Not shocked that Jerry Jones sells out.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15747
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Not shocked that Jerry Jones sells out.

I was impressed when, my Redskin's rival's owner of Dallas built the new stadium, it was simply called "Cowboy's stadium. But, that was short lived and now Jones has sold out like most of the greedy fucking owners and now it is AT&T field.

 

Cut the fucking crap assholes. It is bad enough that you fuckers are rich enough to pay to build the stadiums yourselves without tax payers money.

 

I don't hate you because you are wealthy, I do hate that big business beats the shit out of the public and cant even allow us to enjoy something without acting like a fucking Jahova's witnesses. Meanwhile your stadium workers cant pay their bills.

Where is the clubbing us over the head with adds going to stop? When corporate America forces us to buy toilets and in order to flush them we have to listen to or watch a corporate add? "This flush sponsored by corporate greed".

 

What the fuck happened to allowing viewers to actually enjoy the game?

 

Every pro sport venue should be called the same thing "CORPORATE WHORE STADIUM".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Jerry Jones didn't build

 Jerry Jones didn't build the stadium himself without taxpayer money. Arlington borrowed $325 million to pay for the construction of the stadium. They are also getting a percentage of the naming rights to help them pay off the bonds. The City of Arlington is the actual owner of the stadium and the Cowboys have a contract to operate it. So if the Cowboys move to another city or something they can't sell the stadium.

Large projects like the AT&T stadium require the contributions of many corporations. It cost $1.2 billion and the Cowboys are only worth $2.1 billion (less when the stadium was actually built). One of the most common ways to defray the costs and pay back those loans is to sell the naming rights. Borrowing 1/2 of your networth is a really bad idea no matter how rich you are. Something our federal government doesn't seem to understand. 

And Jerry Jones has absolutely nothing to do with the stadium employees. The people who work ticketing, concessions etc. are all employed by a third party company that specializes in such things. The only control Jerry Jones has over such things is his ability to pick one company to work with over the other and I doubt he personally made such a minor decision. 

Without the "corporate whoring" you don't have the impressive stadiums, the highly paid athletes, the huge amount of tv presence, the cute cheerleaders and the large number of camera angles. You have college football. Ticket sales only account for roughly 1/4 of the NFL's revenue, the rest is made by television deals, advertising and selling their own name for consumer goods. Without advertising, there is no NFL and no football for you to sit and enjoy on Sunday. Like it or not, big money is what provides you the ability to access the entertainment of your choice. Otherwise, you would have to travel to the stadium every time you wanted to watch a game. 

On a side note, some of the newbies on the Cowgirls didn't look terrible. Do they have a chance to be a team that isn't going to embarrass themselves this year? I predicted they were going to be a mess, but on Sunday I saw glimmers that maybe they can get their shit together. Still not going to win the division, but maybe be in competition for a wildcard? Hard to draw too many conclusions from a preseason game. 

  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 http://www.arlingtontx.gov/

 http://www.arlingtontx.gov/cowboys/pdf/FINAL%20Closing%20Agreement.pdf

The contract with the city to build the stadium so you know I am not just making stuff up. The city owns the stadium, paid $325 million. The Cowboys/NFL paid $325 million ($100 million from the NFL, $225 million from the Cowboys) and Jerry Jones paid the rest raised out of private bonds. That would be $550 million that Jerry essentially donated to the city, that greedy SOB because if they default it is on him to pay them.

The city charges $2 million a year in rent on a 30 year rental agreement. They charge 10% on the tickets of every ticket sold for any event. They get $3 on parking for every car. And they get 5% of the revenue from naming rights.   

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15747
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:erry Jones didn't

Quote:
erry Jones didn't build the stadium himself without taxpayer money. Arlington borrowed $325 million to pay for the construction of the stadium. They are also getting a percentage of the naming rights to help them pay off the bonds. The City of Arlington is the actual owner of the stadium and the Cowboys have a contract to operate it. So if the Cowboys move to another city or something they can't sell the stadium.

 

Bullshit, that is legaleaze for blackmail. Jones blackmailed the city into it. And where did I say they didn't use taxpayer money. That is the fucking point, why should the city pay for the stadium? The city does not own the team, he does, Jones should fucking pay for it. If someone buys a house they get a loan and pay the bank, why shouldn't Jones who is a billionaire be subject to doing the same? He got a free stadium off tax payer dime.

Quote:
Arlington borrowed $325 million to pay for the construction of the stadium.

Yea, the city, NOT JONES!

Quote:
That would be $550 million that Jerry essentially donated to the city, that greedy SOB because if they default it is on him to pay them.

Ok seems that if he can donate $550 million then he can afford to pay for the stadium himself. Why the middle man if can pay for something outright? You know why? Because long term if the team sucks or the entire city economy cant support the team, he has a heat shield.  NJ is still paying for the last stadium the tax payers paid for.

Shell games with words don't mean fucking shit. Jones wouldn't have done this if he didn't think he wasn't getting something out of it.

There is nothing stopping Jones from moving the team and sticking the city with a stadium with no team in it.

 

Seriously, don't argue "cut out the middle man" when Jones used the middle man himself. You are not against the middle man, you are against losing.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Bullshit, that

Brian37 wrote:

Bullshit, that is legaleaze for blackmail. Jones blackmailed the city into it.

Hardly. The city begged him to move the Cowboys there and it was put up to a referendum vote. In what way is that blackmail?

 

Brian37 wrote:

And where did I say they didn't use taxpayer money. That is the fucking point, why should the city pay for the stadium? The city does not own the team, he does, Jones should fucking pay for it. If someone buys a house they get a loan and pay the bank, why shouldn't Jones who is a billionaire be subject to doing the same? He got a free stadium off tax payer dime.

Hardly free, he got a 25% discount in exchange for giving up ownership of the stadium and 10% of ticket sales in perpetuity. The deal he made with the city isn't much different than the type of deal he would make with any other corporation. (For example, the deal he made with AT&T)

I agree that governments shouldn't get involved in these types of deals. That is exactly what I have been speaking against for years and you always jump all over me and tell me how important it is that the government build "infrastructure"... which is exactly what a big stadium is. However, the reality is that no city is going to issue permits for a large stadium to be built without getting a piece of the action.

That is how local governments work, they use their power over permits and property tax to force corporations to deal with them. They do the same thing to a wide variety of corporations, offering property tax discounts to encourage them to move in, providing them with "stimulus" loans in exchange for partial ownership and using eminent domain, regulations and government created monopolies to ensure the ventures are profitable. You can't just buy land and build a stadium/factory/airport etc. If you want to eliminate governments power to enter these sorts of deals and force people to sink or fail on their own, welcome to my side vote Libertarian. 

If you support these types of deals and "infrastructure investment", "stimulus" etc. Then I don't see why you suddenly have a problem with Jerry Jones making the deal more profitable for the city. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Ok seems that if he can donate $550 million then he can afford to pay for the stadium himself. Why the middle man if can pay for something outright? You know why? Because long term if the team sucks or the entire city economy cant support the team, he has a heat shield.  NJ is still paying for the last stadium the tax payers paid for.

You try to get a permit to build something as big as a stadium. It doesn't happen without a lot of ass kissing and circle jerking. Eliminate permits and Jones probably would have been happy to shell out an additional $350 mil to be sole owner of the stadium. It certainly would have increased his net worth substantially more having a $1.2 billion asset rather than $800 million in debt with no tangible asset. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Shell games with words don't mean fucking shit. Jones wouldn't have done this if he didn't think he wasn't getting something out of it.

Of course he got something out of it. He has a fixed contract to rent one of the best stadiums ever built for 30 years. Not to mention all sorts of media attention that has made the Cowboys more profitable than the Redskins. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

There is nothing stopping Jones from moving the team and sticking the city with a stadium with no team in it.

 

You mean besides the $900 million he invested in the stadium? It would be pretty foolish to make that kind of investment and then leave it. That is the kind of idiocy only the federal government would do. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Seriously, don't argue "cut out the middle man" when Jones used the middle man himself. You are not against the middle man, you are against losing. 

I would have voted against the stadium if I lived there and no doubt attacked because the stadium is such a good investment. Then people like you would be in my face going "See! See! The city is paying off the loan 10 years early and has all this extra revenue coming in! Isn't it great when government and private business work together? Let's invest in green energy!" Because as much as I dislike government and business making deals, it is irrefutable that this particular deal has been very profitable for the city.

If you want to cut out all government/business deals you have an ally with me. That is radically different than what the politicians you support have been doing though. I just find your OP humorous that what makes you mad is that Jones changed the name of the stadium and somehow that is what constitutes as "selling out".

You are the one voting for the politicians that create these types of systems, not me. The next major government/business marriage is health insurance. You voted for it, not me. So don't bitch at me when you see similar deals happening as insurance companies try to get approved for the exchanges.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15747
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Bullshit, that is legaleaze for blackmail. Jones blackmailed the city into it.

