Ask any senior citizen which they would rather have: The twins or better health care provisions?
So long Twins! Pamela Taylor (Tampa) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Walt Cygan Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Mpls] Community Ownership of the Twins Phyllis Kahn wrote: > I have supported the idea of community ownership for a long time. Jim Graham wrote: > If Carl Pohlad was smart he would turn the team into such a > public offered stock corporation at say $25.00 to $30.00 per share > for 10 million shares. Carl would make a killing and the whole > state would love him. I watched the end of the Twins win yesterday with mixed emotions. On one hand, I felt great for the over-achieving players, who weren't given a prayer of winning. Great stuff. On the other hand, as Hocking was squeezing the third out, Carl Pohlad was probably thinking that he could get an extra $25 million for the Twins now. This community ownership thing is really a bad idea, more so if governmental units are involved in any way. If you believe the owners' complaints about the river of red ink on their profit and loss statements, what happens when the $300 million stake is eaten up in operating losses? (Jim Graham's $30/share x 10 million shares -- for a franchise that is worth $150-175 million, at most) Where does additional money come from? More stock diluting the holdings of the current stockholders? Do you continue running a low-budget operation, a la Pohlad? If you don't win, people won't come and the financials get worse. The reason a bunch of rich folks own teams is that they have deep pockets and big egos. As Rep. Kahn points out, the value of a franchise will generally increase reasonably over time, but when you factor in operating losses, the cost of debt that the owners are floating to each other, and the overall uncertainty of the future of the product, a baseball team really stinks as an investment. Using governmental entities to front for this bad investment would be really irresponsible. And is it just me, or is using the elderly and the disabled as some rationale for funding a ballpark to keep the Twins a little desperate, or worse? This reminded me of arguments during the ballpark debate in the last session of the Legislature. Reps got up to talk about how their mothers in [fill in the rural town] love to listen to the Twins on the Victrola (or Philco or whatever old-timey brand of radio sounded good in their rambling). The only thing they forgot when it came time for a bill was to tax their mothers for keeping the Twins. The taxes will all fall on the locality where the stadium is built. If the team is such an asset, then why doesn't everyone pay? We are going to have a $3 billion state shortfall for fiscal '04-'05. If Pawlenty is elected, a chunk of that will almost certainly come out of aid to cities. How can anyone seriously start another debate on another ballpark bill in this economic climate? Walt Cygan Keewaydin _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
