Pawlenty Says New Vikings Stadium "Highly Likely"
by Christopher Gates on Oct 21, 2010 6:05 PM CDT
in Minnesota Vikings
Email
PrintNot sure where exactly he's pulling this out of, but anyway. . .
Outgoing Minnesota governor Tim "I didn't even bother trying to get the Vikings into a new stadium on my watch" Pawlenty spoke today at a gathering of the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, at which he said that the approval for a new stadium for the Beloved Purple is "highly likely" to happen in the near future.
"I think it's highly likely, highly likely to get done because it has to."
Of course, he doesn't know how it's going to get done or when it's going to get done, but by golly, it's going to get done, "because it has to." And he is right on that front. . .the Vikings have a year left on their lease with the Metrodome before they could potentially pull up the stakes and move elsewhere. Never mind the fact that the reason we've gotten to the point where the Vikings only have one year left on their lease with the Metrodome is because, between the last two governors of the state. . .and don't think this is based on party affiliation, because yours truly is generally as conservative as they come. . .we've had 12 years of guys in St. Paul sitting around with their thumbs in their rear ends not taking the necessary steps to get the job done. At least a part of that, from my outsider observation, seems to have something to do with Pawlenty being more concerned with positioning himself for a potential run at the Presidency in 2012 than doing something really weird like. . .I don't know. . .his job as governor, maybe.
But there you have it. . .12 years wasn't enough for Jesse Ventura or Tim Pawlenty to get the Vikings into a new stadium, but Timmah is super duper ultra sure that the next guy will get the whole thing sorted out in less than a year or so. Genius.
Sometime in the next couple of days, we'll likely take a look at the candidates for governor and see where they stand on a potential Vikings stadium. Now, I'm not saying we'll go so far as to endorse anyone or anything like that. . ."even with the veritable avalanche of votes we could potentially bring to a candidate," he said sarcastically. . .but if this issue is important to you, it's important to me, and I'd like to make sure that you folks know where everyone stands on the issue.
And, please, let's try to keep any comments associated with this limited to stadium issues and/or the Minnesota governor's race. No Obama, no Bush, no Biden, no McCain, no Palin, no Hillary. . .none of that junk. Keep it civil.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wasn't in favor of the stadium because I thought Zygi should not black-mail us into it but
seeing the way he has been trying for us to get to SB this year (trades/money etc) I have warmed up to the idea of tax-payer getting a new stadium for the beloved purple. The guy seems to be trying his best to stay in Minnesota – at least to my inexperienced (and some would say naive) eyes. The way he did not hesitate to do whatever it takes to get Randy and Favre and to some extent V-Jack…Zygi deserves something back from us.
I feel the same way about good ol’ Zygi. Rather than bitch and moan or trade a player just to piss us all off cough McCombs cough (while I thought at the time Randy was being a b*tch and was OK saying bye-bye to him, McCombs’ reasons were really suspect), Zygi is just trying his damndest to get to the SB. Sure, he probably figures that will ensure a new stadium, but it’s still a pretty decent way to go about it.
In A Capitalist Society You Do Not Go To The Government For Help
Right now the team is owned by a small group of men who benefit from any profit the team makes. In a capitalist economic system you sell stock in the company, or a offer a bond which is paid back, in order to raise the money needed. Green Bay is a publicly owned company, so a public stock offering and ownership is possible in the NFL. Why should all the people in the state pay for something that only benefits a few owners, this is money taken away from schools, hospitals, and other needs. Or out of our pockets in the form of higher taxes, even if we never watch a football game. As a last resort, there is always PSL’s which have their own downside which I enumerate below. But at least the people who enjoy the game pay the tab, which is fairer then everybody paying the tab to benefit only a few. The owners should pay for the facilities only they benefit from. If they need money to build a new stadium, then share the ownership with the community, only this will prevent future extortion by threating to move the team.
