Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis (cancelled)

[FISHMANPET]

Playing in the metrodome was sub par experience because the metrodome was a sub par facility. We're in a unique position as one the only if not THE only University campus so close to the urban core. We had a unique opportunity to create a unique stadium experience in a unique location that met the needs of two organizations and saved a giant pile of money for the tax payer. But instead we built a bog standard Campus stadium and a bog standard NFL stadium. So whatever.

And it's NOT the same as Ordway vs Guthrie. Of Ordway and Guthrie were both unused a bunch then it would be the same, but it's not. We "need" two theaters because they're both booked enough. If it was merely a matter of not enough back of house space that could easily be rectified by adding on to a building.

So with two football stadiums we have the case where we have two buildings, one of them primarily used on Saturday, one primarily used on Sunday. A great opportunity to split the cost of the most expensive part of the stadium, the field and the seats, between two organizations.

For what it's worth I think it'd be more reasonable for the gophers to play at a new stadium on the metrodome site than for the Vikings to play in TCF. But that doesn't mean I would advocate for the Gophers to play in the new Vikings stadium, or for TCF to be built on the site of the metrodome, but a third option where the needs of both organizations are taken into consideration and a single facility was built that met both their needs. I think that even though the VIkings are playing at TCF it's still not "ideal" to the team and they wouldn't want that exact facility indefinitely.

[min-chi-cbus]

Maybe I'm really naive, but I THINK that the one and only reason why politicians are balking at any kind of subsidy for soccer is because they know that all of their constituents would stop voting (and financing) their political campaigns. Some things are political "no-no's" (like abortion policy), and I think this is may be another one of them, and it seems to have more to do with principal than capital ($$).

[David Greene]

Maybe I'm really naive, but I THINK that the one and only reason why politicians are balking at any kind of subsidy for soccer is because they know that all of their constituents would stop voting (and financing) their political campaigns. Some things are political "no-no's" (like abortion policy), and I think this is may be another one of them, and it seems to have more to do with principal than capital ($$).

I'm not so sure. Very few politicians have lost on a stadium funding issue. I can't really think of one in Minnesota, actually.

This case is different for several reasons.

- The stadium will be privately owned, making public money much less palatable
- The ratio of the cost of the stadium to the income of the owners is much smaller (i.e. "They can afford it.")
- The ask is so small that it invites the question of whether the owners will really drop the franchise over it
- There isn't a politically powerful fan base

I think votes is way down on the list of concerns for public officials on this one.

[Didier]

No, we're arguing the other way around. The Vikings should be playing at TCF.

I agree the Gophers needed a better facility and I supported TCF stadium. Once that was built, the Vikings didn't need a new facility. They could have moved to TCF or remained in the Metrodome. FISHMANPET is right that we could have designed TCF to fulfill the needs of both programs. The fact that the Vikings are playing there for two years bears this out.

It's the exact same thing. The Vikings are physically able to play football games at TCF Bank Stadium, as they are right now. And TCF Bank Stadium could have been designed to fit the needs of both teams.

If you think the state should have pursued that option instead, that's a fair opinion.

What's factually incorrect is that either the Vikings or the Gophers would get maximum benefit from sharing a facility.

Again, if you don't care whether the teams get maximum benefit, that's a fair opinion.

But you're presenting this as if it was a choice. The Vikings and Gophers were never going to play in the same stadium long term, regardless of whether the Average Joe believed they should.

[go4guy]

Agreed. The Gophers do not just use the stadium on Saturdays. The facilities are rented out for many events, weddings, benefits, galas on many nights. There are classes at the stadium during the week. Meetings during the week. Walk-thrus and practices for the team. Recruiting visits to the facilities all during the week. TCF only has a few days a year where it is not being used. Throw the Vikings in there with their needs, and it reduces the value to the Gophers significantly.

[Didier]

Playing in the metrodome was sub par experience because the metrodome was a sub par facility. We're in a unique position as one the only if not THE only University campus so close to the urban core. We had a unique opportunity to create a unique stadium experience in a unique location that met the needs of two organizations and saved a giant pile of money for the tax payer. But instead we built a bog standard Campus stadium and a bog standard NFL stadium. So whatever.

This is categorically untrue. Major colleges play football in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, Pittsburgh,Phoenix, Seattle and the Bay Area. Of those, only the University of Miami and Pitt share a stadium with an NFL team. And both have similar issues as the Gophers did when they played in the Metrodome.

For what it's worth I think it'd be more reasonable for the gophers to play at a new stadium on the metrodome site than for the Vikings to play in TCF. But that doesn't mean I would advocate for the Gophers to play in the new Vikings stadium, or for TCF to be built on the site of the metrodome, but a third option where the needs of both organizations are taken into consideration and a single facility was built that met both their needs. I think that even though the VIkings are playing at TCF it's still not "ideal" to the team and they wouldn't want that exact facility indefinitely.

This is why it's hard to engage with you. You're presenting "Vikings play at TCF Bank Stadium" as if it was ever a realistic option. The only way the Vikings and Gophers could ever share a facility is if the facility was designed for the Vikings first.

[FISHMANPET]

- The ask is so small that it invites the question of whether the owners will really drop the franchise over it

I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore but I think this is a really important point. The discussion should really be about if this is a deal breaker or not. In a vacuum getting sales tax is better than no sales tax. I'd think the only reason to forgo the sales tax is if we think that's the only way to keep the deal afloat.

This is categorically untrue. Major colleges play football in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, Pittsburgh,Phoenix, Seattle and the Bay Area. Of those, only the University of Miami and Pitt share a stadium with an NFL team. And both have similar issues as the Gophers did when they played in the Metrodome.

Maybe it's just in the Big10 that we're unique then, because people that know more about sports than me have agreed with that claim in the past. But I remember Pitt being brought up specifically and (and I Just confirmed this) it's nearly 5 miles from University of Pittsburgh to Heinz Field. Same with Northwestern in Chicago, the campus is "in" Chicago but nearly as close to the core as we are.

This is why it's hard to engage with you. You're presenting "Vikings play at TCF Bank Stadium" as if it was ever a realistic option. The only way the Vikings and Gophers could ever share a facility is if the facility was designed for the Vikings first.

What even is realistic? When a millionaire makes empty threats to drag his team to LA to blackmail a state into buying him a stadium, I feel like that's well beyond "realistic" and into absurd, yet that's what happened. And I have no doubt that Vikings would whine and complain if they didn't get exactly 100% what they wanted. But merely wanting something is not reason enough for it to be granted. It is my opinion that we'd have a much better situation if the teams shared a stadium, even if it meant the Gophers and Vikings only got 90% of what they wanted out of a new facility. That still means a facility is granting 180% utility or whatever (yes I know that's nonsense). I totally understand why the Gophers wanted their own stadium, and I totally understand why the Vikings wanted their own stadium, but again, merely wanting something is not reason enough to grant it.

Serious question, has anyone tried to build a stadium with the needs of both a college team and an NFL team? Ignoring location of the stadium, what are the differences in needs (specifically to play football). Is it just a seating capacity issue. IE an NFL sized stadium being too big for University and University sized stadium too small for NFL? Something else inherent in the design of the field?

Agreed. The Gophers do not just use the stadium on Saturdays. The facilities are rented out for many events, weddings, benefits, galas on many nights. There are classes at the stadium during the week. Meetings during the week. Walk-thrus and practices for the team. Recruiting visits to the facilities all during the week. TCF only has a few days a year where it is not being used. Throw the Vikings in there with their needs, and it reduces the value to the Gophers significantly.

Two things. First, this is a chicken and egg scenario. The nice stadium is used because it's nice. The metrodome wasn't used for these same non-sports purposes because it wasn't nice for those. It was designed to be nice for these things. And second, these are almost all uses not related to the field and stands themselves. The U built event spaces so they could hold events here but those event spaces aren't strictly needed to play football. This goes back to the Guthrie & Ordway analogy. The expensive parts of the stadium, and the parts that rarely get used, are the actual field and seating. You're basically saying "our stages are empty but are offices are full, clearly we need to build more stages!"

[go4guy]

Williams and Mariucci Arenas are currently set up for those specific teams. However, both are used almost daily for other events. TCF was built to maximize those events, but would still be used for many of them even if it wasnt built for them.

As a season ticket holder for the 3 major sports at the U, and someone who frequents Wild, Wolves, and Vikings games, I can tell you that the needs are far different. College sports arenas/stadiums are built much simpler than their pro counterpart. That is what makes college sports so great. Much more intimate. It is all about being at the game, close to the action, and the pageantry of campus sports. Pro arenas are all about the bells and whistles. Everything luxury. It is more about the experience, than the game itself. If you have been to a college sports event at a pro stadium, you would understand the difference. It is the one reason I hope they never replace Williams Arena.

[Snelbian]

Williams and Mariucci Arenas are currently set up for those specific teams. However, both are used almost daily for other events. TCF was built to maximize those events, but would still be used for many of them even if it wasnt built for them.

As a season ticket holder for the 3 major sports at the U, and someone who frequents Wild, Wolves, and Vikings games, I can tell you that the needs are far different. College sports arenas/stadiums are built much simpler than their pro counterpart. That is what makes college sports so great. Much more intimate. It is all about being at the game, close to the action, and the pageantry of campus sports. Pro arenas are all about the bells and whistles. Everything luxury. It is more about the experience, than the game itself. If you have been to a college sports event at a pro stadium, you would understand the difference. It is the one reason I hope they never replace Williams Arena.

This might be one of the reasons I don't attend professional sports games here. I've never understood the draw of those "bells and whistles" since if I'm going to pay to go to a game I want to watch the game. Which requires a seat, a way to get to the seat, and maybe a place to buy beer. Maybe not even that. The most fun I've had at pro sports was in Spanish stadia that had a field, seats, and a big screen - no food for sale, no bars or fancy roofs or any of the rest. Maybe a team museum and one store. Stadia for teams that are routinely in the top 5 of possibly the best league in the world, not rinky-dinky operations.

"Needs" seems like a strong term. Preferences, perhaps. The Vikings don't NEED much. They just want it because they know they can pressure others into buying it for them.

[Didier]

What even is realistic? When a millionaire makes empty threats to drag his team to LA to blackmail a state into buying him a stadium, I feel like that's well beyond "realistic" and into absurd, yet that's what happened. And I have no doubt that Vikings would whine and complain if they didn't get exactly 100% what they wanted. But merely wanting something is not reason enough for it to be granted. It is my opinion that we'd have a much better situation if the teams shared a stadium, even if it meant the Gophers and Vikings only got 90% of what they wanted out of a new facility. That still means a facility is granting 180% utility or whatever (yes I know that's nonsense). I totally understand why the Gophers wanted their own stadium, and I totally understand why the Vikings wanted their own stadium, but again, merely wanting something is not reason enough to grant it.

"Realistic" is considering the facts and nuances of a situation rather than hypothesizing. Your posts on this subject are almost purely philosophical.

The Vikings could never play in TCF Bank Stadium long-term because an NFL stadium requires considerably more seats and amenities. If they were going to share a stadium, it could only work if the stadium was designed around the Vikings.

When you're trying to make a case for sharing a stadium without knowing such simple components, it's hard to take you seriously.

Again, this isn't about your opinion. If you think we should have forced the two teams to play together regardless of the potential sacrifices, that's fine. What I'm objecting to is your incorrect assertion that any two stadiums could be combined while maintaining similar benefits to the ones they enjoy by being apart. By definition, any stadium designed specifically for one tenant functions better for that tenant than it would if the stadium was designed to accommodate several tenants.

The grey area is in determining whether those benefits actually justify the single-use stadium.

[Didier]

"Needs" seems like a strong term. Preferences, perhaps. The Vikings don't NEED much. They just want it because they know they can pressure others into buying it for them.

You're looking at this much too personally. The NFL has created a culture in which people and governments are willing to give copious amounts of money to the league, so the league accommodates that market. If people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on personal seat licenses and luxury boxes, they're the suckers.

[FISHMANPET]

1) I never said the Vikings should play at the specific TCF Stadium long term (though David did).
2) Your tone says you're disagreeing with me, but your words are agreeing with the paragraph you posted.

we'd have a much better situation if the teams shared a stadium, even if it meant the Gophers and Vikings only got 90% of what they wanted out of a new facility

What I'm objecting to is your incorrect assertion that any two stadiums could be combined while maintaining similar benefits to the ones they enjoy by being apart. By definition, any stadium designed specifically for one tenant functions better for that tenant than it would if the stadium was designed to accommodate several tenants.

Maybe to be clear when I say "we" I mean the tax playing general public, not "we" the sports fans or something. I don't think you could design a facility that 100% meets the wants of two organizations. I also don't think that if you take a facility that basically meets the wants of one organization that you could easily have it meet another organization's needs. What I am saying is that if, from the beginning, you worked to build a facility that meets most of the wants of both organizations, you could meet a majority of their wants. I'm of the opinion that a single use stadium is not justified in the difference of demand.

[mattaudio]

I'm so thankful there are so many citizen activists with great concern for the wellbeing of pro sports business owners. Reassuring to know that if Lester Bagley or Bill McGuire can't quite get everything their companies need, then others on UrbanMSP will step up to the plate and demand more from the public.

[Rich]

This case is different for several reasons.

- The stadium will be privately owned, making public money much less palatable
- The ratio of the cost of the stadium to the income of the owners is much smaller (i.e. "They can afford it.")
- The ask is so small that it invites the question of whether the owners will really drop the franchise over it
- There isn't a politically powerful fan base

I think votes is way down on the list of concerns for public officials on this one.

Agreed. Among major teams in our area, Minnesota United easily has the wealthiest ownership group. And they’re building the cheapest facility. If ever there were owners who clearly could self-finance, it’s McGuire and Co. Add to that the relative disinterest in MLS. The result is that politicians should feel comfortable saying “no” to subsidies. It’s hard to see the downside - political or otherwise.

[Didier]

I'm so thankful there are so many citizen activists with great concern for the wellbeing of pro sports business owners. Reassuring to know that if Lester Bagley or Bill McGuire can't quite get everything their companies need, then others on UrbanMSP will step up to the plate and demand more from the public.

If you read the exchange, it was about discussing this situation honestly and within the parameters of what actually exists. Not "demanding more from the public."

As Tyler said yesterday:

Usually stadium deals seem unequivocally bad for the public financially speaking. This one is at least thought-provoking.

What's frustrating is when we can't even discuss an MLS stadium because the discussion is littered with hyperbole and philosophy and misinformation. When someone suggests that the Vikings should have remained in the Metrodome, it defies the reality of the situation and eliminates any opportunity for real discussion.

The reality of this situation is that MLS is coming to Minneapolis on the condition that the team has an outdoor soccer stadium. No matter how much you want the team to play at TCF Bank Stadium instead, and no matter how much sense you think it would make to play there, that's not a real option. It shouldn't be treated as if it is.

The actual proposal on the table is a $130 million stadium with no property tax and no sales tax on material.

[Snelbian]

"Needs" seems like a strong term. Preferences, perhaps. The Vikings don't NEED much. They just want it because they know they can pressure others into buying it for them.

You're looking at this much too personally. The NFL has created a culture in which people and governments are willing to give copious amounts of money to the league, so the league accommodates that market. If people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on personal seat licenses and luxury boxes, they're the suckers.

If people want to do that, great. If they want me to do that, not so great. I don't care if someone wants to pay for their private box. I care when they want me to help pay for the stuff they're going to watch from that private box.

The actual proposal on the table is a $130 million stadium with no property tax and no sales tax on material.

Correct. And from the perspective of a city that needs to get money from somewhere for services, it's a bad proposal.

[FISHMANPET]

Usually stadium deals seem unequivocally bad for the public financially speaking. This one is at least thought-provoking.

OK sure whatever it's a fun intellectual exercise to think about. But at the end of the day it's a handout to people that really don't need a handout. It's a crappy deal for the city when they can totally afford to pay the sales tax on construction materials and property tax on the land.

[John21]

Minneapolis Soccer Stadium Welfare Request Is Unconstitutional, Says Councilman

He says a clause in the state's constitution does not allow McGuire or any other private landowner to not pay property taxes.

Exceptions are made for a number of causes, including charities, hospitals, publicly owned buildings, and educational institutions. But the constitution otherwise clearly states personal tax exemptions may not exceed $200.

[grant1simons2]

Andrew Johnson is the councilman if anyone is wondering. Also another totally quality article by city pages...

[min-chi-cbus]

This case is different for several reasons.

- The stadium will be privately owned, making public money much less palatable
- The ratio of the cost of the stadium to the income of the owners is much smaller (i.e. "They can afford it.")
- The ask is so small that it invites the question of whether the owners will really drop the franchise over it
- There isn't a politically powerful fan base

I think votes is way down on the list of concerns for public officials on this one.

Agreed. Among major teams in our area, Minnesota United easily has the wealthiest ownership group. And they’re building the cheapest facility. If ever there were owners who clearly could self-finance, it’s McGuire and Co. Add to that the relative disinterest in MLS. The result is that politicians should feel comfortable saying “no” to subsidies. It’s hard to see the downside - political or otherwise.

Uh, no argument there. My argument was that if politicians backed the private owners and helped push public subsidies I'd guess that they'd lose a lot of voters, so they don't dare side with the owners, especially now.