PDA

View Full Version : This in From Pioneer Press...UHOH!



nephilimstorm
10-01-2009, 01:42 AM
This just in from Pioneer Press on the Stadium. Showdown time!

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_13458646?source=rss

DeathtoDenny
10-01-2009, 01:51 AM
This will not happen.

Randy Moss
10-01-2009, 02:06 AM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


This will not happen.

what won't?

jkjuggalo
10-01-2009, 02:43 AM
Don't really like the comments about not keeping the team in the market, but I guess the top brass thinks it's time to play hardball.

I'm not worried about the team moving...yet.

faninphx
10-01-2009, 03:24 AM
Why couldn't the Vikes meet the legislature halfway and build a dome instead of a retractable roof.
That would save about 100 million right there.
It would probably end up being a dome most of the time anyways because MN is frigid.
Maybe the NFL could dangle the Super Bowl carrot in front of the legislators.

STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES
10-01-2009, 04:04 AM
No roof is fine for football, but think of all the things we could use the stadium for if it had one
-Twins fest
-Golf shows
-State football playoffs
-State soccer playoffs
-'outdoor' nhl hockey
-MLS exhibition
-World Baseball Classic
-Olympics is 10 years, or whenever it could be here after 2016
-Concerts

Not to mention all the jobs it would generate. Yes, most of those jobs would still be created roof or no roof.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 08:48 AM
I am a big proponent for a roof, as most know, but I think it is time to look at this more realistically.


Bagley said the team could build a high-end NFL stadium, with no roof, for $650 million.

That is a considerable savings.
I would be in favor of constructing a stadium with no roof, as long as there is the architectural option of putting a roof on it in the future.


An RSM McGladrey analysis of state tax revenues from 1961-2006 estimates that Minnesota's pro sports teams have helped bring in a combined $345.4 million in taxes, 57 percent of that through personal income tax on payrolls. The rest is attributed to state and local sales, liquor, restaurant, entertainment and gross receipts taxes.

According to the study, paid for by the facilities commission, the Vikings represent the highest individual business impact, $129 million in tax revenue since the team's inception.

OK, so here is my proposal.


State's Contribution:

$129 million (from the taxes already collected and directly attributed to the Vikings)
+$200 million (expected taxes directly attributed to the Vikings over 20 years)
- $34 million (1/2 of the original cost of the dome)
$295 million

Viking's Contribution (matches State):
$295 million

That leaves a cost difference of $60 million.
I vote that the State pick up the extra $60 million (since they will own the facility), and the Vikings agree to cover any cost overages in construction.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 08:51 AM
"faninphx" wrote:


Why couldn't the Vikes meet the legislature halfway and build a dome instead of a retractable roof.
That would save about 100 million right there.
It would probably end up being a dome most of the time anyways because MN is frigid.
Maybe the NFL could dangle the Super Bowl carrot in front of the legislators.


I would be OK with that too.
Truth be told, I think the idea of a retractable roof is fun, but not even a little bit cost effective.
I would rather it be another enclosed stadium.
A lot of people (but not all) who yearn for the old days of the Met and the snow never actually went to a game at the Met in the snow... It sucked.
A lot.

But I also realize the no roof is cheaper than any roof, retractable or otherwise.

Dekay
10-01-2009, 09:13 AM
Maybe we could build a stadium with no roof and put heaters in the seats. or put the seats behind a glasswall all heated up.

Odin...Odin...Odin...Odin

OK, seriously. Having the TFC Bank Stadium in dinkytown, the Twinsstadium and the excel stadium in St Paul all competing for events. One of those have roofs but Im not so sure how the Wilds homearena stands in competetion for indoor events.

I would opt for a roof, either a stationary one or a retractable one in order to draw events and revenue into the legislature during wintertime since there aint no competetion from the other stadiums. During the summertime for concerts etc I see there will be a competition between dinkystadium and a metrodome of old and new.

And I say its madness having so many stadiums in such a small market, I wished we could have joined causes with the U of M or at least the Twins or the Wilds.

C Mac D
10-01-2009, 09:51 AM
This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.

NDVikingFan66
10-01-2009, 09:59 AM
I say wa all go down there and chain ourselves to the doors so they can't pack up in the middle of the night and leave.

I really don't know why this is such a issue.
The Twins got their stadium, and they struggle for fans, and do not sign the talent the Vikes do.
(I am not a huge baseball fan, but do follow somewhat).
I think the reason that stadium got done was because the owners are from Minnesota.
Seems odd that a team once facing contraction all of a suddent gets a new stadium.

I don't understand this....someone just write a check and lets get on with it (only if it were that simple)

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 10:21 AM
I think it has less to do with the Twins owner being from Minnesota as it has to do with the previous Vikings owner being from Tx...
Red caused a LOT of bad blood, and unfortunately the fans and current ownership group are paying for it.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 10:57 AM
I didn't like this comment by Lester -


"The clock is ticking, and the lease is coming due," Bagley said. "The state can't afford to have us become free agents."

Zeus
10-01-2009, 11:28 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


I didn't like this comment by Lester -


"The clock is ticking, and the lease is coming due," Bagley said. "The state can't afford to have us become free agents."


His job is to play the hard-ass.

=Z=

green hornet
10-01-2009, 11:46 AM
I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.

"C" wrote:


This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 11:51 AM
"green" wrote:


I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.

"C" wrote:


This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 11:57 AM
KFAN is reporting that the Vikings will make a "significant" business announcement today at 1145.
I have to assume it has something to do with the stadium effort.

C Mac D
10-01-2009, 12:03 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


KFAN is reporting that the Vikings will make a "significant" business announcement today at 1145.
I have to assume it has something to do with the stadium effort.


"We'll be using Mayflower to move to LA"

hav0x
10-01-2009, 12:09 PM
Why wouldn't they design a stadium that can initially be built without a roof and at a later date (when the economy picks up) add the $250 million retractable roof. Doesn't that make the most sense? Not to mention naming rights that can help pay for a smaller portion.

$650 million for the initial stadium.
$250 million from Zygi.
$400 million from the state.

$400 million is close to what the state is chipping in for Target Field.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 12:12 PM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


KFAN is reporting that the Vikings will make a "significant" business announcement today at 1145.
I have to assume it has something to do with the stadium effort.


"We'll be using Mayflower to move to LA"


lol.
bite your tounge.

Actually, I think that the significant announcement is going to be either a partnership agreement with a local corporation on naming rights, or an actual fiscal plan that they are laying out.

vikinggreg
10-01-2009, 12:18 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"green" wrote:


I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.

"C" wrote:


This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.

hav0x
10-01-2009, 12:18 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


KFAN is reporting that the Vikings will make a "significant" business announcement today at 1145.
I have to assume it has something to do with the stadium effort.


"We'll be using Mayflower to move to LA"


lol.
bite your tounge.

Actually, I think that the significant announcement is going to be either a partnership agreement with a local corporation on naming rights, or an actual fiscal plan that they are laying out.
Considering that they are giving a presentation I would assume they will be releasing their stadium plan.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 12:21 PM
"vikinggreg" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"green" wrote:


I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.

"C" wrote:


This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.

Braddock
10-01-2009, 12:25 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"green" wrote:


I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.

"C" wrote:


This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 12:31 PM
"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"green" wrote:


I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.

jmcdon00
10-01-2009, 12:38 PM
"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"green" wrote:


I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

They have made money the last couple years, not huge money but money. Unless you look at the appreciation of the team it's self, that has went up some 250million in the 3 years Wilf has owned it(thats huge money). Not saying LA(or another town) might not be a whole lot more profitable but let's not pretend like Wilf is losing money on the Vikings.

The big problem with the state funding is that we don't have any money.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 12:44 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:




I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

They have made money the last couple years, not huge money but money. Unless you look at the appreciation of the team it's self, that has went up some 250million in the 3 years Wilf has owned it(thats huge money). Not saying LA(or another town) might not be a whole lot more profitable but let's not pretend like Wilf is losing money on the Vikings.

The big problem with the state funding is that we don't have any money.


They had to make capital calls twice since Wilf acquired the team.
That means that they are losing money, not making it...


I agree with your last sentance though.
Which is why I don't propose asking the state for a single dollar that they haven't already made or will make off from the Vikings in the next 20 years.

The state has already made $129 million in tax dollars DIRECTLY attributed to the Vikings.
They stand to make a minimum of $200 million more in the next 20 years (very conservative estimate that assumes that the salary cap doesn't rise in the next 20 years.
It will almost certainly go up).
IMHO, I don't see why the state can't contribute at least $300 million to the stadium when they stand to make at least that much back.
That is basically getting the intangibles of an NFL team for free.

C Mac D
10-01-2009, 12:47 PM
"vikinggreg" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"green" wrote:


I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.

"C" wrote:


This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Didn't we make it to the playoffs with Red McCombs as our owner?

Weren't we more successful in the playoffs under Red McCombs?

Just saying.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 12:50 PM
Looks like the major announcement will be that the Vikings have signed a business agreement with the Mall of America.
The new Vikings stadium will be called Mall of America Field.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 12:51 PM
The new Vikings backdrop during the press conference says "Mall Of America Field" on it.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 12:53 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


The new Vikings backdrop during the press conference says "Mall Of America Field" on it.


Where are you seeing this?

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 12:56 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


The new Vikings backdrop during the press conference says "Mall Of America Field" on it.


Where are you seeing this?



Watching the press conference right now.
You can see it over Childress's right shoulder.
Before he came to the podium, it was in clear view.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 12:56 PM
http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/videos/Childress--Favre-Thurs-Oct-1-at-1145-am-CST/e5e163a2-800a-4cba-acc5-bcab8ff4937e

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 12:58 PM
Argh.
It isn't the new stadium.
It is the renaming of the metrodome.

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/Vikings-and-Mall-of-America-Announce-Naming-Right-Partnership/84bf4538-a7a4-4478-b0a5-55f8f992f0fe

The Minnesota Vikings and Mall of America® announced today a partnership for the naming rights to the field that has served as the team’s home since 1982. The agreement, announced this morning from the Vikings Winter Park facility, provides that the field will be called Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome for a three-year period beginning October 5, 2009, and ending February 28, 2012.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 01:02 PM
Lame...
I hope they are taking any revenue they get from this and putting it towards the new stadium contribution.

Braddock
10-01-2009, 01:05 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:




I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.


Yeah, I would lose millions a dollars a year to own a team called the Minnesota Vikings, versus gain millions of dollars owning a team named Los Angeles Vikings... ::)

I understand your point, and hope the same happens, but there is 0% chance of that. Zero.

slavinator
10-01-2009, 01:06 PM
This is a VERY SAAVY move by the Vikings and MOA!!! Nice Job!

If you are not watching the presser you should be.
This could be the shot in the arm that we needed!

Braddock
10-01-2009, 01:06 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Argh.
It isn't the new stadium.
It is the renaming of the metrodome.

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/Vikings-and-Mall-of-America-Announce-Naming-Right-Partnership/84bf4538-a7a4-4478-b0a5-55f8f992f0fe

The Minnesota Vikings and Mall of America® announced today a partnership for the naming rights to the field that has served as the team’s home since 1982. The agreement, announced this morning from the Vikings Winter Park facility, provides that the field will be called Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome for a three-year period beginning October 5, 2009, and ending February 28, 2012.


Technically renaming the field in the dome, not the dome itself.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 01:06 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Lame...
I hope they are taking any revenue they get from this and putting it towards the new stadium contribution.



They are going to rebrand the dome too.
Get rid of all the Twins and Gophers stuff.
Should be interesting to see on Monday night.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 01:07 PM
"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:






I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.


Yeah, I would lose millions a dollars a year to own a team called the Minnesota Vikings, versus gain millions of dollars owning a team named Los Angeles Vikings... ::)

I understand your point, and hope the same happens, but there is 0% chance of that. Zero.


Wilf has already made millions off this team.
Don't let anything fool you.

i_bleed_purple
10-01-2009, 01:07 PM
"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:






I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.


Yeah, I would lose millions a dollars a year to own a team called the Minnesota Vikings, versus gain millions of dollars owning a team named Los Angeles Vikings... ::)

I understand your point, and hope the same happens, but there is 0% chance of that. Zero.


The issue though, is Wilf is not a fan.
He was not a football guy, he bought the team as an investment.
If anything he was a Giants fan.
Now thats not to say he doesn't support his own team, but to take a loss to keep the "Minnesota VIkings" isn't going to happen from him.

jmcdon00
10-01-2009, 01:08 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:






I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

They have made money the last couple years, not huge money but money. Unless you look at the appreciation of the team it's self, that has went up some 250million in the 3 years Wilf has owned it(thats huge money). Not saying LA(or another town) might not be a whole lot more profitable but let's not pretend like Wilf is losing money on the Vikings.

The big problem with the state funding is that we don't have any money.


They had to make capital calls twice since Wilf acquired the team.
That means that they are losing money, not making it...


I agree with your last sentance though.
Which is why I don't propose asking the state for a single dollar that they haven't already made or will make off from the Vikings in the next 20 years.

The state has already made $129 million in tax dollars DIRECTLY attributed to the Vikings.
They stand to make a minimum of $200 million more in the next 20 years (very conservative estimate that assumes that the salary cap doesn't rise in the next 20 years.
It will almost certainly go up).
IMHO, I don't see why the state can't contribute at least $300 million to the stadium when they stand to make at least that much back.
That is basically getting the intangibles of an NFL team for free.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 01:13 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:








I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.


Yeah, I would lose millions a dollars a year to own a team called the Minnesota Vikings, versus gain millions of dollars owning a team named Los Angeles Vikings... ::)

I understand your point, and hope the same happens, but there is 0% chance of that. Zero.