Hardly. The city begged him to move the Cowboys there and it was put up to a referendum vote. In what way is that blackmail?

 

Brian37 wrote:

And where did I say they didn't use taxpayer money. That is the fucking point, why should the city pay for the stadium? The city does not own the team, he does, Jones should fucking pay for it. If someone buys a house they get a loan and pay the bank, why shouldn't Jones who is a billionaire be subject to doing the same? He got a free stadium off tax payer dime.

Hardly free, he got a 25% discount in exchange for giving up ownership of the stadium and 10% of ticket sales in perpetuity. The deal he made with the city isn't much different than the type of deal he would make with any other corporation. (For example, the deal he made with AT&T)

I agree that governments shouldn't get involved in these types of deals. That is exactly what I have been speaking against for years and you always jump all over me and tell me how important it is that the government build "infrastructure"... which is exactly what a big stadium is. However, the reality is that no city is going to issue permits for a large stadium to be built without getting a piece of the action.

That is how local governments work, they use their power over permits and property tax to force corporations to deal with them. They do the same thing to a wide variety of corporations, offering property tax discounts to encourage them to move in, providing them with "stimulus" loans in exchange for partial ownership and using eminent domain, regulations and government created monopolies to ensure the ventures are profitable. You can't just buy land and build a stadium/factory/airport etc. If you want to eliminate governments power to enter these sorts of deals and force people to sink or fail on their own, welcome to my side vote Libertarian. 

If you support these types of deals and "infrastructure investment", "stimulus" etc. Then I don't see why you suddenly have a problem with Jerry Jones making the deal more profitable for the city. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Ok seems that if he can donate $550 million then he can afford to pay for the stadium himself. Why the middle man if can pay for something outright? You know why? Because long term if the team sucks or the entire city economy cant support the team, he has a heat shield.  NJ is still paying for the last stadium the tax payers paid for.

You try to get a permit to build something as big as a stadium. It doesn't happen without a lot of ass kissing and circle jerking. Eliminate permits and Jones probably would have been happy to shell out an additional $350 mil to be sole owner of the stadium. It certainly would have increased his net worth substantially more having a $1.2 billion asset rather than $800 million in debt with no tangible asset. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Shell games with words don't mean fucking shit. Jones wouldn't have done this if he didn't think he wasn't getting something out of it.

Of course he got something out of it. He has a fixed contract to rent one of the best stadiums ever built for 30 years. Not to mention all sorts of media attention that has made the Cowboys more profitable than the Redskins. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

There is nothing stopping Jones from moving the team and sticking the city with a stadium with no team in it.

 

You mean besides the $900 million he invested in the stadium? It would be pretty foolish to make that kind of investment and then leave it. That is the kind of idiocy only the federal government would do. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Seriously, don't argue "cut out the middle man" when Jones used the middle man himself. You are not against the middle man, you are against losing. 

I would have voted against the stadium if I lived there and no doubt attacked because the stadium is such a good investment. Then people like you would be in my face going "See! See! The city is paying off the loan 10 years early and has all this extra revenue coming in! Isn't it great when government and private business work together? Let's invest in green energy!" Because as much as I dislike government and business making deals, it is irrefutable that this particular deal has been very profitable for the city.

If you want to cut out all government/business deals you have an ally with me. That is radically different than what the politicians you support have been doing though. I just find your OP humorous that what makes you mad is that Jones changed the name of the stadium and somehow that is what constitutes as "selling out".

You are the one voting for the politicians that create these types of systems, not me. The next major government/business marriage is health insurance. You voted for it, not me. So don't bitch at me when you see similar deals happening as insurance companies try to get approved for the exchanges.  

Stop, what a load of fucking crap. You are the "private business guy". Ok, you are claiming it is a good investment. Fine. Then you go on to say "he" the owner basically donated 550 million of his own dollars. Again fine. But then you tell me the city NOT HIM, took out a loan for 300 plus million dollars. I am not good at math, but it seems to me 550 million is slightly bigger than 300. If you are the "cut out the middle man" guy then why couldn't he simply skip government and spend that 550 without them? Again, you are not against government, you are against government when you don't get what you want.

Of course it is a good investment FOR JERRY. The part you don't want to explain, is that the future IS NOT given. So if something goes wrong economically, do you really think Jones would take a long term contract without legaleaze to let him off the hook if things go south?

He is pulling the same "Golden parachute" crap CEOs get away with. He wouldn't have made this deal if his skin was actually in the game.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15747
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You are the one voting

Quote:
You are the one voting for the politicians that create these types of systems, not me. The next major government/business marriage is health insurance. You voted for it, not me. So don't bitch at me when you see similar deals happening as insurance companies try to get approved for the exchanges. 

You do know Teddy Roosevelt was a REPUBLICAN? And one I would have voted for. And I am sure he'd be on your side "COUGH".

 

Fuck you dude. Again, you are not against government and business mixing  anymore than I am, , as if you could separate the two, you damned well know in a free society you cant. You simply don't like it when you lose.

My mom who is a retired teacher got a stint put in her Aorta. If it were not for her state and federal benefits, she would not have gotten it. People like you would say "fuck you if you cant pay". Right, because what the fuck has a public school teacher ever done for society.  Your attitude affects people I love and know and deserve the care. So please take my "FUCK YOU" personally.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Stop, what a

Brian37 wrote:

Stop, what a load of fucking crap. You are the "private business guy". Ok, you are claiming it is a good investment. Fine. Then you go on to say "he" the owner basically donated 550 million of his own dollars. Again fine. But then you tell me the city NOT HIM, took out a loan for 300 plus million dollars. I am not good at math, but it seems to me 550 million is slightly bigger than 300. If you are the "cut out the middle man" guy then why couldn't he simply skip government and spend that 550 without them? Again, you are not against government, you are against government when you don't get what you want.

Because you can't just build a stadium without the governments approval. In most cities you can't even build a fucking deck. Do you have any clue how difficult it is to get approved for the project the size of a stadium? Like I said, you aren't getting approval to build that kind of thing without the government getting their grubby hands on a piece. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Of course it is a good investment FOR JERRY. The part you don't want to explain, is that the future IS NOT given. So if something goes wrong economically, do you really think Jones would take a long term contract without legaleaze to let him off the hook if things go south?

Well he has $900 million in debt plus a 30 year contract with the city, so yeah he is on the hook. Pretty safe hook though, the Cowboys are a pretty sure bet for him to make back his investment within 10 years. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

He is pulling the same "Golden parachute" crap CEOs get away with. He wouldn't have made this deal if his skin was actually in the game.

$900 million isn't having skin in the game?!?!? How much is?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You do know

Brian37 wrote:

You do know Teddy Roosevelt was a REPUBLICAN? And one I would have voted for. And I am sure he'd be on your side "COUGH".

Teddy on my side?!?!? You obviously didn't read my blog. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/history_us_economic_law_part_5_public_works

http://www.rationalresponders.com/history_us_economic_law_part_6_monopoly

http://www.rationalresponders.com/history_us_economic_law_part_7_regulating_railroads

http://www.rationalresponders.com/history_us_economic_law_part_8_regulating_food

Teddy was one of the most regulating Presidents in history, perhaps only exceeded by Franklin. And as I have pointed out to you a million times, I am not a Republican. I do not vote Republican and I do not plan to do so anytime in the near future.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Fuck you dude. Again, you are not against government and business mixing  anymore than I am, , as if you could separate the two, you damned well know in a free society you cant. You simply don't like it when you lose.

Where have I ever supported mixing government and private business?

 

Brian37 wrote:

My mom who is a retired teacher got a stint put in her Aorta. If it were not for her state and federal benefits, she would not have gotten it. People like you would say "fuck you if you cant pay". Right, because what the fuck has a public school teacher ever done for society. 

Ridiculous. There are plenty of charitable organizations that are willing to help with those types of things. I never said "fuck you if you can't pay" I have advocated a system where the money to pay for such things is given voluntarily and directly to the people who provide the service instead of taken involuntarily and filtered through layers of government bureaucracy so that only a small portion makes it to your mom. Do you know why it is a hell of a lot cheaper to do major surgeries on animals than on humans? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Your attitude affects people I love and know and deserve the care. So please take my "FUCK YOU" personally.

Your idiotic and blind faith that government magically makes everything it touches better harms every person in this country including yourself. Ironically it harms you more than it does me because I have the option to avoid fucked up government systems and pay cash for things like medical care. I lose money which is an annoyance. You very well might find that government decided you or your mom aren't worth the expense.

I find it incredibly sad that so many people put themselves in a position where they are completely dependent on a government to take care of their basic needs. Do you really believe that the government gives a flying fuck about you personally? To them you are a statistic and a vote, nothing more. Is that really who you want to trust with your mom's health? With yours? If you do you are a fool. And there are going to be a lot of fools who are going to get substandard care and die earlier than necessary. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X