Minnesota Vikings Stadium: St. Paul Has A Problem With Minneapolis Plan
by Christopher Gates on Feb 1, 2012 2:11 PM CST
in Minnesota Vikings Stadium
Email
PrintBecause of course they do, that's why.
See, the current proposal for a Minneapolis stadium includes $150 million in renovations for the Target Center. (Why the Minnesota Vikings should be forced to help renovate the arena for the Minnesota Timberwolves is something that confuses me a bit, but I'm sure that's another discussion for another time.) The person that seems to have a problem with this is St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, who points out that giving the Target Center those renovations would be disadvantageous to the XCel Energy Center, the home of the Minnesota Wild, which sits in St. Paul.
The Target Center and the XCel Energy Center have been competing for concerts and other events ever since "The X" went up in 2000.
I'm not the most politically savvy guy or anything, but it seems strange to me that Coleman would want money for a project in Minneapolis. . .and, therefore, in Hennepin County. . .to benefit the XCel Energy Center in St. Paul (in Ramsey County). If Coleman wanted something that could potentially help St. Paul, he could have done something to back the Arden Hills proposal. . .you know, if he hadn't already come out against it because the taxes involved would "adversely affect" St. Paul.
Man, am I sick of this crap. Everybody needs to pull their heads out and get something figured out for a stadium for the Minnesota Vikings. The team has been put on the back burner for over a decade, and now that it's finally time to get around to them, nobody knows what in the hell to do. What the hell does the state of Minnesota and the residents of the various cities involved elect these people for?
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
it's called ....
passing the buck …
they think that by passing the blame off to someone else, they are saving themselves from the political backlash of making the wrong decision.
when asked by Dan Patrick if his name alluded to not making quick decisions in the pocket, Ponder calmly replied "As crazy as it sounds, my mom's maiden name is actually Superbowlwinner. All one word"
Sadly leaving these decisions to Morons
Having went to my first Vikings game back in 1968 at the Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington and watching through the years that it has come down to this. Idiots, complete morons rambling on about this point or that. You are right Mr. Gates get your F——n heads out of your ass’s and make a decision, before they leave for greener pastures. Idiots
Seriously, Chris
How are the Vikings being forced to do anything? What difference does it make to the Vikings where the rest of the tax money goes?
This, in fact, might be a good sign as it might be an indication that Coleman thinks a Minneapolis deal is coming. Or maybe I’m hopelessly optimistic.
So far, Coleman just has his hand out. I don’t really care unless it means that the legislative members in St. Paul will vote against a stadium bill that doesn’t include some spoils for St. Paul.
I don't get that either.
It’s not the Vikings footing the bill, so how is it that the Vikings are being forced to do anything?
Yes, and
THIS from Coleman is the kind of conduct that should tick people off.
Minneapolis came to the stadium game late, but at least it’s done so in an effort to get a stadium done. Yeah, they don’t want the team to move to Arden Hills, but they also would be unhappy if they went to LA, for example.
Coleman, on the other hand, just seems to want to be bought off. That’s frustratingly opportunistic.
it dosent matter
to the vikings, im sure they could care less, as long as it gets built… It does however matter to the city of st.paul… If T.C gets public money for improvements, they will then have a better opportinity to books venues… and since the Xcel and T.C compete for the same venues, the Xcel would most likely not be able to compete with T.C… therefore reducing profits.. ect.ect.. blah blah … I dont see any reason why T.C should be apart of this stadium bill.. Ramsey county has already been pushed aside without much consideration… (which also happens to be the preferred location by the vikings and most fans) so is it fair that minneapolis as the Twins, the wolves, and now possibly with vikings, all while improving the T.C with hopes to bring in more profit ?? as far as minneapolist coming to the game late, trying to get something done? thats a joke… they came to the table, at the last possible moment.. (after years of telling the vikes to get f@cked).. and the plan they submitted was an absolute joke… im guessing that politically they always knew that no matter what,, no matter how little the came forth with,,, they already had it in the bag……
Except
That Xcel is 10 years newer than Target Center, and substantially nicer already.
