Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's get more general. Shouldn't every business owner get taxpayer funding to build a new store, factory, or warehouse, merely because he may bring in future revenues to the city? Shouldn't every homeowner get taxpayer funding to build or rehab their home, because it will increase the value of the property?
If not, why single out a sports team for preferential treatment?
A new store, factory, warehouse, etc. will generate a small amount of tax revenue and jobs, but generally when someone goes to work they spend their money elsewhere. Also, even if a store is popular, it still will not attract the number of visitors that a sports stadium will.
While there are people who just go straight to the game, then straight home afterwards, there are also people who will make a "day" out of it. They will spend money at near-by restaurants/bars before and/or after game or perhaps do some shopping. So the money gets spread around, which wouldn't happen [as much] with a new warehouse, etc.
There is also another way to look at it: rich people know better than to invest their own money into projects. Even Donald Trump uses loans and investors to build his empire. Why? Because it leaves his own money free to spend how he likes. The Vikings could fund their own stadium, in whole or in part. But that would eat up their revenue and they would not have the money to sign big money players, or to get the players they want/need.
The only option against using tax-payer money is other private funding, such as perhaps NWA or 3M. But that is better served for basketball and baseball teams since both play numerous games a year (more TV/radio time = more "free" advertising for the company that owns the stadium). It doesn't really work with football since they play so few games per season, and even less at home. Such a scenario would require the stadium to be mixed-use.
Everyone moans about spending taxpayer-money, even when the economy is good. The question with a publicly-funded stadium is whether it is beneficial or not to the community as a whole. From the perspective of local business, the answer is definitely yes. From the perspective of the individual, well, it varies. The overwhelming majority of those who are paying for it will never use it. So it is easy to feel like you've been cheated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by audadvnc
And this is the team that wants us to shell out how many mega millions to build them a new stadium?
I am going to be honest here; it is not really the teams fault, but the fans. The more teams get support from the fans, the more money they have. The more money they have, the more they can afford the best players. The better players they have, the more they are going to play-and win-championship games. The Yankees are a perfect example of this; which is made possible by the fact that The Yankees sell a boat load of licensed Yankees gear to people who want something that represents New York, but who generally could care less about baseball.
Look at these two teams: The Packers and The Raiders. The Packs are a great team, but even when they are having a bad year, they still receive tons of support from fans. The Raiders are one of the worst teams in the NFL, and have been for a really long time. But, they have a dedicated fan base that not only continues to buy their gear, but continues to fill McAfee Coliseum-even if they are in their umpteenth losing season in a row.
I was still living in Sacramento when the Kings arrived. Even though they were one of the worst teams in the NBA for what, ten years straight(?), Arco Arena continued to sell out home game after home game. I went to a T-Wolves game after it was certain they would not make the play-offs. The Target Center was a ghost town.
Vikings fans, and Minnesota fans in general, are not like that. Be honest, the typical Minnesota sports fan loses interests when the teams are not winning. You either support your team or you don't. This fair-weather fan sh*t does not make sense (and no, I am not a hard-core sport-o). It is the reason why Minnesota teams will always be so-so (*note* Case-in-point: The Wild are the only exception. They seem to sell out the majority of their home games, [if not all of them?] and they are not that bad of a team)
Uhhhh...the Sacramento fans only have to support 1 team, and they don't sell out anymore. Every city is the same when it comes to team support (for the most part), we just have a TON of entertainment options in a city of its size.
Uhhhh...the Sacramento fans only have to support 1 team, and they don't sell out anymore. Every city is the same when it comes to team support (for the most part), we just have a TON of entertainment options in a city of its size.
Perhaps, but my point is that Sacramento still supported their team even when they were looking bleak.
That line about "too much entertainment" has been thrown about by a good number of Minnesota sport fans (in particular, the Vikings fans) on various message boards, etc. It seems to be cop-out at most. I live in Boston now, a city that has four pro teams, an MLS team, and BC, BU, Harvard, and at least 20 other college teams to follow. Not to mention a ton of "other entertainment". There is no lack of support for any of them (except for some of the college teams), even when they are having losing years.
While most people cannot afford to go to every game, that is not my point. You are either a fan or you are not. Jumping on the bandwagon and supporting your team when they are doing good is no way to build a strong franchise. Perhaps Minnesotans would really just rather be doing something else? Nothing wrong with that. But keep this in mind:
The Lakers moved to LA because local interest in the team declined dramatically when Mikan left. Fans just stopped caring, and stopped attending games, for the most part, so the team left for a better market. The North Stars, same story, but 30 years later. Attendanceship declined after a few losing seasons and fans stopped caring. Yeah, there was the issue over a new stadium, but that was secondary. And yeah, Green's wife threatened to leave him if he didn't move the team. But those last two still do not over-ride lack of interest from the fans.
Pro sports are a business. If the local fan base is not giving support, the team will move. Look at the Twins. Even though the Metrodome has been proven to be a home-field advantage to the Twins, they wanted their own stadium where all the revenue generated from the stadium would go to them. Of course, like the Vikings, they threatened to move to a more lucrative market if they couldn't get this. In 2002, the MLB was going to disband the Twins for a lack of revenue. That didn't happen only because a court ruling allowed the Twins to play out their contract at the Metrodome.
Point being, they were a) going to move because of a lack of revenue, b) almost disbanded as an MLB team because of lack of revenue. Where do you think this revenue comes from? The fans.
The Twins aren't going nowhere now that they have a new stadium, but I could see the Vikes moving. The T-Wolves, too; unless they can somehow manage to get another Garnett-calibur player. It seems obvious that hockey fans learned their lesson over the North Stars.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,089,277 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
Vikings fans, and Minnesota fans in general, are not like that. Be honest, the typical Minnesota sports fan loses interests when the teams are not winning. You either support your team or you don't. This fair-weather fan sh*t does not make sense (and no, I am not a hard-core sport-o). It is the reason why Minnesota teams will always be so-so (*note* Case-in-point: The Wild are the only exception. They seem to sell out the majority of their home games, [if not all of them?] and they are not that bad of a team)
Minnesota culture probably more focused on hockey than any other sport (which is why MN has a half-dozen of its own Division 1 college teams and one of the best high school hockey programs in the country), so it shouldn't be a surprise that the Wild seem to draw consistently while other teams do not.
The Vikings have been fairly competitive over the years and are almost always in the running for at least the division title, so I think they've been successful for the most part ... and this in SPITE of the fact that the only high-profile division 1 program in the state (U of Minn) has been a terrible team since before I was born (with a few exceptions). And I'm almost 50.
The Twins? We're a small market, and we're competing against teams with much larger payrolls. Small ball is cool, and attendance for Twins games is very good when they field a competitive team, which is quite often, but it's hard to keep on rooting for our "little guy" francise when other owners can simply outspend them in the long run. I think Major League Baseball creates some of their own issues by not having a salary cap.
Basketball? The Timberpuppies haven't been consistent winners in their entire history. How can you expect a fan base to form without something to cheer for? Sure, we had KG for 12 years and made it to the first round of the playoffs quite a few times, but they only had one year with Sammy Cassell and Spree where KG had a decent supporting cast. Ya gotta give us a product worth watching! People don't buy cars that perform like crap, either, unless there's some other advantage...
If the Vikings move, what do we really lose? A few business dollars? "Community pride?" We can put tax dollars toward schools, roads and infrastructure improvements, social services, environmental innovations. Why not just let the Vikings go?
If the Vikings move, what do we really lose? A few business dollars? "Community pride?" We can put tax dollars toward schools, roads and infrastructure improvements, social services, environmental innovations. Why not just let the Vikings go?
If we let them go, there will be almost an immediate attempt to get another team here that will cost more money. Almost every city that lost a NFL team ends up trying to get another back. Save all the drama and keep what we have.
The Vikings have sold out nearly every game for 20+ years, so it's a stretch to say that we are fair weather fans. In fact, all Vikings fans I know watch the game no matter what the situation, and would go to the game if the tickets were affordable or given to them. I see NO problems with the support the Vikings get whatsoever.
The Twins are somewhat remarkable if you think about it. Even during their years in the dome, they were selling 20,000 tickets a night during their worst seasons and 30,000+ a night during their playoff seasons -- pretty damn good for terrible baseball atmosphere and a mediocre team! I don't think there are many other cities in the country with a few exceptions that would "blindly" support a team like that.
Hockey is hockey, and will rarely have issues selling out. Basketball is the only pro sports market that really doesn't have the same level of support from the fans as the rest of the sports in this town, and you could argue that the fans are fair weathered. But honestly, what kind of idiot are you if you buy season tickets year after year for a team that has the WORST record since its inception in 1989? I mean, who would keep supporting such a losing effort? I can't blame people for not wanting to see them!
If the Vikings move, what do we really lose? A few business dollars? "Community pride?" We can put tax dollars toward schools, roads and infrastructure improvements, social services, environmental innovations. Why not just let the Vikings go?
"Letting the Vikings go" will not equate to any extra tax $ going towards the things you mentioned. IMO we all ready have enough and maybe even too many $ going toward those items anyway.
While I prefer the Viking to stay, I'm not in favor of climbing deeper in debt to watch pro-football.
While I get the argument that the Vikes bring in out-of-state $$'s (and they do), that is pretty much the only economic benefit over alternatives. People will spend those Viking ticket dollars on other things. Like movies, bowling, shopping, eating out etc. The problem is it's tough to measure where those dollars go. Putting it another way, if the Vikings didn't play on Sunday in MN, do you think all those people would leave those entertainment $$'s in the bank and simple sit at home doing nothing?? Maybe they would head-out to a local pub to watch the games or head to the malls to shop or...???? Those dollars will be spent somewhere at sometime.
The Sunday Vikings game is easy to measure the flow of money. It's much harder measure the gains for other businesses if the Vikings leave town. Rest assured that shopping malls have less people in them when the Vikes are doing well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
