I would just add that if their revenue doubles, and they double their payroll, their profit STILL doubles. And they're not even doing that!
I was never a big fan of just accepting as an axiom that payroll = half of revenue. To me that just means, give us a subsidy, and we'll pocket half of it, and MAYBE we'll consider spending some of the rest on the team. But our cut is 50% minimum. And everyone usually confines their kvetching to the unspent part of the "available" 50%. But why? I would like to think that if we subsidize a private business, that money should at least go into the team, not straight into the bank.
Seriously. I would have much rather seen a bond initiative to just go out and sign free agents, and give them to the Twins. If you really wanted a new stadium,make the subsidy contingent on the Twinsbuilding a new stadium with their own money. You'd get more for your money that way. I hate no-strings-attached giveaways. You sign the check, you call the shots. (Otherwise it's like givingbanks billions of dollars so they'll lend money to people, but never actually requiring them to do so! Oh...)
But think of how much more fun a direct subsidy would have been. You could require a new vote each year, to keep the pressure on the Twins to spend their own money too, or we walk.
You could vote for shadow GMs to decide how to spend the money: nominate your favorite blogger!
Or if you wanted to let Twins management decide who to sign--they after all know more about building a team than we do--we could say, the state will match every dollar you spend on payroll over $100 million. I'd vote for that! At least, I'd choose that over just giving them a stadium, and hoping they spend some of the new revenue on players, and then watching them make record profits instead.
By the way, I love the use of the verb "pocketed" -- one of may favorites when talking about moneybags types.