Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma

Recommended Posts

Ah. Well not sure what the hold up is. Maybe just giving ample warning to the parties. Maybe giving them time to file an injunction if they're really against it.

Get another week of season ticket sales in before dropping the bomb.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. Well not sure what the hold up is. Maybe just giving ample warning to the parties. Maybe giving them time to file an injunction if they're really against it.

Get another week of season ticket sales in before dropping the bomb.

Yes, I'm sure the Missouri Attorney General is conspiring to help Stan Kroenke sell a few more tickets before he loads up the moving vans and heads to sunny LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. Well not sure what the hold up is. Maybe just giving ample warning to the parties. Maybe giving them time to file an injunction if they're really against it.

Get another week of season ticket sales in before dropping the bomb.

Yes, I'm sure the Missouri Attorney General is conspiring to help Stan Kroenke sell a few more tickets before he loads up the moving vans and heads to sunny LA.

I thought you were asking why the Rams haven't released it yet. The week long deadline doesn't surprise me on a court procedural standpoint.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this where we're discussing Minnesota?

Senate eyes user fees for new Minnesota stadium

Minn. -- The Minnesota Senate pushed more Vikings stadium financing costs in the direction of the team and fans Tuesday as supporters grasped for extra votes to keep the proposal alive.

Ahead of a critical vote on the nearly $1 billion facility, senators revamped a longstanding stadium plan to impose a collection of user fees while also increasing the upfront private contribution by $25 million.

Passage by the Senate would set up final negotiations and precede a new round of votes by the Legislature. The House approved a bill Monday that requires the team to kick in $532 million toward the stadium -- $105 million above what a franchise official previously called a "set in stone" ceiling.

It was clear stadium supporters wanted to turn to offense rather than defense as the bill reached the Senate. It was Sen. Julie Rosen, the stadium bill sponsor, who promoted user fees on suites, parking and Vikings merchandise. Another backer pushed for the higher team contribution, and that amendment was approved unanimously.

The user fee amendment -- adopted on a 40-26 vote -- would levy a 10 percent fee on suites and on parking within a half-mile of the stadium, and impose a 6.875 percent fee on Vikings clothing, trading cards and other memorabilia.

----

Bagley said the team's owners aren't prepared to shell out $105 million more beyond a prior $427 million private commitment toward construction of the stadium. Under a plan negotiated last winter by the governor, key lawmakers, the Minneapolis mayor and the team, the state would pay $398 million, with the money coming from an expansion of gambling. The city of Minneapolis would kick in $150 million by redirecting an existing hospitality tax.

I prefer user fees to closing libraries, but mostly if they're for something with broader public value, like transit expansion or bridges. But for a football stadium?

10 percent on suites sounds great though. By all means -- and with all sincerity -- please do soak the rich for this kind of stuff.

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this where we're discussing Minnesota?

Senate eyes user fees for new Minnesota stadium

Minn. -- The Minnesota Senate pushed more Vikings stadium financing costs in the direction of the team and fans Tuesday as supporters grasped for extra votes to keep the proposal alive.

Ahead of a critical vote on the nearly $1 billion facility, senators revamped a longstanding stadium plan to impose a collection of user fees while also increasing the upfront private contribution by $25 million.

Passage by the Senate would set up final negotiations and precede a new round of votes by the Legislature. The House approved a bill Monday that requires the team to kick in $532 million toward the stadium -- $105 million above what a franchise official previously called a "set in stone" ceiling.

It was clear stadium supporters wanted to turn to offense rather than defense as the bill reached the Senate. It was Sen. Julie Rosen, the stadium bill sponsor, who promoted user fees on suites, parking and Vikings merchandise. Another backer pushed for the higher team contribution, and that amendment was approved unanimously.

The user fee amendment -- adopted on a 40-26 vote -- would levy a 10 percent fee on suites and on parking within a half-mile of the stadium, and impose a 6.875 percent fee on Vikings clothing, trading cards and other memorabilia.

----

Bagley said the team's owners aren't prepared to shell out $105 million more beyond a prior $427 million private commitment toward construction of the stadium. Under a plan negotiated last winter by the governor, key lawmakers, the Minneapolis mayor and the team, the state would pay $398 million, with the money coming from an expansion of gambling. The city of Minneapolis would kick in $150 million by redirecting an existing hospitality tax.

