Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Devils Beat Rangers, Head To Stanley Cup Finals

As The Stadium Turns

Well, we couldn't go more than 48 hours without a stadium update story. At this point, it would seem almost un-American to do so. So as we sit today, the Vikings and Minneapolis are still focusing on the Metrodome site, but there are a couple of issues that need to be resolved.

If you want to build a stadium spend more than $10 million on a sports facility in Minneapolis, the city passed a law in 1997 that says it must be put before the voters in a referendum (just for a stadium...really? REALLY?!?!). Mayor R.T. Rybak wants to circumvent said voter referendum by having the city council agree to let the Legislature override that requirement in the stadium bill.

On Thursday night, the city council said 'no'. Now, by reading the story, I'm not sure if that was the only vote that will be taken, but Mayor Rybak seems to think he can sway a couple of city council members to vote his way, clearing the path for no referendum, so I think we'll be re-visiting this in the future.

The NFL apparently isn't too keen on the Vikings playing at TCF Bank Stadium for a few years, either. There's still 'a lot of wood to chop' before the NFL will be satisfied with how everything will work out. That said, the Vikings and the U of M have apparently come to an agreement about the Vikings selling beer at the Bank if they do play on campus.

Arden Hills and Ramsey County have to find another way to finance their portion of the stadium, as no tax increases will be approved by either the House or Senate. They are working on a new financial plan, but won't release details until this coming week. I'm glad Ramsey County isn't taking 'no' for an answer, and if they can come up with a good plan, they're not out of it, especially if the Minneapolis City Council holds firm on wanting a referendum.

And finally, we have...wait for it...a NEW location for the stadium in Minneapolis. This is approximately the 307th possible landing site for a new Vikes Stadium if you're keeping score. Apparently there's a site just southeast of the Dome, between 11th Ave South and I-35W. There are a couple of problems with that though, the main one being an Excel energy substation that sits there. Apparently, that can't be moved, so this idea seems dead in the water, but the Vikes and the city are still looking at it. If they can use that site, the Vikes could still play in the Metrodome and it would alleviate all the TCF Bank Stadium issues.

So there you have it. Minneapolis wants a voter referendum, which would more than likely fail, but the Mayor and City Council chairman think they can avoid one. Ramsey County is still in the game, although a longshot, and the Vikes and the city are looking at yet another possible location.

Just get something done. Please. Because I'm tired of writing about this as much as you folks are of reading about it.

Comment 87 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Congrats Duluth

Looks like you’ll be getting the new Vikings stadium

"Believe in the system. For it shall bring light when there is dark, food when there is hunger, and shots when there are passes. This is the divine process." Yeo 4:18

by NorthernStar on Jan 29, 2012 1:21 PM CST reply actions  

Next to the dome

I have wondered all along what is keeping them from building it right next to the dome. The STrib article shed a little light on that, but I still think this is viable. The parking and traffic would be awful for a few years, but no worse that the parking and traffic at the U on game day. When the dome is done, you can have an area to build a legitimate tailgating lot and some other amenities on it’s site.

by MAJTwister on Jan 29, 2012 1:28 PM CST reply actions  

I read that the substation is

a major link in the Internet network for Minnesota. As in, if they move that substation they run the risk of pretty much shutting down the Internet for the state, or something close to it.

Unless they have a phenomenally good plan on how they’re going to move those responsibilities to another substation without interrupting Internet service to the state, I don’t see this site being very realistic, but that’s just me.

"Go hard. I mean, like relentless. I want a bunch of coaches that coach like their hair’s on fire, and I want a football team that goes for four to six seconds (per play) with relentless effort." OSU Coach Urban Meyer.

