PDA

View Full Version : Wait for funding could force Vikes out of Minnesota



COJOMAY
10-26-2008, 12:55 PM
http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081025/SPORTS/710259918/1008/sports

Minnesota and its most popular sports franchise are heading for a showdown in which fans could lose either their money or their team.

The Vikings' lease with the Metrodome expires in 2011, meaning the 48-year-old NFL franchise could move after that season. For years, the Vikings have pushed for a new stadium at various Twin Cities sites. That still seems to be the course for Minnesota owner Zygi Wilf, who talked about the stadium issue with The Gazette in August...

V4L
10-26-2008, 12:57 PM
Can we not resign the lease?

Idk much about this but I dont think the Dome is that bad.. Obviously it doesnt bring in much revenue but I would rather have that then the Vikes to be the L.A Vikings

Marrdro
10-26-2008, 01:00 PM
The Metrodome generates the NFL's lowest revenue, and the Vikings are a revenue-sharing drain on the NFL.

Kindof says it all right there doesn't it? ::)

triedandtruevikesfan
10-26-2008, 01:03 PM
why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?

Marrdro
10-26-2008, 01:04 PM
"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?


Luxury suites young lady, are what generate revenue.

triedandtruevikesfan
10-26-2008, 01:07 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?


Luxury suites young lady, are what generate revenue.


Gotcha... thanks.

marstc09
10-26-2008, 01:13 PM
Sell beer during 4th quarter. That could help.
;D

PurplePackerEater
10-26-2008, 02:40 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:



The Metrodome generates the NFL's lowest revenue, and the Vikings are a revenue-sharing drain on the NFL.

Kindof says it all right there doesn't it? ::)


Then you'd think that the NFL would do more to help us out.
:-

Purple Floyd
10-26-2008, 02:43 PM
With the economy the way it is, I think it is going to be very tough to get public money going forward. It is looking more and more like the best plan would have been fro Red to build it himself back when he owned the team. They would be getting the revenue from it already and they could have done it much cheaper than it will cost waiting for the Govt to react.

kevoncox
10-26-2008, 02:49 PM
The sad thing about movng is we must leave the Viking name and colors behind.
I don't feel right playing for the LA Cokesniffers

Marrdro
10-26-2008, 02:51 PM
"PurplePackerEater" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



The Metrodome generates the NFL's lowest revenue, and the Vikings are a revenue-sharing drain on the NFL.

Kindof says it all right there doesn't it? ::)


Then you'd think that the NFL would do more to help us out.
:-\

I kindof liken that to "spreading the wealth" my friend.

The guy down the street isn't making enough and I am making a bit more of my share so now I have to give him some of mine..... ::)

Long story short, in this business, it won't take long for the other partners on the street to say, "Hey, I'm done handing out with no hope in sight, lets move him to a place that he will make a bit more" so they don't have to keep taking out of their pockets.

SamOchoCinco
10-26-2008, 03:11 PM
im sure the vikes will still be here.

the entire country is having money troubles. so im sure the vikes would give minnesota a break here

Azurel
10-26-2008, 04:16 PM
Yea like L.A. is such a great revenue maker.....How many team have went out there just to move away cause the nut jobs out there are more into themselves then they are sports. Now if you handed them all mirrors so they could look at themselves while they watch the game it might work. They move to L.A then they will be a bust out there....The may like basketball but that is about it......Rams, Raiders all though L.A> was the answer and look where they are at now......Seem to me the Rams are better off in St. Louis and the Raiders moved back home to Oakland.....Zigi is pipe dreaming if he moved the team, there are certain teams that just should stay where they are cause that is what has help make their identity.....

Marrdro
10-26-2008, 04:22 PM
"Azurel" wrote:


Yea like L.A. is such a great revenue maker.....How many team have went out there just to move away cause the nut jobs out there are more into themselves then they are sports. Now if you handed them all mirrors so they could look at themselves while they watch the game it might work. They move to L.A then they will be a bust out there....The may like basketball but that is about it......Rams, Raiders all though L.A> was the answer and look where they are at now......Seem to me the Rams are better off in St. Louis and the Raiders moved back home to Oakland.....Zigi is pipe dreaming if he moved the team, there are certain teams that just should stay where they are cause that is what has help make their identity.....

There are other venues that could/would be willing to support a team my friend.

BBQ Platypus
10-26-2008, 08:57 PM
What I don't get is why they didn't support a new stadium back when times were good and the Vikings were winning - you know, right when Red took over.

BadlandsVikings
10-26-2008, 10:16 PM
The team will be missed

NaughtyWord
10-27-2008, 01:21 AM
I'd become one of those guys without a favorite team.



I sure as hell am not going to become a stinkin' Bears, Lions, or Packer fan!

DeathtoDenny
10-27-2008, 02:08 AM
I'm tired of this. The MSFC will hand the Vikings the Metrodome when the Gophers and Twins are out. That means there is no lease; Vikings will own the Stadium as of October 2009. Chill out.
As for Los Angeles, Goodell the nut wants to expand the league with two expansions in LA and probably one in London, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...

Marrdro
10-27-2008, 05:10 AM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


I'm tired of this. The MSFC will hand the Vikings the Metrodome when the Gophers and Twins are out. That means there is no lease; Vikings will own the Stadium as of October 2009. Chill out.
As for Los Angeles, Goodell the nut wants to expand the league with two expansions in LA and probably one in London, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...

Why oh why will owning the Metrodome fix things?
It will still be the same limited luxury suites and poor facilities (been there twice, stood in piss both times) that doesn't generate the revenue needed these days.

It won't take much for the league and the owner to move the team as I am sure they are both tired of the financial burden that is called the Metrodome.

NodakPaul
10-27-2008, 06:39 AM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


I'm tired of this. The MSFC will hand the Vikings the Metrodome when the Gophers and Twins are out. That means there is no lease; Vikings will own the Stadium as of October 2009. Chill out.
As for Los Angeles, Goodell the nut wants to expand the league with two expansions in LA and probably one in London, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...


What?
Did I miss something?
When was it ever decided that the MSFC will give the Metrodome to the Vikings?
The most I ever heard was that any revenue generated from the destruction of the dome would be used toward a new stadium.

Zeus
10-27-2008, 07:46 AM
"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=

Purple Floyd
10-27-2008, 10:41 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly

Vikeman
10-31-2008, 01:18 PM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


I'm tired of this. The MSFC will hand the Vikings the Metrodome when the Gophers and Twins are out. That means there is no lease; Vikings will own the Stadium as of October 2009. Chill out.
As for Los Angeles, Goodell the nut wants to expand the league with two expansions in LA and probably one in London, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...


Yeah, so much for the National Football league.
I guess they will have to call it the International Football League--and if they start producing white balls with black spots on them--well, you can count me out!

NodakPaul
10-31-2008, 01:45 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

Zeus
10-31-2008, 01:49 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.


Exactly


t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.


Yeah - but there ARE suites in the Dome that the Vikings would stand to make a huge windfall from if the MSFC wasn't part of the equation.
Yes they're antiquated, but it's not like they don't exist.

=Z=

jmcdon00
10-31-2008, 02:13 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.

BloodyHorns82
10-31-2008, 03:15 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


Sounds like smart business to me.
In order to make money you've got to take advantage where you can...grab the man by the ball-sack and let the greed be known.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. That's how the rich get richer, and it's methods similar to these that probably made their wealth in the first place.
(generalizing, not NFL specific).
Call it the American dream.

jmcdon00
10-31-2008, 03:27 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


Sounds like smart business to me.
In order to make money you've got to take advantage where you can...grab the man by the ball-sack and let the greed be known.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. That's how the rich get richer, and it's methods similar to these that probably made their wealth in the first place.
(generalizing, not NFL specific).
Call it the American dream.

It worked for this yutz.
:'(
http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html

BloodyHorns82
10-31-2008, 03:32 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:






why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


Sounds like smart business to me.
In order to make money you've got to take advantage where you can...grab the man by the ball-sack and let the greed be known.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. That's how the rich get richer, and it's methods similar to these that probably made their wealth in the first place.
(generalizing, not NFL specific).
Call it the American dream.

It worked for this yutz.
:'(
http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html


Call him a yutz if you want...he (or his political connections surrounding him) found a way to make easy millions.


There are reasons why you and I are blue collar shmucks and others like Wilf and Bush make the big bucks.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
Not too many regular Joes get rich.
You need connections and in most cases political influence.

jmcdon00
10-31-2008, 03:42 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:








why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


Sounds like smart business to me.
In order to make money you've got to take advantage where you can...grab the man by the ball-sack and let the greed be known.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. That's how the rich get richer, and it's methods similar to these that probably made their wealth in the first place.
(generalizing, not NFL specific).
Call it the American dream.

It worked for this yutz.
:'(
http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html


Call him a yutz if you want...he (or his political connections surrounding him) found a way to make easy millions.


There are reasons why you and I are blue collar shmucks and others like Wilf and Bush make the big bucks.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
Not too many regular Joes get rich.
You need connections and in most cases political influence.

I agree completely. Hopefully Minnesota can lead the way in stopping this form of corruption.

NodakPaul
10-31-2008, 03:44 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


No, it is absolutely true.
The teams all get equal parts of the revenue sharing money, but this is only about half of a team's revenue.
The rest comes from things like suites, club seats, concessions, parking, etc.
The Vikings rank dead last in total revenue, and have for quite some years.

There is no cooking of the books at all, so I am confused where that come from?
???

BTW, the reason shared revenue exists is for the same reason as the salary cap - to keep the field competitive.
But the cap numbers have gotten so much higher than the shared revenue numbers (because teams built newer stadiums with more non-shared revenue) that a team simply can't be competitive with shared revenue alone.
BTW - non-shared revenue also went into the now defunct G3 stadium fund. The NFL's G3 program subsidized stadium construction or renovation, and the loans were repaid with the visiting teams' share of club-seat revenue once the project was finished.
That is one of the reasons the Vikings were never approved for stadium renovations out of the G3.
They simply wouldn't generate enough money to ever repay the loan.

BloodyHorns82
10-31-2008, 03:46 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:










why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


Sounds like smart business to me.
In order to make money you've got to take advantage where you can...grab the man by the ball-sack and let the greed be known.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. That's how the rich get richer, and it's methods similar to these that probably made their wealth in the first place.
(generalizing, not NFL specific).
Call it the American dream.

