End state relationship with and tax breaks for ESPN NOW

[ruskin]

Why don't you just drive down to Bristol and picket ESPN? That way you can perhaps get this out of your system and spare us this useless drivel. Maybe they'll put you on Sportscenter.

Did someone who clicked on page 4 of this thread actually complain about having to read "useless drivel"?

The beef isn't with ESPN -- it's with my state tax money subsidizing them. And yes, I did call my state Senator and Rep about this. That good enough for you?

 

[huskymedic]

Did someone who clicked on page 4 of this thread actually complain about having to read "useless drivel"?

The beef isn't with ESPN -- it's with my state tax money subsidizing them. And yes, I did call my state Senator and Rep about this. That good enough for you?

... and what was their response??

 

[06029]

Then why hasn't another state done it? Why doesn't every company in the state get millions in tax breaks, because they could all move too, right?

North Carolina says hello. They pulled MetLife out of Hartford and other cities. Costs CT 600 jobs.

Ohio would kill to bring ESPN in. They have the land area, the empty facilities and tax incentives that dwarf anything CT has. Columbus area is booming because of this. The Rubber City has seen a bounce back by luring companies into the old Goodyear facility with tax breaks. Many of the tax breaks are extended well beyond their initial term to keep jobs.

TN, the king of tax breaks for manufacturing. Ever wonder why the Nashville MSA per capital and median household incomes shot thru the roof from 2000 to 2010 census? It's not because of Kelly Clarkson and Kenny Chesney. They have extended their tax breaks to the auto companies at least twice to keep the facilities open and the jobs in state.

ESPN is an easy whipping boy for you but you are so intellectually dishonest as to not bother to look at the multiplier effect of the jobs and the more than offsetting tax revenues those jobs create, Lose the jobs you lose income tax and sales tax for each person that moves out of state. Those that don't move increase the unemployment rate and the burden on state government. Let's add in home sales and apartment rentals.

Like it or not, ESPN is a major central CT employer in a market that has lost all of its manufacturing base. They do have options to go elsewhere as Disney owns a lot of real estate in this country for other media production. Your self righteous posturing should actually be pointed at the hedge fund that is getting tax breaks to build a water front home. That company will create far fewer jobs in a region of CT that already has strong high end employment than ESPN maintains and will grow in Bristol. That it is Malloy's home town, along with NBC Sports, both of which could have revitalized Norwalk or Bridgeport, smacks of Rowlandesque cronyism.

And just so you know, CT offers small business tax incentives and grants. Google it. You will find it, but then again, why bother with anything changes your view.

 

[huskymedic]

North Carolina says hello. They pulled MetLife out of Hartford and other cities. Costs CT 600 jobs.

Ohio would kill to bring ESPN in. They have the land area, the empty facilities and tax incentives that dwarf anything CT has. Columbus area is booming because of this. The Rubber City has seen a bounce back by luring companies into the old Goodyear facility with tax breaks. Many of the tax breaks are extended well beyond their initial term to keep jobs.

TN, the king of tax breaks for manufacturing. Ever wonder why the Nashville MSA per capital and median household incomes shot thru the roof from 2000 to 2010 census? It's not because of Kelly Clarkson and Kenny Chesney. They have extended their tax breaks to the auto companies at least twice to keep the facilities open and the jobs in state.

ESPN is an easy whipping boy for you but you are so intellectually dishonest as to not bother to look at the multiplier effect of the jobs and the more than offsetting tax revenues those jobs create, Lose the jobs you lose income tax and sales tax for each person that moves out of state. Those that don't move increase the unemployment rate and the burden on state government. Let's add in home sales and apartment rentals.

Like it or not, ESPN is a major central CT employer in a market that has lost all of its manufacturing base. They do have options to go elsewhere as Disney owns a lot of real estate in this country for other media production. Your self righteous posturing should actually be pointed at the hedge fund that is getting tax breaks to build a water front home. That company will create far fewer jobs in a region of CT that already has strong high end employment than ESPN maintains and will grow in Bristol. That it is Malloy's home town, along with NBC Sports, both of which could have revitalized Norwalk or Bridgeport, smacks of Rowlandesque cronyism.

And just so you know, CT offers small business tax incentives and grants. Google it. You will find it, but then again, why bother with anything changes your view.

>>"Soltys said the state's tax credit program has led ESPN to focus on growing its digital media business, which includes ESPN.com, ESPN Mobile and other segments, in Connecticut at a time when many other states are trying to woo it. Besides Connecticut, ESPN has also been growing in Los Angeles, Charlotte, Orlando, Fla., and Brazil, Soltys said. "The tax credits are an important component when making decisions on where we are going to be expanding," Soltys said. "We have facilities in many other places and have the ability to grow in many other places. But our preference is to grow in Connecticut."<<

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Dove, stay away from the personal stuff. That's twice now. You're going to the mat pretty hard for ESPN. Do you work there?

UT has a business arrangement with ESPN. On a smaller scale, Connecticut has a business arrangement with ESPN. If ESPN was passively (or otherwise) undercutting another Texas entity I'm sure the folks down there wouldn't stand for it.

You're on a UConn fan message board consistently saying that because ESPN is a major state employer it is free to do whatever it wants even if it directly or indirectly harms the future of the sports program of the state university (which is why this board exists), and taxpayers should continue to subsidize ESPN lest the jobs move away. Some might say that is a ridiculous opinion. It sure has the feel of Stockholm Syndrome.

I've said nothing personal so please don't accuse me of that (especially when you come back and call my opinion ridiculous as well). Comparing ESPN's relationship with a huge college athletics program to their relationship with the state of CT is apples to oranges. Also, don't forget that Longhorn Network was one of the major issues that led to Texas A&M jumping ship, but amazingly I haven't seen the state of Texas ending their relationship with ESPN or public figures calling for their head.

And again, you purposely misstating my opinion does not actually change my opinion. You understand that, right? ESPN's tax breaks do not have (and never have) anything to do with UConn or it's athletics TV revenue. In the grand scheme of things, it's also a very minor and inconsequential thing when compared to the goals those tax breaks are trying to accomplish. Why should I feel the need to vilify a company that has done nothing unethical or wrong? Capitalism happened and it hit UConn pretty hard (and I agree, that sucks). And you're right, this is a UConn athletics board, which unsurprisingly leads to the people here putting far more weight into UConn's athletic revenue than most CT residents would. And again, what leads you to believe that ESPN had the power to sway BC or FSU? Your whole argument is predicated on that.

 

[noeynox]

Then why hasn't another state done it? Why doesn't every company in the state get millions in tax breaks, because they could all move too, right?

You realize the stuff whaler is talking about is happening this very second with CT companies? In case you missed it, Stag Arms (gun company) will leave the state if the Malloy gun proposals go through. States like Mississippi, and Oklahoma, have promised to pay them relocation costs, infrastructure costs, tax breaks, and up front cash. Blumenthal came out speaking harshly of the other states because of this.

Ill try to find a link.

 

[noeynox]

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...oposed-connecticut-laws-3-videos-2584044.html

This is not meant to stir up any gun debate. its just an example of other states cutting throat for CT businesses. Its not an idle threat.

 

[noeynox]

This is the first time I saw these videos. I saw a LONG print article in the WTBY paper about a month ago.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

You realize the stuff whaler is talking about is happening this very second with CT companies? In case you missed it, Stag Arms (gun company) will leave the state if the Malloy gun proposals go through. States like Mississippi, and Oklahoma, have promised to pay them relocation costs, infrastructure costs, tax breaks, and up front cash. Blumenthal came out speaking harshly of the other states because of this.

Ill try to find a link.

You mean there is actually a reason that states give big businesses incentives to operate there? I thought they were just giving away money to be nice.

 

[ruskin]

Part of the problem is that for the most part Connecticut such a horrendous place to do business (taxes, regulations, transportation bottlenecks etc) that folks have become deathly (and in ESPN's case, irrationally) afraid of the few big businesses who have remained pulling up and leaving. I think understand that.

I'm not opposed to tax credits, etc. But, like bizlaw, I think businesses who do accept them have as much a responsibility to the state they accept them from as much as they do their shareholders.

Big-time college sports add to the quality of life in the state for many of us. A descent to MAC-level (or worse) will make it less desirable. It's intellectually insulting to hear ESPN repeat "we don't have anything to do with realignment" when the opposite is true. Ethically (and in this era, something that doesn't count for much), it's poor form for the neighbor with the 20,000 square foot house to ask me to help pay his property taxes or else he'll move and let the property decay.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

You have to stop with these apples to oranges comparisons. They have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, whatsoever. Also, please provide me with the evidence that ESPN has the power to sway BC or FSU, who stopped us from being admitted to the ACC. You seem to be responding to everything but that point.

 

[noeynox]

You mean there is actually a reason that states give big businesses incentives to operate there? I thought they were just giving away money to be nice.

You being a wise guy? I was simply responding to Nelson's "Then why hasn't another state done it? Why doesn't every company in the state get millions in tax breaks, because they could all move too, right?", comment.

Now ESPN has billions invested on that Bristol Campus, and it would not be easy to replicate that easily elsewhere. I prefer business lawyer's approach rather than resorting to extortion over tax breaks btw.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

You being a wise guy? I was simply responding to Nelson's "Then why hasn't another state done it? Why doesn't every company in the state get millions in tax breaks, because they could all move too, right?", comment.

