Life After Vikings

[zepman]

The Pohlads almost contracted this team...sound familiar? They got their stadium.

You will hear more and more of a possible Viking move between now and the end of the next legislative session...posturing...reality...who knows, but they will get their stadium too.

[bottom-bouncer]

If they go they go honestly does it really matter. Should we all vote yes so we can pay even more taxes? I have been a vikings fan all of my life in the good years and the bad. But myself like many other minnesotans have bigger and much more important things to spend are money on. I have 6 kids that need an education unless you live in a cave you are well aware of the fact that education spending keeps getting cut. The education of my children as well as all of the other kids in this state is alot more important than building a stadium for a football team full of over paid underachiving premadona's. If ziggy wants to take them to L.A than so be it.

[zepman]

That's intersting...I just took a walk through my kids middle school a few weeks back and it's like the Taj Majal. Carpet from wall to wall and over 500 computers scattered throughout the building.

Compared to what I had...and most in here had...I'd say our kids and their schools our doing pretty darned good!!!

[curtistodd]

The twins have 81 home games a year plus exhibition games, plus playoffs, the Vikes have 8 plus 2, 3, or 4 more games. Would rather have entertainment 95 times a year or 12?? Easy answer Twins > Vikings. Im very happy the Twins got their stadium. If MN loses the vikings, then we can just all be stupid whiny bandwagoners with no football team, like North Dakotans.

[upnorth]

Football is a profit making venture, why are we even considering sponsoring a new stadium(shouldn't done it for the Twins either)? We are willing to let other businesses leave the state not even bat an eye lash! It is a game, nothing more nothing less. Need a football fix? Go watch a college or high school game.

[zepman]

Let's cut high school and college football too...and while we're at it it, let's just cut every sport that that is publicly funded in some manner.

There is a reason football is referred to as a "cash-cow"...

[CJH]

Let's cut high school and college football too...and while we're at it it, let's just cut every sport that that is publicly funded in some manner.

There is a reason football is referred to as a "cash-cow"...

For the Wilf's!!!!!

The U, even with their perpetual losing, generates enough $$ to pay for most of the other sports in the athletic department. I have no problem with the U having a new stadium.

The Vikings are privately owned by an out of state billionaire - no way I should be handing out welfare to him.

[zepman]

Yes, for the Wilf's...that's the way life works. Please don't forget about all the residual jobs and income that is brought in every day by the Vikings in one way or another.

[CJH]

Yes, for the Wilf's...that's the way life works. Please don't forget about all the residual jobs and income that is brought in every day by the Vikings in one way or another.

10 days a year - it isn't much in the grand scheme of things.

[zepman]

You just don't get it do you....

[flipper]

You just don't get it do you....

Neither do I get this so called residual income. Hard for me to see my hard earned money go to a bunch of millionaires playing a little kids game.

[Shack]

Funniest thing, we bring up "hard times" and "money" being needed else wheres, but one of the basic "free" stress, economical & society releasers is football.

Football became more of an important "pastime" for me after high school and learning the ways of life with barely any money, renting & splitting hairs, with a wife and child in tow. No matter how low on money we where at the time, financial troubles and the whole ball of wax, nothing beet escaping reality and sinking into football with the Vikes for 4 quarters on a Sunday midday. Prior to this I could have cared less about watching entire game. Just hearing the score threw my teens was good enough.

Not much you can do to have a little fun when you are down and out and escape your troubles other than 2 things:

1) Fishing

2) Sunday Pro Football (Pro Sports in General)

You can say this, that, and the other thing, but if life hits the fans, I find my family and myself in a 2 bedroom apartment and down to nothing, at least I know I can escape for an afternoon on Sunday during football season and feel good watching a home team.

[CJH]

You just don't get it do you....

Think its the other way around!!

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[CJH]

Not much you can do to have a little fun when you are down and out and escape your troubles other than 2 things:

1) Fishing

2) Sunday Pro Football (Pro Sports in General)

There are a ton of things you can do that don't cost hardly any money. Those maybe the things you prefer, and I enjoy both, but that's not exactly a good argument for public funding.

[Shack]

We have brought down before how much the state actually has to kick in and the return and payoff of the debt. It's not a loose situation like many other things that are funded heavily by the state. I am not into Cultural Arts, but could be in a later part of my life. As far as I know, when money is spent on these programs, there is no return. There is no payoff. I am sure others can list state funded things that are not paid off that have an open check when money is needed.

