WFNY on the World Cup: Group D Breakdown
June 5, 2014Browns Sign Third Round Pick LB Christian Kirksey
June 5, 2014Ed FitzGerald got in front of the media today and suggested a “Win Tax” for distributing a portion of Sin Tax money. What is a “Win Tax?” FitzGerald described a way to allow our three major sports franchises to “compete” for Sin Tax money based on winning and economic contributions among other less specific ideas. While FitzGerald admitted that this was all a start of the conversation, it was harder and harder to figure out what he was really trying to accomplish with this proposal other than getting his face in the news as he campaigns for the Ohio Governor’s office. For my money, this might be about the dumbest meeting point between sports and politics that I’ve ever seen.
FitzGerald continually harped on accountability and the 50 year sports championship drought. He talked about holding sports teams accountable, but I’m at a loss to try and figure out what reality it is that we’re talking about. I don’t truly believe that 20% of the annual Sin Tax dollars are anywhere near enough to hold a team accountable, nor do I really believe it is the county’s job to try and hold the team accountable for on-field performance.
It was my opinion during the campaign season that the entire Sin Tax itself could be used as a way to hold teams accountable in terms of being good partners with the city and county. I thought for sure that it would be worthwhile to fail the first Sin Tax vote with a year to go on the old one in order to engage in conversations and potentially re-negotiate the terms of the deals. I know not everyone agreed with this, but I think it’s safe to say that this would have been a true way to try and hold teams accountable for something as opposed to what FitzGerald was trotting out today.
FitzGerald called this a “small” but “real” step toward changing the dynamic between cities and pro sports teams and I just couldn’t disagree with him more. Whether you agree with this strategy or not, “real” steps are like what happened in Pittsburgh where they spent a year standing their ground and getting a $40 million stadium expansion at Heinz Field without any public dollars. And of course after the Dolphins’ requests were denied, they decided to go ahead with stadium improvements around $350 million while the county would kick money toward the team every time they scored a major event.
The point being, accountability is held when you take away an allowance, not by playing funny games with re-apportionment of that allowance. Whether or not you wanted the Sin Tax to pass, it seems undeniable that that is how to create accountability. What occurred today with Ed FitzGerald and the Sin Tax proceeds seems to be nothing more than a toothless headline grab.
—
Photo via WEWS-TV’s Kristin Volk on Twitter
23 Comments
Well said. Think you already covered this but I’m still going to rant: I thought the talking point was that the County had to hand out this money to meet their obligations as landlords? Only now – after voters approved the tax (which was backed 100% by all county/city politicians) – ONLY NOW are we’re talking about accountability? NOW is the time to start the conversation? Not before we passed the Sin Tax? The conversation is over! WTF? God lord.
Actually – kudos, Mr. FitzGerald. You found a really inventive way to get your face out there and take a pseudo-stand without actually risking anything at all. Cowardly, manipulative, but GREAT press… A+ politics there. F on public policy though.
There’s so much I love about Cleveland, but I do not regret my decision to gtfo of the there at all. Too much idiocy.
“ONLY NOW are we’re talking about accountability?”
I think this was basically the argument coming from opponents to the extension; that we needed to slow down and have a real discussion on this money as the circumstances of the tax had changed greatly.
“but I do not regret my decision to gtfo of the there at all.”
….I hear Buffalo is nice. đ
I get that. But why wasn’t Mr. FitzGerald (really? Capital G? Never seen that.) talking about accountability three months ago? Why wasn’t he Frowns best buddy?
…they might go to hell, and I would go to Texas
the coverage of this only encourages future panderers.
mgbode got room at his place.
http://coacheshotseat.com/coacheshotseatblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/DavyC3.jpg
you guys should have asked before the draft. I’ve got a ton of people to watch Brown’s games down here with now that JFF is on the team đ
Don’t really understand why you’re reacting so negatively to this, or why you just simply chalk this up to a “headline grab.” Especially since you don’t really offer any hard evidence supporting that it’s just about politicking.
