 }})
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,834
- Reaction score
- 1,183
- Points
- 263
I remember when JKC was footing the bill for Jack Kent Cooke Stadium, it was already in vogue for owners to get their stadiums financed in part or whole by local areas, and to get deals for licensing the name of the field, and all of the stuff that is now par for the course. It still somehow surprises me when I read articles like this:
So, are there any NFL owners who are actually really supportive of their communities? Do you fault owners who do things like the above? Does it balance out a lot of the supposed good they do (I say "supposed" because this is a donation without any benefits, so it seems that some if not all of the other philanthropy may have some self-serving aspects; here is a real opportunity to give something to the community, and they don't take it). I may be missing some other aspects to it too; when they get financed like this, do they also sacrifice the full ownership rights to the venue? My understanding from the JKC building was yes, but these days these guys seem to get a lot of what the ask for, so maybe the modern deal is even more tilted in their favor. - I see that they do pay rent, but the agreements vary wildly. https://professionalshq.com/do-sports-teams-own-their-stadiums-mostly-no-heres-why/
I was always proud of JKC for that aspect. He had his failings as we all do, but man, that he was one of the very rare to do what he did at that time, it really was a feather in our cap to talk about for a short time until Snyder eradicated all pride from our souls. It will be interesting to see how things evolve with Harris and co; I don't blame him if he follows the typical owner pattern, although if they go the depth of this KC stuff... eh. It's really a shame on sports in general, in my opinion.
So, are there any NFL owners who are actually really supportive of their communities? Do you fault owners who do things like the above? Does it balance out a lot of the supposed good they do (I say "supposed" because this is a donation without any benefits, so it seems that some if not all of the other philanthropy may have some self-serving aspects; here is a real opportunity to give something to the community, and they don't take it). I may be missing some other aspects to it too; when they get financed like this, do they also sacrifice the full ownership rights to the venue? My understanding from the JKC building was yes, but these days these guys seem to get a lot of what the ask for, so maybe the modern deal is even more tilted in their favor. - I see that they do pay rent, but the agreements vary wildly. https://professionalshq.com/do-sports-teams-own-their-stadiums-mostly-no-heres-why/
I was always proud of JKC for that aspect. He had his failings as we all do, but man, that he was one of the very rare to do what he did at that time, it really was a feather in our cap to talk about for a short time until Snyder eradicated all pride from our souls. It will be interesting to see how things evolve with Harris and co; I don't blame him if he follows the typical owner pattern, although if they go the depth of this KC stuff... eh. It's really a shame on sports in general, in my opinion.
Last edited:
