PDA

View Full Version : If The Vikes Ever Played Abroad



Vikings United
12-20-2007, 10:41 AM
This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?

marstc09
12-20-2007, 10:44 AM
Sure that would be cool. I would fly to Spain or anywhere else to watch a Vikings game.

Zeus
12-20-2007, 10:45 AM
"Vikings" wrote:


This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?


No.
I would not support it.

However, I understand the reality.

=Z=

BadlandsVikings
12-20-2007, 10:46 AM
I don't like it...but if it happens it happens

audioghost
12-20-2007, 10:53 AM
Well...here's how I feel

No matter what it'd be a good move for
the league

It'd be a good move for the Vikes if they were the road team...it levels the playing field...so much for that home field advantage...

It'd be a bad move for the Vikes if they were the home team. They're at a disadvantage when not in the dome which is consistently one of the loudest venues in the NFL.

vikingivan
12-20-2007, 11:00 AM
I went to the pre-season game against the Bears in Goteburg, Sweden in 88.
We had a great time.
I was stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany at the time.
We took 2 weeks leave and drove up to the game.
After the game we drove to Oslo.
Then went back to Malmo and stayed with some Swede's we met at the game.


The best part was we stayed at the same hotel as the Vikings, and they were all friendly.
I bummed Tommy Kramer a dip of Copenhagen.
Met Bud Grant, Terry Bradshaw, Studwell, and a bunch other players.

Then we went to the hotel were the Bears were staying and "Da Coach", Mike Ditka was more than happy to have his photo taken with us.
Jimmy Mac, I don't know if he was happy or not, I just walked up to him and put my arm around him and my buddy took a photo.
You could tell by the expression on Jimmy's face, he was thinking " who is this dick".
Great times.

C Mac D
12-20-2007, 11:00 AM
The Vikings should play a
game in Norway... Ullevaal Stadion (stadium).

Only seem fitting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Ullevaal_panorama.jpg/700px-Ullevaal_panorama.jpg

Zeus
12-20-2007, 11:03 AM
"C" wrote:


The Vikings should play a
game in Norway... Ullevaal Stadion (stadium).

Only seem fitting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Ullevaal_panorama.jpg/700px-Ullevaal_panorama.jpg


It's not big enough.
I believe there's a 75,000-seat minimum for a stadium to be under consideration.

What did "New" Wembley hold for the Dolphins-Giants this year?
100,000?

=Z=

C Mac D
12-20-2007, 11:12 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


The Vikings should play a
game in Norway... Ullevaal Stadion (stadium).

Only seem fitting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Ullevaal_panorama.jpg/700px-Ullevaal_panorama.jpg


It's not big enough.
I believe there's a 75,000-seat minimum for a stadium to be under consideration.

What did "New" Wembley hold for the Dolphins-Giants this year?
100,000?

=Z=


Yeah, I think that's the biggest they have in Oslo... I did a search for "Oslo Stadium" and that's what I got. I would like to see a game played in Norway though... come on.. Who wouldn't?!

Marrdro
12-20-2007, 11:33 AM
I guess the only ones that would really be upset are the fans that attend the home games.

I for one, would still get to see them on the tube and, pending the location, would only have to adjust the time I put the wings and fish nuggets on as I get ready for the game.
;D

mr.woo
12-20-2007, 11:34 AM
i wouldnt. if they think soccer is the game of gods i say let them rot watching their boring 3 hour one point games lol

El Vikingo
12-20-2007, 11:35 AM
I said it once and I say it again,the Vikes should come to Spain and playing there....

http://www.turismoactual.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/ronda_plaza_toros.jpg

ejmat
12-20-2007, 11:47 AM
Personally, I have mixed feelings but most of me wouldn't support it.
I mean no disrespect to anyone and I don't even live in the state of Minnesota.
I look at it economically in that the state of MN that is located in the USA would be sacrificing the revenue pulled in from a game and giving it to another country.
Sorry to be like that but I am an American first.
This isn't meant to be to discriminitory.
It's just my feelings.

On the other hand, if it did happen I would love to take a vacation and go see it wherever it may be.

Marrdro
12-20-2007, 11:49 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


Personally, I have mixed feelings but most of me wouldn't support it.
I mean no disrespect to anyone and I don't even live in the state of Minnesota.
I look at it economically in that the state of MN that is located in the USA would be sacrificing the revenue pulled in from a game and giving it to another country.
Sorry to be like that but I am an American first.
This isn't meant to be to discriminitory.
It's just my feelings.

On the other hand, if it did happen I would love to take a vacation and go see it wherever it may be.

Obviously very few are concerned over that aspect my freind or they would build them a stadium.


(Sorry couldn't resist that little barb
;D)

jessejames09
12-20-2007, 11:54 AM
"Vikings" wrote:


This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?




Manure fans don't deserve to see the vikings play.

Tevez is the ugliest mofo i have ever seen. :P

El Vikingo
12-20-2007, 12:06 PM
"jessejames09" wrote:


"Vikings" wrote:


This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?






Tevez is the ugliest mofo i have ever seen. :P


Wrong.

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20071029elpepudep_13/LCO340/Ies/guardameta_Edwin_van_der_Sar.jpg

Van der Sar.

ejmat
12-20-2007, 12:12 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


Personally, I have mixed feelings but most of me wouldn't support it.
I mean no disrespect to anyone and I don't even live in the state of Minnesota.
I look at it economically in that the state of MN that is located in the USA would be sacrificing the revenue pulled in from a game and giving it to another country.
Sorry to be like that but I am an American first.
This isn't meant to be to discriminitory.
It's just my feelings.

On the other hand, if it did happen I would love to take a vacation and go see it wherever it may be.

Obviously very few are concerned over that aspect my freind or they would build them a stadium.


(Sorry couldn't resist that little barb
;D)


That's it Marrdro.
We are through!!!!!
;D

SKOL
12-20-2007, 01:44 PM
I would be in favor of it if it was a road game but not a home game.


The NFL should do it a little different though, such as working it out where 4 teams would have two consecutive games in Europe, followed by a bye.
For instance 4 teams travel to Europe for the same two week stretch.
There would be 4 games total played, two on one Sunday and two on the next.
Each team would play a different team each week, one would be considered "home" and one would be "away".
This way the scheduling would be fair.

