Skip to content

Senator says Vikings have refused to disclose financial information

Metrodome-1 Getty Images

Vikings fan in Minnesota have commenced the process of contacting legislators who oppose the effort to build a new stadium.  Several fans have forwarded to PFT the responses from the members of the Minnesota House and Senate.

Here’s an email that a reader received from Senator Scott Dibble, a Democrat whose district includes portions of Minneapolis.  We present it without comment or reaction, but merely to illustrate the views being articulated by one of the persons who has been asked to come up with a plan — or not — for building a new stadium.

“I share your unease about the Vikings’ threats to leave Minnesota, but I remain concerned about spending scarce public resources on a project that is too expensive, could be largely privately financed, and adds no net new economic activity to our region or state (as has been repeatedly proven by economic studies of sports stadium subsidies),” Sen. Dibble writes.  “The Vikings have asked for the single largest taxpayer subsidy for any professional sports stadium in recent U.S. history, while at the same time refusing to disclose financial information that is required of all other projects receiving taxpayer money. Elected officials are accountable to safeguard public dollars, making the Vikings’ refusal to negotiate in a forthright manner unacceptable.  This monopoly industry, filled with millionaire players and billionaire owners, should be more forthcoming with all of us if it wants $600 million in public money. We do know is that the Vikings and its owner will receive over $80 million per year just on broadcasting rights. That will jump to over $150 million per year under the contracts that begin in 2014.

“The current price tag of the stadium is too high.  A stadium could be built for much less, the Vikings could increase their share of the cost, and the business community could step up to help with financing. Other NFL markets have built stadiums with 70-90% private financing.  The proposed stadium in Los Angeles (which is, in fact, many years from being built, if ever) is being 100% privately financed.

“Any scheme that involves expanding gambling of any sort is wholly inadvisable.  Minnesota would just be making the same mistake that other states have, creating a new dependence on gambling taxes that have proven to be unreliable and insufficient to offset the added costs from gambling associated social problems and crime. Furthermore, no new net revenue is created from this source. The only economic result is that the already fixed amount of entertainment dollars people spend in our region and state are shifted around.

“I remain a strong supporter of public investments that actually expand prosperity and improve economic productivity: education, early childhood, research, infrastructure, health, the environment, and workforce development. I would be willing to consider a compromise on this matter is if the debate over paying for a stadium would open up the political and policy potential of making investments in those things that would make a real difference for our future.”

We’ll ask the Vikings and the NFL for a response to the email from Senator Dibble, specifically as to the contentions that:  (1) the Vikings have refused to disclose financial information; (2) the stadiums that have been built with 70-90 percent private financing.

Regardless of the back-and-forth, the reality is that the situation is being pushed to a head — if enough of the legislators share Senator Dibble’s views, professional football will possibly leave Minnesota.

Permalink 80 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill
80 Responses to “Senator says Vikings have refused to disclose financial information”
  1. 69jaredallen69 says: Apr 19, 2012 10:04 PM

    And if Vikings leave he won’t be in the legislature much longer…he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t

  2. wrathofgodzilla says: Apr 19, 2012 10:12 PM

    Spot on. No need to waste private dollars on a stadium. Plain and simple. We’re trillions of dollars in the hole and although we all love football, it shouldn’t come down on the ticket buyers and those who don’t even care about football. And on a political note, it’s really refreshing to see an elected Democrat talk about limiting spending.

  3. ndstacken says: Apr 19, 2012 10:13 PM

    Ugh. What an idiot. This is why Minnesota has the worst politics in the country. Just get a stadium done before Minnesota comes to blows.

  4. lks311 says: Apr 19, 2012 10:16 PM

    L.A. smells blood in the water. The Vikings are going, going…

  5. fearonlyhubris says: Apr 19, 2012 10:16 PM

    Wish this guy was my senator. Could not agree more.