Now ESPN has billions invested on that Bristol Campus, and it would not be easy to replicate that easily elsewhere. I prefer business lawyer's approach rather than resorting to extortion over tax breaks btw.

No, I was sarcastically agreeing with you... at least I think I was.

 

[noeynox]

My bad, I haven't read every post in the thread, trying to catch up now.

 

[businesslawyer]

Why should I feel the need to vilify a company that has done nothing unethical or wrong? .

In everyone's need to make this simple, and make ESPN either an angle or a devil, this is a huge overstatement. When you have a contractual relationship with an entity, as ESPN did with the Big East, there are issues in cooperating with another entity with which you have a contractual relationship (the ACC) in actions that could reasonably be expected to harm the other party with whom you have a relationship. It's called the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

'These are close, complicated issues that shouldn't allow this kind of dialogue where one side calls the other idiotic for disagreeing. (Not that I expect that will stop it.)

 

[WhereistheDove?]

In everyone's need to make this simple, and make ESPN either an angle or a devil, this is a huge overstatement. When you have a contractual relationship with an entity, as ESPN did with the Big East, there are issues in cooperating with another entity with which you have a contractual relationship (the ACC) in actions that could reasonably be expected to harm the other party with whom you have a relationship. It's called the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

'These are close, complicated issues that shouldn't allow this kind of dialogue where one side calls the other idiotic for disagreeing. (Not that I expect that will stop it.)

First, I'm not making ESPN out to be an angel. I'm making them out to be a corporation. And isn't this all still predicated on ESPN being responsible for all of this? Does anyone really believe that the conferences were clueless to the huge potential financial benefits of increasing their size and TV footprint until ESPN set the wheels in motion? I'm also a little curious (because I'm not a lawyer), how a lawsuit over that would actually work seeing as I don't think ESPN's hypothetical actions actually prevented UConn from receiving its benefits from the expiring TV deal. I'm actually curious to hear your opinion on that.

Regardless, this still doesn't have anything to do with the overall point. The whole thread is about pressuring ESPN into giving us preferential treatment due to their relationship with the state. So if we're making this argument about harming another party, couldn't you say the same if ESPN had somehow forced the ACC to take UConn, when they obviously decided that there were financially better options (I know that's not your point, but trying to tie this in to the overall thread).

 

[ruskin]

I've said nothing personal so please don't accuse me of that (especially when you come back and call my opinion ridiculous as well).

"Stop being hysterical" "Stop being ridiculous" "Some might say that opinion is ridiculous". Which one is not the personal shot? And you haven't answered whether you work at ESPN or if your business is tied to them, which would make your point understandable since you have a personal stake.

Comparing ESPN's relationship with a huge college athletics program to their relationship with the state of CT is apples to oranges.

How so? You eagerly cite capitalism as the driving the force in all of this. Money is changing hands. And BTW, UConn's program isn't Texas-sized, but it's not exactly a lemonade stand either ($68M budget).

Also, don't forget that Longhorn Network was one of the major issues that led to Texas A&M jumping ship, but amazingly I haven't seen the state of Texas ending their relationship with ESPN or public figures calling for their head.

Pretty sure the A&M people in Texas are pretty happy where they landed. Don't think you'd be saying that if they were in same boat as SMU or Houston.

ESPN's tax breaks do not have (and never have) anything to do with UConn or its athletics TV revenue.

The point of the OP, which we're never going to agree on. You see the subsidies as a pure money-for-jobs tradeoff. I don't.

In the grand scheme of things, it's also a very minor and inconsequential thing when compared to the goals those tax breaks are trying to accomplish.

The amount of UConn's lost TV revenue this coming year is roughly equal to the tax breaks ESPN is receiving. Why is ESPN accepting the $$ if that money is so "minor and inconsequential"? Are they doing it to make us feel good?

And again, what leads you to believe that ESPN had the power to sway BC or FSU? Your whole argument is predicated on that.

The words that will go on Flipper's headstone "ESPN told us what to do."

 

[WhereistheDove?]

"Some might say that opinion is ridiculous". You slightly changing the wording does nothing to change the message, which was EXACTLY the same as what you called a personal attack (which were actually attacks at your point). And I don't work at ESPN, not the same industry, never have, and probably never will. I actually think they're a pretty scummy organization based off of a lot of the things that came out in that tell-all book (or at least they were a scummy organization), but this is not one of the things that will put them in a negative light for me.

