PDA

View Full Version : Vikings Stadium Financing Plan 'B' Announced



NodakPaul
05-16-2013, 03:33 PM
Governor Dayton Announces "Secret Plan" To Fill Void in Stadium Fundraising | Vikings Blog - KFAN Sports Radio FM 100.3 - The Fan (http://www.kfan.com/pages/vikingsblog.html?article=11294540)


The plan-b option will pin a one-time warehouse stocking fee for cigarettes. If the tax hike is approved it would push tax on a pack of cigarettes to $2.52 per pack (same as Wisconsin) and is projected to raise $24.5 million this year to cover the void in the original funding plan.

jmcdon00
05-16-2013, 03:41 PM
A one time warehouse stocking fee? What the hell is that? Very strange language. Please explain somebody.

NodakPaul
05-16-2013, 04:25 PM
A one time warehouse stocking fee? What the hell is that? Very strange language. Please explain somebody.

A one time warehouse stocking fee basically means a fee on the existing cigarette inventory to compliment the cigarette tax increase. This would cover the state's deficit for this year.

This article from the Star Trib does a better job explaining it. It also talks about a second source of funding, which would be closing a tax avoidance loophole that companies used. The resulting revenue would cover the state's deficit for the rest of the years.

Dayton proposes using new taxes for Vikings stadium funding | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/207733951.html)

Purple Floyd
05-16-2013, 07:54 PM
Why not just raise the income tax on pro athletes?

i_bleed_purple
05-16-2013, 09:00 PM
Why not just raise the income tax on pro athletes?

Do Vikings pay tax to Minnesota, or the state they live in?

JPPT1974
05-16-2013, 09:45 PM
Well it will get done. As the team and city do need a stadium. Will get that stadium in three years. As the three years will come and go fast and viola...the Vikings will get that stadium!

RK.
05-16-2013, 11:54 PM
Looks like Minnesotans will be heading to the Rez tobacco stores in droves now. LOL

Mr Anderson
05-17-2013, 12:14 AM
Do Vikings pay tax to Minnesota, or the state they live in?

They pay in every state in which they play. Check it out:
Professional Athletes' Big-League Tax Bills - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/professional-athletes-big-league-tax-071447565.html)

Purple Floyd
05-17-2013, 08:00 AM
Why not just raise the income tax on pro athletes?

Do Vikings pay tax to Minnesota, or the state they live in?

Where they play. So we should be jabbing the players who come to play in the stadium instead of smokers who may never even visit the stadium. They should also charge more for the apparent gazzillion event they are going to host there every year and - sorry NDPaul- they should be charging a higher tax on tickets, suites and concessions at the games.

NodakPaul
05-17-2013, 08:19 AM
Where they play. So we should be jabbing the players who come to play in the stadium instead of smokers who may never even visit the stadium. They should also charge more for the apparent gazzillion event they are going to host there every year and - sorry NDPaul- they should be charging a higher tax on tickets, suites and concessions at the games.

I don't get it. You are constantly complaining that you think they are going to raise ticket prices, and then turn around and say that is the way they should pay for the stadium.

And, they ARE taxing the tickets, suites, and concessions at the games. In fact, the higher tax on suites is one of the measures that was included in the original bill.

As far as the cigarette tax - this was a tax hike that was going to occur anyway. The plans have been in the works to match WI's cigarette tax for a while. Dayton just jumped ahead of the plan and dropped the warehouse restocking fee on existing inventory to meet this years short fall. Every other year the revenue is going to be met by closing the tax loophole.

So no, smokers who may never go to the stadium aren't going to be jabbed for the price any more than they are going to be jabbed for new roads they may not drive on, wast management systems they may not use, or anything else that the cigarette tax is going to fund.

Corporations who have been filing in MN and taking advantage of a tax loophole are the ones who are going to be jabbed more. And that loophole was long overdue anyway.

singersp
05-17-2013, 09:04 AM
How about a one-time warehouse stocking fee for beer & alcohol or raise the tax on the beer sold at the game & events? That would raise a lot more money & cover the deficit for more than 1 year.

Seems every time they need to get more tax revenue, cigarettes is the first choice to hit (voted on by mostly or non-smokers no doubt). That puts the onus on a minority of the population that may never go to a game or even watch football.

If you're going to raise a tax, do it to something that affects most people or the people that will attend the games/events at the new stadium.

NodakPaul
05-17-2013, 09:42 AM
BTW, here is some information on the way the Vikings tickets are already taxed. I know I have posted this before... but selective memory has weeded it out of the general conscious.

Vikings tickets are taxed at 16.875%, making them the highest taxed tickets in the NFL. This includes the standard 6.875% sales tax that goes directly to the state, plus a 10% admission tax that directly funds the sports authority.
source (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/85994897.html)

The average ticket price in 2012 was ~$75. The average attendance for a regular season game in 2011 was 62,816. 2012 stats are not verified yet. source (http://www.vikings.com/team/history/attendance-info.html) So for 8 regular season games that is a total ticket income of $37.7 million, giving the state $2.6 million and the stadium authority an additional $3.8 million.

The preseason games are included in season ticket plans, and the Vikings have around 40k season tickets sold. So we can add another $400k in sales tax and $600k for the admission tax for just the guaranteed seats.

That brings the total annual tax revenue from ticket sales alone to just under $7.32 million ($2.949 million in sales tax and $4.369 in admissions tax).

I know that the admissions tax will continue to fund the stadium authority (the Vikings rent covers all operating costs of the stadium), but where does that other $3 million go? It goes into the general fund. It may only be a 1/7 of the total price that the state needs, but it is a start.

So let's look at the other taxes collected by the state...
Income Taxes on players in 2012 = $10 million
Income Taxes on coaches in 2012 = $1.5 million
Sales Tax on Concessions in 2010 (last good stat) = $0.565 million
Sales Tax on other game day services (parking, advertising, etc) in 2010 = $1.37 million

That brings us up to $16.384 million in sales and income tax that is going directly into the state's general fund (I am leaving out the $4.369 that pays for the stadium authority).

Now we are only $8 million short for the annual debt requirement by the state, and that is not even considering any of the expected increase in ticket prices with the new stadium (It is generally expected to see the average ticket price to increase to between $85 and $90). $7.3 million short
It is also not including the tax on suites, which is expected to bring in $2-3 million per year. $4.3-$5.3 million short
Nor is that including the $1.7 million that is already being generated by pull tabs (Seriously, who though that would ever raise $20 million annually!). $2.6-$3.6 million short

All of a sudden, the gap between what goes into the general fund as a direct result of the Vikings and what the state needs to pay is awfully small. How many Minnesotans watch the Vikings on TV and claim them as their their team? If only 1/4 of the states population watch the Vikings and claim them as their team, that comes down to less than $2 per year per person. Is that really too much to be spending on what is essentially a state resource?

I am all for not using corporate money or cigarette money on the Vikings stadium. But if that is the case, let's set aside all of the money the Vikings pump into the general fund and use that instead. Turns out it is basically a wash.

TL/DR Taxes from Vikings games and players put as much into the general fund as the stadium will be taking out.

C Mac D
05-17-2013, 10:07 AM
BTW, here is some information on the way the Vikings tickets are already taxed. I know I have posted this before... but selective memory has weeded it out of the general conscious.

Or weed has selectively taxed the general conscious.

http://replygif.net/i/537

Purple Floyd
05-17-2013, 10:25 AM
I don't get it. You are constantly complaining that you think they are going to raise ticket prices, and then turn around and say that is the way they should pay for the stadium.I figured you would have trouble with the concept since it hasn't dawned on you in all these years. The ONLY way to build that stadium, and not raise ticket prices(as you repeatedly claim won't happen) is to jab somebody else for the extra costs.


And, they ARE taxing the tickets, suites, and concessions at the games. In fact, the higher tax on suites is one of the measures that was included in the original bill.

Yes, yes they are. They are taxing those things at a rate that doesn't even make the dome self sustaining so obviously too low already. Now they have a more expensive venue and subsequently the taxes should go up significantly to reflect that. We are talking about something like 30 Million dollars a year. Not exactly chump change considering the dome cost less than 2x that in total.


As far as the cigarette tax - this was a tax hike that was going to occur anyway. The plans have been in the works to match WI's cigarette tax for a while. Dayton just jumped ahead of the plan and dropped the warehouse restocking fee on existing inventory to meet this years short fall. Every other year the revenue is going to be met by closing the tax loophole.

No, actually you are wrong. He is just looking for ways to fund it and with no good solutions he chose this one. if you want proof, look no farther than this:


Earlier this year, Dayton proposed a cigarette tax hike of 94 cents a pack. In now backing a $1.29 per pack hike, he’s moving even further from his previous opposition to cigarette tax increases of any kind. When running for governor in 2010, he called cigarette tax hikes “money out of the pockets of working people and poorer people.”

When they voted on this there was never supposed to be any general fund money used to pay for the stadium. None.




So no, smokers who may never go to the stadium aren't going to be jabbed for the price any more than they are going to be jabbed for new roads they may not drive on, wast management systems they may not use, or anything else that the cigarette tax is going to fund.

The cigarette tax is a general fund tax. Roads are funded from the gas tax, which is targeted to people who drive just like the stadium should have it's taxes targeted at the users of the facility. Wastewater projects are financed through federal grants and paid for through user fees and not general fund expenditures. You may want to come up with better examples that support your position and not bolster mine.




Corporations who have been filing in MN and taking advantage of a tax loophole are the ones who are going to be jabbed more. And that loophole was long overdue anyway.
That is still a general fund revenue and should never be used for financing a stadium. It should go to getting the money back to schools that the state still owes them and before you start to jump on that boat, it may not pass because it is going to impact the amount of money Ziggy can siphon off the state and take back to New Jersey so don't count those chickens just yet.

Purple Floyd
05-17-2013, 10:27 AM
How about a one-time warehouse stocking fee for beer & alcohol or raise the tax on the beer sold at the game & events? That would raise a lot more money & cover the deficit for more than 1 year.

Seems every time they need to get more tax revenue, cigarettes is the first choice to hit (voted on by mostly or non-smokers no doubt). That puts the onus on a minority of the population that may never go to a game or even watch football.

If you're going to raise a tax, do it to something that affects most people or the people that will attend the games/events at the new stadium.

+1
That is what I have been saying for years and what has been my one problem with a new stadium.

RK.
05-17-2013, 11:13 AM
How about taxing;
Health Club Memberships
Spandex
All "organic" products
Jogging shoes
Bicycles
Electric cars
and all Green products.

Why is it always sin taxes like alcohol, smoking, and gambling? How about some do-gooder taxes for a change.

Purple Floyd
05-17-2013, 12:12 PM
BTW, here is some information on the way the Vikings tickets are already taxed. I know I have posted this before... but selective memory has weeded it out of the general conscious.

It has nothing to do with selective memory. It has to do with the simple underlying fact that the revenues you are about to post were not adequate to keep the current stadium operating in the black, hence them needing to use the full depreciation schedule on an annual basis just to have the books remotely close to balancing. Now, with an additional billion dollars of cost there is obviously(to anyone who understands financing) a need for increased taxes or revenues to pay for that. If that revenue is not going to come by having higher ticket prices(as you contend) then they need to come from somewhere and that money should come from stadium related fees and taxes and not from general fund revenues.

Here is a quote from the official Vikings site:

Minnesota Vikings | Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.vikings.com/stadium/new-stadium/faq.html)


The remaining $498 million public contribution will be split between the City of Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota and will not include new taxes or have a negative impact on the State’s general fund. The City’s $150 million contribution will be paid by redirecting a portion of the current “Convention Center Taxes,” while the State will issue appropriation bonds for $348 million. The appropriation bonds will be repaid through the modernization of State-authorized charitable gaming that includes electronic pull-tabs and bingo.


