Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Major League Baseball)   Los Angeles Dodgers sign Clayton Kershaw to a 7-year, $215 million contract, meaning he will make more money per year than the entire Houston Astros roster. (That's not a joke.)   (mlb.mlb.com ) divider line 83
    More: Obvious, Clayton Kershaw, Astros, Dodgers, Greg Maddux, A.J. Ellis, Chad Billingsley, left-handed, Sandy Koufax  
•       •       •

556 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Jan 2014 at 11:15 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-16 09:30:09 AM  

Beerguy: You don't see the other option?

How about something like this:   Lets say they pay him 10 mil a year (still ridiculous) instead of 30, and lets say they take that other 20 mil and distribute it to all of the people who work for the Dodgers. So, the groundscrew, the custodians, the concessions people, etc. get a nice raise.

Is that not an option?


No, that's not an option.  If the Dodgers try to pay him $10 Million a year, then he'll go play somewhere else.  If the Dodgers try to play every single player on their roster 1/3rd what they could make elsewhere, they'll all go play somewhere else, until the only people left playing for the Dodgers will be San Francisco's AA rejects.  No one is going to pay to watch those guys play, and no one is going to tune in to watch their games.  Then the Dodgers stop making money.  Then the guy complaining about Clayton Kershaw making $30 Million a year will get laid off along with every one else.  And he'll probably still be thinking that the reason he got laid off is that the team was over paying its players.

farking markets. How do they work?
 
2014-01-16 09:34:53 AM  

WinoRhino: great_tigers: Also, Dodgers Stadium was constructed using private funds in 1962. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodger_Stadium so I am really struggling to find what tax payer money was spent on this stadium instead of "to kill a mocking bird" for suzy in your first hour class.

Do you realize how much money professional sports team make cities? How are these tax funded stadiums justified? The team contributes a ton of money to a cities bottom line.

Answer me, how much should Clayton earn a year?

You really are just fixated on one person and not the general idea, here. There's no sense taking this discussion any further if you just can't wrap your head around the bigger picture.


What general idea, "people like sports too much"? How do you stop people from spending their money on sports?
 
2014-01-16 09:37:09 AM  

ElwoodCuse: Public funding of stadiums IS a problem. Detroit is broke but they have $400 million for the Red Wings? How's Miami doing with that stadium they built for the Marlins?


The thing is Detroit's ROI on that stadium will be worth it. The 400 million is essentially a tax break. They will make it up with taxing workers, raw material as well as hopefully continue to build a city infastructure that desperately needs a face lift. The Red Wings have been very good to Detroit, Detroit is just giving back.

Oh, plus taxable salaries for 40 years and other uses the stadium will have and earn the team and city will make 400 million look like a drop in the bucket.
 
2014-01-16 09:41:07 AM  
Mike Illitch can and should pay for every cent of that arena himself.
 
2014-01-16 09:42:10 AM  

WinoRhino: great_tigers: Also, Dodgers Stadium was constructed using private funds in 1962. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodger_Stadium so I am really struggling to find what tax payer money was spent on this stadium instead of "to kill a mocking bird" for suzy in your first hour class.

Do you realize how much money professional sports team make cities? How are these tax funded stadiums justified? The team contributes a ton of money to a cities bottom line.

Answer me, how much should Clayton earn a year?

You really are just fixated on one person and not the general idea, here. There's no sense taking this discussion any further if you just can't wrap your head around the bigger picture.


If I am not mistaken the story is about Clayton Kershaw right? I went through and demenstrated how the free market works for almost all levels of the sports teams world, I asked you to provide me who should lose out, I  proved that an ROI is actually benefitial for a city that uses tax payers funding and yet your comment is that earning money is detrimental to society. You were unable to provide me with evidence of how this is detrimental and now you slap me with with an ignorant slap in the face that I cannot wrap my head around the bigger picture.

I am really farking sorry you cannot get your computers replaced every single year, but I am failing to see how an owner paying an employee has any effect on you what so ever.
 
2014-01-16 09:43:54 AM  

Chakro: Let's see, $32,000,000 divided by 7 years = $4,571,428.5 divided by 32* games a year = $142,857.14 divided by 100* pitches per game = $1,428.57 per pitch. *approx.


Is his contract $32 million for 7 years?
 
2014-01-16 09:45:30 AM  
I don't begrudge pro athletes their huge salaries. I just choose to not go to professional games unless given tickets and I typically don't buy pro merchandise (My Brooklyn Cyclones jersey is an exception)
 
2014-01-16 09:48:46 AM  

Realms of the Colon: Chakro: Let's see, $32,000,000 divided by 7 years = $4,571,428.5 divided by 32* games a year = $142,857.14 divided by 100* pitches per game = $1,428.57 per pitch. *approx.

Is his contract $32 million for 7 years?


Oops. my calculator won't do $215,000,000. I screwed that up. It comes to $9,598.21 a pitch.
 
2014-01-16 09:55:01 AM  

WinoRhino: Piizzadude: this is why I gave up going to all games. The ticket price, then the crap prices for beer and all the rest. It is nuts.

I agree. I love baseball. I'm consumed by it. But I go to maybe 1 game a year, and only then if a friend gives me a ticket or something. Otherwise it's the radio and my back deck with some beers. I can afford to go to more, but I just can't justify it. If I pay $25 I can spend 6 hours brewing beer with some friends on a Saturday and listening to the game. That is way more bang for my buck.


agreed.  listening to the radio is a lost art.  i love puttering in my garage with the game on.
 
2014-01-16 09:58:00 AM  

stir22: WinoRhino: Piizzadude: this is why I gave up going to all games. The ticket price, then the crap prices for beer and all the rest. It is nuts.

I agree. I love baseball. I'm consumed by it. But I go to maybe 1 game a year, and only then if a friend gives me a ticket or something. Otherwise it's the radio and my back deck with some beers. I can afford to go to more, but I just can't justify it. If I pay $25 I can spend 6 hours brewing beer with some friends on a Saturday and listening to the game. That is way more bang for my buck.

agreed.  listening to the radio is a lost art.  i love puttering in my garage with the game on.


Listening to Dan Dickerson and Jim Price on a Saturday afternoon game while working in garage with my dog watching the neighborhood might possibly be the closest thing to heaven on earth. The only thing that would be better is if Harwell was still doing them.

/Yellow Hammer
 
2014-01-16 10:27:13 AM  

stir22: agreed.  listening to the radio is a lost art.  i love puttering in my garage with the game on.


Plus high-def has spoiled me. I don't pay for additional cable packages, but when I can catch a game in high-def, I'm usually glued to the TV, albeit with the radio broadcast on.

Growing up in the NYC area I got to listen to Bob Murphy on WFAN 660 - RIP, Murph, you were one heck of an announcer.
 
2014-01-16 10:27:30 AM  

Talondel: No, that's not an option. If the Dodgers try to pay him $10 Million a year, then he'll go play somewhere else.


I think you're purposely missing his point.  Just because his specific solution didn't solve the problem doesn't mean the problem of way overpaying ballplayers while ignoring others doesn't exist.  MLB could institute a ratio rule - ballplayers cannot make more than 500X what the lowest paid staffer makes.  You wanna pay someone 30 million a year?  Great, your lowest staffer should make 60K a year then.

Talondel: If the Dodgers try to play every single player on their roster 1/3rd what they could make elsewhere, they'll all go play somewhere else


Kinda like how the best players end up playing for the Yankees?  I agree with you, baseball is completely ruined by the best players ending up on the clubs that can afford them.  It's less about teams and athletics than it is about money.

I'll tell you what though, the easy out from my comment is to pretend like I wrote "it is only about money" and then bring up the Cubs or how the Yankees don't always win the World Series and imply the Brewers have just as much of a shot at the Series next year as the Dodgers.
 
2014-01-16 11:02:28 AM  

WinoRhino: I agree. I love baseball. I'm consumed by it. But I go to maybe 1 game a year, and only then if a friend gives me a ticket or something. Otherwise it's the radio and my back deck with some beers. I can afford to go to more, but I just can't justify it. If I pay $25 I can spend 6 hours brewing beer with some friends on a Saturday and listening to the game. That is way more bang for my buck.