I prefer user fees to closing libraries, but mostly if they're for something with broader public value, like transit expansion or bridges. But for a football stadium?

10 percent on suites sounds great though. By all means -- and with all sincerity -- please do soak the rich for this kind of stuff.

When the House debated the bill yesterday, there were over 40 amendments to the original document voted on. They are only starting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how the bills currently differ.

IN COMMON

-- A $975 million stadium project on Metrodome site in Minneapolis

-- State's contribution comes from taxing new, electronic forms of charitable gaming

-- Team signs 40-year lease (NOTE: The governor's deal with the NFL/Vikings was for 30 years)

HOUSE VERSION

-- Team pays $532 million, state pays $293 million, Minneapolis pays $150 million

-- Stadium naming-rights revenue shared by team and public

-- State splits $72 million in new tax revenue evenly with charitable organizations

-- Includes revenue from sports-themed tipboard games

-- Includes four "blink-on" backup funding sources if needed

-- No special aid for St. Paul

-- Does not waive Minneapolis charter requirements

-- Stadium authority oversees new football stadium

-- Construction cost overruns responsibility of the builder/team

-- Operating cost overruns responsibility of team

-- Vikings have exclusive five-year right to bring major league soccer to the stadium

SENATE VERSION

-- Team pays $452 million, state pays $373 million, Minneapolis pays $150 million

-- Team gets naming-rights revenue from stadium; naming-rights revenue from stadium plaza goes to support amateur sports

facilities -- State takes $59 million of new tax revenue; charitable organizations get $13 million

-- No sports-themed tipboard games

-- Includes user-fees

-- Provides $2.7 million for 20 years to St. Paul

-- Waives Minneapolis charter requirements in connection with project

-- Overarching public stadium authority would oversee new football stadium and potentially other sports arenas

-- Construction cost overruns responsibility of the builder

-- Operating cost overruns responsibility of public

-- Prevents TV blackouts of Vikings games

-- Vikings lose exclusive five-year right to bring major league soccer to the stadium

-- Extends TIF districts in Bloomington

-- Includes an Internet sales tax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prevents TV blackouts of Vikings games

This is interesting. Is it prevented by telling the NFL to go screw its blackout policy, or is it prevented by buying up the balance of tickets at taxpayer expense?

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prevents TV blackouts of Vikings games

This is interesting. Is it prevented by telling the NFL to go screw its blackout policy, or is it prevented by buying up the balance of tickets at taxpayer expense?

The former would be impossible, and therefore irresponsible to include in any contract.

The latter would be very bad public policy, unless they require the Vikings to buy themselves or give away enough tickets by any league deadline to get over the "sellout" percentage and lift any blackout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prevents TV blackouts of Vikings games

This is interesting. Is it prevented by telling the NFL to go screw its blackout policy, or is it prevented by buying up the balance of tickets at taxpayer expense?

The former would be impossible, and therefore irresponsible to include in any contract.

The latter would be very bad public policy, unless they require the Vikings to buy themselves or give away enough tickets by any league deadline to get over the "sellout" percentage and lift any blackout.

Would the former be impossible? I could see a state passing a law banning TV blackouts in the state. But has it ever been tried, or more importantly tried in court as it undoubtedly would be if such a law were ever passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how the bills currently differ.

IN COMMON

-- A $975 million stadium project on Metrodome site in Minneapolis

-- State's contribution comes from taxing new, electronic forms of charitable gaming

-- Team signs 40-year lease (NOTE: The governor's deal with the NFL/Vikings was for 30 years)

HOUSE VERSION

-- Team pays $532 million, state pays $293 million, Minneapolis pays $150 million

-- Stadium naming-rights revenue shared by team and public

-- State splits $72 million in new tax revenue evenly with charitable organizations

-- Includes revenue from sports-themed tipboard games

-- Includes four "blink-on" backup funding sources if needed

-- No special aid for St. Paul

-- Does not waive Minneapolis charter requirements

-- Stadium authority oversees new football stadium

-- Construction cost overruns responsibility of the builder/team

-- Operating cost overruns responsibility of team

-- Vikings have exclusive five-year right to bring major league soccer to the stadium

SENATE VERSION

-- Team pays $452 million, state pays $373 million, Minneapolis pays $150 million

-- Team gets naming-rights revenue from stadium; naming-rights revenue from stadium plaza goes to support amateur sports

facilities -- State takes $59 million of new tax revenue; charitable organizations get $13 million

