The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

What's the hope now?

Do we hope that Ross gets private funding to fix up Dolphins Stadium?  Do we want him to upgrade or tear down and build new?  Do you want to move the team North for a better deal from taxpayers?  How do you want it laid out?

Ross has said he won't do a deal with private funding. It must be a partnership with the taxpayers

Move the team north!! I like the sound of the Ft. Pierce Dolphins!!   ;D

I honestly don't care how they do it but I would like to see them build a new state of the art stadium. It's one of those things that makes me shake my head as so many others seem to be able to figure it out. Why can't we?

Wait a year and try again. In the mean time forget about improving the stadium and improve the team. That will put people back into the seats more than improving the stadium will anyway and that will improve the Dolphins bottom line much more than improving the stadium would. Improving the stadium is really only needed to get Super Bowls back in South Florida, which would be nice, but it's not really a necessity at this point.

This team exist without Super Bowls, many teams do. First step, don't panic. This thing was a rush job and that is why it didn't get to go through. Try again, this time don't rush to get a SB that you had all but already been told you were on the outside looking in of. Second step, win games. That will put people into the existing stadium which will help for an argument of public funding. The Marlins crapped on South Florida already. The Dolphins need to be winners and need to build support if they want a case for either a new or improved stadium.

I am afraid of "State of the Art".  I want something that has longevity because it is built in a way that it meets long-term needs.  Good seat layout, reasonable weather protection, clear monitors.  I don't need a bunch of other bells and whistles, like TVs in the bathroom and all the other crap that the current stadium upgraded a few years back.

Right on Dave. I'm going to a game for the game. TVs in the bathroom just add seconds onto the line time for each person anyway. Give me good seating, decent parking, close bathrooms and concessions and let me watch the game.

Let's face it, the previous deal was a huge push to get SB 50.  Its going to be a massive huge deal and that's why they tried to rush this through.

I don't think that the stadium deal is completely dead.   It had a lot of support.  I think they need to try again and it will go through.  Meanwhile, someone needs to go out and kidnap Mr. Weatherford and hold him in a dingy basement until he agrees to support it.

Or just convince him that it would be in his best interests (meaning being re-elected) for him to get on board.

I am a fan of simple, straight-forward design.  It never goes out of style.

- Seats close to the field, with a pitch that allows for good viewing wherever you are.
- Weather protection that requires minimal maintenance, keeping fans out of direct elements, but not entirely elimination South Florida's atmosphere from the environment.
- Large scoreboards in the endzones or corners
- Large restrooms that ease traffic flow
- Straightforward food kiosks
- Wide walkways
- Good traffic management

Also, this is just a preference I have, but I prefer when the food kitchen lines (and restrooms) face away from the stadium.  It means that you can have more open-air and it doesn't clog the walkways of people coming to and from their seats with lines of people waiting for food or the bathroom.  Also, there is always more room building OUT than IN. 

But its not in his best interest to support it.  He's from Tampa, he represents the Tampa area.  Who's in direct competition with Miami for Super Bowl bids?  Tampa.  Its in his best interest to make sure Miami never gets another Super Bowl again.

I can tell you, though, that if I ever get a chance to vote against him, I intend to.

It's dead. They badmouthed the Speaker on every radio and TV show possible in Florida and the guy who is next in line to be Speaker in a couple years they were attacking too in some places. That deal can't be any more dead!

This deal where Ross put up a bunch of money and asked for little in the form of a hotel bed tax and wanted only improvements is 100% dead. Next step will take place in a few years when Ross goes for a NEW STADIUM and asks for the moon.  Ross offered them a good deal and they wouldn't let it go to a public vote. I think he is done playing nice.

This has nothing to do with winning or losing. The Cleveland Browns were a great team in the 90's who sold out every game. They still moved!!!! This notion that winning more games cures all is laughable. These are 2 separate issues all together.

And being a "rush job" had nothing to do with it. It didn't go to a vote because a few powerful people blocked it in the house. If it was such a rush why did it pass in the Senate!

I agree completely...it will eventually get done.  The Dolphins will be in Miami long after I become worm chow.

