Skip to content

“Preliminary agreement” reached on new Vikings stadium

chicken-egg-278x225 Getty Images

Though it’s not time to pop the champagne (then again, the Vikings already did that last year when announcing a deal with the folks in Arden Hills), a “preliminary agreement” has been reached to build a new Vikings stadium, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Under the agreement, the Vikings/NFL would kick in $427 million for a building to be constructed near the Metrodome.  The state would come up with $398 million, and Minneapolis would pay $150 million.  Also, the city would cover $180 million in operating costs over the next 30 years, also known as “the period of time before the Vikings start trying to get another new stadium.”

The Legislature, the Minneapolis City Council, and the NFL still have to sign off on the deal.  Which, as we saw after the Arden Hills deal was announced, may never happen.

In fact, the only difference between last year’s “deal” and this year’s “deal” at Arden Hills is that legislative leaders have given it their blessing.  Unless the votes are there, the blessing will be as valuable as a marriage ceremony performed by a pizza chef.

Permalink 73 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
73 Responses to ““Preliminary agreement” reached on new Vikings stadium”
  1. InFact says: Feb 17, 2012 5:47 PM

    Arden Hills Vikings = 4-12
    Minnesota Vikings = 4-12

  2. mrnick66 says: Feb 17, 2012 5:47 PM

    a building????? is it a dome or an open air???? i do not believe anything until all contracts are signed.let us know when that is!!!

  3. thevikes85 says: Feb 17, 2012 5:48 PM

    This is great news.Hopefully this deal sticks.Vikings belong in Minnesota.Even packer fans(the real ones who appreciate the sport,not the dbag morons)know we need to stay.Look forward to many more years of the rivalry.

  4. tweener702 says: Feb 17, 2012 5:51 PM

    straight cash homey

  5. binkystevens says: Feb 17, 2012 5:59 PM

    Please god be outdoor. We should enact a rule that from this day forward, no new stadiums can be built with a wimpy roof over them.

  6. billinva says: Feb 17, 2012 5:59 PM

    Waste of taxpayer money.

  7. bluedogrunning says: Feb 17, 2012 5:59 PM

    Obscene. Why must government pay or it?

  8. puntonfirstdown says: Feb 17, 2012 6:03 PM

    Here’s to another 50+ years with no championship. Sincerely, your friends across the St. Croix.

  9. chiadam says: Feb 17, 2012 6:07 PM

    That’s good news for Minnesota fans (who are quietly some of the better fans in the NFL), but let’s make sure it’s official first.

  10. rcunningham says: Feb 17, 2012 6:09 PM

    puntonfirstdown says:
    Feb 17, 2012 6:03 PM
    Here’s to another 50+ years with no championship. Sincerely, your friends across the St. Croix.

    ____________________

    I’m going to take this as a roundabout way of saying “we’re happy you’re not leaving”.

    We hope you never win another game again too <3

  11. realitypolice says: Feb 17, 2012 6:10 PM

    $728 million committed tax payer dollars.

    Unbelievable.

    And don’t give me “benefit to the local economy”. Studies have consistently shown that municipalities that invest in new stadiums rarely if ever see a positive return on investment.

  12. trbowman says: Feb 17, 2012 6:15 PM

    I remember reading similar headlines about the entire NFL last year! Glad that’s not the case again!

  13. foosball11 says: Feb 17, 2012 6:18 PM

    Why are the vikings purple? they have been choking for 50 years…

  14. backindasaddle says: Feb 17, 2012 6:20 PM

    When the Krafts built the Patriots Stadium 10 years ago it cost approximately $ 400 million…total. It’s a very nice stadium, it was privately financed and the taxpayers didn’t have to pay for it. THAT is the way it SHOULD be. Why are the cost estimates on this Vikings stadium 3 times that and why are the taxpayer get fleecing for 2/3 the cost?

    Outrageous! The taxpayers should not pay a nickel. It’s a private industry and private profits. The taxpayers are not being represented properly by our elected politicians (big surprise there!). If the Krafts can privately finance their stadium then every other franchise should do the same.

  15. contra74 says: Feb 17, 2012 6:22 PM

    realitypolice says: Feb 17, 2012 6:10 PM

    $728 million committed tax payer dollars.

    Unbelievable.

    And don’t give me “benefit to the local economy”. Studies have consistently shown that municipalities that invest in new stadiums rarely if ever see a positive return on investment.
    ————
    Can you please cite a source for your comment? No? Ok, please think before you speak. The ‘benefit’ to the local economy as you put it is not so much in the positive return on investment but rather the loss of revenue due to NOT investing. If the Vikings left there would be a lot of unemployment and drop in receipts in local businesses which result in, yes you guessed it, an even worse local economy. Think junior…think!

  16. 4t9er says: Feb 17, 2012 6:26 PM

    Another fleecing of the public to fund billionaires. $728 could buy you the team outright, instead they will give it for the to the hostage takers.

  17. randygnyc says: Feb 17, 2012 6:31 PM

    Contra, that’s not exactly true, with regards to the NFL. With 8 home games a year, the local economies are hardly effected.

  18. fmwarner says: Feb 17, 2012 6:33 PM

    Realitypolice is correct. The “loss of revenue” due to not investing can’t possibly be larger than the investment itself, and that’s before the inevitable budget overruns.

    I thought Minnesota was broke. I guess they went fishing under the couch cushions.

  19. jmweldon86 says: Feb 17, 2012 6:33 PM

    not to mention all the tax money our government gets from all the products and sales and player salaries. whoever said stadiums and teams don’t benefit the state is am absolute moron. if that was the case no government would ever help build a stadium. that’s why its called a “threat” when we say we will move Cuz it would hurt the states economy big time. my advice to u is to go read some books

  20. contra74 says: Feb 17, 2012 6:35 PM

    backindasaddle says:
    Feb 17, 2012 6:20 PM
    When the Krafts built the Patriots Stadium 10 years ago it cost approximately $ 400 million…total. It’s a very nice stadium, it was privately financed and the taxpayers didn’t have to pay for it. THAT is the way it SHOULD be. Why are the cost estimates on this Vikings stadium 3 times that and why are the taxpayer get fleecing for 2/3 the cost?
    —————
    I will give a hint – would you rather pay gas prices 10 years ago or gas prices today? What was the cost of airfare 10 years ago versus today? Costs go up over time regardless of what it is.

  21. domezo says: Feb 17, 2012 6:39 PM

    for those who say why the state, county and the tax payer have to pay for it? because they all benefit from it. couple years after the stadium pays for its self the state will still be collecting money from it which could potentially lower taxes and who doesn’t benefit from lower taxes? if you haven’t heard they plan on building a plaza where the current metrodome stands which will bring in outdoor concerts which can and will bring more revenue to local companies and more revenue more taxes have to be paid and the more taxes paid could again lower taxes. multiple superbowls could potentially be brought here. bringing in tourism which if you look at Indianapolis did great with tourism and i make the argument again will bring in more revenue. i can only see this as a win for both state local and tax payers.

  22. contra74 says: Feb 17, 2012 6:47 PM

    randygnyc says:
    Feb 17, 2012 6:31 PM
    Contra, that’s not exactly true, with regards to the NFL. With 8 home games a year, the local economies are hardly effected.
    ——–
    What you see is just the NFL games but there is more use to a stadium outside of NFL games. If this thing is built correctly it could hose events throughout the year. This includes Final Fours, Motocross events, rodeos, conventions, boxing matches, etc etc. Now tell me that those year round events do not benefit the economy.

  23. duluthvikesfan says: Feb 17, 2012 6:48 PM

    The Super Bowl two weeks ago brought an estimated $400 million to the local Indianapolis economy for that two week span. That’s $400 million for ONE game! After they build the new Minnesota stadium it’s likely we will host the Super Bowl in the near future. Imagine $400 million hitting the local economy for one game and then imagine the revenue the stadium will bring over the next 30+ years. Don’t try and tell me this thing won’t pay for itself. Everyone, not just the team, wins!

  24. realitypolice says: Feb 17, 2012 6:51 PM

    contra74 says:
    Feb 17, 2012 6:22 PM

    ————
    Can you please cite a source for your comment? No? Ok, please think before you speak. The ‘benefit’ to the local economy as you put it is not so much in the positive return on investment but rather the loss of revenue due to NOT investing. If the Vikings left there would be a lot of unemployment and drop in receipts in local businesses which result in, yes you guessed it, an even worse local economy. Think junior…think!
    =================================

    I love the way you ask a question and then answer your self in the way you want it to be answered.

    That’s funny. The actual answer is yes, I can cite a source for my comment:

    “Stadium subsidies do not increase economic activity in total and are not necessary to keep sports leagues in existence. Cities, though, face competition for sports teams; small market cities particularly might need to offer subsidies in response to remain competitive with larger markets. If residents wish to support a team in this case, they should recognize that the subsidy reallocates resources, and investing resources means more sports but less of something else: police and fire protection, road repair, parks, or private consumption”.

    ~Daniel Sutter, “Public Subsidies For Sports Stadiums Don’t Spur Economic Growth”

    Took me thirty seconds on Google to find that. Next time do your own homework, JUNIOR.

  25. domezo says: Feb 17, 2012 6:53 PM

    @contra
    Olympics games too bro.

  26. dtrb10 says: Feb 17, 2012 6:57 PM

    Hallaulja!!!!!!!!! Haha all the Packer fans in MN are going to help pay for it HAHAHAHA!!! I freaking love it!!!! Listen to Contra bitchin!!! I love it

  27. jayniner says: Feb 17, 2012 6:58 PM

    L.A. Vikings didn’t sound right anyway…

  28. cosmoman11 says: Feb 17, 2012 7:04 PM

    I see no mention of where the state and city money is coming from. I’m guessing they want to avoid talking about new taxes, that will have to be voted on by the public, who will vote it down. Which is why it will never be more than a “preliminary” agreement.

  29. backindasaddle says: Feb 17, 2012 7:05 PM

    contra74 says:
    Feb 17, 2012 6:35 PM
    backindasaddle says:
    Feb 17, 2012 6:20 PM
    When the Krafts built the Patriots Stadium 10 years ago it cost approximately $ 400 million…total. It’s a very nice stadium, it was privately financed and the taxpayers didn’t have to pay for it. THAT is the way it SHOULD be. Why are the cost estimates on this Vikings stadium 3 times that and why are the taxpayer get fleecing for 2/3 the cost?
    —————
    I will give a hint – would you rather pay gas prices 10 years ago or gas prices today? What was the cost of airfare 10 years ago versus today? Costs go up over time regardless of what it is.
    **********************************************************************
    Guess what ‘contr74′???…..I’m a construction executive. I sell and do cost estimating. I assure you that the cost of construction has not TRIPLED in 10 years. In fact, it may even be cheaper now because prices are being driven down because of the Obamaconomy. There’s far less work to go around now than there was 10 years ago. But thanks anyway for the “hint”.

  30. southcakpanther says: Feb 17, 2012 7:14 PM

    Too bad stadiums can’t be privately financed… Oh yeah, my Panthers did that with BofA Stadium. Why don’t you Viking fans pony up like us Panther fans did 17 years ago.

  31. NoHomeTeam says: Feb 17, 2012 7:36 PM

    domezo says: “for those who say why the state, county and the tax payer have to pay for it? because they all benefit from it. couple years after the stadium pays for its self the state will still be collecting money from . . .”

    . . . and there’s the flaw: you are assuming that the stadium will actually pay for itself through recovered taxes and fees over its useful life. I’m not altogether certain that’s an accurate assumption. It seems more likely that the primary tenant of said building will again “need” a new venue before the debt on the “old” building can be retired, thus leaving the state with a rather large, pale elephant on its hands.

  32. tombradysponytail says: Feb 17, 2012 7:48 PM

    In fact, the only difference between last year’s “deal” and this year’s “deal” at Arden Hills is that legislative leaders have given it their blessing.

    —-

    There’s one other big difference. The Arden Hills site would have been a beautiful stadium that would have likely generated a LOT of development AND taken care of a superfund site. Whereas, Metrodump 2.0 will do none of that.

  33. edenprairieballer says: Feb 17, 2012 7:53 PM

    I am glad the stadium will stay in Minneapolis. Arden Hills would have been lame.

  34. southcakpanther says: Feb 17, 2012 8:06 PM

    PSLs = No public financing

  35. buffaloviking says: Feb 17, 2012 8:17 PM

    Realitypolice—- your next post will be. Damn my taxes are high. Maybe the Vikes should have stayed. I won’t be spending time in Minnesota anymore. Timberpupps and the Twinks aren’t going to get it done.

  36. detroitcityryda says: Feb 17, 2012 8:20 PM

    the purples are staying yayyyy phuk jarred Allen though

  37. theytukrjobs says: Feb 17, 2012 8:26 PM

    Economic studies show that stadiums have a negligible effect one way or the other. $728 million, most of which is tied up in user fees directly related to the stadium, spread across 30 years is absolute chump change on a state wide level after you subtract out the state income that will otherwise go away.

    Basically it comes down to whether or not we want the NFL in town. The State would build and own this facility, while the Vikings lease it out. People ignore the fact that the State will get to hold a lot of other events in the facility and profit from them.

    The Vikings aren’t going to pay for the whole thing. Even if they did, they’d then be charging the State for tournaments and keeping all the revenue from the events, which basically means we won’t “save” $728 mil if they do pay for it all.

    By the State paying for this, it makes possible the usage of user fees, bonds, and other advantages that the Vikings would not have on their own. This is a sensible partnership. There is a reason that most stadiums are built in this way in other states, not just ours.

    Building the Gophers a stadium for them to half fill rather than playing where the Vikings play was stupid. This is smart and good for the state.

  38. contra74 says: Feb 17, 2012 8:43 PM

    dtrb10 says:
    Feb 17, 2012 6:57 PM
    Hallaulja!!!!!!!!! Haha all the Packer fans in MN are going to help pay for it HAHAHAHA!!! I freaking love it!!!! Listen to Contra bitchin!!! I love it
    ———-
    Bitchin about what?

  39. jimmysee says: Feb 17, 2012 8:43 PM

    I’d kick in $20 if it would help the deal get done.

    And I’m not even a Vikings fan.

  40. derrick2020 says: Feb 17, 2012 8:47 PM

    400 million paid by that state isn’t too high a price to pay. In state income tax garnished by the football players alone will easily pay for the 400 million and them some. Just in this upcoming year the state will receive over 10 million from the players alone. With the increase in the salary cap (average at about 3%) over the next 30 years the state should receive about 500 million.

    This isn’t including any sales tax from food served, ticket sales, merchandise, etc etc etc.

  41. gb4mn0 says: Feb 17, 2012 9:01 PM

    The vikequeef twits deserve a taxpayer funded monument to their stupidity.

  42. txbearmeat says: Feb 17, 2012 9:29 PM

    Please let the Purple Hornies go down to LA. It would finally shut their stupid fans up. I hate that team. I hate their fans.

  43. burrito12 says: Feb 17, 2012 9:40 PM

    “Hallaulja!!!!!!!!! Haha all the Packer fans in MN are going to help pay for it HAHAHAHA!!! I freaking love it!!!! Listen to Contra bitchin!!! I love it”
    ————————————————————
    And all the Queen fans in Brown County helped pay for the Lambeau renovation, all 4 of them! They have since crawled back under the bandwagon that Brett drove off a cliff 2 years ago.

  44. scrapingthefloorioforstorios says: Feb 17, 2012 10:06 PM

    hA! awesome how many purple fans are crying about this! how much beyotching would you have done if the team had moved? you were in a situation where you needed a stadium, and your do-nothing passive-aggressive culture prohibited an outcome anyone could appreciate. eat it, and lose for another 50 years!!

  45. claymath52 says: Feb 17, 2012 10:33 PM

    As a Minneapolis resident I would vote yes to the stadium and my tax participation. There isn’t anything more fun to do in MPLS than go to the game when the Packers are in town and ruin Vikings fans Sunday in person.

  46. jebdamone says: Feb 17, 2012 11:33 PM

    When the Krafts built the Patriots Stadium 10 years ago it cost approximately $ 400 million…total. It’s a very nice stadium, it was privately financed and the taxpayers didn’t have to pay for it. THAT is the way it SHOULD be. Why are the cost estimates on this Vikings stadium 3 times that and why are the taxpayer get fleecing for 2/3 the cost?
    —————
    I will give a hint – would you rather pay gas prices 10 years ago or gas prices today? What was the cost of airfare 10 years ago versus today? Costs go up over time regardless of what it is.
    ——————–

    ten years ago i lived in KY and gas was 89cents a gallon. no joke

  47. staffordsyear says: Feb 17, 2012 11:48 PM

    When will this just end? at this point i dont care if they stay or go.. just end this please!

  48. vikingdoode says: Feb 18, 2012 12:52 AM

    i like the AH location but if its built in Minneapolis, Shakopee Brooklyn Center, Emily, Outing, Remer, Park Rapids Climax, Worthington as long as they stay….. Duluth would be sweet with an open aired stadium…would get f’ing cold and snowy.

  49. th56 says: Feb 18, 2012 1:21 AM

    txbearmeat says:
    Feb 17, 2012 9:29 PM
    Please let the Purple Hornies go down to LA. It would finally shut their stupid fans up. I hate that team. I hate their fans.

     ——————————-

    Wow, how sad, you must be so empty inside.

  50. gergie1957 says: Feb 18, 2012 1:24 AM

    “txbearmeat says:
    Feb 17, 2012 9:29 PM
    Please let the Purple Hornies go down to LA. It would finally shut their stupid fans up. I hate that team. I hate their fans.”

    txbear, this has nothing to do with your hate, this has everything to do with your fear.

  51. myopinionisrighterthanyours says: Feb 18, 2012 2:25 AM

    I love the debate going on between all these internet Economics majors on the affect of a stadium versus revenue and whatnot. People on the side of the argument against always forget about non-tangible dollars. As someone pointed out, it’s not the NFL that will be the big source of revenue (unless you host a Super Bowl, which 1 would almost cover the whole shebang, if you can get it). It’s the Final Fours, concerts, etc., etc. And it’s not just tangible stadium revenue. Ask the local Hotel, Restaurant, and Lodging Association whether they want a stadium or not, especially if they are close to said stadium. There’s a lot of outside dollars pouring in when you have these events. P.S., Mike. Love the chicken before the egg pic. Surprised no one has commented on it.

  52. bobgb2000 says: Feb 18, 2012 7:19 AM

    Congrats on a new stadium Viquees fans. It may look pretty on the outside BUT it’s still the QUEENS in the inside. And you saved a bunch of money not having to build a trophy room.hahahahaha

  53. mattolikesthevikes says: Feb 18, 2012 8:04 AM

    dtrb10 says:
    Feb 17, 2012 6:57 PM
    Hallaulja!!!!!!!!! Haha all the Packer fans in MN are going to help pay for it HAHAHAHA!!! I freaking love it!!!! Listen to Contra bitchin!!! I love it
    ———-
    Bitchin about what?

    ———

    Ah, bitchin about the reason stated above.

  54. jenniferxxx says: Feb 18, 2012 8:33 AM

    So in the end the taxpayers foot the bill … and they don’t have any share in the team.

    Wow … hey Minnesota, will you buy me a football team?

  55. AlohaMrHand says: Feb 18, 2012 9:33 AM

    maybe I missed it but how much are the Vikings kicking in to lose,I mean play in this new stadium?

  56. AlohaMrHand says: Feb 18, 2012 9:35 AM

    ^427 million?Hellooooooooooooo higher ticket prices.

  57. das14 says: Feb 18, 2012 9:43 AM

    What the heck? People are going to think we are a major city behaving like this. What PROGRESS? Something is afoot.

