I disagree, some public funds could be used especially when it's in the form of less desirable land, rebates/breaks on taxes etc. but giving 100s of millions of public funds directly to private billionaire investors is when it's wrong.
When people talk about giving money to sports they're generally not talking about giving it to school kids... And frankly rebates on taxes, etc... are just as bad as giving them money. You're just not forcing them to give you money they would have otherwise owed you.
Sure but it is a better politically. It happens a lot with companies relocating because they get tax breaks. Good or bad, is a reality. I am not saying that D2 soccer equal to say a new Toyota plant in terms of jobs / future revenues for a city, etc. Just that the math for state funding and tax breaks would work in a similar way.
Well it's irrelevant. SF won't be providing potential NASL owners with land, money or any other assistance. Not when they're representing an untried league that could be gone as soon as the Cosmos fold.
At some point, SF political leadership will have to look at the broader sports picture. For example, wasn't the SF Bay Area in the running for hosting the Summer Olympics a few years back? If that would have happened, San Francisco would have been compelled to look at sporting facilities (i.e. -replacing Cow Palace, upgrading Kezar) along with MUNI transportation improvements. Not that NASL is that important vis-a-vis Summer Olympics, BUT if San Francisco wants to keep its reputation as a "world class destination" tourism-wise, they will need to have such considerations high on the list.
Hint, tourism usually doesn't cross over with sports unless it's the Olympics or a Fenway Park you're talking about. SF will continue to be a world class destination with or without an NASL team. Kezar doesn't really need any upgrading for what it is, a small community stadium, not a pro sports venue. And the Cow Palace isn't in the city nor is it owned by the city. The Cow Palace is owned by the state.
Public funding in regards to the actual cost for the city (building a new 49er stadium, $1 Billion +). The niners wanted the city to pay for most of the stadium, and ultimately found a willing partner in Santa Clara. I'm not against public subsidies, per say. It just has to be balanced on how the community actually benefits besides just keeping a team. A lot is being made about the City of Sacramento giving $250 million for the Kings arena. In this case, the ancillary development, and true revitalization of the downtown core, IMO, makes it worth the investment. Sacramento has already spent almost half that amount trying to revitalize the area, and has little to show so far. Santa Clara felt there was enough upside to an NFL stadium to justify the expense. They plan a lot of ancillary development to recoup the cost. SF obviously didn't feel replacing Candlestick was cost effective, given they were spending a lot of money just to replace something.
Well to be fair Santa Clara only put in $100 million or so and was assured of return on that to balance out their costs to about even. San Francisco was going to have to pay substantially more.
No they won't. You are trying awfully hard to justify NASL in SF, and in the process, ignoring the facts staring you in the face. San Francisco had to decide whether to spent a shit-ton of money top rebuild the Niners stadium at Candlestick ($1 billion), and collect roughly the same amount of generated sales/property tax, -OR- let the NFL walk, and allow for wholesale redevelopment that will generate equal to/more sales/property tax than the stadium, at no cost to the city. "Having said that, NASL has an opportunity to positively pitch their case to SF officials that it is in their best interests to support pro sports within SF city/county limits" You acknowledge that Golden State (from the multi-billion dollar NBA) is having trouble building an arena with mostly private money, yet you think the NASL has an opportunity????? Dude, you are completely delusional
And that is basically why teams can threaten to move if they do not get their way. Over all the economic impact balances out, since jobs are basically just being moved and not created (I guess construction jobs would be temporarily created) Basically just moving jobs around to get tax benefits. The math on expansion may be different (talking about big 4 sports, not really NASL or other lesser sport leagues) and since there are other threads about this topic in other places, I will just leave it at that.
I get the sense that Peterson just wants to give MLS the middle finger by getting SF, a sexier name than SJ. In reality, a serious business plan would have to consider the East Bay as well as locations beyond the Bay Area proper.