I just see places like Jacksonville where the local commerce and economy is in a panic about loosing an unwanted team by the public and is being pro-active. MN in my opinion seems comatose to the possibility of loosing the Vikes. Like "it cant happen here".

[Scott K]

It is funny how those against the stadium are Packer fans. Hmmm....

[CJH]

It is funny how those against the stadium are Packer fans. Hmmm....

You mean taxpayers???

[Scott K]

Would you feel different if your beloved Packers wanted a new stadium? If they said they would have to leave Wisconsin if they didnt get one? Oh wait, the state OWNS the team, and the stadium, and the state of Wisconsin has already been paying for it!

You are just against it because you are not a Vikings fan, and are against your tax dollars going to your opponent!

[Shack]

Is Burnsville in the Metro circle that would see a tax increase? Again, stigmas like this that the entire state will see a tax increase only inflames "those" who actually see a tax increase, but I am not sure if Burnsville constitutes as in the tax circle. You sure CJH? Have any proof to bring forward? I can not find any and this is the old plan, I assume you guys saw the video posted correct?

I am starting to think it is just a Packer thing . :

CJH the state/Mpls would not be paying upfront the total 800,000,000.00. Plus the Vikings will still have a "Lease" payment due on the new stadium. I think the teams upfront responsibility (out of pocket) is around $250-$260 (what they would like) & not to mention the NFL kicking in over $100-$150,000,000.00. I also thought back in 2005 (another time & place I know) Anoka County was will to cough up around $200,000,000.00 when it was going to built in Blaine for half of what it costs now. Thank you Minnesota Legislature.

Limit I know the little mom & pop stores that would not be able to compete with the extra taxes are a causality. Where ever a stadium goes up, I will bet their will be business lined up & waiting to get square footage anywhere within 10 miles of the new Vikings stadium. Loosing a small work forces is one thing. Loosing sleep over Hooters verses Applebee's and them having to charge extra for tax and if people will come or not, is for the da-birds.

Vikings Stadium Bill Introduced: Purple Plan, White Plan

Plan calls for scratch-off game, jersey taxes

Updated: Monday, 03 May 2010, 10:28 PM CDT

Published : Monday, 03 May 2010, 10:46 AM CDT

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Rumors, speculation and closed-door discussions have all led up to a Minnesota Vikings stadium bill introduced Monday at the State Capitol.

Rep. Loren Solberg (DFL-Grand Rapids) said only those who would benefit from a Vikings stadium would pay for it. The bipartisan bill calls the Vikings to pay for half the cost of the fixed-roof, multi-purpose stadium, with the rest covered by a scratch-off lottery game and taxes on rental cars, area hotels and jersey purchases.

"We’re encouraged," Vikings Vice President of Public Affairs and Stadium Development Lester Bagley said. "There's enough time in the session that we can package something together that fits Minnesota and those who use or benefit should pay."

Time is surely a factor. The bipartisan bill starts a fast-ticking clock to get a stadium deal done this spring, with only about two weeks remaining in the legislative session. But before a stadium bill is address, Minnesota legislatures must first deal with the budget.

“Our highest priority is balancing the state budget,” Solberg said. “Until the budget is balanced, we will not send this bill to the governor’s desk. We will not pass a bill that adds a nickel to the deficit, or takes a dime from nursing homes, schools, roads, or hospitals.”

“No deals have been made, and no plans are set in stone,” Sen. Julie Rosen (R-Fairmont) said. “Like every other bill the legislature considers, this bill will be fully vetted in committee. Amendments will be offered, and public testimony will be taken. This decision will not be made in some back room – it will be made by all Minnesotans through an honest and responsible legislative process.”

The plan requires no money from the state's general fund be used for a Vikings stadium, protecting money for schools, roads, healthcare or other state programs. The Vikings would pay $264 million up-front for construction costs. The remaining $527 million would be paid over 40 years, covered with specific taxes and a lottery game and broken down like this:

Area hotels (1.5% surtax): $8 million

Jersey purchases (6.875%): $16.9 million

Sports-themed scratch off: $5.5 million

Rental cars: $5.5 million

The plan requires any cost overruns to be paid in full by the Vikings. The team would also be required to sign a 40-year lease on the new stadium, protecting taxpayers if the team is sold and relocated.

Two versions of the plan were introduced with the bill: the Purple Plan and the White Plan.

Purple Plan: PDF White Plan: PDF

Under the Purple Plan, the Minnesota Stadium Authority would be established. The plan is also site-neutral, allowing any city to bid for the stadium. Under the White Plan, the stadium would be owned and operated by the city of Minneapolis, which could also use downtown entertainment taxes to pay for the stadium. Those taxes are currently applied toward the Minneapolis Convention Center, which will be paid off in 2020.

Minneapolis likes the idea of a public-private partnership, but is cool to using tax money from the Convention Center for a stadium. Mayor R.T. Rybak says no detailed talks have taken place between lawmakers, the Vikings and city hall. Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat says the same is true on the county level.

Anoka County, Ramsey County and the city of St. Paul are also possibilities at this point, but nothing is confirmed.

If built, the stadium could host up to 300 major events annually, including conventions, concerts and amateur sports events. Bids would also be placed for the Super Bowl, NCAA men's basketball Final Four and other high-profile events.

Quote:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) ―

The ceremonial first pitch at Target Field today from a man to whom the Minnesota Twins may owe a great deal: Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat.

Opat led the drive to build the ballpark in downtown Minneapolis. The county imposed a sales tax to pay for Target Field, some of the money is used for local projects that have nothing to do with the Twins.

At the time, the bill was so controversial it passed the legislature in the middle of the night by just one vote.

No one lost an election because of it. And even opponents of stadium subsidies were excited.

Here's the REALITY.

Hennepin County put up the money, $350 million over 30 years, funded by a .015 percent sales tax.

For every $20 spent on taxable items in Hennepin County, there's an extra three cents tacked on for the ballpark.

But the money pays for a lot more than just Target Field.

IN FACT....

Thirteen Hennepin County public libraries are open more days and longer hours because of the stadium tax.

The law requires up to $2 million of the stadium sales tax -- every year -- must be used to extend library hours. They're called Ballpark Sundays and Mondays.

That's NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

Part of the stadium tax will go to local youth sports programs.

The Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission has already awarded the first 17 grants.

Some are as small as $10,000 for tee-ball fields in Corcoran, while others are as large as $345,000 for lighting baseball fields in St. Anthony Village.

For the next 30 years, the stadium sales tax will build, repair and renovate amateur sports facilities across Hennepin County.

Here is what you NEED TO KNOW.

Target Field's price tag is $545 million.

Hennepin County taxpayers will put up a total of $350 million over the next 30 years.

The Twins share is $195 million. That's just a little more than Joe Mauer's 8-year contract.

That's Reality Check.

Again, if you go down to Target Field before or after the game, spread out about 4-6 blocks and try to buy a beer or check out from a retailer this week. If you just got off the space ship from Mars, you would have "no clue" this county and state is in any kind of slump or recession.

This is just a little bit of this article:

Quote:

Northstar drawing SRO crowds for Twins games

Twins fans heading to the ballpark from the north and west are enjoying the ride.

By PAUL LEVY, Star Tribune

As the Twins play to near-sellout crowds at Target Field, the Northstar trains taking fans to and from games are doing a standing-room-only business of their own.

Trains scheduled specifically for Twins games have become so popular that a sixth passenger car has been added to each one -- even though platforms can readily accommodate only five.

A train added specifically for the game against Boston on Thursday, April 15, attracted so many Northstar riders -- 2,118 -- that two buses had to be sent to the Fridley station for fans who couldn't get on the train, said Metro Transit spokesman Bob Gibbons.

Many Twins fans from western Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota are driving to Big Lake and then using the Northstar family rate to take the 41-mile ride to Target Field and avoiding downtown parking fees and hassles, said Chuck Heintz, a Big Lake City Council member who referred to surveys of license plates taken in Northstar lots.

In addition, some fans from northeast Minneapolis appear to be driving to Fridley and taking Northstar trains downtown, Gibbons said. On most business days, 125 cars park in the Fridley Northstar lot. But during a recent weekend game, that number was 254, Gibbons said.

"We want people to get acquainted with Northstar," Gibbons said of the six-month-old commuter line that runs between Big Lake and Target Field, with stops in Elk River, Anoka, Coon Rapids and Fridley. "And the excellent ridership we're getting for Twins games is helping us do that."

