New Twins stadium (Harding, Viking: buy, theater, colleges)

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by cdubs3201

You make no sense. Let me simplify my statements for you:

- Niether the NFL or the Wilfs will foot the entire bill for a stadium, you can thank the city of Baltimore for building the Ravens stadium who set this precident.

- Tax payers of MN WILL PAY FOR THIS STADIUM to some extent.

- The stadium will be built when it's economically and financially possible

- The Vikings will NOT move to LA or any other city.

- Who do you think paid for the majority of the Twins Stadium? Pohlad? No, taxpayers. Even after 20 years of hot-heads like you saying that this state will never pay for a stadium....guess what, you did, it's almost finished. Float your icehouse on that.

I lived in MN for the first 23 years of my life and it's people like you that drove me out. You get angry over something like having to pay taxes for a stadium for a rich billionaire, but yet you say you are the minority in willing to pay. Why don't you get angry over taxes you are CURRENTLY paying for, like a weak-regulated welfare system that allows people from out of state to collect checks and leave their car running outside because it's soo fast and easy. Or what about your road maintenance and bridges being built to sub-par safety regulations allowing them to collapse. Maybe you should whine like a baby more about your joke of a public transportation system and the light rail.

Seems like you got bigger problems than football, and you aren't even aware of them.

Good luck.

So who's angry? You need to mellow out young buck-snort.

Sorry, I may have provided too much information for you to process and caused you to go in to a rambling discertation about your feelings on taxes, welfare and public transportation so try this on for size....

The Vikings rank 32 out of 32 in franchise value.
The Vikings rank 26 out of 32 in operating net income.

How long do you think the Wilfs will continue to operate in a revenue depressed facility under those conditions, especially without the formality of a lease beyond 2011.

Maybe you have a secret plan to get a billion-dollar stadium built. But, you still haven't provided any facts to substantiate your contention on how that it might get paid for. Any state wide tax plan requires a voter's referendum to approve it. Currently the opposition is running about 6-to-1 against tax support for a Vikings Stadium. Next time, check your facts before you spout off. Too bad you didn't spend any of your first 23 years learning anything about where you lived.

[Ghengis]

sorry, back on topic....from the STRIB...

"Outdoor baseball soon will be taken to new heights in Minnesota -- to the roof, to be exact.

A roof deck, complete with a fire pit and a bar, will be the latest addition to the Minnesota Twins' new outdoor stadium, giving a Minnesota twist to the famed rooftop decks that surround Chicago's Wrigley Field."

Twins roof deck: Hot dogs, Cracker Jack and s'mores

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

sorry, back on topic....from the STRIB...

"Outdoor baseball soon will be taken to new heights in Minnesota -- to the roof, to be exact.

A roof deck, complete with a fire pit and a bar, will be the latest addition to the Minnesota Twins' new outdoor stadium, giving a Minnesota twist to the famed rooftop decks that surround Chicago's Wrigley Field."

Twins roof deck: Hot dogs, Cracker Jack and s'mores

I heard this was in discussion. I will try to get a picture up of where they are soon. I look out over the new park from my office.

[Ghengis]

This roof-top deal appears to be sitting just off the foul pole down the left field line. Apparently it will be a general admission, standing room patio hang-out. Think Joe's Garage with a ball field in front of it. Would be pretty sweet on a night like tonight!

The design is a bit more contemporary than the recent ball parks that have been built, but that's OK. The small foot print will make up for that with the intimacy that will result.

The Twins have recently sprung ($15M?) for some aesthetic upgrades like some of the additional Kasota Granite on the outside that will make this place special to Minnesota. I think their commitment is up to close to $200M of the approx $500M cost. The rest of us are in for $20/year, worth it to me.

[knke0204]

I don't get why the public cries so much about "our" money that is being used for stadiums. It's ignorant thinking, and most of the time is people complaining just to complain. It amounts to roughly $20 a year per Hennepin Cty resident. Or, about $1.5 a month. Or, for about $.05 a day. For a nickle a day, I would contribute to a brand new stadium. But, Stadiums do much more than just a home for pro sports. A little thing called civic pride occurs, whereas people have just one more reason to go downtown and spend money. And in a consumer-spending driven economy, that's exactly what we want.

I'm not going to start the "create jobs" argument, because the jobs created usually aren't jobs that sustain a lifestyle or family. They are low paying, low skilled and seasonal. The spillover argument is the best, that people will now be more enitced to attend a Twins Game at Target Field than the Dome. In doing so, those people will spend money on parking, beers at a nearby restaurant before/after the game, and also, being drawn downtown may introduce people to other retail or restaraunts. Therre is the tax base argument as well. Many fail to realize how much of an impact Professional sports have on regions. Franchises themselves are like a business or corporations with employees, payroll, marketing, PR, etc. etc.

Having a classy stadium may be just another reason for a certain player to come to the Twins. This will allow the twins to obtain better players, maybe finally winning a World Series again.. If you dont think sports success has any impact on an area go ask Tampa and St. Petersburg, FL. Or downtown Cleveland after the Inidans success in the 1990s.

If I could spend $1.50 a month for a new stadium in my county, I would be happy to do so.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by knke0204

I don't get why the public cries so much about "our" money that is being used for stadiums. It's ignorant thinking, and most of the time is people complaining just to complain......

This will allow the twins to obtain better players, maybe finally winning a World Series again.. If you dont think sports success has any impact on an area go ask Tampa and St. Petersburg, FL. Or downtown Cleveland after the Inidans success in the 1990s.

If I could spend $1.50 a month for a new stadium in my county, I would be happy to do so.

Sorry knke0204. If the state has to kick in $$'s, then it is "our" money. For everyone in Hennepin County, it's also "their money". We are talking about HUNDREDS of millions of dollars not 5 cents a day. Independent of the magnitude of $$'s, building stadiums to afford better players is the reason we got into this salary escalation mess. In 1970, the average baseball salary was $30,000. Now the average salary is $3M! Did we enjoy baseball LESS in 1970 when we allowed wealthy owners to build their own stadiums and the players were paid 100x less?? If players can make $3M a year without me helping them in the form of forced taxes on "us" to build them a new stadium, I say more power to them. But, you hit the nail on the head by accident: the reason players are over paid is because the owners get nearly free stadiums and the revenue from the concessions. It's a race to see who can out subsidize their team with the public's money to "afford" better players. You see this as a good business practice but it is not.

Before, there was one stadium for the Twins, Gophers, and Vikings. That seemed fiscally responsible. Now they all want there own so multiply the cost by three. Building a stadium for 10 games a year for BOTH the Vikings and the Gophers is the reason why our country is going broke; we are allowing the government to force us to make business decisions. And the public and politicians (most of which are financial dimwits) get hood winked into thinking it is a good business decision. If the business cannot make it on its own, let it die and that includes professional teams. Your civic pride might be tied into having a beautiful ballfield. But my fiscal pride is tied into not wasting several hundred millions on EACH stadium.

In 1970 the bars, hotels, and local businesses appreciated their local franchise sports team. That was a good for business and fans loved their teams just as much.

If the Twins and Vikings left town, I promise you that would be a bad thing for those local bars and restaurants. I can also promise you that it would be a GREAT thing for MN shopping malls, bowling alleys, movie theaters etc. That is because it would unleash thousand of zombies watching a TV. So in other words, the dollars spent on items related to Twins Baseball would be spent on other things. The difference is it is very easy to measure the economic impact of the team leaving versus a shopping center or bowling alley that is 3/4 empty during the Vikings game (as an example). All I am saying is if a professional team left because another city was willing to force their citizens to pony up for even more subsidies, then I say don't let the door hit you in the butt. Because in the end, our economy will be just as well off because people are still spending. Just because a pro team leaves doesn't mean people who WOULD go to the game freeze for three hours. This concept is tough for people to grasp. Just ask an economist and he will say the same thing. I too like to have a pro team. But I like the 1970 model better. Owners built their own stadium with their own money and therefore they had to compromise and share stadiums and not over pay their employees. Somehow we were able to field competitive teams without BEGGING for money and threatening to leave.

