New retractable roof stadium in Arden Hills

[LMITOUT]

those 'facts' remind me of a list a husband would come up with to convince his wife that he needs to buy a new pick-up. in the end, they're almost all irrelevant.

In other words, propaganda.

[LMITOUT]

Want to lower the odds of future pro football lockouts? Of teams loading up moving vans and bolting for greener financial pastures in the middle of the night? Of clubs being run by shortsighted whim and knee-jerk fiat? Of franchises ruthlessly extracting wealth from communities without adding any value?

Heck, would you just like to see beer and ticket prices remain relatively affordable?

If so, then I have a piece of Super Bowl rooting advice.

Cheer for the Green Bay Packers.

Since 1923, Green Bay has been the only publicly owned, nonprofit major professional sports team in the nation. And that doesn't just make the franchise a charming anachronism, or the answer to a barstool trivia question.

It makes them an example. A case study. A working model for a better way to organize and administer pro sports.

Namely, through public ownership, a system that could mitigate some of the most irritating ills plaguing our games -- and with little downside, to boot.

During a 1996 national mayors' summit held in Cleveland to discuss professional sports franchise problems, then-Green Bay mayor Paul Jadin reportedly was mobbed by admiring, envious colleagues. The reason? His city's team was neither leaving nor threatening to do so. Unlike NFL teams in Cincinnati , Seattle and Tampa . And the Houston Oilers, who were being courted by Nashville, Tenn. And the NHL's New Jersey Devils, who had recently considered a Nashville move themselves. And the New York Yankees, who were -- seriously -- thinking about relocating to New Jersey . And the Chicago Bears, who were making noises -- again, seriously -- about moving to Gary, Ind.

Oh, and also unlike Cleveland's Browns, who already had announced their imminent departure to Baltimore, where locals were funding a $200 million stadium and offering other sweetheart incentives, all designed to line then-team owner Art Modell's pockets.

Indeed, while sports owners from coast to coast were doing what sports owners do to city officials -- specifically, exercising leverage to extort cash from panicky, competitive municipalities; or, as Modell put it, "if this league allows the mayor [of Cleveland] to hold the Browns hostage, then every one of you are hostages, too" -- Jadin could sleep easy. Public ownership meant the Packers wouldn't bolt. Not then. Not ever. Not with fans invested in the club, emotionally and financially.

In fact, Green Bay's bylaws contain two provisions that pretty much prevent relocation: (a) no one can own more than 200,000 shares of the team, which means one person can't make the franchise pull up stakes; ( if the team is ever sold, all proceeds must go to a foundation for distribution to local charities. (Fun fact: team bylaws used to stipulate that proceeds would be given to a local American Legion post for "the purpose of erecting a proper soldier's memorial.")

The upshot? Had the Baltimore Colts' ownership structure been similar to Green Bay's, they never would have left in overnight trucks for Indianapolis.

The Browns never would have left for Baltimore.

The Seattle Sonics never would have jetted to Oklahoma City.

Los Angeles might still have an NFL team. Or two.

Moreover, the Packers can't shake down their city by hiding their finances and pretending to cry poor, a la the Florida Marlins. Nor can they threaten to leave to get what they want. Instead -- novel concept! -- they have to work with their surrounding community.

[Scott K]

Ummm, the Packers are publically owned.

Might want to use a different example...

So then you wouldnt be apposed to the state of MN purchasing the Vikings team for a billion dollars of tax money, then building them a billion dollar stadium?

I thought you are apposed to big govt. Why would you want them owning a football team?

[Steve Foss]

LMIT, it's a losing battle trying to make your case amongst Vikings fans using the Packers as examples of success.

[Surface Tension]

LMIT, it's a losing battle trying to make your case amongst Vikings fans using the Packers as examples of success.

How about a refresher as to what that point is you and LMIt are making?

[Steve Foss]

How about a refresher as to what that point you and LMIt are making?

Some points we've both made. Other points each has made on his own. I don't speak for him, and he doesn't speak for me. I believe all those points you're referring to that were posted earlier in this thread are still sitting there, just waiting for you to review them.

I've not made any points arguing for or against the stadium in some time on this thread, and don't intend to add to what I've already said.