The issue though, is Wilf is not a fan.
He was not a football guy, he bought the team as an investment.
If anything he was a Giants fan.
Now thats not to say he doesn't support his own team, but to take a loss to keep the "Minnesota VIkings" isn't going to happen from him.


Where do you guys get the notion that he's "taking a loss"???
He's not making as much here as he maybe could elsewhere, but lets not pretend like he's losing money OK?

i_bleed_purple
10-01-2009, 01:14 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:










I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.


Yeah, I would lose millions a dollars a year to own a team called the Minnesota Vikings, versus gain millions of dollars owning a team named Los Angeles Vikings... ::)

I understand your point, and hope the same happens, but there is 0% chance of that. Zero.


The issue though, is Wilf is not a fan.
He was not a football guy, he bought the team as an investment.
If anything he was a Giants fan.
Now thats not to say he doesn't support his own team, but to take a loss to keep the "Minnesota VIkings" isn't going to happen from him.


Where do you guys get the notion that he's "taking a loss"???
He's not making as much here as he maybe could elsewhere, but lets not pretend like he's losing money OK?


If it comes to be 2012, he has a team with no stadium he'll be facing a loss.

Braddock
10-01-2009, 01:16 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:



http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Operating income does not equal profit. That's just the money to make things happen. I assume front office salaries, electricity, random things to make the stadium go. Player salaries, marketing, are obviously not included in that cost.

If you look at the other tid bits of data, which are more important, imho, you'll see we make the smallest amount of revenue (attributed to the dome by various Vikings sources) and our percentage of debt/value is 38% Only other team above 20% is Detroit, and they just snapped a 19-game losing streak and have been awful for years....

So look at what's right in front of your eyes, Vikings are draining money, and Wilf wants that changed one way or another.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 01:18 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:












I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.


Yeah, I would lose millions a dollars a year to own a team called the Minnesota Vikings, versus gain millions of dollars owning a team named Los Angeles Vikings... ::)

I understand your point, and hope the same happens, but there is 0% chance of that. Zero.


The issue though, is Wilf is not a fan.
He was not a football guy, he bought the team as an investment.
If anything he was a Giants fan.
Now thats not to say he doesn't support his own team, but to take a loss to keep the "Minnesota VIkings" isn't going to happen from him.


Where do you guys get the notion that he's "taking a loss"???
He's not making as much here as he maybe could elsewhere, but lets not pretend like he's losing money OK?


If it comes to be 2012, he has a team with no stadium he'll be facing a loss.


That...or he could simply sign an extension to his lease for another 3-5 years.
That would buy him both more time to seek money from the MN government, and/or explore other areas to move the Vikings too.

Braddock
10-01-2009, 01:20 PM
In addition, Wilf have pumped money into this team, and STILL we are worth the least amount of money of all the franchises (this per that same forbes quote). I think them moving is a strong possibility.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 01:23 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:








I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

They have made money the last couple years, not huge money but money. Unless you look at the appreciation of the team it's self, that has went up some 250million in the 3 years Wilf has owned it(thats huge money). Not saying LA(or another town) might not be a whole lot more profitable but let's not pretend like Wilf is losing money on the Vikings.

The big problem with the state funding is that we don't have any money.


They had to make capital calls twice since Wilf acquired the team.
That means that they are losing money, not making it...


I agree with your last sentance though.
Which is why I don't propose asking the state for a single dollar that they haven't already made or will make off from the Vikings in the next 20 years.

The state has already made $129 million in tax dollars DIRECTLY attributed to the Vikings.
They stand to make a minimum of $200 million more in the next 20 years (very conservative estimate that assumes that the salary cap doesn't rise in the next 20 years.
It will almost certainly go up).
IMHO, I don't see why the state can't contribute at least $300 million to the stadium when they stand to make at least that much back.
That is basically getting the intangibles of an NFL team for free.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Addressing the last paragraph, you are right in that the stte doesn't have the money - right now.
But capital expenditures are budgeted for and paid for over a period of years.
It is not unreasonable for the state to budget $300 million over five years to pay for a stadium that will generate tax and lease revenue for 20+.
In fact, it is fiscally irresponsible NOT to - then again, little of what I have seen out of the Minnesota government has been fiscally responsible.

Bottom line, the state will lose money and a major quality of life contributer if they don't find a way to get the stadium built.
They don't have to build it, or even finance it now.
Put a plan in NOW to build it and finance it when the economy recovers.
The Vikings will play with a year to year lease while they wait, as long as they know that the stadium WILL get built.

Braddock
10-01-2009, 01:29 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:




Addressing the last paragraph, you are right in that the stte doesn't have the money - right now.
But capital expenditures are budgeted for and paid for over a period of years.
It is not unreasonable for the state to budget $300 million over five years to pay for a stadium that will generate tax and lease revenue for 20+.
In fact, it is fiscally irresponsible NOT to - then again, little of what I have seen out of the Minnesota government has been fiscally responsible.

Bottom line, the state will lose money and a major quality of life contributer if they don't find a way to get the stadium built.
They don't have to build it, or even finance it now.
Put a plan in NOW to build it and finance it when the economy recovers.
The Vikings will play with a year to year lease while they wait, as long as they know that the stadium WILL get built.


That's a good point. We seem to have forgotten that during this banter. Put the plan in place, and pay out later. You have to get the contractors on board with that, b/c as time passes, 300 million now is worth less 5 years from now, due to inflation.

Like player contracts, Stafford gets $41 million guaranteed. They structure the contract so the majority of it gets paid out later years. So in reality, if they were to pay the WHOLE, equal amount today, it would equate to less than that. Probably closer to 35/36, guessing.

So, Contractors have to pay TODAY's prices for materials, then get paid later, means they "lose" a little money, so they would have to be in agreement to accept such a plan.

jmcdon00
10-01-2009, 01:42 PM
"Braddock" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Operating income does not equal profit. That's just the money to make things happen. I assume front office salaries, electricity, random things to make the stadium go. Player salaries, marketing, are obviously not included in that cost.

If you look at the other tid bits of data, which are more important, imho, you'll see we make the smallest amount of revenue (attributed to the dome by various Vikings sources) and our percentage of debt/value is 38% Only other team above 20% is Detroit, and they just snapped a 19-game losing streak and have been awful for years....

So look at what's right in front of your eyes, Vikings are draining money, and Wilf wants that changed one way or another.

I see what you are saying. And you are right we do have the lowest revenue, lowest team value, and highest debt ratio.
Operating income does include Player salaries and marketing, and front office etc. About the only thing it doesn't cover is interest on debt. Of course that is because Wilf borrowed a lot of the money he needed to buy the team, that has nothing to do with a stadium, in fact that ratio would likely go up with a new stadium.

Here is the 2008 numbers. Eight franchises lost value, not the Vikings. 2 franchises had negative operating income, not the vikings. 4 teams now have a debt to value % higher than the Vikings. The Vikings are no longer the lowest valued team, that honor goes to the Raiders.
http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:inside-the-2009-forbes-nfl-franchise-valuations&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 01:46 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Operating income does not equal profit. That's just the money to make things happen. I assume front office salaries, electricity, random things to make the stadium go. Player salaries, marketing, are obviously not included in that cost.

If you look at the other tid bits of data, which are more important, imho, you'll see we make the smallest amount of revenue (attributed to the dome by various Vikings sources) and our percentage of debt/value is 38% Only other team above 20% is Detroit, and they just snapped a 19-game losing streak and have been awful for years....

So look at what's right in front of your eyes, Vikings are draining money, and Wilf wants that changed one way or another.

I see what you are saying. And you are right we do have the lowest revenue, lowest team value, and highest debt ratio.
Operating income does include Player salaries and marketing, and front office etc. About the only thing it doesn't cover is interest on debt. Of course that is because Wilf borrowed a lot of the money he needed to buy the team, that has nothing to do with a stadium, in fact that ratio would likely go up with a new stadium.

Here is the 2008 numbers. Eight franchises lost value, not the Vikings. 2 franchises had negative operating income, not the vikings. 4 teams now have a debt to value % higher than the Vikings. The Vikings are no longer the lowest valued team, that honor goes to the Raiders.
http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:inside-the-2009-forbes-nfl-franchise-valuations&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61


BTW, don't forget about revenue sharing.
It looks like that it going away, possibly with the new CBA.
The Vikings will NEVER be able to be lucrative without it.

Yfz01
10-01-2009, 01:51 PM
Why do they go into all the detail about not having a roof?
It's obvious the state needs it to be roofed so just make it a dome.
Save some money and make it more appealing to the people

jmcdon00
10-01-2009, 01:59 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:










I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

They have made money the last couple years, not huge money but money. Unless you look at the appreciation of the team it's self, that has went up some 250million in the 3 years Wilf has owned it(thats huge money). Not saying LA(or another town) might not be a whole lot more profitable but let's not pretend like Wilf is losing money on the Vikings.

The big problem with the state funding is that we don't have any money.


They had to make capital calls twice since Wilf acquired the team.
That means that they are losing money, not making it...


I agree with your last sentance though.
Which is why I don't propose asking the state for a single dollar that they haven't already made or will make off from the Vikings in the next 20 years.

The state has already made $129 million in tax dollars DIRECTLY attributed to the Vikings.
They stand to make a minimum of $200 million more in the next 20 years (very conservative estimate that assumes that the salary cap doesn't rise in the next 20 years.
It will almost certainly go up).
IMHO, I don't see why the state can't contribute at least $300 million to the stadium when they stand to make at least that much back.
That is basically getting the intangibles of an NFL team for free.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Addressing the last paragraph, you are right in that the stte doesn't have the money - right now.
But capital expenditures are budgeted for and paid for over a period of years.
It is not unreasonable for the state to budget $300 million over five years to pay for a stadium that will generate tax and lease revenue for 20+.
In fact, it is fiscally irresponsible NOT to - then again, little of what I have seen out of the Minnesota government has been fiscally responsible.

Bottom line, the state will lose money and a major quality of life contributer if they don't find a way to get the stadium built.
They don't have to build it, or even finance it now.
Put a plan in NOW to build it and finance it when the economy recovers.
The Vikings will play with a year to year lease while they wait, as long as they know that the stadium WILL get built.


CHARGE.... it.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 02:02 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:












I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

They have made money the last couple years, not huge money but money. Unless you look at the appreciation of the team it's self, that has went up some 250million in the 3 years Wilf has owned it(thats huge money). Not saying LA(or another town) might not be a whole lot more profitable but let's not pretend like Wilf is losing money on the Vikings.

The big problem with the state funding is that we don't have any money.


They had to make capital calls twice since Wilf acquired the team.
That means that they are losing money, not making it...


I agree with your last sentance though.
Which is why I don't propose asking the state for a single dollar that they haven't already made or will make off from the Vikings in the next 20 years.

The state has already made $129 million in tax dollars DIRECTLY attributed to the Vikings.
They stand to make a minimum of $200 million more in the next 20 years (very conservative estimate that assumes that the salary cap doesn't rise in the next 20 years.
It will almost certainly go up).
IMHO, I don't see why the state can't contribute at least $300 million to the stadium when they stand to make at least that much back.
That is basically getting the intangibles of an NFL team for free.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Addressing the last paragraph, you are right in that the stte doesn't have the money - right now.
But capital expenditures are budgeted for and paid for over a period of years.
It is not unreasonable for the state to budget $300 million over five years to pay for a stadium that will generate tax and lease revenue for 20+.
In fact, it is fiscally irresponsible NOT to - then again, little of what I have seen out of the Minnesota government has been fiscally responsible.

Bottom line, the state will lose money and a major quality of life contributer if they don't find a way to get the stadium built.
They don't have to build it, or even finance it now.
Put a plan in NOW to build it and finance it when the economy recovers.
The Vikings will play with a year to year lease while they wait, as long as they know that the stadium WILL get built.


CHARGE.... it.


+1
Buy now, worry about paying for it later...it's the American way!

jmcdon00
10-01-2009, 02:12 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Operating income does not equal profit. That's just the money to make things happen. I assume front office salaries, electricity, random things to make the stadium go. Player salaries, marketing, are obviously not included in that cost.

If you look at the other tid bits of data, which are more important, imho, you'll see we make the smallest amount of revenue (attributed to the dome by various Vikings sources) and our percentage of debt/value is 38% Only other team above 20% is Detroit, and they just snapped a 19-game losing streak and have been awful for years....

So look at what's right in front of your eyes, Vikings are draining money, and Wilf wants that changed one way or another.

I see what you are saying. And you are right we do have the lowest revenue, lowest team value, and highest debt ratio.
Operating income does include Player salaries and marketing, and front office etc. About the only thing it doesn't cover is interest on debt. Of course that is because Wilf borrowed a lot of the money he needed to buy the team, that has nothing to do with a stadium, in fact that ratio would likely go up with a new stadium.

Here is the 2008 numbers. Eight franchises lost value, not the Vikings. 2 franchises had negative operating income, not the vikings. 4 teams now have a debt to value % higher than the Vikings. The Vikings are no longer the lowest valued team, that honor goes to the Raiders.
http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:inside-the-2009-forbes-nfl-franchise-valuations&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61


BTW, don't forget about revenue sharing.
It looks like that it going away, possibly with the new CBA.
The Vikings will NEVER be able to be lucrative without it.

Without some form of revenue sharing the Vikings wont make it anyway. The NFL would never be that stupid.

i_bleed_purple
10-01-2009, 02:14 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Operating income does not equal profit. That's just the money to make things happen. I assume front office salaries, electricity, random things to make the stadium go. Player salaries, marketing, are obviously not included in that cost.

If you look at the other tid bits of data, which are more important, imho, you'll see we make the smallest amount of revenue (attributed to the dome by various Vikings sources) and our percentage of debt/value is 38% Only other team above 20% is Detroit, and they just snapped a 19-game losing streak and have been awful for years....

So look at what's right in front of your eyes, Vikings are draining money, and Wilf wants that changed one way or another.

I see what you are saying. And you are right we do have the lowest revenue, lowest team value, and highest debt ratio.
Operating income does include Player salaries and marketing, and front office etc. About the only thing it doesn't cover is interest on debt. Of course that is because Wilf borrowed a lot of the money he needed to buy the team, that has nothing to do with a stadium, in fact that ratio would likely go up with a new stadium.

Here is the 2008 numbers. Eight franchises lost value, not the Vikings. 2 franchises had negative operating income, not the vikings. 4 teams now have a debt to value % higher than the Vikings. The Vikings are no longer the lowest valued team, that honor goes to the Raiders.
http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:inside-the-2009-forbes-nfl-franchise-valuations&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61


BTW, don't forget about revenue sharing.
It looks like that it going away, possibly with the new CBA.
The Vikings will NEVER be able to be lucrative without it.

Without some form of revenue sharing the Vikings wont make it anyway. The NFL would never be that stupid.


lol, salary cap was 117 mil or something last year.
Without revenue sharing the best we could do was an 18 mil salary.
No point even trying anymore if that were the case.
End of Revenue Sharing = End of the Vikings, plain and simple.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 02:16 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:














I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

They have made money the last couple years, not huge money but money. Unless you look at the appreciation of the team it's self, that has went up some 250million in the 3 years Wilf has owned it(thats huge money). Not saying LA(or another town) might not be a whole lot more profitable but let's not pretend like Wilf is losing money on the Vikings.

The big problem with the state funding is that we don't have any money.


They had to make capital calls twice since Wilf acquired the team.
That means that they are losing money, not making it...


I agree with your last sentance though.
Which is why I don't propose asking the state for a single dollar that they haven't already made or will make off from the Vikings in the next 20 years.

The state has already made $129 million in tax dollars DIRECTLY attributed to the Vikings.
They stand to make a minimum of $200 million more in the next 20 years (very conservative estimate that assumes that the salary cap doesn't rise in the next 20 years.
It will almost certainly go up).
IMHO, I don't see why the state can't contribute at least $300 million to the stadium when they stand to make at least that much back.
That is basically getting the intangibles of an NFL team for free.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Addressing the last paragraph, you are right in that the stte doesn't have the money - right now.
But capital expenditures are budgeted for and paid for over a period of years.
It is not unreasonable for the state to budget $300 million over five years to pay for a stadium that will generate tax and lease revenue for 20+.
In fact, it is fiscally irresponsible NOT to - then again, little of what I have seen out of the Minnesota government has been fiscally responsible.

Bottom line, the state will lose money and a major quality of life contributer if they don't find a way to get the stadium built.
They don't have to build it, or even finance it now.
Put a plan in NOW to build it and finance it when the economy recovers.
The Vikings will play with a year to year lease while they wait, as long as they know that the stadium WILL get built.


CHARGE.... it.


+1
Buy now, worry about paying for it later...it's the American way!


lol.

actually, that wasn't what I was saying.
I was actually suggesting something more along the lines of an extended Metrodome MOA Field lease (5 years?) with wording in the lease that the state would move forward on public financing of $X million when certain economic requirements are met.
That way the state doesn't have to struggle to pay for it now, and the Vikings are assured that a new stadium WILL get built when the economy recovers.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 02:17 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Operating income does not equal profit. That's just the money to make things happen. I assume front office salaries, electricity, random things to make the stadium go. Player salaries, marketing, are obviously not included in that cost.

If you look at the other tid bits of data, which are more important, imho, you'll see we make the smallest amount of revenue (attributed to the dome by various Vikings sources) and our percentage of debt/value is 38% Only other team above 20% is Detroit, and they just snapped a 19-game losing streak and have been awful for years....

So look at what's right in front of your eyes, Vikings are draining money, and Wilf wants that changed one way or another.

I see what you are saying. And you are right we do have the lowest revenue, lowest team value, and highest debt ratio.
Operating income does include Player salaries and marketing, and front office etc. About the only thing it doesn't cover is interest on debt. Of course that is because Wilf borrowed a lot of the money he needed to buy the team, that has nothing to do with a stadium, in fact that ratio would likely go up with a new stadium.

Here is the 2008 numbers. Eight franchises lost value, not the Vikings. 2 franchises had negative operating income, not the vikings. 4 teams now have a debt to value % higher than the Vikings. The Vikings are no longer the lowest valued team, that honor goes to the Raiders.
http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:inside-the-2009-forbes-nfl-franchise-valuations&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61


BTW, don't forget about revenue sharing.
It looks like that it going away, possibly with the new CBA.
The Vikings will NEVER be able to be lucrative without it.

Without some form of revenue sharing the Vikings wont make it anyway. The NFL would never be that stupid.


Most indications are that revenue sharing will go away.
Especially now that both Kraft and Jones are campaigning against it.

i_bleed_purple
10-01-2009, 02:20 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:





http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Operating income does not equal profit. That's just the money to make things happen. I assume front office salaries, electricity, random things to make the stadium go. Player salaries, marketing, are obviously not included in that cost.

If you look at the other tid bits of data, which are more important, imho, you'll see we make the smallest amount of revenue (attributed to the dome by various Vikings sources) and our percentage of debt/value is 38% Only other team above 20% is Detroit, and they just snapped a 19-game losing streak and have been awful for years....

So look at what's right in front of your eyes, Vikings are draining money, and Wilf wants that changed one way or another.

I see what you are saying. And you are right we do have the lowest revenue, lowest team value, and highest debt ratio.
Operating income does include Player salaries and marketing, and front office etc. About the only thing it doesn't cover is interest on debt. Of course that is because Wilf borrowed a lot of the money he needed to buy the team, that has nothing to do with a stadium, in fact that ratio would likely go up with a new stadium.

Here is the 2008 numbers. Eight franchises lost value, not the Vikings. 2 franchises had negative operating income, not the vikings. 4 teams now have a debt to value % higher than the Vikings. The Vikings are no longer the lowest valued team, that honor goes to the Raiders.
http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:inside-the-2009-forbes-nfl-franchise-valuations&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61


BTW, don't forget about revenue sharing.
It looks like that it going away, possibly with the new CBA.
The Vikings will NEVER be able to be lucrative without it.

Without some form of revenue sharing the Vikings wont make it anyway. The NFL would never be that stupid.


Most indications are that revenue sharing will go away.
Especially now that both Kraft and Jones are campaigning against it.


well if kraft is against it, thats bad news, him and goddell are buddies.

For the owners vote, do they need 50% or more to make a change?

I'm trying to think who would be in favour of canning the revenue sharing,

Pats, Steelers, Raiders, Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Bears...
Maybe a few others, but I'd think most other teams benefit more from the revenue sharing.

Prophet
10-01-2009, 02:20 PM
Stadium threads are like infomercials between games.

jmcdon00
10-01-2009, 03:28 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:
















I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

They have made money the last couple years, not huge money but money. Unless you look at the appreciation of the team it's self, that has went up some 250million in the 3 years Wilf has owned it(thats huge money). Not saying LA(or another town) might not be a whole lot more profitable but let's not pretend like Wilf is losing money on the Vikings.

The big problem with the state funding is that we don't have any money.


They had to make capital calls twice since Wilf acquired the team.
That means that they are losing money, not making it...


I agree with your last sentance though.
Which is why I don't propose asking the state for a single dollar that they haven't already made or will make off from the Vikings in the next 20 years.

The state has already made $129 million in tax dollars DIRECTLY attributed to the Vikings.
They stand to make a minimum of $200 million more in the next 20 years (very conservative estimate that assumes that the salary cap doesn't rise in the next 20 years.
It will almost certainly go up).
IMHO, I don't see why the state can't contribute at least $300 million to the stadium when they stand to make at least that much back.
That is basically getting the intangibles of an NFL team for free.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Addressing the last paragraph, you are right in that the stte doesn't have the money - right now.
But capital expenditures are budgeted for and paid for over a period of years.
It is not unreasonable for the state to budget $300 million over five years to pay for a stadium that will generate tax and lease revenue for 20+.
In fact, it is fiscally irresponsible NOT to - then again, little of what I have seen out of the Minnesota government has been fiscally responsible.

Bottom line, the state will lose money and a major quality of life contributer if they don't find a way to get the stadium built.
They don't have to build it, or even finance it now.
Put a plan in NOW to build it and finance it when the economy recovers.
The Vikings will play with a year to year lease while they wait, as long as they know that the stadium WILL get built.


CHARGE.... it.


+1
Buy now, worry about paying for it later...it's the American way!


lol.

actually, that wasn't what I was saying.
I was actually suggesting something more along the lines of an extended Metrodome MOA Field lease (5 years?) with wording in the lease that the state would move forward on public financing of $X million when certain economic requirements are met.
That way the state doesn't have to struggle to pay for it now, and the Vikings are assured that a new stadium WILL get built when the economy recovers.

That would be nice, not sure if the Vikings would go for it though.

vikinggreg
10-01-2009, 03:30 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:








I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.

They have made money the last couple years, not huge money but money. Unless you look at the appreciation of the team it's self, that has went up some 250million in the 3 years Wilf has owned it(thats huge money). Not saying LA(or another town) might not be a whole lot more profitable but let's not pretend like Wilf is losing money on the Vikings.

The big problem with the state funding is that we don't have any money.


They had to make capital calls twice since Wilf acquired the team.
That means that they are losing money, not making it...


I agree with your last sentance though.
Which is why I don't propose asking the state for a single dollar that they haven't already made or will make off from the Vikings in the next 20 years.

The state has already made $129 million in tax dollars DIRECTLY attributed to the Vikings.
They stand to make a minimum of $200 million more in the next 20 years (very conservative estimate that assumes that the salary cap doesn't rise in the next 20 years.
It will almost certainly go up).
IMHO, I don't see why the state can't contribute at least $300 million to the stadium when they stand to make at least that much back.
That is basically getting the intangibles of an NFL team for free.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


A large amount of the money from the capital calls was use to update the facilities at Winter Park....think I read somewhere last year it was 30 to 60 mill? Can't remember.

jargomcfargo
10-01-2009, 03:37 PM
How about tearing down the Mall Of America and building a stadium on that site?

vikinggreg
10-01-2009, 03:38 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:








I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.


Yeah, I would lose millions a dollars a year to own a team called the Minnesota Vikings, versus gain millions of dollars owning a team named Los Angeles Vikings... ::)

I understand your point, and hope the same happens, but there is 0% chance of that. Zero.


The issue though, is Wilf is not a fan.
He was not a football guy, he bought the team as an investment.
If anything he was a Giants fan.
Now thats not to say he doesn't support his own team, but to take a loss to keep the "Minnesota VIkings" isn't going to happen from him.


Also the Wilfs aren't the only members of the ownership group, not sure who the others are beside Reggie Fowler but if some of the others decide they want to cut bait and demand a buyout it could change a lot of the commitment to the current location of the team.

jmcdon00
10-01-2009, 03:44 PM
"vikinggreg" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:










I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.


Yeah, I would lose millions a dollars a year to own a team called the Minnesota Vikings, versus gain millions of dollars owning a team named Los Angeles Vikings... ::)

I understand your point, and hope the same happens, but there is 0% chance of that. Zero.


The issue though, is Wilf is not a fan.
He was not a football guy, he bought the team as an investment.
If anything he was a Giants fan.
Now thats not to say he doesn't support his own team, but to take a loss to keep the "Minnesota VIkings" isn't going to happen from him.


Also the Wilfs aren't the only members of the ownership group, not sure who the others are beside Reggie Fowler but if some of the others decide they want to cut bait and demand a buyout it could change a lot of the commitment to the current location of the team.

If they decided to get out they would likely just sell there percentage, and make a nice profit(team value went from 650million to 850million since they bought in, 30% increase in 3 years isn't that bad, especially considering the nose dive the economy took in that time.
Wilf has stated he's committed to keeping the Vikings in Minnesota and I believe him. I think the Vikings will stay and be profitable for many years to come. Eventually they will get a stadium done.

vikinggreg
10-01-2009, 04:18 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:












I have said the vikings could easily move and everyone laughs at the suggetion. I dont think its that far fetched.



This has failure written all over it. Not sure of anyone who will lobby taxpayers for $700M in the current economic climate.

I think the possibility of the Vikings moving grows ever more realistic.



It's not an impossible theory, but there are other teams in the NFL with far worse situations than the Vikings.


I'm not sure I can think of many teams that have poured as much money into a team like the Wilfs, rebuilt the team structure, have made the playoffs, invested more into the team and are near or at the bottom of the list in revenue.


Big props to a fantastic ownership group.
That is unless they decide to move the team that has graced generations since 1961.


How could you blame them though? They have to be losing money from these, overall. With the way Wilf keeps asking for more money...

And we're talking about MILLIONS of dollars. If this were my team, and the stadium got vetoed, I'd look for a place that COULD make me money.


I understand it's a business, and from an unbiased perspective it's tough to blame them.
I just hope that the 'fan' inside Wilf makes him further understand the significance of keeping a team local, and near the hearts of the people who have truly made it what it is today, almost 50 years in the making.

Move the Jags...they've only been around for a handful of years and have no fan support what soever. If the NFL has any say, which I'm sure they do they should be pushing JAX, not MIN.


Yeah, I would lose millions a dollars a year to own a team called the Minnesota Vikings, versus gain millions of dollars owning a team named Los Angeles Vikings... ::)

I understand your point, and hope the same happens, but there is 0% chance of that. Zero.


