Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

NFL Random Thought of the Day

DEJA VU!

********************************************************************************************

Titans keep pushing for new, not refurbished, stadium
Posted by Mike Florio on May 20, 2022, 4:57 PM EDT


The Titans continue to press for a new stadium, and they continue to resist the possible refurbishment of their existing home in Nashville.

Via the Tennessean, Titans president/CEO Burke Nihill said that a new stadium is the best long-term solution for the team and its current hometown.


Nihill presented to the Metro Sports Authority on Thursday an analysis by AECOM Hunt construction, which concluded that Nissan Stadium will require $1.2 billion to renovate with another $900 million in upgrades in order to remain relevant through 2039, the term of the current lease. That’s $2.1 billion. A new stadium is expected to cost between $1.9 billion and $2.2 billion.

The Titans, like most other NFL teams, would like to foist the bulk of the expense onto the taxpayers. Based on prior reports and public comments, a new stadium would be built with $700 million in private money — and $1.5 billion in public money, far and away a new record.

“The mayor said it last week . . . that in his opinion, doing nothing is not an option,” Nihill told reporters. “I think we’ve seen it that way for three or four years. Probably longer. Just understanding that the condition of this building, the increasing NFL standards and really all standards for building that we had to stop plugging holes and come up with a comprehensive solution. . . . The building condition of the current building [and] the inflexibility of the current building makes it hard to picture that building being a 50- or 60-year-old building, which is what it would be if we extended the lease and did the financing necessary to do a large-scale renovation.”

Giving the Titans added leverage is the notion that, per Nihill, it will cost the Metro Sports Authority $1.8 billion to keep the stadium up to snuff through 2039. Thus, the obvious alternative is to just build a new one.

Mayor John Cooper has proposed that the Titans, not the Metro Sports Authority, be responsible for stadium maintenance and improvement costs, if a new facility is built. Cooper also has asked that the Titans cover any construction cost overruns.

So the options currently are: (1) spend a lot of taxpayer money on a new stadium; (2) spend a lot of taxpayer money to meet contractual obligations to maintain and upgrade the current stadium; or (3) breach the obligations under the current lease and risk the Titans will do to Nashville what the franchise did to Houston in the 1990s — leave town.

Choose wisely, Nashville, because if the team ever gets a chance to go get elsewhere what it can’t get there, it won’t take two guesses to figure out what it will do.
 
badboy said:
NBC Sports: Report: NFL owners are “counting votes” toward a possible ouster of Daniel Snyder.
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

Report: NFL owners are "counting votes" toward a possible ouster of Daniel Snyder

There's plenty of smoke surrounding Washington Commanders owner Daniel Snyder.
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com profootballtalk.nbcsports.com
Click to expand...

Owners should be careful as to how they point the finger b/c a lot of them have probably had situations just like Snyder that they’ve managed to keep behind closed doors. If Snyder is ousted and folks are paid……more could come out of the woodwork. Jerry Jones immediately comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
steelbtexan said:
Apparently the Addams family grifters didn't skip a generation.
Click to expand...
Both sides signed a contract that the MSA would keep the stadium in top condition. Now, the decision is whether to renovate the stadium, or build a new one. On the surface, it seems to me the new stadium is more cost effective. But that's the MSA's decision to remain complaint with the contract.

Almost 30 years ago, one community said no to a NFL franchise. Another said yes, with open arms and checkbook. The Nashville voters knew who and what the Adams and the NFL were. No remorse for them from me.

@steelbtexan , thought you were a guy that believed in honoring contracts?
 
OptimisticTexan said:
Owners should be as to how they point the finger b/c a lot of them have probably had situations just like Snyder that they’ve managed to keep behind closed doors.
Click to expand...
A lot of situations regarding robbing the league? I don't think so. These guy will forgive a lot, but not getting robbed.
 
Lucky said:
Both sides signed a contract that the MSA would keep the stadium in top condition. Now, the decision is whether to renovate the stadium, or build a new one. On the surface, it seems to me the new stadium is more cost effective. But that's the MSA's decision to remain complaint with the contract.

Almost 30 years ago, one community said no to a NFL franchise. Another said yes, with open arms and checkbook. The Nashville voters knew who and what the Adams and the NFL were. No remorse for them from me.

@steelbtexan , thought you were a guy that believed in honoring contracts?
Click to expand...

I do, I also dont believe in public funding for NFL stadiums.

Let the lease run out and then let them move.
 
Lucky said:
How many times have you been on the winning side?
Click to expand...

This isn't about winning/losing.

It's about voting against publicly funding sports stadiums, which obviously by looking at the Titans stadium is a bad investment.

But hey, it appears you're part of the heard that doesn't mind paying more in taxes for bad investments. Just as long as you get to eat some bbq and drink some beer in the parking lot and maybe/maybe not watch a little football. Good news is that you will be seen, which is what's most important to a vast majority of the crowd.

This post wasn't meant for you personally.
 
steelbtexan said:
It's about voting against publicly funding sports stadiums, which obviously by looking at the Titans stadium is a bad investment.
Click to expand...
Is it? I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. Have you put pencil to paper? How much revenue does a NFL team bring into the community. More industry and jobs? What about building the stadium? Aren't a lot of those millions going to construction workers and local vendors? I can't just make a justification on the value of having/not having a NFL franchise. You can, so you've got that going for you.
 
steelbtexan said:
It's about voting against publicly funding sports stadiums, which obviously by looking at the Titans stadium is a bad investment.
Click to expand...
Asking, because I don't know.

Does the money come from property tax? Vehicle registration tax? Sales tax?
 
Lucky said:
Is it? I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. Have you put pencil to paper? How much revenue does a NFL team bring into the community. More industry and jobs? What about building the stadium? Aren't a lot of those millions going to construction workers and local vendors? I can't just make a justification on the value of having/not having a NFL franchise. You can, so you've got that going for you.
Click to expand...

Every legitimate study that I've read has clearly come to the conclusion that there is no economic benefit for cities from public financed stadiums.

If anything, cities are forced to neglect critical infrastructure, flood control, funding, building, and repairing schools, etc., due to the funds that end up enriching a very small group of millionaire athletes and billionaire owners.

I tend to believe that some things are actually more important to cities than entertainment.

Leeds, the Temple University economist, found little to no ripple effect when he assessed the impact of sports stadiums in Chicago, home to five major league franchises, including: the Cubs and White Sox (baseball), the Bears (football), the Blackhawks (hockey) and the Bulls (basketball). He found that the income generated by those teams had an impact on the city’s economy of less than 1 percent.

So why have so many communities poured so many millions — and even billions — of dollars into the construction of pro sports stadiums, ballparks and arenas?

“Our perception of sports occupies far more attention and time than the pure finances of the sport would merit,” Leeds said.

With so much research suggesting stadiums are bad investments for the public, why would taxpayers in New York consider investing upwards of $1 billion to build a new stadium in Western New York for the Bills?

“I’m at a loss. I’m really at a loss,” Leeds said. “I cannot think of any reasonable argument to justify a billion dollars going towards this stadium.”

Source: Little economic benefit from new stadium
Click to expand...

Over the last thirty years, building sports stadiums has served as a profitable undertaking for large sports teams, at the expense of the general public. While there are some short-term benefits, the inescapable truth is that the economic impact of these projects on their communities is minimal, while they can be an obstacle to real development in local neighborhoods.

A study by Noll and Zimbalist on newly constructed subsidized stadiums shows that they have a very limited and possibly even negative local impact. This is because of the opportunity cost that goes into allocating a significant amount of money into a service like a stadium, rather than infrastructure or other community projects that would benefit locals. Spending $700 million in areas like education or housing could have long-term positive consequences with the potential for long-term increases in the standard of living and economic growth.

Source: The Economics of Sports Stadiums: Does public financing of sports stadiums create local economic growth, or just help billionaires improve their profit margin?
Click to expand...
 
