Harris County Toll Roads To Pay For Texans Practice Field

[musicman]

Harris County will help pay off a 26 million dollar loan for land the Houston Texans use for parking and their bubble practice field. The Harris county convention and sports corporation is unable to pay because the hotel/motel funds are lower than expected.

Now the county will step in using funds from the Harris County Toll Road Authority.

Should toll road funds be used for this?

[BWSchultz]

Harris County will help pay off a 26 million dollar loan for land the Houston Texans use for parking and their bubble practice field. The Harris county convention and sports corporation is unable to pay because the hotel/motel funds are lower than expected.

Now the county will step in using funds from the Harris County Toll Road Authority.

Should toll road funds be used for this?

I pay $10 a week to HCTRA. I'd pay $20 if it meant we could have a good football team. Maybe build another practice field?

In all seriousness, no. The money should go to more important areas like HPD.

[RedScare]

Should toll road funds be used for this?

The short answer is absolutely not. However, the long answer involves the County's credit rating, if the stadium bonds are defaulted upon. In that scenario, I'd rather the County take over the loan than pay higher interest on it's bonds.

It seems to me that the owner of the third most valuable franchise in the NFL should be chipping in to cover those loans. Same goes for the baseball team.

[west20th]

Harris County will help pay off a 26 million dollar loan for land the Houston Texans use for parking and their bubble practice field. The Harris county convention and sports corporation is unable to pay because the hotel/motel funds are lower than expected.

Now the county will step in using funds from the Harris County Toll Road Authority.

Should toll road funds be used for this?

Not just no but HELL NO! Why do we let the multi-millionaire sports team owners continually screw us over? Unbelievable. There is also talk that property taxes will be dipped into next year to make up for a shortfall in bond payments for the Reliant complex.

[TheNiche]

The short answer is absolutely not. However, the long answer involves the County's credit rating, if the stadium bonds are defaulted upon. In that scenario, I'd rather the County take over the loan than pay higher interest on it's bonds.

It seems to me that the owner of the third most valuable franchise in the NFL should be chipping in to cover those loans. Same goes for the baseball team.

Good analysis.

[musicman]

i found it interesting that sylvia garcia was on tv pushing this and the chronicle said she voted against it.

[Hunter]

It seems to me that the owner of the third most valuable franchise in the NFL should be chipping in to cover those loans. Same goes for the baseball team.

My Feelings exactly! Let them pay for it.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Better pray Rick Perry gets re-elected and he gets his corridor deal in because the Texans need lots of practice. And the extra tolls will help cover this sweetheart of a deal! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

[Houston19514]

Does anyone know of a source where I could get more information about this proposal?

[pineda]

Here's where I heard about the plan...

[Houston19514]

Here's where I heard about the plan...

Thank you. So, at least from the way KTRH tells the story, the postings on this thread left out the rather important detail that it will be a LOAN from HCTRA to Harris County-Houston Sports Authority.

[musicman]

The money from the toll roads should only be for the toll road system not for other purposes.

[Houston19514]

Again, it's a LOAN. The money will come back to the toll road system. This seems like a far better solution than defaulting on the original loan or using general tax funds to pay off the original loan.

[west20th]

Again, it's a LOAN. The money will come back to the toll road system. This seems like a far better solution than defaulting on the original loan or using general tax funds to pay off the original loan.

Loan? What are the odds that this loan will ever be paid back? Let the sports team owners "loan" the money.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Again, it's a LOAN. The money will come back to the toll road system. This seems like a far better solution than defaulting on the original loan or using general tax funds to pay off the original loan.

What in the hell do you think a bond is? The mythical money tree you thought existed when you were a kid?

A bond is a LOAN, HELLO!!!! A bond is just structured differently to save on interest and insurance on the huge principals it takes to pull something off like building a stadium or a practice field or what ever. It's still a loan that has to be repaid or go into default, the position they are in to today.

They can't pay back the bond, so what's gonna make them payback the load. essentially the toll payers are going to own a practice field, when the default on the load. Are we getting this yet?

[Houston19514]

What in the hell do you think a bond is? The mythical money tree you thought existed when you were a kid?

A bond is a LOAN, HELLO!!!! A bond is just structured differently to save on interest and insurance on the huge principals it takes to pull something off like building a stadium or a practice field or what ever. It's still a loan that has to be repaid or go into default, the position they are in to today.

They can't pay back the bond, so what's gonna make them payback the load. essentially the toll payers are going to own a practice field, when the default on the load. Are we getting this yet?

Cool your jets, man. I am quite aware that bonds are also loans. But what does that have to do with the question at hand? What we are discussing is a LOAN (not a bond) from RCM Financial Services to the Sports & Convention Corporation. What is proposed is a LOAN (not a bond) from HCTRA to the Sports & Convention Corporation.

I think I am getting this. It is apparent that you are not.

IF the toll payers were to end up owning the practice field (which will almost certainly never happen), they will then be the owners of a quite-valuable piece of property, which can be sold, I would presume. But in any case, I presume the first line of security for the loan will be the revenue stream of the Harris County Houston Sports Authority. According to the KTRH story, the Sports & Convention Corporation simply does not (or will not) have the cash on hand to pay off the principal when it comes due. So they are in effect proposing to refinance with another lender, that apparently has some cash on hand. You stretch out your payments for a few more years and no harm. Quite similar to a homeowner with a loan that has a bubble payment due at the end. If you don't have the cash when the bubble comes due, you refinance and stretch out the payments.

There is not enough detail in the KTRH story to know, but I wonder if they ever anticipated having the cash available to pay off this loan or if they always planned to "refinance". The alternative might be that the Sports Authority revenue stream did not keep up with projections (that seems likely in the early years, with the 2000 downturn in the economy/stock market, 9/11, Enron, etc. I am sure the hotel/motel and rental car taxes did not keep up with projections in the early years of the Sports Authority, but I would imagine their revenue stream should be quite healthy now and quite able to handle the loan payments to HCTRA.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Cool your jets, man. I am quite aware that bonds are also loans. But what does that have to do with the question at hand? What we are discussing is a LOAN (not a bond) from RCM Financial Services to the Sports & Convention Corporation. What is proposed is a LOAN (not a bond) from HCTRA to the Sports & Convention Corporation.

I think I am getting this. It is apparent that you are not.

IF the toll payers were to end up owning the practice field (which will almost certainly never happen), they will then be the owners of a quite-valuable piece of property, which can be sold, I would presume. But in any case, I presume the first line of security for the loan will be the revenue stream of the Harris County Houston Sports Authority. According to the KTRH story, the Sports & Convention Corporation simply does not (or will not) have the cash on hand to pay off the principal when it comes due. So they are in effect proposing to refinance with another lender, that apparently has some cash on hand. You stretch out your payments for a few more years and no harm. Quite similar to a homeowner with a loan that has a bubble payment due at the end. If you don't have the cash when the bubble comes due, you refinance and stretch out the payments.

There is not enough detail in the KTRH story to know, but I wonder if they ever anticipated having the cash available to pay off this loan or if they always planned to "refinance". The alternative might be that the Sports Authority revenue stream did not keep up with projections (that seems likely in the early years, with the 2000 downturn in the economy/stock market, 9/11, Enron, etc. I am sure the hotel/motel and rental car taxes did not keep up with projections in the early years of the Sports Authority, but I would imagine their revenue stream should be quite healthy now and quite able to handle the loan payments to HCTRA.

Just curious to where you got a look at the spread sheets and financial statements to substantiate you being so sure. There is nothing I have seen posted in any public venue that substantiates your surety. You are not going to try and pawn this off on Enron now are you really? Stock Market downturn? Come on you can be a little more original than that now can't you.

Let me point out a few things, since you seem to be so informed, and I am not. Opposition to this original funding predicted this to the letter, that there was no way the "Houston Sports Authority" was going to be able to pay back these loans based on realistically projected numbers Hotel and Rental Car Taxes. They blew up the numbers to sell the public on this deal, with the Enron type accounting practices, that's about the only thing remotely related to Enron in this sweetheart deal. They "Assured the Public" that it would not cost the tax payers one dollar, it was a "Self funding no brain-er" they said. Hmm what happened there. The Texans have been selling out the stadium, Season Tickets are beyond all projections, still the books aren't balancing. Go figure. It didn't take the "Amazing Kreskin" to see this one coming. It was a typical bureaucratic line of BS that sold this deal, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

So educate us on where this money is going to come from, are more care rentals being made now than before, are more Hotels and Motels being used than before? I doubt it seriously, and if it is more not near enough to make a difference. What terms are this new loan going to be? 5 years, 10 years? 30 years? When this loans defaults and it will, who is going to bail them out next? Do you really think they would be able to sell that land? Hell NO! We'd just own it and that what was intended to begin with, it was just the buck and shuffle to get it to that point. Come on educate us. Help us out that "Just don't get it".

[Houston19514]

Just curious to where you got a look at the spread sheets and financial statements to substantiate you being so sure. There is nothing I have seen posted in any public venue that substantiates your surety. You are not going to try and pawn this off on Enron now are you really? Stock Market downturn? Come on you can be a little more original than that now can't you.

Let me point out a few things, since you seem to be so informed, and I am not. Opposition to this original funding predicted this to the letter, that there was no way the "Houston Sports Authority" was going to be able to pay back these loans based on realistically projected numbers Hotel and Rental Car Taxes. They blew up the numbers to sell the public on this deal, with the Enron type accounting practices, that's about the only thing remotely related to Enron in this sweetheart deal. They "Assured the Public" that it would not cost the tax payers one dollar, it was a "Self funding no brain-er" they said. Hmm what happened there. The Texans have been selling out the stadium, Season Tickets are beyond all projections, still the books aren't balancing. Go figure. It didn't take the "Amazing Kreskin" to see this one coming. It was a typical bureaucratic line of BS that sold this deal, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

So educate us on where this money is going to come from, are more care rentals being made now than before, are more Hotels and Motels being used than before? I doubt it seriously, and if it is more not near enough to make a difference. What terms are this new loan going to be? 5 years, 10 years? 30 years? When this loans defaults and it will, who is going to bail them out next? Do you really think they would be able to sell that land? Hell NO! We'd just own it and that what was intended to begin with, it was just the buck and shuffle to get it to that point. Come on educate us. Help us out that "Just don't get it".

Calm down, man. You are getting irrational.

One does not really have to look at spread sheets and financial statements to know that the confluence of events in 2000-2001 that I listed in my earlier post led to a precipitous drop in travel, therefore, ipso facto, to a precipitous drop in the revenue collected by the Sports Authority, compared to projections.

Likewise, one does not really have to look at spread sheets and financial statements to surmise that, with both airports now reporting record traffic, and with the hotel market (a) having added more rooms and ( now running at a relatively healthy 70%+ occupancy rate, surely the Sports Authority's revenue is substantially healthier now, perhaps (hopefully) more in line with projections. (I would love to see the projections and statements of current revenues, but have not been able to find them on-line. You imply that you have seen (or are familiar with) the projections; would you be so kind as to share?.) Edit: I found a bit of information; second-hand, at best, but it's all I've found so far... "In 2002 and 2003, the revenues sagged by approximately 10 percent. To meet the annual payments , the authority had projected annual 3 percent increases in hotel and car rental tax revenues." A projected 3 percent annual increase seems almost conservative for a city such as Houston, and well within reason.

You are somewhat less than prescient in your statement that it "was intended to begin with" that Harris County end up owning the land. Of course that was the intention, and in fact, that is already the case (I guess this is another instance of your truly "not getting it.") And the intention is to pay for it with Sports Authority revenue. I have no idea what the term of the new loan is going to be. Why does it matter?

Just curious to where you got a look at the spread sheets and financial statements to substantiate you being so sure that this new loan will default. Come on educate us.

Just curious to where you got a look at the spread sheets and financial statements to substantiate you being so sure that the opposition predicted this to the letter. Come on educate us.

And while you're at it, I await your explanation of your rant about "bonds" in your earlier post. Come on educate us.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Houston19514

[musicman]

Come on educate us.

What spreadsheets are you looking at?

To mix monies from the toll road system and the sports authority doesn't have a pleasant appearance. The sports authority should resolve the matter so prevent this mingling of money.

[pineda]

Wasn't the Houston Sports Authority supposed to be dissolved once the stadiums were built?

[Houston19514]

What spreadsheets are you looking at?

To mix monies from the toll road system and the sports authority doesn't have a pleasant appearance. The sports authority should resolve the matter so prevent this mingling of money.

What spreadsheets are you referring to?

Nobody is "mixing" money here. Money is fungible. IF this transaction takes place, the HCTRA will loan the money to the Sports & Convention Corporation and will take a security interest in the revenue stream and/or the real property, just like a third-party, arms-length transaction. If the transaction is NOT done in that way, THEN we will have something to scream about.

Wasn't the Houston Sports Authority supposed to be dissolved once the stadiums were built?

Not necessarily. There is an on-going discussion/controversy about whether it should be disbanded.

[pineda]

But, wasn't it originally intended to be dissolved, once the stadiums were built? Isn't the language to that effect written somewhere in the original documentation for the Houston Sports Authority?

[musicman]

What spreadsheets are you referring to?

Nobody is "mixing" money here. Money is fungible. IF this transaction takes place, the HCTRA will loan the money to the Sports & Convention Corporation and will take a security interest in the revenue stream and/or the real property, just like a third-party, arms-length transaction. If the transaction is NOT done in that way, THEN we will have something to scream about.

Not necessarily. There is an on-going discussion/controversy about whether it should be disbanded.

it has already happened btw. you don't mix monies from different entites esp when harris county is ultimately in charge. in this instance, it LOOKS bad. remember enron field? the toll road authority was supposed to deal with toll road issues only, not bailing out another county entity.

and the sports authority was supposed to be resolved. a few people are trying to figure out what "else" they can do.

Edited October 10, 2006 by musicman

[Houston19514]

it has already happened btw. you don't mix monies from different entites esp when harris county is ultimately in charge. in this instance, it LOOKS bad. remember enron field?

and the sports authority was supposed to be resolved. a few people are trying to figure out what "else" they can do.

What about Enron Field? What does Enron Field have to do with mixing money? And again, I reiterate, that there is nothing wrong with "mixing money" (if you insist on calling it that), if the loan, the security and the exchange are properly documented.

I don't think there was anything in the ennabling legislation or other matters by which the Sports Authority was created that required that it be "resolved" (by which I am presuming you meant "dissolved").

Edited October 10, 2006 by Houston19514

[Mark F. Barnes]

I'm very calm and no where near irrational so you can stow that!

They sold this deal on the premise that the bonds would cover the publicly funded portion of the sports complex. Opponents of the deal were wanting the Team owners to put up more instead of burdening the tax payers with it, because many felt the bonds would not be met based on projection made by opponents financial experts. As of today this appears to be the case. They are in serious default mode if they don't get help.

http://www.hchsa.org/legal/funding_agreement.pdf

On November 16, 2000 the Houston City Council voted to give up $632,000 a year in taxes on the Texans' new Reliant Stadium that was due to open in 2002. Team owner Bob McNair and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo asked for the tax break to help finance the venue. City officials said a 2004 Super Bowl game planned for the venue would offset most of the tax loss.

On January 23, 2001, a Deloitte & Touche study projected an annual 5.5 percent growth in sports authority revenues between 2003 and 2007. The HSA's board's finance chairman, Ric Campo, said the sports authority's money is completely tapped for 30 years if hotel and car rental tax revenues grow at a conservative 3 percent a year. Yet even if this growth outpaces the conservative projection of 3 percent, the sports authority must build a reserve of $30 million to $45 million to obtain low financing rates for its stadium debts, Campo said. With that consideration, he said, excess money for other projects would perhaps not be available for about eight to 10 years. During campaigns to win public support for the sports facilities, Coleman said, voters were often more interested in improving their schools and hospitals. "The people of Houston and Harris County should have options for what they want to use this money for," he said. "This bill just extends those options." The financially strapped Harris County Hospital District would be a natural fit, Coleman said. The money could be used to construct neighborhood clinics, he said. However spending sports authority revenues on health care facilities was not an option when voters narrowly approved baseball and football stadiums in 1996 and strongly approved the arena in November 2000.

