[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

I see your point but the statement is accurate. The statement doesn't tell the whole story to someone that has not followed the topic and one could make an argument that it may sway the poll based on that. However, it is accurate because by definition these would be state taxes based on the fact the stadium authority would be a state agency and the taxes that would funnel to Sands/Raiders etc would go through it based on the initial proposals.

I agree it will be a state chartered agency. But it will be funded from some limited area of Clark County and may well have a board similar to the Convention and Visitors Bureau which are not appointed by the state. In fact if you think about it the Convention Bureau is the obvious place for it to be tied.

But practically it is not state taxpayer money. It is a local tax on local visitors. And particularly it does not draw on the general revenues of the state.

The thing we ought to be worried about is that over the long term we do not make Adelson or Davis richer by letting them acquire the asset cheap.. We need to be sure it remains with So NV and that the citizenry is properly rewarded for their support...

[calisoccer99]

Either we tax the tourist and get a brand new stadium putting Vegas into a elite group of cities. Or we don't tax the tourist and get no stadium and continue to lose events to other cities.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

Either we tax the tourist and get a brand new stadium putting Vegas into a elite group of cities. Or we don't tax the tourist and get no stadium and continue to lose events to other cities.

What profitable events are we losing to other cities because we don't have a stadium beyond Raiders games? We can't get NCAA tournaments in Nevada because of the sports betting (NCAA policy). Super Bowls aren't profitable. We already get a college football bowl game every year. Stadiums aren't suitable for concerts.

The facility would have about 25-30 days of use a year between Raiders, UNLV, Las Vegas Bowl, NFR and the odd motor event. It could also possibly draw a major conference championship football game each year but that is no guarantee.

That is more of an argument for the convention center expansion that some fear will get scrapped in favor of the stadium. It would have about 300 days of use per year. Some people, including me, wonder if the entire stadium situation is simply a way for Adelson to kill the LVCC expansion since he is the only casino owner in town that opposes it.

[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

What profitable events are we losing to other cities because we don't have a stadium beyond Raiders games? We can't get NCAA tournaments in Nevada because of the sports betting (NCAA policy). Super Bowls aren't profitable. We already get a college football bowl game every year. Stadiums aren't suitable for concerts.

The facility would have about 25-30 days of use a year between Raiders, UNLV, Las Vegas Bowl, NFR and the odd motor event. It could also possibly draw a major conference championship football game each year but that is no guarantee.

That is more of an argument for the convention center expansion that some fear will get scrapped in favor of the stadium. It would have about 300 days of use per year. Some people, including me, wonder if the entire stadium situation is simply a way for Adelson to kill the LVCC expansion since he is the only casino owner in town that opposes it.

A big boxing event was just moved to Dallas because of their stadium. International soccer games bring in major money (michigan stadium just sold out 110k for a soccer game). Larger NCAA bowl games not byu vs utah every year. Bringing an MLS team to Vegas. More convention space. UNLV games. And if you don't think Vegas would make the Superbowl profitable your crazy.

[LasVegasPlayer]

I forgot about soccer. That is a good point. Perhaps another bowl game gets picked up. A boxing match demanding that much space is a rare event.

All cities lose money on Super Bowls. It is due to the massive burden in services that require overtime like police, fire, transportation and EMT.

Super Bowl host cities always lose the money game - MarketWatch

I can't fathom how Las Vegas would be any different. It may even be worse. Most other cities have lower hotel occupancy on weekends so they generate tourism that would otherwise be nonexistent. That isn't the case here. Those rooms may go for higher rates but there is little else that would benefit since the clubs/bars/restaurants would already be packed anyway.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

Bringing an MLS team to Vegas.

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

I forgot about soccer. That is a good point.

MLS in Vegas would require another stadium that would be smaller. MLS isn't interested in a team playing in front of 20K fans in a 65K seat stadium. Even Robert Kraft is looking to build a new stadium for the Revolution as Gillette (which he owns) is too big.

[Cold Warrior]

But practically it is not state taxpayer money. It is a local tax on local visitors.

There will also be a special tax district. From the RJ:

'... the tax district, as envisioned by the committee, would redirect revenue from sales taxes on goods sold on stadium grounds; the live-entertainment tax on tickets for stadium events; and the modified business tax on the payrolls of those employed at the stadium, including professional football players. ... the primary reason for imposing a special tax district on the practice facility is to capture payroll tax revenue from the Raiders.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

There will also be a special tax district. From the RJ:

'... the tax district, as envisioned by the committee, would redirect revenue from sales taxes on goods sold on stadium grounds; the live-entertainment tax on tickets for stadium events; and the modified business tax on the payrolls of those employed at the stadium, including professional football players. ... the primary reason for imposing a special tax district on the practice facility is to capture payroll tax revenue from the Raiders.

That was later modified to a potentially larger district to provide sufficient revenue I believe.

[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by robr2

MLS in Vegas would require another stadium that would be smaller. MLS isn't interested in a team playing in front of 20K fans in a 65K seat stadium. Even Robert Kraft is looking to build a new stadium for the Revolution as Gillette (which he owns) is too big.

Seattle Sounders are doing just fine

[robr2]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

Seattle Sounders are doing just fine

The Sounders are the 1 team out of the 20 MLS teams that can fill a good sized stadium and they only fill about 2/3 of Centurylink Field. Paul Allen owns the Seahawks and the Sounders and gets 100% of the revenue from the stadium and parking and 80% of the exhibition center through First and Goal, his management company, while paying only $850K a year in rent. It makes financial sense for for the Sounders to play at Centurylink.

Every other team (except for Vancouver) playing in a football stadium is looking to build a soccer only facility:

Orlando City FC - Citrus Bowl to downtown stadium under construction
NYC FC - Yankee Stadium to Queens or Brooklyn
DC United - RFK to Buzzard Point DC construction beginning later this year
Revolution - Gillette to a Boston stadium - most likely in the Dorchester neighborhood.