Vikings tickets are taxed at 16.875%, making them the highest taxed tickets in the NFL. This includes the standard 6.875% sales tax that goes directly to the state, plus a 10% admission tax that directly funds the sports authority.
source (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/85994897.html)

that is pointless. the only real measure is whether the tax revenue collected meets the costs associated with it. Apparently by raiding the general fund it is clear they don't.





The average ticket price in 2012 was ~$75. The average attendance for a regular season game in 2011 was 62,816. 2012 stats are not verified yet. source (http://www.vikings.com/team/history/attendance-info.html) So for 8 regular season games that is a total ticket income of $37.7 million, giving the state $2.6 million and the stadium authority an additional $3.8 million.

Now, compare that revenue with the expenses and get back to me on that.


The preseason games are included in season ticket plans, and the Vikings have around 40k season tickets sold. So we can add another $400k in sales tax and $600k for the admission tax for just the guaranteed seats.

Add that to the total above, compare it to the expenses and get back to me.


That brings the total annual tax revenue from ticket sales alone to just under $7.32 million ($2.949 million in sales tax and $4.369 in admissions tax).

And the obligation on the debt is supposedly in the 30 million a year range.


I know that the admissions tax will continue to fund the stadium authority (the Vikings rent covers all operating costs of the stadium), but where does that other $3 million go? It goes into the general fund. It may only be a 1/7 of the total price that the state needs, but it is a start.



It should not be a start, it should be the end. Plus, do you figures include extra police and security for games, fire protection etc?




So let's look at the other taxes collected by the state...
Income Taxes on players in 2012 = $10 million
Income Taxes on coaches in 2012 = $1.5 million
Sales Tax on Concessions in 2010 (last good stat) = $0.565 million
Sales Tax on other game day services (parking, advertising, etc) in 2010 = $1.37 million

That brings us up to $16.384 million in sales and income tax that is going directly into the state's general fund (I am leaving out the $4.369 that pays for the stadium authority).

Now we are only $8 million short for the annual debt requirement by the state, and that is not even considering any of the expected increase in ticket prices with the new stadium (It is generally expected to see the average ticket price to increase to between $85 and $90). $7.3 million short
It is also not including the tax on suites, which is expected to bring in $2-3 million per year. $4.3-$5.3 million short
Nor is that including the $1.7 million that is already being generated by pull tabs (Seriously, who though that would ever raise $20 million annually!). $2.6-$3.6 million short

All of a sudden, the gap between what goes into the general fund as a direct result of the Vikings and what the state needs to pay is awfully small. How many Minnesotans watch the Vikings on TV and claim them as their their team? If only 1/4 of the states population watch the Vikings and claim them as their team, that comes down to less than $2 per year per person. Is that really too much to be spending on what is essentially a state resource?


Let's look at costs vs income:

Operating revenues were $16,347,253 for fiscal year 2011. Sources of revenue are
comprised of concessions, admission tax, rent, charges for services, advertising, parking,
and other revenues. Food and beverage concessions constitute the largest source of
revenues and represent 42.8 percent of total operating revenues. A portion of the
concessions revenues is paid to the Minnesota Vikings and a five percent management
fee is paid to the concessionaire who manages and operates the concessions.
Per Minnesota statutes a ten percent admission tax is charged on all Metrodome
admission tickets. This tax was designed as a user fee to help defray operating expenses.
Rent is based on the terms of the Use Agreements with the Minnesota Vikings and
various other users. Rent also includes the private suite rent from the Minnesota Vikings.
Charges for services include payments from the users and others for event related
expenses such as audio expense, scoreboard operator expense, cleaning supplies and
services, first aid, and field lights.

The Commission’s expenses increased by $428,326 during the year, fiscal year 2011
expenses were $24,659,873. The three largest changes in expenses were: facilities
cost credit decreased by $855,523 due to only seven regular season football games
were played at the Metrodome in 2011, depreciation expense increased by $1,458,436
due to the additional depreciation expenses associated with the new roof, and the
increase in the roof restoration project costs of $581,228 are due to the project was
completed in 2011.
At year end total operating loss was $8,310,700

Now, add on 30 Million extra per year in costs to the state for construction expenses and add Millions of dollars a year to the vikings costs associated with the construction and where is that money coming from if ticket prices are not going up and taxes are not going up?



