Mr. Piehl technically is correct. The Twins "could" decide they don't want to pay their 10 million and renege on the deal. Presumably there would be an agreement between the State and the Twins regarding default provisions and penalties for default. Otherwise the State could always sue forcing the Twins to pay up. However, using this logic is a recipe for never doing anything!! Banks could never exist under Mr. Piehl's scenario -- they would never lend money for fear that the loan reciever might default.
As I posted earlier. The Guv's plan has a lot of merit. No one would object if the Twins would privately finance a stadium, right? However even under a private finance scenario the Twins would still take out loans and repay them over time from the revenues generated by the stadium. Under the Guv's plan, the State is the bank. Wells Fargo and USBank can't do this because they can't get their hands on the low-interest bonds that the state can. Basically the $10 mil annually is the rent to play in the ball park. Naming rights over 30 years would come close to covering this, so the Twins could virtually be playing rent-free. Couple that with Personal Seat Licenses, and a cut of the concessions and this plan may be quite attractive to the Twins, at no cost to the taxpayers. Oh yea of course the risk involved if the Twins ever wanted to back out of this sweet deal. (To get an idea of how these stadium concession deals work... if you went to the X-Arena these past weekends to watch high school hockey or the WCHA final 5 and bought a hotdog or coke, t-shirt, etc., you were contributing to the hockey Wild's bottom line even though they were nowhere near the building.) The biggest flaw in the Guv's plan is how do the Twins come up with $165 mil up front. Given the Twins guarded, but positive, reaction to the plan, they must think it has merit too. Dean E. Carlson East Harriet, Ward 10 (for now at least) > David Piehl writes: > They forgot the last step: When it's time to negotiate new multimillion > dollar contracts with the Twins players and management, the owners decide > they don't want to pay the bond payments of $10 million a year anymore and > the taxpayer is left holding the bag. Look up the history of "forgiven" > payments and rents from the sports teams and you'll know what to expect. I consider >this a bait and switch, it would be more respectable to simply > state the cost and let people decide. It's not just sports teams - Gavidae Commons >is playing the same game. Ask yourself, if this is a good business decision, then >where are Wells Fargo and US Bank? Both have large mortgage departments!! > > I hope it isn't the Minneapolis taxpayers that get stuck with the bill, > we've got too many creative financing situations to deal with already. > > David Piehl > Central _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