The Daily Norseman
Off Tackle Empire

by Ted Glover on Jan 29, 2012 3:53 PM CST up reply actions  

Moving a substation is a substantial cost

I can tell you that just building one under existing transmission lines costs over 10 million dollars. That’s not including the costs of installing new distribution feeders out of that substation. Moving a substation is lot trickier. First, there is the land acquisition for the new one….getting the transmission lines built there, the distribution built there….both after various voltage drop and load flow studies, load growth studies, etc, to ensure that the grid won’t be negatively affected. The studies would probably take at least 3 yrs to complete all of them. Most substations in the distribution world are planned at least 10 yrs in advance. I would expect the cost of moving a substation to be well over 100 million dollars. Even more if this is a transmission to transmission switching yard as the higher the voltage the higher the price of the equipment is.

by Chris3 on Jan 29, 2012 8:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Prediction -- indecision

Leads to a 12 month dome lease. Everything delayed 1 year. Indecision turns it into an election year issue. Poor example of govt inaction to favor it’s politically ‘favored’ site, which is anyplace but Arden Hills. Disgruntled Anoka politicians comes in support of Ramsey.
All for what? Something that costs $7.30 per Minnesotan, or one single lunch meal a year.

Seriously — please get off the pot and get something done. Sh$& stirring and $$ side deals to make everyone happy is the real core of the problem. Will the real leaders stand up?!?

Vikings in 2012 will be a Wonder-ful year. Seriously!!
I also love the game of golf. My favorite golf GPS app is OptimalClub.
It is hands down the BEST golf aid you'll ever have for club distances
under current elevation and weather conditions. Stop guessing & score low!

by VikesFanSince1967 on Jan 29, 2012 2:01 PM CST via mobile reply actions  

per day everyday for 30 yrs....sorry, but no

I don’t have 7.30 per day every day for 30 yrs to feed the hungry, then I don’t have it to feed the rich.

by Chris3 on Jan 29, 2012 8:57 PM CST up reply actions  

It's 2 cents/day

$7.30/year, So over 30 years, that’s $219 total. That isn’t all that much.

by Mebera on Jan 30, 2012 6:41 AM CST up reply actions  

You got it...

That’s for the $1.1 billion prices straight up.

If we’re talking about the remaining balance after various parties contribute (eg $350 million remaining), the yearly cost per Minnesotan would be $2.38 cents per year.

We get ripped left and right for various ‘fees’ a lot higher than this. Even soda prices at restaurants are getting close to $2.49 or $2.99.

This little fee is one I would not mind paying as it is a good value entertainment experience benefiting everyone. Even cable or telephone bill hikes are larger than this amount. All other sports entertainment products the state has pales in comparison to the NFL product.

It’s a no brainer but someone in government is unable to pull the trigger. Instead of ready-aim-fire, we have ready-aim-aim-aim-aim at various targets… Every time the trigger gets pulled, the gun isn’t firing. We need leadership on how to “dis-engage the safety” and pull the trigger.

Vikings in 2012 will be a Wonder-ful year. Seriously!!
I also love the game of golf. My favorite golf GPS app is OptimalClub.
It is hands down the BEST golf aid you'll ever have for club distances
under current elevation and weather conditions. Stop guessing & score low!

by VikesFanSince1967 on Jan 30, 2012 9:34 AM CST up reply actions  

Worth noting...

…the cost does did somewhat higher when you look at per taxpayer (factoring in dependents/etc.) then per Minnesotan, but your overall point is pretty clear.

by GoAUpher on Jan 30, 2012 10:03 AM CST up reply actions  

And lower when

40% of the money from the team/league and the state’s 30% will come from gaming (still a tax, but entirely avoidable).

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 10:33 AM CST up reply actions  

so what happens when the Minneapolis refendum fails?

Give the man the money he needs to build in Arden Hills and be done with this already!

by scottfromcmh on Jan 29, 2012 2:52 PM CST reply actions  

I thought that all stadium preposals were supposed to be turned in 2 weeks ago

Does Minneapolis think they’re better than all the timelines Gov. Dayton sets?

by nmatt71 on Jan 29, 2012 3:15 PM CST reply actions  

Minneapolis did turn in their homework on time.

Their thesis was “build on the Dome site”. This is just another variation on a theme, which is that no site in Minneapolis is solidified as “the one” yet.

