Raiders Zero In On Preferred Las Vegas Site Chargers' Stadium Approval Nearly "Impossible" Facility Notes White Sox, Guaranteed Rate Partner On Naming Rights Sources: A's Fisher Tours Potential Ballpark Site Saints, Superdome Unveil New Video Boards Hartford Mayor Turns Down Loan For Ballpark Facility Notes Banc of California Signs Deal With LAFC Vikings Building Glass-Walled Bar Outside Stadium
SBD/November 14, 2012/Facilities
Minnesota Governor Threatens Vikings Owners Not To Pass Along Stadium Cost Through PSLs
Published November 14, 2012
WANT MORE GREAT STORIES LIKE THIS?
CLICK ON ONE OF THESE BUTTONS
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? In Minneapolis, Jim Souhan writes, “You can argue that Dayton could have foreseen this development, that he is now arguing against the language of the very deal he signed. That's true.” Now Dayton is “acting as an advocate for non-rich Minnesotans as the Wilfs survey fans about their willingness to pay for PSLs all over the stadium,” and he is “doing his job.” Zygi Wilf can justify the PSLs “because of the language of the agreement,” but that “doesn't make it right.” Souhan: “Wilf should invest a chunk of his own money. ... You got a good deal, Mr. Wilf. Dayton's right. It's time for you to ante up” (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 11/14). But ESPN.com’s Kevin Seifert wrote there are “some major holes in what is really just a sloppy political maneuver.” The first is the stadium legislation Dayton signed last spring, which “explicitly gave the Vikings clearance to sell PSLs" through the MSFA. Further, it allows them to “count the revenues toward its share of construction costs.” Dayton’s “threat is silly and hollow when you realize he already agreed to what he is now protesting.” If he "felt so strongly about PSLs, he should have taken a stand during final negotiations.” PSLs are “fair game based on the legislation.” Seifert: “What made Dayton or anyone else think the Vikings wouldn't use them?” (ESPN.com, 11/13).