< What can't I write about Barry Manilow? | Main | KARE 11 stadium piece >

February 19, 2007

Repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse ...

I don't know what else to say about this issue (as evidenced by my last two posts). Over the past few weeks we've hashed over and rehashed all the issues ad naseum. You know what is really frustrating about this? There is really no one to send a nasty letter to. Back during the legislative battle I could always take out my frustrations on some unsuspecting legislator (in a respectful, but stern, manner of course), but now?

Now we are just waiting. Waiting to see what happens. Waiting, and as you can see below arguing, debating, and writing about the issue. Egads am I ever sick of it.

So, here is what I was thinking. I want to write the definitive set of bullet statements that will once and for all spell out succinctly and concisely what we know concerning the Twins stadium fiasco. I'm sure I'll get it wrong somehow. Let me know if I should add or subtract anything.

As far as I can tell, that is what we know. At this point I would be surprised with LPII coming back to the table to negotiate. In other words, I don't think we'll find out what LPII thinks the land is worth ... ever. Condemnation, a site change, or no ballpark. That is where I think we are at.

Posted by snackeru at February 19, 2007 10:36 PM

Comments

yes the comments by sen. linda higgins are interesting. if this same scenario were playing out during last year's legislative session i would be put the chances at amending the ballpark bill at slim to none. the only sliver of light this year is that both chambers are controlled by one party (of which bruce l of LP II isn't a member) with comfortable majorities so consensus could be easier, (but that's a stretch) would they have to get pawlenty to sign off also? if they wouldn't need to take this to a floor vote i wonder. they'd need pawlenty on board to amend this. i guess i don't see why just changing the site language would be a big deal, nothing else about the bill would change. you're making a deal with the devil by going back to the capitol for sure, but if that's the last gasp of breath for a ballpark, i would take the chance. we'd just have to wait another year to sit outside on a summer's night to watch a game.

Posted by: mullen at February 20, 2007 08:38 AM

I read Sen. Higgins comments as verification that Hennepin County is talking with Minneapolis politicos about using that $10 million limit to help bridge the gap. Between the Twins and Minneapolis, HC would probably have enough to justify condemnation.

Posted by: Shane at February 20, 2007 08:43 AM

I cannot fathom that Pohlad could be that stubborn of an ass not to offer to bridge the gap. What's the worst case scenerio? He has to pay an extra $20 million? As someone mentioned earlier, naming rights practically cancel out the Twins $130 million contribution. It is not unreasonable to expect the Twins to bridge this gap. If they refuse, they don't deserve to get a stadium, plain and simple.

Posted by: John at February 20, 2007 08:47 AM

Rick Kupchella was on cities 97 this morning and basically did the story that he is doing tonight on KARE 11 @ 10:00

This is what he said...

- He interviewed LPII
- They had an agreement in place with the county and the Twins until 2004
- Until 2004 they were really excited to have the Twins Ballpark on their land...they spent a lot of money lobbying for the twins
- LPII thought the ballpark was going to pass in 2004 and it didn't
- When it didn't they made other plans to develop the land
- The new Twins bill passed last year without an agreement in place with LPII
- The county was expecting the agreement from 2004 was still good and it turns out it wasn't
- LPII isn't against having a ballpark on their land they just have other plans and wouldn't be disappointed if the Twins didn't build on their land
- He also hinted that the county is going to do a quick take very soon (looks like Shill may be right)
- The plan was to do it a month ago but the county is holding off because according to the LPII (Rick Kupchella comments) the county will be responsible for the extra value and they don't have the money to pay for it. Because of this they are trying to find another way to settle on the land price and sale before the county takes over the land.

I will definitely be tuning in tonight to hear the full story but these were his comments on Cities this morning.

Posted by: MOJO at February 20, 2007 08:49 AM

Thank you for the status and I think you are a whole lot more right then wrong. Why would the county undercut the previous agreement by so much unless they have demonstrated poor mangement of the process? Why at this point (13th hour) do they still not have an agreement on the land and yet have other projects approved and funded all of which are contingent upon an agreement on the land? Right now, everything we hear about another site(s) is nothing more than double-talk. Ask "the O-putz" how can he fund these other sites and not the current site? More double-talk. Sit in on the comdemnation hearings and you will get the real talk (and real numbers).

