I want to puke

[1983]

I swear I am going puke if I have to continue reading about how the tax payers of Minnesota payed for TCF bank stadium. Private funding=52%, tax payers 48%. Twinks stadium- 74% Hennepin county, 26% Polad. Northwest maintenance facility in Duluth 761 million, its unclear what the tax payers ate in that deal. The list goes on and on. The money put up for TCF bank stadium by the tax payers is chump change compared to what is wasted every year by our incompetent state government.

 

[Schnauzer]

I agree with you to a point... but regardless of the percentages, or comparisons to boondoggles, I don't think TCF Bank Stadium would have been built without the help from the public/government.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

The taxpayers of Minnesota OWN Gopher Stadium. End of f*cking story.

 

[grunkiejr]

The taxpayers of Minnesota OWN Gopher Stadium. End of f*cking story.

Actually the University of Minnesota owns the stadium, and taxpayers do not "own" the U of M. Contributing money to a project does not inherently grant the legal right of ownership. If you want proof of that go over to the stadium and try to walk inside. You likely don't have a key and if you get inside you'll likely get tagged breaking an entry and trespassing because you don't have the benefit of legal right of ownership.

 

[GoAUpher]

Actually the University of Minnesota owns the stadium, and taxpayers do not "own" the U of M. Contributing money to a project does not inherently grant the legal right of ownership. If you want proof of that go over to the stadium and try to walk inside. You likely don't have a key and if you get inside you'll likely get tagged breaking an entry and trespassing because you don't have the benefit of legal right of ownership.

This is why the proletariat must rise up and overthrow their bourgeoisie overlords. Beer everywhere is only the first step to free TCF tours for all!

 

[GoGoGophers]

The taxpayers of Minnesota OWN Gopher Stadium. End of f*cking story.

This is up there with the stupidest posts ever on the Gopherhole, and that's saying something as wren and loon used to grace these pages (not to mention countless trolls from Badgerland and Hawkeyeville).

You don't really believe this, do you?

 

[MNCH]

Jay,

So you and I decide to buy a commemorative brick in the new stadium. Cost is $1000. I donate $520 and you pitch in $480. When the U asks what to write on the brick, I indicate only my name should be printed on it. You're telling me you are going to be okay with that?

 

[monk10]

Jay,

So you and I decide to buy a commemorative brick in the new stadium. Cost is $1000. I donate $520 and you pitch in $480. When the U asks what to write on the brick, I indicate only my name should be printed on it. You're telling me you are going to be okay with that?

Maybe you should make your scenario. You donated 520 and 5,220,393 people donated a combined total of 480. Would it make sense for every time you want to make a decision about the name on the brick you should get 100% unanimous approval on the name.

And remember if everyone can't get their name on the brick then nobody can.

 

[tjgopher]

I don't have a problem with people saying taxpayers paid for the Gopher stadium or it is owned by taxpayers. Technically, the state does own it. The U is a state-run, state-owned institution, paid for in part by tax dollars. But, that it precisely the reason the state SHOULD pay for some of the stadium. It is, in fact, LITERALLY the state's.

Now the tiring part of this is that the government is funding a higher percentage of the Twins ballpark, yet it is not at all state-owned, state-controlled, or state-run. A family worth more than $4 BILLION owns the team, not the state. Yet, that family needs the state to fund it a majority of it.

The U is owned by the state. Therefore, IMO, the state SHOULD pay for some of the stadium. The Twins and Vikings?? Not so much.

 

[GoAUpher]

Jay,

So you and I decide to buy a commemorative brick in the new stadium. Cost is $1000. I donate $520 and you pitch in $480. When the U asks what to write on the brick, I indicate only my name should be printed on it. You're telling me you are going to be okay with that?

Dude, that is a terrible analogy. A personal gift between 2 individuals for a brick is a completely different type of transaction.