How are the UT and CT deals not the same? Is this a serious question? One is a college, where ESPN has a directly negotiated deal to operate their TV network. The other is a state, where they negotiated tax breaks so that ESPN would bring jobs and tax revenue into the state. Please provide me with one thing that says that part of that deal was to provide preferential treatment to UConn. You do that and I will withdraw all of my arguments.

The amount of lost revenue may be roughly equal to the tax breaks, but the amount of ESPN's value to the state economy between jobs and tax revenue is staggering in comparison that $10-12 million.

You still have yet to provide me one thing other than opinion that says that ESPN had or has the sway to affect the decisions of BC and FSU to keep us out of the ACC. If you have nothing, just admit you have nothing.

 

[ruskin]

I'll start from the bottom. The freaking athletic director of Boston College said "ESPN told us what to do". The fact he got the equivalent of a horse's head in his bed and backed off doesn't convince me that his first statement is untrue

I've looked for data on ESPN's actual economic impact in Connecticut and can't find it (not even in the First Five press releases). Without seeing the numbers I assume it's large but I do recall seeing stories from biased advocacy groups (ConnPIRG, etc) that the media's presence in CT is overstated. So "staggering" could be -- could be -- overstating it.

As I said, the UT-ESPN deal and State of CT-ESPN transactions are similar in the most basic way - one entity giving money to another for something in return. Sure, the size and scope are different.

I keep hearing "preferential" treatment. Preferential over who/what? Do the blind resume thing with all the teams not currently in a Big Five conference. There isn't one out there with a better resume than UConn's in all ways - in terms of on-field success, budget, facilities. If ESPN where in Massachusetts and it acted to get UMass into the ACC, then you could say preferential because UMass would be jumping the line. UConn just needs a final push over the finish line. Our neighbors whose property taxes we're helping pay aren't. That's the point.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You realize the stuff whaler is talking about is happening this very second with CT companies? In case you missed it, Stag Arms (gun company) will leave the state if the Malloy gun proposals go through. States like Mississippi, and Oklahoma, have promised to pay them relocation costs, infrastructure costs, tax breaks, and up front cash. Blumenthal came out speaking harshly of the other states because of this.

Ill try to find a link.

Are you saying no company will stay in Connecticut unless taxpayers hand them cash to be here? It sounds like it.

I will go on the record as saying that any state that wants to give me $100 million can have me. I am pretty sure I could get my company to move for $100 million too. We should all move to Oklahoma and Mississippi, because they have a magical money machine where they can just hand out cash to companies.

Maybe the boneyard should form a company, offer to relocate to Oklahoma, and get paid a few hundred grand a piece for a couple of years to post on the Internet.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Give me another example, anywhere in the economy, where on entity gives another entity $100 million with almost no strings attached.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Are you saying no company will stay in Connecticut unless taxpayers hand them cash to be here? It sounds like it.

I will go on the record as saying that any state that wants to give me $100 million can have me. I am pretty sure I could get my company to move for $100 million too. We should all move to Oklahoma and Mississippi, because they have a magical money machine where they can just hand out cash to companies.

Maybe the boneyard should form a company, offer to relocate to Oklahoma, and get paid a few hundred grand a piece for a couple of years to post on the Internet.

That's not what he's saying at all and you know that. You're intentionally changing his argument to make it seem absurd. The point is, and he even provided proof, that CT is not the only state that gives tax breaks to attract big business, and then the assumption that no one would be willing to fork over some cash to attract a company like ESPN is just plainly untrue. And you know what, when you run a company pulling in over $10 billion in revenue and worth 4x that, I'm sure there will be plenty of states lining up to give you some tax breaks. You do understand that the value of a company like ESPN to the state is way higher than a small business, right?

 

[zls44]

The words that will go on Flipper's headstone "ESPN told us what to do."

It's amazing how people think that quote is at all accurate. Gene is an ignorant blowhard. That isn't proof, its a windmill in the distance.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

That's not what he's saying at all and you know that. You're intentionally changing repeating his argument to make it seem absurd. The point is, and he even provided proof, that CT is not the only state that gives tax breaks to attract big business, and then the assumption that no one would be willing to fork over some cash to attract a company like ESPN is just plainly untrue. And you know what, when you run a company pulling in over $10 billion in revenue and worth 4x that, I'm sure there will be plenty of states lining up to give you some tax breaks. You do understand that the value of a company like ESPN to the state is way higher than a small business, right?

There. Fixed.

Ah, so only big companies should get tax breaks. Do you realize that over 100% of job creation in our economy comes from companies under 500 employees? Big companies actually shrink year over year. So you want to subsidize big, shrinking companies because they are...big?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It's amazing how people think that quote is at all accurate. Gene is an ignorant blowhard. That isn't proof, its a windmill in the distance.

Nope. It is gospel. You are wrong.