We got it! (http://www.theindychannel.com/sports/16340940/detail.html)
That is awsome news..........means a lot to the city......and my business :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 20, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
That is awsome news..........means a lot to the city......and my business :yes:
What type of business, just out of curiosity?
Quote from: Exterminator on May 20, 2008, 03:56:44 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 20, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
That is awsome news..........means a lot to the city......and my business :yes:
What type of business, just out of curiosity?
it's not mine, but I work for one of the largest electrical contractor for Indiana.....
That is fantastic news and I don't even follow football.
I'm not a sports fan either but it'll be good economically for the region.
where should i stay when i come to see the pack in 2012?
Rah - rah... :razz:
Anyone able to prove these things are a net gain, actually worth the taxpayer monies .gov spends?
Please note that doesn't take into account whether even doing so is a legitimate action of .gov. We can also talk about that. ; )
You can't deny it will be good for business. :razz:
Quote from: me on May 22, 2008, 09:16:15 PM
You can't deny it will be good for business. :razz:
Will it? As I stated, lets see the expenditures compared to some closely accurate projection of the income.
So you don't think hotels, restaurants, and some other businesses will profit from it.
Do you think there are no costs involved, even for them?
Wonder how many tickets would be available to residents. . . not too many I'd venture to say.
I think this is more of the continuing fleecing of the people disguised as economic stimulation. (I love football but detest the strong arm tactics of the NFL utilized to bully cities into building new stadiums at the taxpayers expense. The only thing worse are the wimpy state/city governments that bend over and take it). In reality I am betting we'll be lucky if it is a wash when the bottom line is arrived at. But as usual they'll do a little creative accounting to make it look like a windfall for the city.
We'll see how things are in 2017 . . . :-\
Quote from: me on May 22, 2008, 11:02:46 PM
So you don't think hotels, restaurants, and some other businesses will profit from it.
Do you mean the hotels, restaurants, and businesses owned by multi-national corporations with no ties to Indianapolis? I'm sure their shareholders will be filled with glee.
Quote from: C91 on May 25, 2008, 07:56:41 PM
Quote from: me on May 22, 2008, 11:02:46 PM
So you don't think hotels, restaurants, and some other businesses will profit from it.
Do you mean the hotels, restaurants, and businesses owned by multi-national corporations with no ties to Indianapolis? I'm sure their shareholders will be filled with glee.
all i know is, that our company is expected to profit about 5 million over the next 4 years.........we estimate to hire about 300 skilled electricians.........and we are just one of several contractors in indy that have BIG expectations.
It is a good thing...........why are people trying to turn this into something bad? it is foolish to think that we would be better somehow if we did NOT have a football team here or get the superbowl
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 08:34:14 AM
It is a good thing...........why are people trying to turn this into something bad? it is foolish to think that we would be better somehow if we did NOT have a football team here or get the superbowl
I'm not saying it's something bad. It brings the city lots of international attention. However the "positive economic impact" theory has been debunked time and time again. Cities that host the Super Bowl actually lose money on the deal.
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 01:24:01 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 08:34:14 AM
It is a good thing...........why are people trying to turn this into something bad? it is foolish to think that we would be better somehow if we did NOT have a football team here or get the superbowl
I'm not saying it's something bad. It brings the city lots of international attention. However the "positive economic impact" theory has been debunked time and time again. Cities that host the Super Bowl actually lose money on the deal.
not calling you a liar.........i would NEVER do that C..........but, can you supply some evidence on how..............cities actualy LOSE money?..............
I also, look at it...............if we NEVER did get a super bowl............are we going to be better off?..........better off NOT building MORE business?........better off not hiring MORE employees?................better off NOT building a bigger employee tax base to grow the city revenue?.............I don't get it at all...........
to me it is simple mathematics.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 01:35:47 PM
not calling you a liar.........i would NEVER do that C..........but, can you supply some evidence on how..............cities actualy LOSE money?..............
