Zygi buys new apartment in NY
And the state of Minnesota needs to subsidize his stadium. Rrrrrrr.
Yes they do, Adam.
The Wilf's have already promised the 3rd highest contribution by a private owner in NFL history, doing so in one of the smallest markets.
There is no doubt that this is a really bad time for us to be spending tax dollars on a stadium, but it is the states fault for not addressing it 10 years ago when we were still in a solid economy and building costs were half of what they are now.
Now, I don't believe that Public Financing is the ONLY way to go. Personally, I would like to see a sports and memorabilia tax, as well as possibly a tax on food and beverages in the municipality that the stadium resides coupled with a Racino to limit the amount of money coming out of the pockets of those who do not watch football.
Nobody likes to be taxed more, but the Vikings are too important to the area to just let them walk. Not only do they make the state money, create jobs, lure potential workers to the region and give people an outlet in the winter; they are a part of who we are as Minnesotans...
Pffft I would give up the Vikings any day to get the North Stars back.
Exactly, I wonder how much more it cost us to get the Wild than it would have to keep the Stars?
Sorry, dorkus, Zygi wants a stadium, Zygi can build his own stadium. Why should someone who has a.) never been to a Vikings game or b.) no intention of ever going to a Vikings game be forced to have his tax dollars go to building a rich fuck a new stadium for his team?
He and his cronies have more than enough money. Let them foot the bill and in turn reap the profits from it.
"Lure potential workers to the region"?
Could you expand on that a little?
Zra... Did you even read my post, or did ya just knee-jerk it a bit? Sounds like you read the first paragraph and then decided what you had to say was more important.
Jessige, there are many factors that drive potential workers to a region, one of which is a professional sports team. I am not saying it is the ONLY reason they would come, but it does have an effect.
Wait a minute...why "drive potential workers to our region?" Shouldn't we try to hire the unemployed that are already there? On the other hand if you are pushing this as a jobs program, wouldn't it make more sense to tackle infrastructure projects that are of use to a greater segment of the taxpaying public?
The timing of this is so poor that it seems like he's deliberately trying to sabotage the stadium deal.
oh no...i read it. twice.
and i disagree with the whole concept.
i could give a rat's ass if they (zygi and his pals)were the highest private contributors of the whole project. that fact wouldn't sway my decision one iota.
the fact that another rich fuck is asking for state (public)funds to build his palace whose purpose appeals to so few (especially amid a decade of less than new stadium worthy performance) turns my stomach.
our roads and bridges are going shithouse and my kids education is being compromised because for some reason there's not enough money to fix them but...for some reason there's always enough money to spend on a palace for overpaid overrated egotistical sports personalities.
well, you get the picture.
TimK - Yes, it would help the people in the region who are currently unemployed by creating short and long term employment. But Well-educated, experienced employees make for a stronger community, why wouldn't we want to increase the talent level of our workforce?
DBrewing, They have been asking for a new stadium since the late 90's, and were told the timing was not right so they would have to wait. Then the Twins got their stadium, the Gophers got their's and the Vikings sat patiently waiting for their turn. Then the economy went to shit.
The reason they are pushing now is because the lease runs out at the end of this season. It has always been scheduled to expire on 1/1/2012. Wilf has had nothing to do with that date, it has been set since 1982. They are willing to extend their lease if a new stadium is agreed upon.
Zra... I have been noticing recently that since about 2008 there has been a lot of work done on bridges and roads. We also don't seem to be lacking on funding to build new schools.
Do you really think that a lack of funding is the reason why your child's education is going to shit? Or would you agree it is government spending the money they should spend on education and infrastructure on things like Wars and Bailouts and other bullshit?
The 300 Million the state is set to contribute is a drop in the pan compared to that kind of spending, and the state will recoup that money over time.
Well-educated, experienced employees don't care about football. And I have yet to find any empirical data that proves the payback on taxpayer funded stadiums. I will gladly pay for roads, bridges, mass transit and schools.
spin it any way you have to to make it fit your logic, man, but the fact is Zygi wants to take money out of *your* pocket and put it into his. If you're comfortable with that, then so be it. Just don't expect everyone else to be as foolish as to think that you're somehow getting a good deal.