You are such a revisionist. #1 Cleveland had one winning season in the 90's. I know they had a rabid fanbase (at least in the Dog Pound) but something was causing revenue issues for Modell. If you want to look up the attendance figures go ahead. I'm not going to try to find them to try to refute this argument. As an interesting aside, Modell was going to get the funding he needed for renovations but made a deal to move his team before there was a vote. #2 I never said winning cures everything. It sure doesn't hurt though. You have to keep the climate in South Florida in context. There is huge backlash at the Marlins right now. Miami Dolphins need to provde to be an on the field success if they want public funding. The South Florida delegation were the biggest voices rallying against the bill when it was coming about. You have to recognize the failure of the Marlins and the money spent on their stadium has to have some relation.

Both sides are correct.

Mike O's point that winning doesn't bring in enough revenue is true.
However, the point that it doesn't matter at all is incorrect.  If the Dolphins were winning, it would garnish more support from the community to provide public funds, as well as private investing, which would make it easier to get deals done, thus easier to keep the team here.  Politicians don't want to stick their neck out for a team that is unpopular.

^^ and judging by recent attendance, its not popular.  You gotta believe that may have been a factor.  Numbers don't lie - they may call games a "sell out" for TV purposes, but I bet they probably were at 60-70% capacity for every home game last year.

This is all and only about revenue. If the Marlins still paid rent and played in the stadium Ross probably would have paid for the upgrades himself because he would have had a consistent revenue stream (outside of normal NFL activities) coming into him. Without that consistent revenue stream he needs tax dollars to accomplish what needs to be done.  Winning has nothing to do with anything. As I said, if Miami went 13-3 and made the AFC Championship game and lets say lost (still a very successful season), I don't see Ross and Dee now having more support to pass a bill and get tax dollars. Let's extend it out, let's say the Fins have 5 winning seasons in a row, that  won't gain them support to pass a bill 5 years from now. When looking at bills that involve tax dollars nobody in their right mind is looking at the teams record and attendance figures. Either the community wants an NFL franchise or it doesn't. This is a bigger picture issue than selling out 8 games a year and making the playoffs and winning divisions.

In 1980 the Raiders won the Super Bowl in Oakland. In 1982 they were playing in LA! Winning didn't stop them from moving! You think the Oakland politicians cared whether the team won or not? That's not what they are looking at when deciding whether to fight to keep the team or not. You are dealing with bigger issues than wins and loses. In 1994 the Cleveland Browns went 11-5, in the middle of the 1995 season it was announced he was moving the team because Modell couldn't work with the Ohio Politicians. The politicians came when it was too late! Coming off an 11 win season didn't help them any.

So if you think that the Dolphins have a couple good years make the playoffs and the Florida House and politicians will just say ahhh, they are a good team let's pass a bill for them, you are fooling yourself!

Now I am NOT predicting the Fins are moving, but until the stadium issue is resolved they are gonna be on the top of EVERY list with the Chargers as teams that can bolt at anytime. It's a black cloud that will hang over this franchise until this is resolved. Minnesota, Buffalo, and Jax all are locked into their cities for extended periods of time now. It's Miami and SD (and possibly the Rams come next year, gotta wait to see if St.Louis steps up by the deadline) that are on the chopping block as "next up" when it comes to relocation

Dolphins averaged 81.0% capacity for home games last year. Average attendance for games was 5th lowest in the entire league. Only Oakland, Tampa, St.Louis, and Cincy had fewer people on average at games.

Winning brings in more revenue.

1.  You sell more tickets.  (If you only count that, Mike O is correct, if you count #2 on, he is wrong)
2.  You can raise ticket prices.  Waiting list means you can raise prices and not worry about not having a sell out.
3.  You get more ad/sponsorship revenue.  You can sell the same spot for a banner for a lot more if you just won the SB than if you got the #1 pick.
4. You get more TV revenue.
5. You get more radio revenue.
6.  You get 25% more home games.  Instead of just 8 -- you get 10, the last two being playoff games.

Winning = more revenue. 

How the hell do you get more TV Revenue when its a NATIONAL TV DEAL that is split evenly among every team!

Even when the Dolphins were good they didn't sell out PLAYOFF GAMES! They had a home playoff game blacked out not that long ago. Now you are jumping to the team having a "waiting list" and "raising ticket prices"..ha ha ha. The stuff you listed is unrealistic when it comes to the MIAMI DOLPHINS. Maybe for other franchises but not Miami.

The revenue you are mentioning like getting more money for adds and radio spots is nice but doesn't solve the BIG PICTURE problem. It's small picture thinking to a big picture problem!

how often should a team get a new damn stadium ???

plus the dolphins are the most popular team in south florida dont even bring up the heat

Roughly 30 years!

Miami's stadium opened in 1987 its old in "stadium standards." It's as one of the oldest stadiums in the league. Old Stadiums either need massive face lifts/upgrades (ie Soldier Field, Arrowhead, and Superdome) or they get torn down around the 30 year mark which Miami is now approaching.

I mean look around the league, The Meadowlands, Three Rivers, The Vet, Silverdome, Astrodome, Riverfront Stadium, and Foxboro Stadium all lasted around the 30 year mark needed to be replaced....and they all were!!!  Hoosier Dome and Kingdome BOTH just lasted only 24 years and were torn down. Metrodome opened in 1982 and will be demolished this next February...around the 30 year mark! When approaching the 30 year mark teams have to decide to invest in upgrades (which is what KC, Chicago, and New Orleans did) or just blow it up and build a new place. Status quo is not a viable option at the 30 year mark. Miami is approaching that 30 year mark and THIS is when those tough decisions need to be made. The Georgia Dome was built AFTER Sun Life and Atlanta wants to tear it down and build a new one. St. Louis wants to either tear down their stadium and build a new one or do massive upgrades to their place and that stadium was built after Sun Life.

Sun Life has a lot of wear and tear for being 26 years old. Marlins playing 81 games a year there for 18 years, Dolphins playing there, College Bowl games, Recently the Hurricanes playing there....that stadium has taken a beating over the years. That stadium was used alot. More often than most stadiums!

alright and this guy wants to have funding for 30 years on the stadium which would mean the stadium would be 60 yrs old when it's finally done being paid off?

am i correct ???

Yep and that is fine. If you do the renovations right it can last. Solider Field has been around since the start of time, they renovated it correctly and will last god knows how many more years. Arrowhead is 40+ years old and their renovations will keep it going for a long while into a 60 year old stadium. Same with the Superdome.

We haven't won squat in this stadium even with one of the best QBs of all time.  I think it's bad luck or is cursed.

So how do you judge if any organization has community support? You could let the community vote... oh wait, that didn't happen. Absent of that, you could look at attendance numbers, 5th worst in the league and approaching the lowest in team history.

Win games, attendance goes up. Guaranteed. May not solve the problem but shows more community support. Who knows what happens beyond that.

These guys aren't dummies. They will figure something out.

Once again you are missing the big picture. It's not only about the Dolphins when it comes to this issue! You are looking at it as only a Dolphins issue, that's only a part of it. It's a community issue. Want an NFL Team? Want Super Bowls in South Florida on a regular basis that bring in big money? Want NCAA/BCS Championship games going forward that bring in big money? Want major world wide soccer events? Want all of these major events to bring in tourism to the area and bring in outside money to the area to have a better economy in South Florida? If the answer is YES then you upgrade the current stadium or build a new stadium. Whether the Fins are 12-4 or 4-12...Who the F' cares!! That has nothing to do with whether you upgrade or build a new stadium!!! The Dolphins winning games isn't even on the list of importance its not even worth mentioning! Some of you guys can't see the forest from the trees

I can see both Brian & Mike's last points. Its true, if you want events to keep coming to south Florida then renovations or a new stadium needs to happen. At the same time, if you're going to lean on public dollars for support, then a winning team goes a long way. Especially with the tradition this team has. It doesn't help when the public knows that the league with the owner could build this themselves. Especially when ticket prices and concession prices raise along with the new or renovated stadium. The average local might not see a raise in their paycheck to support that. Unfortunately for Miami-Dade this never came to a vote. But it doesn't stop the owner from financing this himself. Others have. That's seeing the forest for the trees.

