Ranger Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Ok, did they account for the increased taxi service, gas, shopping, and other revenues that come along with an influx of thousands of people into the cities?? Those numbers would be incredibly difficult to quantify. I haven't paid much attention to this whole deal, what's the 8 days thing about? Not to mention the tips and lap dances at Deju Vu. Perhaps sales, hospitality, and merchandise taxes and other fees should be raised on game days plus/minus 2 days and pay-per-view all home games. Why not demand the fans, players, and owners fund their entertainment. There are reputable studies that indicate sport franchises provide very little economic advantages, as there are studies that suggest just the opposite. Bottom line, all parties are having a hard time selling any deal that is mostly dependent upon tax payer financing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Unless I misunderstood what I heard on the radio, Vikings players pay a combined $20 million in state income taxes each year. The math I just did says they pay about $7 million a year. $91 million payroll for this season, and a 7.85% state tax rate. I know it's more complicated than this, but it's close. I'm not going to run the math for the other sports teams so I don't know how it compares to the numbers previously stated, but it's something to consider. Just thought I'd share. And those numbers assume the players live in MN the entire year (or is it 51% in MN?).... which I assume the vast majority don't. I've always wondered, does a player file state taxes in each state they play in? I'm not a tax accountant, but there must be some interesting strategies involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothmog Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Why not fund the stadium by using fees and other taxes directed toward fans, including pay per view for out staters. Then those who are true fans can directly support the team. The Stadium will be there 365 days a year, but the Vikings and their fans can only use it 12 times a year at most. The other 353 days, the state will be able to hold whatever events they want in the stadium. It would be grossly unfair to expect Viking fans to pay for the whole cost of the stadium, since they do not share in all the benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 The Stadium will be there 365 days a year, but the Vikings and their fans can only use it 12 times a year at most. The other 353 days, the state will be able to hold whatever events they want in the stadium. It would be grossly unfair to expect Viking fans to pay for the whole cost of the stadium, since they do not share in all the benefits. I understand that argument and can support it, but then remove Minneapolis from the funding and yearly maintenenace equation. Especially since this argument screams the stadium and the team is a state asset. It's just as grossly unfair to demand Minneapolis residents (at least a tax collected and extended in Minneapolis) to be one of the tiered funding mechanisms. I'm still waiting for the Hennepin County Tax Payer Appreciation Day at the Twins park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Unless I misunderstood what I heard on the radio, Vikings players pay a combined $20 million in state income taxes each year. The math I just did says they pay about $7 million a year. $91 million payroll for this season, and a 7.85% state tax rate. I know it's more complicated than this, but it's close. I'm not going to run the math for the other sports teams so I don't know how it compares to the numbers previously stated, but it's something to consider. Just thought I'd share. The players salarys are divided by games and so the Viking players would pay taxes on the 8 home games they play and each player on the 8 teams they play would pay Minnesota State tax on their game check for that game as well......pretty sure this is how it works Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 The players salarys are divided by games and so the Viking players would pay taxes on the 8 home games they play and each player on the 8 teams they play would pay Minnesota State tax on their game check for that game as well......pretty sure this is how it works That is correct. And in professional sports the vast bulk of their salaries are paid during the season, they do not get the money spread across the entire season. There are some bonuses paid on attending training sessions, or training camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 And those numbers assume the players live in MN the entire year (or is it 51% in MN?).... which I assume the vast majority don't. I've always wondered, does a player file state taxes in each state they play in? I'm not a tax accountant, but there must be some interesting strategies involved. The taxes are paid based on where they are earned. That means where the games are played. As I mentioned above, Joe Mauer pays taxes on 1/2 of his salary in Minnesota because he plays 1/2 of his games in Minnesota. He also pays taxes in every other state the Twins play in, the amount based on the number of games in that state. Players from other teams also pay taxes in Minnesota based on the number of games played and their salary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Is Kurt Zellers currently one of the most disliked and despised UND alumni for setting up the Vikings to leave Minnesota?!?! I am typically a strong republican and think there is more than enough blame to go around on this stadium issue. But it is clear that Dayton and Zellers deserve to carry most of the blame. Zellers for his lack of support and decisiveness in the process, and Dayton for his incompetent incapability to compromise with the GOP. Anyone else tired of this power struggle? That being said, is Zellers currently UND's most disliked alumni. Discuss . . . Isn't ZW more at fault - he had a deal with Anoka County and he walked away because he thought that he could get a better deal. The current deal for the Vikings is fine but the funding approaches are questionable. $427 million from the team - fine $150 million from Minneapolis sales