Packers Huddle

BF004 wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2024 09:13

APB wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2024 06:51

I think April 1st came early this year...

C'mon guys, that is the same parody account that hooked you guys like a week ago.

Half Empty wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2024 12:47

Such as?

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2024 13:22

image.png

musclestang wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2024 05:51

I didn't even know the Packers didn't own Lambeau field until 2 days ago. I always thought they did. That's why it was a big deal back in the 90's when they asked for that half cent county sales tax to help fund a much needed remodel. or is it just a lease for the land it sits on? anybody have specifics on the arrangement? I'm clueless it seems

CWIMM wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 04:16

musclestang wrote: ↑

29 Mar 2024 05:51

I didn't even know the Packers didn't own Lambeau field until 2 days ago. I always thought they did. That's why it was a big deal back in the 90's when they asked for that half cent county sales tax to help fund a much needed remodel. or is it just a lease for the land it sits on? anybody have specifics on the arrangement? I'm clueless it seems

You can find a document including a summary of the team's lease for Lambeau Field at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports ... en-bay.pdf

According to the Packers they paid the city a total of $1.16 million for the use of the stadium ($986K rent and another $171K administrative fee).

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 12:58

I agree that it seems like a really cheap lease. I assume the Packers want to secure a continuation on terms that look more like the current, and the city wants a bunch more.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 15:36

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 12:58

I agree that it seems like a really cheap lease. I assume the Packers want to secure a continuation on terms that look more like the current, and the city wants a bunch more.

From what we know the team approached the city to renegotiate so that assumption doesn't align.

go pak go wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 12:53

Why there has to be more to this "rent thing" is because we know the Packers want to make a new lease with the 2025 draft coming up.

How much more can you negotiate than effectively "free" for a freaking stadium rental?

$20 million manufacturing facililities earn more rent than $1MM per year. And yet the Packers are paying $500k to $1MM on a $Billion+ stadium. Something ain't adding up.

musclestang wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 16:34

go pak go wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 12:53

Why there has to be more to this "rent thing" is because we know the Packers want to make a new lease with the 2025 draft coming up.

How much more can you negotiate than effectively "free" for a freaking stadium rental?

$20 million manufacturing facililities earn more rent than $1MM per year. And yet the Packers are paying $500k to $1MM on a $Billion+ stadium. Something ain't adding up.

those are often times a result of someone else owning the building and a company comes in and does business. I built it, paid for it, etc, and you pay to run your business out of it in return.

This is far different as far as I can tell. The Packers and the City had some sort of agreement. The Stadium District is the "landlord" but that wasn't created until 1999 from what I read. Lots of details I don't know, but they seem to be the one that fosters the "development" but the Packers pay for a lot or most of it, not sure what the city invests or has in the past. City Stadium was a long time ago.

I know when things get big enough they form other entities to do certain parts of the business for tax purposes and moving money. But as far as I can tell the City doesn't own the stadium and outside of the county tax that has ended, the Packers have paid their own way concerning the stadium +

I wonder if the Packers pay city taxes on their equipment like the rest of us. Pay state sales tax to buy it, then pay the local municipality for the right to use it in a business in their jurisdiction. I doubt they do, but if they do, I'd like to see that bill

go pak go wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 19:32

musclestang wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 16:34

go pak go wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2024 12:53

Why there has to be more to this "rent thing" is because we know the Packers want to make a new lease with the 2025 draft coming up.

How much more can you negotiate than effectively "free" for a freaking stadium rental?

$20 million manufacturing facililities earn more rent than $1MM per year. And yet the Packers are paying $500k to $1MM on a $Billion+ stadium. Something ain't adding up.

those are often times a result of someone else owning the building and a company comes in and does business. I built it, paid for it, etc, and you pay to run your business out of it in return.

This is far different as far as I can tell. The Packers and the City had some sort of agreement. The Stadium District is the "landlord" but that wasn't created until 1999 from what I read. Lots of details I don't know, but they seem to be the one that fosters the "development" but the Packers pay for a lot or most of it, not sure what the city invests or has in the past. City Stadium was a long time ago.

I know when things get big enough they form other entities to do certain parts of the business for tax purposes and moving money. But as far as I can tell the City doesn't own the stadium and outside of the county tax that has ended, the Packers have paid their own way concerning the stadium +

I wonder if the Packers pay city taxes on their equipment like the rest of us. Pay state sales tax to buy it, then pay the local municipality for the right to use it in a business in their jurisdiction. I doubt they do, but if they do, I'd like to see that bill

No the situation I stated the company occupying the building usually pays for the leashold improvements otherwise the rent would be way, way, way higher. $1 million rent on a $1 billion asset is insanely cheap no matter how you slice it.

The Packers is a non profit entity which usually lends to exemption of sales and income taxes.