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 XIV: Design Star
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  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: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vikes_Bolts1228 wrote:
vike daddy wrote:
A sports panel has delayed final approval of contracts for the Minnesota Vikings’ new stadium until it can review litigation involving team owner Zygi Wilf and his family. The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority had planned to consider the final agreements Aug. 23. But the authority said Tuesday those agreements will be considered at a future meeting.

The panel has retained Peter Carter of the Dorsey & Whitney law firm to head a group to conduct the review. The Star Tribune reports the chair of the Stadium Authority, Michele Kelm-Helgen, says the planned October groundbreaking for the nearly $1 billion stadium is still on schedule.

http://min.scout.com/2/1315899.html


Nobody should be worried, IMO.

Could you imagine the outrage if the "powers that be" decided NOT to go ahead with the construction? Lawsuits galore!!!


Outrage by one side? Yes, I could imagine outrage, on either side.

So, which sides' outrage outrages the other sides' outrage?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder if Red McCombs will visit the Twin Cities for the Grand Opening of the new Valhalladium?

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
disaacs


Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 23157
Location: Brownbackistan
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority warned Friday that the new Minnesota Vikings stadium could be delayed after the Vikings broke off talks while the club owners' finances are investigated.

Vikings officials have put off discussions with the authority until the investigation is done. Postponing negotiations until Sept. 15 could cause other project delays.


http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/blog/sports-business/2013/08/vikings-break-off-stadium-talks.html
_________________


Thx to Uncle Buck!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Vikes_Bolts1228


Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 3807
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Purplexing wrote:
Vikes_Bolts1228 wrote:
vike daddy wrote:
A sports panel has delayed final approval of contracts for the Minnesota Vikings’ new stadium until it can review litigation involving team owner Zygi Wilf and his family. The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority had planned to consider the final agreements Aug. 23. But the authority said Tuesday those agreements will be considered at a future meeting.

The panel has retained Peter Carter of the Dorsey & Whitney law firm to head a group to conduct the review. The Star Tribune reports the chair of the Stadium Authority, Michele Kelm-Helgen, says the planned October groundbreaking for the nearly $1 billion stadium is still on schedule.

http://min.scout.com/2/1315899.html


Nobody should be worried, IMO.

Could you imagine the outrage if the "powers that be" decided NOT to go ahead with the construction? Lawsuits galore!!!


Outrage by one side? Yes, I could imagine outrage, on either side.

So, which sides' outrage outrages the other sides' outrage?


It'd pretty much be the NFL/Vikings/Vikings fans/hired construction firms vs. the Government and opponents of the stadium.

So pretty much the NFL vs. the Government...

The weird thing is....if the NFL knew about all of this and the state of NJ knew about this, how didn't Dayton? Do you think with the failing of E-Tabs, Dayton is having a little "buyers remorse" and trying to cut down on the flak he's getting over the failed funding by "pretending" to do his diligence on the Wilf's case?

I can't imagine Dayton putting the kabosh on the new stadium after he worked so hard to get it. Especially with the elections not too far off. He doesn't wanna make BOTH sides angry with him...
_________________
"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: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vikes_Bolts1228 wrote:
Purplexing wrote:
Vikes_Bolts1228 wrote:
vike daddy wrote:
A sports panel has delayed final approval of contracts for the Minnesota Vikings’ new stadium until it can review litigation involving team owner Zygi Wilf and his family. The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority had planned to consider the final agreements Aug. 23. But the authority said Tuesday those agreements will be considered at a future meeting.

The panel has retained Peter Carter of the Dorsey & Whitney law firm to head a group to conduct the review. The Star Tribune reports the chair of the Stadium Authority, Michele Kelm-Helgen, says the planned October groundbreaking for the nearly $1 billion stadium is still on schedule.

http://min.scout.com/2/1315899.html


Nobody should be worried, IMO.

Could you imagine the outrage if the "powers that be" decided NOT to go ahead with the construction? Lawsuits galore!!!


Outrage by one side? Yes, I could imagine outrage, on either side.

So, which sides' outrage outrages the other sides' outrage?


It'd pretty much be the NFL/Vikings/Vikings fans/hired construction firms vs. the Government and opponents of the stadium.

So pretty much the NFL vs. the Government...

The weird thing is....if the NFL knew about all of this and the state of NJ knew about this, how didn't Dayton? Do you think with the failing of E-Tabs, Dayton is having a little "buyers remorse" and trying to cut down on the flak he's getting over the failed funding by "pretending" to do his diligence on the Wilf's case?

I can't imagine Dayton putting the kabosh on the new stadium after he worked so hard to get it. Especially with the elections not too far off. He doesn't wanna make BOTH sides angry with him...


No, not pretty much the NFL vs. The Government.

The opponents far outnumber the politicians involved.

Dayton has no easy choice as to what to do, and I don't know if he could single-handedly cancel the deal. But the legislature could. The 2012 election that occurred between the time the stadium was approved and now means the current legislative body is not the same as the one that approved the deal. So, all bets are off regarding the legislature ending the deal.

Political ramifications of approving the deal after the verdict in the 2 year trial following a 21 year suit and after the abject failure of e-pull tabs are spelled out in Daytons' current wavering on the issue. One side or the other will not be pleased with the August or September decision by the collective of current legislative / executive politicians.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

disaacs wrote:
Quote:
The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority warned Friday that the new Minnesota Vikings stadium could be delayed after the Vikings broke off talks while the club owners' finances are investigated.

Vikings officials have put off discussions with the authority until the investigation is done. Postponing negotiations until Sept. 15 could cause other project delays.


http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/blog/sports-business/2013/08/vikings-break-off-stadium-talks.html


The Vikings breaking off negotiations is a clear sign they are uncomfortable with the demands of the MSFA. Speculation: the Vikings were asked to show their previously undisclosed financials (Bal Sheet, Inc Sttmt).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vikes_Bolts1228


Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 3807
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing that baffles me...if the state of NJ knew about the lawsuit with the Wilf's, if the NFL knew about the lawsuit with the Wilf's...how did Dayton NOT know about it? Trying not to get political but HOW?!?!?! He's a governor that just approved a billion dollar stadium with millions upon millions of dollars being taken care of by the tax payers. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT IT?!?!??!?!

Quite simply...the stadium isn't getting cancelled. Dayton is just covering his bases. He didn't fight THIS hard for a stadium just to cancel it over crap that happened over 2 decades ago. Like I said, he's just trying to appease the anti-stadium crowd. It's political posturing. Nothing more, nothing less.
_________________
"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: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vikes_Bolts1228 wrote:
The thing that baffles me...if the state of NJ knew about the lawsuit with the Wilf's, if the NFL knew about the lawsuit with the Wilf's...how did Dayton NOT know about it? Trying not to get political but HOW?!?!?! He's a governor that just approved a billion dollar stadium with millions upon millions of dollars being taken care of by the tax payers. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT IT?!?!??!?!

Quite simply...the stadium isn't getting cancelled. Dayton is just covering his bases. He didn't fight THIS hard for a stadium just to cancel it over crap that happened over 2 decades ago. Like I said, he's just trying to appease the anti-stadium crowd. It's political posturing. Nothing more, nothing less.


How can you posit this suggestion but not offer any reason?

"Crap that happened over two decades ago" does not diminish its' relevance. Ask the two plaintiffs why they spent tens of millions in legal fees and twenty years of effort for 'nothing'.

Would you pursue the lawsuit if you were cheated out of tens of millions of dollars?

What will happen IF the Wilfs misrepresented anything to the State.....?

I expect something to happen other than the status quo plan. There are too many unanswered questions to assume otherwise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just found this.... which I didn't see before making my post above....

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/220901911.html

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

In a statement released Friday afternoon, attorney Peter Carter, of Dorsey & Whitney, said that despite “multiple requests” for such information, the Wilfs had, to date, “refused to provide us with any personal financial information that our advisers need to obtain comfort that the New Jersey court case will not impact their ability to meet their financial obligations.”


and

“We ought to slide the documents across the table … the way we want them resolved, and say, ‘Sign them, that’s our deal,’ ” said authority member and Target Corp. executive John Griffith. A delay, he said, could result in additional costs that would be the responsibility of the public, even though it is the team’s outside business interests that triggered the new investigation.

Griffith said the authority also should refuse to release “one dollar” of its contingency fund for add-ons to the project. Griffith’s comments, supported by other members of the authority, were unusually terse for what had appeared to be an amicable relationship between the MSFA and the team.


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

I agree that Dayton is hedging his position by his stance. But that isn't the key concern now.

I read that the estimated net worth of the Vikings (by Forbes?) was $310 million. But do NOT take that as my opinion.... it is an old estimate, and I did not track its source other than the Star trib article's mention of it recently.

The significance of the yet-to-be-determined court award to the plaintiffs should be clear.

But some have already dismissed it as insignificant.

The refusal to turn over records or respond to requests by the MFSA was not clearly reported a few days ago. It's very important to the discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sector7G


Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Posts: 320
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For crying out loud, are we going to somehow manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...again? Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48331
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sector7G wrote:
For crying out loud, are we going to somehow manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...again? Sad


Which is essentially the story of the Vikings history. If MN were to lose a stadium over this, that would essentially be the luck of the Vikings franchise. At that point, it would be in Wilf's best interests to sell the team to an investment group in Los Angeles, where they can get a functional state of the art stadium that the teams in todays NFL truly need to compete. In which case, my username would be changed to vikingssuck as I wouldnt be able to support them if they moved to LA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
Sector7G wrote:
For crying out loud, are we going to somehow manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...again? Sad


Which is essentially the story of the Vikings history. If MN were to lose a stadium over this, that would essentially be the luck of the Vikings franchise. At that point, it would be in Wilf's best interests to sell the team to an investment group in Los Angeles, where they can get a functional state of the art stadium that the teams in todays NFL truly need to compete. In which case, my username would be changed to vikingssuck as I wouldnt be able to support them if they moved to LA.


IMO, this won't sink the deal.

But no one can now say "this won't affect anything", either.

One side now has no leverage and must deal with that fact.

I have solutions to suggest, but it is not my place to do so.
[No, not Gophield. People still miss the point of that discussion.]

Compromise is the best way for both parties to leave the negotiation table feeling as good as possible under the circumstances.

It's time for a cliche to end this post.... haste makes waste.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4443
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Purplexing wrote:
vike daddy wrote:
Gov. Mark Dayton wants to rely on new revenues from cigarette and corporate income taxes to help pay the state's share of a new Vikings stadium. Myron Frans, commissioner of revenue, explained Dayton's plan to the Tax Conference Committee Thursday.

It would include two funding sources: approximately $24.5 million in one-time revenues from tax on the current cigarette inventory once the tax is increased. Dayton is proposing an increase from the current tax of $1.23 per pack to $2.52 per pack. The $24.5 million would be deposited into the stadium reserve account, eliminating its projected deficit, Frans said.

The second source would be to end what Frans called a "tax avoidance" strategy that corporations with sales in Minnesota and elsewhere take advantage of under current law. Currently, he said, some businesses are able to avoid Minnesota corporate income taxes by attributing Minnesota sales to affiliates in other states. The change, known as Minnesota Unitary Sales, would require reporting all those revenues in Minnesota, increasing a company's income taxes and revenues to the state. Those revenues would be approximately $26 million in the first year and $20 million per year after that. The revenue would be used as the first backup plan for stadium financing, Frans said.

The money would be collected and deposited into the general fund, but would not be used for the stadium unless needed, Frans said.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/207733951.html


Its a good thing the people making these financial projections are not the same people who previously projected the revenues from e-pull tabs, because the prior projections of gambling revenues for use by politicians in a political proposal were provided by the gaming industry.

Current results show only 5% of the projected e-pull tabs gambling revenues are being realized. Hence, the proposed new source of funding ^ indicated in this article, which I have read in entirety.

I see that the article lacks in detail needed to test the viability of the new proposal by Governor Dayton. Dayton previously approved the source of funding from the gaming industry. I wonder now who made the most recent financial projections from cigarette taxes of +$1.30 more per pack, for $24.5 million of revenue, implying sales of just under 20 million packs in a year.

It also includes $26 million of projected revenue from reversal of corporate (not personal) income tax credits resulting from business profits derived from revenues in Minnesota. Current law allows these revenues to be allocated to other states where a company in Minnesota may do business. The proposed change is called 'Minnesota Unitary Sales'.

The Minnesota Unitary Sales proposal may seem fair, but it will create disincentives for businesses to form in, or relocate to, Minnesota. It also might create incentives for businesses with branches in Minnesota to close those branches if they represent a small source of revenues with relatively high overhead. So, MUS reverses a prior law that was created to increase business activity in Minnesota from multi-state companies.

Dayton, who once served as a CFO of a Social Services Agency in Boston from 1971-75, has a BA degree in Psychology from Yale. So, I wonder if he did the financial projections himself, relying on a BA Pysch. degree, or if he entrusted those details to a qualified CPA, or other recently accredited financial professional, seeing that they have significant long range implications for the state of Minnesota? Dayton's term ends January, 2015, unless re-elected. WWBBD*?



* - What Would Ben Bernanke Do?


In addition to the above lack of details comes this back-and-forth on whether or not the Vikings complied wiht the MFSA request for financial disclosure:

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_23924966/minnesota-vikings-stadium-timetable-get-updated?source=hottopics

The authority has asked the Vikings to resume talks Monday and provide information needed for the audit by Sept. 1.

But Bagley saidthe team has provided detailed background and financial information, and that the NFL and a consortium of banks led by U.S. Bank have told the authority "unequivocally that the Wilfs have the financial wherewithal to finance this project."

Friday afternoon, Peter Carter, the Dorsey & Whitney attorney heading the due diligence review, said Bagley's statements were false.

Carter said in a statement that despite repeated requests, the team has not provided the information needed to show that the New Jersey court ruling case won't affect the Wilfs' ability to meet their obligations.

Bagley declined to respond to Carter's statement, saying the team stands behinds its comments.


/////-

Stating that the NFL and a consortium of banks have told the authority something is not compliance with a request for financial records. Rolling Eyes

This could get ugly, ....er, uglier.

A schism might result. Shocked

What NEITHER side in this war of words has said is that the court award to the plaintiffs in the real estate investment fraud suit has yet to be determined. On top of pure economic damages, NJ law may allow punitive damages and/ or recovery of legal fees. But I do not know the specific applicable NJ laws.

So NO ONE can yet re-calculate the Wilf's net worth, to test their ability to perform their financial duties regarding financing the stadium.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CDub


Joined: 01 Oct 2012
Posts: 543
Location: Iowa
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



So dumb. Does anyone think this it is really possible this thing doesn't work out?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sector7G


Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Posts: 320
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Sometimes, I would not wish being a Viking fan on my own worst enemy.
Sad
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 - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 21 of 24

 
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