Publicly Held Minnesota Vikings?

[SkunkedAgain]

That's right. Phyllis Kahn is offering this up. Frankly, after meeting her several times I think that this lady is crazy, like the crazy great aunt that your family tries to marginalize. However I really like her legislation here. I think that all cities should force teams to either go public if they want public participation in stadium construction, or keep private and pay for stadiums privately.

What say ye?

Quote:

Rep. Phyllis Kahn will introduce legislation Monday to move the Vikings to a community ownership model, allowing for the sale of stock in the team.

The ongoing debate for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium drove Kahn, political-people-Minneapolis, to seek new alternatives for the team.

Football teams can be owned by more than a single individual. But current NFL rules prohibit any team other than the Green Bay Packers to have more than 30 owners.

Kahn’s legislation would require the governor and the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission – the current owners of the Metrodome – to work with the NFL to change current ownership rules.

The new form of ownership could generate funds for a new stadium through stock sales, according to the press release sent out Monday.

Initial reaction to the legislation has been generally positive on social media sites, and similar legislation introduced by Kahn has received bipartisan support.

Kahn also introduced community ownership legislation for the Minnesota Twins in 2005. The bill had bipartisan support and made it to the floor in both the House and the Senate but ultimately failed to pass.

But Kahn said the Vikings legislation will likely just stimulate conversation.

“The legislation is very, very general. I really want the [experts] to work out the details of it,” Kahn said. “Governor Dayton asked for all ideas to be put on the table and that’s exactly what I’m doing here.”

Current NFL rules require managing ownership to keep 30 percent of a team, which likely would stay with the Wilf family – the current owner of the Vikings.

Although the legislation would diminish the Wilfs’ ownership of the Vikings, it would still be a deal that is too good to pass up, Kahn said.

“They’re being offered to free up 70 percent of the capital that they have in this team, and do everything that they do with the 70 percent with the 30 percent – except relocate the team. Which Mr.Wilf has said he doesn’t plan to do,” Kahn said.

[Getanet]

My thought is this will never happen. According to the article, the NFL prohibits any other team to have the Green Bay model.

I don't know why that is, but if they took the time to institute that rule they must be against a public model and I highly doubt they would make an exception or they'd have cities lining up every time an NFL team needed a new stadium.

[SkunkedAgain]

That's a lot of assumptions.

From what I've read, the NFL has a limit on ownership so that they can deal with consolidated ownership instead of a board of directors. The NFL put its current ban on public ownership in place back in 1980. It's changed or modified its rules many times since then. It's not unthinkable but I agree, not likely that they will let the Vikings follow the Packers model.

[zepman]

She's a nut-bag!

[Steve Foss]

It's been a phenomenal success in Green Bay. Could it work in the Twin Cities? Sure. Could it flop in the Twin Cities? Sure.

The issue isn't whether it's currently allowed by the NFL. The issue is whether it could be a great working model. If it looks like it'll be a success, the NFL can change the regs.

Very, very interesting. I don't care squat whether the one who came up with the idea is nuts. The idea will stand or fall on its own merits, not on whether it was a fool who brought it up.

And a note for the few Vikes fans who are also Pack haters. Don't dismiss the idea out of hand because it works for your most hated rivals. Hatred clouds reason every time.

[Big Tom]

She's a nut-bag!

Throwing Hundreds of Millions to keep the 50 Years of Futility here is what is really Nutz.

[toughguy]

This has zero chance and she knows it. All politics. Waste of time and ink. I'm not dismissing the idea because it's how the Packers operate. I would love for this plan to actually be an option. The problem is the NFL will never allow another team to operate this way because it would cost the other owners $$$$.

[Steve Foss]

This has zero chance

Why is that, in your opinion? I don't care snot about her or her motives. But I am interested in learning others' opinions of the idea. Is it a bad idea, or is it a good idea that doesn't have a chance to succeed?

[toughguy]

Let's say the NFL starts to allow this as an option. Over time more and more franchises would operate his way so there would be fewer and fewer NFL franchise transactions. This could lower the value of the franchises. Another issue is control of the NFL. It's much easier for the NFL to move in a given direction if it only has to convince a handful of owners how to vote rather than thousands of shareholders. Owners would be more concerned with profit. Shareholders (fans) would/could have other interests. example: shareholders (fans) could support lower ticket prices while private owners would want to charge as much as possible. It all comes down to money and control. My argument is not that the Packer model is inferior or stupid. It's not. It's that the NFL will never allow it again.

[Steve Foss]

Let's say the NFL starts to allow this as an option. Over time more and more franchises would operate his way so there would be fewer and fewer NFL franchise transactions. This could lower the value of the franchises. Another issue is control of the NFL. It's much easier for the NFL to move in a given direction if it only has to convince a handful of owners how to vote rather than thousands of shareholders. Owners would be more concerned with profit. Shareholders (fans) would/could have other interests. It all comes down to money and control. My argument is not that the Packer model is inferior or stupid. It's not. It's that the NFL will never allow it again.

Well thought out. Thanks.

[B. Amish]

what percentage of the packers is public owned? or share holder owned? they don't have any say in operations of the team, do they?

[Getanet]

Toughguy articulated my thoughts exactly. The NFL would be giving away too much control by allowing more teams to be publicly owned.

As others have said, that's not to say the Packers model is inferior. In many ways its better, particularly for the fans. I wish it was an option for the Vikes deal. I love my Vikes, don't agree with throwing so much public money for a new stadium with the current economy, but would certainly be willing to invest some of my own money in the team.

[Antero]

Yes the Packers stock is worthless as stock. And even tho the team is publicly owned and stock was sold for stadium upgrades I think there was still a county tax levied for that purpose. I recall it just barely passed...even in GB.

By the way altho some will correctly say the stock is worthless, others would say it is priceless.

[SkunkedAgain]

Foss - I only mentioned that Kahn is nuts, because the political reality of things is that the legislation that she typically proposes never gains traction because people don't take her seriously at the capitol. She only gets elected because of the UofM students. That said...

Public pressure can make anything happen, even in the privately-held NFL. I'm skeptical as well of the NFL allowing it to happen but they are running out of options here with the Vikings. I'm not sure that the NFL really wants to trot another team out to Los Angeles and have it fail again. They recognize a strong fan base here and the traditions, and would likely prefer that it stays put. So there is always a chance that a public team concept could be allowed again.

I'm a born and raised cheesehead, but I would likely buy a share of stock in the Vikings as well. I go to enough games here and honestly care enough to some degree that I'd pony up my share.

As to Antero's points, yes Brown County (Green Bay) did sell $175 million of tax-exempt bonds in 2000 to finance the most recent renovations to Lambeau that were completed in 2005. However, there were several novel concepts such as drawings for all Brown County residents to get Packer tickets. The bonds were expected to be paid off by 2018 but were actually retired in August of this year - 2011. However, the sales tax was kept in place and is being used to create a maintenance fund for future work. It is scheduled to end in 2015, or once the intended amount of total tax is collected.

[FutbolGuru]

From what I've heard it sounds like buying stock is an unrealistic option due to NFL rules. Obviously the rule is in effect to maximize NFL profits.

I don't care how they get it done taxes/gambling/stock/etc... please just get it done. MN loses if the Vikes leave.

[Jarrod32]

Aren't the Boston Celtics another pro team that follows this model?

And think it through...I suspect that there are a lot of deep pockets in Los Angeles that would love the opportunity to scoop up some stock in an NFL team...

[PurpleFloyd]

Won't happen. The NFL has one of the most successful Monopoly/Extortion rackets going right now and they are not going to give up any control.

I will preface that by saying they won't right now but the Pro sports franchises are running on a bubble that is similar in many ways to the housing and dot com bubbles. Right now there is perceived value that investors are willing to fund into but at some point the wheels are going to come off and they will not be able to escalate salaries at hundreds of times the rate of the average income growth and at that point the whole thing will unravel. Then my guess is they will be more than willing to let government come in and be "Partners" in dealing with the debt.