PDA

View Full Version : Are Minnesotans Hypocrites?



BadlandsVikings
11-02-2011, 08:08 AM
The Vikings stadium keeps getting turned down because the state doesn't want to help pay for it but........

The Excel Energy Center was funded by the state

The Target Center was bought by the city of Minneapolis in 1995

Target Field was funded by a Hennepin Count sales Tax

TCF Bank Stadium was funded by the state paying 40 percent of the cost

So why are the Vikings the Red Headed Step Child?

i_bleed_purple
11-02-2011, 01:14 PM
The Vikings stadium keeps getting turned down because the state doesn't want to help pay for it but........

The Excel Energy Center was funded by the state

The Target Center was bought by the city of Minneapolis in 1995

Target Field was funded by a Hennepin Count sales Tax

TCF Bank Stadium was funded by the state paying 40 percent of the cost

So why are the Vikings the Red Headed Step Child?

All of the above stadiums/arenas were funded while not in a recession

marshallvike
11-02-2011, 01:33 PM
All of the above stadiums/arenas were funded while not in a recession

As a Vikings stadium could have. Plans were in place before the recession. They have ignored it far too long. Now it will bite them in the ass when the Vikings leave.

Purple Floyd
11-02-2011, 01:45 PM
None of those stadiums cost a billion dollars either. It would be an easier thing ti pass if it was only 300 million or less like those were. That is a damn big jump to go from the cost of Excel, Target field etc to what the Vikings want. And it would not hurt anyone if the scaled it back a bit to bring the cost down.

midgensa
11-02-2011, 02:47 PM
None of those stadiums cost a billion dollars either. It would be an easier thing ti pass if it was only 300 million or less like those were. That is a damn big jump to go from the cost of Excel, Target field etc to what the Vikings want. And it would not hurt anyone if the scaled it back a bit to bring the cost down.

It is a big jump, but Target Field cost $545 million to build (about $640 million in 2011 dollars) and the football stadium has been proposed as low as $800 million ... so that is about a $150 million difference ... not that huge, and certainly nowhere near the $700m difference you are insinuating.

Target Center on the other hand was only about $175 million in today's dollars, and of course can serve two sports.

Also ... football stadiums are almost always the most expensive because they also return the most bang for the buck. They are much larger than the other stadiums, so it would make sense that it would cost much more.

The recession definitely does not help. And the constant state of flux about what the exact costs would be do not help either. But Minnesota definitely sticks out as an area that built for the other teams and it telling its most popular team to hit the bricks. Many will compare it to Seattle who built for football and baseball but would not accommodate their popular basketball team, but the Sonics were not the biggest show in town. The Vikings are. Which is why ... eventually ... this will likely get done.

C Mac D
11-02-2011, 03:04 PM
Minnesota voters put Michele Bachmann in the House of Representatives. That's all I need to know.

midgensa
11-02-2011, 03:07 PM
Minnesota voters put Michele Bachmann in the House of Representatives. That's all I need to know.

Shit ... Los Angeles Vikings it is.

marshallvike
11-02-2011, 03:57 PM
None of those stadiums cost a billion dollars either. It would be an easier thing ti pass if it was only 300 million or less like those were. That is a damn big jump to go from the cost of Excel, Target field etc to what the Vikings want. And it would not hurt anyone if the scaled it back a bit to bring the cost down.

Isn't that what they did with the Metrodome? Then mother nature huffed and puffed and blew the roof down. (A few times). Follow the example of the third little pig and build it right.:)

Maybe then the team won't be looking for another stadium halfway thru the lease.

Purple Floyd
11-02-2011, 06:08 PM
None of those stadiums cost a billion dollars either. It would be an easier thing ti pass if it was only 300 million or less like those were. That is a damn big jump to go from the cost of Excel, Target field etc to what the Vikings want. And it would not hurt anyone if the scaled it back a bit to bring the cost down.

Isn't that what they did with the Metrodome? Then mother nature huffed and puffed and blew the roof down. (A few times). Follow the example of the third little pig and build it right.:)

Maybe then the team won't be looking for another stadium halfway thru the lease.

I am not defending the Metrodome plan. But some where in between the dome and what they have on the table is a happy medium that can bring the team money and still be more cost effective. Personally I would start by either having a fixed roof or no roof at all. The team has no say in whether it is open or closed and it would never be left open for a playoff game so if the weather is never going to be a factor in a game then I say keep it closed all of the time and save the money.

Other than that there are many other places to save money without impacting the bottom line or the function if they were serious about it. But after what went on this afternoon it may be a moot point and I may have overestimated the leadership.

NDVikingFan66
11-02-2011, 07:01 PM
I had a long post all typed up, then deleted it. I cannot believe how this has played out, and I do blame all parties, including the Vikings to a certain extent.

And though I do not want to turn this into a political debate, if you are not willing to give public money to a stadium, than in my opinion no money should be given to any business, to include tax breaks and incentive money. I only ask that people stay consistent in their beliefs. If the Vikings get no money, neither does any business asking for a break for expansion or relocation.

Just my thoughts.

singersp
11-03-2011, 06:31 AM
Target Field was funded by a Hennepin Count sales Tax

TCF Bank Stadium was funded by the state paying 40 percent of the cost


All of the above stadiums/arenas were funded while not in a recession

I'm pretty sure the Vikings have wanted a new stadium before and during the same times those stadiums were requested and built.

The Vikings have wanted to build a new stadium way back when McCombs owned the team & it hasn't been passed.

So when do you feel this recession started?

Why has no one told LA, who has 2 different stadium options in the works, about the recession?

Purple Floyd
11-03-2011, 08:15 AM
The Vikings were still under a lease during that time and still are. As far as I remember the Twins stayed at the dome for over a decade AFTER their lease expired before they got their new deal done and I don't know for sure but I believe the gophers lease had also expired.

NodakPaul
11-03-2011, 08:55 AM
The Vikings were still under a lease during that time and still are. As far as I remember the Twins stayed at the dome for over a decade AFTER their lease expired before they got their new deal done and I don't know for sure but I believe the gophers lease had also expired.

I have to disagree.

First of all, the Twins did not play in the dome over a decade after their lease expired. It expired in 2002, and they were on a year to year lease after that. In January of 2005, despite signing another extended lease to avoid contraction, the Twins took the state of Minnesota to court to get out of the lease. The district court ruled that the Twins lease was effectively expired after 2005. So at most they played with a yearly lease for three years, and after suing the state they played without a lease for four more (three of which were AFTER the Target field bill had been passed in May of 2006). Also, to add to that, the Polad family funded a study in the early 2000's that showed that there was not a market for a baseball team, and they could not profit from a move. Hardly heroic - they stayed because they had nowhere to go and even sued the state to make sure that they could go the second something became available. The Vikings have already stated that they will sign a yearly lease as long as there is a plan for a new stadium.

I don't know if the gophers lease had expired or not, but it isn't like they could go anywhere else.

The Vikings CAN go somewhere else. There IS a market for it. And they have waited and watched while the other two tenants of the metrodome got new stadiums. Now personally I think it is stupid that the gophers and Vikings aren't sharing a stadium, but that again is on the state. They refused to build TCF to NFL standards, making it impossible for the Vikings to play there on a permanent basis.

The state told the Vikings to pay for the stadium feasibility studies. They have done that, three times. The state told the Vikings to find a local partner. They have done that, twice. The state told the Vikings to come up with a funding plan. Two have been offered by the Vikings. Three more have been offered by legislators who support the Vikings stadium push. And nothing has been done.

I truly hope the Vikings don't move, but if they do then I put 100% of the blame on the state legislature. Even if the Vikings don't move, the longer they put this off the higher the construction cost is going to be.

I would be embarrassed if I was a Minnesota voter. The people you have been electing to office are going to end up costing the state of Minnesota billions of dollars in the end.

NDVikingFan66
11-03-2011, 05:42 PM
I have to disagree.

First of all, the Twins did not play in the dome over a decade after their lease expired. It expired in 2002, and they were on a year to year lease after that. In January of 2005, despite signing another extended lease to avoid contraction, the Twins took the state of Minnesota to court to get out of the lease. The district court ruled that the Twins lease was effectively expired after 2005. So at most they played with a yearly lease for three years, and after suing the state they played without a lease for four more (three of which were AFTER the Target field bill had been passed in May of 2006). Also, to add to that, the Polad family funded a study in the early 2000's that showed that there was not a market for a baseball team, and they could not profit from a move. Hardly heroic - they stayed because they had nowhere to go and even sued the state to make sure that they could go the second something became available. The Vikings have already stated that they will sign a yearly lease as long as there is a plan for a new stadium.

I don't know if the gophers lease had expired or not, but it isn't like they could go anywhere else.

The Vikings CAN go somewhere else. There IS a market for it. And they have waited and watched while the other two tenants of the metrodome got new stadiums. Now personally I think it is stupid that the gophers and Vikings aren't sharing a stadium, but that again is on the state. They refused to build TCF to NFL standards, making it impossible for the Vikings to play there on a permanent basis.

The state told the Vikings to pay for the stadium feasibility studies. They have done that, three times. The state told the Vikings to find a local partner. They have done that, twice. The state told the Vikings to come up with a funding plan. Two have been offered by the Vikings. Three more have been offered by legislators who support the Vikings stadium push. And nothing has been done.

I truly hope the Vikings don't move, but if they do then I put 100% of the blame on the state legislature. Even if the Vikings don't move, the longer they put this off the higher the construction cost is going to be.

I would be embarrassed if I was a Minnesota voter. The people you have been electing to office are going to end up costing the state of Minnesota billions of dollars in the end.

+1

battleaxe4cheese
11-03-2011, 05:55 PM
I'm pretty sure the Vikings have wanted a new stadium before and during the same times those stadiums were requested and built.

The Vikings have wanted to build a new stadium way back when McCombs owned the team & it hasn't been passed.

So when do you feel this recession started?

Why has no one told LA, who has 2 different stadium options in the works, about the recession?

L.A. has a budget deficit of approximately $350 million dollars. The fact they are even talking sports stadium is insanity at best.

scottishvike
11-03-2011, 06:14 PM
Coming from a European perspective this is difficult for me. Looking at soccer teams if they want a new stadium they have to pay for it all themselves, there is no way local people would allow public money to be used here, it would never happen. Most cities have multiple teams, with different supporters and with the season being longer, sometimes 30 plus home games there is more opportunity to recoup the money, as well as sponsorship and TV cash.

And that brings up the other big difference between US vs European sports teams, the franchise system. Yes overall it's fairer with the wealth and players being distributed evenly, therefore meaning a more competitive league. Look at most European soccer leagues, nearly every one is a two or three horse race and these teams have been at the top for decades. BUT the one big drawback is your local team can be moved elsewhere, this is basically unacceptable here. Maybe it's because of the long history with most teams going back over 100 years. But any time a club has been either talked about being moved or even merged with another, there is only hostility from both sides, the new team would be playing to a very small crowd indeed.

So it's probably for that reason that I (someone who has never set foot in Minnesota) hopes the Vikings never leave the state.

Purple Floyd
11-03-2011, 08:39 PM
I have to disagree.

First of all, the Twins did not play in the dome over a decade after their lease expired. It expired in 2002, and they were on a year to year lease after that. In January of 2005, despite signing another extended lease to avoid contraction, the Twins took the state of Minnesota to court to get out of the lease. The district court ruled that the Twins lease was effectively expired after 2005. So at most they played with a yearly lease for three years, and after suing the state they played without a lease for four more (three of which were AFTER the Target field bill had been passed in May of 2006). Also, to add to that, the Polad family funded a study in the early 2000's that showed that there was not a market for a baseball team, and they could not profit from a move. Hardly heroic - they stayed because they had nowhere to go and even sued the state to make sure that they could go the second something became available. The Vikings have already stated that they will sign a yearly lease as long as there is a plan for a new stadium.

I don't know if the gophers lease had expired or not, but it isn't like they could go anywhere else.

The Vikings CAN go somewhere else. There IS a market for it. And they have waited and watched while the other two tenants of the metrodome got new stadiums. Now personally I think it is stupid that the gophers and Vikings aren't sharing a stadium, but that again is on the state. They refused to build TCF to NFL standards, making it impossible for the Vikings to play there on a permanent basis.

The state told the Vikings to pay for the stadium feasibility studies. They have done that, three times. The state told the Vikings to find a local partner. They have done that, twice. The state told the Vikings to come up with a funding plan. Two have been offered by the Vikings. Three more have been offered by legislators who support the Vikings stadium push. And nothing has been done.

I truly hope the Vikings don't move, but if they do then I put 100% of the blame on the state legislature. Even if the Vikings don't move, the longer they put this off the higher the construction cost is going to be.

I would be embarrassed if I was a Minnesota voter. The people you have been electing to office are going to end up costing the state of Minnesota billions of dollars in the end.

Not disagreeing with your timelines but other than the dates that I clearly stated I didn't know of for sure it doesn't change things.

The twins lease expired and then they extended it for a number of years until the new deal was struck.
The Gophers: I found n information on whether they has a lease at one time but there is nothing I could find that would say they left before any lease had expired.

The Vikings- While it is certainly possible they could leave, IMHO there is as much of a chance that they would end up like the Twins and not have a better location if the lease came up. While everyone is slobbering over the LA site, nothing there has been finalized and I am not sure anyone is going to buy the team and move it to Cali unless they have a finalized stadium deal in place because they could be in much the same situation there as they were here. Couple that with the notion that Jacksonville cannot sell out a home game, SanDiego wants a new stadium and Oakland is also in flux there very well be a more attractive option to a buyer than the Vikings. The Jaguars are valued at 50 million less than the Vikings and both Cali teams would be an easier relocation prospect.

Now, I am in no way guaranteeing that they won't leave and they very well might, but then again it isn't a slam dunk just like the Twins leaving wasn't when the hype was flying.

All that said I still believe we will see a special session and a stadium bill passed before December.