August 26, 2010
Minnesota gov candidates all want Vikings stadium, hedge on how to pay for it
The Minnesota Vikings' flagging stadium campaign got a boost yesterday, when all three Minnesota gubernatorial candidates declared their support for state aid in building a new Vikes stadium. As for what that state aid would look like, though, they were pretty vague:
- Independence Party candidate Tom Horner wants to add slot machines at racetracks to pay the state's share, notwithstanding the repeated failure of such a plan in the state legislature. Horner also says the Vikings should pay 40% percent of the stadium cost, and let the state get revenue from non-NFL events.
- Republican Tom Emmer says he wants a Vikings stadium, but doesn't want to use general fund money to pay for one. Emmer mentioned using tax money currently going to the Minneapolis convention center once that debt is paid off — yet another plan that went down in flames last legislative session — but didn't actually say whether he endorsed it.
- DFL candidate Mark Dayton says, "I'd work with all entities to put together a deal."
Either way, the state still faces that $6 billion deficit, and the NFL is still looking at a likely lockout in 2011, so the Vikings have to be looking at an uphill battle to get a stadium passed next year. Still, stranger things have happened.
May 19, 2010
Vikings on stadium bill: Wait till next year!
With the Minnesota legislative session having rolled to a close on Sunday night, the Vikings have thrown in the towel on getting a stadium bill this year — something their lobbyists could have told them weeks ago, but whatever.
Not to be deterred, the Vikings owners promptly set their sights on 2011:
The Vikings organization is extremely disappointed that the Governor and State Legislature did not move the stadium issue forward this year. While we greatly respect the challenges and priorities faced by the State of Minnesota, resolution of this issue has now been pushed to the final year of the lease. This lack of action will only increase the costs of the project for everyone, plus we missed the opportunity to put thousands of Minnesotans back to work.
Added the team press statement: "This solution must be finalized in the 2011 Session." Or, you know, else.
That's going to be tricky, though, what with the state facing an expected $6 billion deficit next budget season. Not to mention that the NFL will likely be preparing to lock out its players for the 2011 season, which is never a good way to get fans clamoring to throw stadium money your way.
May 07, 2010
Vikings stadium bill is pining for the fjords
Things just really aren't going that well for the Minnesota Vikings' brand-spanking-new stadium bill. Proposed by four state legislators on Monday, immediately attacked by the governor the same day, and then gutted of its biggest revenue sources in committee the following evening, the bill has since been hit with even more indignities:
- On Wednesday morning, the Minnesota House State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections committee voted down the revised bill that was approved by another house committee just hours before, rejecting the bill on a 10-9 vote.
- Later that day, the Senate State and Local Government Committee approved the bill, but stripped out its last two remaining funding streams: Minneapolis city taxes and a state sports lottery game. With only one-third of the stadium costs still assigned to the Vikings owners, the additional nearly half-billion-dollars would apparently have to be raised by selling personal seat licenses.
Let's be blunt: That ain't gonna happen, not given the troubles that even bigger-market teams have had selling PSLs. And that's even if the Vikings went for it, which they won't — if they wanted to fund a stadium by charging their fans, they would have done it by now without waiting on the state legislature. But even if they could pull it off, that would mean less revenue for them, which would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise.
The Associated Press described this week's events as "setbacks," which is a bit like saying that Lynn Redgrave has taken a turn for the worse. Stadium supporters are now trying to muster a last-ditch defense of the bill with a campaign to "like" their Facebook page. This can't end well.
May 05, 2010
One-day-old Vikings stadium funding plan is axed
That was even faster than I expected: A Minnesota state house committee late last night removed the provisions for memorabilia, hotel, and rental car taxes from a Vikings stadium bill, after those same provisions were just introduced with much fanfare the day before. That leaves the bill with only Plan B: Using Minneapolis city taxes currently designated to paying off debt on the city's convention center, once those bills are paid off in 2020, to build a new stadium on the site of the Metrodome.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune called this an "initial victory," but it's hard to see how: Minneapolis city officials aren't even in support of this plan, and since the money wouldn't begin to flow for another decade, a workaround would need to be devised to figure out how to bridge the financing gap until then. And then there's that little matter of the Minneapolis law that requires a public referendum on any use of more than $10 million in public money on a stadium. From the sound of things, the only reason the convention-center money came to a vote was because the committee had to wrap up its business by midnight — and as they've shown in the past, the Minnesota legislature likes bills that only require other people's money.