No problem. (http://www.williams.edu/Economics/wp/mathesonSuperbowl.pdf) To make it easy, scroll to Table 4.
Notice how the 2001 Super Bowl contributed an estimated windfall of
-$1.7 million to the City of Tampa's coffers.
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 01:49:06 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 01:35:47 PM
not calling you a liar.........i would NEVER do that C..........but, can you supply some evidence on how..............cities actualy LOSE money?..............
No problem. (http://www.williams.edu/Economics/wp/mathesonSuperbowl.pdf) To make it easy, scroll to Table 4.
Notice how the 2001 Super Bowl contributed an estimated windfall of -$1.7 million to the City of Tampa's coffers.
I'm in agreement that the Super Bowl alone may not pay off as much..............but, the impact of getting a super bowl has a bigger role.........like making Indy more likely to host MORE conferences and events..........the money generated through the business generated in order to host a SB..........the state revenue has GOT to increase............more employees..........more revenue................more business tax generated............our company alone will hire approx....300 more skilled employees..............for approx...3 years.......
I guess I don't see how we prosper more by not getting it that if we do.................that means NO skilled employees.........no state revenue generated......... :confused:
Its all in the creative bookwork. They project to make X amount of dollars but if they don't, even though they are in the black, it is considered a shortfall and the nay sayer's say money was lost. Kind of like the auto manufactures do it. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 02:06:56 PM
................more business tax generated............
Wanna bet? Let's take a look at Tampa again. (http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=73176)
The best indicator of revenue generation is sales tax collection. Notice that while Tampa did see a slight increase in sales tax generation for the 2001 Super Bowl, it was really a drop in the bucket compared to the years preceding and following the game. In fact, if you look at the prior two Super Bowls the city hosted, sales tax collection actually
decreased during the month of the Super Bowl.
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 02:24:25 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 02:06:56 PM
................more business tax generated............
Wanna bet? Let's take a look at Tampa again. (http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=73176)
The best indicator of revenue generation is sales tax collection. Notice that while Tampa did see a slight increase in sales tax generation for the 2001 Super Bowl, it was really a drop in the bucket compared to the years preceding and following the game. In fact, if you look at the prior two Super Bowls the city hosted, sales tax collection actually decreased during the month of the Super Bowl.
I don't see how thats possible since there would be more people buying more things. That don't even make sense if you think about it.
Quote from: me on May 27, 2008, 02:26:23 PM
I don't see how thats possible since there would be more people buying more things. That don't even make sense if you think about it.
Well, perhaps more people
weren't buying things. Makes sense to me.
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 02:28:06 PM
Quote from: me on May 27, 2008, 02:26:23 PM
I don't see how thats possible since there would be more people buying more things. That don't even make sense if you think about it.
Well, perhaps more people weren't buying things. Makes sense to me.
Locals would still need their normal things and there would be tons of out of towner's who would be purchasing food, souvenirs, gas, motel rooms, and various odds and ends of items so how do you figure there would be less tax's collected? Yes, some of the souvenirs would come from out of town suppliers but they would still have to pay local tax's on them.
Quote from: me on May 27, 2008, 03:03:16 PM
Locals would still need their normal things and there would be tons of out of towner's who would be purchasing food, souvenirs, gas, motel rooms, and various odds and ends of items so how do you figure there would be less tax's collected? Yes, some of the souvenirs would come from out of town suppliers but they would still have to pay local tax's on them.
Keep in mind this is in Tampa. People are booking hotel rooms and buying souvenirs there all year round. It doesn't surprise me that sales tax declined. Most of the people who attend the Super Bowl are corporate bigshots who don't buy souvenirs.
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 04:25:02 PM
Quote from: me on May 27, 2008, 03:03:16 PM
Locals would still need their normal things and there would be tons of out of towner's who would be purchasing food, souvenirs, gas, motel rooms, and various odds and ends of items so how do you figure there would be less tax's collected? Yes, some of the souvenirs would come from out of town suppliers but they would still have to pay local tax's on them.
