Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis (cancelled)

Historical Topics - Archives
HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1582
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby HiawathaGuy » March 31st, 2015, 9:26 am

Didier wrote:The Star Tribune just wrote another full-length story about whether or not the team will ask for public money. The justification this time was apparently this quote:
“I’ve told them they don’t have to worry about extensions and stuff, because all they have to do is write a check,” Salmen said. “And they say, ‘Well we have to go through the Legislature.’ ”

Salmen said he believes “this whole deal is contingent upon government money.”
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/298086811.html
Yes, when I read the article in the paper this morning over breakfast, I have to admit I thought the story was pretty much fluff...

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby min-chi-cbus » March 31st, 2015, 10:09 am

Uh, count me as one of the people who completely buy into this. What makes you think it's bogus? There is NOTHING at the moment that would lend me to believe that Mr. McGwire will not reach out his hand and ask for money for this stadium. If this land owner is stating that's what was said, I have no reason to not believe it.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4761
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » March 31st, 2015, 10:25 am

It's very odd they would mention the legislature specifically unless they're thinking about redirecting the Target Field tax. That's a non-starter.

Look elsewhere, billionaires...

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5841
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby MNdible » March 31st, 2015, 11:13 am

David Greene wrote:That's a non-starter.
Why is that a non-starter? Because you don't like it? Again, I'm ambivalent about this stadium, but this seems like a baffling statement.

The Target Field tax is producing excess non-general fund revenue. A bit of legislation that would allow MN United to tap into that funding stream to pay for site assembly, clean-up, infrastructure, etc. seems like a pretty painless vote from a fiscal point of view. If you're a politician who wants to make a statement about no public funding because BILLIONAIRES, you missed that battle a while ago.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4761
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » March 31st, 2015, 11:17 am

MNdible wrote:
David Greene wrote:That's a non-starter.
Why is that a non-starter?
Because legislative leaders have said it is.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4761
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » March 31st, 2015, 11:18 am

MNdible wrote:The Target Field tax is producing excess non-general fund revenue.
Doesn't that revenue go to parks and libraries or something?

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5841
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby MNdible » March 31st, 2015, 11:39 am

The Target Field tax is providing excess funding beyond the excess funding that is statutorily dedicated to Libraries and Youth Sports. The only thing that this excess excess funding can be used for, by statute, is to accelerate the pay down of the bonds. Which is what they've been doing, which (combined with some refinancing to ultra-low short term interest rate bonds) means that there's in fact even more excess funding.

So, either this tax is going to be retired well ahead of schedule, or the statute will be changed so the money can be spent on something else.

Bakk has made his feelings abundantly clear. Most everybody else has been much more equivocal, saying things like "no state funding" or "no funds for a stadium", both of which leave open the option for county funds for site assembly or associated improvements.

Viktor Vaughn
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Viktor Vaughn » March 31st, 2015, 12:28 pm

I wouldn't call that article fluff. Roper had the property owner on record explaining his reason to believe public funding would be demanded. McGuire has been so damned cagey about this you can't blame the press for following up on the issue of public funding in whatever way possible. And that Mary Jo Copeland quote was freakin golden.

Because BILLIONAIRES, seems like a plenty good reason to me. Three different billionaire families can't pay for a $150 million stadium by themselves? That's some real tragic commentary on our society if these entitled folks come together just to beg us for a handout. The fact that we were just swindled by the Wilfs should be reason to oppose this, not accept it as a fact of life.

I realize there's no ask yet. And I'm not necessarily opposed to public funding for infrastructure needed to make the stadium possible, depending on the details. But, since these billionaires are ostensibly building a case for public funding, it's not too early to point out why it's a terrible idea. If they are not seeking public funding, they need to confirm that already.

The Vikings stadium was sold with fear. That's how extortion works. If we don't give in, they'll deprive us of our home team and we'll have to spend Sundays in the fall raking leaves or something. MLS gave us a team and now they too can take it away if we don't acquiesce. They could just offer a prospective team as an incentive for funding, but fear of taking away something you already have is a more effective tactic in the cynical bs of stadium politics.

I realize many of you are fans and really want a team. I hope you get one. But there's no better time than the present to make it clear that the public will not fund another stadium.

This whole stadium saga just goes to show, when you let one billionaire take a bite outa you that just emboldens the others to come for their own taste.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2444
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Didier » March 31st, 2015, 2:09 pm

I don't mean to be defending McGuire, because his lack of communication — regardless of what he's doing behind the scenes — leaves a void that is being filled with negativity.

My original post was about the Star Tribune honking the populism horn seemingly every day with these non-stories that serve only to get people riled up. Pretty much everyone can rally around "no subsidies for billionaires" and "no more public sports stadiums," so the paper keeps coming out with stories that essentially say "billionaires want to build a stadium and they MIGHT want YOUR money ... but we still don't know for sure yet."

The first couple stories to this effect were understandable, and when major public officials speak on the subject, the quotes should be reported. But the repeated stories about nothing have created a scenario in which any public concession, no matter how reasonable, will be viewed as unreasonable.

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1582
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby HiawathaGuy » March 31st, 2015, 2:14 pm

Didier wrote:The first couple stories to this effect were understandable, and when major public officials speak on the subject, the quotes should be reported. But the repeated stories about nothing have created a scenario in which any public concession, no matter how reasonable, will be viewed as unreasonable.
Very well put Didier. That was exactly my point in saying "fluff". It's not true journalism. It's someone's perception based on something they were told. It may or may not be fact. It may or may not have been said. It may or may not still be true.

As a daily subscriber to the Strib print edition, I want to see better journalism. If the story seems weak, dig deeper. If you don't have the resources, wait. If McGuire is going to ask for handouts, let's at least let those happen before jumping to conclusions.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5841
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby MNdible » March 31st, 2015, 2:23 pm

Remember, though, that the Strib is owned by one of the billionaires in question.

To me, the decision to support or not support this comes down to a few questions that I don't know how to answer yet:

1. Does it create a greater public good? Does it improve the urban environment? Does it generate ancillary development? Does it generate civic pride? Does it bring joy?

2. Is the public getting a good deal? How much public vs. private cash? Can we afford the first costs? Can we afford to maintain it? Where's the money coming from?

3. Will we regret supporting this? Will we regret not supporting this?

As I said before, the whole "but billionaires" thing doesn't really mean much to me. We subsidize all kinds of for-profit and not-for-profit ventures. If the answers to the above questions make sense, the fact that we're enriching a billionaire isn't a deal-breaker for me.

Viktor Vaughn
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Viktor Vaughn » March 31st, 2015, 2:36 pm

'Soccer land deal hints at public subsidy request'
'The owner of the site for a new pro soccer team says developers want time to appeal to lawmakers.'

HG, How is this not a solid story? It seems like it'd be negligent not to print this information. Do you think the media should defer to McGuire's PR Strategy Schedule?

-------------------

MNDible, that's a thoughful approach and I respect your right to that opinion. In my view, we do need to also look at the economic results of our policies. Does it take money from struggling citizens to enrich a well connected billionaire? If so, maybe we need to rethink our public policy decisions related to professional sports.

HuskyGrad
Landmark Center
Posts: 262
Joined: May 13th, 2013, 8:11 pm

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby HuskyGrad » March 31st, 2015, 3:26 pm

Viktor Vaughn wrote:'Soccer land deal hints at public subsidy request'
'The owner of the site for a new pro soccer team says developers want time to appeal to lawmakers.'

HG, How is this not a solid story? It seems like it'd be negligent not to print this information. Do you think the media should defer to McGuire's PR Strategy Schedule?
Does a zoning board or planning commission qualify as lawmakers? It's one of those words that's thrown around so much these days, usually when talking about a lower level government entity.

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1582
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby HiawathaGuy » March 31st, 2015, 3:46 pm

HuskyGrad wrote:Does a zoning board or planning commission qualify as lawmakers? It's one of those words that's thrown around so much these days, usually when talking about a lower level government entity.
Exactly! I just wish that they dug a little deeper. If McGuire and the other Billionaires aren't talking right now, then try harder to get more information - or wait.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4761
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby David Greene » March 31st, 2015, 3:49 pm

A quote from a targetted landlord concerning the owners' statements about needing to talk to the legislature IS getting more information!

This is why people want their stories in the media - it puts pressure on the powers-that-be to open up and/or do what they want. It's the whole point of a media strategy. I don't think there's a group pushing a media strategy here but this kind of pressure is an example of what organizations create such strategies. Because media pressure works.
Last edited by David Greene on March 31st, 2015, 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 3011
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Loring Park, Minneapolis

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Nick » March 31st, 2015, 3:49 pm

Didier wrote:I don't mean to be defending McGuire, because his lack of communication — regardless of what he's doing behind the scenes — leaves a void that is being filled with negativity.

My original post was about the Star Tribune honking the populism horn seemingly every day with these non-stories that serve only to get people riled up. Pretty much everyone can rally around "no subsidies for billionaires" and "no more public sports stadiums," so the paper keeps coming out with stories that essentially say "billionaires want to build a stadium and they MIGHT want YOUR money ... but we still don't know for sure yet."

The first couple stories to this effect were understandable, and when major public officials speak on the subject, the quotes should be reported. But the repeated stories about nothing have created a scenario in which any public concession, no matter how reasonable, will be viewed as unreasonable.
Please see Game 6 of Round 3 of streets.m(ad)m(ess) https://streets.mn/2015/03/30/streets-ma ... s-sixteen/

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1365
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby xandrex » April 1st, 2015, 9:52 am

Didier wrote:My original post was about the Star Tribune honking the populism horn seemingly every day with these non-stories that serve only to get people riled up. Pretty much everyone can rally around "no subsidies for billionaires" and "no more public sports stadiums," so the paper keeps coming out with stories that essentially say "billionaires want to build a stadium and they MIGHT want YOUR money ... but we still don't know for sure yet."
Wasn't this board complaining when the Star Tribune went the other direction? When they went all-in for the Vikings stadium on their editorial pages, people screamed. Now they're asking a few questions (which, to be fair, I think they also asked and covered during the Viking stadium debate but was overshadowed by the editorial board's stance) and folks on here are up in arms? Which way do we want it?

Part of news organizations is providing stories that people need to read. But a huge part is providing what people want to read. News websites need clicks. They know you will click this article. They get to charge advertisers for that. Readers get to gripe, the media gets to charge more for clicks, advertisers get more eyeballs. Everyone wins.
HiawathaGuy wrote:Very well put Didier. That was exactly my point in saying "fluff". It's not true journalism. It's someone's perception based on something they were told. It may or may not be fact. It may or may not have been said. It may or may not still be true.
HiawathaGuy wrote:Exactly! I just wish that they dug a little deeper. If McGuire and the other Billionaires aren't talking right now, then try harder to get more information - or wait.
That's because that's all we have to go on. McGuire et al don't want to talk about finances because they like dangling the juiciest bits of meat out there to get us salivating...and then coming in with the ask. I don't blame them any more than I blame a car salesman for pulling the same tricks.

But if you're going to remain mum about if the public will have to pay for this team, journos like Roper are going to have to find other ways to extrapolate information. They don't need, nor should they, wait.




Seriously, I'm pretty pro stadium (despite having stadium fatigue) and don't even mind some public money being used for infrastructure and the like, but the MLS thirst on this board is kind of hilarious.

Tyler
Foshay Tower
Posts: 881
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:10 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Tyler » April 1st, 2015, 10:04 am

xandrex wrote: Wasn't this board complaining when the Star Tribune went the other direction? When they went all-in for the Vikings stadium on their editorial pages, people screamed. Now they're asking a few questions (which, to be fair, I think they also asked and covered during the Viking stadium debate but was overshadowed by the editorial board's stance) and folks on here are up in arms? Which way do we want it?
The lack of consistency is exactly the point.
xandrex wrote: But if you're going to remain mum about if the public will have to pay for this team, journos like Roper are going to have to find other ways to extrapolate information. They don't need, nor should they, wait.
Agree.
Towns!

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2444
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby Didier » April 1st, 2015, 10:13 am

I never said that the quote wasn't newsworthy. My point was that the Star Tribune has written the same red meat story several times at this point, and that one quote — which effectively is somebody saying "I'm pretty sure this is their plan" — didn't justify doing the entire story again.

I also made it clear that the team is to blame for failing to create their own narrative, which leaves a void that is filled with the "no money for billionaires" stories.

But the main issue is that these stories are creating a situation in which any public component, no matter how reasonable, could be politically impossible. Considering that the state put $25 million directly into a ballpark for a non-affiliated minor league baseball team, public money for infrastructure improvements or some sort of tax break seems very reasonable in the West Loop.

Again, though, it's up to McGuire to start this new narrative.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1365
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Major League Soccer Stadium in Minneapolis

Postby xandrex » April 1st, 2015, 10:33 am

Tyler wrote:The lack of consistency is exactly the point.
I think the Strib got a lot of flak for their editorial board throwing support behind the Vikings in what was obviously a boon to them. And they should have that criticism lobbed at them. At the same time, their actual reporting was mostly fair and always had a disclaimer.

Until the editorial board lines up against the stadium, I don't know that we can call it hypocritical.
Didier wrote:But the main issue is that these stories are creating a situation in which any public component, no matter how reasonable, could be politically impossible. Considering that the state put $25 million directly into a ballpark for a non-affiliated minor league baseball team, public money for infrastructure improvements or some sort of tax break seems very reasonable in the West Loop.
I don't disagree that it might cause a situation like that, but I question whether it's a newspaper's duty to keep that mind. I'm willing to bet that the Strib is pro-MLS and probably even pro-United stadium. It's no skin off their back. We agree: It's McGuire's narrative to change. And he's going to need to change it fast. If he wants any legislative approval...well, the session ends in May...


Return to “Nostalgia”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest