(12-23-2022 04:43 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 04:36 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 04:27 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  But money is appropriated for other things and that fact is not going away. Funding for road and bridge work come by and large from fuel taxes. Any public building such as the stadium is infrastructure. Money has to be spent to maintain it now the choice is do we make improvements. We don't get to chose where the money goes other than who we elect to make those decisions. Personally I would just as soon see some go to the stadium than a lot of other projects.

Fair enough, we all have our opinions and priorities. Personally, I prefer my tax dollars to go towards projects that benefit everyone, and I'm very much a fan of the Tigers. Sports are entertainment, and in my viewpoint, if the fans want major stadium renovations, the fans should pay for them through private funding; especially when said stadium has sparse attendance most games as it is. That's how capitalism works, which I am a proponent of.

So no "quality of life" government funding? Museums, venues, cultural centers, libraries?
I mean, that position is fine, I guess. A bit hardcore and ideological. But it's a position.
I'm not sure that's ever been applied anywhere consistently, has it?

That's quite the stretch, but perhaps your thought processes are that simplistic? Where did I ever make such a statement? The ability to watch a football game in a "nicer" setting is leaps and bounds lower on my priority list than funding educational and broader cultural pursuits. So there you have it, no need to speculate.

(12-23-2022 04:36 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 04:27 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  But money is appropriated for other things and that fact is not going away. Funding for road and bridge work come by and large from fuel taxes. Any public building such as the stadium is infrastructure. Money has to be spent to maintain it now the choice is do we make improvements. We don't get to chose where the money goes other than who we elect to make those decisions. Personally I would just as soon see some go to the stadium than a lot of other projects.

Fair enough, we all have our opinions and priorities. Personally, I prefer my tax dollars to go towards projects that benefit everyone, and I'm very much a fan of the Tigers. Sports are entertainment, and in my viewpoint, if the fans want major stadium renovations, the fans should pay for them through private funding; especially when said stadium has sparse attendance most games as it is. That's how capitalism works, which I am a proponent of.

I too agree that governments should not build or run things that can be delivered more efficiently by the private sector. But here we have something that’s widely if not universally desired by the public and would not be built if left up to individual tenants or investors. The university and its benefactors are clearly unable or unwilling to build its own FBS-caliber stadium. No private entity is going to risk hundreds of millions to finance one, as it could never charge tenants enough to get a positive return on investment. If ticket costs were fully burdened with the debt service for a stadium, it would likely add $50 or more per ticket on top of what the university needs to collect to help cover the operating costs of the football program.

So the purely capitalistic alternative is for Memphis to have no large football stadium and no FBS college football team, or at least have the team play in an increasingly obsolescent facility, because the market will not support a new or improved one. Is it in the best interest local economy and quality of life to create that situation? I am not sure it is worth the price tag quoted but I am confident it is worth some amount.

(12-23-2022 05:29 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 04:50 PM)MemphisFootballFan Wrote:  Renovating the football stadium is good actually.

helps to have that announcement regarding the Showboats last month, and Fred Smith being 'engaged'

larger city stuff that I'm sure you know nothing, or care nothing, about

This is a weird random swipe - I assume because I no longer live in the Memphis area? As it happens I was aware of both of those things because I follow news that affects Memphis football quite closely. It's actually not that unusual for alumni who no longer live near their alma mater to continue to follow and support its sports teams.

(12-23-2022 06:17 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  I too agree that governments should not build or run things that can be delivered more efficiently by the private sector. But here we have something that’s widely if not universally desired by the public and would not be built if left up to individual tenants or investors. The university and its benefactors are clearly unable or unwilling to build its own FBS-caliber stadium. No private entity is going to risk hundreds of millions to finance one, as it could never charge tenants enough to get a positive return on investment. If ticket costs were fully burdened with the debt service for a stadium, it would likely add $50 or more per ticket on top of what the university needs to collect to help cover the operating costs of the football program.

So the purely capitalistic alternative is for Memphis to have no large football stadium and no FBS college football team, or at least have the team play in an increasingly obsolescent facility, because the market will not support a new or improved one. Is it in the best interest local economy and quality of life to create that situation? I am not sure it is worth the price tag quoted but I am confident it is worth some amount.

Memphis currently has a large football stadium. The existing stadium is by no means a small venue in the context of Division I football, but I agree that it's getting long in the tooth. Would it be better for the fans of the football program to renovate? I'm sure it would be, but it seems there is also a prevailing opinion among some that it's money wasted and the school is better served with an OCS. Would either get us into a better conference? If not, why does it matter when not many people are going to the games in the first place? I'm not implying I have the answers here, just posing questions.

I also feel that it's highly debatable that it's universally, let alone widely, desired among the general population. Do you have any statistics that support that assertion? Again, I don't have the answers, but I'm curious to know if there are metrics suggesting the support is as broad as your post implies.

Would I like to see Memphis relevant on the national stage in football? Of course I would, but I'm not convinced that renovating the stadium will get us there.

I wish them luck.

I hope the halo is filled with food trucks and concessions that bring in bigger crowds and enough money to keep it going.

As an old codger, I don't see it happening. But it isn't being designed to attract me. If it gets the younger crowds to football games, then I'm for it.

Thinking big is supposed to be good, right?

(12-23-2022 06:33 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 06:17 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  I too agree that governments should not build or run things that can be delivered more efficiently by the private sector. But here we have something that’s widely if not universally desired by the public and would not be built if left up to individual tenants or investors. The university and its benefactors are clearly unable or unwilling to build its own FBS-caliber stadium. No private entity is going to risk hundreds of millions to finance one, as it could never charge tenants enough to get a positive return on investment. If ticket costs were fully burdened with the debt service for a stadium, it would likely add $50 or more per ticket on top of what the university needs to collect to help cover the operating costs of the football program.

So the purely capitalistic alternative is for Memphis to have no large football stadium and no FBS college football team, or at least have the team play in an increasingly obsolescent facility, because the market will not support a new or improved one. Is it in the best interest local economy and quality of life to create that situation? I am not sure it is worth the price tag quoted but I am confident it is worth some amount.

Memphis currently has a large football stadium. The existing stadium is by no means a small venue in the context of Division I football, but I agree that it's getting long in the tooth. Would it be better for the fans of the football program to renovate? I'm sure it would be, but it seems there is also a prevailing opinion among some that it's money wasted and the school is better served with an OCS. Would either get us into a better conference? If not, why does it matter when not many people are going to the games in the first place? I'm not implying I have the answers here, just posing questions.

I also feel that it's highly debatable that it's universally, let alone widely, desired among the general population. Do you have any statistics that support that assertion? Again, I don't have the answers, but I'm curious to know if there are metrics suggesting the support is as broad as your post implies.

Would I like to see Memphis relevant on the national stage in football? Of course I would, but I'm not convinced that renovating the stadium will get us there.

I’m genuinely curious as to what you think will? Something that can be funded privately. Is it a OCS? Is it a large NIL fund using private money? As I said before were talking about .2% of the states budget. If any public money is used is there an acceptable amount? If nothing is done we are headed to a place I’m not sure benefits anyone.

(12-23-2022 06:33 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 06:17 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  I too agree that governments should not build or run things that can be delivered more efficiently by the private sector. But here we have something that’s widely if not universally desired by the public and would not be built if left up to individual tenants or investors. The university and its benefactors are clearly unable or unwilling to build its own FBS-caliber stadium. No private entity is going to risk hundreds of millions to finance one, as it could never charge tenants enough to get a positive return on investment. If ticket costs were fully burdened with the debt service for a stadium, it would likely add $50 or more per ticket on top of what the university needs to collect to help cover the operating costs of the football program.

So the purely capitalistic alternative is for Memphis to have no large football stadium and no FBS college football team, or at least have the team play in an increasingly obsolescent facility, because the market will not support a new or improved one. Is it in the best interest local economy and quality of life to create that situation? I am not sure it is worth the price tag quoted but I am confident it is worth some amount.

Memphis currently has a large football stadium. The existing stadium is by no means a small venue in the context of Division I football, but I agree that it's getting long in the tooth. Would it be better for the fans of the football program to renovate? I'm sure it would be, but it seems there is also a prevailing opinion among some that it's money wasted and the school is better served with an OCS. Would either get us into a better conference? If not, why does it matter when not many people are going to the games in the first place? I'm not implying I have the answers here, just posing questions.

I also feel that it's highly debatable that it's universally, let alone widely, desired among the general population. Do you have any statistics that support that assertion? Again, I don't have the answers, but I'm curious to know if there are metrics suggesting the support is as broad as your post implies.

Would I like to see Memphis relevant on the national stage in football? Of course I would, but I'm not convinced that renovating the stadium will get us there.

Yes, we have a stadium already but it is one that was built and modified with public dollars. You object on principle to public financing of stadiums and I presume that applies to public funding in 1965, 1987, etc. so it’s not just a matter of whether we do the renovation or not, it’s whether Liberty Stadium should have existed in the first place (or Crump before that).

I have not conducted a survey but I don’t think it’s going out on a limb to say that a sizable share of the population of Memphis and Tennessee would agree that it is desirable to have sports teams and stadiums. Sizable enough that elected officials know they will be rewarded, or at least not punished, at the ballot box if they favor some level of funding deemed within reason. And even those for whom sports are a low priority are willing to accept the expenditures because other capital funds are spent on their own priorities like parks, community centers, museums, etc. Even in a red state like Tennessee, few citizens are so fiscally conservative to think all these things should or would be built privately and charged exclusively on a per-use basis.

As for an OCS, if it is irresponsible for a municipal or state government to fund an entertainment venue then it is even more so for a public institution of higher education to do so.

(12-23-2022 08:39 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  Yes, we have a stadium already but it is one that was built and modified with public dollars. You object on principle to public financing of stadiums and I presume that applies to public funding in 1965, 1987, etc. so it’s not just a matter of whether we do the renovation or not, it’s whether Liberty Stadium should have existed in the first place (or Crump before that).

I have not conducted a survey but I don’t think it’s going out on a limb to say that a sizable share of the population of Memphis and Tennessee would agree that it is desirable to have sports teams and stadiums. Sizable enough that elected officials know they will be rewarded, or at least not punished, at the ballot box if they favor some level of funding deemed within reason. And even those for whom sports are a low priority are willing to accept the expenditures because other capital funds are spent on their own priorities like parks, community centers, museums, etc. Even in a red state like Tennessee, few citizens are so fiscally conservative to think all these things should or would be built privately and charged exclusively on a per-use basis.

As for an OCS, if it is irresponsible for a municipal or state government to fund an entertainment venue then it is even more so for a public institution of higher education to do so.

Your presumption would be absolutely incorrect. If you would read what I stated previously in this thread, there would be more clarity. For your review:

(12-23-2022 04:11 PM)msu35 Wrote:  I guess you haven't read all of the other posts on this thread leading up to it. Regarding the stadium, Memphis is a public school and should receive government funding if stadium renovations are warranted. Whether they are or not, it's difficult to say. Three hundred million is a lot of money that could be used to repair our crumbling infrastructure, for example. Which is more important? I vote for fixing bridges and roads with public funds, over stadium renovations, but I'm crazy like that.

Okay, so without data, you're effectively just making things up based on your feelings regarding the matter. Elected officials do things for many reasons. Pork gets spread around and maybe a favor was due or a favor was earned. Who knows? Without numbers, no one can make a definitive statement that something is widely, let alone universally of all things, desired. Even on this board the opinion is split, and this is a fan board for the school in question. Furthermore, it is my opinion that things such as parks, museums, and libraries bring greater benefit to the community than a sports stadium.

As far as the OCS goes, I never once said I thought it was a good idea. I'm just illustrating to you the fact that it's a very divided issue with no clear consensus, even among the fans who would benefit from capital improvements. This is a complicated issue with big money at stake that I personally am not certain will deliver the payoff people think it will.

I'm still entitled to my opinion and you won't see me trying to pass them off as fact. I'm not sold that this initiative will have a large impact on the problems of attendance, conference upgrades, or team performance; but, since it appears to be happening, I do hope there will be a positive impact. It would be great to see Tiger football relevant again, but I suspect other factors will be the catalyst when that occurs.

As far as the school itself funding improvements or an OCS, from their budget, I never stated they should.

Isn’t the City pursuing IIJA infrastructure bill funds for this? If so, the funds have already been allocated by congress. Therefore, we’re asking to use funds that would likely be used on similar frivolity somewhere else, if not used here.

I still don’t understand how every Sunbelt school can have an on campus stadium but we can’t.

(12-23-2022 09:35 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 08:39 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  Yes, we have a stadium already but it is one that was built and modified with public dollars. You object on principle to public financing of stadiums and I presume that applies to public funding in 1965, 1987, etc. so it’s not just a matter of whether we do the renovation or not, it’s whether Liberty Stadium should have existed in the first place (or Crump before that).

I have not conducted a survey but I don’t think it’s going out on a limb to say that a sizable share of the population of Memphis and Tennessee would agree that it is desirable to have sports teams and stadiums. Sizable enough that elected officials know they will be rewarded, or at least not punished, at the ballot box if they favor some level of funding deemed within reason. And even those for whom sports are a low priority are willing to accept the expenditures because other capital funds are spent on their own priorities like parks, community centers, museums, etc. Even in a red state like Tennessee, few citizens are so fiscally conservative to think all these things should or would be built privately and charged exclusively on a per-use basis.

As for an OCS, if it is irresponsible for a municipal or state government to fund an entertainment venue then it is even more so for a public institution of higher education to do so.

Your presumption would be absolutely incorrect. If you would read what I stated previously in this thread, there would be more clarity. For your review:

(12-23-2022 04:11 PM)msu35 Wrote:  I guess you haven't read all of the other posts on this thread leading up to it. Regarding the stadium, Memphis is a public school and should receive government funding if stadium renovations are warranted. Whether they are or not, it's difficult to say. Three hundred million is a lot of money that could be used to repair our crumbling infrastructure, for example. Which is more important? I vote for fixing bridges and roads with public funds, over stadium renovations, but I'm crazy like that.

Okay, so without data, you're effectively just making things up based on your feelings regarding the matter. Elected officials do things for many reasons. Pork gets spread around and maybe a favor was due or a favor was earned. Who knows? Without numbers, no one can make a definitive statement that something is widely, let alone universally of all things, desired. Even on this board the opinion is split, and this is a fan board for the school in question. Furthermore, it is my opinion that things such as parks, museums, and libraries bring greater benefit to the community than a sports stadium.

As far as the OCS goes, I never once said I thought it was a good idea. I'm just illustrating to you the fact that it's a very divided issue with no clear consensus, even among the fans who would benefit from capital improvements. This is a complicated issue with big money at stake that I personally am not certain will deliver the payoff people think it will.

I'm still entitled to my opinion and you won't see me trying to pass them off as fact. I'm not sold that this initiative will have a large impact on the problems of attendance, conference upgrades, or team performance; but, since it appears to be happening, I do hope there will be a positive impact. It would be great to see Tiger football relevant again, but I suspect other factors will be the catalyst when that occurs.

As far as the school itself funding improvements or an OCS, from their budget, I never stated they should.

My apologies. Your first post in the thread seemed to use socialism as a pejorative and I did not grasp that you are actually okay with some socialism and some public stadium funding. Perhaps the main thing we disagree on is the relatively broad definition of socialism to include capital investments in public amenities.