Name the owner (in any sport) who in recent times has paid 100% for a new a stadium and NOT taken/used public money? Those days of that being a realistic option are long gone!  This isn't the 70's and 80's....those days are over with.

When an owner says, in one breath, "I can't afford to do it" and then the next breath is "I'm donating 2 billion to charity" - they are counter-intuitive. 

I understand what you're saying, Mike, but you realize the politicians, and for the most part, the voters, look at it on the surface as what it is - a new stadium for the Dolphins.  The initial reaction is, and always will be, "yeah cause they can't even fill the one they have."

That, coupled with the Marlins stadium debacle - publicly funded and drawing 700 people per game - leans terribly on any future publicly-funded sports venues in Miami-Dade county.

Maybe they should try to host the Super Bowl in Marlins Park. I bet they could if they wanted to.  I doubt the NFL would since the stadium is built for baseball.

He is giving away the money when he dies so it isn't subject to the estate tax. Seriously you don't realize why he is doing that? Not to mention you are going to knock a guy giving roughly $2 billion to charities that will help real people in meaningful ways? Priorities Brian...Priorities!


Maybe in some countries these days but not in this one anymore. Without turning this into a political discussion I will just leave it at that


It ONLY holds 36,000 people...come on Brian lets be realistic about things here!

^^ I wasn't serious about Marlins Park.  Jeez. ::)

kinda sounded like you were

Robert Kraft. 

Stadium was 100% privately funded.  Tax dollars did pay for road improvement, but not the stadium.  That was in 2002, not the 70s or 80s.

I have a pretty highly-tuned sarcasm radar...but your comment definitely flew under it. I thought you were seriously speculating on Marlins Stadium as well. ;)


I think you may be mistaken on this one. I've actually heard multiple people at local sports bars make similar comments about "not being able to fill this stadium, so why would they need to build a new one?"  While this may not be logical, or even applicable to the political process, we're not talking about logic on this particular point...we're talking about public opinion, which doesn't always follow logic.

I was semi-serious about it at first, it was in response to the claim that only new stadiums get major events.  I guess sarcasm is lost in the typing, after re-reading it.  With the vocal inflection in my head it made more sense.  I'm not sure how I could change it to reflect what I meant.  Whatever, screw you guys, I don't care.

Pac Bell Stadium (S.F. Giants) and the newly proposed Warriors arena.

The days of owners claiming they need public dollars to build a stadium, while pricing out average consumers are coming to an end. The man has $4 billion. With a B. I can't blame an owner for wanting to maximize profits while minimizing risks. That's why you go into business. But I can't blame a public for not wanting to go along with it.

Once again the stadium isn't only for the Dolphins! It's not about the Dolphins "filling the stadium." Small picture thinking. It's a partnership with the community. It would be a used for major events (non Dolphins related) that would bring in millions upon millions into the local community and help the citizens of that community economically.

So we have 1 MLB park in the last 4 decades that is privately funded. we have 1 NFL park in recent times that is privately funded. And until the Warriors arena is built and the team moves (which won't be till 2018 at the earliest )...it doesn't count! I stand by my statement expecting a major sports owner to build his own place is unrealistic these days. There are always an exception here and there (the fact we only have 2 examples in 4 major sports prove it's just here and there) but it ain't the norm!



You are ASSUMING they didn't want to go along with it. The public never had a say!!

Actually, if it was put to a vote I believe the public would have put it through.  Most of the people I talked to were overwhelmingly in support of it.

I agree!! Whenever these things are put to a public vote they pass 9 times out of 10. Sports are a drug in this country. People need their drugs!

Please go back and re-read Brian's original statement, and my own corroboration of that statement, rather than just throwing out random cliches like "small picture thinking." That point that he made (and I supported) has nothing to do with partnering with the community, or using the stadium for other major events. No one is arguing those points with you.  With that said, the response of the general public, when faced with the proposition of building a new stadium, is quite often "why build a new stadium, when they can't even fill the one they've got?" This isn't a debate about the pros and cons of the new stadium, it's an observation of individual fans' reactions to the proposal of the new stadium.  It's not even support for that "opinion of the masses." Unless you're sitting in the same sports bars and other public venues that Brian and I are sitting in, and hear something different from the masses than we're hearing, then there isn't anything for you to contest here...

You're right, Mike. It isn't the "norm" for owners to pay for their own stadiums. Just like it wasn't the norm for the public to foot the bill. As owners got richer, they got smarter. The realized avenues available to them that were available for other industries. It used to be federal dollars that directly subsidized these ventures. Until Congress acted which resulted in more local & state involvement in funding. However, the public is also getting smarter. Like, when a proposed tourist tax hike has a shortfall. Where do the rest of the funds come from? Baltimore proposed using lottery funds, like with Camden Yards. Assuming there would be an influx of lottery purchases. Only when that doesn't happen, funds are taken from other areas. Such as funding for other local services. So when owners cone out and say, "This new tax won't cost the local taxpayers a dime."  Locals ask, "How can you or anybody guarantee that?" They can't. There assuming there would be an influx of tourist dollars. Maybe during a Super Bowl. But what about other years? What about 15 years after the renovations when the stadium is placed out of the loop?

To go along with Brian's point. They can't sell out the stadium as it is now. That creates a problem. If they sold out every week, and had a waiting list it might be sold to the public as a needed expansion.  Which creates a new problem. New stadiums don't expand general seating. They expand luxury suited. Great for the owner. Not so much for the average fan. Especially when they get the right to pay more for the experience of the new stadium.

True, the locals didn't get to have a say this time. There's no way to know which way they would've voted. Just like ownership would've been banking on the uninformed voter, don't underestimate the number of informed voters. I will give the Dolphins credit for wanting to put it up to the local voters. When the norm used to be resolved by a city council vote.

The locals didn't get to have a say because ONE MAN decided they shouldn't.  In other countries, a guy like that would be known as a dictator.

EXACTLY

That's why I don't understand how this happened.  Why does one guy get to make that decision?  I guess I don't understand the politics of state legislature.

You only asked for one.  See below.   You got three.  I didn't do research to see if there was others.  I used the ONE that was off the top of my head. 

Yep, you named 1.... give yourself a cookie! All together we came up with only 2 examples in all four major sports in recent times. Like I said, I stand by my statement it is unrealistic to expect an owner in this day of age to pay for a new stadium all on his own. You came up with 1 exception, it's not the norm!

Mike,

I'm not sure if you realize this, but when you ask for one example of something, and someone gives you one example of that thing, coming back with a "give yourself a cookie" response seems more than a little bit rude.

Just laying it out there...if you want others to get along with you, maybe you could try getting along with others.

ha ha, now this post is funny... save the life lecture dad and lets stick to talking football!  ::) unreal!

Mike you realize having even one exception completely negates your comment that the days are over don't you?

No not at all! There is always an exception to the norm, it doesn't negate what "reality" is. Look you and other can have whatever pipe dreams you want...if you are holding your breath for owners to now start building their own stadiums with no public money, good luck! Keep dreaming. In 4 major sports you got 2 examples in like 40 years!! We have provided 2 examples, ok. that's nice. Exception not the rule!

P.S...since Bob Kraft did build his own place 11 years ago or so there has been a flurry of owners copying his model and building their own stadiums with their own money. Oh wait, no there hasn't!

It means that those days are over...except on days when it's not over.  ;)

As I keep saying, you can't see the forest from the trees! Cling to your 1 example of an NFL owner doing this and pass it off as "the norm" and "common place"

And you keep ignoring an example that shows the days aren't over. Maybe it isn't the norm but that isn't what you said backpeddler.

I didn't ignore it!!!  I acknowledge the Pats and the SF Giants privately funded their own stadiums which Hoodie and el Diablo brought up. I am saying that just 2 examples in all of these recent years in 4 major sports doesn't change my stance.

People are tired of spending. Instead of looking at the privately funded stadiums, look at the fight to get tax bills passed to fund them. It used to be easy and it has gotten much harder as people realized just how screwed the tax payers, all of them, not just the ones who are fans, are by these proposals.
People are tired of billionaire owners and ownership groups turning to them for upgrades that add value to their product.
How about the teams selling ownership stocks to the public to raise funds.

You think people automatically know off the top of their head who paid for every stadium?  If someone cared enough about this ridiculous discussion to go look up who paid for every stadium in the 4 major sports, I am sure you'd come up with more than 2 examples.  That's just off the top of our heads.

Regardless, who cares?  Your point matters not to the discussion.

Since you won't accept any advice on social behavior, perhaps you'll appreciate some literary advice from an editor.  The cliché you keep butchering is actually "you can't see the forest for the trees."

1) No there are only a couple examples that is the point! I didn't think there were any. I was proven wrong and there are 2! Still doesn't change my stance though.

2) It matters in the discussion in that many people (including some here on this site) are saying..."Ross should just pay for it himself". Why should he when almost no other owners in any other sports do that!!

I will accept advice on social behavior when you accept advice on comedy!  ;)

It doesn't matter what other people do.  If he wants to benefit from it, he can pay for it himself.  He could reel back the scope of the project to something more affordable.  There is a lot he could do.  Guess what - 4 years ago they did a major stadium upgrade WITHOUT PUBLIC FUNDING.  He COULD pay for it himself, it would be an investment for him because he would get more money from leasing the stadium for big events.  

It doesn't matter what other people do.  He COULD do it, if he wanted to.

Show me that you have a sense of humor...or any other qualifications for dispensing that advice, and I'll consider it. All I've learned about your sense of humor to this point is that you can't take a joke, especially when you're the punchline. ;)

They ALL could do it. EVERY owner has the money to do. Yet they don't (minus Kraft and the SF Giants).  You are holding Ross to a different standard

No, I'm not.  If I want to buy a car, and I ask the bank for money and they tell me "no" - I could still go buy the car if I have enough money saved up to buy it.  Even though 99% of all car purchases are financed through a bank.

Depends on how badly Ross wants his car.  Obviously, he doesn't want it bad enough.

A bit of digression...

Not quite.  Around 1 in 10 new cars are purchased with cash.  Used the number is even higher.   

Saving to buy a car is more financially sound than borrowing to buy one. 

^^ really?  You're going to refute the random number I made up and tell me "no its 90%, not 99%"

Really?

The point of my message is unchanged.

^^^ I said it was a digression.  Don't use random numbers and make up shit, otherwise I will start confusing you with MikeO. 

If Ross really wanted to, he certainly could pay for it all himself. Why would he though, when he sees the majority of professional sports teams getting some sort of public funding for their new stadiums? Besides, this sort of thing is a process, so even if Ross is considering paying for the renovations himself, why would he take that position this early in the process, without thoroughly pursuing any and all methods of acquiring public financing first?

Ross didn't get filthy rich by being short-sighted.



Ouch...

One thing in favor of giving owners public funds.  It's not really giving them money, in most cases.  It's not like we're taking money from a bank and handing it over.  It's a tax break.  It means that money that we would theoretically be receiving from them in property taxes is forgiven.  The risk is that if the team moves away, yes, you don't have to forgive the tax breaks, but you don't get the tax money anyway, because the team is gone.

You hit the nail right on the head with this post!

Since we are pointing out errors in the name of digression:

That depends entirely on the interest rate you are paying for the car loan.  If you are paying 0% interest then it is most certainly NOT more financially sound to pay cash.

Put another way: if I have $12,000 in my hand, and can choose buy a car outright or finance it at 0%, financing is the better option.  I can take the ~$10k I have left (after down payment and such) and invest it, and any money I make is net profit over having paid cash for the car.

If you're going to nitpick, do it right.

I've been lurking for awhile now during the offseason mostly due to the busyness of my schedule but still follow here quite frequently, and since I've seen this come up a few times, I just wanted to stick up for 'Stroke (not that he seems to need any help in this regard, granted), and state that I actually find him pretty hilarious.  Enjoy the wit, 'Stroke!  Reminds me a lot of my roommate throughout college ("pot luck", btw) and my first two years of med. school.  Think I would enjoy reading some of your stuff as a matter of fact.  Do  you currently write or mostly just editing at this point in time?

