Stadium Issues

cuda701 · Post by **cuda701** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:39 pm

How does everyone feel about Vikings/Twins/Gophers stadium issues and how they should be funded?

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:14 am

The Twins need a new stadium. The Twins have never had a decent stadium. The Dome is terrible for baseball. It should be built with contributions form State and Local governments. The Twins need to pay for a chunk of it. The revenue from the stadium should be divided so the State is reimbursed its contribution over 25 years and the Twins can remain competitive. The Gophers ought to have a stadium on Campus. The State has to pay for it but private donations would be substantial. Why do the Vikings need a new stadium?

cuda701 · Post by **cuda701** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:28 am

I am probably going to get my head bit off, (especially since I am not currently residing in the cities) but here I go.....why are polls showing so much disapproval of a slight sales tax increase for something so positive? ----Not that I am suggesting this is the only way to partially fund stadiums.

ChrisK · Post by **ChrisK** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:31 am

One of the knocks against any kind of state subsidy for a stadium is the money that the owners have and is thrown around for player contracts. The 'building a playground for millionaires' argument. There is also a vocal contingent of non-sports fans who essentially feel that the state shouldn't have any association with the sports teams. However, these teams do benefit the state in a way that is not financial. Few events bring people together like the Twins playing in the World Series or the Vikings in the Super Bowl. The teams should put up most of the money for the stadiums, but I don't have a problem with the state putting up some money. Packerboy's right, the Dome is one of the worst baseball stadiums in the country. I'd prefer an outdoor stadium for the Twins, but in this climate a retractable roof is an acceptable compromise for baseball.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:23 am

What I dont get is why this thing cant be presented properly. A lot of people say they want to get it done but ,IMO, they go about it the wrong way. ChrisK is right. So far, the "welfare for billionaires" rhetoric has carried the day. Why not start a campaign that actually explains how the 60 million for the Dome was financed by revenue bonds and those bonds were retired in a timely manner from the profit made by operating the facility. Expalin that the MSFC has money in the bank from the operation of the Dome. I think most people think that if the State puts up 250 million for a stadium that it will never recoup any of that money. Quite frankly, if that was the case, Id be against it. Instead, all you hear is how many jobs the new facility will create and the new restuarants will go up and all of that stuff that , while true, doesnt really mean much to people. I cant go to all the good resturants we have now and I have a job. So, IMO, the campaign has not been very well run.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:00 pm

I think the public will support a baseball stadium once Carl Pohlad is gone. He's done to much damage as head of his bank; he made much of his money forclosing on farms, and then with the contraction fiasco. He is just seen as a villian by so many people, go out to rural Minnesota and try to get re-elected after supporting any money for him. The Twins do desperatly need a new stadium though. Packerboy is right about the Dome, and I'd add the Xcel energy center in that mix too. They've done wonderfully since being built.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:39 am

I think if people make decisions on these issues based on who owns the team and how the team is doing this week, we will never get anythnig done. goldy is right that a lot of people dont like old Carl. But I think that there is a general feeling around the state against building these stadiums because people look at it as a complete expenditure..which it is not when structered right. So, you get the " Hey, you want to build a stadium and my kid has 35 kids in his class and only one computer per 3 kids" type of rhetoric going.

ChrisK · Post by **ChrisK** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:50 am

Good points, Packerboy and Goldy. In addition to the contraction fiasco, Pohlad has made two stadium proposals that backfired on him, the threat to move to North Carolina (or was it South Carolina, I can't remember) and the 'loan' that turned into donation by the state on closer inspection. Coupled with the things that Goldy mentioned and Pohlad's unwillingness to open his pocketbook to get some marquee free agents and you have a guy that makes the Simpsons' Mr. Burns look like a saint. If presented as an investment, with clips of Twins' greats maybe having some of them say what the Twins and the community mean to them and spine tingling clips from the World Series you should be able to win people over. The non-sports contingent probably won't be won over, but if the state can give money to the Guthrie why not the Twins? And speaking of the Guthrie, this is a quote from their site that could just as easily apply to the sports teams, substituting "arts" for "sports": "A groundswell of Guthrie support followed by a dramatic gubernatorial override closed out the longest legislative session in state history. The Star Tribune reported, "Republicans and DFLers teamed up for the two-thirds majority vote needed to restore $3 million for the Guthrie and $1 million for a theater and arts center in Lanesboro...Joe Dowling, artistic director of the Guthrie, said the two overrides were testament 'that the state of Minnesota still believes that the arts are an important part of the fabric of society...Quality of life issues do matter. I hope we, in time, can persuade the governor that an expenditure in the arts is an investment in the future.'" I do think investing in the arts is good for the community, but so is investing in sports.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:58 am

Its more of a question of how much than what for. If people were talking about spending 250 million on the Guthrie...the tune would be a little different. I think exhibit A for that is the Xcel. It was a 130 million dollar deal that nobody had any problem with . I dont remember exactly how it was financed but I think St Paul put up some bonds and the State threw in 50-60 million...no problem. The result is the finest facility of its kind that I have ever been in. The Twins and Vikings want the same treatment. The problem is ..its a lot more money. The point is all of this "welfare for billionaires and what about our schools" is just a bunch of pretext. There was no such rhetoric about the Xcel.

INDIANSFOREVER · Post by **INDIANSFOREVER** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 9:47 am

The Vikings need a new crib badly. The Metrodome is awful. Consessions suck, too narrow, the restrooms were built for 10,000 fans, not 60,000 fans. It's the Metrodump, the most worthless piece of $%*#( stadium in the world.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:07 am

It is a piece of junk. It was done on the cheap 25 years ago and has served us well. But its time to join the major leagues. We want major league teams but we are too cheap to participate in building a major league facility. We have never had a major league facility for baseball. I was at the Gopher game on Saturday. It looks like crap. Its so obvious that all the "decorations" are cheap and temporary. Its embarrasing. Great game though.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Stadium Issues

Stadium Issues

Stadiums

Re: Stadiums

Re: Stadiums

Stadium

Re: Stadium

Stadium

Re: Stadium

Stadium

the dome

Stadium