eumeswil Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) Hleba i igara, sve što je potrebno civilizovanom sapiensu sapiensu? Edited September 23, 2019 by miki.bg Link to comment
levi Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 zato što generišu prihode? jer su stotine miliona ljudi spremni da plate po dolar- dva - 50 - 200.. za kartu, sportski paket kablovske, leagaue pass, da bi ih gledali Link to comment
eumeswil Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) kolki procenat troškova pokrivaju TV prava, transferi, dresovi i ostale đakonije, a kolko ostatak dotiraju država, vlasnici i krediti? kolko često se desi da klubovi odu u stečaj, a kolko često se izmisle pravni trikovi poput UPPRova da se zombiji ostave u životu? Edited September 23, 2019 by miki.bg Link to comment
radisa Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, miki.bg said: kolki procenat troškova pokrivaju TV prava, transferi, dresovi i ostale đakonije, a kolko ostatak dotiraju država, vlasnici i krediti? kolko često se desi da klubovi odu u stečaj, a kolko često se izmisle pravni trikovi poput UPPRova da se zombiji ostave u životu? Jako retko se takve stvari dešavaju... Na sportu se zarađuju ogromne pare, i treba se baš preračunati, ako je privatan klub u pitanju (kao Rengersi u Škotskoj, Luton i Sunderland u Engleskoj, recimo) da se desi bankrot... Mislim, Newcastle United, koji ima jednog od najodvratnijih gnomva za vlasnika koji odbija da ulaže u klub, je u top 10-15 najbogatijih klubova na svetu... A ispadali su u drugu ligu... Kod ovih klubova koji nisu prvatni,kao kod nas, tu radineka matematika, koja veze sa ekonomujom nema, nego sa nečim drugim... Vlasnici ne dotiraju ništa, oni uzimaju prihod, krediti se uzimaju, uglavnom radi kupovine samh klubova, ali se vraćaju rutinski (ManU je najpoznatiji primer, tim ima neki ogroman dug, kao kredit, ali spram plata igrača i prihoda to je smešno)... Sport je trenutno strašno dobar posao, da se zarađuje kinta, jer ljudi to plaćaju... Recimo, Lakersi koji godinama nisu ništa osvojili, vrede oko malo nmanje od 4B$, a Niksi koji su u rasulu, čak i više, jer su iza njih ogrona tržišta... Link to comment
eumeswil Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 1 minute ago, radisa said: Jako retko se takve stvari dešavaju... Na sportu se zarađuju ogromne pare, i treba se baš preračunati, ako je privatan klub u pitanju (kao Rengersi u Škotskoj, Luton i Sunderland u Engleskoj, recimo) da se desi bankrot... Mislim, Newcastle United, koji ima jednog od najodvratnijih gnomva za vlasnika koji odbija da ulaže u klub, je u top 10-15 najbogatijih klubova na svetu... A ispadali su u drugu ligu... Pitam zato što su ljudi jednostavnim knjigovodstvom u Soccernomicsu dokazali da nije svuda tako idealno. U slučaju Reala npr, TV prava, transferi, dresovi i ostalo pokriva otprilike pola, ostatak dolazi od ovoga drugog što sam naveo. Klubovi retko ili nikada odu u stečaj, uvek se nađu fore da se zaobiđu sistemi pravnih država™ samo ako se nađe dobra volja™. Link to comment
radisa Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, miki.bg said: Pitam zato što su ljudi jednostavnim knjigovodstvom u Soccernomicsu dokazali da nije svuda tako idealno. U slučaju Reala npr, TV prava, transferi, dresovi i ostalo pokriva otprilike pola, ostatak dolazi od ovoga drugog što sam naveo. Klubovi retko ili nikada odu u stečaj, uvek se nađu fore da se zaobiđu sistemi pravnih država™ samo ako se nađe dobra volja™. Real je (para)državni klub, kao i Barcelona, oni spadaju u ovo drugo, u moju rečenicu koju nisi citirao... Kao i Bayern Minhen, na primer... Oni nisu privatni klubovi već udruženja građana (ako se ne varam, ili je bar slično tome) i tu se zato mulja... Slično kao i kod nas... Link to comment
hazard Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 Jednostavno, ljudi tako žele... Sport kada posluje tržišno, prihoduje ogromnu lovu jer kao što levi gore reče, ljudi su spremni da za to plaćaju... Kada ne posluje tržišno nego se vadi politički, opet se to dešava jer je popularno. Političari ne bi davali lovu za sport kada ne bi mislili da im to donosi poene kod narodnih masa...u Americi profi klubovi umeju da istresu lokalne samouprave iz gaća za nove stadione i dvorane, a kada se neki gradonačelnik tome usprotivi, ljudi uglavnom kukaju što hoće da im otera klub...znači to su razlozi u demokratskim državama. Ovo što pričaš hleba i igara, propaganda, prestiž, kontrola, to je slučaj u autoritarnim državama. I ja sam čitao Soccernomics, i odatle zaključujem: sport okreće velike pare jer je popularan i jer je ljudima baš stalo do njega. Link to comment
eumeswil Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, hazard said: Ovo što pričaš hleba i igara, propaganda, prestiž, kontrola, to je slučaj u autoritarnim državama. Ma da, samo tamo, kako da ne. mnogo si ti naivan ili se praviš što je verovatnije, A šta su autoritarne a šta demokratkse države je mnoogo zamagljeno, nije crno belo kako želiš da prikažeš Edited September 23, 2019 by miki.bg Link to comment
Bujodrag Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) Mene zabole kako ljudi provode svoje vreme i da li su glupi ili ne jer toliko ljudi ima na planeti da je potpuno nebitno kako stotine i stotine miliona ljudi žive i šta drugi misle o njima. (sve bez ugrožavanja života, naravno) Ja sam samo ljubomoran na sport jer se njemu posvećuje više pažnje nego propagiranju sviranja. Dakle, moja mantra bi trebalo da glasi: Svi da se vole, ljube i sviraju. E sad, jednom Stingu svaki dan na račun od tantijema za samo jednu pesmu, I've been watching you, legne na račun oko 1000 dolara. Svaki dan. Pa, ako ikad budem imao decu, neće smeti ni da pogledaju loptu nego će dobiti instrumente i deo mojih fenomenalnih muzičkih gena pa da zaradjuju mnogo i da svom dobrom ocu obezbedjuju udobnu starost. Mis'im, čemu inače deca služe? Edited September 23, 2019 by Bujodrag Link to comment
Sestre Bronte Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 ne budi tužan po forumčićima uglavnom sviramo... Link to comment
John Coltrane Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 Zatvarajte ovo, leba vam. Link to comment
omiljeni Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 2 hours ago, hazard said: ...u Americi profi klubovi umeju da istresu lokalne samouprave iz gaća za nove stadione i dvorane, a kada se neki gradonačelnik tome usprotivi, ljudi uglavnom kukaju što hoće da im otera klub...znači to su razlozi u demokratskim državama. to dosta varira od slučaja do slučaja. U San Diegu je bilo glasanje o ulaganju javnog novca u gradnju stadiona i opcija za gradnju je ubedljivo poražena. Pre par godina tim se preselio u LA iako je u San Diegu igrao od 1960 i neke. Ali za 5 ili 10 godina će se verovatno kajati što su glasali tako. A i matematika sigurno pokazuje da su pogrešili i da je stadion dobra investicija sa solidnim ROI Link to comment
hazard Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, omiljeni said: A i matematika sigurno pokazuje da su pogrešili i da je stadion dobra investicija sa solidnim ROI Zapravo skoro svi postojeći slučajevi ukazuju na to da su stadioni loše investicije sa sveukupno negativnim ROI, čast izuzecima. Isto tako organizacije prvenstava, olimpijadi i sl. (iz perspektive grada/države organizatora ne sportskih organizacija koje naravno profitiraju). Sportski klubovi naravno tvrde suprotno, ali u 99% slučajeva je to ili pogrešno ili namerno mazanje očiju. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/11/sports-stadiums-can-be-bad-cities/576334/ Quote Imagine a stadium as a giant drain. Money flows from the community into the stadium, where it whirls around for a bit, then funnels down some murky pipes, exiting far, far away. Some leaves with players, some with owners and ownership groups, some with the league itself, the headquarters of which are in New York. That last leakage is similar to when you shop at a corporate chain. “If you go to a local bar, that’s probably locally owned, and servers and bartenders are spending it locally, and that causes this ripple effect that doesn’t happen in sports,” says Victor Matheson, a professor of economics at Holy Cross University. Sure, some of the money will stay local, thanks to the new economic activity that a stadium helps generate. That’s most likely if a new cluster of restaurants and sports bars sprouts up in an underused part of town around a new stadium. But even then, the economic impact can be limited. When new “stadium towns” are built, residents tend to spend their money in the new geographical location rather than another one around town. “It’s reshuffling deck chairs instead of developing anything new,” Leeds says. “Cities give tax breaks or subsidies to businesses that locate in a particular area, and it might help that specific area. But it’s simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Worse, the new activity may actually hurt the overall economy by “crowding out” other events. (Have you ever stayed home instead of risking the game-day traffic jam?) This effect is perhaps strongest during massive sports events like the Olympics or the Super Bowl. The arguments for hosting them are the same—draw tourists, create buzz, increase economic activity. More tourists arrive, but they often cost cities more than they’re worth. “[A team] should be regarded as a present you give yourself, not an investment in the financial security of your city,” Leeds says. “I didn’t get my children a birthday present to ensure they’d go to Harvard Medical. I got them presents because I love them and want them to be happy.” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/ Quote The economic rationale for cities’ willingness to subsidize sports facilities is revealed in the campaign slogan for a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers: “Build the Stadium—Create the Jobs!” Proponents claim that sports facilities improve the local economy in four ways. First, building the facility creates construction jobs. Second, people who attend games or work for the team generate new spending in the community, expanding local employment. Third, a team attracts tourists and companies to the host city, further increasing local spending and jobs. Finally, all this new spending has a “multiplier effect” as increased local income causes still more new spending and job creation. Advocates argue that new stadiums spur so much economic growth that they are self-financing: subsidies are offset by revenues from ticket taxes, sales taxes on concessions and other spending outside the stadium, and property tax increases arising from the stadium’s economic impact. Unfortunately, these arguments contain bad economic reasoning that leads to overstatement of the benefits of stadiums. Economic growth takes place when a community’s resources—people, capital investments, and natural resources like land—become more productive. Increased productivity can arise in two ways: from economically beneficial specialization by the community for the purpose of trading with other regions or from local value added that is higher than other uses of local workers, land, and investments. Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers. In our forthcoming Brookings book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, we and 15 collaborators examine the local economic development argument from all angles: case studies of the effect of specific facilities, as well as comparisons among cities and even neighborhoods that have and have not sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into sports development. In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus. As noted, a stadium can spur economic growth if sports is a significant export industry—that is, if it attracts outsiders to buy the local product and if it results in the sale of certain rights (broadcasting, product licensing) to national firms. But, in reality, sports has little effect on regional net exports. Sports facilities attract neither tourists nor new industry. Probably the most successful export facility is Oriole Park, where about a third of the crowd at every game comes from outside the Baltimore area. (Baltimore’s baseball exports are enhanced because it is 40 miles from the nation’s capital, which has no major league baseball team.) Even so, the net gain to Baltimore’s economy in terms of new jobs and incremental tax revenues is only about $3 million a year—not much of a return on a $200 million investment. + knjiga Soccernomics gde se o ovome dosta raspravlja Link to comment
omiljeni Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 Nemam pojma šta piše u soccernomic knjizi, ali šta je namerno mazanje očiju, a šta ne, to je već diskutabilno. Npr ja mislim da je mazanje očiju da stadion ne donosi novac. Da ne računamo koliko novca i radnih mesta donese stadion, prodaja dresova, piva tacosa nachosa i ostalih zajebancija. Salary cap će sledeće godine probiti 200 miliona (i svake godine raste za ~10 miliona), a 10-15% tog novca završi kao city/state tax. To su samo plate igrača. Najveći deo troškova, ako ne čak i kompletne troškove gradnje pokriješ samo tim novcem. Ljudima iz San Diega to verovatno ne znači mnogo jer se pretpostavljalo da će tim ostati u Californiji, ali npr ako Minneapolis ne uloži novac za stadion onda se state može pozdraviti sa tim novcem zauvek. A treba oporezovati i plate trenera i svih zaposlenih u timu. Prosečan NFL tim zapošljava (direktno i indirektno) i po par hiljada ljudi. U South Carolina su izglasali da uloži oko 150 miliona za gradnju novih headquarters za Carolina Panthers koji će tako, bar što se tiče administracije, da napusti Charlotte , odnosno North Carolinu, i računica im je da će za 15 godina koliko traje ugovor, uzeti od poreza dosta više nego što su uložili. Novi stadion faktički garantuje i da će grad dobiti organizaciju Super Bowla (a možda i više njih), a tako za samo jedan vikend zarade brdo novca sa kojim mogu da plaćaju troškove održavanja stadiona narednih nekoliko decenija. Ne moraš biti genije za ekonomiju da izračunaš da su prihodi za grad i state ogromni i da premašuju rashode. Na tom stadionu bude gomila koncerata, wrestlemania, monstertruckmania i stotine nekih drugih manija, rodea i čega sve ne, a na većini stadiona igraju i college fudbalski timovi. Npr na stadionu u Tampi igra i South Florida koji jesu mali program ali često privuku i do 40.000-50.000 gledalaca. Taj stadion je jedan od retkih koji je građen isključivo sa public money, ali da nije izgrađen tim bi otišao, a onda ni 1 public college ne bi imao stadion, a uz to idu neke dalje posledice. Ovde ima dobar prikaz kako izgleda gameday ekonomija: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/21261792/notre-dame-fighting-irish-economy-weekend-south-bend-college-football u pitanju je college gde postoji razlika u odnosu na profi timove, ali sumnjam da NFL gradovi zarađuju baš nešto drastično manje. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now