New Minnesota Vikings Stadium Thread (Minneapolis, St. Paul: construction jobs, transfer, construction)

[ozzie679]

MinnPost - Jay Weiner: Tax revenues and a new Vikings stadium: A payback?

As much as stadium critics take whacks at the economics of stadiums — much of it deserved — we got our hands on an interesting chart (http://www.minnpost.com/_asset/c7vz4y/StateROIchart.pdf - broken link) (PDF). Have a look at it.

[Ghengis]

Thank you for the post and providing the proof of the wisdom of this project.

Now one of the anti-stadites will probably try to disparage these documents and that's what haters do but let's see their charts and graphs if they got any.

My only concern at this point is not taking full advantage of the situation and perhaps build another venue while the gettin' is good.

[snofarmer]

As one of the top 6 kids chosen first to play on a team

The "chart" is assuming a rosy economic forecast and it assumes that Ziggy will keep the team in MN.

We can let the private sector take care of the entertainment and the Govt. take care of the state.

We can tax the facility/area with a tax of some sort, maybe a sports entertainment tax and gain revenue with "$0.00" invested.

Just because I don't support more govt. subsidized professional sports teams does not mean I don't like or play sports.
I just think some have their entertainment mixed up with what really maters.

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by snofarmer

As one of the top 6 kids chosen first to play on a team

The "chart" is assuming a rosy economic forecast and it assumes that Ziggy will keep the team in MN.

We can let the private sector take care of the entertainment and the Govt. take care of the state.

We can tax the facility-area with a tax of some sort, maybe a sports entertainment tax and gain revenue with "$0.00" invested.

Just because I don't support more govt. subsidized professional sports teams does not mean I don't like or play sports.
I just think some have their entertainment mixed up with what really maters.

I know I asked once before and I don't think anyone responded, but in these types of deals is there any kind of "no-move" clause? Something like a coaches buyout where they have to pick up the cost if they move in less than X number of years?

[snofarmer]

We built a big facility for NWA in Duluth, they had a contract and a lease.
They moved out early and stopped paying.

What are you going to do if they break the contract sue them? It will take years and cost more in court costs than they will get from the fine for breach of contract.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by 1stpontiac

I know I asked once before and I don't think anyone responded, but in these types of deals is there any kind of "no-move" clause? Something like a coaches buyout where they have to pick up the cost if they move in less than X number of years?

t(T)he current bill requires a 50 year lease and a provision that all Vikings records, trademarks, trophies (), etc stay with the state. So we got that going for us.

[snofarmer]

Lets say it happens.
New stadium is built & Ghengis is doing cart-wheels down the street.
And then Ziggy dies or sells the team, why would the new owners be held to a contract they did not sign?


Next,

We all have seen these rosy deals,
The stadium starts construction before a "new" contract with the team is in place and signed, the deal gets changed at the last moment or after the project is built.
Who do you think is going to get a shorter end of the stick?


Were talking about guys who make millions a year getting fined for moving the team and taking the trophies with them the fine will be pocket change.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by snofarmer

Lets say it happens.
New stadium is built & Ghengis is doing cart-wheels down the street.
And then Ziggy dies or sells the team, why would the new owners be held to a contract they did not sign?


Next,

We all have seen these rosy deals,
The stadium starts construction before a "new" contract with the team is in place and signed, the deal gets changed at the last moment or after the project is built.
Who do you think is going to get a shorter end of the stick?


Were talking about guys who make millions a year getting fined for moving the team and taking the trophies with them the fine will be pocket change.

seriously? you realize that when a business sells, all assets and liabilities transfer to the new owner right? presumably the bill to build the stadium would likely include a provision for the team to sign a lease at the new place, but maybe they're actually forgetting that part!

hey legislature! don't forget the part where you require the Vikings to sign a lease.

[Ghengis]

ok, but only cuz I'm bored...

Originally Posted by snofarmer

As one of the top 6 kids chosen first to play on a team

sorry 'bout that previous nonsense I posted on this, high five!

The "chart" is assuming a rosy economic forecast and it assumes that Ziggy will keep the team in MN.

guess we really don't know what the forecast is based on but in spite of all the disbelief in no matter what is presented, I've yet to see any of the detractors dispute these "projections" with other than a "is not! is not!" rebutal.

50 year lease that would likely not be broken given previous attempts to cut bait and run and swift judicial action by the state courts (Twin's foray to NC and baseball's attempt at contraction for starters)

We can let the private sector take care of the entertainment and the Govt. take care of the state.

precedents in this and most every other recent stadium development in the country would indicate these stadiums are public assets with multiple tenants.

We can tax the facility/area with a tax of some sort, maybe a sports entertainment tax and gain revenue with "$0.00" invested.

that, and other user fees/taxes/whatever are in the state plan. local jurisdictions are within their right to participate or not.

Just because I don't support more govt. subsidized professional sports teams does not mean I don't like or play sports.
I just think some have their entertainment mixed up with what really maters .

I accept that some people just don't like the idea and if the thing doesn't get done, I probably won't lose any sleep over it. Personally I think the team is an asset to the area and a bit of our quality of life and stature on the national scene will be lessened when and if the team leaves.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

Thank you for the post and providing the proof of the wisdom of this project.

Now one of the anti-stadites will probably try to disparage these documents and that's what haters do but let's see their charts and graphs if they got any.

My only concern at this point is not taking full advantage of the situation and perhaps build another venue while the gettin' is good.

Ok, let's take a look at the numbers. This is what Mondale's numbers assume. On the cost side, we have interest on $300 million at 5%. That's $15 million per year. On the revenue side, we have $12.5 million per year from income taxes on players' salaries plus $5.3 million in sales tax, primarily on liquor.

Now, the state's share is being talked as being, at best, half a billion. So that $25 million per year in debt service costs. Optimistically. Maybe the state has to kick in more but let's call it $25 million in costs.

Let's take Ted at this word that the players will pay $12.5 million a year in come taxes. On the sales tax side, there is no increase in revenue. People are not going to drink more or less because of the stadium. They'll drink at home, at the bar, or at the stadium, but the public, in total, is only going to spend a certain amount and that does not vary.

So where are we? The cost per year is $25 million per year and the revenue is $12.5 million, leaving us $12.5 million per year in the hole. Oh, yeah. We have to pay back the $500 million at the end of the 30 years.

You can make arguments that it's a nice amenity, we love the Vikings, people in other places will think we're fools for not jumping on the stadium bandwagon, or just plain I want this. But you cannot make a case that this will be a financially positive venture for the state and it's taxpayers.