And as for the deadline, that was political theater, never binding or disqualifying. If all parties could agree on it and it could get the necessary legislative votes then a brand new, never heard of site could be announced tomorrow, or next week, or next month and it wouldn’t matter.

by GoAUpher on Jan 29, 2012 7:15 PM CST up reply actions  

This stuff is confusing

But the reporting on the city council situation isn’t quite right (although a little closer than Chris got linking to the same article, so, congrats).

They haven’t voted on anything, but instead have made public statements saying they don’t support a stadium without a referendum. The question is what that means. Any override of the referendum requirement would be done by the legislature. So if a state law is passed saying no referendum, what does the city council do? I don’t think we know, which is why Rybak think he can still get the votes.

by amiller92 on Jan 29, 2012 4:11 PM CST reply actions  

I would expect that the state legislature overturning the city charter

and not the county charter (for arden hills) is political suicide for the politicians….they know now is not the time to be inconsistent. Also, I think it will mean the death of the stadium in Minneapolis…because even if the State exempted this tax increase legislation from public vote, it would still have to pass the city council to make it law….If I were a city council member and another politician basically said that the concerns of my constituents didn’t matter, I don’t think I would hand them what they wanted on a silver platter.

by Chris3 on Jan 29, 2012 9:02 PM CST up reply actions  

No

Ramsey county s a vote for a tax.

Minneapolis s a vote for a particular type of spending.

The politics are very different. There is no inconsistency and no tax increase.

by amiller92 on Jan 29, 2012 9:33 PM CST up reply actions  

You are splitting some very fine hairs here.

I do not think the taxpayers of Minneapolis will make these distinctions. I wouldn’t. More spending supported by city sales taxes is what is happening. New or re-directed.

The legislature can justify this however they want. The city council will listen to people form Minneapolis.

Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice's rookie year.

by Odin on Jan 31, 2012 8:44 AM CST up reply actions  

I'm not the one splitting

I don’t think there is a big substantive difference. But there is a big political difference for legislators who have pledged “no new taxes.”

by amiller92 on Jan 31, 2012 8:53 AM CST up reply actions  

I did not say the legislators.

I said the city council. And you have not yet had the legislature weigh in on whether they will agree with you on this distinction. Only Rybak and Mondale agree with you so far, Neither of those gentleman will cast a vote.

Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice's rookie year.

by Odin on Jan 31, 2012 10:27 AM CST up reply actions  

oooooorrr.....

they could just quit being bitches about the $7.30 a person, and build the damn thing in arden hills…. … and as far as saying that minneapolis turned thier homework in on time,, im guessing a whole 5 pages isnt that tough to come up with, givin this isnt really all that big of a deal. And a whole 5 pages is more than enough,,

by Toes110 on Jan 29, 2012 7:56 PM CST reply actions  

Without more input from the Vikings...

…a site is pretty much all Minneapolis has. Any numbers they list aren’t real until the Vikings agree to them. So as sad as it is, 5 pages doesn’t sound that far off given the fact that they didn’t have anything “real” to say besides the site until they get more input from the team.

by GoAUpher on Jan 29, 2012 8:43 PM CST up reply actions  

enough of that damn figure already

That cost is not even close to being realistic…..and the dumbing down of the argument with this figure does not help. If you want to suggest the cost isn’t that much, then I suggest you start by comparing to other things the legislature spends money on.

by Chris3 on Jan 29, 2012 9:04 PM CST up reply actions  

not everyone has an extra 7.30 every day to spend on a profitable business

Things 7.30/day will buy in your own personal life….That is 2664.5 dollars per year. Two semesters at Junior College, a car payment (222 per month), personal loan, home improvement loan, etc. Over the course of 30 yrs, that is 79,935. I have better things to do with that kind of money than give it to someone who doesn’t need it. BTW, that’s about the same amount of money as interest on a 200,000 house over 30 yrs at todays rates. Why should I give that money to the Vikings…they make more money than I do, why should I give them my hard earned dollars that can go to provide security for my family? That kind of money does make a dent in personal health care. What would I be getting out of paying that for a stadium…except making myself less profitable? Why should Minnesotans make themselves less profitable in order to make sure Ziggy Wilf is more profitable?

by Chris3 on Jan 29, 2012 9:10 PM CST up reply actions  

per year

Build up your weaknesses until they become your strong points." --Knute Rockne

by abba7 on Jan 29, 2012 9:55 PM CST up reply actions  

repeat after me....