It would go something like:







Week 1








Week 2
Vikes

Game 1 - Home


Game 3 - Away
Pack


Game 1 - Away



Game 4 - Home
Lions

Game 2 - Home


Game 4 - Away
Bears

Game 2 - Away



Game 3 - Home

As a season ticket holder I wouldn't mind losing a home game as long as one of our away games was at a neutral venue.

The obvious reason for the bye afterward would be jet lag.

vikes2456
12-20-2007, 01:46 PM
Well their police would be more understanding if there were any disorderly conduct problems with our players..

Micah
12-20-2007, 01:54 PM
I am not a huge fan of out of country regular season games. Preaseason ones are fine. The people that really lose out are the ones that go to the home games. Won't make a difference if you watch all the games on tv.

AngloVike
12-20-2007, 03:14 PM
As a Brit then I suppose I should say yeah great to games in the UK or Europe. However as a Viking fan I'd have to say no - regular season games should stay in the US. The only games that should be played outside the US are pre-season, exhibition or maybe even the Pro Bowl but only those.

V4L
12-20-2007, 03:18 PM
"AngloVike" wrote:


As a Brit then I suppose I should say yeah great to games in the UK or Europe. However as a Viking fan I'd have to say no - regular season games should stay in the US. The only games that should be played outside the US are pre-season, exhibition or maybe even the Pro Bowl but only those.



I agree

Unless every team played 1 or 2 games outside of the US

I think that would be fair

Marrdro
12-20-2007, 03:20 PM
"SKOL" wrote:


I would be in favor of it if it was a road game but not a home game.


The NFL should do it a little different though, such as working it out where 4 teams would have two consecutive games in Europe, followed by a bye.
For instance 4 teams travel to Europe for the same two week stretch.
There would be 4 games total played, two on one Sunday and two on the next.
Each team would play a different team each week, one would be considered "home" and one would be "away".
This way the scheduling would be fair.

It would go something like:







Week 1








Week 2
Vikes

Game 1 - Home


Game 3 - Away
Pack


Game 1 - Away



Game 4 - Home
Lions

Game 2 - Home


Game 4 - Away
Bears

Game 2 - Away



Game 3 - Home

As a season ticket holder I wouldn't mind losing a home game as long as one of our away games was at a neutral venue.

The obvious reason for the bye afterward would be jet lag.


Very impressive.
That would/could work I think.

Marrdro
12-20-2007, 03:21 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


Personally, I have mixed feelings but most of me wouldn't support it.
I mean no disrespect to anyone and I don't even live in the state of Minnesota.
I look at it economically in that the state of MN that is located in the USA would be sacrificing the revenue pulled in from a game and giving it to another country.
Sorry to be like that but I am an American first.
This isn't meant to be to discriminitory.
It's just my feelings.

On the other hand, if it did happen I would love to take a vacation and go see it wherever it may be.

Obviously very few are concerned over that aspect my freind or they would build them a stadium.


(Sorry couldn't resist that little barb
;D)


That's it Marrdro.
We are through!!!!!

;D

I thought you lived in another state.
The barb was directed at the MN taxpayers, voters and thier elected officials.
;D

ejmat
12-20-2007, 03:41 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


Personally, I have mixed feelings but most of me wouldn't support it.
I mean no disrespect to anyone and I don't even live in the state of Minnesota.
I look at it economically in that the state of MN that is located in the USA would be sacrificing the revenue pulled in from a game and giving it to another country.
Sorry to be like that but I am an American first.
This isn't meant to be to discriminitory.
It's just my feelings.

On the other hand, if it did happen I would love to take a vacation and go see it wherever it may be.

Obviously very few are concerned over that aspect my freind or they would build them a stadium.


(Sorry couldn't resist that little barb
;D)


That's it Marrdro.
We are through!!!!!

;D

I thought you lived in another state.
The barb was directed at the MN taxpayers, voters and thier elected officials.
;D


I do.
I live in Florida but I look at it as a US thing.
You quoted me so I answered ya.
:P :P

jmcdon00
12-20-2007, 03:48 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


Personally, I have mixed feelings but most of me wouldn't support it.
I mean no disrespect to anyone and I don't even live in the state of Minnesota.
I look at it economically in that the state of MN that is located in the USA would be sacrificing the revenue pulled in from a game and giving it to another country.
Sorry to be like that but I am an American first.
This isn't meant to be to discriminitory.
It's just my feelings.

On the other hand, if it did happen I would love to take a vacation and go see it wherever it may be.

Obviously very few are concerned over that aspect my freind or they would build them a stadium.


(Sorry couldn't resist that little barb
;D)


That's it Marrdro.
We are through!!!!!

;D

I thought you lived in another state.
The barb was directed at the MN taxpayers, voters and thier elected officials.
;D

First to mar, I just lost a lot of respect for you. One billion for a stadium divided by 30 year life of the stadium, divided by 10 games a year is 3.33 million per game. or $56 per seat. That would mean to just break even based on sales taxes(6.5%) the average for all 60,000 fans to spend would have to increase by $861 per game. This does not even account for the interest that we would pay on the bonds. (sorry for derailing the thread.)

I like the idea of playing outside the US. It will increase the fan base around the world, which will lead to more talented players and a better game in general. I do feel that it would have to be done in a way that is fair to all teams, I think the league recognizes this and have always done a great job to assure fair competition. I think it would be cool to see a superbowl played in another country, this wouldn't hurt either team since there is no "home" team.

SKOL
12-20-2007, 04:01 PM
jmcdon, I just lost a little respect for you
;D .
I believe all players are required to pay Minnesota income tax.
That should also be a significant consideration.
What if Minnesota lost the team?
The loss in tax revenue would be astronomical.

Jereamiah
12-20-2007, 04:05 PM
Games in foriegn countries worry me. Some crazy a#@hole would explode himself in the crowd. No doubt. Not worth the risk.

ejmat
12-20-2007, 04:11 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


Personally, I have mixed feelings but most of me wouldn't support it.
I mean no disrespect to anyone and I don't even live in the state of Minnesota.
I look at it economically in that the state of MN that is located in the USA would be sacrificing the revenue pulled in from a game and giving it to another country.
Sorry to be like that but I am an American first.
This isn't meant to be to discriminitory.
It's just my feelings.

