Page 50 of 147
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:51 pm
by Eli
Wow. A double-whammy. Didn't know whether this should be posted to the lockout thread or to this one. Jerry Jones slams Minnesota, and says that the NFL (read: all of the other owners) should have nothing to do with paying part of the cost of a Vikings stadium.
A new CBA could be bad news for a stadium deal in Minnesota. It does confirm one thing I've thought to be a large part of the impasse to a CBA - infighting among the owners - the haves vs. the have nots.
Jerry Jones: Revenue sharing is 'on it's way out'
The matter if sharing revenue is a big deal for the NFL and NFLPA. In fact, most people would probably agree it's the biggest deal with respect to the current labor negotiations.
However, the issue of revenue sharing between owners is also a tremendous obstacle that the owners have to overcome before finding common ground with the players.
And if you think it's not a problem, then you haven't heard Cowboys owner Jerry Jones talk about how the rest of the owners are helping to pay for the Vikings new stadium.
"Right now, we are subsidizing this market," Jones said, via the St. Paul Pioneer Press. "It's unthinkable to think that you've got the market you got here - 3.5 million people - and have teams like Kansas City and Green Bay subsidizing the market. That will stop.
"That's going to stop. That's on its way out."
http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports. ... 8/30389726
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:48 am
by purple guy
Jones may be a ####, but he is right. Obviously the only teams who like revenue sharing are those who benefit from it. I dont blame the owners who are smart enough to run a business better than the others, having to share with those who arent as good of owners, being pissed about it, makes zero sense to me.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:46 am
by Eli
purple guy wrote:Jones may be a ####, but he is right. Obviously the only teams who like revenue sharing are those who benefit from it. I dont blame the owners who are smart enough to run a business better than the others, having to share with those who arent as good of owners, being pissed about it, makes zero sense to me.
The question comes down to whether the "business" is individual teams or the business is the NFL. The way I see it, there's no way to divorce them completely. There has to be revenue sharing for the league itself to survive.
In the NBA they say 22 of 30 teams are losing money. I doubt that means that 22 team owners and front offices are incompetent. It means that the system needs to be restructured. You want a league of 10 teams? You can have it. Just see how profitable that would be.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:02 pm
by purple guy
Eli wrote:
The question comes down to whether the "business" is individual teams or the business is the NFL. The way I see it, there's no way to divorce them completely. There has to be revenue sharing for the league itself to survive.
In the NBA they say 22 of 30 teams are losing money. I doubt that means that 22 team owners and front offices are incompetent. It means that the system needs to be restructured. You want a league of 10 teams? You can have it. Just see how profitable that would be.
Like I said, Im sure the teams who benefit love it. How many more people live in Minneapolis/St Paul than Green Bay??? Yet GB can manage to "squeek" by...........
Admittedly, not familiar with how the revenue sharing works, but I guarantee if I was an owner on the wrong side of it, no way I would vote to keep it going. As far as NBA teams losing money, I get that, that is a terrible product, especially vs teh NFL. One is at an all time high, the other, well, its the NBA.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:05 pm
by Lash Man
Eli wrote:
The question comes down to whether the "business" is individual teams or the business is the NFL. The way I see it, there's no way to divorce them completely. There has to be revenue sharing for the league itself to survive.
In the NBA they say 22 of 30 teams are losing money. I doubt that means that 22 team owners and front offices are incompetent. It means that the system needs to be restructured. You want a league of 10 teams? You can have it. Just see how profitable that would be.
I think JJ is a egomaniac that is doing his best to ruin our great game . Jones wants to become the Steinbrenner of the NFL and I hope the old school owners who built the NFL can keep him from destroying what they have built up. One of my best gameday memories was watching JJ being booed off the metrodome turf during the playoff demolition of the Cowboys.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:42 am
by dead_poet
St. Paul City Council poised to vote against half-cent sales tax increase for #Vikings stadium tomorrow. Six of 7 council members sponsored.
Rochelle Olson on Twitter
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:16 pm
by HardcoreVikesFan
dead_poet wrote:
Rochelle Olson on Twitter
This may be a stupid question, but is half a cent really going to make a huge impact as far as sales tax?
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:44 pm
by purple guy
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
This may be a stupid question, but is half a cent really going to make a huge impact as far as sales tax?
By itself, no. But it takes pennies to make dollars, and if everytime someone wanted state money they added a half cent tax, pretty soon it would make a huge impact.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:56 pm
by dead_poet
St. Paul City Council meets at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday in City Hall-Courthouse. #Vikings resolution at end of agenda.
Rochelle Olson on Twitter
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:55 pm
by dead_poet
St paul council unanimously approves antiisales tax resolution. #vikings
Rochelle Olson on Twitter
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:30 pm
by Eli
dead_poet wrote:
Rochelle Olson on Twitter
It does seem rather unfair to have Ramsey County, which is just one part of the metro area, pay $350M of the stadium cost. I can understand why the council would vote this way. It should be a metro-wide tax, which would also lower the rate and/or the duration.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:37 pm
by dead_poet
#vikings sales tax akin to raising levy 17 percent and keeping it there for 30 years. vikings veep Bagley says Ramsey County is the local partner, not St. Paul. RamseyCo "stepped up," he says. Bagley says #Vikings appreciate the input from St. Paul City Council, but ramseyco did hard part of leading on the stadium.
Rochelle Olson on Twitter
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:57 pm
by Eli
30 years??? They must be kidding.
In what way did Ramsey County "step up"? They said "we'll pay", but what they really meant was that they were were going to impose a 30 year sales tax levy on everyone in the county. Hell, anybody can do that.
Will this tax resolution appear on a ballot for voter approval?
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:46 am
by Vikingsfan4321
Is it safe to declare this thread hijaked?
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:24 pm
by glg
Vikingsfan4321 wrote:Is it safe to declare this thread hijaked?
and I was doing it too!
my bad, split out and moved to NFL