PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf Opposes "Cubs Tax" to keep Cubs in Mesa


Viva Medias B's
02-05-2010, 08:17 PM
In order the keep the Cubs' spring training home in Mesa, there is a plan for the State of Arizona to fund an $84M complex there. That basically require a tax attached to every Cactus League ticket (inside and outside of Mesa), and Jerry Reinsdorf is opposed (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/02/will-cubs-tax-hurt-chance-of-staying-in-mesa.html) to that.

DumpJerry
02-05-2010, 08:23 PM
Why should the other teams pay? They did not get a similar subsidy to stay or come to Arizona.

Frater Perdurabo
02-05-2010, 08:26 PM
This is patently ridiculous. Why should other teams subsidize a new stadium complex for the Cubs?

Railsplitter
02-05-2010, 08:40 PM
What's next, Florida teams taxed to pay for the Yankees' ST facility?

LongLiveFisk
02-05-2010, 09:00 PM
I don't blame him. Sounds like total bull**** to me.

JB98
02-05-2010, 09:15 PM
All Cactus League teams not named the Cubs oppose this nonsense, and rightfully so.

I'm sure the White Sox will be portrayed as the ringleaders by the Cubune, though.

DrCrawdad
02-05-2010, 10:01 PM
In order the keep the Cubs' spring training home in Mesa, there is a plan for the State of Arizona to fund an $84M complex there. That basically require a tax attached to every Cactus League ticket (inside and outside of Mesa), and Jerry Reinsdorf is opposed to that.

The link is a to a tea party news story?

:scratch:

Mod Edit: He fixed his link, but the one in your quotes was still to the political story. I removed it.

Viva Medias B's
02-05-2010, 10:03 PM
The link is a to a tea party news story?

:scratch:

Oops! Sorry! My bad! I just fixed the link.

TDog
02-05-2010, 10:56 PM
Of course, it is ridiculous. Of course it shouldn't pass. It probably will, though, and it doesn't have as much to do with the Cubs as it does with the way Arizona leaders view threats to the Cactus League.

In the 1990s, when it looked like the Cactus League could be in serious trouble, people of Yuma, then-spring home of the Padres (San Diego being only 160 miles away on I-8, the Padres got year-round support from Yuma), support tax breaks for baseball teams in order to keep teams from moving to Florida. The first team to take advantage of the state support was the Padres, who moved from Yuma to metro Phoenix. There was no way the Padres' new ownership was ever going to move their spring training to Florida, although they did deprive their local fans of spring training day trips.

Considering how overpriced Cactus League ticket prices already are (there are weekend seats to see the Sox in Glendale for $100) my guess is that state leaders believe people won't notice a Cubs surcharge around the state, or county as things are evolving. Stop going to spring training games if the concept of a Cubs tax offends you.

Reinsdorf's complaints would be more justified if he had kept the White Sox spring home in Tucson.

Dub25
02-05-2010, 11:25 PM
I love reading the comments after the article, especially by our knucklehead neighbors of the North Side team. All I will say is this. For whatever reason the Cubs are popular even though they are on par with the L.A. Clippers. With all of the Cubbie love revenue they bring in, shouldn't 85 mil be pocket change? They gave that much to a bunny hoppin' left fielder.

AZChiSoxFan
02-05-2010, 11:28 PM
Of course, it is ridiculous. Of course it shouldn't pass. It probably will, though, and it doesn't have as much to do with the Cubs as it does with the way Arizona leaders view threats to the Cactus League.

In the 1990s, when it looked like the Cactus League could be in serious trouble, people of Yuma, then-spring home of the Padres (San Diego being only 160 miles away on I-8, the Padres got year-round support from Yuma), support tax breaks for baseball teams in order to keep teams from moving to Florida. The first team to take advantage of the state support was the Padres, who moved from Yuma to metro Phoenix. There was no way the Padres' new ownership was ever going to move their spring training to Florida, although they did deprive their local fans of spring training day trips.

Considering how overpriced Cactus League ticket prices already are (there are weekend seats to see the Sox in Glendale for $100) my guess is that state leaders believe people won't notice a Cubs surcharge around the state, or county as things are evolving. Stop going to spring training games if the concept of a Cubs tax offends you.

Reinsdorf's complaints would be more justified if he had kept the White Sox spring home in Tucson.

Thanks for this helpful comment. :rolleyes:

TDog
02-06-2010, 12:07 AM
Thanks for this helpful comment. :rolleyes:

Spring training games in Glendale are more expensive than NHL games in Glendale. And not only do the spring training games not count, the spring training teams aren't playing to win.

roylestillman
02-06-2010, 12:14 AM
Far be it for me to come to the defense of the Cubbies, but before The Chairman starts moaning about subsidies he should remeber that he and the Dodgers got about $150 million from the various State agencies to build Camelback Ranch.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/cactus/articles/2009/12/16/20091216gl-ballpark1212-ON.html

Noneck
02-06-2010, 12:18 AM
Spring training games in Glendale are more expensive than NHL games in Glendale. And not only do the spring training games not count, the spring training teams aren't playing to win.

I am with you on this whole spring training thing these days. I haven't been to spring training since the Payne Park days so I am in shock when I hear what tickets cost. I really couldnt care less what happens with this situation, it wont come from my pocket and it wont have an effect if the Sox have a good year or not.

Sam Spade
02-06-2010, 05:07 AM
'Let the cubs pay the cubs tax. I pay the homer tax. '

Steelrod
02-06-2010, 07:47 AM
Reinsdorf's complaints would be more justified if he had kept the White Sox spring home in Tucson.[/QUOTE]

The Sox paid over 5 million to leave Tucson.

doublem23
02-06-2010, 07:50 AM
Reinsdorf's complaints would be more justified if he had kept the White Sox spring home in Tucson.