On the other hand, if it did happen I would love to take a vacation and go see it wherever it may be.

Obviously very few are concerned over that aspect my freind or they would build them a stadium.


(Sorry couldn't resist that little barb
;D)


That's it Marrdro.
We are through!!!!!

;D

I thought you lived in another state.
The barb was directed at the MN taxpayers, voters and thier elected officials.
;D

First to mar, I just lost a lot of respect for you. One billion for a stadium divided by 30 year life of the stadium, divided by 10 games a year is 3.33 million per game. or $56 per seat. That would mean to just break even based on sales taxes(6.5%) the average for all 60,000 fans to spend would have to increase by $861 per game. This does not even account for the interest that we would pay on the bonds. (sorry for derailing the thread.)

I like the idea of playing outside the US. It will increase the fan base around the world, which will lead to more talented players and a better game in general. I do feel that it would have to be done in a way that is fair to all teams, I think the league recognizes this and have always done a great job to assure fair competition. I think it would be cool to see a superbowl played in another country, this wouldn't hurt either team since there is no "home" team.


So you are okay with giving the revenues of a superbowl to another country?

AngloVike
12-20-2007, 04:16 PM
"Jereamiah" wrote:


Games in foriegn countries worry me. Some crazy a#@hole would explode himself in the crowd. No doubt. Not worth the risk.


yep thats wise.. whenever sensible reasons can't be found then go for the cranky option... please there are actually places outside the US where the locals don't spend there time blowing up tourists and visiting football teams.

Jereamiah
12-20-2007, 04:18 PM
I realize that you guys are talking about the economic repercussions of a Super-Bowl played outside the US. Buy c'mon!, every jihadi A#$HOLE with a bone to pick would look at the game and see 72 virgins dancing before his eyes. It would be an irresistable target. That's why it will never happen.

ejmat
12-20-2007, 04:20 PM
"AngloVike" wrote:


"Jereamiah" wrote:


Games in foriegn countries worry me. Some crazy a#@hole would explode himself in the crowd. No doubt. Not worth the risk.


yep thats wise.. whenever sensible reasons can't be found then go for the cranky option... please there are actually places outside the US where the locals don't spend there time blowing up tourists and visiting football teams.


Actually it is a security issue.
It's an issue here in the states as well as abroad.
You can't say England is safe.
They've had their share of suicide bombers too.
Sorry, I don't agree with having any regular or post season season game abroad.
It would be risky and becasue of the economic values of having the superbowl.

jmcdon00
12-20-2007, 04:23 PM
"SKOL" wrote:


jmcdon, I just lost a little respect for you

;D .
I believe all players are required to pay Minnesota income tax.
That should also be a significant consideration.
What if Minnesota lost the team?
The loss in tax revenue would be astronomical.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the vikings are going any where. But I suppose that if the vikings get a new stadium they will spend more on players, oh wait no there is a salary cap. But more people would go to the games right? no actually the dome has sold out every game for several years and the stadium plans I have seen would actually have a lower capacity than the dome.

Fact: It is cheaper for the owner to lobby for a new stadium than to build one.

jmcdon00
12-20-2007, 04:28 PM
"Jereamiah" wrote:


I realize that you guys are talking about the economic repercussions of a Super-Bowl played outside the US. Buy c'mon!, every jihadi A#$HOLE with a bone to pick would look at the game and see 72 virgins dancing before his eyes. It would be an irresistable target. That's why it will never happen.

You have been watching too much 24. You can't stop having events because you are worried about terrorists, you just beef up security like they do for the olympics or for football games in the US. There are terrorists in the US too, remember 9/11? Or how about the first bombing at the WTC or the bombing in Oklahoma City? Or the crazy kids that keep on shooting up schools. We can not live in fear, it is much more likely that you will die falling in the shower or being struck by lightning than from a terrorist attack.

AngloVike
12-20-2007, 04:28 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


"Jereamiah" wrote:


Games in foriegn countries worry me. Some crazy a#@hole would explode himself in the crowd. No doubt. Not worth the risk.


yep thats wise.. whenever sensible reasons can't be found then go for the cranky option... please there are actually places outside the US where the locals don't spend there time blowing up tourists and visiting football teams.


Actually it is a security issue.
It's an issue here in the states as well as abroad.
You can't say England is safe.
They've had their share of suicide bombers too.
Sorry, I don't agree with having any regular or post season season game abroad.
It would be risky and becasue of the economic values of having the superbowl.


I'm not saying England is safe and security is an issue but you can't use it as the only excuse for not playing games overseas. Otherwise using that as a basis then kiss goodbye to any overseas sports events such as the Olympics, World Championships etc.
I'm trying to avoid it being put forward as the only reason for not playing overseas, but as I said before I'm not in favour of those games purely for a fan/team homefield advantage reasons.

BloodyHorns82
12-20-2007, 04:36 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"SKOL" wrote:


jmcdon, I just lost a little respect for you

;D .
I believe all players are required to pay Minnesota income tax.
That should also be a significant consideration.
What if Minnesota lost the team?
The loss in tax revenue would be astronomical.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the vikings are going any where. But I suppose that if the vikings get a new stadium they will spend more on players, oh wait no there is a salary cap. But more people would go to the games right? no actually the dome has sold out every game for several years and the stadium plans I have seen would actually have a lower capacity than the dome.

Fact: It is cheaper for the owner to lobby for a new stadium than to build one.


If state and local governments are losing money over the construction of new stadiums, why do they continue to fund them?
???

Jereamiah
12-20-2007, 04:36 PM
"AngloVike" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


"Jereamiah" wrote:


Games in foriegn countries worry me. Some crazy a#@hole would explode himself in the crowd. No doubt. Not worth the risk.


yep thats wise.. whenever sensible reasons can't be found then go for the cranky option... please there are actually places outside the US where the locals don't spend there time blowing up tourists and visiting football teams.


Actually it is a security issue.
It's an issue here in the states as well as abroad.
You can't say England is safe.
They've had their share of suicide bombers too.
Sorry, I don't agree with having any regular or post season season game abroad.
It would be risky and becasue of the economic values of having the superbowl.


