Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Stadium Saga Part XIII: Blowing the Roof Off
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4395
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrplChilPill wrote:
If I read the post correctly, someone asked for the MN county/state to put up $25MM for a retractable roof, to get to the same total as Atlanta.....while ignoring the fact that the government is putting up $200MM total, and the team is putting up the other $800MM....the MN legislature could only dream of a deal that good.


I implied the price difference between the $1B 'Falconestadium' and the $975 M Valhalladium is $25 M.

The 'Falconestadium' has a retractable roof, but the Valhalladium does not, currently.

I only jokingly conjectured that $25M more would have bought a retractable roof stadium for Minnesota.

IIRC, the cost of a retractable roof on the Valhalladium was estimated to be between $100M and $150M. Correct me if I am rwong.
_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4395
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ruh roh!

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/200149131.html

"...At issue is the state’s reliance on electronic pulltab games that Dayton and the Legislature approved last session to cover the state’s $348 million contribution to a new Vikings stadium. The Star Tribune reported Sunday that gambling businesses with an interest in promoting the games helped produce the rosy estimates.

Initial estimates of $34 million, used to gather support for the stadium bill that passed in May 2012, have since been cut to $1.7 million. The number of bars installing the games has been less than one-tenth of the number projected. Dayton’s revenue department, legislative researchers and legislative bill sponsors did not challenge the estimates.

“We all knew this was uncharted territory,” Dayton said Tuesday. ..."


************************************************

Then, the article turned to finger pointing... Shocked
_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shorty McFast


Joined: 27 Apr 2011
Posts: 759
Location: At the desk
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Purplexing wrote:
Then, the article turned to finger pointing... Shocked


Man, I struggle with the way the media treats the Vikings in Minny.

That said I still think a 1/2% sales tax is the route to go. Even if they're already one of the highest in the nation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4395
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shorty McFast wrote:
Purplexing wrote:
Then, the article turned to finger pointing... Shocked


Man, I struggle with the way the media treats the Vikings in Minny.

That said I still think a 1/2% sales tax is the route to go. Even if they're already one of the highest in the nation.


The media didn't vote on the bill and accept the financing option approved.
_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4395
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ruh roh, again.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/200545911.html

" Gov. Mark Dayton has said he did not know the source of the gaming revenue numbers. "

Rolling Eyes

and

" Outraged critics are asking why the state relied on numbers provided by the gambling industry when it drew up its rosy pulltab revenue estimates. The games were supposed to pour $35 million a year into the stadium fund. Instead, the estimates for the first year are closer to $1.7 million. "

Last week, the projection was stated at $34M, and above it is $35M.
Regardless, $1.7M is exactly 5% of $34M. One tenth of the projected number of dispensing machines were installed.
That implies each machine is only generating 1/2 of the projected revenue per machine. Rolling Eyes
i.e.
1/2 x 1/10 = 5%.

So, if all of the projected machines are eventually installed, they'll need to double their activity on each machine.
Otherwise, they must double the previously projected number of machines
to reach the projected $34M of revenue per year. Shocked
Embarassed
_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 71458
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Republican state Sen. Sean Nienow of Cambridge says he'll introduce a bill that would delay the sale of bonds for a new Vikings stadium until a revenue stream to pay them off is secured.

Additional tax revenue from newly authorized electronic forms of charitable gaming, which was supposed to pay the state's share of the stadium, is coming in much slower than anticipated, and the backup sources aren't expected to be able to produce more than a few million dollars per year.

Nienow says he and Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, plan to introduce the bill next week. The stadium bonds are expected to be sold in August, and groundbreaking is planned for this fall.