$7.30 PER YEAR for 30 years

I haven’t been a MN resident since I graduated college in ‘96, and I’d gladly contribute $50/yr to keep the vikes in MN…

by michiganpat on Jan 30, 2012 7:46 AM CST up reply actions  

I could retire....

…. if every man, woman, and child in Minnesota gave me a one time payment of a dime. And I’ll gladly pay the state the maximum tax rate too.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 12:23 PM CST up reply actions  

Twilight Zone??

Another option after all this time?? Are you kidding me??

Just means another year will go by before any decision gets done

Zygi is looking for every option that keeps his contribution for a new stadium at the present 25% level – the sooner he realizes that this is not going to happen – not in Miinnesota nor in any other state for that matter – the sooner he will have a new place – or stay put where they are. The financing Rybak talks about sounds like a shell game to me and won’t pass city council..

Zygi – sell some of your other real estate holdings – or go to the banks – or NFL, and kick in another $300 M, and build it at Arden Hills – you will make another $40M per season. – you can raise ticket prices to recoup the extra $300M – Get the Feds to clean the site and you can make some money on future development at AH.

Until the owners are willing to kick in more money, you can forget a new stadium here – I’d rather Zygi sell to others that are willing to make it happen here. New owners would also give the legislators another incentive to get it done.

by john.weitner on Jan 30, 2012 6:44 AM CST reply actions  

Moving?

At this point, what percentage likelihood/chance would you put on the Vikings relocating to a new city?

Based on what I’ve followed, it seems like a 50% chance. I just don’t know if Minnesota wants to keep the Vikings right now, and current economic climate isn’t helping at all.

by cdubs3201 on Jan 30, 2012 10:48 AM CST reply actions  

Unfortunately....

It’s the politicians jerking around and giving that impression. The previous Gov. and Legislature screwed around and passed the buck, and the present one is looking to do the same with their actions the last several weeks. Both sides of the isle are at fault for this.

Fortunately, Wilf and the NFL see this and knows it’s not the fans staying away in droves or hoosing things over. So that bides us some time, but how much before the last straw breaks the camels back? That is the scary thing.

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is a war room!

by VikesFaninNM on Jan 30, 2012 11:45 AM CST up reply actions  

Must be St. Martin/Sint Maarten

Hopefully not Haiti/Dominican. ;)

Anyway, politicians are terrible about doing anything until they absolutely have to, especially anything that requires them to take political risk. Unfortunately, building public sports facilities that will have a professional sports teams as tenants is not politically popular.

But I don’t think the current governor is trying to pass the buck, although the Minneapolis city council seems to be.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 12:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Forget being...

… a stadium not being politically popular. Building a stadium with taxpayer money is unpopular with the majority of Minnesotans, period.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 12:25 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not sure what difference you are drawing

Between those two things. They look the same to me.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 12:28 PM CST up reply actions  

I would put the odds of the team moving at much LESS than 50% – as it stands presently the team is looking for 75% to come from the public (and NFL portion)…what city would they move to that is willing to fund 75% ??? – I would be shocked if that happened…

I would say the politicians are split 50/50 as to whether they are willing to use taxpayer funds to finance a new stadium – and the general public – only a VERY small percentage would endorse using fees/taxes to finance a Billionaire – that’s with a B… it’s a TOUGH sell even in good times

Even friends who are rabid football fans say no way should any money come from the taxpayers!

by john.weitner on Jan 30, 2012 12:06 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree that the chances of a move are less than 50%

But that’s mostly because we will probably get a stadium deal done.

But you’re wrong about the Vikes asking for 75% public funding. And you’re wrong about no other location being willing to pay for 75% of a stadium. And you’re wrong about your 75% coming from taxpayers, as the state’s contribution is most likely going to come from expanded gaming.

And I disagree that the public shouldn’t contribute, especially the local government that directly benefits from the economic activity associated with the events held at the stadium. Even if you don’t think it pays off (it probably does for the local partner), it’s the cost of having a franchise.

If you don’t want a franchise, that’s fine, but say that so people know where you are coming from. Instead people hide behind other objections are mostly beside the point.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 12:16 PM CST up reply actions  

False Dichotomy

Wanting an NFL team and not wanting to public money spent on a stadium is not the same as not wanting an NFL team.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 12:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes, it is

That’s my point. There is no difference. There is no way to both have a sports team and not subsidize the facility.

The fact is that many Minnesotans are living in denial on the belief that there is a way to spin lead into gold.

Obviously, out politicians aren’t too confused about that, as they have voted to pay for stadiums for the Twins, Wolves, and Wild.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 12:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Only because...

…. we have a team owner that apparently isn’t rich enough to be a true owner and is looking for every public dime so he can be an NFL owner. This take-my-ball-and-go-home mentality is bogus. He should sell the team.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 12:33 PM CST up reply actions  

That's absurd

And suggests very little understanding of finance.

First of all, how rich he is has very little to do it. If he was dumb enough to build his own stadium, he would borrow the money on loans that would be secured by the new stadium and the value of the team, not least because the borrowing would be done by a corporate entity that he owns with limited liability. His personal wealth has very little to do with that. Only a complete moron would pay for a new facility out of cash on hand.

Second, he would be nearly as dumb to decide to pay for it all himself. Reality is that subsidies are available for public sports facilities. You can see that here with the other facilities in town, or you can look around league and see that subsidizing stadiums is typical. You’d have to be a pretty stupid business person do declare that you don’t want what all of your competitors have, what you can most likely get here, and what you can definitely get elsewhere.

I don’t think people need to be happy about it, but people should come to grips with the reality that the choice is between paying for part of a stadium or not having a team.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 12:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Look...

… he has a stadium. He wants a new one only because he wants to increase his profits. Why does increasing his business’ profitability rest on the shoulders of the taxpayer? Wilf leveraged his purchase of the team (which is worth more than his non-NFL net worth) and he is keeping money on the side for real estate development surrounding a new stadium. He wants his cake and eat it too. You might be okay with that, but the majority feel otherwise.

And in case you forgot, the TWolves built their own stadium. The city bought it from the team after the fact. And there are numerous team owners who funded their teams’ stadiums wholly. It’s not my lack of understanding of finance, but my recognition of a carpetbagger.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 12:49 PM CST up reply actions  

So?
He wants his cake and eat it too.

Yes he does. But that’s the system that exists. In the current system either public money gets spent on a new stadium or eventually the team leaves. As amiller notes, no on has to be happy with that but pretending that isn’t the system we’re working in is foolish/pointless/ignorant (take your pick).

by GoAUpher on Jan 30, 2012 12:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Why do you think it's....

…. okay for Wilf to not spend money his access to on a new stadium, but to instead spend it on new development around a new stadium? Maybe he should focus on the NFL team (which is making him very rich) and leave the new development to others with deeper pockets.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 12:56 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not suggesting that it's ok or not ok.

I’m saying, this is how it is. And if you want the Vikings to stay in MN then this is what we’re dealing with.

by GoAUpher on Jan 30, 2012 1:09 PM CST up reply actions  

Or....

…. Wilf could do what Red McCombs did: sell the team for a big profit. He should sell to someone who can bring more to the table and doesn’t view the team as a vehicle to get public money to enable real estate development dreams.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 1:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Again, you don't seem to understand finance

It’s not an either or. He could finance both if he wanted to, but he doesn’t want to because it’s a better deal for him to get public support and public support is available.

And, by the way, public support isn’t only available to sports businesses. If say, Apple, wanted to build it’s new HQ in Arden Hills, you can bet they would get subsidies too.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 1:30 PM CST up reply actions  

I understand capitalism.

Apple, Google, Microsoft, all build their own campuses. That’s capitalism. What we have with Wilf and the NFL is a publicly funded monopoly. That’s the anti-thesis of capitalism and democracy. What part of finance am I not understanding?

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 1:41 PM CST up reply actions  

I can't speak specifically about any of them

But I would be shocked if any of those companies aren’t getting subsidies for their campuses. Tax abatements for those types of facilities are common.

Locally, Lawson Software got a boatload of cash for moving downtown (before moving out). Northwest got a bunch of money for locating a maintenance facility in the state.

But that’s just capitalism.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 1:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Great Examples

Lawson screwed the taxpayer. Delta screwed the taxpayer. And those are examples of why we should fund a stadium?

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 1:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Your viewpoint is clear.

But unless you have the power to magically change everything that got us to this point in history, a point where a public contribution to sports stadiums is part of the deal, then you’re just yelling into the wind.

The question is no longer if there will be a public contribution but “how much?” and “what for?” If there is no contribution then there is no stadium and the Vikings probably move at some point.

by GoAUpher on Jan 30, 2012 2:12 PM CST up reply actions  

There is historic precedent...

… in an owner not getting the stadium and selling the team. Wilf could easily pocket $200,000,000+ in profit by selling the team to someone else. Do you think that there is a lack of interest in owning an NFL team even with the HHH Dome? I’d love to find out.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 2:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes

If he sells to someone else, that someone else will want a new stadium too and/or will want to move.

This isn’t a Zygi problem. This is a problem of a stadium that doesn’t generate competitive levels of revenue.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 2:31 PM CST up reply actions  

This is a Zygi...

… problem. He is “poor” relative to other major sport owners. He has his eyes on a prize beyond a new stadium. He is a PR disaster. He’s trying to impatiently and ungracefully muscle his way into the public coffers. We need a new owner who can bring more to the table and focus on the team. Zygi ain’t the guy.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 2:39 PM CST up reply actions  

You must live in an alternative universe

Because I don’t know how you can call him impatient and ungraceful.

This saga has been going on for years, and he’s never said anything but “thank you” to the politicians and public that have tried to work with him.

And, again, if you think ANY owner is digging into his own pocket to build a stadium, you are wrong. That’s just not the way business works.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 3:04 PM CST up reply actions  

Uh huh.
Anoka County withdraws Vikings stadium offer
ST. PAUL (AP) — Anoka County officials said Monday they have rescinded their offer for a new Vikings stadium in Blaine and terminated negotiations with the team.

County officials said in a news release that they took the step because the Vikings agreed to cooperate with a study exploring the construction of a new football stadium in downtown Minneapolis.

The Vikings and Anoka County officials had been pursuing state authorization for a proposed suburban stadium that would cost at least $675 million and be paid for partly through an increased local sales tax.

A Vikings official did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Anoka County Commissioner Dennis Berg said the county had been operating on the premise that Blaine was chosen as the site by a governor’s commission in 2004.

“It’s as if the state and team are willing to start all over,” Berg said in a statement. “It’s unfortunate, because we’ve had strong public support, as was evidenced in this past election.”

The Vikings formally announced last week that the franchise and the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission would jointly study the possibility of bringing a new stadium to Minneapolis, near the current Metrodome.

Anoka County Commissioner Scott LeDoux said it doesn’t benefit Anoka County taxpayers to negotiate against other communities or to be used as leverage for a better deal somewhere else.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 3:13 PM CST up reply actions  

I thought you were in favor of competition

And where in there is Wilf being impatient and ungraceful?

According to that, Blaine pulled out on him in a fit of pique. I see how that makes Blaine look bad, but not how it says anything about Wilf other than understanding that the MSFC is a constituency he needs to cooperate with to get a stadium.

Also, Blaine would be a terrible place for a stadium.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 3:45 PM CST up reply actions  

I don’t think anyone here is arguing for ZERO taxpayer contribution..we do disagree on the split – maybe at one time the team got the taxpayer to pay or they packed up and moved – today times have changed..