Meanwhile, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman chimed in on the Vikings issue yesterday, saying if Minneapolis gets a football stadium, he wants a new hockey practice rink and St. Paul Saints stadium for his city. This increasingly doesn't sound like something that's going to get resolved in the two weeks remaining before the legislature goes on break.
May 04, 2010
MN chamber, Vikings gripe about new stadium bill
More on yesterday's last-ditch Minnesota Vikings stadium funding proposal:
- It is "both an option play and a Hail Mary pass." (Thanks, St. Paul Pioneer Press writers addicted to forced sports metaphors!)
- The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce opposed the memorabilia, rental car, and hotel taxes that would be used to fund the new stadium, instead calling on the team to find a "local partner" — though the chamber didn't say how this local government would pay for a stadium without raising taxes.
- The bill's backers say that even though the Vikings play only 10 home games each season, a stadium could host 200 events a year. (I was about to make a Bon Jovi joke, but even they mostly play arenas, so I honestly have no idea who'd fill the other 190 days a year. Monster trucks?)
- The Vikings are already griping about both the 40-year lease that would be required, and the fact that they'd be asked to put up a whole third of the construction costs. Vikings stadium chief Lester Bagley said the team would be willing to chip in one-third the cost of an open-air stadium (which would be $210 million), but didn't want to pay for a roof: "We're not saying the roof isn't important, but the roof doesn't benefit the Vikings. It benefits the state and the community."
- Two hearings on the bill are set for tomorrow, with six more lined up before the bill can be voted on.
Meanwhile, also noted in passing in the Pioneer Press article: "The St. Paul Saints are looking for a new home." Et tu, Mike?
May 03, 2010
Vikings stadium funding plan thrown to the wolves
Four Minnesota Democrats announced today that they'll soon be introducing legislation to fund two-thirds of a $791 million Vikings stadium with tax dollars. What kind of tax dollars, you ask? Why, that'd be taxes on hotel rooms, car rentals, and sports memorabilia, plus revenues from a sports-themed lottery.
In other words, everything that's been run up the flagpole so far, including ideas that were endorsed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty (a lottery) and those that were considered unworkable because the governor doesn't like them (a state sports memorabilia tax). And how does the guv feel about them now?
Gov. Tim Pawlenty, in Washington, D.C. on Monday for a U.S. Chamber of Commerce forum, said that while he is open to new ideas to help build a Vikings stadium he reiterated that "we're not going to be raising or dealing with state taxes to subsidize that."
His office, through spokeman Brian McClung, was even more critical of Monday's stadium proposal. "We remain opposed to any stadium plan that includes tax increases, including the hotel tax, jersey tax, and rental car tax in one of the plans unveiled today," McClung said.
Okay, then. Given that state senator Tom Bakk, one of the foursome putting forward the bill today, said the legislation was all but written a month ago, and it still has plenty of poison pills in it as far as drawing Pawlenty's veto pen, you have to figure this is more a matter of trying to kick-start Vikings stadium talks from the "should we pay for it?" to the "how do we pay for it?" stage than actually putting forward passable legislation.
Vikes stadium czar Lester Bagley certainly seems to feel that way, telling the Minneapolis Star Tribune that the team isn't endorsing the bill, but considers it "a great start to the conversation." With two weeks to go in the legislative session, it's any conversation starter in a storm...
UPDATE: Reuters has the breakdown of funding streams: "$39.1 million raised annually from a 1.5 percent area hotel surtax, a 6.875 percent tax on sports jersey purchases, a sports team scratch-off game and a 2.5 percent rental car surtax." The wire service adds that "lawmakers stressed that no state funds would be used for the stadium," which, unless we're talking a county sports jersey tax, seems more than a bit misleading.
April 29, 2010
Latest Vikings stadium idea: Let cities fight over us
Looks like the Minnesota Vikings have figured out how they plan to get a stadium bill through the legislature with almost no time left on the clock: punt it to the cities.
A stadium bill garnering bipartisan support is expected to be introduced next week at the state Capitol. It gives cities and counties the option to vie for the team, potentially pitting municipalities against one another for the right to call themselves the home of the purple and gold.
"We're planning on rolling something out next week," co-sponsor Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, said Wednesday.
The bill includes two major options, including rebuilding on the site of the Metrodome using taxes currently being raised for the Minneapolis Convention Center. The second option, while not site specific, would pre-authorize a menu of local taxes and set up a stadium commission. If it passed, any local government could select from that tax menu to put together a financing package with the team and seek approval from the commission.
The upside for the Vikes: The Minnesota legislature has shown itself to be amenable to stadium funding plans that don't require any state money. The drawback: They'd still need to find a municipality to play along. The St. Paul Pioneer Press says the likely bill is focused on "'user' taxes, those aimed at businesses that would benefit from a new stadium — such as hotels and car rentals — and the people who use them," but it's going to be tough to piece together $700 million from those alone. And a sports memorabilia tax seems like it'd run afoul of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who wants to avoid any new state taxes.
The chief state senate advocate of a Vikings deal, meanwhile, tells the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he's almost out of time to get a stadium bill ready, and still hasn't started lining up support. This could end up even more of a nail-biting finish than the last Vikings game
April 28, 2010
As expected, the plan to fund a Minnesota Vikings stadium through "racinos" (that's slot machines at race tracks) is going nowhere, with the state house overwhelmingly rejecting an amendment that would have tacked on a racino provision to an unrelated agriculture and veterans bill.
"This issue is not going away," bill sponsor Rep. Tom Hackbarth, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. But it sure looks like the bill is, at least for now.
In other Vikes news, team stadium czar Lester Bagley now says they'd be okay with a non-retractable roof if that'd help get a stadium funding bill passed. Bagley told the St. Cloud Times: "Only in Minnesota: The Twins wanted a roof and didn't get one. The Vikings didn't want one, and they're going to get one." Actually, no roof at all for the Vikings would be even cheaper — but Bagley didn't offer to go along with anything as crazy as that.
April 26, 2010
Vikings subsidy demand totals $64 per ticket
With only three weeks left in the state legislative session, the Minnesota Vikings owners still haven't specified exactly how much their proposed new stadium would cost, or who would pay for it — team president Mark Wilf said on Friday that "this is something the Legislature will be talking to the public about in the very near future. The public has a right to know, and soon they will know."
State senator John Marty, meanwhile, has come up with a clever way to put the likely stadium costs in perspective:
In February the Vikings' head lobbyist, Lester Bagley, told Finance & Commerce newspaper that the cost to taxpayers to cover principal and interest on the bonds would be $42 million annually for 30 years.
Let's put this into terms to which we can relate. Do the math. Bagley wants taxpayers to subsidize each of the 65,000 seats at every Vikings home game to the tune of over $64 per ticket.
That is $64 of taxpayer money for each ticket, at every game -- including preseason. For 30 years!
As explaining big numbers goes, that certainly trumps the three pennies meme.
April 23, 2010
With four weeks to go, Vikings stadium talk heats up
With that May 17 deadline approaching, the Minnesota Vikings stadium rumor mill is kicking into full gear. Among today's highlights:
- Vikings execs are lobbying the local business community, which the St. Paul Pioneer Press theorizes could "provide a seawall against what is likely to be a wave of anti-tax criticisms opposing publicly funded stadiums." Of course, businesses have their own anti-tax criticisms: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce president David Olson says, "It's going to be pretty hard to find a tax we're going to like."
- At least one state representative is warning that the Vikings will move after next year if there's no new stadium deal in place.
- Some guy in a cowboy hat has been dropping in on legislators, posing for photos and signing autographs for them.
A Vikings stadium bill still seems unlikely this session, but getting people talking about it is certainly the first step. State senator John Marty told the Minneapolis Star Tribune, "I'm all of a sudden becoming very concerned" — and he'd be the one to know.
April 16, 2010
Vikings stadium plan: What's the rush, where's the money, what about the spending cap?
The excellent Jay Weiner of the excellent MinnPost has an overview of outstanding questions about the now-stumbling-forward Minnesota Vikings stadium plan — excellently titled "New Vikings stadium: About a zillion questions to be asked, but we only have room for 13 of them." And I only have room for three of the 13, but some of the highlights include:
2. What's the rush?
Yes, the Vikings lease expires after the 2011 season. But the Twins played in the Dome for a number of years on a year-to-year basis. And who in state government is performing thoughtful due diligence on the real possibility of the team moving to Los Angeles? ... This "Los Angeles threat" should be vetted.
