Indianapolis' Super Bowl a Net Loser for Locals (credit card, income)

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Now you're making things up (again). The Super Bowl site selection was announced May 2008.

It was announced to the public in 2008. Someone who likes to strut like he's been around the block should really have a better grasp of how deals work.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

It was announced to the public in 2008. Someone who likes to strut like he's been around the block should really have a better grasp of how deals work.

More proof that you prefer to deal in rumor and innuendo than facts.

[msamhunter]

SB bids are done minimum 4 years out by NFL rules. The first SB bid was in 2007 for the 2011 SB. The city lost out to Dallas so it bid again in 2008 for 2012 SB and won the bid and even that wasn't a foregone conclusion. Unless anyone has proof of any type of conspiracy theory, let alone one that spans 3 years before an actual bid could even be made, no need to bring it up.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

It was announced to the public in 2008. Someone who likes to strut like he's been around the block should really have a better grasp of how deals work.

Deals get done with contracts. At least those requiring the city/state to pony up $650 million do. There was no contract in place guaranteeing the SB to Indy before financing was secured. That much is obvious for three reasons:

1-The NFL does not have the power to designate Super Bowl hosts. The owners do. And they did it years 3 or 4 years after stadium construction began. Big distinction. NFL franchises are sold. Owners die. The NFL couldn't force the owners to follow through on this...especially owners who may not even be on the scene when this supposed agreement took place on a grassy knoll somewhere.

2-If such an agreement did exist and the owners were fine with it, why not make it public? It makes it easier to sell the tax dollars to the locals and it gives other owners carte blanche to tell their local markets, "If you build us a new stadium, we'll get the Super Bowl too!" It's not as if there would be some sort of backlash against the owners. They would be voting in their best interest, which seems like perfectly good common sense.

3-Assuming the NFL had this power over a diverse ownership group, why would the NFL orchestrate such a deal? The old dome guaranteed poor gate revenue for the Colts because it was economically obsolete. The Colts could walk away from the dome lease in 2007. Do you think the NFL would prefer to see the team stay in Indianapolis, or do you think they might prefer to see them in LA?

And most importantly, do you really think the possibility (or even a super duper secret promise) of a Super Bowl is the primary reason LOS was constructed? Or even the primary reason it was built? It couldn't be the fear of losing an NFL franchise could it?

[maybemover96b]

Folks, Indy is not Boston — I lived there.
Indy is not NYC — I spent a lot of time in Manhattan.

People don't live in Indy because they want it to be like NYC, Boston or even Chicago.

Like everywhere, the people who want the Super Bowl to be a raging success are those individuals and corporations who will benefit financially if Indy becomes a Chicago.

For the rest of Indy residents, the 10-days of Super Bowl showed what downtown Indy — and eventually surrounding areas — would be like if big $ that came to the SB really started to invest big time in Indy.

$20 or more a day parking, hotel rooms double the price, traffic unbearable, low cost downtown rents disappearing, rising commercial lease prices meaning fewer locally owned shops, restaurants and bars (or higher prices). Indy than becomes like NYC, Boston or Chicago — a great place to visit for the weekend or 10-days but not a great place to live unless you are earining $180K.

What people like Greg, Hammer and others may be upset with is all the hype by the SB host committee and local media tripping all over each other with superlatives and getting good adjective and adverb disease.
I think it was a FABULOUS AND DELIGHTFUL SB and that the city will see WONDERFUL AND EXTRAORDINARY BENEFITS from it.
And I loved the HORRENDOUS pedestrian and vehicular traffic jams.

[pvande55]

It may not have brought in much money but it puts Indy on the map for something besides the 500. Likely a better deal than an Olympic event, which would tie up the city for weeks and make travel thereto difficult for the year leading up to it.

[timothyaw]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

Who on this forum claims Indianapolis is a world class city?

The kid for one, that's all hear about is world class this and world class that. Indy doesn't even have a functioning bus system. I've been to most world capitals (London, Paris, Rome, New York) and their mass transit systems are the epitome of efficiency. But at this point, we don't deserve it. Indy ate its dessert before its vegetables. How's that you ask? Well we didn't get a referendum on whether to pay for the football and basketball arenas, just got shoved down our throat. Because they know what is good for us.

But, when it comes to a critical component such as mass transit, they talk about a referendum (which I agree taxpayers should decide). I would vote against, cause my tax dollars are already going for sports. Should have asked for mass transit FIRST and the many other needed things. Sports should have been last.

But hey, we got the Colts (Dolts), and Pacers! Yea

[rrah]

Originally Posted by timothyaw

But, when it comes to a critical component such as mass transit, they talk about a referendum (which I agree taxpayers should decide). I would vote against, cause my tax dollars are already going for sports. Should have asked for mass transit FIRST and the many other needed things. Sports should have been last.

This is exactly the point I think GregHenry has been trying to make.

Citizens need to recognize the SB for what is was and appreciate it for that. To defend it based upon some nebulous unknowns or the theoretical economic boost is naive. It was what it was: an expensive sporting event and giant party. If that's what the citizenry of Indianpolis chooses to do with it's money great. Just own up to it. No need to defend it with unsubstantiated claims.

Many may not appreciate the tone of GH's posts, but his underlying point is legitimate: citizens and corporations decided it was okay to spend the money on a big party and it was fun.

Now, let the bashing begin.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by rrah

This is exactly the point I think GregHenry has been trying to make.

Citizens need to recognize the SB for what is was and appreciate it for that. To defend it based upon some nebulous unknowns or the theoretical economic boost is naive. It was what it was: an expensive sporting event and giant party. If that's what the citizenry of Indianpolis chooses to do with it's money great. Just own up to it. No need to defend it with unsubstantiated claims.

Many may not appreciate the tone of GH's posts, but his underlying point is legitimate: citizens and corporations decided it was okay to spend the money on a big party and it was fun.

Now, let the bashing begin.

Except that's not the point GH is making at all. He's telling us the SB cost Indy a billion dollars because he's not distinguishing between sunk costs that would have occurred regardless of hosting a SB (LOS and the convention center). That's less accurate than someone on the other end believing it was some sort of magic stimulus.

By the information that GH provided, the city/state lost about 700K, which will be made up by the CIB. This ignores some revenue being put into, and retained by the local economy. The Holy Cross economist's study, which is probably the most comprehensive one out there, says that roughly 75% of the time, there is money from the SB that is retained locally. Crowding out other tourists is a big factor in the 25% that lose money, but a SB in Indy in February isn't exactly crowding out tourists (unlike Miami or NOLA).

The revenue captured locally is probably greater than $1 million but substantially less than what the NFL claims, so net of city costs, it was positive. It's just not big enough to say this really had any meaningful impact on the local economy. In the scheme of things, what's an extra $30 million for a region of 1.5 million? Similarly what's a CIB loss of 700K or so? There's nothing nebulous about it: the government lost a bit of cash, but the local economy collectively reaped a larger, but still modest reward.

To the heart of the issue though: it was fun for a lot of people, and that should outweigh any modest stimulus (or even a modest loss) gained/incurred by hosting.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

To the heart of the issue though: it was fun for a lot of people, and that should outweigh any modest stimulus (or even a modest loss) gained/incurred by hosting.

That is a perceived, virtually non-measurable, opinion. This is where the idea of Economics stops being about stone cold facts and more about whose opinion of data is better. Was the Super Bowl worth the money spent? Some will think so. Some will think not. If you all want to chase your tails around this for 10 more pages, then have at it. The discussion at this point is less about fact and more about opinion on a perceived benefit.