What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Your new Los Angeles Vikings

Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

Oh yeah...and the Farve era...where in 2009, the Vikings could well have taken home the hardware had the game against the superbowl champs been on neutral turf.

Personally I wouldn't place much money on the thought that the Vikings as a franchise is permanently washed up.

Heck the Vikes could have had the game at the Dome had Peterson not fumbled the ball down his leg against the Bears in OT. Turns out he'd have much more important fumbles in only a few more weeks.
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

I think the fact that Zygi is ponying up over 400 million bucks to build a stadium he'd use 20 days out of the year is pretty generous.
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

As much as I don't like Packers fans, I wouldn't wish that team leaving on them. This franchise has had their woes to be sure, but it would be a shame to have them leave and then have this town get stuck with Wolves/Wild Part III. :(
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

Sometimes I wonder if this market can sustain all of the "big four" sports franchises. I would much rather the Wolves leave if that were the case though.
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

Sometimes I wonder if this market can sustain all of the "big four" sports franchises. I would much rather the Wolves leave if that were the case though.

I honestly don't think it can given only the Twins take up the summer months and therefore you have 3 franchises competing not only with each other but the U. Is there a metro area this size with 4 pro sports and a Div I program?

And as silly as it may sound to some, given how prominant hs hockey here is there a lot of metro folks spending time and money on that sport that my just not want to do it all.
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

Actually the league does fork over up to 200 million to help teams. But the teams generally build that into their offers to start with.

wouldn't they have to repay into the league's bldg fund?
That still does not answer the question of where? How about Vadnais Heights? Or in a fit of gerrymandering not seen since the legislatures in Maryland and Texas met, they declare Duluth to be part of the Twin Cities???
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

I think the fact that Zygi is ponying up over 400 million bucks to build a stadium he'd use 20 days out of the year is pretty generous.

If Zygi paid for the whole thing, he'd get all the revenue from all the events. I don't see a problem in that case.

I don't want to pay for a stadium for a team that I'm not a fan of. At least put it to public vote.

Anywhichway, if anyone thinks a stadium won't be built, I have a Vikings Super Bowl Ring to sell you.
 
I'm nervous about their chances of leaving. This is not the last chance but time is running out.
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

I don't mind paying taxes for the light rail...even though I've used it like 3 times.

Public transportation is a whole 'nother issue, and you should know this. :p

I didn't want to pay for the Twins stadium, either.

I'm a fan of user fees, stuff like say "Vikings Beer" where proceeds go to the team for the stadium, etc. Not a fan of forced taxes for sports teams.
 
As much as I don't like Packers fans, I wouldn't wish that team leaving on them. This franchise has had their woes to be sure, but it would be a shame to have them leave and then have this town get stuck with Wolves/Wild Part III. :(

I'm sure that for most of you, that'd still be better than having our club be your "local" team.

(At least we already have a weekly show on kfan, though)
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

I honestly don't think it can given only the Twins take up the summer months and therefore you have 3 franchises competing not only with each other but the U. Is there a metro area this size with 4 pro sports and a Div I program?

The only metro area smaller than the Twin Cities that has all 4 major sports in Denver.
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

If Zygi paid for the whole thing, he'd get all the revenue from all the events. I don't see a problem in that case.

I don't want to pay for a stadium for a team that I'm not a fan of. At least put it to public vote.

Anywhichway, if anyone thinks a stadium won't be built, I have a Vikings Super Bowl Ring to sell you.

I'm not that big of a Vikings fan although I'd rather see them stay. However this really shouldn't be thought of as 'blowing' our money. If folks have ever had an investment...that's a much more accurate way to think of this.

Although I can't speak to its accuracy, one of the state's best financial outfits McGladrey Pullen put together a massive study to evaluate the value of pro teams and the Vikings inparticular. Now if the reports I read are correct, the public is covering $500 million or half of the stadium. Based on the study...this money would be regained in 8 years (Vikings operations + dome)...with everything beyond that gains. And that's without the value increasing as we go forward.

The dome has operated 30 years. The public cost to build the metrodome was $33 million and the public gains from the dome have been over $300 million and the gains from the Vikings in the last 8 years have been $170 million. If it took the dome to keep the Vikings here, that facility has to be one of the best financial decisions the state has ever made.


Highlights are as follows:

Public Investment in Sports Facilities and Taxes Generated by Professional Sports in Minnesota –
Twins, Vikings, Timberwolves and Wild (1961 through 2009)
• The estimated tax revenue collected in Minnesota as a result of major professional sports operations
is estimated to total $458,700,000. The public investments in the community sports facilities was $191,000,000.

•The source of the greatest estimated tax revenue generated from the Metrodome was from the
operations of the Minnesota Vikings, estimated at $166,500,000.

• The beneficiaries of these estimated tax revenues are:
o State of Minnesota $ 428,600,000 93.4%
o Hennepin County 200,000 0.0%
o City of Minneapolis 27,800,000 6.1%
o City of St. Paul 1,800,000 0.4%
o 5-County Transit 300,000 0.1%
Total $ 458,700,000 100.0%

Metrodome

• The estimated tax revenue collected in Minnesota as a result of Metrodome operations is estimated
to total $319,300,000.
• The beneficiaries of these estimated tax revenues are:
o State of Minnesota $ 304,700,000 95.5%
o Hennepin County 100,000 0.0%
o City of Minneapolis 14,400,000 4.5%
o 5-County Transit 100,000 0.0%
Total $ 319,300,000 100.0%

• The public investments in the Metrodome was $33,600,000:
o State of Minnesota $ 0 0.0%
o Hennepin County 0 0.0%
o City of Minneapolis 25,600,000 76.2%
o 7-County Liquor Tax 8,000,000 23.8%
Total $ 33,600,000 100.0%

http://prod.static.vikings.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/download-rsm-study-021511.pdf
 
Last edited:
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

I don't want to pay for a stadium for a team that I'm not a fan of. At least put it to public vote.

The public has already voted and that was to put politicians in charge of making the hard decisions. We don't elect them to put that back on us before the next election.
 
Last edited:
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

The public has already voted and that was to put politicians in charge of making the hard decisions. We don't elect them to put that back on us before the next election.

So (this is my understanding from what I've read), despite requiring a public referendum/vote for monies spent that total more than $10MM, you're okay for the politicians to just say, "Nah, that doesn't really mean we have to have one."?
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

They have already set precedent that such a law does not matter when they bypassed it to get the Twins stadium built. Once you ignore a rule like that it loses all its weight and authority.

Hell, Zellers already said if Dayton had signed the Tax Cut reform they wanted the GOP would most likely vote for the stadium without a referendum. The public vote is a straw man, it is something that is there to use as a threat but never actually come into being. If they enforced such a law nothing would get done and certainly none of the sports teams would get their stadiums. It is a baragaining chip and a threat...nothing more.
 
Re: Your new Los Angeles Vikings

The only metro area smaller than the Twin Cities that has all 4 major sports in Denver.

And Miami is a smaller TV market (strange, I know).

So (this is my understanding from what I've read), despite requiring a public referendum/vote for monies spent that total more than $10MM, you're okay for the politicians to just say, "Nah, that doesn't really mean we have to have one."?

So, every time they want to build a science building at SCSU, the whole state should vote? Or redo the 494/169 interchange? I wouldn't have voted yes for either of those (nor would a lot of people), but does that mean that they are bad projects or shouldn't be funded? This ain't ancient Greece* - as noted, if you don't like the Vikings stadium being funded, vote out those that support it. Don't like the 494/169 interchange? Vote out those that supported it.


* thank god, who wan't to vote on everything? Who has time to study about everything?... We don't need a true democracy, we already have people that are supposed (yes, supposed, I never said that they actually do) to do that research before voting.
 
Back
Top