Skip to content

Poll says Minnesotans don’t want to pay for new stadium

Metrodome Collapse Football AP

On Monday, Minneapolis officials unveiled a stadium plan they claimed would be a “game-changer” in the battle to finance a new home for the Vikings.

The team issued a tepid response by press release, and sounded even less enthused when asked for a quote.

“$440 million for the site does not work, and it’s not something we can support.  Three parties need to negotiate a deal, and this does not accomplish that,” Vikings’ vice president Lester Bagley told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

As Florio pointed out Monday, the Vikings are playing this perfectly.  Two local governments are now competing to build the stadium.

A fly in the ointment could be a lack of widespread public support.   Nearly 75% of people polled by the Star-Tribune said the Vikings shouldn’t get any taxpayer money to build the stadium.  60% said the Vikings should just stay in the Metrodome.  The same poll revealed for the first time, however, that voters believe money spent on the Twins’ Target Field was worth it.

The Vikings have an important two weeks coming up for the future of their stadium project and franchise as a whole.  Public opposition to funding a stadium can’t help what is already a challenging situation.

Permalink 89 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors
89 Responses to “Poll says Minnesotans don’t want to pay for new stadium”
  1. adogdc says: May 10, 2011 10:26 AM

    LA Vikings……

    They steal another franchise from Minny.

  2. fargovikesfan says: May 10, 2011 10:27 AM

    The 60% that say they should just stay in the Metrodome obviously have never been to a game in the Metrodome. Its called the “MetroDump” for a reason…

  3. gregjennings85 says: May 10, 2011 10:28 AM

    “ANY taxpayer money”???

    Come on, Minnesota – I want the Vikings to stay in your stay forever, but that is a tad ridiculous.

    You have to pay SOME of the bill for the entertainment venue that will both attract events and justify your city and region as an economic base.

  4. pistolsmoke says: May 10, 2011 10:30 AM

    Perfect example of the phrase: People don’t want to spend money to make money. They just want everything handed to them. Why poor people play the lottery more than middle class people. They just want to go from poor to rich in 1 day and not work for it.

    People want a new stadium in MN but not willing to pay for it even if it will help out the city, state, economy, jobs, etc.

  5. zimaman says: May 10, 2011 10:31 AM

    oh I can’t wait – this could be a new episode for:

    Jesse Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” TV series. the ex Governator of Minnesota will go wild on this one, it will be epic. “The Body knows…The Body tells it like it is!”

  6. carlgerbschmidt says: May 10, 2011 10:31 AM

    A bigger fly in the ointment is the terrible product they put on the field. Who would pay money to see this trash, much less pay money to build a stadium so they can pay additional money to go see this trash. Ridiculous.

  7. uncommon1 says: May 10, 2011 10:36 AM

    I would like to point out that the StarTribune only polled 800 people. I think we can all imagine the type of people available for polling in the middle of a Monday afternoon. If they would have done this same poll outside of Winter Park on Draft Day, they would have shown that 85% of people support a government funded stadium. Of course Harold, the 83 year old retired farmer, doesn’t want any of his tax money being spent on the Vikings.

  8. crimhollingsworth says: May 10, 2011 10:37 AM

    You forgot to mention that they also built a college football stadium- which is crazy, because they only go to “Golden Gopher” games to watch the other teams play.

  9. jstrizzle says: May 10, 2011 10:38 AM

    ” Nearly 75% of people polled by the Star-Tribune said the Vikings shouldn’t get any taxpayer money to build the stadium.”

    That is because 3 of the 4 people that voted were Packers fans.

    Seriously though don’t use Strib polls as a source because that site is going downhill fast.

  10. fatediesel says: May 10, 2011 10:47 AM

    That was a poor article by the Star-Tribune. I’d like to see the actual wording of each of the polls questions. Was there an option that asked whether people would prefer no public money go for the stadium even if it meant losing the team? Why even bother asking if fans think the Vikings should stay in the Metrodome? It’s not going to happen. The Metrodome is a horrible stadium and no NFL team is going to voluntarily stay there.

  11. airraid77 says: May 10, 2011 10:48 AM

    they didnt vote in a republican congress for greater taxes and more government….i know this is shocking news to the libs… and host of this sight.

  12. polegojim says: May 10, 2011 10:49 AM

    If the Vikings were actually playing this ‘perfectly’, they would have done this after a very successful year, not 6-10, not one filled with mediocrity and doubt.