  6. noozehound says: Apr 19, 2012 10:18 PM

    the White Earth Tribe from Northern Minnesota has offered to pay 100% of the State’s share of the stadium cost. All they want is to build a casino in the Twin Cities Metro. The White Earth Tribe US the largest Indian group in Minnesota and their tribe is poverty stricken due to the location of their reservation. The Mille Lacs Ojibwe and Metiwakitan Sioux have casinos close to the metro and are ridiculously wealthy. Let the White Earth Tribe build their casino. it’ll help thousands of Native Americans, it’ll create hospitality and construction jobs. And, like I said earlier, they’ll pay the ENTIRE state share of the Stadium! Not to mention a split of the profits going back to the state! THIS IS A GODDAMN NO BRAINER! WTF IS THIS GOVERNMENT DOING!? I love this state, but we have the DUMBEST GODDAMN POLITICIANS.

  7. packerswambulance says: Apr 19, 2012 10:18 PM

    “A stadium could be built for much less” ?
    Guys, thats why were having this crisis right now. You built a pile of crap that is the Metrodome as cheap as was possible back then, and now it needs to be replaced.
    If you’re going to do it, do it right, or let them leave. Then own up to your decision to let the Vikings leave. (And get the hell out of here when you’re done)

  8. godfatherd says: Apr 19, 2012 10:20 PM

    Dear Senator,

    The vikings have you over a barrel. Yes you can tell them to screw, but when they move you will never get another NFL team. If you do not want to waste public money on a stadium then call their bluff. I’m sure some other municipality will gladly take them.

    Regards,

    Someone who lives in the real world

  9. stew48 says: Apr 19, 2012 10:20 PM

    The senator’s email was most interesting. If he is correct on both of the items on which you are seeking answers from the NFL, it would be my hope than the legislature signs off on any action. If he is on target it is indeed heartening to read his email, regardless of political party.

  10. mojosmagic says: Apr 19, 2012 10:22 PM

    No the idiot is you! Public funds should not be used to finance a stadium. Let the wealthy owner pay for the dam thing himself as other cities have done.

  11. ob1canobie says: Apr 19, 2012 10:22 PM

    What he doesnt mention and the ill informed people who are against the stadium is what will happen when the Vikings leave. 30 years that the state has collected large sums of taxes on that stadium. Then there are those jobs at the stadium and downtown, not to mention several small businesses (and large ones) that depend on those games for revenue. There is a reason that EVERY city that has let an NFL franchise go, Baltimore, Cleveland, St Louis, Houston and LA, have all begged for one to come back. History of those deals shows it took a lot more money to bring them back than it would have to keep them. Then there are all the indirect benefits of having a team in your city to attract other businesses to come to your community. Good luck to Minneapolis attracting new business if there are no Vikings there. If they are willing throw away a venerated 50 year old institution what would they be willing to hold on to? If Minnesota is stupid enough to let them go then they will inevitably be begging the a team to come there in the future at twice to cost and with all the losses until it gets there. I mean just who do you think is going to be paying all the taxes that will be missed by having no team? That’s right the people who dont want a stadium.

  12. jjmaddog says: Apr 19, 2012 10:22 PM

    He doesn’t seem to adress the loss of revenues that are currently collected in association with having an NFL team. How does losing the team affect that financial stream?

  13. tweeter75 says: Apr 19, 2012 10:31 PM

    I love Minnesota, and we love our Vikings. This is getting ugly. It’s just a sad, sad situation.

  14. theytukrjobs says: Apr 19, 2012 10:31 PM

    The stadium would be state owned, like most NFL stadiums, and would host many events outside of just NFL games. It isn’t as expensive as it is made out to be. A couple dollars a year to the average taxpayer.

    The arguments against building a stadium always dodge the part about the team leaving. Do we want our state to suck that bad? Was building the Metrodome not worth it in hindsight? What has happened in the past when teams left the city, and other cities? Was their/our experience a positive one?

    It is retarded to think that the state isn’t better off with this, than without it.

  15. cmarsh164 says: Apr 19, 2012 10:33 PM

    amazing, a dem politician that makes sense.

  16. kiltherl says: Apr 19, 2012 10:33 PM

    I’d love to see the Vikings stay, but this guy is right.
    “things that would make a real difference for our future” does not include football….If that was to happen here in Jacksonville I’d support the legislator.

  17. jason1980 says: Apr 19, 2012 10:34 PM

    The Vikings are one of the worst teams in the NFL, can you blame the state for telling them suck it? If they want to leave for California, the Minnessota congressman says “see ya!

  18. thetooloftools says: Apr 19, 2012 10:37 PM

    WOW. So right on. He buys the team and then walks around with his hat in his hand. $600,000,000.00 is a lot of money. I stand behind Minnesota. Even though your team got sold it doesn’t give the owner a right to rape you.

  19. fitzmagic1212 says: Apr 19, 2012 10:38 PM

    new york is going to have to give my bills 200 million this summer..makes me sick that these owners and the nfl get to make money off of not only what we pay for the product but what we pay to build them stadiums. F. U. NFL. but in the end ill pay them happily to keep my team.

    will you do the same minnesota?

  20. zillabeast says: Apr 19, 2012 10:38 PM

    Doesn’t it make more sense for a team to get a stadium privately built anyway? More control, more influx of cash?

  21. steelerchicken says: Apr 19, 2012 10:39 PM

    Build the stadium!!! The money will be wasted on something else.

  22. jpmelon says: Apr 19, 2012 10:39 PM

    It’s an ugly business…..politicians trying to save their jobs and a billionaire trying to get a better deal. I doubt the team will leave. It’s still profitable in Minnesota.

  23. biffdawg says: Apr 19, 2012 10:47 PM

    BUTTHOLE !

  24. somatg3 says: Apr 19, 2012 10:48 PM

    minnesotans arent the brightest bulbs on the tree. we could have paid minimal money to refurbish the met center for the north stars but refused so the owner moves the team to dallas and we pay 20 times the amount to bring the wild as an expansion team. boy we showed them! talk about penny wise , dollar foolish. our legislature is more concerned about what the “billionaire owner” gets vs. what we, the fans, and the state would get.

  25. chawk12thman says: Apr 19, 2012 10:49 PM

    Maybe it is time for the Vikings to travel westward to conquer new lands. I hope not, but it sure looks like the ship is being loaded for a long trip.

  26. aequitas83 says: Apr 19, 2012 10:52 PM

    If it is true that the Vikings refuse to disclose financial data (and I’d be surprised if it isn’t given how tightly sports teams guard their financials), that’s a fair concern given the debacle that is the Marlins’ stadium in Miami.

    Look it up if you aren’t familiar with that disaster.

  27. jethrie says: Apr 19, 2012 10:58 PM

    @ndstacken
    Why is this guy an idiot? He makes a series of reasonable and intelligent statements about why the stadium is too expensive and that the burden shouldn’t be placed on tax payers, and then points out important programs like education that NEED funding. Instead of the ad hominem attack, why don’t you explain WHY the guy is wrong?

  28. ilovefoolsball says: Apr 19, 2012 10:58 PM

    What do they have to hide? Crooks.

  29. zaggs says: Apr 19, 2012 11:00 PM

    “but I remain concerned about spending scarce public resources on a project that is too expensive, could be largely privately financed,”

    Florio, why aren’t you asking why the Vikings aren’t ponying up more money? I mean they’re not even putting in half.

  30. bearsnoah says: Apr 19, 2012 11:03 PM

    This is probably the most well-reasoned and non-spin statement I have ever read from a politician.

    How about that for Democrat not wanting to waste taxpayer money on a pork-barrel project huh?

  31. crypticweed says: Apr 19, 2012 11:03 PM

    He’s got a point. In the 90s, there was a “it’s positive for the economy” thru line that was sold with every stadium, despite there not being one shred of evidence for it.

    If the Vikings haven’t disclosed financial information, he has a strong point. And if they didn’t, that means one of two things: 1) they expected to get it passed without having to disclose it, which would be naive at best, or 2) They knew full well it wouldn’t get passed without it, but can go through the spectacle of saying they tried to get a stadium, and can then move to LA, which was their intention in the first place.

    Dibble is wrong in one respect – that stadium in LA is going to get built quickly. It’s finally picked up steam in the last year, and Pasadena has even considered allowing a team to use the Rose Bowl for a year while the new stadium gets built, something they were adamantly opposed to just years earlier.

  32. bvanbvan says: Apr 19, 2012 11:04 PM

    SCHISM!

  33. daaabears says: Apr 19, 2012 11:06 PM

    This guy Wilf needs to ante up, way up…otherwise he is just another rich jackass.