It worked for this yutz.
:'(
http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html


Call him a yutz if you want...he (or his political connections surrounding him) found a way to make easy millions.


There are reasons why you and I are blue collar shmucks and others like Wilf and Bush make the big bucks.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
Not too many regular Joes get rich.
You need connections and in most cases political influence.

I agree completely. Hopefully Minnesota can lead the way in stopping this form of corruption.


If that means losing the Vikings I'm not sure I agree... (I guess that would make me corrupt on some level)

Plus, lets be honest - The state not paying for this stadium is not going to end any form of corruption.

But yes, it is certainly a form of corruption, no doubt.
I'm willing to bet it's been happening on a regular basis since even pre 1776.

BadlandsVikings
10-31-2008, 03:48 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Newlamc.jpg

V4L
10-31-2008, 03:50 PM
"BadlandsViking" wrote:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Newlamc.jpg



I like this still

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/minnesota/minneapolis_metrodome1.jpg

BadlandsVikings
10-31-2008, 03:55 PM
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h63/westvirginiavikings/1032217870_d8e75744dc.jpg

C Mac D
10-31-2008, 04:01 PM
"BadlandsViking" wrote:


http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h63/westvirginiavikings/1032217870_d8e75744dc.jpg


You're ants at a picnic.

jmcdon00
10-31-2008, 04:02 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:












why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


Sounds like smart business to me.
In order to make money you've got to take advantage where you can...grab the man by the ball-sack and let the greed be known.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. That's how the rich get richer, and it's methods similar to these that probably made their wealth in the first place.
(generalizing, not NFL specific).
Call it the American dream.

It worked for this yutz.
:'(
http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html


Call him a yutz if you want...he (or his political connections surrounding him) found a way to make easy millions.


There are reasons why you and I are blue collar shmucks and others like Wilf and Bush make the big bucks.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
Not too many regular Joes get rich.
You need connections and in most cases political influence.

I agree completely. Hopefully Minnesota can lead the way in stopping this form of corruption.


If that means losing the Vikings I'm not sure I agree... (I guess that would make me corrupt on some level)

Plus, lets be honest - The state not paying for this stadium is not going to end any form of corruption.

But yes, it is certainly a form of corruption, no doubt.
I'm willing to bet it's been happening on a regular basis since even pre 1776.



Yeah if it means losing the vikings I don't know either.
The state not paying for a stadium will end one small piece of legislative corruption, it will not end all corruption or even be the last time someone gets rich off a publicly funded stadium, but if others follow our path it could eventually force(they won't do it unless they have to because they are getting billions, I wouldn't pass that up voluntarily either) the NFL into changing the way they do business(yes i believe it's entirely possible the nfl could still function with out government subsidies).

BloodyHorns82
10-31-2008, 04:12 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:














why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


Sounds like smart business to me.
In order to make money you've got to take advantage where you can...grab the man by the ball-sack and let the greed be known.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. That's how the rich get richer, and it's methods similar to these that probably made their wealth in the first place.
(generalizing, not NFL specific).
Call it the American dream.

It worked for this yutz.
:'(
http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html


Call him a yutz if you want...he (or his political connections surrounding him) found a way to make easy millions.


There are reasons why you and I are blue collar shmucks and others like Wilf and Bush make the big bucks.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
Not too many regular Joes get rich.
You need connections and in most cases political influence.

I agree completely. Hopefully Minnesota can lead the way in stopping this form of corruption.


If that means losing the Vikings I'm not sure I agree... (I guess that would make me corrupt on some level)

Plus, lets be honest - The state not paying for this stadium is not going to end any form of corruption.

But yes, it is certainly a form of corruption, no doubt.
I'm willing to bet it's been happening on a regular basis since even pre 1776.



Yeah if it means losing the vikings I don't know either.
The state not paying for a stadium will end one small piece of legislative corruption, it will not end all corruption or even be the last time someone gets rich off a publicly funded stadium, but if others follow our path it could eventually force(they won't do it unless they have to because they are getting billions, I wouldn't pass that up voluntarily either) the NFL into changing the way they do business(yes i believe it's entirely possible the nfl could still function with out government subsidies).


The NFL is so full of greed on multiple levels it makes me sick.
Why I love and throw money in their direction I have no idea.
We bitch about how bad they are yet we line their pockets.
Season tickets, Away game tickets, jerseys, the list goes on and on.
Yet almost all of us who bitch, are guilty of buying into it.


Oh well, I still love the Vikings.

C Mac D
10-31-2008, 04:17 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


The NFL is so full of greed on multiple levels it makes me sick.
Why I love and throw money in their direction I have no idea.
We bitch about how bad they are yet we line their pockets.
Season tickets, Away game tickets, jerseys, the list goes on and on.
Yet almost all of us who bitch, are guilty of buying into it.


Oh well, I still love the Vikings.


Yes... I fully agree with you. The NFL may be headed the same direction as the NBA.

Just a side note I found funny while arguing with a friend the other day:

From 2002-2007, Will & Grace had better ratings than the NBA finals.... even if you add the 0.0 rating for the two years Will & Grace was off the air (2006-2007), it still has higher ratings than the NBA finals.

Judge Judy doubles the NBA's regular season games audience.

If the NFL continues the way it is currently (Goodell fining every player for every minute infraction, hiding evidence of cheating... etc...), I don't plan on watching the NFL much longer.

I can still root for the Vikes from a distance.

jmcdon00
10-31-2008, 04:23 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:
















why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


Sounds like smart business to me.
In order to make money you've got to take advantage where you can...grab the man by the ball-sack and let the greed be known.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. That's how the rich get richer, and it's methods similar to these that probably made their wealth in the first place.
(generalizing, not NFL specific).
Call it the American dream.

It worked for this yutz.
:'(
http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html


Call him a yutz if you want...he (or his political connections surrounding him) found a way to make easy millions.


There are reasons why you and I are blue collar shmucks and others like Wilf and Bush make the big bucks.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
Not too many regular Joes get rich.
You need connections and in most cases political influence.

I agree completely. Hopefully Minnesota can lead the way in stopping this form of corruption.


If that means losing the Vikings I'm not sure I agree... (I guess that would make me corrupt on some level)

Plus, lets be honest - The state not paying for this stadium is not going to end any form of corruption.

But yes, it is certainly a form of corruption, no doubt.
I'm willing to bet it's been happening on a regular basis since even pre 1776.



Yeah if it means losing the vikings I don't know either.
The state not paying for a stadium will end one small piece of legislative corruption, it will not end all corruption or even be the last time someone gets rich off a publicly funded stadium, but if others follow our path it could eventually force(they won't do it unless they have to because they are getting billions, I wouldn't pass that up voluntarily either) the NFL into changing the way they do business(yes i believe it's entirely possible the nfl could still function with out government subsidies).


The NFL is so full of greed on multiple levels it makes me sick.
Why I love and throw money in their direction I have no idea.
We bitch about how bad they are yet we line their pockets.
Season tickets, Away game tickets, jerseys, the list goes on and on.
Yet almost all of us who bitch, are guilty of buying into it.


Oh well, I still love the Vikings.

I don't really blame the Vikings or NFL for asking for the money,that's business as usual. I blame the government/politicians that represent me for giving it to them.

PackSux!
10-31-2008, 05:54 PM
Call me crazy but i dont think the wilf's will ever move the team.
I see the Wilf's having big plans for Minneapolis and that dont just include a stadium.

jmcdon00
10-31-2008, 08:32 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


No, it is absolutely true.
The teams all get equal parts of the revenue sharing money, but this is only about half of a team's revenue.
The rest comes from things like suites, club seats, concessions, parking, etc.
The Vikings rank dead last in total revenue, and have for quite some years.

There is no cooking of the books at all, so I am confused where that come from?
???

BTW, the reason shared revenue exists is for the same reason as the salary cap - to keep the field competitive.
But the cap numbers have gotten so much higher than the shared revenue numbers (because teams built newer stadiums with more non-shared revenue) that a team simply can't be competitive with shared revenue alone.
BTW - non-shared revenue also went into the now defunct G3 stadium fund. The NFL's G3 program subsidized stadium construction or renovation, and the loans were repaid with the visiting teams' share of club-seat revenue once the project was finished.
That is one of the reasons the Vikings were never approved for stadium renovations out of the G3.
They simply wouldn't generate enough money to ever repay the loan.

I was a little confused on that, hence the question mark. I'm gonna give you that one, I'm not sure that changes the fact the NFL is growing rapidly and everyone involved is making more money each year.
According to forbes the vikings have operating income of 18.9mill a year. Also they are worth 839million almost 200million more than wilf paid for them two years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
Maybe Zygi doesn't really need welfare.
Just found this site that does a good job explaining shared revenue.

faninphx
10-31-2008, 10:32 PM
I have a few small suggestions for the new stadium:

1.
Why don't they nix the whole retractable roof thing?
I've seen the monetary breakdown of the stadium and we could easily skim off about 100 million in construction costs.
Minnesota is not exactly known for nice weather anyways.

2.
Why don't the Vikings issue bonds?
Everybody knows this stadium would make money in the long run.
I'm sure there would be plenty of people looking to make a handsome profit 10-15 years down the road.
I know I would.
The could probably raise 250 million easily.

3.
Bake Sale!

Purple Floyd
11-01-2008, 08:21 AM
"faninphx" wrote:


I have a few small suggestions for the new stadium:

1.
Why don't they nix the whole retractable roof thing?
I've seen the monetary breakdown of the stadium and we could easily skim off about 100 million in construction costs.
Minnesota is not exactly known for nice weather anyways.

2.
Why don't the Vikings issue bonds?
Everybody knows this stadium would make money in the long run.
I'm sure there would be plenty of people looking to make a handsome profit 10-15 years down the road.
I know I would.
The could probably raise 250 million easily.

3.
Bake Sale!


I have been bringing up the first 2 points repeatedly but the team wants free money and they want the state to pay a significant part of it which is another reason the price is so much higher than it needs to be.