The owners of your team, like the owner of my team, only care about money, and they don’t care what goes on the field except to the extent it affects their pocketbook. Let’s face it, we all like to think the owners are fans like us, we both want to win a SB, but their commitment reflects a financial interest which overrides all other concerns. This is particularly true when it comes to a new stadium. We all like shiny new toys, but sometimes the older toys are more serviceable for our use.
Like all older stadiums, I am sure you do not have PSL’s now. A PSL (Personal Seat Licence) is a fee you pay in order to HAVE THE RIGHT to purchase a seat, even if you have been a season ticket holder for many years. It effects present ticket holders, as well as new ones. I am a Jet fan, and was a season ticket holder for more then 20 years. I no longer attend Jet games in person, because I could not afford to pay $20,000 for my four PSL’s which was the right to purchase my 4 season tickets. In addition, I would have to pay $4,000 each year for the tickets themselves, as I presently do. I do not mind paying $1,000 for a seat for the season, but $5,000 for the right to buy a seat is a bit much. And the experience is no better; you noticed if you watched the game, there was no roof over our 1.6 billion dollar stadium. Although I will admit the skyboxes are real nice if you have the 100’s of thousands dollars to buy one.
A new stadium caters to the interests of upscale fans and corporate clients, for whom the cost is a tax write-off, as a business entertainment expense. The emphasis on an upscale clientele is reflected in the cost of all amenities, from the cost of a Hot Dog ($ 6) and Beer ($ 9.50), to the price of parking ($ 30). A new stadium means the regular, average blue-collar, fan can no longer afford to attend games in person. For less then the cost of one PSL, I have bought a 60 inch Hi-def TV, and watch the game at home with my family and friends. But I still miss the live stadium experience, and sharing it with my kids.
However, there is another worry. The NFL has a rule that if a game is not sold out four days before the game, the broadcast of the game will be blacked-out within a 75 mile radius of the stadium. I live in New York, which is a major market, and the networks have already stated they will buy any unsold tickets so no games will be blacked-out. But games have already been blacked-out this year in Tampa Bay and San Diego. I do not know if the networks consider you a major market.
You are a fan of your team. I am a fan of my team. But we are both fans. Am I bitter about this, yes I am. I am still a fan, and I can no longer enjoy the stadium experience. If you duplicate my experience, don’t cry you were not warned. If you do not believe me, please check this Link out. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/2010/05/14/2010-05-14_woodys_psl_logic_tough_sell.html
We only play each other one time this year, and I harassed you as a fan, before the game. But that was not that important, it was all in good fun. However, preventing other fans from being screwed like me, is important. We are both fans, we are brothers.
The following you may disagree with, I know it will be controversial, but please be open-minded. The owners of Vikings have been trying to get a new stadium for at least the last five years, but in order to do so they need public money. Minny’s government has refused to give it to them. The only way a PSL program could be implemented, was if a new stadium was built. The value of the team would skyrocket. Since the elected government is so resistant, the owners feel their best hope is by using a public referendum.
The best way for the owners and the referendum to be successful, is to have a successful season. That is why they are going all out to reach the SB this year. That is why they offered Favre an extra 3-4 million dollars to come back this year. This year was seen as the best hope to win the SB. Yet, the offer to Favre was made even after the scandal allegations were first made public, on August 6, before the season begun. I believe the owners made no investigation, and the allegations were downplayed (covered up?). It was seen as a case of he-she said, since they believed after two years no proof existed. But, they never looked into the allegations, or contacted her, to see if there was any proof. They did nothing because they did not want to know, and they thought they had controlled the damage. They were confident their contacts with the local media meant the story had been, and would be, controlled. They were not interested in the truth, only their pocketbook. But they had to know if possible proof surfaced, it would cause a scandal, which could ruin the season. It was incumbent on the owners, that when the allegations were first made, a complete investigation should have been conducted. If one had been conducted the owners would have said so, and they would have said the allegations had no validity.
The owners wanted nothing to sully this season, they wanted their star Quarterback who would lead the team to the promised land of the Super Bowl. The owners hoped the “feel good” effect would make a successful result in a referendum much more likely, since not only would football fans support it, but the general public would also. The owners owe the Viking fans an apology for the possibility of a ruined season, which could have been avoided.
Let's Get Real
OK, let’s be real. Those who use this site are rabid football fans, most likely of the Vikings, so of course you do not want to see the team leave. If I was in your place I would feel the same way. However, unlike 10 years ago, it is not so easy to move a team. Any other city that wanted the Vikings would also have to raise the money to build a stadium, and in the present economic climate, governments all over the country just are not in the mood to do so. Do not be blinded by your fear of losing your team, the threat to move is just extortion by the owners.
There are eight (9?) games played at home each year plus a possible two more playoff games. Ten or eleven games total. A new stadium will cost at a minimum 1,500,000,000 dollars, plus the cost of supporting infrastructure. On the poll I ran on this site only 14% were willing to pay for PSL’s if that is what it took to build the stadium. And this is among the most committed fans. I want it, but I want others to pay for it. Have the owners made their financial books public? Have they offered to make them public, yet they want a blind investment by the public of at least half a billion dollars. They want the funding, but do not say how much money they are making now. Will they pay back the public funds, or is it a gift to the owners.
The assumed huge financial benefit of 80,000 people going to the game will occur less then 10 or 11 times a year. Of course, most of the games occur in the winter, so most of those people will go to the game by car and then go directly home, never stopping at the mall. The Twins play 81 games in the summer, so people are less likely to run home. Eight times the number of games played in pleasant weather can change the economic impact.
Someone said “a world-class stadium complex which is available for at least 325 days out of the year for world-class events. That starts with hosting Little League tournaments and goes up to the Olympics. College bowl games, baseball championships, regional sports championships, political events, mega-concerts.” However, a football stadium is too large to economically host most of the events you enumerate, mid-sized arenas are much more practical. Besides I thought you already had a baseball stadium, and relatively new College football stadium (which the owners of the Vikings did not want to participate in).
Good luck in attracting the Olympics, that is the same thing the Mayor of New York said when he was seeking public funding for a new stadium, and it was found to not be economically viable. The population of the New York metropolitan area is 19,069,796, The population of Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington is 3,275,041. Yet, public funding was not available for a new stadium in New York. This is why the Jets and Giants had to share the cost and fund their stadium privately, with the state only paying for the building of the supporting infrastructure.
If the Vikings want a new Stadium they need to consider private funding, either a stock offering or a bond or selling PSL’s (as much as I hate them). Just like other private corporations do. It is time for the owner to stop expecting a gift, the people have other needs.
by viguy007 on Oct 22, 2010 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not being from Minnesota, I don’t know all the ins and outs of this situation, but obviously I would like the Vikings to have the nicest and most up to date facilities in the NFL. But I also think the guy that buys the team should put more into the new stadium than taxpayers do. As many people have pointed out before, non-football fans would be on the hook for it too, which hardly seems fair when an extremely wealthy man and his partners could do it without them.
But like I said, I don’t know all the details and hope I don’t get blasted as a lesser version of a fan because I don’t think taxes should be unfairly raised in most instances. Pawlenty is like most (if not all) other politicians though, always looking to the next election more than anything else. It’s hard to find honest or responsible men and women in that game nowadays.
I believe the plan being floated around is to have fans and people who benefit economically along with the owners pay for it rather than non-fans
Vikings gear + hotels/bars etc will be more expensive.
That's fair.
I lived in Tampa when they built the new Raymond James. I was pissed I had to help pay for it, because seeing as the Bucs were the ones who ruined our 16-0 in 1998, I’ve hated them ever since.
Who doesn't benefit?
If the public doesn’t want to pay their tax dollars towards a stadium, then should the Vikings also be able to refuse to pay taxes back to the state? The Metrodome made 500% profit for the state in taxes alone (over the last almost 30 years) on what the state paid for it. That’s not even touching on the amount of money the teams brought into that area of the city through fans (parking, public transit, restaurants, etc.)
The tax revenue the Vikings bring in pays the state back and eventually starts providing more money for schools, and other publicly funded endeavors that everyone enjoys and benefits from. It’s called an investment.
Don't live in Minny
But I’d hate to see the taxpayers get swindled into financing a new stadium. Let the owners and the players union fund it. It’s not like baseball where the team actually brings economic advantage to a city. Football teams have 10 home dates, usually on Sundays. Waste of taxpayer money.
You're seriously trying to say that?
I think you do not know economics like you claim. The value of an NFL franchise exceeds any other sport on average. And almost any particular team in another sport other than the New York Yankees, or super-clubs in Euro football like Manchester United or Barcelona. That ALONE represents a substantial hit in lost potential property value, lost sales tax revenue, lost parking fees, lost ancillary business concerns.
And ‘usually on Sunday’ is a BAD thing? Ermm, no it’s not. It allows for the ancillary benefits to be raked in for an entire day. And the benefits of an NFL game’s impact are considerably higher, since the seating is higher.
And the players union funding it shows you know nothing about sports in general as well. The “union” has no vested interest in ANY stadium. They get no money from them. They get no support for having them. Why would the UNION hand over money to the OWNERS? Would you spend money at YOUR workplace to finance your OWNER’S building?
Simply put, as a lifelong conservative, I would tell you there’s precious little a government can do to actually increase revenue in a community. Ironically, one of the few things they ‘can’ do is support a stadium to keep a sporting franchise. Even more amusingly, this is the one thing they usually refuse to do.
But here’s another hint. If people think it’s such a good idea for the Vikings to be pushed to the wall. Go study the Cleveland Browns fiasco. The team moves, Cleveland has to pay TWICE what Modell wanted for a stadium in the first place, and then they had to pay TWICE the value of the Browns when they left to get the ‘new Browns.’
How’s that for a suicidal investment? Don’t appeal to economics if you don’t have the numbers to support it. Bottom line, this has been a political football that the DFL and IR have used to beat each other over the head with. The DFL doesn’t want to do it because even though they’ve never seen a tax they didn’t like, their primary support comes from people who think they won’t see revenue from a stadium and don’t want to pay taxes on a “Minneapolis project.” So the DFL punts it down to the Cities. Pawlenty then grandstands about it as a great ploy to prove his ‘fiscal conservatism.’ Same thing Ventura did.
To be fair, the I-35 bridge disaster couldn’t have come at a worse time in terms of killing momentum for a new stadium for the Vikes. But that excuse has officially been exhausted of meaning. This is just a political merry-go-round now.
by Shawn Gillogly on Oct 22, 2010 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions
Not sure what your point is
Since you really haven’t rebutted mine.
First of all, the economic benefit to a municipality will depend upon the deal that is made. Oftentimes, the taxpayers fund the stadium in whole, and there are NO taxes paid by the NFL owner. The taxes are rolled back because of the supposed economic advantages a NFL franchise brings to the locale. My point is that the NFL brings just about zilch in terms of economic advantages to the citizens, but plenty to the owners.
You make it sound like being open for business 10 days a year on Sundays is a wonderful bounty for your burgh. Really. What business do you know survive on the business plan of being open only 10 days a year? Well, the NFL for one because people are willing to subsidize stadums, and hence, salaries of players and profits to NFL owners. You are correct that an NFL franhise is a very valuable thing. How the Hell can it not be when all the big costs of running the business are paid by the taxpayer?
In sum, your argument is specious. And if using the Browns as an example is where you set the bar, then I rest my case. Exactly how sound is the Cleveland area today? The fact is that public funded stadiums often blled taxpayers, line the pockets of the owners, and take money from more worthwhile endeavors. You call funding a stadium an investment, more often it’s simply tossing money down the drain. And just as the NFL union wouldn’t think about funding a stadium (your lone correct assessment) why should the taxpayers? They have far less to benefit than anyone.
by horace clark on Oct 22, 2010 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Did you bother to check...
the property values for an area BEFORE and AFTER a stadium was placed in the area? I think not. Guess which way they go?
Did you bother to think of the prospects for urban renewal that OFTEN accompany a stadium: (See Denver) I think not.
And it’s alright to you to pay TWICE market value—two times for the right to have an NFL franchise, but it’s not alright to pay when constructions costs are at a bargain now.
And of course, you’re dwelling in a fantasy land if you think a stadium only draws 10 events a year. Concerts, rented sporting events, anything the schedulers can imagine. What has the Metrodome hosted, and that’s been a dump.
No, we know who’s argument is specious. It’s the person who fails to analyze the ancillary benefits of the stadium honestly when he talks. Have a nice day.
by Shawn Gillogly on Oct 23, 2010 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions
You are missing the point Shawn
It is possible that there are conditions under which it might make sense for Minnesotans to support a new stadium – it all depends on the deal they get. If the owner is willing to put up a substantial amount of their own money, that’s a good start. If the venue is controlled by somebody other than the owner, that’s another positive step. So I am not saying categorically that it is bad, but history shows that it usually is in most locales.
Consider that:
- most property values aren’t affected by a stadium. Homeowners real estate taxes often climb as a result, but their property values do not. Have you ever been to the Meadowlands? HUGE sports complex that you’d have to drive a couple of miles to find a restaurant or bar. How does Detroit feel about the Pontiac Silverdome? That sucker just sold at auction for 400k. That’s right, I think it cost like 50 million to build, hosted a Super Bowl or two, and was just sold at auction for little more than a 4 br home in a nice subdivision. There’s your property value rise for you.
- Denver is not the case you want to make. I would say that Coors Field definitely did benefit Denver. They play baseball (81 home games) not football there.
- Multi use? That’s great when you can get it. But typically these new stadiums are built for football only, and the owner controls if, and when, they get used for other activities. If Minnesotans control the access, then great. If the owner has the say so, the place will get used for ten home games, and maybe two or three “charitable” events a year to make the owner look like a civic stalwart. The Metrodome was a great mixed use facility. Again, I seem to remember that they played baseball there (81 home games) for decades.
In sum, I am not trying to argue with you but instead trying to point out that in their rush to keep an NFL franchise, many communities end up grossly overpaying, requiring little contribution from the team owner, and forfeiting all the benefits – control of access, parking revenue, concessions – to the very owner who is already benefiting the most. It’s crazy. So if you want a stadium, good for you. Just make it a deal where the taxpayers don’t get screwed, and the owner has substantial skin in the game. It rarely works that way.
Good luck in your game against the Pack tonight.
by horace clark on Oct 24, 2010 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Denver *is* a case I want to make.
Coors Field is not 2 blocks from New Invesco. Putting the stadiums together revitalized the whole neighborhood. I lived in Denver for 5 years, I know.
by Shawn Gillogly on Oct 24, 2010 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Well good luck
on your stadium chase. I am not a Minnesotan (or whatever they are called up there) so I don’t have a vested interest. As you can tell, I think a lot of stadium deals are great for owners, bad for citizens. I hope the Vikes stay in Minny and I hope that the county commisioners or whoever ends up working the deal don’t let the free bj’s they get courtesy of the Vikes brass interfere with their objective of getting the best deal for the citizenry. That’s all. And if they do a great public service and work a good deal then it’s all good as you say for the fans.
by horace clark on Oct 24, 2010 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions
I pay for plenty of things I'm not a fan of.
I really don’t seem to have a choice. I’m not mad about it. It is what it is.
Pawlenty and the Legislature has absolutely failed on this
He was for a stadium when he knew it wasn’t possible to pass or he was on the way out the door, and was against it when it became politically unpopular. Conversely, Democrats have been for or against it depending on what Pawlenty’s opinion was it at any given time. If he was for it, they were against it. Oh, Timmy’s against it today? Then we need to support keeping the Vikings in town!
Pathetic all the way around.
The Daily Norseman
Off Tackle Empire
SB Nation Minnesota
"A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed."
"Pull your 84 jerseys out, man. I think this is going to be a fun ride." Randy Moss, WR, Minnesota Vikings
Is he a witch??
seriously… a stadium is a political tarball… MN needs a leader in this position who will make this decision based on it’s real value and not based a political pro/con gamesmanship play.
The State is going to have to provide something… that’s the way it works… either in land, concessions, tax breaks, bonds, or hard dollar investments. The dome was a successful endeavor and there’s no reason to suggest that clear-thinking Minnesotans can’t develop another sound investment this time around. Like I said… we just need a leader to grow a pair and make it happen.
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 21, 2010 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions
nor did he say No Al Fanken
And that’s…… O…K
"We have a right to be proud, for in our veins flows the blood of many brave races who fought as the lion fights for lordship. Here, in the whirlpool of European races, the Ugric tribe bore down from Iceland the fighting spirit which Thor and Odin gave them, which their Berserkers displayed to such fell intent on the seaboards of Europe, ay, and of Asia and Africa too, till the peoples thought that the werewolves themselves had come."
-from Bram Stoker's Dracula
Speaking of Al Franken
How much pull does a Senator have in these matters? Al was a varsity wrestler in college and his co-workers said he was always carrying a football around when he was an SNL writer. Suit the man up, let him make at tackle (at practice), and you’ll have an honorary Viking in the Senate. Lots of publicity for the Vikings and for Franken. It’s a win – win.
Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted. - John Lennon
by JethroBoViking on Oct 22, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Basically pay for a stadium or lose the team forever. If I had my fav team where I live, I’d take the hit
by allday28 on Oct 21, 2010 8:54 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
let me start be ranting at length about Obama, Bush, Biden, McCain, Palin, and Hillary
…kidding…
i just keep having nightmares about the potential of a Los Angeles Vikings NFL franchise..
it would undoubtedly be like the Houston Oilers, where they keep the oilers name in Tenn for a bit,,then change to a more meaningul name to the area (not sure how many titans exist en tenn, but no oil to speak of)..
so , they would likely eventually drop ‘vikings’ name in favor of a more pertinent LA name, like the ‘quakes’, or ‘mudslides’, or ‘tar pits’, or ‘forest fires’ or ‘starving actors’, or ‘protesters’ or ‘smogs’, or ‘deep recessions’ or ‘freeway traffic’, or ‘porn magnates’ or , ‘legalized pot smokers’. or…
you get the point..lets just hope they all work it out and STAY where they belong!
"the following statement is true:
the preceding statement was false" - george carlin
or Terminators....
"We have a right to be proud, for in our veins flows the blood of many brave races who fought as the lion fights for lordship. Here, in the whirlpool of European races, the Ugric tribe bore down from Iceland the fighting spirit which Thor and Odin gave them, which their Berserkers displayed to such fell intent on the seaboards of Europe, ay, and of Asia and Africa too, till the peoples thought that the werewolves themselves had come."
-from Bram Stoker's Dracula
Is there a reason that they can't just put a proposal on the ballot as a referendum
and just let people take an up or down vote on it?
I suspect their are many reasons.
Most States have very complicated referendum rules. Even if these could be followed and a referendum is on the ballot there is one last risk. If it fails then no politician would ever vote to fund a public stadium because they would be going against the will of the people.
It is normal to see if political support can be gained first and have the legislature simply enact the legislation. Often times referendums are used as a last resort.
Perhaps a knowledgeable fan can enlighten us as to the particulars of Minnesota Laws in this area.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp
by lifelongvike on Oct 22, 2010 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Jersey Tax
The group of taxes they were talking about last summer seemed pretty reasonable. If that dork you all call Govenor P runs for national office, I will vote against him any chance I get. What loser.
By the way....
I have posted numerous examples of how out-of-staters like me could help to contribute to the Minnesota Stadium, and if given the chance would be glad to do so. But I would never have anything to do with the LA Vikings. I would have to pick a new team.
This I would be done.
I’ve hated the Stars since Green left. I would probably be done with the NFL entirely if the Vikes left.
by Shawn Gillogly on Oct 23, 2010 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Not a comment about Obama, Bush, Hillary, etc....
…although I will say that it is good to see that there’s at least one sure argument that can convince a conservative that its worthwhile to expend taxpayer funds for a public good that provides a potential economic stimulus.
Let me counterbalance that poke by saying that you’ve done a great job in blogging on this site, Chris…with luck the Vikes’ play this season will start to consistently live up to DN’s quality!
As an out of state Vikes fan
I have no say anymore in Minnesota politics (other than letter writing),but I am a looonnngg time fan.The past few years we have tried to get “home” for a game a year and like many fans from afar we spend a fair amount of money to attend a game. Between the ticket the hotel,food,gas and necessary Vikes gear,its an easy 500 to a 1000 for the game.Send me a bill for 15 bucks to keep the Vikes where they belong-in the land of ice and snow
SKOL!!!!!
A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.
-- Bud Grant
We Paid For The Target Center....
We paid for the Target Center for the Timberwolves, We Paid for the Excel Center for the Wild, We paid for the TFC Field for the Gopher Football Team, We paid for Target Field for the Twins…….Now it is time to pay for the New Vikings Stadium…..The Gopher Baseball Team got a new stadiun, the Gopher Hockey Team got a new rink, the Gopher Basketball Team got a new Court….
End of argument and discussion, just figure where the money is going to from and start building it, so the Vikings can start playing outdoors again…….I don’t care where they build it, as long as it is in Minnesota and the Vikings stay in Minnesota!
Everyone we meet in life give us happiness, some by their arrival, others by their departure!
Good money after bad
Why continue to make mistakes? These stadium deals are a way that rich guys get you to share the costs. The profits are always a much more private affair. It’s time more cities called the bluff. “Fine. Go. If some other suckers want to pay for your capital, let them.”
As a resident of Kanagawa prefecture and the city of Yokohama, i helped pay for a world class soccer stadium, one suitable for world cup final use. It sits empty now that the World Cup has come and gone. They sold it as being useful for this and that, but there are very fews shows there because it is too big. The city of Montreal only paid off the Olympic stadium in 2006, 30 years after the 1976 Olympics. It’s always lacking for tenants partly because it’s falling apart. It can’t even be demolished easily because it’s right over a subway line. The Indiana Hoser dome still had 70 million in debt when it was demolished to make way for the latest fleecing of Indiana taxpayers.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Oct 24, 2010 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions
While others certainly benefit, personal greed is the motivating factor for most everything the owners do.
And, I’m not saying I think that, in and of itself, makes them bad people. Some of them also have a strong sense of civic responsibility. Some of them (Bud Adams for example) don’t.
The money generated from the stadium is the only income portion an NFL owner can control that is not subject to revenue sharing. The bigger the stadium capacity, the more luxury boxes, the higher the ticket prices, etc., the more money that goes directly into the owner’s pocket that he doesn’t have to share with the rest of the league.
No matter how nicely they wrap the package of a new stadium proposal, it’s primary purpose is to make a group of wealthy people richer, feed their egos, and allow them to keep up with the (jerry) Joneses. Because of shared revenue in all other areas along with salary caps, the NFL owner with the crappiest stadium in the country is still guaranteed to make a handsome profit. New stadiums aren’t required for the owner to stay afloat; they’re only needed to further increase profits and make their franchises even more valuable when they decide to sell them.
With that said, most NFL fans are very passionate about their team and will do just about anything to ensure it remains their team in their city. The owner’s wouldn’t have it any other way.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Winslow move could be a costly one for Bucs in the short term
- Matthew Stafford spends $15,000 to win auction package, then gives it to a young fan’s family
- Tim Tebow allegedly asked Broadway actress to remove scantily-clad Twitter photo
- Erin Andrews reportedly dating ‘Gossip Girl’ actor Chace Crawford, who also happens to be Tony Romo’s brother-in-law
- Madden ’13 will include ‘Tebowing’
