Vikings Message Board.Com

Let's see what happens today. You can only take so much damn heart break as a VIking Fan.

Its ridicolous, its been years they have been seeking a new stadium, now today they are going to propose a way to publically fund it up to 300 million, and they dont have a site picked out. But says a site will be determined in early 2012. WTF. Who can ask for 300 million dollars with a half assed plan like that? The planning alone should get it shot down before the conversation even starts. The folks leading this piss poor attempt at a new stadium are completely incompitent.

It seems the big thing anti public funding people seem to misunderstand is that it's NOT giving Wilf, or even the NFL a new stadium. The STATE OF MINNESOTA gets a new stadium! If wilf sells the team Minnesota keeps the stadium! If the NFL explodes and dies Minnesota still has a new stadium to host whatever events it wants!

It's absolutely absurd to expect Wilf or even the NFL to want to spend say 800 million of their own money building something only to have to hand it over to the state. There isn't any one alive rich or dumb enough to agree to that deal! I give you 800 million and all I get in return is nothing? YEAH BABY SIGN ME UP! LOL! Even if Zygi or the NFL wanted to build their own stadium and have it in their name, the state would NEVER allow that either! They'd be missing out on a huge chunk of pie!

The reason we don't hold public votes on every single topic (you know, to see what the people really want!) is because the average person is more than less an idiot. Don't get me wrong, every country needs drones, "worker ants" if you will, I just wouldn't want those idiots deciding important financial topics because quite frankly the public has zero idea what an NFL team such as the Vikings ACTUALLY contributes to the state in the grand scheme of things, nor would they know much about any other topic. That's not to say our current government is awesome, it quite frankly sucks too but the day we let the masses decide on any thing other than our elected leaders is the day I move to Canada.

One area I think we can all agree on though is that this Lester Bagley (i think that's his name) sucks pretty bad at his job. And for that I do not blame any one for being skeptical of any of this when that #### starts talking.

purple guy wrote:Its ridicolous, its been years they have been seeking a new stadium, now today they are going to propose a way to publically fund it up to 300 million, and they dont have a site picked out. But says a site will be determined in early 2012. WTF. Who can ask for 300 million dollars with a half assed plan like that? The planning alone should get it shot down before the conversation even starts. The folks leading this piss poor attempt at a new stadium are completely incompitent.

That I agree with. They are trying to make themselves look good. It is a joke. Unfortunately, this joke is pretty much the last chance the state of Minnesota has of preventing the Vikings from moving to LA.

I support public funding but not $500M or greater. It is being built for 8 games/yr for Vikings. The dome could meet all other uses, at lower cost. This is why the "the benefits are enormous" beyond the Vikes does not wash with me. The Twins stadium with 81 games makes far more sense and Gophers stadium subsidy is trivial compared to the Vikings ask. Those differences should be acknowledged in the debate.

Also, the Wilf's only foray into a real stadium plan was Anoka County in 2006 and at the time they stated they were as much or more interested in ancillary developments around the stadium as in the stadium itself. Their actions since 2006 have shown no indication they understand what it takes to get public funding for a stadium, or that they truly care. Their lack of success indicates to me they may be waiting out the payday that accompanies a potential move. That is a real problem for this whole process IMHO.

One thing that never gets mentioned in the funding equation is taxes. Let's say the stadium costs $900 million and all of that is financed by the state. Let's say the team has a payroll of $100 million/year, not counting ancillary staff, coach's salaries, etc. What does the state collect in taxes on $100 million of player income? Does anyone know the rate on that?

Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 7%, or $7 million dollars per year (and that amount goes up every year as the cap goes up). So the $900 million, spread out over the 30 year life of the stadium, equates to a $30 million per year investment. On that investment, the direct return in income taxes on player income starts at $7 million per year and rises (probably averages out to around $11 or $12 million per year over the life of the deal). That doesn't count any taxes also paid by construction workers who build the thing, maintain it, or people who work in and around it, and that's straight off the bottom line.

