I did read it on ESPN though, and it looks like it will be not far away from Turner, and should be a positive for fans. Is traffic near Turner a mess? Far away from the freeways?
What is more amazing is how Atlanta can build both baseball and football stadiums within the last 21 years, and already have plans to move out of both of them.
What is more amazing is how Atlanta can build both baseball and football stadiums within the last 21 years, and already have plans to move out of both of them. >>
I don't know about their football stadium but the Olympics covered the costs of Turner Field, thought the city paid to retrofit it for baseball use.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
What is more amazing is how Atlanta can build both baseball and football stadiums within the last 21 years, and already have plans to move out of both of them. >>
...and also have one of the most apathetic fan bases around!
Was the Georgia Dome built specifically for the Falcons? Or was it a "Hey, we can use that!" type situation? If it was built for them, why? Is the winter brutal down there in Georgia or something?
What is wrong with Turner Field? If I recall it was originally built as Olympic Stadium for the 1996 Olympics. It isn't exactly that old.
The Falcons want a new stadium, blaming their dome for attendance issues. Perhaps it isn't the stadiums that are the issue. An indifferent fan base is probably the problem.
Follow me on Twitter @wtcgroup Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
From what I read, Atlanta already agreed with the Falcons on some $1.4 billion dollar stadium with a retractable roof. Can someone explain why a retractable roof, or a dome like they currently use, is needed for an NFL franchise in Atlanta?
<< <i>From what I read, Atlanta already agreed with the Falcons on some $1.4 billion dollar stadium with a retractable roof. Can someone explain why a retractable roof, or a dome like they currently use, is needed for an NFL franchise in Atlanta? >>
I'm guessing it's for multi-use (ie NCAA football/basketball championship games) and the fans are use to a constant 72 degree dome. Going from absolute comfort to becoming totally dependent on the weather would be considered as an inconvenience to the tax payer. It's one of those situations where you can give the public equal or greater without any fight but to take away or downgrade will lead to dissent and headaches.
I don't necessarily agree with that line of thought but it is what it is.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
These publicly funded stadiums are *always* a bad deal for the taxpayer, yet the teams hold these cities hostage with (wrongful) threats of 'we'll move!' and 'think of the jobs you'll lose!' Throw in the fact that Turner Field is still so new, and the team being owned by a massive media company which has over $25 billion in assets and the fact they are getting a taxpayer funded handout? Sickening.
<< <i>That's right....I forgot they sometimes to NCAA tourneys down there, thanks for reminding me.
Funny, how going from the Kingdome to an outside stadium was an increase in comfort for us up here! >>
That's because anything was an improvement from the Kingdome.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>These publicly funded stadiums are *always* a bad deal for the taxpayer, yet the teams hold these cities hostage with (wrongful) threats of 'we'll move!' and 'think of the jobs you'll lose!' Throw in the fact that Turner Field is still so new, and the team being owned by a massive media company which has over $25 billion in assets and the fact they are getting a taxpayer funded handout? Sickening. >>
Well, Safeco Field was paid off years early, funded by hotel and rental car taxes. Not sure how Seahawks Stadium is looking (yes, I will use the original name) but you sound awfully and overly bitter.
Overly bitter because a massive multibillion dollar corporation is able to hoodwink taxpayers into funding their assets? No it's just being fiscally responsible.
I'm not a Braves fan, but I do live in Atlanta. I've been to a few games at The Ted, and personally think it's a pretty nice ballpark. Can't speak for the fans, I'm not one...however, my experience has been that they really, really like the Braves when they're winning, but otherwise not so much.
I'm not well read on the subject, but it was indeed a bombshell when announced. Part of the problem is getting in and out of the ballpark. Parking is scarce, and pricey (aren't they all !!). The ballpark is adjacent to what is locally referred to as the "connnector", this is where I-75 and I-85 come together for a few miles, thus a lot of traffic. I-75 and I-85 are like a big "X" in Atlanta. I think the new venue is some 12-14 miles north of the current location. The ballpark is not located in the best part of Atlanta, the new location would eliminate this "issue".
Additionally, the current location of the ballpark is not where the greatest majority of season ticket holders reside...however, the new location has those folks dancing in the streets. Atlanta also has I-285, which is in essence a huge circle around the city...on the north side, where I-285 and I-75 intersect, is where the new venue will be. While there is huge money being tossed around, I suspect that over time, the local community, that would be Marietta, GA, will see a substantial economic impact as the years roll on. I don't think the voters had anything to do with voting for or against the move, from what I gather, the politicians in Cobb County and Braves executives put this together.
The Atlanta myor (Kaseem Reed), is not very happy with the decision and has already said the Ted will be torn down at the end of the Braves last season, I think 2016. Big, big waste if you ask me.
<< <i>I'm not a Braves fan, but I do live in Atlanta. I've been to a few games at The Ted, and personally think it's a pretty nice ballpark. Can't speak for the fans, I'm not one...however, my experience has been that they really, really like the Braves when they're winning, but otherwise not so much.
I'm not well read on the subject, but it was indeed a bombshell when announced. Part of the problem is getting in and out of the ballpark. Parking is scarce, and pricey (aren't they all !!). The ballpark is adjacent to what is locally referred to as the "connnector", this is where I-75 and I-85 come together for a few miles, thus a lot of traffic. I-75 and I-85 are like a big "X" in Atlanta. I think the new venue is some 12-14 miles north of the current location. The ballpark is not located in the best part of Atlanta, the new location would eliminate this "issue".
Additionally, the current location of the ballpark is not where the greatest majority of season ticket holders reside...however, the new location has those folks dancing in the streets. Atlanta also has I-285, which is in essence a huge circle around the city...on the north side, where I-285 and I-75 intersect, is where the new venue will be. While there is huge money being tossed around, I suspect that over time, the local community, that would be Marietta, GA, will see a substantial economic impact as the years roll on. I don't think the voters had anything to do with voting for or against the move, from what I gather, the politicians in Cobb County and Braves executives put this together.
The Atlanta myor (Kaseem Reed), is not very happy with the decision and has already said the Ted will be torn down at the end of the Braves last season, I think 2016. Big, big waste if you ask me. >>
It's an interesting situation. The Ted, excluding the retrofit costs, was essentially a gift from the Olympics. The Braves and local government agreed to a 20-year lease, which was honored, and then they'll move into a new park. Stadiums built today are more of a partnership and I'm guessing the taxpayer (in GA, seems to come more from the State than city or county) will probably pay +/- 25% (with a ceiling) of the costs.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
The new stadium should be a great environment. The Ted is way too big for just about any team in baseball (50,000 seats) so the new stadium having a capacity of 42,000 should be perfect. There's a reason the stadiums built in the past decade range between 37-43k unlike the monsters built in the late 90s such as Coors, Chase, Turner, that all chase 50,000 seats and look empty every game despite there being 30,000 people there.
Love the talk of "fans" and whatnot. The Braves have some of the most consistent attendance numbers in baseball, as you can pencil them in for between 29,000 and 33,000 per game on average. Is that great? No, but it's consistently in the top half of baseball and shows there's no drop off even once the division title streak ended. With the new location being closer to the fan base I wouldn't be shocked to see that average grow much more in the future.
"County spokesman Robert Quigley confirmed with Channel 2 Action News Thursday morning that the Braves will foot 55 percent of the cost of the $672 million project."
Ridiculous. It's not like the taxpayers reap any benefits of these stadiums, and study after study has proven these are always bad deals for the taxpayers, and it's not like you have to go back far in history to show as such:
"Public financing of sports facilities has always been a terrible idea, but in Miami that terrible idea has reached new depths. Mike Ozanian of Forbes sums up the fiscal superfund site that is Marlins Park:
For starters, the stadium's financing scheme means there will be some $3 billion in interest expenses on the construction loans that will be paid by city and county taxpayers. Worse for taxpayers there is no incentive for Loria to put a good team on the field because the city and county must pay the bondholders regardless of how the team performs. Moreover, a small but quirky part of the bond financing has turned a $91 million loan into a $1.2 billion liability for taxpayers. And to add insult to injury the Marlins are nickel-and-diming taxpayers over capital repair costs."
"Here in Hamilton County, where one in seven people lives beneath the poverty line and budget cuts have left gaps in the schools and sheriffs department, residents are bracing for more belt-tightening: rollback of a property-tax break promised as part of a 1996 plan to entice voters to pay for two new stadiums.
The tax hit is just the latest in a string of unforeseen consequences from what has turned into one of the worst professional sports deals ever struck by a local government—soaking up unprecedented tax dollars and county resources while returning little economic benefit."
"In June, the city council of Glendale, Arizona, decided to spend $324 million on the Phoenix Coyotes, an ice hockey team that plays in Glendale's Jobing.com Arena.
To put the deal in perspective, Glendale's budget gap for 2012 is about $35 million. As the city voted to give a future Coyotes owner hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, it laid off 49 public workers, and even considered putting its city hall and police station up as collateral to obtain a loan, according to the Arizona Republic. (The latter plan was ultimately scrapped.)
Overall, Glendale is not only on the hook for $15 million per year over two decades to a potential Coyotes owner, but also a $12 million annual debt payment for construction of its arena. In return, according to the Republic, the city receives a measly "$2.2 million in annual rent payments, ticket surcharges, sales taxes and other fees." Even if the Coyotes were to dominate the league like no other in recent memory and return to the Stanley Cup Finals year after year, the city would still lose $9 million annually."
Time and time again, these publicly funded stadiums mislead the public and hold their cities hostage. San Francisco (rightfully) said no, and the owners were still able to privately finance the stadium. Amazing how that works.
Looks like Cobb County stepped up to the plate and made an offer ATL couldn't touch. They say the money will come via bonds and tourist taxes, which isn't new because Arlington did the same thing to D/FW with Jerry World.
Good for them.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
"While the majority of Cobb County residents won't be paying any additional taxes to fund the Braves' stadium, a large amount of their existing tax payments will cover for the costs. That's $8.67 million a year, for 30 years, that Cobb County could spend on other things (say, rehiring all those teachers) but will instead use to build a ballpark.
Also very much important: Because there are no new taxes here outside of the self-taxing CID, the County Commission can approve the proposal without a countywide referendum. Cobb County residents will cover nearly half of the Braves' ballpark without getting to vote on it."
What was that being said about getting to vote on this again?
When I want to learn about tourist taxes, county commissioners, and private taxing entities, I check out what bloggers say at Deadspin. They know their stuff and obviously wouldn't publish a slanted article based on their personal beliefs.
"If you're against publicly financed stadiums (and you ought to be), that last one is startling. While the majority of Cobb County residents..."
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
"Turner Field, the “baseball stadium for the ages” that the Braves are suddenly desperate to flee, isn't even 20 years old. Meanwhile, Cobb County, which is promising to build them a new one, may be affluent but you’d never know it by the state of county finances: Its schools superintendent has suggested moving a “large portion” of high-school classes online to help close an $84 million budget gap.
The real surprise isn't that a sports team that doesn't need a new stadium is getting one, or even that a county that can’t afford to pay teachers is planning to spend $300 million subsidizing a $629 million professional baseball franchise."
A county $84 million in the red is going to pony up $300 million (on the low side) to lure a baseball team out of a stadium less than 20 years old, and doing so without even needing a vote from county residents. Sickening.
As predicted taxpayers will have no chance to vote on this ridiculous funding.
"A Cobb County commissioner on why residents won't get to vote on putting $300 million toward the Braves' stadium: "It would have to be a special election, and that would cost taxpayers 300, 400 thousand dollars.""
Because spending 400k is so much compared to 300 million. Pathetic.
LodiBrewFan
Posts: 564 ✭
Comments
I did read it on ESPN though, and it looks like it will be not far away from Turner, and should be a positive for fans. Is traffic near Turner a mess? Far away from the freeways?
What is more amazing is how Atlanta can build both baseball and football stadiums within the last 21 years, and already have plans to move out of both of them.
<< <i>Pretty sure it's right off the highway.
What is more amazing is how Atlanta can build both baseball and football stadiums within the last 21 years, and already have plans to move out of both of them. >>
I don't know about their football stadium but the Olympics covered the costs of Turner Field, thought the city paid to retrofit it for baseball use.
<< <i>Pretty sure it's right off the highway.
What is more amazing is how Atlanta can build both baseball and football stadiums within the last 21 years, and already have plans to move out of both of them. >>
...and also have one of the most apathetic fan bases around!
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
The Falcons want a new stadium, blaming their dome for attendance issues. Perhaps it isn't the stadiums that are the issue. An indifferent fan base is probably the problem.
Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
<< <i>From what I read, Atlanta already agreed with the Falcons on some $1.4 billion dollar stadium with a retractable roof. Can someone explain why a retractable roof, or a dome like they currently use, is needed for an NFL franchise in Atlanta? >>
I'm guessing it's for multi-use (ie NCAA football/basketball championship games) and the fans are use to a constant 72 degree dome. Going from absolute comfort to becoming totally dependent on the weather would be considered as an inconvenience to the tax payer. It's one of those situations where you can give the public equal or greater without any fight but to take away or downgrade will lead to dissent and headaches.
I don't necessarily agree with that line of thought but it is what it is.
Funny, how going from the Kingdome to an outside stadium was an increase in comfort for us up here!
<< <i>That's right....I forgot they sometimes to NCAA tourneys down there, thanks for reminding me.
Funny, how going from the Kingdome to an outside stadium was an increase in comfort for us up here!
That's because anything was an improvement from the Kingdome.
<< <i>These publicly funded stadiums are *always* a bad deal for the taxpayer, yet the teams hold these cities hostage with (wrongful) threats of 'we'll move!' and 'think of the jobs you'll lose!' Throw in the fact that Turner Field is still so new, and the team being owned by a massive media company which has over $25 billion in assets and the fact they are getting a taxpayer funded handout? Sickening. >>
Well, Safeco Field was paid off years early, funded by hotel and rental car taxes. Not sure how Seahawks Stadium is looking (yes, I will use the original name) but you sound awfully and overly bitter.
I'm not well read on the subject, but it was indeed a bombshell when announced. Part of the problem is getting in and out of the ballpark. Parking is scarce, and pricey (aren't they all !!). The ballpark is adjacent to what is locally referred to as the "connnector", this is where I-75 and I-85 come together for a few miles, thus a lot of traffic. I-75 and I-85 are like a big "X" in Atlanta. I think the new venue is some 12-14 miles north of the current location. The ballpark is not located in the best part of Atlanta, the new location would eliminate this "issue".
Additionally, the current location of the ballpark is not where the greatest majority of season ticket holders reside...however, the new location has those folks dancing in the streets. Atlanta also has I-285, which is in essence a huge circle around the city...on the north side, where I-285 and I-75 intersect, is where the new venue will be. While there is huge money being tossed around, I suspect that over time, the local community, that would be Marietta, GA, will see a substantial economic impact as the years roll on. I don't think the voters had anything to do with voting for or against the move, from what I gather, the politicians in Cobb County and Braves executives put this together.
The Atlanta myor (Kaseem Reed), is not very happy with the decision and has already said the Ted will be torn down at the end of the Braves last season, I think 2016. Big, big waste if you ask me.
<< <i>I'm not a Braves fan, but I do live in Atlanta. I've been to a few games at The Ted, and personally think it's a pretty nice ballpark. Can't speak for the fans, I'm not one...however, my experience has been that they really, really like the Braves when they're winning, but otherwise not so much.
I'm not well read on the subject, but it was indeed a bombshell when announced. Part of the problem is getting in and out of the ballpark. Parking is scarce, and pricey (aren't they all !!). The ballpark is adjacent to what is locally referred to as the "connnector", this is where I-75 and I-85 come together for a few miles, thus a lot of traffic. I-75 and I-85 are like a big "X" in Atlanta. I think the new venue is some 12-14 miles north of the current location. The ballpark is not located in the best part of Atlanta, the new location would eliminate this "issue".
Additionally, the current location of the ballpark is not where the greatest majority of season ticket holders reside...however, the new location has those folks dancing in the streets. Atlanta also has I-285, which is in essence a huge circle around the city...on the north side, where I-285 and I-75 intersect, is where the new venue will be. While there is huge money being tossed around, I suspect that over time, the local community, that would be Marietta, GA, will see a substantial economic impact as the years roll on. I don't think the voters had anything to do with voting for or against the move, from what I gather, the politicians in Cobb County and Braves executives put this together.
The Atlanta myor (Kaseem Reed), is not very happy with the decision and has already said the Ted will be torn down at the end of the Braves last season, I think 2016. Big, big waste if you ask me. >>
It's an interesting situation. The Ted, excluding the retrofit costs, was essentially a gift from the Olympics. The Braves and local government agreed to a 20-year lease, which was honored, and then they'll move into a new park. Stadiums built today are more of a partnership and I'm guessing the taxpayer (in GA, seems to come more from the State than city or county) will probably pay +/- 25% (with a ceiling) of the costs.
Love the talk of "fans" and whatnot. The Braves have some of the most consistent attendance numbers in baseball, as you can pencil them in for between 29,000 and 33,000 per game on average. Is that great? No, but it's consistently in the top half of baseball and shows there's no drop off even once the division title streak ended. With the new location being closer to the fan base I wouldn't be shocked to see that average grow much more in the future.
Story
"County spokesman Robert Quigley confirmed with Channel 2 Action News Thursday morning that the Braves will foot 55 percent of the cost of the $672 million project."
Ridiculous. It's not like the taxpayers reap any benefits of these stadiums, and study after study has proven these are always bad deals for the taxpayers, and it's not like you have to go back far in history to show as such:
Marlins' Park
"Public financing of sports facilities has always been a terrible idea, but in Miami that terrible idea has reached new depths. Mike Ozanian of Forbes sums up the fiscal superfund site that is Marlins Park:
For starters, the stadium's financing scheme means there will be some $3 billion in interest expenses on the construction loans that will be paid by city and county taxpayers. Worse for taxpayers there is no incentive for Loria to put a good team on the field because the city and county must pay the bondholders regardless of how the team performs. Moreover, a small but quirky part of the bond financing has turned a $91 million loan into a $1.2 billion liability for taxpayers. And to add insult to injury the Marlins are nickel-and-diming taxpayers over capital repair costs."
Bengals & Reds
"Here in Hamilton County, where one in seven people lives beneath the poverty line and budget cuts have left gaps in the schools and sheriffs department, residents are bracing for more belt-tightening: rollback of a property-tax break promised as part of a 1996 plan to entice voters to pay for two new stadiums.
The tax hit is just the latest in a string of unforeseen consequences from what has turned into one of the worst professional sports deals ever struck by a local government—soaking up unprecedented tax dollars and county resources while returning little economic benefit."
Phoenix Coyotes
"In June, the city council of Glendale, Arizona, decided to spend $324 million on the Phoenix Coyotes, an ice hockey team that plays in Glendale's Jobing.com Arena.
To put the deal in perspective, Glendale's budget gap for 2012 is about $35 million. As the city voted to give a future Coyotes owner hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, it laid off 49 public workers, and even considered putting its city hall and police station up as collateral to obtain a loan, according to the Arizona Republic. (The latter plan was ultimately scrapped.)
Overall, Glendale is not only on the hook for $15 million per year over two decades to a potential Coyotes owner, but also a $12 million annual debt payment for construction of its arena. In return, according to the Republic, the city receives a measly "$2.2 million in annual rent payments, ticket surcharges, sales taxes and other fees." Even if the Coyotes were to dominate the league like no other in recent memory and return to the Stanley Cup Finals year after year, the city would still lose $9 million annually."
Time and time again, these publicly funded stadiums mislead the public and hold their cities hostage. San Francisco (rightfully) said no, and the owners were still able to privately finance the stadium. Amazing how that works.
Good for them.
"While the majority of Cobb County residents won't be paying any additional taxes to fund the Braves' stadium, a large amount of their existing tax payments will cover for the costs. That's $8.67 million a year, for 30 years, that Cobb County could spend on other things (say, rehiring all those teachers) but will instead use to build a ballpark.
Also very much important: Because there are no new taxes here outside of the self-taxing CID, the County Commission can approve the proposal without a countywide referendum. Cobb County residents will cover nearly half of the Braves' ballpark without getting to vote on it."
What was that being said about getting to vote on this again?
"If you're against publicly financed stadiums (and you ought to be), that last one is startling. While the majority of Cobb County residents..."
"Turner Field, the “baseball stadium for the ages” that the Braves are suddenly desperate to flee, isn't even 20 years old. Meanwhile, Cobb County, which is promising to build them a new one, may be affluent but you’d never know it by the state of county finances: Its schools superintendent has suggested moving a “large portion” of high-school classes online to help close an $84 million budget gap.
The real surprise isn't that a sports team that doesn't need a new stadium is getting one, or even that a county that can’t afford to pay teachers is planning to spend $300 million subsidizing a $629 million professional baseball franchise."
A county $84 million in the red is going to pony up $300 million (on the low side) to lure a baseball team out of a stadium less than 20 years old, and doing so without even needing a vote from county residents. Sickening.
"A Cobb County commissioner on why residents won't get to vote on putting $300 million toward the Braves' stadium: "It would have to be a special election, and that would cost taxpayers 300, 400 thousand dollars.""
Because spending 400k is so much compared to 300 million. Pathetic.
Story