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.

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.

“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.

———————————————————
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.

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.

$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.

#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.

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.

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.

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.

I’m wondering who actually drafted it.

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.