Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    Ozzie's Avatar
    Ozzie is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    84

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    Just do it no matter the cost!

  2. #22
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    Minniman wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Minniman wrote:
    More lottery and gambling? That is just what we need. :S

    The State of Minnesota should sell shares in the stadium like the Packers sell shares to the team. Then we'll see how many Vikings fans put their money where their mouths are. The NFL does not allow fan ownership of a team other than the Packers, but they cannot say a thing about the stadium.

    By the way, the $1.15 billion Cowboys stadium had only $325 million in public funds. Why must the Vikings stadium have so much more? Also, the NFL pitched in $150 million. Will the Vikings stadium get that as well?
    The process of moving from a privately owned company to a public company is not as easy as you might think. You don't just sell shares, its a long process, and by the time thats finalized and they finally sell shares it will be too late. There's also a reason the Packers are the only publically funded team in the league. Its not allowed anymore. I'm fairly certain of that. Certain rules are allowed to be broken if that team was grandfathered in before the rule was made.
    I am aware that the NFL rules do not allow public ownership of the team, but I am talking about shares in the stadium itself. That would allow all of the out-state Vikings fans who say just do it no matter the cost to contribute their $500.
    Is that possible? The Stadium is not a company, it does not grow or anything, I don't see the point of shares. If people want to contribute, then they shoudl set some way up for out of towners to donate. The packers shares are very unique, in that they don't gain value, the owners do not get paid dividends. I don't believe the stadium itself is publically owned in the sense people buy shares of the stadium, they buy shares of the team who in turn owns the stadium.

  3. #23
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    Zeus wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Webby wrote:
    They are introducing a bill to abolish the MSFC and sell the dome to the Vikings for $1 too.
    A similar bill has been introduced before. I don't see the Vikings going for it. It would certainly fix the lease argument they currently have, but it would also remove the state from any responsibility of building a new stadium, which would be a mistake.
    Didn't Uffdavikes mention that awhile back?

    And whatever happened to that guy?

    =Z=
    Don't know. I miss Uffda.

    ANyway, regarding the $1 deal - Lester Bagley was just on KFAN and pretty much said hell no. First of all, selling the metrodome does nothing to address the problem. Second, there is a clause in that bill that would force the Vikings to pay the state of Minnesota a termination fee if they left the state within 10 years. Basically it is just another way for them to force the Vikings to extend their lease to stay.

    Bagley basically said the idea was worthless, and brought up lottery and hospitality taxes as the Vikings' preferred way to pay for the dome. He also sounded fairly confident that it would happen, and used examples from several other states that have done similar things.

    I think this is going to be the way to go.
    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. #24
    fanofteam is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    182

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Webby wrote:
    They are introducing a bill to abolish the MSFC and sell the dome to the Vikings for $1 too.
    A similar bill has been introduced before. I don't see the Vikings going for it. It would certainly fix the lease argument they currently have, but it would also remove the state from any responsibility of building a new stadium, which would be a mistake.
    Didn't Uffdavikes mention that awhile back?

    And whatever happened to that guy?

    =Z=
    Don't know. I miss Uffda.

    ANyway, regarding the $1 deal - Lester Bagley was just on KFAN and pretty much said hell no. First of all, selling the metrodome does nothing to address the problem. Second, there is a clause in that bill that would force the Vikings to pay the state of Minnesota a termination fee if they left the state within 10 years. Basically it is just another way for them to force the Vikings to extend their lease to stay.

    Bagley basically said the idea was worthless, and brought up lottery and hospitality taxes as the Vikings' preferred way to pay for the dome. He also sounded fairly confident that it would happen, and used examples from several other states that have done similar things.

    I think this is going to be the way to go.

    It's a totally different world today financially than it was even 18 months ago.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe any new stadiums have been approved for current NFL ( or any other pro sport) teams with the publics money in the last year or so.