Keep in mind this is in Tampa. People are booking hotel rooms and buying souvenirs there all year round. It doesn't surprise me that sales tax declined. Most of the people who attend the Super Bowl are corporate bigshots who don't buy souvenirs.
But then there are the camera crews, news casters, sound men, entertainers, photographers, and all of the other people involved. Call me hard headed or whatever but I still can't see how they could lose sales tax revenue with those kinds of extra numbers in people.
Quote from: me on May 27, 2008, 05:23:37 PM
But then there are the camera crews, news casters, sound men, entertainers, photographers, and all of the other people involved. Call me hard headed or whatever but I still can't see how they could lose sales tax revenue with those kinds of extra numbers in people.
They're staying in hotel rooms that would have been booked anyway. Eating in restaurants that would have been eaten in anyway. (If they aren't eating the free meals in the media room.) Tipping strippers that would have been tipped anyway. And the souvenirs? All the people you mentioned get a sh*tload of freebies in the hospitality and media rooms. No need for them to even open their wallets.
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 06:22:58 PM
Quote from: me on May 27, 2008, 05:23:37 PM
But then there are the camera crews, news casters, sound men, entertainers, photographers, and all of the other people involved. Call me hard headed or whatever but I still can't see how they could lose sales tax revenue with those kinds of extra numbers in people.
They're staying in hotel rooms that would have been booked anyway. Eating in restaurants that would have been eaten in anyway. (If they aren't eating the free meals in the media room.) Tipping strippers that would have been tipped anyway. And the souvenirs? All the people you mentioned get a sh*tload of freebies in the hospitality and media rooms. No need for them to even open their wallets.
Guess you got me there, I didn't think about that part of it. But when you're talking about a city like Indy its a different story because these are motel rooms that might not otherwise be booked and right on down the line. Also a lot of locals would be likely to purchase souvenirs because it is not an everyday occurrence to have events like that here. Plus, Like Henry said, the notoriety could mean a lot because of the possibility of attracting other events which might not be as costly otherwise, security and the likes, and give a better return for the money which would even it out.
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 02:24:25 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 02:06:56 PM
................more business tax generated............
Wanna bet? Let's take a look at Tampa again. (http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=73176)
The best indicator of revenue generation is sales tax collection. Notice that while Tampa did see a slight increase in sales tax generation for the 2001 Super Bowl, it was really a drop in the bucket compared to the years preceding and following the game. In fact, if you look at the prior two Super Bowls the city hosted, sales tax collection actually decreased during the month of the Super Bowl.
AGAIN...I'm not just talking about the super bowl itself...........I'm talking about the taxes collected for the next 3 to 4 years, because of the increased workforce it takes to prepare the city FOR the SB...........who gives a flip about the month of the SB...........it is the before and after that, imo..........will be the money maker...............the SB itself is okay..........but the ramifications FROM the SB are the gold mine...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 09:49:34 PM
I'm talking about the taxes collected for the next 3 to 4 years, because of the increased workforce it takes to prepare the city FOR the SB.....
What more workforce is needed? Once the stadium is finished, what else is there to prepare? It may take a month to put up all the banners and streamers along Meridian Street, but gimme a break. Oh, there will be a lot more hookers in town, but I don't think they're on the tax roll.
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 10:31:54 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 09:49:34 PM
I'm talking about the taxes collected for the next 3 to 4 years, because of the increased workforce it takes to prepare the city FOR the SB.....
What more workforce is needed? Once the stadium is finished, what else is there to prepare? It may take a month to put up all the banners and streamers along Meridian Street, but gimme a break. Oh, there will be a lot more hookers in town, but I don't think they're on the tax roll.
C91 are you really serious?............so, tell me, you think it woud be better for the city and it's people.....to NOT have 3 years worth of skilled work being done....I just don't understand the logic here.....