(12-24-2022 12:06 AM)CRM114 Wrote:  My apologies. Your first post in the thread seemed to use socialism as a pejorative and I did not grasp that you are actually okay with some socialism and some public stadium funding. Perhaps the main thing we disagree on is the relatively broad definition of socialism to include capital investments in public amenities.

My apologies if I came off strongly. Earlier in the thread after I made that comment about the stadium renovations being an example of socialism, I also made the following statement:

(12-23-2022 03:54 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Personally, I believe that it is impossible to manage a country without some degree of socialism and it is not inherently a bad thing.

Socialism is a broad concept, and there are many examples in the United States. When talking about a public institution utilizing public funds for an ideally revenue generating enterprise, I don't see how that's not an example of market socialism at work; but I digress, and that debate really goes beyond the scope of this thread and forum.

Quote:Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy, or one that contains a mix of worker-owned, nationalized, and privately owned enterprises.

(12-23-2022 09:58 AM)Wayward Memphian Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 05:46 PM)tigerfan39 Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 12:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  How soon until those trees end up in someone elses landscape?

OMG - are you for real? Dude - you need some serious help.

That type of theft happens all the time especially at the prices b&b sized trees are fetching these days

I consider it a legit concern.

TRUTH! Years ago as the house was being built along Overton, every single tree and shrub was pulled from the ground before closing thankfully. That was a pricey replacement for the builder. They stole some fixtures too.

Frankly, I just don't see the motivation of the city to invest in the LB beyond maintenance to keep the LB viable for its intended use (which was never our university). Our university and it's FB program specifically, simply does not attract city-wide interest at a level to justify LB expansion/update by the city, especially considering there is no move-up that can reasonably be expected over the next 10 yrs+ that would warrant city investment in exchange for an expected increased tax base. The university, however, has a motivation to provide for a viable facility for its FB program because the university has chosen to play FB at a level that requires a facility that can accommodate attendance of 30-35K. I still maintain if the city can raise $200M+ for an activity that seems to only interest 30-35K. (and many of those not citizens of the city), so can the university (by direct receipt of state funds & private investment)- and the university's facility needs should be the responsibility of the university.

Actually the big investments in the University of Memphis are a really good thing for the Memphis Tigers and fans are (and should be) really happy about it.

The SEC trolls who hang out here and complain about everything might not be happy about it though.

(12-24-2022 08:40 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Frankly, I just don't see the motivation of the city to invest in the LB beyond maintenance to keep the LB viable for its intended use (which was never our university). Our university and it's FB program specifically, simply does not attract city-wide interest at a level to justify LB expansion/update by the city, especially considering there is no move-up that can reasonably be expected over the next 10 yrs+ that would warrant city investment in exchange for an expected increased tax base. The university, however, has a motivation to provide for a viable facility for its FB program because the university has chosen to play FB at a level that requires a facility that can accommodate attendance of 30-35K. I still maintain if the city can raise $200M+ for an activity that seems to only interest 30-35K. (and many of those not citizens of the city), so can the university (by direct receipt of state funds & private investment)- and the university's facility needs should be the responsibility of the university.

I just don't understand pushing for a white elephant that's used 6 times per season and will cost at a minimum 100 million when we can colaborate with the city on a facility that will be able to host football games ranging from HS, FCS, FBS and beyond along with soccer games, concerts, etc. and will be NICE over some 30k erector set.

(12-24-2022 09:40 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 08:40 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Frankly, I just don't see the motivation of the city to invest in the LB beyond maintenance to keep the LB viable for its intended use (which was never our university). Our university and it's FB program specifically, simply does not attract city-wide interest at a level to justify LB expansion/update by the city, especially considering there is no move-up that can reasonably be expected over the next 10 yrs+ that would warrant city investment in exchange for an expected increased tax base. The university, however, has a motivation to provide for a viable facility for its FB program because the university has chosen to play FB at a level that requires a facility that can accommodate attendance of 30-35K. I still maintain if the city can raise $200M+ for an activity that seems to only interest 30-35K. (and many of those not citizens of the city), so can the university (by direct receipt of state funds & private investment)- and the university's facility needs should be the responsibility of the university.

