Reply #58: No, it's a LOT different. [View All]

[Spike from MN]

"The ballpark would also be owned by the public." Translation: taxpayers get to shell out for maintenance costs. The Twins get the take from the concessions, luxury boxes, and naming rights and the taxpayers get taken for a ride.

Please note that in the proposal, Pohlad isn't contributing $125 million right away but rather $40 million up front and the rest will follow "follow before the ballpark would open in 2009." Well, guess what happens if he doesn't come up with that additional $85 mil? Uh, let's see. The construction would be underway and/or completed so Minneapolis is pretty much stuck with this shiny new stadium and an unpaid bill for $85 mil. I guess they could tell the Twins that they can't play there since Pohlad didn't complete his part of the bargain but I think we all know they will never do that. I think we can pretty much figure out who will "get" to pony up that extra $85 mil if Pohlad somehow has "money flow" problems when the bill comes due.

And what happens if there are cost overruns during the construction? Hmm...who pays the extra on that? All you have to do is look at what happened with the Target Center and I think you can figure it out. Oh, and while we're picking up the tab for that, we might as well throw in another $100 mil for the roof because you know we'll will get stuck with that bill sooner or later. So while Pohlad cashes in on the team's increased value (estimated to go from $125 million up to $248 million or possibly as high as $360 million) and gets money from concessions, naming rights, and the luxury boxes, the public gets stuck with a bill. No real surprise there. Oh, and expect to have this very same discussion again 10-20 years from the time the stadium is completed because they'll want a new park again at that point. At least, that seems to be the pattern based on a nationwide assessment. (I had a link for that but don't have it handy at the moment.)

"So the reality of the situation is that we need some public money if we want a new ballpark".

No, Pohlad WANTS public money so he can make a huge profit. Why shell out your own $$ when you can get the public to pony up instead? It's not unheard for private owners to build their own stadiums. Here's a couple of quotes and a link:

"Public funding is totally unnecessary. Many private owners have built their own stadiums, either through private capital or Personal Seat Licenses. In fact, with naming rights and luxury boxes, there are more revenue streams than ever to pay for these stadiums."
...
"Teams take better care of stadiums they actually own. Private stadiums are steadily improved, year-in and year-out. Public stadiums (I am thinking of Veterans Stadium and the Astrodome in particular) are used up and thrown away."

http://camprrm.typepad.com/coyote_blog/2004/11/i_hate_public_f.html

"But, unfortunately, Pohlad, even at his age, cares more about making money than he does about his legacy."

That's the bottom line. He stands to make millions on this deal and those millions come straight from the taxpayers. THAT'S why he wants a new stadium. As for state park fees, please note that those fees don't wind up lining the pockets of billionaires and therein lies the difference.