PDA

View Full Version : Vikings want privacy and lots of public money



singersp
02-17-2006, 02:16 PM
Broadcast Sports: Vikings want privacy and lots of public money

On the same day the Vikings went stumping for stadium money, they informed the media that their operation is none of the fans' business.

Judd Zulgad
Star Tribune
Last update: February 16, 2006 – 7:50 PM

Vikings owner Zygi Wilf's newest football hire, Fran Foley, informed Purple Nation that on-field matters are none of its business on Thursday.
Approximately seven hours later, Wilf's stadium honchos stumped for an Anoka County complex that would include funding of $395 million from the public.

The situation would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

The post-Mike Tice Vikings made their message crystal clear to a fan base it must consider to be a bunch of suckers: "We're a semi-public institution when it comes time for you to pony up tax dollars for a stadium, but a private business when it comes to our football product."

In the interest of full disclosure, the fact the Vikings are going in this direction will make this writer's day job as one of the team's beat writers more difficult. And that's fine. It's not the responsibility of Wilf's Triangle of Silence -- a group that includes Foley, coach Brad Childress and vice president of football operations Rob Brzezinski -- to make life easy for those who cover the team.

But Foley's introductory news conference as the Vikings' vice president of player personnel -- three weeks after he was hired -- made it obvious this goes beyond keeping the media at arm's length. The franchise would do the same to a fan base that has filled the Metrodome on a regular basis since 1998.

"My position will be that we're not going to talk about our football business in public," Foley said. "It's just not going to happen. It's not the way that I do business, and it won't be the way that we'll do business from this point forward."

That was one of the few moments of candor from a guy who started the wrapup of his opening statement by informing the assembled media: "We are in the business and the process of player procurement, and everyone is extremely busy maintaining that edge, so we have a lot of things to do. I would like to open it up to some questions knowing that I do have an extremely busy agenda."

Not what one would call getting started on the right foot.

Asked to comment regarding a Star Tribune report that the Vikings were gauging quarterback Daunte Culpepper's trade value, Foley appeared as if he had just been asked to ingest hemlock.

And what did new coach Brad Childress have to say about what's going on with Culpepper, the guy he called "the franchise quarterback" on his first day on the job? No one knows. Childress' silence with the local media reached its 34th day, and that streak appears certain to reach 42 days before Childress' scheduled news conference at the NFL Combine next Friday in Indianapolis.

As his news conference neared an end, Foley was asked if he thought the answers he was giving the fans would keep them happy.

"I would just offer to the fans to know that we, too, feel an evaluation," he said in a stunning end run around the question. "Mr. Wilf is evaluating me every day, just as I am evaluating the process by which we do our business. All I would ask from them is to give us a chance as we go forward here. We're new to the task. I think they'll see some results in a short time, but that remains to be seen."

So what exactly is the Vikings' plan to keep its fan base informed? Is there one?

"There is a change in approach at the Vikings organization from the past and we're working through it," said Lester Bagley, the Vikings' vice president of public affairs and stadium development. "There had been a lot of information in the previous regime that was out in the public that sometimes was inappropriate and potentially harmful to the club from a competitive perspective.

"We need to set a new course. That's kind of what we're going to have to all get used to working with. We also realize that the media are an important part of covering this club and getting fans information about exactly what is going on."

The Vikings could take a page from the Washington Redskins. The team and its owner, Daniel Snyder, have feuded with the local media, but Snyder attempts to get his spin out through two team-run Websites and a weekly television show that is produced by the Redskins. He also bought three radio stations in the market.

These outlets rarely provide a word of unbiased reporting on the Redskins, but at least Snyder is attempting to give fans of his team a feeling they are in the loop.

At this point that's an improvement over the Vikings, who apparently plan to only put out the welcome mat for their fans when it's convenient. "It's too competitive out there," Foley said explaining his lack of candidness. "We're not going to share any of that with the public."

[i]Judd Zulgad • jzulgad@startribune.com

Vikings want privacy and lots of public money (http://www.startribune.com/510/story/252732.html)

Prophet
02-17-2006, 02:23 PM
That is really ridiculous. I work at a public institution and get competitive grants for my research. Everything is available to the public because it is funded by the public. I have a lot of great research ideas (in my mind), but if nobody is willing to fund them then I have to question how great my ideas really are.

People have to at least have a perception of getting something for their money if they are going to cough it up. Zygi appears to be on the right path for attempting to create a good public image and economic incentives. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Mikecarter81
02-17-2006, 02:23 PM
Wow what a suprise! A newsreporter from the Twin Cities that bashes the vikings anytime a stadium deal comes into discussion. This doesn't bother me in the least.

Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. I'd rather have this then all this rumor mongering that is going on about Pep right now. I hope the team figures out its stadium deal before we lose this team too, just like we lost the Stars.

Mike

olson_10
02-17-2006, 02:28 PM
id like to compare the number of reporters who hate the new stadium idea to the ones that actually approve of it..pretty unfair perspectives

singersp
02-17-2006, 02:31 PM
"Mikecarter81" wrote:

Wow what a suprise! A newsreporter from the Twin Cities that bashes the vikings anytime a stadium deal comes into discussion. This doesn't bother me in the least.

Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. I'd rather have this then all this rumor mongering that is going on about Pep right now. I hope the team figures out its stadium deal before we lose this team too, just like we lost the Stars.