taxes - I assume that this is the original Metrodome tax that was repurposed to the convention center which will now go to Vikings stadium. $400 million, from new taxes projected to roll in by allowing bars and restaurants that offer gambling to upgrade to electronic versions of some games - I am with Zellers - I don't see how electronic gambling is going to bring in this much revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Makes sense... so using last year's payroll numbers, MN players would pony up about $3.6M last year, not including pre-season, training, bonuses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 I understand that argument and can support it, but then remove Minneapolis from the funding and yearly maintenenace equation. Especially since this argument screams the stadium and the team is a state asset. It's just as grossly unfair to demand Minneapolis residents (at least a tax collected and extended in Minneapolis) to be one of the tiered funding mechanisms. I'm still waiting for the Hennepin County Tax Payer Appreciation Day at the Twins park. Minneapolis and Hennepin County also benefit from having the stadium in that location, just like the state does. Minneapolis has a regular sales tax. People coming to stay in Minneapolis because of events at the stadium pay that additional sales tax. I don't know if the amounts are close to equal or not, but it does benefit Minneapolis. Minneapolis also gets the PR and advertising benefit of having the name mentioned every time games are televised from there. That is a benefit. When you live in a large city that is often one of the costs, helping pay for a project like a stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Makes sense... so using last year's payroll numbers, MN players would pony up about $3.6M last year, not including pre-season, training, bonuses? Probably. And other team's players would probably pay a somewhat similar amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Isn't ZW more at fault - he had a deal with Anoka County and he walked away because he thought that he could get a better deal. The current deal for the Vikings is fine but the funding approaches are questionable. $427 million from the team - fine $150 million from Minneapolis sales taxes - I assume that this is the original Metrodome tax that was repurposed to the convention center which will now go to Vikings stadium. $400 million, from new taxes projected to roll in by allowing bars and restaurants that offer gambling to upgrade to electronic versions of some games - I am with Zellers - I don't see how electronic gambling is going to bring in this much revenue. Ziggy would have taken the Arden Hills deal, but it needed state money. The state wouldn't agree to support that project. He didn't walk away for a better deal, he walked away because the state wouldn't help them finish that deal. I believe that the Minneapolis money is coming from a current tax that built the Convention Center and some other projects. They are planning to continue the tax rather than let it end. But the money from this tax won't be available for a few years, until the other project is paid off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Isn't ZW more at fault - he had a deal with Anoka County and he walked away because he thought that he could get a better deal. The current deal for the Vikings is fine but the funding approaches are questionable. $427 million from the team - fine $150 million from Minneapolis sales taxes - I assume that this is the orginal Metrodome tax that was reproposed to the convension center which will now go to Vikings stadium. $400 million, from new taxes projected to roll in by allowing bars and restaurants that offer gambling to upgrade to electronic versions of some games - I am with Zellers - I don't see how electronic gambling is going to bring in revenue. Yes, he walked from the Anoka deal. What isn't discussed (or completely known) is the interest debt to allow funding to float for 30 years. This will eventually equate to hundreds of millions. The Minneapolis tax is set to expire in 7/8 years, but will be extended 30 years. The city is also on the hook for a set annual upkeep fee ($5M+?), plus it is required to keep the facility "world class", which will likely lead to the owners demanding constant facility upgrades. This is a bad deal all around. I can't blame the Wilfs... they hooked the suckers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Minneapolis and Hennepin County also benefit from having the stadium in that location, just like the state does. Minneapolis has a regular sales tax. People coming to stay in Minneapolis because of events at the stadium pay that additional sales tax. I don't know if the amounts are close to equal or not, but it does benefit Minneapolis. Minneapolis also gets the PR and advertising benefit of having the name mentioned every time games are televised from there. That is a benefit. When you live in a large city that is often one of the costs, helping pay for a project like a stadium. More people visit the Mall of America the day after Thanksgiving than all of the Vikings home games combined. The mall was provided tax incentives, but the city and state didn't fund 70 percent of the complex. The mall's tax base vastly overshadows anything the Vikings have or will do. Not buying the PR argument. No business has moved to or stayed in MN because there is/was not a pro team here, certainly not one of the 20ish F500 companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 More people visit the Mall of America the day after Thanksgiving than all of the Vikings home games combined. The mall was provided tax incentives, but the city and state didn't fund 70 percent of the complex. The mall's tax base vastly overshadows anything the Vikings have or will do. Not buying the PR argument. No business has moved to or stayed in MN because there is/was not a pro team here, certainly not one of the 20ish F500 companies. You continually ignore the other 200-300 events that will be held in the stadium each year. Those tax dollars count just like the Vikings tax dollars and MOA tax dollars. Whether you believe it or not, there is a