March 05, 2010
Polls say "no" to Vikes stadium; Vikes say "bah" to polls
A poll of Minnesotans has found that 64% are opposed to state funding of a new Vikings stadium, with only 31% in favor. This is in line both with past polls on the Vikings stadium, and for that matter with how Minnesotans felt about spending public money on a Twins stadium before that.
Vikings stadium czar Lester Bagley, as you might expect, wasn't too thrilled with the poll results, telling the Minneapolis Star Tribune that such polls "ask the wrong question, which is whether it's important to keep the Vikings in Minnesota for the next generation. And to keep the Vikings, we have to resolve the stadium issue." (Presumably Bagley meant that whether to keep the Vikings in Minnesota was the right question.) He added that the new Twins ballpark would never have been built if "you put a finger up in the air to see what the polls are."
Good thing, then, that the state legislature agreed to build the Twins stadium without asking voters what they thought. Because as everyone knows, in Minnesota the only person whose opinion counts is Garrison Keillor's.
February 25, 2010
Vikes sign new team for stadium blitz
At least one industry is hiring these days: Following on the heels of the Detroit Red Wings hiring an arena campaign manager the Minnesota Vikings have brought on board seven new lobbyists for their own stadium push.
The Vikes' own already-in-place stadium czar, Lester Bagley, told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that he'd like to see a stadium built ASAP, given low interest rates and construction costs, but one of the new lobbyists, John Knapp, tempered his enthusiasm a bit, telling the paper, "It's still early in the session, and obviously legislators are trying to deal with the budget." But then, Target Field wasn't won in a day.
February 24, 2010
Slot machine cash for Vikings proposed (again)
There's yet another Minnesota Vikings stadium funding bill afoot, this one slot machines at race tracks. Licensing "racinos" could raise $125 million a year for the state, say the sponsors of the "Jobs, Family and Economic Development Fund," who say the proceeds could be used for "rural development, early childhood development research and development of bioscience and medical technology, athletic and recreational facilities, and the general fund." (But surely family athletic and recreational facilities.)
Those with long memories will recall that this plan was already floated once last October, and those with even longer memories will remember when a similar plan was proposed for the Twins way back in 1997. That went nowhere at the time amid major opposition to expansion of gambling, but apparently some legislators think the state might just be desperate enough for revenue this time around to rethink the matter.
Most observers, though, think not. The bill's chances: "Not good," says MinnPost. "An expansion of gambling would face a tough road," says Minneapolis Public Radio. "Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller have expressed doubt" that it could pass this year, says the Star Tribune. "Ground breaking," says ... um, CasinoGamblingWeb.com. And even they call it "a tough sell."
February 15, 2010
MN legislator: I'll sell that for a dollar!
Well, here's an interesting idea: Minnesota state representative Paul Kohls introduced a bill on Thursday to sell the Metrodome to the Vikings for a dollar to keep the team in town. "I wasn't really looking to get in the middle of it, but as I was thinking about it, candidly, I was concerned about taxpayers being put on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars," Kohls told the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
This would basically have the effect of abolishing the Vikings' lease, which is one of the few where teams actually have to share a significant chunk of revenue with the state. (Though the lease expires after 2011 anyway, and the Vikings have been absolved of paying rent in recent years.) It would also stick the Vikings with paying property taxes, which they currently don't at the state-owned facility, though I suppose the legislature could always tack on a tax exemption as well — it'd still be cheaper than building a whole new stadium with public money.
Vikings officials, needless to say, weren't enthused about the idea, with VP for stadium grubbing Lester Bagley declaring, "The Metrodome no longer works in sports economics or for our fans' game day experience. We need to build a new facility to secure the long-term future of the Vikings in Minnesota. This doesn't get us there." In other words, they'd rather get a new stadium for free than a used one for free. We'll see whether the governor and the legislature call their bluff.
February 10, 2010
Pawlenty: When I suggested Vikings stadium ideas, I didn't mean me
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who's made a career of sending mixed messages on stadium proposals, now says that he won't introduce a Vikings stadium bill this session, just days after proposing a bunch of funding mechanisms for a stadium, including lotteries and tax-increment financing. "We don't have a proposal," he told reporters yesterday, insisting that the state legislature would have to take the lead: "They could actually have a creative thought on their own, where they initiate something."
The legislature, for its part, hasn't shown any interest in pushing a Vikings stadium, so they could rightfully ask why Pawlenty is getting all snarky on them. But in stadium politics, accusing your opponents of inaction is a common ploy — especially when you might have some other reasons to not want to stick your neck out yourself.