Frankly, I don't see the correlation between being asked to pony up 300 MMMMIllion for a building that I might actually see in person as I'm on the freeway on one of the rare occasions I actually make it further south than Thompson Hill...and a good deal.
you can apologize for the guy all you want, but after listening to the "America is BANKRUPT" broken record bullshit coming from the ME Party...you shouldn't be able to, in clear conscience, be asking a state that is *supposedly* many BBBBBBBBBBIllions of dollars in debt, losing LGA to its major cities, losing our Homestead tax credit and state funding for schools and education, closing libraries and stealing (yeah...Stealing. I'm calling it that. theft) of money from a regional rehabilitation and support fund, etc...to foot the bill to build a palace for a man who can afford it just fin on his own.
or can he? why isn't Wylf and his buddies hitting up BofA and Wachovia...is his credit that shitty that he's gotta hit up the state for money...?
I guess the government involvement in private affairs clause of the ME party manifesto doesn't apply in this case.
i don't know about you, but i have more important things to do than sit around the house and watch a bunch of guys in tights play grabass all day.
I LOVE football. I do NOT feel that the state should in any way, shape, or form give a single cent to build Wilf his stadium.
If another PRIVATELY owned company worth as much as Zygi and the Vikings are told the state that it wanted to build a billion dollar factory but only if the state paid for the majority of it, do you think the state would hike up taxes and do it? Hell no. Do you think the people would be ok with it? Hell no.
The whole argument that other states have done it we should too is complete bs.
Don't let the Minnesota part of the Vikings fool you Dorkus. MN doesn't own the Vikings, nor do they owe the Vikings a damn thing.
Again, I LOVE football and I'd hate to see the Vikings go, but MN has way more places their money needs to go than building a rich assholes pleasure palace. This is especially true when Zygi has made it clear that even though several options have been presented, he will only accept Arden Hills with the state paying the bulk, and Zygi making a killing on the surrounding real estate.
No state funds.
Okay, yeah, Dorkus, that's what I thought you were saying.
I guess I don't see how you can differentiate between corporate bailouts and public funding for stadiums. Way I see it, public funding for a stadium _is_ another corporate bailout. And the infrastructure projects you're discussing were funded, in large part, by the stimulus package, which has exactly zero to do with building a state-funded stadium and everything to do with people not falling into the Mississippi again.
I'm paying more in property taxes because the state couldn't figure out how to continue the homestead tax. The students studying at the university are struggling to afford the education they need in order to become one of those "well-educated, experienced employees" you refer to. People can't afford a home for their family, people can't afford to feed their kids. I love football. I really, truly do. But why don't we make fixing those other things part of what makes us Minnesotan first, okay?
Well-educated, experienced employees don't care about football? Sure, whatever you say.
Its an investment, plain and simple. The building of a new stadium virtually guarantees a Super Bowl in the next five years, which pulls in $500 Million on it's own. Granted, only a portion of that comes back to the state and the county through taxes, but it would be a huge boost to the area. Over the course of 30 years, the state and county stand to make the majority of their money back, if not more.
Personally, I feel that the state and county investing this money into the stadium will stand a better chance of generating a return than much of the other investments they may be making. Once the money is in the stadium, they only stand to make the money back. There is no ongoing maintenance that the state will have to pay, no government workers they have to pay, no benefits, no bloating.
Do I feel that there are other needs that need to be addressed? Yes, but those other needs may not generate a return in any way shape or form.
Do I like the fact that my money will go towards helping to line the pockets of a multi-millionare? No, but at least he is being honest about it rather than hiding behind a large corporation and bilking people out of their benefits and pay.
"virtually guarantees" a superbowl doesn't "guarantee" anything.
an honest thief is a thief just the same.
Dorkus = industry sock-puppet?
The last 10 Super Bowls have been played at stadiums that are less than 5 years old. The NFL loves to parade their new stadiums around to all the fans. Thief?
Industry sock-puppet? No, just a guy who understands that the NFL is more than just a game and generates more revenue for the state than most of the other spending they do.
"...generates more revenue for the state than most of the other spending they do." ???? You need to back-up a claim like that with something tangible; a study, or news article at least.
Dorkus, why would you even try to explain why tax payers should help pay for a new stadium? This is PDD, after all....gotta know your audience.
What's the return on the investment? Free tickets? Autographed footballs? A portion of the player's salary?