unique benefit having an NFL team in your city. You can build another mall in any town in the country. There are only 32 NFL teams. The NFL gets more TV coverage than any other sport. There is a reason why cities are willing to build stadiums to attract teams. Amenities like an NFL team are sold by cities to attract companies. Having an NFL team gives a city the perception of being big time whether they are or not. If the Vikings do leave there will be a push to bring another team to the Twin Cities. That will cost even more than the current stadium proposal. Just look at the current efforts to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles, or the effort more than a decade ago to get the exhibition team now known as the Wild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Not ignoring the other events.... but no matter how many attempts are made to convince that high school baseball games, antique shows, tractor pulls, motorcross, walk-a-thons, etc., are bringing in big crowds with hugh tax dollars attached, the more I want these people to invest in my beach front property in South Dakota. Forgive me for wanting hard facts about the net tax revenue interested parties are receiving from these so-called 200-300 events. Until then, it's all speculative numbers. The only "unique" benefit I see from having a pro football team is reading about which player was arrested for DUI and/or beating us his girlfriend. Minneapolis can not compete with LA, NY, Seattle, Chicago, Denver.... we can not afford to participate in a popularity contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 You want some numbers? Start with this study on Super Bowls, http://cber.iweb.bsu.edu/research/superbowlstudy.pdf. It looks back at about 20 years of Super Bowls. Summary This report offers an estimate of the impact of the Super Bowl in Indianapolis. Using the most conservative approach, I find the impact of the Super Bowl to be a significant, one time increase of $365 million in total economic activity, resulting in $202 million dollars in labor compensation and roughly 5,000 employees. State and local tax revenues would top $32 million under the current tax structure. This estimate is highly consistent with other estimates, and relies on historical data of actual Super Bowl impacts dating back to the 1960s. It is within 5 percent of the average impact estimates for the past five Super Bowls (which is important, since the impacts are apparently increasing with time).An example of the NCAA Final Four from St. Louis in 2005, http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2005/09/12/daily38.html. Regionals probably bring in about 1/2 of that and Minneapolis would probably get a few of those. The NCAA Men's Final Four basketball championship held in St. Louis in April had a nearly $72 million economic impact on the region, according to final results released Wednesday by the St. Louis Sports Commission. About $41.4 million of that will remain in the region long-term as personal, corporate income and tax revenue, according to the study conducted by Patrick Rishe, associate professor of economics at Webster University. That's a starting point and should be considered in the argument. I'm sure that there are numbers somewhere on events like the high school football state tournament and from large concerts. It isn't about being in a popularity contest. It is about being able to compete with the top tier of cities. Minneapolis can compete with the Seattle's, Denver's, St. Louis's of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Ziggy would have taken the Arden Hills deal, but it needed state money. The state wouldn't agree to support that project. He didn't walk away for a better deal, he walked away because the state wouldn't help them finish that deal. I believe that the Minneapolis money is coming from a current tax that built the Convention Center and some other projects. They are planning to continue the tax rather than let it end. But the money from this tax won't be available for a few years, until the other project is paid off. Just to clarify.. I was talking about the Anoka deal which was approved by the state when the Twins deal went through. Anoka and the Vikings had a deal, but the Vikings changed the deal by taking away the roof to reduce costs. Anoka said that the terms of the deal included a roof. The Vikings walked away from the deal. Behind the scenes it was rumored that MSP political leaders would be interested in helping Vikings in the near future with the old Metrodome tax. The next deal that the Vikings had was with Arden Hills and Ramsey County - but that had no shot. You are asking St. Paul to pay for something NOT IN St. Paul. Plus, the Stadium was not going to get MSP support without MSP getting something (dumping the Target Center on the State or the State paying for major renovations) in the deal at the State level. I laughed at people who thought that had a chance. IMO - the only reason the Ramsey County deal got that far was: 1) Ziggy loved the cheap land around it to develop.. 2) Opat (HC), Rybak (MSP) and Dayton (MN) disagreed on the MSP stadium location. Opat wanted farmer market area and Rybak/Dayton wanted old the Metrodome site to keep costs down. Rybak/Dayton moved forward and Opat said no thanks and pulled HC support. NOTE: It was stated last week that Opat has been working with multiple politic leaders discussing a new Farmers market plan. But, he would not move the plan forward until next year because he did not want to step on Rybak/Dayton political toes. Opat Plan: 1) Site Farmer Market 2) HC would kick in toward the stadium by increasing the existing Twins Stadium tax rate. 3) MSP still provides the old Metrodome tax in the future NOTE: The State legislature has said it will not extend this tax unless it is tied to a Vikings stadium. 4) State’s role in significantly reduced thus making it easier to pass. But, Ziggy is killing the Opat plan because he wants a decision this year and considers no action this year as a statement of no support. I think Ziggy has a buyer lined up and he is getting political cover for when he sells the team if the stadium does not go through this year. NOTE: I am not a big Opat fan because I don't trust a word the man says but he knows how to get things done. Unfortunately at my expense as a resident of HC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Just to clarify.. I was talking about the Anoka deal which was approved by the state when the Twins deal went through. Anoka and the Vikings had a deal, but the Vikings changed the deal by taking away the roof to reduce costs. Anoka said that the terms of the deal included a roof. The Vikings walked away from the deal. Behind the scenes it was rumored that MSP political leaders would be interested in helping Vikings in the near future with the old Metrodome tax. The next deal that the Vikings had was with Arden Hills and Ramsey County - but that had no shot. You are asking St. Paul to pay for something NOT IN St. Paul. Plus, the Stadium was not going to get MSP support without MSP getting something (dumping the Target Center on the State or the State paying for major renovations) in the deal at the State level. I laughed at people who thought that had a chance. IMO - the only reason the Ramsey County deal got that far was: 1) Ziggy loved the cheap land around it to develop.. 2) Opat (HC), Rybak (MSP) and Dayton (MN) disagreed on the MSP stadium location. Opat wanted farmer market area and Rybak/Dayton wanted old the Metrodome site to keep costs down. Rybak/Dayton moved forward and Opat said no thanks and pulled HC support. NOTE: It was stated last week that Opat has been working with multiple politic leaders discussing a new Farmers market plan. But, he would not move the plan forward until next year because he did not want to step on Rybak/Dayton political toes. Opat Plan: 1) Site Farmer Market 2) HC would kick in toward the stadium by increasing the existing Twins Stadium tax rate. 3) MSP still provides the old Metrodome tax in the future NOTE: The State legislature has said it will not extend this tax unless it is tied to a Vikings stadium. 4) State’s role in significantly reduced thus making it easier to pass. But, Ziggy is killing the Opat plan because he wants a decision this year and considers no action this year as a statement of no support. I think Ziggy has a buyer lined up and he is getting political cover for when he sells the team if the stadium does not go through this year. NOTE: I am not a big Opat fan because I don't trust a word the man says but he knows how to get things done. Unfortunately at my expense as a resident of HC. I hadn't even thought about the Anoka deal since it was a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Not ignoring the other events.... but no matter how many attempts are made to convince that high school baseball games, antique shows, tractor pulls, motorcross, walk-a-thons, etc., are bringing in big crowds with hugh tax dollars attached, the more I want these people to invest in my beach front property in South Dakota. Forgive me for wanting hard facts about the net tax revenue interested parties are receiving from these so-called 200-300 events. Until then, it's all speculative numbers. The only "unique" benefit I see from having a pro football team is reading about which player was arrested for DUI and/or beating us his girlfriend. Minneapolis can not compete with LA, NY, Seattle, Chicago, Denver.... we can not afford to participate in a popularity contest. Think about the money that has been spent on arenas/stadiums: Stadiums: 1) Metrodome paid 2) TCF for U of M - over $300 million (2009) 3) Twins Stadium - over $400 million (2007) 4) Vikings Stadium - over $950 million (?) Arenas: 1) Target Center - pending approval of $150 million update - original cost ($100 million in 1990). 2) Xcel - $130 million (2000) A $1.2 billion dollar multi use stadium for Twins/Vikings/Gophers sounds like a dream to me or a $200 million dollar multi use Wolves/Wild arena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Think about the money that has been spent on arenas/stadiums: Insane, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxfan512 Posted May 5, 2012 Author Share Posted May 5, 2012 But at the same time you support giving 100's of millions of welfare dollars to a very wealthy family so that they can make more money? You say you are not bashing welfare through your passive aggressive attack? The government is suppose to spend money on something you want? Sounds pretty socialist to me. Im saying it would be a refreshing change to see tax dollars go to something that I could enjoy. I have no problem with the welfare program for people who need it, but it is definitely abused by many people. Those are dollars that could elsewhere. As for the stadium, the state may be investing in something that would make a billionaire richer, but people need to look at that as incidental and realize there are many benefits to the state as well. heard alot of these same arguments against target field and the xcel energy center, and nobody seems to be any worse off from those being built. Let just get it done and get it done right and we won't need to address the issue again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxfan512 Posted May 5, 2012 Author Share Posted May 5, 2012 Insane, isn't it? Arena that have paid and employed a lot of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxfan512 Posted May 5, 2012 Author Share Posted May 5, 2012 Think about the money that has been spent on arenas/stadiums: Stadiums: 1) Metrodome paid 2) TCF for U of M - over $300 million (2009) 3) Twins Stadium - over $400 million (2007) 4) Vikings Stadium - over $950 million (?) Arenas: 1) Target Center - pending approval of $150 million update - original cost ($100 million in 1990). 2) Xcel - $130 million (2000) A $1.2 billion dollar multi use stadium for Twins/Vikings/Gophers sounds like a dream to me or a $200 million dollar multi use Wolves/Wild arena I will concende that TCF was a ridiculous project, because they could have found a way to consolidate that stadium with the Vikings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxfan512 Posted May 6, 2012 Author Share Posted May 6, 2012 Well, If you do support the stadium and you live in MN, Call your Rep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.