Posted by: Jimmy Jack at February 20, 2007 08:57 AM

Sounds like Rick Kupchella reads this site.

Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at February 20, 2007 09:37 AM

Thats what I was thinking....maybe he is Shill!

Posted by: MOJO at February 20, 2007 09:59 AM

Kupchella is on Kfan right now

Posted by: MOJO at February 20, 2007 10:07 AM

Nice recap MOJO. Obviously the KARE 11 piece will be influenced by their access to LPII (for good or ill). For instance in the recap it sounds like LPII wasn't at all involved in the 2006 effort that got a ballpark bill passed. We all know that's not true. They were huge players at the Legislature and on this site. They set up a Web site called Twinsville for Christ sake.

If their 2006 effort gets reduced to

"LPII isn't against having a ballpark on their land they just have other plans and wouldn't be disappointed if the Twins didn't build on their land."

then I will be seriously disappointed.

Posted by: Freealonzo at February 20, 2007 10:09 AM

Yes, thanks MOJO. I seriously doubt we are going to learn anything new from the Kupchella report, other than how "disinterested" LPII was in getting a stadium built on their land in 2006.

As Free points out, this is a complete lie. LPII was at every hearing, every vote, and they were very, very involved. If it comes out that they lost interest after 2004 then why did they continue to work so hard for it?

Well, I'll try to withhold judgment for now. Looking forward to tonight.

Posted by: Shane at February 20, 2007 10:22 AM

Does anyone know if Kupchella had any new info. in his KFAN interview? Thanks.

Posted by: Jeff T. at February 20, 2007 10:28 AM

KFAN was similar to what MOJO reported RK said on Cities 97. Below is an e-mail I sent to Rick Kupchella:

Rick, I've heard you on KFAN and Cities 97 about your upcoming Twins ballpark story. I look forward to seeing the entire piece tonight.

I am concerned that your access to LPII is slanting the story to their perspective. My biggest bone of contention is that the way you've explained the story is that LPII's interest in a ballpark waned after 2004. I think you even said that now LPII isn't against having a ballpark on their land they just have other plans and wouldn't be disappointed if the Twins didn't build on their land.

The fact is that LPII was very active in 2006 in getting the ballpark bill passed. They were active behind the scenes and out front of the public effort as well. They even created a website called Twinsville that extolled the Rapid Park site and the 2006 ballpark legislation. They were walking in lockstep with the County and ballpark supporters to get the legislation done. They basked in the glory of being part of the solution once the ballpark legislation was passed.

So to suggest that their interest peaked in 2004 is just plain wrong and a disservice to your viewers. The fact is that many times in 2006 LPII made it known that they were going to be willing sellers and wouldn't be a road block to getting a ballpark built. Obviously that wasn't the case. The County hasn't done everything right by any stretch of the imagination but LPII's hands aren't clean either in the ballpark muddle.

Posted by: Freealonzo at February 20, 2007 10:28 AM

Wow! If Kevin and Shill can come together and be friends, I think there is hope for LPII and the County.

Hope springs eternal!

And yes, any word on Kupchella on KFAN? Any interesting tidbits come out?

Posted by: Shane at February 20, 2007 10:29 AM

Free - Don't you find it curious that none of the links on "mntwinsville.com" have been updated since the '04-'05 legislation failed? Not one mention of anything that's transpired or any legislative effort undertaken in 2006?

I'm just wondering if it isn't "revisionist history" in that people are remembering LPII being very vocal about a stadium however, this may have been loudest during the '04-'05 effort.

Posted by: Stadiumshill at February 20, 2007 10:58 AM

Several of us: Shane, Free, MOJO, JiminSt.Paul and myself met Bruce at our Summit Brewery get together with other LPII people, some Twins reps (TC was even there). Bruce gave a speech that he had lost hope after the '04 failed stadium push, but then thanked Shane for giving him hope again after he found this site, which gave him renewed energy to work to get the stadium done.

There's no revisionist history here. We heard and talked with him first hand. He was very involved and Shane can personally attest to the hundreds of emails he got from Bruce while this whole deal went down. I don't think you were an active poster at this site when this was happening, so you may not have known the history

Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at February 20, 2007 11:09 AM

No, I wasn't an active poster until a couple of weeks ago. I just thought it was "curious" that if LPII and "mntwinsville" had resurrected their interest during the '06 legislative session, it appears they abandoned the website. While it's obviously still up, the content hasn't been touched for quite some time.

