What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Vikings stadium - Gambling firms drove funding plan (1 Viewer)

Andy Dufresne

Footballguy
Link

The botched projections showing that electronic pulltab sales would explode in Minnesota and immediately start paying for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium were based largely on estimates made by gambling businesses with a vested interest in the new but untested form of charitable gaming, the Star Tribune has found.

Sales estimates were based on different kinds of gambling devices played in other states, made by national gambling equipment managers and vendors, according to e-mails obtained by the Star Tribune. Express Games MN, the first e-game vendor approved by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board, reviewed and analyzed the sales estimates that were part of the final stadium legislation.

Charities selling the games had little input into the projections, according to e-mails and interviews with key players in the stadium debate. The e-mails also reveal the fine line walked by the board between being a regulator and an advocate for the new games, despite no track record with consumers.

Nearly a year later, those sales estimates turned out to be so wildly inflated that they’ve undermined the funding formula for the state’s $348 million share of the Vikings stadium, putting unprecedented pressure on charities to sell the games. State officials have acknowledged they may have to come up with an alternative funding source for the stadium.

Tom Barrett, executive director of the state’s Gambling Control Board, defended turning to gambling industry executives for sales estimates because Minnesota’s games didn’t exist anywhere in the country and they had sales expertise with similar games. In retrospect, however, Barrett said he would have consulted further with local charities and other Minnesota players.

“We would have looked to the industry, including charities, bars, manufacturers and distributors,” Barrett said.

The sales estimates were developed in the rush to find a funding formula for a new football stadium, and records show they were not challenged by the Department of Revenue or other fiscal analysts.

The Vikings lease at the Metrodome had expired, the team was threatening to move, and Gov. Mark Dayton and many legislators were committed to keeping the team in Minnesota.

Those estimates became the foundation for the state Department of Revenue’s projection that the new games would rake in $35 million for stadium funding by the end of this year.

In November, that figure was sliced to $17 million. In February, it was slashed to $1.7 million.

“There was a willful blindness ... driven by pressure politics,” charged David Schultz, a Hamline University political analyst and a professor of nonprofit law.

‘How do I build a model?’

While flawed, the gambling board’s sales estimates were extremely detailed, including the number of bars and restaurants that would adopt e-gambling, the number of devices in play, what hours they would be played and how much money would be wagered.

It projected 2,500 sites would be selling electronic pulltab within six months, or nearly 14 bars and restaurants joining in per day. Each site would have an average of 6.16 devices. Average daily gross receipts per device would be $225. Average gross receipts per bar or restaurant per day would be $1,386.

This model for estimating expected sales was recommended by Eric Casey, sales director at the California-based Planet Bingo, which manufactures electronic bingo games, Barrett said. Barrett said he called Casey, who has worked in the gambling industry for decades, and asked, “How do I build a [revenue] model? What are the factors that need to come in?”

Barrett said he also consulted Capital Bingo Inc., a California pulltab and electronic equipment manufacturer, which compared future Minnesota sales to its “electronic instant bingo” in Florida. Kevin Freels, president of Capital Bingo, later wrote a letter endorsing the board’s projections, calling them “reasonable and perhaps even a little conservative.”

Meanwhile, Jon Weaver, now president of Express Games MN, was in frequent contact with Barrett from March through May 2012, when the funding formula was approved. Weaver at times contacted Warren White at Acres 4.0, the first manufacturer approved in Minnesota.

Weaver told Barrett that the estimates he’d developed were “conservative,” based on sales from video lottery terminals in Montana, South Dakota and Oregon.

On March 9, 2012, Barrett sent Weaver the following e-mail: “As we discussed, here is the revenue model I am using to project potential revenue from the electronic games. … Interested in your thoughts on using this model.”

Weaver responded: “One of the biggest issues that jumps out at me is the number of tickets sold per hour. … Our games run between 4 and 6 wagers per minute ... The assumption that a player will play one ticket per minute is not realistic.”

That same day, Barrett informed Weaver of the state’s plans to release its Vikings funding proposal.