I am all for not using corporate money or cigarette money on the Vikings stadium. But if that is the case, let's set aside all of the money the Vikings pump into the general fund and use that instead. Turns out it is basically a wash.

Nope. It isn't because you only look at what they bring in and not the expenses incurred in having them here and making it a go. Any business model looks good if you only look at the revenue sheets and don't look at the expenses.

here is what Dayton said a while ago when the Vikings were going to do PSL's. Funny how he has no problem jabbing the average joe when he needs the money huh?



Posted at 9:29 AM on November 13, 2012 by Tim Pugmire (2 Comments (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2012/11/dayton_blasts_v.shtml#comments)) Filed under: Mark Dayton (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/mark-dayton/), Vikings stadium (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/vikings-stadium/)
Gov. Mark Dayton has told the Minnesota Vikings that he is "greatly distressed" that the team is considering a plan to charge season ticket holders a fee that would help pay the team's share of a new $975 million stadium.
In a harsh letter to owners Zygi Wilf and Mark Wilf, Dayton stressed that the private contribution is the team's responsibility and not the responsibility of season ticket holders.
"I said this new stadium would be a 'People's Stadium,' not a 'Rich People's Stadium,'" Dayton wrote.
Dayton warned that it would better to not build a new stadium than have it betray the trust of the regular Minnesotans who supported the project. He also said he would urge the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority against authorizing the proposed "Stadium Builder's Licenses."

"If necessary, I will go to the Legislature next January and urge the the authorization be rescinded," he added.

NodakPaul
05-17-2013, 01:24 PM
It has nothing to do with selective memory. It has to do with the simple underlying fact that the revenues you are about to post were not adequate to keep the current stadium operating in the black, hence them needing to use the full depreciation schedule on an annual basis just to have the books remotely close to balancing. Now, with an additional billion dollars of cost there is obviously(to anyone who understands financing) a need for increased taxes or revenues to pay for that. If that revenue is not going to come by having higher ticket prices(as you contend) then they need to come from somewhere and that money should come from stadium related fees and taxes and not from general fund revenues.

A ha! This is where your disconnect is. You seem to think that all of the money being taxed was going to stadium operation. But it is NOT. In fact, not a single penny of the sales tax or income tax that I listed went into stadium operation. The only money that did was the 10% Admissions tax on tickets, and as I stated I left that completely out of the totals.


that is pointless. the only real measure is whether the tax revenue collected meets the costs associated with it. Apparently by raiding the general fund it is clear they don't.

Again no. The taxes collected are CURRENTLY GOING INTO THE GENERAL FUND. I would be more than happy if the sales tax and income tax collected from the Vikings went into a special fund to use for the Vikings. It would certainly make it easier for people with your viewpoint to understand the money being generated.



Now, compare that revenue with the expenses and get back to me on that.



Add that to the total above, compare it to the expenses and get back to me.

I do. Continue reading the post...


And the obligation on the debt is supposedly in the 30 million a year range.

Actually, the debt obligation is supposed to be around $26 million per year. The pull tabs were supposedly going to bring in $30+ million.


It should not be a start, it should be the end. Plus, do you figures include extra police and security for games, fire protection etc?

Actually, yes. Enhanced public services for games is factored into the operating expenses of the new stadium. Operating expenses that are being covered 100% by the Vikings and the City of Minneapolis. The state is not being asked to put a penny toward operating expenses. If you are curious as to the breakdown over 30 years, the Vikings are paying for 63% of the total operating costs, and the city is paying for the remaining 37%.


Let's look at costs vs income:

Operating revenues were $16,347,253 for fiscal year 2011. Sources of revenue are
comprised of concessions, admission tax, rent, charges for services, advertising, parking,
and other revenues. Food and beverage concessions constitute the largest source of
revenues and represent 42.8 percent of total operating revenues. A portion of the
concessions revenues is paid to the Minnesota Vikings and a five percent management
fee is paid to the concessionaire who manages and operates the concessions.
Per Minnesota statutes a ten percent admission tax is charged on all Metrodome
admission tickets. This tax was designed as a user fee to help defray operating expenses.
Rent is based on the terms of the Use Agreements with the Minnesota Vikings and
various other users. Rent also includes the private suite rent from the Minnesota Vikings.
Charges for services include payments from the users and others for event related
expenses such as audio expense, scoreboard operator expense, cleaning supplies and
services, first aid, and field lights.

The Commission’s expenses increased by $428,326 during the year, fiscal year 2011
expenses were $24,659,873. The three largest changes in expenses were: facilities
cost credit decreased by $855,523 due to only seven regular season football games
were played at the Metrodome in 2011, depreciation expense increased by $1,458,436
due to the additional depreciation expenses associated with the new roof, and the
increase in the roof restoration project costs of $581,228 are due to the project was
completed in 2011.
At year end total operating loss was $8,310,700

Now, add on 30 Million extra per year in costs to the state for construction expenses and add Millions of dollars a year to the vikings costs associated with the construction and where is that money coming from if ticket prices are not going up and taxes are not going up?

Construction and operating costs are two very different things. Trying to lump them in together is not only bad math, but factually wrong. See above - the Vikings are contributing an ADDITIONAL $327 million over the lease to pay for nearly 2/3s of the total operating costs in a facility that they will only use 10 times a year (12 in good years).

The reason your numbers never add up is because you leave off half of the numbers. If you want to bring in the operating loss by the current stadium, then you need to also factor in the new rent amounts the Vikings will be paying, and the new revenue models for the new stadium.

I completely agree that the Metrodome was a money pit - for both the Vikings and the state. That is just another reason that a new stadium was needed.



Nope. It isn't because you only look at what they bring in and not the expenses incurred in having them here and making it a go. Any business model looks good if you only look at the revenue sheets and don't look at the expenses.

And any business model looks bad if you only look at the expenses and don't include all of the revenue. I was looking at CONSTRUCTION costs only - not the operating model for the stadium. I said several times in my post that I was not looking at operation costs. If you want to look at operation costs, perhaps you should include the $327.1 million that the Vikings are contributing toward the operating costs. And just to be clear, this is ADDITION to the $477 million that the Vikings are contributing for construction costs.


here is what Dayton said a while ago when the Vikings were going to do PSL's. Funny how he has no problem jabbing the average joe when he needs the money huh?

I am not going to defend Dayton, because I don't necessarily agree with him either. I am in support of PSLs. I expect them to be used. But I am also in support of using public money for a NFL franchise because I recognize both the tangible and intangible benefits of having one in the state. And I also know that the Vikings put a lot of money annually into the general fund ($18 million currently, projected to be $22 million with the new stadium).

So let's make it simple. Let's just take that $22 million out of the general fund and use it for stadium construction. Would that make you happy?

NodakPaul
05-17-2013, 01:30 PM
I figured you would have trouble with the concept since it hasn't dawned on you in all these years. The ONLY way to build that stadium, and not raise ticket prices(as you repeatedly claim won't happen) is to jab somebody else for the extra costs.



Yes, yes they are. They are taxing those things at a rate that doesn't even make the dome self sustaining so obviously too low already. Now they have a more expensive venue and subsequently the taxes should go up significantly to reflect that. We are talking about something like 30 Million dollars a year. Not exactly chump change considering the dome cost less than 2x that in total.


Not going to quote this whole post because I already have one long quoted post here, and it gets old. :)

But I just want to point out two things here.

1) I never said that they would not raise ticket prices. NEVER. I have said that ticket prices won't skyrocket like you claim. You have suggested that they will be as high as $150 for an average ticket price, which would be double what they are now (and among the highest in the NFL). I have said repeatedly that prices would go up, but the market would not be able to support the jump you keep touting. The expected increase will likely be to right around $85 for an average ticket.

2) The reason the Metrodome doesn't generate dick for their suites is because there are very few of them and they suck. The lack of viable non-revenue sharing seats was among the biggest reasons that the Vikings needed a new stadium.

Chazz
05-17-2013, 10:06 PM
If stadiums were profitable, owners would build there own and not force people struggling from paycheck to paycheck to pay for their stadium.

Chazz
05-17-2013, 10:21 PM
State and corporate merge...hmmm, isn't there a term for that?

NodakPaul
05-18-2013, 09:32 AM
If stadiums were profitable, owners would build there own and not force people struggling from paycheck to paycheck to pay for their stadium.

To be fair, stadiums are profitable, and some owners have built their own. I think it would be great if they all would, but the reality is that most owners actually do not have the capitol to build their own. There is a difference between rich and unlimited rich.

That and the current climate - for good or bad - is to use a combination of public and private funds to build stadiums, which is what the Vikings and Minnesota are doing. I support the use of public money because of the money the team brings into the state as well as the impact having a NFL team has on the culture and quality of life. I also think that the largest contribution should be private (as it is with the Vikings).

Finally, nobody is forcing someone who is struggling from paycheck to paycheck to pay for a stadium. Pull tabs, corporate taxes, and a restocking fee on existing cigarettes are paying for the state's contribution. This is not a flat tax that cannot be avoided by people struggling - so no need for dramatics.

Funny how nobody is talking about people struggling from paycheck to paycheck being required to pay for Target Field, or TCF Bank stadium...

singersp
05-18-2013, 10:06 AM
If stadiums were profitable, owners would build there own and not force people struggling from paycheck to paycheck to pay for their stadium.

Thing is, it's not really THEIR (the Vikings) stadium. People seem to forget that. If the Vikings were to move, it's not the Wilf's stadium to sell.

When all those other other events are played there, it's not the Wilf's getting all the money. When all those fans come from out of town for all those events it's not the Wilf's getting a percentage of all the hotels, merchandise & food these people spend money on. How much money do you think flowed into Minnesota in 1992 when the Super Bowl was played there? Did the owners of the Vikings get all that money or tax revenue? Don't think so.


The Metrodome was built for $55 million, including $33 million in public dollars. The State of Minnesota contributed none of this money but has received over $320 million in tax revenue since the facility opened.

The part of the stadium fund that is lagging is the shortfall from electronic pull tabs that was to pay for the states share of the stadium. IMO, "people struggling from paycheck to paycheck" shouldn't be buying pulltabs.

singersp
05-18-2013, 05:20 PM
Judging by the way gas prices shot up since the unveiling, almost $0.50/gallon, I'm thinking plan B is already in place.

:hump:

Purple Floyd
05-22-2013, 10:28 AM
If stadiums were profitable, owners would build there own and not force people struggling from paycheck to paycheck to pay for their stadium.

Like Atlanta just did?




BOSTON -- NFL owners have approved a $200 million loan for construction of a new stadium in Atlanta.
The Falcons (http://www.nfl.com/teams/atlantafalcons/profile?team=ATL) received the money Tuesday at the NFL Spring Meeting. The multipurpose stadium could cost as much as $1 billion.
Falcons (http://www.nfl.com/teams/atlantafalcons/profile?team=ATL) owner Arthur Blank says the approval is an "important milestone in moving the new stadium project forward." Blank says the design and construction will take place over the next four years.
The stadium will be built with $200 million from public bonds, with the rest coming from Blank. The Georgia Dome, which opened in 1992, will be demolished when the new stadium opens.
Plans call for the Falcons (http://www.nfl.com/teams/atlantafalcons/profile?team=ATL) to open the 2017 season in the new building.


Y! SPORTS (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/falcons-stadium-ideas-don-t-just-push-envelope-123901552.html)

Purple Floyd
05-22-2013, 10:30 AM
State and corporate merge...hmmm, isn't there a term for that?

Yes. Yes there is.

Purple Floyd
05-23-2013, 08:11 AM
Just wait till the announce plan c