    Fans/taxpayers are much more ready and willing to provide a new house for after some significant success. Favre bites you again.

  13. goawayeverybody says: May 10, 2011 10:49 AM

    Ha ha ha sanity rules after all in Minnesota.

  14. thephantomstranger says: May 10, 2011 10:51 AM

    Ask this question in any other city and you’d get the same result. Of course nobody wants any of their money to be spent on anything. How about giving people a list of all the things that their tax money is spent on that they don’t want their tax money spent on and then ask if it makes sense to spend tax money on a stadium. The people who want the Vikings to stay would say yes and the people who don’t care would say no. This will get done and after it’s done everybody will be happy, just like with Target Field.

  15. whathappenedtovox says: May 10, 2011 10:55 AM

    Nor should they want to pay for a stadium. The owners have repeatedly cried that they have to foot the bill for new stadiums, when in reality the bulk of that burden always falls on the city.

  16. purdueman says: May 10, 2011 11:00 AM

    You know, the University of Minnesota football team and the Minnesota Twins both went to great lengths to get brand new beautiful stadiums built just so that the Vikings could become the principle tenant of the Rollerdome. Why screw a good thing up now?

  17. goombar2 says: May 10, 2011 11:05 AM

    Now this is the land of guano crazy Michelle Bachman that I know! The problem is, I heard as soon as LA heard they might get the vikings, now nobody wants to build a stadium in California!

    How depressing!

  18. tjacks7 says: May 10, 2011 11:06 AM

    I’ll proved a summary:

    1. Over 75% of Minnesotans want to keep te Vikings in Minnesota, but dont want to pay for it.
    2. 60% of those polled are complete idiots. Stay in the metrodome, REALLY?
    3. The response is what toucan expect in this economy, nobody wants to pay for sh!t.

  19. dcbronco says: May 10, 2011 11:08 AM

    Good for the people of Minnesota. Make big business pay for their own buildings like any small business would. And remove anyone politician from office that tries to fix it otherwise. It’s time for corporations to pay their own expenses.

  20. joesuhunka says: May 10, 2011 11:13 AM

    Minnesota North Stars.

    Hey idiot minnesotans, remember how that went?

  21. savocabol1 says: May 10, 2011 11:14 AM

    Take a poll PFT. I bet you 90% of your fans wouldn’t want to pay for a new stadium in their hometown.

  22. allday297 says: May 10, 2011 11:14 AM

    Minnesotans have elected Jesse Ventura & Stuart Smally? Just maybe thier opinion should not matter! Just get it done!

  23. purplereign28 says: May 10, 2011 11:16 AM

    The poll said that 806 Minnesotans opposed paying for the stadium. Last time I checked, there were a few more people that lived in Minnesota…

  24. mattbydlon says: May 10, 2011 11:22 AM

    I try to ignore the fact that Rosenthal is obviously a Packers homer when he writes articles, but an entire PFT entry dedicated to negativity towards a new Vikings stadium is bush-league. It’s a goofy small-scale Star Tribune poll. This isn’t “news”. . .

  25. bigd9484 says: May 10, 2011 11:25 AM

    As a new resident of Minneapolis, and not even being a Vikings fan, I am very surprised. A lot of people here love the Vikings, but apparently have no interest in trying to keep them here with taxes that are mostly transparent. (a fraction of a percent of metrodome event sales, vikings stuff sales, etc). So basically, they tried to manage the tax to confine it to the people who ALREADY support the team, if you don’t go to events or buy memorabilia, you won’t be affected. I bet these same people would be more than willing to come to concerts and other random events that a stadium of this magnitude would bring in. Besides, did you guys see the drawings? Looked pretty good to me.

  26. monkeesfan says: May 10, 2011 11:28 AM

    LA Vikings will never happen because LA will never get a team – there is NO audience for one in LA and there is far more support for a new staidum than that poll suggests.

  27. blizzard01 says: May 10, 2011 11:30 AM

    If the Vikes leave, and I hope they don’t-
    the twin cities become no better than the 1.4
    cities. That’s when they stop labeling you on the national weather maps.

  28. bravin4evr says: May 10, 2011 11:32 AM

    Same senario as in Cleveland. City and fans don’t want to build a new stadium. Owner moves his team to a city that will give him a new stadium and both gets sh$tted on by NFL and the public.

  29. airraid77 says: May 10, 2011 11:34 AM

    to me what is so funny about the people who wont pay, will be the ones who will cry fould when the vikings and their uhaul pull out of winter park. They will also be the first ones to file lawsuits.
    Have I told anybody how bad the rhetoric is towards success?