Mike

Not keeping the public informed will only increase the number of rumors that fly around, not reduce them.

singersp
02-17-2006, 02:34 PM
"olson_10" wrote:

id like to compare the number of reporters who hate the new stadium idea to the ones that actually approve of it..pretty unfair perspectives

The number of reporters who hate or like the stadium idea doesn't mean squat.

A state-wide public poll would be more realistic.

Prophet
02-17-2006, 02:35 PM
"Mikecarter81" wrote:

...Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. ...

Once a business gets a bunch of coin from the public it is no longer a private business. The stockholders have a right to know. If people put clams into a business they have every right to know what is going on with their money. If the business doesn't want to divulge that information then they shouldn't be asking for public money. Simple as that.

AngloVike
02-17-2006, 02:58 PM
Lets get this into perspective regarding the privacy. I think you'll find that the TC media is getting their knickers in a twist because the Vikes are learning to keep their own counsel when it comes to player issues and things that directly affect the team.
As the article said
"There is a change in approach at the Vikings organization from the past and we're working through it," said Lester Bagley, the Vikings' vice president of public affairs and stadium development. "There had been a lot of information in the previous regime that was out in the public that sometimes was inappropriate and potentially harmful to the club from a competitive perspective "

In other words previous HCs, owners and senior personnel within the organisation have been too free and easy in what they told to the media. Other teams then get a jump on possible ideas / plans or moves by the team and so have a chance to think ahead.
Whats wrong about keeping things like within the organisation and letting the fans find out as the opposition do.

The TC media seem to think that they have a god given right to every bit of information and news within Winter Park and now that someone has said " no " they start acting like a spoilt kid.
A good example has been the signing of Goodspeed this week. If the team had tipped their hand about wanting to get to get him the the TC newshounds would have being trying to prejudge it and trying to tell Zygi and co. why it was wrong based on info from an inside source. Instead the team just did it and now it has everyone guessing as to what may be special about him and thats not a bad thing at all.

Hopefully this will be start of the Vikes being a lot more careful about the information that comes out of the organistion in terms of team matters.

Prophet
02-17-2006, 03:02 PM
"AngloVike" wrote:

Lets get this into perspective...

Good point.

Mikecarter81
02-17-2006, 03:31 PM
You all make good points and I think in some instances I didn't think it all the way out.

Mike

Ltrey33
02-17-2006, 03:58 PM
I think this whole thing is just a bunch of belly-aching and griping from the media. So what if they don't want to release every little thing they do to the public? Granted, they get public funding, but does every public institution release all of their plans for the present and the future to the public? No. It's a business as much as it is a public institution, so the Wilf's can say as much or as little as they want. Judd is just crying because they're making his job harder.

NodakPaul
02-17-2006, 04:04 PM
Biased news article from a biased source. He does a great job of only presenting part of the imformation. For instance:


As his news conference neared an end, Foley was asked if he thought the answers he was giving the fans would keep them happy.

"I would just offer to the fans to know that we, too, feel an evaluation," he said in a stunning end run around the question. "Mr. Wilf is evaluating me every day, just as I am evaluating the process by which we do our business. All I would ask from them is to give us a chance as we go forward here. We're new to the task. I think they'll see some results in a short time, but that remains to be seen."

The actual question was: Do you think the answers you are giving to the fans today will keep them happy or are you just telling them to sit back and wait and watch to see what the team does?

Foley didn't give a "stunning end run around the question." He answered it exactly as asked. Does he think the fans will be happy with the answers or is he asking them to wait and see? He said that he is asking them to be patient and see what the results are.

Granted, Foley wasn't exactly forthcoming with his answers, and I would like to see the Vikings more open to the public with information... but there is no need to skew the truth just to get a point across. Plus, the offseason is a time of strategy. What next, does the press want the Vikings to announce all of their draft choices in advance? Just because they are closed mouthed now doesn't mean that they intend on keeping the press, or the fans, in the dark...

AngloVike
02-17-2006, 04:20 PM
"ltrey33" wrote:

Judd is just crying because they're making his job harder.

maybe he might have to do some **shock, horror ** research as part of his job http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/shocked/007.gif

COJOMAY
02-17-2006, 04:31 PM
Now read this paragraph carefully:

But Foley's introductory news conference as the Vikings' vice president of player personnel -- three weeks after he was hired -- made it obvious this goes beyond keeping the media at arm's length. The franchise would do the same to a fan base that has filled the Metrodome on a regular basis since 1998.
Boy, if that isn't MAKING UP news I don't know what is! "The franchise would do..." (how the heck does he come to that assumption?)

He makes it sound as if the public owns the Vikings. I only know of one team in the NFL that is owned by the public and it ain't the Vikings.

The stadium issue is totally different than the Vikings ownership. Here the public will GET money from the tax on sales. And I'm sure the Vikings would want to share all their information on the stadium issue as they have been doing. But the public has NO right to meddle in the Vikings organization. Wilf and his partners paid for it and they have every right to run it as they choose.
If the fans don't like the way it is run, they have the right to not pay to go to the games.