As to the third, the bake sale is interesting. I have been floating the notion of a casino/stadium combination built in Shakopee that would pay for itself quickly without any public money.

singersp
11-01-2008, 08:51 AM
It is difficult to imagine Minnesota taxpayers supporting Viking stadium (http://hometownsource.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6810&Itemid=1)

HEINZMAN EDIT
hometownsource.com



Friday, 31 October 2008

With two new sports stadiums being built in Minneapolis, it’s difficult to imagine how Minnesota taxpayers will be willing to pay for a third one for the Minnesota Vikings....

singersp
11-01-2008, 08:54 AM
Vikings still working on stadium proposal to bring to Legislature (http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2008/10/31/4245/vikings_still_working_on_stadium_proposal_to_bring_to_legislature)

minnpost.com

As tough as the political/fiscal landscape appears, Vikings
owner Zygi Wilf keeps plugging away at a plan to bring a new stadium proposal to the 2009 Legislature....

NodakPaul
11-01-2008, 09:07 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:






why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


No, it is absolutely true.
The teams all get equal parts of the revenue sharing money, but this is only about half of a team's revenue.
The rest comes from things like suites, club seats, concessions, parking, etc.
The Vikings rank dead last in total revenue, and have for quite some years.

There is no cooking of the books at all, so I am confused where that come from?
???

BTW, the reason shared revenue exists is for the same reason as the salary cap - to keep the field competitive.
But the cap numbers have gotten so much higher than the shared revenue numbers (because teams built newer stadiums with more non-shared revenue) that a team simply can't be competitive with shared revenue alone.
BTW - non-shared revenue also went into the now defunct G3 stadium fund. The NFL's G3 program subsidized stadium construction or renovation, and the loans were repaid with the visiting teams' share of club-seat revenue once the project was finished.
That is one of the reasons the Vikings were never approved for stadium renovations out of the G3.
They simply wouldn't generate enough money to ever repay the loan.

I was a little confused on that, hence the question mark. I'm gonna give you that one, I'm not sure that changes the fact the NFL is growing rapidly and everyone involved is making more money each year.
According to forbes the vikings have operating income of 18.9mill a year. Also they are worth 839million almost 200million more than wilf paid for them two years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
Maybe Zygi doesn't really need welfare.
Just found this site that does a good job explaining shared revenue.


Wilf and his partners paid $600 million for the Vikings, not $200. :)

But I do agree with you in the fact that the Vikings don't need welfare.
I also don't look at a new stadium as welfare, I look at it as a partnership.
One that the city and/or state enters in with the Vikings to ensure their continued operation in Minnesota.

SamOchoCinco
11-01-2008, 10:10 AM
we are staying in minnesota with the wilfs

jmcdon00
11-01-2008, 02:49 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:








why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



t also has a lot to do with the number of luxury seats (or lack thereof).
Standard seats are considered part of revenue sharing in the NFL.
Any money from it is put into a pool that is divided up equally among all teams.
Luxury seats, like suites and club seats, do not fall into the revenue sharing category.
The teams get to keep all the money they make from them.

If the Vikings could get out of the crappy lease with the MSFC it would help - but not be the answer to the problem.

So when everyone says the Vikings have the lowest revenue that is not really true? They just have the lowest luxury suit level? To me that is just a large corporation(the nfl) cooking the books in order to get the government to contribute to a stadium. They have been doing this for a long time and the nfl has successfully convinced politicians to subsidize their already very profitable operations.
The Vikings are looking for a bailout, don't go complaining about bailouts to the auto, airline and banking industries and then support this bailout, they are the same thing except the NFL
planned it all along, and is in no financial trouble.


No, it is absolutely true.
The teams all get equal parts of the revenue sharing money, but this is only about half of a team's revenue.
The rest comes from things like suites, club seats, concessions, parking, etc.
The Vikings rank dead last in total revenue, and have for quite some years.

There is no cooking of the books at all, so I am confused where that come from?
???

BTW, the reason shared revenue exists is for the same reason as the salary cap - to keep the field competitive.
But the cap numbers have gotten so much higher than the shared revenue numbers (because teams built newer stadiums with more non-shared revenue) that a team simply can't be competitive with shared revenue alone.
BTW - non-shared revenue also went into the now defunct G3 stadium fund. The NFL's G3 program subsidized stadium construction or renovation, and the loans were repaid with the visiting teams' share of club-seat revenue once the project was finished.
That is one of the reasons the Vikings were never approved for stadium renovations out of the G3.
They simply wouldn't generate enough money to ever repay the loan.

I was a little confused on that, hence the question mark. I'm gonna give you that one, I'm not sure that changes the fact the NFL is growing rapidly and everyone involved is making more money each year.
According to forbes the vikings have operating income of 18.9mill a year. Also they are worth 839million almost 200million more than wilf paid for them two years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income_2.html
Maybe Zygi doesn't really need welfare.
Just found this site that does a good job explaining shared revenue.


Wilf and his partners paid $600 million for the Vikings, not $200. :)

But I do agree with you in the fact that the Vikings don't need welfare.
I also don't look at a new stadium as welfare, I look at it as a partnership.
One that the city and/or state enters in with the Vikings to ensure their continued operation in Minnesota.

I thought wilf had paid $650million, guess that means that he has increased his wealth by almost 250million in just 2 years.
30% increase in value in 2 years is not that bad, especially when they are also making money from the team(19million in 07).

shortmon
11-01-2008, 03:21 PM
The South Dakota Vikings...
That has a nice ring to it!

SharperImage42
11-01-2008, 05:52 PM
Los Angeles Vikings come on home baby!!!!

it only makes sense Lakers came here from Minneapolis, let the vikings too, ill bleed purple and gold all day

Plus, no offense, no one wants to come play for Minnesota, now if were in LA, im sure free agents would be dying to sign.

singersp
11-01-2008, 06:45 PM
"faninphx" wrote:


I have a few small suggestions for the new stadium:

1.
Why don't they nix the whole retractable roof thing?
I've seen the monetary breakdown of the stadium and we could easily skim off about 100 million in construction costs.
Minnesota is not exactly known for nice weather anyways.

2.
Why don't the Vikings issue bonds?
Everybody knows this stadium would make money in the long run.
I'm sure there would be plenty of people looking to make a handsome profit 10-15 years down the road.
I know I would.
The could probably raise 250 million easily.

3.
Bake Sale!


Which is why they need the retractable.

How much revenue do you figure would be lost by not having a retractable? I think a lot more than the 100 mil cost.

Being able to use the stadium for non-football events during non-football dates is a must.

jmcdon00
11-01-2008, 07:04 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"faninphx" wrote:


I have a few small suggestions for the new stadium:

1.
Why don't they nix the whole retractable roof thing?
I've seen the monetary breakdown of the stadium and we could easily skim off about 100 million in construction costs.
Minnesota is not exactly known for nice weather anyways.

2.
Why don't the Vikings issue bonds?
Everybody knows this stadium would make money in the long run.
I'm sure there would be plenty of people looking to make a handsome profit 10-15 years down the road.
I know I would.
The could probably raise 250 million easily.

3.
Bake Sale!


Which is why they need the retractable.

How much revenue do you figure would be lost by not having a retractable? I think a lot more than the 100 mil cost.

Being able to use the stadium for non-football events during non-football dates is a must.

I think he is saying it should have a roof on it, not too many events need an open stadium and if they do we have a new twins ballpark and gopher stadium that could handle those events.

StillPurple
11-01-2008, 07:38 PM
After recent league reallignment, I really don't see the Vikings moving anywhere. After all, the NFL really pushed geographic reallignment. So where would the NFC NORTH Vikings move to ?

BTW, L.A. has a history of losing NFL teams (Rams, Raiders).

Chazz
11-01-2008, 07:55 PM
"shortmon" wrote:


The South Dakota Vikings...
That has a nice ring to it!



Bring em to Sioux Falls baby!!

;)

BigEasyViking
11-02-2008, 01:50 AM
"Chazz" wrote:


"shortmon" wrote:


The South Dakota Vikings...
That has a nice ring to it!



Bring em to Sioux Falls baby!!

;)


That's silly man!
I'm from So Dak and if they can't make enough money to survive in Minny then how would they possibly survive in Sioux falls?
Minny/St. Paul only have the population that the entire state of So Dak has.

midgensa
11-02-2008, 02:06 AM
"SharperImage42" wrote:


Los Angeles Vikings come on home baby!!!!

it only makes sense Lakers came here from Minneapolis, let the vikings too, ill bleed purple and gold all day

Plus, no offense, no one wants to come play for Minnesota, now if were in LA, im sure free agents would be dying to sign.


Yeah ... what a great point!
I mean ... hell when the Rams and Raiders were there ALL of the players signed for them too. Hell, I mean the Rams went to ONE Super Bowl. It was awesome. And after free agency started to really invade the NFL in the early 90's they were able to lure so many great players that they went 23-57 from 1990-1994 before they said screw this and left.
And the Raiders ... wow ... what a dominant franchise they were in L.A. They did manage to WIN a Super Bowl (so that means ONE Super Bowl title and TWO appearances for L.A. teams in 42 seasons combined between the two!).
While both teams had some success in L.A. ... the L.A. market has NEVER supported football and often struggles in its support of baseball and hockey. They have NO reason to get another NFL franchise, though they likely will.
Most fans in L.A. are perfectly happy with the Trojans being the top team in town. Moving the Vikes from Minnesota because they cannot make money makes some sense, moving them to L.A. so they can continue to not make money, like every other football team ever put there, makes no sense at all.

DeathtoDenny
11-02-2008, 02:12 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


why do we generate the lowest revenue?
The stadium is filled right?



The lease with the Metropolitan Sports Commission (MSC) gives the MSC most of the extra revenue from suite rentals, concessions, what limited parking the Dome has, etc.

=Z=



Exactly



Actually, the Vikings "own" the Suites, kind of like owning a condo, as well as the Vikings Lounge (Mirasou Sun Room during Twins), both Terrace Suites and the Miller Lite Party Deck. A problem with revenue there is that newer stadiums have twice the suites and ALL have bathrooms (unlike the dome, which has four containing bathrooms, 112B&C, 111AB, 107B and 106B). And if you'd like to speak to Wilf, he's in suite 107B near the football press box.
I'm not sure what exactly the deal is between the MSFC and the Vikings, but their deal with the Twins was literally pennies on the dollar for every hot dog, jersey and bobblehead sold, and I can't imagine the Vikes deal being any better.
Everyone at the dome hates "The Commission."

ConnecticutViking
11-02-2008, 06:39 AM
"Vikeman" wrote:


"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


I'm tired of this. The MSFC will hand the Vikings the Metrodome when the Gophers and Twins are out. That means there is no lease; Vikings will own the Stadium as of October 2009. Chill out.
As for Los Angeles, Goodell the nut wants to expand the league with two expansions in LA and probably one in London, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...


