Stadium Deal in Atlanta Has Minn. Lawmakers Rethinking Viking's Stadium
Stadium Deal in Atlanta Has Minn. Lawmakers Rethinking Viking's Stadium | KSTP TV - Minneapolis and St. Paul
If we moved to an outdoor stadium permanently, it would be interesting to see what happened to ticket prices. But two years at TCF won't make a difference.
No problem Punder will jam the fans in
How about some OASIS
Under a waterfall
But. Really without AP why go to a vikes game
I would but I love them.
I live in Philly OKC is playing sixers I'm there
Lakers ,Clippers ,spurs
As Noel always says "FACT"
Winning helps. But I support the team either way.
I am not going to lie, Ponder isn't my first choice for QB. But he is the best option for the Vikings right now... most likely he will be the starter going into 2013. It is what it is. Not saying that I am not praying for Geno Smith to slide... but if we go into the season behind Ponder again, I think we can still win.
Oh, I understand then very well, you just ignore half the costs and act like if you don't acknowledge them they will go away.Quote:
For a smart guy you seem to do your best to deliberately misunderstand how the operation of the stadium works. Either that or you are just trying to get my goat. ;)
Duh. But like I said above, you fail to account for the billion in total debt, half of which the team ill assume, into your points. I agree if you forget about the billion dollars it looks much better.Quote:
1) The Vikings don't pay for operation costs of the stadium. They do not own it, they lease it. The State of Minnesota owns and operates the stadium. The Vikings pay rent.
These are ESTIMATES, They don't even have a design yet so basically those number mean squat. Look up how the operating expenses at lucas Oil compared to the actual numbers. Then get back to me.Quote:
2) The stadium will require approximately $20.5 million annually for operating expenses/capital improvement funding, of which the Vikings have committed to contribute $13 million - or 63%. The City of Minneapolis will cover the remaining $7.5 million annually. From the Vikings $13 million, $8.5 million will go toward rent, the largest rent payment in the NFL where the team is a tenant.
Blah,blah. Yes, they tell you how much will be paid, that tells us nothing about where the revenue will come from.I know, you use the generic seats and suites lingo but the costs are not broken down yet and when they are, you may be surprised.Quote:
3) Of the project’s $975 million upfront capital costs, the Vikings have guaranteed that $477 million, or 49%, will be privately covered. The team will rely on a combination of private financing and equity, as well as NFL financing in the form of a loan repaid by stadium revenues. The Vikings also have the option to use Stadium Builder’s Licenses (SBLs), a financing mechanism used in many stadium projects.
How many "standard" tickets will the new stadium have compared to the dome? Will the average price of all non suite tickets go up? If you have, say a season ticket on the 35 yard line first level at the dome, will you get a season ticket at the new stadium in the same proximity for the same price?Quote:
4) Yes, the Vikings will have higher cost associated with both the lease as well as their NFL loan. But they will also have significantly higher revenue - WITHOUT having to significantly raise the price of a standard ticket.
Yep. They will need to raise them more. The number you put up is close to what I predict the team will charge for an average ticket after everything shakes itself out.Quote:
5) Even if the Vikings did need additional revenue to cover their costs, raising the price of standard tickets will not help because of the revenue sharing model. The Vikings keep 60% of the gate for NFL games, and the other 40% goes into a pot that is divided equally among all teams. Right now their gate revenue is about $18 million per year. If they wanted to raise another $10 million per year to offset stadium costs, they would have to raise ticket prices by about 50%. So that $80 average ticket price would jump to $120, making it the most expensive average ticket price in the NFL, beating out the New York Jets at $117. That kind of ticket price works in New York, but simply wouldn't work in the Minnesota market. That is exactly why the NFL has revenue sharing plans in place - so teams like the Vikings could have comparable revenue in markets that can't support exceedingly high ticket prices.
Now you are being dumb. I don't give a rats azz how the pot is divvied up. the undeniable fact is there is a billion dollars in debt for the stadium, you can slice it however you want but in the end the billion dollars still needs to be repaid with interest through stadium related functions. That is only 950 million dollars more than the last one that was never profitable. If you can't understand the financial leap that is then you may as well throw the white flag.Quote:
Bottom line - the Vikings are NOT assuming the operating costs of a stadium that is $1billion in debt. In fact, no entity is because the Vikings are putting a significant portion of the money up front via existing capital and SBLs. And even if the Vikings DID need to find additional revenue to pay their portion, raising ticket prices WILL NOT achieve this.
They will all struggle to maintain their end of the deal. If you think this is going to be some magic cash cow that craps cash all day long while not costing anything in return you are naive. But I guess Naivety can be calming.Quote:
The entity that may struggle to maintain its end of the deal is the state, which issued appropriation bonds for $348 million. This is the largest financed amount. The state does not have to pay any additional money for operating costs - that is covered by the Vikings and the City as discussed earlier.
If yo think that the citizens will allow the general fund to be raided to pay stadium debt you are delusional. A ticket tax? Probably but darn, that would drive up the price of a ticket and you said thousands of times the cost of a ticket won;t go up. Or in your eyes is an added tax not an increase?Quote:
There are three funding options in place to cover the state's contribution. If those options are not enough, then they may have to look elsewhere, such as ticket tax or general fund. But either way, claiming that the operating costs of a "new stadium plus 1 billion dollars in debt" will cause ticket prices to skyrocket is wrong on so many levels. It's not $1b in debt, ticket prices do not contribute significantly to operating revenue, etc.
As to whether you or I will be right will all be there to see in a few years. Give the stadium a year or 2 for expenses to shake out and get back to me. But all I can say is you must lean pretty far left if you think you can do a billion dollar project and think it can be run for the same amount of money that one that is paid for can. They should have hired you to market obamacare.:rofl:
Actually they conclude that are not feasible without government welfare subsidies which is what I have debated with you for many years. It is nice to see you finally acknowledge it.Quote:
lol, there have been many studies on the economic feasibility of stadiums. most of them agree that they are NOT financially solvent for a private entity to own unless it is a very large market. That is one of the reasons that most stadiums are funded with a private/public partnership, so that all benefiting parties share in the cost.
And in a few years your story will change to "and I don't think anyone REALLY thought the cost of a fan to attend the game wouldn't skyrocket.":DQuote:
And I don't think anyone REALLY thought that the pull tabs would cover the state's part of it. ;)