Thread: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087861

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087806

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087797

Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums

To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087873

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087861

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087806

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087797

Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums

To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).

No it is a whole lot different. The lease payments are used to pay for the costs of owning and operating a stadium, no Vikings lease payments to the dome ever went back into the general fund or to pay off state bonds. The taxpayers share of the dome was paid for with higher taxes.
I don't think anyone wants the state to own a stadium. I'm sure Wilf can manage a large commercial property better than any state government(that's why he's a billionare and the state is insolvent).

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087797

Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Not sure the Cowboys stadium info is correct. Here's what I had read on it:

Originally estimated to cost $650 million, the stadium's final construction cost was close to $1.3 billion, making it one of the most expensive sports venues ever built.

Jerry Jones and his family paid nearly $241 million of their own money toward the cost of the new stadium.

To assist them in paying the construction costs of the new stadium, Arlington voters approved an increase of the city's sales tax by 0.5 percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent.

The City of Arlington provided over $325 million (including interest) in bonds as funding.

Also, the NFL provided the Cowboys with an additional $150 million, as per their policy for giving teams a certain amount of money for stadium financing.

Dallas Cowboys New Stadium Facts

This source must be right, the title says "Facts".

What's the B.S.? Minnesota, on average, is colder than Green Bay or Chicago during September through February.

Detroit and Cleveland are pretty cold too, but the Lions play in a dome, and the Browns do not have it as bad as either Minnesota or Green bay. The coastal teams like New England and New York are not even close.

The point is that Green Bay is considered the cold spot, while Minneapolis is not. People need to know that Minneapolis is colder than the coldest outdoor venue in the NFL before making a stadium choice.

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

61.0 48.7 32.5 18.7 13.1 20.1 Minneapolis

58.8 47.4 34.0 21.2 15.6 20.5 Green Bay

63.8 52.1 39.3 27.4 22.0 27.0 Chicago

Why do linemen insist of wearing short-sleeve jerseys when it's 20 degrees?

ESPN.com

This is all about image. Linemen want to prove their toughness to the players lining up across from them and there's no better way to do that than by baring the biceps in the middle of winter. Some teams, like the Kansas City Chiefs, even have a code among their blockers. The colder it gets, the less insulation they all have to wear.

However, this doesn't mean that everybody believes in this mentality.

"I personally don't agree with it," Chiefs (now Vikings) Pro Bowl defensive end Jared Allen said. "A lot of guys do it to show they're tough and they're unified but I look at it differently. I'd rather be warm and kick your ass all over the field. That's how I'll prove that I'm tougher than the other guy."

Allen, who grew up in Los Gatos, Calif., said he let some teammates talk him into going without sleeves in a loss to Oakland on Nov. 25. He's since vowed to never do it again because he was freezing when temperatures eventually dipped into the 20s (game-time temperature was 43).

"I definitely take a lot of crap for it," Allen said. "But I want to be comfortable so I can perform out there." -- Jeffri Chadiha

Freeze Frames: ESPN.com

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087877

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087873

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087861

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087806

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087797

Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums

To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).

No it is a whole lot different. The lease payments are used to pay for the costs of owning and operating a stadium, no Vikings lease payments to the dome ever went back into the general fund or to pay off state bonds. The taxpayers share of the dome was paid for with higher taxes.
I don't think anyone wants the state to own a stadium. I'm sure Wilf can manage a large commercial property better than any state government(that's why he's a billionare and the state is insolvent).

I know the metrodome wasn't paid for like that, I was referring to Kraft and his tax repayment deal.

As far as the state owning the stadium, I think that is the general plan. I have not seen anything that indicates that the stadium would be owned and operated by the Vikings, but rather the state would own it and the Vikings would sign an extended lease (last I saw was 35 years).

Personally, I would LOVE to see the Vikings pay for 1/3 of the stadium cost upfront, with the rest paid for by a no-interest loan paid for by the state and repaid by the Vikings, with repayment scheduled for 30 years. The public would be on the hook for the interest on the loan (as well as opportunity cost of not investing the same money elsewhere), but the direct tax benefit would offset the interest (not the opportunity cost though). The Vikings would then own and operate the stadium. Hey, I would do the happy dance if the state would agree to that. I just don't see it happening.

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087986

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087877

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087873

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087861

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087806

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087797

Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums

To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).

No it is a whole lot different. The lease payments are used to pay for the costs of owning and operating a stadium, no Vikings lease payments to the dome ever went back into the general fund or to pay off state bonds. The taxpayers share of the dome was paid for with higher taxes.
I don't think anyone wants the state to own a stadium. I'm sure Wilf can manage a large commercial property better than any state government(that's why he's a billionare and the state is insolvent).

