Author Topic: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility  (Read 47370 times)

fsu813

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1629
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2022, 09:23:18 PM »
I work in marketing, so I know how percentages are often used to obfuscate the true costs. Comparing dollars to dollars, the numbers don't look as good as what the politicians and NFL are selling. The Bills' stadium was built for the equivalent of $141 million in today's dollars. That means the Buffalo taxpayers are investing more than 6 times as much as they did to originally build the stadium. 

In Jax's case, the Jags stadium was constructed for the equivalent of $225 million in today's dollars. In 2013, the city contributed the equivalent of $76 million in today's dollars for the scoreboards and pools. Then we had the renovation in 2016 for $106 million in today's dollars. That's about $407 million for roughly the Jaguars first decade of existence.

Looking at the next decade or so, we've got the $60 million public investment. Then let's say the Jags evenly split a $1 billion stadium project. That's maybe $560 million over the next decade and that's probably conservative. So let's say $56 million a year in public investment to keep the Jags to make it easier to comprehend.

Do we offset the $56 million price through taxes collected and direct economic impact to the community each year? Does the community benefit enough in other ways to justify the investment? Personally, I'm skeptical, but I'm open to hearing any figures that might change my mind.

You can't put a price on a man's soul, can you?

fsu813

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1629
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2022, 02:33:20 AM »
But seriously. An update on the Titans stadium plans:

"When looking into the potential costs, he said the number came back 'very palatable' at around $500 to $600 million. However, due to high inflation rates, Nihill said when the team recently did a second check-in on the potential costs, the renovation price nearly doubled to $1.2 billion."

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/titans-working-on-plans-to-build-new-stadium-next-to-nissan

Captain Zissou

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4275
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2022, 09:40:25 AM »
In Jax's case, the Jags stadium was constructed for the equivalent of $225 million in today's dollars. In 2013, the city contributed the equivalent of $76 million in today's dollars for the scoreboards and pools. Then we had the renovation in 2016 for $106 million in today's dollars. That's about $407 million for roughly the Jaguars first decade of existence.
First decade?  The stadium was built in 1993 and opened in August of 1995.  That's nearly thirty years.  Talk about obfuscating costs.  Using your example, the city has contributed $15M a year toward facilities for the Jaguars.  I do not know the amount that the city gets in return as far as bed tax and sales tax dollars go, but I will say the city definitely spends more than $15M a year on things that provide less return.

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4087
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2022, 09:50:46 AM »
I mean, we knew this day was coming when the team would need either a new stadium or an extensively renovated one. To me the team committed to an extensive renovation when Lamping said what he said a few months back that the place was structurally sound.

We need to see numbers, but I'm guessing this will be somewhere around $700 Million, and if the Jags offer to split it then that's not a bad deal in my eyes, assuming of course this comes with a lease extension (25-30 years from date of completion). I don't see us going the dome route (plus I doubt the building could support that) and that's fine. My thought is something similar to Miami/Seattle where the seats are shaded but the stadium is otherwise open air. That could require a total rebuild of the upper decks, and I'm guessing if you did that you'd do the suites/press boxes, and you MIGHT add a club level (which seems to be more popular than the way the Jags did their club section).

Ken_FSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2022, 12:26:41 PM »
I work in marketing, so I know how percentages are often used to obfuscate the true costs. Comparing dollars to dollars, the numbers don't look as good as what the politicians and NFL are selling. The Bills' stadium was built for the equivalent of $141 million in today's dollars. That means the Buffalo taxpayers are investing more than 6 times as much as they did to originally build the stadium. 

In Jax's case, the Jags stadium was constructed for the equivalent of $225 million in today's dollars. In 2013, the city contributed the equivalent of $76 million in today's dollars for the scoreboards and pools. Then we had the renovation in 2016 for $106 million in today's dollars. That's about $407 million for roughly the Jaguars first decade of existence.

Looking at the next decade or so, we've got the $60 million public investment. Then let's say the Jags evenly split a $1 billion stadium project. That's maybe $560 million over the next decade and that's probably conservative. So let's say $56 million a year in public investment to keep the Jags to make it easier to comprehend.