Could it be that BL was pimpin' his own interest, but LPII had moved on?

Posted by: Stadiumshill at February 20, 2007 11:15 AM

Revisioned history indeed. Well LPII got to Rick Kupchella. Here's his response to my e-mail.

i don't know where you're getting your information.

the county talks a lot about what you're saying here - this whole "lock step" thing - i've talked to key legislators in this effort who don't recall - ever - seeing the lp2 group at the legislature in '06.

the land owners have told us repeatedly - they are willing sellers. and the evidence they offer includes: the fact they're not fighting condemnation the fact they have waived all rights to appeal the notion of this take over as a "public purpose"..

these are two completely different things & "b" would tie things up for years/ruin hopes for the park at this site. they say being "willing sellers" does - not - mean they'll take whatever the buyer wants to pay.

beyond this... it really all gets down & muddy with a 'he said/she said' debate..
i hope to explain tonite why they are where they are & where things could go from here.
even the county has confirmed to me that there was no effort at negotiating a sale price - before 2007 (since the 2003 effort that brought the one-year option). but again - scratch all that. the landowners say: we'll take whatever a third party declares to be 'fair market' & we won't fight the takeover of the land. how is that anything other than a 'willing seller'? and lastly, what more could the public really ask of them?

thanks again.

Freealonzo here: Also if you want to see LPII celebrating and supporting the 2006 ballpark effort, check out Greet Machine for June 1, 2006 and April 11.

Posted by: Freealonzo at February 20, 2007 11:22 AM

Shill...what are the interests of the LPII investors? Do they want a stadium or would they rather develop something different? Or do they not care and would rather just do whatever makes them the most money?

Posted by: MOJO at February 20, 2007 11:23 AM

Schill,

I did find it curious that "mntwinsville.com" is copyrighted 2004 by Twinsville LLC and that none of the links appear to be updated since that time. But I also find it curious that they continue to pimp the Twinsville cause (that they could apparently go either way on) by selling hats, t-shirts, mugs, and stickers. http://www.mntwinsville.com/topics/booster/gear.html

Also, it seems that Rick Kupchella didn't talk to the right key legislators, as ballpark lobbying efforts on behalf of LPII were certainly still being conducted in 2006. Take a look here: http://www.cfbreport.state.mn.us/pdfStorage/2006/Lobby/LD/P1/l_5600_3937.pdf. It sure looks like $33,000 was spent by Bruce Lambrecht for lobbying the 2006 ballpark bill on behalf of Twinsville LLC (an entity supporting building a ballpark, and backed by Land Partners II). The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board can be a beautiful thing.

If you'll notice, Mr. Lambrecht terminated his lobbyist registration, effective May 31, 2006. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why... the ballpark bill was passed and his work was done.

So I guess what I find more curious than the lack of updates to "mntwinsville.com" is the notion of "revisionist history" you choose to toss around, when actual public records show that LPII clearly played a role in the ballpark bill that was passed in 2006. Their interest in a ballpark on the Rapid Park site was definitely more than a "we can take it or leave it" mantra. Curious, indeed!

Posted by: The Rational Actor at February 20, 2007 11:46 AM

The Rational Actor,

You should send those links to Rick Kupchella so he can get an understand as to where the original poster who emailed him was coming from.

Posted by: Erik at February 20, 2007 11:56 AM

It was just an observation. BL, at times, seemed to have had his own agenda. But, like RK quotes LPII "being willing sellers does not mean willing to take whatever a buyer wants to pay."

Posted by: Stadiumshill at February 20, 2007 11:56 AM

rick kupchella has good contacts in high republican sources because of his wife. i take anything remotely political reported by him with a grain of salt. and from his interview on KFAN this morning, it sounds like a hit job on the county and twins. it's easy and convenient to point fingers at a government agency who's simply to trying to move this rock up the hill when nobody else had the guts to do so.

Posted by: mullen at February 20, 2007 12:22 PM

I forwarded the lobbying link to RK. Lets not overwhelm his inbox Thanks Rationale Actor for the info.

I also want to go back to that new ballpark celebration that ocurred last April 10 or 11. It was on the Rapid Park site so the LPII people allowed the event to happen on their land, they forgoe a days worth of parking revenue, they printed up signs, provided pop and cracker jacks, rented tents and bleachers, etc, etc. Does this sound like a landowner that could care less about having a new ballpark on their land?

