Awesome news !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
gwessel2 said:
RAPISTWIT-

I am wondering if you saw my last relply concerning the some finanical details or if you even read it. I am also wondering why you are on a cycling forum of any kind because I don't feel you support cycling with some of your comments. If you did not read my last message once again the State of Mo gets its money back + some! The business owners both small & large get a lot of revenue then pays their taxes back to MO + Feds. I am uncertain why you are a wet blanket and what part of this math you don't get. You can see the financials. I am not for sure if they are on the Tours' website but if you search something like Tour of Missouri or Save Tour of Missouri there were several articles written discussing the financials. You know as I type this I think I do recall there was an economic impact place on the Tours Website. As far as your comments about the numbers changing did you never play the game telephone as a kid. Thats the game where one person whispers a message then they tell the next person until it get way off from the original. This kind of thing happens on a forum sometimes. But the sentiments are still correct. If you had $1.5 mil to invest and you knew you could buy a sure thing stock with a $28.5 mil return you would do it. In any event if you had read my last post you would also have read that the goal once this is up and running is for more private investors to take over. What part of this info is not clear?

I get your point gwessel2. It's matter of principle. This type of government support for sporting events, centers, etc goes on all over the country. Some are winners and some are losers but they all have the common theme of having a study done prior showing how economically beneficial they'll be.
I don't believe this is the place for government involvement. If they're that beneficial the private sector should step up.

BTW, I'm a huge cycling supporter. I have been a cyclist for over twenty years and love watching and going to cycling events. In fact my company is a primary sponsor of one our local cycling teams.
Just because I don't think government should be paying for a big race doesn't mean I dislike cycling.

At what point do you say there shouldn't be a goveernment contribution?
Should local USCF races get assaisatnce too?
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
gwessel2 said:
RAPISTWIT-
If you had $1.5 mil to invest and you knew you could buy a sure thing stock with a $28.5 mil return you would do it.
Hard to argue with this.

America makes decisions based upon profit, not ideals. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

I don't care how they pull it off and I hope the Tour of MO goes on for the next 100 years without a hitch.
 
May 14, 2009
13
0
0
rapistwit said:
I get your point gwessel2. It's matter of principle. This type of government support for sporting events, centers, etc goes on all over the country. Some are winners and some are losers but they all have the common theme of having a study done prior showing how economically beneficial they'll be.
I don't believe this is the place for government involvement. If they're that beneficial the private sector should step up.

BTW, I'm a huge cycling supporter. I have been a cyclist for over twenty years and love watching and going to cycling events. In fact my company is a primary sponsor of one our local cycling teams.
Just because I don't think government should be paying for a big race doesn't mean I dislike cycling.

At what point do you say there shouldn't be a goveernment contribution?
Should local USCF races get assaisatnce too?
I am glad to hear you are a cycling supporter. So I apologize for assuming or inferring otherwise.

The answer to your first closing question is - At the point it is no longer profitable or it is 100% self sustaining from start to finish. I see no harm in the state initially investing if they are getting their money back. In fact in this case I think it is a lot more crystal clear what our State puts in & gets out of the race than what our Federal Gov is making off its insane investments in banks & the auto industry. It seems the Federal Government is making worse decisions that have lousy returns and is in fact costing us the tax payers a lot. I can't see where the Tour of Mo has cost me any more in taxes. Once again the state is getting there money back with in a matter of months. When does our Federal Gov see a return on our mega billion bail out and the printing of non existant money?

As far as your second question regarding the USCF races- Why not if the state has a tourism budget?

Obviousley if a state is so bad off that they have to completley axe there tourism budgets that is a different story. But if a state has a several millioon dollar budget to begin with why not use it if it is bring several thousand people to your state and stimulating the economy.

Now the funny byline story to all of this mess, which MO was accutley aware of, was that the Lt. Governor & the newly elected Governor are opposing parties. There are several articles on line that implied this all might have come down to a ****ing contest:)
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
Tax trix

These bike races(Gila,Bisbee,MS,ToC) add to the governments tax base.The local and state govs get more revenue when these things come through town.In Phili local shops get their fattest cash register when the race comes through town.This whole thing about a waste of money doesn't make sense.You want kids to pay an entry fee before going into school,the playground,football pitch? We got rid of that thinking with Bush.Sure we should spend money on rodeos,you know important stuff, but sum for cycling is ok with me.
 
May 21, 2009
189
2
8,835
The reason the private sector can't do what the government does is there's no way to confine the economic benefit to those private entities who opt in, and therefore the incentive for any individual private entity is to freeload on the support given by others. It's the same reason the fire department and police department and the military are public: there's no way to "opt out" of the benefit they provide, so there should be no way to "opt out" of supporting them.

In any case, this shouldn't be a simply economic argument. Public celebrations and events, supported by taxpayers, have been a part of this nation since it's founding days. It would be revolutionary to suggest that every government expenditure needs to be justified on a strictly economic basis.

Missouri is a better place to live with this bike race than it is without it. That alone is sufficient.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY