Skip to content

Leiweke on downtown L.A. stadium: “If you build it, they will come”

101215_downtown_nfl_stadium_aeg

In a CNBC interview conducted in conjunction with the announcement of the 30-year, $700 million naming-rights deal between AEG and Farmers Insurance, Tim Leiweke of AEG summed up the prospect of a downtown L.A. stadium attracting an NFL team.

“If you build it, they will come,” Leiweke said, adding that AEG has spoken to “a list of teams” about moving to Los Angeles.

Kevin Kelso, chief marketing officer of Farmers Insurance, insisted that it’s not a publicity stunt.  “We wouldn’t enter into this deal if we didn’t think there was going to be a stadium here,” Kelso said, “and if we didn’t think there was going to be a team here.”

Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, who broke the news of the unprecedented cart-before-the-horse naming-rights deal provides more details regarding the situation during today’s edition of ProFootballTalk Live at 2:00 p.m. ET.

Among the most important questions:  If you build it, will one “they” come, or two?

Permalink 56 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
56 Responses to “Leiweke on downtown L.A. stadium: “If you build it, they will come””
  1. rcunningham says: Feb 1, 2011 1:17 PM

    I’ve asked it before, and I’ll ask it 100 more times. If this city couldn’t support the Rams or Raiders, why do they deserve another team?

    Don’t try to tell me it’s because LA doesn’t support teams that don’t win…the Raiders won a Super Bowl there.

    Not to mention the Clippers.

  2. citizenstrange says: Feb 1, 2011 1:19 PM

    It’s been a long, LONG time coming but I cannot wait until they start blacking out games in L.A. again.

  3. deelron says: Feb 1, 2011 1:21 PM

    Oh sure, it’s not like there’s been any big stadium (Tropicana Field) that was ever built that took a while (8 years of sitting there with an extra renovation) before a team moved in. Just build it, no problem.

  4. duece5 says: Feb 1, 2011 1:27 PM

    A team MAY NOT come……..there is no guarantee……..if it did, the LA market for football will be at the bottom year after year….the NFL needs to understand this…….there’s even MORE to do these days than when the Raiders left town!!!!

  5. footballfan says: Feb 1, 2011 1:30 PM

    No way L.A. will support a team. They never did before and they won’t now. They will build a huge stadium and they will be having blackouts after a season or two.

  6. klandon52 says: Feb 1, 2011 1:32 PM

    This is dumb . . this is like the nerdy kid in high school making reservations for an expensive dinner before he even has a date

  7. wetpaperbag2 says: Feb 1, 2011 1:32 PM

    The fact that they have not built a new stadium there tells you something. The NFL will continue to use the L.A. market as leverage to get already existing NFL host cities to build newer stadiums. Thus far…it has worked.

  8. nightman13 says: Feb 1, 2011 1:33 PM

    Anybody else find it hilarious that Jerry Jones can’t find a naming rights partner for his stadium that has dominated the news for the last few years and is hosting a Super Bowl, yet a stadium that hasn’t been built in a city with no team found a naming sponsor?

    Jerrah, still think you own America’s Team?

  9. fezaz says: Feb 1, 2011 1:33 PM

    How’d that work out for San Antonio? I guess flirting with New Orleans Saints after Katrina is good enough? Meanwhile the Alamodome is wasted.

  10. brs027 says: Feb 1, 2011 1:36 PM

    Ari Gold will deliver. He always does.

  11. lariots says: Feb 1, 2011 1:37 PM

    This whole thing is actually a sting operation. The truth? LA officials believe that if they have a large, public venue that could be named “Farmers Field” they could attract thousands of out of work illegal immigrant cabbage, beet and produce farm hands looking for work.

    “Welcome to Farmers Field… now put on these cuffs and get in the back of the van Pedro.”

  12. georgeanderson2 says: Feb 1, 2011 1:38 PM

    A team that has a tough time selling tickets to a local fan base -every season their sales are based on who the visiting team is, a stadium almost 24 years old that the NFL says needs upgrades, a community in the financial toilet so they won’t give the franchise any money, a franchise about to be hit so hard by losing their main tenant and plenty of events to them in a brand new stadium with access to all the nightlife and hotels you would want, an up and coming NBA franchise about to go on title runs for a few years to compete with, an owner who looks at only the immediate results with no care for a long term plan and this owner wants so desperately to be amongst the Hollywood glamor , so he can build his real estate business- his NFL franchise is a play toy.

    Don’t be shocked if one of those teams is the Miami Dolphins to end up in LA- browns and colts both left , so the fan base doesn’t matter, the owners go where the money is.

  13. thingamajig says: Feb 1, 2011 1:38 PM

    Notice he didn’t say If I build it, they will come, it was if you build it. So what are you waiting for Tim, get out the check book and start building.

  14. rdssc says: Feb 1, 2011 1:41 PM

    The economics of the game have changed since the last time there were teams in LA. Suites and marketing deals make the money for the teams. They can find enough season ticket holders to keep the stadium half full while they sell out boxes and make marketing deals with all the big corporations.

  15. contra74 says: Feb 1, 2011 1:41 PM

    Its sad to notice which teams you tag in these articles. I now notice the Bills are in there. Has PFT NOT NOTICED that the Vikings are out of the talks as per AEGs article a few weeks back? Why arent the Chargers tagged as per your previous articles on this matter? This site is now just a SAD CASE of stirring the pot. I dont care if you dont post this comment.

  16. whatchutalkinabouthillis says: Feb 1, 2011 1:53 PM

    I just don’t think L.A. will appreciate a football team as much as other cities will. Sometimes there are things that are more important than making a little money.

  17. purpleguy says: Feb 1, 2011 2:24 PM

    The funny thing is that the NFL and this group want two teams in this stadium — and that’s in a city that wouldn’t support one team on two separate occasions. One good thing about this Super Bowl, maybe the only thing, is that the usual Pack fans are preoccupied and haven’t posted the time-worn LA Viking crap.

  18. goawayeverybody says: Feb 1, 2011 2:29 PM

    What’s the deal with this site not posting comments that it doesn’t like? This site has gone downhill.

  19. clintonportisheadd says: Feb 1, 2011 2:33 PM

    This is never going to happen.

    A downtown stadium in LA is logistically impossible. They would have to tear down part of the Convention Center just to build a stadium and that does not even include parking!

    Anyone who lives in LA can just imagine the horror show of 80,000 folks trying to get in or out of that place all at the same time. And if its a weekday (ie Mon nite football) it would be a traffic nitemare of epic proportion.

  20. p4hbiz says: Feb 1, 2011 2:33 PM

    LA ROCK! 34YRS IN LA… WE SUPPORT ANYTHING WORTH GOING 2!.

    THE STADIUM IS A GOOD IDEA, & WE LOOK FORWARD TO SB 50 IN LA~

    GO RAIDERS!!

  21. chapnastier says: Feb 1, 2011 2:36 PM

    whatchutalkinabouthillis says: Feb 1, 2011 1:53 PM

    I just don’t think L.A. will appreciate a football team as much as other cities will. Sometimes there are things that are more important than making a little money.

    ______________________________________

    Like what? Bo-tox and plastic surgery?

  22. contra74 says: Feb 1, 2011 2:51 PM

    Now its TWO teams!? What the hell? I know this site is hurting for clicks after its gone downhill since NBC bought it out but COME ON! Quit making stuff up to stir the pot!

  23. whackman says: Feb 1, 2011 2:58 PM

    I live in the LA area and I have ZERO interenst in a franchaise bolting their loyal fans for LA.

    beside I can follow the Steelers on DirecTV, so why the hell do I need an LA franchise???

  24. laxer37 says: Feb 1, 2011 2:58 PM

    “If you build it, they will come”

    …and LA fan will show up late, leave early, and the team will leave town within 6-10 years.

  25. usher716 says: Feb 1, 2011 3:10 PM

    as a fan of a team that has been mentioned to be in the running to move to LA for about the last 15 years, I HATE the idea of a team in LA. Let’s face it, they’ve had their chance with 3 teams and couldn’t swing it. There is a lot going on in so. cal and let’s face it, unless the team is winning people probably won’t care. Sadly I agree with rdssc, times and the game have changed since there was team there in the 90’s. I mean look at this naming rights deal alone, the NFL stopped being about the fans a long time ago. That point will be heavily reiterated when some poor city (please not buffalo) gets robbed of it’s franchise.

  26. lamonica3 says: Feb 1, 2011 3:15 PM

    The Raiders were averaging 70,000+ in attendance when they came to LA. More than what “The Big A” where that Rams played even held. Problem was the stadium held 92,000 and most of the games would be blacked out. The NFL doesn’t get that home games blacked out actually hurts attendance. Legend has it that there were two close games, once against the Chargers and once against the Broncos, where people, watching the game on television, actually went to the colesium to find scalpers to buy tickets to get in. There were games against the 49ers and Chargers (being from California) that sold out there. There were games against the Broncos (Elway) that sold out there. Post season games sold out there. The attendance dwindled not because of the decline of the Raiders’ wins, but because of the ’87 players strike (and because of Al Davis’ messing with Marcus Allen’s playing time). Look what happened to the SF Baseball Giants attendance before and after the year that the MLB season was canceled. Oh, and by the way, the Raiders have not done well attendance wise in Oakland since they’ve been back because everyone assumes they will move out again anyway and ticket prices were unrealistically high. The Clippers proves my point: Staples would rather have them then not. The area has two ice hockey teams. You guys honestly believe that it won’t support professional football?

  27. jc1958coo says: Feb 1, 2011 3:28 PM

    purple would look good inside, wilf fits right in with the nut cases there!!!

  28. wallyhorse says: Feb 1, 2011 4:18 PM

    The only people to me who really want a team in LA are the network executives, and those who want to have an excuse to go to LA to support a team:

    LA has been first and foremost a Laker town for the last 30+ years (people I know who live there care first and foremost about the Lakers among sports teams), followed by the Dodgers, then USC and UCLA Football, then the other teams. People who live in LA may say otherwise, but my experiences in dealing with people from LA strongly suggest they are in the minority as most I deal with care about the Lakers above all other LA sports teams.

    The networks want an NFL team in LA for one reason only as far as I’m concerned: So they can have stars of the various shows (or in the case of ESPN, those who have shows on ABC) at the games so they can be shown there through the misguided belief that fans of shows will tune in just to see their stars “being seen” at the game.

  29. seewise says: Feb 1, 2011 4:20 PM

    Yeah take our basketball and football team too? There will be another team back in Minnesota ,because of the huge market ie, N.Dakota, S.Dakota, Iowa etc. and then the Vikings would fold, because if there are 18 games and two teams same stadium? wilf is a realestate guy, he does’nt make a profit , if it’s already built, then your just paying AEG. Viking football is 50 years old the rivalries are in place and they want to bring a Super Bowl to Minnesota not LA. Just think if a big company that started in Minnesota was taken to LA. California has a huge deficit and already 3 NFL teams. why does LA want to take away some one elses sports team. make your own team, how about the LA Thugs? That is a nice name.

  30. dempsey63 says: Feb 1, 2011 4:23 PM

    The NFL exports games to London, so why not export games to L.A.?

    Eight NFC teams could host inter-conference games in the city during even-numbered years with eight AFC teams hosting games during the odd-numbered years.

    All 32 teams would play there during that stretch, providing variety that might alleviate boredom. It could become a late Sunday afternoon Game of the Week for the networks, placing it in prime time elsewhere in the USA.

  31. watchthisjack says: Feb 1, 2011 4:23 PM

    Holy crap that would be a bad place for a stadium. That is right in the heart of downtown L.A. Horribly cramped streets and bad freeway access. It is an absolute nightmare of gridlock when events get out at Staples and that place only holds about 18,000 people.

  32. acdrew22 says: Feb 1, 2011 5:11 PM

    How can anyone think LA doesn’t deserve a team and won’t support a team… the most watched sport in this country and u think no one will support it. You guys are talking about a city that hosts teams from other major sports in basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, and guess what, arena football… all are obviously supported by fans. And let’s not forget that some of these sports have two teams… yea that’s right fan bases for two teams… I know I know your saying… but LA already had its chance… let’s not forget the oilers left Houston, the colts left Baltimore, the cardinals left st. Louis, Yet there are teams in those cities now… the only reason why teams left LA was because there wasn’t gonna be a new stadium… now look at this possible new stadium… when there is a team in LA… the only thing everyone will have to worry about is their possible success.

  33. R8RBOB says: Feb 1, 2011 5:30 PM

    Oh Lawd, again with the LA stadium. I say let them build it and see who will come. Better yet do what Clay Bennett did and problem solved. Bennett made it so easy to 1) buy a sports franchise, 2) create outcry about sports venue, 3) give a ultimatum you know you aren’t going to to honor and 4) move franchise to city of choice.

    If this Leiweke wants a NFL team to play in his future stadium all he need to do is this: wait under Ralph Wilson passes and be the highest bidder for the Bills and then he can move them to his new stadium whenever it is finally built. These cat and mouse games on which team is going to move to LA is silly.

  34. tdl8 says: Feb 1, 2011 5:52 PM

    lamonica3 says:
    Feb 1, 2011 3:15 PM
    The Raiders were averaging 70,000+ in attendance when they came to LA.

    Legend has it that there were two close games, once against the Chargers and once against the Broncos, where people, watching the game on television, actually went to the colesium to find scalpers to buy tickets to get in.
    ————————————————–
    Making up average attendance numbers and “legends” doesn’t do anything to help your cause! At least look up the numbers before posting BS stats so you can be close to correct! The Raiders didn’t have anywhere close to 70k+ average attendance in LA. Go to nfl.com and look at the official numbers for all the years they were in LA! Sure they had some games with 70k-90k when popular teams came to town but the majority of the games had 40-60k fans. Quite a few games only had 20k-35k! Oh, and the LA Coliseum had a capacity of over 100k up until 1994 so a lot of the time the place was over half empty!

    And nobody watching a close game on TV is going to leave and drive to the stadium, find parking then find tickets to watch the end of the game! Unless you only live a few minutes from the stadium(especially since you never know about LA traffic, even on a Sunday) you would miss so much of the game it wouldn’t be worth the hassle! Especially if it’s a close game!

  35. blaz0037 says: Feb 1, 2011 5:54 PM

    so how many pro sports teams does California need?. Raiders, 49ers, Chargers, Kings, Clippers, Warriors, Lakers, Kings(NHL), Ducks, Sharks, Padres, Giants, A’s, Dodgers, Angels.

    and those just off the top of my head, there may be more.

    what a complete joke if they somehow STEAL another sports franchise.

    all the while, the whole state is going bankrupt.

  36. upperdecker19 says: Feb 1, 2011 5:58 PM

    watchthisjack says:
    Feb 1, 2011 4:23 PM
    Holy crap that would be a bad place for a stadium. That is right in the heart of downtown L.A. Horribly cramped streets and bad freeway access. It is an absolute nightmare of gridlock when events get out at Staples and that place only holds about 18,000 people.

    Agreed. And just think. One wrong turn and you’re smack dab in the middle of beautiful “Skid Row”. Tailgating should be interesting in that area, as well.

  37. chazzmon says: Feb 1, 2011 6:07 PM

    Vegas ought to have a line for LA occupier.

    What will it be? –
    A – New (Expansion team)
    B – Jaguars
    C – Rams (again)
    D – Vikings (too wierd but the rumors are out)
    E. – Raiders (again)
    F. – Bills (winning would end this rumor)
    G – Bengals (again winning would stop this)
    H – Titans ???
    I – Anyone else

    Now we just need some odds.

  38. Robert says: Feb 1, 2011 6:10 PM

    L.A.—Vikings and Raiders in 2012!!!

  39. Robert says: Feb 1, 2011 6:13 PM

    Yeah take our basketball and football team too? There will be another team back in Minnesota ,because of the huge market ie, N.Dakota, S.Dakota, Iowa etc. and then the Vikings would fold, because if there are 18 games and two teams same stadium? wilf is a realestate guy, he does’nt make a profit , if it’s already built, then your just paying AEG. Viking football is 50 years old the rivalries are in place and they want to bring a Super Bowl to Minnesota not LA. Just think if a big company that started in Minnesota was taken to LA. California has a huge deficit and already 3 NFL teams. why does LA want to take away some one elses sports team. make your own team, how about the LA Thugs? That is a nice name.

    The Packers own all those states— fanwise. Vikings are leeches. Packers were the first.

    Bye Bye Vikings and take the Timber wolves to San Jose.

  40. raiders4life says: Feb 1, 2011 6:24 PM

    dempsey63 says:
    Feb 1, 2011 4:23 PM
    The NFL exports games to London, so why not export games to L.A.?

    Eight NFC teams could host inter-conference games in the city during even-numbered years with eight AFC teams hosting games during the odd-numbered years.

    All 32 teams would play there during that stretch, providing variety that might alleviate boredom. It could become a late Sunday afternoon Game of the Week for the networks, placing it in prime time elsewhere in the USA.
    —————————————————
    Now that’s tinking outside the box. That’s great idea Dempsey63, LA has a melting pot of NFL fans who root for any variety of teams. An excellence idea indeed. But in the end the league won’t allow it. Raiders rule LA so let’s do like T.I. and “Bring’em Back, Bring’em Back!”

  41. duluthvikings says: Feb 1, 2011 6:31 PM

    As a Vikings fan, I’d like to reiterate Lieweke has already said the Vikings aren’t on the short list for AEG. There are also signs of progress that a stadium bill will pass this legislative session. That said, I feel for the people in Buffalo, San Diego, and Jacksonville. It is absolutely no fun to have to deal with these rumors for years. The NFL must really want a team in L.A. if theyre willing to go through the PR nightmare of moving a team.

  42. mrcowpatty says: Feb 1, 2011 6:40 PM

    If they build anothe strip joint in L.A. they will come.

  43. R8RBOB says: Feb 1, 2011 6:48 PM

    Any team (this includes the RAIDERS) that chooses to relocate to Los Angles should do the honorable thing and retire the name, colors and history of said team. This is the right thing for two reasons. 1) it gives LA fans a chance to grow with the team like fans in Baltimore and Nashville did when the Ravens and Titans came to town. Same with the Washington Nationals and Oklahoma City Thunder. 2) it give the city that was given the big kiss-off to preserve the history of the team if another team chooses to relocate to the area or the city is awarded another franchise. Having L.A Vikings or Bills or even RAIDERS or Chargers is defeating the purpose of putting a team in LA. Clean slate is the thing in sports.

  44. mikehuntsmellztu says: Feb 1, 2011 7:45 PM

    Bigblue really? There is a stadium in NYC – NOT. It’s at the meadowlands which happens to be in NJ.

  45. seewise says: Feb 1, 2011 8:20 PM

    Yeah take our basketball and football team too? There will be another team back in Minnesota ,because of the huge market ie, N.Dakota, S.Dakota, Iowa etc. and then the Vikings would fold, because if there are 18 games and two teams same stadium? wilf is a realestate guy, he does’nt make a profit , if it’s already built, then your just paying AEG. Viking football is 50 years old the rivalries are in place and they want to bring a Super Bowl to Minnesota not LA. Just think if a big company that started in Minnesota was taken to LA. California has a huge deficit and already 3 NFL teams. why does LA want to take away some one elses sports team. make your own team, how about the LA Thugs? That is a nice name.

    The Packers own all those states— fanwise. Vikings are leeches. Packers were the first.

    Bye Bye Vikings and take the Timber wolves to San Jose.

    -Well I guess your not from these parts. My relatives own a part of the Green Bay Packers, trust me the only way people from N.Dakota, S. Dakota and Iowa and parts of Canada are Green Bay fans is because they just moved from Green Bay, eh?

  46. mrcowpatty says: Feb 1, 2011 9:59 PM

    R8R,
    That Laker thing didn’t work out to well. Great point.

  47. seewise says: Feb 1, 2011 10:03 PM

    Frazier, Muskgrave, Singletary, Johnson and of course Spielman making the picks, best draft EVER!

  48. seewise says: Feb 1, 2011 10:06 PM

    RBRB I like your way of thinking, it’s the respectable thing to do today in the green marketing world, rejoice! take a team from any city, there would be sorrow.

  49. recon163 says: Feb 1, 2011 11:12 PM

    @ tdl8:

    BTW: My very long post to you got deleted so I am sure you didn’t have a chance to read it but I did want to comment on this:

    tdl8 wrote:
    “It’s been 16 years since the Rams and Raiders left town and nobody has tried to bring a team back yet. I guess I’m not the only one that thinks it won’t work! All the billionaire owners and the rich business men in LA must be idiots just like me for “assuming” LA fans won’t support an NFL team!”

    South Park Stadium Initiative 2002: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/15/sports/sp-stadium15

    Please note the names associated with this effort. Also let me know if you want to see the Ovitz/Carson proposal, the New Coliseum, and any other of ‘non existent’ previous stadium efforts.

  50. recon163 says: Feb 1, 2011 11:19 PM

    @ seewise

    “There will be another team back in Minnesota ,because of the huge market ie, N.Dakota, S.Dakota, Iowa etc.. . .”

    Combined population of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa: 9,837,057

    Population of the Los Angeles MSA: 12,872,808

    Ouch……

  51. recon163 says: Feb 1, 2011 11:25 PM

    @ whatchutalkinabouthillis:

    “I just don’t think L.A. will appreciate a football team as much as other cities will. Sometimes there are things that are more important than making a little money.”

    Obviously you are not an NFL owner.

  52. wallyhorse says: Feb 2, 2011 12:41 AM

    For those that bring up Baltimore:

    What Tagliabue actually should have done when the Browns moved to Baltimore was force a swap of franchises with the Irsays where the old Browns would have instead moved to Indy under the Irsays’ ownership (and also given a new name, perhaps the Racers with Indy Cars on the helmets) while the Irsays in turn would have given the Colts to Modell and the Colts going back to Baltimore while Cleveland still would have gotten its expansion Browns. That would have satisfied a lot of older Colts fans who in some cases are STILL bitter about the Colts leaving in 1984 (even with the Ravens success), with the old Browns considered a new team as they were as the Ravens in Baltimore and the old Colts team moving back to Baltimore.

  53. broncobourque says: Feb 2, 2011 9:41 AM

    For everyone that keeps talking about the teams that didn’t work in LA, take a look at the circumstances that surrounded that.

    First, if the city had built a stadium one of those teams would have stayed. The Raiders had a stadium plan in place when they left but Al Davis isn’t the most sane person and took what he thought would be a better deal in Oakland. Davis is still waiting for the stadium he was promised in Oakland.

    Second, the Raiders played in south central LA, known as not the saffest place to start with. Then you add in the fact that fans would dress in their Raiders gear and regularly have large fights break out at games and you wonder why someone wouldn’t want to take their family to a game?

    Third, the Rams weren’t in LA, they were in Anaheim for their last 14 years in the area. With all the traffic problems in that area, why would people drive all the way out to Anaheim?

    While the stadium downtown might have traffic problems, public transit is much more realistic that Anaheim. It is in a much safer area than The Coliseum and would be a state of the art stadium built with private money. The $700M deal they just signed with Farmers Insurance will help pay for a good chunk of whatever they build, even if they build another Jerry World for $1.2B. For any team that is stuggling to get a stadium built, like the Chargers, a move to LA is a no brainer.

  54. recon163 says: Feb 2, 2011 9:42 AM

    @ wallyhorse:

    “People who live in LA may say otherwise, but my experiences in dealing with people from LA strongly suggest they are in the minority. . .”

    Yeah let’s not listen to the people who live in LA, you have a much better handle on what Angelenos are thinking.

    “The networks want an NFL team in LA for one reason only as far as I’m concerned: So they can have stars of the various shows (or in the case of ESPN, those who have shows on ABC) at the games so they can be shown there through the misguided belief that fans of shows will tune in just to see their stars “being seen” at the game.”

    So the folks who control every minute of broadcast time need a team in LA because they can’t get them on TV otherwise?

    They are not misguided about what they are doing, that would be you not knowing anything about the business they are in.

  55. dwhitehurst says: Feb 5, 2011 1:21 PM

    seewise says:
    Feb 1, 2011 8:20 PM

    Well I guess your not from these parts. My relatives own a part of the Green Bay Packers, trust me the only way people from N.Dakota, S. Dakota and Iowa and parts of Canada are Green Bay fans is because they just moved from Green Bay, eh?
    ————-

    Well, I’d also guess you’re from the Twin Cities by your comment here, or at least not from South Dakota at least. Here in Sioux Falls its about a 1/4 split Vikings, Packers, Chiefs, and Broncos fans (with a token Bears fan thrown in every once in awhile). And no, as a Packers fan I have never met a fellow Packer fan who is a “transplant from Green Bay.” The split of Vikings to Packers fans in Minnesota is about 80/20. Of course, the mentality typical Vikings fan from the cake-eating, yuppie, rainbow-sticker Twin Cities (ok, not so much St. Paul, which still retains a little blue-collar attitude) thinks that the rest of the state are really just extended parts of Iowa and North Dakota, (which is why I prefer to call them the “Minneapolis Vikings” rather than Minnesota Vikings.) Leave the Twin Cities market, and you’ll find alot of Packer’s fans in more small town/rural parts of Minnesota, as some of my relatives are, living close to Duluth. Btw, other than on a border town, name me one “Viking Bar” in Wisconsin or Illinois—I can name you plenty Packer Bars in the Twin Cities as well as the rest of the State. (I’ve met up with friends at one in New Ulm, MN for example).

    As one poster here had rightly said, the reason for the current existence of a great number of Packer fans in the Dakota’s and Iowa and even in Minnesota is simply due to the fact that most of their “forefathers” were following the Packers (conceived in 1921) long before 1960 when the Vikings first came into the league as an expansion team, and most of those who converted to following the Vikings only did so with the “success” they eventually began to have in the Bud Grant era of the 70’s. By “success” I mean relatively speaking, given that they went to 4 Super Bowls during this time…the fact that they LOST these 4 Super Bowls is something the typical Viking’s fan understandably just ignores and hates to reminded of after talking smack against their Packer neighbors whom they hate for reasons of subliminal envy that they will never admit to. ;)

    Nevertheless, despite not winning a Super Bowl, the pre-Metrodome era of the Vikings playing outdoors at the Met was a Vikings era one couldn’t but respect, with the “Purple People Eaters” and all. If the Vikings were to build an OUTdoor stadium somewhere in the Twin Cities (e.g., the old site of the Met, next to the Mall of America, which is still open btw), a less-expensive outdoor stadium which the owner Ziggi Wilff himself has said he would be fine with if the State Legislature wouldn’t vote through the much higher cost for an indoor stadium, then I would hope they would not move to LA. That’s something I could respect in a rival. Sadly, since budget/spending decisions in Minnesota when it comes to public items like roads or stadiums are always dominated by the interestes of white-collar Minneapolis (sort of like how Chicago dominates the politics in all of Illinois), there will never be the option of a less-expensive, outdoor stadium, since Minneapolis culture is such that their fandom only goes so far–I mean, aside from the unthinkable idea of being out in the cold (like those “uncouth paleo-football fans” of the Packers and the Bears), it would also mean their cappuchino would be cold by the time they got back to their seats from the stadium vendor. :)

  56. bobby619 says: Feb 8, 2011 2:51 AM

    I think a lot of these posters who are bashing LA are MOST LIKELY residents of St. Louis! Worried? I live in San Diego, and It will either be the Chargers and/or the Rams going to LA. It’s gonna happen!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!