Sorry if I seem like I'm one of those "ignorant thinking" people you were referring to.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

Sorry knke0204. If the state has to kick in $$'s, then it is "our" money. For everyone in Hennepin County, it's also "their money". We are talking about HUNDREDS of millions of dollars not 5 cents a day. Independent of the magnitude of $$'s, building stadiums to afford better players is the reason we got into this salary escalation mess. In 1970, the average baseball salary was $30,000. Now the average salary is $3M! Did we enjoy baseball LESS in 1970 when we allowed wealthy owners to build their own stadiums and the players were paid 100x less?? If players can make $3M a year without me helping them in the form of forced taxes on "us" to build them a new stadium, I say more power to them. But, you hit the nail on the head by accident: the reason players are over paid is because the owners get nearly free stadiums and the revenue from the concessions. It's a race to see who can out subsidize their team with the public's money to "afford" better players. You see this as a good business practice but it is not.

Before, there was one stadium for the Twins, Gophers, and Vikings. That seemed fiscally responsible. Now they all want there own so multiply the cost by three. Building a stadium for 10 games a year for BOTH the Vikings and the Gophers is the reason why our country is going broke; we are allowing the government to force us to make business decisions. And the public and politicians (most of which are financial dimwits) get hood winked into thinking it is a good business decision. If the business cannot make it on its own, let it die and that includes professional teams. Your civic pride might be tied into having a beautiful ballfield. But my fiscal pride is tied into not wasting several hundred millions on EACH stadium.

In 1970 the bars, hotels, and local businesses appreciated their local franchise sports team. That was a good for business and fans loved their teams just as much.

If the Twins and Vikings left town, I promise you that would be a bad thing for those local bars and restaurants. I can also promise you that it would be a GREAT thing for MN shopping malls, bowling alleys, movie theaters etc. That is because it would unleash thousand of zombies watching a TV. So in other words, the dollars spent on items related to Twins Baseball would be spent on other things. The difference is it is very easy to measure the economic impact of the team leaving versus a shopping center or bowling alley that is 3/4 empty during the Vikings game (as an example). All I am saying is if a professional team left because another city was willing to force their citizens to pony up for even more subsidies, then I say don't let the door hit you in the butt. Because in the end, our economy will be just as well off because people are still spending. Just because a pro team leaves doesn't mean people who WOULD go to the game freeze for three hours. This concept is tough for people to grasp. Just ask an economist and he will say the same thing. I too like to have a pro team. But I like the 1970 model better. Owners built their own stadium with their own money and therefore they had to compromise and share stadiums and not over pay their employees. Somehow we were able to field competitive teams without BEGGING for money and threatening to leave.

Sorry if I seem like I'm one of those "ignorant thinking" people you were referring to.

It's very ignorant. Unless you have 'millions' of dollars, it's ignorant. It's not YOUR money whatsoever. It's monies collected from an percentage increase on a tax that you were already paying.

If you disagree look at tax allocation and public service provision provided by your county's website. The few cents that is collected from your purchases was OKAYED by the state officials that you elected. The expenditure of these dollars took years of political hogwash, and the allocation of your 'millions and millions' werent just switched from one line on a balance sheet to the other.

Players get paid much more nowadays because professional sports is now a business and less of a "sport". Everything from merchandise, rights, etc. its now an industry that is worldwide and brings in lots and lots of money. Also, owners can afford these things because they are rich. Owners of franchises have money before they buy their team and spending money for a stadium usually isnt out their reach. But they are wealthy for a reason- they find the most lucrative deals and are successful business men. If they can get 'fans' (whether that be real fans or residents of a certain area) to pay for it, then why not?

Zigi Wilf has put a dollar amount on how much he would put down for a stadium.