I'm not saying England is safe and security is an issue but you can't use it as the only excuse for not playing games overseas. Otherwise using that as a basis then kiss goodbye to any overseas sports events such as the Olympics, World Championships etc.
I'm trying to avoid it being put forward as the only reason for not playing overseas, but as I said before I'm not in favour of those games purely for a fan/team homefield advantage reasons.
Why not? It may seem as if I am generalizing, but the Super-Bowl, for instance, is seen as uniqelly (sure I spelled that wrong) American. Bad guys would pull out the stops to get at it/us. ESPECIALLY if it were played in Europe. WAAAY too big of a target! The Olympics aren't the Super-Bowl. The Super-Bowl IS America!

AngloVike
12-20-2007, 04:47 PM
"Jereamiah" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


"Jereamiah" wrote:


Games in foriegn countries worry me. Some crazy a#@hole would explode himself in the crowd. No doubt. Not worth the risk.


yep thats wise.. whenever sensible reasons can't be found then go for the cranky option... please there are actually places outside the US where the locals don't spend there time blowing up tourists and visiting football teams.


Actually it is a security issue.
It's an issue here in the states as well as abroad.
You can't say England is safe.
They've had their share of suicide bombers too.
Sorry, I don't agree with having any regular or post season season game abroad.
It would be risky and becasue of the economic values of having the superbowl.


I'm not saying England is safe and security is an issue but you can't use it as the only excuse for not playing games overseas. Otherwise using that as a basis then kiss goodbye to any overseas sports events such as the Olympics, World Championships etc.
I'm trying to avoid it being put forward as the only reason for not playing overseas, but as I said before I'm not in favour of those games purely for a fan/team homefield advantage reasons.
Why not? It may seem as if I am generalizing, but the Super-Bowl, for instance, is seen as uniqelly (sure I spelled that wrong) American. Bad guys would pull out the stops to get at it/us. ESPECIALLY if it were played in Europe. WAAAY too big of a target! The Olympics aren't the Super-Bowl. The Super-Bowl IS America!


yes I'd agree the SuperBowl would be the exception and that would be a target. However this thread was about regular season games so I still stand by my point of view in regards to those.

jmcdon00
12-20-2007, 04:51 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"SKOL" wrote:


jmcdon, I just lost a little respect for you

;D .
I believe all players are required to pay Minnesota income tax.
That should also be a significant consideration.
What if Minnesota lost the team?
The loss in tax revenue would be astronomical.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the vikings are going any where. But I suppose that if the vikings get a new stadium they will spend more on players, oh wait no there is a salary cap. But more people would go to the games right? no actually the dome has sold out every game for several years and the stadium plans I have seen would actually have a lower capacity than the dome.

Fact: It is cheaper for the owner to lobby for a new stadium than to build one.


If state and local governments are losing money over the construction of new stadiums, why do they continue to fund them?
???

Lobbists and voters support for the team. Government is not known for making good investments, they are known for spending tax payer money wastefully to try to get re-elected.
The better question would be, if stadiums are such a money maker, why isn't the private sector building them? The state only gets 6.5% of the sales, the private sector gets the other 93.5%.
I am not saying that the state will be damned if they build a stadium, just that it is not fiscally responsible. I am excited about the twins stadium and can't wait to see a game there but I think the lesson we learned there is that the owner is in it to make money and the Pollad's are taking the taxpayer money straight to the bank, they so far have not reinvested the money in the team.
Personally I would be thrilled to have a new Vikings stadium, but that is only because I go to a lot of the games and am a huge supporter of the vikings.

Jereamiah
12-20-2007, 04:52 PM
"AngloVike" wrote:


"Jereamiah" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:




Games in foriegn countries worry me. Some crazy a#@hole would explode himself in the crowd. No doubt. Not worth the risk.


yep thats wise.. whenever sensible reasons can't be found then go for the cranky option... please there are actually places outside the US where the locals don't spend there time blowing up tourists and visiting football teams.


Actually it is a security issue.
It's an issue here in the states as well as abroad.
You can't say England is safe.
They've had their share of suicide bombers too.
Sorry, I don't agree with having any regular or post season season game abroad.
It would be risky and becasue of the economic values of having the superbowl.


I'm not saying England is safe and security is an issue but you can't use it as the only excuse for not playing games overseas. Otherwise using that as a basis then kiss goodbye to any overseas sports events such as the Olympics, World Championships etc.
I'm trying to avoid it being put forward as the only reason for not playing overseas, but as I said before I'm not in favour of those games purely for a fan/team homefield advantage reasons.
Why not? It may seem as if I am generalizing, but the Super-Bowl, for instance, is seen as uniqelly (sure I spelled that wrong) American. Bad guys would pull out the stops to get at it/us. ESPECIALLY if it were played in Europe. WAAAY too big of a target! The Olympics aren't the Super-Bowl. The Super-Bowl IS America!


yes I'd agree the SuperBowl would be the exception and that would be a target. However this thread was about regular season games so I still stand by my point of view in regards to those.
Nice point! I concede ;D

AngloVike
12-20-2007, 04:54 PM
"Jereamiah" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


"Jereamiah" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:






Games in foriegn countries worry me. Some crazy a#@hole would explode himself in the crowd. No doubt. Not worth the risk.


yep thats wise.. whenever sensible reasons can't be found then go for the cranky option... please there are actually places outside the US where the locals don't spend there time blowing up tourists and visiting football teams.


Actually it is a security issue.
It's an issue here in the states as well as abroad.
You can't say England is safe.
They've had their share of suicide bombers too.
Sorry, I don't agree with having any regular or post season season game abroad.
It would be risky and becasue of the economic values of having the superbowl.


I'm not saying England is safe and security is an issue but you can't use it as the only excuse for not playing games overseas. Otherwise using that as a basis then kiss goodbye to any overseas sports events such as the Olympics, World Championships etc.
I'm trying to avoid it being put forward as the only reason for not playing overseas, but as I said before I'm not in favour of those games purely for a fan/team homefield advantage reasons.
Why not? It may seem as if I am generalizing, but the Super-Bowl, for instance, is seen as uniqelly (sure I spelled that wrong) American. Bad guys would pull out the stops to get at it/us. ESPECIALLY if it were played in Europe. WAAAY too big of a target! The Olympics aren't the Super-Bowl. The Super-Bowl IS America!


yes I'd agree the SuperBowl would be the exception and that would be a target. However this thread was about regular season games so I still stand by my point of view in regards to those.
Nice point! I concede ;D

think we're both right for our respective views Jereamiah
:)

litlharsh
12-20-2007, 05:04 PM
If people cared about ruining the Superbowl, they'd have done it by now. Jesus, you guys are kinda scaring me right now.

Jereamiah
12-20-2007, 05:10 PM
"litlharsh" wrote:


If people cared about ruining the Superbowl, they'd have done it by now. Jesus, you guys are kinda scaring me right now.
Ever read "The Sum of All Fears? The Vikings get burnt to cinders by a terrorist with a nuke! :'( And I feel like they had a real good shot in that upcoming game! ;D

NodakPaul
12-20-2007, 05:34 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"SKOL" wrote:


jmcdon, I just lost a little respect for you
;D .
I believe all players are required to pay Minnesota income tax.
That should also be a significant consideration.
What if Minnesota lost the team?
The loss in tax revenue would be astronomical.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the vikings are going any where. But I suppose that if the vikings get a new stadium they will spend more on players, oh wait no there is a salary cap. But more people would go to the games right? no actually the dome has sold out every game for several years and the stadium plans I have seen would actually have a lower capacity than the dome.

Fact: It is cheaper for the owner to lobby for a new stadium than to build one.


If state and local governments are losing money over the construction of new stadiums, why do they continue to fund them?
???

Lobbists and voters support for the team. Government is not known for making good investments, they are known for spending tax payer money wastefully to try to get re-elected.
The better question would be, if stadiums are such a money maker, why isn't the private sector building them? The state only gets 6.5% of the sales, the private sector gets the other 93.5%.
I am not saying that the state will be damned if they build a stadium, just that it is not fiscally responsible. I am excited about the twins stadium and can't wait to see a game there but I think the lesson we learned there is that the owner is in it to make money and the Pollad's are taking the taxpayer money straight to the bank, they so far have not reinvested the money in the team.
Personally I would be thrilled to have a new Vikings stadium, but that is only because I go to a lot of the games and am a huge supporter of the vikings.



I am not sure where you get your figures from, but the private sector does NOT get 93.5% of the profit from the dome, or any other damn stadium.
The metrodome is owned and operated by a government entity (the MSC), and it controls all vending and initial ticket rights for every single event in the dome.
The Vikings pay to lease the dome on game days.


The dome holds over 300 events per year.
Many of them are huge money makers for the MSC, like trade shows, concerts, event shows (like the outdoors show).
There is a reason that the loans for the construction of the metrodome were paid off well ahead of schedule.
And the metrodome currently operates without any public money.

Saying that the only thing the state and city governments get back from the metrodome is the 6.5% sales tax Vikings fans pay on game day is not only skewing the statistics, but is also simply wrong.

NodakPaul
12-20-2007, 05:40 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"SKOL" wrote:


jmcdon, I just lost a little respect for you
;D .
I believe all players are required to pay Minnesota income tax.
That should also be a significant consideration.
What if Minnesota lost the team?
The loss in tax revenue would be astronomical.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the vikings are going any where. But I suppose that if the vikings get a new stadium they will spend more on players, oh wait no there is a salary cap. But more people would go to the games right? no actually the dome has sold out every game for several years and the stadium plans I have seen would actually have a lower capacity than the dome.

Fact: It is cheaper for the owner to lobby for a new stadium than to build one.


If state and local governments are losing money over the construction of new stadiums, why do they continue to fund them?
???


Because, generally, they are not.
Currently new stadiums are entered into as a partnership between the NFL owner and the local governments.
At one point the local governments paid for everything, like they did with the metrodome.
But that turns out to be detrimental to the resident teams because of revenue loss.
Local governments get return on their investment through generated sales, income taxes, and (ideally) increased economic growth surrounding the stadium.

While it is certainly possible for an owner to build a stadium themselves, it is a sounder business move on their part to do it collaboratively.
That way every party that benefits from it would also be contributing part of the initial investment.

SKOL
12-20-2007, 05:49 PM
Now that this thread's been completely hijacked it's worth noting that the current sales tax in Minneapolis is not 6.5% it is 7.0%.
The rate is higher because 25 years ago the city set aside 0.5% specifically for building a stadium.
Since the Metrodome has long since been paid off why can't the state, or someone, force Minneapolis to use the funds for that which it was originally intended, to build a new stadium?

jmcdon00
12-20-2007, 06:53 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"SKOL" wrote:


jmcdon, I just lost a little respect for you

;D .
I believe all players are required to pay Minnesota income tax.
That should also be a significant consideration.
What if Minnesota lost the team?
The loss in tax revenue would be astronomical.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the vikings are going any where. But I suppose that if the vikings get a new stadium they will spend more on players, oh wait no there is a salary cap. But more people would go to the games right? no actually the dome has sold out every game for several years and the stadium plans I have seen would actually have a lower capacity than the dome.

Fact: It is cheaper for the owner to lobby for a new stadium than to build one.


If state and local governments are losing money over the construction of new stadiums, why do they continue to fund them?
???

Lobbists and voters support for the team. Government is not known for making good investments, they are known for spending tax payer money wastefully to try to get re-elected.
The better question would be, if stadiums are such a money maker, why isn't the private sector building them? The state only gets 6.5% of the sales, the private sector gets the other 93.5%.
I am not saying that the state will be damned if they build a stadium, just that it is not fiscally responsible. I am excited about the twins stadium and can't wait to see a game there but I think the lesson we learned there is that the owner is in it to make money and the Pollad's are taking the taxpayer money straight to the bank, they so far have not reinvested the money in the team.
Personally I would be thrilled to have a new Vikings stadium, but that is only because I go to a lot of the games and am a huge supporter of the vikings.



I am not sure where you get your figures from, but the private sector does NOT get 93.5% of the profit from the dome, or any other damn stadium.
The metrodome is owned and operated by a government entity (the MSC), and it controls all vending and initial ticket rights for every single event in the dome.
The Vikings pay to lease the dome on game days.


The dome holds over 300 events per year.
Many of them are huge money makers for the MSC, like trade shows, concerts, event shows (like the outdoors show).
There is a reason that the loans for the construction of the metrodome were paid off well ahead of schedule.
And the metrodome currently operates without any public money.

Saying that the only thing the state and city governments get back from the metrodome is the 6.5% sales tax Vikings fans pay on game day is not only skewing the statistics, but is also simply wrong.

