Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,212
    Target Field was funded by a Hennepin Count sales Tax

    TCF Bank Stadium was funded by the state paying 40 percent of the cost
    Quote Originally Posted by i_bleed_purple View Post
    All of the above stadiums/arenas were funded while not in a recession
    I'm pretty sure the Vikings have wanted a new stadium before and during the same times those stadiums were requested and built.

    The Vikings have wanted to build a new stadium way back when McCombs owned the team & it hasn't been passed.

    So when do you feel this recession started?

    Why has no one told LA, who has 2 different stadium options in the works, about the recession?

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  2. #12
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    The Vikings were still under a lease during that time and still are. As far as I remember the Twins stayed at the dome for over a decade AFTER their lease expired before they got their new deal done and I don't know for sure but I believe the gophers lease had also expired.

  3. #13
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    The Vikings were still under a lease during that time and still are. As far as I remember the Twins stayed at the dome for over a decade AFTER their lease expired before they got their new deal done and I don't know for sure but I believe the gophers lease had also expired.
    I have to disagree.

    First of all, the Twins did not play in the dome over a decade after their lease expired. It expired in 2002, and they were on a year to year lease after that. In January of 2005, despite signing another extended lease to avoid contraction, the Twins took the state of Minnesota to court to get out of the lease. The district court ruled that the Twins lease was effectively expired after 2005. So at most they played with a yearly lease for three years, and after suing the state they played without a lease for four more (three of which were AFTER the Target field bill had been passed in May of 2006). Also, to add to that, the Polad family funded a study in the early 2000's that showed that there was not a market for a baseball team, and they could not profit from a move. Hardly heroic - they stayed because they had nowhere to go and even sued the state to make sure that they could go the second something became available. The Vikings have already stated that they will sign a yearly lease as long as there is a plan for a new stadium.

    I don't know if the gophers lease had expired or not, but it isn't like they could go anywhere else.

    The Vikings CAN go somewhere else. There IS a market for it. And they have waited and watched while the other two tenants of the metrodome got new stadiums. Now personally I think it is stupid that the gophers and Vikings aren't sharing a stadium, but that again is on the state. They refused to build TCF to NFL standards, making it impossible for the Vikings to play there on a permanent basis.

    The state told the Vikings to pay for the stadium feasibility studies. They have done that, three times. The state told the Vikings to find a local partner. They have done that, twice. The state told the Vikings to come up with a funding plan. Two have been offered by the Vikings. Three more have been offered by legislators who support the Vikings stadium push. And nothing has been done.

    I truly hope the Vikings don't move, but if they do then I put 100% of the blame on the state legislature. Even if the Vikings don't move, the longer they put this off the higher the construction cost is going to be.

    I would be embarrassed if I was a Minnesota voter. The people you have been electing to office are going to end up costing the state of Minnesota billions of dollars in the end.
    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=

  4. #14
    NDVikingFan66's Avatar
    NDVikingFan66 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,831
    Quote Originally Posted by NodakPaul View Post
    I have to disagree.

    First of all, the Twins did not play in the dome over a decade after their lease expired. It expired in 2002, and they were on a year to year lease after that. In January of 2005, despite signing another extended lease to avoid contraction, the Twins took the state of Minnesota to court to get out of the lease. The district court ruled that the Twins lease was effectively expired after 2005. So at most they played with a yearly lease for three years, and after suing the state they played without a lease for four more (three of which were AFTER the Target field bill had been passed in May of 2006). Also, to add to that, the Polad family funded a study in the early 2000's that showed that there was not a market for a baseball team, and they could not profit from a move. Hardly heroic - they stayed because they had nowhere to go and even sued the state to make sure that they could go the second something became available. The Vikings have already stated that they will sign a yearly lease as long as there is a plan for a new stadium.

    I don't know if the gophers lease had expired or not, but it isn't like they could go anywhere else.

    The Vikings CAN go somewhere else. There IS a market for it. And they have waited and watched while the other two tenants of the metrodome got new stadiums. Now personally I think it is stupid that the gophers and Vikings aren't sharing a stadium, but that again is on the state. They refused to build TCF to NFL standards, making it impossible for the Vikings to play there on a permanent basis.

    The state told the Vikings to pay for the stadium feasibility studies. They have done that, three times. The state told the Vikings to find a local partner. They have done that, twice. The state told the Vikings to come up with a funding plan. Two have been offered by the Vikings. Three more have been offered by legislators who support the Vikings stadium push. And nothing has been done.

    I truly hope the Vikings don't move, but if they do then I put 100% of the blame on the state legislature. Even if the Vikings don't move, the longer they put this off the higher the construction cost is going to be.

    I would be embarrassed if I was a Minnesota voter. The people you have been electing to office are going to end up costing the state of Minnesota billions of dollars in the end.
    +1

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Isanti, MN
    Posts
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    I'm pretty sure the Vikings have wanted a new stadium before and during the same times those stadiums were requested and built.

    The Vikings have wanted to build a new stadium way back when McCombs owned the team & it hasn't been passed.

    So when do you feel this recession started?

    Why has no one told LA, who has 2 different stadium options in the works, about the recession?
    L.A. has a budget deficit of approximately $350 million dollars. The fact they are even talking sports stadium is insanity at best.
    I bet you could use a cool one huh Clark...Now you're talkin Eddie...

  6. #16
    scottishvike's Avatar
    scottishvike is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Dunfermline
    Posts
    1,701
    Blog Entries
    3
    Coming from a European perspective this is difficult for me. Looking at soccer teams if they want a new stadium they have to pay for it all themselves, there is no way local people would allow public money to be used here, it would never happen. Most cities have multiple teams, with different supporters and with the season being longer, sometimes 30 plus home games there is more opportunity to recoup the money, as well as sponsorship and TV cash.

    And that brings up the other big difference between US vs European sports teams, the franchise system. Yes overall it's fairer with the wealth and players being distributed evenly, therefore meaning a more competitive league. Look at most European soccer leagues, nearly every one is a two or three horse race and these teams have been at the top for decades. BUT the one big drawback is your local team can be moved elsewhere, this is basically unacceptable here. Maybe it's because of the long history with most teams going back over 100 years. But any time a club has been either talked about being moved or even merged with another, there is only hostility from both sides, the new team would be playing to a very small crowd indeed.

    So it's probably for that reason that I (someone who has never set foot in Minnesota) hopes the Vikings never leave the state.

  7. #17
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by NodakPaul View Post
    I have to disagree.

    First of all, the Twins did not play in the dome over a decade after their lease expired. It expired in 2002, and they were on a year to year lease after that. In January of 2005, despite signing another extended lease to avoid contraction, the Twins took the state of Minnesota to court to get out of the lease. The district court ruled that the Twins lease was effectively expired after 2005. So at most they played with a yearly lease for three years, and after suing the state they played without a lease for four more (three of which were AFTER the Target field bill had been passed in May of 2006). Also, to add to that, the Polad family funded a study in the early 2000's that showed that there was not a market for a baseball team, and they could not profit from a move. Hardly heroic - they stayed because they had nowhere to go and even sued the state to make sure that they could go the second something became available. The Vikings have already stated that they will sign a yearly lease as long as there is a plan for a new stadium.

    I don't know if the gophers lease had expired or not, but it isn't like they could go anywhere else.

    The Vikings CAN go somewhere else. There IS a market for it. And they have waited and watched while the other two tenants of the metrodome got new stadiums. Now personally I think it is stupid that the gophers and Vikings aren't sharing a stadium, but that again is on the state. They refused to build TCF to NFL standards, making it impossible for the Vikings to play there on a permanent basis.

    The state told the Vikings to pay for the stadium feasibility studies. They have done that, three times. The state told the Vikings to find a local partner. They have done that, twice. The state told the Vikings to come up with a funding plan. Two have been offered by the Vikings. Three more have been offered by legislators who support the Vikings stadium push. And nothing has been done.

    I truly hope the Vikings don't move, but if they do then I put 100% of the blame on the state legislature. Even if the Vikings don't move, the longer they put this off the higher the construction cost is going to be.

    I would be embarrassed if I was a Minnesota voter. The people you have been electing to office are going to end up costing the state of Minnesota billions of dollars in the end.
    Not disagreeing with your timelines but other than the dates that I clearly stated I didn't know of for sure it doesn't change things.

    The twins lease expired and then they extended it for a number of years until the new deal was struck.
    The Gophers: I found n information on whether they has a lease at one time but there is nothing I could find that would say they left before any lease had expired.

    The Vikings- While it is certainly possible they could leave, IMHO there is as much of a chance that they would end up like the Twins and not have a better location if the lease came up. While everyone is slobbering over the LA site, nothing there has been finalized and I am not sure anyone is going to buy the team and move it to Cali unless they have a finalized stadium deal in place because they could be in much the same situation there as they were here. Couple that with the notion that Jacksonville cannot sell out a home game, SanDiego wants a new stadium and Oakland is also in flux there very well be a more attractive option to a buyer than the Vikings. The Jaguars are valued at 50 million less than the Vikings and both Cali teams would be an easier relocation prospect.

    Now, I am in no way guaranteeing that they won't leave and they very well might, but then again it isn't a slam dunk just like the Twins leaving wasn't when the hype was flying.

    All that said I still believe we will see a special session and a stadium bill passed before December.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •