Minnesota senate "no blackout" amendment for Vikings (1 Viewer)

[GregR]

Edit: Big update and also a big correction. Correction first... I had some signals crossed on the details I gave. They are the details for a similar plan in the Florida legislature, which I misread as being the details of the Vikings plan. As of right now I don't know what the details are in Minnesota.Big update then... Sen. Roger Chamberlain who put in the amendment said he expects his amendment to die when House and Senate lawmakers mesh competing bills in conference committee. So while it may be a great idea, it may not come into being.Original post, ignore details:

Interesting development in the saga of the Vikings stadium situation.The Minnesota state senate passed an amendment that in accepting public funds for the stadium, the Vikings take on the responsibility of selling out the stadium in advance of the 72 hour deadline to prevent blackouts. In the event of a game being blacked out, the Vikings would have to pay a $125k fine, which would be used to purchase tickets for "underprivileged children, military personnel, foster children and others".If this ends up making it through into the final deal, I think we could see this kind of thing show up in future public funding for stadiums.

 

[ty247]

Interesting development in the saga of the Vikings stadium situation.The Minnesota state senate passed an amendment that in accepting public funds for the stadium, the Vikings take on the responsibility of selling out the stadium in advance of the 72 hour deadline to prevent blackouts. In the event of a game being blacked out, the Vikings would have to pay a $125k fine, which would be used to purchase tickets for "underprivileged children, military personnel, foster children and others".If this ends up making it through into the final deal, I think we could see this kind of thing show up in future public funding for stadiums.

What an awesome idea.I think it was kind of a "middle finger in the air" to the NFL and the Vikings from the politicians, but in the end, it's something that really gives back to the immediate community.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

What an awesome idea.I think it was kind of a "middle finger in the air" to the NFL and the Vikings from the politicians, but in the end, it's something that really gives back to the immediate community.

Awesome sauce, this cannot be "compromised out" of the deal.

 

[tones]

Interesting, it should help keep the prices for the average fan low enough to sell out OR put a product on the field that is so good that price isn't too important.

Like the idea.

 

[az_prof]

Interesting, it should help keep the prices for the average fan low enough to sell out OR put a product on the field that is so good that price isn't too important.Like the idea.

I like the idea. At a time where we are telling kids we can't spend more money on their education, to give hundreds of millions of dollars to a private company for entertainment, goes against BOTH conservative and liberal principles. This is a small gesture toward core Midwestern values.I would like to see the penalty more in the range of 250K, but it is something.

 

[CalBear]

I like the move, but I would like more the removal of blackout provisions, which make no sense in today's sports world.

 

[Herb]

Love this move it were realistic, but is it? Pretty sure a state governing body decision isn't going to supercede the bylaws of the NFL. IMO this provision is more of a symbolic statement of disapproval of those bylaws than an actual sticking point in the final legislation.

 

[Slapdash]

Good idea. Using taxpayer money like this needs to have more strings attached.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Love this move it were realistic, but is it? Pretty sure a state governing body decision isn't going to supercede the bylaws of the NFL. IMO this provision is more of a symbolic statement of disapproval of those bylaws than an actual sticking point in the final legislation.

The clause wouldn't impact the NFL bylaw at all. It would be between the state and the team. The TEAM is the entity that would have to "make good" on the penalty or full stadium. So the team can either buyout the remaining seats to avoid the blackout, or let the blackout happen and pay the penalty.Cool idea I think.

 

[Herb]

Love this move it were realistic, but is it? Pretty sure a state governing body decision isn't going to supercede the bylaws of the NFL. IMO this provision is more of a symbolic statement of disapproval of those bylaws than an actual sticking point in the final legislation.

The clause wouldn't impact the NFL bylaw at all. It would be between the state and the team. The TEAM is the entity that would have to "make good" on the penalty or full stadium. So the team can either buyout the remaining seats to avoid the blackout, or let the blackout happen and pay the penalty.Cool idea I think.

But the NFL isn't going to stand for the team being responsible for the purchase of those tickets are they?

 

[CalBear]

Love this move it were realistic, but is it? Pretty sure a state governing body decision isn't going to supercede the bylaws of the NFL. IMO this provision is more of a symbolic statement of disapproval of those bylaws than an actual sticking point in the final legislation.

The clause wouldn't impact the NFL bylaw at all. It would be between the state and the team. The TEAM is the entity that would have to "make good" on the penalty or full stadium. So the team can either buyout the remaining seats to avoid the blackout, or let the blackout happen and pay the penalty.Cool idea I think.

But the NFL isn't going to stand for the team being responsible for the purchase of those tickets are they?

As far as I know the NFL has to operate under the laws of Minnesota if it wants to operate in Minnesota.

 

[GregR]

Love this move it were realistic, but is it? Pretty sure a state governing body decision isn't going to supercede the bylaws of the NFL. IMO this provision is more of a symbolic statement of disapproval of those bylaws than an actual sticking point in the final legislation.

The clause wouldn't impact the NFL bylaw at all. It would be between the state and the team. The TEAM is the entity that would have to "make good" on the penalty or full stadium. So the team can either buyout the remaining seats to avoid the blackout, or let the blackout happen and pay the penalty.Cool idea I think.

But the NFL isn't going to stand for the team being responsible for the purchase of those tickets are they?

As far as I know the NFL has to operate under the laws of Minnesota if it wants to operate in Minnesota.

Right. As long as the law abides by both the US and Minnesota Constitutions, they can pretty much do what they want.If the NFL doesn't like the provision, they don't have to accept the public funding for the stadium. Or they can negotiate a different agreement that doesn't include it. Or the Vikings can move to LA.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Don't a lot of teams do this nowadays anyway? I mean, there is many a team that gives away it's remaining unsold tickets - typically to the disadvantaged, children, handicapped, and the like - to avoid a blackout, no?

What is the cost to the Vikes of giving away enough remaining tickets sufficient to avoid a blackout? I'd say all it does is increase goodwill and increase concession sales while costing nothing more than the distribution of tickets that would have largely gone unsold anyway.

 

[Christo]

Love this move it were realistic, but is it? Pretty sure a state governing body decision isn't going to supercede the bylaws of the NFL. IMO this provision is more of a symbolic statement of disapproval of those bylaws than an actual sticking point in the final legislation.

This is not about a law superceding the rule. The Vikings are free to follow the rule, they just have to pay for the privilege of doing so.

 

[Christo]

Love this move it were realistic, but is it? Pretty sure a state governing body decision isn't going to supercede the bylaws of the NFL. IMO this provision is more of a symbolic statement of disapproval of those bylaws than an actual sticking point in the final legislation.

The clause wouldn't impact the NFL bylaw at all. It would be between the state and the team. The TEAM is the entity that would have to "make good" on the penalty or full stadium. So the team can either buyout the remaining seats to avoid the blackout, or let the blackout happen and pay the penalty.Cool idea I think.

But the NFL isn't going to stand for the team being responsible for the purchase of those tickets are they?

The NFL won't stand for it? When did the NFL become a sovereign power?

 

[Herb]

Don't a lot of teams do this nowadays anyway? I mean, there is many a team that gives away it's remaining unsold tickets - typically to the disadvantaged, children, handicapped, and the like - to avoid a blackout, no?

What is the cost to the Vikes of giving away enough remaining tickets sufficient to avoid a blackout? I'd say all it does is increase goodwill and increase concession sales while costing nothing more than the distribution of tickets that would have largely gone unsold anyway.

Are there? I was under the impression that the tickets had to be sold to avoid blackout. Usually, at least in the mid 90s when the Vikes weren't selling out, their corporate partners and sponsors would buy out the unsold tickets, they weren't just given away. I thought this was the case throughout the league, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[finito]

Wonder if the Vikings simply move to a different city now.

 

[domvin]

Don't a lot of teams do this nowadays anyway? I mean, there is many a team that gives away it's remaining unsold tickets - typically to the disadvantaged, children, handicapped, and the like - to avoid a blackout, no?

What is the cost to the Vikes of giving away enough remaining tickets sufficient to avoid a blackout? I'd say all it does is increase goodwill and increase concession sales while costing nothing more than the distribution of tickets that would have largely gone unsold anyway.

Are there? I was under the impression that the tickets had to be sold to avoid blackout. Usually, at least in the mid 90s when the Vikes weren't selling out, their corporate partners and sponsors would buy out the unsold tickets, they weren't just given away. I thought this was the case throughout the league, but maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah, but not every team does it. if it's close to a sellout, then yes, a lot of teams do step up. What is the threshold? It's up to each team.

So basically, Zygi Wilf has to dtermine which hits him harder, the fine, or purchasing unsold tix. It's a step in the right direction for fans, but will lead to other items rising in cost.

Tickets

Concessions

Parking

It's delineated as a Win for the consumer, but someone(Other fans) will pay the difference.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

Don't a lot of teams do this nowadays anyway? I mean, there is many a team that gives away it's remaining unsold tickets - typically to the disadvantaged, children, handicapped, and the like - to avoid a blackout, no?

What is the cost to the Vikes of giving away enough remaining tickets sufficient to avoid a blackout? I'd say all it does is increase goodwill and increase concession sales while costing nothing more than the distribution of tickets that would have largely gone unsold anyway.

Are there? I was under the impression that the tickets had to be sold to avoid blackout. Usually, at least in the mid 90s when the Vikes weren't selling out, their corporate partners and sponsors would buy out the unsold tickets, they weren't just given away. I thought this was the case throughout the league, but maybe I'm wrong.

If I'm not mistaken, and I certainly could be, you're right that the tickets have to be purchased to avoid the blackout. However, this seems to be taken into account in the agreement. The way it's worded in the first post is that the 125K fine is real money that the team would use to purchase the tickets. That money would presumably go into the "sales" category, including being accounted for in whatever revenue sharing sharing in which the NFL, the home, and the visiting teams take part.Now, the Vikings certainly will benefit form any concessions and so forth that those people purchase, but it's unlikely each person will buy as much at the stadium to equal the face value of the ticket.

It's a good idea all around I think, I'd love to see this become standard for all publicly funded stadiums.

 

[GregR]

Don't a lot of teams do this nowadays anyway? I mean, there is many a team that gives away it's remaining unsold tickets - typically to the disadvantaged, children, handicapped, and the like - to avoid a blackout, no?

What is the cost to the Vikes of giving away enough remaining tickets sufficient to avoid a blackout? I'd say all it does is increase goodwill and increase concession sales while costing nothing more than the distribution of tickets that would have largely gone unsold anyway.

Are there? I was under the impression that the tickets had to be sold to avoid blackout. Usually, at least in the mid 90s when the Vikes weren't selling out, their corporate partners and sponsors would buy out the unsold tickets, they weren't just given away. I thought this was the case throughout the league, but maybe I'm wrong.

They have to be "sold", but the home team buying them counts as them being sold. Not only does it count, but the team is allowed to buy them back for 1/3 of face value.But the money spent doesn't just go straight back into the home team's pocket. It counts towards league revenue. To buy back $90k of tickets, you spend $30k. Of that $15k goes to players and the other $15k is subject to revenue sharing. I don't know details of the revenue sharing, but conceptually it's probably fair to say of that $30k, only $500 might end up back in the team's bank account.

So you can either spend the $30k, or you can do nothing and keep the $30k. So a team would have to decide if the gains from buying back/giving away the tickets (concessions, fan goodwill, etc) outweigh the negatives of doing so (the loss of the $30k, loss of a blackout as a motivation for people to buy tickets, etc).

 

[mozzy84]

I like the move, but I would like more the removal of blackout provisions, which make no sense in today's sports world.

NFL is the only sport that does this these days....

 

[Herb]

Don't a lot of teams do this nowadays anyway? I mean, there is many a team that gives away it's remaining unsold tickets - typically to the disadvantaged, children, handicapped, and the like - to avoid a blackout, no?

What is the cost to the Vikes of giving away enough remaining tickets sufficient to avoid a blackout? I'd say all it does is increase goodwill and increase concession sales while costing nothing more than the distribution of tickets that would have largely gone unsold anyway.

Are there? I was under the impression that the tickets had to be sold to avoid blackout. Usually, at least in the mid 90s when the Vikes weren't selling out, their corporate partners and sponsors would buy out the unsold tickets, they weren't just given away. I thought this was the case throughout the league, but maybe I'm wrong.

They have to be "sold", but the home team buying them counts as them being sold. Not only does it count, but the team is allowed to buy them back for 1/3 of face value.But the money spent doesn't just go straight back into the home team's pocket. It counts towards league revenue. To buy back $90k of tickets, you spend $30k. Of that $15k goes to players and the other $15k is subject to revenue sharing. I don't know details of the revenue sharing, but conceptually it's probably fair to say of that $30k, only $500 might end up back in the team's bank account.

So you can either spend the $30k, or you can do nothing and keep the $30k. So a team would have to decide if the gains from buying back/giving away the tickets (concessions, fan goodwill, etc) outweigh the negatives of doing so (the loss of the $30k, loss of a blackout as a motivation for people to buy tickets, etc).

Got it. Thanks.

 

[GregR]

Two big updates. OP updated with them for accuracy.

First, there is such an amendment but I goofed on what the details of the amendment are. I found a blog discussing avoiding blackouts in Minnesota, and in one section they were discussing the details of a similar Florida legislature bill, which I thought were the details in Minnesota. Apologies. I haven't been able to find what the details are for how the Minnesota one would work.

Second update, even bigger... Sen. Roger Chamberlain who came up with the amendment said he expects his amendment to die when House and Senate lawmakers mesh competing bills in conference committee. So it may not come to pass after all. I would love to see blackouts go away though.

 

[GregR]

PFT article on it

 

[jason12vb]

Can't wait to see if this amendment is on the final bill today. I'm a huge local Vikings fan, am for a partially publicly funded stadium, and willing to take on my share plus user fees to make up for a non-Viking fan...but I100% support this. Why should a publicly funded stadium be subject to blackout rules? Why shouldn't a non-vikings fan paying taxes to build the stadium be able to turn on the TV during any home game and check out the team they are being forced to support?

If the Vikings are ecstatic about a new stadium then they aren't contributing enough. Why should the community and state be the only entities with risk?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Can't wait to see if this amendment is on the final bill today. I'm a huge local Vikings fan, am for a partially publicly funded stadium, and willing to take on my share plus user fees to make up for a non-Viking fan...but I100% support this. Why should a publicly funded stadium be subject to blackout rules? Why shouldn't a non-vikings fan paying taxes to build the stadium be able to turn on the TV during any home game and check out the team they are being forced to support?If the Vikings are ecstatic about a new stadium then they aren't contributing enough. Why should the community and state be the only entities with risk?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Will Stadium Plan Changes Mean a Move West for Vikings?

By Freddy Sherman Mon, May 7, 2012

As a Los Angeles resident and football fan, I'm eagerly following the various stadium sagas going on with several NFL teams. It looks like the Minnesota Vikings still have a real possibility of picking up and leaving Minnesota for a brand new stadium (to be built )in Los Angeles after the 2012 NFL season. The bill that would fund the stadium project is currently being debated in the state capitol and the politicians have already started to make changes from the agreement already reached with the team.

The current Vikings stadium situation

The Vikings will play the 2012 season at the Metrodome, but after that they are free to leave with no restrictions. The Vikings are one of the five teams Los Angeles stadium developer AEG has already confirmed they've spoken with. These teams include the Oakland Raiders, the St. Louis Rams, the Jacksonville Jaguars, the San Diego Chargers and the Minnesota Vikings.

The current deal

The current deal was put together by a coalition including the team, the governor, the mayor of Minneapolis and key lawmakers, but it needs to pass the legislature and it's proving to be a lot more difficult than anyone expected. Just because the team and these politicians agreed to the plan, it doesn't mean the citizens of Minnesota and / or of Minneapolis approve of it. The agreement has the Vikings paying about $427 million, the state would pay $398 million and the city would put in $150 million from an existing hospitality tax. The new stadium is budgeted at $975 million, but I wonder what will happen when it goes over-budget, as many of these projects do.

The new deal

In the legislature, both sides supported the amendments, which would raise the amount the Vikings would contribute by $105 million to $532 million, while limiting the state's contribution to $293 million. After the team already agreed to pay a certain amount, I can't see them agreeing to pay $100 million more. I think we will see what the Vikings' commitment is to stay in Minnesota, if they want to make the deal, they will agree to the additional amount, if not, I do think we will see them make the move west.

.

 

[jason12vb]

Sad...I can't find any mention in the current bill of the blackout rule in the current bill.