The issue though, is Wilf is not a fan.
He was not a football guy, he bought the team as an investment.
If anything he was a Giants fan.
Now thats not to say he doesn't support his own team, but to take a loss to keep the "Minnesota VIkings" isn't going to happen from him.


Also the Wilfs aren't the only members of the ownership group, not sure who the others are beside Reggie Fowler but if some of the others decide they want to cut bait and demand a buyout it could change a lot of the commitment to the current location of the team.

If they decided to get out they would likely just sell there percentage, and make a nice profit(team value went from 650million to 850million since they bought in, 30% increase in 3 years isn't that bad, especially considering the nose dive the economy took in that time.
Wilf has stated he's committed to keeping the Vikings in Minnesota and I believe him. I think the Vikings will stay and be profitable for many years to come. Eventually they will get a stadium done.


But who has the capital to buy the partners percentage?.....Could be a guy in California building a new stadium, if the other members of the ownership group have too much of their capital tied up in the team to buyout the other

slavinator
10-01-2009, 05:28 PM
Ok this is getting a bit ridiculous to say that the Wilf's, specifically Zygi, is not a fan.
He was a Giants season ticket holder for 20-30 years.
I am encouraged by seeing what he has done with our organization.
The facts are that without the Vikes the dome will be a vacant landmark of what 'was'.
The league right now is allocating 15-20 million per year to subsidize the stadium issue in MN.
That will end very soon as Jerry Jones mentioned a few weeks back.

I am terrified that the Vikes chances of staying in MN are as good as a 32 yard TD pass with :02 seconds left, I can only hope we see the same result.

What the 'rub' in this whole issue is how the Gophers, and Twins took priority over the Vikes in the great spending spree of the last few years.
I am by no means proposing that the $700million price tag to renovate the dome should be placed on tax payers, but the legislature and citizens need to stand up and get r done.
Or we can watch the LA Vikes, LA Lakers, Dallas Stars etc.

OK see ya all Monday.......

i_bleed_purple
10-01-2009, 05:52 PM
"slavinator" wrote:


Ok this is getting a bit ridiculous to say that the Wilf's, specifically Zygi, is not a fan.
He was a Giants season ticket holder for 20-30 years.
I am encouraged by seeing what he has done with our organization.
The facts are that without the Vikes the dome will be a vacant landmark of what 'was'.
The league right now is allocating 15-20 million per year to subsidize the stadium issue in MN.
That will end very soon as Jerry Jones mentioned a few weeks back.

I am terrified that the Vikes chances of staying in MN are as good as a 32 yard TD pass with :02 seconds left, I can only hope we see the same result.

What the 'rub' in this whole issue is how the Gophers, and Twins took priority over the Vikes in the great spending spree of the last few years.
I am by no means proposing that the $700million price tag to renovate the dome should be placed on tax payers, but the legislature and citizens need to stand up and get r done.
Or we can watch the LA Vikes, LA Lakers, Dallas Stars etc.

OK see ya all Monday.......




he bought the Vikings as an investment.
he was not a football guy, he was a rich guy who bought Giants tickets because he could.
The opportunity to have A football team came up and he got it.
You can bet if the Dolphins went for sale and not us, he'd be a dolphins owner.

NodakPaul
10-01-2009, 06:10 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"slavinator" wrote:


Ok this is getting a bit ridiculous to say that the Wilf's, specifically Zygi, is not a fan.
He was a Giants season ticket holder for 20-30 years.
I am encouraged by seeing what he has done with our organization.
The facts are that without the Vikes the dome will be a vacant landmark of what 'was'.
The league right now is allocating 15-20 million per year to subsidize the stadium issue in MN.
That will end very soon as Jerry Jones mentioned a few weeks back.

I am terrified that the Vikes chances of staying in MN are as good as a 32 yard TD pass with :02 seconds left, I can only hope we see the same result.

What the 'rub' in this whole issue is how the Gophers, and Twins took priority over the Vikes in the great spending spree of the last few years.
I am by no means proposing that the $700million price tag to renovate the dome should be placed on tax payers, but the legislature and citizens need to stand up and get r done.
Or we can watch the LA Vikes, LA Lakers, Dallas Stars etc.

OK see ya all Monday.......




he bought the Vikings as an investment.
he was not a football guy, he was a rich guy who bought Giants tickets because he could.
The opportunity to have A football team came up and he got it.
You can bet if the Dolphins went for sale and not us, he'd be a dolphins owner.


Are you saying that rich people can't be football fans?

C Mac D
10-01-2009, 06:13 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"slavinator" wrote:


Ok this is getting a bit ridiculous to say that the Wilf's, specifically Zygi, is not a fan.
He was a Giants season ticket holder for 20-30 years.
I am encouraged by seeing what he has done with our organization.
The facts are that without the Vikes the dome will be a vacant landmark of what 'was'.
The league right now is allocating 15-20 million per year to subsidize the stadium issue in MN.
That will end very soon as Jerry Jones mentioned a few weeks back.

I am terrified that the Vikes chances of staying in MN are as good as a 32 yard TD pass with :02 seconds left, I can only hope we see the same result.

What the 'rub' in this whole issue is how the Gophers, and Twins took priority over the Vikes in the great spending spree of the last few years.
I am by no means proposing that the $700million price tag to renovate the dome should be placed on tax payers, but the legislature and citizens need to stand up and get r done.
Or we can watch the LA Vikes, LA Lakers, Dallas Stars etc.

OK see ya all Monday.......




he bought the Vikings as an investment.
he was not a football guy, he was a rich guy who bought Giants tickets because he could.
The opportunity to have A football team came up and he got it.
You can bet if the Dolphins went for sale and not us, he'd be a dolphins owner.


Are you saying that rich people can't be football fans?


I think he's saying that the Wilfs bought the team as a business decision as opposed to just wanting to buy the Vikings as fans.

slavinator
10-01-2009, 06:31 PM
All I am saying, is that you cant say he is not a fan.
Every owner buys for a business decision, that is how they have the money and or funding to do so, because they are successful.
My take is simply that Zygi is a fan of football.


He started going to Giants games as a kid, whether he was rich or not at that time is irrelavant.
Just like when any of us went to our first sporting events, it brands you as a fan of the game.
Generally as you grow older you continue to develop a further interest in the sport than the initial memories of the sights and sounds of a first game that carries you through life.

Again there are tons of opinions on this but I am just saying he is a fan, and he has done well business wise with the Vikings.
It is my hope that we see him and the rest of the boys in purple in MN for some time to come.

slavinator
10-01-2009, 06:33 PM
PS not alot of 'other owners' shag punts for fun in training camp..............further evidencing Zygi's fan-ness.

Skol! Lets Shred some Cheeze Monday!

vikinggreg
10-01-2009, 07:22 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:



Wilf has stated he's committed to keeping the Vikings in Minnesota and I believe him. I think the Vikings will stay and be profitable for many years to come. Eventually they will get a stadium done.


I also believe Zygi commitment to the team being in Minnesota, but the others Jeffrey Wilf, Leonard Wilf, David Mandelbaum, Alan Landis and Reggie Fowler could force his hand. And there are items looming in the future that could be the final straw.

Without a CBA there could be a lockout, a season lost

Without revenue sharing the Vikings would be hurt and Jerry Jones was making noise about doing away with it, who knows if Kraft, Davis and others would support this.

Zygi has really strived to rebuild things with staff, facilities, players, big name free agents and accountability, fan base has been a little slow to respond with near blackouts and slow playoff ticket sales.
I think he would renew a lease on the dome for a few more years if the state did put a time table together moving forward but if the state don't even want to talk about it outside pressures might force Zygi's hand.

PurplePeopleEaters69
10-01-2009, 08:10 PM
Im beginning to get worried

Elam529
10-01-2009, 08:29 PM
We need the Metrodome for Monster Jam or whatever that thing is where the guy says "kids seats are just $5".

Purple Floyd
10-01-2009, 08:39 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
18.9million operating income in 2007.
Not sure why they had to do capital calls. It could be that money was used for the land purchases they were making around minneapolis, or major investments in the team that they plan to recoup over many years, in which case they will have the tax write offs. I don't pretend to know all of Wilf's finances, I think Forbes has a better idea than you or me. According to Forbes there are 8 teams with lower operating income.

The problem with your plan is that money that was generated by the Vikings previously has already been spent. The state doesn't have it. It's a good justification for a new stadium, but it does nothing to help raise the money needed. Same with future tax revenue, it's a great reason to keep the team here, but the state doesn't have that money.


Operating income does not equal profit. That's just the money to make things happen. I assume front office salaries, electricity, random things to make the stadium go. Player salaries, marketing, are obviously not included in that cost.

If you look at the other tid bits of data, which are more important, imho, you'll see we make the smallest amount of revenue (attributed to the dome by various Vikings sources) and our percentage of debt/value is 38% Only other team above 20% is Detroit, and they just snapped a 19-game losing streak and have been awful for years....

So look at what's right in front of your eyes, Vikings are draining money, and Wilf wants that changed one way or another.

I see what you are saying. And you are right we do have the lowest revenue, lowest team value, and highest debt ratio.
Operating income does include Player salaries and marketing, and front office etc. About the only thing it doesn't cover is interest on debt. Of course that is because Wilf borrowed a lot of the money he needed to buy the team, that has nothing to do with a stadium, in fact that ratio would likely go up with a new stadium.

Here is the 2008 numbers. Eight franchises lost value, not the Vikings. 2 franchises had negative operating income, not the vikings. 4 teams now have a debt to value % higher than the Vikings. The Vikings are no longer the lowest valued team, that honor goes to the Raiders.
http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:inside-the-2009-forbes-nfl-franchise-valuations&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61


BTW, don't forget about revenue sharing.
It looks like that it going away, possibly with the new CBA.
The Vikings will NEVER be able to be lucrative without it.

Without some form of revenue sharing the Vikings wont make it anyway. The NFL would never be that stupid.


Yes, if they do away with revenue sharing the twin cities market will not keep them competitive and the Vikings will end up just like the Twins, but with no world championships.

They just cannot raise enough revenue, no matter what the hell stadium we build, to compete with the big market teams. We would basically become a farm club for Dallas, Washington, New York etc. We would be shitty and get high draft picks and then develop that talent through their rookie contracts and then they would bolt for the highest bidder just like Santana.

One thing about all of this that just came to me, is that the end of Collective Bargaining would probably require a huge realignment. Can you imagine a scenario where all of the revenue in the NFC was packed into the NFC East with Dallas, NY and Washington while Us, GB and Detroit had only a fraction of the revenue in our division? That would not lead to much fan excitement IMO and would really cause the league to take a hit.

Then again IMO the league will take a huge hit if they end it anyway.

Purple Floyd
10-01-2009, 09:10 PM
Anybody who has actually worked with the state to build an infrastructure project with state funding understands that the most cost effective scenario would be to build it privately.

When you build it privately you only have to satisfy local codes and ordinances etc. When building it publicly the state then dictates that you build it to accommodate all of the things necessary to satisfy the elected officials who you need to vote for it. In other words Pork.

Then there are other requirements that will need to be satisfied like:

Davis-Bacon act
Buy American act
Approval by state funding agencies that will require their own construction specs.

And others.

By the time it is said and done, they would be able to build it by themselves for only a small amount more than they will have to contribute with state involvement. Getting the state involved just ends up greasing many more palms and slowing the process down.

BloodyHorns82
10-01-2009, 09:19 PM
"Elam529" wrote:


We need the Metrodome for Monster Jam or whatever that thing is where the guy says "kids seats are just $5".


LOL, awesome post.
I totally heard that guys gruff voice too saying "Kids seats are just $5!!!"

ItalianStallion
10-01-2009, 09:20 PM
Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES
10-01-2009, 09:28 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"Elam529" wrote:


We need the Metrodome for Monster Jam or whatever that thing is where the guy says "kids seats are just $5".


LOL, awesome post.
I totally heard that guys gruff voice too saying "Kids seats are just $5!!!"

There was another popular one:
"We'll sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need the edgeee" lol

jmcdon00
10-01-2009, 10:13 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.

Marrdro
10-02-2009, 07:33 AM
"vikinggreg" wrote:


I also believe Zygi commitment to the team being in Minnesota, but the others Jeffrey Wilf, Leonard Wilf, David Mandelbaum, Alan Landis and Reggie Fowler could force his hand. And there are items looming in the future that could be the final straw.

Without a CBA there could be a lockout, a season lost

Without revenue sharing the Vikings would be hurt and Jerry Jones was making noise about doing away with it, who knows if Kraft, Davis and others would support this.

Zygi has really strived to rebuild things with staff, facilities, players, big name free agents and accountability, fan base has been a little slow to respond with near blackouts and slow playoff ticket sales.
I think he would renew a lease on the dome for a few more years if the state did put a time table together moving forward but if the state don't even want to talk about it outside pressures might force Zygi's hand.

Best post on this subj I've seen in a long time.

Marrdro
10-02-2009, 08:09 AM
Sid Hartman: Signs emerge indicating Wilfs would dump the Dome

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/63197052.html

NodakPaul
10-02-2009, 09:20 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


Sid Hartman: Signs emerge indicating Wilfs would dump the Dome

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/63197052.html


From that article:


The Vikings get about $20 million a year in revenue sharing. They are 31st in league in revenue. Without that $20 million, the Vikings would lose money. Jacksonville is the only team making less money.

I have to think that there are several teams in the same boat though.
I know that all the signs are pointing toward the loss of revenue sharing, but wouldn't it make the league much less competitive, and in turn make the televison contracts smaller?
IMHO it would be a short term gain for the big market teams and a long term loss.

