Minnesota Vikings Stadium Bill Passes State House, Moves on to Senate
Soccer fans who dream of Major League Soccer coming to Minnesota may have gotten one step closer to that reality on Monday evening. It took over 8 hours of grueling debate in the Minnesota House of Representatives on Monday, but around 11:00 p.m. last night the Vikings Stadium plan was finally passed.
The 73-58 vote was taken after numerous amendments were discussed and voted on. The biggest tack on to the bill was an amendment that relieves the State of Minnesota of $105 million of their financial obligation and adds that to the $427 million the Vikings had already agreed upon.
The $975 million stadium will have a non-retractable roof and will seat 65,000. $150 million of the stadium costs will come from existing Minneapolis sales and hospitality taxes and $293 million from electronic charitable gambling.
After much debate concerning charitable gambling estimates and their lack of reliability, amendments were added that would “kick in” if there was a state shortfall. They would include a tax on luxury boxes, revenue from the Vikings-themed lottery game, an extension of Minneapolis Convention Center taxes, excess Hennepin County taxes from the Minnesota Twins stadium and an admissions tax.
The Vikings also lost the exclusive naming rights in another amendment. That will now be split between the team and the state.
Other add-ons to the bill include an amendment that guarantees that 25% of construction equipment used in the building of the stadium comes from Minnesota companies and that the Vikings will now be responsible for all cost overruns.
The Major League Soccer portion of the House bill was discussed briefly in yesterday’s debate. The bill currently allows the Vikings exclusive right of first refusal with the State of Minnesota to purchase an MLS team within 5 years of the Vikings’ first game in the new stadium. The Vikings would not have to pay rent for the use of that stadium for MLS dates.
The Vikings’ Vice President of Public Affairs Lester Bagley has previously stated that the team has had talks with MLS and is interested in bringing a team to Minnesota to play in the new stadium.
Bagley told the Star Tribune last week that the Wilfs, who own the Vikings, postponed a scheduled meeting last week with MLS commissioner Don Garber in order to monitor the stadium bill going through the Minnesota legislative process.
The stadium bill, which still has many hurdles to clear, is expected to get to the State Senate today which convenes at 9:00 a.m.
Comments are closed.
Brian:
I’m a bit confused about something. You write:
[i]As the bill currently stands the Vikings have a right of first refusal that allows them to purchase a MLS team within 5 years of the time that the team plays their first game in the new stadium.[/i]
The State of Minnesota can’t grant the “right of first refusal” for the purchase of an MLS team. Only MLS can do that, obviously.
Therefore this must mean something else.
Is it about granting exclusive rights to conduct MLS games in the new building?
And when you say “within 5 years of the time that the team plays their first game in the new stadium”, are you referring to the Vikings? Or a proposed Vikings FC?
If there’s an MLS team playing in the stadium for 5 years, then ipso facto the team already exists, in which case turning around and enforcing an exclusivity right granted by the state would mean throwing an MLS team OUT of the building.
Can you clarify?
I think one needs to stay focused that this is a “Vikings” stadium, not a MLS stadium. At the end of the day, not matter how one speculates in the soccer world, this is about keeping the Vikings in MN for the long haul, and not risk them moving to another city in another State.
Everything else is pure speculation.
Hey Bill, thanks for reading and for the question.
“Is it about granting exclusive rights to conduct MLS games in the new building?”
Yes!
It is confusing and I’ve tried to clarify that a bit better in the past.
http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2012/04/26/as-minnesota-vikings-new-stadium-inches-closer-to-reality-so-does-a-mls-team-maybe/
I have just done a quick edit to clarify. It is confusing and when it was first mentioned the same thought went through my head. I had never heard of a right of first refusal with MLS.
So simply:
The Vikings and no one else, can bring in an MLS to play in the stadium rent free. That deal is with the State.
That deal stands for 5 years and starts from the day the Vikings play their first game in the new venue.
The Vikings, as far as I know, have no deal with MLS.