You kids, you know the best place to go see a ball game? Minor league games. I have the Detroit Tigers AA team near me, ticket prices are $5 and generally have buy one get one beer (tues and thursday games). Hotdogs are two for $3.

Yeah, I might not get to watch Kershaw pitch, but I get to watch kids with talent playing a fun game and I'm getting boozed up and enjoying it!
 
2014-01-16 11:09:54 AM  

Talondel: Beerguy: You don't see the other option?

How about something like this:   Lets say they pay him 10 mil a year (still ridiculous) instead of 30, and lets say they take that other 20 mil and distribute it to all of the people who work for the Dodgers. So, the groundscrew, the custodians, the concessions people, etc. get a nice raise.

Is that not an option?

No, that's not an option.  If the Dodgers try to pay him $10 Million a year, then he'll go play somewhere else.  If the Dodgers try to play every single player on their roster 1/3rd what they could make elsewhere, they'll all go play somewhere else, until the only people left playing for the Dodgers will be San Francisco's AA rejects.  No one is going to pay to watch those guys play, and no one is going to tune in to watch their games.  Then the Dodgers stop making money.  Then the guy complaining about Clayton Kershaw making $30 Million a year will get laid off along with every one else.  And he'll probably still be thinking that the reason he got laid off is that the team was over paying its players.

farking markets. How do they work?


Ok, my example was an over simplified scenario.

The problem is league-wide.

The owners need to get together and collectively agree to a reasonable salary cap.
 
2014-01-16 11:32:34 AM  

lennavan: Talondel: No, that's not an option. If the Dodgers try to pay him $10 Million a year, then he'll go play somewhere else.

I think you're purposely missing his point.  Just because his specific solution didn't solve the problem doesn't mean the problem of way overpaying ballplayers while ignoring others doesn't exist.  MLB could institute a ratio rule - ballplayers cannot make more than 500X what the lowest paid staffer makes.  You wanna pay someone 30 million a year?  Great, your lowest staffer should make 60K a year then.

Talondel: If the Dodgers try to play every single player on their roster 1/3rd what they could make elsewhere, they'll all go play somewhere else

Kinda like how the best players end up playing for the Yankees?  I agree with you, baseball is completely ruined by the best players ending up on the clubs that can afford them.  It's less about teams and athletics than it is about money.

I'll tell you what though, the easy out from my comment is to pretend like I wrote "it is only about money" and then bring up the Cubs or how the Yankees don't always win the World Series and imply the Brewers have just as much of a shot at the Series next year as the Dodgers.


Other teams could afford to pay players like the Yankees and Dodgers (now) and Boston and Chicago but for the most part they are owned by individuals that have money issues with their other businesses. Maybe those teams won't be able to have a full roster of highly paid players like the big markets that benefit from a larger pool of fans that buy their merchandise but they can pay a few players.

A perfect example is the Dodgers who under Frank McCourt, they weren't spending revenue the team brought in on the team because Frank had issues with his real estate business and he was taking money out of the club. I'm OK with the owner making hundreds of millions of dollar if the team that is fielded is good (barring injuries) but when owners are making that money due to the TV contracts and revenue sharing and not putting the money back in the roster then they should not be owners of a professional team. It's not fair to the fans.

Now the Dodgers have a group of owners that are valued around a few dozen billion dollars. They don't have money issues thus they can spend all the revenue back on the team.
 
2014-01-16 11:39:46 AM  

Beerguy: The owners need to get together and collectively agree to a reasonable salary cap.


I might start watching MLB again if this would happen, as it is now, it's farking stupid.

I'm not going to rag on the Dodgers or Kershaw, them's the rules...but big-market teams have so much more money to spend (because of TV deals, etc.), it's insane. Sure, you may have a feel good story once in a while (Rays), but over half the teams in MLB are flat-out handicapped from the get go. Then you have owners who just won't spend jack shiat, because they get a piece of the pie every year and turn a big profit, no matter what.

Salary cap, salary floor, and we may have actual baseball again, not a few "haves" and a ton of "have nots"
 
2014-01-16 11:43:30 AM  

Beerguy: Talondel: Beerguy: You don't see the other option?

How about something like this:   Lets say they pay him 10 mil a year (still ridiculous) instead of 30, and lets say they take that other 20 mil and distribute it to all of the people who work for the Dodgers. So, the groundscrew, the custodians, the concessions people, etc. get a nice raise.

Is that not an option?

No, that's not an option.  If the Dodgers try to pay him $10 Million a year, then he'll go play somewhere else.  If the Dodgers try to play every single player on their roster 1/3rd what they could make elsewhere, they'll all go play somewhere else, until the only people left playing for the Dodgers will be San Francisco's AA rejects.  No one is going to pay to watch those guys play, and no one is going to tune in to watch their games.  Then the Dodgers stop making money.  Then the guy complaining about Clayton Kershaw making $30 Million a year will get laid off along with every one else.  And he'll probably still be thinking that the reason he got laid off is that the team was over paying its players.

farking markets. How do they work?

Ok, my example was an over simplified scenario.

The problem is league-wide.

The owners need to get together and collectively agree to a reasonable salary cap.


Then the owners just rake in more of the profits.

What you're looking for can't be done by paying players less.  Only by forcing owners to pay other workers more.

A significant raise to the minimum wage would be a good start.
 
2014-01-16 12:00:26 PM  

Misconduc: You kids, you know the best place to go see a ball game? Minor league games. I have the Detroit Tigers AA team near me, ticket prices are $5 and generally have buy one get one beer (tues and thursday games). Hotdogs are two for $3.



I'm lucky enough to be about 20 minutes from the Durham Bulls, and it is a darn fine minor league stadium. If I want to blow an extra $60 or so for me and a date, I can go to the restaurant they recently built above left field and sit out on the patio while watching the game. Better seats than a lot of MLB stadiums while having decent food and beer.
 
2014-01-16 12:15:13 PM  
great_tigers:

If I am not mistaken the story is about Clayton Kershaw right? I went through and demenstrated how the free market works for almost all levels of the sports teams world, I asked you to provide me who should lose out, I  proved that an ROI is actually benefitial for a city that uses tax payers funding and yet your comment is that earning money is detrimental to society. You were unable to provide me with evidence of how this is detrimental and now you slap me with with an ignorant slap in the face that I cannot wrap my head around the bigger picture.

I'm not taking a side between you and Whino, but you never proved it's beneficial for governments to fund stadiums. You merely stated it. In fact, unless you have other evidence, I think this has been proven false time and time again.

Citation:
Vikings ownership, NFL commissioner Roger GoodellAnd, and local politicians make a typical pitch for the deal: the stadium will attract investment to the area; local establishments will see a rise in game-day sales of $145 million; jobs will be created, including 1,600 in construction worth $300 million ($187,500 per job?!); tax revenues will increase $26 million; property values will rise; and, of course, the perennially underachieving team's fortunes will improve.

Such arguments are always trotted out for these sweetheart deals, but the evidence regarding the economic effects of publicly financed stadiums consistently tells a different story.  For example, Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys performed an exhaustive study [PDF] of sports franchises in 37 cities between 1969 and 1996 and found no measurable impact on per-capita income.  The only statistically significant effects were negative ones because revenue gains were overshadowed by opportunity costs that politicians inevitably ignore.

An older study [PDF] looked at 12 stadium areas between 1958 and 1987 and found that professional sports don't drive economic growth.  A shorter-term study looked at job growth in 46 cities from 1990 to 1994 and found that cities with major league teams grew more slowly.  Even worse, taxpayers still service debt on now-demolished stadiums, including the $110 million that New Jersey still owes on the old Meadowlands and the $80 million that Seattle's King County owes on the Kingdome.  And we shouldn't forget that local governments often employ property-rights-trampling eminent domain to facilitate these money-squandering projects.
 
2014-01-16 12:27:11 PM  

Dafatone: A significant raise to the minimum wage would be a good start.


Agreed.
 
2014-01-16 12:48:15 PM  

skrame: I'm not taking a side between you and Whino, but you never proved it's beneficial for governments to fund stadiums. You merely stated it. In fact, unless you have other evidence, I think this has been proven false time and time again.


You'd think if the potential business boom stemming from new stadiums was SO massive and all-but-guaranteed, these owners would be happy to reap the benefits for themselves and just finance them directly.

