Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    BleedinPandG wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    That means that there is about $370 million that the Vikings are asking the state to absorb through their nether orifice, not $1 billion. BTW, have we mentioned that the Vikings are estimated to bring in $500 million in direct tax revenue to the state in the next 20 years? Why wouldn't people want to spend $370 million to make $500? The lack of business sense kills me sometimes.
    NP... if you give me $370M and ask for $500M back 20 years from today, you're a fool... that's a horrible investment... 30% growth in 20 years? That's 1.5% per year WITHOUT compounding... inflation will run about 3.5% compounded.

    While I believe there is a simple business case to be made for using the public funds (don't forget all those MN jobs this money will create), you didn't make it with the numbers you provided.
    I actually understand that, and was trying to oversimplify the example to make a point.

    The $500 million in direct tax is in 2010 dollars. Meaning that in 2010 they will contribute $25 million in direct tax dollars through player and coach income tax, facility property tax, and ticket sales tax. Obviously as inflation goes up, so will the annual direct tax impact. Also keep in mind that this does NOT include any indirect tax benefits because of the difficulty in estimating them. Quality of life has a pretty big impact on the state's finances, but it is hard to quantify the impact of losing the Vikings.

    Based on the inflation rates over the past 20 years, we can predict the $500 million in today's money would be worth about $900 million in 20 years. Using the 3.5% figure you gave, we would still just over $700 million. That puts us between 91% and 143% growth over 20 years. That is between 4.55% and 7.15% over 20 years.

    Are there better investment opportunities out there? Sure. There are also a lot worse ones. And keep in mind that this isn't an investment opportunity we are talking about. We are talking about public tax dollar being used in a construction project to benefit the state in both tangible and intangible ways. And when using JUST direct tax revenue, it is a money maker for the state. The state and community gets indirect revenue and intangible benefits for free.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  2. #22
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    NodakPaul wrote:
    I actually understand that, and was trying to oversimplify the example to make a point.

    The $500 million in direct tax is in 2010 dollars. Meaning that in 2010 they will contribute $25 million in direct tax dollars through player and coach income tax, facility property tax, and ticket sales tax. Obviously as inflation goes up, so will the annual direct tax impact. Also keep in mind that this does NOT include any indirect tax benefits because of the difficulty in estimating them. Quality of life has a pretty big impact on the state's finances, but it is hard to quantify the impact of losing the Vikings.

    Based on the inflation rates over the past 20 years, we can predict the $500 million in today's money would be worth about $900 million in 20 years. Using the 3.5% figure you gave, we would still just over $700 million. That puts us between 91% and 143% growth over 20 years. That is between 4.55% and 7.15% over 20 years.

    Are there better investment opportunities out there? Sure. There are also a lot worse ones. And keep in mind that this isn't an investment opportunity we are talking about. We are talking about public tax dollar being used in a construction project to benefit the state in both tangible and intangible ways. And when using JUST direct tax revenue, it is a money maker for the state. The state and community gets indirect revenue and intangible benefits for free.
    Some people just need to quit messing with you on this topic.....
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  3. #23
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,776
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    Bars92 wrote:
    Considering the Bills are already playing one home game in another stadium i'd say they are first on the list. Although the Bills have better attendance than the Jags and that is for a team without a post-season appearance for a decade.
    The Bills will never move until Ralph Wilson dies. Having said that, he can't have much time left. Stadium was built at a poor time IMO, one major team could be moving soon, but not for a few years.

  4. #24
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,275

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    jmcdon00 wrote:
    marshallvike wrote:
    Good news, although Ziggy just lost some leverage.
    Ziggy losing leverage is a good thing, when you consider he's trying to stuff a billion dollar stadium up our collective asshole.
    Slightly inaccurate. The $250 million for a retractable roof is not the Vikings' choice.

    =Z=
    Actually it is grossly inacurrate. First of all, the Vikings are NOT the authors of the $954 million proposal OR the more current $870 million proposal. The MSFC proposed them.

    Also, neither of the proposals were for $1 billion dollar stadiums - I don't know if $130 million is chump change to you, but it seems pretty significant to me.

    Finally, Zygi has at least made a financial offer - he committed to a minimum $250 million of a new stadium.

    So let's at least keep facts straight. The $870 million proposal (not $1 billion) is the most current, was proposed by the MSFC, contains a $250 million roof that the Vikings don't want, and the Vikings committed to spending $250 million of their own money.