February 04, 2010
Pawlenty unleashes trial balloons for Vikings subsidies
That bck burner sure didn't last long. Yesterday Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty jumped with both feet into the Vikings stadium push, suggesting to Minnesota Public Radio that the state could use sports lottery money or tax-increment financing to provide between $29 million and $42 million a year toward an $870 million stadium.
Okay, maybe jumped with one foot, or one and a half feet: Pawlenty declined to actually endorse either funding scheme. Still, for something he isn't actually committing to support, he did go on about it a lot:
"If you look at the Minnesota Lottery, for example, there's new games added all the time in the lottery," Pawlenty told a radio audience. "There was one just added the other day called Mega Millions that's going to generate $20 million a year," the governor said.
Although 40 percent of those funds -- $ 8 million -- is constitutionally dedicated to an environmental trust fund, "the other $12 [million] can be used for other stuff. People will say it should go into schools or roads or whatever, but ... that's another way to do [the stadium]."
It's a bit unclear whether Pawlenty was talking about adding a new lottery or siphoning off money from Mega Millions proceeds, but either way it's money that the state would be losing — once you hit market saturation with your lotteries, there's no way to sell more tickets, as the state of Maryland found out when it was forced to abandon a planned education lottery after realizing it had tapped out the gambling market with stadium lotteries. As for the TIF, the Minneapolis Star Tribune called this a "particularly novel" solution, which I suppose it is if you've been in a coma since 2003.
January 25, 2010
Vikings float suburban stadium, federal stimulus subsidies
It was a momentous weekend for the Minnesota Vikings in more ways than one: On Friday, team execs floated a new stadium plan featuring — you guessed it — federal stimulus subsidies.
A new wrinkle developed in the Minnesota Vikings' stadium strategy on Friday, when team officials said they are looking at federal stimulus money to help them build a new home that just might be located in the suburbs. ...
To help finance the deal, the Vikings are exploring federal Build America Bonds, along with a possible 2 percent increase in the hospitality tax across the seven-county metro area.
Build America Bonds are a seriously weird financial instrument: Designed to kick-start those "shovel-ready" construction projects we've heard so much about, they're not tax-free like typical federall subsidized bonds. Rather, they achieve the same effect by having the federal government match 35% of the payments to bondholders — effectively allowing the local government that issues the bonds to offer a lower interest rate, since bondholders are getting a bonus on top of that. In its first year local governments issued about $50 billion in Build America Bonds, putting the feds on the hook for about $1 billion a year in subsidies, a number that will rise as more bonds are issued.
Vikings stadium executive Lester Bagley says that Build America Bonds could be used for about $1 million a year in stadium bond payments, which is a really piddly amount on a projected $870 million stadium. A state budget official also told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that it would have to study whether an NFL stadium could be considered a "governmental purpose" under federal tax law. You know that stadium-hungry teams are going to be watching this one with bated breath.
If nothing else, from the sound of this suburban gambit, it seems as if Bagley is trying to set up a bidding war among Minneapolis and the surrounding suburbs to be the Vikes' new home. (Not that that worked so well last time.) At least they don't seem to be waving the Los Angeles threat too overtly — though Bagley did warn last week, in typical non-threat threat fashion, that "it's clear that in order to retain the Vikings for the next generation in Minnesota, we have to resolve our stadium issue."
December 17, 2009
Metrodome replacement tagged at $870m
The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission today released a report it commissioned on building a new Vikings stadium on the Metrodome site, and the big story was the cost numbers:
- Tearing down the dome and building an all-new building would cost $870 million, which is actually down $84 million from estimates earlier this year, when the labor market was slightly less glutted.
- Keeping a 13,000-seat slab of the existing dome and building new around it came in at $771 million.
- Renovating the dome to add club seats and suites and widen concourses was estimated at $975 million — which sounds nuts to me, but I haven't read the actual report itself, so for all I know they included they'd want to widen the concourses into eastern North Dakota.
City Pages, meanwhile, notes that a new stadium would increase the Vikings' revenues by about $31 million a year — which, given that bonds on an $870 million stadium would cost more than twice that to pay off, implies that the state of Minnesota would be better off just handing the team cash to boost its bottom line and leave the Metrodome alone. For that matter, the Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that Forbes estimates the value of the Vikings franchise at $835 million — meaning the state could afford to buy the team itself and have it stay put in Minneapolis for less than the cost of a new stadium. And as a side benefit, taxpayers would then earn the benefits of the Vikes' $8 million a year in profits.
(Yes, I know that the NFL would never approve such a sale — it's had a "no public ownership" clause since not long after the Green Bay Packers were formed in the 1920s. But that doesn't preclude an arm's length deal — say, the state finding a local buyer willing to take on the team, and sign a long-term lease, in exchange for a cushy state loan and/or lease.)
The Vikings management, meanwhile, released a statement earlier this week attacking the MSFC for trying to "delay a stadium discussion for two years," and saying, "we are moving forward with those leaders who want to resolve this issue in 2010." Apparently it's fine to bite the hand that feeds you if you're displeased that your free lunch is going to be late.
December 08, 2009
NFL stadium-grubbing notes from all over
I don't know if it's something in the water or the holiday spirit or what, but the last couple of days has seen a rash of attempts to drum up support for NFL stadium deals on pretty flimsy pretexts:
- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell reiterated his henchman's statement from a couple of months ago, insisting that Dolphin Stadium need upgrades if it's going to host more Super Bowls after this year. No word on who would pay for any renovations — which could reportedly include a partial roof to protect fans from rain and/or moving seats closer to the field — but the South Florida Sun-Sentinel did report ominously that South Florida Super Bowl Host Committee Chairman Rodney "said it will be up to the community, which is bidding for the 2014 Super Bowl, to determine the importance of hosting the NFL's championship game."
- The Los Angeles Times reports that the NFL's decision over the weekend to try to eliminate some revenue-sharing payments to low-revenue teams could be "the jab that knocks them to the canvas in the next two or three seasons" and prompts them to relocate to, say, Los Angeles. Given that this will at most amount to a few million dollars a year per team and will likely be overturned in the next collective bargaining agreement, if not sooner than that by a union challenge, this seems a bit of an overstatement.
- A survey of 550 Minnesota residents found that they were more likely to say it was important to keep the Vikings in town when the team was winning, as it is now. Though the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported this as "When Vikings win, drumbeat for new stadium beats faster," it doesn't look like the poll actually asked whether respondents wanted a new stadium; and, in fact, a higher percentage of residents said this year that the Metrodome is an acceptable home for the Vikings than in past seasons when the team was losing.
In other NFL stadium news, the Santa Clara city council is expected to vote tonight to set a 49ers stadium vote for next June. Starting tomorrow: Six months of new pretexts!
UPDATE: But first, the owners of Great America, whose parking lot the 49ers stadium would be built in, are suing the city to void the deal! The fun never stops!
December 02, 2009
Number crunchers: World Cup, NFL stadiums not all they're cracked up to be
It's about time somebody used superpowered statistical analysis for something other than crazy-ass attacks on attempts to reduce carbon emissions. And so, welcome the new book Soccernomics, which according to AP says that building stadiums for soccer's World Cup, as South Africa has been doing amid protests, is unlikely to ever pay back its public costs:
There'll be no economic bonanza, according to Stefan Szymanski, and if experience matches the last World Cup in Germany, spending by visitors will be much less than the South African government shelled out preparing for the tournament.
"The next World Cup will not be an airplane dropping dollars on South Africa," authors Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper write in their new book "Soccernomics." ...
"The problem for South Africa is that they have to spend quite a lot to build stadiums," Szymanski said in a telephone interview from London. "Germany could afford this, and it had stadiums anyway. But South Africa is a nation that can ill afford to fritter away a few billion on white elephants."
Meanwhile, the University of Minnesota blog Smart Politics has analyzed the records of NFL teams before and after getting new stadiums to see if Vikings owner Zygi Wilf is right when he argues that a new stadium is necessary for his team to be successful on the field. Their verdict:
Overall, these 22 NFL teams compiled a .462 winning percentage (747 wins, 869 losses, 22 ties) across the five respective years before their new stadiums were built.
In the five seasons after the new stadiums opened, these teams notched a slightly better record, but only four games over .500. With 829 wins, 825 losses and 17 ties, the first five years brought these 22 franchises a collective winning percentage of just .501 in the first five years in their new respective facilities.
Hey, that reminds me of something...
November 30, 2009
Vikings turn stadium push up to 11
The full court press — or, if you prefer, the five-man blitz — is on in the Minnesota Vikings stadium campaign, as everybody and their brother grabs headlines by any means possible:
- Vikings owner Zygi Wilf took his case to the people, or at least the Austin, Minnesota, Chamber of Commerce, asserting that "It's unfortunate that many people don't want to get engaged in it because it doesn't serve their political purposes. This team belongs to the fans and the people of Minnesota." Not in any sort of legally binding sense, of course — that'd be socialism.
- Sid Hartman, every sports team owner's favorite columnist, asserts that "the chances of the Vikings getting a new stadium are going to be much better if the team continues to win, and they will as long as a healthy [Brett] Favre is around." Vikings stadium czar Lester Bagley echoes the sentiment that Minnesotans will be more willing to give public money to a team with a good quarterback (even one who'd be 43 years old at minimum by the time the new place opened), telling KARE-TV news: "Brett Favre's our best lobbyist."
- State Rep. Michael Nelson — not to be confused with Minnesota's more famous Mike Nelson — says the Metrodome needs to be replaced because it's "1970 technology" (while acknowledging that "how we pay for it is the big question"). Which is a bit odd given that the Metrodome actually opened in 1982, though it does help explain the stadium scoreboard.
November 23, 2009
Vikings threat watch: Metrodome lease offer is "punting"
Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf continued his war of words against the state stadium commission's offer to extend his team's Metrodome lease this weekend, declaring that the commission needs to "get engaged and find solutions and not sit back and be afraid to tackle this issue. ... To try to avoid the issue ... like the commission did, is really punting when they should be really engaged in trying to find the way to solve this issue." (Press reports didn't say whether Wilf also accused the commission of "running out the clock" with a "Hail Mary play" that "had no hope of beating the spread.")
Commission Chairman Roy Terwilliger retorted that the commission does too want to build a new stadium, but that "the reason [a lease extension] came up is that the feeling was that the timing was going to be difficult next year" in the Legislature to get anything done. The commission is scheduled to release its design for a $900 million stadium it's dubbed "Metrodome Next" (which would be built on the current dome site) on December 17.
To show the urgency of their needs, Vikings officials are going to take state legislators on a tour of the Metrodome and the Twins' new Target Field today, presumably to see for themselves how the new stadium is knee-deep in hundred-dollar bills that the old place lacks. Vikings stadium honcho Lester Bagley added that the team is less concerned about picking a site than in "determining how we're going to pay for it."
Wilf, meanwhile, touted Target Field and the University of Minnesota football stadium as precedents, saying: "I think everybody looking back realizes it was the right thing to do. Nobody is politicizing that decision once it's done, and I'm sure the same thing will happen once we build our stadium." Well, except for certain nobodies
November 20, 2009
Metrodome owner votes for lease extension offer, feathers fly everywhere
Headline of the day: "Metrodome landlord infuriates Vikings with offer to extend lease another 2 years." This in reference to the Metropolitan Sports Facility Commission, which indeed voted yesterday to approve its lease extension offer to the Minnesota Vikings, which includes a rent reduction if they agree to renew, and a rent hike if they don't. Vikings stadium guy Lester Bagley fumed that the vote "sends a very bad message to the owners, the state and the league about the ability to solve the problem in Minnesota ... What kind of message does that send? We want to lock you in for two more years in the most dysfunctional stadium in the league." (The Canadian Press story further observes that the Vikings' Metrodome is "outdated" while the new Twins and University of Minnesota football stadiums are "shiny.")
The St. Paul Pioneer Press, meanwhile, polls various sports business experts (including frequent FoS sources Brad Humphreys and David Carter) and finds they think the threat of the Vikings moving to Los Angeles is very real. Though Carter notes that current Vikings owner Zygi Wilf would probably have to give up his majority stake in the team if he wanted to go to L.A.: "[Ed Roski] doesn't just want to build a stadium and be the landlord. He wants to own a majority share in a franchise."
What appears to have happened here is that the sports commission has thrown down a gauntlet by saying that it can't bail the Vikings out — so it's up to the state to do so instead, by building a new stadium to replace the Metrodome. ("Our action today was to empty the cupboards here. There is nothing left," commissioner Paul Thatcher told the Pioneer Press. "The only thing left to do is to get a new stadium.") That will be easier said than done: Wilf has made clear he doesn't expect to put much of his own money into any deal, and the state is broke: "With this deficit, I think it's immoral that we're even talking about it," state representative Mindy Grieling said yesterday. Meanwhile, Republican gubernatorial candidate Pat Anderson declared that she's opposed to spending public money on a Vikings stadium. But then, that's what all the candidates say, until they actually get elected.
November 19, 2009
Vikings: Your lease deal makes us feel unloved, unwanted
The Minnesota Vikings owners upped the ante over the Metrodome lease standoff yesterday, following up Tuesday's angry press statements with an angry open letter to the sports commission (PDF here):
Come February, the Minnesota Vikings will have only 20 games remaining on our Metrodome lease. As the last tenant in the Metrodome, we would expect to be treated fairly and with some minimum level of respect. Your actions yesterday leave us confused and questioning the future of this franchise.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what they call a move threat. (Or rather, a non-threat threat.) It's hard to gauge whether it's a more direct threat than their last one, but you have to think the new L.A. stadium in the works is making Vikes management feel like they have more leverage here.
The ball is now back in the sports commission's court, with a scheduled vote today on the lease extension plan that started the whole kerfuffle.
November 18, 2009
Vikings "outraged" by Metrodome lease extension offer
Minnesota's Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission issued an unusual carrot and stick to the Vikings yesterday, offering to give them a greater cut of revenues if they extend their lease at the Metrodome beyond 2011 — and threatening to make them start paying $4 million a year in rent if they refuse. (The Vikings are actually supposed to pay rent at the dome, but have been absolved of that for the last nine years after whining that none of their other NFL friends have to pay rent.) The goal here, commission finance chair Paul Thatcher told the Minneapolis Star Tribune, was to "kick the can down the road a ways" until such time as the economy recovers enough for public stadium subsidies to have a shot in the state legislature.
Vikings management's response? "Our ownership is outraged for the sports commission to advance a proposal that they know is completely unacceptable to the Vikings," Vikes stadium chief Lester Bagley fumed to Minnpost.com. "Without the simple courtesy of a phone call or a heads-up they drop this radical proposal on us. ... We're the last remaining tenant. We expect to be treated with some level of respect, and I guess we'll have to continue to wait. The Wilfs are landlords. You don't do this to a tenant whose lease is up."
That would be a "no," then.
November 13, 2009
Minnesota mulls Vikings stadium task force
The L.A. stadium fallout continues: Minnesota house speaker (and 2010 gubernatorial candidate) Margaret Kelliher has called for a "purple ribbon" commission to discuss a new stadium for the Vikings. (Because the Vikings wear purple, get it? Get it?) A Kelliher spokesman told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that she believes a stadium is "not a top priority for the state," but since the "conversation is taking place" already, this would be a "way to protect the public" rather than having stadium talks "happen just behind closed doors."
In most cases, of course, stadium commissions begin with the premise that the goal is to build a new stadium, and the only question is how to get it done — which may not be most people's idea of protecting the public. There's a first time for everything, though.
October 07, 2009
L.A. developers target six (or seven) NFL teams
Majestic Realty stadium czar John Semcken has officially announced his hit list for NFL franchises to lure to Los Angeles, and it looks like the L.A. Times guessed right:
Semcken said new talks would begin after the Super Bowl in February, and may involve the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Buffalo Bills, the Minnesota Vikings, the St. Louis Rams, the Chargers and the Oakland Raiders.
The San Francisco 49ers could also be pursued if a vote for a new stadium in Santa Clara fails.
Semcken said a new stadium could open in 2013, but a team could be relocated as early as next year or the year after, playing at a temporary site for the first couple of years.
In related news, Majestic owner Ed Roski has lost $1 billion of his $2.5 billion net worth in the last year, according to Forbes, thanks to the California real estate crash. Stadium consultant Marc Ganis calls this "significant"; Majestic says it's just a flesh wound.
October 06, 2009
And here come the Minnesota Vikings stadium subsidy bills! First up: Rep. Tom Hackbarth, who wants to install slot machines at two horse-racing tracks and use the proceeds to fund a new football stadium. He'd need to have a voter referendum to amend the state constitution first — a similar idea for the Twins was already soundly rejected in 1997 — and according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, "Hackbarth said he hasn't talked with legislative leaders, the Vikings or Gov. Tim Pawlenty." But he did manage to get his name in the newspaper next to "Vikings," and that's what's important.
October 05, 2009
Pawlenty: Now let's talk Vikings stadium!
And there goes the other shoe: One day after Minnesota Vikings VP Lester Bagley hinted ownership would move the team if it didn't get a new stadium, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty declared that the Metrodome's "time is fading," and "we've got to figure out a way to keep the Vikings here." Pawlenty, a rumored 2012 presidential candidate, hedged on whether or how much public money he'd devote to the cause, but it certainly sounds like the looming NFL stadium in Los Angeles has gotten the Vikings' demands moved off the back burner.
October 02, 2009
L.A. NFL stadium move threats spreading faster than swine flu
Forget the Dallas Cowboys' snazzy new stadium — what's really sparking renewed stadium demands across the nation is the spreading fear that a new stadium in the Los Angeles area could lure an NFL team or two to relocate. The latest team to take advantage: the Minnesota Vikings, whose VP for stadium wheedling Lester Bagley told the St. Paul Pioneer Press they're preparing a new push for $700 million in stadium subsidies, and added this only slightly veiled threat: "If the answer is no, then why would you own a team in this market?"
The Vikings have "no interest in extending our lease at the Metrodome" beyond 2011, said Bagley, who added for emphasis, in case anyone failed to make the connection: "The clock is ticking, and the lease is coming due. The state can't afford to have us become free agents."
Meanwhile, in Jacksonville, Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver is apparently attempting to develop a more home-grown move threat, saying he might move one home game to Orlando's Citrus Bowl — though he added that it would need renovations to "accommodate the kind of revenues you have to derive out of an NFL stadium." This at the same time that Weaver is trying to get additional public money from Jacksonville to renovate his team's current home. Bring out the whipsaw!
September 05, 2009
Goodell rattles Vikes move threat saber, goes off message on Chargers
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell did what sports league commissioners are good for during a TV interview on Thursday:
"We have a franchise that is owned by someone that really cares about the Minneapolis community [and] wants to get something done that is responsible," Goodell said. "We understand the challenges that exist not only in that market but more broadly in how to finance these projects. But it is something that we need to get done because the Vikings belong in Minnesota and I know the ownership feels that and the public leadership feels that."
Goodell also addressed the San Diego Chargers stadium situation, saying, "It's clear the stadium needs to be either completely renovated or a new stadium built." Whether he was hinting a change in policy (renovation hasn't previously been on the table for Qualcomm Stadium, at least not according to the NFL) or merely misspoke, Goodell was immediately slapped down by Chargers stadium czar Mark Fabiani, who told the San Diego Union-Tribune that it's "been proven over and over again by anyone who has looked at it over the years" that renovation is "just not feasible, either technically or financially." Well, except for a bunch of local architects and the former chair of the city's stadium task force.
The interview, incidentally, was conducted by sports consultant Rick Horrow, who knows a thing or two himself about the stadium-grubbing game. It airs next week on the cable channel Versus (not to be confused with the far better Versus).
August 19, 2009
If you Favre it, will they build?
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty says he isn't going to build a new stadium for the VIkings just because they signed Brett Favre. Just in case you were wondering.
Though Pawlenty added, "It's clear that the Metrodome isn't going to serve the Vikings' needs in the intermediate and long term ... it's just going to have to sit on the back burner for a while." So he could still maybe build them a stadium the next time Favre unretires.
February 12, 2009
Vikings, A's owners: Where is the love?
Sports team owners appear to have decided on a strategy for responding to the effects of the economic downturn on stadium prospects: whining.
- Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff, caught between a rock in Fremont and a hard place in San Jose, lashed out at opponents of his stadium plans this week. "I didn't think it would be this difficult," Wolff told local business leaders, calling those opposed to a stadium in their neighborhoods "self-interested and absurd" and complaining, "we're not building a rendering plant." He also griped about the lengthy process that has now dragged out for two and a half years: "We think those issues should be fully aired, but not forever. Somebody needs to put a timeline on it." Which would sound less whiny if not for the fact that it's also been two and a half years waiting for Wolff to produce the promised details of how his proposed stadium would be paid for.
- Not to be outdone, Minnesota Vikings VP Lester Bagley attacked Gov. Tim Pawlenty yesterday for not doing enough to land his team public funds for a $954 million stadium: "With all due respect, he's been governor for six years, and he hasn't done anything. He hasn't lifted a finger to engage in a problem-solving discussion to help us on our issue." (Well, maybe one finger.) "We've addressed this in times of surplus, in times of deficit, in election years and non-election years and they've chosen to put it off. Now, they've put it off to a point where the risk is significant to the state." The risk of what, exactly? "We have 30 games left at the Metrodome, and the issue isn't what the Wilfs will or won't do. It's that other NFL owners, other potential NFL markets and potential owners will come after this team." I know it's de rigueur for teams to deny they're making move threats even as they make them, but does Bagley really want us to believe that Ed Roski is going to stage a hostile takeover?
Vikings, A's owners: Where is the love?
Sports team owners appear to have decided on a strategy for responding to the effects of the economic downturn on stadium prospects: whining.
- Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff, caught between a rock in Fremont and a hard place in San Jose, lashed out at opponents of his stadium plans this week. "I didn't think it would be this difficult," Wolff told local business leaders, calling those opposed to a stadium in their neighborhoods "self-interested and absurd" and complaining, "we're not building a rendering plant." He also griped about the lengthy process that has now dragged out for two and a half years: "We think those issues should be fully aired, but not forever. Somebody needs to put a timeline on it." Which would sound less whiny if not for the fact that it's also been two and a half years waiting for Wolff to produce the promised details of how his proposed stadium would be paid for.
- Not to be outdone, Minnesota Vikings VP Lester Bagley attacked Gov. Tim Pawlenty yesterday for not doing enough to land his team public funds for a $954 million stadium: "With all due respect, he's been governor for six years, and he hasn't done anything. He hasn't lifted a finger to engage in a problem-solving discussion to help us on our issue." (Well, maybe one finger.) "We've addressed this in times of surplus, in times of deficit, in election years and non-election years and they've chosen to put it off. Now, they've put it off to a point where the risk is significant to the state." The risk of what, exactly? "We have 30 games left at the Metrodome, and the issue isn't what the Wilfs will or won't do. It's that other NFL owners, other potential NFL markets and potential owners will come after this team." I know it's de rigueur for teams to deny they're making move threats even as they make them, but does Bagley really want us to believe that Ed Roski is going to stage a hostile takeover?
February 03, 2009
Goodell: Everybody gets a new stadium!!!
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell had a busy weekend. In between watching some football game, he took time out to address the stadium situation of three of his league's teams. Needless to say, in no case did he say, "Enh, they're fine where they are":
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell conceded Friday that the 49ers and Raiders stadiums must be replaced, and he said that a shared stadium facility may be the best option in a credit challenged economy racked by recession and job losses.
Asked whether he and the NFL have determined that a joint stadium should replace the decaying Oakland Coliseum and Candlestick Park, Goodell said, "The point that you point out here is that this facility is badly needed in the Bay Area. We have asked both teams to evaluate the possibility of a shared stadium.
"We can't come to a conclusion right now if that's the best option. And in these times, when it's more challenging to get these stadiums built, we have to be more creative."
Nice touch with the "decaying," there - usually the adjective of choice is "crumbling" or "outmoded," but the stench of maggots really gives some extra zest to the image.
In any case, the real news here is that 1) the NFL has sided with the two-team option as the best bet for a new Bay Area stadium, and 2) they still don't have a clue who'd pay for it. Goodell mentioned the New York Jets and Giants stadium as a precedent, but that was able to draw off league suite revenues under the now-defunct G3 program; without outside aid, it's not clear whether the Raiders and 49ers would be any better able to make money going halfsies at a new stadium than building one apiece. In which case, you'd think they might be just as well staying put - but we can't have that, can we, Commissioner?
"I know [owners] Zygi Wilf and Mark Wilf want to continue to have the Minnesota Vikings in Minnesota in a new stadium and I share that," Goodell said during his state of the NFL address in Tampa, Fla. "They have worked very hard to be able to get to that point. They have understood the priorities of the community, they have stood by and they've allowed the baseball stadium and the Gophers [football] stadium to move forward because they recognize those priorities and there are always priorities in the community.
"I think we have to continue to work with the governor and the leadership in that community to understand those priorities and figure out how we get a new stadium built. That is necessary for the Vikings. We all want the Vikings to be there in the long term, successfully. They need a new stadium, that's clear. I think it's recognized by all parties and we need to get down to the difficult business of figuring out how to do it."
Clearly not.
Goodell: Everybody gets a new stadium!!!
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell had a busy weekend. In between watching some football game, he took time out to address the stadium situation of three of his league's teams. Needless to say, in no case did he say, "Enh, they're fine where they are":
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell conceded Friday that the 49ers and Raiders stadiums must be replaced, and he said that a shared stadium facility may be the best option in a credit challenged economy racked by recession and job losses.
Asked whether he and the NFL have determined that a joint stadium should replace the decaying Oakland Coliseum and Candlestick Park, Goodell said, "The point that you point out here is that this facility is badly needed in the Bay Area. We have asked both teams to evaluate the possibility of a shared stadium.
"We can't come to a conclusion right now if that's the best option. And in these times, when it's more challenging to get these stadiums built, we have to be more creative."
Nice touch with the "decaying," there - usually the adjective of choice is "crumbling" or "outmoded," but the stench of maggots really gives some extra zest to the image.
In any case, the real news here is that 1) the NFL has sided with the two-team option as the best bet for a new Bay Area stadium, and 2) they still don't have a clue who'd pay for it. Goodell mentioned the New York Jets and Giants stadium as a precedent, but that was able to draw off league suite revenues under the now-defunct G3 program; without outside aid, it's not clear whether the Raiders and 49ers would be any better able to make money going halfsies at a new stadium than building one apiece. In which case, you'd think they might be just as well staying put - but we can't have that, can we, Commissioner?
"I know [owners] Zygi Wilf and Mark Wilf want to continue to have the Minnesota Vikings in Minnesota in a new stadium and I share that," Goodell said during his state of the NFL address in Tampa, Fla. "They have worked very hard to be able to get to that point. They have understood the priorities of the community, they have stood by and they've allowed the baseball stadium and the Gophers [football] stadium to move forward because they recognize those priorities and there are always priorities in the community.
"I think we have to continue to work with the governor and the leadership in that community to understand those priorities and figure out how we get a new stadium built. That is necessary for the Vikings. We all want the Vikings to be there in the long term, successfully. They need a new stadium, that's clear. I think it's recognized by all parties and we need to get down to the difficult business of figuring out how to do it."
Clearly not.
January 06, 2009
The camel's nose, Minnesota edition
Sunday's editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune started out so promisingly, noting that with the state facing a $4.85 billion budget deficit over the next two years, "It's hard to restrain a 'You gotta be kidding me' upon hearing that the Minnesota Vikings plan to renew their push this year for a new stadium."
Then you get to the second paragraph:
And yet there is another reality that has to be acknowledged. The Vikings are a valued part of Minnesota life, a recreational opportunity enjoyed not just by those with tickets but by millions around the state, as Nielsen TV ratings and sports bar receipts consistently indicate. At the end of today's playoff game with the Philadelphia Eagles, they will have just 30 regularly scheduled games left to play in the Metrodome. The team's lease is up in 2011. Its value is ranked dead last among all National Football League teams. Revenue-sharing is prompting tough questions from league officials. Concerns about the team leaving are not overblown. It's time to get serious about preventing their departure.
There are a bunch of arguments there, all mashed together into an unappetizing casserole: People love the Vikings. Yes, but presumably they also love schools, and highway bridges, and other things that their tax money could pay for. Sports fans spend at sports bars. Sure, but they'll do that whether they're watching the Vikings or whatever else in on TV on Sunday afternoons - it's not a net benefit to the state unless they're driving into Minnesota from neighboring states to drink, which, come to think of it, you probably don't want to encourage. The team's lease is up in 2011. It's not like the Metrodome is going to evict them, and it's not like the Vikings couldn't buy out three years of a lease if they had a better offer elsewhere, so this is a phony deadline. The Vikings aren't worth much. And this is the taxpayers' problem how, exactly?
There certainly is a risk of the Vikings leaving Minnesota - in the NFL, as I've often said, you could viably site a team in Kuala Lumpur so long as you got a rich stadium deal and your cut of the national TV revenues. (Though given other recent developments, achieving the first half of that deal might not be as easy as the threat-mongers might assume.) The truly scary part, though, is what comes next:
The Vikings are cannily promoting it as an economic stimulus project, and there's a fair argument to be made for that as the Twins and Gophers stadiums near completion.
The Star Trib goes on to say that "political leadership" is needed to answer "the most critical question about the Vikings project: Who pays for it?" - and then rules out Vikings owner Zygi Wilf from paying more than a third of the costs, because that's what he says he's willing to pay. So we've gone from "You've gotta be kidding me" to "This has to happen, we just need to figure out who to stick with the bill" in the course of three paragraphs. Same old Star Trib.
January 02, 2009
Sometimes there's no satisfaction in being right:
With the state and federal governments looking for ways to jump-start the economy, a New Jersey businessman has an ambitious public works project he says will create more than 5,500 jobs and provide $500 million or more to local contractors.
The businessman is Zygi Wilf, principal owner of the Minnesota Vikings.
The project: A $954 million, state-of-the-art stadium for his football team in downtown Minneapolis -- to be constructed using more than $635 million in public money.
Fortunately, the Minneapolis Star Tribune goes on to report that "two legislative leaders laughed out loud" when asked if they'd consider funding a Vikings stadium this session. Let's just hope Wilf doesn't start talking up a stadium as "shovel-ready."