Thread: Two L.A. groups have shown interest in Minnesota V

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1080826

Originally Posted by "tarkenton10" #1080816

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1080798

Originally Posted by "mountainviking" #1080784

MN is so divided when it comes to sports. On one hand we have the diehard, I-bleed-purple people who are willing to sacrifice body parts for their team(s). On the other we have folks fighting tooth and nail to see that no money goes toward sports that isn't at least matched toward arts, education, politics etc...

I think many are so focused in on their particular view that they don't see the big picture...and perhaps don't want to. Truth is, the Vikings bring business to the Twin Cities from 4 neighboring states (without NFL teams) and Canada, not to mention the more rural areas of our own state.

The Metrodome holds around 65000 people. On average, they spend what while traveling to/from/thru the Cities?

Gas 25
Food 25
Beer/drinks 25
Hotels 30
Shopping 25

So, I'm totally guessing, but I spend a lot more than that, and I'm allowing for lots of people who spend nothing, but we're to $130/person already, or 8.45 million dollars per game, which would be 67.6 million dollars over the course of 8 home games. Then there are preseason and possibly playoffs too. That is a huge chunk of spending for the downtown and surrounding areas that would be greatly missed...especially considering much of the NFL season is during the slower months!

I don't know what the sales tax is there, but we're at 7.5% out here and that % would yield over $5 million in just sales taxes for the government each year too!!

Then, there are all the jobs of rebuilding the thing and what's more, all the jobs of bars, restaurants, shops, and lodging in the area that would be negatively effectes as well! It seems a no-brainer to me, but I live out here in CO, so my say isn't worth much.

There are actually existing studies on the direct and indirect tax impact of the Vikings. You can see most of them in the MSFC archives.

Direct tax for the existing stadium (bringing in sales tax and income tac) is just under $25 million per year. Direct tax for a new stadium is expected to be over $30 million per year. Some stats say as high as $45 million, but I think that is a gross overestimate.

And the Vikings have also said that they would be willing to sign a lease until 2045 with a new stadium, so not even counting inflation (falt rate calculation assuming income and cost of living does not go up over the next 35 years), the state would see between $800 million and $1 billion returned in DIRECT tax revenue. That is not even counting the indirect revenue.

So there is no question as to whether the state would recoup their money - they absolutely would. This is one of the reasons that I truely believe that it will get done. HOWEVER, there are other investments that the state could invest $750 million in that would generate a much higher return on investment. The legislatures need to look at the opportunity cost involved in a stadium deal and decide if the intangible benefits are worth the cost. This is also why bills like Racino, which provide continuing income (from a new non-tax source) after the stadium is paid for, have a much smaller opportunity cost. I personally don't like the Racino bill as much, but I think it is going to be the best solution.

You are only talking about the tax revenue the state will get from the stadium. What about the taxes from all the millionaire salaries that play for the team? What about the jobs saved at the stadium? And what about the money spent by those guys. I would imagine they would spend a lion's share of their salary in Minnesota buying houses, cars, boats & electronics. You would lose a lot of money losing that franchise. What about the taxes Wilf pays on the Viking merchandise purchased all over the country? Does some of it go to the state? There are so many ways that frnachise brings in money to the state. Why do you think LA is trying so hard to get a franchise?

Actually, yes I DID include the income tax for all the players in that.

And you seem to be under the impression that I am against the stadium here - I'm not. In fact I am one of the biggest advocates for it. The $25+ million is what the state would LOSE in non-fungible income if the Vikings move. The intangibles are harder to estimate because a) most of it comes from fungible resources, and b) there is no direct way to measure it. So I purposely don't try and add it to my platform because it can be argued too easily. By sticking to the facts - the non-debatable facts - it takes the wind out of the sales for all but the most fanatical anti-stadium folk.

I agree we need a stadium.
I do question whether or not the state would really lose 25million+ a year. Most season ticket holders live in minnesota(my estimation), many would still spend that money in state on other forms of entertainment(mostly booze to deal with the depression of losing the team).
My biggest concern is we get close, and then the NFL does a lockout and public opinion turns sharply against anything related to the NFL.

Originally Posted by "tarkenton10" #1080765

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1080742

Originally Posted by "ultravikingfan" #1080737

Please tread very lightly when you group "fans" into one group.

Not all fans are crybabies about the HC and not all fans need fixing.

Point well taken. Remembering of course, that when I say "Fan" that includes me as well.

Ugh...if this team moves...so long Vikings, PPO and Ultra as a NFL fan.

You will have the Browns.......I told you Holmgren would change things up there.....

This is a pretty interesting statement here, could be read either way:

Bagley said team owner Zygi Wilf and Vikings management toured L.A. Live, an entertainment complex located in the city's downtown area, in 2009. According to Bagley, the group was looking for ideas on building a similiar entertainment district in Minnesota

Which is the big headscratcher for me as to why the MN voters and thier elected officials aren't all onboard.

Can you imagine the jobs and revenue that would come from the development that the Wilfs want to do around thier stadium?

Look, I'm not the sharpest arrow in the quiver, so if I can see it, why can't those that are smarter than me see it?

The vision of some is weaker than others. I find it funny that the state will probably let the Vikes go and in a few years try to lure a new team to the state. Stars ring a bell. They weren't gone even twenty years and you bring in a new hockey team. The stars by the way went to Dallas and a few yaers after the move won the Stanley Cup!! Wouldn't that suck to see this team move and win a championship.