Well first, I stated that I felt that for those that do not care about football should not be the ones footing the bill. Which is why I suggested that a multitude of funding sources should be tapped for this stadium; from a sports and memorabilia tax to a Racino.
Taxation is a touchy subject right now, I know. But we should be less concerned with the amount of taxes we pay, and more concerned with how that tax money is spent.
The Stadium may be viewed as "Frivolous" spending, but it does generate revenue for the state, county and the Wilf's. Which is why I say it is more of an investment than just building a "playground".
TimK - Similar stadiums to what they are trying to build bring in $200+ million per year just from the stadium. That is not including the lodging, food and retail revenue generated by the team and other events. Of course, only a portion of that comes back to the state via taxes. Taxes on ticket sales for Vikings games alone generate over $3 million per year.
As far as sources/studies are concerned, I will have to get to that after 5pm.
"Why Do Mayors Love Sports Stadiums?"
It's a story that could have been told in almost any American city over the past two decades. Owners of teams in the "big four" sports leaguesâ€”the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHLâ€”have reaped nearly $20 billion in taxpayer subsidies for new homes since 1990. And for just as long, fans, urban planners and economists have argued that building facilities for private sports teams is a massive waste of public money. As University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson memorably put it, "If you want to inject money into the local economy, it would be better to drop it from a helicopter than invest it in a new ballpark."
Studies demonstrating pro sports stadiums' slight economic impact go back to 1984, the year Lake Forest College economist Robert Baade examined thirty cities that had recently constructed new facilities. His finding: in twenty-seven of them, there had been no measurable economic impact; in the other three, economic activity appeared to have decreased. Dozens of economists have replicated Baade's findings, and revealed similar results for what the sports industry calls "mega-events": Olympics, Super Bowls, NCAA tournaments and the like. (In one study of six Super Bowls, University of South Florida economist Phil Porter found "no measurable impact on spending," which he attributed to the "crowding out" effect of nonfootball tourists steering clear of town during game week.)
For politicians eager to embrace sports deals, it's easy to find consulting firms willing to produce glowing "economic impact studies"â€”even though sports economists nearly unanimously dismiss them as hogwash. For example: Economic Research Associates told the city of Arlington, Texas, that spending $325 million on a new stadium for billionaire oil baron Jerry Jones's Dallas Cowboys would generate $238 million a year in economic activity. Critics immediately pointed out that this merely totaled up all spending that would take place in and around the stadium. Hidden deep in the report was the more meaningful estimate that Arlington would see just $1.8 million a year in new tax revenues while spending $20 million a year on stadium subsidies.
"Taxation is a touchy subject right now, I know. But we should be less concerned with the amount of taxes we pay, and more concerned with how that tax money is spent."
we *are* concerned with how that money is spent, and i'm not really in favor of having it spent on a rich fuck's sports palace, and no amount of sports industry influenced "data" on economics and return on investment is going to convince me that this is a good thing.
Pretty sure that the state's contribution to a stadium isn't coming out of funds earmarked for education or roads. Sorry, I know it sounds much better to envision crumbling roads and a decimated school system at the expense of a football palace. But everything I've heard from lawmakers has been trying to make it work from new revenue streams. Things like Racino, a Block E Casino, tax on sports merchandise, or a lottery game. So we can probably dispense with the melodramatic wailing about our tax dollars being wasted.
Except Chris, why can we find *new* money for a stadium for a PRIVATELY OWNED sports mogul, yet we can't find *new* money for our schools, roads, ect.?
I say *new* money cause it really isn't new. With the gambling sources we are just taking money that wouldn't be gambled away if those things weren't open and pushing it into Wilfs deep pockets.
Sports Merchandise Tax? Hah! So we take the person who just wants to get his kid/wife/husband/friend/self a little momento of a sport he enjoys, and jack the price up so that Zygi can reap the rewards.
Zygi has the funds for adds, a new apartment in NY, and to buy tons of land to make him even more money, he sure as hell has enough to pay for his own damn stadium.
Again I'll ask, Chris and Dorkus, would you support a tax hike of any kind to fund another multimillion dollar corporations business?
No, I probably wouldn't support it for another business to this extent. But I do support helping other businesses to a lesser extent in the manner of TIFs and other incentives that encourage job creating businesses to locate in our community.
