I'm probably a rare find in the Sound Politics community who would prefer not to see the Sonics blow town. But if this story keeps unfolding the way it seems headed, my sorrow may go down to about zilch. Crooked refs = very, very bad for the sport.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 17, 2007 06:08 PM | Email ThisI would also prefer not to see the Sonics blow town. However my preference is not strong enough that I would support extending any public subsidies to keep them here.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 17, 2007 06:25 PMGoodbye and good riddance.
Posted by: steve miller on August 17, 2007 06:39 PMTravis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 17, 2007 08:40 PMIt seems like anyone who whines and cries a lot gets to raid the public treasury willy nilly.
I like the Sonics...but please, lets be hard headed and make them pay through the nose. We have the market. If they want to make 1/3th revenue in Oklahoma, then let them.
What are those? Steroids? Does anyone have any credible evidence that Bonds used steroids?
Steve Miller rightly notes: "Just entertainment, no better than a movie or a show"...
Exactly and IF Bonds used steroids, so what?
Did the city of San FranSICKO buy steroids for Bonds?
The leagues were much more interested in keeping the money rolling that firing a repeat drug offending star. Great lesson pro sports were teaching our children; using illegal drugs is no big deal.
And then there is the character issues with players that the leagues turn a blind eye to. How many out-of-wedlock children to Wilt Chamberlain father? Out-of-wedlock children are the fast track to lifelong poverty for a mother and her children. And now we have groups of people for which maximizing the number of out-of-wedlock children fathered is a honor.
Posted by: rawdibob on August 18, 2007 08:19 AMYou mean other than Bonds himself admitting he 'unknowingly' took The Cream and The Clear?
Why some people continue to defend and/or excuse this cheat is beyond me.
758*
Posted by: jimg on August 18, 2007 10:04 AMPeople have to stop telling us to prove Bonds used steriods - he admitted it. He just hasn't admitted to the extent he actually has done it.
As for the Sonics, if it is economically worth more as a whole to the taxpayers to subsidize a business than it is to not subsidize the business, then they should subsidize it. If after proper input/output analysis, multiplier economics, etc. the numbers point out that they can come out ahead by subsidizing, then they should.
Those people who Travis pointed out as not wanting to pay one dime more in corporate subsidies are just as bad if not worse than the politicians, like Prentice, that he refers to. Only Simpletons have the opinion to not have any taxpayer subsidies at all, they just don't see where sometimes it is more beneficial to the taxpayers to have some targeted subsidies. Whether the NBA is one of those, that should have been studied. But it is quite obvious that subsidies in the form of tax deductions are an intregal part of creating more wealth for the average citizen.
Posted by: Doug on August 18, 2007 11:30 AMTherefore, don't let the door hit you on the behind too hard, sonny.
Posted by: Steven on August 18, 2007 02:31 PMWhy pro sports? Where's the wealth going to be created? Creating additional service industry jobs, short term construction jobs (though with venues going obsolete every ten years maybe construction jobs are really full time and permanent...
I'd think there's more money to be made subsidizing industries that create highly paid jobs, develop significant support companies, etc.
But then, how about treating everyone the same instead and just letting the market do the work.
Pro sports economic model is based on taxpayer subsidies in perpetuity. If Oklahoma wants to spend their tax dollars supporting an NBA team then great.
Our dollars should remain in our pockets where we decide how to spend them.
Posted by: BA on August 18, 2007 05:28 PMWhy pro sports? Where's the wealth going to be created? Creating additional service industry jobs, short term construction jobs (though with venues going obsolete every ten years maybe construction jobs are really full time and permanent...
I'd think there's more money to be made subsidizing industries that create highly paid jobs, develop significant support companies, etc.
But then, how about treating everyone the same instead and just letting the market do the work.
Pro sports economic model is based on taxpayer subsidies in perpetuity. If Oklahoma wants to spend their tax dollars supporting an NBA team then great.
Our dollars should remain in our pockets where we decide how to spend them.
Posted by: BA on August 18, 2007 05:28 PMWould explain a lot to me, including why I stopped watching the NBA years ago after it became apparent to me that the officials were deciding who would win and who would lose.
And if it's happening in the NBA, then why not in the NFL and Major League Baseball? For example, the Seahawks Super Bowl officiating debacle against the Steelers suddenly makes perfect sense.
Just too much money involved in professional sports to expect honesty and fair play. When baseball won't act to purge its league of cheaters like Barry Bonds, especially when they could have preserved the greatest record known to the sport, then there is truly no one able to stand up to the money.
Posted by: MJC on August 18, 2007 05:49 PMThe equations need to be complex. Many states and cities actually have additional taxes charged to professional sports teams and players - an attempt at taxing the people who get the benefit of a service. I actually did an in depth report on wealth creation in regards to the Sonics need for either a new venue, upgrading existing venue, relocating to Tacoma, or relocating Eastside - maybe 15 years ago. In that it wasn't difficult to determine approxiamately how much wealth was created and where and when it would be created.
Creating a multi-jurisdictional tax plan based on that type of data would be a reasonable way to tie the tax revenue to the economic beneficiary of the subsidy. That is first a decision has to be made on whether the benefit outweighs the cost. Then a decision would have to be made to determine how much of the costs can be delegated to the owners. Obviously if the benefits are less than the anticipated costs, then the owners would have to pony up more before the govt. could consider the subsidy.
This is done in a smaller way when new developments are planned out in cities and counties, just to make sure services are paid for in a fair way.
You now call people who believe that it is not the role of government to take from some people and give to others as simpletons?
And then you have the nerve to call others not real republicans!
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 19, 2007 04:27 PM