  30. scotthochsdramaticweightgain1 says: May 10, 2011 11:44 AM

    Instead of money, how about if every taxpayer threw in a walleye or two?

  31. locutus says: May 10, 2011 11:46 AM

    1) I wouldn’t put much stock in a Star Tribune poll due to most of the vocal people responding are either Packer people and/or utter fools that read that site.

    2) I truly hope MN residents are not that ignorant because it is shocking to see people who simply want and not willing to give one red cent.

    3) A stadium is “usually” a fixed structure that cannot be moved. Correct? Unless these people have come up with a movable stadium, where the Vikings pay for it all and then can take it with them after taking it apart, then it makes absolute business and commen sense that all parties pony up their fair share.

    I am beginning to lose a tremendous amount of respect for the people up there. As I said, I hope it is only the vocal minority and not the majority who think this way.

  32. ted1sheckler says: May 10, 2011 11:48 AM

    To all the Vikes to LA turds:

    Lester Bagley, when asked about moving the team to Cali.

    We are 100% dedicated to getting this done in Minnesota.

    It’s in another article on the same site.

    Only an ass hat would wish a team moving, just because they are a rival. Or you people think you’re that clever as to have come up with LA Vikings first.
    In both cases, you’re to be pitied,not ridiculed.

    It’s a common condition shared by most Packers, Bears and Saints fans.
    Cranial rectosis. You can’t help that you were born with it.
    Carl g did manage to cram a gerbil in there too. He’s got that going for him, which is nice.

  33. locutus says: May 10, 2011 11:50 AM

    carlgerbschmidt says:
    May 10, 2011 10:31 AM
    A bigger fly in the ointment is the terrible product they put on the field. Who would pay money to see this trash, much less pay money to build a stadium so they can pay additional money to go see this trash. Ridiculous.

    Lol

    Yes, so bad that they have dominated the NFCN since its inception. The biggest suprise to me is how this “terrible product” always attracts losers who feel the need to comment about it.

    Here, let me give you an example; there are 31 other NFL teams aside from my Vikings. I have yet to read or comment about any one of them. You know why? Because I don’t give a **** about them. That’s how it works when you truly do not care about things.

  34. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: May 10, 2011 11:52 AM

    If Minnesotans are unwilling to invest in a new home for the Vikings, then they can’t be heard to complain if the Vikes elect not to invest in Minnesota, and relocate. It’s that simple.

    Also, would the District of Minnesota be able to retain its judicial oversight role on future litigation if the Vikings relocated to another state?

  35. Nevis says: May 10, 2011 11:54 AM

    Been saying it for months…Vikes will be LA before long.

  36. dogsweat1 says: May 10, 2011 12:00 PM

    Good Bye Minnesota Bills or Buffalo Vikings.

    An epic failure.

  37. boisestatewhodat says: May 10, 2011 12:01 PM

    Where’s my last post?

  38. thephantomstranger says: May 10, 2011 12:12 PM

    The problem is that most people don’t believe the team will ever move. If you provide a specific proposal to people showing how much of their tax money would actually go to the stadium and asked them if they prefer this proposal to the team leaving, most people would be for it. It’s a meaningless poll, just like most of them are.

  39. cornellsteelers says: May 10, 2011 12:19 PM

    Just ask the Fed to print enough money to pay for the stadium. I mean, it’s how everything else is getting paid for nowadays, isn’t it? Now we just have to figure out a way to get around that pesky hyperinflation….

  40. purdueman says: May 10, 2011 12:23 PM

    It must be a really slow sports news day for this to become such a watershed blog!

    Here are my thoughts on it though (and I’ve spent a ton of time in Minneapolis over the years as it was a part of my territory):

    1) The Vikings owner is older than dirt and has almost as much money as God. He can easily afford to foot the bill for a new stadium and how much money do his heirs need? $100M or more a piece? (that’s what Bill Gates has said is his limit for his kids inheritance, and if it’s good enough for Gates, it’s good enough for Ziggy’s heirs too!);

    2) The Metrodome site isn’t feasible, because it would take close to two years to raise the Rollerdome and build a new stadium on the site and where would the Vikings play in the interim?