I would love to see the NFL start up a stadium fund again - it worked very well the first time.
But now that all of the major players already have stadiums, they aren't as interested in it anymore.
Too bad Minnesota missed the boat on that one... :(

gagarr
10-02-2009, 10:35 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


Sid Hartman: Signs emerge indicating Wilfs would dump the Dome

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/63197052.html


From that article:


The Vikings get about $20 million a year in revenue sharing. They are 31st in league in revenue. Without that $20 million, the Vikings would lose money. Jacksonville is the only team making less money.

I have to think that there are several teams in the same boat though.
I know that all the signs are pointing toward the loss of revenue sharing, but wouldn't it make the league much less competitive, and in turn make the televison contracts smaller?
IMHO it would be a short term gain for the big market teams and a long term loss.

I would love to see the NFL start up a stadium fund again - it worked very well the first time.
But now that all of the major players already have stadiums, they aren't as interested in it anymore.
Too bad Minnesota missed the boat on that one... :(


MN has missed the boat over and over again.
They knew they had an iron clad lease and didn't make it a priority during the economic boom of the late 90's.
Now the recession has put a crunch on the $$$.
I can't really fault MN for not putting money toward a new stadium as there are other more important needs.


Plain and simple if MN loses the Vikings it's because of their fiscal irresponsibility.

If the Vikes wait around hoping MN will change their minds, the Vikes will miss a chance of going to LA.
Thus, IMO if the state doesn't move this year, the Vikes will find investors/owners that are willing to build a privately funded stadium in LA.
I the Vikes do well in the playoffs, they will be a favorite, as LA fans and investors would support a winner coming to town.
If another team gets to LA first it will only weaken the Vikes position for a new stadium.

I imagine, even with all the costs of moving and financing a new stadium, the bottom line will be better than staying in the Dome, for the long term.

IMO, I don't think there is anything Viking fans can do to stop it.

I personally won't be too upset as living in AZ I'll be able to see several games a year, but I still would like the Vikes to remain in MN where they belong.

NodakPaul
10-02-2009, 11:05 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


Sid Hartman: Signs emerge indicating Wilfs would dump the Dome

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/63197052.html


From that article:


The Vikings get about $20 million a year in revenue sharing. They are 31st in league in revenue. Without that $20 million, the Vikings would lose money. Jacksonville is the only team making less money.

I have to think that there are several teams in the same boat though.
I know that all the signs are pointing toward the loss of revenue sharing, but wouldn't it make the league much less competitive, and in turn make the televison contracts smaller?
IMHO it would be a short term gain for the big market teams and a long term loss.

I would love to see the NFL start up a stadium fund again - it worked very well the first time.
But now that all of the major players already have stadiums, they aren't as interested in it anymore.
Too bad Minnesota missed the boat on that one... :(


MN has missed the boat over and over again.
They knew they had an iron clad lease and didn't make it a priority during the economic boom of the late 90's.
Now the recession has put a crunch on the $$$.
I can't really fault MN for not putting money toward a new stadium as there are other more important needs.


Plain and simple if MN loses the Vikings it's because of their fiscal irresponsibility.

If the Vikes wait around hoping MN will change their minds, the Vikes will miss a chance of going to LA.
Thus, IMO if the state doesn't move this year, the Vikes will find investors/owners that are willing to build a privately funded stadium in LA.
I the Vikes do well in the playoffs, they will be a favorite, as LA fans and investors would support a winner coming to town.
If another team gets to LA first it will only weaken the Vikes position for a new stadium.

I imagine, even with all the costs of moving and financing a new stadium, the bottom line will be better than staying in the Dome, for the long term.

IMO, I don't think there is anything Viking fans can do to stop it.

I personally won't be too upset as living in AZ I'll be able to see several games a year, but I still would like the Vikes to remain in MN where they belong.


I don't think the Vikings will end up in LA regardless - the Jags and Bills are much closer to moving, although the BIlls may go north.
Plus LA has failed on two seperate occasions to retain a team.
They may be a large television market, but that is the only draw.

gagarr
10-02-2009, 12:03 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


Sid Hartman: Signs emerge indicating Wilfs would dump the Dome

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/63197052.html


From that article:


The Vikings get about $20 million a year in revenue sharing. They are 31st in league in revenue. Without that $20 million, the Vikings would lose money. Jacksonville is the only team making less money.

I have to think that there are several teams in the same boat though.
I know that all the signs are pointing toward the loss of revenue sharing, but wouldn't it make the league much less competitive, and in turn make the televison contracts smaller?
IMHO it would be a short term gain for the big market teams and a long term loss.

I would love to see the NFL start up a stadium fund again - it worked very well the first time.
But now that all of the major players already have stadiums, they aren't as interested in it anymore.
Too bad Minnesota missed the boat on that one... :(


MN has missed the boat over and over again.
They knew they had an iron clad lease and didn't make it a priority during the economic boom of the late 90's.
Now the recession has put a crunch on the $$$.
I can't really fault MN for not putting money toward a new stadium as there are other more important needs.


Plain and simple if MN loses the Vikings it's because of their fiscal irresponsibility.

If the Vikes wait around hoping MN will change their minds, the Vikes will miss a chance of going to LA.
Thus, IMO if the state doesn't move this year, the Vikes will find investors/owners that are willing to build a privately funded stadium in LA.
I the Vikes do well in the playoffs, they will be a favorite, as LA fans and investors would support a winner coming to town.
If another team gets to LA first it will only weaken the Vikes position for a new stadium.

I imagine, even with all the costs of moving and financing a new stadium, the bottom line will be better than staying in the Dome, for the long term.

IMO, I don't think there is anything Viking fans can do to stop it.

I personally won't be too upset as living in AZ I'll be able to see several games a year, but I still would like the Vikes to remain in MN where they belong.


I don't think the Vikings will end up in LA regardless - the Jags and Bills are much closer to moving, although the BIlls may go north.
Plus LA has failed on two seperate occasions to retain a team.
They may be a large television market, but that is the only draw.


The reason both the Rams and Raiders left is the same reason the Vikes will leave, they couldn't obtain public funding for a new stadium.
Whereas, St. Louis and Oakland did build new stadiums for them after their public lost NFL teams.

Bills are not in the same financial situation as the Vikings and they are more likely to go to Toronto, which the NFL would support as they want a international team.

Jags situation is financially worse, but their problem isn't a stadium as theirs is too large and only 15yrs old.
Their problem is fan base, which is easily solved by having a winning team.
They were financially sound during their first 6 years when they went to the playoffs 5 years straight. But in the last 10 they've had 2 winning seasons and 1 playoff win.
This isn't good for a young team that competes with 2 FL teams and near by Atlanta for fans.
The NFL is also taking measures to increase Jags fan base by possible games in Orlando and London on a regular basis.

Vikes has a metro population that is greater than several other NFL teams, they have been winners and are going to be for several years to come.
The only issue with the Vikes is there current stadium situation prevents them from generating enough revenue to compete.
If the Vikes can't find a place where they can generate more revenue, Vikes only business move will be to do what Red did, cut every corner, and hope that something will change.

I really don't think either the Bills or Jags have the upper hand on a move to LA.
I imagine the Jags will end up staying in Jacksonville, possibly till MN gets a clue (like St. Louis - 8yrs, Oakland - 12yrs, Baltimore - 13yrs.) and is willing to build a new stadium to get an NFL team.

i_bleed_purple
10-02-2009, 12:04 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


Sid Hartman: Signs emerge indicating Wilfs would dump the Dome

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/63197052.html


From that article:


The Vikings get about $20 million a year in revenue sharing. They are 31st in league in revenue. Without that $20 million, the Vikings would lose money. Jacksonville is the only team making less money.

I have to think that there are several teams in the same boat though.
I know that all the signs are pointing toward the loss of revenue sharing, but wouldn't it make the league much less competitive, and in turn make the televison contracts smaller?
IMHO it would be a short term gain for the big market teams and a long term loss.

I would love to see the NFL start up a stadium fund again - it worked very well the first time.
But now that all of the major players already have stadiums, they aren't as interested in it anymore.
Too bad Minnesota missed the boat on that one... :(


MN has missed the boat over and over again.
They knew they had an iron clad lease and didn't make it a priority during the economic boom of the late 90's.
Now the recession has put a crunch on the $$$.
I can't really fault MN for not putting money toward a new stadium as there are other more important needs.


Plain and simple if MN loses the Vikings it's because of their fiscal irresponsibility.

If the Vikes wait around hoping MN will change their minds, the Vikes will miss a chance of going to LA.
Thus, IMO if the state doesn't move this year, the Vikes will find investors/owners that are willing to build a privately funded stadium in LA.
I the Vikes do well in the playoffs, they will be a favorite, as LA fans and investors would support a winner coming to town.
If another team gets to LA first it will only weaken the Vikes position for a new stadium.

I imagine, even with all the costs of moving and financing a new stadium, the bottom line will be better than staying in the Dome, for the long term.

IMO, I don't think there is anything Viking fans can do to stop it.

I personally won't be too upset as living in AZ I'll be able to see several games a year, but I still would like the Vikes to remain in MN where they belong.


I don't think the Vikings will end up in LA regardless - the Jags and Bills are much closer to moving, although the BIlls may go north.
Plus LA has failed on two seperate occasions to retain a team.
They may be a large television market, but that is the only draw.


The Jags and Bills don't have the stadium issue we do.

Bills may go north, but they'd have to get a new stadium in Toronto, I don't think the Rogers Center is big enough for full-time football (I could be wrong)

Dekay
10-02-2009, 01:18 PM
As much as i would like to see the vikings stay in minneapolis, I do remember how almost every game last year was in jeapordy of a blackout.

How on earth is a bigger stadium, with more luxury suites going to earn us more money if we cant sellout without help from televionchannels and companys buying chunks of thousands of tickets.

Yes, we got Favre now, and yes this year is probably no chance at all for a blackout. But do we really see favre playing more than 1, possibly 2 years for vikings? And after that the problem will arise again.

My two cents

i_bleed_purple
10-02-2009, 01:20 PM
"Dekay" wrote:


As much as i would like to see the vikings stay in minneapolis, I do remember how almost every game last year was in jeapordy of a blackout.

How on earth is a bigger stadium, with more luxury suites going to earn us more money if we cant sellout without help from televionchannels and companys buying chunks of thousands of tickets.

Yes, we got Favre now, and yes this year is probably no chance at all for a blackout. But do we really see favre playing more than 1, possibly 2 years for vikings? And after that the problem will arise again.

My two cents


not when Tarvaris Jackson resigns and emerges as the next best thing. :D

Zeus
10-02-2009, 01:22 PM
http://www.startribune.com/local/63271502.html


Pawlenty: Minnesota needs the Vikings
By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune
Last update: October 2, 2009 - 10:50 AM

While he stopped short of endorsing the Vikings' renewed push for a new publicly-financed stadium, Gov. Tim Pawlenty today said something must be done to keep the team in Minnesota.

"We value the Vikings' importance to Minnesota -- we need to find a way to keep our Minnesota Vikings," he said this morning on his weekly radio show.

Responding to callers asking about the team's request for an estimated $700 million in a "public-private partnership," Pawlenty echoed arguments made by the team's management.

"They've made it clear they're not going to stay in the Metrodome" after the team's lease expires after the 2011 season, he said. "It's fair to say the Metrodome has served us well ... [but] its time is fading."

=Z=

i_bleed_purple
10-02-2009, 01:23 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


http://www.startribune.com/local/63271502.html


Pawlenty: Minnesota needs the Vikings
By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune
Last update: October 2, 2009 - 10:50 AM

While he stopped short of endorsing the Vikings' renewed push for a new publicly-financed stadium, Gov. Tim Pawlenty today said something must be done to keep the team in Minnesota.

"We value the Vikings' importance to Minnesota -- we need to find a way to keep our Minnesota Vikings," he said this morning on his weekly radio show.

Responding to callers asking about the team's request for an estimated $700 million in a "public-private partnership," Pawlenty echoed arguments made by the team's management.

"They've made it clear they're not going to stay in the Metrodome" after the team's lease expires after the 2011 season, he said. "It's fair to say the Metrodome has served us well ... [but] its time is fading."

=Z=


semi-good news, but it means nothing until that talk turns into action.

gagarr
10-02-2009, 01:40 PM
"Dekay" wrote:


As much as i would like to see the vikings stay in minneapolis, I do remember how almost every game last year was in jeapordy of a blackout.

How on earth is a bigger stadium, with more luxury suites going to earn us more money if we cant sellout without help from televionchannels and companys buying chunks of thousands of tickets.

Yes, we got Favre now, and yes this year is probably no chance at all for a blackout. But do we really see favre playing more than 1, possibly 2 years for vikings? And after that the problem will arise again.

My two cents


To a diehard Vike fan they don't really care how uncomfortable the seats are, how long they wait for the restroom or concessions, how crappy the parking is, etc..
But for others it isn't an enjoyable venue to go to.

Just look at the Cardinals, they almost never sold out Sun Devil stadium and if they did it was because 2/3 of the seats were the opposing team.
But they got the University of Phoenix stadium and they have sold tons of new season tickets, even before they went to the SB.
UoP is a great place to see a game and I recommend any Vike fans to come to AZ on Dec. 6th to see what a real NFL stadium is like.

gregair13
10-02-2009, 01:41 PM
2010 is going to be interesting,

ItalianStallion
10-02-2009, 01:58 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?

BloodyHorns82
10-02-2009, 02:26 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?


They did.
It was designed to accommodate both teams.
However it was a pretty poor venue to watch baseball in - at least when comparing to other modern MLB stadiums.

Braddock
10-02-2009, 03:58 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


Sid Hartman: Signs emerge indicating Wilfs would dump the Dome

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/63197052.html


From that article:


The Vikings get about $20 million a year in revenue sharing. They are 31st in league in revenue. Without that $20 million, the Vikings would lose money. Jacksonville is the only team making less money.

I have to think that there are several teams in the same boat though.
I know that all the signs are pointing toward the loss of revenue sharing, but wouldn't it make the league much less competitive, and in turn make the televison contracts smaller?
IMHO it would be a short term gain for the big market teams and a long term loss.

I would love to see the NFL start up a stadium fund again - it worked very well the first time.
But now that all of the major players already have stadiums, they aren't as interested in it anymore.
Too bad Minnesota missed the boat on that one... :(


LA will pay for Adrian Peterson. Why won't MN?

Bastards.
MN has missed the boat over and over again.
They knew they had an iron clad lease and didn't make it a priority during the economic boom of the late 90's.
Now the recession has put a crunch on the $$$.
I can't really fault MN for not putting money toward a new stadium as there are other more important needs.


Plain and simple if MN loses the Vikings it's because of their fiscal irresponsibility.

If the Vikes wait around hoping MN will change their minds, the Vikes will miss a chance of going to LA.
Thus, IMO if the state doesn't move this year, the Vikes will find investors/owners that are willing to build a privately funded stadium in LA.
I the Vikes do well in the playoffs, they will be a favorite, as LA fans and investors would support a winner coming to town.
If another team gets to LA first it will only weaken the Vikes position for a new stadium.

I imagine, even with all the costs of moving and financing a new stadium, the bottom line will be better than staying in the Dome, for the long term.

IMO, I don't think there is anything Viking fans can do to stop it.

I personally won't be too upset as living in AZ I'll be able to see several games a year, but I still would like the Vikes to remain in MN where they belong.

jmcdon00
10-02-2009, 05:13 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?


They did.
It was designed to accommodate both teams.
However it was a pretty poor venue to watch baseball in - at least when comparing to other modern MLB stadiums.
i think it was designed as afootball stadium. if it were a baseball stadium the seAts would have faced homeplate.

NodakPaul
10-02-2009, 05:33 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?


They did.
It was designed to accommodate both teams.
However it was a pretty poor venue to watch baseball in - at least when comparing to other modern MLB stadiums.
i think it was designed as afootball stadium. if it were a baseball stadium the seAts would have faced homeplate.


It was designed as multi use.
The Twins were always slated to play there, even from its inception.
Football had better sight lines, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed with both football and baseball in mind.

i_bleed_purple
10-02-2009, 05:41 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:




Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?


They did.
It was designed to accommodate both teams.
However it was a pretty poor venue to watch baseball in - at least when comparing to other modern MLB stadiums.
i think it was designed as afootball stadium. if it were a baseball stadium the seAts would have faced homeplate.


It was designed as multi use.
The Twins were always slated to play there, even from its inception.
Football had better sight lines, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed with both football and baseball in mind.


this, all the proof you need, is look at it during a baseball game, looks an awful lot like a baseball field to me.
Baseball field can NOT fit in football fields no matter how you try and force it, The dome was obviously designed to accomodate baseball, as seats will roll-out over the outfield for football

dfosterf
10-02-2009, 05:43 PM
Maybe Minnesota can pass a law that prevents the Vikings from moving to LA.

Purple Floyd
10-02-2009, 07:11 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:






Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?


They did.
It was designed to accommodate both teams.
However it was a pretty poor venue to watch baseball in - at least when comparing to other modern MLB stadiums.
i think it was designed as afootball stadium. if it were a baseball stadium the seAts would have faced homeplate.


It was designed as multi use.
The Twins were always slated to play there, even from its inception.
Football had better sight lines, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed with both football and baseball in mind.


this, all the proof you need, is look at it during a baseball game, looks an awful lot like a baseball field to me.
Baseball field can NOT fit in football fields no matter how you try and force it, The dome was obviously designed to accomodate baseball, as seats will roll-out over the outfield for football


They had a program on the radio today about the history of the dome. It was built as a dual purpose but was more strongly designed towards the vikings and not as well suited to the Twins. It worked for baseball but not very well. Calvin Griffith knew he didn't have the revenue to build a stadium by itself so he took what he could get, which was the dome.

Also remember that the Vikings played at the Met from 61 to 82 and that was a baseball stadium that didn't accommodate football as well as the Vikings would have liked, which really was the drive behind the dome.

In the end they built it on time and under budget and it was fairly efficient o operate but no team that played there liked it. Now we will have 3 stadiums for each entity and all 3 teams will end up happier but they will require subsidies that the dome never did.

NodakPaul
10-02-2009, 07:14 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:








Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?


They did.
It was designed to accommodate both teams.
However it was a pretty poor venue to watch baseball in - at least when comparing to other modern MLB stadiums.
i think it was designed as afootball stadium. if it were a baseball stadium the seAts would have faced homeplate.


It was designed as multi use.
The Twins were always slated to play there, even from its inception.
Football had better sight lines, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed with both football and baseball in mind.


this, all the proof you need, is look at it during a baseball game, looks an awful lot like a baseball field to me.
Baseball field can NOT fit in football fields no matter how you try and force it, The dome was obviously designed to accomodate baseball, as seats will roll-out over the outfield for football


They had a program on the radio today about the history of the dome. It was built as a dual purpose but was more strongly designed towards the vikings and not as well suited to the Twins. It worked for baseball but not very well. Calvin Griffith knew he didn't have the revenue to build a stadium by itself so he took what he could get, which was the dome.

Also remember that the Vikings played at the Met from 61 to 82 and that was a baseball stadium that didn't accommodate football as well as the Vikings would have liked, which really was the drive behind the dome.

In the end they built it on time and under budget and it was fairly efficient o operate but no team that played there liked it. Now we will have 3 stadiums for each entity and all 3 teams will end up happier but they will require subsidies that the dome never did.


And I think that is/was a HUGE mistake.
Red was an asshat for making enemies instead of friends, and not working jointly with the UofM on a stadium.
The state was a bunch of asshats for not recognizing that Red was temporary at best, and designing TCF Stadium so that it would be servicable to a NFL team.

Purple Floyd
10-02-2009, 07:25 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:










Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?


They did.
It was designed to accommodate both teams.
However it was a pretty poor venue to watch baseball in - at least when comparing to other modern MLB stadiums.
i think it was designed as afootball stadium. if it were a baseball stadium the seAts would have faced homeplate.


It was designed as multi use.
The Twins were always slated to play there, even from its inception.
Football had better sight lines, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed with both football and baseball in mind.


this, all the proof you need, is look at it during a baseball game, looks an awful lot like a baseball field to me.
Baseball field can NOT fit in football fields no matter how you try and force it, The dome was obviously designed to accomodate baseball, as seats will roll-out over the outfield for football


They had a program on the radio today about the history of the dome. It was built as a dual purpose but was more strongly designed towards the vikings and not as well suited to the Twins. It worked for baseball but not very well. Calvin Griffith knew he didn't have the revenue to build a stadium by itself so he took what he could get, which was the dome.

Also remember that the Vikings played at the Met from 61 to 82 and that was a baseball stadium that didn't accommodate football as well as the Vikings would have liked, which really was the drive behind the dome.

In the end they built it on time and under budget and it was fairly efficient o operate but no team that played there liked it. Now we will have 3 stadiums for each entity and all 3 teams will end up happier but they will require subsidies that the dome never did.


And I think that is/was a HUGE mistake.
Red was an asshat for making enemies instead of friends, and not working jointly with the UofM on a stadium.
The state was a bunch of asshats for not recognizing that Red was temporary at best, and designing TCF Stadium so that it would be servicable to a NFL team.


I don't think they were as much asshats as that they were just living up to the lease. When he made his push there was still an extended amount of time left on the lease the Vikings signed. In contrast the Twins had a much shorter lease and actually played in the dome long after the original lease expired. I can't blame the state for making the Vikings fulfill that obligation, but unfortunately that premature move by Red IMO did
damage the relationship and made it so there was no plan in place to have a Vikings stadium ready when their lease did expire. Sometimes politics and policy are inconvenient but in many ways they are necessary.

i_bleed_purple
10-02-2009, 07:31 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:








Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?


They did.
It was designed to accommodate both teams.
However it was a pretty poor venue to watch baseball in - at least when comparing to other modern MLB stadiums.
i think it was designed as afootball stadium. if it were a baseball stadium the seAts would have faced homeplate.


It was designed as multi use.
The Twins were always slated to play there, even from its inception.
Football had better sight lines, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed with both football and baseball in mind.


this, all the proof you need, is look at it during a baseball game, looks an awful lot like a baseball field to me.
Baseball field can NOT fit in football fields no matter how you try and force it, The dome was obviously designed to accomodate baseball, as seats will roll-out over the outfield for football


They had a program on the radio today about the history of the dome. It was built as a dual purpose but was more strongly designed towards the vikings and not as well suited to the Twins. It worked for baseball but not very well. Calvin Griffith knew he didn't have the revenue to build a stadium by itself so he took what he could get, which was the dome.

Also remember that the Vikings played at the Met from 61 to 82 and that was a baseball stadium that didn't accommodate football as well as the Vikings would have liked, which really was the drive behind the dome.

In the end they built it on time and under budget and it was fairly efficient o operate but no team that played there liked it. Now we will have 3 stadiums for each entity and all 3 teams will end up happier but they will require subsidies that the dome never did.


that remains to be seen.

V4L
10-02-2009, 11:21 PM
Fuck I cant wait til we get our stadium

How the fuck can we pull it off tho?

Gophs new stadium.. Twins new stadium.. T-Wolve new stadium

STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES
10-03-2009, 12:17 AM
"V4L" wrote:


Fuck I cant wait til we get our stadium

How the fuck can we pull it off tho?

Gophs new stadium.. Twins new stadium.. T-Wolve new stadium

Target Center is nearly 20 years old.
Xcel energy center is almost 10 years old.

V4L
10-03-2009, 12:41 AM
"STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Fuck I cant wait til we get our stadium

How the fuck can we pull it off tho?

Gophs new stadium.. Twins new stadium.. T-Wolve new stadium

Target Center is nearly 20 years old.
Xcel energy center is almost 10 years old.



Damn why did I think the twolves got a new one?

Well 2 new ones in 3 years I guess

midgensa
10-03-2009, 01:36 AM
"V4L" wrote:


"STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Fuck I cant wait til we get our stadium

How the fuck can we pull it off tho?

Gophs new stadium.. Twins new stadium.. T-Wolve new stadium

Target Center is nearly 20 years old.
Xcel energy center is almost 10 years old.



Damn why did I think the twolves got a new one?

Well 2 new ones in 3 years I guess




Yeah ... the XCel is 10 years old, but is still fairly new. And the Target Center is still younger that the HHH.
Of course, basektball/hockey arenas are MUCH cheaper to build than baseball or football stadiums.
Target Stadium for example is costing in excess of $522 million to build (that is more than Target and Xcel COMBINED) ... and of course it looks likes the Vikings new venture will cost a MINIMUM of $700 million.
That is a much bigger deal than the money for the hockey/basketball arenas and Gopher Stadium ($288 million).
Just for a rundown that is:
Target Center: $104 million
Xcel Energy Center: $130 million
TCF Bank Stadium: $288.5 million
Target Field: $522 million
ESTIMATED Vikings cost: $700 million+

DeathtoDenny
10-03-2009, 02:43 AM
"dfosterf" wrote:


Maybe Minnesota can pass a law that prevents the Vikings from moving to LA.




We need a bailout! Socialized Vikings.

soonerbornNbred
10-03-2009, 02:55 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


[

UoP is a great place to see a game and I recommend any Vike fans to come to AZ on Dec. 6th to see what a real NFL stadium is like.


I was there for the Fiesta bowl Boise St vs OU a couple years ago best stadium ever,,,, from parking to the field itself great everything,great access to everything I was very impressed Top Notch in every area

MNgriff
10-03-2009, 05:18 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:










Anyone know how the Twins got a stadium before the Vikings?
Is baseball bigger in Minnesota than football?

The vikings got the metrodome 27years before the twins got a stadium.



I believe the Twins got the metrodome to didn't they?


They did.
It was designed to accommodate both teams.
However it was a pretty poor venue to watch baseball in - at least when comparing to other modern MLB stadiums.
i think it was designed as afootball stadium. if it were a baseball stadium the seAts would have faced homeplate.


It was designed as multi use.
The Twins were always slated to play there, even from its inception.
Football had better sight lines, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed with both football and baseball in mind.


this, all the proof you need, is look at it during a baseball game, looks an awful lot like a baseball field to me.
Baseball field can NOT fit in football fields no matter how you try and force it, The dome was obviously designed to accomodate baseball, as seats will roll-out over the outfield for football


They had a program on the radio today about the history of the dome. It was built as a dual purpose but was more strongly designed towards the vikings and not as well suited to the Twins. It worked for baseball but not very well. Calvin Griffith knew he didn't have the revenue to build a stadium by itself so he took what he could get, which was the dome.

Also remember that the Vikings played at the Met from 61 to 82 and that was a baseball stadium that didn't accommodate football as well as the Vikings would have liked, which really was the drive behind the dome.

In the end they built it on time and under budget and it was fairly efficient o operate but no team that played there liked it. Now we will have 3 stadiums for each entity and all 3 teams will end up happier but they will require subsidies that the dome never did.


And I think that is/was a HUGE mistake.
Red was an asshat for making enemies instead of friends, and not working jointly with the U of M on a stadium. The state was a bunch of asshats for not recognizing that Red was temporary at best, and designing TCF Stadium so that it would be serviceable to a NFL team.


The Bank would NEVER have been built as a pro/collegiate venue. The U would have never touched it, along with all the donors, and stated that from the start regardless of what Red wanted. They have so many conflicting intrests that it understandable for The Bank to be for the Gophers only. Could you imagine the stress of all the pro fans every sunday who are not from on campus in that cramped corner of Minneapolis? Then there's majorly different design philosophies for any stadium, and who has priority should the need arise? Imagine having the only NFL team not allowed to serve alcohol because of the U.