My latest point, which I believe is clear, is that it's a non-starter to walk into a room of Vikes fans and try to have a logical discussion about the stadium using one of their most hated rivals' success stories as examples.

[james_walleye]

Why don't you answer the question above Steve. You want the state to buy the franchise for a billion dollars and then build the billion dollar stadium? Wouldn't that have to be done to follow the packers model? I'm all for that....the team certainly would stay in Minnesota. Enlighten us on how the "we" can make this happen without spending more public money than what is currently on the table.

[LMITOUT]

So then you wouldnt be apposed to the state of MN purchasing the Vikings team for a billion dollars of tax money, then building them a billion dollar stadium?

I thought you are apposed to big govt. Why would you want them owning a football team?

[Steve Foss]

Why don't you answer the question above Steve. You want the state to buy the franchise for a billion dollars and then build the billion dollar stadium? Wouldn't that have to be done to follow the packers model?

I'm not saying that, and never have. If you want to know what I think, read my comments earlier in the thread. Then you'll know what I think.

And no, that's not the Packers model. LMIT has just done a good job explaining the Packers model.

[Surface Tension]

" Hated rivals", yes we get it. You don't like the Vikings and that explains your replies in this thread and ever other Vikings thread.

Good for GB being publicly owned. MN Vikings aren't publicly owned. It is what it is.

Either way new stadiums are going to be paid for by the user.

Visit a game and you'll be funding that stadium.

[Steve Foss]

" Hated rivals", yes we get it. You don't like the Vikings and that explains your replies in this thread and ever other Vikings thread.

You haven't been paying attention to my comments about the Vikes in here for long if you believe that. I'm no hater when it comes to sports teams, and never have been. Nor do I disklike the Vikes. I think most folks who regularly post in here know that. I've often wished them well. I do, however, occasionally enjoy jabbing the knife in when the Vikes do poorly. Talkin trash without meaning harm is much of what is fun in sports.

But there are many, many folks here who have said they hate the Packers. Course, hate can be used a lot of ways. Maybe they only hate the Pack like I hate an empty beer can. Or maybe they hate the Pack with all their heart. Who knows?

[Born2Fish]

How many of those so called "owners" of the packers franchise get to sign players they want? How many get a say in day to day activities? How many of them get to hire or fire the head coach or any coaches for that matter? Or how about, how many get to set ticket prices? You can brag that GB is publicly owned, but in the long run it is nothing more than 4 million people who own a VERY small share in the "company". Yay....

[PurpleFloyd]

First, I am a fan of the vikings and I am in favor of building a new stadium, but not the one that they are proposing because every bit of extensive research I have done has failed to show that it can be done and be self sufficient.IMHO the team should be building an open air stadium that is in the 600 million range with the team contributing 300 million and the balance paid through user fees.

With that in mind I see a few things that I disagree with in your post.

New Minnesota Stadium

Facts

- The Vikings 30-year lease expires after the 2011 season, meaning the team has just 10 games remaining in the Metrodome.

[Steve Foss]

That's a great piece of quote-thought-and-response, PF. Far surpasses the usual sycophancy on a Vikings stadium thread. I wish more here were as thoughtful. $hit, who am I kidding . . I wish I was as thoughtful.

[Scott K]

Ya, so! They still need a new stadium!

Like that Steve?

[Surface Tension]

It was a cut and paste from MN Vikings site. Maybe I should have said so but it seemed obvious. Well maybe you knew that.

[PurpleFloyd]

It was a cut and paste from MN Vikings site. Maybe I should have said so but it seemed obvious. Well maybe you knew that.

Then in many cases those were not facts as indicated in the opening line of the cut and paste but rather opinions presented by the entity that stands to gain the most by the stadium and that is hardly an un biased opinion.

[Surface Tension]

OK fair enough, and the replies you took the time to dissect are only your opinions as well.

Question: lets put the MN team pride deal aside.

Is having a Pro Sports team and economic drain for a city and state?

My answer is No, it is quite the opposite and I have pointed that out.

Yes we have the Dome, it is old and was outdated long before its time was supposed to run out.

IMO, it was doomed from the beginning with no parking.

That is neither here nor there and can't change that but we can be sure not to make the same mistake twice.

This isn't anything new, cities are always making financial deals and giving incentives to attract businesses.

Most of the time it is a financial gamble that that business will even make it.

[Scott K]

Again, this is a two option deal, build a stadium, keep the Vikings. Dont build the stadium, the Vikings leave. I am a Vikings fan, a frustrated one, but none the less, a Vikings fan. I dont want to see them leave.

[Getanet]

I'm a Vikings fan too, but I just don't see it as cut-and-dried as Stadium = Vikings stay and Stadium = Vikings leave.

There are 6 teams mentioned for relocation (Buffalo has recently been added to the drama). If one of the other 5 teams winds up in LA where exactly would the Vikings go?

And you still have to consider they are still a long way from getting a stadium deal done in LA.

[B. Amish]

and of all the teams mentioned to be suited for LA. the nfl probably has the vikings as their last choice to go.

mn is a good football market. long history. good fan support. why move a team from that?

[LMITOUT]

Again, this is a two option deal, build a stadium, keep the Vikings. Dont build the stadium, the Vikings leave.

That's just fearmongering and playing on the bobo's fears. Part of the extortion plan.

They ain't going anywhere.

[Scott K]

and of all the teams mentioned to be suited for LA. the nfl probably has the vikings as their last choice to go.

mn is a good football market. long history. good fan support. why move a team from that?

Most other teams have a lease in place for the stadiums they are in, so they would need to buy out the remaining of the lease. Vikings can leave free after this season. Which would you want? Also as you said, Vikings have a large fan base, the others, not so much. Which team has better value? The one with a bunch of fans, or the team that doesnt have any fans?

I could see the NFL not wanting to move the Vikings for that exact reason, but they may ok it.

Lmit, stop using big words, I am just a stupid Vikings fan you know

Dont get me wrong, I dont want any of my money to go to a private firm, I would much rather spend it myself. But weighing out the options, I do like having the Vikings here in MN, and want them to stay here for many years. The Dome while I see as a decent place to play now, but how long will it stay a decent playable place? 10 years? How much will a new stadium cost in 10 year?

We are close on the amount that everyone agreed to pay, and arent off by much, just split the final amount equally and get it done. I think the Wilfs should pay 70% of the roofless stadium, county/city and state should pay the rest, and a roof, if they choose to put one on it. It would be dumb not too. Also the state/county/city should pay for the new updated roads. Naming rights, and other revenues should come off of the top of the loan.

[james_walleye]

LA is having an issue getting a stadium deal done because they don't have a team. You have a group from LA that purchases a team with a deal in place and they will start building tomorrow. It's already been stated, the other franchises mentioned have contracts in place where they are. The vikings dont. That alone makes it very easy for them to be the future of LA rather than the other teams mentioned. They will NOT play in the dome much longer. People are crazy to suggest they can, or better stated, will be playing in the dome in 5 years without a stadium deal in place. Pay for it now because every year you wait the higher the price goes. There is constant talk about the NFL wanting to expand to Canada and Europe, LA isn't the only destination for these teams. The NFL won't hesitate to move the vikings with the current stadium situation. You think they will keep the vikings in Mn because of the fan base and continue to see poor revenue generation rather than another site that will be a revenue generating machine? Probably not......

[Surface Tension]

I have yet to mention we need a new stadium to keep the Vikings here so leave me out of the hostage talks.

About that fan base and not letting the Vikings go because of it.

Remember the North Stars.

If a hockey team can be moved from MN to Texas of all places.

Fan Base thats funny.

[LMITOUT]

Is having a Pro Sports team and economic drain for a city and state?

My answer is No, it is quite the opposite and I have pointed that out.

2. The net economic benefit of professional sports for a host city is usually negligible, and may even be negative.

According to The Brookings Institution, "a new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. ... The economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus."

Sports economist Robert Baade at Lake Forest College studied 48 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) over a 30-year period, and found "of the 32 MSAs where there was a change in the number of sports teams, 30 MSAs showed no significant relationship between the presence of the teams and real, trend-adjusted, per-capita personal income growth. In the remaining two cases, the presence of sports teams was significantly positive once (in Indianapolis) and significantly negative once (in Baltimore)."

8. Fans should unite with taxpayers, elected officials, and journalists to campaign for fan ownership of professional sports teams.

Until fans and taxpayers become the owners of professional sports teams, their interests will take a back seat to those of companies and individuals who profit each time a team relocates. Sports stadium madness can't be stopped by passing a law or passing the blame. Fans and taxpayers--the people who benefit and the people who pay--need to work together to protect their shared interests.

The NFL Green Bay Packers, owned by a nonprofit corporation since 1928, offer a model of fan ownership at work. The franchise is the least-subsidized professional sports team in the country because its ownership by fans makes it unable to credibly threaten to relocate. The results have been good for the host city, the fans, and the team.

[PurpleFloyd]

OK fair enough, and the replies you took the time to dissect are only your opinions as well.

[Surface Tension]

You forgot to mention the jobs, money, businesses, and tax revenue.

Well there isn't any money coming in from Dome right now.

"Here is the roof update as of 6/17/2011

• No safety issues to report

• Work continues with the only weather impacted day on Wednesday this week. Rain in

the morning shortened the amount of work available to be performed.

• The acoustic baffle panel work started on Wednesday with a potential 4 week duration.

That work is being performed by Architectural Sales.

• The triangular panels on the North (4th Street) and South (5th Street) sides were lifted

into place. As of this date 2 of the 4 panels have been pulled and clamped in place. The

remaining 6 triangles are in route and will arrive late next week.

• 59 of 64 diamond panels have been installed

• 29 of 32 rectangular panels have been installed

• 2 of 10 triangle panels have been installed

• Work force

o Birdair – 10

o Ironworkers – 39

o Laborers – 7

o Operators -1

 Total – 57

• Work remains on schedule with approx. 82% of the roof fabric installed"

[PurpleFloyd]

You forgot to mention the jobs,

[Surface Tension]

"Is having a Pro Sports team and economic drain for a city and state?"

By your last reply to. "You forgot to mention the jobs, money, businesses, and tax revenue."

I'll take that as an indirect No.

Lets cut the tit for tat. IF the Vikings left not only we be without a team but we'd loose out on the cash associated with a Pro Football team.

Yes we have the Dome but your forgetting it does not fit the needs of a pro football team any longer and hasn't for some time.

A new stadium wouldn't be a wash because parking is so spread out and along with that money spent and for that reason very few businesses would suffer on account of a move.

The new stadium will have parking and room for new supporting businesses.

Don't matter if its a public or private stadium, at some time the public will be help funding it.

When you take into account the money a team brings into a city and state its a matter of you have to spend money to make money.

Check this out,. You can't give the Dome away.

Zigi wouldn't have to spend his $400 million on a new stadium, he could have the Dome for a Dollar.

Do you sort of believe that the Dome dose not fit the needs of a pro football team now?

Twins didn't want it either.

PRICE TAG ON METRODOME: ONE DOLLAR

February 18, 2010

Copyright 2010 MediaVentures

Minneapolis, Minn. - A Minnesota legislator wants to sell the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome to the Vikings for one dollar and eliminate the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission. Rep. Paul Kohls believes the move would allow the team to make more money off the building, including advertising, naming rights and the sale of concessions. The commission currently rakes in 85 percent of all concessions sales.

Team executives said the bill stops far short of the Vikings' needs � namely, a new home.

"The Metrodome no longer works in sports economics or for our fans' game day experience," Vice President Lester Bagley said. "We need to build a new facility to secure the long-term future of the Vikings in Minnesota. This doesn't get us there."

Bagley said Vikings stadium revenues fall about $30 million below other NFL teams and pointed out that the Metrodome is the smallest and second-oldest facility in the NFL.

Revenues from other teams supplement the team's bottom line, but that program's future is in doubt and the Vikings could soon be at a competitive disadvantage because of where the team plays.

The team's Metrodome lease is set to expire after 2011. Bagley said team owner Zygi Wilf has indicated he's not willing to sign an extension without a stadium deal in place.

The team has said it would pay for one-third of the cost of a new stadium, which starts at $670 million and would cost $200 million more if a roof is included. That puts the taxpayer obligation, including interest expenses, anywhere from $29 million to $42 million annually over the next 30 years.