I would rather have three years of guaranteed work............and try to develop MORE work to be done AFTER those three years.........than to just sit...without the ANY new developement.......
.......okay answer this question for me....do you think Indy would have been better off without the SB?...............
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 08:22:11 AM
.......okay answer this question for me....do you think Indy would have been better off without the SB?...............
I think the Super Bowl will have negligable impact on Indianapolis. Look at all the other cities that have hosted the Super Bowl. Have they experienced some kind of economic renaissance based on hosting a football game?
Indianapolis has been denied the Super Bowl twice before and seemed to survive pretty well.
Do you think Indianapolis would fall into recession and disrepair had it been denied the Super Bowl bid?
Quote from: C91 on May 28, 2008, 10:29:46 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 08:22:11 AM
.......okay answer this question for me....do you think Indy would have been better off without the SB?...............
I think the Super Bowl will have negligable impact on Indianapolis. Look at all the other cities that have hosted the Super Bowl. Have they experienced some kind of economic renaissance based on hosting a football game?
Indianapolis has been denied the Super Bowl twice before and seemed to survive pretty well.
Do you think Indianapolis would fall into recession and disrepair had it been denied the Super Bowl bid?
I don't think we would fall into a recession, but speaking first hand, things are beggining to slow down....the Lucas Stadium is nearing its end.....and we have let go several skilled workers............or on the verge off letting them go.........NOW, we fully expect growth within our company.........we are bidding two new hotels for the downtown area.........
I see and expect nothing but good things to come out of this..............five years from now, we may have new expectations on things to come...
As I said elsewhere in the forum, "Wonder what will happen when the NFL goes on strike and the superbowl is cancelled in 2012????
Well, "Roger" says it will go on! :rolleyes:
QuoteANDERSON, Ind. -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says he expects the Super Bowl in Indianapolis to be played as planned in February 2012.
Goodell answered reporters' questions Saturday at the Colts' new training camp site, Anderson University.
The NFL Players Association fears owners will lock out the players before next season and that a work stoppage could force postponement or cancellation of the league's title game. That's happened before in Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League.
But Goodell downplayed the possibility. He says he expects the game to go off as planned.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100807/SPORTS03/8070364/NFL-chief-Super-Bowl-2012-will-go-on (http://www.indystar.com/article/20100807/SPORTS03/8070364/NFL-chief-Super-Bowl-2012-will-go-on)
Well it just figure. . . Indy will get the "Super Scab Bowl" in 2012. . . And just how many folks do yah think are going to come see scabs play in such a game????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=video&content=f46ee7c6-a051-4402-a709-ca56c9cb5b49 (http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=video&content=f46ee7c6-a051-4402-a709-ca56c9cb5b49)
That sucks for Indy to have that as a potential outcome for the Superbowl in 2012.
Quote from: Locutus on August 08, 2010, 12:43:15 AM
That sucks for Indy to have that as a potential outcome for the Superbowl in 2012.
Yep! And today it looks to be the reality of the situation!
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110224/NEWS05/102240464/Save-Indy-s-Super-Bowl-lawmakers-urge-NFL-union?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110224/NEWS05/102240464/Save-Indy-s-Super-Bowl-lawmakers-urge-NFL-union?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com)
If they didn't go on strike and Indy made it to the Bowl would they still have it there?
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on February 24, 2011, 09:00:32 PM
If they didn't go on strike and Indy made it to the Bowl would they still have it there?
Yes. And that scenario would be the first time that an NFL team hosted a super bowl in its own stadium. . . (A statistic ol Jerry wanted his cowgirls to achieve this year!) :biggrin:
But, the reality is that they will be locked out tomorrow. . .
Quote from: Locutus on August 08, 2010, 12:43:15 AM
That sucks for Indy to have that as a potential outcome for the Superbowl in 2012.
Yeah, would that be the luck of Indianapolis, the Super Bowl played there with a group of SCABS. 8)