End state relationship with and tax breaks for ESPN NOW

[nelsonmuntz]

You guys saying this realize another state would pay to replicate their infrastructure to have them right? States are playing for keeps to attract high profile jobs.

Can you show me a single study that shows that targeted tax breaks to specific corporations are anything other than a giant money loser for the states providing them?

 

[whaler11]

Can you show me a single study that shows that targeted tax breaks to specific corporations are anything other than a giant money loser for the states providing them?

Classic Waylon. Who said they were a good idea. I'm just saying if you don't think another state would cover their cost to move to get them it's naive.

 

[J187Money]

Wow. I had no idea how business worked. Thanks.

Back to the argument. Why should state taxpayers pick one business out of a hat and give it $100MM? Why not take the billions of targeted tax breaks given to favored corporations and just make everyone's taxes lower? Funny how all these Blumenthal and Malloy haters never thought of that.

Not advocating they should. And I'd be quite happy if we revoked the tax breaks. But the tax breaks have been given. Now ESPN should not act in what it feels is its own best interest?

I'm pretty sure if the tax breaks were given specifically in exchange for preferential treatment for UCONN it would be illegal anyway. If it was in writing.

And I'm the last guy you need to fight with over the tax code and targeted breaks. All of it is just a veiled form of corruption.

 

[whaler11]

Let's go back to the summer of 2011. The ACC has a 10 year contract that is suddenly way below market. The only way to reopen that contract is with ESPN's sole consent. In Whaler's world, ESPN has absolutely no influence in that situation, and the people with the long-term below market deal have all the power. Got it.

You do realize that the deal being below market value was a problem for ESPN correct? Being the only league they own the rights for across the board underpaying them put the enterprise at immediate risk due to the Big 12 needing teams.

You must remember when you went on and on about FSU to the Big 12 being a done deal right?

They don't own the votes - they can't make Boston College or Florida State select who they want no matter how many times people on the Boneyard say they can.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Classic Waylon. Who said they were a good idea. I'm just saying if you don't think another state would cover their cost to move to get them it's naive.

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?

 

[whaler11]

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?

Well they would have to want to move for one... And you know they didn't get tax breaks for threatening to move.

Florida's governor just asked to increase their budget for this very use to $278 million in their next budget.

Um other companies do get tax breaks for moving or adding jobs in CT. Of course you know that you are just being a jackass and attempting to argue that anyone is supporting them rather than just acknowledging their existence.

 

[ruskin]

I'm pretty sure if the tax breaks were given specifically in exchange for preferential treatment for UCONN it would be illegal anyway.

ESPN lending a hand to UConn does not equal "preferential" treatment. ESPN gave the University of Texas "preferential" treatment with the Longhorn Network. Granted lots of $$ changed hands. But if ESPN invested 1/1000th of the effort it put into its business partner UT with its business partner the state of CT this would not be going the way it is.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Let's go back to the summer of 2011. The ACC has a 10 year contract that is suddenly way below market. The only way to reopen that contract is with ESPN's sole consent. In Whaler's world, ESPN has absolutely no influence in that situation, and the people with the long-term below market deal have all the power. Got it.

When did he ever say ESPN had absolutely no control. He said they couldn't control the teams that were our roadblocks to the ACC.

 

[ruskin]

I get it, people are angry that UConn was left out in the cold, but most of this vitriol aimed towards ESPN just seems like fans desperately searching for someone to blame for our situation.

Nothing "desperate" about this at all. The state of CT is subsidizing an entity which at best has not lifted a finger to help UConn, and has played at least a minor and likely major role in UConn's annual TV revenue going from a possible $14 million to $1.8 million.

While we're add it, why don't we just add that $12.2 million loss to the subsidy, Dove? Oh wait, it is something to scoff at. Got it. ESPN is doing us the favor by accepting this pittance.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

ESPN lending a hand to UConn does not equal "preferential" treatment. ESPN gave the University of Texas "preferential" treatment with the Longhorn Network. Granted lots of changed hands. But if ESPN invested 1/1000th of the effort it put into its business partner UT with its business partner the state of CT this would not be going the way it is.

How did they give UT preferential treatment? If I remember correctly, UT football is the single most valuable college sports program in the country. There's a reason they have their own network and it's because both them and ESPN can make a ton of money off of it. Stop being ridiculous.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Nothing "desperate" about this at all. The state of CT is subsidizing an entity which at best has not lifted a finger to help UConn, and has played at least a minor and likely major role in UConn's annual TV revenue going from a possible $14 million to $1.8 million.

While we're add it, why don't we just add that $12.2 million loss to the subsidy, Dove? Oh wait, it is something to scoff at. Got it. ESPN is doing us the favor by accepting this pittance.

Yes, $12.2 million for a couple of years is absolutely minor compared to ESPN's economic impact in CT. And all of your complaining is predicated on the assumption that ESPN could single-handedly reach in and change what's going on, when we already know that it was some of the teams in the ACC that said "no" to UConn's membership.

 

[ruskin]

How did they give UT preferential treatment? If I remember correctly, UT football is the single most valuable college sports program in the country. There's a reason they have their own network and it's because both them and ESPN can make a ton of money off of it. Stop being ridiculous.

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.

 

[businesslawyer]

This is true. The disconnect for some is the level of control ESPN has. They don't control Florida State or Boston College.

They do not control FSU or BC. But what DeFilippo said publicly is enough to get by summary judgment and get UConn a trial in front of a jury if they want it.

 

[ruskin]

They do not control FSU or BC. But what DeFilippo said publicly is enough to get by summary judgment and get UConn a trial in front of a jury if they want it.

I would pay money to see Flipper in the dock

 

[uconnric]

[quote="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.[/quote]
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.

 

[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.)