  58. vetdana says: Feb 18, 2012 10:25 AM

    Very interesting study that does not support public investment in stadiums as per returns on investment !…Read !
    The Economics of Sports Facilities and
    Their Communities
    John Siegfried and Andrew Zimbalist

    Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 14, Number 3—Summer 2000 —Pages 95–114

    Time series studies confirm the cross-section results. Baade and Sanderson
    (1997), for example, found no perceptible net increase in economic activity or
    employment in 10 cities that acquired new sports teams between 1958 and 1993
    after factoring out other economic trends affecting each area. They did observe a
    reordering of leisure expenditures within the cities that acquired new teams, but
    there was no evidence that the new sports teams brought output or employment
    growth to the local area. A more recent study, by Coates and Humphreys (1999),
    finds that new stadiums and sports teams actually reduce per capita income in the
    host communities. This result is consistent with a higher (negative) multiplier for
    the displaced leisure expenditures than for the expenditures on a new team or in
    a new stadium because the latter likely involve substantial leakages from the local
    economy to the remote residential locations of some players and team owners.
    The conclusion that sports teams and facilities do not stimulate economic

  59. randleguy says: Feb 18, 2012 10:29 AM

    Why should tax payers pay for a stadium? why should tax payers for public welfare programs. I did vote for those. Not supporting a business is a loss of state tax revenue collections. It is not only football the game we are supporting, but also football the business. Other business get tax reductions and the such from the Stae to keep them here to employe people and pay Taxes and create dollars for everyone in the state. What would you say if this was a plan to help out 3-M or Honeywell. Loss of an employer, is a loss of an employer. That is what the Minnesota Vikings are a EMPLOYER!!!

  60. tdk24 says: Feb 18, 2012 10:36 AM

    You’d think in this day and age we would know how to build stadiums that would last hundreds of years. Not ones that need to be replaced after 20-30 years. I guess the Romans were smarter than we are today.

  61. mrvikingsfan11 says: Feb 18, 2012 11:09 AM

    Thevikes85 is 100% correct, true Packers fans want us to stay just like us true Vikings fans would never ever want the Packers to leave, it’s a love/hate relationship, so those true fans of both teams please stand up to help keep the Vikings in MN Thank you.

  62. stellarperformance says: Feb 18, 2012 11:35 AM

    mrvikingsfan11 says:
    Feb 18, 2012 11:09 AM
    ……true Packers fans want us to stay just like us true Vikings fans would never ever want the Packers to leave, it’s a love/hate relationship, so those true fans of both teams please stand up to help keep the Vikings in MN Thank you.
    ———————————————

    I don’t want the Vikings to leave. Both teams fight to the end when they play each other, whether one team has more talent than the other, or not.

    But please….when the stadium finally gets built, don’t start up with how superior your stadium is than anyone else’s. Please. Minneapolis is already inhabited by persons with the worst superiority complexes as it is….don’t confirm it.

  63. neilpountney says: Feb 18, 2012 12:26 PM

    I have no dog in this fight and generally speaking I am against the the use of public money for private enterprises. But, please let us not pretend it does not happen everywhere. States are endlessly cutting private businesses tax breaks in all manner of ways.

    I don’t know if it is financially worthwhile for the taxpayers of Minnesota or not but sometimes the the sum is greater than all the parts. I am happy for Vikings fans this has been one long drawn out charade in which politicians both for and against have a lot to answer for.

  64. txbearmeat says: Feb 18, 2012 12:30 PM

    gergie1957 says: Feb 18, 2012 1:24 AM

    “txbearmeat says:
    Feb 17, 2012 9:29 PM
    Please let the Purple Hornies go down to LA. It would finally shut their stupid fans up. I hate that team. I hate their fans.”

    txbear, this has nothing to do with your hate, this has everything to do with your fear.
    —————————————

    Uh, no I don’t fear a 4-12 team with a terrible HC, the worst secondary in the history of the NFL…
    I could go on, but I don’t need to.

    The Vikes are awful. They’ve never won a single title in the history of their franchise. The organization is a dysfunctional, corporate mess. Their history of player behavior is, um….. despicable.

