PDA

View Full Version : Proposal advances for Vikings stadium in Arden Hil



skum
01-27-2011, 03:47 PM
Proposal advances for Vikings stadium in Arden Hil (http://tinyurl.com/65slz6s)


Talks over a new Minnesota Vikings stadium in Arden Hills are progressing.

i_bleed_purple
01-27-2011, 05:56 PM
At the point now where any news is good news

AngloVike
01-27-2011, 08:47 PM
So whereabouts is this site in relation to the current Metrodome site?

jmcdon00
01-27-2011, 09:06 PM
Works for me. I would think building it outside of downtown would be cheaper. Also the dome and land it's on could be sold to raise funds. Plus Ramsey county would probably give them the land and make a contribution towards funding.

vikinggreg
01-27-2011, 09:09 PM
So whereabouts is this site in relation to the current Metrodome site?

according to google maps its about a 20 min drive to the northwest about 9-10 miles, the site of the old ammunitions plant

AngloVike
01-27-2011, 09:26 PM
So whereabouts is this site in relation to the current Metrodome site?

according to google maps its about a 20 min drive to the northwest about 9-10 miles, the site of the old ammunitions plant
ok so for the out of state fans visiting then we'd be looking to have to drive or taxi to get out to the area then?

midgensa
01-27-2011, 10:00 PM
So whereabouts is this site in relation to the current Metrodome site?

according to google maps its about a 20 min drive to the northwest about 9-10 miles, the site of the old ammunitions plant
ok so for the out of state fans visiting then we'd be looking to have to drive or taxi to get out to the area then?

No ... when stadiums go up ... accommodations are very quick to follow.

rednorsk
01-27-2011, 11:04 PM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:

vikinggreg
01-28-2011, 12:40 AM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:

oops that is north east.......I had my wife giving me directions :laugh:

Purple Floyd
01-28-2011, 02:29 AM
Typical. The Vikings once again are trying to play ball before they even have their shit together.

For the love of god i once would like to see them do their homework and actually have a solid, comprehensive game plan before the game starts instead of just winging it.

They have been going at this for like 13-15 years and they still don't have a site nailed down.

NodakPaul
01-28-2011, 05:10 PM
Typical. The Vikings once again are trying to play ball before they even have their shit together.

For the love of god i once would like to see them do their homework and actually have a solid, comprehensive game plan before the game starts instead of just winging it.

They have been going at this for like 13-15 years and they still don't have a site nailed down.

Ummm, this isn't the Vikings, it is the city of Arden Hills and teh County of Ramsey who are working this proposal. The Vikings have been invited to the table.

Not sure what your complaint is here. You have to start somewhere. And I seem to remember a stadium proposal in 2005 that not only had a site, but also a financing plan in place that was shot down in the legislature...

mountainviking
01-28-2011, 05:33 PM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:


Do the politicians not realize this!? If the Vikings move away, whether 30 minutes or thousands of miles, there are going to be shit loads of businesses that suffer in that downtown area. People need to start seeing the BIG picture here, its not like the area doesn't get money back out of investing in the Vikings. Hotels, bars, restaurants, shops etc etc make way more money when a game is in town than not and we all know the gov gets their share of that. Fans are willing to pay, we just need to get the right plan together to raise the money by sales taxes, local business taxes, naming rights etc etc

NodakPaul
01-28-2011, 06:44 PM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:


Do the politicians not realize this!? If the Vikings move away, whether 30 minutes or thousands of miles, there are going to be shit loads of businesses that suffer in that downtown area. People need to start seeing the BIG picture here, its not like the area doesn't get money back out of investing in the Vikings. Hotels, bars, restaurants, shops etc etc make way more money when a game is in town than not and we all know the gov gets their share of that. Fans are willing to pay, we just need to get the right plan together to raise the money by sales taxes, local business taxes, naming rights etc etc

Yes, they realize it. That is one of the big reasons that the Anoka County stadium didn't go through. The Hennepin County representatives make up the biggest single group in the house, and have a lot of weight to throw around. At the time, they were focused on a new Twins stadium and new Gophers stadium, and didn't want to lose out on the possibility of a new Vikings stadium as well.

I think that now, with the situation being different and Hennepin County knowing that they cannot support another local tax, there will be less opposition to moving it in to the suburbs.

Couple of things we need to keep in mind:
1) We are talking about the MINNESOTA Vikings, not the Minneapolis Vikings. For the first 20 years of their existence, they played in Bloomington, not Minny. So moving out of the city isn't that big of a deal from a fan point of view.
2) It isn't like they are talking about moving to St Cloud. Arden Hills is still well within the Metro area, and is actuall a bit closer to the population center than the Blaine proposal was.
3) Suburban stadiums are becoming the norm, mostly because they are more cost effective, and there tends to be land to allow for development and sprawl.
4) The Wilf's specialized in suburban retail development. The Blaine proposal was so attractive to them because it would have become prime development land. Remember the attached shopping center and on site hotel that was part of the proposal (this was from the additional $1 billion that Wilf pledged to spend in additional development near the stadium). A stadium in Arden Hills on land that is going to government auction anyway probably has him drooling.

slavinator
01-28-2011, 06:54 PM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:


Do the politicians not realize this!? If the Vikings move away, whether 30 minutes or thousands of miles, there are going to be shit loads of businesses that suffer in that downtown area. People need to start seeing the BIG picture here, its not like the area doesn't get money back out of investing in the Vikings. Hotels, bars, restaurants, shops etc etc make way more money when a game is in town than not and we all know the gov gets their share of that. Fans are willing to pay, we just need to get the right plan together to raise the money by sales taxes, local business taxes, naming rights etc etc

Yes, they realize it. That is one of the big reasons that the Anoka County stadium didn't go through. The Hennepin County representatives make up the biggest single group in the house, and have a lot of weight to throw around. At the time, they were focused on a new Twins stadium and new Gophers stadium, and didn't want to lose out on the possibility of a new Vikings stadium as well.

I think that now, with the situation being different and Hennepin County knowing that they cannot support another local tax, there will be less opposition to moving it in to the suburbs.

Couple of things we need to keep in mind:
1) We are talking about the MINNESOTA Vikings, not the Minneapolis Vikings. For the first 20 years of their existence, they played in Bloomington, not Minny. So moving out of the city isn't that big of a deal from a fan point of view.
2) It isn't like they are talking about moving to St Cloud. Arden Hills is still well within the Metro area, and is actuall a bit closer to the population center than the Blaine proposal was.
3) Suburban stadiums are becoming the norm, mostly because they are more cost effective, and there tends to be land to allow for development and sprawl.
4) The Wilf's specialized in suburban retail development. The Blaine proposal was so attractive to them because it would have become prime development land. Remember the attached shopping center and on site hotel that was part of the proposal (this was from the additional $1 billion that Wilf pledged to spend in additional development near the stadium). A stadium in Arden Hills on land that is going to government auction anyway probably has him drooling.

I bet you like this plan as well because it will cut some drive time for you Nodak :)

i_bleed_purple
01-28-2011, 07:06 PM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:


Do the politicians not realize this!? If the Vikings move away, whether 30 minutes or thousands of miles, there are going to be shit loads of businesses that suffer in that downtown area. People need to start seeing the BIG picture here, its not like the area doesn't get money back out of investing in the Vikings. Hotels, bars, restaurants, shops etc etc make way more money when a game is in town than not and we all know the gov gets their share of that. Fans are willing to pay, we just need to get the right plan together to raise the money by sales taxes, local business taxes, naming rights etc etc

Yes, they realize it. That is one of the big reasons that the Anoka County stadium didn't go through. The Hennepin County representatives make up the biggest single group in the house, and have a lot of weight to throw around. At the time, they were focused on a new Twins stadium and new Gophers stadium, and didn't want to lose out on the possibility of a new Vikings stadium as well.

I think that now, with the situation being different and Hennepin County knowing that they cannot support another local tax, there will be less opposition to moving it in to the suburbs.

Couple of things we need to keep in mind:
1) We are talking about the MINNESOTA Vikings, not the Minneapolis Vikings. For the first 20 years of their existence, they played in Bloomington, not Minny. So moving out of the city isn't that big of a deal from a fan point of view.
2) It isn't like they are talking about moving to St Cloud. Arden Hills is still well within the Metro area, and is actuall a bit closer to the population center than the Blaine proposal was.
3) Suburban stadiums are becoming the norm, mostly because they are more cost effective, and there tends to be land to allow for development and sprawl.
4) The Wilf's specialized in suburban retail development. The Blaine proposal was so attractive to them because it would have become prime development land. Remember the attached shopping center and on site hotel that was part of the proposal (this was from the additional $1 billion that Wilf pledged to spend in additional development near the stadium). A stadium in Arden Hills on land that is going to government auction anyway probably has him drooling.

