This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
June 17, 2011
Gap grows $100m wider on Vikings stadium
Today is D-Day for the Minnesota Vikings stadium plan, the deadline set earlier this week by which a deal had to be consummated ... except that it really isn't. A stadium deal only needs to be in place today if the legislature wants to have time for hearings before a special session at the end of the month to pass a state budget, but all indications now are that Gov. Mark Dayton and the legislature are going to keep playing chicken over a government shutdown on June 30, which means there may be no special session, or at least not one until the last possible second. (Best headline goes to NBC Sports: "Vikings stadium plan won't meet meaningless deadline.")
It seems unlikely in the extreme that the roadblocks to a deal could get worked out by then anyway, given that the funding plan has more holes than it takes to fill the Albert Hall:
- First off, there the $131 million in road improvements that would be needed for a stadium in Arden Hills, which the state says it won't pay for, and the Vikings owners say should be paid for with sales tax kickbacks and other government funds.
- Second, the current plan calls for the state to fund part of its share of the stadium cost with taxes on sports memorabilia (which Minnesota's other pro sports teams hate) and an income tax surcharge on football players (which may well be unconstitutional). On top of that, the latest estimates are that the memorabilia tax would bring in only about half as much revenue as had originally been projected, blowing roughly another $100 million hole in the stadium budget.
What to do? ESPN's Kevin Seifert recommends scrapping making the stadium roof retractable, but that would only save $25 million, so it hardly seems worth it. Ditching the roof entirely would cut $206 million, but neither the team nor the state seems interested in that, it would violate the Vikings' agreement with Ramsey County, and the team would get to keep half of the savings regardless. (Though I suppose with everything still up for negotiation, the state could always demand all of the savings from eliminating a roof.) So instead we sit, and wait. Just like 42,000 Minnesota state workers.
Never fails. Every article you write has at least one piece of incorrect info in it. The Vikings have absolutely zero problems with an outdoor, roofless stadium. It is entirely the state, not the Vikings, who require the stadium to have a roof.
Posted by Jim on June 17, 2011 09:32 AM
Not exactly: The Vikings have consistently said they would accept a roofless stadium, but then just as consistently proposed roofed stadiums. My read has been that they've mostly wanted to get out of the cost of paying for a roof by saying, "Hey, that's the state's thing."
It's not something we'll know for sure until the state calls their bluff, though, and that doesn't seem likely to happen. Which is slightly bizarre to me, but I guess there's no accounting for people's obsession with being eligible to try to shoehorn their way into the Final Four rotation.
Posted by Neil deMause on June 17, 2011 10:04 AM
Neil;
I couldn't find the article to link it, but I have read on several occasions that the Wilfs have said they "do not require" a roof. I think we can read that a number of ways, but I'm inclined to believe that this means that they certainly will not pay anything toward one.
"We'll take it, but only if you give it to us", in other words. I wonder how the NFL feels about it?
In fairness to the Wilfs, I don't see the need. The extra $200M plus that a covered stadium would cost could go a long way toward building a proper convention centre or other facility that would be better suited for "other" events (assuming their isn't one, which I believe there is...). Once you have an enclosed 70,000 seat stadium, you have to staff it and heat it year round... and that is a bill you can't pay by hosting the odd car show, supercross or monster truck event.
Wouldn't the final 4 be better suited to either the XCel or Target centres, anyway? Seems like we've stopped having basketball teams play in football stadia (San Antonio, Toronto etc)
I would never say there aren't events you could hold there, but I don't see 100 events a year that actually require a 70,000 seat covered facility - particularly when there are a couple of 18-20,000 seat facilities already built.
Football is an outdoor sport. Yes, attendance is impacted in December (or January, on the rare occasions the Vikes play in January...), but balanced against that are three months of potentially higher attendance (and higher beer sales) 'outdoors'. The NFL could easily adapt the schedules of northern/southern teams to eliminate northern home games after early December and minimize southern home games in the early part of the season. Only the playoffs actually should be affected - as they are in Buffalo, New York, Cleveland, Cincinatti et al.
Thoughts?
I guess I recall things differently. I recall the Vikings saying that they didn't want a roof only after Gov. Dayton (amongst others) said that a "People's stadium required a roof." Then the Vikings said that they didn't feel they needed to contribute to the cost of a roofed stadium since they don't need a roof. The no roof thing was always just another way to avoid paying anything towards a new stadium.
Posted by wisher on June 17, 2011 08:52 PM
As a Ramsey county tax payer and fairly large NFL fan all I can say is WHY? Why saddle everyone with the cost of an enterprise only a minority care about.
It would be one thing if there were a clear public good. But there is not. It would be another if it made economic sense, but it does not.
If the stadium was worth it the Vikings could privately finance it. As it is not worth it they want the public to pay.
If the state is going to be throwing around a billion $ I would rather they just purchase the team. Of course the NFL has made that illegal because of BS claims about how being beholden to shareholders would ruin a teams ability to compete (it doesn't seem to slow down the Packers).
Posted by Joshua Northey on June 17, 2011 10:52 PM
Packers shareholders are really just recognized donors. That's different.
I think Neil is right here. Vikes want to be able to host a super bowl and sell out early round playoff games. A roof is essential for one and helpful for the other.
Posted by Ben Miller on June 18, 2011 06:38 PM
Regarding the Green Bay model, it is not good for the NFL (but probably good for the local fans). In the NFL, 31 of the 32 franchises are doing everything they can to grow the business of the NFL and extract additional monies from their potential consumers (fans). That one team not trying to grow the 'NFL' brand? The Green Bay Packers.
Any other franchise with that waiting list for season tickets would be raising ticket prices to offset the high demand. I would also be interested in seeing a breakdown in cost of beer at all 32 NFL franchises. I would suspect Green Bay lags in this category too.
And if the Green Bay Packers were instead the Los Angeles Packers, than I am sure the NFL would have stepped in long ago and said 'no-no' to the shareholder model.
Posted by Josh from NJ on June 20, 2011 03:09 PM
@Josh That's a myth. The Packers have unsold tickets to virtually every game in their club section. The reality is that there is huge demand for Packers tickets in Wisconsin, but only at reasonable prices.
Posted by Ben Miller on June 20, 2011 11:20 PM