Minnesota Vikings have agreement for new stadium

[Superman]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Minnesota-Vikings-agree-to-new-site-for-stadium-051011?GT1=39002

The agreement calls for an $884 million stadium and an additional $173 million for on-site infrastructure, parking and environmental costs.

Ramsey County said the Vikings will commit $407 million to the project - 44 percent of the stadium costs and 39 percent of the overall costs. The county's share would be $350 million, to be financed by a half-cent sales tax increase.

Ramsey County Commissioner Tony Bennett, whose district includes the site, said in a news release that the proposed project would ''turn an environmental liability into an asset, clean up the largest Superfund site in the state, return property to the tax rolls, put people to work and provide for much-needed transportation infrastructure upgrades.''
​

Take note, people. This is the way deals get done in our modern era. Ownership pays part of it, the residents pay another part of it, everyone benefits.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Don't agree with doing these things via sales tax increases (hell at least income taxes you can write off your federal taxes and be exempt if you live below poverty) but I think this is a fair split of who pays for what.

 

[Superman]

Don't agree with doing these things via sales tax increases (hell at least income taxes you can write off your federal taxes and be exempt if you live below poverty) but I think this is a fair split of who pays for what.

It's half a percent, and it's county wide. I believe the tax is currently 6.5%, so it goes up to 7%, which isn't that big of a deal. On a $1,000 purchase, it's a five dollar difference in sales tax. And that minute difference means your community raises $350 million in an effort to keep your team, and you pump money back into the economy with infrastructure and business development.

I'm not saying that this is the exact model Sacramento should follow, I'm just saying that these kind of arguments are what have stonewalled proposals in the past, and it's unfortunate. If a region can raise a couple hundred million with a minor sales tax increase, and avoid all the drama of possibly losing their team, it's probably worth it.

More details:
http://min.scout.com/2/1071157.html

The Vikings would operate the facility and pay 90 percent of the operating expenses – roughly $15-18 million a year – but Bennett said the team would not own the facility. A stadium commission would own the facility.

Team and county officials said the 65,000-seat stadium would be targeted for hosting Super Bowls, college basketball’s Final Four, college bowl games and potentially even Major League Soccer. The stadium would be expandable to 72,000 seats and have 120-150 suites, as well as 7,500 club seats.​

 

[pdxKingsFan]

You're right that those taxes amount to nothing for almost everybody, except for the very people that can least afford it. Which is why I opposed Q&R and yet vigorously support public funding for Sacramento's new arena using any other means. I just will never get why people are so quick to approve teeny sales tax increases yet fight more targeted forms of taxes that can actually be recouped through other write offs and deductions.

I'm very curious about some of those other events - I don't think the Super Bowl committee is going to be too keen on having the SB in Minnesota as opposed to a warm weather climate, dome or not. They could make a college bowl game but again weather will limit the quality of who they can draw. MLS wants smaller, soccer specific stadiums. So it seems that some of these other ideas are a pipe dream. Final Four might be possible but it would be a once in the history of the building type deal I'd guess.

So I'm curious - as opposed to an arena which may host 200+ events a year, how many days does a football stadium get utilized, especially at twice the cost?

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

I honestly doubt the Vikings are really going to use $407 million of their own money. For example, what "commit" most likely means is a certain percentage of revenue from the arena, such as a certain % of the parking revenue, goes to paying X amount of money over X years.

Teams rarely will pay any significant amount of upfront money out of their own pocket and the city usually fronts the money. They usually don't tell the public so there won't be an outrage. I've read about different arena deals and the ones that are structured like this usually has the city locked into really bad situations in order for the team to agree to the deal. Sometimes there are even clauses where the team will only pay the money if revenue hits a certain number. If not, the city won't get paid. If Sac gets an arena, I hope its not the type of deal I mentioned, for the residents sake.

 

[Glenn]

I'm very curious about some of those other events - I don't think the Super Bowl committee is going to be too keen on having the SB in Minnesota as opposed to a warm weather climate, dome or not. They could make a college bowl game but again weather will limit the quality of who they can draw. MLS wants smaller, soccer specific stadiums. So it seems that some of these other ideas are a pipe dream. Final Four might be possible but it would be a once in the history of the building type deal I'd guess.