I bet you like this plan as well because it will cut some drive time for you Nodak :)

move them to a major city in Canada, that waya round trip flying will cost less than $1000 for me!

vikinggreg
01-28-2011, 10:18 PM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:


Do the politicians not realize this!? If the Vikings move away, whether 30 minutes or thousands of miles, there are going to be shit loads of businesses that suffer in that downtown area. People need to start seeing the BIG picture here, its not like the area doesn't get money back out of investing in the Vikings. Hotels, bars, restaurants, shops etc etc make way more money when a game is in town than not and we all know the gov gets their share of that. Fans are willing to pay, we just need to get the right plan together to raise the money by sales taxes, local business taxes, naming rights etc etc

Yes, they realize it. That is one of the big reasons that the Anoka County stadium didn't go through. The Hennepin County representatives make up the biggest single group in the house, and have a lot of weight to throw around. At the time, they were focused on a new Twins stadium and new Gophers stadium, and didn't want to lose out on the possibility of a new Vikings stadium as well.

I think that now, with the situation being different and Hennepin County knowing that they cannot support another local tax, there will be less opposition to moving it in to the suburbs.

Couple of things we need to keep in mind:
1) We are talking about the MINNESOTA Vikings, not the Minneapolis Vikings. For the first 20 years of their existence, they played in Bloomington, not Minny. So moving out of the city isn't that big of a deal from a fan point of view.
2) It isn't like they are talking about moving to St Cloud. Arden Hills is still well within the Metro area, and is actuall a bit closer to the population center than the Blaine proposal was.
3) Suburban stadiums are becoming the norm, mostly because they are more cost effective, and there tends to be land to allow for development and sprawl.
4) The Wilf's specialized in suburban retail development. The Blaine proposal was so attractive to them because it would have become prime development land. Remember the attached shopping center and on site hotel that was part of the proposal (this was from the additional $1 billion that Wilf pledged to spend in additional development near the stadium). A stadium in Arden Hills on land that is going to government auction anyway probably has him drooling.

I bet you like this plan as well because it will cut some drive time for you Nodak :)

move them to a major city in Canada, that waya round trip flying will cost less than $1000 for me!

The Vancouver Vikings B) stadium is already getting a new roof and reno... and its a 4 hour drive for me :laugh: :evil:

i_bleed_purple
01-28-2011, 10:20 PM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:


Do the politicians not realize this!? If the Vikings move away, whether 30 minutes or thousands of miles, there are going to be shit loads of businesses that suffer in that downtown area. People need to start seeing the BIG picture here, its not like the area doesn't get money back out of investing in the Vikings. Hotels, bars, restaurants, shops etc etc make way more money when a game is in town than not and we all know the gov gets their share of that. Fans are willing to pay, we just need to get the right plan together to raise the money by sales taxes, local business taxes, naming rights etc etc

Yes, they realize it. That is one of the big reasons that the Anoka County stadium didn't go through. The Hennepin County representatives make up the biggest single group in the house, and have a lot of weight to throw around. At the time, they were focused on a new Twins stadium and new Gophers stadium, and didn't want to lose out on the possibility of a new Vikings stadium as well.

I think that now, with the situation being different and Hennepin County knowing that they cannot support another local tax, there will be less opposition to moving it in to the suburbs.

Couple of things we need to keep in mind:
1) We are talking about the MINNESOTA Vikings, not the Minneapolis Vikings. For the first 20 years of their existence, they played in Bloomington, not Minny. So moving out of the city isn't that big of a deal from a fan point of view.
2) It isn't like they are talking about moving to St Cloud. Arden Hills is still well within the Metro area, and is actuall a bit closer to the population center than the Blaine proposal was.
3) Suburban stadiums are becoming the norm, mostly because they are more cost effective, and there tends to be land to allow for development and sprawl.
4) The Wilf's specialized in suburban retail development. The Blaine proposal was so attractive to them because it would have become prime development land. Remember the attached shopping center and on site hotel that was part of the proposal (this was from the additional $1 billion that Wilf pledged to spend in additional development near the stadium). A stadium in Arden Hills on land that is going to government auction anyway probably has him drooling.

I bet you like this plan as well because it will cut some drive time for you Nodak :)

move them to a major city in Canada, that waya round trip flying will cost less than $1000 for me!

The Vancouver Vikings B) stadium is already getting a new roof and reno... and its a 4 hour drive for me :laugh: :evil:

nah, vancouver sucks for pro teams. Montreal would be the place IMO. Already have a big football stadium (Olympic stadium) and have a loyal fanbase.

NDVikingFan66
01-28-2011, 10:33 PM
We could play up here at the FargoDome.

My commute would cut down to a few minutes.

vikinggreg
01-28-2011, 10:35 PM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:


Do the politicians not realize this!? If the Vikings move away, whether 30 minutes or thousands of miles, there are going to be shit loads of businesses that suffer in that downtown area. People need to start seeing the BIG picture here, its not like the area doesn't get money back out of investing in the Vikings. Hotels, bars, restaurants, shops etc etc make way more money when a game is in town than not and we all know the gov gets their share of that. Fans are willing to pay, we just need to get the right plan together to raise the money by sales taxes, local business taxes, naming rights etc etc

Yes, they realize it. That is one of the big reasons that the Anoka County stadium didn't go through. The Hennepin County representatives make up the biggest single group in the house, and have a lot of weight to throw around. At the time, they were focused on a new Twins stadium and new Gophers stadium, and didn't want to lose out on the possibility of a new Vikings stadium as well.

I think that now, with the situation being different and Hennepin County knowing that they cannot support another local tax, there will be less opposition to moving it in to the suburbs.

Couple of things we need to keep in mind:
1) We are talking about the MINNESOTA Vikings, not the Minneapolis Vikings. For the first 20 years of their existence, they played in Bloomington, not Minny. So moving out of the city isn't that big of a deal from a fan point of view.
2) It isn't like they are talking about moving to St Cloud. Arden Hills is still well within the Metro area, and is actuall a bit closer to the population center than the Blaine proposal was.
3) Suburban stadiums are becoming the norm, mostly because they are more cost effective, and there tends to be land to allow for development and sprawl.
4) The Wilf's specialized in suburban retail development. The Blaine proposal was so attractive to them because it would have become prime development land. Remember the attached shopping center and on site hotel that was part of the proposal (this was from the additional $1 billion that Wilf pledged to spend in additional development near the stadium). A stadium in Arden Hills on land that is going to government auction anyway probably has him drooling.

I bet you like this plan as well because it will cut some drive time for you Nodak :)

move them to a major city in Canada, that waya round trip flying will cost less than $1000 for me!

The Vancouver Vikings B) stadium is already getting a new roof and reno... and its a 4 hour drive for me :laugh: :evil:

nah, vancouver sucks for pro teams. Montreal would be the place IMO. Already have a big football stadium (Olympic stadium) and have a loyal fanbase.

They talk funny and every once and awhile a freight car size chunk of concrete falls off the big O .....

forgot about the Epos, Alouettes to Concordes to Alouettes and the Montreal Machine

i_bleed_purple
01-28-2011, 11:01 PM
midgensa, wouldn't that be to the North East instead of the North West?

Actually it would drive Minneapolis nuts because they would no longer get all the income from the Vikings.:lol:


Do the politicians not realize this!? If the Vikings move away, whether 30 minutes or thousands of miles, there are going to be shit loads of businesses that suffer in that downtown area. People need to start seeing the BIG picture here, its not like the area doesn't get money back out of investing in the Vikings. Hotels, bars, restaurants, shops etc etc make way more money when a game is in town than not and we all know the gov gets their share of that. Fans are willing to pay, we just need to get the right plan together to raise the money by sales taxes, local business taxes, naming rights etc etc

Yes, they realize it. That is one of the big reasons that the Anoka County stadium didn't go through. The Hennepin County representatives make up the biggest single group in the house, and have a lot of weight to throw around. At the time, they were focused on a new Twins stadium and new Gophers stadium, and didn't want to lose out on the possibility of a new Vikings stadium as well.

I think that now, with the situation being different and Hennepin County knowing that they cannot support another local tax, there will be less opposition to moving it in to the suburbs.

Couple of things we need to keep in mind:
1) We are talking about the MINNESOTA Vikings, not the Minneapolis Vikings. For the first 20 years of their existence, they played in Bloomington, not Minny. So moving out of the city isn't that big of a deal from a fan point of view.
2) It isn't like they are talking about moving to St Cloud. Arden Hills is still well within the Metro area, and is actuall a bit closer to the population center than the Blaine proposal was.
3) Suburban stadiums are becoming the norm, mostly because they are more cost effective, and there tends to be land to allow for development and sprawl.
4) The Wilf's specialized in suburban retail development. The Blaine proposal was so attractive to them because it would have become prime development land. Remember the attached shopping center and on site hotel that was part of the proposal (this was from the additional $1 billion that Wilf pledged to spend in additional development near the stadium). A stadium in Arden Hills on land that is going to government auction anyway probably has him drooling.

I bet you like this plan as well because it will cut some drive time for you Nodak :)

move them to a major city in Canada, that waya round trip flying will cost less than $1000 for me!

The Vancouver Vikings B) stadium is already getting a new roof and reno... and its a 4 hour drive for me :laugh: :evil:

nah, vancouver sucks for pro teams. Montreal would be the place IMO. Already have a big football stadium (Olympic stadium) and have a loyal fanbase.

They talk funny and every once and awhile a freight car size chunk of concrete falls off the big O .....

forgot about the Epos, Alouettes to Concordes to Alouettes and the Montreal Machine

well, they're french-ish, so I wouldn't expect baseball to do well there.

