As I suspected would happen, the bill did get amended in some important ways yesterday. The Star Tribune has the complete list, but there are three provisions that I find especially interesting:
- While increasing the cost to the Vikings/NFL by $105 million, and taking a chunk out of naming rights will get the headlines, I think protecting the city of Minneapolis and the state from cost overruns is pretty significant. Since the DFL and its allies pointedly voted down a provision that would have exempted the project from "prevailing wage" (a/k/a union wage) rules, there are almost certainly going to be cost overruns to this project. I would imagine that, after all is said and done, the cost to the Vikings/NFL actually went up closer to $200 million yesterday. That's a lot of money. I also think the provision could lead to litigation later on.
- Increasing the term of the lease from 30 to 40 years is a big deal. If you look at the history of such things, the NFL doesn't like to stay in the same place for 40 years. About the only stadium that I can think of that the NFL has occupied for that length of time without significant changes is the stadium in San Diego. I fully expect that if this thing gets built, the NFL will get restless well before 40 years elapse, so this could be a bit of a poison pill.
- Closely related is the cost increase imposed on the Vikings if the team changes ownership after the stadium is built. The Wilfs are making good money now and should, theoretically, be making better money if the Vaseline Dome comes to fruition, but long-term economics of the deal could start to look shaky if the NFL has to pay out a lot of money to former players because of concussions and other traumatic injuries. The gunshot that killed Junior Seau resounded throughout a lot of boardrooms. The Wilfs would be committing themselves to some major financial risk if the deal goes through as it currently sits. They may not be willing to do that.
Now, it's possible that some of these provisions may not be part of the final bill and I'm certain that the Vikings will be trying to get most of the amendments stripped out if the bill passes the Senate and goes to a conference committee, but I don't think they'll be able to get rid of all of the changes. Yesterday was a very expensive day for Zygi Wilf.
4 comments:
Yesterday was a very expensive day for Zygi Wilf.
Indeed. And that's why I'm not as upset with the passage of the bill as I might have been 24 hours ago.
In essence, the legislature called the Vikings bluff. You want a new stadium? Fine, but you're paying for it. Wilf et al can complain as much as they want via their broadcast lobbyist station (otherwise known as KFAN), but the Vikings have compromised on the stadium so many times; so many "lines in the sand" have been crossed, that now hardly seems the time for them to refuse.
Think about how far the Vikes have come in the stadium debate from the start of the legislature. We've gone from a massive stadium at Arden Hills with parking and development that would provide copious income streams to essentially a remade Metrodome. No parking. No development. No real major sources of additional revenue. And Vikings were actually comfortable accepting it.
The State is paying under $300 million, the Vikings may pay nearly $700 when all is said and done, and the State is getting a cut of the sweetest deal - the naming rights. Not bad...if it stands.
San Diego is itching for a new stadium, and has been for some time.
one difference is the owner has already said he will not leave San Diego, not even for LA.
one difference is the owner has already said he will not leave San Diego, not even for LA.
And it's a huge difference, Gino. It's funny, but the California teams have the oldest stadiums in the NFL, although the 49ers are moving into new digs in Santa Clara in 2014 and the Raiders may end up playing there as well.
Raiders may end up in LA.
LA is considered belonging to the San Diego market for NFL blackout/broadcast purposes.
i find that interesting since the biggest team is LA is still the raiders... and the Chargers seem just fine with that... while not selling out 1/4 (or more) of their home games.
Post a Comment