Many buildings including the hotels in Minnesota have heat and the cars are heated also. Leave shorts and flip flops at home. Many buildings are joined by above ground walkways and the weather is avoided. Californians are pussies. Do you honestly think this covered stadium would not sell out because it is cold outdoors?

The oddity is that this stadium will be the 2nd large football stadium in the area with the University of Minnesota's new stadium.

I think the Sacramento area needs to decide what it wants to be. Are we going to fight every damn basketball player to the cheapest salary we can get and maybe lose them or are we going to take a shot that spending money on players comes back in post season games and perhaps less of an "end of the world" reputation Sacramento has. Are we going to build the absolute minimum arena just to meet NBA minimum standards or go bigger and maybe attract huge conventions.

It's really up to the people. There is nothing wrong with having a small town attitude but remember there are consequences. With that attitude comes a reputation that does NOT attract business. It's all intertwined.

Who knows what can be housed in this stadium in a little known suburb of St. Paul. Jerry Jones didn't seem to care when he spent more for the Cowboys' stadium.

Both Minneapolis and Rochester, MN have been #1 on Forbes list of places to live while Sacramento is in the bottom 10. After awhile, this will have an impact and perhaps the 12% unemployment rate is a warning sign. Forbes didn't seem to mind that it got cold and the weather in Sacramento is hot. Nor do businesses.

 

[Superman]

You're right that those taxes amount to nothing for almost everybody, except for the very people that can least afford it. Which is why I opposed Q&R and yet vigorously support public funding for Sacramento's new arena using any other means. I just will never get why people are so quick to approve teeny sales tax increases yet fight more targeted forms of taxes that can actually be recouped through other write offs and deductions.

I'm very curious about some of those other events - I don't think the Super Bowl committee is going to be too keen on having the SB in Minnesota as opposed to a warm weather climate, dome or not. They could make a college bowl game but again weather will limit the quality of who they can draw. MLS wants smaller, soccer specific stadiums. So it seems that some of these other ideas are a pipe dream. Final Four might be possible but it would be a once in the history of the building type deal I'd guess.

So I'm curious - as opposed to an arena which may host 200+ events a year, how many days does a football stadium get utilized, especially at twice the cost?

As for the sales tax, there comes a point where you have to say "enough," and I get that. If they want to keep tacking on an extra .5% here, an extra .25% there, and pretty soon you have a 13% sales tax, yeah, that's out of control. But you have a moderate sales tax rate, and the increase we're talking about here amounts to $.50 per $100. I don't think it's going to have any impact on impoverished residents. All of a sudden the tax on a five dollar purchase goes from 33 cents to 35 cents. There's already no tax on groceries and utilities. The Ramsey County poor will survive.

And I think the argument for a local sales tax increase is that a) it's local; b) it's not pushed off on the federal government when there are write-offs and rebates.

You're forgetting that Detroit got the Super Bowl when they built Ford Field. Indy got the Super Bowl (assuming a 2011 season) when they built Lucas Oil Stadium. New York is getting it, and that's an open air stadium. The climate isn't going to keep the NFL from awarding a cold weather city the Super Bowl. They might not get it on first crack, but they'll get it eventually. Same thing with a bowl game. They can compete with Indy for the Big Ten championship game now. Indy also hosted the Final Four several times, even before LOS. I don't know what the MLS model is, but the venue will be there, if they want to use it. And I'm sure it's going to be spectacular, so anyone else who wants it will get it. Weather isn't an issue with a closed roof stadium.

I don't think a football stadium gets used more than 75-100 times a year, and I'm probably being generous. But with a venue that can seat 60-70k people, your gate receipts, parking and concessions are significantly higher per event (probably 3-4 times higher). Plus, fewer events, fewer operatings costs, fewer utilities, fewer police department hours, etc. So it could very easily be a wash. I don't know though, haven't seen any data comparing the two.

 

[Superman]

I honestly doubt the Vikings are really going to use $407 million of their own money. For example, what "commit" most likely means is a certain percentage of revenue from the arena, such as a certain % of the parking revenue, goes to paying X amount of money over X years.

Teams rarely will pay any significant amount of upfront money out of their own pocket and the city usually fronts the money. They usually don't tell the public so there won't be an outrage. I've read about different arena deals and the ones that are structured like this usually has the city locked into really bad situations in order for the team to agree to the deal. Sometimes there are even clauses where the team will only pay the money if revenue hits a certain number. If not, the city won't get paid. If Sac gets an arena, I hope its not the type of deal I mentioned, for the residents sake.

They're unlikely to cut a $407 million check, of course. And the city isn't going to cut a $300-350 million check, either. Of course the majority of the money is going to be paid over a period of several years. I don't see anything about the length of the lease, or how much it will be, although the Scout.com article does mention that the team will pay 90% of operating costs, which might be their lease agreement in totality. Don't know. And with a football arena, any "X amount of revenue" clauses are unlikely to be an issue, because NFL teams sell out the vast majority of their games, plus they have significant revenue sharing from TV deals and other sponsorships.

The NFL also has a $75 million loan program for teams building new stadiums. That's probably part of the $407 million commitment.

What sometimes does happen is they'll agree to a sweetheart lease to keep the team, like Indy did with the Colts (I believe it's $250k/year, and the Colts maintain the facility). Then they came back a year later and asked the Colts to drastically increase their lease payments, because the city was having money issues. This was right in the middle of the meltdown.

Sacramento had an interesting proposal from the Maloofs a few years ago, $10 million a year for 30 years, and MSE maintains and controls the facility and gets all receipts. That's a $300 million commitment for an arena likely to cost somewhere around $400 million to build, and probably $20 million a year to maintain. There were probably many other details, some of which might have been untenable, but on its surface, it's not a bad starting point. Especially not considering what a lot of other lease deals look like.

Anyways, there's tons of different ways to make these deals work, as long as all sides are serious about getting it done. But the bottom line is that the city/region is going to have to throw some serious money on the table to make it work. That's my point. No more "the Maloofs should pay the whole thing" nonsense. That's not how these things get done.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Counties can raise taxes without sales taxes, that just seems to be everybody's bandaid while hotel/car rental taxes are more popular with the citizenry and equally doable.

SuperBowl is still a long shot proposition. Certainly every new stadium that gets built doesn't get it no matter how great it is. And no matter how many times they decide to award it to a cold weather city once in a blue moon, the same 3/4 locations will always be taking their turns every 5 years meaning that a team basically gets one chance to make the SB happen in their new facility before someone else builds bigger and better and goes to the top of the line.

College bowl games, sure they can make one and invite whoever. My point was that college teams decline invites to less-desirable cities (even when they pay more) in favor of vacation hot spots all the time. And the other consideration is that teams fans have to travel to those games. Tell a team they can go to a third tier bowl in Las Vegas, San Diego or Minnesota and what do you think falls to the bottom of the list both in team selection and attendance? Not to mention that winter travel can often be rough.

As for number of events, when a municipality is investing, number of events is far more important than gate receipts unless the municipality is getting a very sizable chunk of that action. Because the main arguments in favor of public financing imho are making the surrounding area a before/after destination and driving more business into your city/county. The public investment is recouped by the businesses around the new stadium or arena making more money and paying more taxes and hiring more people who pay more taxes, etc.

As for MLS watch a New England Revolution home game sometime and it will become clear why MLS wants 20k seat stadiums and has made SSS (Soccer Specific Stadiums) part of the entry fee. The only team that does decent in an NFL stadium is Seattle.

Note that none of this is an argument against public financing for Sac. Or that a near 50-50 split isn't ideal. I'm just thinking this Minny deal seems exorbitant for something likely to be used 50-75 times a year. Ford Field was a 400 million dollar stadium. Lucas was 720 but built at the height of the real estate bubble.

 

[Glenn]

Knocking what is built in the Twin Cities and even questioning whether they make sense drags us far afield from this community's inability to build one arena that quite obviously would have far more uses than the 4 football stadia built in the Twin Cities since 1960. In fact, the more you question the sanity of a sports facility elsewhere gives more excuses to NOT build anything here.

The Twin Cities have had 4 football fields, two baseball parks, three hockey arenas, and the Target Center which is about to receive $150 million upgrade. Before the Target Center they housed two separate ABA teams elsewhere. Perhaps focusing on what they are doing right might give a clue as to what Sacramento should do.

 

[kennadog]

By bet is that it doesn't take a 2/3s to approve a sales tax increase there, either. That's the single biggest block to any tax increase here.

BTW, if you itemize and keep all your receipts, yes you can write off state sales tax. But you can only deduct state inciome tax or state sales tax, not both. That would be one heckuva pile of receipts to total, but could be worth it for some.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2076700_deduct-sales-tax.html

In all honesty, I don't like a sales tax, because its regressive, hurting lower-income groups the most. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of easy ways for cities and counties to increase revenues, since property taxes became so severely restricted (primarily to the benefit of businesses, especially corporations).

Hopefully something like hotel, rental car, food and beverage taxes and tiket surtaxes, etc. can be used. If the arena is downtown, convention business should really pickup for Sacramento and create more of those types of taxes.

 

[Glenn]

Of course it doesn't take a 2/3 vote to approve a tax. I wonder if a mere democratically inspired 51% vote would even pass here. The "selling" of this project comes up short in that the benefits are all somewhat amorphous - increased tourism, pride in the community, use of hotels, increased jobs, taxes from the facility, etc while it is very easy to argue against spending money. The spending of money is almost universally seen as negative although the idea that spending money is an investment for the area is lost in the noise. "No more taxes" is an easy sound bite but the other side of the argument doesn't lend itself to catchy and easy to remember phrases. It's too bad. I have some ideas as to why the Twin Cities builds, builds, builds but can't give any specifics. The underlying principle is that spectator sports are important in Minneaota as compared to California and it may simply have to do with the weather and the limitations Minnesota weather puts on people. Minnesota has less options for enjoyment.

 

[kennadog]

Well, there was a time when 51% was enough for taxes in California. I think 2/3s is undemocratic.

 

[Superman]

Counties can raise taxes without sales taxes, that just seems to be everybody's bandaid while hotel/car rental taxes are more popular with the citizenry and equally doable.

All that is true. I'm just saying I don't get the opposition to a half percent sales tax increase. I don't think it's going to send anyone to the welfare line. If it helps you get an arena built, I think it's more than made up for with jobs and business development.

SuperBowl is still a long shot proposition. Certainly every new stadium that gets built doesn't get it no matter how great it is. And no matter how many times they decide to award it to a cold weather city once in a blue moon, the same 3/4 locations will always be taking their turns every 5 years meaning that a team basically gets one chance to make the SB happen in their new facility before someone else builds bigger and better and goes to the top of the line.

Recently, every city that's built a new stadium has been awarded the Super Bowl, including cold weather cities. The only one I can think of that didn't get the Super Bowl was the new Gilette, and I think the reason for that is because it's open air, not a dome. Of course now that the NFL is giving it to New York, that door might be open, but it's irrelevant in this case. I'm not saying that it's 100% certain that they get the Super Bowl in Minny, but I don't think it's a long shot, nor is it once in a blue moon. Detroit in '05, Indy in '11, New York in '14. Miami and Houston and Arizona and San Diego (if they build a new stadium) will still be a regular part of the rotation, and once LA gets theirs done, they'll be in the mix too. But the NFL has made it a practice of late to award cities who build new arenas, cold weather or not.

College bowl games, sure they can make one and invite whoever. My point was that college teams decline invites to less-desirable cities (even when they pay more) in favor of vacation hot spots all the time. And the other consideration is that teams fans have to travel to those games. Tell a team they can go to a third tier bowl in Las Vegas, San Diego or Minnesota and what do you think falls to the bottom of the list both in team selection and attendance? Not to mention that winter travel can often be rough.

These are all good points. But again, I'm only pointing out that cold weather cities get college bowl games all the time. The Big Ten championship is going to be in LOS this year, and I believe the runner up was Soldier Field. Why wouldn't Minnesota be part of the discussion going forward? I doubt they'll hold their conference title game in a city that's not part of their conference; they're not going to Miami or Arizona. So their conference title game is always going to be in cold weather. The BCS isn't going to move the Fiesta Bowl to Minnesota, of course, but that doesn't mean they won't get any bowl games.

As for number of events, when a municipality is investing, number of events is far more important than gate receipts unless the municipality is getting a very sizable chunk of that action. Because the main arguments in favor of public financing imho are making the surrounding area a before/after destination and driving more business into your city/county. The public investment is recouped by the businesses around the new stadium or arena making more money and paying more taxes and hiring more people who pay more taxes, etc.

Very good point. More events means more money for the local economy. That's not an issue in Sacramento, where you're building an NBA arena, and you're not in a cold weather city. And for Minnesota, if -- IF -- they get awarded the Super Bowl or a bowl game, the frenzy surrounding such an event is probably worth 20 NBA games to the locals.

As for MLS watch a New England Revolution home game sometime and it will become clear why MLS wants 20k seat stadiums and has made SSS (Soccer Specific Stadiums) part of the entry fee. The only team that does decent in an NFL stadium is Seattle.

I'm not a soccer guy so I still don't get it. Maybe they want a more intimate crowd? Either way, if MLS turns their nose up at a state of the art stadium in Minnesota because it's too big, I'm sure it's not the end of the world.

Note that none of this is an argument against public financing for Sac. Or that a near 50-50 split isn't ideal. I'm just thinking this Minny deal seems exorbitant for something likely to be used 50-75 times a year. Ford Field was a 400 million dollar stadium. Lucas was 720 but built at the height of the real estate bubble.

Ford Field is a decade old. Lucas is an anomaly, really, but $720 million was actually frugal compared with the facilities that have come after it, even in a depressed economy.

I think the Vikings had the city by the balls, really. The NFL is trying it's hardest to get back to LA, and the deal gets sweeter if two teams come, so the Vikings were definitely being courted. And the LA stadium might eventually be built independent of any team funds (maybe they take out the $75 million NFL loan). They've been trying to build a new stadium for years, with little progress. Then, all of a sudden, the roof collapses at the Metrodome in the middle of the season. There was just no way for the city to deny the need for a new facility, and they were between a rock and a hard place. This might not wind up being too sweet of a deal for the city, after all is said and done. But they stepped up to the plate, contributed a significant amount of money to the deal, and now it's done.

This is the cost of doing business. And I know you realize that, so the post wasn't really meant for you. Just pointing out to those who are opposed for whatever reason to public money being used for a new arena in Sacramento, that if they don't get on board, they're going to lose out. The Maloofs aren't going to pay for a new arena completely by themselves for no other reason than that they don't have to. And if the Maloofs are forced to sell, it doesn't matter who buys the team, a new owner isn't going to foot the bill either. Not when they can find a city that's willing to do it for them. Either get on board or wave goodbye.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Besides Lucas the only more recent thing I could think of was Dallas and didn't go there because Jerry Jones went nuts on the place (and I believe Lucas actually broke ground after Dallas). You're probably right that the threat of LA means the NFL has everyone by the balls. And with Minny's roof collapsing there really isn't an argument that the stadium doesn't need replacement.

I just am not cool on overpromising what you can't or aren't likely to deliver. I actually don't think Minny is under any consideration to get an MLS team so suggesting it is a possibility won't backfire if the MLS says "You can have a franchise if you build a new field just for us" but if Sacramentans were promised an NHL team and then didn't get it they'd throw a fit. I actually think there is a nice happy medium between Sacramento's unhealthy skepticism and Minnesota's we'll build anything you want sirs approach. If someone finds it let me know

 

[fiction916]

All that is true. I'm just saying I don't get the opposition to a half percent sales tax increase. I don't think it's going to send anyone to the welfare line. If it helps you get an arena built, I think it's more than made up for with jobs and business development.

the sales tax affects the operating expense of local businesses and makes it tougher to compete with companies in other areas by increasing the cost to do business in Sacramento.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

the sales tax affects the operating expense of local businesses and makes it tougher to compete with companies in other areas by increasing the cost to do business in Sacramento.

This is one thing Oregon has to contend with every time the issue comes up (which is surprisingly often) - we tend to think of our neighbors in WA who don't have income tax as leeches who come across the river to shop tax free but the reality is that these leeches generate a ton of business for Oregon. A good chunk of it is big box stores, but even those employ tax paying Oregon citizens. And its those big purchases where those little teeny taxes add up enough to get people to shop elsewhere.

 

[Superman]

the sales tax affects the operating expense of local businesses and makes it tougher to compete with companies in other areas by increasing the cost to do business in Sacramento.

Sales tax in general, okay, I get that. If you all of a sudden start levying even a moderate sales tax where there's traditionally been none, that can have detrimental effects, because you're increasing the cost of goods and services by whatever that tax is. A five percent increase is considerable. But a half percent increase in sales tax? I'm not buying it. Sorry. Not when you need an arena to keep your team. Let's extrapolate this out. It's $.50 per $100. Even if you buy a $30,000 car, that's an additional $150. That's the floor mats they're throwing in for free. The difference from a half percent increase in sales tax is so miniscule, I just can't ride that train with you.

Like I said before, if you start trotting that argument out every fall for a proposed sales tax increase, and all of a sudden you have a double digit local sales tax, that's a problem. Because the difference between 6.5% and 13% is significant. But I just don't see how a half percent sales tax increase is going to hurt the local economy, and that's even before you consider the advantages they're receiving from having the new arena and the sports team.

Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate way to do this in Sacramento's case; I'm not sure what the sales tax is there. But that's not my argument. I'm just arguing that I don't think this sales tax increase is worth the fight, not if you really appreciate having a pro sports team in town. And in Sacramento's case, it's even more crucial, because the Kings are all they have. Minnesota has several pro sports team, plus a few big college programs. Even though it would suck, they could weather losing the Vikings a lot easier than Sacramento can if they lose the Kings.

 

[Superman]

Besides Lucas the only more recent thing I could think of was Dallas and didn't go there because Jerry Jones went nuts on the place (and I believe Lucas actually broke ground after Dallas). You're probably right that the threat of LA means the NFL has everyone by the balls. And with Minny's roof collapsing there really isn't an argument that the stadium doesn't need replacement.

They actually broke ground the same day. And even though LOS was finished sooner, Dallas beat Indy out for SB45, and if the season doesn't happen, Indy gets screwed for SB46, and probably gets pushed back to 2015. There were probably some loaded handshakes involved in that, but even still. I didn't bring Dallas up because it's a warm weather city, but now that I think about it, didn't it snow Super Bowl weekend?

And then, just looking up some of the details on that stadium, the city provided $325 million in bonds, and approved a half percent sales tax increase, plus a 2% hotel tax and a 5% car rental tax. And this is a traditionally anti-tax state, and for an owner with very deep pockets, and on a building that reportedly ran $600 million over budget. But they do love their football...

I just am not cool on overpromising what you can't or aren't likely to deliver. I actually don't think Minny is under any consideration to get an MLS team so suggesting it is a possibility won't backfire if the MLS says "You can have a franchise if you build a new field just for us" but if Sacramentans were promised an NHL team and then didn't get it they'd throw a fit. I actually think there is a nice happy medium between Sacramento's unhealthy skepticism and Minnesota's we'll build anything you want sirs approach. If someone finds it let me know

I get that. I think that's what the feasibility study is supposed to shed light on: what kind of events can you draw, what's the net going to be for the venue and the local economy, what kind of contributions do the residents have to agree to, and where are all those contributions going to come from? I haven't heard anyone promising Sacramento an NHL team, but if they build a sparkling arena that can potentially house an NHL team, maybe the NHL considers them for expansion in the future. That's in contrast to doing the minimum and never drawing anyone else to your building. But the numbers presented should be based on current tenants, not potential future tenants.

It would also be statesmanly of Stern to make sure Sacramento gets an All Star Weekend as a reward for stepping up to the plate.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

They actually broke ground the same day. And even though LOS was finished sooner, Dallas beat Indy out for SB45, and if the season doesn't happen, Indy gets screwed for SB46, and probably gets pushed back to 2015. There were probably some loaded handshakes involved in that, but even still. I didn't bring Dallas up because it's a warm weather city, but now that I think about it, didn't it snow Super Bowl weekend?

It did, and along with a whole host of other disasters that the NFL is recovering from surrounding that event is one reason I think the NFL is going to become even more selective rather than less selective in the future with where they book a SB.

It would also be statesmanly of Stern to make sure Sacramento gets an All Star Weekend as a reward for stepping up to the plate.

Agreed yet for some reason I don't see it happening. They'll blame hotel quality or something like that.

 

[Superman]

It did, and along with a whole host of other disasters that the NFL is recovering from surrounding that event is one reason I think the NFL is going to become even more selective rather than less selective in the future with where they book a SB.

Meh; only complaints in Dallas were with the seating that wasn't up to code, causing some to not be able to go to the game. That has nothing to do with the quality of the city, and has everything to do with poor planning on the part of the venue management. (I don't understand how they can pack 104k fans in that place, but had issues with the Super Bowl crowd.) Other than that, the other issues the NFL is concerned with are safety and transportation. Maybe Minnesota doesn't get the Super Bowl, but I'm just saying I don't think the cold weather is a deal-breaker anymore. We have three examples of that already, the most glaring being New York with an open air stadium, which I think is dumb, but whatever.

