PDA

View Full Version : Mythbusting: Vikings to L.A. Coliseum?



COJOMAY
12-21-2007, 02:52 AM
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/12/20/mythbusting-vikings-to-l-a-coliseum/

Why did the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission reject USC's offer on Wednesday to conditionally accept an agreement to allow the Trojans to play in the Coliseum?

When we first heard of USC's "put up or shut up proposal," we thought it was brilliant, because to reject the plan would require that the Coliseum Commission admit that not even its members had faith in their ability to deliver on their promises to the University.

Many observers say that the Coliseum Commission is reluctant to hand over the keys to the building to the University.

"It's not only about money," Coliseum General Manager Pat Lynch told the LA Times. "It's about everything."

Does "everything" include a plan to bring the Minnesota Vikings to Los Angeles?
I got a phone call from an anonymous source at a restricted number on Tuesday morning that was too revealing not to follow up on....

Here is what we were told by this alleged "City Hall Insider"... Our tipster heard from a source in Sacramento that Commission President Bernard Parks was at a Holiday Party and was overheard bragging that he and his colleagues have been talking to an NFL developer--not the league or any owners directly--about trying to lure the Minnesota Vikings to the L.A. Coliseum. These talks have been going on for at least three months, including meetings since USC's threat to move to the Rose Bowl went public, and that the entire Commission, not just Parks, had been involved to some degree with the talks.

Wowsers. If true, that would be big news, both in Los Angeles--because it would show that the Coliseum Commission has not been negotiating in good faith with USC--but in Minnesota, where the Vikings were recently told by State Officials not to expect any action on getting a new stadium in the next year.

Normally, an anonymous tipster would not be enough to run with a story, but then again, without anonymous tipsters, there would never have been a President Gerald Ford, so we decided to explore the issue further...

ultravikingfan
12-21-2007, 08:35 AM
Right ::)

Without a credible source this story is nothing, kinda like AOL itself.

Marrdro
12-21-2007, 08:51 AM
I also don't put much credit into anything without a credible source but when it comes to adding a bunch of stuff up to come to a conclusion I say that I wouldn't completely discount this.

Long story short, the MN voters, thier elected officials and the Minneapolis/St. Paul businesses (who will really feel the pain when/if the Vikes leave) better get off thier asses and soon.

The Wilfs are a good ownership and are in this thing to make money.
To do that they need to do two things.
1.
Put a winning team on the field.
2.
Have a venue that will generate the right revenue.

Someone up in the great white north better realize that we have a pretty good indicator that the Wilf ownership is willing to eat a little loss when it comes to an angry fan base in thier efforts to achieve item number 1.


I am sure they understand that the Vikings fan base is much bigger than the local boys and girls.
A move to another state/venue would in fact hurt for a short timeframe but would eventually be overcome by the new local fan base if they have to move to get item number 2 done.


Hard pill to swallow my friends, but a reality if you really take a hard look at it that this team is getting closer and closer to leaving MN if (Big IF) someone doesn't wake up.

MN_SkolVikings_NC
12-21-2007, 09:46 AM
To be honest I am really getting tired of hearing about the Vikings moving to LA.
Maybe I'll have to eat a big crow sandwich, but I don't think that the Wilfs are going to move the Vikes.

Why would they move to LA?
LA hasn;t been able to support a football franchise the last (3??) times they tried.
Why would Wilf think that he can all of a sudden make a football team work.
He is smarter than that.
Not to mention the millions he has invested in Winter Park upgrades.

Let's everyone be patient.
If it wasn't for the bridge collapse (all of my best wishes and prayers to those affected) we would be looking at a stadium bill in 2008.
Frankly, the need to re-enforce the transportation infrastructure is more important.
If the bridge hadn't happened, the state would not be spending the millions upon millions they are going to spend on checking every bridge in the state, and re0building the 35W bridge.


Projections say that a stadium, if passed in 09, wouldn't be ready until 2013. The Metrodome lease expires in 2011.
What is the problem with the Vikings sharing the UofM's new stadium in those 2 years for a fee like a number of other pro franchises have done with colleges in their area for 2 years.
I think there is none, and if you ask me a pretty darn good solution.


The Vikings have sold out a LOT of games and are one of the most followed franchises outside of the state of MN as well.
A move would only sully the fan base and turn the Vikings into a money losing venture in a town that has proven it CANNOT support pro football.
The LA move conspiracy theory has been around for a long time, and still the Vikings call MN their home.
They will continue to do so for a long, long time.


Skol!

Marrdro
12-21-2007, 10:13 AM
Why would they move to LA?
LA hasn;t been able to support a football franchise the last (3??) times they tried.
Why would Wilf think that he can all of a sudden make a football team work.
He is smarter than that.
Not to mention the millions he has invested in Winter Park upgrades.

Who says it has to be LA?

As to why would they move?
To host games in a venue that will make them money.
To date thier is no viable option in MN to satisfy that.


Let's everyone be patient.
If it wasn't for the bridge collapse (all of my best wishes and prayers to those affected) we would be looking at a stadium bill in 2008.
Frankly, the need to re-enforce the transportation infrastructure is more important.
If the bridge hadn't happened, the state would not be spending the millions upon millions they are going to spend on checking every bridge in the state, and re0building the 35W bridge.

I'm no politician nor am I a guru in State spending, however, the Bridge collapse isn't the reason that there isn't any money for assistance with funding the stadium my friend.
If memory serves, the state of MN has a huge deficit before the bridge collapsed.

Additionally, states always budget for infrastructure upgrades. Its part of the taxes you pay every year. In this case, the taxes were spent on something else by the MN elected officials.


Projections say that a stadium, if passed in 09, wouldn't be ready until 2013. The Metrodome lease expires in 2011.
What is the problem with the Vikings sharing the UofM's new stadium in those 2 years for a fee like a number of other pro franchises have done with colleges in their area for 2 years.
I think there is none, and if you ask me a pretty darn good solution.



So what your saying is that the Wilfs will wait until 2013 to start making the revenues needed to make enough money to efficiantly run a championship caliber team as well as make money?
Show me any business that is capable of eating that many years of losses/negligable profits.

The Wilfs ownership group as smart business men.
They will move if it means they will loose money or can't stay competitive.


The Vikings have sold out a LOT of games and are one of the most followed franchises outside of the state of MN as well.
A move would only sully the fan base and turn the Vikings into a money losing venture in a town that has proven it CANNOT support pro football.
The LA move conspiracy theory has been around for a long time, and still the Vikings call MN their home.
They will continue to do so for a long, long time


You really need to think of the fan base as two different groups.


a.
The local fanbase.
Those within driving distance of the stadium. That isn't very many when you really thing about it.
I am sure NP can give you how many seasons tickets are held by fans and how many are sold to guys like me who fly in for a game every now and then.
That number isn't very significant when you look at it.
That local fanbase will be replaced by the new local fanbase were the new venue is built.

b.
All others.
Sure a few like me who were born/raised in MN will be pissed because they leave but we will still probably buy the gear, watch the TV and soak up the commercials that really generate the revenues for the NFL and its teams.

The only fanbase that will be severly impacted by moving this team will be the 60,000 who come to the games on a regular basis.
Additionally you will probably (not sure why) piss off the local business who seem to always buy up the other 2,500 tickets that keeps the "Sellout Streak" alive.

Face it my friend, the Wilfs will piss off 60,000 plus fans and move the team to a new venue, be it LA or where ever,
to generate the necessary funding to run this team rather than loosing the profits that they aren't getting in the dome.

jargomcfargo
12-21-2007, 10:41 AM
The coliseum is a dump. I don't see any team moving there.
Is this an onion article?

NodakPaul
12-21-2007, 10:45 AM
Yeah, what this article doesn't mention is the fact that the Coliseum is in worse shape than the dome is, and has less luxury seats than the dome.
There is a reason why no NFL teams play there.

Zygi already has a contract with an aging stadium that doesn't generate enough revenue.
Why would he want to move into an older one that generates less revenue?

COJOMAY
12-21-2007, 10:47 AM
I know I've said this before, but the bridge collapse is just an "excuse" for not building the stadium. That roadway is part of the FEDERAL highway system. It's an INTERSTATE highway. Therefore the lion's share of the cost of rebuilding is up to the federal government.
So I get sick and tired of people who keep saying, "Oh the state's got no money because of the bridge collapse."
And the cost of inspecting other bridges is an on-going cost (or at least it should be). Do you believe I'm dumb enough to buy into the fact that the state never inspected a bridge until the collaspe? Come on, why do they have MDOT?
The fact is, no politician wants to spend money on a stadium because they don't want to raise taxes. It will make them unpopular and they won't get re-elected. It's that simple. But those same politicians are willing to spend big money on other things as long as it's something for their home area.
In that respect they are just like the Federal government. Wait until you see the new spending bill from the US Congress. You won't believe the amount of PORK!

Marrdro
12-21-2007, 11:09 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Yeah, what this article doesn't mention is the fact that the Coliseum is in worse shape than the dome is, and has less luxury seats than the dome.
There is a reason why no NFL teams play there.

Zygi already has a contract with an aging stadium that doesn't generate enough revenue.
Why would he want to move into an older one that generates less revenue?


Take LA out of the equation.

He wants a venue that will generate revenue.
That venue can be built anyplace that has the following:

a.
A receptive audience/community ready to assist with funding.
b.
An area that has the infrastructure (airports, highways, hotels, business, large corporations etc) to support an NFL team.
c.
An area that is approved by the NFL.
Usually if you have (b) you will get (c).
d. An area that has a large population.
Again, if you have (b) you have an area that can/will support a team in attendance.

Again, lets not focus on just LA but rather that if pushed, and I feel they are being nudged now, the Wilf owner ship will start to look at other venues that can and will meet his needs for a venue that have the right area and population to support it.

Marrdro
12-21-2007, 11:10 AM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


I know I've said this before, but the bridge collapse is just an "excuse" for not building the stadium. That roadway is part of the FEDERAL highway system. It's an INTERSTATE highway. Therefore the lion's share of the cost of rebuilding is up to the federal government.
So I get sick and tired of people who keep saying, "Oh the state's got no money because of the bridge collapse."
And the cost of inspecting other bridges is an on-going cost (or at least it should be). Do you believe I'm dumb enough to buy into the fact that the state never inspected a bridge until the collaspe? Come on, why do they have MDOT?
The fact is, no politician wants to spend money on a stadium because they don't want to raise taxes. It will make them unpopular and they won't get re-elected. It's that simple. But those same politicians are willing to spend big money on other things as long as it's something for their home area.
In that respect they are just like the Federal government. Wait until you see the new spending bill from the US Congress. You won't believe the amount of PORK!

Excellent post my friend.
;D

NodakPaul
12-21-2007, 11:30 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Yeah, what this article doesn't mention is the fact that the Coliseum is in worse shape than the dome is, and has less luxury seats than the dome.
There is a reason why no NFL teams play there.

Zygi already has a contract with an aging stadium that doesn't generate enough revenue.
Why would he want to move into an older one that generates less revenue?


Take LA out of the equation.

He wants a venue that will generate revenue.
That venue can be built anyplace that has the following:

a.
A receptive audience/community ready to assist with funding.
b.
An area that has the infrastructure (airports, highways, hotels, business, large corporations etc) to support an NFL team.
c.
An area that is approved by the NFL.
Usually if you have (b) you will get (c).
d. An area that has a large population.
Again, if you have (b) you have an area that can/will support a team in attendance.

Again, lets not focus on just LA but rather that if pushed, and I feel they are being nudged now, the Wilf owner ship will start to look at other venues that can and will meet his needs for a venue that have the right area and population to support it.


LA, however, does not have a or c.
The community has been adamant about not spending public money to renovate the Coliseum (more so than Minnesota), and the NFL has said publicly that cities getting expansion teams or moved teams must meet minimum stadium standards.
That was a huge sticking point in the move of the Oilers to Tennessee.

Overlord
12-21-2007, 11:36 AM
In terms of the Minnesota legislature's reluctance to seriously discuss a new stadium, I think COJOMAY is pretty much right on with his post.
What I don't understand is why the politicians think that they'll be safe if the Vikings move.
If that happened every one of them would be thrown out in the next election by a bunch of people ticked off because their kids are all going to become Packers fans.

I don't agree with everyone putting forth the "LA didn't work before and it won't work now" argument.
The argument is based on a faulty premise and ignores other important factors.

First, the Rams and Raiders were making money in LA despite attendence issues.
The moves weren't an issue of not being able to support the teams in LA, but rather having a better alternative.
My understanding is that the Vikings are somehow managing to lose money in Minnesota.
In the modern NFL, that's quite an accomplishment.

Second, those better alternatives in Oakland and St. Louis were available not based on a large or loyal fanbase, but rather on state-of-the-art stadiums, cash incentives, and guaranteed sellouts.
This is the kind of deal that the LA business folks are trying to put together.
The question for Wilf will not be, "LA with a large but fickle fan base or Minnesota with a small but loyal fan base?"
Instead, the question will be, "LA with a new stadium and plenty of financial incentives or Minnesota and the same Metrodome deal that we're losing money on now?"

