Life After Vikings

[Shack]

Again, it really means nothing. I just remember one year ago about this time, the same show on ESPN could not praise Favre enough:

IMO and that night, I took it as (for what it is) a national slam on our starting QB, which is a Viking. Just the icing on the cake for saying nationally the Vikings are a joke. Something we (Vikes fans) do not need in a pivotal time when things are closing in to a do or die situation. I do not think we are going to loose the Vikes, but things are possible for it to happen. God forbid Ziggy gets caught cheating on his wife like Green did. 2012 would bring not bring an end to the world, but an end to the Vikes.

[zepman]

So now the future of the Vikings in Minnesota rests squarely on Ziggy's ability to keep his zipper zipped???

Get off the ledge Shack....

[Shack]

That was joke. Media coverage of Norm and that lawsuit was the death blow for the Stars. Green was of more a local figure than Ziggy though.

[Eric Wettschreck]

I'm really torn on this issue.

From a financial standpoint I realize the Vikings bring a lot of money to the state, but they're also a privately owned business. Looking at things from a business standpoint, if the state or a county were to front (Just tossing out a number here) 100 million for a new stadium, how long would the payback be? If it's a year then it's a no brainer. If it's 5 years then there's discussion to be had, if it's 10 years don't even think aboot it. I'm talking direct payback to the state or county that fronted the cash. If it's a good investment with solid earning potential it's something to think aboot. If it's taxpayer money to be tossed into a private business with no earnings, walk away from the table.

Would a new tax be introduced? Does the state or a county add another tax earmarked for just this purpose? If so, when the funds are raised does the new tax go away? I'm not a fan of any new tax and we all know once a tax is created, getting rid of it is 10 times harder than creating it.

Where would this new stadium be? In downtown Mpls? If so, I"m not for it. No offense to the metro dwellers but if this is the case you might as well call them the Minneapolis Vikings and not the Minnesota Vikings. I'm starting to feel this way aboot the Twins also, just not as much. I understand Hennipen county fronted cash for Target field so Target field should be in Hennipen county, but it ruins the coolness of "The Event." This field should be built in a place with room enougn for a big a$$ parking lot so I can drive up there, light the weber, and do some serious tailgating AT THE STADIUM!!!!! Not a mile away and have to sardine myself into a light rail car before and after the game.

Indoor or outdoor stadium? The Met was a great home field advantage. It's a shame it was torn down and turned into a shopping mall, which, I've never been to and have promised myself I never will go to.

How much cash does the team ownership front? It should be 75% minimum. This will show me there's loyalty to the taxpayers who are fronting the rest. Hey, you're making the big profit, you take the big risk and put up the big money.

So, I'm torn. Maybe if the team were winning and had players actually show up to practice no matter how old and beat up they are I'd think differently.

[Shack]

Good questions Eric. The estimated (no re-payment involved) tax cow local & state gets from having the Vikings is around $20 mill per year. The Re-payment via the lease payment would be on top of this. Not sure what that is because nothing has been set in stone. Current plans put a new build around $800 mill. I would think when it does come down to actual "let's do it" talks, Ziggy & the NFL will go as high as 50% upfront on the cash. If anymore is asked to be thrown down, it becomes a matter of being able to run the company verses not being able to run the company (Vikes). That is the kicker here. The Vikings will never own this stadium. The just lease it the amount of time to pay back the original building price. The state/local owns the stadium. Just like we own the Dome now to do what ever. Use it for Monster Truck shows, sell it, or tear it down and sell the land. I guess if I was to start a business, lease a new building someone else owns, ask to front anything over 10%, sign a lease term that provides 100% payback to the owner, I would want to be owner of the building in some fashion. If not or it cut so much into my profits the deal is pretty much reduced to charity on my part and I would walk away to a better deal. I also would not look into signing a renew on a lease in a building that is causing me to loose any or much less a huge chunk of profit . So much like the Vikes could do after the 2011 season, I would find a better place to run my company.

Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas CB's, is one of the few owners in the NFL that owns his new stadium. Ziggy maybe rich, but not that rich. IMO I do not like the owner of my local NFL team owning the stadium. It would never happen in Dallas, but Jones has total control and could legally move when ever he wanted. In our case, we would have the Vikes leased locked for 20-40 years.

Basically it comes down to the state wanting the Vikes or not. I know, just like the NHL & the Stars, we will have another team here in 5 years. We like football, but for some (head in the sanders) it would take loosing the Vikes to get them to realize "Life After Vikings". To think that some Jerry Jones rich entity will swoop in from Russia, pay 100% of everything after 4-5 years of no NFL is a long shot and stupid. In the end it will cost us even more to get the NFL back because that is how MN works. . It's a wonder why we are so far upside down as a state.