The taxpayers of this state contributed a great deal to the stadium. They don't own it. Both of these can be true without the sun exploding. I have yet to see anyone argue that Hennepin County taxpayers own Target Field even though they contributed more to its overall (and might I note, larger) pricetag. How is the concept of the U as a publicly funded but unique entity so hard to grasp? I'm not trying to say the U is 100% independent like a corporation. But in many important respects (mostly related to governance and control of facilities) the U is independent and autonomous and ignoring that is just silly.

 

[howeda7]

I strongly disagree with the Legislature's meddling in the alcohol situation, but when you have to ask for public funding, that's part of the consequences. When Michigan or OSU or Florida or even Virginia want to do major overhauls of thier stadiums costing nearly as much as TCF, did they go to thier state legislatures and ask for money? No, they built it themselves. The reaility is that Minnesota couldn't raise the revenue to do that and had to have state help. Of course the University owns the stadium and not the state, but to think the state legislature/governor isn't going to have indirect influence over it once you bring them into the process is naive.

 

[howeda7]

I don't have a problem with people saying taxpayers paid for the Gopher stadium or it is owned by taxpayers. Technically, the state does own it. The U is a state-run, state-owned institution, paid for in part by tax dollars. But, that it precisely the reason the state SHOULD pay for some of the stadium. It is, in fact, LITERALLY the state's.

Now the tiring part of this is that the government is funding a higher percentage of the Twins ballpark, yet it is not at all state-owned, state-controlled, or state-run. A family worth more than $4 BILLION owns the team, not the state. Yet, that family needs the state to fund it a majority of it.

The U is owned by the state. Therefore, IMO, the state SHOULD pay for some of the stadium. The Twins and Vikings?? Not so much.

The two situations are really not comparable. In the case of the Gophers, a state university is asking for an upgraded facility. There are virtually no recent instances of state goverments funding construction of college football stadiums. In that sense it was a very unusual request. Whether they get it or not, they're not going anywhere.

In the second, Hennipen County made an economic choice to do what was necessary to keep MLB. Had they not done so, said industry would eventually have left. Many, many cities/states accross the country have already chosen to do this, thereby setting the market.

FWIW, the state goverment isn't funding a penny of Target Field and as such has no say it its operations. Hennipen County is funding it, and has the majority if the seats on the Ballpark Authority which does own and run Target Field.

 

[Boondoggle]

I agree with you to a point... but regardless of the percentages, or comparisons to boondoggles, I don't think TCF Bank Stadium would have been built without the help from the public/government.

Hey leave me out of this

 

[borninthebarn]

Taxpayers only sort of own the U

I don't have a problem with people saying taxpayers paid for the Gopher stadium or it is owned by taxpayers. Technically, the state does own it. The U is a state-run, state-owned institution, paid for in part by tax dollars. But, that it precisely the reason the state SHOULD pay for some of the stadium. It is, in fact, LITERALLY the state's.

Now the tiring part of this is that the government is funding a higher percentage of the Twins ballpark, yet it is not at all state-owned, state-controlled, or state-run. A family worth more than $4 BILLION owns the team, not the state. Yet, that family needs the state to fund it a majority of it.

The U is owned by the state. Therefore, IMO, the state SHOULD pay for some of the stadium. The Twins and Vikings?? Not so much.

At least in the sense you suggest.

The U was founded before Minnesota was a State, and as part of the state constitution retains all the rights and powers it had before Minnesota became a state.

It has an incorporated status known as "constitutional autonomy" which is described in more detail here. It would be easiest to say that the U is its own branch of government in the State, and therefore is owned by all the people of Minnesota, whether they pay taxes or not, and is not "run" by the State except as it runs itself, which is part of the State.

 

[LC19]

I strongly disagree with the Legislature's meddling in the alcohol situation, but when you have to ask for public funding, that's part of the consequences. When Michigan or OSU or Florida or even Virginia want to do major overhauls of thier stadiums costing nearly as much as TCF, did they go to thier state legislatures and ask for money? No, they built it themselves. The reaility is that Minnesota couldn't raise the revenue to do that and had to have state help. Of course the University owns the stadium and not the state, but to think the state legislature/governor isn't going to have indirect influence over it once you bring them into the process is naive.