A common theme advanced by stadium supporters during those campaigns was that sports authority revenues could not be used for roads, schools and hospitals. While not raising the sports authority's 2 percent hotel and 5 percent car rental taxes, Rep. Garnet Coleman wanted to push through a bill that would add health care facilities to those it can already fund - stadiums, convention centers, parks and even river-walk-type developments. These, Coleman argues, are quality-of-life enhancements, which, possible opponents note, can be economic development engines that increase tourism, and would give them another avenue to funnel money in, on the premise that it would be helping hospitals and such. See they came up with this idea after they found out they would not be getting the Olympics anytime soon. The Trojan horse was shot down thank goodness, and now they are sitting here facing default on the bonds. They can't finish this deal, how on earth did anyone ever think they could handle more. What a crock.

http://www.hchsa.org/news/archive/news98.html#97minutes

See this all boils down to the fact that they were selling hogs they did not own. They were counting on getting the Olympics in here by 2010 and we know that is not happening. The Olympics would have funded the entire bond in one drop of the bucket, but they couldn't guarantee that during the campaign of the bonding, because everyone knows the politics behind getting the IOC to play ball. LA pulled off a miracle getting it back there. The HSA counted their chickens a little too close. It really is a line of BS that came back to haunt them.

I don't need a spread sheet to go on track record, they are in trouble now and they are just shuffling paper to buy more time. In the end they are going to use the general tax fund to bail them out and that is the number one thing that this deal was sold on, that the HSA said would not happen. The HCTRA has nothing to lose the will get their money and interest from the next funding source whether it be General Tax funding or whatever. During this whole time Bob McNair is getting richer, the football players are getting richer, and the tax payer is going to foot the bill.

http://www.hchsa.org/legal/additional_park...lities_land.pdf

Edited October 10, 2006 by Mark F. Barnes

[Houston19514]

I'm very calm and no where near irrational so you can stow that!

They sold this deal on the premise that the bonds would cover the publicly funded portion of the sports complex. Opponents of the deal were wanting the Team owners to put up more instead of burdening the tax payers with it, because many felt the bonds would not be met based on projection made by opponents financial experts. As of today this appears to be the case. They are in serious default mode if they don't get help.

http://www.hchsa.org/legal/funding_agreement.pdf

On November 16, 2000 the Houston City Council voted to give up $632,000 a year in taxes on the Texans' new Reliant Stadium that was due to open in 2002. Team owner Bob McNair and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo asked for the tax break to help finance the venue. City officials said a 2004 Super Bowl game planned for the venue would offset most of the tax loss.

On January 23, 2001, a Deloitte & Touche study projected an annual 5.5 percent growth in sports authority revenues between 2003 and 2007. The HSA's board's finance chairman, Ric Campo, said the sports authority's money is completely tapped for 30 years if hotel and car rental tax revenues grow at a conservative 3 percent a year. Yet even if this growth outpaces the conservative projection of 3 percent, the sports authority must build a reserve of $30 million to $45 million to obtain low financing rates for its stadium debts, Campo said. With that consideration, he said, excess money for other projects would perhaps not be available for about eight to 10 years. During campaigns to win public support for the sports facilities, Coleman said, voters were often more interested in improving their schools and hospitals. "The people of Houston and Harris County should have options for what they want to use this money for," he said. "This bill just extends those options." The financially strapped Harris County Hospital District would be a natural fit, Coleman said. The money could be used to construct neighborhood clinics, he said. However spending sports authority revenues on health care facilities was not an option when voters narrowly approved baseball and football stadiums in 1996 and strongly approved the arena in November 2000.

A common theme advanced by stadium supporters during those campaigns was that sports authority revenues could not be used for roads, schools and hospitals. While not raising the sports authority's 2 percent hotel and 5 percent car rental taxes, Rep. Garnet Coleman wanted to push through a bill that would add health care facilities to those it can already fund - stadiums, convention centers, parks and even river-walk-type developments. These, Coleman argues, are quality-of-life enhancements, which, possible opponents note, can be economic development engines that increase tourism, and would give them another avenue to funnel money in, on the premise that it would be helping hospitals and such. See they came up with this idea after they found out they would not be getting the Olympics anytime soon. The Trojan horse was shot down thank goodness, and now they are sitting here facing default on the bonds. They can't finish this deal, how on earth did anyone ever think they could handle more. What a crock.

http://www.hchsa.org/news/archive/news98.html#97minutes

See this all boils down to the fact that they were selling hogs they did not own. They were counting on getting the Olympics in here by 2010 and we know that is not happening. The Olympics would have funded the entire bond in one drop of the bucket, but they couldn't guarantee that during the campaign of the bonding, because everyone knows the politics behind getting the IOC to play ball. LA pulled off a miracle getting it back there. The HSA counted their chickens a little too close. It really is a line of BS that came back to haunt them.

I don't need a spread sheet to go on track record, they are in trouble now and they are just shuffling paper to buy more time. In the end they are going to use the general tax fund to bail them out and that is the number one thing that this deal was sold on, that the HSA said would not happen. The HCTRA has nothing to lose the will get their money and interest from the next funding source whether it be General Tax funding or whatever. During this whole time Bob McNair is getting richer, the football players are getting richer, and the tax payer is going to foot the bill.

http://www.hchsa.org/legal/additional_park...lities_land.pdf

So I'm guessing your were opposed to the stadium deal and are still bitter about it. I'm not here to argue whether the stadium deal was good, wise, idiotic or whatever. It is what it is and it was based on certain revenue projections that did NOT, oddly enough, forsesee the events of 2000-2001 that collectively caused a drop in revenue. You blithely ignore the salient fact of the unforeseen drop in travel, causing an unforeseen drop in revenue for the Sports Authority. Are we getting this yet? ;-)

You have just posted that they based the financing on a more conservative revenue projection that was projected by Deloitte & Touche at the time. Sounds eminently reasonable and responsible to me. Where is the evidence they were "selling hogs they did not own?"

And by the way, the proposed Olympics were not until 2012. It is a little hard to see how that would have had any impact on the current status on the bonds one way or the other, even if we had been awarded the 2012 games. In any event, I don't recall any reliance on supposed Olympics revenue to cover bond payments when they were selling the deal to the public. (Honestly, anybody foolish enough to cast a vote relying on Olympic games to pay the bill deserves what they get.)

[Mark F. Barnes]

So I'm guessing your were opposed to the stadium deal and are still bitter about it. I'm not here to argue whether the stadium deal was good, wise, idiotic or whatever. It is what it is and it was based on certain revenue projections that did NOT, oddly enough, forsesee the events of 2000-2001 that collectively caused a drop in revenue. You blithely ignore the salient fact of the unforeseen drop in travel, causing an unforeseen drop in revenue for the Sports Authority. Are we getting this yet? ;-)

You have just posted that they based the financing on a more conservative revenue projection that was projected by Deloitte & Touche at the time. Sounds eminently reasonable and responsible to me. Where is the evidence they were "selling hogs they did not own?"

And by the way, the proposed Olympics were not until 2012. It is a little hard to see how that would have had any impact on the current status on the bonds one way or the other, even if we had been awarded the 2012 games. In any event, I don't recall any reliance on supposed Olympics revenue to cover bond payments when they were selling the deal to the public. (Honestly, anybody foolish enough to cast a vote relying on Olympic games to pay the bill deserves what they get.)