[Eric Wettschreck]

So, ball park figures are 800 mil and the team will front 50% or so. I realize this is not set in stone numbers. The payback from the Vikings is about 20 mil a year. This means the taxpayers invest around 400 mil, for a 20 mil a year payback if my Minnesota math is correct.

That's a 20 year break even point, not counting inflation. This is a totally bad investment. Walk away quickly. Even if things get changed and the team fronts more to make it a 15 or even 10 break even it's a bad investment. If public money of this huge amount is being invested there HAS to be a payback. So far I don't see a decent return on investment, and being able to watch this team the way they've played this year is no return. If the investment is 6 bucks and a pack of smokes I'd buy it. 400 mil is a whole different ball game. Pun intended.

I should have added on my last post that they can seriously drop ticket prices and make it affordable for a blue collar working slob like me to take his wife and sons to a game.

I say this as there's no way I'm paying current ticket prices, parking, fuel for the drive, stadium munchies, etc....to go to a stadium and see the absolute garbage the Vikings are playing so far this year.......and especially the first quarter of todays game.

Penalties, another interception from a qb the team allowed to be above the game and not go to practice, sloppy play, blah, blah, blah. They suck so far this year. If they want anything they might think about getting better.

[Shack]

Yes they have not had a good start and on top they have been playing poorly to boot. Throw in the Econ being slow, not a good time and mixture to have when the screws are being turned tighter after every game.

The $20 mill figure I put up is just pure skim off the top tax dollars for the state/local just having the Vikings around. I am not sure if that includes income taxes collected from the 8000-10,000 jobs surrounding the Vikes in MN like stated in the article I posted. The other thing I am not sure is figured in is the Corp. & income taxes collected by the trade workers & companies involved in the construction of a new stadium. Last spring it was openly said the Unions are willing to make things happen to get the boys hanging around the Union Hall some work. The Twins stadium was a huge producer of jobs for many in this down Econ. time. The other thing I left out is, as long as you do not shop/live around, hang out, go to the games and spend money, own a business, among otherthings around the new Stadium area, go to state owned gambling houses, as of the last couple proposals (could change and if did would be only dollars you would find tracking) you will see any tax increases. The state fund is being left out for now as paying anything.

The downside is, you want to play, you have to pay. Ticket prices are going to go up. They would anyways being a new thing, but there would be a hefty ticket tax involved to avoid using the state fund. They sell out the Dome still (even today) so selling tickets is not a concern. Guys like us who can not justifie buying tickets at today's prices are not going to buy any when a new one is built. But!!! Like anything new, the promo and give aways will flux huge, just as they did this year with the Twins. Just have to figure out the ways to sign up or get in/online. . Maybe Muc could be rough up a little for a set tickets. Radio stations always get some give aways they spread within or contest them to listeners. The only Vikes games I have been to were either comped or won.

[zepman]

All speculation....

[Shack]

Also, when the Dome was paid off, the local pleasure sales taxes were supposed to stop. I thought Mpls had gotten so dependent (huge part of their budget they seem to "not" need as they say) of those taxes they kept them going? Not sure.

Either way the best interests, and my end deciding factor, has to stay with what is best for our state. I do not fall into the "just build it" catigory because if the state does, object in opinion to what the last offer on the table is, that IMO is what it should be. If it does not workout, the Vikes move, as bad as it would be, it is what it is.

Also the states best intrests should be held when the final stadium plan is approved. As much as I do love the Vikes and the NFL, my state of Minnesota comes first. I think we should help and even pay a little to keep and watch them on TV, but the state should not just just give the go ahead at all costs, when we really should not. Then again if we got this done 5 or 6 years ago, we would have had a retrackable roof stadium in Blaine, a long leased signed to keep the Vikes here and for a price tag that was $300 mill less than it is today. Nope, we (our state of MN) always chooses the best path, is the procrastinating (last minute), hardest and costliest path.

[Shack]

All speculation....

Yes, because our state of MN can not get it together enough to get us any answers, while they put their heads in the hoping for the best. From what has been provided, the only thing we can not leave to speculation is our state does not want to deal with this (reason for having to speculate), our state has shot down previous plans and talks, it has been proven the financial importance with having an NFL team to a region/state and what Forbs wrote needs to be done to keep the Vikes here. Yet speculating that we could loose the Vikes is almost considered an obscene thought????

Ziggy: "We have done all that we can"

I can only speculate what that does mean? Maybe a good bussines bluff move or does he really mean that the Vikes and NFL have?

Why did Red sell the team? I can only speculate after the stadium deal the year before fell threw.

[zepman]

Once the legislators...if you want to call them that...get their hands out of the pockets of the Indian gaming $$$$...a stadium deal will be struck.

Election season is coming.....