Yeah, so much for the National Football league.
I guess they will have to call it the International Football League--and if they start producing white balls with black spots on them--well, you can count me out!


Moving Overseas would be a nightmare and cost teams a fortune (travel,etc.).
Not to mention there is not much of a fan base in Europe.
Canada has it's own football league.
Maybe another U.S. city.
LA won't provide a new stadium and the colliseum is antiquated.


Moving to a new city requires its own problems... You see the Vikings have something these other cities don't... A fan base!
This is something that is difficult to drum up.
It talkes a lot of marketing etc. to get fans/businesses to come and support a new franchise.
You see this with a lot of sports.
In both Hockey and Baseball (Hurricanes, Marlins, etc.) new teams or moved teams have a good turnout for the first year, but the venues are relatively empty now and the Hurricanes have been pretty competetive/Marlins have even won World Series.


NFL expansion has only worked in the Football Hotbeds of the South with the exceptions of St.Louis and Indy (Carolina, Tennessee and Jacksonville).
Other franchises have either moved to older older NFL cities where the fan base has remained (Cleveland,Baltimore, Houston). I don't know about any other U.S. city that would purchase a new stadium and have a fan base ready to go????

Again, LA fans won't support the Vikes.
They never supported the Raiders or the Rams.
They leave Dodger games in the fifth inning, and Clipper/King games are a joke.
The only teams that they have supported religiously have been the Lakers (another transplanted Minn. team) and USC which has a long rich history and a student body.

dfosterf
11-02-2008, 07:36 AM
As a public service to my purple friends....

From the GB Packers Official Website:

How long is the waiting list for season tickets? How do I sign up?
The season ticket waiting list has more than 57,000 names. The Packers tell fans adding their names that the average wait is 30 years.


OK, you guys might have a bit of trouble getting your tickets, but if you go ahead and sign up any of your newborn, they should be good to go by the time they reach retirement age, what with the influx of former Vikes fans added to the list... I'd go ahead and bust the move before your fellow fans figure it out.
Wardrobe tip... purple jerseys are frowned upon at Lambeau.
;D
Just kiddin' ... I don't want to see the Vikes moved, I hope it works out.

Purple Floyd
11-02-2008, 09:12 AM
With the economy like it is I don't think too many cities are going to be throwing free money at sports franchises to lure them away from their current home. A quick check didn't produce a very long list of states with a budget surplus.

sdfrenchy
11-02-2008, 05:09 PM
I don't think there is another area that has an NFL ready stadium that could support a team. With credit markets the way they are it will be hard to get funding in Minnesota or anywhere else. I think that improves the odds of the vikings staying in Minnesota because they do have a fan-base.

DeathtoDenny
11-02-2008, 07:09 PM
"ConnecticutViking" wrote:


"Vikeman" wrote:


"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


I'm tired of this. The MSFC will hand the Vikings the Metrodome when the Gophers and Twins are out. That means there is no lease; Vikings will own the Stadium as of October 2009. Chill out.
As for Los Angeles, Goodell the nut wants to expand the league with two expansions in LA and probably one in London, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...


Yeah, so much for the National Football league.
I guess they will have to call it the International Football League--and if they start producing white balls with black spots on them--well, you can count me out!


Moving Overseas would be a nightmare and cost teams a fortune (travel,etc.).
Not to mention there is not much of a fan base in Europe.
Canada has it's own football league.
Maybe another U.S. city.
LA won't provide a new stadium and the colliseum is antiquated.



Moving to a new city requires its own problems... You see the Vikings have something these other cities don't... A fan base!
This is something that is difficult to drum up.
It talkes a lot of marketing etc. to get fans/businesses to come and support a new franchise.
You see this with a lot of sports.
In both Hockey and Baseball (Hurricanes, Marlins, etc.) new teams or moved teams have a good turnout for the first year, but the venues are relatively empty now and the Hurricanes have been pretty competetive/Marlins have even won World Series.


NFL expansion has only worked in the Football Hotbeds of the South with the exceptions of St.Louis and Indy (Carolina, Tennessee and Jacksonville).
Other franchises have either moved to older older NFL cities where the fan base has remained (Cleveland,Baltimore, Houston). I don't know about any other U.S. city that would purchase a new stadium and have a fan base ready to go????

Again, LA fans won't support the Vikes.
They never supported the Raiders or the Rams.
They leave Dodger games in the fifth inning, and Clipper/King games are a joke.
The only teams that they have supported religiously have been the Lakers (another transplanted Minn. team) and USC which has a long rich history and a student body.



London is a 5 hour flight from the east coast, less than a flight from JFK to LAX.
1. There is a reason the NFL Europe is now gone with Goodell
2. There is a reason one regular season game is selling out Wembley 2 seasons straight
3. When I lived in Tonga, everone watched the Superbowl. Was the Rugby world cup on Television in America? No. England would flip at the chance of an NFL team and it's market? 7,500,000 people.
With all the globalization going on, it will eventually happen.
And the CFL is like minor league football; any Canadian metro would love a real team.

Purple Floyd
11-02-2008, 07:11 PM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


"ConnecticutViking" wrote:


"Vikeman" wrote:


"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


I'm tired of this. The MSFC will hand the Vikings the Metrodome when the Gophers and Twins are out. That means there is no lease; Vikings will own the Stadium as of October 2009. Chill out.
As for Los Angeles, Goodell the nut wants to expand the league with two expansions in LA and probably one in London, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...


Yeah, so much for the National Football league.
I guess they will have to call it the International Football League--and if they start producing white balls with black spots on them--well, you can count me out!


Moving Overseas would be a nightmare and cost teams a fortune (travel,etc.).
Not to mention there is not much of a fan base in Europe.
Canada has it's own football league.
Maybe another U.S. city.
LA won't provide a new stadium and the colliseum is antiquated.



Moving to a new city requires its own problems... You see the Vikings have something these other cities don't... A fan base!
This is something that is difficult to drum up.
It talkes a lot of marketing etc. to get fans/businesses to come and support a new franchise.
You see this with a lot of sports.
In both Hockey and Baseball (Hurricanes, Marlins, etc.) new teams or moved teams have a good turnout for the first year, but the venues are relatively empty now and the Hurricanes have been pretty competetive/Marlins have even won World Series.


NFL expansion has only worked in the Football Hotbeds of the South with the exceptions of St.Louis and Indy (Carolina, Tennessee and Jacksonville).
Other franchises have either moved to older older NFL cities where the fan base has remained (Cleveland,Baltimore, Houston). I don't know about any other U.S. city that would purchase a new stadium and have a fan base ready to go????

Again, LA fans won't support the Vikes.
They never supported the Raiders or the Rams.
They leave Dodger games in the fifth inning, and Clipper/King games are a joke.
The only teams that they have supported religiously have been the Lakers (another transplanted Minn. team) and USC which has a long rich history and a student body.



London is a 5 hour flight from the east coast, less than a flight from JFK to LAX.
1. There is a reason the NFL Europe is now gone with Goodell
2. There is a reason one regular season game is selling out Wembley 2 seasons straight
3. When I lived in Tonga, everone watched the Superbowl. Was the Rugby world cup on Television in America? No. England would flip at the chance of an NFL team and it's market? 7,500,000 people.
With all the globalization going on, it will eventually happen.
And the CFL is like minor league football; any Canadian metro would love a real team.


How about from Seattle to London?

vikesfargo
11-02-2008, 08:44 PM
Let's face it. The Vikings are counting down the days until they can move. The PC legislators would rather spend money on free housing and welfare checks for ex-felons than support the economy through football.

I personally don't care what Minnesota politicians do anymore. I'll still cheer for the Vikings no matter where they move. Of course, if they move to Los Angeles and become the Los Angeles Toufou-eaters, that's going too far for me.

There's always DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket.

Purple Floyd
11-02-2008, 08:49 PM
In the end it is about money and there is more revenue to be made in LA with a team than there is in Minnesota.

But if they do move there it won't be into the proposed stadium being circulated. Wilf is a developer and he certainly is going to do the developing himself rather than move into a place somebody else built. He isn't planning on making as much off of the team as he is on the peripheral businesses and properties that will go around the stadium.

ConnecticutViking
11-03-2008, 09:28 AM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


"ConnecticutViking" wrote:


"Vikeman" wrote:


"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


I'm tired of this. The MSFC will hand the Vikings the Metrodome when the Gophers and Twins are out. That means there is no lease; Vikings will own the Stadium as of October 2009. Chill out.
As for Los Angeles, Goodell the nut wants to expand the league with two expansions in LA and probably one in London, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...


Yeah, so much for the National Football league.
I guess they will have to call it the International Football League--and if they start producing white balls with black spots on them--well, you can count me out!


Moving Overseas would be a nightmare and cost teams a fortune (travel,etc.).
Not to mention there is not much of a fan base in Europe.
Canada has it's own football league.
Maybe another U.S. city.
LA won't provide a new stadium and the colliseum is antiquated.



Moving to a new city requires its own problems... You see the Vikings have something these other cities don't... A fan base!
This is something that is difficult to drum up.
It talkes a lot of marketing etc. to get fans/businesses to come and support a new franchise.
You see this with a lot of sports.
In both Hockey and Baseball (Hurricanes, Marlins, etc.) new teams or moved teams have a good turnout for the first year, but the venues are relatively empty now and the Hurricanes have been pretty competetive/Marlins have even won World Series.


NFL expansion has only worked in the Football Hotbeds of the South with the exceptions of St.Louis and Indy (Carolina, Tennessee and Jacksonville).
Other franchises have either moved to older older NFL cities where the fan base has remained (Cleveland,Baltimore, Houston). I don't know about any other U.S. city that would purchase a new stadium and have a fan base ready to go????

Again, LA fans won't support the Vikes.
They never supported the Raiders or the Rams.
They leave Dodger games in the fifth inning, and Clipper/King games are a joke.
The only teams that they have supported religiously have been the Lakers (another transplanted Minn. team) and USC which has a long rich history and a student body.



London is a 5 hour flight from the east coast, less than a flight from JFK to LAX.
1. There is a reason the NFL Europe is now gone with Goodell
2. There is a reason one regular season game is selling out Wembley 2 seasons straight
3. When I lived in Tonga, everone watched the Superbowl. Was the Rugby world cup on Television in America? No. England would flip at the chance of an NFL team and it's market? 7,500,000 people.
With all the globalization going on, it will eventually happen.
And the CFL is like minor league football; any Canadian metro would love a real team.