Double Barrel said:
Every legitimate study that I've read has clearly come to the conclusion that there is no economic benefit for cities from public financed stadiums.

If anything, cities are forced to neglect critical infrastructure, flood control, funding, building, and repairing schools, etc., due to the funds that end up enriching a very small group of millionaire athletes and billionaire owners.

I tend to believe that some things are actually more important to cities than entertainment.
Click to expand...
The paper comes from Berkeley and shares the views of the community. Oakland metro area will be a good case study, as they are in the process of losing every sports franchise they have or had.

Here's a study out of Coastal Carolina on Professional Sports Teams and Their Local Economic Impact. It's a little more even handed than the Berkley study, pointing out why the presence of a sports team can create new jobs, increase consumer spending, thereby increasing tax revenue. Not to mention a city's image as location for business.

But a couple of things neither papers pointed out was the impact of construction regarding jobs in the community or the Super Bowl. The stadium would be built by local workers. thus putting a portion of the public money back into the pockets of the citizens. Every new stadium built for an NFL team gets a Super Bowl. According to the paper I listed above, the economic impact of Super Bowl XLV in Arlington was over $600 million. If a location can get 2 Super Bowls (as we have had here in Houston), the total impact for the community is in the black.

I agree that education and infrastructure are more important to cities than entertainment. Most would when put in that simple proposal. So, why is it so difficult to get tax bills passed to support education and infrastructure? Yes, the tax money could be used for better purposes. But would they?

Finally, I don't think this issue is a simple as "if x then y". The conclusion of the Coastal Carolina study is inconclusive.

A complete evaluation is not possible with the limited research about this topic and the research needs to be updated to include another newer intangible benefit such as the benefit from owning a professional sports team. All of the immeasurable impacts need to be accounted for in order to produce a definitive conclusion about the local economic impact of professional sports teams. Until someone can come up with a way to value those impacts there is no way to determine if investing in a professional sports team will generate the desired return
Click to expand...

The question is, can a city continue to grow if removing its icons like their sports teams? It's an important question, because if you are not growing, you're dying.
 
Last edited:
Lucky said:
The paper comes from Berkeley and shares the views of the community. Oakland metro area will be a good case study, as they are in the process of losing every sports franchise they have or had.

Here's a study out of Coastal Carolina on Professional Sports Teams and Their Local Economic Impact. It's a little more even handed than the Berkley study, pointing out why the presence of a sports team can create new jobs, increase consumer spending, thereby increasing tax revenue. Not to mention a city's image as location for business.

But a couple of things neither papers pointed out was the impact of construction regarding jobs in the community or the Super Bowl. The stadium would be built by local workers. thus putting a portion of the public money back into the pockets of the citizens. Every new stadium built for an NFL team gets a Super Bowl. According to the paper I listed above, the economic impact of Super Bowl XLV in Arlington was over $600 million. If a location can get 2 Super Bowls (as we have had here in Houston), the total impact for the community is in the black.

I agree that education and infrastructure are more important to cities than entertainment. Most would when put in that simple proposal. So, why is it so difficult to get tax bills passed to support education and infrastructure? Yes, the tax money could be used for better purposes. But would they?

Finally, I don't think this issue is a simple as "if x then y". The conclusion of the Coastal Carolina study is inconclusive.



The question is, can a city continue to grow if removing its icons like their sports teams? It's an important question, because if you are not growing, you're dying.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself why do 86% of economists agree that "local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises"?

What is is that economists perceive that the average sports fan seems to ignore?

Your Coastal Carolina study seems to arrive at a rather murky conclusion when it tries to claim both positives and negatives, but ultimately it attempts to claim that the "psychological benefits" of having pro sports is the ultimate "can't put a value on it" pivot point.

However, I'd say having a very poor education system, flooding streets, underpaid teachers, underpaid firemen, underpaid police officers, pot holes, crumbling infrastructure (which brings those coveted construction jobs on a much more consistent basis, btw), etc, have a much greater impact on "psychological benefits" than pro sports teams.

