether this has any potential to be a good deal for Virginia - does Maryland also make a bid to keep the team? Maryland had more data than any of us about the tax revenues the team generates for the state. If the tax revenues would make a deal like this profitable, Maryland will also put out bid to keep them by offering to help fund a new standout there. If Maryland stays silent while Virginia makes a play for the team, it’s because Maryland knows it’s better off fiscally without the team.

So, is Maryland making any noise?

[Anonymous]

He’s all your baby! Snyder lives in VA, you can have him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s all your baby! Snyder lives in VA, you can have him.

Snyder has always lived in Potomac, had that changed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure you understand how public finance works. Why wouldn’t Virginia bid on getting the new stadium? How do you think Maryland got FedEx from DC’s RFK?

That’s how these kind of projects are built, via public finance through bonds in which the future collected taxes (property or sales) are pledged for future debt payment. I worked on the deal for Nats Park (which almost went to Virginia in Pentagon City) and the Ravens stadium for example.

This proposal of how the state would pay for the stadium is completely normal.

Public financing of football stadiums is a complete waste of taxpayer money. $1B for 8-10 games a year, at 100,000 at max attendance. 1 Million in total attendance. Yes, there may be a few extra events a year, but some of those are simply events that would be held elsewhere. In contrast, many MLB teams draw 2M plus in attendance over a year, excluding playoff games. Basketball/hockey arenas draw perhaps 1.5 Million a year. Moreover, NFL teams are richer and can afford to pay their own way.

You can have your own personal opinions re whether an NFL team should pay to build its own stadium but it doesn’t represent your knowledge of public finance. The projected numbers must be there for future revenue stream to get underwriting and bond ratings. I believe this is a form of TIF or sales tax pledge. This is normal for stadiums. DC does TIFs all the time. Maybe read up more on public finance before you make generalized statements that show no understanding. I’m not a football fan whatsoever so I could care less of Virginia gets the stadium but this is exactly how this sort of deal works.

Either the revenue needs to be there, or the municipality needs to guarantee the debt. That's what happened with both the baseball stadium and the convention center. Neither one produced the revenue it was projected too, the city pays the debt out of general funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans love bread and circuses.

The legislation was proposed by a Democrat.

The OP and other idiots don't understand facts. All they have is total irrationality. The utter stupidity on this thread is staggering.

Youngkin has been behind this from the get go. Snyder gave him a lot of money.

So Youngkin forced a D legislator to introduce this bill in the GA? Cool story, bro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s all your baby! Snyder lives in VA, you can have him.

Where does he live? I can see his house from Riverbend Park which is in VA. But I believe he resides in MD…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s all your baby! Snyder lives in VA, you can have him.

Snyder has always lived in Potomac, had that changed?

No. He still lived in Potomac. However, I suspect that he’s been house shopping in Great Falls.

[Anonymous]

Well families move to VA from MD to improve their lives so I'm sure a football team moving from MD will actually have a winning season.