I will bet that not one business has moved around Target Field since it has opened or the additional sales tax was implemented solely because the taxes went up. Why would they? They are making BooKoo bucks from the bags of popcorn to our hotel being booked solid because of the rain delay and people wanted to go to both games on Saturday and the one on Sunday.

[Shack]

Would you feel different if your beloved Packers wanted a new stadium? If they said they would have to leave Wisconsin if they didnt get one? Oh wait, the state OWNS the team, and the stadium, and the state of Wisconsin has already been paying for it!

You are just against it because you are not a Vikings fan, and are against your tax dollars going to your opponent!

Yeah! CJH constantly bring up the issues about not being able to see Packers games on TV. Here he is not even paying anything for them and still wants his way. Just razing ya CJH.

[CJH]

Oh wait, the state OWNS the team, and the stadium, and the state of Wisconsin has already been paying for it!

[CJH]

Is Burnsville in the Metro circle that would see a tax increase?

You mean Burnsville/Dakota county??? I am pretty sure that constitutes part of the metro and a good chance we would be included in any taxing/funding for the stadium, whether it is county or state sales tax.

I am not even going to respond to the garbage/pro vikings drivel being posted. I think you need to check the facts on these, before you ask somebody else to prove theirs.

Seriously, take a valium. I was talking about a publicly funded Vikings stadium, not you personally. Not cool.

[Shack]

OK? Sorry CJH. Nothing taken personal on my side.

Here is a current article that seems to shed light on what I am talking about:

Quote:

Tom Horner's Vikings stadium plan: its strengths, its weaknesses

Analysis by Jay Weiner | Thursday, Sept. 23, 2010

It's easy, almost sport in Minnesota, to take whacks at stadium plans.

On the macro level, you've got the "hell-no" folks, who don't want any attempts to figure out the Vikings stadium issue. That attitude comes from the left and right. It is a head-in-the-sand approach to a community dilemma that won't go away, what with the Vikings' Metrodome lease expiring after the 2011 season.

Then, you've got the "whatever-it-takes" crowd, but they conduct their meetings in the corner booth of a sports bar somewhere. As the state budget sinks deeper into its financial abyss and local government aid is slashed, the rah-rah group that hollers "just-build-the-darn-thing" numbers in the handfuls.

Finally, you've got the "let's-figure-it-out-as-rationally-as-possible" contingent, which must, if we are intellectually honest, stipulate that pro sports financing and the public's relationship to it, here and nationally, is fundamentally irrational.

Which brings us to the Independence Party's Tom Horner, who has bravely left himself vulnerable on this topic because he has produced a Vikings stadium plan of sorts.

In so doing, he is the only gubernatorial candidate among the three to offer a relatively detailed framework for a Vikings stadium.

Horner's is an evolving plan and one that he acknowledged in an interview Tuesday will likely evolve lots more were he to win the November election. (At one point, for instance, a per-drink liquor tax that would flow into stadium debt service was part of it, but it's not now.)

DFLer Mark Dayton, a former state commissioner of economic development, has said he would examine and approve a deal that's good for the taxpayers and the state — details to follow. His spokesperson said Tuesday no Dayton stadium plan is imminent.

Republican Tom Emmer has said he supports a Vikings stadium effort — details also to follow, but not any time soon, his spokesperson told us. Emmer continues to like the notion that Minneapolis city taxes helping to pay down the debt of the Minneapolis Convention Center should be redirected for a new stadium. This is an idea whose time came and went in the Legislature last session; for city officials, it is a non-starter.

A stadium, bonds and racino, oh my

Adopting some tried and true funding options — such as ticket taxes — and tweaking some other ideas — such as unusually long 40-year bonds, unheard of at the Minnesota Legislature — Horner tries to thread a needle with a cocktail of revenue streams. On close examination, his factors might not add up to the sums needed to build what he predicts would be an $800 million to $900 million stadium.

Horner's most provocative and politically treacherous revenue stream: gambling money from casinos at the state's two racetracks. He wouldn't use all of the projected revenue of $250 million per biennium for a stadium, just enough to raise the $30 million or so needed to pay down the public's yearly piece of stadium debt, he said.