    That means that there is about $370 million that the Vikings are asking the state to absorb through their nether orifice, not $1 billion. BTW, have we mentioned that the Vikings are estimated to bring in $500 million in direct tax revenue to the state in the next 20 years? Why wouldn't people want to spend $370 million to make $500? The lack of business sense kills me sometimes.
    My point is that there are two sides that are gonna be at the table when it comes to funding. I want the state to have as much leverage as possible, because they are spending my money.
    I could have sworn it was you that convinced me that the MSFC actually works for the Vikings not the state. Are they actually a neutral group?

  5. #25
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    jmcdon00 wrote:
    My point is that there are two sides that are gonna be at the table when it comes to funding. I want the state to have as much leverage as possible, because they are spending my money.
    I could have sworn it was you that convinced me that the MSFC actually works for the Vikings not the state. Are they actually a neutral group?
    The MSFC is a unique entity.

    They were established by Legislative action, and its seven members are appointed by elected representatives (six from the Minneapolis City Council, and the chair by the governor). No member of the commission is a paid employee, so they all have to have second jobs elsewhere.

    In that sense, they are an entity of the state and city. But they also are able to maintain a private budget, much like a for profit organization. And the MSFC's primary goal is the continued existance of a downtown stadium. Without a new Vikings stadium, the MSFC will dissolve.

    Basically, the MSFC is given the task of developing and maintaining a downtown stadium, and making it profitable (or at least solvent). In that way they function as a private organization. The MSFC members answer to the City Council and the Governor. IN that way they funciton as a public entity.

    Kind of goofy, I know. Personally, I would rather see an independent council, with paid employees, oversee the operations of any new stadium.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  6. #26
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,275

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    BloodyHorns82 wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    jmcdon00 wrote:
    marshallvike wrote:
    Good news, although Ziggy just lost some leverage.
    Ziggy losing leverage is a good thing, when you consider he's trying to stuff a billion dollar stadium up our collective asshole.
    Slightly inaccurate. The $250 million for a retractable roof is not the Vikings' choice.

    =Z=
    Actually it is grossly inacurrate. First of all, the Vikings are NOT the authors of the $954 million proposal OR the more current $870 million proposal. The MSFC proposed them.

    Also, neither of the proposals were for $1 billion dollar stadiums - I don't know if $130 million is chump change to you, but it seems pretty significant to me.

    Finally, Zygi has at least made a financial offer - he committed to a minimum $250 million of a new stadium.

    So let's at least keep facts straight. The $870 million proposal (not $1 billion) is the most current, was proposed by the MSFC, contains a $250 million roof that the Vikings don't want, and the Vikings committed to spending $250 million of their own money.

    That means that there is about $370 million that the Vikings are asking the state to absorb through their nether orifice, not $1 billion. BTW, have we mentioned that the Vikings are estimated to bring in $500 million in direct tax revenue to the state in the next 20 years? Why wouldn't people want to spend $370 million to make $500? The lack of business sense kills me sometimes.
    I have come to the conclusion that many/most of the people against it are more against it because of their own personal principles than anything else.

    In my opinion, many people simplify it as "giving public money to a rich guy" and refuse to look any deeper than that, or are blinded by their own ideology. Looking at it in a different light is inconvenient and damaging, regardless of any benefit.
    I hope your not talking about me.

  7. #27
    BloodyHorns82's Avatar
    BloodyHorns82 is offline Jersey Retired Feed The Frog Champion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,691

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    jmcdon00 wrote:
    BloodyHorns82 wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    jmcdon00 wrote:
    marshallvike wrote:
    Good news, although Ziggy just lost some leverage.
    Ziggy losing leverage is a good thing, when you consider he's trying to stuff a billion dollar stadium up our collective asshole.
    Slightly inaccurate. The $250 million for a retractable roof is not the Vikings' choice.

    =Z=
    Actually it is grossly inacurrate. First of all, the Vikings are NOT the authors of the $954 million proposal OR the more current $870 million proposal. The MSFC proposed them.

    Also, neither of the proposals were for $1 billion dollar stadiums - I don't know if $130 million is chump change to you, but it seems pretty significant to me.

    Finally, Zygi has at least made a financial offer - he committed to a minimum $250 million of a new stadium.

    So let's at least keep facts straight. The $870 million proposal (not $1 billion) is the most current, was proposed by the MSFC, contains a $250 million roof that the Vikings don't want, and the Vikings committed to spending $250 million of their own money.