In LA, it will be ZERO public funding which both the city and state have said – there are currently 2 parties willing to build a new stadium – all with private money…

My main argument here is that this new stadium discussion has been going on for 10 years – each new owner expects the majority to come from the public – well this strategy isnt working and the team needs to get more in tune with today’s realities and look at other ways to make this happen..

by john.weitner on Jan 30, 2012 1:02 PM CST up reply actions  

You just watch

The strategy will work just fine.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 1:30 PM CST up reply actions  

Numerous is untrue

There are a small minority of facilities that are not subsidized.

And the Twolves example proves the point. The owners paid for it, but it wasn’t long before that didn’t make financial sense and they were bailed out by the city.

Are the Pohlads carpetbaggers? The Wild ownership?

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 1:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Small minority ...

… or otherwise, why does Minnesota have to do what everyone else does? I said it before, if someone is willing to pay 100% of the cost of stadium, do we have to? Cuz that ain’t happening.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 1:47 PM CST up reply actions  

It's called competition

Other cities want a team. They will help build a facility for a team.

So, to answer your question, yes, if you want a team you have to do what the market dictates to have a team.

So much for understanding capitalism.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 1:50 PM CST up reply actions  

A monopoly...

… does not constitute a market. Capitalism 101.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 1:57 PM CST up reply actions  

I challenge you to...

… explain how the NFL isn’t a monopoly. I also challenge you to explain how publicly funding a monopoly is practicing capitalism.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 2:28 PM CST up reply actions  

The NFL competes

With every other sport and many other types of entertainment, including other professional football leagues.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 2:34 PM CST up reply actions  

The "new location" is puzzling

Bagley says the Strib site doesn’t work because it’s only two blocks wide, which isn’t enough. But the “new location” space is only two blocks wide at its widest, and narrowed by the light rail cutting through at a diagonal.

Granted, the Bagley quote about the Strib being too narrow is from last winter, so maybe that’s an outdated view.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 11:39 AM CST reply actions  

Just some more info on the site just southeast of the present Metrodome

http://www.minnpost.com/mnblogcabin/2012/01/30/34695/the_deets_destroy_the_511_building_to_build_a_vikings_stadium_not_smart

I bring this up for info purposes only. I am sure they would find a way around this, but the cost and logistics of relocating Minnesota’s internet and information hub would be a daunting task. And if there were interruptions in service, well …… that could be disastrous.

I disagree with many points in this article. The one thing I agree with is this is not the place for a new stadium.

Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice's rookie year.

by Odin on Jan 30, 2012 8:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Given that it appears to be a bad idea all around...

…you have to wonder why it would be suggested. So this is a trial balloon for something idea/viewpoint. What that is I have no idea.

by GoAUpher on Jan 31, 2012 8:07 AM CST up reply actions  

Ahhhhh ... you said trial balloons.

Now that dang song “99 Luftballoons” will be in my head all day.

Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice's rookie year.

by Odin on Jan 31, 2012 8:47 AM CST up reply actions  

@VikesFaninNM

I disagree the politicians are jerking the team around…

I am probably the only one who will support Dayton here – he has been supportive of getting a new stadium and been up front and straight with the team – he simply said – if you want a decision made this session, then the current Dome site is the only one that has a chance of that happening. The Linden site is still possible, but the church said they would file a law suit and this would be enough to stop the state from making a decision on that site during this session.

Dayton said to the Vikes – you can have Arden Hills but it means they would have to contribute $700M and the team said NO…as it stands right now, the team is still only willing to contribute 25% towards the costs of a new stadium – so the team will support the one and only existing dome site option – and now they look at new options…come on

This is a business and so far that is what Wilf is doing – treating it like a business… he can justify kicking in $300M because the team will generate another $40 in revenues per year – he wants others to kick in $800M – and what exactly do the other contributors get? – the politicians also have a responsibility to the electorate that voted them in.

by john.weitner on Jan 30, 2012 12:15 PM CST reply actions  

It's not 25%

The Arden Hills proposal is projected to cost $1.1 billion. The Vikes are offering to pay $425 million. That’s 39%.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 12:19 PM CST up reply actions  

yes more than 25%

but dont forget a portion of their $425 M includes the NFL portion

so to be more accurate – team portion is $300M on the $1.1 B = 27% so in round numbers close enough to my reported 25%

by john.weitner on Jan 30, 2012 12:27 PM CST reply actions  

I don't know why that matters

It’s money that doesn’t go toward a stadium but for the Vikings, so it should count toward their contribution.

