Panthers Get Big Tax Break

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, Pantherzack179812 said:

And the people who get jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist in your state? The only concern isn't ROI, the Panthers provide employment and traffic to local businesses. 

Again, professional trained economists have studied this issue, and not  just one or two, but lots of them. Do you think trained professional experts ignored jobs and job creation in examining the value of public funding of stadiums? The Panthers create jobs yes, but so does any business, and the Panthers would create those jobs whether the public pays for their stadium or not. 

The logical end of the argument you’re presenting is that public money should be spent to build McDonald’s restaurants because Mcdonalds employes people and creates jobs.

So at the risk of repeating myself yet again to people who keep presenting arguments that make it apparent they have not read or taken in any information on the subject by professional experts in the field, all the things you keep bringing up have been considered and factored in, and the consensus of people who evaluate these things for a living is that they are a clear cut bad deal for taxpayers and the arguments put forward to justify and defend them do not hold up to fact based scrutiny.

[TheMaulClaw]

3 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Again, professional trained economists have studied this issue, and not  just one or two, but lots of them. Do you think trained professional experts ignored jobs and job creation in examining the value of public funding of stadiums? The Panthers create jobs yes, but so does any business, and the Panthers would create those jobs whether the public pays for their stadium or not. 

The logical end of the argument you’re presenting is that public money should be spent to build McDonald’s restaurants because Mcdonalds employes people and creates jobs.

So at the risk of repeating myself yet again to people who keep presenting arguments that make it apparent they have not read or taken in any information on the subject by professional experts in the field, all the things you keep bringing up have been considered and factored in, and the consensus of people who evaluate these things for a living is that they are a clear cut bad deal for taxpayers and the arguments put forward to justify and defend them do not hold up to fact based scrutiny.

None of those links were Panthers specific...because you're argument does not apply to the Panthers.

[Pantherzack179812]

1 minute ago, TheMaulClaw said:

None of those links were Panthers specific...because you're argument does not apply to the Panthers.

The study of teams done that he is basing his argument off of are from California. The economic benefit from sports in charlotte is ALOT different then California. 

[1of10Charnatives]

6 minutes ago, TheMaulClaw said:

I understand what you're saying...but I dont think that it's the case in Charlotte. Most stadiums have been publically funded. These views of economist would apply to them. BOA is a different story. 83 million in public money over 24 years is chump change. Other cities are in for hundreds of millions. Obviously that would change the nature of the market. We are talking about the Charlotte market specifically...not public funding as a whole. Once again the Panthers have added to the economy and ultimately created more tax revenue then funds they've taken. 

 That is not the case for most teams as the majority of their stadiums are publically funded. It is however the case for the Panthers and Charlotte.

Just the Panthers players pay more then 3.5 mill a year in payroll taxes.

While it’s true that B of A was not originally taxpayer funded, do you think the 87 million is the last public money the Panthers are ever going to ask for, or that it’s the only tax break or special consideration they’ve gotten over their existence?

I think we both know the answers to those questions. Not asking for a public handout was one of the things that made me respect JR originally, but that seems to have been a one time thing 

Payroll taxes by the way do not go to local governments, so they aren’t relevant factors in the discussion.

[1of10Charnatives]

3 minutes ago, TheMaulClaw said:

None of those links were Panthers specific...because you're argument does not apply to the Panthers.

...

So the fact that economists have determined public funding of stadiums to be a bad deal for taxpayers across the board you consider irrelevant because they don’t micro focus on the Panthers situation specifically?

C’mon man, that’s a super lame excuse to try discount an entire argument and you know it.

[1of10Charnatives]

4 minutes ago, Pantherzack179812 said:

The study of teams done that he is basing his argument off of are from California. The economic benefit from sports in charlotte is ALOT different then California. 

Did you look at exactly one link and then come back and say that, or did you look at multiple links, realize that different articles don’t only focus on California stadiums, but then ignore that and come back to post disingenuously?

[TheMaulClaw]

12 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

While it’s true that B of A was not originally taxpayer funded, do you think the 87 million is the last public money the Panthers are ever going to ask for, or that it’s the only tax break or special consideration they’ve gotten over their existence?

I think we both know the answers to those questions. Not asking for a public handout was one of the things that made me respect JR originally, but that seems to have been a one time thing 

Payroll taxes by the way do not go to local governments, so they aren’t relevant factors in the discussion.

Property taxes do. BOA was originally built for 348 million. The county inflated its value.  I'm pretty sure Mecklenburg county had made more then their 87 million dollars back just in property taxes. In addition the city has seen the tourism tax money and restaurant tax. Now if you wanna make this argument towards the Spectrum Center or the MLS I get it. The city has already committed more money then it's ever given the Panthers to the freaking MLS with 120million.

The Panthers however are not the problem.

It's not like Charlotte footed the bill for the new practice facility either. Thank us...your southern neighbors for that.

[1of10Charnatives]

10 minutes ago, TheMaulClaw said:

Property taxes do. BOA was originally built for 348 million. The county inflated its value.  I'm pretty sure Mecklenburg county had made more then their 87 million dollars back just in property taxes. In addition the city has seen the tourism tax money and restaurant tax. Now if you wanna make this argument towards the Spectrum Center or the MLS I get it. The city has already committed more money then it's ever given the Panthers to the freaking MLS with 120million.

The Panthers however are not the problem.

It's not like Charlotte footed the bill for the new practice facility either. Thank us...your southern neighbors for that.

Since this is a private business, the question is why should either of us foot the bill?

But yet again, you’re going back to debunked arguments like restaurant tax and hotel tax, etc. These are all part of the economic impact argument that team supporters constantly put forward and that has been debunked by multiple economic studies. The fact that these studies weren’t conducted hyper specifically in the Panthers market has no bearing on the way they debunk the economic impact arguments.

Nice job of moving the goalposts btw when you bring up payroll taxes and it’s pointed out they aren’t relevant of shifting to property taxes to avoid making it obvious your point was irrelevant.

[TheMaulClaw]

Just now, 1of10Charnatives said:

Since this is a private business, the question is why should either of us foot the bill?

But yet again, you’re going back to debunked arguments like restaurant tax and hotel tax, etc. These are all part of the economic impact argument that team supporters constantly put forward and that has been debunked by multiple economic studies. The fact that these studies weren’t conducted hyper specifically in the Panthers market has no bearding on the way they debunk the economic impact arguments.

Well its semi private. I mean right now the city of St Louis is gridlocked in a lawsuit with the NFL....because the NFL wanted to move it's own private business..yet here they are actively losing this lawsuit to St Louis. 

Symbolically a city losing an NFL team is a sign of a city in distress...on the decline, a shithole...we all know Charlotte isnt going to let that happen.  The Panthers indirectly have paved the way for many other events to come through Charlotte whether it's the DNC, RNC, MLS. The Panthers are responsible for the UNCC D1 football team.  UNCC can think Big Cat for their stadium.

The moment the city puts money into the team you can make an argument it's no longer purely a private business.

In this case I can say that it IS important for those article to be hyper specific towards the Carolina Panthers for them to apply. Primarily because the Panthers were born out of PSLs and not public money....which is fundamentally different then almost any other pro sports team. So please provide an article in reference to the Panthers...showing me that theyve fleeced the city.

I think you and I both know that Charlotte is incredibly blessed to have a team like the Panthers. The team has literally caused the least amount of strain of any NFL team on their respective cities.

 

 

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, TheMaulClaw said:

Well its semi private. I mean right now the city of St Louis is gridlocked in a lawsuit with the NFL....because the NFL wanted to move it's own private business..yet here they are actively losing this lawsuit to St Louis. 

Symbolically a city losing an NFL team is a sign of a city in distress...on the decline, a shithole...we all know Charlotte isnt going to let that happen.  The Panthers indirectly have paved the way for many other events to come through Charlotte whether it's the DNC, RNC, MLS. The Panthers are responsible for the UNCC D1 football team.  UNCC can think Big Cat for their stadium.

The moment the city puts money into the team you can make an argument it's no longer purely a private business.

In this case I can say that it IS important for those article to be hyper specific towards the Carolina Panthers for them to apply. Primarily because the Panthers were born out of PSLs and not public money....which is fundamentally different then almost any other pro sports team. So please provide an article in reference to the Panthers...showing me that theyve fleeced the city.

