January 25, 2005
Minnesota mixed messages
Last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune was speculating on how the state of Minnesota could get three stadiums (for the Twins, Vikings, and University of Minnesota Gophers) approved in the next year. Today, it reports that the investment group that controls the Minneapolis site that's been under consideration for a new Twins stadium is taking bids to build a housing and retail complex instead. Says the group's CFO: "Everybody around the State Capitol pretty much agrees that nothing is going to happen with stadiums until after the 2006 gubernatorial election."
The Star Tribune is a subsidiary of the McClatchy Company. Kevin McClatchy is a member of the board and CEO of the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball team. The Pirates ownership would presumably reap millions in revenue sharing if a new stadium is built for the Minnesota Twins. Gee, now why would the news and editorial pages of the Star Tribune continue to propose and endorse various contrived and fantastic schemes involving such construction...?
Posted by Fuling on January 28, 2005 01:41 PM
See Sid Hartman's column in today's Star Tribune, essentiallly, "quick, give us half a billion to build a ballpark on the site before it is wasted on something useless like middle-class housing." Now, what would liven up downtown Minneapolis more, 20,000 semi-intoxicated 24 year old suburbanites attending 81 3 hourlong baseball games each year, or a thousand residents living, working and raising families(not to mention paying taxes) in the city 24 hours a day 365.24 days a year?
Posted by Fuling on January 29, 2005 01:38 PM
Actually, Carl Polhad is attempting to structure his "contribution" to the deal in a manner that would allow the Twins to be net recipients of any future "revenue sharing" that occurs. Polhad wants to pay his share back each year as part of a rental agreement, and rental amounts are likely to be counted against clubs revenue when revenue sharing is done. His statements about this have drawn the attention of George, who will use this as his #1, A argument against enhanced revenue sharing. Way to go, Polhad.
Posted by Blogsy McBlog on March 17, 2005 12:39 PM