Opposing qb’s are averaging 299 yds per game against the Pack. Cam Newton (rookie) went for 432 the first week. Pack has been stingy in the red zone but you never know. it’s always fun to watch the first border battle tilt of the year.
Well said, Dutchboy! 
-J.
can’t go to the dog track in Hudson. taxpayers (me) will be buying that for the school district. 
That’s right, dog track is out, new school going in.
Trade deadline passed last week, trading AP, Allen, etc will have to wait til season’s end.
I don’t have a problem with business’s making money especially one so important to the local economy and local morale. Make’s no difference if the NFL made 9 billion or 9 million, people love it and don’t want it to go to LA.
Make it work!
ET
Why is it that those of you who are anti-stadium don’t see the investment value? The below is from a sports business consulting agency. Over 30 years, the state will MAKE 500 Million over that 30 year span on the stadium. At 40 years, it would be more than 1 Billion. That is only tax revenue generated from within the stadium itself. It does not include business, etc in the area.
Here are the debt assumptions:
• State puts in $300 million, via bonding.
• Interest rate over time is 5 percent.
• So, total debt service over a 20-year payoff is $481 million. That is, just like your mortgage at home, the cost of borrowing that initial $300 million becomes almost $500 million.
That’s the cost side.
Here are the revenue assumptions:
• Vikings players, visiting players and Vikings staff pay state income taxes of $12.5 million annually. As player income increases at 5 percent a year and staff at 3 percent a year, the revenue take increases.
• Sales tax collections WITHIN the new stadium, including liquor, are pegged at $5.3 million per year, with a 3 percent increase annually.
According to the CSL calculations, those taxes grow to about $1 billion over 30 years — the expected life of a stadium. That would be a net surplus of about $500 million to the state over the typical life of a modern stadium. The Metrodome has lasted 30 years.
If you extend it to 40 years — an unlikely length of a stadium’s life — you get to the larger number, $1.8 billion in total state tax collection, or $1.36 billion as a net surplus to the state because of the initial $300 million investment.
http://www.minnpost.com/jayweiner/2011/05/04/27998/tax_revenues_and_a_new_vikings_stadium_a_payback
So how did the Ponder interview go today, is he ready.
Did they trade AP yet?
Quote:
Why is it that those of you who are anti-stadium don’t see the investment value?
Why? Must be my refined sniffer. I know a stinker when I smell it.
http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/anderson/micro-principles/stadiums.pdf
“The Economic Impact of Sports Facilities on Metropolitan Areas
Few fields of empirical economic research offer virtual unanimity of findings. Yet, independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development (Baade and Dye, 1990; Baim, 1992; Rosentraub, 1994; Baade, 1996; Noll and Zimbalist, 1997; Waldon, 1997; Coates and Humphreys, 1999).
These results stand in distinct contrast to the promotional studies that are typically done by consulting firms under the hire of teams or local chambers of commerce supporting facility development. Typically, such promotional studies project future impact and almost inevitably adopt unrealistic assumptions regarding local value added, new spending, and associated multipliers. They often use a regional input- output model that depends on outdated technical coefficients which are treated as invariant to shifts in supply and demand (Center for Economic and Management Research, 1991; Deloitte & Touche, 1994, 1996; KPMG, 1996; Economic Research Associates, 1996; KPMG, 1998; C.H. Johnson Consulting, 1999).”
Do your own digging and what you will find is that there’s a lot of info on this subject. Overwhelmingly the available research points to state funded facilities as being a bad, no, HORRIBLE, investment. If it was such a good investment, Ziggy and the NFL would put their money where their mouth is.
I agree James. Public funding of stadiums is no good; but unfortunately the NFL and pro sports teams in general have taken us all hostage. If it is something good that can stand on its own it doesn’t need taxpayer contributions. But no owner is going to pay for the whole thing when they can play NFL hungry cities against each other. Here is my totally undocumented take on lots of things. We could probably eliminate government debt if government entities stopped paying for crap they have no business paying for in the first place. 
dd
Of course Ziggy and those who “gain” would find it a horrible investment… because they do not gain from the taxes…
What I posted above does not include what comes from taxes and public gains outside of the stadium. Think of the hundreds of Minnesotans who will lose their jobs. Then… think of the hundreds of construction workers who will gain employment working on a new stadium. And possibly hundreds more who will gain employment by new businesses in Arden Hills or Blaine that will pop up. What about the taxes on Merchandise sold supporting the team? Maybe doesn’t count for much. But still counts. The Federal Govt spends more in incentive payments to 3rd world countries (just so those countries like us) in a year than what the entire stadium costs.
Fact is… MN will LOSE more money in the long run without a major NFL team in the state. I am a hard nosed conservative… and I don’t like my tax payer dollars being spent needlessly on welfare programs, bail-outs, etc. But I see the impact that the team has on the financial situation of the state. Sometimes you have to spend a little to make a little.
Just my opinion.
Oh.. a side note.. the article I found and posted above appeared to be more of a “against the stadium” that was trying to show that there wasn’t a HUGE gain in financing a stadium… but it still showed a gain… at least, that is what I got from it.
Makes you wonder why cities are willing to build a stadium in the hopes of getting a team, but no guarantee.
Just look at the economic mecca the area around the dome turned into! There is Huberts’s and… um Hubert’s, which actually relocated to be by Target Field (sort of because Hubert’s is still by the dome too). And I wnder how the businesses around Target field are doing when there is no baseball 5months out of the year? And the NBA is locked out so that isn’t helping that area any either. Economic gain up the wazoo! 
dd
To answer your question as for Ramsey county they have a parcel of contaminated land that they are willing to unload along with gaining a new road system overhaul, which eventually will have to be done anyways, while gaining a new revenue stream that otherwise would not come to fruition on said dead piece of property.
As for creating new jobs in the area it maybe true but what kind of jobs ? Low paying service orientated jobs ? Sure there will be new small business owners but with the service orientated sector of actually surviving is pretty low with a few fortunate exceptions. We have to stop investing into an industry that keeps expanding the low income class.
How this for an idea take that $350,000,000 from the state and invest in small business low rate loans to many small businesses rather than one. Maybe some of these businesses would actually be a manufacturing company that can stand on its own. I think we would get better return on our money.
Better yet don’t spend the money and focus on fixing our education system (that does not necessarily spend more money ) so we can have more people actually smart enough
to think of and start a new business or smart enough to handle a well paying job so we do not have to rely on the low paying service industry to employ so many.
Hey, with this new trade agreement that just went through were going to have major surge in business growth and they have to start somewhere why not Ramsey County . 
Quote:
Better yet don’t spend the money and focus on fixing our education system (that does not necessarily mean spend more money) so we can have more people actually smart enough
to think of and start a new business or smart enough to handle a well paying job so we do not have to rely on the low paying service industry to employ so many.
Not to side track things, but we have been pouring money into education for years. More money is not the answer.
I agree with you that is why I said “that does not necessarily mean spend more money.”
Quote:
I agree with you that is why I said “that does not necessarily mean spend more money.”
Sorry, it was the ADD.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
