Skip to comments.Minn. Vikings stadium stalls amid Capitol politics
Posted on 05/02/2012 7:23:19 AM PDT by topher
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) The big push at Minnesota's Capitol to pass a public subsidy for a new Vikings stadium stalled Tuesday, as the proposal got snared in the partisan politics that have defined state government under a Democratic governor and Republican legislative majorities.
The prospect of impending House and Senate floor votes on the $975 million stadium plan appeared to dissolve after Republican legislative leaders unexpectedly debuted a brand-new financing plan that differs significantly from the proposal negotiated by Gov. Mark Dayton's administration, the Vikings and the city of Minneapolis. GOP leaders called for shrinking the proposed $400 million state contribution by an unspecified amount, eliminating the stadium's roof and paying for it with state general bonds rather than tax money from an expansion of legal gambling.
The proposal earned withering scorn from Dayton even before the GOP unveiled it. The Democratic governor called a news conference to blast Republican leaders after hearing third-hand of what he called ''secret meetings'' with the Vikings. He described their proposal as ''fooling around'' and demanded up-or-down House and Senate votes on the original plan.
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.yahoo.com ...
The GOP, on the other hand, is proposing cutting back on the state's contribution to the new stadium, and make it an NFL stadium without a roof [AKA, like Green Bay's home field advantage]. They would float bonds to fund this.
Clearly, the GOP is doing the right thing by the taxpayers of Minnesota. In my opinion, expanding gambling is a bad thing. Floating bonds is not a good thing, but the NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry, so keeping the Vikings in Minnesota IS A SOUND FINANCIAL INVESTMENT!
One of the ways they want to cut cost is to eliminate the roof.
Curious that the Vikings want to play indoors and the Packers are able to play outside.
Interesting that 30 plus years ago, when the Metrodome was built, a domed stadium was considered essential due to the bitter cold of Minnesota winters. But now, some say that the cold weather could be a “home field advantage” to the Vikings. Interesting how the views of things have changed.
Vikings playing outdoors : 4 NFC Titles
Vikings playing indoors : 0 NFC Titles
Coincidence? I think not.
Ya, some teams, such as the Packers and Buffalo Bills, like to talk about the cold weather games, and that they have to be tough enough for the weather, etc.
Upwards of a billion dollars for 8 games a year for around 25-30 years of useful life? If you assume $1 billion for 240 games and 60,000 people per game that comes to $70 per ticket. Yikes.
It would be nice if our current fiscal problems force local governments across the country to jointly say "NO!" to these playgrounds. Some teams may move trying to find the last cities willing to screw their taxpayers to pay for the stadiums, but hopefully the game of musical chairs will end when fewer than 32 cities are willing to pay for them. Let the owners, advertisers and ticket buyers pay for them and leave our tax bills out of it.
I love pro football..but if I were in the legislature..I would tell the vikes to pound sand..the NFL is a multi-billion dollar enterprise..build your own damn stadium..that way the Vikes get to keep all of the money themselves and don’t have to hit up cash-strapped states..my two cents..
Viking “playing” football=0/4 Super Bowl wins! GO PACK!
The Metrodome cost (inflation adjsted) $170 million. The Vikings are demanding a stadium costing $1 billion - 2/3 publically financed. They are not interested in any compromise on that. In fact any suggestion that maybe 3/4 of a billion ( 4X fancier than the Metrodome) might be more realistic is thown back in our faces with disgust, as if we insulted them.
Leave you bastards.
If building and operating an NFL stadium (or Major League baseball stadium, NBA/NHL arena) was profitable, the teams would all be building their own venues instead of holding cities for ransom, and sticking the tax payers with the bill.
This economic argunent has been debunked over and over again. If you ignore the fact that a $billion dollars invested some other way might actually have a larger gain then investing it in a stadum, If you pretend that one $billion appears out of thin air, if you pretend that money citizens spend on Vikings games won’t be spent on other leisure time business, then it looks pretty good.
In other words if you are dishonest you might fool some people.
Time to put the NFL on the spot: as a condition for public funding, guarantee that two Super Bowls will be played at the new stadium (over the next 10-12 years).
Indeed. When I moved to the DFWarea, I expected to attend the Ramgers game. Did not like the hassle or the expense. Pay for parking, pay for seating distant from the field. because companies have bought up all the good seats. I can remember getting good seats at Fenway in 1995 for about $15. Paid many times more more for worse seats at Arlington, plus I dont like the configuration of the stadium. I can see very good baseball played at the Rangers minor league club at Frisco, at a small park where you can spit on the players if you choose. But watch out for fouls!
yaaaa! we got some crumbs from the bread and circuses!
Let them pay them themselves.
AFL-CIO is all for it. (so it must be great...)
If one stadium is an economic boom, 3 stadiums would be even BETTER!
I do find it interesting that the same union members who decry the evil 1% and ally themselves with occutards are by and large all for the 99% funding the rich 1% NFL owner, Ziggy.
Not a single penny of ticket sales will go towards paying off the stadium -- that's revenue for the NFL. The politicians are using the time-honored [and flat-out false] economic justification that the stadium will spur economic activity. It won't; it will drain money from other entertainment venues.