They should cut the city out of the equation, governments do not run business nearly as effectively as the private sector. The reason is simply because it is not there money, they don't get paid more or less based on the profit of the business so there is simply no incentive to make a profit. Case in point, the metrodome. Built with public money and 25 years later it needs replacing. Why do we need the MSC to be involved?
It simply does not make any sence for the state to control such things.

singersp
12-20-2007, 07:20 PM
"Vikings" wrote:


This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?


Yes & no. I wouldn't mind giving up a regular season game as long as it was one of our away games as well as an away game for our opponents.

Being a season ticket holder, I wouldn't dream of giving up a home game. 7 home games & 9 away games for any team just doesn't make sense. They'd be playing 2 more away games from the the state they belong to.


Right now there are 32 teams & 16 games, so if every team played an away game it would be fair. If every team gave up one of their home games to play abroad, every team in the NFL would have 7 home games, but the minute they add a couple of new teams, some teams will have the unfair advantage of 8 home games to every other teams 7.

ejmat
12-20-2007, 07:27 PM
IMO whether it is the superbowl or any other regular season or post season game I do not support it for the reasons I've already mentioned.
It is an American sport.
The NFL tried to take the games abroad (NFL Europa).
That didn't succeed.
I don't see European soccer trying to have games in the states.
Why should american football have games abroad or anywhere out of country?
I am also extremely upset that Bufffalo is trying to move to Canada.
I don't have anything against Canada or any other countries.
However, football is a money maker plain and simple.
If you are not making money find a place in the US that will.

singersp
12-20-2007, 07:28 PM
"vikingivan" wrote:


I went to the pre-season game against the Bears in Goteburg, Sweden in 88.
We had a great time.
I was stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany at the time.
We took 2 weeks leave and drove up to the game.
After the game we drove to Oslo.
Then went back to Malmo and stayed with some Swede's we met at the game.


The best part was we stayed at the same hotel as the Vikings, and they were all friendly.
I bummed Tommy Kramer a dip of Copenhagen.
Met Bud Grant, Terry Bradshaw, Studwell, and a bunch other players.

Then we went to the hotel were the Bears were staying and "Da Coach", Mike Ditka was more than happy to have his photo taken with us.
Jimmy Mac, I don't know if he was happy or not, I just walked up to him and put my arm around him and my buddy took a photo.
You could tell by the expression on Jimmy's face, he was thinking " who is this dick".
Great times.



I remember that game. The Vikings won the World Cup.
8) ( I believe that was what it was called)

Preseason or not, the Packers don't have one of those.
;)

ultravikingfan
12-21-2007, 08:39 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Vikings" wrote:


This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?


Yes & no. I wouldn't mind giving up a regular season game as long as it was one of our away games as well as an away game for our opponents.

Being a season ticket holder, I wouldn't dream of giving up a home game. 7 home games & 9 away games for any team just doesn't make sense. They'd be playing 2 more away games from the the state they belong to.


Right now there are 32 teams & 16 games, so if every team played an away game it would be fair. If every team gave up one of their home games to play abroad, every team in the NFL would have 7 home games, but the minute they add a couple of new teams, some teams will have the unfair advantage of 8 home games to every other teams 7.



The games outside the US are away games for both teams.
Both the Giants and Dolphins still played 8 home games.

cogitans
12-21-2007, 09:25 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Vikings" wrote:


This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?


Yes & no. I wouldn't mind giving up a regular season game as long as it was one of our away games as well as an away game for our opponents.

Being a season ticket holder, I wouldn't dream of giving up a home game. 7 home games & 9 away games for any team just doesn't make sense. They'd be playing 2 more away games from the the state they belong to.


Right now there are 32 teams & 16 games, so if every team played an away game it would be fair. If every team gave up one of their home games to play abroad, every team in the NFL would have 7 home games, but the minute they add a couple of new teams, some teams will have the unfair advantage of 8 home games to every other teams 7.



The games outside the US are away games for both teams.
Both the Giants and Dolphins still played 8 home games.
That doesn't add up. There are only 256 games, which makes 8 home games for each club, they can't possibly both have played away.

In this game, it cost the Dolphins a home game

Edit - Schedule:

Away:
1 - @Washington
2 - @N.Y. Jets
3 - @Houston
4 - @Cleveland
5 - @Philadelphia
6 - @Pittsburgh
7 - @Buffalo
8 - @New England

Home:
1 - Dallas
2 - Oakland
3 - New England
4 - N.Y. Giants (London)
5 - Buffalo
6 - N.Y. Jets
7 - Baltimore
8 - Cincinnati

ejmat
12-21-2007, 09:37 AM
"cogitans" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Vikings" wrote:


This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?


Yes & no. I wouldn't mind giving up a regular season game as long as it was one of our away games as well as an away game for our opponents.

Being a season ticket holder, I wouldn't dream of giving up a home game. 7 home games & 9 away games for any team just doesn't make sense. They'd be playing 2 more away games from the the state they belong to.


Right now there are 32 teams & 16 games, so if every team played an away game it would be fair. If every team gave up one of their home games to play abroad, every team in the NFL would have 7 home games, but the minute they add a couple of new teams, some teams will have the unfair advantage of 8 home games to every other teams 7.



The games outside the US are away games for both teams.
Both the Giants and Dolphins still played 8 home games.
That doesn't add up. There are only 256 games, which makes 8 home games for each club, they can't possibly both have played away.

In this game, it cost the Dolphins a home game

Edit - Schedule:

Away:
1 - @Washington
2 - @N.Y. Jets
3 - @Houston
4 - @Cleveland
5 - @Philadelphia
6 - @Pittsburgh
7 - @Buffalo
8 - @New England

Home:
1 - Dallas
2 - Oakland
3 - New England
4 - N.Y. Giants (London)
5 - Buffalo
6 - N.Y. Jets
7 - Baltimore
8 - Cincinnati


This is true.
It did cost the Dolphins a home game.
A lot of the fans here were pissed about it.

Mr-holland
12-21-2007, 09:46 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


IMO whether it is the superbowl or any other regular season or post season game I do not support it for the reasons I've already mentioned.
It is an American sport.
The NFL tried to take the games abroad (NFL Europa).
That didn't succeed.
I don't see European soccer trying to have games in the states.
Why should american football have games abroad or anywhere out of country?
I am also extremely upset that Bufffalo is trying to move to Canada.
I don't have anything against Canada or any other countries.
However, football is a money maker plain and simple.
If you are not making money find a place in the US that will.

You can not compare European soccer with American football because you have soccer there to ( MLS ) so there's no use of playing games there. I personally think that the Superbowl should stay in America because it just wouldn't be fair on the other hand, why couldn't there be regular season games... as said, if the 2 teams both have the away game it wouldn't matter. And how do you come with the idea that the NFLE ( Nfl europa ) didn't succeed? the NFL pulled the plug out because they wanted to invest of the expand of NFL games abroad.

ultravikingfan
12-21-2007, 10:00 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"cogitans" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Vikings" wrote:


This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?


Yes & no. I wouldn't mind giving up a regular season game as long as it was one of our away games as well as an away game for our opponents.

Being a season ticket holder, I wouldn't dream of giving up a home game. 7 home games & 9 away games for any team just doesn't make sense. They'd be playing 2 more away games from the the state they belong to.


Right now there are 32 teams & 16 games, so if every team played an away game it would be fair. If every team gave up one of their home games to play abroad, every team in the NFL would have 7 home games, but the minute they add a couple of new teams, some teams will have the unfair advantage of 8 home games to every other teams 7.



The games outside the US are away games for both teams.
Both the Giants and Dolphins still played 8 home games.
That doesn't add up. There are only 256 games, which makes 8 home games for each club, they can't possibly both have played away.

In this game, it cost the Dolphins a home game

Edit - Schedule:

Away:
1 - @Washington
2 - @N.Y. Jets
3 - @Houston
4 - @Cleveland
5 - @Philadelphia
6 - @Pittsburgh
7 - @Buffalo
8 - @New England

Home:
1 - Dallas
2 - Oakland
3 - New England
4 - N.Y. Giants (London)
5 - Buffalo
6 - N.Y. Jets
7 - Baltimore
8 - Cincinnati


This is true.
It did cost the Dolphins a home game.
A lot of the fans here were pissed about it.


My bad.
I quickly looked at each of their schedules and added-up the home games.
Did not realize that Home meant the UK.

Now, I am really against it.
No homefield advantage (not the it would habe helped the Fins), but that is bull.
Football belongs in the US with the teams Home fans behind them.
Imagine you are a season ticket holder and you only get to see 7 games.
That's only 7 tailgating parties.

ejmat
12-21-2007, 10:16 AM
"Mr-holland" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


IMO whether it is the superbowl or any other regular season or post season game I do not support it for the reasons I've already mentioned.
It is an American sport.
The NFL tried to take the games abroad (NFL Europa).
That didn't succeed.
I don't see European soccer trying to have games in the states.
Why should american football have games abroad or anywhere out of country?
I am also extremely upset that Bufffalo is trying to move to Canada.
I don't have anything against Canada or any other countries.
However, football is a money maker plain and simple.
If you are not making money find a place in the US that will.

You can not compare European soccer with American football because you have soccer there to ( MLS ) so there's no use of playing games there. I personally think that the Superbowl should stay in America because it just wouldn't be fair on the other hand, why couldn't there be regular season games... as said, if the 2 teams both have the away game it wouldn't matter. And how do you come with the idea that the NFLE ( Nfl europa ) didn't succeed? the NFL pulled the plug out because they wanted to invest of the expand of NFL games abroad.


Not true.
The NFL was losing money.
That was the main reason for pulling the plug.
It was costing too much to send people over there to play and they weren't making it back in revenues.

ejmat
12-21-2007, 10:19 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"cogitans" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:




This may have been done before, apologies if it has.

Would the people of Minnesota be in favour (favor for integration
;)) if the Vikings ever played a regular season game outside the USA?

Even though you guys only play 8 home games a year (regular), but would you sacrifice one of these games to help the NFL establish itself as a major worldwide brand?


Yes & no. I wouldn't mind giving up a regular season game as long as it was one of our away games as well as an away game for our opponents.

Being a season ticket holder, I wouldn't dream of giving up a home game. 7 home games & 9 away games for any team just doesn't make sense. They'd be playing 2 more away games from the the state they belong to.


Right now there are 32 teams & 16 games, so if every team played an away game it would be fair. If every team gave up one of their home games to play abroad, every team in the NFL would have 7 home games, but the minute they add a couple of new teams, some teams will have the unfair advantage of 8 home games to every other teams 7.



The games outside the US are away games for both teams.
Both the Giants and Dolphins still played 8 home games.
That doesn't add up. There are only 256 games, which makes 8 home games for each club, they can't possibly both have played away.

In this game, it cost the Dolphins a home game

Edit - Schedule:

Away:
1 - @Washington
2 - @N.Y. Jets
3 - @Houston
4 - @Cleveland
5 - @Philadelphia
6 - @Pittsburgh
7 - @Buffalo
8 - @New England

Home:
1 - Dallas
2 - Oakland
3 - New England
4 - N.Y. Giants (London)
5 - Buffalo
6 - N.Y. Jets
7 - Baltimore
8 - Cincinnati


This is true.
It did cost the Dolphins a home game.
A lot of the fans here were pissed about it.


My bad.
I quickly looked at each of their schedules and added-up the home games.
Did not realize that Home meant the UK.

Now, I am really against it.
No homefield advantage (not the it would habe helped the Fins), but that is bull.
Football belongs in the US with the teams Home fans behind them.
Imagine you are a season ticket holder and you only get to see 7 games.
That's only 7 tailgating parties.




Now you're getting it Ultra.
LOL.

All kidding aside, it's an American sport.
If they want to do exhibitions in other countries I can agree to that.
Just not the regular season or post season.
What about home field advantage (especially in the playofffs).
The superbowl would take away a huge chunk of revenue from the city it would have been inthe US.
We all know the US could use as much help as it can with the economy.

SKOL
12-21-2007, 10:47 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"Mr-holland" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


IMO whether it is the superbowl or any other regular season or post season game I do not support it for the reasons I've already mentioned.
It is an American sport.
The NFL tried to take the games abroad (NFL Europa).
That didn't succeed.
I don't see European soccer trying to have games in the states.
Why should american football have games abroad or anywhere out of country?
I am also extremely upset that Bufffalo is trying to move to Canada.
I don't have anything against Canada or any other countries.
However, football is a money maker plain and simple.
If you are not making money find a place in the US that will.