-- No sports-themed tipboard games

-- Includes user-fees

-- Provides $2.7 million for 20 years to St. Paul

-- Waives Minneapolis charter requirements in connection with project

-- Overarching public stadium authority would oversee new football stadium and potentially other sports arenas

-- Construction cost overruns responsibility of the builder

-- Operating cost overruns responsibility of public

-- Prevents TV blackouts of Vikings games

-- Vikings lose exclusive five-year right to bring major league soccer to the stadium

-- Extends TIF districts in Bloomington

-- Includes an Internet sales tax

So the house would approve the Vikings to bring MLS exclusively but the Senate is against it? My guess is when they mean exclusive, I take it the Vikings would own the team if I'm not mistaken?

Edited by rvrdgsfn

baltimoreravens.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prevents TV blackouts of Vikings games

This is interesting. Is it prevented by telling the NFL to go screw its blackout policy, or is it prevented by buying up the balance of tickets at taxpayer expense?

The former would be impossible, and therefore irresponsible to include in any contract.

The latter would be very bad public policy, unless they require the Vikings to buy themselves or give away enough tickets by any league deadline to get over the "sellout" percentage and lift any blackout.

Would the former be impossible? I could see a state passing a law banning TV blackouts in the state. But has it ever been tried, or more importantly tried in court as it undoubtedly would be if such a law were ever passed.

I don't think it's appropriate for the city or state to interfere with a contract between the NFL and its franchises. They should, however, make sure that the Vikings, not Minnesota fans, are responsible for all penalties under that contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prevents TV blackouts of Vikings games

This is interesting. Is it prevented by telling the NFL to go screw its blackout policy, or is it prevented by buying up the balance of tickets at taxpayer expense?

The former would be impossible, and therefore irresponsible to include in any contract.

The latter would be very bad public policy, unless they require the Vikings to buy themselves or give away enough tickets by any league deadline to get over the "sellout" percentage and lift any blackout.

Would the former be impossible? I could see a state passing a law banning TV blackouts in the state. But has it ever been tried, or more importantly tried in court as it undoubtedly would be if such a law were ever passed.

I don't think it's appropriate for the city or state to interfere with a contract between the NFL and its franchises. They should, however, make sure that the Vikings, not Minnesota fans, are responsible for all penalties under that contract.

I don't see the issue with it. If a state government believes its in the interest of its constituents, it can regulate business dealings. There's plenty of precedent for it.

Now, if they intended to spend taxpayer dollars to buy up the remaining seats (which wouldn't be regulating the business at all), I wouldn't support passing it. But, if it was challenging the leagues clause--regulating business, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

My libertarian mindset says just stay out of it, but it would hardly be a unique idea to challenge a business contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It passed. Vikings stadium now has the bulk of its funding in place. Congrats to Vikings fans. It'll be interesting to see how the Blackout clause plays out however, particularly if it refers to simple bans on blackouts rather than the state or team being forced to buy up tickets. Could set an interesting precedent that hopefully all states would follow if it were upheld. Blackouts are archaic and ultimately useless and self defeating.

Now if only they'd do the same with MLB blackouts so I could watch Padres games online since my lame ass cable provider are too cheap to purchase FSNSD.

Here is how the bills currently differ.

IN COMMON

-- A $975 million stadium project on Metrodome site in Minneapolis

-- State's contribution comes from taxing new, electronic forms of charitable gaming

-- Team signs 40-year lease (NOTE: The governor's deal with the NFL/Vikings was for 30 years)

HOUSE VERSION

-- Team pays $532 million, state pays $293 million, Minneapolis pays $150 million

-- Stadium naming-rights revenue shared by team and public

-- State splits $72 million in new tax revenue evenly with charitable organizations

-- Includes revenue from sports-themed tipboard games

-- Includes four "blink-on" backup funding sources if needed

-- No special aid for St. Paul

-- Does not waive Minneapolis charter requirements

-- Stadium authority oversees new football stadium

-- Construction cost overruns responsibility of the builder/team

-- Operating cost overruns responsibility of team

-- Vikings have exclusive five-year right to bring major league soccer to the stadium

SENATE VERSION

-- Team pays $452 million, state pays $373 million, Minneapolis pays $150 million

-- Team gets naming-rights revenue from stadium; naming-rights revenue from stadium plaza goes to support amateur sports

facilities -- State takes $59 million of new tax revenue; charitable organizations get $13 million

-- No sports-themed tipboard games

-- Includes user-fees

-- Provides $2.7 million for 20 years to St. Paul

-- Waives Minneapolis charter requirements in connection with project

-- Overarching public stadium authority would oversee new football stadium and potentially other sports arenas

-- Construction cost overruns responsibility of the builder

-- Operating cost overruns responsibility of public

-- Prevents TV blackouts of Vikings games

-- Vikings lose exclusive five-year right to bring major league soccer to the stadium

-- Extends TIF districts in Bloomington

-- Includes an Internet sales tax

So the house would approve the Vikings to bring MLS exclusively but the Senate is against it? My guess is when they mean exclusive, I take it the Vikings would own the team if I'm not mistaken?

Doesn't really matter. MLS isn't going to be bringing a team to Minnesota, at least not in the next 5 years. They're moving into NYC proper next and then taking a break to consolidate and improve the quality of the 20 teams they'd then have before expanding any further (if they expand further since technically 20 is the team limit according to FIFA regs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last (at my post) from the Star-Tribune:

The Minnesota Vikings won another testy political battle late Tuesday in the Legislature but were left with a project that was much less appealing to the team.

The Senate ended an 11-hour debate by approving plans for a new $1 billion stadium on a 38 to 28 vote amid cheers from Vikings fans who could be heard throughout the state Capitol. The vote came one day after the House also approved the project, but with significant differences.

"The Vikings didn't get everything they wanted," Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, the chief Senate stadium author, said before the final vote.

The team agreed.

Vikings Vice President Lester Bagley said after the vote that the team remains committed to paying $427 million toward a roofed stadium at the Metrodome site. He had said that spending $532 million, as the House wants, is unworkable and did not publicly warm to the Senate's call for $452 million from the team.

But Rosen said she believed the team would have to spend at least the extra $25 million the Senate proposed. "Oh, yes. I do. Yeah," Rosen said.

The midnight vote came when stadium opponents, after a long day of trying to either thwart the project or get the Vikings to pay significantly more, conceded they did not have enough votes to block the plan. "They're great businessmen," Sen. Barb Goodwin, DFL-Columbia Heights, said of Vikings ownership, led by Zygi Wilf. "They certainly promised a lot of things here -- except the money."

Little to no talk from the team itself. Oh wait, that will occur Wednesday-Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last (at my post) from the Star-Tribune:

The Minnesota Vikings won another testy political battle late Tuesday in the Legislature but were left with a project that was much less appealing to the team.

The Senate ended an 11-hour debate by approving plans for a new $1 billion stadium on a 38 to 28 vote amid cheers from Vikings fans who could be heard throughout the state Capitol. The vote came one day after the House also approved the project, but with significant differences.

"The Vikings didn't get everything they wanted," Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, the chief Senate stadium author, said before the final vote.

The team agreed.

Vikings Vice President Lester Bagley said after the vote that the team remains committed to paying $427 million toward a roofed stadium at the Metrodome site. He had said that spending $532 million, as the House wants, is unworkable and did not publicly warm to the Senate's call for $452 million from the team.

But Rosen said she believed the team would have to spend at least the extra $25 million the Senate proposed. "Oh, yes. I do. Yeah," Rosen said.

The midnight vote came when stadium opponents, after a long day of trying to either thwart the project or get the Vikings to pay significantly more, conceded they did not have enough votes to block the plan. "They're great businessmen," Sen. Barb Goodwin, DFL-Columbia Heights, said of Vikings ownership, led by Zygi Wilf. "They certainly promised a lot of things here -- except the money."

Little to no talk from the team itself. Oh wait, that will occur Wednesday-Friday.

They'll take it. Even with the private contribution up to 532 million dollars toward the 1 billion what they're getting is a huge infusion of public funding at a time when many other teams are lucky to get even one quarter of what Minnesota is offering (see the San Francisco 49ers and the $100 million they received from Santa Clara or the $0 the two NY teams got). Particularly direct cash as is being offered by the Minnesota legislature. And when coupled with the G4 funds the NFL will be providing the Vikings actual payments will be even lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way these deals go, until there's a shovel in the dirt, nothing is 100%.

If they in fact do get it, what design would it be? We've seen a few posted here.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.