  34. henryholland666 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:08 PM

    And if Vikings leave he won’t be in the legislature much longer…he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t

    True, but but if the voters in MN take it out on politicians, no matter D or R, who vote against funding a stadium they deserve everything they get: bad schools, crumbling infrastructure, the lot of it.

    The TV money alone after 2014 alone would pay for a new stadium in five years.

  35. ravenspit says: Apr 19, 2012 11:09 PM

    Does anyone else see the irony here? This clown is worried about the Vikings disclosing more financial information;YET he votes for Obama’s stimulus package that continues to put the US further into debt and Obamacare – which Pelosi said they needed to pass it in order to find out what was in it.

  36. NFL In L.A. says: Apr 19, 2012 11:09 PM

    Minnesota is not threatened. We know Zygi has no where to go.

    He will bend the knee.

  37. pastabelly says: Apr 19, 2012 11:11 PM

    $600M in public money is outrageous. The state, at the very least, owes the taxpayers to bargain that down in half.

  38. babyhorsemorgan says: Apr 19, 2012 11:12 PM

    Mistake asking Senator Dibble. Go to Senator “Bull” Dozer. Or something like that.

  39. n001363 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:12 PM

    Well said, but that has never stopped them from being bad stewards of state money. They’re all budget conscious when we’re watching.

  40. theocb485 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:14 PM

    I love football and hate government but Dibble is 100% correct. Vikings ownership obviously has no interest in actually staying in Minnesota, and are just proposing a deal that the city would be insane to accept, simply so they can leave town and then blame MN government. The real world equivalent would be something like your wife telling you “well I guess I won’t divorce you as long as I get to F whoever I want, 3/4 your money is deposited to a bank account I own that you are not allowed to even look at, and oh, kill your mother. Final offer.”

  41. kane337 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:16 PM

    If you allow the Vikings to leave your state will have about as much national recognition as the Dakotas.

  42. chatham10 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:18 PM

    I lived in Minnesota and this would be a sad time not only for the football fans of Minnesota but also the NFC North. I have seen many games in Minneapolis and everybody talks about the cost of the new stadium but nobody is talking about the revenue the Vikings bring into the state. I know a large fan base for the Vikings live in North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and people travel and spend money in Minneapolis as well as the state receives sales tax, personal income tax and property tax from the Vikings management as well as the players. These elected people have screwed around so long on this and now it is election year and they are afraid of losing their golden goose which is their salary, retirement and health benefits but when the Vikings announce they will be leaving before the November election and after 2012 season these people will lose their golden goose as well as the State will lose big time. I’m sad to see them leave.

  43. bpjensen says: Apr 19, 2012 11:18 PM

    I am not a Vikings fan but you have to call out dumb when you read it.

    “…adds no net new economic activity to our region or state (as has been repeatedly proven by economic studies of sports stadium subsidies).”

    That may be true of teams that received new stadiums and stayed put, but have you looked at the “net” economic effect if the team leaves? You can be pretty well assured no NFL team is coming back to Minnesota if the Vikings leave.

  44. 4evrnyt says: Apr 19, 2012 11:19 PM

    $850 million of the 1 billion dollar 49ers stadium came from a loan from the city’s Stadium Authority. That sounds like 85% public funds to me.

  45. jefferee101 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:20 PM

    @ndstacken….thank everything holy that you are not making the decisions. You’d build the stadium and bankrupt everyone’s future for your own selfish entertainment desires. Now, get back to the kiddie table, the adults are talking.

  46. spikeit2times says: Apr 19, 2012 11:20 PM

    He talks as if keeping the Vikings here is supposed to “expand properity and improve economic productivity”. The fact is that if the Vikings leave; prosperity and economic productivity will take a hit. Less jobs, less taxes, less money spent on jersey’s and other Vikings trinkets, less business for the ticket outlets, less money from parking, etc. etc etc. etc…..

  47. thcnote says: Apr 19, 2012 11:22 PM

    Remember when they were in cba talks and all we heard was how they feel bad for the fans and the fans make this game and how much they care about the fans? Now they ask Minn Fans to fork over 600 mil when they are already in debt. The nfl has no regard the fans or the history of the league if they let the Viks leave. The nfl has shown me that the only thing they care about is MONEY. Not that that is a surprise.

  48. vikesfan4life says: Apr 19, 2012 11:23 PM

    Boy I can’t wait for a new upgrade to the Walker or the Guthrie to get approved with public dollars. Lord knows they contribute way more to the local economy than the Vikings do.

  49. mediasloppy says: Apr 19, 2012 11:26 PM

    “I remain a strong supporter of public investments that actually expand prosperity and improve economic productivity: education, early childhood, research, infrastructure, health, the environment, and workforce development.”
    ———————————
    Good luck Dibble. The group running MN has gutted all of these things. I think they just voted not to raise hunting/fishing licenses even though the whole reason to is to restock lakes, combat zebra muscles and many other things.

  50. tinbender2000 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:27 PM

    ndstacken says: Apr 19, 2012 10:13 PM

    Ugh. What an idiot. This is why Minnesota has the worst politics in the country. Just get a stadium done before Minnesota comes to blows.
    ====================================
    If as he says the Vikings are not being forthcoming on their financials he would be negligent to go ahead with this stadium plan. It sounds like this fellow takes his job seriously, too bad his species in politics is almost extinct, we need more people like that at all levels.

  51. spikeit2times says: Apr 19, 2012 11:28 PM

    … Less use of the light rail and other public transportation, less people spending money at bars, less need for bars to be open on Sundays, less money for the local charities the Vikings help raise money for, less million dollar properties being purchased, etc., etc., etc., etc., ….

  52. bobby2478 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:28 PM

    Lots of accusations and rhetoric coming from this “state” senator, then the line about “millionaires and billionaires” is ripe for election year posturing. All the griping about new taxpayer spending is laughable, when they are looking to raise the revenue from expanding gambling, which by the way is voluntary and doesn’t hit anyone who doesn’t want to gamble. Gambling is already in the state, but Reservations get a monopoly on most of it. I particularly find the statement about the Vikings “threats” to leave more posturing. They never threatened anything and have put up with the bs for the past 6 years, the NFL said to either crap or get off the pot basically.

    How about sources for the following claims:
    1. The Vikings have asked for the single largest taxpayer subsidy for any professional sports stadium in recent U.S. history

    2. Expanding gambling of any sort…would just be…insufficient to offset the added costs from gambling associated social problems and crime (Seriously? From pull tabs??)

    On a side note, I’d expect this type of “small government” and “get your hands off my tax dollars” election year posturing to come from the GOP, but this goes to show that both GOP and DEMS are essentially 2 sides of the same coin. All they are worried about is re-election.

  53. jimmysee says: Apr 19, 2012 11:30 PM

    That email suggests the legislators anticipated blowback and were ready with a comprehensive response.

    I’m wondering who actually drafted it.

  54. jnd666 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:30 PM

    The ИFL and/or Vikings could easily pay for a new stadium. As usual, the owners don’t want to pay their fair share and, put the cost on the back of the taxpayers. It’s greed, blackmail & the ИFL is culpable

  55. noahbird says: Apr 19, 2012 11:33 PM

    Senator Gibble is smart. If you take any undergrad economics or local politics class this discussion comes up. Big business and MNCs always try to take a free buck even though it does not benefit the local populace in any tangible way. Wake up peeps!

  56. sonoco says: Apr 19, 2012 11:33 PM

    Meanwhile the 49ers officially broke ground with gold shovels in the dirt in Santa Clara today. As a 49er fan it feels good. I hope the Viking fans feel the same way soon!

  57. maxl49 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:34 PM

    Republican attack add : “SCOTT DIBLE HATES FOOTBALL BECAUSE IT IS TOO AMERICAN !!”

  58. txxxchief says: Apr 19, 2012 11:34 PM

    The local Minnesota political hacks are already patting themselves on the back for forcing the NFL out of the state. I would have thought they would have waited until the franchise made a formal announcement that they’re leaving.

    No polticians really believe that “public resources” are “scarce.” If they want more money, they will come and take it.

    I have new respect for Al Davis now. He must have seen what he was dealing with in Minneapolis and immediately bolted for Oakland.

  59. kjs7way says: Apr 19, 2012 11:34 PM

    Somebody please call Tim!!!! Yes, Tebow!!!!

  60. jokendave says: Apr 19, 2012 11:37 PM

    So what your saying is: The state won’t get millions in revenue, thousands of well needed jobs. Tax revenue in the millions. Millions off the sales of NFL gear. But the poor kids will be fed and educated? With what? Your state is in the hole and your kicking out a source that could help you acheive that goal. Its not just about politics, its about common sense. This has been going on for years and it is bad leadership. Should have told them from the start they wern’t welcome in your state. But I will tell you Minnesota, I will not support another Minnesota sports team. That means I will become a Yankees Fan and a Heat fan. Your call. I sure you can afford to have alot of sport fans leave. Think of where the millions in revenue is going to come from when they leave. From Gambling, from priavate dollars? Good luck will your non action.

  61. bigredjbird says: Apr 19, 2012 11:39 PM

    Well said Senator

  62. flyerscup2010 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:41 PM

    he’s right

  63. jusford says: Apr 19, 2012 11:52 PM

    Plus the vikings will make at least 150,000,000 per year on naming rights! They will recoup the money in less than 5 YEARS! How long before the taxpayers turn a profit? Open the books Ziggy, other corporations looking for a handout do!

  64. vincentbojackson says: Apr 19, 2012 11:54 PM

    He repeatedly points out a study that suggests there would be no additional economic impact realized from construction of a new stadium.

    Unfortunately, he fails to mention that you won’t need a study to feel the net loss to the local economy if the Vikings leave.

  65. sgmjerry220 says: Apr 19, 2012 11:58 PM

    Senator Dibble says, “…and adds no net new economic activity to our region or state (as has been repeatedly proven by economic studies of sports stadium subsidies)”. What is missing is, what Senator Dibble is prepared to do when the Vikings leave ands there is a loss of gross revenue for the state, loss of jobs for the state, and all the 2nd and third order effects that brings. Anyone with a brain realizes this means an increase in taxes. So Senator Dibble, do you want to raise taxes to build the Vikings a stadium, or do you want to raise taxes to make up the shortfall in revenue and jobs when they leave?

  66. jwlemarine says: Apr 20, 2012 12:00 AM

    Why is it we need to use tax payer money to help billionaires buy new stadiums and still charge us insane ticket prices to see the games? And the NFL still can’t figure out why every game isn’t sold out and why we would rather watch the game at home!! Hmmmmm

  67. mnvikesfan1919 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:23 AM

    “Any scheme that involves expanding gambling of any sort is wholly inadvisable. Minnesota would just be making the same mistake that other states have, creating a new dependence on gambling taxes that have proven to be unreliable and insufficient to offset the added costs from gambling associated social problems and crime. Furthermore, no new net revenue is created from this source. The only economic result is that the already fixed amount of entertainment dollars people spend in our region and state are shifted around.”

    This comment is completely ludicrous and a total head-fake by this guy. MN gambling revenues are essentially monopolized on a tax free basis by MN Indian tribes. Because of this, the public loses out on hundreds of millions of dollars annually in public funds. So how can he say it’s proven ineffective? WE DON’T GET TO UTILIZE THE MAJORITY OF POTENTIAL GAMING REVENUES. If this sounds odd, it should, because other states do tax and collect revenues from their casino operators. Whether on a moral level you agree with gambling or not, let’s call this how it is and admit that gambling is ineffective in Minnesota because a long time ago dfl ers gave away the states ability to collect normal and reasonable public funds from casinos.

    In other words, politician, enough with the smoke and mirrors. Show some respect. Pro or anti stadium, the politicking with this process has been embarrassing for our state.

  68. pattersonconsulting says: Apr 20, 2012 12:40 AM

    I don’t know who Senator Dibble is, but he has my vote now. This dude is on his game and has the public interest at heart. I love it.

  69. vikinganswer says: Apr 20, 2012 12:43 AM

    But its ok to use public money for the Guthrie Theater? So the dollars are different, but the economic impact isnt even close either. The Vikings bring more to the state for their draft party than those who go to the Guthrie. YOU CANT LOSE ONE OF YOUR BIGGEST REVENUE SOURCES DURING THESE TIMES!!!

  70. lorddarkhelmet says: Apr 20, 2012 12:50 AM

    #1 I guarantee they could pay for the stadium just by taxing stadium related activities (tickets, hotels, etc). The of course won’t because they are afraid to enact a new tax

    #2 If you don’t believe it hurts a region when a team moves why don’t you ask the Mayor of Pontiac? When they moved the Lions downtown it pretty well bankrupted that city.

    #3 Ziggy is rich, but if you honestly believe has an extra billion laying around to build a stadium you are out of your mind. The problem isn’t necessarily that owners wouldn’t like to finance the stadiums 100%, its that it is difficult cash flow wise to make that happen and still afford the team on top of that. They could clearly make more money by keeping all stadium income but liquidity is the issue. Same reason retailers lease their buildings rather than own them.

  71. pattersonconsulting says: Apr 20, 2012 12:51 AM

    @4evrnyt The public portion of the 49ers stadium is $450 million of the 1 billion dollar project. Which is 45% publicly funded. The vikings are asking for $600 million of a nearly 1 billion dollar stadium. That is 60%. See the difference?

  72. ndstacken says: Apr 20, 2012 12:52 AM

    @jethrie
    Education and health care are always the excuses used by Minnesota lawmakers on why they can’t push a Vikings stadium. It’s been that way for over ten years now. At some point, you just have to bite the bullet momentarily and get the stadium done. Money will pour in from a new stadium. The local economy does so much better. Plus, they’ll say hey let’s use the money for this or that and then they’ll waste it, because they’re just a bunch of crooks. Now let’s just get the stadium done. Minnesota has already lost the Lakers and North Stars. Losing the Vikings would be a huge blow to the state and make the state look like losers.

  73. sonoco says: Apr 20, 2012 1:31 AM

    4evrnyt says: Apr 19, 2012 11:19 PM

    $850 million of the 1 billion dollar 49ers stadium came from a loan from the city’s Stadium Authority. That sounds like 85% public funds to me.

    ********************************************

    The Santa Clara Stadium Authority took out a construction loan with multiple banks to finance the project, the Stadium Authority will pay back the loan from its revenues, including naming rights, seat licenses, non-NFL event revenue, and ticket surcharges. No general fund money will be used and in the end the 49ers are the underwriters if the math implodes.

  74. wipackman1265 says: Apr 20, 2012 1:34 AM

    Fredo… Your my brother and I love you…but we never discuss family business in front of strangers

  75. grannyvi4 says: Apr 20, 2012 2:59 AM

    bearsnoah says:Apr 19, 2012 11:03 PM

    This is probably the most well-reasoned and non-spin statement I have ever read from a politician.

    How about that for Democrat not wanting to waste taxpayer money on a pork-barrel project huh?
    —————–
    “non-spin statement”? Are you kidding me???? This email is straight from the Senate DFL research department that does nothing but spin everything to make the DFL look good and the Republicans look bad. And let’s not forget about the state’s bonding bill which is replete with “pork barrel” projects.

    As for studies showing that there is no economic impact on having a pro football team in a municipality, humbug! I came to the conclusion years ago that there is no such thing as an objective study…of anything. You start out with some hypothesis and go from there. Right from the beginning, there’s a “spin” for whatever side of an issue you want to study. Remember the studies done on butter vs margarine, eggs, coffee, etc.? A few years later someone comes along with another study that reverses the study that said these things were bad for you.

    Aside from all this, he’s from Minneapolis, for crying out loud. What would you expect a politician, who’s up for re-election this fall, to say? No spin? Riiiiiiight.

    Regardless, the state kicked in taxpayer $ for the Twins, the Wild, and the stupid Goophers football team (which didn’t even need a new stadium). Taxpayers have also funded repairs and expansions of several local theaters and arts projects. Why can’t the millionaire patrons pay for those? Hell, even the governor’s millionaire family was bailed out by the state years ago when their business was threatened.

    Zygi has been a good owner and the Vikings have been patient for years. Yes, times are tough (I know because I was laid off over a year ago and I just turned 60 so my job prospects are lousy), but there are hundreds of things I don’t want my tax dollars spent on, and yet spent they are. This is one thing I would be willing to pay an extra buck or two a year to have. Our legislators are being short-sighted and are too afraid that they’ll lose their part-time jobs this fall.

    Bottom line — it’s politics and it’s ALL about spin.

  76. truthserum4u says: Apr 20, 2012 3:06 AM

    For those standing up for Dibble – he’s painting only half of the picture and you’re buying it as a master piece. For the other half of the picture read the following three posts:

    ———————————————————
    ob1canobie says:Apr 19, 2012 10:22 PM

    What he doesnt mention and the ill informed people who are against the stadium is what will happen when the Vikings leave. 30 years that the state has collected large sums of taxes on that stadium. Then there are those jobs at the stadium and downtown, not to mention several small businesses (and large ones) that depend on those games for revenue. Then there are all the indirect benefits of having a team in your city to attract other businesses to come to your community. Good luck to Minneapolis attracting new business if there are no Vikings there.

    jjmaddog says:Apr 19, 2012 10:22 PM

    He doesn’t seem to adress the loss of revenues that are currently collected in association with having an NFL team. How does losing the team affect that financial stream?

    chatham10 says:Apr 19, 2012 11:18 PM

    I have seen many games in Minneapolis and everybody talks about the cost of the new stadium but nobody is talking about the revenue the Vikings bring into the state. I know a large fan base for the Vikings live in North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and people travel and spend money in Minneapolis as well as the state receives sales tax, personal income tax and property tax from the Vikings management as well as the players.
    ———————————————————

    And not only will they lose the employment of many to build the stadium, they will be adding to those collecting unemployment when people lose their jobs after the Vikings move. How much taxable income will be lost, not only from the Vikings, but from the other businesses ob1canobie refers to? What about all of the money (and subsequent taxes) spent by these athletes and upper management helping the local economy?

    Whether you like it or not; whether it’s fair or not; the real world rules of building stadiums for the NFL usually means a good chunk of public money will be required.

  77. thankheavenfornumberseven says: Apr 20, 2012 11:22 AM

    Here’s what I thought was the most hilarious comment in the e-mail:

    “I remain a strong supporter of public investments that actually expand prosperity and improve economic productivity: education, early childhood, research, infrastructure, health, the environment, and workforce development.”

    The government has never done anything to expand prosperity and improve economic productivity. They take money from the productive sector and spend it less efficiently. But the fact is, government spends money on stuff that benefits the public (and a lot of stuff that doesn’t benefit anybody), so there’s no reason why it shouldn’t pony up some dough to keep the NFL in town. It’s a public good.

  78. deeppurple23 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:33 AM

    Still interesting how an Indian tribe offered to pay MN portion of the bill, not some of it but ALL of it, and the “leaders” dismissed it out right without even trying to find a way to make it work. I guess they really want the Vikings to leave. Don’t expect a team to come back. Unlike Cleveland you pushed yours out after the owner did everything to stay. Not to mention, what do the Vikings financials have to do with this? The Vikings have come up with their portion, the state has not.

  79. ruvelligwebuike says: Apr 20, 2012 2:44 PM

    “Senator Gibble is smart. If you take any undergrad economics or local politics class this discussion comes up. Big business and MNCs always try to take a free buck even though it does not benefit the local populace in any tangible way. Wake up peeps!’
    ————————–

    Undergrad econ…brings me back to the college years. Best time of my life. No responsibilities other than 15 hours of school per week, and a part time job so I could buy booze and weed. Paid the tuition and rent on loans begotten from other people’s tax money. And listened to professors and TA’s who have spent their entire lifetime in academics and vote DFL 88% of the time (that’s an actual stat, by the way) teach me that business and corporations are bad and government is good.

    Then a grew up and got a job.

  80. freedubay says: Apr 23, 2012 3:34 PM

    The NFL is almost laughable in its threat to move to LA. Zygi (Vikings owner) doesn’t want to sell and if he did with the Dodgers being sold for $ 2 billion the ol’ Zygmeister won’t be selling at any discount. The LA better have really really deep pockets.

    Zygi will not move the Vikings if he doesn’t receive money from Naming rights, advertising, concessions, PSL’s and suites. None of which LA is offering.

    The Emperor has no clothes.

    NFL needs to contribute more, much more to build their stadium, or go away and stop bothering us.

Leave a Reply

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