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/
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.
What would be the implication of the city having some ownership portion of the team?
Voting rights?
What would be the implication of the city having some ownership portion of the team?
Voting rights?
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.
What's the argument against the city being rewarded with a portion of 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?
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.
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.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?