I don’t care one way or the other whether Target Center is part of the bill, except to the extent to which it’s presence or absence costs political support that makes getting it done more likely.
Also, I don’t really get any “unfairness” in Minneapolis having more sports franchise than St. Paul. It’s that way because Minneapolis pays for those facilities (via extra sales tax) and because there are more people and more money in Minneapolis to support them.
ok 10 years newer???
The Target center had a major renovation done in 2004….. so….. why should it be remodeled again 8 years later??? Or how about we build the stadium in arden hills and piggyback a saints stadium on the bill also?
I don't know about "major"
It doesn’t look much different from when it was built to me. And I note you left off anything about the fact that Xcel is just a much nicer facility.
But if Ramsey County can come up with a funding source that can get through the legislature, that’s fine with me.
So far, Ramsey County has only proposed new taxes that the majorities in both houses have rejected out of hand.
That Minneapolis has found an alternative that maybe can get past that roadblock (we don’t know yet) doesn’t mean that St. Paul can fairly demand whatever Coleman is getting at (he’s pretty unclear, but I assume he’s not saying that St. Paul should get some of the money collected on a tax that only applies to sales in Minneapolis).
I would call it major.
From Wikipedia:
In 2004, Target Center underwent a major renovation that saw the replacement of all 19,006 of its original seats plus the addition of nearly 1,500 new seats as well as the reconfiguration of the lower bowl to make the arena more fan-friendly.[citation needed] In addition the arena’s original scoreboard was replaced with a new state-of-the-art 9-by-16 foot video screen and state-of-the-art LED signage, LED signage on the upper deck fascia, a new luxury lounge (Club Cambria) and improved access for fans with disabilities.
Please try to source your off-the-cuff “facts” with actual research. Your mis-rememberances and your outright jump to conclusions really do your arguments no good. Every time I see you state anything I have to take it with a grain of salt. You never source anything. It’s almost like you think if you think it’s so, we should take your word for.
Some things you have been wrong on but thought you were right.
1. The city council has to take a vote on the re-direct of the convention tax.You thought not. Now it is a major obstacle to a Minneapolis site.
Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice's rookie year.
I wouldn't.
Seats and a new scoreboard ain’t exactly an overhaul.
And I didn’t say he city council didn’t gave to vote to redirect the tax.
You are mis-remembering again
We had this very conversation on a thread on Jan. 24.
No city council vote is needed
FOr the dome site. Which is Dayton’s point.
by amiller92 on Jan 24, 2012 10:05 PM CST up reply actions
Yes it is.
The vote is to redirect the convention center funds.
From the StarTribune on Jan. 20
"We believe we can get seven votes from the council," Mayor R.T. Rybak said. "It’s going to be tough."
Rybak and City Council President Barb Johnson have proposed redirecting existing sales taxes to pay for the local share of a new stadium and want the Legislature to override a requirement that gives voters a say.
Here is the link.
It looks like two votes to me.
Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice’s rookie year.
by Odin on Jan 24, 2012 10:24 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe you are right
by amiller92 on Jan 24, 2012 10:30 PM CST up reply actions
You need to keep better track of your lies when they are in the public domain.
Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice's rookie year.
Lies?
Wtf, dude? What are you, stalking me?
Idid not remember that exchange.
If you want to be perfectly technical about it, though could draft the bill in such a away that did not require city counsel approval. They won’t, because they want the council’s heads on the line too and because as Dayton says in that article, local support needs to be clear. But they could.
Stalking you? You have a highly over-rated opinion of yourself.
The conversation was less than a week and a half ago. No great feat to remember. Especially when you do not factually state something (from an online conversation) that I directly participated in.
Your fantasy football expert since Jerry Rice's rookie year.
by Odin on Feb 2, 2012 8:06 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
could this be the real reason that the stadium efforts have been side-skirted.
the new stadium would be a great venue for concerts maybe even better than the “X” or “TC”
by midnightwonder on Feb 1, 2012 5:35 PM CST up reply actions
Almost certainly no
First, because that venue exists at the Metrodome. Second, because you would only have a concert in an NFL stadium-sized venue if you really can draw that kind of crowd, which very few acts can. Third, conversely, if you can attract the kind of crowd that requires an NFL stadium size venue, you certainly wouldn’t put your show in a venue that has less than a third of the seating capacity, like Target or Xcel. Fourth, there isn’t anywhere near that same kind of money involved as these facilities generate from their sports tenants.
The reason stadium effort haven’t gone forward yet is that any bill requires a very difficult set of political compromises that haven’t happened yet. And because those compromises aren’t likely to happen until they absolutely have to (e.g., like when the lease is up).
I would argue that there are acts that will draw that kind of people
anyone ever hear of Pearl Jam, Rolling Stones, U2, Ozzfest, Lollapalooza, Gigantor, Paul McCartney, etc? I suppose the other stadiums they play at (Wimbley, Soldier Field, etc.) are smaller than Xcel and Target, right? Why would they come to Minneapolis to sell 20,000 seats when they are selling out 65,000 + seats everywhere else they go?
He didn't say there weren't such acts or that they wouldn't come to MN...
…he was simply pointing out that the years long delay in building a new Vikings stadium isn’t happening to protect the ability of Target Center and the X told host concerts.
That's "very few"
And not all the ones you listed have been playing stadium (rather than arena) shows lately).
There are some out there, just not very many. Maybe one a year at best.
Oy Vey
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is a war room!
by VikesFaninNM on Feb 1, 2012 2:55 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Next comes Order 66
on the entire MN government
by Jepp The Viking on Feb 1, 2012 4:43 PM CST up reply actions
politics is like..
slapping paint on a horse’s arse and hoping it rubs up againt the fence!!!
For the benefit of all would everyone make up their minds and get this done.
Now is a good a time as any to explain why footsie is being played with the other venues, the FA and the draft are a ways off.
There is another solution....but the Wilf's don't want it
because it would require them to build, finance, and own their own stadium….which would then compete with both the above mentioned arenas for concerts…..and since a lot had been made in the past about going without a roof, I would think Wilf’s stadium would win a lot of business in the summer months as an outdoor venue.
I don’t really blame the politicians….let’s face it, If I wanted you to buy me a house, so I could rent it out and make money, you probably would be looking at how much you could afford, and how much money you should charge me on a regular basis….and then if I told you that I would only pay the utility bills, no rent and no maintenance…and by the way, I want all the revenue from the parking lot you paid to build, the naming and advertising rights, so someone can approach me and pay me money to rename YOUR building, and that I wanted to make money off of developing other lots next to mine THAT YOU OWN, you would think I am crazy.
Except for
That 450 MILLION DOLLARS out of the Vikes pocket…
Don't you know who the *^$% I am?
by Jeppernaut on Feb 1, 2012 4:16 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Not to mention
the $20 – 30 million per year the Vikings contribute to the landlord’s pocketbook every year. Just because it’s called “tax revenue” and not “rent” doesn’t mean it doesn’t count.
actually, yes it does
see, they pay the income tax regardless of if the state pays for their stadium….as long as they are incorporated in the state. Now, they move, different story. Traditionally, what’s been done in various other states is that the stadium owner is given a property tax break and a state income tax break for x number of years instead of an outright donation.
Ok, so in my scenario
say I paid 1/3 of the cost to build the rental unit…would you still let me have all the profits from it, or would you want some, because, after all, you own it and paid the other 2/3rds?
You aren't one of 32 entities on the entire planet either.
There comes a certain amount of clout with being part of a very limited supply.
by Jepp The Viking on Feb 1, 2012 4:40 PM CST up reply actions
True, however
business decisions should be made on the merits of the deal, not just because someone rich and famous wants something. There’s only one Prince in the world, should the State pay for 2/3rds of his mansion that he would not own?
Think of it as a new business venture
With the State retaining the majority share and the Vikings as minority holders. The minority party as every right to bargain and achieve as much profit as they can in the deal as without them the whole thing doesn’t exist.
by Jepp The Viking on Feb 1, 2012 4:45 PM CST up reply actions
Your right, without them the profit wouldn't exist
but then, neither would the cost. Also, the state also has every right to bargain and achieve as much profit as they can in the deal….the majority party also has the right to reject any deal, and, if we were talking about a business venture between two companies (rather than one party being a government), you would see investors sue the bajeezus out the majority company for giving away all the profits while retaining the majority of costs….for breach of fiduciary duty.
No one who actually owned the stadium
Would want one without a roof. That would mean basically zero winter events, making it an even less attractive investment.
funny
because Wilf long ago said that he didn’t need or want a roof, so if it were to have a roof, then the State should pay for it. That leads me to believe that if he were to own it, he wouldn’t want to pay for the roof. Also, I would think that he could end up hosting some of the “winter olympics” that’s held every year….could you see that venue take part in any of the winter festivals?
I would think that would be a great place to set up the skating finals that
were in St. Paul….or snowmobile races. Seriously, the Dome houses monster trucks, why wouldn’t a bigger facility be able to accommodate snowmobiles? Also, the NHL Winter Classic could come calling (just about as much of a chance as an NCAA Final 4)
No
Zygi and the team originally proposed a stadium without the roof to keep the price down and avoid sticker shock, and, shrewdly, force the government who would own the stadium, to insist on the roof.
Zygi, who would not own the stadium in that scenario, doesn’t particularly need a roof.
If he was going to own it, and want to make money off it other than during Vikings games, he probably would want a roof. It depends on how much more revenue he could generate with a roof vs. the cost of the roof.
Don't the Vikings
Pay like 80% of the operating costs at the Dome, and have said they’d do similar at the new Stadium? Not exactly “No maintenance”.
actually
operating costs do not include maintenance…operating costs are just that…operating costs. The people you have working to pick up trash, utility bills, etc. Maintenance costs would be equipment failure, changing light bulbs, fixing anything that’s broken.
God forbid successfull busineses (I.E. the NFL and the Vikings)
Should have the right to profit from their awesome (in my opinion) services.
If they don't own the venue
they shouldn’t profit from the venue. That’s my point. If they want to pay for and build and own their own stadium, they can have, and should have 100% of the profits.
SkolGirl covered all the angles very well earlier
No surprise to see this come up. There’s a real political beef going on now. Target center does not need to be involved in a 2 fer 1 bonanza.
The game of stadium whack a mole continues….
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 Feb 1, 2012 5:15 PM CST via mobile reply actions
If anything
Minneapolis is going to help kill the Vikings stadium deal by starting to insist that the TC get upgraded. No one else in the state really thinks that is necessary, but if it becomes a bona-fide part of the deal then a lot of people will fight to kill it. $150 million?
My mom, who doesn’t want anyone to pay for the stadium except for the owners, would be the first one to get a bazillion of her friends in her sewing club, quilting club, dominoes club, card club, crafting club, etc. to help kill the whole stadium if they start messing with too many perks for facilities none of them ever use…
by liveforadrenaline on Feb 1, 2012 5:36 PM CST up reply actions
Do your mom
And her friends live in Minneapolis? If not, why would they care what happens to money raised by a tax that only applies to Minneapolis?
Again, this is another of the needles that needs to be threaded. Rybak seems to think the including Target Center will help get votes on the city council. I don’t know if that’s right, but that seems to be his thinking. If it does, I’m all for it.
On the flip side, the city of St. Paul seems not to like it. I really don’t care about that at all unless it means that people from St. Paul delegation will not vote for it in the legislature. That seems like a silly and unfair position for them to take to me, but it’s a complicated game.
Are you forgetting
The amount the State will kick in? She lives in the state. And a pile of her friends live in Minneapolis. I’m just saying that there are many straws like this which might break the camel’s back.
In spite of the fact that most people here love the Vikings, there are others who are in the camp of voting negative on referendums, and most certainly will swing against it if too much is piled on. And there are a LOT of them, which is why Wilf is afraid of letting it go to a vote. Not just voters, but legislators, too.
I just want this whole stadium issue passed… and the TC upgrade is a completely unrelated deal which Minneapolis shouldn’t dump in here to both make it more complicated and also possibly stomp the life out of it, since it is already on thin ground…
by liveforadrenaline on Feb 1, 2012 9:36 PM CST up reply actions
The amount the state will kick for Target Center
Is zero.
And Rybak s saying it isn’t unrelated and I’ll elp get votes on the council.
Getting votes on the Council is Rybak's problem
People voting against either a local referendum or State Legislators and the Governor getting cold feet about doing an out-of-control deal is the problem of everyone who wants a stadium.
Trust me, you don’t want to piss off the senior citizens who know that money doesn’t just appear when some Jeannie blinks her eyes. The last thing you want is the appearance that dirty politics are being inserted here in place of a vastly cleaner stadium deal.
All it would take is just a few more sourpusses who are against this thing in Minneapolis to drive a wooden stake in the stadium…
by liveforadrenaline on Feb 2, 2012 7:57 AM CST up reply actions
I don't know what "need" means
Rybak seems to think that renovating the city-owned Target Center would help with political support on the city council, which features 12 DFLers and one Green Party member and therefor isn’t made up of people who tend to be too keen subsidizing stadiums. If using money generated by a tax that only applies the city of Minneapolis to renovated Target Center helps get votes, then I’m all for it.
I’m not for Mayor Coleman pretending like something unfair is happening if Minneapolis taxes itself to fix up it’s own property.
The good news is that the mayor of St. Paul doesn’t get a vote. Also, it sounds like he would be satisfied if there is some sort of arrangement put in place that means TC and Xcel don’t compete, which is fine with me too.
From an outsider looking in
It appears that the St. Paul mayor is just putting in his two cents about the Target Center riding on a new stadium coattails in getting upgrades that will make it more difficult for the St. Paul venue to compete for concerts and other events. It doesn’t sound like he is looking for a handout just an equal playing field. I don’t have a problem with this at all. If the Target Center needs upgrades let them try and get the money for said updates on their own. THE VIKINGS HAVE WAITED LONG ENOUGH.
By the way I say this never being in either the Target Center or the Xcel Energy Center although a friend that lives up there says the X is really nice.
How is him saying he wants money
If Minneapolis taxes itself for TC not asking for a handout? He didn’t say st Paul wants too tax itself too. He wants state money. TC doesn’t.
And Minneapolis is trying to get the money on its own.
I find Mayor Coleman's sudden interest in a Minneapolis stadium deal annoying.
The plan to include money for a Target Center renovation with a new Vikings’ stadium has been well-known for at least a few months. To react to this now gives the impression that Coleman hasn’t been paying attention to the situation.
For the last ten years the Vikings have made it clear that they want a new stadium and St. Paul has had as much opportunity as any other location in Minnesota to woo the team. They didn’t. St. Paul also declined supporting Ramsey County’s bid to build a stadium in Arden Hills, saying there was no benefit to St. Paul.
Minneapolis, however, saw an opportunity to keep the Vikings in Minneapolis and improve the Target Center at the same time, giving Target Center an advantage over St. Paul’s Xcel Energy Center in booking entertainment. Well Mayor Coleman, you snooze, you lose. How is that Minneapolis’ fault? It isn’t. That one rests on St. Paul for not taking an opportunity to seize an advantage for itself.
Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge.
- Paul Gauguin
http://www.dailynorseman.com/
10 yrs of waffling and snoozing by Minneapolis
Until the end is brinkmanship… St Paul is right to express their concerns. The new parties deserve a fresh look. It’s anyone’s game for the most nimble and agile players now.
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 Feb 1, 2012 7:49 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I agree with you last sentence
But what did St Paul do during those ten years?
I know people are angry and mad that
Minneapolis is just now doing something after 10 years of waiting by the Vikings, but at some point the fans gotta let go of the grudge and stop holding that over their heads now that their is supposedly “progress” in stadium talks.
☠★☪Creator of http:/vikescity.info/ and dedicated DN reader.
by UnBannedVikingholic on Feb 1, 2012 8:59 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Well
They didn’t tell the vikes to get f@cked, they didn’t wait until the vikes had a real chance of getting a stadium built with a different partner, they didn’t turn in a five page report, that basically any high school kid could have worked up, they didn’t depend on politics to make it happen for them…face it miller 75% of fans don’t like the minneapolis site, its a crowded, cluster f@cked area, the parking is terrible, its gonna be shoe horned in, just like everything else there…we all know there is no way minneapolis would let the vikes walk,, weather it was st.paul, arden hills ,shakopee,MOA, or the moon…politics is the only thing keeping this nightmare in minneapolis….would be a dream if wilf told rybek to go fist himself, and built it himself in AH(never happen)..but them again minneapolis would probably somehow block that too…..
by Toes110 on Feb 1, 2012 9:18 PM CST via Android app up reply actions
At the end of the day all that doesn't matter.
If the stadium is built in Minnesota, no matter where in Minnesota, NOBODY should be complaining.
☠★☪Creator of http:/vikescity.info/ and dedicated DN reader.
by UnBannedVikingholic on Feb 1, 2012 9:24 PM CST up reply actions
There is way more bitching about downtown
Thsn actual inconvenience.
huh???
what the hell IS convenient about downtown?!,, its way too crowded,,, parking is a nightmare, traffic during sporting events is a joke… im also guessing that playing 3 years at TCF would not be terribly convenient, for the vikes, the fans, and even the non fans who would be raped by traffic game day.
Let's see
Tons of independent parking (cheaper than if entirely team-controlled), transit access, multiple points of freeway access, nearby food and drink options, etc.
You don’t realize how good you have it. Part of me wants a suburban stadium just so you realize how much better downtown can be.
But you might not realize that your Canyonero is parked six blocks away for twice the price with no non-stadium entertainment within miles, even if you got your wish.
The traffic you complain about is entirely from the game, and the parking is a steal you don’t appreciate.
im guessing
that you think suburban stadium would be a mistake, since you have been pimping the minneapolis site since it originated… as far as independent parking goes,, yeah occasionally you can find a decent spot,, otherwise your parking 5 blocks away.. or in a parking ramp.. the multiple freeway accesses you speak of,, yeah they are great when you can reach them in less that 45 min of traffic.. at a suburban site, there could actually be true tailgating… something that this state has missed out on since the big inflatable toilet was built… this is why almost every complaint you here about the possiblity if building in minneapolis, is how crowded it is, and how the traffic sucks, no tailgating, no additional room for future growth in the area… AH or shakopee would provide all of that… tons of room to start FRESH… the road ways near AH are scheduled to be re-done in the next 3-5 years anyways… that and the vikes would not have to worry about playing at TCF for 3 years…. … all and all,, there is absolutley no way that you would be able to convince me that the downtown site, would be better than AH or shakopee… not by a long shot…
If you want a lot of people to go to a place
you build it where they are….not where you want them to be. That’s convenience…..that said however, a 10 minute drive to AH isn’t exactly inconvenient for people who drive a few hours to get there.
Off Topic:
But does anyone else miss Farvin?
☠★☪Creator of http:/vikescity.info/ and dedicated DN reader.
by UnBannedVikingholic on Feb 1, 2012 8:57 PM CST reply actions
I can't go on reading this day after day
They’re blowing it. Any other interested city must be having similar issues or the Vikings would be gone already. The Wilfs have been patient. The state shouldn’t have to listen to Minneapolis or St. Paul. The Vikings project needs to be a stand alone job, no piggybacking.
The Vikings should just say FU to both counties and go with the Shakopee location...
or Duluth…something. Cheeseheads all drive up to Green Bay for the game, you can’t drive a couple hours a few Sundays a year. Also ask this guy: 
He drives down from Winnipeg, MB for every game. Hell I’ll drive up from Nashville twice a year just to see a couple games in a new stadium!
"We want to keep beating them...to break their pride and break their season...is a huge thing for us." - David Legwand
Shakopee is a joke
Based on gaming revues that have zero political chance and zero additional appeal.
Might as well be Duluth.
St. Paul's mayor is Chris Coleman
Not Joe.
Thanks
Not sure where I got Joe from, but the error is fixed.
Thanks for the heads-up!
SBNation Minnesota - For the greatest sports fans in the world.
The Daily Norseman - The greatest Vikings' site on the Internet!
"Don't do anything by half. If you love someone, love them with all your soul. When you go to work, work your ass off. When you hate someone, hate them until it hurts." - Henry Rollins
Follow @DailyNorsemanSB
Follow @SBNMinnesota
by Christopher Gates on Feb 2, 2012 1:19 AM CST up reply actions
Stupid whining from St. Paul.
That hockey arena (Excel) is plenty nice and plenty new. They need to go whine somewhere else. \:(
30 year deal... how many games?
8 regular + 2 preseason = 10
30 years = 300 games (not including any bonus games from playoffs or superbowl)
Stadium price…$1.2 billion (going for a higher number because the math is cleaner).
Straight up average cost per football game:
$4 million per event.
or 4×10 games = $40 million/year.
Compare to…
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_cable_television_show_cost_to_produce
The answer varies. It can run from the low hundreds of thousands (minimum of about $500,000 to produce a Pilot for a drama series) to the $13 Million PER EPISODE NBC paid Warner Bros. to produce the hit show
ER (network average is $1.5 to $2 Million per episode for a television series). This fee covers everything associated with producing one episode from salaries to paper clips (there are on average 22 – 26 on “free” broadcast television such as NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. and 13 on cable broadcast stations such as HBO, TNT, FX, etc.).
Football entertainment is comparable to hit TV shows. The stadium is the ‘stage’ they perform on.
If we are $300 million apart from getting a deal done, or $1 million/game.
Why doesn’t TV advertising pay for it?
http://www.sportsfilter.com/news/14067/nfl-football-11-minutes-action-60
NFL Football: 11 Minutes of Action, 60 Minutes of Commercials: “The average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is about 11 minutes,” the Wall Street Journal reported today. By comparison, a game broadcast contains 60 minutes of commercials and 75 minutes of players standing around, huddling or preparing for a snap. “Football — at least the American version — is the rare sport where it’s common for the clock to run for long periods of time while nothing is happening.”
60 minutes of advertising commercials, or 120 thirty second blocks.
$1 million / 120 = $8,333 per 30 second advertising commercial.
Could we have a simple solution to bridge the gap?!?!
A stadium fee per commercial for all live events.
$15K for 60 seconds, $8K for 30 seconds, $5K for 15 seconds, or a simple flat rate of 5% based ad spot cost.
http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/chart-american-idol-nfl-duke-priciest-tv-spot/230547/
Did you know that the 30 second rate for Sunday Night Football is over $500K ? $8K fee for this spot (would be only 1.6% of the 30 second rate, or if going by 5% flat rate = $25,000) will NOT hurt advertisers to reach out to the multi-million viewer audience they seek. A Sunday night game could generate 120 30-second spots at $25,000 per ad or $3 million in revenue. This all adds up to big $$ over the long term. Streaming ad fees offers an extra bonus as this detail becomes more formally worked out.
Why is no one looking at this angle? Seriously!
Why do we have to make it so difficult via political and regional hot topic angles involving pull tabs, gambling, re-directing of existing tax fees, beverage fees, hotel surcharge fees, merchandise fees, yada yada yada… If NFL ratings will be consistent or go up over the next 30 years, it only makes logical sense to ‘bank’ on this viewer growth and reach out to an unlimited global audience than put the burden on finite resources of ‘local’ consumption, lodging, and merchandising.
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 Feb 3, 2012 8:55 AM CST reply actions
In a word, no
The tv advertising money is already part of the league’s contract.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Daily Norseman
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
