Page 3 of 44 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 431
  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: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    "singersp" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "Ltrey" wrote:
    Can someone explain to my why the Wilfs, et al are so hellbent on getting public funding?

    Didn't Robert Kraft build Gillette stadium by himself (with the help of investors)?

    I'm not being a naysayer, I just don't understand.
    becasue with the amount of revenue the stadium will bring in addition to the development of the areas around it
    by boosting the immediate economy in that area.. a lot of money is going to be made.... So why the hell would wilf spend his hard earned money building up the economy in that area with private funding only for the state government to reap ALL the benefits off the tax dollars the stadium brings in...

    that's a pretty hefty price tag where the state will benefit and take money from the owners... So if the state has public funding put into the stadium, it gives the state an incentive for the project to want to work to build revenue in addition to not placing ALL of the onus on the Wilf's and their company...

    if public funds are provided, it's a win/win for both parties, but if it's all private.. the state will reap HUGE benefits without having to do squat!!... esp. when other state's would be/are willing to fork over a little cash..

    basically it's all about money!!!

    So basically what you are saying is that the best way to do it is for the government to take money from the pockets of it's citizens so that an entity can be built which will take money from the pockets of it's citizens who go there and spend their money so that the owners don't have to have the government take any money from their pockets ???
    The government will be the first one with their hands in the pockets of everyone. There is tax on tickets, tax on all the alcohol that is sold there & consumed at tailgates. Income tax paid by all the food vendors & anyone earning an income thru a job created by it. Property taxes on the stadium, taxes on the gas the citizens buy to drive there. Taxes on income made by the lots that that rent parking spaces.Taxes on hotels were the fans stay. Taxes on anything purchased in stores while fans stay in Minneapolis. The list of increased taxes gained goes on & on.

    Nope, I guess the state should reap all the benefits of the increased tax revenue a stadium brings in, but shouldn't spend one dime in having one built.
    I actually am in agreement with you on this, but for semantics sake, it isn't an increased tax revenue.
    Losing the Vikings would result in a decrease of tax revenue, as well as many other intangible benefits.
    The state would be investing in the Vikings to avoid that decrease.

    I guess there would be some increase in revenue for the City if the development was done correctly though.
    Not just left to the birds like it was when the metrodome was first built, but an actual private investor with experience in commercial and retail development.
    If only there was someone like that who would be willing to invest as much as one billion private dollars into the development of downtown east if the stadium was built... ;D
    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
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,262

    Re: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "Ltrey" wrote:
    Can someone explain to my why the Wilfs, et al are so hellbent on getting public funding?

    Didn't Robert Kraft build Gillette stadium by himself (with the help of investors)?

    I'm not being a naysayer, I just don't understand.
    becasue with the amount of revenue the stadium will bring in addition to the development of the areas around it
    by boosting the immediate economy in that area.. a lot of money is going to be made.... So why the hell would wilf spend his hard earned money building up the economy in that area with private funding only for the state government to reap ALL the benefits off the tax dollars the stadium brings in...

    that's a pretty hefty price tag where the state will benefit and take money from the owners... So if the state has public funding put into the stadium, it gives the state an incentive for the project to want to work to build revenue in addition to not placing ALL of the onus on the Wilf's and their company...

    if public funds are provided, it's a win/win for both parties, but if it's all private.. the state will reap HUGE benefits without having to do squat!!... esp. when other state's would be/are willing to fork over a little cash..

    basically it's all about money!!!

    So basically what you are saying is that the best way to do it is for the government to take money from the pockets of it's citizens so that an entity can be built which will take money from the pockets of it's citizens who go there and spend their money so that the owners don't have to have the government take any money from their pockets ???
    The government will be the first one with their hands in the pockets of everyone. There is tax on tickets, tax on all the alcohol that is sold there & consumed at tailgates. Income tax paid by all the food vendors & anyone earning an income thru a job created by it. Property taxes on the stadium, taxes on the gas the citizens buy to drive there. Taxes on income made by the lots that that rent parking spaces.Taxes on hotels were the fans stay. Taxes on anything purchased in stores while fans stay in Minneapolis. The list of increased taxes gained goes on & on.

    Nope, I guess the state should reap all the benefits of the increased tax revenue a stadium brings in, but shouldn't spend one dime in having one built.
    I actually am in agreement with you on this, but for semantics sake, it isn't an increased tax revenue.
    Losing the Vikings would result in a decrease of tax revenue, as well as many other intangible benefits.
    The state would be investing in the Vikings to avoid that decrease.

    I guess there would be some increase in revenue for the City if the development was done correctly though.
    Not just left to the birds like it was when the metrodome was first built, but an actual private investor with experience in commercial and retail development.
    If only there was someone like that who would be willing to invest as much as one billion private dollars into the development of downtown east if the stadium was built... ;D

    Because it would be a brand new stadium, I think it would draw more people to attend the games than the current Metrodome would, thereby increasing the revenue they are already getting.

    They are still collecting revenue & have been for years on the increased liquor tax they imposed to build the dome. The dome was paid for years ago. IMO, that revenue should have been used & continue to be usedc to help fund the stadiuum.

    That would not be an increase in taxes, but would use those funds & continue to use those funds to help build a stadium for which the tax was originally intended.

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

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    with how the ecconomy is going down hill. a new stadium seems like a bad idea
    :\

    its more millions of dollars our state probably doesnt have

  4. #24
    PackSux!'s Avatar
    PackSux! is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,561

    Re: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    "SamOchoCinco" wrote:
    with how the ecconomy is going down hill. a new stadium seems like a bad idea
    :\

    its more millions of dollars our state probably doesnt have
    That is where you are wrong.
    Building a new stadium would help the state from day one.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    "PackSux!" wrote:
    "SamOchoCinco" wrote:
    with how the ecconomy is going down hill. a new stadium seems like a bad idea
    :\

    its more millions of dollars our state probably doesnt have
    That is where you are wrong.
    Building a new stadium would help the state from day one.
    really? im not too smart with money. and it has its perks and its bad spots though.

    becasue what if we end up sucking and the vikes fans dont show? then we lose money.

    but i do see the points in makin a new stadium

  6. #26
    PackSux!'s Avatar
    PackSux! is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,561

    Re: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    "SamOchoCinco" wrote:
    "PackSux!" wrote:
    "SamOchoCinco" wrote:
    with how the ecconomy is going down hill. a new stadium seems like a bad idea
    :\

    its more millions of dollars our state probably doesnt have
    That is where you are wrong.
    Building a new stadium would help the state from day one.
    really? im not too smart with money. and it has its perks and its bad spots though.

    becasue what if we end up sucking and the vikes fans dont show? then we lose money.

    but i do see the points in makin a new stadium
    The money that would come into the state for having the construction crews here and the jobs created.
    Not to mention that the stadium would not only be used for the Vikings games, which is only eight games a season unless they make the playoffs .
    So the other 357 days would be open for other events like the final four and so on and so forth.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    "PackSux!" wrote:
    "SamOchoCinco" wrote:
    "PackSux!" wrote:
    "SamOchoCinco" wrote:
    with how the ecconomy is going down hill. a new stadium seems like a bad idea
    :\

    its more millions of dollars our state probably doesnt have
    That is where you are wrong.
    Building a new stadium would help the state from day one.
    really? im not too smart with money. and it has its perks and its bad spots though.

    becasue what if we end up sucking and the vikes fans dont show? then we lose money.

    but i do see the points in makin a new stadium
    The money that would come into the state for having the construction crews here and the jobs created.
    Not to mention that the stadium would not only be used for the Vikings games, which is only eight games a season unless they make the playoffs .
    So the other 357 days would be open for other events like the final four and so on and so forth.
    ok wow. i feel dumb now. i didnt think of the jobs! lol

    great point!

  8. #28
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    "PackSux!" wrote:
    "SamOchoCinco" wrote:
    with how the ecconomy is going down hill. a new stadium seems like a bad idea
    :\

    its more millions of dollars our state probably doesnt have
    That is where you are wrong.
    Building a new stadium would help the state from day one.
    So would building schools, universities(Or improving the current ones) Building world class bio tech infrastructure etc.

  9. #29
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    "singersp" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "Ltrey" wrote:
    Can someone explain to my why the Wilfs, et al are so hellbent on getting public funding?

    Didn't Robert Kraft build Gillette stadium by himself (with the help of investors)?

    I'm not being a naysayer, I just don't understand.
    becasue with the amount of revenue the stadium will bring in addition to the development of the areas around it
    by boosting the immediate economy in that area.. a lot of money is going to be made.... So why the hell would wilf spend his hard earned money building up the economy in that area with private funding only for the state government to reap ALL the benefits off the tax dollars the stadium brings in...

    that's a pretty hefty price tag where the state will benefit and take money from the owners... So if the state has public funding put into the stadium, it gives the state an incentive for the project to want to work to build revenue in addition to not placing ALL of the onus on the Wilf's and their company...

    if public funds are provided, it's a win/win for both parties, but if it's all private.. the state will reap HUGE benefits without having to do squat!!... esp. when other state's would be/are willing to fork over a little cash..

    basically it's all about money!!!

    So basically what you are saying is that the best way to do it is for the government to take money from the pockets of it's citizens so that an entity can be built which will take money from the pockets of it's citizens who go there and spend their money so that the owners don't have to have the government take any money from their pockets ???
    The government will be the first one with their hands in the pockets of everyone. There is tax on tickets, tax on all the alcohol that is sold there & consumed at tailgates. Income tax paid by all the food vendors & anyone earning an income thru a job created by it. Property taxes on the stadium, taxes on the gas the citizens buy to drive there. Taxes on income made by the lots that that rent parking spaces.Taxes on hotels were the fans stay. Taxes on anything purchased in stores while fans stay in Minneapolis. The list of increased taxes gained goes on & on.

    Nope, I guess the state should reap all the benefits of the increased tax revenue a stadium brings in, but shouldn't spend one dime in having one built.
    Well, the reason the state has to tax everybody so much is because there are so many hogs at the trough. I would prefer to open the gate to the pen and let them find their own food and you would rather build a bigger trough. Socialism at it's finest.

  10. #30
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Stadium issue to move forward in 2009

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "Ltrey" wrote:
    Can someone explain to my why the Wilfs, et al are so hellbent on getting public funding?

    Didn't Robert Kraft build Gillette stadium by himself (with the help of investors)?

    I'm not being a naysayer, I just don't understand.
    becasue with the amount of revenue the stadium will bring in addition to the development of the areas around it
    by boosting the immediate economy in that area.. a lot of money is going to be made.... So why the hell would wilf spend his hard earned money building up the economy in that area with private funding only for the state government to reap ALL the benefits off the tax dollars the stadium brings in...

    that's a pretty hefty price tag where the state will benefit and take money from the owners... So if the state has public funding put into the stadium, it gives the state an incentive for the project to want to work to build revenue in addition to not placing ALL of the onus on the Wilf's and their company...

    if public funds are provided, it's a win/win for both parties, but if it's all private.. the state will reap HUGE benefits without having to do squat!!... esp. when other state's would be/are willing to fork over a little cash..

    basically it's all about money!!!

    So basically what you are saying is that the best way to do it is for the government to take money from the pockets of it's citizens so that an entity can be built which will take money from the pockets of it's citizens who go there and spend their money so that the owners don't have to have the government take any money from their pockets ???
    The government will be the first one with their hands in the pockets of everyone. There is tax on tickets, tax on all the alcohol that is sold there & consumed at tailgates. Income tax paid by all the food vendors & anyone earning an income thru a job created by it. Property taxes on the stadium, taxes on the gas the citizens buy to drive there. Taxes on income made by the lots that that rent parking spaces.Taxes on hotels were the fans stay. Taxes on anything purchased in stores while fans stay in Minneapolis. The list of increased taxes gained goes on & on.

    Nope, I guess the state should reap all the benefits of the increased tax revenue a stadium brings in, but shouldn't spend one dime in having one built.
    I actually am in agreement with you on this, but for semantics sake, it isn't an increased tax revenue.
    Losing the Vikings would result in a decrease of tax revenue, as well as many other intangible benefits.
    The state would be investing in the Vikings to avoid that decrease.

    I guess there would be some increase in revenue for the City if the development was done correctly though.
    Not just left to the birds like it was when the metrodome was first built, but an actual private investor with experience in commercial and retail development.
    If only there was someone like that who would be willing to invest as much as one billion private dollars into the development of downtown east if the stadium was built... ;D
    Faulty argument. There are other things that could be done that would bring more dollars to the state than that stadium. This is just your pet project so you support it.

    There are groups that represent hunters, fishermen, fine arts organizations, bio tech industries , pro- immigration and many other who could give just as compelling of a case as the Vikings that spending that amount of money on their pet projects would generate more revenue per dollar than a pro sports franchise could.

Page 3 of 44 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings stadium issue eyed by NFL
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 08:44 AM
  2. SI's Swimsuit Issue 2009
    By VikingMike in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 08:14 AM
  3. Vikings stadium plans move forward
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 02:27 PM
  4. US Elections and Stadium issue
    By AngloVike in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 08:41 AM
  5. Vikes Promote Economic and Stadium Development Plan
    By COJOMAY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 02-18-2006, 05:04 AM

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
  •