[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

The assembled lots west of I-15 on Russell are listed for sale for a combined $40 million. The proposal from Sands says they need $375 million for property and transportation improvements around it. So the land will cost $40 million and it will cost $355 million to widen the roads around it?

All phases of the Centennial Bowl project will cumulatively cost half that amount. I smell a rat.

For Calisoccer99:



The post I responded to said:



Under the current proposal, they will pay rent to use it just like any other tenant, so the subsidy does not justify anything. I was under the impression that UNLV would use the facility for free as part of the subsidy (and clearly I'm not the only one) but that is not the case, at least under the current plans.

Technically you are right and I could have used a better word. UNLV does want it but they do not stand to economically benefit from the public dollars going towards it other than the ability to rent a nice facility. Whether that draws enough of a crowd to offset it is something debatable for which there is a valid argument for either side. My point was simply that they won't play there for free on the public dollars like many were led to believe.

UNLV wants it and was willing to go up to half a billion to get it. So getting it as a renter from a public facility should work just fine. The rent versus pay is pretty much semantics. More out of which public pocket the funds come.

Need to see more details to understand the $355 million. Expect it deals with other site improvements. Certainly worth watching.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

UNLV wants it and was willing to go up to half a billion to get it. So getting it as a renter from a public facility should work just fine. The rent versus pay is pretty much semantics. More out of which public pocket the funds come.

When was UNLV willing to put up $500 million to get it? They don't have $500 million. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think you may be confusing public funding through the hotel tax with UNLV contribution.

There is a backup plan in the Committee recommendation that allows for UNLV to build a stadium of their own if the NFL one does not materialize. It would require them to put up $200 million and issue bonds that would be repaid through a hotel tax. Some of that portion can be land and infrastructure they already own.

The question becomes how many years would UNLV have to play at their own stadium to make it a better deal than paying rent at the proposed Raiders one. Details like the amount a college football game would cost have not been publicly released or else we would have the answer.

It would cost about $1.1 million a game for UNLV to play at this theoretical Rebels Stadium with their $200 million contribution if they played there for 30 years. That assumes no other tenants, which of course there would be, to at least a small extent.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

When was UNLV willing to put up $500 million to get it? They don't have $500 million. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think you may be confusing public funding through the hotel tax with UNLV contribution.

There is a backup plan in the Committee recommendation that allows for UNLV to build a stadium of their own if the NFL one does not materialize. It would require them to put up $200 million and issue bonds that would be repaid through a hotel tax. Some of that portion can be land and infrastructure they already own.

The question becomes how many years would UNLV have to play at their own stadium to make it a better deal than paying rent at the proposed Raiders one. Details like the amount a college football game would cost have not been publicly released or else we would have the answer.

It would cost about $1.1 million a game for UNLV to play at this theoretical Rebels Stadium with their $200 million contribution if they played there for 30 years. That assumes no other tenants, which of course there would be, to at least a small extent.

At one point it was $523 million. At another 800 million involving other stuff such as basketball but around $500 million for the football stadium...2013 I think. And of course UNLV basically has no money...it would come through the legislature covered by some tax base.

[Bps401]

Originally Posted by robr2

An MLS team will probably require building another stadium just for them as playing in a 70K seat stadium in front of 20K fans isn't what MLS wants - most teams are planning soccer specific stadiums for that reason.

The drawbacks to a soccer team in Vegas is the playing surface - most teams have grass and we all know how difficult it is to maintain grass in the desert during the summer - and the fact that it's still pretty hot on the evening when the teams play. Are fans going to be willing to pay to sit outside on a hot Saturday night?

Don't get me wrong - it would be great for MLS to be able to expand. But a unless the MLS team is owned by the stadium owner, it's not financially viable for MLS to play in NFL stadiums.

I could see a new NFL stadium being used for hosting international games just as long as the promoter is willing to pay the cost of bringing in natural turf. I went to a Portugal v. Brazil friendly at Gillette Stadium before the World Cup and they required a grass field be installed over the artificial turf as did Copa America when it was played here last month. Robert Kraft is willing to pay that cost every time the opportunity for an international match comes up.

It was said in the meeting Thursday that if the stadium is built, a current MLS team is interested in relocating here. Of course they cant say which team, but the opportunity is there. Guess well find out in the future.

[Bps401]

One of the oldest debates: Most people hate change(whether they admit it or not), and want everything to stay as is for their lives and some embrace and welcome the change.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Bps401

One of the oldest debates: Most people hate change(whether they admit it or not), and want everything to stay as is for their lives and some embrace and welcome the change.

This is a bad place to live if you hate change.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by Bps401

It was said in the meeting Thursday that if the stadium is built, a current MLS team is interested in relocating here. Of course they cant say which team, but the opportunity is there. Guess well find out in the future.

Maybe expansion but not relocation. AFAIK, none of the current teams are considering relocation as they are either very successful in their current city/stadium or are expansion teams just getting started.

But as you said, we will find out.

[beachhead]

Take a look at the new minnesota $1.1B stadium. Looks pretty amazing, at half the price of the Las Vegas proposal? And phoenix's stadium at $500M is still looking nice. This is a boondoggle of the largest measure, unless of course, you are the taxpayer who is footing the bill for the billionaires.

I can't believe the citizens of Nevada would buy into such a sucker bet. There must be way too many free stuffer immigrants from commieformia here to buy into this white elephant.

[lvmensch]

It is not out of keeping with other current efforts. See the Rams Stadium or the Giants place in Jersey. And it might well be to note that Arlington TX is paying off the Cowboy Stadium well ahead of schedule.

Of course the details need to be watched carefully but nothing out of keeping so far.

Mornings RJ says it is Adelson personally putting up the money not the Sands. Interesting.

[Willy702]

Originally Posted by beachhead

Take a look at the new minnesota $1.1B stadium. Looks pretty amazing, at half the price of the Las Vegas proposal? And phoenix's stadium at $500M is still looking nice. This is a boondoggle of the largest measure, unless of course, you are the taxpayer who is footing the bill for the billionaires.

I can't believe the citizens of Nevada would buy into such a sucker bet. There must be way too many free stuffer immigrants from commieformia here to buy into this white elephant.

People in other states would vote against it as well, including in San Diego. Only way it could get passed is by ignoring the voters and accepting lots of people get thrown out of office. Which is why ultimately it will never happen. This is all playing politics at the moment, there is no real consequences to saying you support something all the way up until it's time to vote it in. Along the way you hope it blows up or someone else blocks it then you can say well you see its not my fault. When pressed on the question of would you really vote for it, say it would have depended upon the details but of course I would have consulted with my constituents on the matter. Politics 101.