Panthers up for sale, could the team be moved to Connecticut? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Panthers up for sale, could the team be moved to Connecticut?

mikedog10 said:
Might as well throw in a full-size replica of the Mark Twain house, built entirely out of Legos.
Expand ...

Marbles90 said:
OMG, this would be so cool!!
Expand ...
There is(was) already a scale model at BDL. It's pretty big and detailed, but certainly not "full-size."
 
I'm pretty sure that it was either Nate Silver or someone else of the FanGraphs ilk that wrote a piece detailing how a "downtown" stadium had little to no economic on the surrounding area. The only people that lose were the tax payers and the only people that win were the owners.

This notion that a new basketball arena or even more insanely idiotic a new football stadium would cause an economic boom to Hartford that would come anywhere close to offsetting the sticker price of a new stadium is far fetched and based in reality only in message boards.

This is a quick article about the premise from a professor at Stanford (tied #5 in National Universities by US News FYI).

Sports stadiums don't spur economic growth, Stanford expert says
 
ConnHuskBask said:
I'm pretty sure that it was either Nate Silver or someone else of the FanGraphs ilk that wrote a piece detailing how a "downtown" stadium had little to no economic on the surrounding area. The only people that lose were the tax payers and the only people that win were the owners.

This notion that a new basketball arena or even more insanely idiotic a new football stadium would cause an economic boom to Hartford that would come anywhere close to offsetting the sticker price of a new stadium is far fetched and based in reality only in message boards.

This is a quick article about the premise from a professor at Stanford (tied #5 in National Universities by US News FYI).

Sports stadiums don't spur economic growth, Stanford expert says
Expand ...
That is why it would make more sense to have a covered stadium that can be used for conventions, trade shows, basketball, ice hockey, concerts etc., as well as football. It is more expensive, but it would be used more frequently and generate more revenue.
 
LoyalFanCT said:
That is why it would make more sense to have a covered stadium that can be used for conventions, trade shows, basketball, ice hockey, concerts etc., as well as football. It is more expensive, but it would be used more frequently and generate more revenue.
Expand ...

There is a brand new convention center in Hartford....
 
.-.
We have a fantasy fiction board. It’s called conference realignment.

Can we move this there? It’s a nice side dish for the Dood or s w a i m.
 
Last edited:
Husky25 said:
There is(was) already a scale model at BDL. It's pretty big and detailed, but certainly not "full-size."
Expand ...
I watched the State Police arrest a woman who decided to vandalize it one morning...made the flight delay entertaining.
 
.-.
The original plans for Adriaen's landing included a dome stadium to allow UConn to become D1. I like the idea of a dome stadium, but everything else this guy is talking about is simply unreasonable.
 
LoyalFanCT said:
The NFL's Panthers are up for sale. Could the team be purchased by a group who move the team to Connecticut. Then UConn and the Panthers could share a stadium. The local newspaper said there is no guarantee the team will stay in North Carolina. I know it was previously discussed that the Patriots were going to move to Hartford, but that sure fell apart. Still, Hartford would benefit economically if a pro football team locates there.
Will city’s ‘hard tether’ keep Panthers in Charlotte? Not necessarily.
Expand ...

Why on earth would you move a team from a booming high growth area like Charlotte, with no competing franchise for hundreds of miles, to a decaying place like Hartford, with three pro franchises, two of which are very popular, within a short drive of your population? There are few places that would be worse than Hartford, or Bridgeport or New London.
 
LoyalFanCT said:
That is why it would make more sense to have a covered stadium that can be used for conventions, trade shows, basketball, ice hockey, concerts etc., as well as football. It is more expensive, but it would be used more frequently and generate more revenue.
Expand ...

While we are on the topic, why don't we start broadcasting everything that happens at the stadium on Nickelodeon?
 
Da_Aisijimo_Gou said:
Aside from the initial post and others, it/they prompted some resulting interesting and insightful comments. Acknowledging media reports of declining NFL interest nationally, the linked WSJ article states the Panthers "...have sold out 225 of their 227 home games in team history, including 157 straight." It helps that Carolina appears to be on its' way to the franchise's 4th playoff appearance in 5 seasons.

Charlotte fan interest may be lukewarm and relocated fans of other teams reportedly frequently buy tickets from local fans, but sold out games are sold out games. Even if a new owner was to buy the Panthers with an intent to move them elsewhere, other US cities would appear to be stronger possibilities than Hartford. And, as others mention the NFL also appears to be interested in Toronto, London, and Mexico City.

NFL franchise as Insurance City economic stimulus? Seriously? No doubt, that would truly inspire taxpayers of other Connecticut municipalities already financing Hartford and potentially bailing it out of bankruptcy. Hey, you wanna invest in a sport with declining viewership, growing CTE concerns, the need for a likely taxpayer-funded massive stadium ... ? Fuhgetaboutit!
Expand ...

Spot on. And the only reason the Panthers have "lukewarm" interest is because it was an expansion team in a new area. Older people aren't going to abandon the Cowboys, Steelers, Packers or whoever they were rooting for to cheer the new local team. The kids do, and as more people grow up with the Panthers, they will be very popular down there. And that was the effect of putting a team in a place with no NFL team nearby. The Jags have it worse, because they have much closer teams, even if those are great franchises (Tampa). Now compare Connecticut, where you'd send the Panthers against the Patriots and Giants and whatever leftover fans the Jets have...epic fail. Nobody would even go.
 
HuskyHawk said:
Now compare Connecticut, where you'd send the Panthers against the Patriots and Giants and whatever leftover fans the Jets have...epic fail. Nobody would even go.
Expand ...

Still significant groupings of Giants Fans in Massachusetts. Assume the same case in Connecticut. They were the closest team for years. What you always got on TV on Sunday afternoon.
 
.-.
HuskyHawk said:
Older people aren't going to abandon the Cowboys, Steelers, Packers or whoever they were rooting for to cheer the new local team.
Expand ...
Definitely some legacy Redskins' fans, maybe the Falcons, Northeast teams, and droves of economic refugees from the rust belt and upper midwest (Bills, Browns, Lions, Bears, etc.).
HuskyHawk said:
Nobody would even go.
Expand ...
Sure, but Loyal and other potential Panthers' buyers purportedly will only bid on Richardson's less-than-majority ownership of the Panthers' roughly $2.3 billion valuation, i.e., only about 48% of the Panther's shares. Several smaller minority shareholders own the remaining approx 52%.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
I'm pretty sure that it was either Nate Silver or someone else of the FanGraphs ilk that wrote a piece detailing how a "downtown" stadium had little to no economic on the surrounding area. The only people that lose were the tax payers and the only people that win were the owners.

This notion that a new basketball arena or even more insanely idiotic a new football stadium would cause an economic boom to Hartford that would come anywhere close to offsetting the sticker price of a new stadium is far fetched and based in reality only in message boards.

This is a quick article about the premise from a professor at Stanford (tied #5 in National Universities by US News FYI).

Sports stadiums don't spur economic growth, Stanford expert says
Expand ...
There are others who show there is positive economic growth. Also, it must be viewed in the context text of the environment in which the stadium is being put. The fewer the competitive alternative attractions (compare Hartford to San Diego or Orlando), the greater the economic leveraging impact in terms of local business, quality of life and perceived desirability. Since Hartford has literally nothing to distinguish itself, it would greatly benefit. There is a good discussion of this in a research piece from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank which you might have missed when googling for the Stanford article. :).
Economics Of Subsidizing Sports Stadiums | St. Louis Fed
 
.-.
BlueDogs said:
There are others who show there is positive economic growth. Also, it must be viewed in the context text of the environment in which the stadium is being put. The fewer the competitive alternative attractions (compare Hartford to San Diego or Orlando), the greater the economic leveraging impact in terms of local business, quality of life and perceived desirability. Since Hartford has literally nothing to distinguish itself, it would greatly benefit. There is a good discussion of this in a research piece from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank which you might have missed when googling for the Stanford article. :).
Economics Of Subsidizing Sports Stadiums | St. Louis Fed
Expand ...

That article basically reiterated my original point? I'm open to hear opposing point of views and appreciate your link, but just read the conclusion.

"Conclusion
Building sports stadiums has an impact on local economies. For that reason, many people support the use of government subsidies to help pay for stadiums. However, economists generally oppose such subsidies. They often stress that estimations of the economic impact of sports stadiums are exaggerated because they fail to recognize opportunity costs. Consumers who spend money on sporting events would likely spend the money on other forms of entertainment, which has a similar economic impact. Rather than subsidizing sports stadiums, governments could finance other projects such as infrastructure or education that have the potential to increase productivity and promote economic growth."

This is basically saying that the public supporting billionaire owners creating cash cow stadiums is a farce.

I particularly liked this line:

"Baseball fans who attend games also pay for parking, eat in restaurants, and buy food and drink at the ballpark"

Attending games - ticket revenue for owners
Parking - parking fee revenue for owners
Drinks / Food - Concession revenue for owners
Restaurants - Take NJ/NYC for example. There are no restaurants near Met Life (though that was not publicly financed), Yankee Stadium ($1.2B in public subsidies), I bet the McDonalds across the street is booming now... Newark Prudential Center had around $200M in money from Newark. There's a Dino BBQ next door now...I guess that covers it...

If you're a billionaire and you want a new arena - pay for it yourself. Why should the schlub out there busting his ass to make a living have to subsidize the owners?
 
Looks like a possible Panthers move to Hartford is gaining some serious traction with the NFL experts. Last I heard it could be down to Hartford or Columbus, OH. Columbus has the inside track because they could just dome The Horseshoe and make it a year round arena.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
That article basically reiterated my original point? I'm open to hear opposing point of views and appreciate your link, but just read the conclusion.

"Conclusion
Building sports stadiums has an impact on local economies. For that reason, many people support the use of government subsidies to help pay for stadiums. However, economists generally oppose such subsidies. They often stress that estimations of the economic impact of sports stadiums are exaggerated because they fail to recognize opportunity costs. Consumers who spend money on sporting events would likely spend the money on other forms of entertainment, which has a similar economic impact. Rather than subsidizing sports stadiums, governments could finance other projects such as infrastructure or education that have the potential to increase productivity and promote economic growth."

This is basically saying that the public supporting billionaire owners creating cash cow stadiums is a farce.

I particularly liked this line:

"Baseball fans who attend games also pay for parking, eat in restaurants, and buy food and drink at the ballpark"

Attending games - ticket revenue for owners
Parking - parking fee revenue for owners
Drinks / Food - Concession revenue for owners
Restaurants - Take NJ/NYC for example. There are no restaurants near Met Life (though that was not publicly financed), Yankee Stadium ($1.2B in public subsidies), I bet the McDonalds across the street is booming now... Newark Prudential Center had around $200M in money from Newark. There's a Dino BBQ next door now...I guess that covers it...

If you're a billionaire and you want a new arena - pay for it yourself. Why should the schlub out there busting his ass to make a living have to subsidize the owners?
Expand ...
The point is stadiums do have a favorable impact. The issue is public funds enrich billionaires who enjoy or take some portion of the economic fruits. The question is how much public benefit is directed back to owners which would otherwise inure to other parties. The direct revenue benefit to owners is obvious. The indirect revenue and magnifying effect on transactional velocity (amount and frequency of money transactions, and secondary and tertiary money transactions spawned) , secondary investment in restaurants, stores, new housing, transportation, etc.. is there to be leveraged. It is here where I would maintain that the benefits are much greater for marginal economic environments (like Hartford) versus a healthy environment where a new stadium is merely piling on at best limited incremental growth (i.e., just competing for or shifting the same spend dollars doesn't help anyone). This is why (even thought I love football), a hockey or basketball team is likely more attractive because there are many more events, longer seasons and more sustained business opportunity. In any case, it doesn't matter because there isn't any apparent leadership, vision or wherewithal to viably or effectively compete for any such project in Connecticut. The only creativity it has is coming up with more ways to tax and bleed its citizens to maintain its habit.
 
BlueDogs said:
The point is stadiums do have a favorable impact. The issue is public funds enrich billionaires who enjoy or take some portion of the economic fruits. The question is how much public benefit is directed back to owners which would otherwise inure to other parties. The direct revenue benefit to owners is obvious. The indirect revenue and magnifying effect on transactional velocity (amount and frequency of money transactions, and secondary and tertiary money transactions spawned) , secondary investment in restaurants, stores, new housing, transportation, etc.. is there to be leveraged. It is here where I would maintain that the benefits are much greater for marginal economic environments (like Hartford) versus a healthy environment where a new stadium is merely piling on at best limited incremental growth (i.e., just competing for or shifting the same spend dollars doesn't help anyone). This is why (even thought I love football), a hockey or basketball team is likely more attractive because there are many more events, longer seasons and more sustained business opportunity. In any case, it doesn't matter because there isn't any apparent leadership, vision or wherewithal to viably or effectively compete for any such project in Connecticut. The only creativity it has is coming up with more ways to tax and bleed its citizens to maintain its habit.
Expand ...

Nobody is saying stadiums don't have some impact. The benefit has been proven to be negligible and that dollars spent there would just as likely be spent elsewhere in the city/region if it wasn't there.

Building a $500M dollar area it would be difficult to not have some impact.

The issue is the public funding something that the vast majority of the impact goes to a private owner.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
Nobody is saying stadiums don't have some impact. The benefit has been proven to be negligible and that dollars spent there would just as likely be spent elsewhere in the city/region if it wasn't there.

Building a $500M dollar area it would be difficult to not have some impact.

The issue is the public funding something that the vast majority of the impact goes to a private owner.
Expand ...

Thoughts and prayers CHB.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,228
Messages
4,558,323
Members
10,443
Latest member
Billy Boy


Top Bottom