Carolina Panthers' leaked financial document

[ChrisPozz]

Wow...

Leaked document embarrassing for Panthers on several levels | ProFootballTalk

 

[Bemular]

$112M profit over the past two-years and they have their hand out for charity. Nobody, begs for and receives more welfare in this country than the wealthy. - What a joke.

 

[Flyingiguana]

what are the panthers gonna do? leave? lol

 

[Jikkle]

That number really doesn't seem all too much to me when you consider the NFL as a whole is making millions.

They made a decent profit over two years so what's the issue here?

 

[NinerSickness]

I think the issue is the team asking for tax money to pay for a stadium upgrade, which is BS IMO. I know a sports franchise can help a city, but public money should NEVER go to funding a sports stadium. It usually does, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[bvanthielriceyoung]

wow is right, what a joke

 

[Jikkle]

I think the issue is the team asking for tax money to pay for a stadium upgrade, which is BS IMO. I know a sports franchise can help a city, but public money should NEVER go to funding a sports stadium. It usually does, but that doesn't make it right.

I don't think anywhere near the extent of public money that teams ask for should go to the stadium but I think the public should kick in some dough towards them.

Like you said it does have some benefit to a city since there are a lot of other uses for it outside of football and you can't tell me businesses don't see some benefit from it.

Also it's a bit of a luxury and prestige item for a city to have a professional team anyways. It's something that's never going to be really profitable for a city to have.

But like I said I do agree owners ask the public to kick in way too much and they should ask for far less.

But to me $112 million over two years isn't really all too much to me when you put it in perspective.

I mean Joe Flacco is going to pull in about 20.1 million a year himself so the Panther's organization is only going to pull in a little more than 30 million compared to Flacco. And Flacco's guaranteed money amounts to basically what the Panthers made in a year.

I know Flacco is an extreme example but still shows that it's not really all that big of a number.

 

[NinerSickness]

I don't see why some shmuck who buys a cheeseburger should have to pay extra in sales tax for a bunch of rich people to have a stadium in which to play sports. The ends don't justify the means IMO.

 

[Jikkle]

I don't see why some shmuck who buys a cheeseburger should have to pay extra in sales tax for a bunch of rich people to have a stadium in which to play sports. The ends don't justify the means IMO.

Because the shmucks who own the hotels and restaurants are making more money with the additional traffic that football, concerts, and other events the stadiums hold bring in.

The people of the city make money off the tourism it brings in.

I know it's not a ton of money which is why I completely I think that the public funding aspect of it should be minimal. And I think if they do fund the stadium they are entitled to have some ownership stake so if an owner does ever want to move the team they'll have to buy out that stake the city has.

And if the citizens of a city don't want to pay for it than all they have to do is vote no on it. The team is either forced to stay or find a city that willing to pay for it.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Right about what I thought, I figured even the worst NFL teams pocket about $50 million a year in recent years.

Of course its ridiculous nonsense that such a profitable organization would get a handout considering the current situation, but if you're a shameless owner who doesn't give a shit about right and wrong, why not at least try to get free money from the government, right? And when you don't get it, threaten to leave and whine and complain......people usually get rich by working every possible angle, and nothing leaks money like well-greased politicians.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Because the shmucks who own the hotels and restaurants are making more money with the additional traffic that football, concerts, and other events the stadiums hold bring in.

You can make this case for just about any business. "I have a business that employs 1000 people, they eat lunch in the neighborhood and buy houses in the city driving up prices.....I want my cut of this additional revenue". And businesses get away with it WAY too often.

 

[NinerSickness]

Because the shmucks who own the hotels and restaurants are making more money with the additional traffic that football, concerts, and other events the stadiums hold bring in.

The people of the city make money off the tourism it brings in.

I know it's not a ton of money which is why I completely I think that the public funding aspect of it should be minimal. And I think if they do fund the stadium they are entitled to have some ownership stake so if an owner does ever want to move the team they'll have to buy out that stake the city has.

And if the citizens of a city don't want to pay for it than all they have to do is vote no on it. The team is either forced to stay or find a city that willing to pay for it.

That's the same justification people use for any kind of public subsidy. That money doesn't make it back into the pockets of the people who paid for it; the money goes to a select few who benefit from a sports team. All it does is take from everyone and give to a few.

 

[Bemular]

Taxpayers should no more pay a dollar for the private playground of an NFL owner than they should pay a nickel for his private residence.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

My stance is that public funding should only come voluntarily from individual donations, or not at all. No forced public funding should be allowed on any stadium project. Most teams generate sufficient cash flow to fund and pay for a new stadium, and investors are also available to generate increased funding to kick-start a project. If a stadium won't support itself financially, it either shouldn't be built, or any cash deficiency should be eaten by the owner. If the owner goes broke, then a new owner (or owners) will buy it out.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Because the shmucks who own the hotels and restaurants are making more money with the additional traffic that football, concerts, and other events the stadiums hold bring in.

The people of the city make money off the tourism it brings in.

I know it's not a ton of money which is why I completely I think that the public funding aspect of it should be minimal. And I think if they do fund the stadium they are entitled to have some ownership stake so if an owner does ever want to move the team they'll have to buy out that stake the city has.

And if the citizens of a city don't want to pay for it than all they have to do is vote no on it. The team is either forced to stay or find a city that willing to pay for it.

put the money into education and tax breaks to get company's to setup shop in the city to hire the grads.

 

[Flyingiguana]

My stance is that public funding should only come voluntarily from individual donations, or not at all. No forced public funding should be allowed on any stadium project. Most teams generate sufficient cash flow to fund and pay for a new stadium, and investors are also available to generate increased funding to kick-start a project. If a stadium won't support itself financially, it either shouldn't be built, or any cash deficiency should be eaten by the owner. If the owner goes broke, then a new owner (or owners) will buy it out.

or setup income bonds where the state puts up the funding but gets back revenue from the project.

 

[threelittleturds]

OK, the cost of the renovations is roughly 300 million, and the Panthers wanted to pay 100 million, well I guess they aren't going to get away with only paying 2 years of profit towards another 10 years of larger profit.

I'd assume the Panthers are going to need to give at least 4 years of profit towards expanding their business now, maybe the public might be nice enough to give them 100 mil... but that is a pretty tough sell.

Might be next to impossible to convince voters that $55 mil a year profit just isn't good enough.

 

[Flyingiguana]

say they take out a 10 year loan for 300mil. at 5% its like 35-40 mil a year to payback. are the renovations gonna result in more revenue than the yearly loan servicing costs? i kinda doubt it.

 

[NinerSickness]

Tourists coming to a city doesn't cause the people who paid extra for their burritos to get their money back. Do Hotels benefit? Sure. Most of the people around there don't though. For every 1 person it helps, there are like 10,000 people who have to pay extra for everything they buy.

The NFL would still be around if every city in the U.S. refused to give them money for stadiums. It's a ca$h cow. But the city politicians sell their residents out to make a few friends in the business community.

Like I said, a select few benefit and everyone pays for it.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Right on cue:

Falcons reach deal with Atlanta mayor on new downtown stadium | SI Tracking Blog ? Tracking MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and NCAA On Twitter

I'm sure Atlanta has nothing better or more worthwhile to do than spend $200 million on a football stadium, no doubt their other problems are already solved. And to replace a 20 year old stadium, nice they were able to get *so much* use out of the Georgia Dome.

To me, even a baseball stadium or basketball arena is more worthwhile, you can at least make an argument they help surrounding areas. Football games, its 10 dates a year, the fans tailgate, very little benefit. What a scam.