Do we offset the $56 million price through taxes collected and direct economic impact to the community each year? Does the community benefit enough in other ways to justify the investment? Personally, I'm skeptical, but I'm open to hearing any figures that might change my mind.

As a fellow marketing/analytics guy who's somewhat close to the numbers through working with the city, I've got a slightly different take on it.

First, to clean up the timeline a little bit and go a little deeper into a few of the investments:

1992 - Before any serious talk of NFL expansion, the City of Jacksonville agreed to nearly $50 million in renovations to Jax Municipal Stadium to keep Georgia-Florida here through 2002.

1993 - In an effort to secure an NFL franchise, the city upped the stadium renovation to $121 million. So really, we can't really say that we spent $121 million to build a stadium for the Jags when we were already committed to a badly needed $50 million renovation already. True incremental number for the original stadium build from an NFL perspective is around $71 million.

That puts us at $71 million in stadium costs to get us through the first 10 years of the franchise's existence.

2004 - The city spends an additional $47 million to upgrade EverBank Field ahead of Super Bowl XXXIX. This is when the Bud Zone, escalators, and original video board were added. Yes, the Jags benefited from the stadium renovations, but the impetus for this spend was to make EverBank Field more attractive for events like Super Bowls and to keep Georgia and Florida happy. So I don't think it's fair to say that this investment was made to keep the Jags in Jacksonville either. Let's call it 50/50 and say $24 million went to the Jags.

So that's $95 million.

2013 - The city commits another $43 million to the scoreboard additions and endzone improvements.

2015 - The city tosses in another $45 million for Daily's Place, Flex Field, and club seat renovations. I won't deduct it, but do keep in mind that the city had been trying to build an amphitheater since the Delaney administration.

So, that's $183 million (non-adjusted for inflation and interest, which is admittedly significant) in "public" money toward keeping the NFL here over the last 26 seasons.

So that's roughly $7 million per year (plus debt service) that we've spent as a city on the stadium in support of the Jags up to this point.

Feels like a steal when you look at the broader NFL landscape and how much other cities are paying.

Especially when you consider how little of that has actually come out of the pockets of the actual Jacksonville's taxpayers.

All of the major improvements have been debt-financed off the back of our local bed tax, meaning that tourists bear a heavier burden for these stadium projects than locals do. 2% straight up goes toward paying off stadium debt, and another 2% was put toward maintenance of the sports complex after the Prime Osborne was paid off.

Additionally, we get $2 million from the state each year as a sale tax rebate for relief with stadium debt; $5 million+ a year from ticket surcharges and parking revenue; over $4 million a year from the Jags in rent; $1 million in concessions, etc.

Now, the stadium isn't entirely self-sustaining and the economics will never make compelling sense on a balance sheet, but - particularly since we upped the bed tax contribution to 4% - we're drawing very little from the general fund to pay for the stadium. More money has probably come out of the general fund to force Toney Sleiman out of the Landing than has come out to pay for the stadium over the last 8 or 9 years.

And, if we were to put $560 million into renovating the stadium, it won't be a $56 million annual public investment over 10 years, it will another long-term debt-financed project paid off primarily by revenue sources that can only be used for similar projects (the bed tax), and from revenue sources that wouldn't exist in the absence of the stadium (ticket surcharges, parking revenue, concessions, escalating rent payments from the Jags, etc.).

Will there still be a high taxpayer cost? Sure, but it's not going to cripple the city.

Realistically, the biggest short-term tradeoff is that a true convention center probably won't be coming any time soon.

Any maybe we'll have to wait on spending $1 billion+ to relocate the jail.

One other thing that's probably worth pointing out when talking about the stadium is that we're not just talking about renovations for the sake of keeping the Jags in Jacksonville for another 20-30 years (FWIW, I've heard the proposed lease extension is going to be closer to 20 years than 30 years). We're also talking about keeping Georgia-Florida long-term, competing for NCAA playoff games and major events, and keeping Jacksonville competitive and relevant in the event space over the coming decades. Less glamorous aspects of the stadium like the electrical and drainage systems are reaching end-of-life and will need to be renovated regardless of what happens with the Jags.

Jacksonville is growing, our bed taxes are only going to continue to increase, and I think it's a bit of a strawman argument when people argue that the full brunt of our stadium share is going to come at the expense of our schools, infrastructure, crime prevention, hospitals, etc.

Hate the NFL monopoly and how the league leaches off its host cities, and the Jags have ruined more Sundays for me than I can count over the last decade, but to me, financing a new stadium tied to a lease extension guaranteed to keep the NFL in Jacksonville through 2050+ is the biggest no brainer out there.

vicupstate

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3865
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2022, 12:56:48 PM »
Ken, thanks for all that background. Very helpful.

As far as the Bed Tax, there is only 2% remaining, which currently is funding tourism marketing, IIRC. If that final 2% is taken for a renovated  stadium, where would that leave the Tourism/CVB? 
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you can never be certain they're authentic." - Abraham Lincoln

Ken_FSU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2022, 02:18:48 PM »
Ken, thanks for all that background. Very helpful.

As far as the Bed Tax, there is only 2% remaining, which currently is funding tourism marketing, IIRC. If that final 2% is taken for a renovated  stadium, where would that leave the Tourism/CVB?

Correct! That 2% for the CVB/Visit Jax won't be going anywhere for at least another 10 years.

But - and would need to look this up to be sure - I believe the original stadium build was financed over 30 years.

So, by the time it's actually time to break ground on major renovations circa 2025, we should hopefully be free and clear of the original debt and able to start putting some of that 2% toward the public share of the next renovations.

Dead horse at this point, but still a shame that the well was so badly poisoned on the potential of selling JEA.

I do think you could make a strong case for (and against) helping the city make a giant leap forward (new stadium, convention center, improved mass transit, etc.) with that influx of cash, versus paying long-term interest on all of these projects.


landfall

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #37 on: March 30, 2022, 03:35:12 PM »
I feel like its only a matter of time until Lot J 2.0 proposals appears on the scene.

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4087
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #38 on: March 30, 2022, 04:10:19 PM »
Dead horse at this point, but still a shame that the well was so badly poisoned on the potential of selling JEA.

I do think you could make a strong case for (and against) helping the city make a giant leap forward (new stadium, convention center, improved mass transit, etc.) with that influx of cash, versus paying long-term interest on all of these projects.

Seriously. I was truly open to the conversation until the $hit hit the fan and you understood the motives behind it. We could have had a serious, honest conversation about it.

In terms of Lot J 2.0.....I think they're going to concentrate on the river but at the right time, I'm totally open to the conversation. What sunk Lot J was the economics behind it; they were awful. It also didn't help that Curry got into it on Twitter with CM Dennis about meeting hookers in Orange Park then Dennis was the deciding vote.

I'd say realistically if they actually developed the former Met Park then they might circle back on Lot J.

fieldafm

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4679
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2022, 04:57:40 PM »
I work in marketing, so I know how percentages are often used to obfuscate the true costs. Comparing dollars to dollars, the numbers don't look as good as what the politicians and NFL are selling. The Bills' stadium was built for the equivalent of $141 million in today's dollars. That means the Buffalo taxpayers are investing more than 6 times as much as they did to originally build the stadium. 

In Jax's case, the Jags stadium was constructed for the equivalent of $225 million in today's dollars. In 2013, the city contributed the equivalent of $76 million in today's dollars for the scoreboards and pools. Then we had the renovation in 2016 for $106 million in today's dollars. That's about $407 million for roughly the Jaguars first decade of existence.

Looking at the next decade or so, we've got the $60 million public investment. Then let's say the Jags evenly split a $1 billion stadium project. That's maybe $560 million over the next decade and that's probably conservative. So let's say $56 million a year in public investment to keep the Jags to make it easier to comprehend.

Do we offset the $56 million price through taxes collected and direct economic impact to the community each year? Does the community benefit enough in other ways to justify the investment? Personally, I'm skeptical, but I'm open to hearing any figures that might change my mind.

As a fellow marketing/analytics guy who's somewhat close to the numbers through working with the city, I've got a slightly different take on it.

First, to clean up the timeline a little bit and go a little deeper into a few of the investments:

1992 - Before any serious talk of NFL expansion, the City of Jacksonville agreed to nearly $50 million in renovations to Jax Municipal Stadium to keep Georgia-Florida here through 2002.

1993 - In an effort to secure an NFL franchise, the city upped the stadium renovation to $121 million. So really, we can't really say that we spent $121 million to build a stadium for the Jags when we were already committed to a badly needed $50 million renovation already. True incremental number for the original stadium build from an NFL perspective is around $71 million.

That puts us at $71 million in stadium costs to get us through the first 10 years of the franchise's existence.

2004 - The city spends an additional $47 million to upgrade EverBank Field ahead of Super Bowl XXXIX. This is when the Bud Zone, escalators, and original video board were added. Yes, the Jags benefited from the stadium renovations, but the impetus for this spend was to make EverBank Field more attractive for events like Super Bowls and to keep Georgia and Florida happy. So I don't think it's fair to say that this investment was made to keep the Jags in Jacksonville either. Let's call it 50/50 and say $24 million went to the Jags.

So that's $95 million.

2013 - The city commits another $43 million to the scoreboard additions and endzone improvements.

2015 - The city tosses in another $45 million for Daily's Place, Flex Field, and club seat renovations. I won't deduct it, but do keep in mind that the city had been trying to build an amphitheater since the Delaney administration.

So, that's $183 million (non-adjusted for inflation and interest, which is admittedly significant) in "public" money toward keeping the NFL here over the last 26 seasons.

So that's roughly $7 million per year (plus debt service) that we've spent as a city on the stadium in support of the Jags up to this point.

Feels like a steal when you look at the broader NFL landscape and how much other cities are paying.

Especially when you consider how little of that has actually come out of the pockets of the actual Jacksonville's taxpayers.

All of the major improvements have been debt-financed off the back of our local bed tax, meaning that tourists bear a heavier burden for these stadium projects than locals do. 2% straight up goes toward paying off stadium debt, and another 2% was put toward maintenance of the sports complex after the Prime Osborne was paid off.

Additionally, we get $2 million from the state each year as a sale tax rebate for relief with stadium debt; $5 million+ a year from ticket surcharges and parking revenue; over $4 million a year from the Jags in rent; $1 million in concessions, etc.

Now, the stadium isn't entirely self-sustaining and the economics will never make compelling sense on a balance sheet, but - particularly since we upped the bed tax contribution to 4% - we're drawing very little from the general fund to pay for the stadium. More money has probably come out of the general fund to force Toney Sleiman out of the Landing than has come out to pay for the stadium over the last 8 or 9 years.

And, if we were to put $560 million into renovating the stadium, it won't be a $56 million annual public investment over 10 years, it will another long-term debt-financed project paid off primarily by revenue sources that can only be used for similar projects (the bed tax), and from revenue sources that wouldn't exist in the absence of the stadium (ticket surcharges, parking revenue, concessions, escalating rent payments from the Jags, etc.).

Will there still be a high taxpayer cost? Sure, but it's not going to cripple the city.

Realistically, the biggest short-term tradeoff is that a true convention center probably won't be coming any time soon.

Any maybe we'll have to wait on spending $1 billion+ to relocate the jail.

One other thing that's probably worth pointing out when talking about the stadium is that we're not just talking about renovations for the sake of keeping the Jags in Jacksonville for another 20-30 years (FWIW, I've heard the proposed lease extension is going to be closer to 20 years than 30 years). We're also talking about keeping Georgia-Florida long-term, competing for NCAA playoff games and major events, and keeping Jacksonville competitive and relevant in the event space over the coming decades. Less glamorous aspects of the stadium like the electrical and drainage systems are reaching end-of-life and will need to be renovated regardless of what happens with the Jags.

Jacksonville is growing, our bed taxes are only going to continue to increase, and I think it's a bit of a strawman argument when people argue that the full brunt of our stadium share is going to come at the expense of our schools, infrastructure, crime prevention, hospitals, etc.

Hate the NFL monopoly and how the league leaches off its host cities, and the Jags have ruined more Sundays for me than I can count over the last decade, but to me, financing a new stadium tied to a lease extension guaranteed to keep the NFL in Jacksonville through 2050+ is the biggest no brainer out there.

Have long maintained that in terms of being an NFL city, Jacksonville has enjoyed 30 years of very frugal decisions thanks to decisions made in the Ed Austin/John Delaney days.  We've enjoyed lobster dinners at Popeyes prices when it comes to the public contributions to being an NFL city. 

Ken doesn't include the suite and general tickets COJ pays for at games when discussing annual costs.... but that doesn't put the finger on the scales at the end of the day.
 
« Last Edit: March 30, 2022, 05:01:25 PM by fieldafm »

I-10east

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #40 on: March 31, 2022, 03:40:44 AM »
IMO the "new stadium mania" in the NFL is very overblown. Mostly everyone already got their freaking stadium. IMO the hype that every stadium has to be a facsimile of ATL's or LV's, costing 2 billion and every stadium has only a "thirty year life span" is all a bunch of BS. Think stadium renovation in most cases (concerning slightly outdated stadiums) not a brand new stadium. 

Lets face it, this new stadium talk isn't about practicality; it's all about raising a NFL team's value. The "perfect modern stadium" with the latest prototyped electronics, a gazillion foot concourses, and window dressing that makes SoFi Stadium and Allegiant Stadium blush; or you can spend alot less money making sense like Miami and just renovate the hell out of the stadium.

TBH, I can only foresee a handful of teams actually getting a stadium in the future.

Buffalo
LA Chargers (possibly to another city in the future; high NFL value in LA but no fans seemingly care)
Washington (one of the worst, if not the worst stadium in the league)
Chicago (Ruined OG Soldier Field; current stadium is way to small for that market)




 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2022, 03:43:37 AM by I-10east »

Fallen Buckeye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2022, 08:53:34 AM »
In Jax's case, the Jags stadium was constructed for the equivalent of $225 million in today's dollars. In 2013, the city contributed the equivalent of $76 million in today's dollars for the scoreboards and pools. Then we had the renovation in 2016 for $106 million in today's dollars. That's about $407 million for roughly the Jaguars first decade of existence.
First decade?  The stadium was built in 1993 and opened in August of 1995.  That's nearly thirty years.  Talk about obfuscating costs.  Using your example, the city has contributed $15M a year toward facilities for the Jaguars.  I do not know the amount that the city gets in return as far as bed tax and sales tax dollars go, but I will say the city definitely spends more than $15M a year on things that provide less return.

***Inserts foot in mouth***

You're right. Should know better than to do math when I'm tired. lol. That makes the numbers much better as far as our past taxpayer contributions as Ken_FSU pointed out. Thanks for all the figures, Ken. I'm obviously not in the know on the specifics. That definitely softens my stance on the issue a bit. I'd love to see a comprehensive third-party accounting of the economic impact vs. the public investment because I'm sure we're still leaving a lot of considerations out.

I am still not keen on the general idea of having tax payers subsidize this business that really doesn't need the help, but it's not much worse than the other money we spend on bringing businesses to Jax I suppose. At best, we essentially break even with the status quo, so I'm inclined to push hard in any future negotiations to limit our exposure without worrying too much about the proposition the Jags leave one day.

landfall

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2022, 09:06:28 AM »

Charles Hunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5117

Captain Zissou

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4275
Re: Jags are having a 'serious' conversation about a new team facility
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2022, 10:03:02 AM »
Lets face it, this new stadium talk isn't about practicality; it's all about raising a NFL team's value. The "perfect modern stadium" with the latest prototyped electronics, a gazillion foot concourses, and window dressing that makes SoFi Stadium and Allegiant Stadium blush; or you can spend alot less money making sense like Miami and just renovate the hell out of the stadium.
I was recently in Nissan stadium and it is in desperate need of replacement.  They tried to go the renovation route, but it just needs too much work.  What was initially a $600M price tag is now $1B, so you might as well start anew.  The state of Tennessee has now stepped in to contribute $500M to the cost of building a new stadium.  As the survey below states, the Jags stadium is structurally sound and to me it is in much better condition than Nissan stadium.  We will be able to do a Miami style renovation, but the Titans don't have that option.