Anyways, enough of my "man gushing"...on to the actual topic at hand, to which I don't have quite as strong an opinion.  Since I don't live down there, it's not quite the same for me to say that I was disappointed that this wasn't able to at least come to a public vote, but regardless, whatever happened with that politician in Tallahassee sounds like more than a little bit of shenanigans.  I'm not sure how it would have turned out, but like most, it's discouraging that the opportunity was not made available.   Don't really know where I sit on the privately funded vs. publicly funded with tax breaks fence...while I agree it's probably unrealistic to expect Ross to privately fund the stadium despite his multitude of riches, it would still be nice to see.  I don't know enough about the details of tax breaks and property taxes to have much of an opinion on it at this point.

Hey David I get what you are saying. I grew up in Miami but I live in Orlando now.I don't care if they ever get a SB down their. I wanted the stadium upgrade for the players. I am kinda biased because I am a Hurricane fan too.The best thing is Miami did a bunch of SB Now that they wont get any more people are going to cry about tax rates going up.Guess what it brought a lot of money in.Anywho I don't care about the SB I was just in it for the team.

Thanks, David...long time no see up here.  I'm writing pretty much full-time these days, with the lion's share being web content, blog posts and ad campaign stuff (product branding, slogans, etc...). I am working on two personal projects currently that involve a good bit of comedy though. PM me your email address, and when I wrap things up, I'll make sure to fire over some material to check out.

Back on topic... While not a true Phins fan (Go Niners!), I have adopted the Phins as a second favorite team to cheer for. Losing the Dolphins would be devastating for South Florida sports, which is why I just can't see it happening. I think that when all the blustering and posturing by politicians and billionaires is done, they'll figure out a way to keep the Phins in Miami.

Very very rare, will zero % financing come without giving something else up. 

E.g. The ad in today's paper -- 0% financing OR cash $2000 rebate.

Unless you can make $2000 with your investment you would still be better off paying the less cash.   

http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/thedailydolphin/2013/06/24/report-dolphins-owner-ross-forms-pac-throws-money-against-lawmakers-who-quashed-stadium-vote/

Ross is still pissed...lol

Okay, so instead of spending his own money to finance the stadium, he is going to spend that money defeating politicians who oppose spending tax dollars on billionaire welfare. 

He is what is wrong with America. 

^^^ That would be one way of looking at it, I suppose.

Another way could be... Instead of spending his own money on a stadium to help Miami make a shitload of money off of major events like the Super Bowl, etc..., he's decided to use some of his vast fortune to combat politicians that he feels are corrupt and shouldn't be in office any more.

For the record...he's "always" been very active in supporting politicians whose goals mirror his own, as well as being very active in financing opposition to those whose goals conflict with his.

I'm pretty sure he's not going to spend $350 million (the size of the referendum package that was quashed) on PACs, so it's not quite apples-to-apples.

He already spent $10 million to fund the-vote-that-never-happened.  If he can spend another $20 million to run out the politicians that blocked him, $30M is still a hell of a lot less than $350M.

Normally i would agree with you...but these guys strung him along AND made him waste $10 MILLION DOLLARS, for a vote they then wouldn't let occur.  Had Ross just been told no from the outset, that it wasn't financially viable, THEN I would have a problem with what he is doing.

Politicians such as the ones who quashed the vote for their own personal reasons are also what's wrong with America.

I agree here.  In other countries,  Weatherford would be known as a dictator.

In other countries, Weatherford's car would explode when he turned the key in the ignition...

You say this in semi-jest but in Europe if a politician messes with a soccer team they're guaranteed to not receive votes from those fans.

^^^ I can only imagine that Weatherford, after messing with the Dolphins here, will not get votes from some Dolphins fans...

...and there was no jest, semi or full-blown, in my previous comment. ;D

That might happen here too if you piss off the wrong people