Why?

I don't recall every other MLB team in Arizona being forced to tax their fans to pay for Camelback Ranch.

veeter
02-06-2010, 09:46 AM
I think this Ricketts guy is in way over his head. Inexplicable cubbie arrogance aside, he may know his family business, but he's dealing with some very smart people, who own baseball teams. They're going to make him look foolish.

Jpgr91
02-06-2010, 10:21 AM
So for everyone that opposes this, I am assuming you all feel the same way about the tax dollars that were used to keep the Sox in Chicago and build Comiskey?

cws05champ
02-06-2010, 10:35 AM
So for everyone that opposes this, I am assuming you all feel the same way about the tax dollars that were used to keep the Sox in Chicago and build Comiskey?
Apples to Oranges...They didn't tax all other teams ticket prices around the league in order to keep the Sox in Chicago. They tax people in the Chicago area because of the financial benefit that the Sox bring to Chicago.

Red Barchetta
02-06-2010, 11:43 AM
Apples to Oranges...They didn't tax all other teams ticket prices around the league in order to keep the Sox in Chicago. They tax people in the Chicago area because of the financial benefit that the Sox bring to Chicago.


Plus a big part of the financing came from the hotel tax which got passed on to tourists visiting Chicago.

Waysouthsider
02-06-2010, 11:45 AM
Wow, I thought I had lots of reasons to hate the sCrUBs already, but did anyone see the deal in the Cubune today about them trying to get everyone in cactus to support their new facility with a surcharge? Who the hell do they think they are anyway? I'm not sure why they deserve a handout....

Maybe they ought to get us to subsidize some real toilets for their old northside dump as well while were at it....:scratch:

Hitmen77
02-06-2010, 11:55 AM
This is patently ridiculous. Why should other teams subsidize a new stadium complex for the Cubs?

It is ridiculous. I know teams get public funding for facilities all the time, but to have the fans of all the other teams pay a tax just for the Cubs is unbelievable.

I love reading the comments after the article, especially by our knucklehead neighbors of the North Side team. All I will say is this. For whatever reason the Cubs are popular even though they are on par with the L.A. Clippers. With all of the Cubbie love revenue they bring in, shouldn't 85 mil be pocket change? They gave that much to a bunny hoppin' left fielder.

Exactly. The Cubs are one of the worst offenders of driving up salaries and payrolls in the league. They were rich enough to give Soriano a blank check and buy other free agents to buy themselves back into contention the last few season. They can spend their own freaking money for Mesa!

voodoochile
02-06-2010, 11:57 AM
Wow, I thought I had lots of reasons to hate the sCrUBs already, but did anyone see the deal in the Cubune today about them trying to get everyone in cactus to support their new facility with a surcharge? Who the hell do they think they are anyway? I'm not sure why they deserve a handout....

Maybe they ought to get us to subsidize some real toilets for their old northside dump as well while were at it....:scratch:

Two things...

1) We try not to throw around politically charged words like socialist around these parts. Though you are free to do so on the Politically Incorrect forum which is separate but still run by WSI.

2) All flubbie posts go in WTS, it's a good idea to check it first before starting a new thread in a different forum.

Thanks and NBD...

TDog
02-06-2010, 12:11 PM
The Sox paid over 5 million to leave Tucson.

Camelback Ranch wouldn't have been possible without help from Arizona taxpayers.

Really, it's more fair to tax baseball fans to keep a baseball team in Maricopa County than it was to use the general fund, to which people from Yuma contributed, to move a team from Yuma to Maricopa County. It would be more fair to have taxed people seeing baseball in Milwaukee or buying licensed baseball products in Milwaukee to pay for Miller Park than it was to add a sales tax in six counties in southeast Wisconsin. No doubt that tax affected Cubs fans as well as people who never had any intention of seeing baseball in Milwaukee. Adding a tax to all spring games in Arizona is probably the least unfair of alternatives, considering that limiting such a tax to Mesa baseball wouldn't be sufficient.

Camelback Ranch is a great facility, and a Cubs surcharge wouldn't affect attendance, which probably doesn't affect the White Sox much anyway. If you're complaining about paying a surcharge added to help keep the Cactus League alive, I have to wonder why you weren't complaining about the pre-surcharge ticket prices. If the price of tickets is going to keep people away from Cactus League ballparks, that ship would have sailed.

Jpgr91
02-06-2010, 12:37 PM
Apples to Oranges...They didn't tax all other teams ticket prices around the league in order to keep the Sox in Chicago. They tax people in the Chicago area because of the financial benefit that the Sox bring to Chicago.

One could make the argument that keeping the Cubs in Arizona does provide a financial benefit to the area. They are also passing the tax on to those that use the product (Spring Training Games) rather than rolling it into something like a Hotel Tax where everyone is affected.

It is ridiculous. I know teams get public funding for facilities all the time, but to have the fans of all the other teams pay a tax just for the Cubs is unbelievable.

How is this any different than the White Sox expecting anyone who stays in a Chicago Hotel to pay for the building of Comiskey?

voodoochile
02-06-2010, 12:51 PM
How is this any different than the White Sox expecting anyone who stays in a Chicago Hotel to pay for the building of Comiskey?


Because it's the flubs... duh...

I'm actually surprised Reinsy is weighing with negative input. I thought the owners were supposed to stick together when it came to sucking every penny they could out of people...

Frater Perdurabo
02-06-2010, 02:16 PM
Arizona spring training will collapse if the Cubs move to Florida.

The proof of that is the plain and simple fact that the game of baseball will cease to exist if the Cubs were to fold.

And for further proof, the universe revolves around 1060 W. Addison.

:rolleyes:

Taliesinrk
02-06-2010, 02:37 PM
Camelback Ranch wouldn't have been possible without help from Arizona taxpayers.

Really, it's more fair to tax baseball fans to keep a baseball team in Maricopa County than it was to use the general fund, to which people from Yuma contributed, to move a team from Yuma to Maricopa County. It would be more fair to have taxed people seeing baseball in Milwaukee or buying licensed baseball products in Milwaukee to pay for Miller Park than it was to add a sales tax in six counties in southeast Wisconsin. No doubt that tax affected Cubs fans as well as people who never had any intention of seeing baseball in Milwaukee. Adding a tax to all spring games in Arizona is probably the least unfair of alternatives, considering that limiting such a tax to Mesa baseball wouldn't be sufficient.

Camelback Ranch is a great facility, and a Cubs surcharge wouldn't affect attendance, which probably doesn't affect the White Sox much anyway. If you're complaining about paying a surcharge added to help keep the Cactus League alive, I have to wonder why you weren't complaining about the pre-surcharge ticket prices. If the price of tickets is going to keep people away from Cactus League ballparks, that ship would have sailed.

I agree for the most part with the first two paragraphs... The problem is that I think the whole thing is wrong.

doublem23
02-06-2010, 02:43 PM
Camelback Ranch wouldn't have been possible without help from Arizona taxpayers.

Really, it's more fair to tax baseball fans to keep a baseball team in Maricopa County than it was to use the general fund, to which people from Yuma contributed, to move a team from Yuma to Maricopa County. It would be more fair to have taxed people seeing baseball in Milwaukee or buying licensed baseball products in Milwaukee to pay for Miller Park than it was to add a sales tax in six counties in southeast Wisconsin. No doubt that tax affected Cubs fans as well as people who never had any intention of seeing baseball in Milwaukee. Adding a tax to all spring games in Arizona is probably the least unfair of alternatives, considering that limiting such a tax to Mesa baseball wouldn't be sufficient.

Camelback Ranch is a great facility, and a Cubs surcharge wouldn't affect attendance, which probably doesn't affect the White Sox much anyway. If you're complaining about paying a surcharge added to help keep the Cactus League alive, I have to wonder why you weren't complaining about the pre-surcharge ticket prices. If the price of tickets is going to keep people away from Cactus League ballparks, that ship would have sailed.

That's completely backward, do you really think the people who live in Glendale that helped pay for Camelback Ranch don't benefit by the month-long tourism draw that is in their town every year? Or the fact that they have a primo baseball facility in their back yard now? Not to get political, but while I generally am not a fan of taxpayers building stadiums for millionaire owners, it's a lot more fair than imposing a tax on every other team's fanbase. How would you have reacted if MLB added an extra dollar or two to every baseball ticket sold around the league in 2008 to finance New Yankee Stadium?

Hitmen77
02-06-2010, 02:48 PM
How is this any different than the White Sox expecting anyone who stays in a Chicago Hotel to pay for the building of Comiskey?


http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2424698#post2424698

Somebody already responded to your comment. If you're just going to ignore his rebuttal and repeat the exact same question again as if you had no idea why anyone thinks the situations are different, then that's your problem. I'm not going to waste my time replying with what several people have clearly said in this thread already.

Hitmen77
02-06-2010, 02:51 PM
That's completely backward, do you really think the people who live in Glendale that helped pay for Camelback Ranch don't benefit by the month-long tourism draw that is in their town every year? Or the fact that they have a primo baseball facility in their back yard now? Not to get political, but while I generally am not a fan of taxpayers building stadiums for millionaire owners, it's a lot more fair than imposing a tax on every other team's fanbase. How would you have reacted if MLB added an extra dollar or two to every baseball ticket sold around the league in 2008 to finance New Yankee Stadium?

but, but....tax dollars paid for new Comiskey! Therefore, it makes perfect sense to specifically tax Sox ticket sales to fund a new Cubs facility.

TDog
02-06-2010, 02:52 PM
I agree for the most part with the first two paragraphs... The problem is that I think the whole thing is wrong.

If it makes you feel better,the money wouldn't be going to the Cubs. It would be going to maintain a healthy Cactus League.

Jpgr91
02-06-2010, 03:47 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2424698#post2424698

Somebody already responded to your comment. If you're just going to ignore his rebuttal and repeat the exact same question again as if you had no idea why anyone thinks the situations are different, then that's your problem. I'm not going to waste my time replying with what several people have clearly said in this thread already.

So you will "waste your time" by typing this response, but you won’t "waste your time" by answering a question that was posed to you? That does not seem to make very much sense. Also, I did reply I did reply to that post in post #26 by saying... "One could make the argument that keeping the Cubs in Arizona does provide a financial benefit to the area. They are also passing the tax on to those that use the product (Spring Training Games) rather than rolling it into something like a Hotel Tax where everyone is affected."

Back to the original point, if you have an answer as to why taxing tickets that is worse than taxing everyone that stays at a Chicago Hotel I would be interested to hear it.

Frater Perdurabo
02-06-2010, 04:40 PM
If it makes you feel better,the money wouldn't be going to the Cubs. It would be going to maintain a healthy Cactus League.

How are the Cubs necessary to maintain a "healthy Cactus League?"