    And yet, their fans suffer from repeated delusions of grandeur and a sense of Packer envy apparent to anyone with two good eyes. They are obnoxious, mouth breathing tools. I want to see that franchise move for that reason above all else.

    M/SP has always been a Twinkies town, and it always will be. If the Vikes left town, within 10 years Minny would be Packerland again.

  65. tdstevie says: Feb 18, 2012 12:48 PM

    As a Green Bay resident and diehard packer fan, I hope the bike stay…i would miss their fans coming to lambeau and talking smack before the game and us laughing at them after the game…would definitely miss the rivalry if they left…

  66. wadi79 says: Feb 18, 2012 1:25 PM

    As a long time Cleveland Browns fan, I remember attending the last game and watching the city die when Modell moved the team. It was a sad sad time. As a current resident of Minneapolis, I am happy that the Vikes and the State are or will reach a deal. There is a rich tradition with this franchise and leaving the state would have been devastating.

  67. bigjim50010 says: Feb 18, 2012 1:58 PM

    so its 750 mil for the new stadium…. i missed the cost for the high speed rail system to bring former packer players to mpls.

  68. stavreafavre says: Feb 18, 2012 3:49 PM

    A billion dollar stadium for a two-bit team. Yeah, that sounds about right.

  69. myopinionisrighterthanyours says: Feb 18, 2012 5:53 PM

    @vetdata:

    The problem with your study is again, it is only looking at the sport revenue associated purely with the team(s) playing in said stadium. If that’s ONLY what you are looking at, OF COURSE you have a negative effect, especially since most of your draw is people who live within 30 minutes travel of the venue (although they will spend money on other things both benefiting the local team/venue and restaurants/grocery stores for pre and post game activities like tailgating). It’s the auxiliary events that are going to be the source of your income and local economic stimulation. Again, ask Indy how much impact the recent Super Bowl had there, and again check to see where your local Hoteliers and the like stand on the issue. That should tell you everything you need to know.

  70. kghannigan says: Feb 18, 2012 7:17 PM

    $427 million? Now the $200 million my 9ers got is feeling like chump change! Jipped! Wtf NFL? Well, at least Vikings fans can stop griping at us now.

  71. eeedlef says: Feb 20, 2012 12:33 PM

    For everyone voting down the comments criticizing the use of taxpayer money because the stadium will bring money to the city/state:

    http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/sports-stadiums-and-economic-development-a-summary-of-the-economics-literature/
    “There is little evidence of large increases in income or employment associated with the introduction of professional sports or the construction of new stadiums.”

    http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html
    “Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy,” Humphreys and Coates wrote in a report issued last month by the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.”

    http://www.cppa.utah.edu/publications/finance_tax/Sports_Stadiums.pdf
    “…independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development.”

  72. eeedlef says: Feb 20, 2012 12:47 PM

    Also, myopinionisrighterthanyours says:

    I live in Indianapolis, and the city as a whole made very little, if anything significant. The revenue lost because the NFL paid no taxes on anything they sold or leased, and increased police cost, and costs to the CIB mean we were lucky to break even. Stop perpetuating lies about how fantastic the Super Bowl is economically for the host city. If it was, wouldn’t Miami be Shangri-la right now?

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20120212/NEWS11/202120361/City-s-Super-Bowl-spending

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20120211/NEWS11/302120003/Super-Bowl-2012-Most-outlying-areas-didn-t-see-spending-splash

    http://money.msn.com/taxes/news.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20120202&id=14751265

    http://www.ibj.com/cib-expects-to-lose-money-during-super-bowl/PARAMS/article/31969

  73. bluedogrunning says: Feb 20, 2012 1:09 PM

    Thank you eeedlef. The proper way to finance a stadium is via the team owner, and if that is not enough, via Personal Seat Licenses paid for by the people who attend the games. I realize that some government involvement is necessary. For example, the local government might have to pay for some of the new road infrastructure to accommodate traffic. Personally, I am surprised that the people of Minneapolis and greater Minnesota would permit this. It would not fly in many areas of the country; the team would be laughed out of town.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!