    That means that there is about $370 million that the Vikings are asking the state to absorb through their nether orifice, not $1 billion. BTW, have we mentioned that the Vikings are estimated to bring in $500 million in direct tax revenue to the state in the next 20 years? Why wouldn't people want to spend $370 million to make $500? The lack of business sense kills me sometimes.
    I have come to the conclusion that many/most of the people against it are more against it because of their own personal principles than anything else.

    In my opinion, many people simplify it as "giving public money to a rich guy" and refuse to look any deeper than that, or are blinded by their own ideology. Looking at it in a different light is inconvenient and damaging, regardless of any benefit.
    I hope your not talking about me.
    Take out "giving public money to a rich guy" from the last paragraph and it probably fits most of us, including you and me. Substitute "it", for said argument. I think Prophet and Z nailed it.

  8. #28
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,407

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    The only move I'd be happy with is if they became the Brooklyn Vikings...
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  9. #29
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,369

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    BloodyHorns82 wrote:

    I have come to the conclusion that many/most of the people against it are more against it because of their own personal principles than anything else.

    In my opinion, many people simplify it as "giving public money to a rich guy" and refuse to look any deeper than that, or are blinded by their own ideology. Looking at it in a different light is inconvenient and damaging, regardless of any benefit.
    First and foremost, one must recognize that this is giving public money to the rich guy to make more money from the public. The NFL is basically asking the public to pay for the improvements and then pay more because of the improvements. The public is actually going to have to pay twice for one improved good or service.

    One can debate whether this is an acceptable situation or if it is economically viable in the long run, but to ignore that the NFL, a $5-$6 billion per year revenue organization that is in no trouble balancing the books in this down economy, is using its monopoly power to extort the public is ignoring how these leagues work.

    Should the NFL and the Vikings pay for a larger part of any new stadium? In my opinion, yes. Should the state pay for part of it? In my opinion, yes. That stated, it is my belief that long ago the United States Congress should have regulated all major league sports as interstate trade and put an end to these leagues using fear and monopolistic leverage to gain larger and larger revenue at the expense of the public. This is more so for MLB, but also for the NFL.

    Keep in mind that there were reports some years back that many NFL owners actually liked not having a team in Los Angeles, because the loss of direct fan support for one team was offset by the leverage gained in almost all of the other markets by having the second largest market in North America open for potential relocation.

    At this point, Vikings fans are in the unenviable position of being one of the low revenue teams that is now under pressure to hand over the gold to the pirates in order to keep the ship from being sent to Davy Jones' Locker.

  10. #30
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,275

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    Minniman wrote:
    BloodyHorns82 wrote:

    I have come to the conclusion that many/most of the people against it are more against it because of their own personal principles than anything else.

    In my opinion, many people simplify it as "giving public money to a rich guy" and refuse to look any deeper than that, or are blinded by their own ideology. Looking at it in a different light is inconvenient and damaging, regardless of any benefit.
    First and foremost, one must recognize that this is giving public money to the rich guy to make more money from the public. The NFL is basically asking the public to pay for the improvements and then pay more because of the improvements. The public is actually going to have to pay twice for one improved good or service.

    One can debate whether this is an acceptable situation or if it is economically viable in the long run, but to ignore that the NFL, a $5-$6 billion per year revenue organization that is in no trouble balancing the books in this down economy, is using its monopoly power to extort the public is ignoring how these leagues work.

    Should the NFL and the Vikings pay for a larger part of any new stadium? In my opinion, yes. Should the state pay for part of it? In my opinion, yes. That stated, it is my belief that long ago the United States Congress should have regulated all major league sports as interstate trade and put an end to these leagues using fear and monopolistic leverage to gain larger and larger revenue at the expense of the public. This is more so for MLB, but also for the NFL.

    Keep in mind that there were reports some years back that many NFL owners actually liked not having a team in Los Angeles, because the loss of direct fan support for one team was offset by the leverage gained in almost all of the other markets by having the second largest market in North America open for potential relocation.

    At this point, Vikings fans are in the unenviable position of being one of the low revenue teams that is now under pressure to hand over the gold to the pirates in order to keep the ship from being sent to Davy Jones' Locker.
    +1, great post. Some things I never thought of in there.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Stadium issue to move forward in 2009 as economic stimulus
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 430
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 07:19 PM
  2. Vikings stadium plans move forward
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 02:27 PM
  3. NFL Teams Don't Move Unless They Have Issues With Their Stadium
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 11:55 AM
  4. Vikes have the value to move up to #5
    By slinkey in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 03-19-2006, 01:33 AM
  5. If Vikes move from MN will you still be a fan
    By RK. in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 12-14-2004, 07:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •