130 replies to this topic

[Dogman2]

Taking this from the gamethread:

As in, the Vikings are going to be moving to LA under a different name. This is probably the last season of the "Minnesota Vikings" for some time. The current Minnesota legislature isn't going to give the Vikings a stadium deal (barring an act of God), and it's going to lead to Zygi Wilf selling the team to a group in LA.

Edit: For reference, it got established a long time ago that if the Vikings ever did move (for whatever reason), the Vikings name and history would stay in Minnesota (similar to what happened with the Browns). So if the Vikings moved to LA, they'd end up changing names and starting with a "fresh" history.

I thought Gov. Dayton was behind an Arden Hills plan and was pushing the legislature. Has that fallen through?

Edit:

Looks like this is the latest...

You're following this story more closely that I am but isn't this timeline a little aggressive? You really think this could happen next season?

What's the first season that Farmers Field or whatever they're going to call it could be ready? 2014? Do you really think Wilf would go out there and play two seasons in the coliseum?

I don't disagree with your larger point. I wouldn't bet against AP playing home games in LA someday.

The biggest problem is that the Republican legislature (which Dayton can't really influence), is backing referendum based support for the stadium. However, the referendum is practically DOA as it seems incredibly unlikely that the voters would actually pass it. A few key lines of that article that show where the impasse is:





Now, if you're Zygi, does it make *ANY* sense to you whatsoever to sign another one year lease at the Metrodome just to see a referendum fail miserably? When the option is on the table for him to sell the Vikings at (probably) close to a 33% profit on what he bought the team for? Playing in a crappy stadium would be the LA ownership group's problem as they waited for the new place to be built. Something that they probably wouldn't mind, given that their main objective is to get control of a NFL team and have that team play in LA.

(last point was in response to Dehere mentioning about two seasons in relatively crappy conditions)

Minnesota has a long track record of dragging out stadium negotiations as long as possible. The situation with the Twins was so dire that contraction was actually a semi-realistic possibility for them at one point. As a businessman, Zygi Wilf has no real incentive to deal with a legislature that's doing its best to stonewall him - not when he can sell the team for a large profit to an LA based group and wash his hands of it.

I'm rather surprised this isn't getting more attention throughout the NFL or through the media. I had no idea about this until today.

[drleather2001]

It's still in the "playing politics" phase right now. A new stadium deal will get finalized, it just has to go through the appropriate amount of hand-wringing and grandstanding so people can save face.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is buying too much into the Vikings P.R. machine.

[Rough Carrigan]

Why do they have to go to a new name just because they move from Minnesota to Los Angeles. The Lakers didn't. There aren't a whole lot of lakes in metro LA, are there?

[TomRicardo]

If anyone thinks it is going to be anything other than the LA Jaguars you are fooling yourself.

[ZP1]

It's still in the "playing politics" phase right now. A new stadium deal will get finalized, it just has to go through the appropriate amount of hand-wringing and grandstanding so people can save face.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is buying too much into the Vikings P.R. machine.

I wouldn't be so sure on that.

http://bleacherrepor...they-move-to-la

^ Has some relevant info for people who aren't in Minnesota.

The Minnesota state legislature saw a massive shift in the 2010 elections. It was the combination of a Republican Governor/Democratic legislature that actually passed the arena/stadium for the Wild/Twins. And while Gov. Dayton has been very receptive to any sort of stadium bill, the new Republican leadership has been putting everything behind the referendum basket.

Here's the problem: If the Republican house legislature continues to insist that the referendum option be tried first, the odds of the Vikings staying become much lower. Wilf isn't an idiot, and is going to be well aware that any referendum that goes up is going to get obliterated by the voters. The voters in this state, particularly in rough economic times, very much carry the class warfare "don't bail out the billionaire" sentiment - even if they're going to be more unhappy with the Vikings leaving.

Just to emphasize this is the first time the Republican leadership in Minnesota has had control in over 30 years. A group that essentially got in on the Tea Party wave. Not to make this into a left/right issue (as normally I'm in the center), but it almost seems more likely than not that this particular legislature will stick to ideology over common sense, and end up making an error that'll cost the state the Vikings.

It's going to take an enormous change of heart and a lot of political backtracking to get the current Republican state house leadership to nix their referendum plans and do what actually has to be done to save the Vikings. That's why the situation is a lot more grim than people might realize nationally.

Also:

Why do they have to go to a new name just because they move from Minnesota to Los Angeles. The Lakers didn't. There aren't a whole lot of lakes in metro LA, are there?

I can't find a source on it online right now, but I've heard from several people (in person), that somewhere the Vikings have a Cleveland Browns style deal with the state. In where if the Vikings ever do move, the Vikings name and history stays in Minnesota even when the team leaves.

[ZP1]

If anyone thinks it is going to be anything other than the LA Jaguars you are fooling yourself.

As far as I'm aware (and I'll grant my knowledge on the Jaguars situation isn't what it is with the Vikings), the Jaguars have more obstacles in their path preventing them from moving than the Vikings do at the moment. The Vikings lease with the Metrodome expires after this season. There's nothing that's really legally keeping the team here at that point if they decide they want to move. Everything would be clear for a "We've sold the team to an LA ownership group, Team is now moving, Bye" moment.


Edit:

While I'm at it on this post, I should throw out this scenario to you:

Since the Vikings seem to be on a more accelerated path to leaving than the Jaguars are, you actually have the potential for some team-moving hilarity.

Vikings move to LA. Renamed to some LA themed name.

Minnesota legislature acting out of shock that the Vikings actually left, immediately pre-approves a new stadium on a clause that will become active if an NFL team agrees to move to Minnesota.

Jaguars move to Minnesota and become the Minnesota Vikings.

Edited by ZP1, 24 October 2011 - 02:04 AM.

[ZP1]

Not to clutter up the thread too much, but for a bit more info on the referendum aspect (that's really one of the long poles in the tent right now).

The good news (for those wanting to keep the Vikings), is that the official Ramsey County panel decided not to have a referendum-

http://www.washingto...xsdL_story.html


The bad news (from the same article), relates to the fact that there's almost certainly still going to be a referendum:

The Charter Commission’s decision does not totally preclude a referendum on the tax hike at some point. The Ramsey County Board must still vote for the tax increase; if they do, Ramsey County citizens could still petition to put the matter on the ballot — unless state lawmakers override that provision.

That’s less than certain. Influential state lawmakers including House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch have said they favor a Ramsey County vote on any tax hike.

Given the nature of Minnesota politics as I alluded to before, there will almost certainly be a successful petition drive (http://www.startribu.../132166003.html), which will again punt the issue back to the highly pro-referendum legislature. If the issue comes down to a referendum and the legislature doesn't step in, the future for the Vikings in Minnesota will be extremely grim.

[jose melendez]

Asking for a new stadium on the public dime is chicken shit. Asking for it in this economic climate is being a total fucking asshole.

[bakahump]

Asking for a new stadium on the public dime is chicken shit. Asking for it in this economic climate is being a total fucking asshole.

"Think of all the Jobs that the construction will create. And then all the money that comes in from the games at the new stadium. It will be like a 700 million bailout...but with something left over when we are done!"

Yadda yadda yadda.

A good PR campaign can do amazing things.

[Captaincoop]

Asking for a new stadium on the public dime is chicken shit. Asking for it in this economic climate is being a total fucking asshole.

Exactly. End of story.

[jose melendez]

"Think of all the Jobs that the construction will create. And then all the money that comes in from the games at the new stadium. It will be like a 700 million bailout...but with something left over when we are done!"

Yadda yadda yadda.

A good PR campaign can do amazing things.

If the public is going to build the stadium, then they should own it, not give it away.

[jose melendez]

"Think of all the Jobs that the construction will create. And then all the money that comes in from the games at the new stadium. It will be like a 700 million bailout...but with something left over when we are done!"

Yadda yadda yadda.

A good PR campaign can do amazing things.

If the public is going to build the stadium, then they should own it, not give it away.

[drleather2001]

The Twin Cities support the shit out of the Vikings. Every politician in office knows that if the Vikings skip town on their watch, and especially based on something they did/said, they will not get reelected. Period.

I agree that asking taxpayers, especially taxpayers in a county that may not even have the stadium in the end, is bullshit, but when push comes to shove people in St. Paul will gladly shell out a half-cent tax if it means keeping the Vikings.

Those points, in a nutshell, are why the Vikings will eventually get a new stadium deal. Everything else (where it ends up, how much the Wylfs pay, when it begins construction, etc...) is just a sideshow. It's like a group of friends haggling over the check at the end of a night out: it's going to get paid, it's just going to take a few minutes of grousing and calculating.

[MentalDisabldLst]

Asking for a new stadium on the public dime is chicken shit. Asking for it in this economic climate is being a total fucking asshole.

You must not know a lot of rich people. This sort of negotiation and transaction is a totally amoral thing to most successful business types: you get what you can get. The other side has all the information you do. Right and wrong don't enter into it.

If politicians actually wanted to play hardball, they'd revisit the depreciation rules on new stadiums - which are most of the reason the owners want them in the first place, as a tax write-off.

[ragnarok725]

Asking for a new stadium on the public dime is chicken shit. Asking for it in this economic climate is being a total fucking asshole.

No stadium gets built without public money these days, and the project would actually create quite a few jobs.

I'm actually surprised you don't see more owners try to raising funding directly from fans and local businesses, rather than from the public through taxation. Imagine low interest bonds that came with a "first in line for season tickets" option, a "spend a day with the players" option, or a "pick your luxury box" option at various prices. Probably not going to be able to raise funds on the same level as going to the public, but it's a lot easier when you're going to the legislature just for infrastructure costs (re-routing roads and building parking facilities that can service the rest of the area).

[The Social Chair]

If anyone thinks it is going to be anything other than the LA Jaguars you are fooling yourself.

I live in LA, and the talk here is that it isn't feasible to build a stadium unless LA has two teams. The NFL likes to have one AFC and one NFC team when a city has two teams.

[dynomite]

I live in LA, and the talk here is that it isn't feasible to build a stadium unless LA has two teams. The NFL likes to have one AFC and one NFC team when a city has two teams.

Really? My brother lives in LA and everything I've heard is that it's full steam ahead on a downtown stadium next to the Staples Center: Gov. Brown signs bill to boost LA stadium plan.

Whatshisface, the guy behind the plan (I think it's the same one?), was on a BS Report podcast last year and talked about their plans for the stadium: eventually an NFL team, and until then compete for College Bowl games, Super Bowls, etc.

The Jaguars moving to LA makes sense for a lot of reasons. I've also heard rumors that the league wants this to happen as part of a small shakeup: Switch the Rams and Jags.
1. Jaguars to the NFC West (immediate rivalry with 49ers)
2. Rams to AFC South (take advantage of midwest rivalries between Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana).

[Tony C]

I live in L.A. and that's what I've heard, as well, and it does make the most sense. (That said, would be fun to get the Minnesota team and rename them the Lakers.)

[The Social Chair]

Really? My brother lives in LA and everything I've heard is that it's full steam ahead on a downtown stadium next to the Staples Center: Gov. Brown signs bill to boost LA stadium plan.

This is all true. I was just adding that what I hear from the media is that LA will be getting/needing two teams for the new stadium.

This is slightly off topic: I work downtown and I think a football stadium would be great for the area, but I live 15-20 minutes west of downtown and it took me almost two hours to get home during the Celtics-Lakers Finals in 2010. I can't imagine what kind of traffic problems a 6pm Monday Night Football game would cause.

[Super Nomario]

I'm actually surprised you don't see more owners try to raising funding directly from fans and local businesses, rather than from the public through taxation. Imagine low interest bonds that came with a "first in line for season tickets" option, a "spend a day with the players" option, or a "pick your luxury box" option at various prices. Probably not going to be able to raise funds on the same level as going to the public, but it's a lot easier when you're going to the legislature just for infrastructure costs (re-routing roads and building parking facilities that can service the rest of the area).

I would argue that Personal Seat Licenses (http://en.wikipedia....al_seat_license) are a means of raising funding directly from fans. And of course the local businesses are involved in advertising, stadium naming rights, etc. Owners will grab money whereever they can. They may be rich assholes, but they're not stupid rich assholes.

[DaubachmanTurnerOD]

At one point, there was a lot of chatter that it would be the Chargers moving to L.A. I don't know if that's still a strong possibility or not. (A quick google search indicates that there was a lot of SD to LA chatter in Dec-Jan, but not much since then.)

[drleather2001]

Now Minneapolis is getting back into it.

Either of those two spots mentioned (the current farmer's market or across from the Basilica) would work and have good highway access as well as easy public transport/downtown access.

This is going to get done, just a matter of where.

[RedOctober3829]

If anything, I think the Raiders are the most likely team to go to Los Angeles. Al Davis is gone now, so there's nothing in the way from their standpoint. The Raiders are the most marketable team out of the options right now.

[ZP1]

http://www.twincitie...rce=most_viewed

Another negative development in regards to the Vikings staying in Minnesota.


Note in particular the attitude of the legislature on this:

"I have repeatedly told Governor Dayton that I will not support a special session for a Vikings stadium. This issue can be addressed during the regular session," Zellers wrote.

There's just no urgency to get a deal done.

Edited by ZP1, 03 November 2011 - 08:54 AM.

[drleather2001]

Do you believe everything that politicians say? What's your angle, because you seem to be really wish-casting with this.

Zellers (a GOP member who is facing his first test as speaker of the house) is resisting a sales tax because that's what GOP candidates are doing these days. If it became clear that the Vikings were actually going to leave (they aren't), the politicians would immediately waffle because "The Vikings Left On His Watch" would end his/her career.

How do I know they aren't leaving? Because if you did a little research, you'd have found this:

[Vikes VP] Bagley stopped short of saying the team would pull up stakes, but noted that after this season the Vikings "will be the only team without a lease."

"The strategy of avoiding a stadium issue has not worked. It only gets more costly and more difficult to resolve, especially if they allow the lease to expire with no action," Bagley told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

In short: "No, we're not leaving, but come on guys, give us a nice stadium!"


It's going to get done. At this point, probably through some combination of casino/pull tab revenue.

Edited by drleather2001, 03 November 2011 - 10:39 AM.

[Section15Box113]

Peter King MMQB: Look for the Vikings to get a stadium deal done soon in greater Minneapolis

Last week, a source with knowledge of the Vikings stadium situation told me it's not a matter of if, but when the club and state officials finish negotiations to build a stadium at one of three sites -- one favored by owner Zygi Wilf in suburban Arden Hills, or two in downtown Minneapolis. As I reported on NBC last night, you should look for the Vikings to build the stadium in Minnesota and drop out of play to be the team that moves to Los Angeles.

[Valek123]

Looking like it may be a greater possibility this AM...

[chester]

It's still in the "playing politics" phase right now. A new stadium deal will get finalized, it just has to go through the appropriate amount of hand-wringing and grandstanding so people can save face.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is buying too much into the Vikings P.R. machine.

You pretty much hit this on the nose. But the politics is all about getting a free stadium and a cush lease with the city.

Can I throw a conspiracy theory out about LA and football; NFL owner collusion will never bring an NFL franchise to LA because it is the perfect leverage bargaining chip to get exactly what you want as an owner. BAM! am i crazy?

[RFDA2000]

No, you're not crazy. Sports economists have been saying this for years. LA is worth more to the NFL empty than with a team, so long as there aren't any markets that are complete failures.

[MannysDestination]

No, you're not crazy. Sports economists have been saying this for years. LA is worth more to the NFL empty than with a team, so long as there aren't any markets that are complete failures.

It's been true for a while not but you're probably overstating the case; a fairly weak small market team moving to LA would be a revenue bonanza for the NFL. It doesn't have to be a complete failure to make a move to LA quite profitable for the entire league, especially considering that LA is already building a $1+ billion football stadium. There is a whole lot of momentum behind that project considering they have already passed favorable legislation to fund its construction. Jacksonville is a no-brainer, in my opinion, but the recent sale put some cold water on that notion (you'd basically double the franchise value overnight, ,moving from the $750M current value to $1.5B in LA is eminently feasible). Wolf is going to get a hard sell from the LA consortium trying to build that stadium.

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

It's been true for a while not but you're probably overstating the case; a fairly weak small market team moving to LA would be a revenue bonanza for the NFL. It doesn't have to be a complete failure to make a move to LA quite profitable for the entire league, especially considering that LA is already building a $1+ billion football stadium. There is a whole lot of momentum behind that project considering they have already passed favorable legislation to fund its construction. Jacksonville is a no-brainer, in my opinion, but the recent sale put some cold water on that notion (you'd basically double the franchise value overnight, ,moving from the $750M current value to $1.5B in LA is eminently feasible). Wolf is going to get a hard sell from the LA consortium trying to build that stadium.

PFT and other places have speculated that this is one of the many possible reasons that Goddell continues to push for games in London. They might lose LA as a threat soon and need a new "threat' to hold against municipalities that don't want to write a blank check. Once a team lands in LA you will hear a lot more about London being the next permanent home for a team. Some place like Mexico City might get mention as well (and they will eventually really hammer the Bills over a Toronto threat). Globalization!

[soxhop411]

PFT and other places have speculated that this is one of the many possible reasons that Goddell continues to push for games in London. They might lose LA as a threat soon and need a new "threat' to hold against municipalities that don't want to write a blank check. Once a team lands in LA you will hear a lot more about London being the next permanent home for a team. Some place like Mexico City might get mention as well (and they will eventually really hammer the Bills over a Toronto threat). Globalization!

Why London? The Jet lag and travel for a team that is in London would be huge... I get that they want to go international, but I doubt players would want to travel back and forth if their team plays in London

[soxfan121]

PFT and other places have speculated that this is one of the many possible reasons that Goddell continues to push for games in London. They might lose LA as a threat soon and need a new "threat' to hold against municipalities that don't want to write a blank check. Once a team lands in LA you will hear a lot more about London being the next permanent home for a team. Some place like Mexico City might get mention as well (and they will eventually really hammer the Bills over a Toronto threat). Globalization!

St. Louis is the next trouble market and they are playing in London...the next three seasons.

In 2016, you could have two teams in LA, one in London, one in Toronto and new expansion teams in Minnesota & St. Louis. Houston paid $700M in 2002 for the expansion fee - coupled with the pending increase in the TV contract, the NFL owners could be looking at four or five BILLION dollars in revenue that is not subject to the CBA (i.e. sharing with the players).

Why London? The Jet lag and travel for a team that is in London would be huge... I get that they want to go international, but I doubt players would want to travel back and forth if their team plays in London

Every team travelling to play in London (i.e. away games) would get their BYE week afterward, negating much of the travel effect. And the London team would play home/away in blocks - the away blocks being 3-4 consecutive weeks in the USA at a practice facility TBD. IOW - the travel is not a huge roadblock.

Edited by soxfan121, 19 April 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[CaptainLaddie]

I'm still confused as to how London could operate as an NFL franchise. Would they play 8 games in a row in the US then 8 at home? And what if they were the #1 seed in the playoffs -- it all seems like a bad idea.

[Alternate34]

PFT and other places have speculated that this is one of the many possible reasons that Goddell continues to push for games in London. They might lose LA as a threat soon and need a new "threat' to hold against municipalities that don't want to write a blank check. Once a team lands in LA you will hear a lot more about London being the next permanent home for a team. Some place like Mexico City might get mention as well (and they will eventually really hammer the Bills over a Toronto threat). Globalization!

It depends on what you mean by hammer Bills over a Toronto threat. There have been rumors and inklings, but the Bills already got a bunch of money for renovations after they re-upped the lease. The Toronto games probably got brought up in those negotiations. That and the fact that they ask for so little money compared to New York City teams. The Bills also give politicians an in for politics. Senator Schumer especially harps on it whenever he is up for re-election.

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

It depends on what you mean by hammer Bills over a Toronto threat. There have been rumors and inklings, but the Bills already got a bunch of money for renovations after they re-upped the lease. The Toronto games probably got brought up in those negotiations. That and the fact that they ask for so little money compared to New York City teams. The Bills also give politicians an in for politics. Senator Schumer especially harps on it whenever he is up for re-election.

I was unaware of the renovation dollars. I just knew that the Bills had an 'older' stadium. Thanks.

[stevman17]

Rich people getting the state to finance huge construction projects is a marvelous example of the free market at work. In a Democracy this sort of thing would never happen. I hope this goes to referendum and I hope the people of Minnesota vote it down.

[soxfan121]

Rich people getting the state to finance huge construction projects is a marvelous example of the free market at work. In a Democracy this sort of thing would never happen. I hope this goes to referendum and I hope the people of Minnesota vote it down.

Do you think the State of Minnesota will benefit economically if the Vikings leave Minnesota? Does the State of Minnesota currently get some kind of economic benefit from having the NFL operating a franchise in their state?

I think your opinion is trite and naive; it would be a huge mistake for the people of Minnesota to "vote it down" based on what you've written above. Large construction projects, especially those also improving infrastructure in and around a city center often have a large economic impact - putting people to work, improving transportation lines for other businesses in the area, etc. There may be good reasons for the State of Minnesota to continue negotiating with the Vikings but to say they should "vote down" any new stadium project because the Vikings are owned by a "rich people" in a "free market" and a "democracy" is an inadequate and uninformed view of the situation.

[JakeRae]

Rich people getting the state to finance huge construction projects is a marvelous example of the free market at work. In a Democracy this sort of thing would never happen. I hope this goes to referendum and I hope the people of Minnesota vote it down.

One of the problems is that you only need one "yes" vote while you can receive an infinite number of "no" votes and keep trying.

[jsinger121]

Honestly the state of Minnesota would be dumb to let the leave over not committing to a new stadium. As Soxfan121 said above it will create jobs to build the place along with jobs when its opens. It will also not be limited to just 10 Vikings games a year as they will get many more events such as the final four and the ability to bid on a potential Super Bowl which will bring tons of revenue to the city and the state. Losing the Vikings will be an economic nightmare for the state of Minnesota. These politicians are fucking stupid if they vote this down.

[nattysez]

an inadequate and uninformed view of the situation.

Every study done on this says that you are wrong about the positive economic impact of building stadia, especially with public money. A few useful links:

http://www.american....adium-subsidies
http://www.akdart.com/sports.html
http://heartland.org...sports-stadiums

(or just Google "economic benefits from publicly financed stadiums")

Minnesota would be foolish to contribute $1 to a stadium project.

Edited by nattysez, 19 April 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[Rough Carrigan]

Honestly the state of Minnesota would be dumb to let the leave over not committing to a new stadium. As Soxfan121 said above it will create jobs to build the place along with jobs when its opens. It will also not be limited to just 10 Vikings games a year as they will get many more events such as the final four and the ability to bid on a potential Super Bowl which will bring tons of revenue to the city and the state. Losing the Vikings will be an economic nightmare for the state of Minnesota. These politicians are fucking stupid if they vote this down.

Um . . it'll create jobs to build the place? Really? What, was the money going to be baked into pies or composted if it wasn't used to build a new stadium?

Many many many studies have been done of the economic worth of building a stadium. And the massive consensus is that it's not economically worth it. Is Minnesota some sort of land without cause and effect? If money doesn't get spent on a Vikings ticket, it . . . disappears? No. It doesn't. That money still exists and it gets spent some other way.

Maury Brown and the Business of Baseball site have studied this as have scores of other people. Losing the Vikings would not be an economic nightmare for the state of Minnesota. Yes, you will certainly find a relative handful of people who will suffer as a result of this. But the money that did not flow to those people will go somewhere else in Minnesota. To state otherwise is an incredibly difficult position to try to hold honestly.

And, I find I was beaten to the point by a few seconds by someone providing data instead of my lip flapping.
Thank you, nattysez.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 19 April 2012 - 09:35 PM.

[soxfan121]

Every study done on this says that you are wrong about the positive economic impact of building stadia, especially with public money. A few useful links: http://www.american....adium-subsidies http://www.akdart.com/sports.html http://heartland.org...sports-stadiums (or just Google "economic benefits from publicly financed stadiums") Minnesota would be foolish to contribute $1 to a stadium project.

Do you think the State of Minnesota will benefit economically if the Vikings leave Minnesota? Does the State of Minnesota currently get some kind of economic benefit from having the NFL operating a franchise in their state?

First, thanks for the links. Your post is not inadequate, uninformed, trite or naive but that's because you did some research. Much appreciated.

Second, I think the data is still unclear on public/private hybrid projects, especially in this case as it would also directly benefit the State of Minnesota's University system. Even Coates concludes:

Sports economists and policy analysts are using a variety of methods to get more precise estimates of the public-good benefits. In the future, we should know better whether these benefits are sufficient—in combination with private consumption benefits—to cover the public financing of professional sports stadiums.

I don't read that and conclude that the State of Minnesota spending $1 is "foolish". I'm not sure how you get there but I do understand that the libertarian think tank has some strong words on their site that expertly obscure the same conclusion Coates reaches - we don't yet have the data on all the related issues.

The State and the Vikings should continue to negotiate as I think the Vikings should be picking up the vast majority of the tab (and not 33%, as they want). It's also worth noting that regardless of what the economists have concluded, the last time a franchise left a major metropolitan area, the state ended up paying 73% of the tab on the stadium built to lure the NFL back to town. Does the Vikings & the NFL currently provide an economic benefit to the State and what will happen if they leave? It's not just about the cost of the new stadium - it's about the overall effect of the franchise on the local economy.

[stevman17]

Do you think the State of Minnesota will benefit economically if the Vikings leave Minnesota? Does the State of Minnesota currently get some kind of economic benefit from having the NFL operating a franchise in their state?

I think your opinion is trite and naive; it would be a huge mistake for the people of Minnesota to "vote it down" based on what you've written above. Large construction projects, especially those also improving infrastructure in and around a city center often have a large economic impact - putting people to work, improving transportation lines for other businesses in the area, etc. There may be good reasons for the State of Minnesota to continue negotiating with the Vikings but to say they should "vote down" any new stadium project because the Vikings are owned by a "rich people" in a "free market" and a "democracy" is an inadequate and uninformed view of the situation.

Alternatively, the state could invest the money in health care, transportation, workplace safety, education, etc. So, yes I do think "the state" could potentially benefit by not forking over hundreds of millions to a corporate entity. (That is, if you define "The State" as it's people rather than only as those who own it.)

[Skeesix]

especially in this case as it would also directly benefit the State of Minnesota's University system. Even Coates concludes:

Wait a minute? Why would a new Vikings stadium benefit the University of Minnesota... which just built a new football stadium in Minneapolis?

[Average Reds]

Wait a minute? Why would a new Vikings stadium benefit the University of Minnesota... which just built a new football stadium in Minneapolis?

Precisely what I was going to ask.

Unless there was some sort of economic incentive to fund the University in the plan under consideration, I don't see how the Gophers will benefit. (Excuse me: the "Golden Gophers")

[MannysDestination]

First, thanks for the links. Your post is not inadequate, uninformed, trite or naive but that's because you did some research. Much appreciated.

Second, I think the data is still unclear on public/private hybrid projects, especially in this case as it would also directly benefit the State of Minnesota's University system. Even Coates concludes:



I don't read that and conclude that the State of Minnesota spending $1 is "foolish". I'm not sure how you get there but I do understand that the libertarian think tank has some strong words on their site that expertly obscure the same conclusion Coates reaches - we don't yet have the data on all the related issues.

The State and the Vikings should continue to negotiate as I think the Vikings should be picking up the vast majority of the tab (and not 33%, as they want). It's also worth noting that regardless of what the economists have concluded, the last time a franchise left a major metropolitan area, the state ended up paying 73% of the tab on the stadium built to lure the NFL back to town. Does the Vikings & the NFL currently provide an economic benefit to the State and what will happen if they leave? It's not just about the cost of the new stadium - it's about the overall effect of the franchise on the local economy.

Your vitriol here is misplaced, and I feel safe saying that you're representing the minority view here, at least in terms of the economic angle, and this includes the secondary knock-on effects of greater tax revenues due to jobs. I'm not aware of a single economic study that says public financing of private stadiums are a net positive for taxpayers from a monetary or economic standpoint. It can only be justified by fuzzy things like "pride in the hometown" and from the utility of the entertainment people experience there. Clearly there's some value there, but it's not quantifiable and undoubtedly these programs weigh down the ability of local governments to spend money on other activities.

Think about it this way: it's only valid to use public funds if the private sector has no ability to finance these projects themselves. That is patently false. The NFL is a massive profit machine and I highly doubt that there are any franchises that would be unprofitable if they had to deal with stadium debt service (see: New England Patriots). These subsidies are bald-faced money giveaways from the public to the NFL team owners. That's why the NFL owners try to leverage one city against another, to get the best deal possible for their own bottom line.

Edited by MannysDestination, 20 April 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[drleather2001]

(Excuse me: the "Golden Gophers")

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that there is part of the/a plan that would improve pedestrian/bike access to the downtown stadium site from the U campus (which, admittedly, is currently only about a 25 minute walk away, as is.).

As a present and future Minneapolis-ian, I hope they build the stadium, and I'm pretty confident it will get done, and that this is all a lot of election-year flim flam. That being said, if the Vikings disappeared for a couple of years, I wouldn't be that upset.

I would prefer the city focus on improving the downtown area and local schools.

[soxfan121]

I'm not aware of a single economic study that says public financing of private stadiums are a net positive for taxpayers from a monetary or economic standpoint

Think about it this way: it's only valid to use public funds if the private sector has no ability to finance these projects themselves.

Thanks for jumping in - you obviously know more about first order effects than I.

Question: What is the economic impact of the Vikings leaving Minnesota? I get that a "publicly financed stadium" is a loser for the taxpayers; I have not claimed otherwise. But the studies/links posted above don't address the actual economic impact an NFL team has on a city/state and what the loss of that revenue-generator does to the state/local economy. Frankly, the issue (as I keep trying to say) is a bit more complex than "public financing bad". What does the NFL/Vikings currently contribute to the State economy, how will it be affected if they leave and how will if be affected if the stadium is "publicly financed"? It really seems like these are all interconnected.

Second question: I've never actually been to Gillette for a Patriots game, but I've been there for other events. And frankly, the lack of public funds on that project have contributed to the FUBAR situation of Route 1/traffic. Which is why I have brought up, repeatedly, the related infrastructure improvements that provide ancillary economic benefits. One needs to walk around the Inner Harbor area in Baltimore for about 5 minutes before you "get" that it has been a improvement to the city and related businesses to revitalize that area. Do any studies look at the entire picture?

I fully understand that when isolated, the public paying for a private business's stadium is a economic loser for the taxpayers. That's clear. What you and every other author haven't demonstrated is the larger ripples of the situation: what if the Vikings leave, what if they privately finance a stadium without associated "public" infrastructure improvements, etc.

ETA: The Golden Gophers baseball team uses the Homerdome as their home field. That's the connection to the U of Minnesota I referenced above.

Edited by soxfan121, 20 April 2012 - 09:29 AM.

[simplyeric]

the last time a franchise left a major metropolitan area, the state ended up paying 73% of the tab on the stadium built to lure the NFL back to town. Does the Vikings & the NFL currently provide an economic benefit to the State and what will happen if they leave? It's not just about the cost of the new stadium - it's about the overall effect of the franchise on the local economy.

But them paying 73% for the new stadium for a new team is no different (and no more beneficial) than the initial subsidy would have been? Just because Cleveland got duped into paying for a team to return doesn't mean it makes any economic sense.

However, one thing I'm not certain of is: have those studies (which I've only scanned briefly at work) taken into account the difference between "subsidizing a new stadium for a team that's already there" and "subsidizing a new stadium in a city that doesn't have a team"?