If you want the truth, I'm not crazy about helping out billionaires. But the sad fact is that this is how this business is done. No owner, no matter their wealth, foots the entire cost of the stadium anymore. The last one who did was Jack Kent Cooke in D.C. I would be more apt to play hardball on this if the LA market wasn't sitting and waiting to swoop in and steal a team. And the Vikings will be sitting here with an expired lease on the least profitable stadium in the NFL. While many on here don't care about sports, many in this state do. Despite their shitty record, 62,000 people will be in the Metrodome on Sunday. And thousands more will be watching on tv. I'm hoping those voices get to be heard as well.
fools and their money = soon parted.
The precedent has already been set for public financing of sports stadiums. The previous stadiums the Vikings have called home have been publicly financed.
The Wilfs cannot be blamed for requesting public financing for a new stadium, considering that is the accepted practice in the NFL.
I could give a rat's ass about the "accepted practice" of the NFL. The accepted practice of Citibank was to knowingly sell toxic mortgages to investors and bet against them in the stock market. Accepted practice in the corporate sector is to maximize their profit at the expense of any and everyone else.
i think the common theme here is that just because rich fuckers begging for public money for sports palaces *has been going on* for some time, and people have gotten comfortable with footing the bill for things they won't actually own...doesn't mean it *has to* continue.
Appeal to tradition (also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."
I am not saying public stadium financing is a correct practice nor that I agree with it, just that it is the way the NFL currently does business.
In order to change the existing busines model, every or at least a significant number of, cities or states that would be or are home to an NFL team would have to refuse to use public funds to build new stadiums.
Unfortunatley, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Can we dispense with the "let Zygi pay for it" argument. That's not an option. The two options are working with the Vikings and getting something done or bidding them farewell. If you don't give a shit about football and could care less if they leave so be it. To each their own. But have the guts to just say that. Instead of arguing for the creation from whole cloth of some utopian vision of a world where government isn't involved in stadiums. You could say that we could be the ones to take a stand. Would anything change? No, the team would simply leave. The only options I see are whether you want to be in this game or out of it.
Let them leave. That didn't take guts to say. Here, I'll say it again- let them leave.
Thank you. I respect that statement way more than anything else written in the anti-stadium arguments.
Let's use the newfound budget surplus and just *give* them a stadium.
Should be paid for strictly by Zyg and by usury fees at the stadium and new construction surrounding the stadium (hotels and restaurants)
Should not be paid for by the general populace, or by gambling addicts.
Chris, I love football. I do not hate it. I don't feel so so about it. I watch every game I possibly can, and it is the only sport I really care about.
With that said, Zygi pays for this himself; and if he isn't bluffing bout leaving if the state doesn't help? See you later Vikings, enjoy L.A..
I can seperate wants from needs. I WANT the Vikings to stay in MN so when my son is old enough we can go to games and watvh them on tv together.
I NEED the State to quit trying to find ways to fund a stadium and instead find ways to quit cutting rates for organizations like RSI and DRCC so that the individuals who are served by them don't lose vital services, and those who work for companies like that can get pay raises,other than a small COLA increases, that State cuts have denied them for years.
I NEED better funding for education so my son has a decent educational enviroment to grow up and suceed in.
I NEED a government that stops making cuts to vital services, all while trying to find new money streams to fund a private business.
You stated early Chris that no monies would be taken from schools or roads or the like for this stadium deal. That is ignorance. Any new revenue streams NOT put towards keeping new cuts from happening to programs that have been cut is taking money from them. Any money that doesn't help restore those programs to previous cut levels is taking money from them.
Zygi can afford to build a new stadium. My employeer DRCC can't afford more cuts before having to stop hiring, cutting back on staff and cutting back on benefits for those who remain.
The stadium might bring in jobs if built Chris and Dorkus, but how many agencies and other businesses will it cause to cut jobs and services. I doubt the balance will be in favor of the jobs that aren't made via a new stadium.
So yep, build it yourself Zygi or good riddance to you and good luck to the Vikings.
Just like when the north stars moved to Dallas they won a Stanley cup. The Vikings will move to l.a. and win a Superbowl. On a side note how did l.a. aquire the Mn Lakers ?
It's about time that everybody here consider cheering for the (more directly fan-supported) Packers. :)
Interesting piece in today's Star Tribune says it would be difficult for the Vikings to move, to LA or anywhere else.
Only registered members can post a comment , Login / Register Here