SeductiveNun Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 That's exacty correct - unless I misinterpretted and the GOP is proposing to freeze taxes in the face of Dems lowering them. Of course, that's about as likely as the Vikings winning the Lombardi trophy. Not sure what you were reading, UM. First off, I was responding with what I heard initially about the plan the Repubs had to freeze business property taxes by recalling what was said about it months ago by some radio talk show hosts. I never mentioned taxes would be going up this year. Hell, for all I know they could have been talking about future increases. It was about 10 minutes of radio commentary on a proposal that was in it's infancy at the time. Second, Outshined had quoted part of a Strib article that mentioned the freezing of property taxes on businesses. That's also what I was going off of when I posted my response. Third, I recently looked up what the House Repubs were looking to do and ultimately it was to reduce the property taxes on businesses (which for MN is in the upper half of the nation), but the plan wasn't looked too favorably upon by the other side of the aisle. You can call me a liar if you like, I was simply stating what I heard someone else say in regards to a piece of legislation that had been presented very early in the session. This was also at a time where the MN House Repubs were failing to find their collective asses in a well lit room. Not quite sure I made a definitive statement one way or another in my earlier post, but if you would like to infer that I did, well then more power to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Amended bill passes House Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Amended bill passes House Good deal, as someone who has had a beloved team leave the city, relocation is something I wouldn't wish on any fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Amended bill passes House Amended bill with Zygi splitting the profits on stadium naming rights. Minnesota pays less, Zygi more. Now Senate needs to pass their bill and the differences in the two bills need to be tweeked. Perhaps the amendments will be amended, or the senate will have their own amendments, some of which were downright silly and just plain stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) Vikings says additional $100 million is not workable. They already negotiated figures in good faith. Edited May 8, 2012 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 Vikings says additional $100 million is not workable. They already negotiated figures in good faith. Yeah that's a pretty crappy thing to do after negotiating a deal with the team. I hope the Senate version of thebill strips that out, but then if the final bill doesn't have that amendment you have to wonder if the Congressmen who voted for the House version will continue to support a reconciled bill that doesn't no longer contains it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Maybe they should add in an amendment that all Vikings games must be on national tv. Some one already wanted to put in an amendment that they didn't want the Vikes to be shown on the NFL network. Wow, it sure does sound like they're just trying to kill the bill with stupidity like that. Why not put in an amendment that says the Vikings should only play home games, or should only play (or not play) against certain teams. What utter nonsense. The issue with the additional $100 million to be paid by the team is going to be a big hurdle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Btw, SN do you know how I could reach the nun in your avatar? I'd like to intimate my sins in the confessional to her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Btw, SN do you know how I could reach the nun in your avatar? I'd like to intimate my sins in the confessional to her. Three Stooges cast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Wow, it sure does sound like they're just trying to kill the bill with stupidity like that. Why not put in an amendment that says the Vikings should only play home games, or should only play (or not play) against certain teams. What utter nonsense. The issue with the additional $100 million to be paid by the team is going to be a big hurdle. Rep from my town wrote the ammendment. I heard him on KFAN last night and he said without it, there was not enough support to pass the bill. Now they are just wasting time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) The Senate so far in their version of the bill raised the Vikings portion of the original agreement by $25 million ($80 less than the house version) and removed the absence of a referendum by Minneapolis voters (meaning they would vote if it went through) edit: And they passed another amendment banning blackouts if the game is not a sellout. The NFL would not agree to that. Edited May 8, 2012 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 What a fiasco. I still think something is going to pass but there's some major sabotage at work here. FWIW, that extra $100m was made up of sharing the naming rights instead of giving them all to Zygi. Still a deal breaker. so the Senate version is a bit more palatable, I suppose. I think the biggest issue would be allowing the referendum (which is actually required by law) because I am pretty sure the stadium gets defeated if it goes ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 What a fiasco. I still think something is going to pass but there's some major sabotage at work here. FWIW, that extra $100m was made up of sharing the naming rights instead of giving them all to Zygi. Still a deal breaker. so the Senate version is a bit more palatable, I suppose. I think the biggest issue would be allowing the referendum (which is actually required by law) because I am pretty sure the stadium gets defeated if it goes ahead. When I heard him on KFAN I thought it was $105 + 46% of naming rights. Just looked it up and he is saying part of the $105 will come from naming rights. Not as bad, but still a ways from what Vikes are going to accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Rodgers Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Opponents weren't buying the threat of team flight. "I want to know where the Vikings are going if they leave," said Democratic Sen. Barb Goodwin of Columbia Heights. She added, "I think we're scaring a lot of people for no good reason." ....................um how about LA? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Didn't follow details of what amendments passed...internet sales tax...but it passed the Senate. On to conference committee. Would be nice to see a short summary of what passed both houses. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The Senate so far in their version of the bill raised the Vikings portion of the original agreement by $25 million ($80 less than the house version) and removed the absence of a referendum by Minneapolis voters (meaning they would vote if it went through) edit: And they passed another amendment banning blackouts if the game is not a sellout. The NFL would not agree to that. This is idiotic, do these people really think they are going to dictate broadcast terms to the NFL and its partners? Like I said before, why not have other outlandish ammendments like ones gauranteeing they play all games at home, or don't play any "hard" opponents. It is clear that the people involved in this have zero understanding of how the NFL operates (or think they are bigger than the NFL and will change things). I sure do hope something gets done, but silly things like this wouldn't give me much hope if I were a Vikings fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 This is idiotic, do these people really think they are going to dictate broadcast terms to the NFL and its partners? Like I said before, why not have other outlandish ammendments like ones gauranteeing they play all games at home, or don't play any "hard" opponents. It is clear that the people involved in this have zero understanding of how the NFL operates (or think they are bigger than the NFL and will change things). I sure do hope something gets done, but silly things like this wouldn't give me much hope if I were a Vikings fan. Agreed. It sounds like they are taking the passive-aggressive way of telling them to leave. "We didn't want them to go, we passed a funding bill but they left anyway". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Agreed. It sounds like they are taking the passive-aggressive way of telling them to leave. "We didn't want them to go, we passed a funding bill but they left anyway". +1. This is going to allow them to say the voted for it and against it (once it comes back out of committee as a different bill). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 +1. This is going to allow them to say the voted for it and against it (once it comes back out of committee as a different bill). +1, it will get done I think but it will allow the politicians to continue to play their games and save there own arses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Opponents weren't buying the threat of team flight. "I want to know where the Vikings are going if they leave," said Democratic Sen. Barb Goodwin of Columbia Heights. She added, "I think we're scaring a lot of people for no good reason." ....................um how about LA? She would probably give that much money to develop the arts without even blinking. She probably has never even heard of the Lakers or North Stars. I did notice that quote as well btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Didn't follow details of what amendments passed...internet sales tax...but it passed the Senate. On to conference committee. Would be nice to see a short summary of what passed both houses. After the bill passed the house, the local media was in a frenzy over reporting all of it. When it passed the senate, not so much as they've learned it's all a game to them. Thanks for kicking me in words with friends btw. Edited May 10, 2012 by MikesVikes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 How many Viking's fans believe the stadium contemplated in this plan will give the team the revenue to be competitive?In the list of NFL venues where will this rank when completed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 How many Viking's fans believe the stadium contemplated in this plan will give the team the revenue to be competitive?In the list of NFL venues where will this rank when completed? It will certainly be more competitive than the current Metrodome (which is at the bottom of the list of stadiums I think) but it will still suck because the local politicians forced the location to continue to be in downtown Minneapolis, which doesn't have a big enough footprint to allow for a facility that could really allow for a great fan experieince and bring in a ton more money. So we will definitely be going through this again in another generation because we keep half-assing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 The Vikings have agreed to pay an additional $50 Million, which it sounds like the House and Senate will agree to now. Looks like this mess might finally come to an end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 It will certainly be more competitive than the current Metrodome (which is at the bottom of the list of stadiums I think) but it will still suck because the local politicians forced the location to continue to be in downtown Minneapolis, which doesn't have a big enough footprint to allow for a facility that could really allow for a great fan experieince and bring in a ton more money. So we will definitely be going through this again in another generation because we keep half-assing it. And that plays a part in the public and poltical backlash over spending taxpayer money. It would be more palatable if they'd do it right and be done with it, but to keep doing it over every 30-40 years is crazy. Keeping up with the Jones (especially Jerry's World) can get mighty expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.