Stephen Ross donates $200 million to Michigan

I can't find the link, but it was in the report to the County from the outside consultants. Any NFL team that is getting public subsidies will get money from the G4 fund. I remember it actually created quite a stir, and Dee got pretty defensive about it during a press conference.

 

No offense, but this seems naive. If the host team saw no benefits to a Super Bowl being hosted by their city, then teams would not scratch and claw with each other and spend so much $$$ on Super Bowl bids every year. Teams hosting Super Bowls spend a ton of money not only on the bidding process to be awarded the Super Bowl, but on the Super Bowl itself. In fact, it's considered a standard part of the bid proposal that the other 31 owners need to be given a nice taste of the boon that the Super Bowl awardee receives in the form of luxurious perks during the week and game itself.

 

This is ridiculous. Again, its like buying a boat:

http://www.forbes.com/teams/miami-dolphins/

The stadium is only worth $145M. The Dolphins still owe over $220M for the stadium! They are underwater. I'm not sure how anyone can see these upgrades as anything but a financial loser for the team.

 

350 million worth? Would it be worth dumping that much into in return.

 

I voted early on the referendum, before it failed to pass the state legislature. I voted in favor of the referendum because as a Dolphin fan, I wanted the Dolphins to remain in Miami. I also had no problem with tourists paying for the stadium upgrades.

Now though, after seeing that Ross has so much money that he can just give his former college two hundred million dollars and not use this money to upgrade HIS stadium, I will vote AGAINST any other referendum Ross tries to pass to get approval for stadium upgrades.

It is his money and he can do what he wants with it. He just can't expect Miami voters to use tax money to upgrade HIS stadium. We aren't the fools he obviously thinks we are.

 

I'm not sure what you're suggesting happens with the revenues here. Are you suggesting that the revenues aren't split evenly?

Of course teams want to sell their city. They have an obligation to maximize revenue for all 32 teams. They want to be city that plays host. They want to impress their 31 business partners. They also have an obligation to the city they're located it, because almost every team is subsidized by their market.

 

What I'm suggesting is that teams very much do benefit FINANCIALLY from hosting a Super Bowl. Yes. They get more revenue than the other 31 teams.

It's purely silly to front the notion that teams spend so much time, money and effort on the Super Bowl bidding process, football games on aircraft carriers, football-shaped gondolas on zip lines, giant hot tubs shaped like the state of texas, and a ton of other owner-oriented perks that constitute a large part of why Super Bowls are awarded to different teams, just on the basis of "obligation to their city".

That's BS and you should know better.

 

By all means, please elaborate. Its not from ticket revenue. Its not from concessions. Its not from merchandise. Where exactly is this revenue coming from?

 

How do you know?

Link?

 

Just so we're clear, before I go pull the information up, you're disputing that revenue from tickets, concessions, and merchandise isn't split evenly among the 32 teams?

 

I believe that revenues from the game benefit the hosting team more than the other 31 teams. Yes. Provide me a link that says differently.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/su...jones-found-a-way-to-profit-on-super-bowl.ece

 

I'm not gonna pretend I know what's going on and why, but from my perspective, hey, he offered the Miami market 200 mill to upgrade their cities #1 venue, along with an unprecedented deal to repay the city back for whatever it is they invested, he got no ground support, so sorry, we lose on that 200 mill.

To me the bottom line is, he and his team have their vision as to what a new state of the art building would do for bringing in world class events and what that ultimately means to the economy, apparently the city and the officials don't have the same foresight..

I'm torn on the situation for several reasons.

1) dumping 400 mill in a structurally flawed stadium is stupid.

2) because I realize none of the suits understand this, I'll take anything I can get, because I know how bad it's becoming staying status quo.

3) I think this 200 mill was accounted for, there's no reason to think that another 200 mill would be a problem if Miami wants to open their brain and realize that Miami's #1 venue is a POS building that has no draw on it's merit..

4) I'm sure he'll come out and say that the 200 mill is still in play and nothing has changed from his end.

 

G4 program is just a loan.

 

All that does it make Ross's deal to the city look better and better.

 

How do you know this? Link? The NFL is extremely secretive on this program. But the evidence suggests that it isn't a loan that is repaid.

Either way, assuming its a loan, not a grant, that still inherently means Ross isn't putting up his own money upfront.

 

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2013/3/18/4121552/minnesota-vikings-stadium-team-gets-g4-loan-from-nfl

 

Right. Its a loan, with repayment over 25 years, and presumably no interest. We don't know how much is actually a loan though.

History tells us that the fund has previously run out of money, which would call into question the repayment of these funds.

Either way, it should be abundantly clear that Stephen Ross would not be putting up his money upfront. The NFL would be putting the money up.

 

And even if one would argue that the Miami Dolphins would see increased revenue from their own games (it would be marginal IMO), they're only keeping 60% of that. 40% of the revenue goes to the road team.

 

This is an excellent resource that explains some of the myriad ways that NFL owners can and do benefit financially from Super Bowls being hosted in their stadium. Thank you.

 

So then why bother building new venues?

In fact, why have stadiums at all? If the stadiums don't generate much revenue, just save the money on building it, maintenance, employees to staff it, etc., and just televise the games from some television studio somewhere.

 

And all this isn't to say that Miami-Dade should pay for renovations or a new stadium. I just simply reject the notion that the team spending hundreds of millions of their own money is going to add value, or is some type of good financial proposition. The renovations Huizenga undertook are the perfect example. The team owes $235M in principle debt, and they're paying $20M/yr. on interest for obsolete renovations on a stadium that is currently worth $165M. These are bad investments for an someone to make.