Agreed yet for some reason I don't see it happening. They'll blame hotel quality or something like that.

No one ever called Stern a statesman.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I thought there were also ice and transportation issues. Anyway, I could be wrong, I just think they will go back to the old way. NY will always get a bone thrown their way because they are NY. NY is "special".

 

[Superman]

I thought there were also ice and transportation issues. Anyway, I could be wrong, I just think they will go back to the old way. NY will always get a bone thrown their way because they are NY. NY is "special".

Yeah I guess there were other issues, but I would think that's more an issue for a city that's not used to getting snowed on like that. I don't recall those issues in Detroit. There were other problems in Detroit.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

There were other problems in Detroit.

"It's Detroit" springs to mind.

 

[Superman]

"It's Detroit" springs to mind.

You have no idea...

 

[kennadog]

Sacramento has generally not even been considered for the All-Star game. The arena is one reason, but it was also lack of enough premium hotels rooms. Altho we have added more downtown, I'm still not sure if it's enough to suit the league. It would be nice to build a quality hotel in the railyards, too. It would make sense to have at least one near the future intermodal transporation hub planned.

 

[lorraine biffath]

Public vote

Ilove the kings and want them to stay in sacramento for a long time. If some funding by the public is needed to finance an arena I'm all for it, but it won't work. california is taxed to the hilt already.We are being taxed for things that are not being done.Our roads are one of the worst in the country.Businesses are closing all over, people are out of jobs.Gas prices are sky high, and now you want the public's help to build an arena? It's not going to work.If an arena gets built it has to be done without the public's help.People know it's inportant to sacramento to have a new entertanment complex. It will be more money and more jobs, but their more worried about feeding their family's and keeping their jobs.If they are totaly relying on the public to get this done they better say goodbye to the kings.They have to know the public is not going to help.If they don't their fools.

 

[JB_kings]

Ilove the kings and want them to stay in sacramento for a long time. If some funding by the public is needed to finance an arena I'm all for it, but it won't work. california is taxed to the hilt already.We are being taxed for things that are not being done.Our roads are one of the worst in the country.Businesses are closing all over, people are out of jobs.Gas prices are sky high, and now you want the public's help to build an arena? It's not going to work.If an arena gets built it has to be done without the public's help.People know it's inportant to sacramento to have a new entertanment complex. It will be more money and more jobs, but their more worried about feeding their family's and keeping their jobs.If they are totaly relying on the public to get this done they better say goodbye to the kings.They have to know the public is not going to help.If they don't their fools.

Actually all those issues have always existed here. It's California and the cost of living and doing business here has always been out of whack with much of the country. None of those problems have a thing to do with whether we have a basketball team here or not. I can understand the emotion, but I highly doubt a new arena is going to be a make or break moment in any families finances. I'm not saying some families aren't struggling, it's just that the arena is not what they need to be concerned about.

 

[lorraine biffath]

concerened

The way things are today families are struggling more. I guess we'll find out how unconcerened the public is when it's time to vote.I hope your right.

 

[Livinthedream]

The way things are today families are struggling more. I guess we'll find out how unconcerened the public is when it's time to vote.I hope your right.

It truly is a California issue. Whether we vote to approve a tax increase for a stadium has very little to do with the economy. When Q&R failed, the economy was doing great. There are less problems getting arenas and stadiums built in the South and Midwest because their values are different. They understand that you have to pay upfront for your entertainment and quality of life. In Cali, a lot of our entertainment is in nature and easily accessible. You pay when you want to play. There's the ocean, lakes, rivers, skiing, hiking, biking and abundant sunshine. There are not as many quality options in other places in the country. So in Cali when you ask people to pay for quality of life upfront, the people can't wrap their minds around doing that.

Instead the favorite mantra is we should pay for schools and fire and police forces instead. Cali people sometimes like to feel progressive and say they are focusing on the social issues. However, we fail to realize that you can generate tax revenue instead of just paying it out. Big business and big projects generate large amount of taxes for the city and county, which in turn can go to paying for your social programs. Sacramento is not going to generate more taxes and income for itself by stopping all progress. It will have the opposite effect.