@Bart, It indeed is speculation. But no one else is talking about bringing an MLS team here and the Vikings are. On top of that I have talked several times to a representative of the Vikings and at least from what they are saying, they are quite interested in doing so. Then again, and as I have pointed out in past articles, the Vikings keep throwing around the $40 mil figure for a new franchise when a new franchise will more likely go for between $70-90 million.
Also in that link was a quote from Bagley saying the Vikings have considered a retractable stadium. While it’s not ideal a closed stadium could work.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/141093003.html
“Dan Courtemanche said the new stadium — though not ideal — would pass the test.”
The other thing….MLS doesn’t HAVE to award Minnesota a team. Y’all get that, right? I mean, it’s nice and all that Wilf is saying all the right things, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be able to strike a deal with MLS. They might. They might not.
And while it might or might not happen within the first five years (let’s say by 2020), it’s kind of a moot point because it wouldn’t make any sense, economically, for anyone who WASN’T the Vikings to own an MLS team that would play in this stadium. Being a tenant in a too-large NFL stadium? We tried that, remember?
It’s a clause that sounds good, but doesn’t really mean anything, because either the Vikings are involved with a potential MLS team or a potential MLS team makes no sense. It doesn’t make a WHOLE lot of sense in a 64k building with a permanent roof anyway, but that’s another story.
Yes KT, we all know nothing is certain if this Stadium deal passes and that MLS don’t have to give us anything… Ok maybe, “we all know” isn’t very accurate, at some point someone out there in that big internet sea is gonna type, “We deserve to be in MLS” if this stadium bill passes. Of course that person will be wrong and in the minority and will either get roundly ridiculed, ignored, or politely corrected.
Anyways, I wonder(hope) if the amendments to up the Vikes cost will force the Wilfs hand in giving a more concrete answer in building a retractable roof and bringing an MLS team here.
I’m on the same page with KT.
I understand that this may be a foot in the door, but the league is moving to soccer specific stadiums (anyone still play in a huge football stadium? DCU?…excuse the ignorance) AND not sure playing in a dome/roofed stadium is going to do much at all for drawing fans…sustaining a team.
I’d love to see MLS in MN happen, but it needs to be done right…not as side-project of the Vikings to utilize their (possibly) new stadium.
On a side note, the new building on the north side of NSC does enclose the stadium nicely.
JulieE: Your’re right about DC. They play in a football stadium where they happen to be the only tenant and are desperately looking to try to get soccer stadium deal done.
And then, as we mentioned in another thread, there are the rave green wearing, Xbox pimping, a-lot-of-our-supporters-think-that-they-are-hipper-than-you, MLS jewels known as the Seattle Sounders…
;D
Glad that Zellers showed some leadership on this issue. Let’s just hope Dayton does not veto it once it gets through the Senate and the final conference committee bill is passed.
Whenever MLS/NFL joint ownership is mentioned in the same paragraph you need to look at two possible scenarios that we have seen before:
-There is the New England/Kraft and Columbus/Dallas/Hunt methods.
-And then you have the Seattle/Roth method.
The first two are not a preferred way of doing business for this MLS fan and should be avoided like the black plague.
The second method should be followed as closely as possible.
Should the Vikings get a stadium deal done I think they should start their soccer process by doing two things immediately:
-Hire an executive from within the Seattle organization to run the team.
-Buy the Minnesota Stars FC and get to work preparing them for MLS.
I’ve been reading lots of posts about the “success” of the Stars and how it would be a no brainer to turn that club into a MLS Club. I’m just curious about everyone’s definition of success. Based on the Star Tribune, Minnesota was last in attendance in the NASL last year.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/146494545.html
So, please explain to me why these numbers would make Minnesota….a troubled major league sports market at best….a solid MLS candidate, shiny new NFL stadium or not? I’m just not buying it.
2011 NASL season attendance
Updated: April 6, 2012 – 8:35 PM
Team Attendance
Montreal 11,507
Ft. Lauderdale 3,769
Carolina 3,353
Tampa 3,010
Atlanta 2,866
Puerto Rico 2,161
Edmonton 1,817
Minnesota 1,676
Like Bruce says, MLS/NFL ownership has pros & cons (and ex-cons). But NE has a disinterested owner, and the Hunts don’t have their NFL team in the same market, reducing their ability to conserve resources. Even though the Wilfs are playing things close to the vest, I don’t think they would be a disinterested ownership group. Soccer does not appear to be an afterthought and the stadium plans are actively considering the possibility. Of course, active ownership, experienced in the market does not guarantee success.
Which leads to me to second the hiring of an experienced Exec from a solid MLS organization. I’d include RSL and KC alaong with Seattle though. And I think bringing on some of the hardest working front office in sports – the MN Stars – is a must as well.
MLS will NOT place a team into a football stadium that seats 85K people. They want soccer specific venues. MN has a better chance getting a team if the Vikings leave. Far better.
i will tell the delusional fans in MN the same thing i tell the delusional fans in ATL … any MLS team that is solely owned by an NFL owner is DOOMED to second class citizenry and failure.
period. end of.
nobody who has one business that makes them millions upon millions and is worth almost a billion dollars gives two shits about their second business that is likely to barely break even.
and MN in no way deserves to get a soccer team given the pathetic support it has for its current D2 team …
NFL + crap D2 support = no MLS
MN (and ATL) you are not Seattle … you will not put 35K fans a game into your shiny new NFL stadium … get over the delusion. Seattle is a special city with a special passion for soccer that does not exist in Minneapolis or Atlanta … and their ownership group has a core of people who owned the D2 team and/or care SOLELY about soccer. their ownership is only partially by the NFL guy … and a silent part at that.
you want to see what your MLS team owned solely by an NFL owner will look like? take a look at NE and take a look in CLB and Dallas. that is your future MN and ATL if your local NFL owner buys an MLS franchise (which he won’t because he is actually just selling the local soccer fans a line of total BS to get a little more support for his outright theft of public funds to subsidize his private for profit NFL business).
be careful what you wish for … you just may get it. save yourself the trouble and just become Revs fans.
D2 attendance is never a factor toward a MLS team and it will never be. Look at Toronto for a example.
@OleGunnar20
How do you know we could not fill the stadium? Unlike the revs, whose stadium whose stadium is 28 miles away from downtown Boston, this stadium would be in the heart the city where diverse communities (latino, east African, southeast asian) and hipsters (Minneapolis was just named by forbes as one of the top 5 cities for young upwardly mobile professionals) would have easy access to the stadium. The have the populations, the local corporate infrastructure that has made portland and seattle success stories. All that was needed was an owner.
Furthermore Kenn Tomasch, who most of the online soccer community regards as the expert of American Soccer Attendance, found that Minneapolis actually has the highest all-time average of major league soccer teams (http://www.kenn.com/the_blog/) and that was without the marketing power that the vikings would bring.
EDIT: I routinely meant get around 35k. I know a team would not fill the stadium. I’m not that delusional!
Once again the City of Minneapolis is going to hit the downtown bars and restaurants, who see a negative impact from stadium events! On game nights the usual nightlife crowd goes elsewhere since all the parking is gone.
Has there been any hospitality establishments built around the current dome? No, because it would be a failure.
These city leader no-nothings assume that the crowds coming in from the suburbs are somehow a target market for the downtown hospitality establishments, this is such a farce. Once these taxes are in place they never come off!
Tax the Suites and the licensed clothing; that is the target audience!
As far as an MLS team coming here, I do not count on it. That was the Viking’s management blowing smoke.
Some of the comments are ironic when considering Minnesota routinely had better attendance than Seattle when they played in the same league (both the original NASL and the USL). Minnesota mihgt not beat the current Sounders in attendance as easily, but relying too much on D@ numbers is misleading.
And even if the owners were greedy to the point of creating an elaborate ruse, and risking a billion dollar property in the process – there is a significant amount of money on the line with an MLS team. If not from immediate revenues, then from the increase in team value over time. Why wouldn’t the Wilfs want to make money? Other invetsment groups seem willing to put up millions of dollars for the chance to join MLS.