laughedatbytime Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Well, the Vikes have a new stadium, but the way they went about it was very underhanded and done behind closed doors. Study after study shows that this is not a good use of taxpayer money. It was incredibly unpopular, and yet the media insists that candidates will run on their support for it. I'm not so sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisibleairwaves Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I think it really depends on the situation...how viable the stadium is, how the financing is structured, and so on. It's easy to take a hard line and say "taxpayer money shouldn't be spent on this stuff" but there have been situations where it's worked out well for everyone involved. On the other hand, you have Glendale, Arizona... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenJennings Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ May 10 2012, 04:46 PM) On the other hand, you have Glendale, Arizona... God bless the Goldwater institute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 If the people of Minnesota finance a stadium, then it should be THEIR stadium. No sports team should have direct control of it. The Vikings can rent it on Sundays, but that's it. No naming rights being sold to the highest corporate builder. The PUBLIC OWNERS should name it. Ziggy owns the Vikings. The people of Minnesota own the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisibleairwaves Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 QUOTE (KenJennings @ May 10 2012, 03:57 PM) QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ May 10 2012, 04:46 PM) On the other hand, you have Glendale, Arizona... God bless the Goldwater institute! I was watching a Gary Bettman press conference the other day about the Coyotes. He still looks like he's on the verge of a complete tantrum whenever the Goldwater Institute gets brought up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerxt1990 Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Make the cost public and the profits private. Nice work if you can get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenJennings Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ May 10 2012, 04:57 PM) If the people of Minnesota finance a stadium, then it should be THEIR stadium. No sports team should have direct control of it. The Vikings can rent it on Sundays, but that's it. No naming rights being sold to the highest corporate builder. The PUBLIC OWNERS should name it. Ziggy owns the Vikings. The people of Minnesota own the stadium. At a minimum, they could sell the naming rights, and submit the profits raised back to the MN state's general fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenJennings Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/7876/rybak.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 No. No, no, no, no, no. There is never a time when public money should finance a private sports stadium. Never. I don't care what kind of imaginary tax money the stadium supposedly brings in, if the owner of the team wants a new stadium, he should build it himself. These owners are billionaires several times over. They charge outrageous prices for attendance. Build your own damn stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Publically financed stadiums (stadia?) are a rip off. Seattle's King Dome was imploded before it was fully paid for. No franchise is worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidcrystalcompass Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 Yes. It will provide the city and state with other revenue streams. The tax payers won't notice the tax increase one little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Cocky Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Stadium costs could be passed along onto the ticket prices. Pretty sure that Grandma Jackson who's 78 years old and lives on 113th Street couldn't care less about the Minnesota Vikings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ May 27 2012, 06:52 AM) Yes. It will provide the city and state with other revenue streams. The tax payers won't notice the tax increase one little bit. Such as? What kind of additional revenue streams will offset the $678 million that the city will be paying over the next 30 years of the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 QUOTE (Rush Cocky @ May 29 2012, 02:34 PM) Stadium costs could be passed along onto the ticket prices. Pretty sure that Grandma Jackson who's 78 years old and lives on 113th Street couldn't care less about the Minnesota Vikings. Catch-22. Fans don't want to pay, either. If they raise the ticket prices too much, attendance falls off. They are estimating some ticket increases, but they're going to have to be extremely careful. Same with concessions - people will only put up with so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MULTIPLIED REACTION Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 QUOTE (danielmclark @ May 29 2012, 04:16 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ May 27 2012, 06:52 AM) Yes. It will provide the city and state with other revenue streams. The tax payers won't notice the tax increase one little bit. Such as? What kind of additional revenue streams will offset the $678 million that the city will be paying over the next 30 years of the deal? The city of Minneapolis isn't paying 678 million dollars of the cost. They are paying roughly 150 million dollars of the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughes&kettner Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ May 27 2012, 07:52 AM) Yes. It will provide the city and state with other revenue streams. The tax payers won't notice the tax increase one little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted May 29, 2012 Author Share Posted May 29, 2012 QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ May 27 2012, 06:52 AM) Yes. It will provide the city and state with other revenue streams. The tax payers won't notice the tax increase one little bit. Kind of like frogs don't notice boiling water until it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now