They are rolling the convention and the Stadium into one bill to pass. The police bill will be separate.
Looks like the staidum will be passed
- Thread starter calvegas04
- Start date
They have always been one bill. I was surprised the 2 issues weren't separated & asked Jon Ralston via twitter about that and he said it was an all or nothing deal as it stands. There is more & more opposition coming forward. I don't think it is a done deal either.
Definitely not a done deal! UNLV is getting screwed in the current iteration of the proposal! Legislators need to make a stand and not let this through without a financial benefit to the university instead of a financial detriment. Current proposal has UNLV paying a very large sum of money to use the stadium per game. This is a big no no for a school that's football program loses money like it's a cool thing to do!
He is far to negative about the stadium to take his word for anything. Seems like more and more people are supporting the project now than anything else.
If it was so bad for UNLV then why are they pushing it so hard? From what I remember they are going to give UNLV 3.5 million a year for 10 years to make up for the loss of Sam Boyd events. Within that time UNLV should be in a power 5.
There was a report in the San Jose Mercury about Uncle Shelly demanding a piece of the Raiders and Mark Davis telling him no and putting a wrench in this whole deal. Does anyone have a link or other insight to this occurrence? I got the feeling it was a rumor because of the pro-Oakland tenor of the article. I haven't seen it substantiated anywhere else, but it sounds believable.
I agree. This deal needs to be renegotiated to make NV a partner not just a donor. I think NV should demand a profit share comparable with the amount of money contributed. If NV is assuming the largest % of risk, they should share in the profits. If they are demanding UNLV close SBS so as to not compete with their new stadium, they should not only compensate for the revenue lost but also let UNLV play in the new stadium for free since they play almost for free ( minimal expenses) in SBS.
There is a part of me that wonders if Addy isn't in this deal, not for the stadium but to derail the whole bill so that the convention center portion of the bill dies too. New convention space would compete with and take profit away from his Sands Expo Center.
I'm seeing more and more organized groups coming out against the public funding of the stadium. From the Culinary Union, Libertarians, a conservative faith based group, to groups calling themselves Don't Raid Nevada & StadiumScam.com It is hard to tell if they can really stop the bill or not.
I'm seeing more and more organized groups coming out against the public funding of the stadium. From the Culinary Union, Libertarians, a conservative faith based group, to groups calling themselves Don't Raid Nevada & StadiumScam.com It is hard to tell if they can really stop the bill or not.
He knows he isn't getting a piece of the team and it isn't a deal beaker. The university doesn't look at it as detriment and are fully supporting it. I know people against it want it to be an issue and think some great uprising. The Gov feels he has enough support to get it passed or would not call a session and waste the money and the time during an election yr to present and vote on it. It is also believed that there is enough support to get it passed by NFL owners. I don't love the financials of the deal myself but I do believe it will pass.
This is simply not true. No lease amount has been set for UNLV.
And for people like Chi Girl who seem so opposed to this, don't you realize that in the bill there is a fallback option that funds a stadium for UNLV if the Raiders don't come? This is about the only way UNLV is going to get a stadium...through this bill. So best case UNLV plays in a $2 billion NFL stadium and worst case, as the proposal stands now, UNLV has 24 months to raise $200 million in private money that is then matched with $300 million in room tax money and boom we have a $500 million on campus stadium.
Do you really think UNLV could secure that alone if it wasn't part of this deal?
Everyone stop whining about how they think we are getting screwed here. We aren't. We will have our own UNLV locker room in the stadium and things will be done to make it feel like a UNLV stadium.
And what do you think makes us more attractive to a major conference? A standard open air on campus stadium similar to Sam Boyd or an incomparable $2 billion NFL stadium with all the trappings that come with it?
special session is to start on monday, I don't think he would have called the session unless it is going to pass.
I realize there is the fallback option which is why I say I hope it fails so UNLV can take back the deal .I say UNLV got skrewed because we brought in Davis & Addy to build the stadium on campus and they took the deal & went looking for other sites. You keep talking about how UNLV will get to play in the new stadium, there is no guarantee. They want us to close SBS with no compensation, (the millions originally offered in compensation in was not in the final agreement, and they will charge us to play in their stadium. How much they will charge has yet to be determined. We can't sell out SBS now, we may not be able to afford to play in the new stadium. I'm not against the stadium or even the public funding of it, but the deal as it stands now does not make financial sense for NV or UNLV. The numbers need to be locked down. How much in set dollar limits will the state contribute not just the 39% but a max $ amount. Why shouldn't NV share in the profit is we are assuming the majority of the risk? How much will UNLV have to pay to play in the stadium, despite NV GIVING them $750+ million? There is too much left open to exploitation otherwise.
Where do you see that? In the final recommended proposal has the agreement that UNLV will be given 3.5 for up to 10 years
Couple facts:
1) it's written in the law that UNLV football gets priority after the Raiders and that all reasonable accommodations must be made to accommodate UNLV.
2) In the recommendation UNLV gets a $3.5 million payment each year for up to 10 years to offset the lost revenue from Sam Boyd.
3) Everyone, developers included, wanted the site to be on UNLV's campus. But the FAA issues were major problems. Southwest Airlines objected. There is something that causes issues with the airport if you have a venue seating more than 30,000 near runways. I'm not that familiar with it, but do you not think we will run into these same FAA issues on UNLV's campus if we are allowed to build our own stadium instead?
4) per the law the maximum public contribution is $750mm. All overruns must be covered by the developers per the legislation.
5) The public is not assuming the majority of the risk, the developers are. They have to cover all potential operating losses at the stadium per the law. The public is protected because the revenue collected by the room tax will be 1.5 times what's needed to pay the bonds, meaning that we could suffer a room tax revenue drop equal to the Great Recession and still comfortably pay the bonds. Plus there is a two year debt reserve fund set up by the legislation. It would take something truly catastrophic for the public to have to backstop these bonds.
6) in terms of the profit sharing, the TIF financing was removed from the legislation. That means all the tax revenue associated with the project goes to state and local governments day one. That number is estimated between $35-$57mm per year, a third of which will go to education based on how the state budget currently breaks down.
7) When the convention center project is added to the stadium, the estimates are 14,000 new jobs and $84 million in new tax revenue, about $30 million of which will annually go to schools.
8) The developers don't own the stadium. The public does. Adelsons return was projected at the SNTIC meetings to be around 3% a year. He isn't doing this to make money....you think he could go do something else and earn more than 3% a year on his money?
Blind fear versus real facts, thanks for the post. Most those against are not even taking the time to get real info only go off their fear.
Cant wait for the ground breaking ceremony.
Even if the language of the contract is iffy, I don't see a situation where UNLV football does not play at least 90% of their home games at the new stadium. There is a PR angle here. Sure the contract may or may not guarantee that, but this stadium project has been highly publicized, and UNLV being a tenant has been a big part of getting people behind this project. If UNLV does not play its game there, people will be outraged, especially since it will be a state owned facility.
You keep saying "LAW" however this is just a proposal or recommendation. This recommendation is being converted to a bill by LCB (legislative counsel bureau). This will then be deliberated over on the floor of the legislature. Its completely possible that what is passed doesn't resemble the original recommendation at all.
yes but not dramatically. Things will be adjusted to alleviate some legislators concerns and bring consensus.
That's true. Yes things could be changed but I believe the basic deal points will be the same.
Also trust me, there are a lot of legislators that care about UNLV and are concerned about UNLV being protected in this deal.
Correct. Without taking care of UNLV properly none of this would get done or be where it's at right now.
I am aware that there are parties looking out for UNLV. I'm guessing this will take at least a week with some very long nights. Lots of points need to be clarified
And the adjustments I suspect have already been applied to the proposal to reflect what's needed. There are no surprises.
Question that I have.. don't know if anybody has any idea exactly how this works... with the fall back for UNLV being something along the lines of "X Amount of these funds will be allocated to UNLV for stadium purposes provided that Y Amount is raised should this bill fail" ... how is it that that anybody can be held accountable for that? Is it like a proclamation of intent that isn't legally binding, but would crush some reputations if it doesn't get held up to (Should it fail)? I guess I wonder... what's really gonna happen if it fails and UNLV is able to raise necessary funds?
Here is how it works.
If the bill passes and the Raiders don't come, then UNLV has 24 months to raise $200 million. If they do that, then the room tax increase decreases to .375 percent and UNLV can bond an additional $300 million, giving them $500 million for a stadium.
If the bill fails, well then UNLV gets nothing unless they can pass another bill or find another funding source.
Remember tax increases in the legislature require a 2/3rds vote: 28 of 42 assembly members and 14 of 21 Senators.
Gotcha. I was misreading a portion of earlier posts (not necessarily yours, but previous posts in general)... bill must be past, Raiders don't move. Makes waaaay more sense.
That's right. Like half of the stadium recommendation bill language deals with the UNLV contingency. They worked in a lot of what the Campus Improvement Authority had been working on.
with every bill, vote, or decision there is two sides. both can have accurate info as to what their side is doing
Last edited:
Done deal. When it came out of Southern NV unanimous and Sandavol backed it (not to mention getting the blessing of the Godfather Harry Reid) - no way it does not pass out of the special session.
After the 2 billion tax aid package for the Tesla factory (exclusive benefit to Reno) not passing it would be a full declaration of war with Southern Nevada. Due to the fact that 100% of the tax funding comes from Southern Nevada, there is no reason for anyone from outside of Southern Nevada to vote against it beyond a desire to spit on Clark County.