PurplePumpkin
02-17-2006, 04:32 PM
"AngloVike" wrote:

"ltrey33" wrote:

Judd is just crying because they're making his job harder.

maybe he might have to do some **shock, horror ** research as part of his job http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/shocked/007.gif


Maybe Judd should move to Wisconson there is plenty cheese for wine there! The star tribune seems to bash any stadium talks. Sometimes I wonder if they have stock in the Metrodome

COJOMAY
02-17-2006, 04:34 PM
As a matter of fact, I believe they do!

NodakPaul
02-17-2006, 04:36 PM
Sometimes I wonder if they have stock in the Metrodome

Don't they lease part of the lot that it is on? I seem to remember when they were bashing the Metrodome being built (some things never change) that they changed their tune once the land was purchased or leased from the Star Trib, or something like that...

Please correct me if I am wrong, it's early and I have not had nearly enough caffiene yet...

whackthepack
02-17-2006, 05:00 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

"Mikecarter81" wrote:

...Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. ...

Once a business gets a bunch of coin from the public it is no longer a private business. The stockholders have a right to know. If people put clams into a business they have every right to know what is going on with their money. If the business doesn't want to divulge that information then they shouldn't be asking for public money. Simple as that.


So far the Vikings have not received any money from the State of Minnesota, the Metrodome had leases and those leases and income have paid for the stadium and paid for renovations. The Vikings have asked for money from the State and Anoka County, but have not received it. I do not understand how you view them as public company.


Are they supposed to come out and say we do not want Daunte back at any price? Do you think that would help there bargaining position?

Should they come out and tell everyone which players they like and do not like? Would that help their negotiations with those players and the trade value of the other players?

PurplePumpkin
02-17-2006, 05:30 PM
"whackthepack" wrote:

"Prophet" wrote:

"Mikecarter81" wrote:

...Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. ...

Once a business gets a bunch of coin from the public it is no longer a private business. The stockholders have a right to know. If people put clams into a business they have every right to know what is going on with their money. If the business doesn't want to divulge that information then they shouldn't be asking for public money. Simple as that.


So far the Vikings have not received any money from the State of Minnesota, the Metrodome had leases and those leases and income have paid for the stadium and paid for renovations. The Vikings have asked for money from the State and Anoka County, but have not received it. I do not understand how you view them as public company.


Are they supposed to come out and say we do not want Daunte back at any price? Do you think that would help there bargaining position?

Should they come out and tell everyone which players they like and do not like? Would that help their negotiations with those players and the trade value of the other players?

Well said :smile:

snowinapril
02-17-2006, 05:48 PM
I will truly be informed when something happens.

I really don't need to hear the griping, moaning and rumors.

Prophet
02-17-2006, 06:06 PM
"whackthepack" wrote:

"Prophet" wrote:

"Mikecarter81" wrote:

...Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. ...

Once a business gets a bunch of coin from the public it is no longer a private business. The stockholders have a right to know. If people put clams into a business they have every right to know what is going on with their money. If the business doesn't want to divulge that information then they shouldn't be asking for public money. Simple as that.

The article that this thread is about is talking about public money supporting the stadium.

So far the Vikings have not received any money from the State of Minnesota, the Metrodome had leases and those leases and income have paid for the stadium and paid for renovations. The Vikings have asked for money from the State and Anoka County, but have not received it. I do not understand how you view them as public company.


Are they supposed to come out and say we do not want Daunte back at any price? Do you think that would help there bargaining position?

Should they come out and tell everyone which players they like and do not like? Would that help their negotiations with those players and the trade value of the other players?

I won't address the funny, but ridiculous examples. There is nothing tricky about my comments. In any business, if people are going to fork over their own clams, then they have some say in the business and have a right to have some say in the business. The gist of the whole situation is that some people do not want to pay their money toward a new stadium and some do and some are indifferent. If you don't please, at a minimum, the politicians who are theoreticially supposed to be representing us, then the whole stadium issue funded by public monies will not come to fruition. Zygi and his people are well aware of this and working on making the stadium a reality.

=======

added later.

The article is talking about public monies, that is why I was talking about it since it is the same thread.

The bottom-line is that if the vocal people that are contacting their representatives are silenced or minimized by having even more people call in support of the stadium then it will get passed. People have to vocalize and organize if the politicians are the people holding things up. They will listen to the most vocal group.

Freya
02-17-2006, 06:48 PM
A balance must be found. I don't like the idea of the Viking Organisation being too tight lipped, but I can understand limiting the information for competitive reasons.

VikesfaninWis
02-17-2006, 06:59 PM
Now lets look at it from every view. Would you rather have everyone in the Vikings group be quiet, or be like Tice a loud mouth and let everyone in the Nfl know what their next move is?

I like the new look Vikings. I think finally this team is going to get the respect they deserve..

NordicNed
02-17-2006, 07:13 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

"whackthepack" wrote:

"Prophet" wrote:

"Mikecarter81" wrote:

...Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. ...

Once a business gets a bunch of coin from the public it is no longer a private business. The stockholders have a right to know. If people put clams into a business they have every right to know what is going on with their money. If the business doesn't want to divulge that information then they shouldn't be asking for public money. Simple as that.

The article that this thread is about is talking about public money supporting the stadium.

So far the Vikings have not received any money from the State of Minnesota, the Metrodome had leases and those leases and income have paid for the stadium and paid for renovations. The Vikings have asked for money from the State and Anoka County, but have not received it. I do not understand how you view them as public company.


Are they supposed to come out and say we do not want Daunte back at any price? Do you think that would help there bargaining position?

Should they come out and tell everyone which players they like and do not like? Would that help their negotiations with those players and the trade value of the other players?

I won't address the funny, but ridiculous examples. There is nothing tricky about my comments. In any business, if people are going to fork over their own clams, then they have some say in the business and have a right to have some say in the business. The gist of the whole situation is that some people do not want to pay their money toward a new stadium and some do and some are indifferent. If you don't please, at a minimum, the politicians who are theoreticially supposed to be representing us, then the whole stadium issue funded by public monies will not come to fruition. Zygi and his people are well aware of this and working on making the stadium a reality.

=======

added later.

The article is talking about public monies, that is why I was talking about it since it is the same thread.

The bottom-line is that if the vocal people that are contacting their representatives are silenced or minimized by having even more people call in support of the stadium then it will get passed. People have to vocalize and organize if the politicians are the people holding things up. They will listen to the most vocal group.

Prophet,

Do you know of any web sites where we as fans can write our wishes for a new stadium. I'de like to tell those politicians how just one person (myself), making a trip from out of State to see the Vikings can help bring in money for the people and the State of MN..

My trip last Dec.-Jan. lasted 3 days and I probably spent close to if not over $1,000 to visit MN and see the Vikings play....And thats only one fan....

They need to hear more of this and be aware how much of a draw in tourisum the Vikings bring to their State..

Ned

Mikecarter81
02-17-2006, 07:18 PM
VikingNed

The issue is if you want a viking stadium you can. Call up your local rep for the state legislation let them know how you feel. I wish I could but I'm just a chessehead viking fan down here and would no doubt be shunned!

Mike

josdin00
02-17-2006, 07:24 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

"Mikecarter81" wrote:

...Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. ...

Once a business gets a bunch of coin from the public it is no longer a private business. The stockholders have a right to know. If people put clams into a business they have every right to know what is going on with their money. If the business doesn't want to divulge that information then they shouldn't be asking for public money. Simple as that.

Yes, but even a public company doesn't tell the stock holders what they're going to do ahead of time. In fact, most public companies have only recently released their 4th quarter results for last year. Imagine that. If the Vikings were acting like a true public company, we'd still be waiting to find out if they made the playoffs.

Okay, that was a bit silly, but you get the point. The Vikings have no more of a responsibility to the public to divulge their free agent targets than Microsoft has to divulge the list of features built in to the next version of windows.

Ltrey33
02-17-2006, 08:09 PM
"josdin00" wrote:

"Prophet" wrote:

"Mikecarter81" wrote:

...Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. ...

Once a business gets a bunch of coin from the public it is no longer a private business. The stockholders have a right to know. If people put clams into a business they have every right to know what is going on with their money. If the business doesn't want to divulge that information then they shouldn't be asking for public money. Simple as that.

Yes, but even a public company doesn't tell the stock holders what they're going to do ahead of time. In fact, most public companies have only recently released their 4th quarter results for last year. Imagine that. If the Vikings were acting like a true public company, we'd still be waiting to find out if they made the playoffs.

Okay, that was a bit silly, but you get the point. The Vikings have no more of a responsibility to the public to divulge their free agent targets than Microsoft has to divulge the list of features built in to the next version of windows.

100% agreed Jos!

singersp
02-17-2006, 08:11 PM
"Mikecarter81" wrote:

VikingNed

The issue is if you want a viking stadium you can. Call up your local rep for the state legislation let them know how you feel. I wish I could but I'm just a chessehead viking fan down here and would no doubt be shunned!

Mike

That's all well & good, but Ned's local Rep is in Connecticut! :grin:

josdin00
02-17-2006, 08:40 PM
"singersp" wrote:

"Mikecarter81" wrote:

VikingNed

The issue is if you want a viking stadium you can. Call up your local rep for the state legislation let them know how you feel. I wish I could but I'm just a chessehead viking fan down here and would no doubt be shunned!

Mike

That's all well & good, but Ned's local Rep is in Connecticut! :grin:

Yeah, but they're still so paranoid on the East Coast that as soon as Ned tells them that he's in the "concrete" business, they'll get right to work.

Prophet
02-17-2006, 08:40 PM
"josdin00" wrote:

"Prophet" wrote:

"Mikecarter81" wrote:

...Hey they are a private business we will learn stuff as it comes out. ...

Once a business gets a bunch of coin from the public it is no longer a private business. The stockholders have a right to know. If people put clams into a business they have every right to know what is going on with their money. If the business doesn't want to divulge that information then they shouldn't be asking for public money. Simple as that.

Yes, but even a public company doesn't tell the stock holders what they're going to do ahead of time. In fact, most public companies have only recently released their 4th quarter results for last year. Imagine that. If the Vikings were acting like a true public company, we'd still be waiting to find out if they made the playoffs.

Okay, that was a bit silly, but you get the point. The Vikings have no more of a responsibility to the public to divulge their free agent targets than Microsoft has to divulge the list of features built in to the next version of windows.

I have no problem agreeing with that. I obviously am not even coming close to communicating effectively today. Maybe I should get some sleep or drink a few beers.

My only point was that if the Vikings want public support they have to sell their product effectively. Wilf is trying to do that and gain public support. Nobody that I know will willingly give up their hard-earned money to support something they are not in agreement with. That's all I was trying to say.

That puts the ball into the court of the supporters versus the non-supporters or indifferent people. Make some noise to the politicians if they are to blame for holding up the stadium issue. Unfortunatley, the most vocal people tend to be the people that are against something.

Prophet
02-17-2006, 08:43 PM
"VikingNed" wrote:


Prophet,

Do you know of any web sites where we as fans can write our wishes for a new stadium. I'de like to tell those politicians how just one person (myself), making a trip from out of State to see the Vikings can help bring in money for the people and the State of MN..

My trip last Dec.-Jan. lasted 3 days and I probably spent close to if not over $1,000 to visit MN and see the Vikings play....And thats only one fan....

They need to hear more of this and be aware how much of a draw in tourisum the Vikings bring to their State..

Ned

Contact your politicians. (http://www.ooida.com/call_to_action/congaddr.htm)

tastywaves
02-17-2006, 09:44 PM
First off, I don't know why the reporters want information so badly from the Vikings organization. They seem to have much more fun spreading rumors, speculating and degrading the team. I guess they can still twist things to their fancy, but I doubt they really want any real information unless there is a scandal involved.

Second, on the public money for the stadium argument. I see this as mostly an issue about money. MN politicians seem to allows try and throw some kind of BS around about making the owner richer with our dollars... Stadiums cost a lot to build and the city will benefit greatly from it, why would an owner want to give this away? Outside of the sporting industry, cities throw all kinds of incentives to attract companies to their towns because of the positive impact it has on their economy. Jobs with paid employees means more dollars back in to the local ecomony, increased tax base.. yada yada yada. Now, what is the stadium and complex Wilf is proposing really worth to the good people of MN? How much will come back to the local area over the period of relevant time (stadium and mall productive years), how much of the public will benefit financially? I would like to see the financial side of the equation emphasized more by the stadium articles than simply stating a multi-billionaire wants to rape MN residents of their hard earned cash. Is $400M the right amount to ask from the public? I have no idea, but I haven't heard any opponents offer any kind of funding willingness. I have not seen much in terms of good PR from the Vikings promoting this in a way that the public could appreciate and understand it better, maybe this new PR firm will find a good spin. I hope so, because it only means good things for the future of the team, but they will first have to find a way to convince the locals that this is a good deal for them.

If the sports journalists aren't careful they might just get their wish (no Vikings team to report on in the future).

Edit: I just read the pp.o post on Wilf's plans and part of the argument for the people. Guess you can ignore most of the last paragraph.

NordicNed
02-17-2006, 10:10 PM
You should all write to your Reps...

I just did, even though I live in CT......I had to first look up a MN zip code, because thats how you get in...

But I let them know, I'm from Ct., and I visit MN to see the Vikings.

I basicaly said, support the stadium, so visitors like myself keep coming back, and spend our hard earned money in MN....

Everyone here should write, this is how things get done....

whackthepack
02-17-2006, 10:18 PM
About the financing

1. the Anoka county tax is going to be 0.0075, out of ever $100 spent the tax be $0.75. So if you bought a $20 suitcase it would cost you a extra 15 cents, oh my good what do we do.

2. the State of Minnesota part of the money ($115 million) is going to be used to improve the roads around the site. But the part that the media keeps forgetting to mention is this is already a scheduled upgrade and will be done if the stadium is built or not. So this money is not costing us anything more. This should be taken out of the equation as no additional funds will be spent. But they do not tell you that part and it makes it look like we are paying more when we are not.

3. the Anoka county tax is not a local tax, the people that are against the stadium want this to be considered as a local tax (but it's not) so it has to go to a referendum. The reason being that in Minnesota a referendum if the person voting does not vote on the issue and leaves their ballot blank it counts as a no vote and it is almost impossible to get referendums approved (unless it is for education). And the people that want the referendum on the stadium know this and that it would be defeated.

While you are contacting your representatives about a stadium you might want to let them know that this is an unfair referendum system and that if people are choosing to not vote on an issue their vote should not count either way, and not put as a no vote. They had a choice and choose not to make it, that was their choice.




Here is a website where you can find out who represents you and how to contact them

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/geninfo.asp



Here is a article on how the referendums work in Minnesota.


Three times in the last century, Minnesotans voted on a measure to establish a statewide process of initiative and referendum and each time a majority favored the process. But that alone was not been enough to enact initiative and referendum in the state.
In 1897 the Minnesota Legislature unintentionally frustrated the initiative process, as well as a great many future proposals to amend the state’s constitution, by proposing a supermajority requirement for ratifying amendments to the constitution.
In 1897, the legislators' actual objective was to block passage of a Prohibition amendment, which was bitterly opposed by brewery interests. In 1897 the question of initiative and referendum had not even been seriously discussed. It was still two years before Governor
John Lind called for I&R in his message to the legislature, and eight years before the Minnesota suffragist Mrs. Eugenia Farmer helped found the state's I&R League.
The 1897 "Brewer's Amendment," sponsored by state representative (and Hamm Brewing Co. attorney) W. W. Dunn, proposed changing the ratification threshold for state constitutional amendments: instead of requiring ratification by a majority of the popular vote of those voting on each individual amendment, as was then the case (and is now the case in most states), they would require a majority of all votes cast in the election. In effect, under this system those who do not vote on a particular question are counted as voting against it. Dunn's amendment passed both houses and was placed on the ballot for ratification by the voters in 1898. The amendment could not have passed under its own standard for voter
ratification, but it did pass under the old standard. Of those who voted on the question, 68 percent favored it - but less than one-third of those voting in the election voted on this question.
The first Minnesota I&R amendment to get through the legislature was on the ballot in 1914 and was approved by a three to one margin, but lost because the "yes" votes were still less than a majority of all the votes cast in the election. In 1916, the legislature passed an I&R amendment again, and voters supported it by a margin of nearly four to one, but those
voting in favor were only 45 percent of all voters at the polls, so it lost again. The Progressives decided the following year that he "supermajority" requirement was an "insurmountable obstacle," and apparently gave up.
Sixty years later, the newly elected liberal State Senator Robert Benedict of Bloomington renewed the fight for a statewide initiative process. By late April 1978 the three leading candidates in that year's gubernatorial election had endorsed L&R. But trouble for the amendment was brewing elsewhere. On April 25, in a special state election in St. Paul, voters
approved an initiative to repeal a city ordinance banning discrimination on the basis of "affectionate or sexual preference" - a stunning defeat for gay rights advocates and the entire liberal community. Christian undamentalists sponsoring the initiative had shrewdly petitioned for a low-turnout special election; such elections tend to favor conservatives, who
turn out to vote in greater numbers than liberals.
Republican Al Quie, elected governor in 1978, made I&R the centerpiece of his legislative agenda and by April 1980 had pushed it through the legislature. The state senate approved it 47 to 13; in the house the vote was 86 to 47.
Lobbyists and attorneys for the beverage industry were the first to organize a campaign against voter ratification of the I&R amendment. Just as in 1897, they wanted to prevent Minnesotans from voting on any initiative that might qualify for the ballot, in order to ensure that one specific proposal - in this case, a Bottle Bill - could never pass. The industry lobbyists maintained a low profile and encouraged allies from liberal groups (who were upset about the 1978 gay rights vote in St. Paul) to lead the "Vote No" campaign.
The opposition group was co-chaired by Wayne Popham, a former Republican state senator and vice president of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, and Treva Kahl, who headed the state AFL-CIO's political department. Popham's group made Harriette Burkhalter, president of the state League of Woman Voters, the most visible anti-I&R spokesperson.
On November 4, 1980 the election returns showed 53.2 percent in favor and 46.8 percent against: not enough to win. Of the total that turned out to vote, 12 percent had failed to mark "yes" or "no" on I&R. With these added to the "no" side, the amendment lost.
Former governor Elmer Anderson and Governor Quie had run a lackluster pro-initiative campaign, but a University of Minnesota political scientist, Charles H. Backstrom, identified another reason for the loss: many voters failed to cast ballots on the I&R question because they were not tall enough to see it on their voting machines. This factor alone, Backstrom
found, could have changed the outcome of the election.
The long-dead legislators of 1897, combined with voting machines designed for tall people, has thus far defeated the efforts of Minnesotans to get I&R. But after many years of no serious campaign for I&R, efforts are once again underway in the legislature and at the grassroots.
Rep. Erik Paulsen introduced bipartisan legislation in the Minnesota House of Representatives to establish a statewide initiative and referendum process. Rep. Paulsen’s bill had the support of Governor Jesse Ventura and passed the House twice, in 1999 and again in 2002, but failed to get a vote on the floor of the state Senate. A new citizens’ lobby, !, sprang up in 2002 to mobilize voters at the grassroots to pressure additional legislators.
In remains to be seen whether the current push for I&R will ultimately succeed, but a recent statewide poll showed 80 percent of Minnesotans favor a statewide initiative and referendum process. That level of public support and the willingness of initiative supporters to continue the battle ultimately bode well for I&R in Minnesota.
This state history is based on research found in David Schmidt's book,

DarrinNelsonguy
02-17-2006, 10:32 PM
Why should the Vikings share insider information on their views of player evaluations and player contracts. The media is ticked off because the past regime gave them that info which is not always a good business practice. So in my opinion this is a non-issue.

As far as a referendum I believe that one is not needed in this case. We elect county board and city council members for a reason and that is to make decisions on cases like this that are in the best interest of their contituents. If they need to run stuff like this by the general public what is the point of elected officials. Besides this local sales tax will be used to improve roads and infrastructure in the county so why do they need citizens input on this? Do they go to the citizens to raise levy on public utilities such as sewer and water and street improvements? No they don't they just assess them to the residents.

Besides, if we do not build a stadium now, we will let the team leave and then in 10 years we will have to pay a franchise free if we can get one, we have to build a stadium and then suffer through an expansion franchise just like the Wild after we let the North Stars leave.

I have emailed my Senator, House Rep and Pawlenty to let them know that I support the building of 3 new stadiums (Vikings, Twins and Gophers) and urge each of you Minnesota residents to do and urge your fellow sports friends to do so as well.

Prophet
02-17-2006, 11:42 PM
It appears to me that the stadium is investing in the economic development of MN rather then the take that the press seems to like that dwells on robbing the taxpayers.

