Vikings stadium proposal isn't for the "people"

Six myths the mainstream media perpetuates

Of course, today's business leaders are no dummies. They have no interest in padding the Vikings' bottom line. That's why their efforts, such as those of the reconvened Home Field Advantage group in Minneapolis, are focused on developing a uniform message that will allow the business community to "speak with one voice" to the Legislature.


Myth #3: The Vikings Are Making a "Sizable Investment" in a New Stadium

For more than a year, virtually every media outlet in town has reported that the Vikings have pledged a $407 million (since increased to $425 million) "contribution" toward either a $1.1 billion stadium proposal for Arden Hills or a new building on the Metrodome site, now projected to cost $975 million.

The reality is something quite different. As noted by Mike Kaszuba in the Star Tribune last November, the Vikings' actual contribution would be around "$225 million, maybe less."

Downtown East site plan
courtesy of the MSFC
Downtown East site plan
Texas billionaire McCombs (top) took home a whopping $350 million profit when he sold the Vikings in 2005. Wilf (below) will be all smiles if the public builds him a new football palace.
Top: Publicity still; Below: courtesy of the Minnesota Vikings
Texas billionaire McCombs (top) took home a whopping $350 million profit when he sold the Vikings in 2005. Wilf (below) will be all smiles if the public builds him a new football palace.

But even that figure is misleading. Kaszuba cited information from the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission that estimated that the sale of personal seat licenses and a loan from the NFL would bring in $175 million, leaving the team to kick in the rest. However, in that same article, Kaszuba also mentions that the "Vikings would be expected to net up to $8 million a year from stadium naming rights and another $3.2 million annually from Arden Hills parking revenue."

Got that? In other words, the Vikings would actually have no real money at risk in the project.

Here's how the scam works: The Vikings reach a deal with the state and Minneapolis (or Ramsey County) to build a new stadium. The state and the other government entity agree to put in $600 to $650 million—likely the amount necessary to cover the stadium's "hard" construction costs, though this number remains fluid as details of the plan change. The state and/or municipality sells 30-year bonds to finance the project, to be repaid with money from an unnamed source—gambling, for now—but more realistically some kind of tax (the current proposal calls for redirecting the Minneapolis sales tax to cover a portion of the construction and operating costs). Actual cost to the taxpayers, taking into account the interest that will have to be paid on the bonds: about $1.2 billion.

Meanwhile, the NFL, under its recently announced G4 loan program, lends the Vikings $200 million interest-free to be repaid over 15 years from the proceeds generated by the sale of premium seating—the extra dough the team can collect for fancier club seats, of which the Metrodome has none. (Ordinarily, premium seat revenue would have to be shared with the other 31 NFL teams, but when applied to stadium costs, that requirement is waived.) The Vikings redirect the $75 million they are expected to realize from the sale of personal seat licenses, leaving a $150 million gap.

Even if Wilf had to borrow that money, the team's annual interest payments would come to about $5 million per year, far less than the $11.2 million annual revenue stream from stadium naming rights and parking fees. (If parking revenue is not part of the package, the team still nets $3 million on the deal.)

To recap: Taxpayers are on the hook for 30 years of bond payments while the Vikings get to cover their share of the overall project by redirecting revenue streams that would not be available to them without the construction of a new stadium.


Myth #4: Stadiums Create Jobs

The Vikings claim that a new stadium will "support 13,000 full- and part-time jobs, including 7,500 construction jobs, over a three-year construction period."

These numbers come from a 2009 report prepared for the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission by Conventions, Sports and Leisure International (CSL), a Minneapolis-based consultant that has also done work for the Vikings.

While that alone does not make the numbers suspect, the fact that the firm did not conduct an independent market study suggests that the word "support" is really code for "we're making some really broad assumptions here based on unverified information."

In other words, the numbers are highly inflated, misleading, or both.

Mortenson Construction, the likely stadium contractor, calculated that a stadium project would require 4.25 million work hours to complete. While that seems like a very large figure, when you divide it by 2,080 hours—the equivalent of one year of full-time work—the number of construction jobs created would actually be 2,043.

Since this project will take three years to complete, the only way that 4.25 million hours can translate into 7,500 jobs is if most of these jobs are of a much shorter length than one year, a fact confirmed by data supplied from Mortenson indicating that the average number of hours per worker will be 567, or about 14 weeks.

Building a stadium is also a terrible public investment, given that each full-time equivalent job would cost a staggering $475,000 to create—five times the much-criticized $93,000 per job cost of President Obama's stimulus plan, and laughable in comparison to a recent U.S. Department of Commerce study that found investments by its Economic Development Administration in infrastructure projects cost taxpayers on average between $2,000 and $4,600 for each construction job created.

The other job estimates are equally dubious, at least in terms of how people normally look at regular employment. For example, the Vikings and the Metrodome employ fewer than 200 people combined, many of them part-time, yet the original CSL report attributed the number of jobs related to stadium activity as totaling 3,400. What the report is mostly describing are all those seasonal positions related to game day activities: the vendors, parking lot attendants, off-duty cops working security, ushers, etc.

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
75 comments
Vikesgeek Minnesota
Vikesgeek Minnesota

The Vikings are not dead last in revenue. They are near the bottom in stadium revenue. The vast majority of revenue for nearly all NFL teams, however, is derived from the NFL's television contracts. The Vikings also currently benefit from revenue-sharing, taking some of the revenues that larger market teams otherwise would reap.

Ant
Ant

And to any idiots who still believed the Vikings wouldn't leave OPEN YOUR EYES. If a business (and that's what NFL teams are) isn't profiting why would they stay? The Vikings are dead last in NFL revenue in large part due to the outdated Metrodome. Minnesota was very much competing vs other markets in the country for an NFL team. Better markets like L.A. that would've payed for a larger portion of the stadium if not all of it. So in fact Minnesota was actually lucky Zygi Wilf was adamant at keeping the team in Minnesota were they belong.

I think that is absolutely ridiculous to expect the Wilf’s and organization to pay for all of the costs. Yes Zygi 'could' pay for it all by himself but why would he when there are plenty of other markets outside Minnesota that want a NFL team.

The Wilfs and the NFL do not have an obligation to provide Minnesota with an NFL team or for that matter a publicly-owned multi-faceted stadium for the State of Minnesota. That will benefit the people of Minnesota in more ways then just football.

The Metrodome is used about 300 days every year. Of those event days, fewer than 100 feature professional or major college sports. So in actuality the Vikings will use the building less than the state will and they wouldn't own it either. It would be owned by a sports authority, aka the State, not by the Vikings.

So tell me, if the state is going to be using the building more than the Vikings, why should the Wilfs pay for all of it?

Ant
Ant

U MAD?

Duped_By_Politicians
Duped_By_Politicians

Too bad we don't have common sense politicians in this state. The folks down there at the capitol are basically participating in legal thievery of the people.

Jason
Jason

While I don't disagree with much of this article. The author failed to mention that everything time a major pro sports team failed to get a new stadium, they left. It's as simple as that. The real question is: Do we want an NFL team here or not? If the answer is yes, then we (the taxpayers)will have to pay for it. If not they are gone. It's clearly not fair but that's just the way it is. 

Ant
Ant

I guess the ingrates of Minnesota would rather become the next Dakota, Iowa, or Nebraska... Who cares they can still go fishing and gambling right... Who needs the NFL. We don't watch it. As an out-of-state Vikings fan who would've hated seeing them move to the scum of the earth (L.A.) I'm glad some people in Minnesota have sense.

Dave
Dave

So tired of this issue. Its all smoke and mirrors with all the nonsense of religious fervor. The public inevitably gets screwed. Get honest all you sports fans. You want a pro sports team to root behind. It feels good. It makes you feel like you're a part of something.

There's nothing wrong with community spirit but don't try to dress it up as economic stimulus or a job creator.

Ant
Ant

U MAD?

Please tell me what other Bill passed in this session will create jobs? I find it just astounding that people like you have no clue that the Vikings and having an NFL team is a state, county, and city wide investment due to ancillary businesses and jobs that will be created. It will create jobs. Immediately in construction and long term in retail and the service industry. The Vikings and the new stadium would bring to the state construction jobs, retail jobs, restaurant jobs, hotel jobs, transportation jobs, facility jobs, and so on. Economic development doesn't come cheap. At the end of the day some new jobs are better than none.

Elydog
Elydog

Nice story. However, it is not just the 'mainstream media' that whores for the small group of upscale Vikings ticket holders and their millionaire patron. City Pages itself just posted an adulatory portrait of Mayor Rybak, who is trying to twist the arms of the City Council based on the same 6 myths in your story. And to do that he has to ignore asking the people of the City, per law. Just as the Twins had to avoid asking the people of Hennepin County and Minneapolis.Anti-democratic fake? You bet.

Ely Man

cags777
cags777

No offense, but don't you use facilities that have used taxpayer subsidies?

Elydog
Elydog like.author.displayName 1 Like

I don't believe in corporate welfare, even for the Guthrie The upscale executives of Minneapolis are the ones dying for a new Vikings stadium, so they can drink whiskeys in their private booths, with loads of food and service, and watch violent contests while they pull on their ties. This only benefits this class strata. Face it. Working class people that buy this con - and there are a few - are being duped again. The Vikings are not your team.

Buy the Vikings, municipalize them, statize them like Green Bay, and I'm on board. Otherwise send these rip off artists packing.

cags777
cags777

Sorry, but unless this is from a legit news journalist or staff writer, this article is highly suspect with half-truths and myths.

Johnson
Johnson

Who wrote this story Nancy drew?

cags777
cags777

Isn't this the same Tom Goldstein who decided to make up information about the Vikings and other stadium supporters promising a Super Bowl title if they get a new stadium? Sorry, but his testimony in St. Paul last week by making up information killed any credibility he had when his article came out, as neither the Vikings nor stadium supporters promised any such thing. The only thing that was promised was that a new stadium could host a Super Bowl.

And while this is a brilliantly-written article with myths and half-truths of his own, Goldstein fails to mention why there's nothing wrong with the Metrodome and why it's so valuable. If it's such a great place, why don't the Twins or Gophers football team play there anymore? Why hasn't there been a major concert there since 2003? Why is there obstructed viewing all along the upper deck? Why are the concourses narrow? And why are there an inadequate number of bathrooms inside the facility?

Furthermore, Goldstein isn't even a staff member of City Pages or even a freelance writer. He's just an anti-stadium activist who was given more space than any legitimate freelance writer or City Pages staff writer and editor. Are CP staff too busy to do this research that they need a smoking gun and fraud like Goldstein to do the work for them? This is just like any other major media outlet in the Twin Cities allowing the Taxpayers League of Minnesota to do research on public dollars being spent, or the Minnesota Family Council doing research on the impact gay marriage is having on families.

Sacredanvil
Sacredanvil

The entire media of the twin cities is pumping this thing, all the evening news channels etc. Anyone who stands in the way is painted as a spoiler of the good times. It's like an addictive drug taking over the brain of the addict that it's worth it no matter the cost. Shameful allocation of government resources. Minneapolis has no new car dealerships for a reason.....high sales tax compared to the suburbs. As a retail jeweler I see this as a threat to my my high end product business with extra sales taxes.

Dwj7
Dwj7

This is by far the most brilliant research and exposure of this entire charade. Bravo, this article should be nationally syndicated. Exposing the fraud of this white collared mafia who will do or say anything in order to have you pay for their party. Thank you Tom for arming the slaves with the information needed to help elevate our awareness and our consciousness in order to protect ourselves from these vampires...Zygmunt, Dayton, and Jr Mondale, your act is so lame better raise your pimp game...the slaves are wakin' up and gonna take over!!! Nice job Mr. Goldstein, thank you so much.

Carol Becker
Carol Becker

Myth: Electronic bingo and pull tabs create new revenue. Gambling in bars and restaurants currently exists. When electronic bingo and pull tabs come in,it will displace revenue from existing games, not add new revenue. Who loses? The folks who are currently getting money from pull tabs - youth activities, congregate dining for the elderly, vets and wildlife habitat. It is hard to imagine anything more churlish than taking money from kids, the elderly and vets and giving it to a billionaire.

Myth: Gambling revenues are a stable funding source to use to pay back loans. The reality is that revenues from gambling in bars has declined about a third from 2004 to 2011, from about $130 million to $81 million. If we had already pledged these kind of revenues for a stadium, we would be picking up the difference in general taxes.

Myth: The Minneapolis sales taxes come from the hospitality industry and should be used for those purposes. We all wish the taxes that we pay would come directly back to us but that is not reality.

Myth: Minneapolis sales taxes have to be used for special purposes like convention centers or stadiums. The reality is that today, any excess sales taxes could be used for property tax relief. I have seen my property taxes increase 100% from 2003 until today (adjusted for inflation) and you could use those revenues to property tax relief.. To put this in perspective, we spend about as much money on the Convention Center as we spend for firefighters.

Myth: We can shift taxes from the Convention Center to the Vikings Stadium because the Convention Center is paid for. True, is is paid for but it is now a 20 year old building that needs to compete in the national market for conventions. It will need updates and to do so, there needs to be a revenue source to pay for them. Taking the Minneapolis taxes for the Viking Stadium leaves the Convention Center with no revenue source to pay for it.

amiller92
amiller92

These are good points. Thank you for raising them.

I'm not so sure the first one is entirely correct, though. That is, it's not implausible to me that more attractive games would expand gaming and end up with a win-win. I'm quite certain there is data on that, but I'm not personally familiar with it. Are you?

As to what would otherwise happen with the special sales taxes, well, that's an interesting question. Personally, I do not believe that money would ever make it to the general fund to be used for property tax relief or anything else you or I might prefer. That is, I have little doubt that absent a dedicated purpose, those special taxes will be repealed, if nothing else out of political spite.

Rfaust1
Rfaust1

Nobody who still reads the City Pages goes to Vikings games. The only reason I read this article is to determine whether the author was a better writer than a member of the St. Paul School Board (which he was, until defeated at the polls in 2009). The author, a full-time lobbyist and consultant, professes to be an expert at knowing which way the wind is blowing. There is only one relevant question to be answered in this debate: how can we construct a stadium to keep the Vikings from leaving? By the way, the author's failure to recognize the importance of professional entertainment (like pro football) to the livelihood of service employers, could be the reason that the author is no longer employed as an Internal Organizer for S(ervice)E(mployees)IU Healthcare MN. If Luddites like the author were in charge we would still be living in caves, tending large fires at the mouth of the cave to keep the big animals out. Finally, the only time anyone in the rest of the country knows that Minnesota exists is when the Vikings, Twins, Timberwolves, and the Wild are playing (with the possible exception of a Prince concert or new release).

Ottlukk
Ottlukk

My compliments to Tom Goldstein for an excellent article. As far as Dayton and Rybak's business acumen goes, I'll offer a take-off on an old poker saying: "If you are sitting at a stadium negotiating table, and you don't know who the patsy is -- you're the patsy.

MattV
MattV

Great article! This should be required reading for every MN resident!

IMO
IMO

I am not trying to start a debate/fight over whether public money should be used for the Vikings stadium. Personally I would rather my tax money go towards that than welfare abusers and things like that. What I think people should take a moment to think about is that beautiful Minneapolis skyline of skyscrapers that employ so many people and help make our city and state what it is today is there because of taxpayer money and people are foolish to think otherwise. The corporations that built those towers there did so because the city and state offered them great tax breaks and incentives to do so. So who picks up that slack? Oh yeah, the taxpayer and there wasn't years of heated public debate over those buildings. As i said I am not trying to start anything here, I respect everyone's opinion on the subject whether it is for or against. I just feel at the end of the day it is still a public building. The Vikings aren't taking it with them if they left, folded, or the entire NFL collapsed so why wouldn't they ask for public help?

MattV
MattV

Forget about sky scrapers.... what about small business owners that own/build their own shops/factories/etc. When they fold, they sell off assets. No reason this should be treated any differently. They would be foolish businessmen not to ASK for public funding. The public would have to be suckers to say "yes".

Dave Richard
Dave Richard

Good article and exactly to the point...... Wilf and Company wants the public to dole out the $$ so he can get richer.

Ahnjaiq
Ahnjaiq like.author.displayName 1 Like

Excellent excellent piece. The best part about this piece is that it just contains the facts which have been freely available and out there for anyone to see. Apparently the only journalist in mn. Well done on your testimony wed. as well mr goldstein--although I do think they were a little rude to you at the start.

I was living in boston when the whole deal with the pats went down. They tried everything to extort millions out of the taxpayers, even announcing a deal with the state of CT that the team was moving to hartford, signed sealed delivered (I was thrilled--but then I always hated the pats). The deal of course fell thru, the governor of ct who brokered the deal went to prison (on unrelated matters), and the pats just finally gave up when the corrupt plug-ugly pols who run massachusetts told the nfl commish to pretty much go jump in the lake because any money given to the pats would essentially be money that would be coming out of their pockets.

Years later a business reporter for one of the local boston newspapers wrote a quite detailed article about just how the pats financed the stadium on their own. This wasn't some warm fuzzy remember-when recounting either--this guy went thru the hard high finance tactics the team undertook. First thing they did: "purchase" a triple "a" credit rating to lower the cost of borrowing. I had no idea that you could do such a thing. It was beyond eye-opening. There is a whole world of effective high finance with mind blowing tactics and methods that are not known or understood by hardly anybody (including me). When the vikings (or anybody) says no private funding options exist, it's not even close to the truth.

Anon
Anon

Do you have a link to those articles? I'm kind of curious to see them.

Stop whining Vikings
Stop whining Vikings

The Metrodome is too valuable of a publicly owned asset to just hand over to some douchebag Vikings owner to demolish. If anything, the Metrodome IS the people's stadium.

If these whiny extortionist babies want a stadium they can build it on the land they pay for with their own money. To give Wilf a stadium paid for by our money just so he can turn around and sell the team for a profit is basically a larceny of the public's money. That our politicians are supporting this asshole is really puzzling.

Don't give in to whiny extortionists when they're trying to steal from your pocket.

Ted Nelson
Ted Nelson

Wow! Excellent article but don't expect to be invited to Wilf's or Dayton's Xmas parties!

Jim Jones
Jim Jones

The "jobs" issue is a canard. If the VIKES pay for all the stadium, there are still going to be jobs. Just not publicly subsidized ones.

amiller92
amiller92

Sure, but the Vikes aren't going to pay for a stadium.

Brennan Whalen
Brennan Whalen

Also, true...but none of the other entities you mentioned need or want a new stadium, only the Vikings do...therefore we would be building it for the Vikings...so the Vikings can make more money.

amiller92
amiller92

That may or may not be right. MLS doesn't seem too interested in the Metrodome. A new stadium just might help attract a franchise.

But yeah, at it's heart, it's a new stadium from the Vikings. Supporting that, with an adequate publicly owned and partially publicly financed stadium is the cost of the having a team. The discussion should be about whether that is a price we as a community are willing to pay.

Instead we tend get moralizing about the wealth of the owner and the players. Those gripes aren't wrong, they are just rather beside the point.

Brennan Whalen
Brennan Whalen

Also, true...but none of the other entities you mentioned need or want a new stadium, only the Vikings do...therefore we would be building it for the Vikings...so the Vikings can make more money.

Stephansonprop
Stephansonprop

I know Tom thru the different meeting I have been to over the years and he know his numbers and stadium isues. But for those of you who paid attention these sports team are sucking hundreds of million of dollars PER YEAR out of our pockets and it is time to pay NO. These same teams inturn are making hundreds of millions per year and their "salery caps" keep going up and up as well are ticket prices and concessions.

ajj
ajj

Tom was on the same soap box for Target Field and now attends games. This guy has been a fraud since he owned the Sports Collection on Grand Ave and was ripping off little kids. At least he isn't on the School Board anymore where he could do real damage.

Brennan Whalen
Brennan Whalen like.author.displayName 1 Like

The Vikings should be paying us to play in our state. The state of Minnesota spends a lot of money promoting the state and then the Vikings steal our trade mark by calling them selves the "Minnesota Vikings". You're using our name Vikings, so pay us for the use of our good name, build your own building like any other corporation, end the corruption among your players and the NFL, stop blackmailing us or get out.

amiller92
amiller92

Other corporations don't let the state own their building, or use it however they want 355 days a year.

Brennan Whalen
Brennan Whalen

True, but it is being build for football and what other football team are they going to lease it too? Probably only the Vikings. Will the state let me in there 355 days of the year to operate my business? No they won't.

brennanwhalen
brennanwhalen

@amiller92 Your being paid by the Vikings or a company working on behalf of the Vikings.

amiller92
amiller92

They certainly will if you can negotiate a lease for it, which you probably could do if you were willing to pay enough and your operations didn't disrupt it's other uses. If, for example, you owned a Major League Soccer franchise or ran a motorcross series or something of the like, I suspect you'd find them quite accommodating.

Beyond that there was several hundred state high school league events in the Metrodome each year, and quite a few more small college sporting events. Those events don't requite a building on this scale and don't generate much revenue, but they are a direct public use of a publicly owned facility.

JonnyBeGood
JonnyBeGood

Why not build a stadium and sign a lease for 100 years such that revenue generated strictly on the vikings playing (rent and such) plus interest would pay back the "loan" to build it. I hear you all cry yes - but the vikings will not sign up for it as they want to generate revenue and keep it all.

Great article!

amiller92
amiller92

The Vikings floated a "plan" that would use only money directly generated by the team to pay for the stadium -- mostly income taxes for players and staff and sales tax at the stadium -- to fund a stadium. Not that is was really a serious proposal instead of a PR stunt, but it didn't go anywhere.

Peter
Peter

More stadium "facts" are available at www.fieldofschemes.com" broken promise, lies, deceit, waste of taxpayer dollars... they are all there.

Peter
Peter

Finally, a media article that make sense. a media source that did not cater to its advertiset - the NFL.

amiller92
amiller92

Does the NFL do any print advertising?

dick
dick

Yes, you moron.

amiller92
amiller92

There's some very questionable reasoning on display here, and some pretty glaring holes in this piece that are left unfilled.

Let's take a look at some of them:

1. That the Vikings are not first in line to relocate, or that LA is not an imminent threat, does not mean that the team will not eventually leave without a new stadium. Maybe they won't leave this year, or next year, but eventually the league is going to want a franchise that generates revenues commensurate with the rest of its members, and eventually someone -- Vegas or Toronto or LA or someone -- will build a stadium with a significant public contribution. It's the market price for having a professional sports franchise, and someone will pay it.

It's beyond silly to keep putting it off so that when we eventually build it (which we will, whether for the Vikings or down the round when we try to lure a new franchise like the Willd), it's going to cost more.

2. Doing it on the cheap doesn't necessarily save any money. We did that when we built the Metrodome, leading to a much less than desired usable life. Personally, I'd rather spend another couple hundred million now than be back in this same conversation 15-20 years from now facing the choice of spending $10 billion on another new stadium. The point is to build something that will last so we don't have to do it again, hopefully within our lifetimes.

3. Private funding is a pipe dream. Sure, Wilf and company could chose to pay for it all themselves (i.e. borrow enough to finance it), but aside from altruism, why would they? They know that the market price for having a professional sports franchise in your city is public support for a facility. Especially when that facility that will be used by the public more frequently than it will be used by the team. If we don't help build it, they will find someone who does.

4. Money the Vikings would otherwise get to keep or has to pay back to the league is most definitely a team contribution. The league money is a loan, not a grant. By what logic is that not a team contribution? The only difference between a loan from the league and a loan from the bank is the interest rate, but it's still money the team has to pay.

And yes, the team gets new revenue streams from the stadium. That's the whole point. If that wasn't the case, then we should not be having this discussion at all. But the amounts from those new revenues that the team contributes to construction are dollars that the state does not have to pay, and they are dollars the team would keep if the state paid for it all. It takes a very strange definition of "team contribution" to come to any other conclusion.

5. The only debate about jobs is how many and for how long, not whether. Even the author of this highly biased piece admits that. But I do not think anyone is arguing that the stadium should be done only for the jobs. Instead, the jobs are a nice side effect, and they are highly concentrated in the struggling construction sector. If all we were doing in stimulus, sure, it would be better to spend on infrastructure only. But that isn't the same as saying there are no jobs created here.

It frustrates me that we can't have an honest debate on these questions. Instead, people on both sides, but in my view more frequently on the anti-stadium side, want to deny reality and argue about an ideal world. The world isn't ideal, and no discussion of this question is particularly helpful unless it admits a few truths:

1. The Metrodome is outdated and inadequate both from a fans perspective (game experience/amenities) and a team perspective (revenue).

2. The team and the league will only put up with #1 for so long. Eventually, they will leave.

3. If they leave, the local population will eventually want to replace them. When that happens, public money will be involved and the cost of stadiums only goes one way. The choice is to spend now or spend significantly more in the future.

4. The Metrdome has been a terrible failure in terms of urban planning and city development, not least because it was done on the cheap and with little thought about how it could be integrated into and support redevelopment of the surrounding area. Repeating that mistake may be worse than letting the team leave.

5. The money available for a stadium is not fungible for other uses. That is, each of us may have other priorities on which we would prefer to spend, but the money isn't there for those uses for two reasons (1) losing the team actually costs the state money in direct taxes collected from the team and related activities, and (2) politics. There isn't the same coalition for whatever else you would rather spend on, so it is not useful to think of the two as alternatives.

6. The team doesn't currently have a lease. They might not be capable of leaving right now, but they are darn close to it. Why would they make a long term commitment to stay unless something is done?

Rdondelinger
Rdondelinger

I would certainly welcome a honest debate. Although until the stadium supporters realize that basing your argument on the tired premise of "well, that is the cost of doing business" and presenting future possible events as fact, I do not see such debate as possible. Come forth with an open mind, and we can discuss.Meanwhile, I will hold onto my wallet, thank you.

amiller92
amiller92

There isn't much point in discussing public policy if projecting future events isn't allowed. Those future events are what policy is about.

On the other hand, if you honestly believe that it is possible to both not pay for sports facilities and have sport franchises here, that's fine, but you're right that there probably isn't much point in discussion. If the history of basically every sports franchise to relocate isn't enough to convince you, I don't think I can.

Rdondelinger
Rdondelinger

Hmmm... A basic principle of economics is that, if there is demand, someone will put forth effort to serve that demand. If you honestly believe that another sports franchise would not leap at the opportunity_to_make_money by playing in Minnesota, then you have a poor understanding of economics (and greed).

History shows us that some taxpayers have been foolish enough to give corporate welfare to profitable private enterprises. To borrow from George Santayana, who said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.": In time, history will again show that some taxpayers (sic) refused to learn from such past deeds.

Koob
Koob like.author.displayName 1 Like

"Oh no it's so outdated, the locker rooms aren't big enough and don't have a hot tub" "Oh no the amenities are so outdated, I can't get a ribeye steak dinner to shove into my face"

Cry me a fucking river. Man up and play/watch some fucking football.

The Metrodome is NFL caliber and it's already built, bought, paid for, and publicly owned.

amiller92
amiller92

I'm glad you like it, but the league, the team, and most people who have been inside it disagree that the Metrodome is NFL caliber.

And a pretty strong objective indication of that is that it generates among the lowest game revenues in the league.

 
Loading...