+1

Lets not forget about the "blind" voters who elected those legislators & put them in office.

It's tough to bitch about the Vikings not getting a new stadium when a voter votes for the same party he always votes for & that official is anti-stadium.

The government doesn't want to help pay for a new stadium. The Government doesn't want to make a new stadium happen, but if Wilf decides to build it himself, the government will be the first one in line putting their hand in the cookie jar.

Building a stadium now would be an opportune time to not only put a lot of people to work, but to also get contractors, hurting for work, to build it for a low bid due to the state of the economy.

If the Vikes do move, what is the general consenus of what the fans will do? Follow the new team? Pick a random NFL team? Stick to college ball?

Originally Posted by "Olsen" #1080957

If the Vikes do move, what is the general consenus of what the fans will do? Follow the new team? Pick a random NFL team? Stick to college ball?

Hard to say, but living right on the border of MN & WI, I'll do the bulk of my shopping in WI.

It'll be cheaper to shop here than it will be in MN after they jack the taxes up on everything over there to pay for the lost revenue & supporting the unemployed that lose work directly & indirectly as a result of the Vikings moving.

You think they would have learned their lesson after they allowed the North Stars to move.

Question:

How come the Viking's new stadium is a state issue as opposed to a local issue?

I know they are not the Minneapolis Vikings. Figured Minnesota was just a naming thing.

A lot of other cities (figure the vast majority if not all) when using taxpayer money do it locally, not statewide.

Originally Posted by "ultravikingfan" #1080967

Question:

How come the Viking's new stadium is a state issue as opposed to a local issue?

I know they are not the Minneapolis Vikings. Figured Minnesota was just a naming thing.

A lot of other cities (figure the vast majority if not all) when using taxpayer money do it locally, not statewide.

They've looked at taxes paying for a new stadium both at the local level & at the state level.

NP will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Minneapolis officials said they will not raise their local taxes any more to pay for a Vikings stadium, since they've already raised them enough to help pay for the new Twins & Gophers stadiums.

Originally Posted by "singersp" #1080973

Originally Posted by "ultravikingfan" #1080967

Question:

How come the Viking's new stadium is a state issue as opposed to a local issue?

I know they are not the Minneapolis Vikings. Figured Minnesota was just a naming thing.

A lot of other cities (figure the vast majority if not all) when using taxpayer money do it locally, not statewide.

They've looked at taxes paying for a new stadium both at the local level & at the state level.

NP will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Minneapolis officials said they will not raise their local taxes any more to pay for a Vikings stadium, since they've already raised them enough to help pay for the new Twins & Gophers stadiums.

You are correct.

EDIT: To add to this, Minnesota is one of only one of 5 teams in the NFL to be named for a state or region as opposed to a city. The others are New England, Tennessee, Carolina, and Arizona (Tampa Bay is technically not the name of the city either, but it refers to the Tampa metro area).

Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1080844

I agree we need a stadium.
I do question whether or not the state would really lose 25million+ a year. Most season ticket holders live in minnesota(my estimation), many would still spend that money in state on other forms of entertainment(mostly booze to deal with the depression of losing the team).
My biggest concern is we get close, and then the NFL does a lockout and public opinion turns sharply against anything related to the NFL.

Only 5 to 8 million comes from the tax on sales - the remaining is income tax on player and personnel salaries, which would not be redistributed elsewhere in the state.

And you are correct, most ticket sales come from in-state residents. But appoximately 20-25% come from out of state (depending on the game), which is a fairly large number. That only leaves about 4 to 6 million in direct tax revenue from in state ticket sales. And you are right, the majority of that money would be spent elsewhere in the state. However - unless it is spent on another entertainment venue, the tax rate is not anywhere near as high. Vikings tickets are taxed at close to 17%, as opposed to the normal 6.875% sales tax (or zero for food and clothes).

Bottom line with the numbers - the State currently pulls in 25+ million in direct tax benefit from the Vikings. If the Vikings leave, the tax benefit from the redistributed in state funds would only be 1.6 to 2.5 million.

Now, is it worth it so spend anywhere from $500 million to $750 million to retain that $25 million per year income for the next 33 years? Financially it is a wash either way. The return on investment is close to break even when you factor in interest and inflaction over 33 years. While there are other ways to spend the money that would generate more ROI, most likely that money won't be there without a special income solution like Racino or special tax - in otherwords, the state won't have that money to put somewhere else if the Vikings leave.

Whether the state helps build a new stadium or not, the short term and long term impact to the state's general fund and income is pretty much the same. So if it doesn't cost any more to build the stadium than it does not to, why on earth wouldn't the state? There are several people who have made a career on voting against, well, everything - and they will continue to do so. But I think the majority of the people in the state government realize where we stand, and are ready to find a solution once and for all.

Anyone who remembers the craziness surrounding the metrodome funding knows that this is just par for the course for Minnesota. Let's hope they don't make the same mistake that they did with the dome - don't build the new stadium on the cheap and it might actually be a venue that will last beyong the 33 year lease...

Originally Posted by "mountainviking" #1080807

And then we still have the naming rights and the possibility of pre-building sales of boxes to big money guys like Prince. It shouldn't be that hard to get done.

Purple Reign Dome