New retractable roof stadium in Arden Hills

[LMITOUT]

Why is staying in the Dome unrealistic?

[FISHINGURU]

Thats like asking why [PoorWordUsage] your pants is unrealistic.

[jwmiller33]

The NFL gave the Giants/Jets a HUGE loan to help pay for the stadium too. That program is no longer around. The NYG/NYJ owners did not split the costs 50/50

[PurpleFloyd]

Are you really comparing the Minnesota market to New York where 2 teams built 1 stadium? The Wilfs are going to pay 45%. Each NY team paid 50% in a market that's more than twice the size of MSP.

I agree we need to get creative to get this done with as little impact on the tax payer as possible, but to argue that they should build their own stadium or stay in the dome and like it is unrealistic. There are only 2 options on the table. We kick in something to get this thing built or they go to a city that will. That's the reality. I for one am willing to pay to keep them.

How about Pittsburgh? They built their stadium.

[toughguy]

Why is staying in the Dome unrealistic?

Because there are other cities that will build a new stadium that will generate more revenue for the owners. If you don't support using tax dollars to build a stadium and don't mind if the team leaves that's an understandable opinion. But saying the team should stay at the dome, a location that generates significantly less revenue when there are more profitable options elsewhere is a dream at best. It would be nice but it's not going to happen. =(unrealistic)

[toughguy]

How about Pittsburgh? They built their stadium.

From ESPN July 16 2008

PITTSBURGH -- Allegheny County Controller Mark Flaherty says the Pittsburgh Steelers may have to reimburse taxpayers for public money used to build Heinz Field if the team is sold.

The new stadium opened in 2001 with the Steelers contributing about $76.5 million and state and county taxpayers paying $281 million.

Flaherty says he sent a letter to the team's owners saying a new stadium funding agreement must be struck if the team is sold.

Steelers chairman Dan Rooney is haggling with his four brothers over ownership of the team. Each brother owns 16 percent of the team and another family owns the rest. The other brothers are said to want more money than Dan Rooney is willing to pay for their shares, leading both sides to look for investors who might buy part of the team.

On Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller, the chairman of Pittsburgh-based Duquesne Capital Management, is interested only in purchasing a majority share of the team from the four Rooney brothers. The newspaper said that according to a source with knowledge of Druckenmiller's dealings with the brothers, he will not get into a bidding war if the shares of the team are opened to public bid.

According to the report, Druckenmiller is involved solely in financial discussion with the four Rooney brothers -- Art Jr., Tim, Patrick and John -- and is not part of the plan team majority owners Dan Rooney and his son, Art II, have put forward to retain control of the franchise.

Druckenmiller has reportedly had discussions with Dan Rooney about him remaining in control of the franchise if Druckenmiller becomes majority owner.

Analysts have put the franchise's value at between $800 million and $1.2 billion.

-Sounds like not only was it funded by tax payers but it was much more that 55%

[toughguy]

Here is a list I found showing stadiums built since 1999 and how they were financed. Right or wrong, this is the reality of what cities are doing for other NFL teams.

Cleveland Browns (1999)

Stadium cost: $290 million

Percentage of public funding: 74.7%

Cleveland recently refinanced $132 million in bonds. The city owns the stadium and leases it to the Browns for $250,000. The public financing was conducted through the sale of bonds.

Pittsburgh Steelers (2001)

Stadium cost: $357.5 million

Percentage of public funding:78.7%

The stadium was funded as part of a package that also provided new facilities for the city's hockey and baseball teams. A county hotel tax contributes about 10% of the annual financing cost of construction bonds. A 5% surcharge was added to tickets, a 1% wage tax was levied on players who don't live in the city, the state provided matching funds.

Denver Broncos (2001)

Cost: $365 million

Percentage of public financing : 68.4%

A six-county sales tax of .1% that was used to build the baseball stadium for the Colorado Rockies was increased after the measure was approved by voters.

Percentage of pubic finacing: 72%

Houston Texans (2002)

Cost: $424 million

Percentage of public financing: 73%

The Houston City Council waived taxes on the stadium as part of a financing plan. Hotel occupancy and car rental taxes were earmarked for use by the sports authority, which also agreed to provide loans (at future taxpayer expense) to the team. A ticket tax (10%, not to exceed $2) and parking tax was also imposed.

Philadelphia Eagles (2003)

Cost: $474 million

Percentage of public financing: 40%

The stadium is owned by the city.

