Minnesota Vikings Protest at State Capitol 4/23 at 11am

[Globe199]

1. It's not.

2. He could try to rent it, but I doubt that Saturday afternoon rollerskaters could afford the rent.

3. I guess it depends on who owns the stadium, but rest assured the public won't be given a good deal, notwithstanding Mark Dayton's nauseating "Peoples' Stadium" rhetoric. It's not a Peoples' Stadium; it's Zygi's stadium. Zygi's money-printing stadium.

4. This is the heart of the issue in my estimation. Somebody over at MinnPost had a good analysis of it, and mainly sided with you. However, I do believe that MSP would move down a notch without an NFL team. But I'm a football fan (though I despise the Vikings).

5. Devil's advocate here. The LA Vikings wouldn't necessarily need a new stadium in which to immediately play if they moved. I'm sure the LA Coliseum or the Rose Bowl would welcome them on an interim basis.

6. I too think that's a very important issue. We already have Xcel and Target Centers competing for concerts and other events. U2 was at the Gophers Stadium last year. Presumably a big act like that might be interested in an even bigger venue (e.g., new Vikings Stadium). So now there's even more competition.

[GBCommenter]

Originally Posted by GBCommenter

1. Why is it anyone's responsibility but the business owner to create a viable and practicable business model on their own? If your business model is that wishy-washy you are only using a venue 3% of the time, perhaps it's not a viable business model.
2. Why in the world could Zygi Wilf, if he built his own stadium, not utilize that arena more than 8-10 days a year? There is nothing stopping him from renting out the arena the other 355 days a year.
3. Will the public actually "control" the venue those 355 days a year, or will the Vikings/Wilf get a say and cut? What about the ancillary revenues such as concessions and advertising? Will the public control any of that? If the answer is no, then I'm not sure the public has any effective "control" over the arena.
4. Why do we have this instance on believing the "cold Omaha" bogeyman argument, that we MUST have a football team or the tumbleweeds will endlessly roll down Nicollet Mall and Hennepin Avenue?
5. Even if we give into the "cold Omaha" argument - the question that gets forgotten is where would the Vikings go if the Legislature voted it down (and I think I hear, in a particularly spineless move, the House Ways and Means Committee passed it to move to the House floor on a voice vote)? There is no stadium for them to just pack up and anytime in the reasonable future. The "Los Angeles Football Stadium" is still just an idea with no shovels in the ground as of yet (at least that's what their website sure makes it seem).
6. Last but not least, hardly does Minneapolis need another venue for performance/convention space. There's enough problems renting out the arenas and Convention Center currently in place for more than the explicit purpose of the venue (i.e. Target Center for something besides T-Wolves). Creating more supply will not magically create demand except in the movies.

Originally Posted by Globe199

1. It's not.

2. He could try to rent it, but I doubt that Saturday afternoon rollerskaters could afford the rent.

3. I guess it depends on who owns the stadium, but rest assured the public won't be given a good deal, notwithstanding Mark Dayton's nauseating "Peoples' Stadium" rhetoric. It's not a Peoples' Stadium; it's Zygi's stadium. Zygi's money-printing stadium.

4. This is the heart of the issue in my estimation. Somebody over at MinnPost had a good analysis of it, and mainly sided with you. However, I do believe that MSP would move down a notch without an NFL team. But I'm a football fan (though I despise the Vikings).

5. Devil's advocate here. The LA Vikings wouldn't necessarily need a new stadium in which to immediately play if they moved. I'm sure the LA Coliseum or the Rose Bowl would welcome them on an interim basis.

6. I too think that's a very important issue. We already have Xcel and Target Centers competing for concerts and other events. U2 was at the Gophers Stadium last year. Presumably a big act like that might be interested in an even bigger venue (e.g., new Vikings Stadium). So now there's even more competition.

1. It really isn't anyone but Zygi's responsibility to manage independently (or should be). That is really the crux of my argument: make a bajillion dollars if you want, but do it on your own merit, risk, and efforts. That is true capitalism.

2. Probably true, but begs a question: if a savvy businessman can't profitably rent it out, how does a "public" entity do it?

3. Again, don't care if Zygi makes his bajillion dollars, but on his dime. You are right, it's not the "people's stadium" any more than lots of other businesses or properties posited for the "public good".

4. I suppose it might be a ding in the armor, but I really wonder if only psychological than anything. Does a team in Cincy or Jacksonville make those cities "first class"? My guess is we would get over it. I'm not sure that all the Fortune 500 companies, other teams, and other entertainment venues would stream out of town over it.

5. I suppose...but does Zygi want to part with the cash until they get around to building it? I guess only Zygi knows.

6. That's a huge issue, especially in what is still a somewhat soft market that is also a somewhat smaller market (relative to other cities).

I suppose it's time for me to lay off this particular rant on this smallish forum...if I'm going to rant do it on a bigger scale. I'll still maintain it is not the proper role of government and taxes to be involved in these deals. Sigh...

[Globe199]

Well, it appears that the Minneapolis city council has the seven votes. Referendum be damned.

Oh, and there's this juicy little morsel: the Minneapolis contribution will be $675m including interest. Six-seven-five.

7 'yes' votes for Vikings stadium on Minneapolis City Council | StarTribune.com

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by GBCommenter

1. Why is it anyone's responsibility but the business owner to create a viable and practicable business model on their own? If your business model is that wishy-washy you are only using a venue 3% of the time, perhaps it's not a viable business model.
2. Why in the world could Zygi Wilf, if he built his own stadium, not utilize that arena more than 8-10 days a year? There is nothing stopping him from renting out the arena the other 355 days a year.
3. Will the public actually "control" the venue those 355 days a year, or will the Vikings/Wilf get a say and cut? What about the ancillary revenues such as concessions and advertising? Will the public control any of that? If the answer is no, then I'm not sure the public has any effective "control" over the arena.
4. Why do we have this instance on believing the "cold Omaha" bogeyman argument, that we MUST have a football team or the tumbleweeds will endlessly roll down Nicollet Mall and Hennepin Avenue?
5. Even if we give into the "cold Omaha" argument - the question that gets forgotten is where would the Vikings go if the Legislature voted it down (and I think I hear, in a particularly spineless move, the House Ways and Means Committee passed it to move to the House floor on a voice vote)? There is no stadium for them to just pack up and anytime in the reasonable future. The "Los Angeles Football Stadium" is still just an idea with no shovels in the ground as of yet (at least that's what their website sure makes it seem).
6. Last but not least, hardly does Minneapolis need another venue for performance/convention space. There's enough problems renting out the arenas and Convention Center currently in place for more than the explicit purpose of the venue (i.e. Target Center for something besides T-Wolves). Creating more supply will not magically create demand except in the movies.

The old adage of "you have to spend money to make money" is appropriate here. There are limits to that thinking, and clearly the cost of a new stadium is not going to be captured back in 30 years with increased revenue from tickets and other sources. The city and state get some goodies if the stadium is built, but seems like nobody really speaks of return on investment in a realistic fashion. What else could the city and state do with that money if they are looking to "invest" in the economy. I have to believe other options are more lucrative. While the vikings are putting up a pretty good amount of cash here compared to other recent stadium deals, this is still a bad business decision in objective terms. Personally, I would like to see a couple wheels fall of the NFL money train and that might really slow down the strong arm tactics.