Losing the 49ers or not hosting the Olympics will not change SF's position as a "world class, destination city" one iota. The attraction IS San Francisco, and is not based around sports. The fact that you would even allude to an NASL team in that same equation, or filling a gap left by the niners, paints you as an NASL fanboy. You need to re-think your position, or proof read your posts. Either way, what you are saying is completely ridiculous.
A sexier name for a Div 2 team, that will be playing in the East Bay, in a high school/junior college stadium, IF it ever comes to fruition. No, I don't think the MLS gives a rats a$$
If he's serious about putting teams in LA and SF then that's exactly what his motivation is. And his "we're not D1 or D2" rhetoric of late would seem to fit with that. He's under the illusion that his league is somehow outside the pyramid or not subject to it and that because they have no salary cap they'll somehow attract the biggest names. Fact is most of his teams are barely scraping by, his flagship franchise saw its attendance continually decline in 2013 and is about to be consigned to Hofstra long term when their Belmont stadium plan is denied, and he's about to waste several million dollars putting teams in cities that either have a slew of higher level and existing teams already (LA) or has a history of chewing up and spitting out minor league teams because they're just not interested (SF). NASL can succeed, but only if Peterson gets his head out of the clouds and accepts what his league is, the second division. If he doesn't he's going to quickly find himself stretched too thin trying to be a pseudo D1 and he'll watch the league's defacto D2 status be eroded away by an on the rise MLS affiliated USL Pro.
See, if that actually became a viable thing it would be pretty cool. But noooo...not good enough for NASL because it's "not a minor league." I can't believe there are people who want to arbitrarily declare that the South Bay (or anywhere outside SF city limits) is a totally separate market. Time for a reality check...
Its a viable thing.....but will most likely be a USL Pro team. Honestly, NASL could do it too, but it definitely won't meet the NASL fanboy expectations, who expect the NASL to set up shop and challenge the Earthquakes (and their $100 SS stadium) for supremacy of the Bay area.
It's been working for SF giving huge tax breaks for tech companies. All their employees have been able to afford paying $$$$ for houses, and pay for services and food like gangbusters. The economic impact and tax revenue collected by other avenues that otherwise wouldn't have been collected more than make up for the tax revenue not collected from the business directly. However, I don't think giving the 49ers $1B would have the same impact. Players can and do live everywhere else. They have more incentive to live away from other people because of their celebrity while techies want to be in the scene. Also, the 49ers only have like 100 fulltime employees as opposed to 1,000's. And there's only one team while giving money to one tech company incentivizes others to spring up around them.
I think he was just saying that if we had won the Olympic bid, every sporting and entertainment facility in the region would have gotten a massive face lift. However you're probably correct regarding tourism. Sports is a regional draw, not a national or world draw. I don't go to Paris, Rome, New York just to see a sporting event....although I may check the papers to see who's playing.
Exactly. Tech companies not only employ more people, but they employ higher wage earners. Sports team employees make very little by comparison other than players in the very top leagues of which NASL is not one (particularly minimum wage gameday staff).
Different day, same bull from Petersen. It's essentially the same line he's been feeding everyone for months now. Until they actually have an owner in place with a bankroll as big if not bigger than Wolff's and have gone through the process of getting a stadium approved and built on the waterfront or in another similarly desirable area of SF... there's nothing to see here. Also love that the other cities he's positing as potential NASL cities already have existing USL and/or MLS teams. If anyone is driving the old self destructive competition angle in US soccer right now it's this guy. Why can't NASL take a hint and start servicing the second tier cities with no MLS presence like they're supposed to be doing as the D2 league?
He talks big about coordination, but then he starts planning teams in USL and MLS cities? Seems to me he's a double dealer if anything. If anything moves like this come off as being butt hurt over some of his own owners wanting to jump ship to join MLS from some of his more choice markets.
Funny thing is Petersen talks about Garber but I never really heard or read anything from Garber about Petersen.