Jump to content
IGNORED

Blue Bill's shiny new stadium at the docks...


Lowensda

Recommended Posts

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2017/03/30/the-cunning-scheme-aimed-at-securing-a-new-stadium-for-everton-fc/

 

A Liverpool University lecturerer blogs abot the Council's involvement in the scheme and compares it to parents on their child's mortgage.

 

meanwhile in america (6 times larger population) the city council are involved in helping to secure funding for every stadium/arena etc because they understand the importance of that to growth and regeneration in the cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studies seem to indicate that in the US cities never get their money back. So it has more to do with politics than money. Politicians fear they might lose voters if clubs leave.

 

that's because in the US they build stadiums every 20 years. If they built them every 50 or 100 like in Europe i guarantee those stats would turn round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They build them often because the clubs basically blackmail the cities. But it's hard to say, John Oliver of all people had a funny but informative piece on that on his show two years ago.

 

 

that doesn't have anything to do with the city getting growth and revenue from it. The teams in america come and go as they please as businesses not tied to the cities they reside in. i don't agree with it but it is how it is.

 

my local team won the NBA championship, every game for the last i don't know how many years is sold out, people staying downtown at hotels, restaturants, bars. 1.3 million people downtown for their victory parade. i find it hard to believe the city is mad about any of that.

 

lastly: john oliver is not a journalist, he has said so many times, he's a comedian. i enjoy him and he highlights great issues, but he's not a journalist bound to the facts.

Edited by markjazzbassist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That piece mentioned studies that show that those stadiums don't bring revenue. Just check the video out, it has examples. If you want the quick version, start from 11:00.

 

i understand and i've seen the video and i've seen the reports. i live in america. every time a new stadium is built the reports are brought out. but like i said they give the life span of 20-25 years for the stadiums, if cities let them stay longer (like fenway, wrigley, soldier field, etc) i guarantee they make money for the city. it's the 20-25 year limit that is holding the profits for the city back. give it a few more years and it's in the black instead of the red.

 

that's why i explained it's a good move for liverpool, because everton plans on being there a long time, not 20 years so those studies are bunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even know what you are arguing about. Those stadiums are not around longer and in the meantime cities pay tens of millions per year to finance them while all the income goes to the teams.

 

I don't know why they are even brought into this thread as they have no relevance whatsoever. You claimed they are brought in because they regenerate areas. It looks like the cities would be wiser to use that same money to directly help regeneration rather than lining the pockets of team owners exactly because in about 25 years the same owners who made hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to their free stadium are demanding a new one or they relocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even know what you are arguing about. Those stadiums are not around longer and in the meantime cities pay tens of millions per year to finance them while all the income goes to the teams.

 

I don't know why they are even brought into this thread as they have no relevance whatsoever. You claimed they are brought in because they regenerate areas. It looks like the cities would be wiser to use that same money to directly help regeneration rather than lining the pockets of team owners exactly because in about 25 years the same owners who made hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to their free stadium are demanding a new one or they relocate.

 

you've missed my point 3 times now. you said they don't make financial sense for cities. i said all the studies on that are only with 20-25 year life of stadium. everton stadium will be for longer. therefore said investment COULD make financial sense for the city to invest. please don't miss it a 4th time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you bring US teams into this at all? That's what I wonder because they have nothing to do with European teams. In our case even less so. Everton will pay the council, not the other way around. Everton isn't threatening to relocate. The stadium is planned for the next 100 years.

 

But worse still, you claimed the politicians do this because they understand it's somehow financially viable. Now you admitted they are not.

 

You use an example that has absolutely nothing to do with Everton and the City of Liverpool to try to make a point and you wonder why I keep missing your point? You might as well use 2022 World Cup stadiums as an example for all its worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...