So the public funding numbers, whatever they are, have to be discounted by the direct taxes that will be paid in by the jobs that are retained or attracted to the effort, and then that figure should be extended over the likely life of the beast as a more realistic way of evaluating the actual public money expended on the project. It's that number, not the headline number, that the taxpayers should really be concerned about recouping or at least breaking even on.

To estimate what that real cost is, let's just say the direct tax return on the above averages $10 million per year on the initial $900 million investment. The actual public subsidy then is $30 million per year minus $10 million in returned taxes, or $20 million per year. Extended over 30 years, the actual cost to the taxpayers is $600 million, not $900 million. That's still a big number, but not as big.

The proportionate effects of this increase as the state subsidy decreases. If the state can get away with putting in $500 million, and the taxes paid in average the same, that leaves a $200 million actual gap between what was put in and what was paid back over the life of the deal. By my estimation the state breaks even at around $300 million without even taking a dime of profits generated by the stadium.

My numbers could be off somewhat and if so, I apologize, but I think the point is still valid. There is a break-even point at a decent-sized dollar figure where the taxpayers won't be out a dime for this thing because of the income taxes generated by the jobs that are created and retained as a result of the project. To see that, both the public and the politicians have to take a lifetime view of the deal.

The flip side of this is equally true. Failing to make this investment also carries a significant cost due to the loss of those same high-paying jobs.

I think the real problem with these stadium deals is the time horizon of most politicians and taxpayers. 30 years is a long time to evaluate something and a lot can change over that length of time. But in my view the state of Minnesota would be downright stupid not to eagerly pony up (to a point) and help fund this thing. The cost of losing those jobs and possibly later trying to get another pro team back to Minnesota far outweighs even a sizeable state contribution in the near-term.

And to those who ask why the state should make an investment like this when other needs are more pressing or they don't like football and don't want to pay for it, all I can say is that if there is no real cost to the taxpayers over the life of the deal, what's the big deal? I'd say at some level there is a real cost to the taxpayers of failing to take action, however. As long as the stadium isn't outrageously subsidized, there is no valid reason for not getting the deal done beyond pandering, short-sighted politicians and equally short-sighted voters.

VikingLord wrote:One thing that never gets mentioned in the funding equation is taxes. Let's say the stadium costs $900 million and all of that is financed by the state. Let's say the team has a payroll of $100 million/year, not counting ancillary staff, coach's salaries, etc. What does the state collect in taxes on $100 million of player income? Does anyone know the rate on that?

Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 7%, or $7 million dollars per year (and that amount goes up every year as the cap goes up). So the $900 million, spread out over the 30 year life of the stadium, equates to a $30 million per year investment. On that investment, the direct return in income taxes on player income starts at $7 million per year and rises (probably averages out to around $11 or $12 million per year over the life of the deal). That doesn't count any taxes also paid by construction workers who build the thing, maintain it, or people who work in and around it, and that's straight off the bottom line.

So the public funding numbers, whatever they are, have to be discounted by the direct taxes that will be paid in by the jobs that are retained or attracted to the effort, and then that figure should be extended over the likely life of the beast as a more realistic way of evaluating the actual public money expended on the project. It's that number, not the headline number, that the taxpayers should really be concerned about recouping or at least breaking even on.

To estimate what that real cost is, let's just say the direct tax return on the above averages $10 million per year on the initial $900 million investment. The actual public subsidy then is $30 million per year minus $10 million in returned taxes, or $20 million per year. Extended over 30 years, the actual cost to the taxpayers is $600 million, not $900 million. That's still a big number, but not as big.

The proportionate effects of this increase as the state subsidy decreases. If the state can get away with putting in $500 million, and the taxes paid in average the same, that leaves a $200 million actual gap between what was put in and what was paid back over the life of the deal. By my estimation the state breaks even at around $300 million without even taking a dime of profits generated by the stadium.

My numbers could be off somewhat and if so, I apologize, but I think the point is still valid. There is a break-even point at a decent-sized dollar figure where the taxpayers won't be out a dime for this thing because of the income taxes generated by the jobs that are created and retained as a result of the project. To see that, both the public and the politicians have to take a lifetime view of the deal.

The flip side of this is equally true. Failing to make this investment also carries a significant cost due to the loss of those same high-paying jobs.

I think the real problem with these stadium deals is the time horizon of most politicians and taxpayers. 30 years is a long time to evaluate something and a lot can change over that length of time. But in my view the state of Minnesota would be downright stupid not to eagerly pony up (to a point) and help fund this thing. The cost of losing those jobs and possibly later trying to get another pro team back to Minnesota far outweighs even a sizeable state contribution in the near-term.

And to those who ask why the state should make an investment like this when other needs are more pressing or they don't like football and don't want to pay for it, all I can say is that if there is no real cost to the taxpayers over the life of the deal, what's the big deal? I'd say at some level there is a real cost to the taxpayers of failing to take action, however. As long as the stadium isn't outrageously subsidized, there is no valid reason for not getting the deal done beyond pandering, short-sighted politicians and equally short-sighted voters.

Inflation is another issue, in 30 years, 900 million will probably seem like peanuts when stadiums start costing 2 and 3 billion which is another reason why acting now rather than later is a much wiser idea. In just my life time I've seen gas go from like $0.89 cents a gallon to I think $3.74 today, yikes! Not to mention I haven't even lived 30 years yet =/

Another mistake is comparing figures to the metrodome and the new stadium when realistically they need to be compared to having ZERO numbers to the peak of what a new stadium can offer. When the team leaves that's it, nothing left to compare because we can't keep the Vikings in the Metrodome.

Ironically that is what will probably force the Vikings out of minnesota and ironically again, how we'll get a new stadium for some kind of new expansion team. Pretend the team leaves, I can see a politician now - "If we build a new stadium and get an NFL franchise we'll be bringing in tons of revenue!" Because then those little bastards will see it as a big gain and political success for them instead of doing it properly and just keeping the team in the first place.

As far as your numbers go Vikinglord, the 2009 salary cap was $128 million, and 2010 was an uncapped year due to them letting the CBA expire. So even your starting point of $100 million looks to be a bit low from what is likely to occur over the next 30 years. Keep in mind that's also just the player salary cap! Coaches, scouts, trainers, doctors, massage therapists, etc. All of those high paying jobs go bye bye as well, and to top it all off we're not even getting into the rest of the economy heh.

I do really wish Wilf and all them would try and talk more about the numbers side of things. It's hard to argue with math that says "the stadium would pay for itself." Only 2 reasons I can really think of for such a lack luster plan and that's that we're some how horribly wrong about the numbers and good ones for a stadium push don't exist, or they purposely don't care one way or the other. As in, if minnesota doesn't build us a stadium we'll just move or sell the team.

In that case I can understand purpleguys anger and "I wouldn't give them a cent" type attitude, however the problem I see with that is it doesn't hurt Wilf at all, he just moves or sells the team and profits. The losers in all of this becomes minnesota.

mondry wrote:Ironically that is what will probably force the Vikings out of minnesota and ironically again, how we'll get a new stadium for some kind of new expansion team.

If the Vikings leave, the NFL is not coming back to Minnesota.

Only 2 reasons I can really think of for such a lack luster plan and that's that we're some how horribly wrong about the numbers and good ones for a stadium push don't exist, or they purposely don't care one way or the other. As in, if minnesota doesn't build us a stadium we'll just move or sell the team.

When the polls say 75% against, the idea needs a political champion with clout and a legislative backer. The Wild had Norm Coleman then mayor of St. Paul IIRC. The Twins had Jerry Bell and Mike Opat of Hennepin County. The Vikings have no one from the team nor the political arena adequately making the case. Your points are reasonable and could be made. The problem in 2011 is that the attitude is no taxes ever, for any reason. It's kind of hard to beat that back without a plan and leadership.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/
Click on Watch Now on right side of screen and listen to an interview with Lester Bagley about 10 minutes in. Here's what I took from the interview. Vikings are on board to pay for 1/3 of stadium cost with a roof (approx. $900M). In a small market like Minnesota, only a public-private partnership will work (Dallas got $500M in personal seat licenses, New England has different economics so greater private contributions worked there but won't work for the Vikings). Vikings are opposed to the naming rights going toward funding the stadium and for the provisions on income taxes on players to fund the stadium because they will hurt the team's competitiveness with other teams. Mr. Bagley expects a local partner to be nailed down within two weeks and then there will be one month to get the deal done. He was evasive on who the local partner will be but it is clear he expects it will be Ramsey County/Arden Hills or Hennepin County and NOT the City of Minneapolis. The three possible sites are Metrodome, Target Field area, or Arden Hills. He was careful not to bite on questions of relocation should the deal fail, but it was clear the team has much freedom should the lease expire with no no stadium under construction.

He was careful not to bite on questions of relocation should the deal fail

It's about time they do. Literally NOTHING is getting down while they've been handling it kiddy style and pretending it's all going to be ok. Do people even realize they're gone if we don't get a stadium? this isn't the Twins and MLB, there was no threat there. There are plenty of cities, some with plans pretty far along, that would want the Vikings, and like the NFL is going to sit on their hands when they know the amount of revenue difference between a team here in the Dome or say...LA.

Demi wrote: It's about time they do. Literally NOTHING is getting down while they've been handling it kiddy style and pretending it's all going to be ok. Do people even realize they're gone if we don't get a stadium? this isn't the Twins and MLB, there was no threat there. There are plenty of cities, some with plans pretty far along, that would want the Vikings, and like the NFL is going to sit on their hands when they know the amount of revenue difference between a team here in the Dome or say...LA.

I agree. Say the team will move, and be serious about it. We all know it will happen if a stadium isn't build, although I do think a move could be delayed depending on some things.
The proposal they submitted seemed to give more positive feedback than I thought it would, at least what I read in the Star Trib. Like they said in the article, it is thrid and long with not much time left. Let's hope they are playing San Fran with Favre throwing to Greg Lewis rather than NYJ and Favre throwing to the Jets middle LB.

CalVike wrote:
If the Vikings leave, the NFL is not coming back to Minnesota.

I'm not completely convinced of that, because if they moved to LA, MSP would become the largest market without a team. It would, of course, take a stadium being built to get a new team.

glg wrote:I'm not completely convinced of that, because if they moved to LA, MSP would become the largest market without a team. It would, of course, take a stadium being built to get a new team.

Yes, it would.

The problem there is that the NFL is highly unlikely to see any expansion in the foreseeable future. Existing owners don't gain by expanding (or staying) in the smaller markets, and the same sized pie gets cut up into smaller pieces. Competitiveness goes down, as it always does when the talent pool gets spread out across more teams. The product itself suffers.

So a stadium would have to be built totally on spec, in the hopes that a team would be willing to relocate there. Minnesota now seems like the last place in this country where that could be expected to happen.

Eli wrote: Yes, it would.

The problem there is that the NFL is highly unlikely to see any expansion in the foreseeable future. Existing owners don't gain by expanding (or staying) in the smaller markets, and the same sized pie gets cut up into smaller pieces. Competitiveness goes down, as it always does when the talent pool gets spread out across more teams. The product itself suffers.

So a stadium would have to be built totally on spec, in the hopes that a team would be willing to relocate there. Minnesota now seems like the last place in this country where that could be expected to happen.

I agree. IF they dont get a stadium built when there is a team here, needing one, no way in heck they'll build one in hopes of a team coming back to MN. Either way, I dont really care, but it'll be nice when this is over. The stadium and labor issues. I honestly, last year especially, enjoyed FF a whole lot more than watching the Vikings, if they leave, oh well.