    Raising taxes to pay for a billionaires stadium isn't going to go over well especially in a frugal state such as MN

    Of course anyone who wants the stadium built ( Bagley ) is going to sound like it's a done deal but in reality it's not even close as of today

    Pawlenty is all talk, I'd be shocked if he brought the bill up as he most likely will run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 and "tax and spend) doesn't cut it with the right wing.

  5. #25
    marshallvike's Avatar
    marshallvike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Posts
    2,471

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    fanofteam wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Webby wrote:
    They are introducing a bill to abolish the MSFC and sell the dome to the Vikings for $1 too.
    A similar bill has been introduced before. I don't see the Vikings going for it. It would certainly fix the lease argument they currently have, but it would also remove the state from any responsibility of building a new stadium, which would be a mistake.
    Didn't Uffdavikes mention that awhile back?

    And whatever happened to that guy?

    =Z=
    Don't know. I miss Uffda.

    ANyway, regarding the $1 deal - Lester Bagley was just on KFAN and pretty much said hell no. First of all, selling the metrodome does nothing to address the problem. Second, there is a clause in that bill that would force the Vikings to pay the state of Minnesota a termination fee if they left the state within 10 years. Basically it is just another way for them to force the Vikings to extend their lease to stay.

    Bagley basically said the idea was worthless, and brought up lottery and hospitality taxes as the Vikings' preferred way to pay for the dome. He also sounded fairly confident that it would happen, and used examples from several other states that have done similar things.

    I think this is going to be the way to go.

    It's a totally different world today financially than it was even 18 months ago.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe any new stadiums have been approved for current NFL ( or any other pro sport) teams with the publics money in the last year or so.

    Raising taxes to pay for a billionaires stadium isn't going to go over well especially in a frugal state such as MN

    Of course anyone who wants the stadium built ( Bagley ) is going to sound like it's a done deal but in reality it's not even close as of today

    Pawlenty is all talk, I'd be shocked if he brought the bill up as he most likely will run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 and "tax and spend) doesn't cut it with the right wing.
    They would not be building a billionaires stadium. They would be building the stste a stadium that the Vikings, among others would lease.
    Why must you defend everything this FO does....to the point of making your self look like a yes man.

  6. #26
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    marshallvike wrote:
    fanofteam wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Webby wrote:
    They are introducing a bill to abolish the MSFC and sell the dome to the Vikings for $1 too.
    A similar bill has been introduced before. I don't see the Vikings going for it. It would certainly fix the lease argument they currently have, but it would also remove the state from any responsibility of building a new stadium, which would be a mistake.
    Didn't Uffdavikes mention that awhile back?

    And whatever happened to that guy?

    =Z=
    Don't know. I miss Uffda.

    ANyway, regarding the $1 deal - Lester Bagley was just on KFAN and pretty much said hell no. First of all, selling the metrodome does nothing to address the problem. Second, there is a clause in that bill that would force the Vikings to pay the state of Minnesota a termination fee if they left the state within 10 years. Basically it is just another way for them to force the Vikings to extend their lease to stay.

    Bagley basically said the idea was worthless, and brought up lottery and hospitality taxes as the Vikings' preferred way to pay for the dome. He also sounded fairly confident that it would happen, and used examples from several other states that have done similar things.

    I think this is going to be the way to go.

    It's a totally different world today financially than it was even 18 months ago.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe any new stadiums have been approved for current NFL ( or any other pro sport) teams with the publics money in the last year or so.

    Raising taxes to pay for a billionaires stadium isn't going to go over well especially in a frugal state such as MN

    Of course anyone who wants the stadium built ( Bagley ) is going to sound like it's a done deal but in reality it's not even close as of today

    Pawlenty is all talk, I'd be shocked if he brought the bill up as he most likely will run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 and "tax and spend) doesn't cut it with the right wing.
    They would not be building a billionaires stadium. They would be building the stste a stadium that the Vikings, among others would lease.
    QFT

    And yes, fanofteam, to correct you, there is a considerable amount of public money that was recently approved for the construction of the LA Stadium. In addition to the infrastructure costs (which will be paid through public funds), the city of Industry had to pay Diamond Hope $21 million of the bat to deal with increased traffic and a new school athletic field, and the city will continue to pay $700,000 every year that the stadium is in operation. That is looking to be around $42 million total.

    The state of Minnesota isn't stupid enough to let another professional sports franchise leave - especially the most popular one. Not only does the franchise bring in enough direct and indirect tax money to offset any public money that would be used, but the intangible benefits of having a franchise can't be ignored.

    Saying that it is "Raising taxes to pay for a billionaires stadium" is not only wrong, but incredibly short sighted. I have to assume that the legislature in Minnesota is more informed than that.
    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=

  7. #27
    Tad7's Avatar
    Tad7 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Not only does the franchise bring in enough direct and indirect tax money to offset any public money that would be used...
    That's what makes this stadium thing seem so simple to me! I haven't even bothered to look at the numbers, common sense just tells me that has to be case! Minnesota would lose on multiple levels by losing the Vikings..why can't everybody realize that?
    Skol Vikings! Go Cubs!

    X MARKS THE SPOT

  8. #28
    Purple1ist is offline Waterboy
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    Please move this post if another forum demands!

    Please educate my ignorance.

    If we get a new stadium, what name would we like to give it if not taken by a sponsor (e.g. The Pepsi Dome ? )
    I understand the link in name to "The Mall Of America Stadium" but why Hubert H Humphrey. I know that Hubert Horacio was a mayor of Minnesota and Vice President etc etc back in the 60s, but what else did the guy achieve to command the stadium name?

    Please let me know!

    With regards the current stadium our atmosphere and hostility are what make it what it is. Yes faciities could be better but do we really need more capacity,corporate boxes etc etc?
    None

  9. #29
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    Tad7 wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Not only does the franchise bring in enough direct and indirect tax money to offset any public money that would be used...
    That's what makes this stadium thing seem so simple to me! I haven't even bothered to look at the numbers, common sense just tells me that has to be case! Minnesota would lose on multiple levels by losing the Vikings..why can't everybody realize that?
    Well, to be fair, the state of Minnesota could invest the same amount of money elsewhere and likely get a better return on their investment. But that would come with a major loss in the quality of life and other intangibles. That is why it isn't simple. It is hard to quantify how much those intangibles are worth.

    While the state of Minnesota wouldn't lose money investing in the Vikings, they wouldn't earn as much money as they would investing elsewhere. The difference between the two is the opportunity cost. The state needs to decide how much opportunity cost they are willing to sacrifice to keep the Vikings. Once they can put a number to that, it is fairly easy to decide how much money the state can put towards a 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=

  10. #30
    purplejokr is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Beach
    Posts
    126

    Re:Pawlenty hints at stadium solution

    NodakPaul wrote:
    While the state of Minnesota wouldn't lose money investing in the Vikings, they wouldn't earn as much money as they would investing elsewhere. The difference between the two is the opportunity cost. The state needs to decide how much opportunity cost they are willing to sacrifice to keep the Vikings. Once they can put a number to that, it is fairly easy to decide how much money the state can put towards a new stadium.
    Precisely. I could not have stated this better myself.

    -

    NP,
    When you reference the stadium that AEG is planning to build in the City of Industry, you neglect to mention that while AEG is getting tax breaks to build and has indeed, paid off Diamondbar, those dollars are really only a drop in the bucket compared to the final price tag of that facility.

    The lion's share of the money being put into that project is by AEG as it was when they built Staples Center in downtown LA.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Pawlenty will not seek third re-election
    By nephilimstorm in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 09:37 AM
  2. Jeff Garcia Hints At Holdout - Could Consider Retirement
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 05:34 AM
  3. Help me with a solution...
    By nephilimstorm in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-12-2007, 09:47 PM
  4. Replies: 67
    Last Post: 06-28-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. The Solution
    By The Gap in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-04-2005, 01:34 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
  •