4. How much is this stadium going to really cost?
The Star Tribune story uses a $698 million figure. We're hearing the conversations have the price as much as $100 million higher? What is it going to cost? Does that include related infrastructure?
8. What about the $10 million cap on Minneapolis sports facilities funding?
In 1997, the voters of Minneapolis said that any city contributions that exceed $10 million to a sports facility must be approved by a referendum. How does that affect — if at all — any effort to use Convention Center money to fund a Vikings stadium?
All worthwhile questions, as are the other ten. Let's hope someone in the Minnesota state legislature knows how to read things on the series of tubes.
April 15, 2010
MN legislators, Vikings brainstorm stadium funding ideas
As predicted, with just a few weeks to go in its 2010 session, the Minnesota state legislature has started throwing Vikings stadium funding ideas at the wall, and seeing if any of them stick. Yesterday about 20 legislators shot the shit (ed. note: not the technical legal term) with Vikings owner Zygi Wilf in a private meeting, and according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and KSTP-TV, discussed such ideas as:
- Building a cheaper, $698 million stadium (which apparently would look like a cross between a greenhouse and an IHOP) whose bond payments would be paid off for the first ten years by the Vikings, and for the rest of the bond term (presumably either another 20 or 30 years, though the Star Trib doesn't say) by Minneapolis entertainment taxes currently being used to pay off the Minneapolis Convention Center.
- Same cheaper stadium, this time paid for with a seven-county tax on hotel stays, a sports-memorabilia tax and a rental-car tax, plus $233 million from the Vikings.
- Use the excess $2 million generated by the Hennepin County's 0.15% sales tax hike for the Twins' new stadium, which is currently being wasted by being poured into the county's general fund.
So far the local reaction appears to be mostly outrage from those whose constituents would be hit up to pay for the stadium: Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak griped that his city shouldn't have to pay all the public costs of a stadium, as in the first plan; Hennepin County Commissioner Mark Stenglein called it "kind of egregious" to think of asking for the Twins stadium tax excess. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty summed up the prospects of a stadium bill passing this session as "unlikely but possible." That seems about right, but I'll still take the under.
April 08, 2010
Vikings stadium bill to be unveiled soon?
That Minnesota Vikings lobbyist might have been wrong after all: The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that state senate taxes committee chair Tom Bakk says a Vikings stadium bill is "pretty much drafted" and that there's "plenty of time" to pass it before the Legislature adjourns in mid-May.
Of course, as the Vikings (and the Twins) found in past years, there's a big difference between getting a bill up for debate and getting one passed — especially since as of this writing, still no one is exactly sure how on earth it would be paid for. And then there's that little public poll thing as well. But if nothing else, it looks like we may well have an entertaining May ahead of us.
March 19, 2010
Lobbyist: No Vikes stadium this year; Vikings: La la la la we can't hear you!
A stadium lobbyist for Minneapolis' Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission told the commission and Minnesota Vikings officials not to expect a stadium bill in the legislature this year, given that there won't be much time to pass one between spring break and the end of the session on May 17. "The chances are getting slimmer by the day that there will be any sort of consideration of the Vikings/stadium/commission issue," said lobbyist Bill McGrann.
Vikings stadium honcho Lester Bagley immediately retorted: Nuh uh! "We've been told by all that there will be a discussion this session and that efforts would be made to move it forward to the best of their ability ... to put it in a position to be resolved," maintained Bagley, adding that he'd had "excellent discussions behind the scenes" with state officials. Bagley also indicated that the Metrodome is the "default site" for a new stadium — seemingly an about face from what he said two months ago — but added, "the door is left open for other sites to come forward." All of which sounds like putting a happy face on still not having a clue what will fly in the legislature, or when, but that's Bagley's job, after all.
Bagley also made sure to reiterate the team's non-threat threat to leave once its lease expires after 2011, saying the only way the team would sign a lease extension is if a new stadium deal is in place by then. (If not, presumably the Vikings will take their ball and go play in the driveway.) He added that among the funding sources being considered for a stadium are taxes generated by the Vikings and economic activity around the stadium (read: TIFs), and creating a Vikings-branded state lottery — apparently he can listen to Minnesota Public Radio just like the rest of us.
Sadly, no mention of racinos, which is a shame, as it's always a fun word to type.
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."