Marrdro
01-28-2011, 11:02 PM
I'm sure that if this starts to get any traction the evil entity that is called the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission will step in and muck it up.

Purple Floyd
01-29-2011, 04:51 AM
I'm sure that if this starts to get any traction the evil entity that is called the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission will step in and muck it up.

You said it all right there my friend. Why the team would even let the state get involved in it with the MSFC is beyond me. They could do it so much cheaper by themselves.

Purple Floyd
01-29-2011, 04:55 AM
Typical. The Vikings once again are trying to play ball before they even have their shit together.

For the love of god i once would like to see them do their homework and actually have a solid, comprehensive game plan before the game starts instead of just winging it.

They have been going at this for like 13-15 years and they still don't have a site nailed down.

Ummm, this isn't the Vikings, it is the city of Arden Hills and teh County of Ramsey who are working this proposal. The Vikings have been invited to the table.

Not sure what your complaint is here. You have to start somewhere. And I seem to remember a stadium proposal in 2005 that not only had a site, but also a financing plan in place that was shot down in the legislature...

Bingo.

You said it all there. The Vikings need to pick a site that THEY want and a location THEY want and then put the chips on the table and get it done. What they have been doing is blowing around like a candle in the wind, never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in.

Why is it up to the state to do all of the work? The Vikings need to shit or get off the pot and make the one plan in the one location they want and put down the money it will take to build it or they need to move somewhere else.

NodakPaul
01-29-2011, 11:28 PM
Typical. The Vikings once again are trying to play ball before they even have their shit together.

For the love of god i once would like to see them do their homework and actually have a solid, comprehensive game plan before the game starts instead of just winging it.

They have been going at this for like 13-15 years and they still don't have a site nailed down.

Ummm, this isn't the Vikings, it is the city of Arden Hills and teh County of Ramsey who are working this proposal. The Vikings have been invited to the table.

Not sure what your complaint is here. You have to start somewhere. And I seem to remember a stadium proposal in 2005 that not only had a site, but also a financing plan in place that was shot down in the legislature...

Bingo.

You said it all there. The Vikings need to pick a site that THEY want and a location THEY want and then put the chips on the table and get it done. What they have been doing is blowing around like a candle in the wind, never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in.

Why is it up to the state to do all of the work? The Vikings need to shit or get off the pot and make the one plan in the one location they want and put down the money it will take to build it or they need to move somewhere else.

You aren't making any sense. Why is it up to the state to do all the work? Ummm, the state hasn't done anything - at all.

The Vikings DID pick a site that THEY wanted and a location that THEY wanted and they put the chips on the table. And the state shot it down. It doesn't work that way.

The Vikings, the state, and a local partner need to work TOGETHER to come up with a viable plan.

Purple Floyd
01-30-2011, 04:57 PM
Typical. The Vikings once again are trying to play ball before they even have their shit together.

For the love of god i once would like to see them do their homework and actually have a solid, comprehensive game plan before the game starts instead of just winging it.

They have been going at this for like 13-15 years and they still don't have a site nailed down.

Ummm, this isn't the Vikings, it is the city of Arden Hills and teh County of Ramsey who are working this proposal. The Vikings have been invited to the table.

Not sure what your complaint is here. You have to start somewhere. And I seem to remember a stadium proposal in 2005 that not only had a site, but also a financing plan in place that was shot down in the legislature...

Bingo.

You said it all there. The Vikings need to pick a site that THEY want and a location THEY want and then put the chips on the table and get it done. What they have been doing is blowing around like a candle in the wind, never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in.

Why is it up to the state to do all of the work? The Vikings need to shit or get off the pot and make the one plan in the one location they want and put down the money it will take to build it or they need to move somewhere else.

You aren't making any sense. Why is it up to the state to do all the work? Ummm, the state hasn't done anything - at all.

The Vikings DID pick a site that THEY wanted and a location that THEY wanted and they put the chips on the table. And the state shot it down. It doesn't work that way.

The Vikings, the state, and a local partner need to work TOGETHER to come up with a viable plan.

That is where your disconnect is.

The Vikings are the ones who need the money. They are going to have to rely on the state to fund a good chunk of that stadium and they need the state way more than the state needs them ( I know that may be hard for you to swallow) so it is the responsibility of the Vikings org to put together the plan, have it be a plan that stands a chance financially of being viable and present something the state can work with and sell to the voters.

Yes, the Vikings have put out several proposals but what they have not done is present a plan that the state can sell to the voters as economically viable. Instead they just keep shuttling in half baked plan after half baked plan with no projections on what type of revenue it will produce to justify the expenditure and each plan has been significantly more extravagant and expensive. The cost between the last two went from app 600 million to 950 million which is a staggering amount of increased cost that didn't add anything the the game of football.

You might also want to inform us on the advantage of getting the state involved when it comes to things like permitting, review, regulations and things like that which lead to a much higher price tag than would be if it were built privately. In my experience with planning, overseeing and executing projects that involved state funding the cost of state involvement ends up adding 25-30 percent of cost to the project just to bring it into compliance with the funding agencies. Pleases explain to me why that is a good thing. After the very limited experience that I have had dealing with state funded projects there is absolutely no way that I would even let them at the table unless it was absolutely necessary and at that point I would be very prepared to jump through any hoop they want to hold out there and expect in the end that it will still cost me the same amount of money as it would have had they not been at the table.

dfosterf
01-30-2011, 05:28 PM
What about a pitch from the Vikings geared towards the individual counties instead of the State?

Wouldn't that create a bit of a dynamic of competition within the State, possibly playing one county off another? Perhaps the "pitch" would include state funding as well as a county-type tax and concessions, regardless of what counties were actually interested in having the team situated within their confines.

Purple Floyd
01-30-2011, 06:03 PM
What about a pitch from the Vikings geared towards the individual counties instead of the State?

Wouldn't that create a bit of a dynamic of competition within the State, possibly playing one county off another? Perhaps the "pitch" would include state funding as well as a county-type tax and concessions, regardless of what counties were actually interested in having the team situated within their confines.

They tried that once already between the Blaine and current dome sites and it set them back for years.

dfosterf
01-30-2011, 07:05 PM
Slot machines in the bars. 50% tax. Revenue goes to build new stadium until paid for. After that, into the general fund.

How about that one?

It would be a proposition that encompasses both the stadium issue and gambling. You already have all those native American casinos that you derive little from...

i_bleed_purple
01-30-2011, 07:07 PM
Slot machines in the bars. 50% tax. Revenue goes to build new stadium until paid for. After that, into the general fund.

How about that one?

It would be a proposition that encompasses both the stadium issue and gambling. You already have all those native American casinos that you derive little from...

Sounds easy right? But for some reason they don't do it.

Purple Floyd
01-30-2011, 07:38 PM
Slot machines in the bars. 50% tax. Revenue goes to build new stadium until paid for. After that, into the general fund.

How about that one?

It would be a proposition that encompasses both the stadium issue and gambling. You already have all those native American casinos that you derive little from...

Funny.

I have had the opportunity to talk to my state Rep a few times a year and one of my suggestions to him was to build the stadium with a video poker screen in every seat so that the fans could spend their time gambling and paying for the stadium while the KAO was on the field and they had nothing better to do.:laugh:

NodakPaul
01-30-2011, 07:45 PM
Slot machines in the bars. 50% tax. Revenue goes to build new stadium until paid for. After that, into the general fund.

How about that one?

It would be a proposition that encompasses both the stadium issue and gambling. You already have all those native American casinos that you derive little from...

Funny.

I have had the opportunity to talk to my state Rep a few times a year and one of my suggestions to him was to build the stadium with a video poker screen in every seat so that the fans could spend their time gambling and paying for the stadium while the KAO was on the field and they had nothing better to do.:laugh:

That would be great...


Except for the requirement that ownership and franchises have absolutely no ties to gambling. In an multi-billion dollar industry, if there was any chance that ownership or the franchises would benefit from gambling on the games, then there would be a lot of serious accusation of cheating. It could (not saying that it would, but it could) destroy the integrity of the game.

Hell, it took a LOT of time and energy just to allow teams to partner with state lotteries...

NodakPaul
01-30-2011, 07:55 PM
Typical. The Vikings once again are trying to play ball before they even have their shit together.

For the love of god i once would like to see them do their homework and actually have a solid, comprehensive game plan before the game starts instead of just winging it.

They have been going at this for like 13-15 years and they still don't have a site nailed down.

Ummm, this isn't the Vikings, it is the city of Arden Hills and teh County of Ramsey who are working this proposal. The Vikings have been invited to the table.

Not sure what your complaint is here. You have to start somewhere. And I seem to remember a stadium proposal in 2005 that not only had a site, but also a financing plan in place that was shot down in the legislature...

Bingo.

You said it all there. The Vikings need to pick a site that THEY want and a location THEY want and then put the chips on the table and get it done. What they have been doing is blowing around like a candle in the wind, never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in.

Why is it up to the state to do all of the work? The Vikings need to shit or get off the pot and make the one plan in the one location they want and put down the money it will take to build it or they need to move somewhere else.

You aren't making any sense. Why is it up to the state to do all the work? Ummm, the state hasn't done anything - at all.

The Vikings DID pick a site that THEY wanted and a location that THEY wanted and they put the chips on the table. And the state shot it down. It doesn't work that way.

The Vikings, the state, and a local partner need to work TOGETHER to come up with a viable plan.

That is where your disconnect is.

The Vikings are the ones who need the money. They are going to have to rely on the state to fund a good chunk of that stadium and they need the state way more than the state needs them ( I know that may be hard for you to swallow) so it is the responsibility of the Vikings org to put together the plan, have it be a plan that stands a chance financially of being viable and present something the state can work with and sell to the voters.

Yes, the Vikings have put out several proposals but what they have not done is present a plan that the state can sell to the voters as economically viable. Instead they just keep shuttling in half baked plan after half baked plan with no projections on what type of revenue it will produce to justify the expenditure and each plan has been significantly more extravagant and expensive. The cost between the last two went from app 600 million to 950 million which is a staggering amount of increased cost that didn't add anything the the game of football.

You might also want to inform us on the advantage of getting the state involved when it comes to things like permitting, review, regulations and things like that which lead to a much higher price tag than would be if it were built privately. In my experience with planning, overseeing and executing projects that involved state funding the cost of state involvement ends up adding 25-30 percent of cost to the project just to bring it into compliance with the funding agencies. Pleases explain to me why that is a good thing. After the very limited experience that I have had dealing with state funded projects there is absolutely no way that I would even let them at the table unless it was absolutely necessary and at that point I would be very prepared to jump through any hoop they want to hold out there and expect in the end that it will still cost me the same amount of money as it would have had they not been at the table.

I see where you are coming from, but the state doesn't WANT the Vikings to come up with a plan that they just sign the check on. nor should they. As it is, a good portion - most likely a majority - of the money it takes to build a stadium is going to come from public funds. I would absolutely want the legislature involved in the design and planning of a project that would consume this much public money.

I honestly wish it could be done differently. I wish that the Vikings ownership group could afford to fund a new stadium privately. Or at least put up the majority of the funds privately. But unfortunately I don't think that they can. A lot of people confuse "rich" with unlimited resources. There are only a handful of owners in the NFL who have those kind of resources, and those are all in large markets where the profits from the team have built for several years. The Vikings don't post a profit without the revenue sharing model.

And as far as the Vikings needing the state more than the state needs the Vikings, I respectfully disagree. The Vikings DO need some public assistance to build a new stadium. But the issue here is that the state of Minnesota isn't the only place that this can happen. That is like saying that the Minneapolis Lakers needed Minneapolis more than Minneapolis needed them. Or the North Stars needed Minnesota more than Minnesota needed them... Turns out neither of those statements were true either.

The Vikings and the State need each other.

Purple Floyd
01-31-2011, 01:41 PM
Slot machines in the bars. 50% tax. Revenue goes to build new stadium until paid for. After that, into the general fund.

How about that one?

It would be a proposition that encompasses both the stadium issue and gambling. You already have all those native American casinos that you derive little from...

Funny.

I have had the opportunity to talk to my state Rep a few times a year and one of my suggestions to him was to build the stadium with a video poker screen in every seat so that the fans could spend their time gambling and paying for the stadium while the KAO was on the field and they had nothing better to do.:laugh:

That would be great...


Except for the requirement that ownership and franchises have absolutely no ties to gambling. In an multi-billion dollar industry, if there was any chance that ownership or the franchises would benefit from gambling on the games, then there would be a lot of serious accusation of cheating. It could (not saying that it would, but it could) destroy the integrity of the game.

Hell, it took a LOT of time and energy just to allow teams to partner with state lotteries...

There is a huge difference between video poker and betting on the games and if the NFL can't make that leap in judgement then maybe they should kick in the money that the Vikings can't come up with. In the end I am not sure whether racketeering is any worse than extortion and they allow that to happen very freely.

Purple Floyd
01-31-2011, 01:54 PM
I see where you are coming from, but the state doesn't WANT the Vikings to come up with a plan that they just sign the check on. nor should they. As it is, a good portion - most likely a majority - of the money it takes to build a stadium is going to come from public funds. I would absolutely want the legislature involved in the design and planning of a project that would consume this much public money.

Obviously you haven't worked with the state then. If you ever did your thoughts on the subject would change. Unless you like the thought of paying extra taxes for things that really are not needed. Really, I suggest you look into the process and educate yourself on how things work before you throw all of your chips in.





I honestly wish it could be done differently. I wish that the Vikings ownership group could afford to fund a new stadium privately. Or at least put up the majority of the funds privately. But unfortunately I don't think that they can. A lot of people confuse "rich" with unlimited resources. There are only a handful of owners in the NFL who have those kind of resources, and those are all in large markets where the profits from the team have built for several years. The Vikings don't post a profit without the revenue sharing model.

No, it isn't about whether they have unlimited funds, it is about whether the design that they propose can be paid back with the revenue created by the games that will be played there and that is the cornerstone to my argument. If it was only about some type of financing where the team paid the state back through some sort of loan over a term then there would really be no problems. But the stadium as it is designed will never generate the types of revenue necessary to retire the debt.And a monster truck rally every year and a few mall walkers would never generate enough funds to cover the gap.


And as far as the Vikings needing the state more than the state needs the Vikings, I respectfully disagree. The Vikings DO need some public assistance to build a new stadium. But the issue here is that the state of Minnesota isn't the only place that this can happen. That is like saying that the Minneapolis Lakers needed Minneapolis more than Minneapolis needed them. Or the North Stars needed Minnesota more than Minnesota needed them... Turns out neither of those statements were true either.

So what you are saying is that life didn't go on after those teams left? I would disagree. I think the state did just fine in the time between the lakers and the Wolves and at this point how many people would really care if the Wolves left town? The metro did just fine when the stars left too. No fortune 500 companies followed them to Dallas, the economy didn't decline. All of the minimum wage workers found other minimum wage jobs and life went on. Heck, the stars aren't even selling their games out any more. I am sure it is probably because their arena is getting dated and they need a new one.




The Vikings and the State need each other.

Umm. No. Neither will cease to exist without the other. Although the Vikings would certainly be the first to fold between the two.

STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES
01-31-2011, 04:53 PM
I see where you are coming from, but the state doesn't WANT the Vikings to come up with a plan that they just sign the check on. nor should they. As it is, a good portion - most likely a majority - of the money it takes to build a stadium is going to come from public funds. I would absolutely want the legislature involved in the design and planning of a project that would consume this much public money.

Obviously you haven't worked with the state then. If you ever did your thoughts on the subject would change. Unless you like the thought of paying extra taxes for things that really are not needed. Really, I suggest you look into the process and educate yourself on how things work before you throw all of your chips in.





I honestly wish it could be done differently. I wish that the Vikings ownership group could afford to fund a new stadium privately. Or at least put up the majority of the funds privately. But unfortunately I don't think that they can. A lot of people confuse "rich" with unlimited resources. There are only a handful of owners in the NFL who have those kind of resources, and those are all in large markets where the profits from the team have built for several years. The Vikings don't post a profit without the revenue sharing model.

No, it isn't about whether they have unlimited funds, it is about whether the design that they propose can be paid back with the revenue created by the games that will be played there and that is the cornerstone to my argument. If it was only about some type of financing where the team paid the state back through some sort of loan over a term then there would really be no problems. But the stadium as it is designed will never generate the types of revenue necessary to retire the debt.And a monster truck rally every year and a few mall walkers would never generate enough funds to cover the gap.


And as far as the Vikings needing the state more than the state needs the Vikings, I respectfully disagree. The Vikings DO need some public assistance to build a new stadium. But the issue here is that the state of Minnesota isn't the only place that this can happen. That is like saying that the Minneapolis Lakers needed Minneapolis more than Minneapolis needed them. Or the North Stars needed Minnesota more than Minnesota needed them... Turns out neither of those statements were true either.

So what you are saying is that life didn't go on after those teams left? I would disagree. I think the state did just fine in the time between the lakers and the Wolves and at this point how many people would really care if the Wolves left town? The metro did just fine when the stars left too. No fortune 500 companies followed them to Dallas, the economy didn't decline. All of the minimum wage workers found other minimum wage jobs and life went on. Heck, the stars aren't even selling their games out any more. I am sure it is probably because their arena is getting dated and they need a new one.




The Vikings and the State need each other.

Umm. No. Neither will cease to exist without the other. Although the Vikings would certainly be the first to fold between the two.

The Dallas arena is right around 10 years old. When the north stars moved there it was reunion arena, now it's American airlines center.

NodakPaul
01-31-2011, 08:44 PM
I see where you are coming from, but the state doesn't WANT the Vikings to come up with a plan that they just sign the check on. nor should they. As it is, a good portion - most likely a majority - of the money it takes to build a stadium is going to come from public funds. I would absolutely want the legislature involved in the design and planning of a project that would consume this much public money.

Obviously you haven't worked with the state then. If you ever did your thoughts on the subject would change. Unless you like the thought of paying extra taxes for things that really are not needed. Really, I suggest you look into the process and educate yourself on how things work before you throw all of your chips in.





I honestly wish it could be done differently. I wish that the Vikings ownership group could afford to fund a new stadium privately. Or at least put up the majority of the funds privately. But unfortunately I don't think that they can. A lot of people confuse "rich" with unlimited resources. There are only a handful of owners in the NFL who have those kind of resources, and those are all in large markets where the profits from the team have built for several years. The Vikings don't post a profit without the revenue sharing model.

No, it isn't about whether they have unlimited funds, it is about whether the design that they propose can be paid back with the revenue created by the games that will be played there and that is the cornerstone to my argument. If it was only about some type of financing where the team paid the state back through some sort of loan over a term then there would really be no problems. But the stadium as it is designed will never generate the types of revenue necessary to retire the debt.And a monster truck rally every year and a few mall walkers would never generate enough funds to cover the gap.


And as far as the Vikings needing the state more than the state needs the Vikings, I respectfully disagree. The Vikings DO need some public assistance to build a new stadium. But the issue here is that the state of Minnesota isn't the only place that this can happen. That is like saying that the Minneapolis Lakers needed Minneapolis more than Minneapolis needed them. Or the North Stars needed Minnesota more than Minnesota needed them... Turns out neither of those statements were true either.

So what you are saying is that life didn't go on after those teams left? I would disagree. I think the state did just fine in the time between the lakers and the Wolves and at this point how many people would really care if the Wolves left town? The metro did just fine when the stars left too. No fortune 500 companies followed them to Dallas, the economy didn't decline. All of the minimum wage workers found other minimum wage jobs and life went on. Heck, the stars aren't even selling their games out any more. I am sure it is probably because their arena is getting dated and they need a new one.




The Vikings and the State need each other.

Umm. No. Neither will cease to exist without the other. Although the Vikings would certainly be the first to fold between the two.

Actually, I have worked with the state before. Many states in fact, Minnesota, Illinois, and North Dakota. So thanks for your insight into what I "obviously" have and have not done, and the recommendation that I "educate" myself, but I am doing just fine. I personally don't like the idea of the state writing a check for $500+ million dollars without having some insight into the planning, but if you do... well, I guess that might help explain why Minnesota has a multi-billion dollar deficit.

As far as the design generating enough money to repay the debt - if you had been following this fo any period of time you would see that most people acknolwedge that the opportunity cost would not be repaid. Note that I said opportunity cost - not total cost. This is because it has also been established that Minnesota would see 100% of the revenue returned over the next thirty years through direct sales, luxury, event, and income tax having the Vikings in state. Now could they invest the money elsewhere and yield a higher rate of return? Yes. Is the intanglible benefit worth the opportunity cost lost? That is more debatable.

Could the Vikings and the state set up a system in which the revenue from the stadium repaid the construction loan (as in the same thing that Kraft did)? I don't know. I know that it has been looked into before when construction costs were significantly lower, but I don't know how feasible it is now.

Finally, life did go on after the Lakers and North Stars left. I never said that it wouldn't. But Minnesota ended up investing more money to attract new franchises than it would have taken to keep the ones that they had int he first place. That sounds to me like a losing proposition (especially if you factor in lost revenue as a result of the teams not being there).

But I do see that the intended meaning of my final statement was lost on you - I didn't realize you had to take it literally. You are right - the Vikings and the state don't NEED each other. But it would be mutally benefitable for them to continue to work together. And the Vikings could move to a new location a lot easier than the state could get a new football team.

Purple Floyd
01-31-2011, 11:33 PM
Actually, I have worked with the state before. Many states in fact, Minnesota, Illinois, and North Dakota. So thanks for your insight into what I "obviously" have and have not done, and the recommendation that I "educate" myself, but I am doing just fine.


Well, if you have been involved in a government funded infrastructure project and you still think it is a great way to go then we really ran out of things to talk about.

How much did the Davis- Bacon requirements, the buy american steel requirements and all of the extra mandates that they required you to include add to the cost of the project compared to what it could have been built for in the private sector?

What was the funding mechanism, USRDA, State, Local, TIFF or something else?

jmcdon00
02-01-2011, 12:20 AM
Could the Vikings and the state set up a system in which the revenue from the stadium repaid the construction loan (as in the same thing that Kraft did)? I don't know. I know that it has been looked into before when construction costs were significantly lower, but I don't know how feasible it is now.
Of course we would want that, the state would save hundreds of millions. Income/sales taxes paid are not the same as loan payments.

PackSux!
02-01-2011, 01:37 AM
Just build it already.


I just wonder how much money the Vikings bring to the state during the football season.

It pisses me off when people say the dont want the public to pay for a stadium, it is just an excuse to bitch. Would you honestly miss the cents that you would wind up paying in the end? The state will take it for something else if the Vikes left town because they would have to make up that money somehow.

dfosterf
02-01-2011, 03:12 AM
My slots idea would secure a bond to build instantly, imo

You got approximately what, 21 casinos? The native American ones, yes?

Zip-squat on state tax revenue, mostly- I'd imagine.

I don't know if you have a CASINO market left, (probably) but you darn sure have a slots in bar market left. Everyone does, if they don't have one. :P

Think of slot machines in every bar. It would generate billions with a b. in tax revenues. (At my 50%, which is LOW compared to some)

(I agree about the NFL staying far away from slots in the stadium, but the argument wasn't close in scale in the first place when compared to slots in bars--those machines live there,(in the bar) and so do the patrons, close to 365 days a year, compared to a guy in the stands a few times who may or may not pull a handle)

Even the moralist/handwringers would have a tough time against the drunks coupled with the "no move of the Vikes to LA" crowd- which admittedly has some overlap :P

snowinapril
02-01-2011, 04:59 PM
In the next hour, they are going to interview a guy that wants to build a Jerry Jones type stadium in LA, a billion dollar stadium to entice a team to come. It is on CNBC. If I can find a video or a link I will post it.

Point being, these MN proposals better start taking hold. Pick something and run with it.

jmcdon00
02-01-2011, 06:05 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41364137


LOS ANGELES - A stadium deal worth up to $1 billion could make Los Angeles more alluring to an NFL team.

An entertainment company proposing a stadium in the city's downtown has reached a naming rights deal with Farmers Insurance. A person familiar with the negotiations tells The Associated Press on Monday that AEG would get $700 million over 30 years if the firm builds its planned stadium and lures an NFL team to the country's second-largest market.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the contract, says AEG will get $1 billion if it places two NFL teams.

Purple Floyd
02-01-2011, 06:24 PM
Just build it already.


I just wonder how much money the Vikings bring to the state during the football season.

It pisses me off when people say the dont want the public to pay for a stadium, it is just an excuse to bitch. Would you honestly miss the cents that you would wind up paying in the end? The state will take it for something else if the Vikes left town because they would have to make up that money somehow.

LMAO. You sound a little agitated. Did some of the piss stream from your avatar splash back on your new shoes?:P

Purple Floyd
02-01-2011, 06:29 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41364137


LOS ANGELES - A stadium deal worth up to $1 billion could make Los Angeles more alluring to an NFL team.

An entertainment company proposing a stadium in the city's downtown has reached a naming rights deal with Farmers Insurance. A person familiar with the negotiations tells The Associated Press on Monday that AEG would get $700 million over 30 years if the firm builds its planned stadium and lures an NFL team to the country's second-largest market.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the contract, says AEG will get $1 billion if it places two NFL teams.

See.

Now someone is thinking the right way and letting the market pay for a big chunk of the stadium and not the general public with tax money.

one would think with 3M ADM, Medtronic, Best Buy, Ecolab, General Mills, Super valu etc that the team would be able to sell naming rights to cover a huge chunk of the cost of the stadium, finance the rest of the construction costs and let the state take care of the utility and road infrastructure costs. That would be a much more logical solution.

snowinapril
02-01-2011, 06:29 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41364137


LOS ANGELES - A stadium deal worth up to $1 billion could make Los Angeles more alluring to an NFL team.

An entertainment company proposing a stadium in the city's downtown has reached a naming rights deal with Farmers Insurance. A person familiar with the negotiations tells The Associated Press on Monday that AEG would get $700 million over 30 years if the firm builds its planned stadium and lures an NFL team to the country's second-largest market.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the contract, says AEG will get $1 billion if it places two NFL teams.

Farmers insurance signs 700,000,000 dollar naming rights for LA stadium per report, 30 year deal.

Tim Leiweke CEO of AEG Worldwide wants to build the stadium for free as long as there is a team to play. "When other teams see they don't have to pay a dime, they will want to come." taxpayers will not have to pay a dime. Would be complete by 2015. It would be built next to Staples Center. There are rival stadium plans for one to be built 10 miles away.

The collective bargaining agreement getting straightened out is key to getting it done.

THey don't have the video clip online, looks like they have yesterdays content on line but not today's yet.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838394

Here is a link to an ESPN article on the Leiweke stadium news from yesterday.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=6078709&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

How does MN compete with this, no money down, no tax payer dollars, and the NFL team gets a huge chunck of the stadium revenue.

Purple Floyd
02-01-2011, 06:45 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41364137


LOS ANGELES - A stadium deal worth up to $1 billion could make Los Angeles more alluring to an NFL team.

