Cuyahoga County Sin Tax

[AZ_]

vote no

 

[gourimoko]

if the city owned even a significant part of the team, what do you do when the city balks at paying the enormous luxury tax bill that Gilbert is apparently willing to spend? Doesn't having the NBA playoffs/finals, nba all star game, etc, bring money into the city? Doesn't the city already tax tickets?

http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/no-nba-title-but-big-cleveland-tax-take/

Again, majority ownership doesn't have to belong to the city. Corporate charters would govern situations like this, just like in any other corporation. If a city cannot meet it's obligations then they could be required to sell their shares.

It's not really complicated, and it seems like arguments against city ownership really only look at this as an either or, complete ownership or no ownership. It makes no sense that cities should fork over hundreds of millions of dollars over time in tangible investments and not expect shared ownership.

 

[Soda]

Preaching to the choir... Cities should have financial vested interests in team ownership, just like any other owner.

Perhaps not complete ownership or even majority ownership (really depends on the locality), but they should not be handing over taxpayer dollars just for the "privilege" of having a team.

Unless the movement is wide-spread, I'm not signing Cleveland up to lead the revolution. On everything else you said here, I agree.

 

[gourimoko]

Unless the movement is wide-spread, I'm not signing Cleveland up to lead the revolution. On everything else you said here, I agree.

Agreed.

Cleveland as a city has larger problems. But I wouldn't be opposed to the city saying "we'll give you $x in revenue for y in shares."

 

[The Oi]

What would be the implication of the city having some ownership portion of the team?

Voting rights?

 

[gourimoko]

What would be the implication of the city having some ownership portion of the team?

Voting rights?

Voting rights surely, along with revenue sharing. If the team is sold or moved, the city would be compensated at value.

For a team like the Cavs, it probably wouldn't mean that much with respect to running the team itself; but it would mean that Cleveland could potentially earn tens of millions of dollars (over a span of years) to help cover the costs of supporting the franchise to the city.

In essence, if running a sports franchise is generally a profitable venture, even when including city expenses, then cities should be on the receiving end of team profits.

 

[Soda]

What would be the implication of the city having some ownership portion of the team?

Voting rights?

My assumption would be they would just have an additional revenue stream. Unless they had controlling interest, I don't think the City would bother voting on anything.

 

[The Oi]

In essence, if running a sports franchise is generally a profitable venture, even when including city expenses, then cities should be on the receiving end of team profits.

This seems like a no brainer to me. If the city is taking on cost, they should certainly be rewarded in some fashion.

What's the argument against the city being rewarded with a portion of profits?

 

[Soda]

What's the argument against the city being rewarded with a portion of profits?

There's not much of an "argument" to be made... You have billionaire owners of a multi-billion dollar organization saying "No". From what I understand, they don't have an obligation to open their books and after Green Bay got their team they just cut that concept right from the possibilities.

Owners will tell you that the municipalities benefit several ways (taxes, patrons, parking, etc.). They also pitch the stadiums as "assets" because they are, ultimately, public property under the current structure. Hence the sin-tax collected and used to keep those stadiums/facilities from depreciating in value too much.

 

[gourimoko]

This seems like a no brainer to me. If the city is taking on cost, they should certainly be rewarded in some fashion.

What's the argument against the city being rewarded with a portion of profits?

That cities can't afford the expense, which is obviously counterfactual, because they already incur the expenses regardless.

Again, I'm not arguing that every city with a sports franchise should have 100% ownership or even majority ownership. I don't think city politics in many localities is designed to run a sports franchise effectively and city politicians have even greater levels of corruption than state-level or federal politicians.

My only point is that for every dollar asked of a city or municipality, there should be some fractional share of corporate ownership given back. Just like with any other major investment.

 

[gourimoko]

There's not much of an "argument" to be made... You have billionaire owners of a multi-billion dollar organization saying "No". From what I understand, they don't have an obligation to open their books and after Green Bay got their team they just cut that concept right from the possibilities.

Right, but really the final arbiter is the state. The state governors association could get together and pass uniform legislation requiring owners to permit municipal investment by some set date for cities willing and able to invest in their local sports franchises.

Think of what they're doing presently, at the association level, to Tesla.

That's just one of several ways to get cities actively invested into franchise ownership.

 

[Huber.]

This Joe dude's facebook page explains a lot.

 

[macbdog]

...so when are we getting the big fancy casino we were promised? Or did that go away once Caesars threatened bankruptcy?

 

[Pick6]

This seems like a no brainer to me. If the city is taking on cost, they should certainly be rewarded in some fashion.

What's the argument against the city being rewarded with a portion of profits?

I'm not going to argue against what is being proposed in the discussion, but the city does benefit from having professional sports franchises as it currently stands.