“Hot button issues for insight from you,” Barrett wrote. “As a percentage of net receipts, what do you see as a ‘fair’ percent to allocate for equipment/vendor expenses which would include the distributors that handle the product from the manufacturer?”

Weaver responded, ending with: “I will send your spreadsheet to our folks in Las Vegas and I’m sure that they will have some thoughts.”

Conflict of interest?

Likewise, Acres 4.0, the first company approved to manufacture the e-games, was consulted on testing standards for the games. On May 23, 2012, Weaver wrote that White at Acres 4.0 “is working up his thoughts on testing standards.”

Barrett said it made sense to contact Weaver and Acres 4.0 because they were slated to be early and major players in the Minnesota market, and they had intimate knowledge of the games that would be introduced in Minnesota.

“They were ready to invest millions in some games,” Barrett said.

He said the communications posed no conflict of interest, as they did not interfere with any licensing or regulatory action by the board.

The e-mails suggest a beneficial relationship between the two.

On March 30, 2012, Barrett asked Weaver to endorse his sales projections, as he was meeting with Vikings officials. “It would be helpful if I received your letter of support in regards to the base model we used to project revenue,” Barrett wrote.

Meanwhile, charities that have run charitable gaming in Minnesota for decades were not asked to help with projections, said King Wilson, executive director of Allied Charities of Minnesota at the time.

Wilson, now retired, said Allied Charities “was involved in some initial negotiations, but were certainly not involved in the development of any formal projections and were not part of the give-and-take that occurs during the creation of valid economic forecasts.

“After the bill was introduced we were asked to support the bill, which we declined,” he said.

Minnesotans already were spending $1 billion a year on charitable gambling, mainly paper pulltabs. The projections claimed they would quickly shell out another $1 billion for the electronic games.

“That kind of revenue stream takes a long time to build,” Schultz said, “especially in Minnesota where you already have one of the nation’s most well-developed charitable gambling markets.”

The Department of Revenue, which worked with the Gambling Control Board to create the stadium funding projections, believed the estimates “seemed reasonable at the time,” Assistant Revenue Commissioner Matt Massman said.

Massman reiterated that estimates were hampered by the lack of comparable games, but he believed his department’s researchers “used the best available estimates at the time.”

The sales estimates were also used by House and Senate researchers in their fiscal reports.

‘Nobody paid attention’

Nearly a year after those projections were made, about 200 Minnesota bars and restaurants offer electronic pulltabs, not the 2,500 that had been predicted. Electronic bingo games have just been introduced.

Average daily gross sales for electronic pulltabs have increased to about $69,000, but sales per gambling device have declined.

Such numbers, in the past, would have had limited public interest. But now they hold a key to the Vikings stadium.

“Charitable gambling has been around since 1985,” Barrett said. “Charities have been paying taxes to the state since then. Nobody paid attention. They are now.”

Schultz believes the sales estimates went unchallenged because of their high stakes.

“This was a deal that was going to happen no matter what,” Schultz said. “The governor wanted a stadium. The money couldn’t come from the general fund. The charities had been asking for electronic games.”

With funding projections for the Vikings stadium now slashed by $33 million for this year alone, future estimates will be more accurate, Barrett and Massman said.

“Now they’re starting to be based on actual activity,” said Massman.
I don't know if this belongs here or the FFA. Don't let your city/state get suckered the same as we did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to worry. Soon the MGCB or the legislature (with their great wisdom) will attempt to ban the paper pull tabs and force establishments to install electronic versions if they wish to participate in charitable gambling.

 
Any caller into KFAN or Rube on RubeChat knew the projections were crazy. The politicians are clueless about the real world. No sense of the value of a dollar. I know, have you heard about the Lindbergh baby?

 
Funding these stadiums at these costs doesn't make sense for every municipality...but most municipalities act like they're a must for their community.

Expecting the politicians to make complicated, sensical decisions sadly seems like wishful thinking.

Then again, Minnesota has their football team play under a dome and their baseball team play without one. :confused:

 
Funding these stadiums at these costs doesn't make sense for every municipality...but most municipalities act like they're a must for their community.Expecting the politicians to make complicated, sensical decisions sadly seems like wishful thinking.Then again, Minnesota has their football team play under a dome and their baseball team play without one. :confused:
Why is that confusing? One is a summer sport, one is a winter sport.
 
Funding these stadiums at these costs doesn't make sense for every municipality...but most municipalities act like they're a must for their community.Expecting the politicians to make complicated, sensical decisions sadly seems like wishful thinking.Then again, Minnesota has their football team play under a dome and their baseball team play without one. :confused:
Why is that confusing? One is a summer sport, one is a winter sport.
Because football games are played in heavy rain and snow while a baseball game is postponed and has to be rescheduled?
 
Our country as a whole has no sense of priorities. We pay teachers peanuts, and we pay athletes millions; then we wonder why our country is ignorant? Why in a so-called capitalistic country do we subsidize billion dollar industries like oil, banks, and sports? Bread and games....until the Colosseum falls down upon us.

 
Because we tried 25 years of indoor baseball and it sucks. Also, there was no interest in a football only stadium. Needed to be year round, multi purpose. I'm disappointed its not retractable roof.

 
Three groups on this one...

--People who knew the numbers were false and opposed the deal

--People who knew the numbers were phony, but pretended they were legit to get the deal done

--People who thought the numbers were legit and supported it because of that (suckers)

I think the sucker category was probably the smallest of the three.

 
And now Gov. Dayton chimes in with this gem:

Dayton: I didn't know source of e-pulltab estimate

Gov. Mark Dayton says Minnesota's Gambling Control Board should have disclosed from the beginning that gambling companies helped estimate the amount of tax revenue that would be raised by new electronic pulltab games tapped to fund a new Minnesota Vikings stadium.

Those projections were much higher than what's been raised so far. Dayton tells The Associated Press Monday he wasn't aware of the input from an industry that stood to profit from the new games, until the Star Tribune reported it Sunday.

Gambling Control Board director Tom Barrett says he never hid the role the companies played. He says they were consulted but that they didn't drive the projections.

The lagging revenue has raised concerns the stadium finance plan will need to be reworked, but Dayton says it's too early to make that call.
Isn't that your GD job?
 
Not that it matters but this seems like it'd get more discussion the the FFA.

It should come as no surprise that the revenue figures are vastly lower than projected; anybody who was being honest should've known the legislators were desperately trying to make it seem like they wouldn't have to take money from the general fund.

I was in HS back in the late 90's, early 00's when the stadium first came up so my memory may be hazy, but the IIRC it was the MN Democrats who were against the stadium 10 years ago when Republicans were pushing for it. Funny how the roles reversed 10 years later when the Democrats wanted to promote jobs and Republicans were worried about additional taxes. Not saying anything about the parties, just that I think its funny the roles reversed. Andy probably remembers that far better than me; I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

 
Louisiana has this story and I'm guessing almost every state stadium financing deal ends up as the same bad deal but we all agree it is worth it for a large variety of reasons even if a few get rich at the expense of the many, for instance:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/super-bowl-host-ends-swap-pain-with-payment-to-bofa-muni-credit.html

But - Reading this, I am kind of surprised that no one mentions the extensive involvement of GAMBLING interests in the very maintenance of a football team.

This is new, even unique.

The fact that the numbers are bogus should make people all the more suspicious. In some states with a history of corruption - oh say LA, NJ, IL - the conclusions would run in one direction and start establishing connections between who runs gambling, the politicians and the money, but hey maybe Minnesota is immune from such unsavory concerns.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me preface this by saying that I think it's crazy that cities and states are expected to foot the bill or significantly pitch in for stadium projects.

But the reality is, cities and states are expected to foot the bill or significantly pitch in for stadium projects. It is how it is.

So, if a region wants to keep it's team, it has to find a way to get that government support, or it will relocate. And it seems to me in this case, the Vikings got it and the Vikings are staying.

So, and this is a serious question here, what's the big deal about wrong projections? It seems like now the region has kept the Vikings, and now has time to figure out what to do about that money, but it's no longer under the gun because the threat of them leaving is gone.

Isn't everyone happy the Vilkngs are staying put? Or are the financial ramifications so severe now that everyone would rather they left?

 
Let me preface this by saying that I think it's crazy that cities and states are expected to foot the bill or significantly pitch in for stadium projects.But the reality is, cities and states are expected to foot the bill or significantly pitch in for stadium projects. It is how it is.So, if a region wants to keep it's team, it has to find a way to get that government support, or it will relocate. And it seems to me in this case, the Vikings got it and the Vikings are staying.So, and this is a serious question here, what's the big deal about wrong projections? It seems like now the region has kept the Vikings, and now has time to figure out what to do about that money, but it's no longer under the gun because the threat of them leaving is gone.Isn't everyone happy the Vilkngs are staying put? Or are the financial ramifications so severe now that everyone would rather they left?
You are correct, as wdcrob mentioned a few posts up. The deal is done. It would be better without the unsavory mud slinging. But the fact remains, the Vikings got a new stadium and now the state can figure out how to pay for it.
 
Isn't everyone happy the Vilkngs are staying put? Or are the financial ramifications so severe now that everyone would rather they left?
No, not really. That $33m of revenue difference has to be made up for somehow.I was fully prepared to let them try to get a better deal somewhere else. I'm tired of big business holding cities/counties/states hostage as were most Minnesotans which is why it took so long for the stadium plan to come together in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And now Gov. Dayton chimes in with this gem:

Dayton: I didn't know source of e-pulltab estimate

Gov. Mark Dayton says Minnesota's Gambling Control Board should have disclosed from the beginning that gambling companies helped estimate the amount of tax revenue that would be raised by new electronic pulltab games tapped to fund a new Minnesota Vikings stadium.

Those projections were much higher than what's been raised so far. Dayton tells The Associated Press Monday he wasn't aware of the input from an industry that stood to profit from the new games, until the Star Tribune reported it Sunday.

Gambling Control Board director Tom Barrett says he never hid the role the companies played. He says they were consulted but that they didn't drive the projections.

The lagging revenue has raised concerns the stadium finance plan will need to be reworked, but Dayton says it's too early to make that call.
Isn't that your GD job?
:lmao: Just one look into his eyes tells you all you need to know.. Should rename :loco: to :dayton:
 
Let me preface this by saying that I think it's crazy that cities and states are expected to foot the bill or significantly pitch in for stadium projects.But the reality is, cities and states are expected to foot the bill or significantly pitch in for stadium projects. It is how it is....
And I don't know that it's much different than other business and government either.... except that it's higher public profile so we know about it.Companies do business in places that give them incentives in some fashion over those who don't. Whether that be tax breaks, infrastructure, subsidies or whatever. A lot of the time it happens as a bunch of campaign contributions and a bill that average Joe never really knows about, and even those who are more informed probably don't see much detail of. Stadium deals at least are more out in the open and hotly discussed.
 
Let me preface this by saying that I think it's crazy that cities and states are expected to foot the bill or significantly pitch in for stadium projects.But the reality is, cities and states are expected to foot the bill or significantly pitch in for stadium projects. It is how it is....
And I don't know that it's much different than other business and government either.... except that it's higher public profile so we know about it.Companies do business in places that give them incentives in some fashion over those who don't. Whether that be tax breaks, infrastructure, subsidies or whatever. A lot of the time it happens as a bunch of campaign contributions and a bill that average Joe never really knows about, and even those who are more informed probably don't see much detail of. Stadium deals at least are more out in the open and hotly discussed.
:goodposting:
Three groups on this one...--People who knew the numbers were false and opposed the deal--People who knew the numbers were phony, but pretended they were legit to get the deal done--People who thought the numbers were legit and supported it because of that (suckers)I think the sucker category was probably the smallest of the three.
Unfortunately I think the sucker category is the largest of the 3 across our country.People in the 1st category get paid to shut their mouth while people in the 2nd group get paid to open theirs.I am happy the Vikings will stay in Minnesota, I love this team. However I still have a lot of respect for Jessie Ventura who actually listened to what the people of Minnesota wanted, and that is to not have to pay huge amounts of taxes for the stadium.The Dayton family has growing monopolies in Minnesota right now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top