I don't think an 10 or 11 hour flight from LA to London is viable.
Travel costs for flights and lodging would be outrageous.
Not to mention the dollar is so weak right now.
I believe you are right about Canada wanting their own team, but this would have to be a domed stadium or one with a retractable roof, which is very expensive and the US dollar is weak again...I mean I really don't have the pulse on Canada, I do know the Expos didn't last and the Blue Jays don't draw well.
Winnipeg Jets failed.
Canadians and Maple Leafs have been around forever.
I don't know, just hope it doesn't happen.

vikings4life33
11-03-2008, 12:05 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Can we not resign the lease?

Idk much about this but I dont think the Dome is that bad.. Obviously it doesnt bring in much revenue but I would rather have that then the Vikes to be the L.A Vikings

yeah i live in L.A. and i would hate for them to move down here. it would ruin this team. i would slap myself seeing all the gangsters wearing vikings stuff.

Bleedin Purple
11-03-2008, 02:51 PM
"vikings4life33" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Can we not resign the lease?

Idk much about this but I dont think the Dome is that bad.. Obviously it doesnt bring in much revenue but I would rather have that then the Vikes to be the L.A Vikings

yeah i live in L.A. and i would hate for them to move down here. it would ruin this team. i would slap myself seeing all the gangsters wearing vikings stuff.



hahaha I completely agree with you man, I also live in L.A. and you dont see many Viking fans around here.. If they moved to Los Angeles everyone would just think I am some bandwagon fan even though Ive been a Vikings fan ever since I started watching football..

I would like an expansions team in L.A. because I really do think L.A. deserves a team. You cant say people here dont like sports, look at the Dodgers, Angels, Ducks, Kings, Lakers, Galaxy, Sparks, on and on...The only reason people didnt support the last two L.A. teams was because they were horrible... Here you see about 75% raiders jerseys, and 25% of the rest of the league.. Vikings should stay in MN while L.A. gets their own expansion team, then Id have two teams to cheer for. ;D

AngloVike
11-03-2008, 03:08 PM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


"ConnecticutViking" wrote:


"Vikeman" wrote:


"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


I'm tired of this. The MSFC will hand the Vikings the Metrodome when the Gophers and Twins are out. That means there is no lease; Vikings will own the Stadium as of October 2009. Chill out.
As for Los Angeles, Goodell the nut wants to expand the league with two expansions in LA and probably one in London, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...


Yeah, so much for the National Football league.
I guess they will have to call it the International Football League--and if they start producing white balls with black spots on them--well, you can count me out!


Moving Overseas would be a nightmare and cost teams a fortune (travel,etc.).
Not to mention there is not much of a fan base in Europe.
Canada has it's own football league.
Maybe another U.S. city.
LA won't provide a new stadium and the colliseum is antiquated.



Moving to a new city requires its own problems... You see the Vikings have something these other cities don't... A fan base!
This is something that is difficult to drum up.
It talkes a lot of marketing etc. to get fans/businesses to come and support a new franchise.
You see this with a lot of sports.
In both Hockey and Baseball (Hurricanes, Marlins, etc.) new teams or moved teams have a good turnout for the first year, but the venues are relatively empty now and the Hurricanes have been pretty competetive/Marlins have even won World Series.


NFL expansion has only worked in the Football Hotbeds of the South with the exceptions of St.Louis and Indy (Carolina, Tennessee and Jacksonville).
Other franchises have either moved to older older NFL cities where the fan base has remained (Cleveland,Baltimore, Houston). I don't know about any other U.S. city that would purchase a new stadium and have a fan base ready to go????

Again, LA fans won't support the Vikes.
They never supported the Raiders or the Rams.
They leave Dodger games in the fifth inning, and Clipper/King games are a joke.
The only teams that they have supported religiously have been the Lakers (another transplanted Minn. team) and USC which has a long rich history and a student body.



London is a 5 hour flight from the east coast, less than a flight from JFK to LAX.
1. There is a reason the NFL Europe is now gone with Goodell
2. There is a reason one regular season game is selling out Wembley 2 seasons straight
3. When I lived in Tonga, everone watched the Superbowl. Was the Rugby world cup on Television in America? No. England would flip at the chance of an NFL team and it's market? 7,500,000 people.
With all the globalization going on, it will eventually happen.
And the CFL is like minor league football; any Canadian metro would love a real team.



Just to clarify some things :
East coast to London is a minimum 7 hrs flight on average
1. The reason the NFLE folded is that it wasn't profitable - fans didn't want to pay money to watch third string players. Thats not Goodell thats the owners and business considerations
2. The reason for selling out games at Wembley is easy. It's filling one stadium with fans from all over Europe and not just the UK. If you had a new franchise here then it might not survive the early expansion years of having a losing record.
3. Course the Superbowl is watched by vast audiences - even here with football being a minority sport. That doesn't translate into a country being ready for a franchise.

Given all that then there is more chance of a franchise in Canada than elsewhere. As for the comments about the CFL - shows a tad of ignorance towards your Canadian neighbours. Just because you might not like it/understand it doesn't mean others don't.

singersp
11-03-2008, 03:16 PM
"Bleedin" wrote:



I would like an expansions team in L.A. because I really do think L.A. deserves a team. You cant say people here dont like sports, look at the Dodgers, Angels, Ducks, Kings, Lakers, Galaxy, Sparks, on and on...The only reason people didnt support the last two L.A. teams was because they were horrible... Here you see about 75% raiders jerseys, and 25% of the rest of the league.. Vikings should stay in MN while L.A. gets their own expansion team, then Id have two teams to cheer for. ;D


They do? They already had & lost 3 NFL franchises

In 1946, the Cleveland Rams moved to L.A

In 1960 they had the Los Angeles Chargers

In 1982 it was the Los Angeles Raiders

Bleedin Purple
11-03-2008, 04:24 PM
That was then, they were bad teams, this is now..People here really want a team, trust me I know.

Marrdro
11-04-2008, 07:19 AM
The Tidewater Vikings has a great ring to it if for some reason they aren't the MN Vikings anymore.

;D

Zeus
11-04-2008, 08:08 AM
"Bleedin" wrote:


That was then, they were bad teams, this is now..People here really want a team, trust me I know.


Bad teams?
The Rams went to the Super Bowl.
The Raiders WON a Super Bowl while in LA.

=Z=

nephilimstorm
11-04-2008, 08:11 AM
LA does deserve a team but I think the league might go toronto and LA if they do :)

vikings4life33
11-04-2008, 09:35 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Bleedin" wrote:


That was then, they were bad teams, this is now..People here really want a team, trust me I know.


Bad teams?
The Rams went to the Super Bowl.
The Raiders WON a Super Bowl while in LA.

=Z=

i think alot of it was that the stadiums were falling apart and thats way the left. Trust me is i played for a LA team and saw the kinds of fans (pieces of sh!t) wearing my teams stuff i would want out too

V4L
11-04-2008, 10:05 AM
"vikings4life33" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Bleedin" wrote:


That was then, they were bad teams, this is now..People here really want a team, trust me I know.


Bad teams?
The Rams went to the Super Bowl.
The Raiders WON a Super Bowl while in LA.

=Z=

i think alot of it was that the stadiums were falling apart and thats way the left. Trust me is i played for a LA team and saw the kinds of fans (pieces of sh!t) wearing my teams stuff i would want out too




LA has pretty good fans

Lakers have good turn outs and some loyal fans

vikings4life33
11-04-2008, 10:30 AM
"V4L" wrote:


"vikings4life33" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Bleedin" wrote:


That was then, they were bad teams, this is now..People here really want a team, trust me I know.


Bad teams?
The Rams went to the Super Bowl.
The Raiders WON a Super Bowl while in LA.

=Z=

i think alot of it was that the stadiums were falling apart and thats way the left. Trust me is i played for a LA team and saw the kinds of fans (pieces of
***I should not evade the word censor***) wearing my teams stuff i would want out too




LA has pretty good fans

Lakers have good turn outs and some loyal fans

only when they win. when they have a bad season then everyone turns into a clipper fan. i guess the raiders have good fans. they have sucked for years and all the gangsters still wear there colors.hahaha.

V4L
11-04-2008, 11:13 AM
"vikings4life33" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"vikings4life33" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Bleedin" wrote:


That was then, they were bad teams, this is now..People here really want a team, trust me I know.


Bad teams?
The Rams went to the Super Bowl.
The Raiders WON a Super Bowl while in LA.

=Z=

i think alot of it was that the stadiums were falling apart and thats way the left. Trust me is i played for a LA team and saw the kinds of fans (pieces of
***I should not evade the word censor***) wearing my teams stuff i would want out too




LA has pretty good fans

Lakers have good turn outs and some loyal fans

only when they win. when they have a bad season then everyone turns into a clipper fan. i guess the raiders have good fans. they have sucked for years and all the gangsters still wear there colors.hahaha.



Yah true

Happens with most cities though

Purple Floyd
11-05-2008, 08:08 AM
In the end they would still generate more revenue in LA than in Minny and as far as that goes the league would generate more revenue from the team in LA too. Think of the difference in just the TV revenue.

Zeus
11-05-2008, 08:42 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


In the end they would still generate more revenue in LA than in Minny and as far as that goes the league would generate more revenue from the team in LA too. Think of the difference in just the TV revenue.


And, in the end, they would still generate more revenue in Minny than in Jacksonville or New Orleans.

=Z=

SKOL
11-05-2008, 08:51 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


In the end they would still generate more revenue in LA than in Minny and as far as that goes the league would generate more revenue from the team in LA too. Think of the difference in just the TV revenue.


And, in the end, they would still generate more revenue in Minny than in Jacksonville or New Orleans.

=Z=


Or for that matter the Twin Cities generates more revenue than half the bay area, which has two teams, and a total of just 995,000 more people than the Twin Cities area.

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

Purple Floyd
11-05-2008, 08:58 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


In the end they would still generate more revenue in LA than in Minny and as far as that goes the league would generate more revenue from the team in LA too. Think of the difference in just the TV revenue.


And, in the end, they would still generate more revenue in Minny than in Jacksonville or New Orleans.

=Z=


And also more than they would in Spooner, Wi.

Zeus
11-05-2008, 09:27 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


In the end they would still generate more revenue in LA than in Minny and as far as that goes the league would generate more revenue from the team in LA too. Think of the difference in just the TV revenue.


And, in the end, they would still generate more revenue in Minny than in Jacksonville or New Orleans.


And also more than they would in Spooner, Wi.


Which is immaterial, since Spooner, WI does not have an NFL team.

We here, as Vikings fans, make any LA proposal about OUR team because we are most familiar with OUR team.
The fact is, Jacksonville is a much smaller market, they regularly have attendance issues (worse than ours) even after covering up a shitload of seats in the stadium.

=Z=

jargomcfargo
11-05-2008, 09:55 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


In the end they would still generate more revenue in LA than in Minny and as far as that goes the league would generate more revenue from the team in LA too. Think of the difference in just the TV revenue.


And, in the end, they would still generate more revenue in Minny than in Jacksonville or New Orleans.


And also more than they would in Spooner, Wi.


Which is immaterial, since Spooner, WI does not have an NFL team.

We here, as Vikings fans, make any LA proposal about OUR team because we are most familiar with OUR team.
The fact is, Jacksonville is a much smaller market, they regularly have attendance issues (worse than ours) even after covering up a shitload of seats in the stadium.

=Z=


It is clear that Spooner has its hands full with Walmartgate. Perhaps we should move Spooner to LA!

Purple Floyd
11-05-2008, 10:22 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


In the end they would still generate more revenue in LA than in Minny and as far as that goes the league would generate more revenue from the team in LA too. Think of the difference in just the TV revenue.


And, in the end, they would still generate more revenue in Minny than in Jacksonville or New Orleans.


And also more than they would in Spooner, Wi.


Which is immaterial, since Spooner, WI does not have an NFL team.

We here, as Vikings fans, make any LA proposal about OUR team because we are most familiar with OUR team.
The fact is, Jacksonville is a much smaller market, they regularly have attendance issues (worse than ours) even after covering up a shitload of seats in the stadium.

=Z=


I have no disagreement with the fact that there are cities that generate less revenue than we do in Minnesota and I do hope that if any team would move, that they would go before the Vikings. Jacksonville especially. I found it hard to believe they could run an economically viable team for an extended period of time with all of the NFL saturation in the region. That being said, we were talking about the Vikings and whether they would possibly move to LA. I merely stated that between the two choices, there was more revenue potential in LA than here. Nothing more.

MaxVike
11-05-2008, 08:52 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


The sad thing about movng is we must leave the Viking name and colors behind.
I don't feel right playing for the LA Cokesniffers


Yep, with ya there for sure.


Not sure how the Twinkies get a stadium and the Vikes can't.
I can pretty confidently say the Dome is the worse fan venue in the NFL...the fact that it generates the lowest amount of revenue is a major problem.
I'm in denial, but, I'm starting to think the odds are higher that they move than that they don't.
Very sad, very sad indeed.

Purple Floyd
11-05-2008, 08:59 PM
There will be a very, very big infrastructure /job creation bill passed either before the 1st of the year or within the first 100 days on the national level. I am not sure if they could lobby for some of this money to go towards the infrastructure or utility improvement or not, but I can also see a stadium bill passed by the state in the beginning of the next term in the name of job creation and infrastructure improvement. It might actually be easier to pass if marketed that way.

MaxVike
11-05-2008, 09:09 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


There will be a very, very big infrastructure /job creation bill passed either before the 1st of the year or within the first 100 days on the national level. I am not sure if they could lobby for some of this money to go towards the infrastructure or utility improvement or not, but I can also see a stadium bill passed by the state in the beginning of the next term in the name of job creation and infrastructure improvement. It might actually be easier to pass if marketed that way.


Hmmm, that's a few well made points; didn't think of it that way.
I hope you are correct!

VKG4LFE
11-05-2008, 09:13 PM
If the vikes leave Minny, that would be the worst thing ever! PLEASE LET'S NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!

Mjölnir
11-06-2008, 07:05 AM
As a Vikes fan in London, one of the places that is apparently being considered for a future franchise - perhaps one relocated from the states, I can categorically say that I don't want the Vikings to move. To me, Minnesota is just as much a part of my team as the purple white and gold. This is partially a British thing, we don't like the concept of teams moving from their home turf.

I don't want the Vikings to move before I get a chance to come and visit the twin cities either.
;D

singersp
11-09-2008, 05:52 AM
Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM

BBQ Platypus
11-09-2008, 04:03 PM
"singersp" wrote:


Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM


Yeah...every day I get more and more afraid that it's never going to happen, and the Vikings are going to move.
And the fans will all be stuck with nothing.

COJOMAY
11-09-2008, 04:04 PM
I would almost count on the Vikes not being in Minnesota after 2011.

BadlandsVikings
11-09-2008, 04:09 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


I would almost count on the Vikes not being in Minnesota after 2011.


They will get the Oilers deal and get out of there lease a year early

vikings_fan66
11-09-2008, 04:27 PM
Iam pretty sure the Vikes will be out of minny....Its frustrating becuase everyone has seen the scenario happening for years now


The government refuses to fund a stadium and no push from residents of Minnesota therefore no stadium...fricken pisses me off the Twins got their stadium

Dekay
11-09-2008, 04:46 PM
I cant see the Wilfs is moving the team. Is there any vacant cities/ states wanting to get a new team moved to their area in the finance crisis? Do people embrace a newly moved team to their hometown/ state? Or raise taxes for a newly relocated team. I dont think so.

Its sad Vikings have missed the opportunities to ally with either the U of M or the Twins for a joint ballpark. I dont think the bus has gone for teaming up with the U of M yet though and I still hope and wants to believe they will stay in Minny. I just cannot see the Vikings in any other cities than Minneapolis/ Minnesota.

And also the Minnesota and Vikings brands that are so tightly wowen together after so many years, they would have to rename the team if relocating it... (try cheering for Los Angeles Vikings for example, how does that sound?! hahaha)

You dont miss the cow before the stall is empty! Remember that.

Pierre

jmcdon00
11-11-2008, 03:30 PM
"singersp" wrote:


Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM



This deal pissed me off, if it was just the 50million I might be okay with it but it is 50 million a year(actually it will go up as the state grows) for the next 25 years or 1.25billion. I would have rather that money went to a stadium or better yet stayed in my pocket.

V4L
11-11-2008, 03:31 PM
Arts? WTF!

jmcdon00
11-11-2008, 03:52 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Lot's of questions, I was just trying to be a smart jiggly butt not start a debate, but I'll try to answer.
Marrdro likes the MN vikings as much as anybody. If they leave they will likely no longer be the vikings so I would think he has an interest too.
People who benefit from the the vikings should support them, through ticket sales ad revenues, merchandise, but not through additional taxes IMHO. I would not vote to for a tax increase to keep them here, that's not the governments job. If they raise taxes I along with everyone else will pay for it, but I still wont agree with it. I would support increased ticket prices and or seat licensing fees, additional costs for merchandise, more commercials during vikings games, whatever they have to do to raise the money they claim to need without raising taxes.


LOL.
Suuuure you weren't trying to start a debate... ;)

Anyway, you left out one important entity that greatly benefits from having the Vikings in state.
The communities.
The city of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Twin Cities Metro Area, and the state of Minnesota all see tangible and intangible benefits from the Minnesota Vikings.
Because they benefit, they too should make a contribution to keeping them.
How much of a contribution can be up for debate, but there should be one nonetheless.

BTW, some of the things you listed are not in the Vikings control nor do they benefit them, such as commercials during the games and merchandise costs.
The television stations own the commercial rights, and the networks purchase the games from the NFL - not the Vikings.
And merchandise sales are licensed through the NFL who again have control over the prices, not the Vikes.

I do agree that the majority of the financing should come from the team's revenue.
PSLs, ticket revenue, and naming rights should be able to pay for more than half of the stadium IMHO.
But there will be some additional funds needed, and I believe the communities who will benefit should contribute as well.

Sure Minnesota benefits from the Vikings but the Vikings have also benefitted from the state. Just like any business there is a balance there. I don't think either owes the other anything. Minnesota has greatly helped the vikings. In 1998 the Vikings were sold for 250million, in 2007 Forbes valued the team at 850million. I just don't see how the vikings can be complaining. Minnesotans have spent many hundreds of millions on tickets and merchandise over the years.
The vikings are part of the NFL and do benefit/recieve revenue from advertising, nfl network, merchandising etc. Wilf owns 1/32 of the NFL.
If tax revenue is going to be used they should tax things that are most directly related to the Vikings. Bars in the area of a new stadium. You could charge an additional 5% tax on all NFL merchandise sold in MN. A tax on cable services that include NFL network a tax on bars that showed vikings games. To me though they should leave the government out of it and raise the money themselves, just like I would do if I wanted to invest in the MN economy.

BloodyHorns82
11-12-2008, 12:59 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM



This deal pissed me off, if it was just the 50million I might be okay with it but it is 50 million a year(actually it will go up as the state grows) for the next 25 years or 1.25billion. I would have rather that money went to a stadium or better yet stayed in my pocket.


What!?
You'd honestly rather see a brand new state of the art Vikings stadium built for half the cost than it would take to funnel the money into likely corrupt special interest groups?

Yet another typical stupid Minnesotan.
::)

Purple Floyd
11-12-2008, 07:19 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Lot's of questions, I was just trying to be a smart jiggly butt not start a debate, but I'll try to answer.
Marrdro likes the MN vikings as much as anybody. If they leave they will likely no longer be the vikings so I would think he has an interest too.
People who benefit from the the vikings should support them, through ticket sales ad revenues, merchandise, but not through additional taxes IMHO. I would not vote to for a tax increase to keep them here, that's not the governments job. If they raise taxes I along with everyone else will pay for it, but I still wont agree with it. I would support increased ticket prices and or seat licensing fees, additional costs for merchandise, more commercials during vikings games, whatever they have to do to raise the money they claim to need without raising taxes.


LOL.
Suuuure you weren't trying to start a debate... ;)

Anyway, you left out one important entity that greatly benefits from having the Vikings in state.
The communities.
The city of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Twin Cities Metro Area, and the state of Minnesota all see tangible and intangible benefits from the Minnesota Vikings.
Because they benefit, they too should make a contribution to keeping them.
How much of a contribution can be up for debate, but there should be one nonetheless.

BTW, some of the things you listed are not in the Vikings control nor do they benefit them, such as commercials during the games and merchandise costs.
The television stations own the commercial rights, and the networks purchase the games from the NFL - not the Vikings.
And merchandise sales are licensed through the NFL who again have control over the prices, not the Vikes.

I do agree that the majority of the financing should come from the team's revenue.
PSLs, ticket revenue, and naming rights should be able to pay for more than half of the stadium IMHO.
But there will be some additional funds needed, and I believe the communities who will benefit should contribute as well.

Sure Minnesota benefits from the Vikings but the Vikings have also benefitted from the state. Just like any business there is a balance there. I don't think either owes the other anything. Minnesota has greatly helped the vikings. In 1998 the Vikings were sold for 250million, in 2007 Forbes valued the team at 850million. I just don't see how the vikings can be complaining. Minnesotans have spent many hundreds of millions on tickets and merchandise over the years.
The vikings are part of the NFL and do benefit/recieve revenue from advertising, nfl network, merchandising etc. Wilf owns 1/32 of the NFL.
If tax revenue is going to be used they should tax things that are most directly related to the Vikings. Bars in the area of a new stadium. You could charge an additional 5% tax on all NFL merchandise sold in MN. A tax on cable services that include NFL network a tax on bars that showed vikings games. To me though they should leave the government out of it and raise the money themselves, just like I would do if I wanted to invest in the MN economy.


Those are very good points.

In every community there are businesses that provide tangible and intangible value to the communities they are based in. They bring in customers, employ citizens and generate traffic that may not be there if not for their existence. I see it all of the time in every community I visit. But does that mean the state should support them by helping to finance their facilities?

We are already in a heck of a mess bailing out the financial system and the insurance and auto industries are next in line. I suppose we can also pass a bill to build a Nascar, Baseball, Hockey and Football stadium in every city in the country that wants them as a part of an economic stimulus package but I don't think it would be beneficial to the citizens in the end.

What we really need is reduced government regulations, lower government spending and more private money in this economy, not the other way around.

Zeus
11-12-2008, 09:12 AM
"V4L" wrote:


Arts? WTF!


I gladly voted for that amendment.
It is a CRIME that art and music programs are stripped from schools in favor of sports.

=Z=

Zeus
11-12-2008, 09:13 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM


This deal pissed me off, if it was just the 50million I might be okay with it but it is 50 million a year(actually it will go up as the state grows) for the next 25 years or 1.25billion. I would have rather that money went to a stadium or better yet stayed in my pocket.


You'll spill more beer at tailgates (at cost) than this amendment will cost you every year.

=Z=

marcosMN
11-12-2008, 09:33 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Arts? WTF!


I gladly voted for that amendment.
It is a CRIME that art and music programs are stripped from schools in favor of sports.

=Z=


Word.

NodakPaul
11-12-2008, 10:01 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM


This deal pissed me off, if it was just the 50million I might be okay with it but it is 50 million a year(actually it will go up as the state grows) for the next 25 years or 1.25billion. I would have rather that money went to a stadium or better yet stayed in my pocket.


You'll spill more beer at tailgates (at cost) than this amendment will cost you every year.

=Z=


+1

NodakPaul
11-12-2008, 10:09 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Lot's of questions, I was just trying to be a smart jiggly butt not start a debate, but I'll try to answer.
Marrdro likes the MN vikings as much as anybody. If they leave they will likely no longer be the vikings so I would think he has an interest too.
People who benefit from the the vikings should support them, through ticket sales ad revenues, merchandise, but not through additional taxes IMHO. I would not vote to for a tax increase to keep them here, that's not the governments job. If they raise taxes I along with everyone else will pay for it, but I still wont agree with it. I would support increased ticket prices and or seat licensing fees, additional costs for merchandise, more commercials during vikings games, whatever they have to do to raise the money they claim to need without raising taxes.


LOL.
Suuuure you weren't trying to start a debate... ;)

Anyway, you left out one important entity that greatly benefits from having the Vikings in state.
The communities.
The city of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Twin Cities Metro Area, and the state of Minnesota all see tangible and intangible benefits from the Minnesota Vikings.
Because they benefit, they too should make a contribution to keeping them.
How much of a contribution can be up for debate, but there should be one nonetheless.

BTW, some of the things you listed are not in the Vikings control nor do they benefit them, such as commercials during the games and merchandise costs.
The television stations own the commercial rights, and the networks purchase the games from the NFL - not the Vikings.
And merchandise sales are licensed through the NFL who again have control over the prices, not the Vikes.

I do agree that the majority of the financing should come from the team's revenue.
PSLs, ticket revenue, and naming rights should be able to pay for more than half of the stadium IMHO.
But there will be some additional funds needed, and I believe the communities who will benefit should contribute as well.

Sure Minnesota benefits from the Vikings but the Vikings have also benefitted from the state. Just like any business there is a balance there. I don't think either owes the other anything. Minnesota has greatly helped the vikings. In 1998 the Vikings were sold for 250million, in 2007 Forbes valued the team at 850million. I just don't see how the vikings can be complaining. Minnesotans have spent many hundreds of millions on tickets and merchandise over the years.
The vikings are part of the NFL and do benefit/recieve revenue from advertising, nfl network, merchandising etc. Wilf owns 1/32 of the NFL.
If tax revenue is going to be used they should tax things that are most directly related to the Vikings. Bars in the area of a new stadium. You could charge an additional 5% tax on all NFL merchandise sold in MN. A tax on cable services that include NFL network a tax on bars that showed vikings games. To me though they should leave the government out of it and raise the money themselves, just like I would do if I wanted to invest in the MN economy.


I am not sure that taxes like that would ever raise enough money.
Nor am I convinced that it would fly in the legislature.
A selective tax on all things NFL would do more to run the NFL out of town than a lack of a new stadium would.
Plus there would be some issues with the state ONLY taxing the Vikings, and not any of the other professional sports teams in the area.

Instead I would support some kind of recreation tax for businesses in the immediate area, as well as a small Hennepin County or Metro Area Sales tax.
Preferably a metro tax because it would be spread out over a much greater population, to the point that there would not be a noticeable difference to the consumer.
This way, the community that benefits the most from the Vikings (the immediate area) pays the most for it, and the community that still sees some residual benefit (the metro area) contributes as well.
Obviously the Vikings benefit the most, so they should also pay the most.

Webby
11-12-2008, 10:19 AM
"SnoBumMN" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Arts? WTF!


I gladly voted for that amendment.
It is a CRIME that art and music programs are stripped from schools in favor of sports.

=Z=


Word.


Double Word.

jmcdon00
11-12-2008, 11:01 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM


This deal pissed me off, if it was just the 50million I might be okay with it but it is 50 million a year(actually it will go up as the state grows) for the next 25 years or 1.25billion. I would have rather that money went to a stadium or better yet stayed in my pocket.


You'll spill more beer at tailgates (at cost) than this amendment will cost you every year.

=Z=

That's what they say every time they raise taxes, but they add up. 7% sales tax is outrageous when we already have high state income taxes, the state puts an extra tax on my gas, cigs, alcohol, cars, property etc. I have no problem supporting the arts in school but why is it neccassary to raise taxes to do it, cut the waste first. Plus I'm not sure how much of that money is going to schools, and how much is going to other for profit arts groups like the Guthrie.
One of the big things they are throwing a ton of money at is the Magnet schools. I'm not so sure kids need to go to a school that focusses on their interests, they should go to a school that will teaching reading writing, and math.
http://www.nws.k12.mn.us/magnet_schools/faqs.php
Also I think this hurts the stadium plans because many will say they just had a tax hike, we can't have everything we want or taxes would become unbearable and Individuals and businesses will leave the state.

jmcdon00
11-12-2008, 11:13 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Lot's of questions, I was just trying to be a smart jiggly butt not start a debate, but I'll try to answer.
Marrdro likes the MN vikings as much as anybody. If they leave they will likely no longer be the vikings so I would think he has an interest too.
People who benefit from the the vikings should support them, through ticket sales ad revenues, merchandise, but not through additional taxes IMHO. I would not vote to for a tax increase to keep them here, that's not the governments job. If they raise taxes I along with everyone else will pay for it, but I still wont agree with it. I would support increased ticket prices and or seat licensing fees, additional costs for merchandise, more commercials during vikings games, whatever they have to do to raise the money they claim to need without raising taxes.


LOL.
Suuuure you weren't trying to start a debate... ;)

Anyway, you left out one important entity that greatly benefits from having the Vikings in state.
The communities.
The city of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Twin Cities Metro Area, and the state of Minnesota all see tangible and intangible benefits from the Minnesota Vikings.
Because they benefit, they too should make a contribution to keeping them.
How much of a contribution can be up for debate, but there should be one nonetheless.

BTW, some of the things you listed are not in the Vikings control nor do they benefit them, such as commercials during the games and merchandise costs.
The television stations own the commercial rights, and the networks purchase the games from the NFL - not the Vikings.
And merchandise sales are licensed through the NFL who again have control over the prices, not the Vikes.

I do agree that the majority of the financing should come from the team's revenue.
PSLs, ticket revenue, and naming rights should be able to pay for more than half of the stadium IMHO.
But there will be some additional funds needed, and I believe the communities who will benefit should contribute as well.

Sure Minnesota benefits from the Vikings but the Vikings have also benefitted from the state. Just like any business there is a balance there. I don't think either owes the other anything. Minnesota has greatly helped the vikings. In 1998 the Vikings were sold for 250million, in 2007 Forbes valued the team at 850million. I just don't see how the vikings can be complaining. Minnesotans have spent many hundreds of millions on tickets and merchandise over the years.
The vikings are part of the NFL and do benefit/recieve revenue from advertising, nfl network, merchandising etc. Wilf owns 1/32 of the NFL.
If tax revenue is going to be used they should tax things that are most directly related to the Vikings. Bars in the area of a new stadium. You could charge an additional 5% tax on all NFL merchandise sold in MN. A tax on cable services that include NFL network a tax on bars that showed vikings games. To me though they should leave the government out of it and raise the money themselves, just like I would do if I wanted to invest in the MN economy.


I am not sure that taxes like that would ever raise enough money.
Nor am I convinced that it would fly in the legislature.
A selective tax on all things NFL would do more to run the NFL out of town than a lack of a new stadium would.
Plus there would be some issues with the state ONLY taxing the Vikings, and not any of the other professional sports teams in the area.

Instead I would support some kind of recreation tax for businesses in the immediate area, as well as a small Hennepin County or Metro Area Sales tax.
Preferably a metro tax because it would be spread out over a much greater population, to the point that there would not be a noticeable difference to the consumer.
This way, the community that benefits the most from the Vikings (the immediate area) pays the most for it, and the community that still sees some residual benefit (the metro area) contributes as well.
Obviously the Vikings benefit the most, so they should also pay the most.

I don't see why a selective tax on the NFL would cause Wilf to move the team, that would not directly impact their bottom line(maybe fewer people would buy jerseys but that money goes into shared revenue anyway). There are many in the metro area that will not see any benefits from a new stadium only higher taxes. It is scam on those that choose not to subsidize the greedy entity known as the NFL. I think those that most benefit from a new stadium are the NFL owners, Vikings owner, nfl players union, nearby hotels and bars.

Bkfldviking
11-12-2008, 11:18 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM


This deal pissed me off, if it was just the 50million I might be okay with it but it is 50 million a year(actually it will go up as the state grows) for the next 25 years or 1.25billion. I would have rather that money went to a stadium or better yet stayed in my pocket.


You'll spill more beer at tailgates (at cost) than this amendment will cost you every year.

=Z=

That's what they say every time they raise taxes, but they add up. 7% sales tax is outrageous when we already have high state income taxes, the state puts an extra tax on my gas, cigs, alcohol, cars, property etc. I have no problem supporting the arts in school but why is it neccassary to raise taxes to do it, cut the waste first. Plus I'm not sure how much of that money is going to schools, and how much is going to other for profit arts groups like the Guthrie.
One of the big things they are throwing a ton of money at is the Magnet schools. I'm not so sure kids need to go to a school that focusses on their interests, they should go to a school that will teaching reading writing, and math.
http://www.nws.k12.mn.us/magnet_schools/faqs.php
Also I think this hurts the stadium plans because many will say they just had a tax hike, we can't have everything we want or taxes would become unbearable and Individuals and businesses will leave the state.


Boy, you guys keep this up and your going to be in the same boat we are in out here.
HALF of our state budget is for the schools.
Half!
That works out to $17,000.00 per student in the public system.
I called around and the most expensive private school I could find charges $9,000.00 per student per year.
If they can provide better education, nicer facilities, pay their teachers better then what is CA doing with all that money?
Now you know why I support school vouchers, at least you KNOW where your taxes are going.

Not to mention that all the State Lottery monies are supposed to go to schools.
Hasn't save us a penny in new taxes.
Maybe you could solve your stadium problems by hijacking the lottery up there and have the proceeds go to a new stadium for two years.
Instead of giving away $7,000,000.00 grand prize, make it life time season tickets and one luxry box.
Might generate some revenues.

Purple Floyd
11-12-2008, 11:30 AM
"Bkfldviking" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM


This deal pissed me off, if it was just the 50million I might be okay with it but it is 50 million a year(actually it will go up as the state grows) for the next 25 years or 1.25billion. I would have rather that money went to a stadium or better yet stayed in my pocket.


You'll spill more beer at tailgates (at cost) than this amendment will cost you every year.

=Z=

That's what they say every time they raise taxes, but they add up. 7% sales tax is outrageous when we already have high state income taxes, the state puts an extra tax on my gas, cigs, alcohol, cars, property etc. I have no problem supporting the arts in school but why is it neccassary to raise taxes to do it, cut the waste first. Plus I'm not sure how much of that money is going to schools, and how much is going to other for profit arts groups like the Guthrie.
One of the big things they are throwing a ton of money at is the Magnet schools. I'm not so sure kids need to go to a school that focusses on their interests, they should go to a school that will teaching reading writing, and math.
http://www.nws.k12.mn.us/magnet_schools/faqs.php
Also I think this hurts the stadium plans because many will say they just had a tax hike, we can't have everything we want or taxes would become unbearable and Individuals and businesses will leave the state.


Boy, you guys keep this up and your going to be in the same boat we are in out here.
HALF of our state budget is for the schools.
Half!
That works out to $17,000.00 per student in the public system.
I called around and the most expensive private school I could find charges $9,000.00 per student per year.
If they can provide better education, nicer facilities, pay their teachers better then what is CA doing with all that money?
Now you know why I support school vouchers, at least you KNOW where your taxes are going.

Not to mention that all the State Lottery monies are supposed to go to schools.
Hasn't save us a penny in new taxes.
Maybe you could solve your stadium problems by hijacking the lottery up there and have the proceeds go to a new stadium for two years.
Instead of giving away $7,000,000.00 grand prize, make it life time season tickets and one luxry box.
Might generate some revenues.


That would be great but if you remember, we passed the lottery bill because it was going to eliminate the state property taxes and I have been enjoying the fact that I have no property taxes for many many years.

jmcdon00
11-12-2008, 11:43 AM
"Bkfldviking" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM


This deal pissed me off, if it was just the 50million I might be okay with it but it is 50 million a year(actually it will go up as the state grows) for the next 25 years or 1.25billion. I would have rather that money went to a stadium or better yet stayed in my pocket.


You'll spill more beer at tailgates (at cost) than this amendment will cost you every year.

=Z=

That's what they say every time they raise taxes, but they add up. 7% sales tax is outrageous when we already have high state income taxes, the state puts an extra tax on my gas, cigs, alcohol, cars, property etc. I have no problem supporting the arts in school but why is it neccassary to raise taxes to do it, cut the waste first. Plus I'm not sure how much of that money is going to schools, and how much is going to other for profit arts groups like the Guthrie.
One of the big things they are throwing a ton of money at is the Magnet schools. I'm not so sure kids need to go to a school that focusses on their interests, they should go to a school that will teaching reading writing, and math.
http://www.nws.k12.mn.us/magnet_schools/faqs.php
Also I think this hurts the stadium plans because many will say they just had a tax hike, we can't have everything we want or taxes would become unbearable and Individuals and businesses will leave the state.


Boy, you guys keep this up and your going to be in the same boat we are in out here.
HALF of our state budget is for the schools.
Half!
That works out to $17,000.00 per student in the public system.
I called around and the most expensive private school I could find charges $9,000.00 per student per year.
If they can provide better education, nicer facilities, pay their teachers better then what is CA doing with all that money?
Now you know why I support school vouchers, at least you KNOW where your taxes are going.

Not to mention that all the State Lottery monies are supposed to go to schools.
Hasn't save us a penny in new taxes.
Maybe you could solve your stadium problems by hijacking the lottery up there and have the proceeds go to a new stadium for two years.
Instead of giving away $7,000,000.00 grand prize, make it life time season tickets and one luxry box.
Might generate some revenues.

Excellent points. The schools will always want more no matter how much you give them. I would say though that one of the big differences between private and public schools is that the public schools are responsible for educating every one, including those with special needs. I had heard a while ago that 1/2 of all minnesota school funding goes to those with special needs students, which I'm ok with that because we should give extra care to those that need it most.

singersp
11-14-2008, 05:52 AM
A Viking referendum: Would you vote yes for this language? (http://www.minnpost.com/jayweiner/2008/11/10/4509/a_viking_referendum_would_you_vote_yes_for_this_language)

minnpost.com


There's nothing quite like the rewriting of history and, in this case, the instant rewriting of alleged history....

jargomcfargo
11-14-2008, 09:23 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Bkfldviking" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:




Patrick Reusse: Chances for stadium funding roll right past Vikings (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115539.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUncacyi8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Arts gets $50 million in a 2008 election that passed the team by.

By PATRICK REUSSE, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 3:37 PM


This deal pissed me off, if it was just the 50million I might be okay with it but it is 50 million a year(actually it will go up as the state grows) for the next 25 years or 1.25billion. I would have rather that money went to a stadium or better yet stayed in my pocket.


You'll spill more beer at tailgates (at cost) than this amendment will cost you every year.

=Z=

That's what they say every time they raise taxes, but they add up. 7% sales tax is outrageous when we already have high state income taxes, the state puts an extra tax on my gas, cigs, alcohol, cars, property etc. I have no problem supporting the arts in school but why is it neccassary to raise taxes to do it, cut the waste first. Plus I'm not sure how much of that money is going to schools, and how much is going to other for profit arts groups like the Guthrie.
One of the big things they are throwing a ton of money at is the Magnet schools. I'm not so sure kids need to go to a school that focusses on their interests, they should go to a school that will teaching reading writing, and math.
http://www.nws.k12.mn.us/magnet_schools/faqs.php
Also I think this hurts the stadium plans because many will say they just had a tax hike, we can't have everything we want or taxes would become unbearable and Individuals and businesses will leave the state.


Boy, you guys keep this up and your going to be in the same boat we are in out here.
HALF of our state budget is for the schools.
Half!
That works out to $17,000.00 per student in the public system.
I called around and the most expensive private school I could find charges $9,000.00 per student per year.
If they can provide better education, nicer facilities, pay their teachers better then what is CA doing with all that money?
Now you know why I support school vouchers, at least you KNOW where your taxes are going.

Not to mention that all the State Lottery monies are supposed to go to schools.
Hasn't save us a penny in new taxes.
Maybe you could solve your stadium problems by hijacking the lottery up there and have the proceeds go to a new stadium for two years.
Instead of giving away $7,000,000.00 grand prize, make it life time season tickets and one luxry box.
Might generate some revenues.


That would be great but if you remember, we passed the lottery bill because it was going to eliminate the state property taxes andI have been enjoying the fact that I have no property taxes for many many years.


Freeloader!
I guess that's proof of the lottery being an additional tax. I'm jealous.
Public money to fund the new stadium could be structured in a way that the government actually makes money off the deal.
I tend to stay out of these discussions since I'm no longer a Minnesota resident. But I think they will find a way to make it happen eventually.

Purple Floyd
11-14-2008, 10:58 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Public money to fund the new stadium could be structured in a way that the government actually makes money off the deal.



Just like the wall St bailout they passed last month. I can't wait to see the national debt clock start to move backwards when that windfall kicks in

COJOMAY
11-14-2008, 11:50 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Public money to fund the new stadium could be structured in a way that the government actually makes money off the deal.



Just like the wall St bailout they passed last month. I can't wait to see the national debt clock start to move backwards when that windfall kicks in


If you are counting on those mortages being paid off with interest, think again. Even though they said they were going to buy up bad mortages, it isn't what's happening to the money. Paulson admitted it today.
The money is simply being used to bailout the banks.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/11/14/hank_paulson,_naked_emperor?page=full