Indianapolis' Super Bowl a Net Loser for Locals (Speedway, Mexico: how much, attorney)

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

Accountants and Economists always have the last word and win the argument over unjustified enthusiasm and tiresome homerism.

If this is what the local media is saying, the reality is likely far worse and in line with what Economists have found in other host cities. Indianapolis would do well not to repeat its mistake of hosting the Super Bowl.

Don't respond if you merely don't like the articles. If you disagree, you're free to respond if you have rebuttal facts. This is a factual, not an emotional issue.
Survey finds Super Bowl had minor impact on Indianapolis image


Survey finds Super Bowl had minor impact on Indianapolis image - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Downtown got bulk of Super Bowl excitement


Downtown got bulk of Super Bowl excitement - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Super Bowl boom or bust? Depends on who you ask

Super Bowl boom or bust? Depends on who you ask - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Any boost to Indy for hosting Super Bowl 2012 might be only short-term, experts say


Any boost to Indy for hosting Super Bowl 2012 might be only short-term, experts say | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

City's Super Bowl Spending

City's Super Bowl spending | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

Hammer: Super Bowl post-mortem



Hammer: Super Bowl post-mortem | Opinion | NUVO News | Indianapolis, IN

Resident hater is back, golly geez. For starters, it will take MONTHS for the accounting to be completed and the true numbers are in, but if you were to have actually read any of these article, you would have known that. Will the city take a loss, probably, it was already projected at 820k loss, so a whopping 2.05 per taxpayer for one month. Daunting isn't it? But since no one contemplated over 1 million people showing up, that number could go down and can still go up but I'm sure the 2.05 per taxpayer will not force us into foreclosure or anything like that. Maybe if we spread it out over 12 months and pay .17 cents we may be able to handle it and cope.

Now as far as perception, who cares about what people thought who didn't show up, no one cared about Dallas and actually unlike here, the metroplex actually took a 5% dip but again, if you were to have actually read the articles you posted and actually understood them, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

This is a little scary, really. Indianapolis people are actually afraid to have rational discussions for fear of what might be revealed? That's not inquiry; that's religion.

Over 95% of Indy had no parade, only downtown and the airport, but everyone in the city and in the surrounding counties had to pay for it. That's immoral. Some people in this country still have the guts to stand up for what's right.

This is an economic question, how do you infer "boring" from a discussion of economics? Seriously, sister.

You're intention is not now, nor has it been, to stand up for what's right. You have been on this forum grasping at whatever you can to make Indianapolis look bad. This has included everything from a group of disappointed zip line riders, referring to the corner of 56th and Lafayette road as a disaster for out of towners, and ripping on excited locals. You even said New Yorkers were going to hate us. Well, they didn't. In fact, they loved us. Now you are reaching for a new set of complaints on your crusade. If that is not trolling, I don't know what is.

In case you've forgotten, this is the track record you have with us, this after 6 months of forum inactivity. Excuse us if we think "rational debate" does not sound like something you are after.

Originally Posted by GregHenry

Bad Indy customer service making the national headlines.

Frustration Accompanies Super Bowl XLVI Zip Line Thrills: Fan Experience - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

Originally Posted by GregHenry

Are you nuts? Residents of the host city can't wait until the NFL leaves. New Orleans is a tourist economy, so they're the perfect place to hold the game.



Pure crazy.

Originally Posted by GregHenry

How embarrassing it's going to be when visitors head out to local liquor stores on Sunday to buy libations for the big game, only to find Indiana has a backwards religious law on the books.

Originally Posted by GregHenry

I just read this embarrassing story in today's Indianapolis Star:

Fans, city stoked for opening of Super Bowl 2012 Village | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

A notable, embarrassing quote:

"It's like we're in a different city," said 23-year-old Mary Snyder, who accompanied a group of friends to see the Max Allen Band perform on one of the Super Bowl Village's two concert stages. "It doesn't normally feel like we're the 12th-largest city in America. Today it does."

If you have to wait for NFL tents to arrive to feel like a big city, you aren't.

Originally Posted by GregHenry

New Yorkers are far more demanding than Bostonians. Make sure you get your service attitude going strong for the next few weeks. Indy-standard won't cut it for people from real cities.

It's poor attitudes like yours that will show the NFL it was a huge mistake to bring the game to Indy.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by chet_kinkaid

people who try and measure things like pro sports or symphony orchestras etc by a pure bottom line are really missing the big picture,a city can be measured by the diversity of its offerings..cities with less choices are less atttractive,especially to business leaders and young educated professionals. the publicity generated by indy with the super bowl and the downtown area improvements gives an image of a city that is thriving in an area of the country where most cities are in decline.invaluable pr

I agree w/ you. The only reason why I went through the dollars and cents was to show that there is more than likely a marginal net economic benefit for those hung up un such things. The direct economic impact of any event such as this is going to be marginal in the grand scheme of things .

To get to your point and tying it into the financial component: why would you not want to host when it's really not costing you anything to do so?

You get a bit of publicity for the city that might reinforce the idea that Indy would be a good place to host a large convention...or at least put Indy on someone's mind when considering where to expand business operations...and you get to bring a party to the city that many locals would love to have.

Any way you look at it, it was a pretty good deal for the city/region.

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Any way you look at it, it was a pretty good deal for the city/region.

As long as you're not looking at it like an Accountant or Economist.

[timothyaw]

Continue to keep the veil over your eyes. Be responsible citizens and ask the hard questions. Was this work my and your hard earned money to put this event on? I say NO!

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by timothyaw

Continue to keep the veil over your eyes. Be responsible citizens and ask the hard questions. Was this work my and your hard earned money to put this event on? I say NO!

In Indianapolis, not only do they lack the honesty to answer the hard questions, they attack you for having the curiosity and diligent citizenship to ask the questions.

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

In Indianapolis, not only do they lack the honesty to answer the hard questions, they attack you for having the curiosity and diligent citizenship to ask the questions.

What a joke. Your questions have been answered up down and all around. Instead of addressing those answers you continue to spew pure utter bull. You constantly get things wrong whether it be as simple as calling Lafayette Road, Lafayette Street (no one in this city would ever make that mistake) to thinking the city gave Georgia St to Indydt. Just plain erroneous as Georgia St is a public Indianapolis Street just like all of the others in the grid. They do not own a building other than the office space they lease downtown just like all of the other 200 or so downtown associations across this country.

I gave you simple figures and on average what it would cost per tax payer using a low 400k taxpayers in Indianapolis, not including any of the excluded towns but Indianapolis proper and yet you say nothing. GA topic, gave you another example and yet you say nothing. I bring up Boston's 22 BILLION dollar big dig project, you say nothing. From where I sit, it's you who fail to answer anything put before you. Stick to the Sacramento forum but you've been called out there as well so I digress.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

As long as you're not looking at it like an Accountant or Economist.

Which you are obviously incapable of doing, given that you can't read the CIB's audited financial statements regarding cash holdings.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

In Indianapolis, not only do they lack the honesty to answer the hard questions, they attack you for having the curiosity and diligent citizenship to ask the questions.

Ask away. What we object to is those who make up their own facts.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

As long as you're not looking at it like an Accountant or Economist.

You know the ironic thing about this? I've spent my entire career working in a litigation/valuation capacity for businesses and governmental entities for the purpose of calculating economic damages/revenue generation, M&A integration, antitrust disputes, etc. I've spent about 50,000 hours of my life dealing with the stuff. With all due respect (and coming off arrogant, no doubt, but sometimes you need to be to drill something into someone's head), I've probably forgotten more about this area than you will probably ever know, unless you have to spend a lot of time actually working in public finance, economic/valuation consulting, etc.

The articles you cite basically indicate that hosting an even such as a Super Bowl doesn't have a material impact on a city's economy. That's true. They also say the impact may even be negative. This is also true. These articles are simplified descriptions that don't give you the nuts and bolts and whys because newspapers don't have time to explain it. Frankly, the people writing the articles often don't know what questions to ask an economist to get to the bottom of the issue anyway. Since you're compiling these articles without much apparent knowledge of the subtext the economists are providing, here are the reasons why the positive impact isn't as great as many are led to believe:

1-The multiplier effect. Just because the JW books an extra 800 rooms a night for the entire SB week doesn't mean that money stays in the local economy. Most of it doesn't. Economies aren't islands. Money leaks in and out of them to buy goods and services elsewhere, invest elsewhere, etc. In a SB environment, only about 10% of every additional dollar spent by visitors will remain, so when you see articles proclaiming $150 million to $350 million of additional revenue generation thanks to the Super Bowl, those articles should say $15 to $35 million of economic impact. People confuse the two. The government still gets their cut from the full $150 million to $350 million via taxation however.

2-The cost component. Journalists like to talk to economists about Super Bowls and events like the Olympics like they're one and the same. They aren't and it's ignorant to think otherwise. Olympics generally aren't successful economic ventures because there are a lot of up front costs for facilities that have no direct alternate future use. When I say a lot, I mean hundreds of millions and most likely billions of dollars. Think the bird's nest stadium, the natatorium, etc in Beijing. You gave us the up front costs of this venture in one of your articles and they were tiny. Much smaller than the $15 to $35 million of actual economic impact + incremental tax revenue generated.

The only way this event couldn't be termed a modest success when all is said and done is if the only reason why Lucas (of the convention center or airport) was built in the first place was for the Super Bowl. All three would have been done regardless. Every other dollar spent was peanuts when you look at the region's overall public spending base.

In direct financial terms, Super Bowls don't make or lose a amount of money for the host city. In this particular case, they probably generated a modest amount of economic profit for the region overall. In terms of return (net public $ spent vs. economic impact), the returns were probably quite good, but again, they are small in the overall scheme of things when you are looking at absolute dollars. This excludes any indirect benefits such as image, entertainment, etc.