You can not compare European soccer with American football because you have soccer there to ( MLS ) so there's no use of playing games there. I personally think that the Superbowl should stay in America because it just wouldn't be fair on the other hand, why couldn't there be regular season games... as said, if the 2 teams both have the away game it wouldn't matter. And how do you come with the idea that the NFLE ( Nfl europa ) didn't succeed? the NFL pulled the plug out because they wanted to invest of the expand of NFL games abroad.


Not true.
The NFL was losing money.
That was the main reason for pulling the plug.
It was costing too much to send people over there to play and they weren't making it back in revenues.


That may have been an underlying reason, but it was not the reason the league gave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nfl_europa

"Wikipedia" wrote:


On June 29, 2007, NFL officials announced that the league would be disbanded effective immediately[1], calling the decision a sound business move that will allow for a stronger international focus on regular-season games outside the United States.
The announcement came less than a week after the Hamburg Sea Devils beat the Frankfurt Galaxy 37-28 in the World Bowl championship in Frankfurt in front of a crowd of 48,125.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell thanked the fans for their support but said it was time to develop a new international strategy, terming the move to fold NFL Europa the "best business decision." The league reportedly was losing about $30 million a season.


Of course the last statement was someone at Wikipedia reading into Goodell's words.

;D

BloodyHorns82
12-21-2007, 11:23 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:




jmcdon, I just lost a little respect for you

;D .
I believe all players are required to pay Minnesota income tax.
That should also be a significant consideration.
What if Minnesota lost the team?
The loss in tax revenue would be astronomical.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the vikings are going any where. But I suppose that if the vikings get a new stadium they will spend more on players, oh wait no there is a salary cap. But more people would go to the games right? no actually the dome has sold out every game for several years and the stadium plans I have seen would actually have a lower capacity than the dome.

Fact: It is cheaper for the owner to lobby for a new stadium than to build one.


If state and local governments are losing money over the construction of new stadiums, why do they continue to fund them?
???

Lobbists and voters support for the team. Government is not known for making good investments, they are known for spending tax payer money wastefully to try to get re-elected.
The better question would be, if stadiums are such a money maker, why isn't the private sector building them? The state only gets 6.5% of the sales, the private sector gets the other 93.5%.
I am not saying that the state will be damned if they build a stadium, just that it is not fiscally responsible. I am excited about the twins stadium and can't wait to see a game there but I think the lesson we learned there is that the owner is in it to make money and the Pollad's are taking the taxpayer money straight to the bank, they so far have not reinvested the money in the team.
Personally I would be thrilled to have a new Vikings stadium, but that is only because I go to a lot of the games and am a huge supporter of the vikings.



I am not sure where you get your figures from, but the private sector does NOT get 93.5% of the profit from the dome, or any other damn stadium.
The metrodome is owned and operated by a government entity (the MSC), and it controls all vending and initial ticket rights for every single event in the dome.
The Vikings pay to lease the dome on game days.


The dome holds over 300 events per year.
Many of them are huge money makers for the MSC, like trade shows, concerts, event shows (like the outdoors show).
There is a reason that the loans for the construction of the metrodome were paid off well ahead of schedule.
And the metrodome currently operates without any public money.

Saying that the only thing the state and city governments get back from the metrodome is the 6.5% sales tax Vikings fans pay on game day is not only skewing the statistics, but is also simply wrong.

They should cut the city out of the equation, governments do not run business nearly as effectively as the private sector. The reason is simply because it is not there money, they don't get paid more or less based on the profit of the business so there is simply no incentive to make a profit. Case in point, the metrodome. Built with public money and 25 years later it needs replacing. Why do we need the MSC to be involved?
It simply does not make any sence for the state to control such things.


Not only does the state and local governments get revenue from the ticket sales, player salaries, etc, local business can flourish as well, which additionally increases state and local government revenue.
300 events a year... wow.
Think of all the people flooding in to spend their money.
I'm sure the politicians are poping wood at the thought of it.
If they weren't worried about not getting reelected, they would have voted this into action by now.
It seems like majority of the people here (locally, not PP.O) don't want a new stadium...and why should they if they are not a local business owner, or fan.

Keep the regular season NFL in the USA.
As stated earlier, there are plenty of pre-season games to play abroad.

ejmat
12-21-2007, 11:38 AM
"SKOL" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Mr-holland" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


IMO whether it is the superbowl or any other regular season or post season game I do not support it for the reasons I've already mentioned.
It is an American sport.
The NFL tried to take the games abroad (NFL Europa).
That didn't succeed.
I don't see European soccer trying to have games in the states.
Why should american football have games abroad or anywhere out of country?
I am also extremely upset that Bufffalo is trying to move to Canada.
I don't have anything against Canada or any other countries.
However, football is a money maker plain and simple.
If you are not making money find a place in the US that will.

You can not compare European soccer with American football because you have soccer there to ( MLS ) so there's no use of playing games there. I personally think that the Superbowl should stay in America because it just wouldn't be fair on the other hand, why couldn't there be regular season games... as said, if the 2 teams both have the away game it wouldn't matter. And how do you come with the idea that the NFLE ( Nfl europa ) didn't succeed? the NFL pulled the plug out because they wanted to invest of the expand of NFL games abroad.


Not true.
The NFL was losing money.
That was the main reason for pulling the plug.
It was costing too much to send people over there to play and they weren't making it back in revenues.


That may have been an underlying reason, but it was not the reason the league gave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nfl_europa

"Wikipedia" wrote:


On June 29, 2007, NFL officials announced that the league would be disbanded effective immediately[1], calling the decision a sound business move that will allow for a stronger international focus on regular-season games outside the United States.
The announcement came less than a week after the Hamburg Sea Devils beat the Frankfurt Galaxy 37-28 in the World Bowl championship in Frankfurt in front of a crowd of 48,125.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell thanked the fans for their support but said it was time to develop a new international strategy, terming the move to fold NFL Europa the "best business decision." The league reportedly was losing about $30 million a season.


Of course the last statement was someone at Wikipedia reading into Goodell's words.

;D


not wuite sure but evidently that is what was reported.