Quote:
Originally Posted by BWChicago
Governments routinely build entire new stadiums to attract and keep teams. But for some reason, when it's preserving an old stadium for a far lower cost, people are up in arms? It makes no sense.
|
No, this makes perfect sense:
1) This is a guy who bought the team for $900m and now expects handouts for construction? He should have priced this in if it's such a big burden that he can't handle it himself. It's insulting to come to the government a mere year after the purchase asking for help. Does he think we're idiots, or is he an idiot for failing to do due diligence? It's one or the other (or maybe both) and either way, the answer isn't good.
2) The proposed plan is WAY more than merely preserving a landmark --- it also includes a great deal of stadium modifications and new construction that will
increase his revenue . This would be much different if he were asking for state-backed bonds for the specific purpose of $X million for rehabilitation of the stadiums structural elements to ensure safety and stability for this heritage landmark for decades to come. But no; this is asking for the government to carry his business risk while letting him reap any upside reward: it's unethical and insulting.
Here's an idea: Rather than a bond issue, sell a percentage of the enterprise itself to ISFA, and let the government he's trying to fleece get a share of the new revenue it would be enabling.