I think you and I both know that Charlotte is incredibly blessed to have a team like the Panthers. The team has literally caused the least amount of strain of any NFL team on their respective cities.

 

 

No no no. Losing a lawsuit does not make an NFL team only semi private, that’s nonsense. Courts have restricted private businesses from doing things they wanted to in lawsuits with governments countless times, this in no way makes those businesses somehow not private. Does the city get any of the revenue from Panthers operations? No, the only team that does is Green Bay. Let’s put aside this fantasy that losing a lawsuit against a local government somehow makes you partially owned by them.

The moment a government puts money into a private business and receives a share of that businesses profits in return is the moment it’s no longer purely a private business. You don’t get to change accepted definitions of things for the sake of the argument you wish to make, that’s a non starter.

Im thankful that the Panthers are here and that the stadium was built with PSL’s not public money, that I’ve already stated, and I do agree that because of this our situation is better than most, but this conversation isn’t really about the past so much as the present and the future.

Do you think it’s acceptable for the Panthers to talk out of one side of their mouth when seeking public funds for the renovation, and then a few short years later use exact opposite arguments in talking out of the other side of their mouth when seeking to lower their tax obligation to a far greater degree than other individuals and businesses would ever be granted?

If your argument is that these studies don’t apply specifically because of the way our stadium was financed in the past, do you agree that if Tepper does want public money for a future stadium, they would then of course obviously apply because our situation would be like others and therefore you would oppose such funding?

[TheMaulClaw]

16 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

No no no. Losing a lawsuit does not make an NFL team only semi private, that’s nonsense. Courts have restricted private businesses from doing things they wanted to in lawsuits with governments countless times, this in no way makes those businesses somehow not private. Does the city get any of the revenue from Panthers operations? No, the only team that does is Green Bay. Let’s put aside this fantasy that losing a lawsuit against a local government somehow makes you partially owned by them.

The moment a government puts money into a private business and receives a share of that businesses profits in return is the moment it’s no longer purely a private business. You don’t get to change accepted definitions of things for the sake of the argument you wish to make, that’s a non starter.

Im thankful that the Panthers are here and that the stadium was built with PSL’s not public money, that I’ve already stated, and I do agree that because of this our situation is better than most, but this conversation isn’t really about the past so much as the present and the future.

Do you think it’s acceptable for the Panthers to talk out of one side of their mouth when seeking public funds for the renovation, and then a few short years later use exact opposite arguments in talking out of the other side of their mouth when seeking to lower their tax obligation to a far greater degree than other individuals and businesses would ever be granted?

If your argument is that these studies don’t apply specifically because of the way our stadium was financed in the past, do you agree that if Tepper does want public money for a future stadium, they would then of course obviously apply because our situation would be like others and therefore you would oppose such funding?

I think we have a different owner since the last time they made their arguments. Its plausible that because of new ownership arguments and viewpoints change. JR was the owner in 2013 when the team asked for 87 million right? We all know that JRs view of BOA is different then Teppers....so it make sense they're arguing different things now. So yes it is acceptable.

You want to separate the past from the future regarding Charlotte's investment in the team and I dont think you should do that. Charlotte got an opportunity to profit for free off the Panthers for 18 years before asked to kick in 87 million...which is nothing relative to that market. The city up to this point has made millions on the Panthers...and so has the state...which then subsidizes the county. You dont think the state cuts off a nice chunk for Mecklenburg?

Now the city will need to step up to keep the team in Charlotte. They have had an opportunity to put away a war chest for this moment. They knew it was coming. In essence they were awarded a 20 year head start.

If Charlotte wants to mess around with it that's fine. SC will jump right in there.

Also I would argue that St Louis is suing over lost revenue...not just the money it spent putting stadium plans together. If a city is suing a private business because of lost revenue what does that say about  being a private company?

 

[1of10Charnatives]

2 minutes ago, TheMaulClaw said:

I think we have a different owner since the last time they made their arguments. Its plausible that because of new ownership arguments and viewpoints change. JR was the owner in 2013 when the team asked for 87 million right? We all know that JRs view of BOA is different then Teppers....so it make sense they're arguing different things now. So yes it is acceptable.

You want to separate the past from the future regarding Charlotte's investment in the team and I dont think you should do that. Charlotte got an opportunity to profit for free off the Panthers for 18 years before asked to kick in 87 million...which is nothing relative to that market. The city up to this point has made millions on the Panthers...and so has the state...which then subsidizes the county. You dont think the state cuts off a nice chunk for Mecklenburg?

Now the city will need to step up to keep the team in Charlotte. They have had an opportunity to put away a war chest for this moment. They knew it was coming. In essence they were awarded a 20 year head start.

If Charlotte wants to mess around with it that's fine. SC will jump right in there.

 

Your argument starts from a premise that local governments should be under some obligation to subsidize these specific private businesses over others because...why exactly again? Economic impact arguments that have already been debunked by professionals? (and please don’t give me but Charlotte is different because of the way the stadium was financed. The economic impact NFL teams have on the local economy is not hyper specific to Charlotte so saying you won’t accept studies about economic impact that aren’t hyper specific was bogus to begin with)

My argument starts from the premise that the Panthers are a private business and are already highly profitable so they should stand on their own two feet like the rest of us instead of demanding subsidies from the public purse. No NFL team has ever been able to put forward actual fact based compelling cases that make a mathematically sound argument for why handing money over to them is a good investment for taxpayers.

Instead, what they do is make effective use of the prisoners dilemma to pit one state or city against another in an effective shakedown for free money they can’t justify in the way they would have to If pitching to private investors. Your last statement is playing right into exactly what NFL owners want you to do. It is in their financial interest as business owners. It is not in your financial interest as a taxpayer.

[1of10Charnatives]

27 minutes ago, TheMaulClaw said:

Also I would argue that St Louis is suing over lost revenue...not just the money it spent putting stadium plans together. If a city is suing a private business because of lost revenue what does that say about  being a private company?

 

Do you have a citation documenting that this is indeed something St Louis has included in its lawsuit or is it just something you “think” they’re including?

If they are in fact including it I will say that it’s not something I agree they have an inherent right to unless the team is in specific breach of some existing legal contract in which the team guaranteed to generate said revenue. I’m not aware of any such arrangement ever existing between a pro sports team and a government.

In essence if true then the city is probably making a frivolous claim in that regard and the courts shouldn’t uphold it. It wouldn’t be the first time someone has thrown something into a lawsuit that they didn’t have any reasonable claim to, but that doesn’t change the fact the team is private. St  Louis does not receive regular business profit income from the team, and that is the threshold for considering them to have an ownership interest.

More importantly, since you seem to want to claim “but that doesn’t apply here cause it’s not specific to here” The Rams are not the Panthers and St Louis is not Charlotte. The Panthers are a wholly owned private business that the city has no ownership interest in.

[TheMaulClaw]

3 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Your argument starts from a premise that local governments should be under some obligation to subsidize these specific private businesses over others because...why exactly again? Economic impact arguments that have already been debunked by professionals? (and please don’t give me but Charlotte is different because of the way the stadium was financed. The economic impact NFL teams have on the local economy is not hyper specific to Charlotte so saying you won’t accept studies about economic impact that aren’t hyper specific was bogus to begin with)

My argument starts from the premise that the Panthers are a private business and are already highly profitable so they should stand on their own two feet like the rest of us instead of demanding subsidies from the public purse. No NFL team has ever been able to put forward actual fact based compelling cases that make a mathematically sound argument for why handing money over to them is a good investment for taxpayers.

Instead, what they do is make effective use of the prisoners dilemma to pit one state or city against another in an effective shakedown for free money they can’t justify in the way they would have to If pitching to private investors. Your last statement is playing right into exactly what NFL owners want you to do. It is in their financial interest as business owners. It is not in your financial interest as a taxpayer.

Truly half the taxes I pay go to things that arent to my benefit. I love the Panthers...I'd rather the money go there then to some bicycle bridge or other bs.

Also why do you think these cities are forking over the money to keep their teams? You think the city gets no benefit from having the team? These teams wouldnt have the ability to play cities or states against eachother if they didnt bring something valuable to the table.  The city of Charlotte has received unprecedented exposure because of the Panthers. Not to mention the citizens have gotten an unbelievable amount of joy having the team. There are so many benefits of having the team. It may be a private company...but they provide a service that is good for the entire city...and the city knows this.