Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "bfld" wrote:
    Unfortunate timing:
    it may not be rational, but it's a fact that this would be a lot easier with a winning team.

    I wish Zigi would stop with the "we're not going to make any more revenue with a new stadium" horse hockey.
    If you're asking for the public dollar, treat the public as a partner and open your books and stop playing accounting games.
    He didn't say revenue.
    He said profit.
    If the Vikings move up in the amount of revenue they bring in, they will lose a considerable amount of money from the profit sharing in the league.

    Honestly, I think the city stands to make more money on a new stadium than the Vikings do.
    I think the state could make a lot of money by buying me a new house. Think about it, they get 7% of my income for as long as I live here, plus they get the property taxes, plus sales taxes because I will be spending my money in the state. If they don't act soon I might just move to L.A. and they won't make any money. I think I will send my proposal to the legislature.
    Nice try.

    Well, actually, no it wasn't.
    It was a perfect example of the lack of understanding that a lot of the public has when dealing with the stadium issue.

    The state wouldn't be buying anything for the Vikings.
    They would be putting money toward a facility that would be owned and operated by the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, just like the metrodome is now.
    The Vikings LEASE the metrodome from them.
    The MSFC, by the way, is a government entity.


    Now, let's try your house example again.
    Instead of the state buying you a house, they would put up about half of the money and you would be responsible for the other half.
    In exchange you will be required to sign a 20 year lease.
    You will have to pay rent for the entire 20 years that you are in the house.
    Don't worry though, you will be able to keep a percentage of any profits that you make while in the house - except for any profits on food.
    The state retains rights to all food and drink profits in your house.

    And while you will get a considerable amount of say on how the house looks and its overall design and maintenance, you will have no say in the way in which it is run.


    You also won't get to live there year round.
    You will only get to live there 20 - 25 days out of the year (depending on playoffs).
    The rest of the time you need to live in a facility you built and paid for yourself in the southern part of the metro area.
    The state would be allowed to do whatever it wants in your house while you are not there, as long as they return it to a livable condition for the days you are allowed to use it.
    The state will also get to keep all profits generated in the house while you are not there.

    If by some chance your house is selected to host some kind of multi-billion dollar event, like the superbowl, the state retains all rights and profits to the event.

    Still want to send that proposal in?
    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
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "bfld" wrote:
    Unfortunate timing:
    it may not be rational, but it's a fact that this would be a lot easier with a winning team.

    I wish Zigi would stop with the "we're not going to make any more revenue with a new stadium" horse hockey.
    If you're asking for the public dollar, treat the public as a partner and open your books and stop playing accounting games.
    He didn't say revenue.
    He said profit.
    If the Vikings move up in the amount of revenue they bring in, they will lose a considerable amount of money from the profit sharing in the league.

    Honestly, I think the city stands to make more money on a new stadium than the Vikings do.
    I think the state could make a lot of money by buying me a new house. Think about it, they get 7% of my income for as long as I live here, plus they get the property taxes, plus sales taxes because I will be spending my money in the state. If they don't act soon I might just move to L.A. and they won't make any money. I think I will send my proposal to the legislature.
    Nice try.

    Well, actually, no it wasn't.
    It was a perfect example of the lack of understanding that a lot of the public has when dealing with the stadium issue.

    The state wouldn't be buying anything for the Vikings.
    They would be putting money toward a facility that would be owned and operated by the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, just like the metrodome is now.
    The Vikings LEASE the metrodome from them.
    The MSFC, by the way, is a government entity.


    Now, let's try your house example again.
    Instead of the state buying you a house, they would put up about half of the money and you would be responsible for the other half.
    In exchange you will be required to sign a 20 year lease.
    You will have to pay rent for the entire 20 years that you are in the house.
    Don't worry though, you will be able to keep a percentage of any profits that you make while in the house - except for any profits on food.
    The state retains rights to all food and drink profits in your house.

    And while you will get a considerable amount of say on how the house looks and its overall design and maintenance, you will have no say in the way in which it is run.


    You also won't get to live there year round.
    You will only get to live there 20 - 25 days out of the year (depending on playoffs).
    The rest of the time you need to live in a facility you built and paid for yourself in the southern part of the metro area.
    The state would be allowed to do whatever it wants in your house while you are not there, as long as they return it to a livable condition for the days you are allowed to use it.
    The state will also get to keep all profits generated in the house while you are not there.

    If by some chance your house is selected to host some kind of multi-billion dollar event, like the superbowl, the state retains all rights and profits to the event.

    Still want to send that proposal in?
    So if all that is true, then why doesn't zygi come up with the money himself and make a ton? Why does he need the state's help?

  3. #23
    bfld's Avatar
    bfld is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    58

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    "Now, let's try your house example again.
    Instead of the state buying you a house, they would put up about half of the money and you would be responsible for the other half.
    In exchange you will be required to sign a 20 year lease.
    You will have to pay rent for the entire 20 years that you are in the house.
    Don't worry though, you will be able to keep a percentage of any profits that you make while in the house - except for any profits on food.
    The state retains rights to all food and drink profits in your house."

    You forgot to mention that the landlord (state) will make sure that the rent is sufficiently low to assure you enough profit from your activities in the house to dissuade you from looking at leasing a house somewhere else.

    "And while you will get a considerable amount of say on how the house looks and its overall design and maintenance, you will have no say in the way in which it is run. "

    Technically "yes", practically "no".
    When the sole tenant for which the landlord built a facility wants changes in how it is operated, you can bet the landlord trys to accomodate.

    "Don't worry though, you will be able to keep a percentage of any profits that you make while in the house - except for any profits on food.
    The state retains rights to all food and drink profits in your house."
    "The state will also get to keep all profits generated in the house while you are not there."

    Too soon to tell about these things, but you can bet the Vikings will attempt to tap every revenue stream.

    Oh, and one more point:
    despite the fact that you'e only a tenant, you get to sell the naming rights to your house, for which you will be paid gobs of money.

    Yeah, I'd like to send this proposal to the legislature.



  4. #24
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "bfld" wrote:
    Unfortunate timing:
    it may not be rational, but it's a fact that this would be a lot easier with a winning team.

    I wish Zigi would stop with the "we're not going to make any more revenue with a new stadium" horse hockey.
    If you're asking for the public dollar, treat the public as a partner and open your books and stop playing accounting games.
    He didn't say revenue.
    He said profit.
    If the Vikings move up in the amount of revenue they bring in, they will lose a considerable amount of money from the profit sharing in the league.

    Honestly, I think the city stands to make more money on a new stadium than the Vikings do.
    I think the state could make a lot of money by buying me a new house. Think about it, they get 7% of my income for as long as I live here, plus they get the property taxes, plus sales taxes because I will be spending my money in the state. If they don't act soon I might just move to L.A. and they won't make any money. I think I will send my proposal to the legislature.
    Nice try.

    Well, actually, no it wasn't.
    It was a perfect example of the lack of understanding that a lot of the public has when dealing with the stadium issue.

    The state wouldn't be buying anything for the Vikings.
    They would be putting money toward a facility that would be owned and operated by the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, just like the metrodome is now.
    The Vikings LEASE the metrodome from them.
    The MSFC, by the way, is a government entity.


    Now, let's try your house example again.
    Instead of the state buying you a house, they would put up about half of the money and you would be responsible for the other half.
    In exchange you will be required to sign a 20 year lease.
    You will have to pay rent for the entire 20 years that you are in the house.
    Don't worry though, you will be able to keep a percentage of any profits that you make while in the house - except for any profits on food.
    The state retains rights to all food and drink profits in your house.

    And while you will get a considerable amount of say on how the house looks and its overall design and maintenance, you will have no say in the way in which it is run.


    You also won't get to live there year round.
    You will only get to live there 20 - 25 days out of the year (depending on playoffs).
    The rest of the time you need to live in a facility you built and paid for yourself in the southern part of the metro area.
    The state would be allowed to do whatever it wants in your house while you are not there, as long as they return it to a livable condition for the days you are allowed to use it.
    The state will also get to keep all profits generated in the house while you are not there.

    If by some chance your house is selected to host some kind of multi-billion dollar event, like the superbowl, the state retains all rights and profits to the event.

    Still want to send that proposal in?
    So if all that is true, then why doesn't zygi come up with the money himself and make a ton? Why does he need the state's help?
    Because $1 billion is a lot of money.
    Even for Zygi Wilf.
    Some owners have done it, but it is hard to do.
    Plus the state will still benefit from the residual effects, like hosting a superbowl.
    If the state is going to benefit, they should pony up some cash too.
    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=

  5. #25
    ultravikingfan's Avatar
    ultravikingfan is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    24,514

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    So if all that is true, then why doesn't zygi come up with the money himself and make a ton? Why does he need the state's help?
    I'll donate a few bucks from out of state seeing as how one billion does not seem like much.

  6. #26
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    "bfld" wrote:
    Now, let's try your house example again.
    Instead of the state buying you a house, they would put up about half of the money and you would be responsible for the other half.
    In exchange you will be required to sign a 20 year lease.
    You will have to pay rent for the entire 20 years that you are in the house.
    Don't worry though, you will be able to keep a percentage of any profits that you make while in the house - except for any profits on food.
    The state retains rights to all food and drink profits in your house.
    You forgot to mention that the landlord (state) will make sure that the rent is sufficiently low to assure you enough profit from your activities in the house to dissuade you from looking at leasing a house somewhere else.
    But the point is you will still pay rent, and never have ownership.
    Would you really move into a $200k house that you pay $100k for up front, and then a 20 year lease regardless of rent amount?
    If so, then pm me and I will get the paperwork started.
    I guarantee that after 20 years, the residual value of that house plus whatever you paid me from rent would be higher than the initial $100k investment I put in.

    "bfld" wrote:
    And while you will get a considerable amount of say on how the house looks and its overall design and maintenance, you will have no say in the way in which it is run.
    Technically "yes", practically "no".
    When the sole tenant for which the landlord built a facility wants changes in how it is operated, you can bet the landlord trys to accomodate.
    The Vikings were not the sole tenant, they were one of three.
    But they were the primary.
    And they have been asking for improved concessions for years.
    The MSFC controls all the contracts, and we are left with Dome dogs.
    They just very recently got Famous Dave's in, but it is only in a couple of spots.
    The fact is the MSFC makes more money on the Centerplate contracts than they do with national retailers like Famous Dave's, so that is what they put in, regardless of what the Vikings want.

    I am pretty sure the Vikings would prefer not to have rivers of urine flowing down the concourse at the last home game too - but that is what you get when you rent.

    "bfld" wrote:
    Don't worry though, you will be able to keep a percentage of any profits that you make while in the house - except for any profits on food.
    The state retains rights to all food and drink profits in your house."
    "The state will also get to keep all profits generated in the house while you are not there.
    Too soon to tell about these things, but you can bet the Vikings will attempt to tap every revenue stream.
    And you can bet that the State won't let them go.
    This is a pretty standard concession.

    "bfld" wrote:
    Oh, and one more point:
    despite the fact that you'e only a tenant, you get to sell the naming rights to your house, for which you will be paid gobs of money.

    Yeah, I'd like to send this proposal to the legislature.
    Wrong again.
    The team doesn't retain naming rights unless it is part of the contract.
    But let's assume they manage to pull that one off.
    The record for naming rights is held by the future Citi Field in NYC at $20 million per year.
    You can bet that any new stadium in Minneapolis won't go for half that much.
    So now you are looking at $10 million per year on a $1 billion stadium.
    That is 1% of the price of the building, which is less than the interest they will have to pay on the bonds to build it.
    Sorry, but it still isn't a huge money maker for Wilf.

    Yes, he will likely make some profit from a new stadium.
    But the state stands to gain a helluva lot more.
    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
    bfld's Avatar
    bfld is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    58

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    "So if all that is true, then why doesn't zygi come up with the money himself and make a ton? Why does he need the state's help?


    "Because $1 billion is a lot of money.
    Even for Zygi Wilf. "

    No.
    First, he doesn't "need" state help.
    Second, he asks/demands it because he knows that eventually he'll probably get it.

    There is a growing school of thought that the NET money brought to a state by a pro sports team is overstated.
    There's also the thought (hope?) that as state budgets tighten such subsidies will continue to be available in only a few wealthy/populous areas.
    There's always be some governments willing to subsidize a pro sport, but we may be coming to the end of the days when the owners' main argument is "everyone is doing it."

  8. #28
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    "bfld" wrote:
    So if all that is true, then why doesn't zygi come up with the money himself and make a ton? Why does he need the state's help?

    Because $1 billion is a lot of money.
    Even for Zygi Wilf.
    No.
    First, he doesn't "need" state help.
    Second, he asks/demands it because he knows that eventually he'll probably get it.

    There is a growing school of thought that the NET money brought to a state by a pro sports team is overstated.
    There's also the thought (hope?) that as state budgets tighten such subsidies will continue to be available in only a few wealthy/populous areas.
    There's always be some governments willing to subsidize a pro sport, but we may be coming to the end of the days when the owners' main argument is "everyone is doing it."
    Maybe.
    But we are not there now, nor are we going to be there in the next decade IMHO.
    And the stadium issue needs to be fixed this decade.

    My biggest argument for a joint venture between Zygi and the state is the fact that the state does benefit from having the Vikings there.
    The economic benefit can be argued both ways, but if nothing else, the quality of life benefits should be apparent.

    What does Best Buy or the Gutherie give back to Minnesota that the Vikings don't?
    How about the Twins?
    The Gophers are definately not a profitable program, yet because the UoM is tied into the state's identity, they have a new stadium.

    But yet when the Vikings, who bring more revenue to the state than the Twins or Gophers (and probably more than Best Buy, but I won't say that unless I am sure), and bring more recognition and events to the state than the Gutherie, ask for state help in a new stadium, all of a sudden it is "The owner looking to line his pockets".

    Crap, Carl Pohlad is worth a helluva lot more than Wilf, and he got gov help...
    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=

  9. #29
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    [quote author=bfld link=topic=38475.msg649324#msg649324 date=1191421351]
    Unfortunate timing:
    it may not be rational, but it's a fact that this would be a lot easier with a winning team.

    I wish Zigi would stop with the "we're not going to make any more revenue with a new stadium" horse hockey.
    If you're asking for the public dollar, treat the public as a partner and open your books and stop playing accounting games.
    He didn't say revenue.
    He said profit.
    If the Vikings move up in the amount of revenue they bring in, they will lose a considerable amount of money from the profit sharing in the league.

    Honestly, I think the city stands to make more money on a new stadium than the Vikings do.
    I think the state could make a lot of money by buying me a new house. Think about it, they get 7% of my income for as long as I live here, plus they get the property taxes, plus sales taxes because I will be spending my money in the state. If they don't act soon I might just move to L.A. and they won't make any money. I think I will send my proposal to the legislature.
    Nice try.

    Well, actually, no it wasn't.
    It was a perfect example of the lack of understanding that a lot of the public has when dealing with the stadium issue.

    The state wouldn't be buying anything for the Vikings.
    They would be putting money toward a facility that would be owned and operated by the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, just like the metrodome is now.
    The Vikings LEASE the metrodome from them.
    The MSFC, by the way, is a government entity.


    Now, let's try your house example again.
    Instead of the state buying you a house, they would put up about half of the money and you would be responsible for the other half.
    In exchange you will be required to sign a 20 year lease.
    You will have to pay rent for the entire 20 years that you are in the house.
    Don't worry though, you will be able to keep a percentage of any profits that you make while in the house - except for any profits on food.
    The state retains rights to all food and drink profits in your house.

    And while you will get a considerable amount of say on how the house looks and its overall design and maintenance, you will have no say in the way in which it is run.


    You also won't get to live there year round.
    You will only get to live there 20 - 25 days out of the year (depending on playoffs).
    The rest of the time you need to live in a facility you built and paid for yourself in the southern part of the metro area.
    The state would be allowed to do whatever it wants in your house while you are not there, as long as they return it to a livable condition for the days you are allowed to use it.
    The state will also get to keep all profits generated in the house while you are not there.

    If by some chance your house is selected to host some kind of multi-billion dollar event, like the superbowl, the state retains all rights and profits to the event.

    Still want to send that proposal in?
    So if all that is true, then why doesn't zygi come up with the money himself and make a ton? Why does he need the state's help?
    Because $1 billion is a lot of money.
    Even for Zygi Wilf.
    Some owners have done it, but it is hard to do.
    Plus the state will still benefit from the residual effects, like hosting a superbowl.
    If the state is going to benefit, they should pony up some cash too.
    [/quote]
    First I don't think 1 billion is a lot of money when you consider how much revenue it will supposedly generate, investors will be lining up.
    And since the state will benefit from me living here, they should pony up the cash for my house.

  10. #30
    bfld's Avatar
    bfld is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    58

    Re: Vikings owner is ready to talk stadium plans with legislators

    I'd agree that it should rise or fall based on quality of life rather than claimed economic benefit to the state.
    I'd also agree that there's going to be some inconsistency as the public subsidy gravey train ride comes to an end.
    UofM and Guthrie may be different because they're non-profits (at least UofM is, I assume Guthrie is).

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings stadium plans move forward
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 02:27 PM
  2. Vikings' Shiancoe ready to roll, not talk
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 11:42 PM
  3. Vikings, Anoka County ready to announce stadium plan
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-20-2005, 05:19 AM
  4. Blaine Stadium plans not liked
    By AngloVike in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-06-2005, 12:32 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
  •