What other teams have threatened to follow the Cubs to Florida?

kobo
02-06-2010, 04:48 PM
If it makes you feel better,the money wouldn't be going to the Cubs. It would be going to maintain a healthy Cactus League.
No, the money is going to the Cubs so that they can build a new facility. It's not being spread out to all of the other teams in the Cactus League.

samurai_sox
02-06-2010, 04:54 PM
'Let the cubs pay the cubs tax. I pay the homer tax. '

"Thats the HOMEOWNER'S tax"

pmck003
02-06-2010, 05:23 PM
Back to the original point, if you have an answer as to why taxing tickets that is worse than taxing everyone that stays at a Chicago Hotel I would be interested to hear it.


Presumably the public subsidization of a stadium helps the economy of the entire city. Thus the hotel tax would be similar to any other tax that would go towards supporting Chicago's infanstructure. (This is my understanding of how they justify these taxes - I'm not trying to argue if this is fair or not)

The way the Cubs are proposing their tax is that it will benefit the whole Cactus league - i.e the White Sox would benefit from the Cubs continued presence. If JR doesn't agree, how is this tax fair for the Sox? If the beneficiaries of the tax are going to be the city and citizens of Glendale/Phoenix, shouldn't they be the ones footing the bill? I would think the D-Backs and Rockies and their fans would have the most gripe. Why should they be supporting a stadium 100 miles away?

Edit: More so the citizens of Tuscon who patronize the D-Backs and Rockies are who might have the biggest problem with the tax.

doublem23
02-06-2010, 06:19 PM
If it makes you feel better,the money wouldn't be going to the Cubs. It would be going to maintain a healthy Cactus League.

What the hell ever. Over the past decade, look at the way teams have been leaving Florida for Arizona. More space, less rain, and less travel since all teams are located in the Phoenix area instead of spread out all over Florida.

If the Cubs wanted to do something stupid like go back to Florida, the Cactus League could have probably found 3 teams to take their place.

TDog
02-06-2010, 07:49 PM
What the hell ever. Over the past decade, look at the way teams have been leaving Florida for Arizona. More space, less rain, and less travel since all teams are located in the Phoenix area instead of spread out all over Florida.

If the Cubs wanted to do something stupid like go back to Florida, the Cactus League could have probably found 3 teams to take their place.

Arizona leaders certainly believe that the Cubs moving to Florida would damage the Cactus League. Some still remember how the Indians moving to Florida almost killed it. At least, the governor and enough law makers believed the Cactus League was dying before pumping money into it. Things turned around, not because Arizona is a better place to train, which I believe it is, but because the state and communities have ended up giving baseball teams everything they want, something Florida hasn't done. Some Arizona communities have reached the conclusion that baseball teams are more suited to pay for such things, but those are the communities that have lost or have never gained a team to host for spring training.

Spring training attendance doesn't mean anything, but without the Cubs, the White Sox would draw appreciably less. Most teams that train in the state of Maricopa could probably say that.

For the record, I am opposed to the Cubs getting any sort of help in improving their spring training facilities, although the reality is they are going to get it, either in Florida or Arizona. For the record, I was opposed to the public support that went to Camelback Ranch and the public support that went to the Kino Sports Complex in Tucson. But I believe it would be better to add a surcharge to Cactus League admissions than it would to spread it around the county in the form of a general sales tax. Considering that the Cactus League no longer has teams in Pinal and Yuma counties, and every indication is that there won't be any Cactus League presence in Pima County before long, there is no way you can spread the tax burden around the state.

What better way to make sure only people interested in the Cactus League face the increasing taxation demands of the Cactus League than to assess a tax on people attending Cactus League games? They should probably tax concessions too. The community groups that sponsor spring training would suffer, but the goal is to give Maricopa County as close to a monopoly on baseball spring training as possible.

Red Barchetta
02-06-2010, 08:03 PM
What the hell ever. Over the past decade, look at the way teams have been leaving Florida for Arizona. More space, less rain, and less travel since all teams are located in the Phoenix area instead of spread out all over Florida.

If the Cubs wanted to do something stupid like go back to Florida, the Cactus League could have probably found 3 teams to take their place.

Actually there is talk among MLB and especially trainers that teams have prepared better out of Florida. Even Lou Pinella mentioned that his pitchers were ready faster when his teams trained in Florida.

There is very little rain during March & April so poor weather is not a factor. I think the Cubs factor played into the Yankees-Cubs-Red Sox fanbase being some of the largest in the league.

I do think it's more of an east coast thing with the Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Pirates, Phillies and Rays all training in Florida. The Twins are also here and they seem to be the exception to the rule as most midwest teams have moved to Arizona.

I plan to go see the Orioles this spring in Sarasota as they have replaced the Reds who moved to Arizona. Too bad the SOX still aren't here is Sarasota. For me, life would be good! :smile:

MarySwiss
02-06-2010, 08:17 PM
What the hell ever. Over the past decade, look at the way teams have been leaving Florida for Arizona. More space, less rain, and less travel since all teams are located in the Phoenix area instead of spread out all over Florida.

If the Cubs wanted to do something stupid like go back to Florida, the Cactus League could have probably found 3 teams to take their place.

The Cubs are a huge draw out here, even though I personally have always considered Ho-Ho-Kam one of the worst places in the Valley to attend a spring training game. Residential neighborhood, horrible traffic backup, murder to get to and out of. Even though I live in the East Valley and Mesa is right next door, whenever I was insane enough--or had guests who were insane enough--to want to attend a Cubs/Sox game, we always drove down to TEP or--last year--out to Glendale. And Doub, once the D'Backs and Rockies relocate to the Phoenix area, your distance argument becomes undeniable, IMO.

Sure, the Cubs could relocate to Florida. But, again IMO, they would shoot themselves in the foot by doing so. Out here, they're the "Lovable Losers." Every spring just before the onset of spring training, the Arizona Republic gives them coverage to a point that makes me want to hurl. In Florida, they would take a back seat to the Yanks and Red Sox--at the minimum. I think they are well aware of this.

I'll bet they get the funding for their stadium somehow. But Cactus League tax or no tax, Mesa voters still need to approve an additional tax. Should be interesting, in this economy.

We'll see.

MarySwiss
02-07-2010, 11:10 AM
FYI, there's a poll running on AZCentral.com asking whether the legislature should approve the measure to increase tourist taxes for a new Chicago Cubs spring training stadium. Currently, it's showing about 2/3rds "no."

DumpJerry
02-07-2010, 11:18 AM
FYI, there's a poll running on AZCentral.com asking whether the legislature should approve the measure to increase tourist taxes for a new Chicago Cubs spring training stadium. Currently, it's showing about 2/3rds "no."
Why? The good people of Arizona won't be paying it. It won't stop people from coming to ST games since there is no alternative for seeing your team in ST.

MarySwiss
02-07-2010, 11:41 AM
Why? The good people of Arizona won't be paying it. It won't stop people from coming to ST games since there is no alternative for seeing your team in ST.

Well, Dump; one guess is that it's because there are plenty of Arizonans--like me--who are fans of other teams, who attend ST games, who couldn't care less where the Cubs play, and who would prefer to not help finance them. Then there are the Arizonans whose friends and families come to town and rent cars or stay in hotels and get hit with the surcharges. Arizona is not a tourist destination just because the Cubs play here; there are other attractions, like the weather, the Grand Canyon, etc. And many people aren't particularly crazy about the state legislature at the moment; why is another topic.

Also, I find it hard to believe some of the hysteria, such as comments about how Cubs fans who retired here will sell their houses and move to Florida. Maybe some will, but how many? I also, as I said in an earlier post, don't believe the team will move, no matter what.

You're correct; it won't stop me from seeing my team in ST, but I wonder if I'd feel the same if I had to factor in airfare from Chicago and higher ticket prices and hotel and car rental rates?

Bottom line: We'll just have to wait and see what happens. If nothing else, it should be interesting.

TDog
02-07-2010, 12:43 PM
FYI, there's a poll running on AZCentral.com asking whether the legislature should approve the measure to increase tourist taxes for a new Chicago Cubs spring training stadium. Currently, it's showing about 2/3rds "no."

Your later analysis is spot on, of course. But it is odd that any tourist taxes shouldn't get stronger support, considering there is a reflexive anti-snowbird sentiment that runs deep among many Arizonans.

As it is with many polls, the scientific reliability of this one is seriously questionable. There must be snowbirds responding to the poll. Then there are the Valley residents who support spring training. There are many in addition to the retired Cubs fans (and indeed that number seems substantial), I have a friend who lives in North-Central Phoenix who buys season tickets for the Sox games in Glendale. Tourist taxes that hit spring baseball would affect him and you and other Valley baseball fans.

soxrme
02-07-2010, 02:48 PM
Spring training games in Glendale are more expensive than NHL games in Glendale. And not only do the spring training games not count, the spring training teams aren't playing to win.
Getting more expensive every year. These owners go to great lengths to suck every penny from the fans.

DrCrawdad
02-07-2010, 02:54 PM
In my perfect world ...

Teams would build their own stadiums, with zero to minimal funding from the public (whether it be via a tax or ticket surcharge).

I really disliked the way the Sox (and specifically Reinsdorf/Einhorn) got the public to pay for the new Comiskey Park. And I really didn't like hearing about it for years from Cubbie fan friends and guys like Les Grobstein. Interesting that now the howl from Cubbie fans is about Reinsdorf's hypocrisy while overlooking their own hypocrisy. Where are all those loudmouth Cubbie fans who couldn't suffer the Sox getting tax payer funding for the new Comiskey now?

I don't doubt that their is hypocrisy on the part of Reinsdorf, but can you imagine the howls of protest IF the new Comiskey was paid for by a tax on Cubbie tickets?

Now it seems that those past complaints about New Comiskey are forgotten. They're all in favor of Sox fans (and other teams) paying for their new ST spot.

If teams paid for their own stadiums, I could've perhaps tolerated the lectures by a former owner of the Texas Rangers about personal responsibility and not relying on the government...

Taliesinrk
02-07-2010, 09:10 PM
If it makes you feel better,the money wouldn't be going to the Cubs. It would be going to maintain a healthy Cactus League.

It doesn't... that has nothing to do with it.

TDog
02-07-2010, 11:19 PM
It doesn't... that has nothing to do with it.

The reality is that the White Sox in Glendale would draw more for a Cactus League season with a Cubs subsidy added to their tickets than they would with their-still overpriced tickets and no Cubs in the Cactus League. The same holds true for the Mariner and Brewers and A's, really most of the teams that train in the Phoenix area.

I can understand Jerry Reinsdorf being upset about the idea, but he is probably more upset that the Cubs could get a better deal to train in the Valley than the White Sox got.

doublem23
02-08-2010, 12:12 AM
If it makes you feel better,the money wouldn't be going to the Cubs. It would be going to maintain a healthy Cactus League.

Yes, you've repeated yourself about 300 times in this thread and its still irrelevant. Do you think the fans who go see the Sox in Glendale or the Mariners in Peoria care about the "health" of the Cactus League? Do fans run up and down the main drag in Phoenix when their team clinches the Cactus League title? No. Nobody gives a **** about the Cactus League in terms of its overall health, and taxing fans from different teams to help finance a new ballpark for another is ridiculous no matter how you try and justify it. Now, if this tax were levied on the MLB teams that play in the Cactus League, that would be different, as they have a vested interest in keeping the Cubs and the crowds they draw around.

So, even if Arizona called the Cubs bluff and they left, the Cactus League would be fine. There are still 14 other teams, including big draws like the Dodgers. And don't think for one second Arizona wouldn't be able to lure another team or two out to the Desert.

RadioheadRocks
02-08-2010, 03:27 AM
Hell they LOVE crowing about how many fans they have and how loyal they are... let THEM pay the damn tax! :bandance:

TDog
02-08-2010, 04:13 AM
Yes, you've repeated yourself about 300 times in this thread and its still irrelevant. Do you think the fans who go see the Sox in Glendale or the Mariners in Peoria care about the "health" of the Cactus League? Do fans run up and down the main drag in Phoenix when their team clinches the Cactus League title? No. Nobody gives a **** about the Cactus League in terms of its overall health, and taxing fans from different teams to help finance a new ballpark for another is ridiculous no matter how you try and justify it. Now, if this tax were levied on the MLB teams that play in the Cactus League, that would be different, as they have a vested interest in keeping the Cubs and the crowds they draw around.

So, even if Arizona called the Cubs bluff and they left, the Cactus League would be fine. There are still 14 other teams, including big draws like the Dodgers. And don't think for one second Arizona wouldn't be able to lure another team or two out to the Desert.

You're missing the point. The fact that the Cactus League is irrelevant except to the people of Arizona who profit from it is exactly why I don't find this proposal objectionable and why Reinsdorf's opposition seems petty to me.

The Cubs are the marquee team in the Cactus League. Take away the Cubs and attendance drops for every team other than the Diamondbacks and Dodgers. Unless you replace the Cubs with the Yankees and/or Red Sox, it doesn't matter how many teams you could bring in to replace the Cubs.

If Cactus League attendance is meaningless, so would be a surcharge to keep the marquee team from going to Florida. (If it's so offensive to team owners to have fans pay for it, they could absorb the additional charge.) Cactus League teams don't compete with each other in the standings. They only compete with each other in squeezing as much from their host communities as they can.

I was talking with Gov. Rose Mofford when there was reason for concern the Cactus League would die, after the Indians moved to Florida. She told me then the state was going to get more aggressive in attracting spring baseball to Arizona. But the Cactus League I knew then really did die a short time later. You had teams spread around the southern part of the state. You could take a late long lunch and get to see baseball for a couple of dollars. You had community groups centering around support of their spring training teams. I have a friend who in high school used to drive Padres minor leaguers around Yuma (and has a hilarious Ozzie Guillen story). Maybe there is still some of that in Scottsdale and Mesa, but now it's about communities providing state of the art facilities hosting multiple teams. They're pretty much all in the urban sprawl of metro Phoenix, so most of the community support that used to exist is gone. At the risk of repeating myself for the 301st time, I liked it better, thought it was more intimate and fan friendly before communities were expected to provide major league teams with state-the-art facilities. Meanwhile, ticket prices have skyrocketed. Spring training in Florida probably isn't as much fun as it used to be either.

I just don't see it as a big deal that people who pay to get into Cactus League games could pay a little more to keep the Valley's biggest draw from going to Florida, even if teams decide to pass along the surcharge to fans instead of absorbing it themselves. Maybe they should add a surcharge to the overpriced beer, too.

Chicken Dinner
02-08-2010, 04:59 AM
Cactus league spring training facilities have been financed by the Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority, including Camelback Ranch. The current problem is that with the addition of the University of Phoenix football stadium, the new Indians/Reds complex in Goodyear, and Camelback Ranch, the Authority is out of money.

Like it or not, the Cubs bring in revenue to the state and county, more than any other team. Retaining them in the Cactus League is good for all teams.

Please read about the authority here:

http://www.az-sta.com/about_us.htm

Reinsdorf complaining about this is ridiculous. He is the king of using tax dollars to finance stadiums, including Camelback Ranch.

ewokpelts
02-08-2010, 09:31 AM
Of course, it is ridiculous. Of course it shouldn't pass. It probably will, though, and it doesn't have as much to do with the Cubs as it does with the way Arizona leaders view threats to the Cactus League.

In the 1990s, when it looked like the Cactus League could be in serious trouble, people of Yuma, then-spring home of the Padres (San Diego being only 160 miles away on I-8, the Padres got year-round support from Yuma), support tax breaks for baseball teams in order to keep teams from moving to Florida. The first team to take advantage of the state support was the Padres, who moved from Yuma to metro Phoenix. There was no way the Padres' new ownership was ever going to move their spring training to Florida, although they did deprive their local fans of spring training day trips.

Considering how overpriced Cactus League ticket prices already are (there are weekend seats to see the Sox in Glendale for $100) my guess is that state leaders believe people won't notice a Cubs surcharge around the state, or county as things are evolving. Stop going to spring training games if the concept of a Cubs tax offends you.

Reinsdorf's complaints would be more justified if he had kept the White Sox spring home in Tucson.Reinsdorf lured the DODGERS to Arizona. That was a major coup. That coup led to Camelback ranch leading the Cactus League in attendance for 2009.

ewokpelts
02-08-2010, 09:34 AM
Camelback Ranch wouldn't have been possible without help from Arizona taxpayers.

Really, it's more fair to tax baseball fans to keep a baseball team in Maricopa County than it was to use the general fund, to which people from Yuma contributed, to move a team from Yuma to Maricopa County. It would be more fair to have taxed people seeing baseball in Milwaukee or buying licensed baseball products in Milwaukee to pay for Miller Park than it was to add a sales tax in six counties in southeast Wisconsin. No doubt that tax affected Cubs fans as well as people who never had any intention of seeing baseball in Milwaukee. Adding a tax to all spring games in Arizona is probably the least unfair of alternatives, considering that limiting such a tax to Mesa baseball wouldn't be sufficient.

Camelback Ranch is a great facility, and a Cubs surcharge wouldn't affect attendance, which probably doesn't affect the White Sox much anyway. If you're complaining about paying a surcharge added to help keep the Cactus League alive, I have to wonder why you weren't complaining about the pre-surcharge ticket prices. If the price of tickets is going to keep people away from Cactus League ballparks, that ship would have sailed.Miller Park's financing is based off a HOTEL tax. Yes, it covers 6 counties, but that region is much smaller than say, 6 counties surrounding chicago.

ewokpelts
02-08-2010, 09:37 AM
If it makes you feel better,the money wouldn't be going to the Cubs. It would be going to maintain a healthy Cactus League.the cactus league DOSENT need the cubs.

ewokpelts
02-08-2010, 09:40 AM
Presumably the public subsidization of a stadium helps the economy of the entire city. Thus the hotel tax would be similar to any other tax that would go towards supporting Chicago's infanstructure. (This is my understanding of how they justify these taxes - I'm not trying to argue if this is fair or not)

The way the Cubs are proposing their tax is that it will benefit the whole Cactus league - i.e the White Sox would benefit from the Cubs continued presence. If JR doesn't agree, how is this tax fair for the Sox? If the beneficiaries of the tax are going to be the city and citizens of Glendale/Phoenix, shouldn't they be the ones footing the bill? I would think the D-Backs and Rockies and their fans would have the most gripe. Why should they be supporting a stadium 100 miles away?

Edit: More so the citizens of Tuscon who patronize the D-Backs and Rockies are who might have the biggest problem with the tax.the dbacks and rockies are LEAVING tuscon after 2011 to share a facility in the phx area

ewokpelts
02-08-2010, 09:50 AM
Cactus league spring training facilities have been financed by the Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority, including Camelback Ranch. The current problem is that with the addition of the University of Phoenix football stadium, the new Indians/Reds complex in Goodyear, and Camelback Ranch, the Authority is out of money.

Like it or not, the Cubs bring in revenue to the state and county, more than any other team. Retaining them in the Cactus League is good for all teams.

Please read about the authority here:

http://www.az-sta.com/about_us.htm

Reinsdorf complaining about this is ridiculous. He is the king of using tax dollars to finance stadiums, including Camelback Ranch.The United Center was 100% PRIVATELY FINANCED. As was The Berto Center. That means 40% of facilities built under his watch have been paid for by the team he owned.

TDog
02-08-2010, 01:59 PM
Miller Park's financing is based off a HOTEL tax. Yes, it covers 6 counties, but that region is much smaller than say, 6 counties surrounding chicago.

Miller Park was partially financed by a general sales tax of one-tenth of 1 percent. I was a newspaper editor in suburban Milwaukee when the park was being built and remember it well. The region included a lot of Cubs fans in Southern Wisconsin. It also included at least one white Sox fan when I lived there.

If you don't believe the Cactus League needs the Cubs, please go to spring training this year and see how easy it is to get tickets for games in which the Cubs aren't playing. The Diamondbacks are the local team and don't bring in tourist revenue. The Dodgers used to be one of the local teams, and they are as glamorous as the Cubs, but if you want to go to games involving other teams and don't like crowds, catch them when they aren't playing the Cubs.

Craig Grebeck
02-08-2010, 02:05 PM
Denying the Cubs' importance to Arizona is kinda stupid. We may rip their fans for being sheep, but those sheep travel like nuts to Arizona. The Cactus League wants them to stay.

dickallen15
02-08-2010, 02:05 PM
Miller Park's financing is based off a HOTEL tax. Yes, it covers 6 counties, but that region is much smaller than say, 6 counties surrounding chicago.
Its not, but even if it was, how is that fair to the hotels and people who stay in hotels who don't even go to baseball games? Usually when private companies get public money, somebody, somewhere is getting screwed. If its other baseball teams, private companies who have all been beneficiaries of public funds, that's more fair IMO. JR should fight it, but he is being hypocritical.

ewokpelts
02-08-2010, 02:24 PM
Miller Park was partially financed by a general sales tax of one-tenth of 1 percent. I was a newspaper editor in suburban Milwaukee when the park was being built and remember it well. The region included a lot of Cubs fans in Southern Wisconsin. It also included at least one white Sox fan when I lived there.