If you don't like Berkeley , then about about these sources?

Wall Street Journal: If You Build It, the Jobs Won't Come

But perhaps the best argument against publicly financed stadiums is straight out of Econ 101: Opportunity cost.

"What else could the city have invested its money in and what kind of a return would it have produced?" said King Banaian, chairman of the St. Cloud State (Minn.) Economics Dept. Despite reams of evidence to the contrary, the District proceeded with what Councilman Kwame Brown calls "the most controversial project in the history of the city."

It was controversial, he said, because the city had more pressing needs. The city's schools are in shambles; crime is out of control; and unemployment in distressed neighborhoods, like Southeast, is double the national average, if not higher.

The Atlantic: Sports Stadiums Are a Bad Deal for Cities

Their most repeated refrain is that a team or stadium will “create jobs.” But what does that mean? Construction on the stadium might be performed by local workers, but it might not. And either way, it’s likely to be paid for off the books, without protections for workers. Even if the construction workers are local, their gigs last only a few years. Afterward, all that remains are the jobs inside the stadium—ticket sellers, vendors, janitorial staff—which are low-paid, seasonal, and few. “The number of jobs created is smaller than [the number of employees of] a midsize department store,” Leeds explains.

Stanford University: Sports stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth, Stanford expert says

“NFL stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth, and the incremental tax revenue is not sufficient to cover any significant financial contribution by the city,” said Noll, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. He has written articles and books and given talks on the public financing of sports stadiums.

Federal Reserve Bank: The Economics of Subsidizing Sports Stadiums

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.

Kennesaw State University: The Impact of Sports Stadiums on Commercial Activity: Evidence from a Business Improvement District

Comparisons estimate that property values fell relative to counterfactual estimates—a result that is robust to specification, control unit selection, and timing. Diminished commercial property values indicate that economic activity declined in the area following the introduction of the ballpark, and thus the hypothesized positive impact of the stadium on the local economy did not come to fruition. This finding is consistent with the vast literature on the economic impact of sports venues and events.

University of Maryland: Professional Sports Facilities, Franchises and Urban Economic Development

However, a growing body of evidence indicates that professional sports facilities, and the franchises they are home to, may not be engines of economic growth in urban neighborhoods. Econometric studies of the determination of income and employment in US cities find no evidence of positive economic benefits associated with past sports facility construction and some studies find that professio nal sports facilities and teams have a net negative economic impact on income and employment. These results suggest that at best, professional sports teams and facilities provide non-pecuniary benefits like civic pride, and a greater sense of community, along with consumption benefits to those attending games and following the local team in the media; at worst, residents of cities with professional sports teams pay a high cost for the pr ivilege, both in terms of large public subsidies and in terms of lost income and employment.

George Mason University: Growth Effects of Sports Franchises, Stadiums, and Arenas: 15 Years Later

As big as people perceive sports to be, the evidence here suggests sports franchises, stadium construction, and the other aspects of the sports environment, account for less than 5 percent of the economy, with cost estimates under 1.5 percent and some even negative, on average. Overall, the results here are consistent with and confirm the findings of Coates and Humphreys (1999) that sports-led development is unlikely to succeed in making a community richer. If the local government is looking for a policy to foster economic growth, far better candidate policies exist than those subsidizing a professional sports franchise.

I could keep finding studies and data to make the point. But, ultimately, it's all arriving at the same conclusions.

I just don't see how a city is going to benefit ALL of its citizens by subsidizing hundreds of millions (even billions) to benefit a bunch of entertainers and their corporate overlords. The numbers just don't add up.

There is enough profit in pro sports for franchises to build their own facilities. Maybe teams would only make $20 million in profit instead of $200 million. Maybe an athlete "only" makes $3 million/year instead of $30 million/year. But the revenue is there. The public just needs to wake up and refuse to divert finite public funds to their playgrounds.

Going back to the original story about the Titans stadium, did you know the state hasn’t even paid off the debt from the first stadium???

"Back in the late 1990s when the Titans were coming to Tennessee, the state took on $55 million in bond debt to help pay for the $290 million stadium. These bonds are slated to be paid off around 2029, three decades later, with the state still owing roughly $30 million. With team officials hoping that the new stadium will be finished by 2026, that means Tennessee taxpayers could be paying off two stadiums at the same time." - Source
 
Very sad how especially the younger generation has to get their kicks. The mix of alcohol and ketamine is a wicked combination..........no chance of making any reasonable choices. I've used ketamine routinely to debride severe extensive burns........It is a dissociative drug, which means it acts on different chemicals in the brain to produce visual and auditory distortion, and a detachment from reality. In the case of a burn patient, they feel the pain, but then seconds later forget that they feel it, like it never happened............going through repeated cycles until the surgery is complete.

**************************************************************************

Dwayne Haskins was legally drunk at time of death, according to toxicology report
3:11 PM CT
  • ESPN

Dwayne Haskins was legally drunk when he was struck by a dump truck on I-595 in Florida and killed on April 9, according to a toxicology report released by the office of the Broward County Medical Examiner on Monday.

According to the toxicology report, two separate samples taken from Haskins' body had alcohol levels of .20 and .24, both of which are above the legal limit in Florida of .08. According to the report, Haskins also tested positive for ketamine and norketamine, drugs that are used by medical professionals as anesthetics but that also have been known to be used recreationally.

The medical examiner ruled Haskins' cause of death was multiple blunt force injuries and the manner of his death as an accident.

The medical examiner's investigation report stated that when Haskins' car was found on the side of the highway, a "female companion" was in the vehicle and told the Florida Highway Patrol that Haskins had left the vehicle to try to find gas. The woman's relationship to Haskins was not known, according to the report.

According to 911 audio released in April, Haskins' wife told a 911 dispatcher that the quarterback was walking to get gas on the morning he was struck and killed. Kalabrya Haskins told the 911 dispatcher that her husband called her early April 9 and told her he was getting out of his vehicle to get gas and that he would call her back when he returned to the car. When she didn't hear back, she called 911 and requested that dispatch check on him.

Haskins, 24, was in Florida that weekend to train with Pittsburgh Steelers teammates. According to the investigation report, a Steelers official told the medical examiner's office that the night before his death, Haskins went to dinner with a cousin or friend, whose name was "Joey," and then later went to a nightclub, "possibly in Miami."

"They drank heavily and at some point, they got into a fight, separating," the report states.

A final crash report released by the Florida Highway Patrol in April said Haskins was walking on the westbound side of I-595 when he entered into the travel lanes and into the path of the dump truck, which was traveling in the center lane. The front left of the dump truck struck Haskins.

The report concluded that Haskins was improperly in the roadway, and the driver of the dump truck wasn't found to have taken any actions that contributed to the accident, based on the judgment of the investigation officer. Haskins was also struck by a second car traveling beside the dump truck that took evasive maneuvers to avoid him, but partially hit him on its right side undercarriage, according to the report.
 
Last edited:
Double Barrel said:
Ask yourself why do 86% of economists agree that "local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises"?
Click to expand...
Where are the studies that show how great communities without pro franchises are doing? How well the schools are funded and the homeless have disappeared?

You want to change the world and I get it. People before profit. When is this going to happen and does the fault that it hasn't lie solely at the feet of pro sports franchises? The Coastal Carolina study's conclusion was murky because there isn't a definitive answer. How can a determination be made on either side when no one can determine how to evaluate the non-measurable aspects such as city image, both to local citizens and businesses, and potential citizens and businesses. Do businesses or people re-locate to an area just because of sports franchises? No, not entirely. Is it a component of the city's image? Of course.

Let me respond to a couple of comments to your links. The Athletic article suggests that "Afterward, all that remains are the jobs inside the stadium—ticket sellers, vendors, janitorial staff—which are low-paid, seasonal, and few. “The number of jobs created is smaller than [the number of employees of] a midsize department store...” That is patently false and misleading. Stores, bars, restaurants, hotels are built around these sports arenas and create a ripple effect. Other businesses support these franchises. The small company I work for (50-100 workers) has done $millions of work with the Texans, Astros, and Rockets over the years, and I doubt we are in the top 100 of their vendors. If you look at the books of these franchises, you would see $millions going to local businesses on an annual basis.

The Temple professor states in his book that the Chicago's sports franchises impact was less than 1% of the city's economy. Less than 1%, that doesn't seem like much. But what exactly is the number? Chicago has a GMP of over $700 billion with a B. So what are these teams' economic impact? $6 billion? $5 billion? Even $4 billion is a whole lot of something and would be missed.

86% of studies show government should stay away from subsidizing pro sports, right. Yet, these cities fight tooth and nail to get teams to move to their communities. Can't they read? Or are there studies available to these government agencies that paint a different story? I don't know. But what I believe is that the truth is not as cut and dried as you think it is.
 
Last edited:
thunderkyss said:
Asking, because I don't know.

Does the money come from property tax? Vehicle registration tax? Sales tax?
Click to expand...
Lucky said:
Where are the studies that show how great communities without pro franchises are doing? How well the schools are funded and the homeless have disappeared?

You want to change the world and I get it. People before profit. When is this going to happen and does the fault that it hasn't lie solely at the feet of pro sports franchises? The Coastal Carolina study's conclusion was murky because there isn't a definitive answer. How can a determination be made on either side when no one can determine how to evaluate the non-measurable aspects such as city image, both to local citizens and businesses, and potential citizens and businesses. Do businesses or people re-locate to an area just because of sports franchises? No, not entirely. Is it a component of the city's image? Of course.

Let me respond to a couple of comments to your links. The Athletic article suggests that "Afterward, all that remains are the jobs inside the stadium—ticket sellers, vendors, janitorial staff—which are low-paid, seasonal, and few. “The number of jobs created is smaller than [the number of employees of] a midsize department store...” That is patently false and misleading. Stores, bars, restaurants, hotels are built around these sports arenas and create a ripple effect. Other businesses support these franchises. The small company I work for (50-100 workers) has done $millions of work with the Texans, Astros, and Rockets over the years, and I doubt we are in the top 100 of their vendors. If you look at the books of these franchises, you would see $millions going to local businesses on an annual basis.

The Temple professor states in his book that the Chicago's sports franchises impact was less than 1% of the city's economy. Less than 1%, that doesn't seem like much. But what exactly is the number? Chicago has a GMP of over $700 billion with a B. So what are these teams' economic impact? $6 billion? $5 billion? Even $4 billion is a whole lot of something and would be missed.

86% of studies show government should stay away from subsidizing pro sports, right. Yet, these cities fight tooth and nail to get teams to move teams to their communities. Can't they read? Or are there studies available to these government agencies that paint a different story? I don't know. But what I believe is that the truth is not as cut and dried as you think it is.
Click to expand...

86% is 86%

The money was better spent elsewhere when the Oilers left.

I'm kinda like this like I was with my ex wife,

If you want to leave then leave. It hurts but you will be better off in the long run when she leaves.
 
Lucky said:
I think the NFL is on to something with this.
Click to expand...

Time for the Pro Bowl to go away. Maybe a cool TV show where the NFL names an NFL All Pro for each position is selected and a trophy is given. Like a bigger version of the Heisman Trophy and exactly 25 (11 Offense, 11 Defense, 1 ST, 1 Kicker, and 1 Punter) players receiving recognition.
 