If all these Hennepin County residents are against using there measly sales tax dollars for a stadium, then they should have been taking trips to St. Paul, calling their representatives off the hook, and writing letters voicing their opinions of not wanting a stadium that uses public dollars. Your same tax dollars are used to pay for some of the most rediculous things, not just stadiums. Example: I pay $3.5 a month, or about $42 a year for streetlights, and I dont even have streetlights on my street. The argument is made that having streetlights in your town reduces crime, and its safe for the roadways, thus using less medical and police help that would end up costing more in the long run. So, the $42 a year sucks to pay since i dont have streetlights, but the money saved from burgalaries, car crashes, etc. pays off. This is the same mentality for public spending for stadiums. A new stadium will create spillover jobs in surrounding neighborhoods, maybe bringing in residents near the stadium, and putting MPLS on the global map, because baseball is global now.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

Sorry knke0204. If the state has to kick in $$'s, then it is "our" money. For everyone in Hennepin County, it's also "their money". We are talking about HUNDREDS of millions of dollars not 5 cents a day. Independent of the magnitude of $$'s, building stadiums to afford better players is the reason we got into this salary escalation mess. In 1970, the average baseball salary was $30,000. Now the average salary is $3M! Did we enjoy baseball LESS in 1970 when we allowed wealthy owners to build their own stadiums and the players were paid 100x less?? If players can make $3M a year without me helping them in the form of forced taxes on "us" to build them a new stadium, I say more power to them. But, you hit the nail on the head by accident: the reason players are over paid is because the owners get nearly free stadiums and the revenue from the concessions. It's a race to see who can out subsidize their team with the public's money to "afford" better players. You see this as a good business practice but it is not.

Before, there was one stadium for the Twins, Gophers, and Vikings. That seemed fiscally responsible. Now they all want there own so multiply the cost by three. Building a stadium for 10 games a year for BOTH the Vikings and the Gophers is the reason why our country is going broke; we are allowing the government to force us to make business decisions. And the public and politicians (most of which are financial dimwits) get hood winked into thinking it is a good business decision. If the business cannot make it on its own, let it die and that includes professional teams. Your civic pride might be tied into having a beautiful ballfield. But my fiscal pride is tied into not wasting several hundred millions on EACH stadium.

In 1970 the bars, hotels, and local businesses appreciated their local franchise sports team. That was a good for business and fans loved their teams just as much.

If the Twins and Vikings left town, I promise you that would be a bad thing for those local bars and restaurants. I can also promise you that it would be a GREAT thing for MN shopping malls, bowling alleys, movie theaters etc. That is because it would unleash thousand of zombies watching a TV. So in other words, the dollars spent on items related to Twins Baseball would be spent on other things. The difference is it is very easy to measure the economic impact of the team leaving versus a shopping center or bowling alley that is 3/4 empty during the Vikings game (as an example). All I am saying is if a professional team left because another city was willing to force their citizens to pony up for even more subsidies, then I say don't let the door hit you in the butt. Because in the end, our economy will be just as well off because people are still spending. Just because a pro team leaves doesn't mean people who WOULD go to the game freeze for three hours. This concept is tough for people to grasp. Just ask an economist and he will say the same thing. I too like to have a pro team. But I like the 1970 model better. Owners built their own stadium with their own money and therefore they had to compromise and share stadiums and not over pay their employees. Somehow we were able to field competitive teams without BEGGING for money and threatening to leave.

Sorry if I seem like I'm one of those "ignorant thinking" people you were referring to.

The best thing you said was your second paragraph and I couldnt agree more. Politicians are politicians. They arent economists, businessmen, or entrepreneures.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

knke204.

You initially said that if we don't build them a stadium, then the owners cannot afford to pay players more money. As a reminder, you then explained that salary escalation was not because of a stadium subsidy. That is known as a contradiction. They are absolutely tied together. You said it yourself.

Since the government wastes so much money on all kinds of projects, are you saying that 2000 wrongs make a right??

The bottom line: if the government gets involved in ANYbusiness decision, politics are involved. Therefore, you can count on the wrong decisions are being made when the government meddles in business. That is how we have signed off on two stadiums so far and another to follow.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by knke0204

The best thing you said was your second paragraph and I couldnt agree more. Politicians are politicians. They arent economists, businessmen, or entrepreneures.

I am glad that you agree. But I need to come clean.

My statement: "......we are allowing the government to force us to make business decisions. And the public and politicians (most of which are financial dimwits) get hood winked into thinking it is a good business decision..."

I classified you as part of the public getting hood winked.