The thing that really worries me about this is that, if this is true, these guys are smart enough not to make a big deal about it.
As long as people and politicians in Minnesota don't believe that there's a real chance of the team moving, no new stadium deal is going to happen.
The longer the Vikings wait without a stadium deal in place, the more attractive any offer from LA will become.

Looks to me like there is a good chance the trucks are going to be coming in the middle of the night if people don't get word to the legislature that they are willing to help foot the bill for a new stadium.

Marrdro
12-21-2007, 11:40 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Yeah, what this article doesn't mention is the fact that the Coliseum is in worse shape than the dome is, and has less luxury seats than the dome.
There is a reason why no NFL teams play there.

Zygi already has a contract with an aging stadium that doesn't generate enough revenue.
Why would he want to move into an older one that generates less revenue?


Take LA out of the equation.

He wants a venue that will generate revenue.
That venue can be built anyplace that has the following:

a.
A receptive audience/community ready to assist with funding.
b.
An area that has the infrastructure (airports, highways, hotels, business, large corporations etc) to support an NFL team.
c.
An area that is approved by the NFL.
Usually if you have (b) you will get (c).
d. An area that has a large population.
Again, if you have (b) you have an area that can/will support a team in attendance.

Again, lets not focus on just LA but rather that if pushed, and I feel they are being nudged now, the Wilf owner ship will start to look at other venues that can and will meet his needs for a venue that have the right area and population to support it.


LA, however, does not have a or c.
The community has been adamant about not spending public money to renovate the Coliseum (more so than Minnesota), and the NFL has said publicly that cities getting expansion teams or moved teams must meet minimum stadium standards.
That was a huge sticking point in the move of the Oilers to Tennessee.

You keep going back to LA my friend.

Any area would work that satisfied the above criteria and a stadium could be erected by 2011 if push came to shove.


Hell for that matter the Tidewater community (Va Beach, Norfolk, Suffolk, Chesapeak, Newport News etc) were gol 'darnit close to getting the Nationals and would build a stadium in a second for any pro team.

I am sure there are others out there waiting in the wings my friend and I believe the Wilf organization know who they are.

Look my point is that if people keep believing that the Vikes won't move cause it would piss off the local fan base then they are mistaken.
And to continue to think that the local sports fan has a say is crazy.
This decision has nothing to do with them and they have very little say in it.
It is all predicated on whos pocket will get lined and what politicians will get out of it.

Marrdro
12-21-2007, 11:44 AM
"Overlord" wrote:


In terms of the Minnesota legislature's reluctance to seriously discuss a new stadium, I think COJOMAY is pretty much right on with his post.
What I don't understand is why the politicians think that they'll be safe if the Vikings move.
If that happened every one of them would be thrown out in the next election by a bunch of people ticked off because their kids are all going to become Packers fans.

I don't agree with everyone putting forth the "LA didn't work before and it won't work now" argument.
The argument is based on a faulty premise and ignores other important factors.

First, the Rams and Raiders were making money in LA despite attendence issues.
The moves weren't an issue of not being able to support the teams in LA, but rather having a better alternative.
My understanding is that the Vikings are somehow managing to lose money in Minnesota.
In the modern NFL, that's quite an accomplishment.

Second, those better alternatives in Oakland and St. Louis were available not based on a large or loyal fanbase, but rather on state-of-the-art stadiums, cash incentives, and guaranteed sellouts.
This is the kind of deal that the LA business folks are trying to put together.
The question for Wilf will not be, "LA with a large but fickle fan base or Minnesota with a small but loyal fan base?"
Instead, the question will be, "LA with a new stadium and plenty of financial incentives or Minnesota and the same Metrodome deal that we're losing money on now?"

The thing that really worries me about this is that, if this is true, these guys are smart enough not to make a big deal about it.
As long as people and politicians in Minnesota don't believe that there's a real chance of the team moving, no new stadium deal is going to happen.
The longer the Vikings wait without a stadium deal in place, the more attractive any offer from LA will become.

Looks to me like there is a good chance the trucks are going to be coming in the middle of the night if people don't get word to the legislature that they are willing to help foot the bill for a new stadium.

Another great post.

I know a great location for the Vikes to move to if and when they do.

Large population that wants a team and is willing to finance the venue.
Great infrastructure.
Huge corporations/companies and one of the largest transitien fan base in the United States.

Again, there are alot other options out there than LA and I am sure the Wilfs know were they are at.
;D

Overlord
12-21-2007, 12:17 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


You keep going back to LA my friend.

Any area would work that satisfied the above criteria and a stadium could be erected by 2011 if push came to shove.


Hell for that matter the Tidewater community (Va Beach, Norfolk, Suffolk, Chesapeak, Newport News etc) were gol 'darnit close to getting the Nationals and would build a stadium in a second for any pro team.

I am sure there are others out there waiting in the wings my friend and I believe the Wilf organization know who they are.

That's true.
I just think that the LA area is the most talked about and likely at the moment.


I was going to say that I think the Tidewater area is too close to other teams, which might cause other owners to prevent any such move.
But I'm not sure how much of an actual overlap there is in the markets.



Look my point is that if people keep believing that the Vikes won't move cause it would piss off the local fan base then they are mistaken.
And to continue to think that the local sports fan has a say is crazy.
This decision has nothing to do with them and they have very little say in it.
It is all predicated on whos pocket will get lined and what politicians will get out of it.


I do think the fans have a say, but they have to talk with their pocket books through the legislature.
If your representatives knew that people wanted a stadium in order to keep the Vikings around, it would happen.
As long as they think that more votes will be won by ignoring it, no new stadium will be built.

Marrdro
12-21-2007, 12:23 PM
"Overlord" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


You keep going back to LA my friend.

Any area would work that satisfied the above criteria and a stadium could be erected by 2011 if push came to shove.


Hell for that matter the Tidewater community (Va Beach, Norfolk, Suffolk, Chesapeak, Newport News etc) were gol 'darnit close to getting the Nationals and would build a stadium in a second for any pro team.

I am sure there are others out there waiting in the wings my friend and I believe the Wilf organization know who they are.

That's true.
I just think that the LA area is the most talked about and likely at the moment.


I was going to say that I think the Tidewater area is too close to other teams, which might cause other owners to prevent any such move.
But I'm not sure how much of an actual overlap there is in the markets.



Look my point is that if people keep believing that the Vikes won't move cause it would piss off the local fan base then they are mistaken.
And to continue to think that the local sports fan has a say is crazy.
This decision has nothing to do with them and they have very little say in it.
It is all predicated on whos pocket will get lined and what politicians will get out of it.


I do think the fans have a say, but they have to talk with their pocket books through the legislature.
If your representatives knew that people wanted a stadium in order to keep the Vikings around, it would happen.
As long as they think that more votes will be won by ignoring it, no new stadium will be built.

You are correct.
When we lobbied for a team a few years back we were given grief over the proximity to the skins and now the Ravens moved in.
Go figure. ;D

Would we ever get a team, probably not, however, my point still stands that there are other options out there that would support the building of a new venue and I am sure the Wilfs and the NFL know who they are.

As to your second point, the problem with the whole "Pocket Book" theory is that you would have to think that the whole state would put this kindof pressure on them when in fact reality is that only about 60,000 Minnesotans really would have any impact.
That isn't that much of a element when you consider the number of voters in the state vs 60,000 Vikings fans.

(Key note:
I don't really believe the number is 60,000 as alot of fans come from out of state to watch the games.).

sdfrenchy
12-21-2007, 01:58 PM
The 60,000 number is waaay too low. It's not just the fans that go to the game every sunday it's also people like me that go once or twice a year and spend ~$500 a trip. That money is not just spent in Minneapolis but in the gas stations and restaurants on the way. The number of vikings fans is more like 250,000 in the Minneapolis Metro and even more in the region. It's not like they have 60,000 season ticket holders.

I predict a new stadium next year. This year is political posturing because of the bridge. They can't hand out money to billionaires when average people are dying on the bridges. Next year though...

NodakPaul
12-21-2007, 02:54 PM
"sdfrenchy" wrote:


The 60,000 number is waaay too low. It's not just the fans that go to the game every sunday it's also people like me that go once or twice a year and spend ~$500 a trip. That money is not just spent in Minneapolis but in the gas stations and restaurants on the way. The number of vikings fans is more like 250,000 in the Minneapolis Metro and even more in the region. It's not like they have 60,000 season ticket holders.

I predict a new stadium next year. This year is political posturing because of the bridge. They can't hand out money to billionaires when average people are dying on the bridges. Next year though...


I agree that 60k is too low.
Even when the Vikings are playing badly, their television ratings are unmatched by any other local broadcast.
That is why TV stations were willing to shell out so much money to prevent a blackout.
There is a very strong following in the state of Minnesota.

StillPurple
12-21-2007, 03:26 PM
How 'bout the Raiders back to L.A. ? That is what I have heard.

I don't see the Vikings moving to Mexifornia right after the reallignment into the NFC North. That would blow the new re-allignment based on real regions, right ?

I also don't think that real estate developers "drive" the whole process.

jmcdon00
12-21-2007, 03:37 PM
BULLSHIT
That is what all this talk is. I have not heard any serious talk of the vikings moving. It will not happen. The annonomous phone call for this story was probably ziggy himself trying to get support for a new stadium. The vikings made Red McCombs about $500,000,000.00 dollars when he sold them. If the state would have bought him a stadium he probably still would have sold only for a profit of about $1,000,000,000.00. The vikings are making money, the nfl is making money. They will add another expansion team way before they move a team that is making money.

This whole idea of the vikings moving to LA or any other place is complete BULLSHIT. ;)

BloodyHorns82
12-21-2007, 03:45 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


BULLSHIT
That is what all this talk is. I have not heard any serious talk of the vikings moving. It will not happen. The annonomous phone call for this story was probably ziggy himself trying to get support for a new stadium. The vikings made Red McCombs about $500,000,000.00 dollars when he sold them. If the state would have bought him a stadium he probably still would have sold only for a profit of about $1,000,000,000.00. The vikings are making money, the nfl is making money. They will add another expansion team way before they move a team that is making money.

This whole idea of the vikings moving to LA or any other place is complete BULLSHIT. ;)




While I can't see it happening, it is a remote possibility.
It's happened before in the NFL and it will likely happen again.
I think there are plenty of other NFL teams that are in worse shape than we are right now, and would likely be the teams moving if any team where to move.

Are you SURE the Vikings are making money?
I thought I read that they lost money last year...
Wilf has put a considerable amount of money back into the team, so I'd be surprised to hear he actually turned a profit last season.

jmcdon00
12-21-2007, 04:01 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


BULLSHIT
That is what all this talk is. I have not heard any serious talk of the vikings moving. It will not happen. The annonomous phone call for this story was probably ziggy himself trying to get support for a new stadium. The vikings made Red McCombs about $500,000,000.00 dollars when he sold them. If the state would have bought him a stadium he probably still would have sold only for a profit of about $1,000,000,000.00. The vikings are making money, the nfl is making money. They will add another expansion team way before they move a team that is making money.

This whole idea of the vikings moving to LA or any other place is complete BULLSHIT. ;)




While I can't see it happening, it is a remote possibility.
It's happened before in the NFL and it will likely happen again.
I think there are plenty of other NFL teams that are in worse shape than we are right now, and would likely be the teams moving if any team where to move.

Are you SURE the Vikings are making money?
I thought I read that they lost money last year...
Wilf has put a considerable amount of money back into the team, so I'd be surprised to hear he actually turned a profit last season.

Nobody shows a profit on there tax return. No most privately owned business try to lose money so that they can save the taxes and reinvest that tax money into other ventures. Then they take a bigger hit when the sell the team because they have depreciated everything leaving them with no basis in the team. So for instance he is probably writing off the initial expence of buying the team over 5,7,15 or 30 years. What that means is that he takes a deduction for the $650,000,000.00 that he bought the team for, even though he will eventually get all that money back plus more when he eventually sells them. Plus the IRS allows for eccelerated depreciation so the first year he may be able to take bonus depreciation of 30 or 50% of the total cost.
There is really no way to know exactly how much money he is making or losing each year. He can make the books look like he made million or lost millions. He doesn't have to report his profits to the public. But what I do know is that McCombs constantly said he was losing money, but he never talked about the value of the team, which we now know was going up by hundreds of millions of dollars.
For an example let's say that he made $50,000,000.00 this year, rather than paying his taxes wilf decides to invest $100,000,000.00 in buying properties around minneapolis, now he shows a loss of $50,000,000.00 and pays no taxes and crys poverty so the taxpayers buy him a new stadium. Did he really lose $50,000,000.00, no.

BloodyHorns82
12-21-2007, 04:34 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


BULLSHIT
That is what all this talk is. I have not heard any serious talk of the vikings moving. It will not happen. The annonomous phone call for this story was probably ziggy himself trying to get support for a new stadium. The vikings made Red McCombs about $500,000,000.00 dollars when he sold them. If the state would have bought him a stadium he probably still would have sold only for a profit of about $1,000,000,000.00. The vikings are making money, the nfl is making money. They will add another expansion team way before they move a team that is making money.

This whole idea of the vikings moving to LA or any other place is complete BULLSHIT. ;)




While I can't see it happening, it is a remote possibility.
It's happened before in the NFL and it will likely happen again.
I think there are plenty of other NFL teams that are in worse shape than we are right now, and would likely be the teams moving if any team where to move.

Are you SURE the Vikings are making money?
I thought I read that they lost money last year...
Wilf has put a considerable amount of money back into the team, so I'd be surprised to hear he actually turned a profit last season.

Nobody shows a profit on there tax return. No most privately owned business try to lose money so that they can save the taxes and reinvest that tax money into other ventures. Then they take a bigger hit when the sell the team because they have depreciated everything leaving them with no basis in the team. So for instance he is probably writing off the initial expence of buying the team over 5,7,15 or 30 years. What that means is that he takes a deduction for the $650,000,000.00 that he bought the team for, even though he will eventually get all that money back plus more when he eventually sells them. Plus the IRS allows for eccelerated depreciation so the first year he may be able to take bonus depreciation of 30 or 50% of the total cost.
There is really no way to know exactly how much money he is making or losing each year. He can make the books look like he made million or lost millions. He doesn't have to report his profits to the public. But what I do know is that McCombs constantly said he was losing money, but he never talked about the value of the team, which we now know was going up by hundreds of millions of dollars.
For an example let's say that he made $50,000,000.00 this year, rather than paying his taxes wilf decides to invest $100,000,000.00 in buying properties around minneapolis, now he shows a loss of $50,000,000.00 and pays no taxes and crys poverty so the taxpayers buy him a new stadium. Did he really lose $50,000,000.00, no.


So basically you have absolutely no idea either.
;D
Full of speculation just like any other shmuck...myself included.

I would hope that with an investment of that size that the guy is making money.

jmcdon00
12-21-2007, 04:37 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


BULLSHIT
That is what all this talk is. I have not heard any serious talk of the vikings moving. It will not happen. The annonomous phone call for this story was probably ziggy himself trying to get support for a new stadium. The vikings made Red McCombs about $500,000,000.00 dollars when he sold them. If the state would have bought him a stadium he probably still would have sold only for a profit of about $1,000,000,000.00. The vikings are making money, the nfl is making money. They will add another expansion team way before they move a team that is making money.

This whole idea of the vikings moving to LA or any other place is complete BULLSHIT. ;)




While I can't see it happening, it is a remote possibility.
It's happened before in the NFL and it will likely happen again.
I think there are plenty of other NFL teams that are in worse shape than we are right now, and would likely be the teams moving if any team where to move.

Are you SURE the Vikings are making money?
I thought I read that they lost money last year...
Wilf has put a considerable amount of money back into the team, so I'd be surprised to hear he actually turned a profit last season.

Nobody shows a profit on there tax return. No most privately owned business try to lose money so that they can save the taxes and reinvest that tax money into other ventures. Then they take a bigger hit when the sell the team because they have depreciated everything leaving them with no basis in the team. So for instance he is probably writing off the initial expence of buying the team over 5,7,15 or 30 years. What that means is that he takes a deduction for the $650,000,000.00 that he bought the team for, even though he will eventually get all that money back plus more when he eventually sells them. Plus the IRS allows for eccelerated depreciation so the first year he may be able to take bonus depreciation of 30 or 50% of the total cost.
There is really no way to know exactly how much money he is making or losing each year. He can make the books look like he made million or lost millions. He doesn't have to report his profits to the public. But what I do know is that McCombs constantly said he was losing money, but he never talked about the value of the team, which we now know was going up by hundreds of millions of dollars.
For an example let's say that he made $50,000,000.00 this year, rather than paying his taxes wilf decides to invest $100,000,000.00 in buying properties around minneapolis, now he shows a loss of $50,000,000.00 and pays no taxes and crys poverty so the taxpayers buy him a new stadium. Did he really lose $50,000,000.00, no.


So basically you have absolutely no idea either.
;D

Full of speculation just like any other shmuck...myself included.

I would hope that with an investment of that size that the guy is making money.

Don't worry too much, I think he will be alright.

PurpleGator
12-21-2007, 04:38 PM
"MN_SkolVikings_NC" wrote:


To be honest I am really getting tired of hearing about the Vikings moving to LA.
Maybe I'll have to eat a big crow sandwich, but I don't think that the Wilfs are going to move the Vikes.

Why would they move to LA?
LA hasn;t been able to support a football franchise the last (3??) times they tried.
Why would Wilf think that he can all of a sudden make a football team work.
He is smarter than that.
Not to mention the millions he has invested in Winter Park upgrades.

Let's everyone be patient.
If it wasn't for the bridge collapse (all of my best wishes and prayers to those affected) we would be looking at a stadium bill in 2008.
Frankly, the need to re-enforce the transportation infrastructure is more important.
If the bridge hadn't happened, the state would not be spending the millions upon millions they are going to spend on checking every bridge in the state, and re0building the 35W bridge.


Projections say that a stadium, if passed in 09, wouldn't be ready until 2013. The Metrodome lease expires in 2011.
What is the problem with the Vikings sharing the UofM's new stadium in those 2 years for a fee like a number of other pro franchises have done with colleges in their area for 2 years.
I think there is none, and if you ask me a pretty darn good solution.


The Vikings have sold out a LOT of games and are one of the most followed franchises outside of the state of MN as well.
A move would only sully the fan base and turn the Vikings into a money losing venture in a town that has proven it CANNOT support pro football.
The LA move conspiracy theory has been around for a long time, and still the Vikings call MN their home.
They will continue to do so for a long, long time.


Skol!


Most of the bridge money is coming from the Feds so that is not it.

PackSux!
12-21-2007, 06:22 PM
The Vikings are not going anyplace.
The state knows how much money they will lose if they do leave and the state wont allow it.
Hell we already did it once with the north stars and learned our lesson.

I dont know exactly how much money the Vikings bring the state in tax money but it is a large number.
The state is to broke to let them leave without doing something about it.
So when push comes to shove the Vikings will get their stadium.

Marrdro
12-22-2007, 07:09 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"sdfrenchy" wrote:


The 60,000 number is waaay too low. It's not just the fans that go to the game every sunday it's also people like me that go once or twice a year and spend ~$500 a trip. That money is not just spent in Minneapolis but in the gas stations and restaurants on the way. The number of vikings fans is more like 250,000 in the Minneapolis Metro and even more in the region. It's not like they have 60,000 season ticket holders.

I predict a new stadium next year. This year is political posturing because of the bridge. They can't hand out money to billionaires when average people are dying on the bridges. Next year though...


I agree that 60k is too low.
Even when the Vikings are playing badly, their television ratings are unmatched by any other local broadcast.
That is why TV stations were willing to shell out so much money to prevent a blackout.
There is a very strong following in the state of Minnesota.

But won't those people travel to the new venue and still watch the TV when the team plays at thier new venue? As to the ones like my Mom and Dad that only watch from home, they will be replaced by people in the new venues state who can only watch from home.

Again, the only one that will really feel any impact on this will be the actual season ticket holders/fans that go every weekend that live in driving distance and a few die hards who will refuse to watch them anymore cause they aren't located in MN.

Trust me friends the loss of that small fanbase is all a wash as most, if not all will be replaced eventually by the new fanbase.
Until the state (and the business owners who reap the benifites) figure that out, they won't have any sense of urgency to make sure the Vikes stay in the state.

Overlord
12-22-2007, 02:38 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"sdfrenchy" wrote:


The 60,000 number is waaay too low. It's not just the fans that go to the game every sunday it's also people like me that go once or twice a year and spend ~$500 a trip. That money is not just spent in Minneapolis but in the gas stations and restaurants on the way. The number of vikings fans is more like 250,000 in the Minneapolis Metro and even more in the region. It's not like they have 60,000 season ticket holders.

I predict a new stadium next year. This year is political posturing because of the bridge. They can't hand out money to billionaires when average people are dying on the bridges. Next year though...


I agree that 60k is too low.
Even when the Vikings are playing badly, their television ratings are unmatched by any other local broadcast.
That is why TV stations were willing to shell out so much money to prevent a blackout.
There is a very strong following in the state of Minnesota.

But won't those people travel to the new venue and still watch the TV when the team plays at thier new venue? As to the ones like my Mom and Dad that only watch from home, they will be replaced by people in the new venues state who can only watch from home.

Again, the only one that will really feel any impact on this will be the actual season ticket holders/fans that go every weekend that live in driving distance and a few die hards who will refuse to watch them anymore cause they aren't located in MN.

Trust me friends the loss of that small fanbase is all a wash as most, if not all will be replaced eventually by the new fanbase.
Until the state (and the business owners who reap the benifites) figure that out, they won't have any sense of urgency to make sure the Vikes stay in the state.


I feel like this is arguing about different perspectives.


From the organization's standpoint, Marrdro is right about it being a wash.
If they moved they'd get new fans.
They'd still sell tickets, just not to the same people.
People would still watch on TV, even if some of these people were different than their previous audience.

From the perspective of the legislature, there are a lot more people interested in the Vikings than go to the game, and these people would be willing to pay some amount to keep the Vikings here.
Now, some of these people value the Vikings being in Minnesota more than others.


Point being, it's not like there are only 60,000 or 250,000 or whatever number of people in the state that would care if the Vikings left.
I think almost everyone of voting age would care.
It's just a matter of how much.

I really believe that most Minnesotans want them to stay here and would gladly pay $50 a year or whatever the bill would be to keep them here, if they believed that the choice was pay or watch them go.
Right now, people are choosing don't pay and have them stay, which may not be a real option.

On a related note, here's an interesting article about fan interest and television ratings (link (http://www.minnpost.com/jayweiner/2007/11/30/238/minnesota_vikings_brush_with_blackout_doesnt_mean_fan_interest_is_waning)).
They say that 25% of households in Minnesota tune in each week.
That's about 520,000 homes and probably (guess) about 1.5-2 million total viewers.

BBQ Platypus
12-22-2007, 03:34 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


kaka del rio
That is what all this talk is. I have not heard any serious talk of the vikings moving. It will not happen. The annonomous phone call for this story was probably ziggy himself trying to get support for a new stadium. The vikings made Red McCombs about $500,000,000.00 dollars when he sold them. If the state would have bought him a stadium he probably still would have sold only for a profit of about $1,000,000,000.00. The vikings are making money, the nfl is making money. They will add another expansion team way before they move a team that is making money.

This whole idea of the vikings moving to LA or any other place is complete kaka del rio. ;)




Um...actually, the Vikings are NOT making money.
They're LOSING money.
The NFL is getting tired of having to shell out so much money to us through the revenue sharing program.
Believe it or not, the league actually wants their franchises to make a profit.
Sure, the league itself is making money, but it could be making even more without deadweight teams like the Vikings.

mountainviking
12-22-2007, 04:01 PM
With the way we all like to get together for the game over some brews and food...that 25% tuned in might be closer to 75% watching!?
;)

It would be a big move.
Not something the Wilfs, the NFL, LA or any other place will take lightly.
Sure, eventually there will be people watching, and buying back into the team, but it may take years.
They've got a good thing going here (besides the stadium)...what they need to sell tix (and the stadium,) here or there, is WINS and exciting players.
Its moving in the right direction.
The Love Boat isn't that far back to have been forgotten.
The conspiracy theorist in me wants to say, "Give us a Superbowl Upset, and we'll buy a new freakin stadium!!!!!!!"


My home is in CO now, but I think MN should look at it as an investment.
Wouldn't a single Superbowl played in a new dome in MN pay for it with all the extra sales, hotels (taxes) etc?
Maybe a final four tournament?
Monsters of Rock???


Seriously, I don't want my cousins, nieces or nephews to grow up Packer fans!!
And I don't want to be reduced to rooting for the Broncos!
I'll pay $50 a year to keep them in MN!!!

BAWHOOOOOOO!!

Vikes
12-22-2007, 08:32 PM
It makes sense for the Vikings to GO. thats all Minnesota does is export out it's sports teams.

This would be a good fit then the LA Lakers and LA Viking jerseys would match!

Same thing Dallas Stars...so it's probaly true.

COJOMAY
12-22-2007, 09:20 PM
So the proposed cost of the new stadium is now at 954 million. There are 5,167,101 people in Minnesota. That comes to about $185 for every person in the state to build the stadium.

Overlord
12-22-2007, 09:31 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


So the proposed cost of the new stadium is now at 954 million. There are 5,167,101 people in Minnesota. That comes to about $185 for every person in the state to build the stadium.



Financed over 20 years, that's got to be about $15/year for every person in the state.
There are fewer taxpayers than people though, so maybe the median contribution from taxpayers would be about $50/year (guesstimate).

So how many people on here would pay that money in order to keep the Vikings in Minnesota if your choice was either: 1) pay $50/year - the Vikings get a new stadium and stay in Minneapolis for at least the next 20 years; or 2) don't pay $50/year - the Vikings move to some other market begininning in the 2012 season?
And how many would choose not to pay?

sdfrenchy
12-22-2007, 10:55 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"sdfrenchy" wrote:


The 60,000 number is waaay too low. It's not just the fans that go to the game every sunday it's also people like me that go once or twice a year and spend ~$500 a trip. That money is not just spent in Minneapolis but in the gas stations and restaurants on the way. The number of vikings fans is more like 250,000 in the Minneapolis Metro and even more in the region. It's not like they have 60,000 season ticket holders.

I predict a new stadium next year. This year is political posturing because of the bridge. They can't hand out money to billionaires when average people are dying on the bridges. Next year though...


I agree that 60k is too low.
Even when the Vikings are playing badly, their television ratings are unmatched by any other local broadcast.
That is why TV stations were willing to shell out so much money to prevent a blackout.
There is a very strong following in the state of Minnesota.

But won't those people travel to the new venue and still watch the TV when the team plays at thier new venue? As to the ones like my Mom and Dad that only watch from home, they will be replaced by people in the new venues state who can only watch from home.

Again, the only one that will really feel any impact on this will be the actual season ticket holders/fans that go every weekend that live in driving distance and a few die hards who will refuse to watch them anymore cause they aren't located in MN.

Trust me friends the loss of that small fanbase is all a wash as most, if not all will be replaced eventually by the new fanbase.
Until the state (and the business owners who reap the benifites) figure that out, they won't have any sense of urgency to make sure the Vikes stay in the state.


I was talking from the perspective of the state of Minnesota. I won't be making a trip to the dome once or twice a year if the Vikes aren't there. I sure as hell won't go to LA to see them either. If the Vikes move or stay, it wont matter to the NFL. They'll be fine in any major market.

HoosierVike
12-22-2007, 11:40 PM
I can't believe this is even still being talked about.
The Vikings went threw a slump, and caught a few bad breaks on and off the field for the past few years.
But the bottom line is the Vikings are and have been for quite some time one of the most popular NFL teams.
Think back to the 90's.
This team was basically a given for the playoffs every year.
Why would they move a team like the Vikings when you have a team like Jacksonville (yes i understand the team has come together on the field) whose market there is not right at all and has struggled for a few years now.

Ranger
12-23-2007, 04:31 AM
If the Vikings ever leave Minnesota, I will no longer be a Vikings fan.

Same thing happened with the North Stars, except I quit watching the entire sport.
However...

WAR WILD!

Zeus
12-23-2007, 08:04 AM
"BBQ" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


kaka del rio
That is what all this talk is. I have not heard any serious talk of the vikings moving. It will not happen. The annonomous phone call for this story was probably ziggy himself trying to get support for a new stadium. The vikings made Red McCombs about $500,000,000.00 dollars when he sold them. If the state would have bought him a stadium he probably still would have sold only for a profit of about $1,000,000,000.00. The vikings are making money, the nfl is making money. They will add another expansion team way before they move a team that is making money.

This whole idea of the vikings moving to LA or any other place is complete kaka del rio. ;)




Um...actually, the Vikings are NOT making money.
They're LOSING money.
The NFL is getting tired of having to shell out so much money to us through the revenue sharing program.
Believe it or not, the league actually wants their franchises to make a profit.
Sure, the league itself is making money, but it could be making even more without deadweight teams like the Vikings.


Do you have any proof (you know, a link to actual evidence) that the Vikings are "LOSING money"?

=Z=

singersp
12-23-2007, 08:44 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"BBQ" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


kaka del rio
That is what all this talk is. I have not heard any serious talk of the vikings moving. It will not happen. The annonomous phone call for this story was probably ziggy himself trying to get support for a new stadium. The vikings made Red McCombs about $500,000,000.00 dollars when he sold them. If the state would have bought him a stadium he probably still would have sold only for a profit of about $1,000,000,000.00. The vikings are making money, the nfl is making money. They will add another expansion team way before they move a team that is making money.

This whole idea of the vikings moving to LA or any other place is complete kaka del rio. ;)




Um...actually, the Vikings are NOT making money.
They're LOSING money.
The NFL is getting tired of having to shell out so much money to us through the revenue sharing program.
Believe it or not, the league actually wants their franchises to make a profit.
Sure, the league itself is making money, but it could be making even more without deadweight teams like the Vikings.


Do you have any proof (you know, a link to actual evidence) that the Vikings are "LOSING money"?

=Z=


Take it for what it's worth.......

"Wilf and his partners have funded the payroll spree partly through two capital calls -- one in January 2006 and another earlier this year -- that have pumped more than $30 million into the Vikings' operating budget. By one way of thinking, it could be argued that this ownership group already has "lost" upward of $40 million in the 2½ years since it paid $600 million for the franchise."

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/11976796.html

COJOMAY
12-25-2007, 11:12 PM
Here's an interesting tidbit from Charlie Waters at the St. Paul newspaper...

A statewide tax is expected to be proposed to the State Legislature as the means to replace the Metrodome with a new retractable-roof Vikings stadium on the same site while retaining some of the Dome's infrastructure.

BadlandsVikings
12-25-2007, 11:14 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


Here's an interesting tidbit from Charlie Waters at the St. Paul newspaper...

A statewide tax is expected to be proposed to the State Legislature as the means to replace the Metrodome with a new retractable-roof Vikings stadium on the same site while retaining some of the Dome's infrastructure.


DO IT!!!!!

Purple Floyd
12-26-2007, 08:25 AM
I can say that the state is having problems funding more than just bridge repairs in the state. The roads in outstate which were rated very good 20 years ago are now crap due to the lack of maintainance. There are also a multitude of cities that are in line for funding to improve their water and sewer plants in order to comply with state mandates and there are other things that are also competing for a piece of the pie. While it is true that they are coming from different parts of the budget, they are in the end coming from the same pockets.

One thing I keep bringing up is the idea of building it himself. I have said a number of times that if Red had built it himself instead of waiting for a handout the stadium could have been built for 1/3 of what it will cost by the time it is approved and built and he would have had to have had no ties to the state and would not have had to meet their stipulations. Back when he first proposed a stadium, the cost was projected at 250-300 million and now it will be over a billion before it is finished. If you do the math it would have been cheaper. Even considering the cost of construction increases I believe Wilf would have spent less in the end if he would have taken his initial plans and built it himself.

singersp
12-26-2007, 08:31 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


I can say that the state is having problems funding more than just bridge repairs in the state. The roads in outstate which were rated very good 20 years ago are now crap due to the lack of maintainance. There are also a multitude of cities that are in line for funding to improve their water and sewer plants in order to comply with state mandates and there are other things that are also competing for a piece of the pie. While it is true that they are coming from different parts of the budget, they are in the end coming from the same pockets.

One thing I keep bringing up is the idea of building it himself. I have said a number of times that if Red had built it himself instead of waiting for a handout the stadium could have been built for 1/3 of what it will cost by the time it is approved and built and he would have had to have had no ties to the state and would not have had to meet their stipulations. Back when he first proposed a stadium, the cost was projected at 250-300 million and now it will be over a billion before it is finished. If you do the math it would have been cheaper. Even considering the cost of construction increases I believe Wilf would have spent less in the end if he would have taken his initial plans and built it himself.


Not to mention that a new stadium has been a issue for several years prior to the bridge collapse, but it still did not get passed.

When & if it does get passed, the monies funded by the state will probably far exceed the monies they would have paid if they had funded it 100% when it was initially proposed.

Purple Floyd
12-26-2007, 10:03 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


I can say that the state is having problems funding more than just bridge repairs in the state. The roads in outstate which were rated very good 20 years ago are now crap due to the lack of maintainance. There are also a multitude of cities that are in line for funding to improve their water and sewer plants in order to comply with state mandates and there are other things that are also competing for a piece of the pie. While it is true that they are coming from different parts of the budget, they are in the end coming from the same pockets.

One thing I keep bringing up is the idea of building it himself. I have said a number of times that if Red had built it himself instead of waiting for a handout the stadium could have been built for 1/3 of what it will cost by the time it is approved and built and he would have had to have had no ties to the state and would not have had to meet their stipulations. Back when he first proposed a stadium, the cost was projected at 250-300 million and now it will be over a billion before it is finished. If you do the math it would have been cheaper. Even considering the cost of construction increases I believe Wilf would have spent less in the end if he would have taken his initial plans and built it himself.


Not to mention that a new stadium has been a issue for several years prior to the bridge collapse, but it still did not get passed.

When & if it does get passed, the monies funded by the state will probably far exceed the monies they would have paid if they had funded it 100% when it was initially proposed.




Only if they cave. If they have any guts they will stick to their guns and let the team build it themselves like other businesses have to.

Marrdro
12-26-2007, 10:15 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


I can say that the state is having problems funding more than just bridge repairs in the state. The roads in outstate which were rated very good 20 years ago are now crap due to the lack of maintainance. There are also a multitude of cities that are in line for funding to improve their water and sewer plants in order to comply with state mandates and there are other things that are also competing for a piece of the pie. While it is true that they are coming from different parts of the budget, they are in the end coming from the same pockets.

One thing I keep bringing up is the idea of building it himself. I have said a number of times that if Red had built it himself instead of waiting for a handout the stadium could have been built for 1/3 of what it will cost by the time it is approved and built and he would have had to have had no ties to the state and would not have had to meet their stipulations. Back when he first proposed a stadium, the cost was projected at 250-300 million and now it will be over a billion before it is finished. If you do the math it would have been cheaper. Even considering the cost of construction increases I believe Wilf would have spent less in the end if he would have taken his initial plans and built it himself.


Not to mention that a new stadium has been a issue for several years prior to the bridge collapse, but it still did not get passed.

When & if it does get passed, the monies funded by the state will probably far exceed the monies they would have paid if they had funded it 100% when it was initially proposed.




Only if they cave. If they have any guts they will stick to their guns and let the team build it themselves like other businesses have to.

Why would the Wilf ownership group cough up over a billion dollars for a venue in MN when they could get one built for them in several other areas?

Go ahead MN politicians and business owners...... Gut it out.
I am sure the new fans will have a great time cheering for thier new team.

Lets hope that they at least let MN keep the name Vikings so that they can use it on a new team IF the NFL ever lets them have another.
::)

Overlord
12-27-2007, 03:04 AM
"singersp" wrote:


When & if it does get passed, the monies funded by the state will probably far exceed the monies they would have paid if they had funded it 100% when it was initially proposed.


I'm not sure that this is right.
Sure, it was a $500 million stadium proposal when Red was here, but the proposed stadium has changed and the real rate of inflation has been relatively high.
The stadium itself is now a $1 billion project, but over 7-10 years that is not necessarily a substantial increase in the real cost.
My understanding is that the other $1 billion is all add-on development stuff (hotels, shopping malls) that would not have been included in the first plan and would be paid for by Wilf and Co. anyways.

Additionally, from the Vikings perspective, their costs really aren't increasing.
They were planning on having the state pay for most of it before, and they are planning on having the state pay for most of it now.
Paying for the entire thing does not make sense to them.

"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Only if they cave. If they have any guts they will stick to their guns and let the team build it themselves like other businesses have to.


People continue to think this.
I just don't believe that the Vikings will stay here under those conditions.
It doesn't make sense for a business to stay someplace when they could be making a lot more money elsewhere.


"Marrdro" wrote:


Lets hope that they at least let MN keep the name Vikings so that they can use it on a new team IF the NFL ever lets them have another.

::)


I think they would, though I hope it doesn't come to that.
It would probably be 10 years before they gave Minnesota back a team, but I'm sure everyone would want it after they were gone.
When we did get a new team, it would cost someone about $1.5 billion to buy, and someone (probably the state) would need to build a new stadium anyways.

singersp
12-27-2007, 05:37 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


I can say that the state is having problems funding more than just bridge repairs in the state. The roads in outstate which were rated very good 20 years ago are now crap due to the lack of maintainance. There are also a multitude of cities that are in line for funding to improve their water and sewer plants in order to comply with state mandates and there are other things that are also competing for a piece of the pie. While it is true that they are coming from different parts of the budget, they are in the end coming from the same pockets.

One thing I keep bringing up is the idea of building it himself. I have said a number of times that if Red had built it himself instead of waiting for a handout the stadium could have been built for 1/3 of what it will cost by the time it is approved and built and he would have had to have had no ties to the state and would not have had to meet their stipulations. Back when he first proposed a stadium, the cost was projected at 250-300 million and now it will be over a billion before it is finished. If you do the math it would have been cheaper. Even considering the cost of construction increases I believe Wilf would have spent less in the end if he would have taken his initial plans and built it himself.


Not to mention that a new stadium has been a issue for several years prior to the bridge collapse, but it still did not get passed.

When & if it does get passed, the monies funded by the state will probably far exceed the monies they would have paid if they had funded it 100% when it was initially proposed.




Only if they cave. If they have any guts they will stick to their guns and let the team build it themselves like other businesses have to.

Why would the Wilf ownership group cough up over a billion dollars for a venue in MN when they could get one built for them in several other areas?

Go ahead MN politicians and business owners...... Gut it out.
I am sure the new fans will have a great time cheering for thier new team.

Lets hope that they at least let MN keep the name Vikings so that they can use it on a new team IF the NFL ever lets them have another.

::)


Exactly! People like to throw around that the NFL is a business, when they talk about releasing players or Wilf's savy in getting a stadium deal done because he is a buisnessman.

So why wouldn't a businessman build & open his buisness in a place where the state not only supports his buisness, but also will build the business for him? LA isn't that place tough IMO, based on past history. Not to mention there's also 3 NFL teams in California already.

I know Wilf has been saying he will not move the team, but once that lease is up, if a stadium deal isn't done, I bet he sings another tune.

This afterall, is the same owner who claimed he supported Tice just weeks before he fired him.