 

Miami is an unbelievable market for events, everyone wants to come here, however, the venue doesn't match the cities growth and style, the venue needs to be state of the art because the market demands it, instead we have a concrete bowl with seats..there is no draw, and if you don't think a venue can draw on it's own, you'd be incorrect..

We had our chance and the majority didnt get it..

Sould Ross pony up for the whole thing?... No, he shouldn't, not when the market shows no support for their team.

 

The Super Bowl generates a bunch of revenue. Super Bowls in Miami would generate a lot more revenue than Super Bowls in Indianapolis. But that revenue goes to all the owners. It isn't a boon to Stephen Ross as much as it is a boon to the entire NFL.

Who said they don't generate revenue? Its just revenue that gets split up. And I've actually thought about how they could theoretically eliminate stadiums, but I'm not sure the experience for the viewer would be the same.

 

Right. You're essentially saying Stephen Ross can make money from a Super Bowl by selling pizzas at that Super Bowl. That really isn't exclusive to his market though. He doesn't need the SB to be in SoFLA to get into the concession business.

 

No I'm saying that owners evidently find all kinds of ways to financially benefit from hosting Super Bowls, as illustrated. It's only your intentional tunnel vision that says it has to be exactly the same way Jerry Jones does it.

 

Maybe he can sell bootleg t-shirts on Biscane Blvd. Again, he can profit from a lot of things, but these avenues to profit aren't inherent to the SB being in his market.

 

GO BLUE !!

Michigan 37 Notre Dame 23

 

I think there's a lot of white washing going on here.

Steve Ross wanted stadium upgrades that would have benefited him financially. The stadium upgrades would have provided more revenue for him, and would have stabilized the value of the franchise he owns (which has failed to appreciate in the five years he's owned the team, whereas the equities market is up about 80% over the same time period).

Ross argued that the stadium upgrades also would have been a public good because it would have brought Super Bowls to South Florida. Therefore, the public should share in the cost of the upgrades in order to pay for this public good. Steve Ross priced the amount of the public good that the stadium upgrades would have done at about $200 million. That's the amount he wanted the public to pay because it would have been a public good. For him to pay the entire bill of the stadium upgrades, he would have been in essence "donating" $200 million to the city of Miami, in his eyes.

The city and state rejected his bid for public financing. As a result he's giving the $200 million he wanted from the city to the University of Michigan instead.

The funny part about all the clamor about public funding is, it ignores the possibility that the entire $375 million for stadium upgrades might have still made sense from a long term investment standpoint, relative to the long term revenue increases expected from an upgraded stadium as opposed to a stadium that crumbles further every year, and relative to the potential increase in franchise value.

The $375 million could very well be a financially tenable investment with expectations of future return, but that's not what Steve Ross was arguing. He was arguing that the city will ALSO benefit, so whether that $375 million outlay is financially lucrative for him personally in the long run or not doesn't matter. If the city benefits it should share in the cost. He's not giving away city benefits for free. Why should he? He doesn't really care about the city of Miami.

The Dolphins have an absentee owner who lives in New York and is rarely "in the office" down in Miami, a man who gives more in charitable donations and goodwill to the University of Michigan than to anything connected with the city of Miami, a man who once tried to buy the New York Jets and who owned a USFL team in Philadelphia.

His heart is clearly not in Miami. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. It is what it is.

My theory is that with the Dolphins turning out to be such a bad investment, and with his heart clearly not being with the city and with the team, selling his stake in the team to someone else and cutting his losses (or failure to gain anything) is inevitable.

 

So if the 200 million are still in play, why didn't he just just go ahead and pay for all the upgrades? since he obviously has the financial resources to do so. Sorry, but his attitude that taxes should be used to fund his private stadium, while he gives 200 million dollars to a tax supported University, just doesn't fly with me. He has lost my vote in the future as well as the votes of the other three people I happen to buy season tickets for.

He can do whatever he wants to with his money. Just don't expect me to vote to give him more money which he obviously doesn't need. I wish he would just sell the team.

 

Of course he has the money to pay for the whole 375 million.every owner has that kind of cash, none of them have done it for a myriad of reasons that have been discussed over and over.

 

I don't think Ross has the clout with the other owners to pay for the upgrades on his own. If anyone thinks the owners want Ross to pay for the entire cost himself, then you're naive.

 

Statement from Ross:


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ritable-giving-effort-to-get-stadium-charity/

 

It's pretty simple. Any public good he does for the city of Miami, he wants them to pay for. But then he turns around and does public good for the University of Michigan free of charge. He treats the city of Miami like a moocher, and treats the University of Michigan like a doting grandfather.

 

Like I said, nothing has changed..

Why are people so pissed at this angle, it's business, and he's being by fair considering all the variables, y'all know that, are you that spoiled to want to have it all funded for you when the market shows their *** at the stadium...

There is no vision on the part of the Miami community and it's officials, they don't get what it means to have a competing venue...

Wait til the college playoff system disses us along with more superbowls..

 

I don't understand why you think he should offer more to the city of Miami than he already has?.. Was it not a great deal?

 

Good for the U of M... bad for The Dolphins bid for a new stadium

 

Are you operating under the assumption that he would have received zero long term financial benefit from stadium improvements?

Because if so, there's no point continuing the conversation.

 

People are pissed because thats the nature of people right now. Especially people in South Florida. They got bent over by Jeff Loria, and they want to make someone pay. They want another Wayne Huizenga to further put the stadium underwater.

 

Miami as a football market is a moocher. I'm not sure how this can be debated. Now whether you think Miami should continue with that path, its certainly debatable. I'm not necessarily counter to the arguments that they're better off telling the Dolphins to kick rocks. But when you look at the cost other markets are paying for an NFL franchise, Miami isn't paying enough.