I hope the Vikes get their stadium but build it right even if that means it can't have a roof. Xcell/River Centre is a way better venue for most indoor things anyway.

Purple Floyd
10-03-2009, 07:51 AM
"STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Fuck I cant wait til we get our stadium

How the fuck can we pull it off tho?

Gophs new stadium.. Twins new stadium.. T-Wolve new stadium

Target Center is nearly 20 years old.
Xcel energy center is almost 10 years old.


And the dome is only 27 years old and they have been trying to replace it for a dozen years. There have already been rumblings that Target Center is next in line with the donation cup after the Vikings get inked.

NodakPaul
10-03-2009, 09:44 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


floop I cant wait til we get our stadium

How the floop can we pull it off tho?

Gophs new stadium.. Twins new stadium.. T-Wolve new stadium

Target Center is nearly 20 years old.
Xcel energy center is almost 10 years old.


And the dome is only 27 years old and they have been trying to replace it for a dozen years. There have already been rumblings that Target Center is next in line with the donation cup after the Vikings get inked.


IDK... The dome was built with the cheapest possible price tag.
Hell, the Target Center cost more.
If the dome hadn't been built with the cheapest possible price tag, it might still be a viable place to play.
You get what you pay for.

sdfrenchy
10-03-2009, 01:19 PM
They should just build a new stadium with a fixed roof. Something like what they built in Detroit would be nice. To help pay for it make sure that it can be used as a soccer field. Establish a bowl game to be played there every year, invite a team from the Big 10 and the Big 12 and you should get a decent crowd. I don't think an open air stadium would be a good idea because no one would show up in December if the team is out of the playoff race.
Can the state sell Vikings lottery tickets to help pay for it? Seems to me that I've seen Twins lottery tickets. Is it possible to sell those tickets in North and South Dakota? The Vike's have a large following there too. In any case the wheels need to start turning or the Vikings will be gone. 2011 is right around the corner.

BBQ Platypus
10-04-2009, 02:20 PM
I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.

Marrdro
10-04-2009, 02:33 PM
"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.

This saddens me on two levels.....

a.
I think you make some really good points.

b.
You have them going to LA instead of Bowers Hill VA.
If they were to move and they do go to LA, that would mean that we would be pushing to get someone like the Jags....... :'(

BBQ Platypus
10-04-2009, 02:46 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


This saddens me on two levels.....

a.
I think you make some really good points.

b.
You have them going to LA instead of Bowers Hill VA.
If they were to move and they do go to LA, that would mean that we would be pushing to get someone like the Jags....... :'(


Yeah, I should've mentioned that.
When they move, our best hope would be if the Jags didn't get a new stadium.
Then we could have the new Vikings.
But that wouldn't happen for another four, five years, at least.

jkjuggalo
10-04-2009, 02:50 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.

This saddens me on two levels.....

a.
I think you make some really good points.

b.
You have them going to LA instead of Bowers Hill VA.
If they were to move and they do go to LA, that would mean that we would be pushing to get someone like the Jags....... :'(


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.

The timing for the implied shit or get off the pot ultimatum could not be worse right in the middle of a recession.
I'm definitely beginning to worry that we will not stay in Minnesota much longer, unless we do win a Super Bowl this year and that helps sway the minds of those involved in the stadium funding process.

Marrdro
10-04-2009, 02:52 PM
"jkjuggalo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.

This saddens me on two levels.....

a.
I think you make some really good points.

b.
You have them going to LA instead of Bowers Hill VA.
If they were to move and they do go to LA, that would mean that we would be pushing to get someone like the Jags....... :'(


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.

The timing for the implied pooh or get off the pot ultimatum could not be worse right in the middle of a recession.
I'm definitely beginning to worry that we will not stay in Minnesota much longer, unless we do win a Super Bowl this year and that helps sway the minds of those involved in the stadium funding process.

Thats the thing that mystifies me the most......

During this down spell, you would think they would do anything they could to keep money coming in.
I wonder how much money was spent in MN this weekend what with the Gophs, Twins and Vikes...... ::)

BBQ Platypus
10-04-2009, 02:58 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.

This saddens me on two levels.....

a.
I think you make some really good points.

b.
You have them going to LA instead of Bowers Hill VA.
If they were to move and they do go to LA, that would mean that we would be pushing to get someone like the Jags....... :'(


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.

The timing for the implied pooh or get off the pot ultimatum could not be worse right in the middle of a recession.
I'm definitely beginning to worry that we will not stay in Minnesota much longer, unless we do win a Super Bowl this year and that helps sway the minds of those involved in the stadium funding process.

Thats the thing that mystifies me the most......

During this down spell, you would think they would do anything they could to keep money coming in.
I wonder how much money was spent in MN this weekend what with the Gophs, Twins and Vikes...... ::)


I hear you loud and clear, man - it's a lack of foresight.
We could've gotten this taken care of in 1998, when we were flying high, the economy was doing great, we were rolling in money, and the stadium was a fourth of the cost.
But we didn't.

STCLOUDSAYSGOVIKES
10-04-2009, 03:08 PM
Even as outdated as the dome was when it was built, no one is going to replace a stadium that, in '98, was only 17 years old. I understand stadiums take years to build, but at a generous 3 years, it would have still been ONLY 20 years old.

jkjuggalo
10-04-2009, 03:11 PM
"BBQ" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.

This saddens me on two levels.....

a.
I think you make some really good points.

b.
You have them going to LA instead of Bowers Hill VA.
If they were to move and they do go to LA, that would mean that we would be pushing to get someone like the Jags....... :'(


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.

The timing for the implied pooh or get off the pot ultimatum could not be worse right in the middle of a recession.
I'm definitely beginning to worry that we will not stay in Minnesota much longer, unless we do win a Super Bowl this year and that helps sway the minds of those involved in the stadium funding process.

Thats the thing that mystifies me the most......

During this down spell, you would think they would do anything they could to keep money coming in.
I wonder how much money was spent in MN this weekend what with the Gophs, Twins and Vikes...... ::)


I hear you loud and clear, man - it's a lack of foresight.
We could've gotten this taken care of in 1998, when we were flying high, the economy was doing great, we were rolling in money, and the stadium was a fourth of the cost.
But we didn't.


Too bad Wilf wasn't the owner then.
We would be playing in a state of the art facility right now.

Purple Floyd
10-04-2009, 05:53 PM
"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.


I see the Roski venture as the least likely scenario of any of them.

Look, Wilf is a developer. He makes his money by building properties and generating revenue off of those properties. Roski is much the same so in that respect moving to a building that somebody else built and somebody else owns and gains revenue from is totally counter to anything Wilf has done or is currently doing.

If Roski owns the stadium and all of the surrounding brick and mortar then just exactly where is the revenue going to come from that wilf is going to be looking for? Also, with no other infrastructure to tie into the venture there will be less tax advantages for Wilf in the deal. If you remember, every plan that Wilf has provided contained sectors of development in conjunction with the stadium for him to make money off of. The only chance this has to happen IMHO is some sort of partnership but to me that doesn't seem likely.

Everybody just needs to take a breath. The lease still holds the vikings here for the time being and before that lease expires a new deal will happen. First the Vikings need to scale back their plans and the state needs the economy to show signs of life. It will get done.

Purple Floyd
10-04-2009, 06:09 PM
"BBQ" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.

This saddens me on two levels.....

a.
I think you make some really good points.

b.
You have them going to LA instead of Bowers Hill VA.
If they were to move and they do go to LA, that would mean that we would be pushing to get someone like the Jags....... :'(


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.

The timing for the implied pooh or get off the pot ultimatum could not be worse right in the middle of a recession.
I'm definitely beginning to worry that we will not stay in Minnesota much longer, unless we do win a Super Bowl this year and that helps sway the minds of those involved in the stadium funding process.

Thats the thing that mystifies me the most......

During this down spell, you would think they would do anything they could to keep money coming in.
I wonder how much money was spent in MN this weekend what with the Gophs, Twins and Vikes...... ::)


I hear you loud and clear, man - it's a lack of foresight.
We could've gotten this taken care of in 1998, when we were flying high, the economy was doing great, we were rolling in money, and the stadium was a fourth of the cost.
But we didn't.


There was too much time left on the lease back in 1998. If the team had built the stadium with private money they may have been able to do something, but the legislature had no gain to be made by letting the tenant out of 25% of their lease commitment.

In the end I really believe that restructuring the lease in the present is the best short term solution to get the vikings additional revenue. Here is a brief summary of some of the things that inhibit added revenue that I feel should be turned over to the team asap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_Stadium

Current Metrodome lease

The Vikings' current lease with the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (MSFC), as signed by both parties in August 1979, keeps them in the Metrodome until 2011.[1] The lease is considered one of the least lucrative among NFL teams, it includes provisions where the commission owns the stadium, and the Vikings are locked into paying rent until the end of the 2011 season, which is usually around $3.5 million annually; the Vikings pay the MSFC 9.5 percent of its ticket sales; the commission "reserves all rights to sell or lease advertising in any part of the Stadium" and the team can't use the scoreboard for any ads and does not control naming rights for the building; (That was just taken care of?)the commission controls the limited parking and its revenue; and the commission pays the team 10 percent of all concession sales, which in 2004 and 2005, amounted to just over half a million for the team each year while the MSFC takes roughly 35 percent of concessions sold during Vikings games

There is quite a bit of revenue that the team could capture by just adjusting those terms and IMHO the commission deserves no more revenue than it takes to operate the facility and whatever income comes from other events. Since there is no fund to renovate or replace the stadium through the commission I believe they should be reduced to a committee that oversees O and M of the building and the Vikings should be able to capitalize on all of the revenue generated by the team.

Zeus
10-04-2009, 10:05 PM
"jkjuggalo" wrote:


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.


I don't have any sense of inevitability that the Vikings will move.

=Z=

Vikes
10-04-2009, 10:11 PM
My vote is for at least restructuring the current lease.

Formo
10-04-2009, 10:36 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.

This saddens me on two levels.....

a.
I think you make some really good points.

b.
You have them going to LA instead of Bowers Hill VA.
If they were to move and they do go to LA, that would mean that we would be pushing to get someone like the Jags....... :'(


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.

The timing for the implied pooh or get off the pot ultimatum could not be worse right in the middle of a recession.
I'm definitely beginning to worry that we will not stay in Minnesota much longer, unless we do win a Super Bowl this year and that helps sway the minds of those involved in the stadium funding process.

Thats the thing that mystifies me the most......

During this down spell, you would think they would do anything they could to keep money coming in.
I wonder how much money was spent in MN this weekend what with the Gophs, Twins and Vikes...... ::)


I hear you loud and clear, man - it's a lack of foresight.
We could've gotten this taken care of in 1998, when we were flying high, the economy was doing great, we were rolling in money, and the stadium was a fourth of the cost.
But we didn't.


There was too much time left on the lease back in 1998. If the team had built the stadium with private money they may have been able to do something, but the legislature had no gain to be made by letting the tenant out of 25% of their lease commitment.

In the end I really believe that restructuring the lease in the present is the best short term solution to get the vikings additional revenue. Here is a brief summary of some of the things that inhibit added revenue that I feel should be turned over to the team asap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_Stadium

Current Metrodome lease

The Vikings' current lease with the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (MSFC), as signed by both parties in August 1979, keeps them in the Metrodome until 2011.[1] The lease is considered one of the least lucrative among NFL teams, it includes provisions where the commission owns the stadium, and the Vikings are locked into paying rent until the end of the 2011 season, which is usually around $3.5 million annually; the Vikings pay the MSFC 9.5 percent of its ticket sales; the commission "reserves all rights to sell or lease advertising in any part of the Stadium" and the team can't use the scoreboard for any ads and does not control naming rights for the building; (That was just taken care of?)the commission controls the limited parking and its revenue; and the commission pays the team 10 percent of all concession sales, which in 2004 and 2005, amounted to just over half a million for the team each year while the MSFC takes roughly 35 percent of concessions sold during Vikings games

There is quite a bit of revenue that the team could capture by just adjusting those terms and IMHO the commission deserves no more revenue than it takes to operate the facility and whatever income comes from other events. Since there is no fund to renovate or replace the stadium through the commission I believe they should be reduced to a committee that oversees O and M of the building and the Vikings should be able to capitalize on all of the revenue generated by the team.


If it means the Vikings still belong to us in the end..
I'm down for whatever it takes.
I'm 100% ok with that plan.

Marrdro
10-05-2009, 06:27 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.


I see the Roski venture as the least likely scenario of any of them.

Look, Wilf is a developer. He makes his money by building properties and generating revenue off of those properties. Roski is much the same so in that respect moving to a building that somebody else built and somebody else owns and gains revenue from is totally counter to anything Wilf has done or is currently doing.

If Roski owns the stadium and all of the surrounding brick and mortar then just exactly where is the revenue going to come from that wilf is going to be looking for? Also, with no other infrastructure to tie into the venture there will be less tax advantages for Wilf in the deal. If you remember, every plan that Wilf has provided contained sectors of development in conjunction with the stadium for him to make money off of. The only chance this has to happen IMHO is some sort of partnership but to me that doesn't seem likely.

Everybody just needs to take a breath. The lease still holds the vikings here for the time being and before that lease expires a new deal will happen. First the Vikings need to scale back their plans and the state needs the economy to show signs of life. It will get done.

I think you missed his point about Wilf selling the team.
Why would he care what is available to develop if he sold the team?

Purple Floyd
10-05-2009, 07:18 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.


I see the Roski venture as the least likely scenario of any of them.

Look, Wilf is a developer. He makes his money by building properties and generating revenue off of those properties. Roski is much the same so in that respect moving to a building that somebody else built and somebody else owns and gains revenue from is totally counter to anything Wilf has done or is currently doing.

If Roski owns the stadium and all of the surrounding brick and mortar then just exactly where is the revenue going to come from that wilf is going to be looking for? Also, with no other infrastructure to tie into the venture there will be less tax advantages for Wilf in the deal. If you remember, every plan that Wilf has provided contained sectors of development in conjunction with the stadium for him to make money off of. The only chance this has to happen IMHO is some sort of partnership but to me that doesn't seem likely.

Everybody just needs to take a breath. The lease still holds the vikings here for the time being and before that lease expires a new deal will happen. First the Vikings need to scale back their plans and the state needs the economy to show signs of life. It will get done.

I think you missed his point about Wilf selling the team.
Why would he care what is available to develop if he sold the team?


Ego.

It would admit he failed to get it done and that it took a better developer to make it work. Not exactly the thing you want going around in your social and business circles.

Marrdro
10-05-2009, 07:46 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


I would discuss this, and what I think we SHOULD do, but I don't think it'll do any good.
It isn't going to happen.

What IS going to happen is that we're going to move to L.A.
I have believed it to be inevitable for a couple years now.
I mean, Ed Roski is willing to build his stadium WITHOUT public money, for crying out loud!
How can we compete with that?

There is NO support for a stadium here.
The polls show that the people of Minnesota are overwhelmingly against it.
It is in the best interest of our elected officials not to do it.
I've talked to some friends of mine at the U - even a surprising number of them (who haven't really paid taxes yet) are against it.
If the people of Minnesota have no foresight and can't see what losing our team would do to us as a state, then neither will our public servants.
And the election is coming up.
They'll likely run on promises that they will never pay for such a stadium.
They won't agree to it.
Why would they?
It'd be political suicide.

And on Wilf's end, why WOULDN'T you sell the team?
If it weren't for revenue sharing, he'd be losing money hand over fist.
And look at L.A. as a market compared to us.
They're the second-largest TV market in the country.
We're what, fourteenth?
The NFL could afford to lose us as revenue generators if it meant getting a piece of that pie.
The owners would approve it in a heartbeat.
History be damned - the NFL is a business.
Do you really think they're going to keep on subsidizing a market that doesn't make money?

And don't kid yourselves by saying that L.A. has lost two teams and wouldn't support this one.
The only reason the Rams and Raiders left was because the Colosseum was (and still is) a poohie place to play football.
It's a lousy stadium built in a lousy neighborhood.
The new stadium (which, if you've seen the design, has PURPLE seats) will be a huge state-of-the-art moneymaker, all built WITHOUT public money.

The Vikings are the best bet for L.A., too - of all the teams that have been bandied about as L.A.'s new franchise, we're the most storied one with the most built-in fanbase (but the least amount of money).
We're also the best team out of all of them.
We'll still have AD in 2012.
The teams with the best chance of moving there, IN ORDER, are: 1. Us. 2. Chargers. 3. Jaguars. 4. Raiders.

My only hope is that we win just ONE title before it happens.
I don't think I'll be able to stay interested in the NFL once they move.
I want to be able to see MY team win the Super Bowl.
Once they move, they won't be my team anymore.
The window of opportunity is very short.
Just three seasons left.
And I think this one will be our best shot.

I hope fervently that I am wrong.
And if I do turn out to be wrong, no one will be happier than me.
But I don't think I am.
As far as I'm concerned, the L.A. Vikings are inevitable, and it'd be healthiest for us as fans if we learned to accept that reality, as unpleasant as it is.


I see the Roski venture as the least likely scenario of any of them.

Look, Wilf is a developer. He makes his money by building properties and generating revenue off of those properties. Roski is much the same so in that respect moving to a building that somebody else built and somebody else owns and gains revenue from is totally counter to anything Wilf has done or is currently doing.

If Roski owns the stadium and all of the surrounding brick and mortar then just exactly where is the revenue going to come from that wilf is going to be looking for? Also, with no other infrastructure to tie into the venture there will be less tax advantages for Wilf in the deal. If you remember, every plan that Wilf has provided contained sectors of development in conjunction with the stadium for him to make money off of. The only chance this has to happen IMHO is some sort of partnership but to me that doesn't seem likely.

Everybody just needs to take a breath. The lease still holds the vikings here for the time being and before that lease expires a new deal will happen. First the Vikings need to scale back their plans and the state needs the economy to show signs of life. It will get done.

I think you missed his point about Wilf selling the team.
Why would he care what is available to develop if he sold the team?


Ego.

It would admit he failed to get it done and that it took a better developer to make it work. Not exactly the thing you want going around in your social and business circles.

I hear ya, however, ego will only go as far as the checkbook will allow especially if you are using other peoples checkbooks as well.

Wonder what would be said of him in his circles if he continued in a venture that was loosing money?
Probably wouldn't be conduscive to getting investors for other ventures...... ::)

Marrdro
10-05-2009, 07:49 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.


I don't have any sense of inevitability that the Vikings will move.

=Z=

I wonder how many other voters think that way.........I bet there are other communities (voters) out there looking at all the revenues brought in over this weekends sporting events and slavinating over the possibility of landing a NFL franchise.
::)

Zeus
10-05-2009, 08:33 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.


I don't have any sense of inevitability that the Vikings will move.


I wonder how many other voters think that way.........I bet there are other communities (voters) out there looking at all the revenues brought in over this weekends sporting events and slavinating over the possibility of landing a NFL franchise.

::)


Generally speaking, I'm a pessimist.
But on this one, I just have a different feeling.

=Z=

Prophet
10-05-2009, 08:44 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.


I don't have any sense of inevitability that the Vikings will move.


I wonder how many other voters think that way.........I bet there are other communities (voters) out there looking at all the revenues brought in over this weekends sporting events and slavinating over the possibility of landing a NFL franchise.

::)


Generally speaking, I'm a pessimist.
But on this one, I just have a different feeling.

=Z=


Very convincing argument.
I will bank on Z's feelings.

Braddock
10-05-2009, 09:16 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.


I don't have any sense of inevitability that the Vikings will move.


I wonder how many other voters think that way.........I bet there are other communities (voters) out there looking at all the revenues brought in over this weekends sporting events and slavinating over the possibility of landing a NFL franchise.

::)


Generally speaking, I'm a pessimist.
But on this one, I just have a different feeling.

=Z=


Very convincing argument.
I will bank on Z's feelings.


roflcopter

BloodyHorns82
10-05-2009, 09:22 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.


I don't have any sense of inevitability that the Vikings will move.


I wonder how many other voters think that way.........I bet there are other communities (voters) out there looking at all the revenues brought in over this weekends sporting events and slavinating over the possibility of landing a NFL franchise.

::)


Generally speaking, I'm a pessimist.
But on this one, I just have a different feeling.

=Z=


Very convincing argument.
I will bank on Z's feelings.


LMFAO.

Zeus
10-05-2009, 09:57 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.


I don't have any sense of inevitability that the Vikings will move.


I wonder how many other voters think that way.........I bet there are other communities (voters) out there looking at all the revenues brought in over this weekends sporting events and slavinating over the possibility of landing a NFL franchise.

::)


Generally speaking, I'm a pessimist.
But on this one, I just have a different feeling.


Very convincing argument.
I will bank on Z's feelings.


Before I met you, my feelings told me you were not a complete asshat.
And I was spot on with that one.

=Z=

Marrdro
10-05-2009, 12:28 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


The thing that saddens me the most is the sense of inevitability that both fans and Vikings brass seem to possess.


I don't have any sense of inevitability that the Vikings will move.


I wonder how many other voters think that way.........I bet there are other communities (voters) out there looking at all the revenues brought in over this weekends sporting events and slavinating over the possibility of landing a NFL franchise.

::)


Generally speaking, I'm a pessimist.
But on this one, I just have a different feeling.

=Z=

I hear ya my friend.
My only source for info on this, with respect to the MN Voting public, is this site and my family.

Almost all of my family say they aren't worried about the team moving.
They believe the economy is so bad all over that the Wilfs can't find a suitable location elsewhere which will force him to stay in the Metrodome.

That worries me.

singersp
10-11-2009, 09:27 AM
Nick Coleman: Did I hear someone say 'stadium'? (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/63890722.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ)

Of course I did. Yet, despite the fun on the field, all those other problems ...

By NICK COLEMAN, Star Tribune

Last update: October 10, 2009 - 4:09 PM

nephilimstorm
10-13-2009, 01:01 PM
http://www.onlinecasinoadvisory.com/casino-news/land/minnesota-nfl-stadium-may-be-funded-by-gambling-43342.htm

Good article on the Vikings being funded for their stadium.

singersp
10-14-2009, 08:32 AM
Bagley the designated doomsayer in stadium push (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/64185312.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUss)

Zeus
10-14-2009, 08:49 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Bagley the designated doomsayer in stadium push (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/64185312.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUss)




Just read that article in the STrib.
Nice hack job, Rachel.

=Z=

Freya
10-14-2009, 09:25 AM
Anyone who tries to equate public funding for a stadium to less money for schools is talking out their ass, imo. Government spending in this state has been skewed for a long time now, and school spending will be poor regardless, just as it has been for decades. Professional sports has nothing to do with school funding.

What they really need to do is start getting politically correct organizations on board to also utilize the stadium. Dangle some cheap rental fees in front of people like the American Cancer Society, Multiple Sclerosis, AA, Muscular Dystrophy, etc. Also get school sports to commit to use the facility for state competitions. I think that getting support from some key organizations that cover more of the public interest is important
to getting the government to take this project seriously.



So, I would say open up the doors to ownership and sell pieces of the team to the public to raise the money for a stadium.
I'll buy E.J. LOL ;D

jmcdon00
10-14-2009, 10:00 AM
"Freya" wrote:


Anyone who tries to equate public funding for a stadium to less money for schools is talking out their jiggly butt, imo. Government spending in this state has been skewed for a long time now, and school spending will be poor regardless, just as it has been for decades. Professional sports has nothing to do with school funding.

What they really need to do is start getting politically correct organizations on board to also utilize the stadium. Dangle some cheap rental fees in front of people like the American Cancer Society, Multiple Sclerosis, AA, Muscular Dystrophy, etc. Also get school sports to commit to use the facility for state competitions. I think that getting support from some key organizations that cover more of the public interest is important
to getting the government to take this project seriously.



So, I would say open up the doors to ownership and sell pieces of the team to the public to raise the money for a stadium.
I'll buy E.J. LOL ;D

The problem with getting those other groups involved is that none of them benefit from a new stadium. The metrodome works great for high school tournaments. The state doesn't need or want a new stadium(other than to keep the Vikings), the Vikings are the only ones that do.

BloodyHorns82
10-14-2009, 10:24 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


Anyone who tries to equate public funding for a stadium to less money for schools is talking out their jiggly butt, imo. Government spending in this state has been skewed for a long time now, and school spending will be poor regardless, just as it has been for decades. Professional sports has nothing to do with school funding.

What they really need to do is start getting politically correct organizations on board to also utilize the stadium. Dangle some cheap rental fees in front of people like the American Cancer Society, Multiple Sclerosis, AA, Muscular Dystrophy, etc. Also get school sports to commit to use the facility for state competitions. I think that getting support from some key organizations that cover more of the public interest is important
to getting the government to take this project seriously.



So, I would say open up the doors to ownership and sell pieces of the team to the public to raise the money for a stadium.
I'll buy E.J. LOL ;D

The problem with getting those other groups involved is that none of them benefit from a new stadium. The metrodome works great for high school tournaments. The state doesn't need or want a new stadium(other than to keep the Vikings), the Vikings are the only ones that do.


What they would do is form pseudo partnerships with those types of groups.
The Vikings would promote them, win/win.
Not sure how much revenue would be generated (if any)...probably not much more than a dent.
But the simple act of associating with groups out for a good cause would even further illustrate to the public and politicians that the Vikings are more than just a sports team and benefit the state of MN more than simply entertainment on Sunday.
Who wants to vote against helping the organizatio who is helping the cancer society, M.S. group, AIDS foundation, hurt puppies r' us, and the battered women's shelter?


These groups could be promoted in the game day magazine, short simple television comercials, in game announcements, etc.
I don't think it's a bad idea at all.

Llamarama
10-14-2009, 03:05 PM
I thought this was interesting; B.S. Report Podcast about L.A. trying to get a football team and all the issues that has.
Very pessimistic view of LA actually getting a team from someone "in the know" as it were.
Haven't seen much of this point of view here on the forum so I thought some of you might find it interesting.

(The LA stuff starts at 13:45ish)

Scan down to the 9/16 podcast
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=2864045

Former Los Angeles Avengers owner and Wasserman Media Group CEO Casey Wasserman joins Bill Simmons to make the case for an NFL team in Los Angeles.

Go Vikes!
;D

Formo
10-14-2009, 04:56 PM
Rachel Blount needs to pull her head out.

Are you kidding me?!
"It will be a great day when our schools/roads/environment get all the money they need, and Zygi Wilf has to sell candy bars to build a new stadium."
What?!
First off, the state passed a freakin' amendment on raising taxes exclusively for the wetlands preservation. (Or some garbage like that).
It was a state wide tax of under 1%.
And it was projected to bring in over $200 million in the first year.
Is that 'all the money' it needs?
Don't even get me started on public schools..
The government fucked that up years ago, no amount of money will fix it until they re-structure that system..
And our roads?!
This state is KNOWN for it's TWO seasons..
Winter and road construction.
WTF?

It will be a great day when people in this country stand on their own damn two feet and take care of themselves (including NFL team owners).