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_22954715/vikings-stadium-bond-sale-should-be-delayed-until


A Minnesota state senator plans to introduce a bill next week to delay construction of the Minnesota Vikings' new stadium until revenue streams for paying the public's annual share are secured. Many of you panicked when I tossed that news out on Twitter late Thursday, but if you breeze through the Twitter timeline of the state senator (Sean Nienow), you see that even he agrees that the stadium is a "done deal" and won't be permanently derailed as a result of the bill or financing problems.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/54916/bbao-delay-vikings-stadium-construction
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vikes_Bolts1228


Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 3700
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vike daddy wrote:
Republican state Sen. Sean Nienow of Cambridge says he'll introduce a bill that would delay the sale of bonds for a new Vikings stadium until a revenue stream to pay them off is secured.

Additional tax revenue from newly authorized electronic forms of charitable gaming, which was supposed to pay the state's share of the stadium, is coming in much slower than anticipated, and the backup sources aren't expected to be able to produce more than a few million dollars per year.

Nienow says he and Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, plan to introduce the bill next week. The stadium bonds are expected to be sold in August, and groundbreaking is planned for this fall.

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_22954715/vikings-stadium-bond-sale-should-be-delayed-until


A Minnesota state senator plans to introduce a bill next week to delay construction of the Minnesota Vikings' new stadium until revenue streams for paying the public's annual share are secured. Many of you panicked when I tossed that news out on Twitter late Thursday, but if you breeze through the Twitter timeline of the state senator (Sean Nienow), you see that even he agrees that the stadium is a "done deal" and won't be permanently derailed as a result of the bill or financing problems.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/54916/bbao-delay-vikings-stadium-construction


What a mess...5 months from ground breaking and the gov't has zero idea what's going on with funding.

Weren't we suppose to get a rendering of the stadium this week as well?
_________________
"Man, Adrian Peterson doesn't get tackled. He just decides that's enough for one carry."

Proud Minnesota Vikings season ticket holder!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4395
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vikes_Bolts1228 wrote:

What a mess...5 months from ground breaking and the gov't has zero idea what's going on with funding.

Weren't we suppose to get a rendering of the stadium this week as well?


I hope they don't reveal the new design on 4/15/13. Rolling Eyes

IMO, the design of the new Valhalladium is probably going to end up looking like this...


_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eastern Walrus


Joined: 25 Oct 2010
Posts: 3147
Location: on safari
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would be fine with that
_________________
2013 Adopt a Minnesota Viking - Xavier Rhodes - CB - #29

XBL - Eastern Walrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 8838
Location: SLP, MN
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BS they didn't know where the numbers came from, that was the most scrutinized bill in the state last year. If they didn't, then they did not do their jobs at all. BS.

As for the funding source itself, it was always a bad idea. If this thing is a state asset, then income or sales taxes should pay for it. That's a bif IF, btw.......
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4395
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrplChilPill wrote:
BS they didn't know where the numbers came from, that was the most scrutinized bill in the state last year. If they didn't, then they did not do their jobs at all. BS.

As for the funding source itself, it was always a bad idea. If this thing is a state asset, then income or sales taxes should pay for it. That's a bif IF, btw.......


The revenue stream recast projection might support tricking out the Gophield (TCF), adding seats in the open end ( expandable to 80,000 per Wiki ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCF_Bank_Stadium

Problem with sale of alcohol? Already solved. Permitted per recent charter change.

Roof? The Met worked fine for 20 years. In fact, it provided an incredible home field advantage, especially against the LA Rams.

Turf? Heating coils were part of the original plan.

Concession stands? No one would object to expanding the current concession stands to sell more food, especially lutefisk.

Demand? Cross-selling: College students could be given a 10% discount to Vikings games, which might fill the Gophield beyond the projected seating of 65,000. Vikings season tickholder could be given a 10% discount to Gopher games, which would expand their revenues.
_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank Costello


Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 9128
Location: in 2009, Vikings>Saints
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the design will look very similar to GB, Det, and Chicago's stadiums.