Otherwise, when you call your way to create accountability “undeniable,” I just have to shake my head. That’s a pretty extreme oversimplification. There are an infinite number of ways or ideas to create accountability if people were to actually try and think of them. You just need people that are smart and give a crap. There’s always a way.
At face value, it actually seems like a pretty reasonable idea to START with. Of course it’s a million times more complex than just “yes, good idea,” and “no, bad idea,” but if enough smart people actually want to try to give this some thought, I’m willing to bet there is a metric or formula which could — at the least — make the sin tax more than just free money to wealthy owners. I agree that 20% doesn’t sound big enough, so maybe the conversation turns to all the money? None of this is written in stone yet.
The sin tax has already been passed, for better or worse, so it seems to me like he’s just theorizing a way to hold accountability after the fact. There’s always a way.
I’m glad he at least wanted to start the conversation.
I disagree. This type of craven behavior needs to be highlighted and corrected.
Renegotiate the deals.
These teams already have all the reasons in the world to win on the field of play. And somehow by offering them a bigger split of $2.6M a year is going to make them do something different to stop their losing ways? If it were that easy, wouldn’t they already be doing it?
It makes ZERO sense. None. It’s populist mumbo-jumbo meant to appease people not paying all that much attention.
I disagree too, but the cat is out of the bag. The deals won’t be renegotiated for 20 years. Cleveland gets screwed again.
As nj0 said, if he wanted to actually have a conversation, he would have done it when a conversation actually would have meant something.
Talking big now just is a chance to get some spotlight before the November election, a pretty big one for him.
even ALL the money is about $1mil less than Mike Aviles is making this year.
it’s roughly 52000 tickets for the Indians at an average of $50 per ticket (or roughly 1 home playoff game).
To everyone above: I think the point is that some teams (like the relatively stingy Indians) would now have more reason to spend a little more money to make money. In other words, they might be more willing to increase the payroll for good players if it meant they might lose out on sin tax money otherwise.
Also: if this is politicking — as you all-knowing geniuses seem to just KNOW it is — where is the benefit? If there’s any place FitzGerald needs votes, it ain’t Cuyahoga County where he’s currently the Executive. The sin tax has no bearing or effect anywhere else in the state.
And AGAIN, GUYS, he didn’t tattoo this proposal on his wife’s face. Much could and would be debated or changed if it ever got to the point where it would be real. Like what percentage of the money adheres to this, for instance.
Also, math wizards, look at the total estimated sum of money over 20 years ($260 million). 20% of that over the same time period is $52 million total. So even at the 20% level (that I agree should be higher, if not covering ALL sin tax money), teams would be pretty stupid to ignore this if it were law. $52 million over 20 years is a ton of money; I don’t care where you’re from or how rich you are.
This seems to ignore all the salient points made you think you’re responding to.
The 20% is $867K per team per year. What good players are teams going to change their mind about acquiring with another $867K on the line?
The benefit of this politicking is another chance to get his mug in front of the camera, which is usually good enough for any politician. But he also gets to tell people how tough and fiscally responsible he is, which is what this is really about, not who actually pays the sin tax.
And it doesn’t go my question – the sin tax was sold as a necessary evil for the county to address our contractual obligations. Now, we’re saying that we’re going to add stipulations to those obligations? What gives? Which is it – obligatory or negotiable?
Fiscally responsible in the sense that he’s going to make three billionaires compete in an ill-thought out, arbitrary way to see which deserves our tax money the most.
I should add- teams should not receive a dime more than what is owed. Any remaining money should be used else where, possibly to pay down the existing debt on these existing publicly funded sport complexes.
Wait… you’re telling me we can legislate wins?
Yup, yup, yup.
Then we both agree that the deals should be renegotiated.
The elected officials in Pittsburgh demonstrated that they are better stewards of public funding by renegotiating (shaming?) their deal with the Steelers so that a forty million dollar stadium upgrade did not use public funding.
This is the type of leadership that is needed from Cleveland’s elected officials.
http://www.clevelandfrowns.com/2014/05/pittsburgh-steelers-to-finance-40-million-in-stadium-improvements-without-a-dime-of-public-money/