I just don't understand pushing for a white elephant that's used 6 times per season and will cost at a minimum 100 million when we can colaborate with the city on a facility that will be able to host football games ranging from HS, FCS, FBS and beyond along with soccer games, concerts, etc. and will be NICE over some 30k erector set.

Then that leaves 2 options, either do nothing other than routine maintenance or build a new stadium at the current location. As a whole 300 million is not very much money in relation to the state budget. That amount should not derail any major public projects and as far as I can tell the money is already allocated for such use.

(12-24-2022 09:03 AM)MemphisFootballFan Wrote:  Actually the big investments in the University of Memphis are a really good thing for the Memphis Tigers and fans are (and should be) really happy about it.

The SEC trolls who hang out here and complain about everything might not be happy about it though.

Who is making those investments

(12-24-2022 10:13 AM)k2tigers Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 09:03 AM)MemphisFootballFan Wrote:  Actually the big investments in the University of Memphis are a really good thing for the Memphis Tigers and fans are (and should be) really happy about it.

The SEC trolls who hang out here and complain about everything might not be happy about it though.

Who is making those investments

About a year ago the federal government passed the American Rescue Plan bill which included about $400 billion to go directly to state and local governments in what was called the State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds. These funds are being distributed across the country for projects of all kinds. The Tennessee state government was given about $4 billion and a similar amount was given directly to local governments in TN such as Shelby County. State and local governments have been trying to figure out how to spend the money because there is so much of it. The money is going to be spent, the only question is where and how.

Perhaps some would rather all of the money go to Knoxville and Nashville (which most of it is btw), but I for one am glad that Memphis and the UofM will be getting a tiny slice of it. Leave it to the so-called "fans" on this message board to complain that Memphis is getting any of it at all.

(12-24-2022 10:31 AM)MemphisFootballFan Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 10:13 AM)k2tigers Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 09:03 AM)MemphisFootballFan Wrote:  Actually the big investments in the University of Memphis are a really good thing for the Memphis Tigers and fans are (and should be) really happy about it.

The SEC trolls who hang out here and complain about everything might not be happy about it though.

Who is making those investments

About a year ago the federal government passed the American Rescue Plan bill which included about $400 billion to go directly to state and local governments in what was called the State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds. These funds are being distributed across the country for projects of all kinds. The Tennessee state government was given about $4 billion and a similar amount was given directly to local governments in TN such as Shelby County. State and local governments have been trying to figure out how to spend the money because there is so much of it. The money is going to be spent, the only question is where and how.

Perhaps some would rather all of the money go to Knoxville and Nashville (which most of it is btw), but I for one am glad that Memphis and the UofM will be getting a tiny slice of it. Leave it to the so-called "fans" on this message board to complain that Memphis is getting any of it at all.

I am thrilled that the city's two main sports venues will be getting nice upgrades. It will be good for all things MEMPHIS.

(12-24-2022 10:31 AM)MemphisFootballFan Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 10:13 AM)k2tigers Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 09:03 AM)MemphisFootballFan Wrote:  Actually the big investments in the University of Memphis are a really good thing for the Memphis Tigers and fans are (and should be) really happy about it.

The SEC trolls who hang out here and complain about everything might not be happy about it though.

Who is making those investments

About a year ago the federal government passed the American Rescue Plan bill which included about $400 billion to go directly to state and local governments in what was called the State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds. These funds are being distributed across the country for projects of all kinds. The Tennessee state government was given about $4 billion and a similar amount was given directly to local governments in TN such as Shelby County. State and local governments have been trying to figure out how to spend the money because there is so much of it. The money is going to be spent, the only question is where and how.

Perhaps some would rather all of the money go to Knoxville and Nashville (which most of it is btw), but I for one am glad that Memphis and the UofM will be getting a tiny slice of it. Leave it to the so-called "fans" on this message board to complain that Memphis is getting any of it at all.

Interesting that anyone who has an opposing opinion from you is a troll or not a fan.