I know the metrodome wasn't paid for like that, I was referring to Kraft and his tax repayment deal.

As far as the state owning the stadium, I think that is the general plan. I have not seen anything that indicates that the stadium would be owned and operated by the Vikings, but rather the state would own it and the Vikings would sign an extended lease (last I saw was 35 years).

Personally, I would LOVE to see the Vikings pay for 1/3 of the stadium cost upfront, with the rest paid for by a no-interest loan paid for by the state and repaid by the Vikings, with repayment scheduled for 30 years. The public would be on the hook for the interest on the loan (as well as opportunity cost of not investing the same money elsewhere), but the direct tax benefit would offset the interest (not the opportunity cost though). The Vikings would then own and operate the stadium. Hey, I would do the happy dance if the state would agree to that. I just don't see it happening.

I am not sure they would agree to it either but one thing I would put money on is that the team would be looking for a new stadium again long before the 30 year lease was up.They didn't even get 15 years into the last one and they were looking for something different.

Also, in regards to the financing percentage of Heinz Field, I get this-

The Steelers paid $123 million and $158 million was paid by the state, through parking and amusement/entertainment taxes, and the Regional Asset District.

Not quite 83% according to those numbers.

Personally i would love to see the Vikings Build the stadium using PILOT money like the patriots did and to own it privately. Then they could build it to their specs and leave the state out of it.

One thing nobody seems to grasp is that every time the state gets involved, the cost increases by a significant amount that ends up offsetting any benefit of a state contribution.

[quote="Purple Floyd" #1088018]

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087986

I am not sure they would agree to it either but one thing I would put money on is that the team would be looking for a new stadium again long before the 30 year lease was up.They didn't even get 15 years into the last one and they were looking for something different.

Also, in regards to the financing percentage of Heinz Field, I get this-

The Steelers paid $123 million and $158 million was paid by the state, through parking and amusement/entertainment taxes, and the Regional Asset District.

Not quite 83% according to those numbers.

Personally i would love to see the Vikings Build the stadium using PILOT money like the patriots did and to own it privately. Then they could build it to their specs and leave the state out of it.

One thing nobody seems to grasp is that every time the state gets involved, the cost increases by a significant amount that ends up offsetting any benefit of a state contribution.

Yes, the team was looking for a new venue less than 20 years after moving into the dome. But a big reason for that is the metrodome was designed and built as cheap as absolutely possible. They used outdated designed (it was the very last inflatable roof stadium ever built for professional sports) and skimped on the options (toughs, limited concessions, narrow concourses). It was not designed to last more than 20 years, much less 20, and that was a mistake. There are a lot of older stadiums in the NFL, but not a single one that is less equipped to be the home to a NFL team than the metrodome is. Hopefully we don't make that same mistake again with the new stadium.

I agree that involving the state drives up the bill. But at the same time, we have to recognize the possibility that the Wilfs might not be finacially able to privately finance a new stadium, with or without PILOT funds. Just because he is rich doesn't mean he has unlimited resources.

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087697

The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?

Originally Posted by "singersp" #1088058

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087697

The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?

I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

Caine

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087986

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087877

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087873

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087861

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087806

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087797

Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums

To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).

No it is a whole lot different. The lease payments are used to pay for the costs of owning and operating a stadium, no Vikings lease payments to the dome ever went back into the general fund or to pay off state bonds. The taxpayers share of the dome was paid for with higher taxes.
I don't think anyone wants the state to own a stadium. I'm sure Wilf can manage a large commercial property better than any state government(that's why he's a billionare and the state is insolvent).

I know the metrodome wasn't paid for like that, I was referring to Kraft and his tax repayment deal.

As far as the state owning the stadium, I think that is the general plan. I have not seen anything that indicates that the stadium would be owned and operated by the Vikings, but rather the state would own it and the Vikings would sign an extended lease (last I saw was 35 years).

Personally, I would LOVE to see the Vikings pay for 1/3 of the stadium cost upfront, with the rest paid for by a no-interest loan paid for by the state and repaid by the Vikings, with repayment scheduled for 30 years. The public would be on the hook for the interest on the loan (as well as opportunity cost of not investing the same money elsewhere), but the direct tax benefit would offset the interest (not the opportunity cost though). The Vikings would then own and operate the stadium. Hey, I would do the happy dance if the state would agree to that. I just don't see it happening.

I think a plan where the state simply loaned the Vikings funds to build a stadium would be tremendously popular with voters. I don't think the Vikings would go for it though, if they did I'm guessing they would change there mind on the importance of a roof.