Arizona Cardinals (2007)

Cost: $455 million

Percentage of public financing: 67.7%

$298.5 million of the tab is provided by the Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority, s from taxes on hotel beds and rental cars. Each ticket has a $4.25 surcharge. The city of Glendale provided $9.5 million.

Indianapolis Colts

Cost: $720 million

Percentage of public financing: 86%

Marion County hotel tax increases to 9 percent from 6 percent. This is on top of the 6 percent state sales tax. Marion County car rental tax doubled to 4 percent. The county doubled its food and beverage tax, to 2 percent. Neighboring suburban counties implemented 1 percent restaurant taxes. A surcharge on tickets was increased by 1 percent.

Dallas Cowboys (2009)

Stadium cost: $1.2 billion

Percentage of public financing: 28.6%

The city of Arlington's sales tax was raised by a half-cent, the hotel occupancy tax was raised by 2 percent and a car rental tax was increased by 5 percent. The NFL contributed $150 million towards the stadium.

New York Jets/New York Giants (2010)

Stadium cost: $1.6 billion

Percentage of public financing: 0%

$300 million was provided by the NFL, under a program the league had to help teams build stadiums. The program no longer exists. The stadium will make the two franchises the most lucrative in football. Although public money was not specifically used, the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority is stuck with $100 million in debt on the old stadium. The stadium is built on public land.

[LMITOUT]

quote=LMITOUT: Why is staying in the Dome unrealistic?

Because there are other cities that will build a new stadium that will generate more revenue for the owners. If you don't support using tax dollars to build a stadium and don't mind if the team leaves that's an understandable opinion. But saying the team should stay at the dome, a location that generates significantly less revenue when there are more profitable options elsewhere is a dream at best. It would be nice but it's not going to happen. =(unrealistic)

Ohhhh. So we, the every day Joe the plumbers out there, should cough up more of our paycheck so that a BILLIONAIRE owner can make MORE revenue??

Gimmie a break.

If nobody can see a problem with that then it's over...we are officially done.

[james_walleye]

You would have an argument if every other stadium out there wasn't being built in this manor. You act is if this is a new concept. Fine if you have a problem with the concept, but the reality is stadiums don't get built without a lot of public funding. And in most cases, a lot more than what MN is being asked to cover.

[LMITOUT]

So that's the answer...just follow the herd off the cliff.

Brilliant.

[Rick]

How about Pittsburgh? They built their stadium.

You are posting a lot of inaccurate info as well as numbers with this being another one of them. The state alone paid for over half.

[Rick]

So that's the answer...just follow the herd off the cliff.

Brilliant.

LOL, LMIT, quit yer crying.

A stadium will be built and it will involve a number of creative ways to finance it. The average Joe will be able to sit home and enjoy watching the Vikes play and the economic benefits that come along with an NFL franchise in the state. Some average Joes will benefit more than others and my bet is you aren't one of them

[Born2Fish]

Regardless of what anyone here thinks about it, the reality is it will either get done or not.....No matter what ANY of us here say. Chances of it happening are very good. Being a complete Vikings rube, I really hope it gets done and they get a new stadium. I would never want to see them leave for another state. I understand some others opinions about why they wouldn't want it done. It just looks like what has been set in motion, is pretty much done and over with. The only thing left will be buying a few tickets to some games in the new stadium. SKOL VIKINGS!

[hawgchaser]

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm more concerned as a taxpayer about what we get as far as income directly attributable to the stadium. Anyone have any info on what the state's returns will be from non-Vikings rentals of the facility; percentage of ticket sales & suite rentals; percentages of concession sales; etc. I'm suspicious of talk about all the revenue generated for area businesses and the increased tax revenue that will generate for the state. Given Americans propensity to save (hardly any), it would seem that money spent by fans attending Vikings games is mostly a diversion of money from one area of commerce to another and that little "new" spending will actually occur. I could be wrong...maybe what people wouldn't spend on Vikes' games (if they left) would otherwise end up in a sock under the bed. Any info on what the state will get directly from the stadium usage would be appreciated. That, to me, is the real taxpayer concern.

[Trainman]

My guess is that it will be built in Mpls. The deal with Ramsey cty is just part of initial negotiations.

Regardless, when it happens, vikings fans will be finally be rewarded with a superbowl in the next 5-6 years. Funding a stadium for the owners is all part of the script that's planned out in advance each year.

[Rick]

hawgchaser

I'm not an economst or financial guru and I suspect you're not either but your argument seems too simplistic and doesn't take into account the money coming into the state from well beyond the stadium and the business close by. All the people who watch, play, televise, etc., and run NFL games are not all from Minnesota.

It seems to me even without an increase in money thee is a significant advantage to cash flow.

Some businesses won't even locate in a state without the prestige of an NFL team. It's foolish to think Minnesota is going to allow that national exposure to disappear.

We lost the Lakers and we lost the North Stars. Then went ahead and funded the Timberwolves and Wild after realizing the loss. I think a valuable lesson was learned when it comes to national exposure and business that is good for the state and most of us living here.

[Shack]

Glad to hear this is getting done.

Like I have said in the past: I personally enjoy seeing this getting done and prefer with no hesitation towards tax money being used and spent. The Vikings are something I enjoy and what better than my taxes going towards something I enjoy. It is going to get spent one way or another and better seeing it go as an investment rather than a expenditure. Then to top it, being spent towards something I enjoy.

Independent cultural arts funding, rent a state owned bike, urgent need to apply space aged $6000.00 an oz. enamel to the State Capitols horses and any other SIF "Sky is Falling" funding/project can be tossed on the back burner for awhile as far as I am concerned.

[Shack]

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm more concerned as a taxpayer about what we get as far as income directly attributable to the stadium. Anyone have any info on what the state's returns will be from non-Vikings rentals of the facility; percentage of ticket sales & suite rentals; percentages of concession sales; etc. I'm suspicious of talk about all the revenue generated for area businesses and the increased tax revenue that will generate for the state. Given Americans propensity to save (hardly any), it would seem that money spent by fans attending Vikings games is mostly a diversion of money from one area of commerce to another and that little "new" spending will actually occur. I could be wrong...maybe what people wouldn't spend on Vikes' games (if they left) would otherwise end up in a sock under the bed. Any info on what the state will get directly from the stadium usage would be appreciated. That, to me, is the real taxpayer concern.

Dude this has been hashed out and displayed many times here.

I think the interest in recanting the entire process has been lost among those who can bring it forward. In the same fashion a person would loose interest with repeatedly banging ones head into a brick wall. I get a headache even thinking of just trying to find a post written last summer or fall. Let's just move forward without knowledge. Should be easy. It is the norm anyways, well of course the norm when no mention of stadium is involved. Then of course everyone becomes a State auditor in their own minds and demands action and answers.

[Shack]

Regardless of what anyone here thinks about it, the reality is it will either get done or not.....No matter what ANY of us here say. Chances of it happening are very good. Being a complete Vikings rube, I really hope it gets done and they get a new stadium. I would never want to see them leave for another state. I understand some others opinions about why they wouldn't want it done. It just looks like what has been set in motion, is pretty much done and over with. The only thing left will be buying a few tickets to some games in the new stadium. SKOL VIKINGS!

Now here is a post that matters. B2F I agree!

[jwmiller33]

Quote:

Commish pledges funds for Vikings

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said after meeting Tuesday with Gov. Mark Dayton and supporters of a new Minnesota Vikings stadium that the league will contribute financially to its construction, and that he believes efforts to get the facility built are ensuring the team's future in the state.

Ramsey County and the Minnesota Vikings announced last week that they had agreed on a proposal for an $884 million retractable-roof stadium in the Twin Cities suburb.

"I think the commitment here is to get something done and I think that will ensure the success of the Vikings," said Goodell, after he was asked if he could envision a scenario where the team would leave Minnesota.

The NFL commissioner met early in the morning at the governor's residence with Dayton, legislators sponsoring the stadium bill and state transportation commissioner Tom Sorel to talk about the team's partnership with Ramsey County to build a $1.1 billion stadium in suburban Arden Hills. With less than a week left in the legislative session, stadium talks are hung up on the cost of fixing roads near the site and who should pay for it.

Sorel said after the meeting his agency will have a more exact figure on road costs by Wednesday. Dayton and the chief legislative sponsors, Sen. Julie Rosen of Fairmont and Rep. Morrie Lanning of Moorhead, once again firmly stated that the state's share will not exceed $300 million -- and that any road-improvement costs will have to come out of that total.

"We still have work to do in terms of pinning down what are the transportation needs over and above what's already planned," Lanning said. "That is the most important issue."

Goodell would not reveal how much the league would kick in, saying he would release more details in the next few days. As part of its deal with Ramsey County, the Vikings pledged to pay $407 million, about 39 percent of the total project cost.

[FISHINGURU]

Our new stadium is gonna rule!! I hope it comes out to be 2 billion worth! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[LMITOUT]

Quote:

Vikings stadium foes pursue new tactic

Opponents of a proposed Vikings stadium believe they have found a way to let voters decide whether to build it with public money, regardless of what the Legislature or Ramsey County decide to do.

One of the keys to both plans, and one of the most controversial aspects, is a provision that prevents the project from being put to a public vote, which is how Hennepin County eventually got the Twins stadium built in Minneapolis.

But a new group of stadium opponents said Sunday that the most likely sites for the stadium -- Ramsey County and Minneapolis -- are governed by charters, essentially constitutions that determine how those jurisdictions operate.

Opponents say those charters allow them to collect enough voter signatures (about 10 percent of registered voters) to place a referendum on the next election ballot that would overturn any state measure that bans a referendum on the stadium. If successful, they then allow a public vote on any ordinances passed to fund the project.

The news that the strategy might block public financing of the stadium buoyed the members of the anti-stadium group, who seemed convinced that the proposal is being "steamrolled" through the Legislature and Ramsey County.

"I think it's great that they want to build a Vikings stadium," said Gayle Bonneville of Minneapolis. "I just don't want to have to pay for it. It seems like this is being rushed through."

[Rick]

"Rushed through".

This has been debated for years now.

Things like this seem to always be held off to the last minute and then get rushed through. That seems to be par for the course with our political system don't ya think?

[hawgchaser]

Rick,

I may indeed be somewhat simplistic, but as a self-employed businessman & investor, let me use a simplistic business model whereby two investors approach me about becoming a 1/3 business partner in a new venture. When I ask, "What do I get for my 1/3 investment", the response is, "You get your money back over a period of 10 to 30 years, and you get the satisfaction of watching us (the other investors) receive a nice profit over the life of the business." Count me out. As to the enhanced fiscal benefit and the enhanced quality of life from a state's having professional sports, 27 states have professional major sports teams. Of those 27 states California leads the count with 18, New York & Texas follow with 10 each, and Florida is next with 9. California had a 2010 budget deficit of $34 billion and has been on the brink of default for 3 years; New York's deficit was $19 billion; Texas's deficit is $3.5 billion; Florida is floating $6 billion in deficit. There seems little correlation between the number of sports teams and a state's fiscal well-being.

Quote:

Dude this has been hashed out and displayed many times here.

Dude, I'm going way out on a limb and assuming that, with you averaging 7.3 posts per day, you have at least once reiterated your opinion. It appears to me your opposition to redundancy and your support of brevity stem more from an opposition to the expression of thoughts divergent from yours than they do with an interest in brevity/redundancy.

My real concern with the state spending money they don't have is knowing that such spending will be on the back of some other state-supported program. That has traditionally been education. Minnesota reinvented an accounting trick in 2003 called the tax shift whereby they withhold 70% of the money due to education for a year after the taxes are collected, yet have the school districts journal this money as received. Fergus Falls has a $22 million budget and had to borrow $8 million for cash flow borrowing to cover the state's borrowing from education funds. The interest accrued represented 3 teachers. Three years ago the state was out of money and literally made no payments to schools for 3 months. I know of two schools who went to 4-day school weeks to save money. (I'm sure there are more) If the state would meet its fiscal obligations to schools on time, those schools could still be having school 5 days a week just from the interest saved by borrowing to cover the states withholding payments for a year. My problem with the taxpayers' cost of the stadium has nothing to do with taxpayers since we don't pay enough to cover our current obligations. My problem is that the money will be taken from people who have no voice in the process. 40 years ago the U.S. ranked 1st and 3rd in math and science in the world. Today we rank 21st and 26th...BUT...we have more pro-sports teams that any other nation. It's not an issue of money! It's an issue of priorities and mine don't happen to be sports over education.

[jwmiller33]

"Rushed through".

This has been debated for years now.

Things like this seem to always be held off to the last minute and then get rushed through. That seems to be par for the course with our political system don't ya think?

It's too bad b/c if we would have done this last yr, we [the Vikings] would have been eligible to get the $150 Million loan from the NFL. That program expired last year and the NYG/NYJ Meadowlands stadium was the last new stadium project to receive that loan. In our case, procrastination is going to cost us (taxpayers) $150 Million. The commish is still considering chipping in some money from the NFL towards our new stadium but it sure as heck isn't going to be $150M.