Shocked!………Indoor vs Outdoor

G, where is this study that claims 13 million from the playoff game? And you are still going with the you pay for bridges that you will never use argument? You honestly think that infrastructure is the same as an entertainment center? Didn’t they have to replace a bridge up in your area a couple years ago (I believe I recall you complaining that it added time to your commute)? I could care less about St. Cloud, but infrastructure is important so my tax money going for that makes sense.

The only people who think this a good idea are football fans, union tradesman, and businesses around the stadium . If people would remove their fandom from the situation, they would recognize that it is a bad deal. How many of you would get behind a plan to ‘bring Broadway to downtown Minneapolis’ or an addition to the MOA because it would bring in millions? Zero. Do you really care about the job security of a hotdog vendor or bartender? I bet even the union tradesman would change their opinion if it was decided to bring in non-union labor to save taxpayers a couple hundred million on the project (and why can’t we bring in the crew that built the Arizona Cardinals stadium??).

As for the original question…Open air in LA. If it is built here, it can be whatever as long as Wilf, the NFL, and the Vikings fans pay for it. Seems like a $10,000 PSL would help.

Here are the notes I could find on the Vikings playoff game:

Quote:

---

The $20 million figure comes from a study completed by the NFL Players Union — which, with tense labor negotiations and a lockout on the horizon, just might be a tad biased. So the Business Journal wisely cites a second, more academic study:

Another study conducted by the University of Minnesota put the economic effect of a single NFL game at closer to $6 million. The study found that Vikings fans spent $1.5 million at restaurants, $1.4 million on hotels, $1.2 million on retail, $719,500 on entertainment, and $656,000 on transportation during its most recent postseason appearance.
Seems plausible. But even the university researchers, no doubt Vikings fans, forgot to factor in basic variables, like how much of that money would have been spent elsewhere in town.

A summary of the U of M study … makes clear that the authors merely took the total number of people who came from out of town for a Vikings game (in this case, a playoff game against Dallas last January), multiplied it by the average spending, and came up with a figure of $9 million. There’s no adjustment for the substitution effect, however: How many of those people would have gone into Minneapolis to spend their money some other way if they hadn’t been blowing it on the Vikings? And did any of those Vikings fans displace other spending — say, people who chose to stay home that day because they didn’t want to fight the football crowds on the highways and in the downtown restaurants?

---

Wow, thought on that one awhile… Pile it on boys !!! I can take it !!! (steve o ) the bridge ref was to curtail the, I don’t use it, why should I pay for it mentality… you know who you are I have no problem paying for the bridge in St Cloud, that I use…. get it ??? The study was in one of James posts, that he ref and it was not disputed, other than a playoff game brings more $$$ “they assume” than a regular game. I have moved on from this one already, when they start building the new stadium, I will pull it back up and say “I told you so”…..

big G

Actually, no. I’m pretty busy at work I don’t have the free time as some people do waste on the Internet . Just have some time today. Yes, I was able to get your analogy of the bridge. You don’t use the 35W bridge so why should you pay for it. I will never use a bridge in St. Cloud, but I understand why I have to pay for it. Infrastructure and entertainment complex are not the same thing. If the 5 main bridges in the twin cities fell, it would cripple the state. If the Vikings leave tomorrow, most of us get up and continue on with our day as if nothing happened.

Oh, I guess I didn’t look at those articles. I was just wondering where the 13 million came from. I’m guessing the report they are referencing is the same as this U of M study, even though the info I found says 6 million and then 9 million?? And even adding those together don’t equal 13 (just trying to help you out on the math ). So from an article that is stating the economic boom from an NFL team is overblown, you take a couple sentences that are just mentioning a couple of studies they could find about the importance of an NFL team, and use that as your argument about all the tax dollars lost? You should work in the media!

And really if everybody is so concerned about jobs and out-of-state revenues, we should skip the stadium and add on to the MOA. That generates a heck of a lot more money than the Vikings ever could.

Good Idea!!

The MOA expansion will begin with a new motel

The new stadium might be right behind!!

Now your talking B

You need to learn to multi-task

Do you think a stadium brings any economic impact to the MPLS area if it is downtown ??? How about make MPLS more enjoyable or like they say, more liveable ??? How about to St Cloud if it is located in downtown MPLS ??? Put it in St Cloud, I would EXPECT my taxes to be affected, negatively and positively …Get it ???

If I go to a game, would I not be helping pay for it ??? Was it free to me ???

Anyways, I am good at math…. here is the blurb and the link, since you didn’t want to do the leg work, but still called me out about $6k or $9k ???

The city of Santa Clara, Calif., hired a company to study the potential economic activity from a proposed football stadium there for the San Francisco 49ers. The researchers generally agreed with the 49ers’ findings that the activity could be as much as $85 million a year, but that included $19 million for non-49ers events at the stadium. A study in March found the Minnesota Vikings’ playoff victory against the Dallas Cowboys in January was a financial win for the region of about $13 million. Using that estimate for eight regular-season games (we know a playoff game may bring more activity), would equal $104 million. We could find no similar studies for the Atlanta Falcons.

Go 2/3rds down the page for the above…

Mn Study

big G

Ya’all can paint it anyway you want.

There is benifit to a NFL team in this state.

There is no way it makes financial sense on a open air stadium.

You (and me) only have an opinion, no real say in things.

It will get built.

It will be for ego reasons only.

We will pay for it, period.

Interesting that a California study was cited. Did you know that the San Francisco Giants ballpark is the only privately funded stadium in the country? I find it interesting that they are the only owners in the whole country smart enough to figure out how to make the payments. Or, was it the citizens where the only ones to stand up to the owners?

Doesn’t matter, here in Minnesota we will cave in.

I already went back and read it. That is how I knew you took one paragraph for your side of the argument. Try to keep up. This sums it up:

Each independent expert we talked to believed there will be little economic impact if there is no NFL action next season, since they believe people will find other ways to spend their money.

Don’t be so touchy. I wasn’t calling you out. I’m was just saying that you (and your blurb) said 13 million and the article I found said first 6 million and the next minute says 9 million. So I was wondering where all these numbers are coming from and why are they so different.

I only care what a MN study said…. who cares if there are studies in SF or Atlanta… they are not MN. Some people are making blanket statements about how no benefit is realized having a NFL team in MN. Guess what… an NFL head coach drives a Jeep from a dealer in St Cloud.

big G