I can see the mistake I made on the Olympic year 2012, anyway, I can't tell if you are in agreement or not. All of this HSA cash cow all got started back in 1996 and they convinced many people that if Houston had this $1 billion dollar sports complex they would lure in a football team, the Olympics a Superbowl all-star games etc. Now they have had the all star games, the Superbowl, and will get another, but the real big bread winner for the HSA is the Olympics. I just don't think you realize the huge amount of monies involved. It is the big Kahuna of sports. The Superbowl isn't a drop in the bucket. It is in the Billions. If they were granted the 2012 by the IOC advance monies would have pored in and they were saved on the bonds. The IOC will provide approximately $300 million to the NOC's participating city for start-up deposit. For instance: The Salt Lake Organising Committee (SLOC) received approximately $1.3 billion from Olympic marketing programs. Out of this figure, more than $570 million came from the marketing programmes managed by the International Olympic Committee. Are we getting the picture yet. They gambled on landing the 2012 games and lost. It has little to nothing to do with the 13 month lull in travel behind 9/11. On top of these funds from the IOC and the OCOG, there is the Broadcast revenues $440 million (ballpark guess), Local sponsorship $575 million est, Ticket Sales $180 million est., Licensing $25 million min., TOP $130 million (the TOP program, supports all 199 NOC's throughout the world,) Are we seeing it yet. It is a huge money maker for the local economy, no argument there.

Oh by the way Deloitte & Touche was hired by the HSA to lend support to their campaign to sell this crock.

No I wasn't against them having all these cool stadiums, but I could see through the BS they were shoveling to sell the deal to the unknowing public. A lot of people did, that is why they had such a difficult time passing the bonds and the plans. Excuse me, but isn

[musicman]

What about Enron Field? What does Enron Field have to do with mixing money? And again, I reiterate, that there is nothing wrong with "mixing money" (if you insist on calling it that), if the loan, the security and the exchange are properly documented.

I don't think there was anything in the ennabling legislation or other matters by which the Sports Authority was created that required that it be "resolved" (by which I am presuming you meant "dissolved").

Enron was also mixing money or lack thereof. one company was bolstering another but none were solvent. To me there's a problem. if these were two separate entities that is one thing, however when harris county is responsible for both, well it LOOKS bad.

[Houston19514]

Enron was also mixing money or lack thereof. one company was bolstering another but none were solvent. To me there's a problem. if these were two separate entities that is one thing, however when harris county is responsible for both, well it LOOKS bad.

Gotcha. In other words, your "mixing money" reference had nothing to do with Enron Field, the baseball stadium.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

I can see the mistake I made on the Olympic year 2012, anyway, I can't tell if you are in agreement or not. All of this HSA cash cow all got started back in 1996 and they convinced many people that if Houston had this $1 billion dollar sports complex they would lure in a football team, the Olympics a Superbowl all-star games etc. Now they have had the all star games, the Superbowl, and will get another, but the real big bread winner for the HSA is the Olympics. I just don't think you realize the huge amount of monies involved. It is the big Kahuna of sports. The Superbowl isn't a drop in the bucket. It is in the Billions. If they were granted the 2012 by the IOC advance monies would have pored in and they were saved on the bonds. The IOC will provide approximately $300 million to the NOC's participating city for start-up deposit. For instance: The Salt Lake Organising Committee (SLOC) received approximately $1.3 billion from Olympic marketing programs. Out of this figure, more than $570 million came from the marketing programmes managed by the International Olympic Committee. Are we getting the picture yet. They gambled on landing the 2012 games and lost. It has little to nothing to do with the 13 month lull in travel behind 9/11. On top of these funds from the IOC and the OCOG, there is the Broadcast revenues $440 million (ballpark guess), Local sponsorship $575 million est, Ticket Sales $180 million est., Licensing $25 million min., TOP $130 million (the TOP program, supports all 199 NOC's throughout the world,) Are we seeing it yet. It is a huge money maker for the local economy, no argument there.

Oh by the way Deloitte & Touche was hired by the HSA to lend support to their campaign to sell this crock.

No I wasn't against them having all these cool stadiums, but I could see through the BS they were shoveling to sell the deal to the unknowing public. A lot of people did, that is why they had such a difficult time passing the bonds and the plans. Excuse me, but isn

Edited October 11, 2006 by Houston19514