PDA

View Full Version : Why a casino financed stadium won't work



NodakPaul
08-06-2008, 11:37 AM
I liked the idea when it was first brought up here in PP.O, but I always wondered if the league would go for it.
Turns out they won't.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/08/06/league-buzzes-over-rooney-situation/

In this blog about Dan Rooney, the following statement is made:

As the source explained, majority and minority owners can have no interest in gambling.
In fact, the league even prohibits holding one share of stock in a publicly-traded company whose operations include casino gambling.

Meanwhile, the Rooneys not only have interests in dog racing (which is, along with horse racing, exempt from the NFL’s anti-gambling rules), but they have slot machines, too.
And they’ve owned and operated them since at least 2006.
Yet, the NFL hasn’t demanded that the Rooneys choose between gambling or football.

It’s an “egregious double standard,” the source said, pointing out that no other ownership group would be permitted to be involved so heavily in gambling for even a short period of time.

Sounds to me that if the league prohibits an owner from even holding stock in a company that has gambling, then they certainly wouldn't approve of a stadium funded by gambling.

Too bad, because it could have been an elegant solution.
But I would guess that this is why is has never been brought up.

Purple Floyd
08-06-2008, 12:00 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


I liked the idea when it was first brought up here in PP.O, but I always wondered if the league would go for it.
Turns out they won't.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/08/06/league-buzzes-over-rooney-situation/

In this blog about Dan Rooney, the following statement is made:

As the source explained, majority and minority owners can have no interest in gambling.
In fact, the league even prohibits holding one share of stock in a publicly-traded company whose operations include casino gambling.

Meanwhile, the Rooneys not only have interests in dog racing (which is, along with horse racing, exempt from the NFL’s anti-gambling rules), but they have slot machines, too.
And they’ve owned and operated them since at least 2006.
Yet, the NFL hasn’t demanded that the Rooneys choose between gambling or football.

It’s an “egregious double standard,” the source said, pointing out that no other ownership group would be permitted to be involved so heavily in gambling for even a short period of time.

Sounds to me that if the league prohibits an owner from even holding stock in a company that has gambling, then they certainly wouldn't approve of a stadium funded by gambling.

Too bad, because it could have been an elegant solution.
But I would guess that this is why is has never been brought up.


So what you are saying is that Rooney can do it, but nobody else can?


The way I proposed it anyway should still float, where the state and the tribe build the complex and the vikings pay the team rent and get concessions, parking revenue and naming rights etc. That way the team does not own the gambling part of it, but get the revenue they desire.

i_bleed_purple
08-06-2008, 12:10 PM
unlikely.
The only reason the Rooney's are allowed, is because they were in place well before the NFL introduced those rules.
Just how the Packers are allowed to still be publically owned.
now i believe you need one person with 35% ownership, but the Packers had their ownership arranged waaayy before the NFL introduced those rules, so they're allowed to continue, but no other teams can start like that.

Purple Floyd
08-06-2008, 12:17 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


I liked the idea when it was first brought up here in PP.O, but I always wondered if the league would go for it.
Turns out they won't.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/08/06/league-buzzes-over-rooney-situation/

In this blog about Dan Rooney, the following statement is made:

As the source explained, majority and minority owners can have no interest in gambling.
In fact, the league even prohibits holding one share of stock in a publicly-traded company whose operations include casino gambling.

Meanwhile, the Rooneys not only have interests in dog racing (which is, along with horse racing, exempt from the NFL’s anti-gambling rules), but they have slot machines, too.
And they’ve owned and operated them since at least 2006.
Yet, the NFL hasn’t demanded that the Rooneys choose between gambling or football.

It’s an “egregious double standard,” the source said, pointing out that no other ownership group would be permitted to be involved so heavily in gambling for even a short period of time.

Sounds to me that if the league prohibits an owner from even holding stock in a company that has gambling, then they certainly wouldn't approve of a stadium funded by gambling.

Too bad, because it could have been an elegant solution.
But I would guess that this is why is has never been brought up.


Does the team have to own the stadium? Can it rent?

C Mac D
08-06-2008, 12:22 PM
And you'll have guys like this taking your ticket stubs...

http://www.notorious92.com/images/newton/Robert.DeNiro.Joe.Pesci.From.Casino.Film.jpg

Purple Floyd
08-06-2008, 12:26 PM
"C" wrote:


And you'll have guys like this taking your ticket stubs...

http://www.notorious92.com/images/newton/Robert.DeNiro.Joe.Pesci.From.Casino.Film.jpg


When they pour the footings, it will be a good place to hide certain things that get in the way ;)

jmcdon00
08-06-2008, 12:32 PM
I don't think the NFL can dictate where the state portion comes from. Minneapolis could build the casino take that revenue and stick it into highway maintenance and then use the highway money to build a stadium. I don't think the vikings would have any ownership over the casino. Personally I'm not sure the state should support casinos at all, gambling leads to crime, and poverty. Many lives have been ruined because of gambling.

Purple Floyd
08-06-2008, 12:39 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


I don't think the NFL can dictate where the state portion comes from. Minneapolis could build the casino take that revenue and stick it into highway maintenance and then use the highway money to build a stadium. I don't think the vikings would have any ownership over the casino. Personally I'm not sure the state should support casinos at all, gambling leads to crime, and poverty. Many lives have been ruined because of gambling.


I am not a fan of gambling either, but if we are going to allow tribes to do it then we should also allow the state to .

BloodyHorns82
08-06-2008, 12:40 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


I don't think the NFL can dictate where the state portion comes from. Minneapolis could build the casino take that revenue and stick it into highway maintenance and then use the highway money to build a stadium. I don't think the vikings would have any ownership over the casino. Personally I'm not sure the state should support casinos at all, gambling leads to crime, and poverty. Many lives have been ruined because of gambling.


Yeah, but we already have casinos here.
The areas these many casinos are built in aren't known for high crime rates or poverty...those two items are rampent in Minneapolis though where there are no casinos.

Zeus
08-06-2008, 12:53 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


I don't think the NFL can dictate where the state portion comes from. Minneapolis could build the casino take that revenue and stick it into highway maintenance and then use the highway money to build a stadium. I don't think the vikings would have any ownership over the casino. Personally I'm not sure the state should support casinos at all, gambling leads to crime, and poverty. Many lives have been ruined because of gambling.


Many lives have been ruined by TV.
Many lives have been ruined by the Internet.
Many lives have been ruined by automobiles.
Many lives have been ruined by organized religion.

Shall I continue?

=Z=

Purple Floyd
08-06-2008, 12:55 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I don't think the NFL can dictate where the state portion comes from. Minneapolis could build the casino take that revenue and stick it into highway maintenance and then use the highway money to build a stadium. I don't think the vikings would have any ownership over the casino. Personally I'm not sure the state should support casinos at all, gambling leads to crime, and poverty. Many lives have been ruined because of gambling.


Many lives have been ruined by TV.
Many lives have been ruined by the Internet.
Many lives have been ruined by automobiles.
Many lives have been ruined by organized religion.

Shall I continue?

=Z=


Go ahead. there is plenty of time until kickoff.

Purple Floyd
08-06-2008, 01:37 PM
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7D81730F930A1575AC0A965958260



Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did not seem concerned about Connelly's background.

"I can't say it's a problem," he said, "because we don't know the investor. I did say relative to playing the Super Bowl in New Orleans that legalized gambling doesn't pose a problem to the league. We're concerned with point-spread gambling."

NodakPaul
08-06-2008, 01:58 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:








http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7D81730F930A1575AC0A965958260



Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did not seem concerned about Connelly's background.

"I can't say it's a problem," he said, "because we don't know the investor. I did say relative to playing the Super Bowl in New Orleans that legalized gambling doesn't pose a problem to the league. We're concerned with point-spread gambling."


That was 15 years ago, and I believe before these rules were put in place to distance the NFl from gambling.
And for the record, the St Louis bid for an expansion franchise failed largely in part due to Connelly's involvement.
The franchises went to Carolina and Jacksonville instead, with a unanimous vote by the owners, exactly one month after Connelly's investment was announced.
Prior to that, St Louis had been the front runner.

The league and owners simply do not want to be associated with gambling.
Heck, there were rumblings in league circles last year simply because a casino was being constructed across the interstate from the Edward Jones Dome in St Louis.
Can you imaging the uproar is casino money was used to build a stadium?
Or was even just attached to it?

BloodyHorns82
08-06-2008, 02:03 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:








http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7D81730F930A1575AC0A965958260



Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did not seem concerned about Connelly's background.

"I can't say it's a problem," he said, "because we don't know the investor. I did say relative to playing the Super Bowl in New Orleans that legalized gambling doesn't pose a problem to the league. We're concerned with point-spread gambling."


That was 15 years ago, and I believe before these rules were put in place to distance the NFl from gambling.
And for the record, the St Louis bid for an expansion franchise failed largely in part due to Connelly's involvement.
The franchises went to Carolina and Jacksonville instead, with a unanimous vote by the owners, exactly one month after Connelly's investment was announced.
Prior to that, St Louis had been the front runner.

The league and owners simply do not want to be associated with gambling.
Heck, there were rumblings in league circles last year simply because a casino was being constructed across the interstate from the Edward Jones Dome in St Louis.
Can you imaging the uproar is casino money was used to build a stadium?
Or was even just attached to it?


I agree, but I also think jmcdon00 brought up a good point that as long as the money was filtering through the state (for the state's portion), the NFL probably wouldn't have much say in it.

Purple Floyd
08-06-2008, 02:12 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:








http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7D81730F930A1575AC0A965958260



Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did not seem concerned about Connelly's background.

"I can't say it's a problem," he said, "because we don't know the investor. I did say relative to playing the Super Bowl in New Orleans that legalized gambling doesn't pose a problem to the league. We're concerned with point-spread gambling."


That was 15 years ago, and I believe before these rules were put in place to distance the NFl from gambling.
And for the record, the St Louis bid for an expansion franchise failed largely in part due to Connelly's involvement.
The franchises went to Carolina and Jacksonville instead, with a unanimous vote by the owners, exactly one month after Connelly's investment was announced.
Prior to that, St Louis had been the front runner.

The league and owners simply do not want to be associated with gambling.
Heck, there were rumblings in league circles last year simply because a casino was being constructed across the interstate from the Edward Jones Dome in St Louis.
Can you imaging the uproar is casino money was used to build a stadium?
Or was even just attached to it?


IMO it depends on the type of gambling. If it is poker, slots etc I don't think there would be a problem. Where the league gets concerned is when there is betting on events like sports etc. That is a whole different animal and something we don't do here and wouldn't do in this situation. Yes, if we had Vegas style gambling on games it would be a problem but the league shouldn't
care if somebody is playing slots.

jmcdon00
08-06-2008, 02:15 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I don't think the NFL can dictate where the state portion comes from. Minneapolis could build the casino take that revenue and stick it into highway maintenance and then use the highway money to build a stadium. I don't think the vikings would have any ownership over the casino. Personally I'm not sure the state should support casinos at all, gambling leads to crime, and poverty. Many lives have been ruined because of gambling.


Yeah, but we already have casinos here.
The areas these many casinos are built in aren't known for high crime rates or poverty...those two items are rampent in Minneapolis though where there are no casinos.

I see your point, and I'm not really against it but there is a reason that up until now gambling has been illegal here(except for the lottery and the indians(who aren't subject to state gambling laws)), and in many other states. I've done tax returns for people that clearly have gambling problems and are in the poor house because of it(mostly elderly who don't work go to spend there social security checks). I mean if the state is going to profit off of gambling what's next, the state might as well just profit off of ciggarettes to balance the budget, wait they already did that.
:-\ :-\ :-\

BloodyHorns82
08-06-2008, 02:25 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I don't think the NFL can dictate where the state portion comes from. Minneapolis could build the casino take that revenue and stick it into highway maintenance and then use the highway money to build a stadium. I don't think the vikings would have any ownership over the casino. Personally I'm not sure the state should support casinos at all, gambling leads to crime, and poverty. Many lives have been ruined because of gambling.


Yeah, but we already have casinos here.
The areas these many casinos are built in aren't known for high crime rates or poverty...those two items are rampent in Minneapolis though where there are no casinos.

I see your point, and I'm not really against it but there is a reason that up until now gambling has been illegal here(except for the lottery and the indians(who aren't subject to state gambling laws)), and in many other states. I've done tax returns for people that clearly have gambling problems and are in the poor house because of it(mostly elderly who don't work go to spend there social security checks). I mean if the state is going to profit off of gambling what's next, the state might as well just profit off of ciggarettes to balance the budget, wait they already did that.
:-\ :-\ :-\



Or alcohol?
State governments always profit of sin tax...why not profit off of a different 'sin'?
The only negative I see is that we'll be violating yet another agreement with the native americans....or would we?


If grandma wants to go gamble her SS check away she is going to do it.
The people you do taxes for don't even live near a casino which proves that as long as there are casinos around people will go no matter the distance (within reason of course).
Might as well stick one in there backyard...at least then they are saving on gas.
Sounds to me like they gamble their whole check away anyways.
Might as well give it back to the government, albeit state government.

I mean we already have how many casinos running in the state...whats one more?
Anoka County would be a great place.
Get something on the north side cooking.
From everything I've read (which is very little) it sounds like other state operated casinos have been successful.
Why not Minny?

jmcdon00
08-06-2008, 02:42 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I don't think the NFL can dictate where the state portion comes from. Minneapolis could build the casino take that revenue and stick it into highway maintenance and then use the highway money to build a stadium. I don't think the vikings would have any ownership over the casino. Personally I'm not sure the state should support casinos at all, gambling leads to crime, and poverty. Many lives have been ruined because of gambling.


Yeah, but we already have casinos here.
The areas these many casinos are built in aren't known for high crime rates or poverty...those two items are rampent in Minneapolis though where there are no casinos.

I see your point, and I'm not really against it but there is a reason that up until now gambling has been illegal here(except for the lottery and the indians(who aren't subject to state gambling laws)), and in many other states. I've done tax returns for people that clearly have gambling problems and are in the poor house because of it(mostly elderly who don't work go to spend there social security checks). I mean if the state is going to profit off of gambling what's next, the state might as well just profit off of ciggarettes to balance the budget, wait they already did that.
:-\ :-\ :-\



Or alcohol?
State governments always profit of sin tax...why not profit off of a different 'sin'?
The only negative I see is that we'll be violating yet another agreement with the native americans....or would we?


If grandma wants to go gamble her SS check away she is going to do it.
The people you do taxes for don't even live near a casino which proves that as long as there are casinos around people will go no matter the distance (within reason of course).
Might as well stick one in there backyard...at least then they are saving on gas.
Sounds to me like they gamble their whole check away anyways.
Might as well give it back to the government, albeit state government.

I mean we already have how many casinos running in the state...whats one more?
Anoka County would be a great place.
Get something on the north side cooking.
From everything I've read (which is very little) it sounds like other state operated casinos have been successful.
Why not Minny?

Can't really argue with any thing you say, only that more casinos are likely to reach more gamblers with a potential for problem gambling. Also I found these interesting stats:

"Players" with household incomes under $10,000 bet nearly three times as much on lotteries as those with incomes over $50,000

After casinos opened in Atlantic City, the total number of crimes within a thirty-mile radius increased 100 percent

The average rate of divorce for problem gamblers is nearly double that of non-gamblers

The suicide rate for pathological gamblers is twenty times higher than for non-gamblers (one in five attempts suicide)

Sixty-five percent of pathological gamblers commit crimes to support their gambling habit

Jereamiah
08-06-2008, 02:51 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


I don't think the NFL can dictate where the state portion comes from. Minneapolis could build the casino take that revenue and stick it into highway maintenance and then use the highway money to build a stadium. I don't think the vikings would have any ownership over the casino. Personally I'm not sure the state should support casinos at all, gambling leads to crime, and poverty. Many lives have been ruined because of gambling.
Not always true. Good points though. The Tribal operations payed for my entire college education. Not using the degree (Anthro) but still, helped me out big. Helps with medical facilities and Tribal infrastructure. It's been a good thing for us. (i'm with White Earth) I am always amazed at the negativity and so-on turned towards the Tribes because we have casinos. The South Park episode (very funny) was a good example. Some folks are pissed, livid, that we actually have a say on what we put up on our SOVEIRGN territory. Still, even though it can't happen, the Tribal involvement in a stadium, IMO, would be a bad deal all around. It would never get done, anyone here ever heard of being on "Indian time?" ;D