An entertainment company proposing a stadium in the city's downtown has reached a naming rights deal with Farmers Insurance. A person familiar with the negotiations tells The Associated Press on Monday that AEG would get $700 million over 30 years if the firm builds its planned stadium and lures an NFL team to the country's second-largest market.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the contract, says AEG will get $1 billion if it places two NFL teams.

Farmers insurance signs 700,000,000 dollar naming rights for LA stadium per report, 30 year deal.

Tim Leiweke CEO of AEG Worldwide wants to build the stadium for free as long as there is a team to play. "When other teams see they don't have to pay a dime, they will want to come." taxpayers will not have to pay a dime. Would be complete by 2015. It would be built next to Staples Center. There are rival stadium plans for one to be built 10 miles away.

The collective bargaining agreement getting straightened out is key to getting it done.

THey don't have the video clip online, looks like they have yesterdays content on line but not today's yet.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838394

Here is a link to an ESPN article on the Leiweke stadium news from yesterday.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=6078709&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

How does MN compete with this, no money down, no tax payer dollars, and the NFL team gets a huge chunck of the stadium revenue.

Sounds like we need to get some Mn companies on board to come up with a similar plan. Very smart idea by that group.

snowinapril
02-01-2011, 06:58 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41364137


LOS ANGELES - A stadium deal worth up to $1 billion could make Los Angeles more alluring to an NFL team.

An entertainment company proposing a stadium in the city's downtown has reached a naming rights deal with Farmers Insurance. A person familiar with the negotiations tells The Associated Press on Monday that AEG would get $700 million over 30 years if the firm builds its planned stadium and lures an NFL team to the country's second-largest market.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the contract, says AEG will get $1 billion if it places two NFL teams.

Farmers insurance signs 700,000,000 dollar naming rights for LA stadium per report, 30 year deal.

Tim Leiweke CEO of AEG Worldwide wants to build the stadium for free as long as there is a team to play. "When other teams see they don't have to pay a dime, they will want to come." taxpayers will not have to pay a dime. Would be complete by 2015. It would be built next to Staples Center. There are rival stadium plans for one to be built 10 miles away.

The collective bargaining agreement getting straightened out is key to getting it done.

THey don't have the video clip online, looks like they have yesterdays content on line but not today's yet.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838394

Here is a link to an ESPN article on the Leiweke stadium news from yesterday.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=6078709&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

How does MN compete with this, no money down, no tax payer dollars, and the NFL team gets a huge chunck of the stadium revenue.

Sounds like we need to get some Mn companies on board to come up with a similar plan. Very smart idea by that group.

I am sure we can get a company to want the naming rights, probably not for 700,000,000 (over 30 yrs). It is still the private money for the stadium that we have to come up with. I don't see anyone but the Vikings that are even willing to put in anything.

Market matters! Last season, I went to KC for the Twins game. We got tix behind MN dugout (6 rows up) for about 45.00 and a free parking pass thrown in. I was pricing tix at Fenway for the Twins game this May. Those same tixs that I got in KC for 45.00 would cost 400.00. Plus it is a hassle to get to the game and it will cost 30.00 bucks or more for parking, most people take the public transit to the game. In LA, they could double the price of seats and nobody would think twice about the price.

BloodyHorns82
02-01-2011, 07:29 PM
L.A. is a perfect city to host NFL football. I can't believe they hadn't thought of this already!

jmcdon00
02-01-2011, 07:52 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41364137


LOS ANGELES - A stadium deal worth up to $1 billion could make Los Angeles more alluring to an NFL team.

An entertainment company proposing a stadium in the city's downtown has reached a naming rights deal with Farmers Insurance. A person familiar with the negotiations tells The Associated Press on Monday that AEG would get $700 million over 30 years if the firm builds its planned stadium and lures an NFL team to the country's second-largest market.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the contract, says AEG will get $1 billion if it places two NFL teams.

Farmers insurance signs 700,000,000 dollar naming rights for LA stadium per report, 30 year deal.

Tim Leiweke CEO of AEG Worldwide wants to build the stadium for free as long as there is a team to play. "When other teams see they don't have to pay a dime, they will want to come." taxpayers will not have to pay a dime. Would be complete by 2015. It would be built next to Staples Center. There are rival stadium plans for one to be built 10 miles away.

The collective bargaining agreement getting straightened out is key to getting it done.

THey don't have the video clip online, looks like they have yesterdays content on line but not today's yet.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838394

Here is a link to an ESPN article on the Leiweke stadium news from yesterday.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=6078709&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

How does MN compete with this, no money down, no tax payer dollars, and the NFL team gets a huge chunck of the stadium revenue.

Sounds like we need to get some Mn companies on board to come up with a similar plan. Very smart idea by that group.

I am sure we can get a company to want the naming rights, probably not for 700,000,000 (over 30 yrs). It is still the private money for the stadium that we have to come up with. I don't see anyone but the Vikings that are even willing to put in anything.

Market matters! Last season, I went to KC for the Twins game. We got tix behind MN dugout (6 rows up) for about 45.00 and a free parking pass thrown in. I was pricing tix at Fenway for the Twins game this May. Those same tixs that I got in KC for 45.00 would cost 400.00. Plus it is a hassle to get to the game and it will cost 30.00 bucks or more for parking, most people take the public transit to the game. In LA, they could double the price of seats and nobody would think twice about the price.
Market sometimes matters. Twins home games probably cost just as much as fenway last year. We went to chicago and sat behind the dugout for cheap(I think around $20).
Greenbay has the smallest market and there ticket prices are up there with anyones.
Just did a search on stubhub for Clippers tickets and they are starting at $5 a seat, that's in downtown LA.
Also keep in mind that LA has twice failed to keep an NFL team. Both times it was because of poor fan support, and an innability to sell out games(granted in the 90,000 seat colliseum).
The three teams in California now are all near the bottom in revenue and net income(according to forbes).
Revenue Net Income Team value(nfl rank)
Oakland 217 2.2 758(31)
SanDiego 233 24.7 907(24)
SanFrancisco 226 21 925(22)
Minnesota 221 17.9 774(30)
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html

Not saying LA can't support a team, just saying it's not some nfl eutopia.

As far as this proposal it remains to be seen if any NFL teams will be interested. I'm assuming the company building the stadium will want more than just naming rights. What that means we don't know, lease payments? percentage of revenue? who knows.

Also it's likely largely dependent on the new collective bargaining agreement. If the NFL reduces profit sharing for TV revenue then a larger market becomes more important. If the NFL continues to share revenue then tv audience don't matter much.

The other thing to consider is the state of the California economy. You think we have a deficit and high taxes, check out california, LA specifically. 11% income taxes and 9% sales taxes are definetly not something any owner, or player looks forward too. Those problems are not expected to improve anytime soon.

snowinapril
02-01-2011, 11:22 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41364137


LOS ANGELES - A stadium deal worth up to $1 billion could make Los Angeles more alluring to an NFL team.

An entertainment company proposing a stadium in the city's downtown has reached a naming rights deal with Farmers Insurance. A person familiar with the negotiations tells The Associated Press on Monday that AEG would get $700 million over 30 years if the firm builds its planned stadium and lures an NFL team to the country's second-largest market.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the contract, says AEG will get $1 billion if it places two NFL teams.

Farmers insurance signs 700,000,000 dollar naming rights for LA stadium per report, 30 year deal.

Tim Leiweke CEO of AEG Worldwide wants to build the stadium for free as long as there is a team to play. "When other teams see they don't have to pay a dime, they will want to come." taxpayers will not have to pay a dime. Would be complete by 2015. It would be built next to Staples Center. There are rival stadium plans for one to be built 10 miles away.

The collective bargaining agreement getting straightened out is key to getting it done.

THey don't have the video clip online, looks like they have yesterdays content on line but not today's yet.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838394

Here is a link to an ESPN article on the Leiweke stadium news from yesterday.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=6078709&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

How does MN compete with this, no money down, no tax payer dollars, and the NFL team gets a huge chunck of the stadium revenue.

Sounds like we need to get some Mn companies on board to come up with a similar plan. Very smart idea by that group.

I am sure we can get a company to want the naming rights, probably not for 700,000,000 (over 30 yrs). It is still the private money for the stadium that we have to come up with. I don't see anyone but the Vikings that are even willing to put in anything.

Market matters! Last season, I went to KC for the Twins game. We got tix behind MN dugout (6 rows up) for about 45.00 and a free parking pass thrown in. I was pricing tix at Fenway for the Twins game this May. Those same tixs that I got in KC for 45.00 would cost 400.00. Plus it is a hassle to get to the game and it will cost 30.00 bucks or more for parking, most people take the public transit to the game. In LA, they could double the price of seats and nobody would think twice about the price.
Market sometimes matters. Twins home games probably cost just as much as fenway last year. We went to chicago and sat behind the dugout for cheap(I think around $20).
Greenbay has the smallest market and there ticket prices are up there with anyones.
Just did a search on stubhub for Clippers tickets and they are starting at $5 a seat, that's in downtown LA.
Also keep in mind that LA has twice failed to keep an NFL team. Both times it was because of poor fan support, and an innability to sell out games(granted in the 90,000 seat colliseum).
The three teams in California now are all near the bottom in revenue and net income(according to forbes).
Revenue Net Income Team value(nfl rank)
Oakland 217 2.2 758(31)
SanDiego 233 24.7 907(24)
SanFrancisco 226 21 925(22)
Minnesota 221 17.9 774(30)
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html

Not saying LA can't support a team, just saying it's not some nfl eutopia.

As far as this proposal it remains to be seen if any NFL teams will be interested. I'm assuming the company building the stadium will want more than just naming rights. What that means we don't know, lease payments? percentage of revenue? who knows.

Also it's likely largely dependent on the new collective bargaining agreement. If the NFL reduces profit sharing for TV revenue then a larger market becomes more important. If the NFL continues to share revenue then tv audience don't matter much.

The other thing to consider is the state of the California economy. You think we have a deficit and high taxes, check out california, LA specifically. 11% income taxes and 9% sales taxes are definetly not something any owner, or player looks forward too. Those problems are not expected to improve anytime soon.

Good Post! Those details sure do make a difference.

i_bleed_purple
02-02-2011, 01:25 AM
11% income taxes and 9% sales taxes are definetly not something any owner, or player looks forward too.

Going on that, further reason why there will probably never be an NFL team in Canada.

in Ontario anyway, people making over about $90,000 a year pay roughly 40% income tax. not to mention 13% HST on most purchases.

Purple Floyd
02-02-2011, 03:54 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41364137


LOS ANGELES - A stadium deal worth up to $1 billion could make Los Angeles more alluring to an NFL team.

An entertainment company proposing a stadium in the city's downtown has reached a naming rights deal with Farmers Insurance. A person familiar with the negotiations tells The Associated Press on Monday that AEG would get $700 million over 30 years if the firm builds its planned stadium and lures an NFL team to the country's second-largest market.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the contract, says AEG will get $1 billion if it places two NFL teams.

Farmers insurance signs 700,000,000 dollar naming rights for LA stadium per report, 30 year deal.

Tim Leiweke CEO of AEG Worldwide wants to build the stadium for free as long as there is a team to play. "When other teams see they don't have to pay a dime, they will want to come." taxpayers will not have to pay a dime. Would be complete by 2015. It would be built next to Staples Center. There are rival stadium plans for one to be built 10 miles away.

The collective bargaining agreement getting straightened out is key to getting it done.

THey don't have the video clip online, looks like they have yesterdays content on line but not today's yet.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838394

Here is a link to an ESPN article on the Leiweke stadium news from yesterday.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=6078709&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

How does MN compete with this, no money down, no tax payer dollars, and the NFL team gets a huge chunck of the stadium revenue.

Sounds like we need to get some Mn companies on board to come up with a similar plan. Very smart idea by that group.

I am sure we can get a company to want the naming rights, probably not for 700,000,000 (over 30 yrs). It is still the private money for the stadium that we have to come up with. I don't see anyone but the Vikings that are even willing to put in anything.

Market matters! Last season, I went to KC for the Twins game. We got tix behind MN dugout (6 rows up) for about 45.00 and a free parking pass thrown in. I was pricing tix at Fenway for the Twins game this May. Those same tixs that I got in KC for 45.00 would cost 400.00. Plus it is a hassle to get to the game and it will cost 30.00 bucks or more for parking, most people take the public transit to the game. In LA, they could double the price of seats and nobody would think twice about the price.
Market sometimes matters. Twins home games probably cost just as much as fenway last year. We went to chicago and sat behind the dugout for cheap(I think around $20).
Greenbay has the smallest market and there ticket prices are up there with anyones.
Just did a search on stubhub for Clippers tickets and they are starting at $5 a seat, that's in downtown LA.
Also keep in mind that LA has twice failed to keep an NFL team. Both times it was because of poor fan support, and an innability to sell out games(granted in the 90,000 seat colliseum).
The three teams in California now are all near the bottom in revenue and net income(according to forbes).
Revenue Net Income Team value(nfl rank)
Oakland 217 2.2 758(31)
SanDiego 233 24.7 907(24)
SanFrancisco 226 21 925(22)
Minnesota 221 17.9 774(30)
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html

Not saying LA can't support a team, just saying it's not some nfl eutopia.

As far as this proposal it remains to be seen if any NFL teams will be interested. I'm assuming the company building the stadium will want more than just naming rights. What that means we don't know, lease payments? percentage of revenue? who knows.

Also it's likely largely dependent on the new collective bargaining agreement. If the NFL reduces profit sharing for TV revenue then a larger market becomes more important. If the NFL continues to share revenue then tv audience don't matter much.

The other thing to consider is the state of the California economy. You think we have a deficit and high taxes, check out california, LA specifically. 11% income taxes and 9% sales taxes are definetly not something any owner, or player looks forward too. Those problems are not expected to improve anytime soon.

+1

STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES
02-02-2011, 05:23 AM
Slightly off topic, but relevant anyway.

I just saw a short story on the wild postgame show. The timberwolves owner and AEG(they own staples center,nokia etc.) want to spend $155 million to upgrade target center. Mpls. Mayor R.T Rybak also said They need for it, in order to stay competitive. I know they just replaced the seats no more then 2, maybe 3 seasons ago.

Purple Floyd
02-02-2011, 04:52 PM
Slightly off topic, but relevant anyway.

I just saw a short story on the wild postgame show. The timberwolves owner and AEG(they own staples center,nokia etc.) want to spend $155 million to upgrade target center. Mpls. Mayor R.T Rybak also said They need for it, in order to stay competitive. I know they just replaced the seats no more then 2, maybe 3 seasons ago.

It's a never ending cycle really.

VikingMike
02-10-2011, 10:38 PM
Vikings Statement On MSFC Announcement (http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/Vikings-Statement-On-MSFC-Announcement/8e7a43e1-1901-4eb7-a258-8522b8766cc8)



The Vikings also want to be clear that the MSFC’s decision to replace the roof is not a long-term stadium solution and does not change the urgency to build a new multi-purpose stadium for the State and the Vikings.

BadlandsVikings
02-11-2011, 02:25 AM
Metrodome roof to be replaced

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6109935

i_bleed_purple
02-11-2011, 02:56 AM
Metrodome roof to be replaced

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6109935

weak

TeamSoftware
02-11-2011, 04:36 PM
Here is some good news...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ-SoDEw9XA

slavinator
02-11-2011, 05:16 PM
Lets hope that this project starts to snowball in a positive way......

Purple Floyd
02-11-2011, 05:23 PM
Here is some good news...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ-SoDEw9XA

That would certainly be a better location than in that cesspool known as downtown MPLS.Maybe they could even have an actual parking lot and stuff.

Zeus
02-14-2011, 07:57 PM
Here is some good news...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ-SoDEw9XA

That would certainly be a better location than in that cesspool known as downtown MPLS.Maybe they could even have an actual parking lot and stuff.

Yeah, being right there close to two interstates and the light-rail really sucks.

=Z=

slavinator
02-14-2011, 09:02 PM
This looks like an excellent venue to enjoy some GBP's and get ready for some MINNESOTA Viking Football :)

Marrdro
02-16-2011, 03:23 AM
Playing at Bank would present challenges (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/116273199.html)

I put this here, mostly cause it talks about the Arden Hills area but thought that the "Revenue" limitations that TCF Bank were interesting along with the time they think they will have to play there......"3 years"......as it also is linked to Leslies contract length.

Some yutz has been spewing that drivel out for a couple of days now.

Purple Floyd
02-16-2011, 04:30 AM
Here is some good news...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ-SoDEw9XA

That would certainly be a better location than in that cesspool known as downtown MPLS.Maybe they could even have an actual parking lot and stuff.

Yeah, being right there close to two interstates and the light-rail really sucks.

=Z=

Still better than that hell hole they are located in now.

aceclown
02-16-2011, 10:49 AM
If they ultimately do decide on building a new stadium at Arden Hills, wouldn't all of the points about TCF Bank Stadium as stop-gap become moot? Wouldn't the Vikings just renew the lease on the dome short-term until the Arden Hills stadium is ready? I have to believe this would be the decision, as it would be totally nonsensical to implode the dome before a new stadium in Arden Hills is ready.

I didn't read that whole article, but it seems like the revenues lost while playing at TCF bank stadium for 3 years is only relevant in the argument for where a new stadium should be built.

AngloVike
02-16-2011, 10:55 AM
Playing at Bank would present challenges (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/116273199.html)

I put this here, mostly cause it talks about the Arden Hills area but thought that the "Revenue" limitations that TCF Bank were interesting along with the time they think they will have to play there......"3 years"......as it also is linked to Leslies contract length.

Some yutz has been spewing that drivel out for a couple of days now.

Well if the TCF is going to be limiting then, assuming an agreement is made on building a new stadium, I don't see an issue with signing a lease extension at the Dome to cover the 2/3 years that the new stadium will take to build. At least with the Dome its a known situation and for the sake of an extra couple of years then the team and fans can suck it up and bear with it IMHO

Marrdro
02-16-2011, 10:57 AM
Playing at Bank would present challenges (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/116273199.html)

I put this here, mostly cause it talks about the Arden Hills area but thought that the "Revenue" limitations that TCF Bank were interesting along with the time they think they will have to play there......"3 years"......as it also is linked to Leslies contract length.

Some yutz has been spewing that drivel out for a couple of days now.

Well if the TCF is going to be limiting then, assuming an agreement is made on building a new stadium, I don't see an issue with signing a lease extension at the Dome to cover the 2/3 years that the new stadium will take to build. At least with the Dome its a known situation and for the sake of an extra couple of years then the team and fans can suck it up and bear with it IMHO
I'm not sure why that isn't discussed as part of the solution. Maybe they aren't banking (excuse the pun) on it because the anticipate building on the Dome site.

Marrdro
02-16-2011, 10:58 AM
If they ultimately do decide on building a new stadium at Arden Hills, wouldn't all of the points about TCF Bank Stadium as stop-gap become moot? Wouldn't the Vikings just renew the lease on the dome short-term until the Arden Hills stadium is ready? I have to believe this would be the decision, as it would be totally nonsensical to implode the dome before a new stadium in Arden Hills is ready.

I didn't read that whole article, but it seems like the revenues lost while playing at TCF bank stadium for 3 years is only relevant in the argument for where a new stadium should be built.
I think so, as I told Anglo, maybe thats why no one has really discussed that option.

dfosterf
02-16-2011, 04:00 PM
In my travels regarding the CBA and the lockout, I have been looking into some of the revenue "streams" that are shared between the owners and players.

One thing I became curious about was how the owners and NFLPA define the revenue generated by the sale of personal seat licenses. I discovered that the biggest advantage to both owners and municipalities for employing PSLs as a means to help pay for a stadium has to do with federal tax loopholes.

Then I wondered if it is possible that one of the reasons the owners don't want to "open their books" is because it would shed a spotlight on that aspect of the revenue stream (Congress???) I still wonder that, along with if that 59.8% - the 1 bil includes those PSL revenues.

I still don't know the answer to that.

Then I looked at the on-line market prices for PSL's in the various cities that have them. I discovered some scary numbers, and isn't it something that the Giants and Jets both nail their fanbases for PSL's in the same place...

dfosterf
02-16-2011, 04:03 PM
...And then there is this:

http://stillwatergazette.com/articles/2011/01/12/opinion/columns/582opin_120310_hovland.txt


I can think of no stadium built in memory that doesn't have PSLs.

Even Lambeau got PSLs from everyone during their renovation, they called it some other b.s. but that is what they were/are

Marrdro
02-17-2011, 01:31 AM
Then I wondered if it is possible that one of the reasons the owners don't want to "open their books" is because it would shed a spotlight on that aspect of the revenue stream (Congress???) I still wonder that, along with if that 59.8% - the 1 bil includes those PSL revenues.

I wonder how many of you guys/gals out there, while you were looking for jobs, during your interview, asked the company......

"Hey, I want to see your books so I can figure out how much your gonna pay me".?

Follow up to that is, if you did ask, did they actually show you the books and did you get the job.

Purple Floyd
02-17-2011, 03:01 AM
Then I wondered if it is possible that one of the reasons the owners don't want to "open their books" is because it would shed a spotlight on that aspect of the revenue stream (Congress???) I still wonder that, along with if that 59.8% - the 1 bil includes those PSL revenues.

I wonder how many of you guys/gals out there, while you were looking for jobs, during your interview, asked the company......

"Hey, I want to see your books so I can figure out how much your gonna pay me".?

Follow up to that is, if you did ask, did they actually show you the books and did you get the job.

Since this is a stadium thread and they are looking to get funding from the state then I will ask the following question- Have you ever walked into a bank and asked for a 600 million dollar unsecured loan and not get asked to provide some fairly detailed financial documents?

Marrdro
02-17-2011, 03:28 AM
Then I wondered if it is possible that one of the reasons the owners don't want to "open their books" is because it would shed a spotlight on that aspect of the revenue stream (Congress???) I still wonder that, along with if that 59.8% - the 1 bil includes those PSL revenues.

I wonder how many of you guys/gals out there, while you were looking for jobs, during your interview, asked the company......

"Hey, I want to see your books so I can figure out how much your gonna pay me".?

Follow up to that is, if you did ask, did they actually show you the books and did you get the job.

Since this is a stadium thread and they are looking to get funding from the state then I will ask the following question- Have you ever walked into a bank and asked for a 600 million dollar unsecured loan and not get asked to provide some fairly detailed financial documents?
LOL, not many have walked in and asked for a 600 million dollar loan.

On a side note, what does that have to do with my question to the PUKER fan?

Purple Floyd
02-17-2011, 03:35 AM
Then I wondered if it is possible that one of the reasons the owners don't want to "open their books" is because it would shed a spotlight on that aspect of the revenue stream (Congress???) I still wonder that, along with if that 59.8% - the 1 bil includes those PSL revenues.

I wonder how many of you guys/gals out there, while you were looking for jobs, during your interview, asked the company......

"Hey, I want to see your books so I can figure out how much your gonna pay me".?

Follow up to that is, if you did ask, did they actually show you the books and did you get the job.

Since this is a stadium thread and they are looking to get funding from the state then I will ask the following question- Have you ever walked into a bank and asked for a 600 million dollar unsecured loan and not get asked to provide some fairly detailed financial documents?
LOL, not many have walked in and asked for a 600 million dollar loan.

On a side note, what does that have to do with my question to the PUKER fan?

I was trying to get it back on topic. This is a stadium thread not a CBA thread.;)

Caine
02-19-2011, 03:29 PM
...And then there is this:

http://stillwatergazette.com/articles/2011/01/12/opinion/columns/582opin_120310_hovland.txt


I can think of no stadium built in memory that doesn't have PSLs.

Even Lambeau got PSLs from everyone during their renovation, they called it some other b.s. but that is what they were/are

Even the Badgers and Gophers use PSL's.

I've never liked them...mostly because I'm broke...but I can't imagine not seeing them in todays economy. The only thing I question is how they can then exclude that from the stated "ticket cost"?

But fans will swallow it...they always do. And the only way to reverse it is to boycott it...and THAT isn't likely to happen.

Caine

aceclown
03-01-2011, 08:33 AM
"The push to put the new home for the Minnesota Vikings in Arden Hills got another jolt of support Monday.

Citing the potential to finally make something of the nearly abandoned munitions plant that sits in its city limits, the Arden Hills City Council voted 4-0 Monday night to pursue development of an NFL stadium at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant. Council member Ed Werner abstained, saying he didn't have enough information to cast a vote.

The move marks the northern suburb's first formal stance of support on what had previously been largely Ramsey County's quest for a new stadium on the TCAAP property, a 430-acre parcel that sits near Interstate 35W and U.S. 10.

The resolution authorizes Arden Hills to begin collaborating with Ramsey County and the Vikings to determine the viability of the site as the next home for the football team."

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_17507374

Purple Floyd
03-10-2011, 04:56 AM
On KFAN they are running a boatload (No love boat references please) of ads from Dick Day trying to drum up support for the Racino again. To be honest this is the only proposal that I think makes any sense.

marshallvike
04-02-2011, 04:46 AM
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/119034939.html



A new Minnesota Vikings stadium, including a roof, would be built with up to $300 million in state money raised from an assortment of new fees and taxes, under a plan that will be introduced at the Legislature next week.

jmcdon00
04-02-2011, 05:47 PM
And State Republican Party chair Tony Sutton added Thursday it was important that the stadium discussion be "framed" so that it did not appear legislators were pushing for a stadium while making major cuts to state government.
Isn't that exactly what is going on?

Purple Floyd
04-03-2011, 06:19 PM
And State Republican Party chair Tony Sutton added Thursday it was important that the stadium discussion be "framed" so that it did not appear legislators were pushing for a stadium while making major cuts to state government.
Isn't that exactly what is going on?

Yes. But don't tell anyone....

enlvikeman
04-04-2011, 05:41 AM
whatever it takes get it done Minnesota. I saw my Colts leave...not a good feeling especially the following fall when football comes around.

BloodyHorns82
04-04-2011, 04:22 PM
And State Republican Party chair Tony Sutton added Thursday it was important that the stadium discussion be "framed" so that it did not appear legislators were pushing for a stadium while making major cuts to state government.
Isn't that exactly what is going on?

Yes. But don't tell anyone....

LMAO!

Every proposed budget cut is about to get axed by the Gov anyways. He's not "in favor" of any cut or balancing proposal I've read yet. Might as well focus on something the governor expresses interest in (A "people's" stadium).

Purple Floyd
04-05-2011, 06:17 PM
And State Republican Party chair Tony Sutton added Thursday it was important that the stadium discussion be "framed" so that it did not appear legislators were pushing for a stadium while making major cuts to state government.
Isn't that exactly what is going on?

Yes. But don't tell anyone....

LMAO!

Every proposed budget cut is about to get axed by the Gov anyways. He's not "in favor" of any cut or balancing proposal I've read yet. Might as well focus on something the governor expresses interest in (A "people's" stadium).

Well I won't travel down that road on here but I am not going to say you are wrong either lol.