Again check out June 1, 2006 and April 11, 2006 Greet Machine for more information on LPII's celebration of their site for a new Twins ballpark.

Posted by: Freealonzo at February 20, 2007 12:42 PM

Another thing that might be helpful to note is the "Twinsville" mailing list is apparently still active and being used to push stories about the ballpark negotiations.

I got a message from it a few weeks ago when the City Pages issue with the ballpark cover story came out and I got a message from it yesterday telling me to tune in to the Kupchella report.

Posted by: Mark Snyder at February 20, 2007 12:51 PM

Can't we all just focus on what's important here?

The Badgers are #1 in men's hoops! Oh yeah!

Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at February 20, 2007 12:59 PM

You guys are amazing. When Sid & Reusse write stories that are spoon-fed to them by Mike Opat, you have no problem with that. Kupchella may finally give us the opposing viewpoint and you're up in arms over a story that hasn't even run yet.

I'm done with it. Assuming Opat finally does the right thing and condemns, I'll see you guys in 2010 out in the bleachers working on my tan!

Posted by: Ray Kinsella at February 20, 2007 01:19 PM

Hey Ray Kinsella (hmmm, same initials as Rick Kupchella) I get your point, however I would bet if you polled the commenters on this site, you would get a pretty strong sentiment that the County should enter into quick take today and start the condemnation proceedings. That is not a pro-County stance in any shape or form.

What is getting everyone upset is LPII's obvious attempts of making it look like they've been a passive partner since 2004. It's not true and (I think) demonstrates what kind of negotiating partner they've been.

When this is all done, I'll buy you an $8.00 beer in those bleachers.

Posted by: Freealonzo at February 20, 2007 02:24 PM

For those of you who can't wait for a "taste" of RK's report - the KFAN interview with RK is up on their "fan on demand" site.

http://www.kfan.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=KFAN_PADubay.xml

Posted by: Stadiumshill at February 20, 2007 02:25 PM

Seriously guys, I don't know what to think anymore. Summit just signed up for Diamond View season tickets and I might not be able to use them outside til maybe 2012? Excuse me, I am going down to my well stocked basement fridge for a beer.
-Jiminstpaul

Posted by: Jiminstpaul at February 20, 2007 02:29 PM

The Kupchella interview with PA and Dubay is now available on KFAN.com. A couple of things are quite apparent after listening to this interview:

1. LP II is going to come away from tonight's KARE 11 segment looking like good guys trying to protect serveral poor widow's retirement funds that are tied to the sale of the land.

2. Pogin and Lambrecht are scared they will be sued by the poor widows if they do not receive Fair Market Value.

3. To continue to beat the dead horse, condemnation of the land is the only way a stadium gets built. LP II are good guys for not fighting "public purpose."

One thing that was not addressed, and I hope it will be tonight:

What will the poor widow's land be worth when the baseball park falls through and it's back to being a parking lot? I know 'shill has addressed this, but I am just not convinced the land value will increase without a stadium.

And it's killing me.

Posted by: Jeff T. at February 20, 2007 02:36 PM

Most of Minnesota could care less about a baseball stadium.

Posted by: ken at February 20, 2007 03:22 PM

Conspiracy Alert!

From the sounds of it, the Kare11 piece tonight is going to portray LP as indifferent on the Twins stadium being build on their land. Most of us on this board find that, at best, a stretch of the truth. Why, then, would LP changed their tune on the Stadium? Because I’m bored here at work, and suffering the pain of seeing the Badgers ranked number one in Basketball, I’m going to lay out a purely conspiracy theory guess.
LP saw the drawing on the new stadium plans before they were released to the public. The plans did not allow them to build new condos-ie Twinsville-that would overlook the ballpark. So LP decided not to play ball as if they can’t get the vision if Twinsville built-with condos looking into the Stadium-it really doesn’t matter if the Stadium goes on their land or not. This is loosely based on a conversation I had with Bruce at the stadium party. He stated they were already having disagreements with the Twins on the design as the Twins did not want to have “another Wrigley” situation where the surrounding neighborhood could watch the game for free.
Again, this is purely speculation. Please interpret it as such. Finally, Fear GopherNation and the Brew Crew!

Posted by: BP Twin at February 20, 2007 03:28 PM

most of minnesota will care about a baseball stadium when they see golden boy joe mauer thwacking doubles into the gap at a ballpark in portland oregon. just like most of minnesota will care when their beloved purple helmeted vikings are underachieving, but on a field in southern california. don't underestimate the love for these two franchises. pro baseball and football are ingrained into the dna of this state. if you don't want to believe that and think is a load of crap and this is all not going to happen, think again. the nfl and mlb, mlb especially, are not going to let the ballpark situation here wither on the vine another year.

Posted by: mullen at February 20, 2007 03:45 PM

I agree with Ken. Most of MN doesn't care about baseball, but most of MN doesn't care about mass transit either, yet a healthy chunk of tax money goes towards that. So, why not a Twins stadium?

Posted by: Stadiumshill at February 20, 2007 03:50 PM

define "most of minnesota" that doesn't care about baseball? i've got relatives all over outstate minnesota who love the twins and travel down on weekends to see them or listen, watch during the summer. i guess it's just something certain people take for granted until it's gone. and it will be if we continue to let this issue slide. the twins and mass transit are two totally different animals. we're having the same tired arguments. the anti-stadium types are crawling back from under their rocks!

Posted by: mullen at February 20, 2007 03:57 PM

Most of MN would be defined as; "a majority of the people who live here."

It's just being a realist. I don't need to believe that I'm in the "majority" to justify wanting a new stadium. I don't think there's any doubt that had this issue been put to a referrendum, it would've been easily defeated. For that reason, I'm glad it wasn't.

It's no different than mass transit. It's just a different "special interest."

Posted by: Stadiumshill at February 20, 2007 04:07 PM

I think there needs to be a distinction made between the notion that someone cares about baseball/the Twins and someone is willing to pay a tax for them. History in this state and elsewhere has shown there's all sorts of things people "care" about that they don't want to pay for, including both mass transit and pro sports.

History has also shown elsewhere that when new stadiums/ballparks open, the haters tend to quiet down a lot, though I'm sure there will still be those few around here that will still find something to whine about.

There was a fellow in another forum I participate in who bitched about how Hennepin County wasn't doing anything to subsidize his preferred recreational activity (camping) - I pointed out to him that that's probably because the state already does that in the form of the Department of Natural Resources managing all the state parks where he can camp...

Hopefully the predictions of a quick take in a few weeks will be accurate and the anti-stadium folks can go crawl back under their rocks...

Posted by: Mark Snyder at February 20, 2007 04:52 PM

Just to steal their thunder (because I think its optimistic to think they'll actually "quiet down")

It's too small, the garbage burner stinks, there's no roof, its too cold, the view sucks, the train ramp is too small, the bike path is a death trap, there's not enough bathrooms, the concession prices are too high, there's not enough cheap tickets, there's too many rain outs.

Have I left anything out?

Posted by: Stadiumshill at February 20, 2007 05:56 PM

'Shill - I completely agree with you on this. The anti-stadium folks never will quiet down. To add on to this, I've run across an alarming number of Minnesotans who want the following:

1. Carl Pohlad to pay for 100% of a new stadium, but it needs to have a retractable roof in case it is too hot/cold or if it sprinkles. Outdoor is no good.

2. Ticket prices should be $3 - $10 "like they used to be." Like the SAINTS!

3. Payroll should be about $125 million, and all stars should be retained. (How many $3 - $10 dollar seats would you have to sell for $125 million payroll?) If Mauer, Nathan, Santana, Morneau, Cuddyer, & Hunter are not signed long-term, the owner is a cheapskate. Radke should come out of retirement.

I'm sure the list goes on...

Posted by: Jeff T. at February 20, 2007 06:29 PM

Shill,

Thanks. I snorted coffee on my monitor. I'm just glad the boss went home.

Posted by: Drake33 at February 20, 2007 06:43 PM

somebody on another forum predicted we'll hear something by the 22nd. hmmmm....weather's warming up, sure would be nice to see something going on at the site besides surface parking.

Posted by: mullen at February 20, 2007 06:56 PM

I listened to about the first minute of the Kupchella KFAN podcast and I had to turn it off. If the miserable **** can't visit the DEFINITIVE stadium news web site to see pictures and transcripts of Lamprecht AND LPII pimping the stadium in April and May 2006, then it's B.S. I'm all for "balanced reporting" but repeating misleading statements (if not outright lies) just to "represent the other side" doesn't cut it for me.

And you know, the other recent reporting over this issue hasn't exactly been fawning over the commissioners. In fact, Opat has come across fairly poorly, and the whole effort has appeared very disorganized with poor communication/planning. About the only "slanted" piece was Reusse's, which questioned Lamprecht's character. And if Lamprecht would tell Kupchella they were passive parties in the 2006 stadium push, all the while holding his lobbying expense reports and complimentary Summit Pale Ale behind his back... well, maybe there are some character issues there.

And I remember the Twinsville party in the parking lot, although I was unable to attend. That was a big deal, and widely reported. If Kupchella can't even search the KARE11 archives from less than a year ago... holy **** that man is a *******.

(Sorry for the asterisks. Fill in the profanities of your choice.)

Posted by: spycake at February 20, 2007 07:08 PM

I laughed when Shill brought up the gripes from the folks who think the ballpark MUST have a roof. What a crock! We played outside for 20 years and had no more rainouts, rain delays or snow postponements than Chicago, Cleveland or Detroit. I remember Dave St. Peter did a blog entry of his own comparing the weather data of all northern MLB cities and MSP was not the best, but it also wasn't the worst.

If the outstate people want a roof to guarantee their game, then pay for it. Since this is HC paying for it, the locals don't need a roof, they'll just sit through the double-header the next day...Oh I miss those. Unfortunately because of Chase Field's roof we don't have double-headers here either.

I'm really worried that the Twins have listened to this whining too much and they're going to have an ugly awning above the 2nd tier. I don't like large awnings. If it starts to rain, USE A FRICKIN UMBRELLA PEOPLE!!!! If it's the sun you're worried about, WEAR A CAP or VISOR. The Met didn't have awnings - sure we used to be able to hide underneath the tiers above us in the higher rows but nobody died from the rain or sunshine.

Posted by: kevin in az at February 20, 2007 07:57 PM

Spycake,

I think Kupchella is auditioning for Faux News...Ya know...Fair and balanced.

Posted by: kevin in az at February 20, 2007 07:59 PM

Kevin,

I couldn't agree more. The Metrodome turned most of us into pansies. It's really pathetic when you think about it. The outdoors is part of the game and if weather conditions are less than perfect who the hell cares? They can do it in Chicago, we can do it here. I hope it snows on opening day 2010. I'll be loving it. Thanks to the Metrodome, we have a whole generation of clueless Minnesota sports fans.

Posted by: John at February 20, 2007 10:08 PM

The Twins are a bit unique in that thier fan base is probably the 2nd biggest in baseball geographically after the Rockies. I know that people in SD, ND, etc. might be more hesitant to come with an outdoor stadium. The Twins will just need to put a bit more effort into marketing to those folks and making sure they still have a good time if they make the trip.

For example, if you bring your big group outing from SD and it rains, we'll give you a personal tour of the stadium and a meet and greet with players, etc. Or free vouchers to MOA. They will just have to be creative.

Posted by: David Howe at February 20, 2007 10:14 PM

So what'd everyone think of Kupchella's piece?

I am sure it'll spark plenty of conversation.

Posted by: Erik at February 20, 2007 10:24 PM

After watching the 11 piece I see that my math was off. The 2004 deal was for 8 acres in exchange for $13 million and 5 acres. That's $4.3 mil per acre for the net three acre gain the City was getting. Now HC wants 10 acres with no land swap. Doesn't take a genius to come up with a value of $43 million for that. I'm not saying that should be the final value of the land but it shows you how bad the county's offer is.

Posted by: Ray Kinsella at February 20, 2007 10:25 PM

I thought the Kupchella thing was good. The county is lowballing the landowners. Had the county initiated talks with LPII prior to the bill passing in May, I'm sure they could have come to a reasonable purchase price. Now they're stuck with condemnation or nothing. It was not LPII's job to initiate talks. The county was incredibly foolish for assuming they could just name their price. Right now, it's all on the Twins. Mr. Cheap (Pohlad) can step up and offer to pay the difference or it's over.

Posted by: John at February 20, 2007 10:49 PM

Post a comment










Remember personal info?






eXTReMe Tracker
View My Stats
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.