All 3 have some things that remind me of each other, to a degree. Especially GB and CHI.
_________________
2014 - Don't Draft Carr. - In Zimmer we trust.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vikes_Bolts1228


Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 3700
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Purplexing wrote:
PrplChilPill wrote:
BS they didn't know where the numbers came from, that was the most scrutinized bill in the state last year. If they didn't, then they did not do their jobs at all. BS.

As for the funding source itself, it was always a bad idea. If this thing is a state asset, then income or sales taxes should pay for it. That's a bif IF, btw.......


The revenue stream recast projection might support tricking out the Gophield (TCF), adding seats in the open end ( expandable to 80,000 per Wiki ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCF_Bank_Stadium

Problem with sale of alcohol? Already solved. Permitted per recent charter change.

Roof? The Met worked fine for 20 years. In fact, it provided an incredible home field advantage, especially against the LA Rams.

Turf? Heating coils were part of the original plan.

Concession stands? No one would object to expanding the current concession stands to sell more food, especially lutefisk.

Demand? Cross-selling: College students could be given a 10% discount to Vikings games, which might fill the Gophield beyond the projected seating of 65,000. Vikings season tickholder could be given a 10% discount to Gopher games, which would expand their revenues.


Why are we back talking about TCF Bank being the Vikings' permanent home?

There is ZERO, ZILCH, NADA chance the Vikings will go along with playing at TCF Bank outside of a temporary basis while a new stadium is built.

The Vikings would no doubt leave Minnesota if all of a sudden the State said "Well, we got you a new stadium but yea...we're not building it for you even though ground breaking is 5-months away. But hey! We still have TCF Bank for you to play in!"

If the Vikings weren't down for playing in TCF Bank BEFORE the bill was passed, there is no way they're playing their permanently AFTER the stadium bill was passed. That is if the state can some how pull the bill and the Vikings don't get their stadium.

There is zero need to go back to exploring The Bank as a potential permanent home for the Vikings.
_________________
"Man, Adrian Peterson doesn't get tackled. He just decides that's enough for one carry."

Proud Minnesota Vikings season ticket holder!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4395
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vikes_Bolts1228 wrote:
Purplexing wrote:
PrplChilPill wrote:
BS they didn't know where the numbers came from, that was the most scrutinized bill in the state last year. If they didn't, then they did not do their jobs at all. BS.

As for the funding source itself, it was always a bad idea. If this thing is a state asset, then income or sales taxes should pay for it. That's a bif IF, btw.......


The revenue stream recast projection might support tricking out the Gophield (TCF), adding seats in the open end ( expandable to 80,000 per Wiki ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCF_Bank_Stadium

Problem with sale of alcohol? Already solved. Permitted per recent charter change.

Roof? The Met worked fine for 20 years. In fact, it provided an incredible home field advantage, especially against the LA Rams.

Turf? Heating coils were part of the original plan.

Concession stands? No one would object to expanding the current concession stands to sell more food, especially lutefisk.

Demand? Cross-selling: College students could be given a 10% discount to Vikings games, which might fill the Gophield beyond the projected seating of 65,000. Vikings season tickholder could be given a 10% discount to Gopher games, which would expand their revenues.


Why are we back talking about TCF Bank being the Vikings' permanent home?

There is ZERO, ZILCH, NADA chance the Vikings will go along with playing at TCF Bank outside of a temporary basis while a new stadium is built.

The Vikings would no doubt leave Minnesota if all of a sudden the State said "Well, we got you a new stadium but yea...we're not building it for you even though ground breaking is 5-months away. But hey! We still have TCF Bank for you to play in!"

If the Vikings weren't down for playing in TCF Bank BEFORE the bill was passed, there is no way they're playing their permanently AFTER the stadium bill was passed. That is if the state can some how pull the bill and the Vikings don't get their stadium.

There is zero need to go back to exploring The Bank as a potential permanent home for the Vikings.


$
_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 71458
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vikes_Bolts1228 wrote:
Why are we back talking about TCF Bank being the Vikings' permanent home?

there's only one guy here that talks about it.
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 6 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group