Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Mythical Stadium and Prices
- This topic has 70 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
LuckyInOC.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM #408035May 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM #407335
sdduuuude
ParticipantThey say they can’t turn a profit unless they have a new stadium, but they need office buildings as a part of the project to fund the building of the new stadium. Seems to me they should use the extra profits from getting the new stadium to build the new stadium.
Could it possibly be that building a new stadium is not cost-effective ? Naw. Couldn’t be. That doesn’t make sense. We like new stadiums. They must be cost-effective. Oh. THey really aren’t ?
Hm. In that case, lets get the city to build the new stadium and tell the city that if they build one they’ll MAKE more money than if they don’t build one (be sure not to tell them they aren’t cost-effective), and make sure the (insert sports team here) threatens to leave cuz no politician wants a sports team to leave on their watch, especially if it means not getting a new stadim. Yeah. That’s it.
Seems new stadiums are to cities what granite countertops are to homes. An overpriced luxury.
Lets get an MLS team into Qualcomm. They only need a few hundred seats anyway.
May 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM #407578ParticipantThey say they can’t turn a profit unless they have a new stadium, but they need office buildings as a part of the project to fund the building of the new stadium. Seems to me they should use the extra profits from getting the new stadium to build the new stadium.
Could it possibly be that building a new stadium is not cost-effective ? Naw. Couldn’t be. That doesn’t make sense. We like new stadiums. They must be cost-effective. Oh. THey really aren’t ?
Hm. In that case, lets get the city to build the new stadium and tell the city that if they build one they’ll MAKE more money than if they don’t build one (be sure not to tell them they aren’t cost-effective), and make sure the (insert sports team here) threatens to leave cuz no politician wants a sports team to leave on their watch, especially if it means not getting a new stadim. Yeah. That’s it.
Seems new stadiums are to cities what granite countertops are to homes. An overpriced luxury.
Lets get an MLS team into Qualcomm. They only need a few hundred seats anyway.
May 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM #407820ParticipantThey say they can’t turn a profit unless they have a new stadium, but they need office buildings as a part of the project to fund the building of the new stadium. Seems to me they should use the extra profits from getting the new stadium to build the new stadium.
Could it possibly be that building a new stadium is not cost-effective ? Naw. Couldn’t be. That doesn’t make sense. We like new stadiums. They must be cost-effective. Oh. THey really aren’t ?
Hm. In that case, lets get the city to build the new stadium and tell the city that if they build one they’ll MAKE more money than if they don’t build one (be sure not to tell them they aren’t cost-effective), and make sure the (insert sports team here) threatens to leave cuz no politician wants a sports team to leave on their watch, especially if it means not getting a new stadim. Yeah. That’s it.
Seems new stadiums are to cities what granite countertops are to homes. An overpriced luxury.
Lets get an MLS team into Qualcomm. They only need a few hundred seats anyway.
May 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM #407882ParticipantThey say they can’t turn a profit unless they have a new stadium, but they need office buildings as a part of the project to fund the building of the new stadium. Seems to me they should use the extra profits from getting the new stadium to build the new stadium.
Could it possibly be that building a new stadium is not cost-effective ? Naw. Couldn’t be. That doesn’t make sense. We like new stadiums. They must be cost-effective. Oh. THey really aren’t ?
Hm. In that case, lets get the city to build the new stadium and tell the city that if they build one they’ll MAKE more money than if they don’t build one (be sure not to tell them they aren’t cost-effective), and make sure the (insert sports team here) threatens to leave cuz no politician wants a sports team to leave on their watch, especially if it means not getting a new stadim. Yeah. That’s it.
Seems new stadiums are to cities what granite countertops are to homes. An overpriced luxury.
Lets get an MLS team into Qualcomm. They only need a few hundred seats anyway.
May 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM #408031ParticipantThey say they can’t turn a profit unless they have a new stadium, but they need office buildings as a part of the project to fund the building of the new stadium. Seems to me they should use the extra profits from getting the new stadium to build the new stadium.
Could it possibly be that building a new stadium is not cost-effective ? Naw. Couldn’t be. That doesn’t make sense. We like new stadiums. They must be cost-effective. Oh. THey really aren’t ?
Hm. In that case, lets get the city to build the new stadium and tell the city that if they build one they’ll MAKE more money than if they don’t build one (be sure not to tell them they aren’t cost-effective), and make sure the (insert sports team here) threatens to leave cuz no politician wants a sports team to leave on their watch, especially if it means not getting a new stadim. Yeah. That’s it.
Seems new stadiums are to cities what granite countertops are to homes. An overpriced luxury.
Lets get an MLS team into Qualcomm. They only need a few hundred seats anyway.
May 30, 2009 at 8:50 AM #407451LuckyInOC
Participant[quote=flu]The next thing if I had money left over would be to steal the Anaheim Ducks and bring them here too.[/quote]
Ducks would be a very difficult steal. Ducks have many more sellout crowds then the LA ‘Queens’. And the Ducks have won the ‘Holy Grail’. The kings only screw up the scheduling at Staples Center for the Lakers and Clippers. Staples Center makes more money when the Kings are on the road, even if it is dark…
LuckyInOC
May 30, 2009 at 8:50 AM #407694Participant[quote=flu]The next thing if I had money left over would be to steal the Anaheim Ducks and bring them here too.[/quote]
Ducks would be a very difficult steal. Ducks have many more sellout crowds then the LA ‘Queens’. And the Ducks have won the ‘Holy Grail’. The kings only screw up the scheduling at Staples Center for the Lakers and Clippers. Staples Center makes more money when the Kings are on the road, even if it is dark…
LuckyInOC
May 30, 2009 at 8:50 AM #407936Participant[quote=flu]The next thing if I had money left over would be to steal the Anaheim Ducks and bring them here too.[/quote]
Ducks would be a very difficult steal. Ducks have many more sellout crowds then the LA ‘Queens’. And the Ducks have won the ‘Holy Grail’. The kings only screw up the scheduling at Staples Center for the Lakers and Clippers. Staples Center makes more money when the Kings are on the road, even if it is dark…
LuckyInOC
May 30, 2009 at 8:50 AM #407998Participant[quote=flu]The next thing if I had money left over would be to steal the Anaheim Ducks and bring them here too.[/quote]
Ducks would be a very difficult steal. Ducks have many more sellout crowds then the LA ‘Queens’. And the Ducks have won the ‘Holy Grail’. The kings only screw up the scheduling at Staples Center for the Lakers and Clippers. Staples Center makes more money when the Kings are on the road, even if it is dark…
LuckyInOC
May 30, 2009 at 8:50 AM #408146Participant[quote=flu]The next thing if I had money left over would be to steal the Anaheim Ducks and bring them here too.[/quote]
Ducks would be a very difficult steal. Ducks have many more sellout crowds then the LA ‘Queens’. And the Ducks have won the ‘Holy Grail’. The kings only screw up the scheduling at Staples Center for the Lakers and Clippers. Staples Center makes more money when the Kings are on the road, even if it is dark…
LuckyInOC
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.