Agenda - Council - 04/22/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

381 N.W.2d 842 (Cite as: 381 N.W.2d 842) Sports Facilities Commission, 270 N.W.2d 749 (Minn.1978). During this period the executive director of the Commission, Donald Poss, discussed with managers of other sports facilities the arrangements they had entered into with scoreboard manufacturers. From his investigation Poss determined that typically a scoreboard manufacturer would provide a scoreboard system in return for revenues from the advertising displayed on the scoreboard. Poss learned that there were two major manufacturers of scoreboard systems that had entered into such arrangements with sports facility authorities, American Sign and Steward -Warner Corp. *844 These two manufacturers had supplied most of the modem major- league scoreboards in the country. In January, 1978, Poss talked to a representative of American Sign, Jaines Tumer, who expressed interest in manufacturing a scoreboard system for the Metrodome. On November 29, 1978, American Sign, in joint venture with Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Association (Twin City Federal), submitted a written proposal to the Commission. The proposal provided that American Sign would supply a scoreboard system in return for advertising rights and that advertising on the scoreboard would be sold to advertisers on an exclusive basis for each product category.N On January 16, 1979, Turner sent Poss a summary of scoreboard agreements entered into by 10 sports facility authorities throughout the country. The typical agreement was for a teen of 10 years, with the manufacturer retaining title to the scoreboard and all advertising revenue during the term. The stadium authority typically provided the maintenance, electricity and control room. Tumer met with the architect of the Metrodome in June, 1979, to review the design of the proposed scoreboard system and to ensure that the Metrodome could accommodate the type of scoreboard system proposed. FN2. Under this proposal, product categories are established and once a maker of a certain product commits to advertising its product, no maker of a © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Page4of8 381 N.W.2d 842 Page 3 competing product is allowed to use the scoreboard for advertising. In mid -1979, a representative from Stewart-Warner Corp. contacted Poss to express interest in manufacturing a scoreboard system for the Metrodome. Stewart-Wamer formed a joint venture with Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association (Midwest Federal) in order to receive financial backing for the project. Thereafter, Stewart-Warner submitted a written proposal to the Commission, detailing the arrangement for the installation of a scoreboard system. In late 1980, Poss was approached by representatives of the Minnesota Vikings and Diamond Vision, another scoreboard manufacturer, concerning possible installation of a color scoreboard system in the Metrodome. However, no formal proposal was submitted to the Commission. Thus, by late 1980 the Commission had before it two formal scoreboard proposals. During 1980 the stadium architect studied the two scoreboard proposals and, on January 5, 1981, concluded in a report to Poss that although the proposed systems were of similar quality American Sign's system was preferred because it provided more visual information to the spectators and had fewer advertising panels. Thereafter, Poss submitted to the Commission a fmancial report of the two proposals. He noted that Stewart - Warner's proposal guaranteed the Commission $75,000 a year for the first 5 years of the agreement, $100,000 a year for the second 5 -year period, and $125,000 for the third 5 -year period. If there were any annual revenues left after Stewart-Warner paid amortization and operating expenses, the Commission would receive a 90- percent split of the excess revenues. Stewart-Warner would own the scoreboard during the 15 -year term of the agreement. In its proposal, American Sign guaranteed to the Commission that the amount of advertising revenues used for amortization and operating expenses would not exceed $500,000 each year for the first 10 years of the term. The Commission would receive 75 percent of all revenues in excess of the $500,000. In the third 5 -year period, the Commission would —1 6http / /web2.westlaw. corn/printlprintstream.aspx ?prft=HTMLE &destination= atp &sv= Split... 9/27/2006