And isn’t the NFL portion a loan made to the team that it has to pay back? So, again, part of their portion.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 12:33 PM CST up reply actions  

agreed

Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice's rookie year.

by Odin on Jan 30, 2012 9:01 PM CST up reply actions  

Proceeds from gambling is just another form of Taxation

If the State gets revenues from say Electronic Pull Tabs then those funds could be used for any purpose as any other taxes would be… it’s a bit of semantics to say gamiing revenues are any different than any other form of taxes.

by john.weitner on Jan 30, 2012 12:30 PM CST reply actions  

Yes and no

It’s entirely avoidable and no one who doesn’t want to pay for a stadium has to pay it.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 12:34 PM CST up reply actions  

I do agree that SOME public funding should be included..

The State has promised $400M – that is pretty respectable IMO…this is justified because the state does receive proceeds through the team being here.

at the local level, they too can benefit by holding other events there, but for this they will be responsible to pay most of the operating costs, as the place will be empty most days..

I am a seasons ticket holder and I am willing to pay more – like say $20 per seat per game – to have a new facility – this $20 would cover a good chunk of what I am saying the team needs to come up..

and for the record – I live in Canada – and it wouldnt matter that much to me if the team moved – I would fly to another city if the Vikes move and also I happen to be pretty content with the current Dome – for me it’s great location as I never have to rent a car and just use the LRT.. I cant tailgate so that’s a non issue for me..I have been to a few other NFL stadiums – both old and new – and I still like the Dome – I just dont take a leak at half time..:)

by john.weitner on Jan 30, 2012 12:47 PM CST reply actions  

Oh don't forget....

…. the dome is used 300+ days a year! There’s dog walking events, running events, rollerblading events, college baseball, etc, etc. One could walk past the dome every day of the year and be convinced that it’s only used for NFL games.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 12:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Those other events are misunderstood

They don’t mean much in terms of revenue, but they are public benefits to having a stadium.

And why do the several hundred MSHL events there never get mentioned by those who want to minimize other events?

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 1:34 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah...

… cuz high school sports need a 65000+ seat venue. The state is dotted with high school facilities, they don’t need the dome for high school sports.

by Vrooman on Jan 30, 2012 1:45 PM CST up reply actions  

They don't "need" it

But they use it because it has a roof and we have bad weather. And they will use the new venue too.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 1:48 PM CST up reply actions  

Huh?

The local government will not pay for any operating costs.

by amiller92 on Jan 30, 2012 1:32 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

DN strives to be the best blog about the Minnesota Vikings on the internet, doing so with a unique blend of insight and analysis, as well as (hopefully) wit and humor. We hope you enjoy the site, and make it your home for Minnesota Vikings info!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
You Can Breathe Slightly Easier
Small
Vikings Roster Analysis: Secondary
Russian_arms_control_small
Season in Review: Chris Cook's Best and Worst performances in 2011
Biggun_small
1st New Vikes Stadium Image

Recent FanPosts

Jg_small
UBVs Special| Trivia! Can you name the Minnesota Vikings Starting QBs?
Small
Roster Analysis: Quarterbacks
Biggun_small
SUCK IT MARTY! - Stadium Passes MPLS 7-6
Imagescaj02y87_small
We get NO RESPECT!
Small
Supplemental Draft and our Safety Situation
Small
Vikings Roster Analysis: Receivers and Tight ends
Grover_small
Purple Kool Aid - Oh Ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Photo_10_small
Percy Harvin and the 2012-13 Passing Game

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Triangle Of Authority

Dailynorseman_small Christopher Gates

Ted_logo_small Ted Glover

Victory__small Eric J. Thompson

Assistant Coaches

Minnesota-vikings-logo_small MarkSP18

Wiggy_7_small Skol Girl

Headshot_small KJSegall