These are businessmen first, not philanthropists who purchase sports teams simply as the vehicle to then look for wealth-sharing economic revitalization projects.
 
2014-01-16 12:55:00 PM  

Beerguy: The owners need to get together and collectively agree to a reasonable salary cap.


The owners cannot do this. They are bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between themselves (the 30 Major League Clubs) and the players union (Major League Baseball Players Association). What you have suggested is called "collusion" and is a violation of the CBA which specifically forbids collusion and was, in large part, created to prevent collusion both by the Clubs and by the players.

This is the language from the agreement addressing collusion:
"Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs."
 
2014-01-16 01:07:54 PM  

red5ish: Beerguy: The owners need to get together and collectively agree to a reasonable salary cap.

The owners cannot do this. They are bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between themselves (the 30 Major League Clubs) and the players union (Major League Baseball Players Association). What you have suggested is called "collusion" and is a violation of the CBA which specifically forbids collusion and was, in large part, created to prevent collusion both by the Clubs and by the players.

This is the language from the agreement addressing collusion:
"Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs."


Then, how did the NFL do it?
 
2014-01-16 01:16:13 PM  

Beerguy: Then, how did the NFL do it?


They collectively bargained it as part of the aftermath of the free agency implementation in the early 90s. Both sides decided to do it, although the owners got more of what they wanted. Same thing with the NBA and, to a lesser extent, the NHL. The MLBPA, however, is *significantly* stronger than the other three unions, and has enough actual legal victories against MLB that the owners have stopped trying to bully the players around like that.
 
2014-01-16 01:18:53 PM  

Beerguy: Then, how did the NFL do it?


Well, the players' union has to sign off on it, for one.

For whatever reason, the MLB Players Union is probably the strongest and ballsiest in major sports.
 
2014-01-16 01:45:50 PM  

bigpeeler: Screw professional sports. Seriously. The money is out of control. So are the agents. Oy vey.


Most of the money comes from TV contracts in US pro sports.  That originates in advertising revenues which are competitively bid out, maximizing their receipt.  The money is going to go somewhere.  You basically have three options:

1) The money goes to ownership
2) The money goes to labor
3) The money goes to the TV broadcast companies

People who complain about pro athletes making too much money are really just arguing that labor should make less and corporations should make more.
 
2014-01-16 01:49:26 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: DamnYankees: Beerguy: bigpeeler: Screw professional sports. Seriously. The money is out of control. So are the agents. Oy vey.

EXACTLY!

You know that there are all kinds of conversations taking place with the blue collar folks that work at the ball parks like, "well, there isn't money in the budget for anything more than a 2% raise and we going to have to increase the amount coming out of your check for insurance".

Yeah, because your are paying ONE GUY OVER 30 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!!

So you both support the people who own the Dodgers making this money instead? Management over labor?

I don't know what to think anymore. I used to think the players were getting over on the owners, then I realized that the owners make a killing as well, and both of them are doing so on the backs of Joe Blow just looking to find a diversion from the mundane nature of a typical job.

Then I do the math, and try as I might I can't hold back the outrage. Let's say this guy pitches in a 5-man rotation, and he throws 125 pitches a game (reasonable in today's risk-averse pitch-count game). He will therefore start 32, maybe 33 games barring injury, not counting playoffs. He will therefore throw about 4000 pitches in games. That equates to $7678 and change per pitch.

Every time you see him throw the ball next year he will make 7Gs. In a single at-bat that goes to a full count he will exceed the median household income of the population of the United States.

That is a tragedy. A genuine tragedy. Worse yet, the owners are making more than that, else they wouldn't be able to afford to pay such a salary.

It's enough that we see CEOs making 200 times the wage of their lowest-paid workers, which we find to be reprehensible. Now we are faced with the reality that we are so invested in sports that we will actually cheer this guy with every pitch.

It gets harder to ignore every year. It's easier to swallow in football because they have a salary cap, but it's still a bitter pill when you do you ...


You have three options as to who gets the TV money:
1) The owner of the team
2) The players who actually bring in the money
3) The TV networks
 
2014-01-16 01:52:45 PM  

ElwoodCuse: MLB revenue was over $8 billion last year. I think they'll manage.

PS: you know why ticket and concession prices are high? Because people are buying them.


What's odd to me is that in Detroit, you have a team with 3 million + tickets sold a year, a team going to the playoffs regularly and having some of the best players in the game (Verlander and Cabrera, specifically), and yet you can still get a $5 beer or a $5 hotdog/chips/pop meal and a $10 ticket to quite a few games.
 
2014-01-16 01:54:49 PM  

Beerguy: red5ish: Beerguy: The owners need to get together and collectively agree to a reasonable salary cap.

The owners cannot do this. They are bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between themselves (the 30 Major League Clubs) and the players union (Major League Baseball Players Association). What you have suggested is called "collusion" and is a violation of the CBA which specifically forbids collusion and was, in large part, created to prevent collusion both by the Clubs and by the players.

This is the language from the agreement addressing collusion:
"Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs."

Then, how did the NFL do it?


The NFL players union and the owners agreed(!) to the salary cap as part of their CBA in 1994. It is generally agreed (among people who watch and care about such things) that the NFL players got screwed in the most recent CBA negotiations, by the way.

Comparing the labor negotiations of the NFL (or the NBA, NHL, etc. for that matter) with those of MLB as if the two are strongly similar situations (professional sports team labor negotiations) seems, on the face of it, to be reasonable; the two situations are, in fact, quite different, and any conclusions reached by such comparisons may be wildly flawed. The legal status of MLB and the history of its labor activities is unique.

A question more to the point might be "How the hell did the NFL owners get away with establishing a salary cap and why did the players agree to it?" The answer to that, I believe, is that the players union (NFLPA) yielded on that point in order to get concessions from the NFL owners in other areas. It is widely agreed that the NFL players have been poorly served by the NFLPA negotiators.
 
2014-01-16 02:13:40 PM  

meanmutton: ElwoodCuse: MLB revenue was over $8 billion last year. I think they'll manage.

PS: you know why ticket and concession prices are high? Because people are buying them.

What's odd to me is that in Detroit, you have a team with 3 million + tickets sold a year, a team going to the playoffs regularly and having some of the best players in the game (Verlander and Cabrera, specifically), and yet you can still get a $5 beer or a $5 hotdog/chips/pop meal and a $10 ticket to quite a few games.


Don't all teams have cheap ticket and beer/hotdog nights? Around here it is Monday games. One summer I was working on this project and I was off on Monday and Tuesday. Since just about all of us on the project team were single and all of our other friends outside of work couldn't go out drinking or partying on Mondays, the project team would hang out together. The place we all decided to hangout at was at White Sox home games. $10 dollar tickets, $1 hotdogs and $2 dollar beers. You could watch a game, get a decent meal and a nice buzz while having a good time.
 
2014-01-16 02:39:34 PM  

ongbok: Don't all teams have cheap ticket and beer/hotdog nights?


A lot of MLB teams have instituted "Dynamic" ticket pricing as a strategy for charging more for tickets to the more desirable games. For example, weekend tickets cost more, as do tickets to games against visiting teams who have a higher draw. You may see low ticket prices on some weekday games when the visiting team is frankly awful, and the seats offered at those lower prices are often located in the bleachers or in nose bleed territory. How ticket prices are determined is up to the individual MLB Clubs and reflect their analysis of how to get the most butts in the seats at the highest prices possible. Cellar dwellers or teams with small fan bases might opt for more fan friendly strategies in order to generate interest in the team. If attendance is uniformly strong there is no incentive to reduce prices.
 
2014-01-16 03:39:40 PM  

ElwoodCuse: MLB revenue was over $8 billion last year. I think they'll manage.


The same type of person that complains about Kershaw's contract is the same kind of person who thinks welfare benefits will break the federal bank. In other words, the type of person who sucks at math, especially large numbers.
 
2014-01-16 09:36:20 PM  

ElwoodCuse: Public funding of stadiums IS a problem. Detroit is broke but they have $400 million for the Red Wings? How's Miami doing with that stadium they built for the Marlins?


That money wouldn't come from the city.
 
Displayed 33 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report