FedjeViking
02-18-2006, 07:02 PM
"Freya" wrote:

A balance must be found. I don't like the idea of the Viking Organisation being too tight lipped, but I can understand limiting the information for competitive reasons.

Well said Freya! I also think that is right about the balance. The fans need to know some information to keep them happy and buying tickets, especially concerning the players. But anything else concerning the business end should be kept quiet until it's done.

singersp
02-18-2006, 07:18 PM
"FedjeViking" wrote:

"Freya" wrote:

A balance must be found. I don't like the idea of the Viking Organisation being too tight lipped, but I can understand limiting the information for competitive reasons.

Well said Freya! I also think that is right about the balance. The fans need to know some information to keep them happy and buying tickets, especially concerning the players. But anything else concerning the business end should be kept quiet until it's done.

The "not knowing" part is the most frustrating. I certainly want them to be honest with the fans & would like them to at least squash some of the rumors when they can.

I don't want them leading us on to believe one thing when they're doing another, like they did with the Moss trade.

CynicalVike
02-18-2006, 07:53 PM
First off, SCREW the Star Tribune. They are practically owned and run by the same DFL that wants to kill the stadium issue. They are the most biased newspaper I have ever read. If it deals anything with sports, or outdoors,(i.e. hunting, fishing, dedicated funding) they will bash it. If it envolves the arts, DFL politics, or education, they will tout it to the heavens on every front page for a month.

Secondly, The Vikings are NOT a public company. They are owned by a private ownership group headed by Zygi Wilf. They ARE a public trust, in that their exsistance is directly linked to this community, and the community to them, but that is all.

Lastly, the monies that Wilf is asking the public for is for the stadium, NOT for the TEAM. Yes, the team would play in the stadium, but there is a heck of a lot more envolved with this development than a grass field with a bunch of white stripes on it that grown men play a kids game on. That is what the public needs to realize.

It is totally wrong for "journalists" such as Judd to try to mislead the publics perception of a story by twisting it around so as to feed his own personal and professional agenda, and that of his employer and their politcal croonies.

Webby
02-18-2006, 08:03 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

"VikingNed" wrote:


Prophet,

Do you know of any web sites where we as fans can write our wishes for a new stadium. I'de like to tell those politicians how just one person (myself), making a trip from out of State to see the Vikings can help bring in money for the people and the State of MN..

My trip last Dec.-Jan. lasted 3 days and I probably spent close to if not over $1,000 to visit MN and see the Vikings play....And thats only one fan....

They need to hear more of this and be aware how much of a draw in tourisum the Vikings bring to their State..

Ned

Contact your politicians. (http://www.ooida.com/call_to_action/congaddr.htm)


I am going to set up a petition here within the next week as well and we will forward to different groups.

singersp
02-18-2006, 08:07 PM
"Webby" wrote:

"Prophet" wrote:

"VikingNed" wrote:


Prophet,

Do you know of any web sites where we as fans can write our wishes for a new stadium. I'de like to tell those politicians how just one person (myself), making a trip from out of State to see the Vikings can help bring in money for the people and the State of MN..

My trip last Dec.-Jan. lasted 3 days and I probably spent close to if not over $1,000 to visit MN and see the Vikings play....And thats only one fan....

They need to hear more of this and be aware how much of a draw in tourisum the Vikings bring to their State..

Ned

Contact your politicians. (http://www.ooida.com/call_to_action/congaddr.htm)


I am going to set up a petition here within the next week as well and we will forward to different groups.

Can you make it so "visitors" & "lurkers" can sign the petition without joining?

FedjeViking
02-18-2006, 08:15 PM
"singersp" wrote:

"Webby" wrote:

"Prophet" wrote:

"VikingNed" wrote:


Prophet,

Do you know of any web sites where we as fans can write our wishes for a new stadium. I'de like to tell those politicians how just one person (myself), making a trip from out of State to see the Vikings can help bring in money for the people and the State of MN..

My trip last Dec.-Jan. lasted 3 days and I probably spent close to if not over $1,000 to visit MN and see the Vikings play....And thats only one fan....

They need to hear more of this and be aware how much of a draw in tourisum the Vikings bring to their State..

Ned

Contact your politicians. (http://www.ooida.com/call_to_action/congaddr.htm)


I am going to set up a petition here within the next week as well and we will forward to different groups.

Can you make it so "visitors" & "lurkers" can sign the petition without joining?

"singersp" wrote:

The "not knowing" part is the most frustrating. I certainly want them to be honest with the fans & would like them to at least squash some of the rumors when they can.

I don't want them leading us on to believe one thing when they're doing another, like they did with the Moss trade.

I want to sign that Webby!

Singer your right on that "not knowing," that is what I was getting at on my post above. Fans need to know about the players, but I don't care about the business end. We don't really need to know their business practices unless it hurts the players.

Wiggles67
02-20-2006, 05:28 AM
Thank you webby I would love a chance to sign anything that could let these guys know how we feel!

I have been kinda quiet as of late, but still reading! I dont know much about the college players and so I dont have much to contribute to the boards right now.

But with this whole issue, this whole privacy thing is rediculous. If he is a sports writer and knows anything about sports, he should realize that teams do have to keep things private for the sake of the franchise! That would be like giving the other team a list of every single play you are going to run on sunday. Privacy is needed in order to be successive in the free agent market, in trades, in game plans, or just about anything else.

I do not have a problem with them wanting this "privacy" if it rights the ship and improves this team. Whatever it takes to get us a ring.

The Star Tribute has just lost a customer...I always picked up one of their papers when I visited the cities. Because of the numerous articles I have read as of late I have a very hard time supporting these guys.

WBLVikeBabe
02-20-2006, 07:50 AM
"Webby" wrote:

"Prophet" wrote:

"VikingNed" wrote:


Prophet,

Do you know of any web sites where we as fans can write our wishes for a new stadium. I'de like to tell those politicians how just one person (myself), making a trip from out of State to see the Vikings can help bring in money for the people and the State of MN..

My trip last Dec.-Jan. lasted 3 days and I probably spent close to if not over $1,000 to visit MN and see the Vikings play....And thats only one fan....

They need to hear more of this and be aware how much of a draw in tourisum the Vikings bring to their State..

Ned

Contact your politicians. (http://www.ooida.com/call_to_action/congaddr.htm)


I am going to set up a petition here within the next week as well and we will forward to different groups.

Sounds like a great idea Webby, my name will definitley be on it!

Caine
02-20-2006, 08:22 AM
A closed lipped Viking Organization...one that doesn't wash their laundry in public...one that doesn't tip off the competition about possible moves...one that doesn't stroke the media by hand feeding them information that they'll simply spin to their own ends...

And the problem is????

There is NOTHING wrong with this approach...in fact, there is nothing DIFFERENT about this approach. When did the Vikings ever come out and tell us (or the Media), "Hey, here's a copy of our draft board...and these are the Free Agents we like...oh, yeah, and these guys will probably get cut." I'll answer that for you...NEVER!! All they're doing is telling the media UP FRONT that they won't.

And they went one better...they said that there had been instances in the past where too much information was sent out, and they will be curtailing that in order to maintain - and here's the qualifier - their competativeness.

You don't think that every single NFL team hires people to watch every OTHER NFL team? You don't think that the Vikings have people watching the Packers, Bears, Lions, and everyone else? C'mon!!! Of course they do!!! And you don't think it helps tip our competition every single time we open our yaps about our future plans?!?!? Of course it does.

And yet some think that they should do it anyway?!?!?!? PLEASE, drive down here to Wisconsin, line up in front of my house, and I will walk down the line, smacking you in the head with a 2x4 for being stupid. Better yet...draw a bullseye on a piece of paper, tape it to a brick wall at head level, then run full tilt and try and hit the bullseye with your nose.

The Public has a right to know JACK!!

The Vikings are a privately held company...see them listed on the NYSE? Nope, sure don't. They would fall between Mine Safety Appliances Company and Minerals Technologies Inc. Nope, not there. So, contrary to what you may believe, they are not a "Public Company", and, as such, are not required to divuldge bupkiss.

How about Green Bay? They are, allegedly, community owned. Why aren't THEY required to tell all? Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm".

And, my last word on the stadium deal. The stadium will bring so much money IN to Anoka county that anyone opposed to it is simply full of bovine excrement. The Government - State and Federal - hike our taxes up a lot more than that every time we turn around, for things that aren't going to do squat for us...yet we don't even whimper. Now, a deal comes along that will actually increase the financial opportunities in Anoka county...and people are pissy because they may pay an extra couple hundred bucks per year?!?!?! PULL YOUR COLLECTIVE HEADS OUT!!!

I guarantee that the people of Los Angeles will GLADLY take your franchise...I can also guarantee that there are a dozen other major US cities that will do it. Hells bells, perhaps Minnesota SHOULD lose the Vikings....maybe then they'll appreciate what they HAD...not that I want that to happen, mind you. But all this stupidity really ticks me off.

So, to recap;

Information to media = bad.
New Stadium = Good.
Stupid people = 2x4 in my garage with your name on it.

Any questions?

Caine

DeathtoDenny
02-20-2006, 01:24 PM
This seems like an article to sway the public a certain way. The organization is probably talking about Tice talking about the Randy Ratio on ESPN and exposing weeknesses every press conference.

singersp
02-20-2006, 02:45 PM
"Caine" wrote:

And, my last word on the stadium deal. The stadium will bring so much money IN to Anoka county that anyone opposed to it is simply full of bovine excrement. The Government - State and Federal - hike our taxes up a lot more than that every time we turn around, for things that aren't going to do squat for us...yet we don't even whimper. Now, a deal comes along that will actually increase the financial opportunities in Anoka county...and people are pissy because they may pay an extra couple hundred bucks per year?!?!?! PULL YOUR COLLECTIVE HEADS OUT!!!

Caine

And I doubt it would be even a couple of hundred bucks. There is no sales tax on clothing or food in MN.

In order to pay $200 at a rate of 0.75% (75 cents per $100.00) a person would have to spend $26,666.67 on taxable items.

With food & clothing being non-taxable, the average tax payer wouldn't come close to paying that.

BigMoInAZ
02-21-2006, 02:14 PM
"Caine" wrote:

So, to recap;

Information to media = bad.
New Stadium = Good.
Stupid people = 2x4 in my garage with your name on it.

Any questions?

Caine
ROTFLMAO! My take exactly Caine! Keep 'em coming! :headbang: