How big is Ray Jays new one going to be?

[charsibb]

http://www.thebaycave.com/2012/11/08/bucs-plan-for-stadium-upgrades-and-possibly-a-roller-coaster/

 

Roller coaster?

I was there for 0-26.

 

We don' need no steenkeen roller coaster!!

[Gismo]

I hear OU is already planning to build a bigger one.

[Paisa el Toro]

 

No taxpayer money to plunder?

Can't believe the Glazers are so cheap they actually want taxpayers to fund a screen update. Its expensive but hardly a bank breaker. What a bunch of wankers. The sooner they aren't the bucs owners, the better.

 

What would be dumber is if the Tampa taxpayer votes to fund another Glazer project with public funds.

[Rocky Style]

i dontblame the glazers

 

taxpayers are dumb

This is sadly true and most of us are taxpayers.

[WWMJD]

 

 

 

No taxpayer money to plunder?

Can't believe the Glazers are so cheap they actually want taxpayers to fund a screen update. Its expensive but hardly a bank breaker. What a bunch of wankers. The sooner they aren't the bucs owners, the better.

 

 

They've been bilking taxpayers out of money for their own personal gain for years, often at the expense of USF directly.  Highway robbery and it's good someone finally told them "no".

 

Not robbers, schrewd businessmen....the dumbazz voters got what they wanted.   How was USF directly affected?

 

 

Money from USF ticket sales, among other things, goes straight into Glazer pockets despite the fact that they didn't contribute a dime to the cost of the stadium.  Surely this is not news to you.  Your "[n]ot robbers, schrewd businessmen" is a humorous point, as you seem to assume those things are mutually exclusive.  They aren't.

[JTrue]

That's the nice thing about democracy, the voters get exactly what they asked for. And USF is getting exactly what they agreed to.

Edited July 11, 2014 by JTrue

[Bear]

a stadium is a terrible investment for the taxpayers

 

today sports teams are billion dollar enterprises

 

 

stadiums should be paid for by teams 100%

 

100% correct

[WWMJD]

No taxpayer money to plunder?

Can't believe the Glazers are so cheap they actually want taxpayers to fund a screen update. Its expensive but hardly a bank breaker. What a bunch of wankers. The sooner they aren't the bucs owners, the better.

They've been bilking taxpayers out of money for their own personal gain for years, often at the expense of USF directly. Highway robbery and it's good someone finally told them "no".

Not robbers, schrewd businessmen....the dumbazz voters got what they wanted. How was USF directly affected?

Money from USF ticket sales, among other things, goes straight into Glazer pockets despite the fact that they didn't contribute a dime to the cost of the stadium. Surely this is not news to you. Your "[n]ot robbers, schrewd businessmen" is a humorous point, as you seem to assume those things are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

I believe USF's money goes straight to the TSA not to the Glazers. Nobody forced USF into it's contract with the TSA.

I believe you are mistaken. This is exactly why this deal was ruled unconstitutional (before they managed to get it pushed through the Florida Supreme Court)... Bucs/Glazers get either all or a cut of everything, including non-Bucs event revenues. History on this is fascinating, and has vindicated the opponents.

Just because they managed to cram all this through an uneducated voting base doesn't mean we should endorse this pillaging. Robber barons of days past often complied with the letter of the law too, at least until those laws were changed.

Edited July 11, 2014 by WWMJD

[WWMJD]

USF leases the RJ from the TSA not the Glazers. The court case had nothing to do with the USF's or it's lease.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bulls/content/usf-extends-raymond-james-lease-through-2016

"USF exercised the option in August 2011, and the Times obtained a copy of the notice sent to the TSA on Thursday. "I look forward to our continued and mutually beneficial partnership," athletic director Doug Woolard wrote in a letter to TSA executive director Eric Hart."

I believe that Doug Woolard knows a lot more about the situation than you do.

Nothing in that cite contradicts a word that I said - USF's LEASE is with the TSA, but the proceeds from that lease (and all other non-Bucs events) goes, in large part, to the Bucs. This is (literally) EXACTLY what the "court case" we are discussing was about.

You are 100% wrong on this, dude. I'm amazed you picked this battle, as you clearly do not know what you're talking about.

Pick your reference at will, whether it's print media:

"[The Bucs] also get naming rights and almost all revenues from tickets, concessions, advertising and parking, as well as a cut of non-Bucs event revenues." (St. Pete Times, 2001)

Or the ACTUAL LEGAL FILINGS in the case at issue:

"[The Bucs receive] the first $2 million of revenues, net of direct operating costs, received by the TSA in the form of rent, license or other fees, ticket sales and other admission charges, parking, concessions, broadcasting and merchandising and any other revenues, plus 50% of all such revenues in excess of $2 million, less sales taxes, surcharges and direct costs. All such revenues are payable to the BUCs within 30 days after the stadium event." (Appellant's Appeal Brief before Supreme Court at 10-11, 4/17/97)

[crambone]

This thread brings the lulz.