This is a very good point. A direction govt is heading more and more. If it's not the stadium, its car companies, banks, and soon to be health care. Do you really want politicians controlling that much? For me, no.

The thing with MI, OSU, FLA, and VA, is that they understand that the big donors that buy the suites fund the program and will do what is needed to get as much funds from them. Do you think that the average family sitting in the 4 non-donation seats is going to donate enough money to help with a future expansion? No. However, our legislatures think that by selling beer to the general seating is the money ticket to saving budgets. (or that is what they want us to believe) There is a reason they shouldn't be making decisions on how to run a stadium on campus, this is one of them.

My point is that having govt oversight just because they give funds, is not a good thing. Decisions politicians make are rarely for the people, but for their own political career or which lobbyist has their attention.

 

[RodentRampage]

It depends on what you mean by ownership. In a sense, the citizens of Minnesota own the government facilities of the state. But that doesn't mean that individuals can do whatever they wish with it when they wish. For example, I cannot use the women's bathrooms at the stadium. I can't change clothes in the locker room.

If anyone wants to give the legislature full power over the U, whether in general or for a specific issue, go ahead and try to get the state constitution amended.

This law which forced the U to either serve alcohol in all or none of the sections appears to violate the state constitution. The U chose not to fight it in court. Could someone else challenge this in court?

 

[GoAUpher]

I strongly disagree with the Legislature's meddling in the alcohol situation, but when you have to ask for public funding, that's part of the consequences. When Michigan or OSU or Florida or even Virginia want to do major overhauls of thier stadiums costing nearly as much as TCF, did they go to thier state legislatures and ask for money? No, they built it themselves. The reaility is that Minnesota couldn't raise the revenue to do that and had to have state help. Of course the University owns the stadium and not the state, but to think the state legislature/governor isn't going to have indirect influence over it once you bring them into the process is naive.

I don't disagree that there is going to be indirect influence. If the legislature wants to play games with the U's funding, ok, that's a poor use of power IMO but at least that is within their power. That would be indirect influence as it relates to this issue.

But what the legislature did here is not indirect, rather, its extremely direct. And that's the problem, because it is infringing on the U's autonomy with regards to how it enacts/enforces its own policies. The legislature had the power to directly affect the decision (legally) as part of the stadium bill several years ago. But they ok'd the funding and are now pretending that the U is pulling a bait and switch.

 

[WAGopher]

Isn't the funding from the state really a loan to be paid back?

 

[Khaliq]

Saying that there are bigger wastes of tax money is true but it's also irrelevant.

 

[GopherGod]

I strongly disagree with the Legislature's meddling in the alcohol situation, but when you have to ask for public funding, that's part of the consequences. When Michigan or OSU or Florida or even Virginia want to do major overhauls of thier stadiums costing nearly as much as TCF, did they go to thier state legislatures and ask for money? No, they built it themselves. The reaility is that Minnesota couldn't raise the revenue to do that and had to have state help. Of course the University owns the stadium and not the state, but to think the state legislature/governor isn't going to have indirect influence over it once you bring them into the process is naive.

I agree with you completely, while I disagree with the Legislature's stance as well, I think that the University needs to take some of the blame in having to involve the state in funding the stadium. At the very least it is a failure of the athletic department to fund raise effectively enough to pay for the stadium on their own. Considering that we are one of the largest universities in the country and based in a city with many fortune 500 companies, it should not have been a problem to raise enough money through fundraising to fund the stadium without the need of government assistance.

 

[GoAUpher]

I agree with you completely, while I disagree with the Legislature's stance as well, I think that the University needs to take some of the blame in having to involve the state in funding the stadium. At the very least it is a failure of the athletic department to fund raise effectively enough to pay for the stadium on their own. Considering that we are one of the largest universities in the country and based in a city with many fortune 500 companies, it should not have been a problem to raise enough money through fundraising to fund the stadium without the need of government assistance.

How many more things at TCF can they sell off for naming rights? The issue is that our revenue from FB has been too low in the past added to the fact that we don't have the big money boosters other schools have. Even if the U managed to sell off some more corporate donations I doubt they could get the state contribution to drop below 40% at best.

In your mind what should the U have done to raise the other 48% themselves? Just saying there are a bunch of Fortune 500 companies around and implying that they'll all chip in isn't realistic or a solution. What would these companies have gotten in return for coming through with over 100 million in funding?

 

[GopherGod]

How many more things at TCF can they sell off for naming rights? The issue is that our revenue from FB has been too low in the past added to the fact that we don't have the big money boosters other schools have. Even if the U managed to sell off some more corporate donations I doubt they could get the state contribution to drop below 40% at best.

In your mind what should the U have done to raise the other 48% themselves? Just saying there are a bunch of Fortune 500 companies around and implying that they'll all chip in isn't realistic or a solution. What would these companies have gotten in return for coming through with over 100 million in funding?

You are correct that the there are no more things that could be sold off for naming rights, the point is that we should not need to sell naming rights especially to a company such as TCF that has made quite a bit of money off of their partnership with the University and its students through the UCard program. I am not saying that the university needs to get it all from corporations, in fact I am upset that we have one of the few college stadiums with a corporations name tied to it. I would prefer that it be funded by individuals/boosters. It is the responsibility of the athletic department to effectively sell these boosters on contributing to the stadium, that is sales and fundraising. I find it hard to believe that we don't have the big money boosters that other schools with half the enrollment and alumni have. Minnesota is one of the 3 largest universities in the country by enrollment and yet we have few financially successful alumni out there, is that what you are implying? Again it is the responsibility of the department to reach out to these alumni and sell them on the program. However, that is done now and the university didn't get the job done on their own so had to go to the state for assistance and now they are having to deal with the consequences of that.

 

[GoAUpher]

You are correct that the there are no more things that could be sold off for naming rights, the point is that we should not need to sell naming rights especially to a company such as TCF that has made quite a bit of money off of their partnership with the University and its students through the UCard program. I am not saying that the university needs to get it all from corporations, in fact I am upset that we have one of the few college stadiums with a corporations name tied to it. I would prefer that it be funded by individuals/boosters. It is the responsibility of the athletic department to effectively sell these boosters on contributing to the stadium, that is sales and fundraising. I find it hard to believe that we don't have the big money boosters that other schools with half the enrollment and alumni have. Minnesota is one of the 3 largest universities in the country by enrollment and yet we have few financially successful alumni out there, is that what you are implying? Again it is the responsibility of the department to reach out to these alumni and sell them on the program. However, that is done now and the university didn't get the job done on their own so had to go to the state for assistance and now they are having to deal with the consequences of that.

I'm not implying that the U is short on rich alumni. But having lots of rich alumni doesn't mean the Athletic Dept is going to just rake it in. Of course it is their responsibility to get as much money as possible. But just because the money is out there doesn't mean its easy to get. Rich alumni do not equal sports boosters. Maybe those folks don't want their money to go to TCF and would rather donate to scholarships, etc. We are not Michigan, Florida, Virginia, or any of the other schools that were listed who have well established sports booster clubs with deep pockets.

I have no idea if the dept sucked at the job. But again, all you are saying is the money is there and that its the dept's job to get it. That's simply stating the obvious. I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid...I'm just saying its all guesswork on our part whether the dept could/should have done any better with fundraising and assuming that we should be able to fundraise like a Michigan or Florida is a pretty big stretch.

 

[Khaliq]

In your mind what should the U have done to raise the other 48% themselves? Just saying there are a bunch of Fortune 500 companies around and implying that they'll all chip in isn't realistic or a solution. What would these companies have gotten in return for coming through with over 100 million in funding?

They should have built a more modest facility that fit within their budget or not built one at all. I'm sure it will be a nice facility and all but making the local college football team better should be very far down the list of priorities for state and local government.

 

[GopherGod]

I'm not implying that the U is short on rich alumni. But having lots of rich alumni doesn't mean the Athletic Dept is going to just rake it in. Of course it is their responsibility to get as much money as possible. But just because the money is out there doesn't mean its easy to get. Rich alumni do not equal sports boosters. Maybe those folks don't want their money to go to TCF and would rather donate to scholarships, etc. We are not Michigan, Florida, Virginia, or any of the other schools that were listed who have well established sports booster clubs with deep pockets.

I have no idea if the dept sucked at the job. But again, all you are saying is the money is there and that its the dept's job to get it. That's simply stating the obvious. I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid...I'm just saying its all guesswork on our part whether the dept could/should have done any better with fundraising and assuming that we should be able to fundraise like a Michigan or Florida is a pretty big stretch.

I think it is safe to say that the department didn't do well enough because they had to get the states assistance to pay for the stadium. Being one of the largest universities in the country we have one of the largest alumni bases in the country and as result have a larger pool of people to seek donations from, yet we cannot match the giving of smaller universities. That I would consider as a shortcoming of those in charge of fundraising.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

I think it is safe to say that the department didn't do well enough because they had to get the states assistance to pay for the stadium. Being one of the largest universities in the country we have one of the largest alumni bases in the country and as result have a larger pool of people to seek donations from, yet we cannot match the giving of smaller universities. That I would consider as a shortcoming of those in charge of fundraising.

Is that the fault of the current athletic department or the last 30+ years of the U administration/athletic department? Remember, the U WANTED itself to be more of a commuter campus, encouraging people to not become emotionally tied to campus. Add to that the lack of support for the football program over the years and the move to the dome and people had an even less tie to the athletic department. The team had been nothing short of terrible until the mid-1990s and even then fan support just wasn't there due to mediocrity and a bad gameday atmosphere. What type of support do you expect given all these things?

I'd say the fact that the U was able to convince the state to approve this project at all, then secure the $140M+ in private donations in less than 2 years is quite incredible. I am also glad they didn't chintz on the stadium, and for the money, I think we have one of the best stadiums in the country (including pro venues). $280M got us the best locker room in the nation, an extremely classy exterior and interior, chairbacks on ~35% of the seats (something rare in college football), a HUGE scoreboard, plenty of suites, a new home for the marching band, an athletics hall of fame, and tons more. What more do you want? I think it is every bit as nice (in different ways) than the Twins ballpark but cost half as much.

 

[Bronko Nagurski Gopher]

They should have built a more modest facility that fit within their budget or not built one at all. I'm sure it will be a nice facility and all but making the local college football team better should be very far down the list of priorities for state and local government.

well, then so should trying to dictate their on-campus alcohol policies which is the domain of the regents, nor the legislature......if you want to play that little disingenuous game........

 

[walleyedude]

Hey, we gave them that land in Rosemount for the cash they gave us. Even trade, no backsies.

 

[GoAUpher]

Is that the fault of the current athletic department or the last 30+ years of the U administration/athletic department? Remember, the U WANTED itself to be more of a commuter campus, encouraging people to not become emotionally tied to campus. Add to that the lack of support for the football program over the years and the move to the dome and people had an even less tie to the athletic department. The team had been nothing short of terrible until the mid-1990s and even then fan support just wasn't there due to mediocrity and a bad gameday atmosphere. What type of support do you expect given all these things?

This is what I was trying to get at. You can't pretend we're like every other big campus school when it comes to financial support for football because we're not. Moving off campus may have ultimately got us a great facility in TCF. But it KILLED the program in so many other ways. That plus years and years of suckitude and mediocrity. You can't forget the suckitude and mediocrity.

 

[GoAUpher]

Hey, we gave them that land in Rosemount for the cash they gave us. Even trade, no backsies.

Nice.