But there are finance hurdles attached to using gambling money to back public bonds, experts say. Rating agencies in New York would likely want some standby or backup source to gambling revenues, and that could mean the state's general fund.

And, then, of course, there's the politics of getting the "racino" concept through the Legislature.

Even Vikings stadium point man and public affairs vice president Lester Bagley, who wants a new facility far more than Horner, says no one should count those slot machines yet.

"Realistically, the racino proposal is going to be a challenge at the Legislature, unless something changes dramatically over there," Bagley said. "We don't really have a dog in that fight. If that's what our state determines is our best course of action, then we'll participate. But the politics of it have been difficult for it over the past 10 years."

Devilish details

Let's drill down to Horner's specifics, which he said "probably would be enough" to cover the public's costs of stadium debt. And let's raise some concerns.

Upfront: Horner would seek 40 percent of the stadium's funding from the team. This is slightly more than the Twins' contribution at Target Field and, generally speaking, a bit more than most other NFL teams have put into public-private shared projects. For the new Dallas Cowboys stadium, owner Jerry Jones has invested far more than 50 percent.

Question: Why only 40 percent? If this is a "public-private partnership," why not go 50-50?

Because, Horner said, he envisions a stadium in which the Vikings control a limited number of dates, pay one-third of the operating costs "and the public gets all of the rest of the revenue … As a starting point, I think this is fair to the Vikings."

He's right that if the team only controls the stadium for a dozen games a year and the public for the other 350 days, then, perhaps, that 40 percent contribution makes sense.

Unfortunately, he has now locked himself in at that 40 percent threshold from an owner who will see the value of his team soar by about 50 percent when a new stadium opens.

40-year bonds: Horner would issue bonds with 40 years of maturity tied to a 40-year-long Vikings lease. (This 40-year horizon is rare for sports facilities, although the new Yankee Stadium is financed with some 40-year bonds.)

Generally speaking, the length of bond life that funds a project is tied to the useful life of the asset the bond is financing. The vast majority of publicly linked bonds are 20 and 30 years. Indeed, the state of Minnesota has some constitutional restrictions on general obligation bonds that require payments beyond 20 years. It's all very complicated.

"The premise is: Are you matching the useful life of the asset to the length of the debt?" said Jon Commers, principal of Donjek, a St. Paul public finance consulting firm. "And what is the useful life of the typical professional sports facility?"

It's not 40 years. The Dome is 28 and on its last legs. The debate over the Vikings getting a new stadium started more than a decade ago, when the Dome was a teenager.

So, if a new stadium is financed over a 40-year period, what happens when a new wave of stadium construction arrives in 20 years after the stadium opens and there's still 20 years on the mortgage?

This issue was raised in a recent New York Times report that showed how some aging stadiums have already been abandoned by tenants with years of debt to pay off.

Also, "The longer you extend the maturities, the higher the interest rate because of the risk an investor sees in tying up money for that period of time," said former Minnesota finance commissioner Jay Kiedrowski, now a senior fellow at the Humphrey Institute.

But others say, investors worry more about the sustainability of the taxes or revenue sources pledged for debt service on bonds than the life of the physical asset, that is, the stadium. For sure, any 40-year deal would require a special law, we’re told.

Horner, however, counters with optimism about the useful life of newer-generation stadiums: "To expect that a new stadium — given all of the better architectural understandings and all of the new designs — to expect that a stadium could last 40 years and be functional and profitable for 40 years is not unrealistic."

That is wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

He acknowledged "challenges" with the 40-year bonds but said it gives the state "predictability and permanence" for the retention of the Vikings.

Lease: The length of the bond is tied to Horner's notion that a new lease should last for 40 years. That is, if it's going to take four decades to pay off this stadium, then the team has to commit to play there for that long.

Do not expect the Vikings to blithely sign on to the longest lease in the NFL.

As Bagley points out: "After year 30 — the traditional lease term — we don't want to be in a position we're in now, locked into an untenable, non-competitive revenue situation that we have no way out of until the lease expires."

Let's not worry about the year 2040. In the present tense, Horner's 40-year stadium and bond lifespan notions seem iffy.

Timing: In his plan, Horner states that the stadium decision needs to be made during the 2011 legislative session, but he seems to hedge: "The NFL has to resolve its collective bargaining agreement with the players union before any construction begins." The union-management deal expires in March and there already is talk of a potential lockout for the 2011 season.

So, is he saying that Gov. Horner wouldn't go forward until the union deal is settled? More or less, yes.

"There should be a contingency in there that not a shovel of dirt is turned until the Vikings, the NFL have an agreement in place," Horner said.

Thumbs-up on this concept.

Other revenues

Here we begin to wander into the weeds of modern stadium-management models.

In Horner's vision, the public would own the stadium and, it seems, manage it, except for the relatively few days that Vikings games are played. With that in mind, he says the public should capture the revenues from non-Vikings events and use that cash to help pay down stadium debt.

But the recent record at the Metrodome suggests there's little money there to spend. At the Metrodome, about $1 million a year is generated by other events, but that includes such small-potatoes events as as Division III baseball and concourse inline skating.

That may not bode well for the other revenues that Horner wants to capture to pay down stadium debt.

On the other hand, he and others note that the Dome is not a good model for going forward. For one, a new stadium won't be cluttered with 81 Twins games and would have more dates to sell. A new stadium would also likely be managed by a third-party facilities company/promoter, such as AEG, which operates Target Center, and not by a public agency like the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission.

Horner, like others, mentions the power of NCAA championships and Super Bowls. But NCAA events actually cost arenas; in 2006, for instance, the Sports Facilities Commission lost $386,000 on a regional. Super Bowls and other big events may bring in money for hotels, but not for stadiums. Horner needs to be careful in overselling and relying on the revenues from "other events."

Ticket tax

Horner does want to capture the ticket taxes from all events. For now, a statutory 10 percent ticket tax raises more than $4 million annually at the Dome. Higher ticket prices could generate more, as would more events. That's a solid piece of change, assuming the Vikings continue to sell out their games.

Again, the team will oppose this tax. It views that money as theirs, not the public's. They see it as part of a ticket price that fans are willing to pay. The Vikings want to capture ticket taxes to cover their operating costs. Horner wants to use them to help pay down debt.

Ticket taxes are user fees. Vikings fans should have skin in this game, in addition to the increased ticket prices sure to come — and maybe even upfront seat licenses to assure good seat location.

If the principle circulating around the Capitol is that those who benefit from the stadium should pay for it, then the Viking fans need to kick in to the public coffers, too. Horner should stick by his ticket-tax guns, if and when he needs to negotiate with the team.

Roof

But taxes and operating costs are tied to another major stadium issue: a roof.

Horner wants a roof. But who benefits from a roof? The Vikings don't. They can play their games outdoors. The value of enclosed luxury suites and club seats is enhanced by an open-air stadium in which the average schmoes freeze their tushes while the well-heeled can sip chablis in a heated stadium condo. We've written about this in the past.

If the state wants a roof for "other events" — like high school sports — the Vikings are open to the community controlling them, but the Vikings don't want to pay to stage them. If it's an open-air-only facility, the Vikings might want to operate the building and control every dollar that flows in there.

Is a roof worth its $150 million to $200 million cost? Still an open question for Horner, the Legislature and public.

Racino and Canterbury

Horner's reliance on revenues from a Canterbury Park racino raises issues about how much Canterbury's private owners could benefit from such gambling and how much bonding could be supported by unpredictable gaming dollars.

If a new stadium is built, everyone will be concerned how much Vikings owner Zygi Wilf will profit. But a racino link will benefit the Canterbury stock holders, too, and the owners of Running Aces harness track in north ex-urban Columbus.

Horner said in an interview he wouldn't anticipate an upfront fee from the owners of Canterbury for their rights to operate a racino. Canterbury offered $100 million last legislative session to get that license. Horner shouldn't leave that upfront money on the table.

There's another racino hurdle. Horner is relying on data from the Minnesota Lottery for what racinos can raise. But he won't be able to use all $125 million per year, nor does he want to. Rating agencies in New York won't have any reliable data by which to evaluate the revenues from racinos, so would likely require some other revenue stream for a few years as a standby sort of tax, public finance experts said.

Although racinos in some other states have done well, gambling revenue clearly relies on the health of the economy. Other questions: would you buy a bond to help fund a stadium if your returns were based on Canterbury and Running Aces being alive in the year 2050? Could anyone bet on that, given the downturn in the horse industry over the past decade?

Experts say that State Lottery revenue — with a solid track record — would be a more reliable revenue source for a stadium. But Horner hasn’t proposed that, and lottery proceeds are already spoken for.

Jobs: Before he spoke in front of the Metrodome Sunday, Horner was introduced by Cory Merrifield, the organizer of a group called SaveTheVikes. Merrifield, a Vikings stadium proponent of the highest order, cited a report commissioned by the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission that said a new stadium could generate more than 13,000 jobs.

When Target Field opened, the Twins touted this figure: 3,500 trades people, and an 800-person peak workforce. For the construction of the University's TCF Bank stadium, Mortenson Construction has said there were 2,200 trades people and a 750-person peak workforce. In speaking of a potential Vikings stadium, a Mortenson executive projected up to 8,000 jobs.

As this debate goes forward, and the trade unions back a stadium plan, that jobs number needs to be vetted. As a supporter of an "honest" stadium plan, Mr. Horner should be careful with that stat.

Miscellaneous: Unlike Gov. Tim Pawlenty and some others at the Legislature, Horner should be applauded for not seeking "a local partner" for his plan because the team and stadium should be considered a statewide asset. Neither Hennepin County nor the city of Minneapolis can afford to contribute any more to sports facilities.

And Horner also said that he will insist on the availability of "affordable" tickets at a new Vikings stadium. Cheers for that.

One thing he should push: money from the NFL to help fund the stadium.

In conclusion

If he becomes governor, Horner is going to have to look at some other sources to pay for this colossal piece of state cultural infrastructure. He has set up a cocktail of options, and that's good, but he might need some more ingredients from the shelf … like real public dollars.

There is some inconsistency to anyone who states, as Horner has: "Minnesota cannot afford to lose an asset as important as the Minnesota Vikings. Our state is blessed with an abundance of major league resources — from our lakes and parks to our theaters and museums. The Vikings are such an asset."

If the team is such an asset, if this state virtually stops on Sunday afternoons to watch the team, and if the team generates, according to some studies, about $26 million in annual taxes to the state coffers, why not use general fund money to preserve the franchise?

Why just sock gamblers and ticket buyers with the bill for such an asset?

"Part of it is the political reality," Horner said. "First of all, we do have more significant issues to deal with … Look at 2011, starting with the $6 billion shortfall — and that's just the tip of the iceberg — they all really put a lot of important issues in line in front of the Vikings stadium."

But he will find that threading a 65,000-seat stadium through a needle without dollars from real taxpayers takes more than political courage. It will be a Herculean task. Of course, he has another big task first: He has to get elected.

[FISHINGURU]

HERE WE GO VIKINGS, HERE WE GO!!!

[zepman]

It is funny how those against the stadium are Packer fans. Hmmm....

+1....Exactly!!

[LMITOUT]

Still trying to figure out how a block of cheese beating Favre in a poll has anything to do with a new stadium.

If Favre was playing in Seattle, AZ, or heck, even Dallas, that same block of cheese would have won the poll. It was a national vote, not a WI vote, and people across the entire country are tired of Favre's waffling and whoring for attention every off-season. That's why cheddar >> Favre.

[Born2Fish]

Personally I think it was a very pointless poll anyway. Who cares if people like cheese more than Favre. What does that prove? Can a block of cheddar win a Superbowl? Doubtful. Sure it tastes good, but I have never seen one throw a football further than 0 yards.

[LMITOUT]

Who cares if people like cheese more than Favre. What does that prove?

It was done just to show how popular Favre is, or isn't, now.

Favre limping into a new stadium wouldn't make him more popular.

[Steve Foss]

4wanderingeyes said: "It is funny how those against the stadium are Packer fans. Hmmm...."

+1....Exactly!!

I'm a Minnesota taxpayer and a Packers fan. I'm one of those "just get it done" guys, because I know how vital the Vikings franchise is to Minnesota both financially and emotionally, and because I don't want my favorite rivalry leaving for L.A.

As a taxpayer, I pay for a lot of things I have absolutely no personal stake in. This isn't one of them. I've had a lot of fun watching the Packers beat the Minnesota Vikings. Couldn't give a rip the first time my Pack plays the L.A. Vikehosers.

[Scott K]

I didnt say all Packer fans are against it, just that those that are posting against it, happen to be Packer fans.