If you don't believe the Cactus League needs the Cubs, please go to spring training this year and see how easy it is to get tickets for games in which the Cubs aren't playing. The Diamondbacks are the local team and don't bring in tourist revenue. The Dodgers used to be one of the local teams, and they are as glamorous as the Cubs, but if you want to go to games involving other teams and don't like crowds, catch them when they aren't playing the Cubs.again, camelback rang lead the league in attendance.

dickallen15
02-08-2010, 03:15 PM
again, camelback rang lead the league in attendance.
30 dates vs. 21 as the next highest. The Cubs had 18 home dates and drew 25k less than the Sox and Dodgers combined. Cubs lead the lead in per game attendance by over 10%. What if they taxed the hotel rooms in Phoenix, so if you went to see the Sox in spring training or you just went on a vacation you will get dinged there, then it would be fair?

ewokpelts
02-08-2010, 03:45 PM
30 dates vs. 21 as the next highest. The Cubs had 18 home dates and drew 25k less than the Sox and Dodgers combined. Cubs lead the lead in per game attendance by over 10%. What if they taxed the hotel rooms in Phoenix, so if you went to see the Sox in spring training or you just went on a vacation you will get dinged there, then it would be fair?the sox play in glendale. not PHX. and GLENDALE paid for most of the CBR facility.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2010, 04:02 PM
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/02/cubs-vs-cactus-league-set-to-heat-up.html

Lip

dickallen15
02-08-2010, 04:03 PM
the sox play in glendale. not PHX. and GLENDALE paid for most of the CBR facility.

And the poor saps that live there are probably going to get screwed while JR has his free play pen. The area they hoped to develop and collect a tax to pay for everything is a victim of the economy and may never be built, and if it does, there is question whether it will produce anywhere near the tax revenue that was counted on. Someone will always get screwed when public financing is in play. You might as well charge the people going to the spring training games.

Viva Medias B's
02-08-2010, 04:51 PM
The end of the story posted by Lip talks about an audit to investigate the deals that led to teams moving to Maricopa County. The controversy over the Cubs' proposed surcharge is what is fueling this audit. I don't know exactly what the point of this audit is, however.

pmck003
02-08-2010, 06:37 PM
Its not, but even if it was, how is that fair to the hotels and people who stay in hotels who don't even go to baseball games? Usually when private companies get public money, somebody, somewhere is getting screwed. If its other baseball teams, private companies who have all been beneficiaries of public funds, that's more fair IMO. JR should fight it, but he is being hypocritical.

I don't think JR is being hypocritical, mostly because of the way they are presenting the tax. Is it fair to force a local business to support a competitor for the benefit of the local economy?

Maybe there is a better way to compose or at least phrase the tax, such as a general Cactus league fee on each ticket that would go towards the construction of all the publicly funded stadiums in Phoenix/Glendale. (I suppose the first being the Cubs new facility)

TDog
02-08-2010, 06:54 PM
I don't think JR is being hypocritical, mostly because of the way they are presenting the tax. Is it fair to force a local business to support a competitor for the benefit of the local economy?

Maybe there is a better way to compose or at least phrase the tax, such as a general Cactus league fee on each ticket that would go towards the construction of all the publicly funded stadiums in Phoenix/Glendale. (I suppose the first being the Cubs new facility)

In Arizona, the Cubs don't compete with the White Sox. Even when they play, it doesn't matter if they win or lose. It doesn't even matter how they play the game.

dickallen15
02-08-2010, 10:08 PM
I don't think JR is being hypocritical, mostly because of the way they are presenting the tax. Is it fair to force a local business to support a competitor for the benefit of the local economy?

Maybe there is a better way to compose or at least phrase the tax, such as a general Cactus league fee on each ticket that would go towards the construction of all the publicly funded stadiums in Phoenix/Glendale. (I suppose the first being the Cubs new facility)

Don't MLB teams that play in Chicago whether they play the Sox or the Cubs, in a roundabout way contribute to the tax used to build what is now USCF? Again, I don't blame him for speaking out about it, but its hypocritical. Its technically not even taking money out of his pocket. Its an additional charge on his ticket. He had no problem raising ticket prices and lowering payroll for the White Sox in 2009.

Its also possible he's really not as opposed to this tax as the articles would have you believe. Its good PR to champion lower costs for your customers.

doublem23
02-08-2010, 10:14 PM
And the poor saps that live there are probably going to get screwed while JR has his free play pen. The area they hoped to develop and collect a tax to pay for everything is a victim of the economy and may never be built, and if it does, there is question whether it will produce anywhere near the tax revenue that was counted on. Someone will always get screwed when public financing is in play. You might as well charge the people going to the spring training games.

Those "poor saps" also benefit from having Camelback Ranch, and the month-long tourism trap it is. People come to the game, buy food at the park or around the stadium, stay in hotels in and around the park, etc.

If Glendale wouldn't have played ball with the Sox, probably plenty of communities in the Valley would have.

dickallen15
02-08-2010, 10:55 PM
Those "poor saps" also benefit from having Camelback Ranch, and the month-long tourism trap it is. People come to the game, buy food at the park or around the stadium, stay in hotels in and around the park, etc.

If Glendale wouldn't have played ball with the Sox, probably plenty of communities in the Valley would have.

And I'm sure many residents wish that's exactly what happened. One of the problems is people don't hang out in the Glendale area from what I have read. They want to make this big destination with malls but there is supposedly a glut of what they want to build in the area, and in more desirable locations.

ComiskeyBrewer
02-17-2010, 04:07 PM
Selig is against this tax.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/84623022.html

chisox117
03-03-2010, 01:38 PM
The White Sox + 3 other teams boycott the Cactus League Kickoff Breakfast to protest the "Cubs Tax", provoking pissy comments from the sponsor of the legislation:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2010/03/02/20100302teams-skip-cactus-league-breakfast.html

doublem23
03-11-2010, 04:51 PM
Cubs blink.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/cubs-back-down-on-controversial-cubs-tax-for-spring-training-complex.html

cws05champ
03-27-2010, 07:46 PM
Looks like Uncle Bud has stepped in and said there will be no Cubs tax:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/13122991/selig-there-will-be-no-controversial-cubs-tax?tag=headlines;headlines