OptimisticTexan said:
Time for the Pro Bowl to go away. Maybe a cool TV show where the NFL names an NFL All Pro for each position is selected and a trophy is given. Like a bigger version of the Heisman Trophy and exactly 25 (11 Offense, 11 Defense, 1 ST, 1 Kicker, and 1 Punter) players receiving recognition.
Click to expand...
An NFL Olympics, where Pro Bowl players compete in events like ping pong, Madden NFL, and rapping.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
NFL is discussing ways to “improve” the Pro Bowl, including possibly eliminating it
Click to expand...

For years I’ve been on the bandwagon of eliminating it and instead just having the awards ceremony instead. Name your Pro Bowl players along with Players of the Year, MVP and all that jazz.

That not only eliminates a crappy game that no one wants to be in, but it stops all of these players who shouldn’t be Pro Bowlers making it as replacements for those injured, don’t want to go, or are in the SB.

I haven’t watched a second of a Pro Bowl since Schaub won MVP, and only bits and pieces then. Can’t even remember the last time I cared. Billy White Shoes running back punts in the Superdome?
 
Ranger Tom said:
You might be joking, but...I would totally watch that.
Click to expand...
If you have Amazon Prime Video you would. The you can see your favorite Pro Bowlers answer questions like "Why is Forrest Gump your inspiration to pursue the Pro Table Tennis circuit?"
 
cuppacoffee said:
Is Oakland better off for not building a stadium for the Raiders?

:coffee:
Click to expand...

Would they have been better off if they spent a billion dollars to keep a team that plays in it 8-9 times a year?

Oakland is already facing a budget deficit of close to $44 million this fiscal year in its general fund. If the city does not balance the $44 million deficit this year, it will have a $218 million deficit in its general fund by the end of 2023.

So how does spending a billion on entertainment help that budget deficit? You can't deposit "civic pride" or whatever other euphemisms the NFL owners' sycophants are using these days to hide their grift.
 
This is a BIGEE with huge future implications!

************************************************

Jon Gruden scores major preliminary victory in his lawsuit against the NFL, Roger Goodell
May 25, 2022, 4:45 PM EDT



Technically, banging a gavel is just another way of knocking on wood if you’re with me.

Former Raiders coach Jon Gruden has scored a major preliminary victory in his lawsuit against the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell. Via Katelyn Newberg of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, District Judge Nancy Allf denied the NFL’s motion to dismiss the case and, more importantly, the NFL’s motion to compel arbitration.


It means (if it sticks) that Gruden’s case will proceed in open court, and not in the NFL’s secret rigged kangaroo court.

It’s a win for the fans and media as well, since it means that a much greater degree of transparency will apply to the fight. It means that, barring a quick and quiet settlement, we’ll find out who leaked the emails that forced Gruden out, and much more.

“We are going to let the process take care of itself,” Gruden said outside the courtroom, via A.J. Perez of FrontOfficeSports.com. “Good luck to the Raiders. Go Raiders. I don’t have anything [else] to comment on. This process will take care of itself. It’s good to be back in Vegas. I am going to see friends tonight.”

The NFL has tried to make the case about the content of the emails, which obviously were inappropriate. Gruden’s lawyers have made the case about the alleged efforts of the NFL to force Gruden out by giving the emails to the media.
Making the ruling more potent is the fact that Judge Allf ruled from the bench.

That doesn’t happen often. It happens when the proper ruling is so clear from the written submissions and the applicable precedent that there’s nothing that could be said or done in open court to change the outcome. It’s the closest thing that a judge can do to spiking the football in the face of the party that loses the issue.

Via Mark Maske of the Washington Post, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy says the league will appeal the ruling. Of course it will. It will fight and scratch and claw to try to keep this case out of public, open court.

The NFL, for example, took its effort to force the St. Louis relocation litigation to arbitration all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Look for the league to do the same thing here.

The NFL hates to lose in court. It’s best chance to avoid losing in court is to push the fight to its own internal processes, where the outcome is secure and the facts remain hidden.
 
Bieniemy was the reason McCoy stopped playing in KC. Shady was benched for the last 2 regular season games and the playoffs. Still got his Super Bowl ring for being washed up and doing nothing.

I see how McCoy earned his nickname, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top