    When the Bears decided to build on the existing Soldier Field site, they had Memorial Stadium at U of I to fall back on, and that site was able to handle all of the season ticket holders. The only viable option for a temporary move the Vikings have in state is the U of M stadium, but that would leave 14,000 current season ticket holders out in the cold (so to speak!);

    3) The perfect site is the long since abandoned Naval Weapons facility just north of town (the other proposal). That site has plenty of room and good freeway access already in place, but the NIBY’s are all up in arms about it.

    Gee, what would you rather have in your neighborhood? A decaying abandoned weapons site that no doubt is overrun with rodents? Or a brand new shiny stadium that will inconvenience you only about 10 mostly weekend dates a year?;

    4) Although economically it would have made more sense for U of M and the Vikings to share a new stadium (as they had for decades), but a stadium on campus should be part of the collegiate experience IMO; and

    5) The difference between the Twins and the Vikings owners are that the Twins owners have deep vested business interests in the community, whereas Ziggy is an out of towner who has none. It’s like bacon and eggs; the pig is committed, the chicken ony participates. Therein lies the real problem!

    To those who say that the Rollerdome is a dump, this should come as no surprise because it was built on the cheap to begin with. It’s almost a small miracle that it’s held up as long as it already has.

  41. swede700 says: May 10, 2011 12:28 PM

    Why they even have polls on these topics is ridiculous? As others have mentioned, you ask these questions in any city or state, not just Minnesota and you will get a negative answer. Hell, in this day and age, if you ask people whether their taxes should go to funding help for the poor, you’d get a negative answer, because “they’re only poor because they’re lazy.”

  42. mvp43 says: May 10, 2011 12:31 PM

    Don’t forget that there will be PSL’s that the Vikings will charge fans in addition to the increased tax. People will be paying more than what the Viking claim…

  43. schemefactory says: May 10, 2011 12:33 PM

    vikings to l.a. is the only way i could hate them any more or any less… haven’t decided on that yet.

  44. contra74 says: May 10, 2011 12:40 PM

    Poll says Minnesotans don’t want to pay for new stadium
    ——————
    I dont want to pay any federal or state taxes PERIOD…but guess what…I have to. Just approve the damn thing cause your tax money will be used one way or another.

  45. kennyrogerschicken says: May 10, 2011 12:51 PM

    locutus says: May 10, 2011 11:50 AM

    carlgerbschmidt says:
    May 10, 2011 10:31 AM
    A bigger fly in the ointment is the terrible product they put on the field. Who would pay money to see this trash, much less pay money to build a stadium so they can pay additional money to go see this trash. Ridiculous.

    Lol

    Yes, so bad that they have dominated the NFCN since its inception. The biggest suprise to me is how this “terrible product” always attracts losers who feel the need to comment about it.

    ———————————————–
    Most of those “losers” who comment are Viking fans.

    By the way, congrats on dominating the NFCN for so long. I’ll take a Super Bowl trophy over several NFCN titles any day, but you enjoy your NFCN dominance. I’m sure it will comfort you when you watch Green Bay win another Super Bowl.

  46. wiscdave says: May 10, 2011 12:52 PM

    Before the Twins stadium was approved, polling showed the same result–a majority opposed to public funding for the stadium. Now that it has been built, public opinion has flipped and a majority are glad that it was built. There was opposition to the Metrodome before it was constructed. When I was growing up, I heard the jokes about the scandahoovian farmers who could account for every penny they ever earned or ever spent. I guess some things haven’t changed.

  47. rcali says: May 10, 2011 1:04 PM

    There’s no public funding available in Los Angeles either so looks like the owner is coughing up the money or finding another sucker of a city to pay for it.

  48. theoriginalcaptainmarvel says: May 10, 2011 1:09 PM

    Rosenthal, you ought to know these polls are meaningless. It’s all in how you word the question. And it’s beside the point anyway. Everyone here in MN knows a deal for a new stadium is gonna get done either this year or next year. All the most prominent politicians in both parties are in favor of it. This article does nothing other than rile people up. A new stadium deal in Minnesota is imminent.

  49. carlgerbschmidt says: May 10, 2011 1:11 PM

    @locutus

    Yes, so bad that they have dominated the NFCN since its inception. The biggest suprise to me is how this “terrible product” always attracts losers who feel the need to comment about it.

    _____

    Well, since the NFC North has only been around since 2002, that isn’t much of an accomplishment. And, what has it gotten you? One heartbreaking loss in the conference championship game, and let me see, here, oh yeah, ZERO Super Bowl appearances (How many Super Bowls have you won again?). Nice team you got there.

  50. thephantomstranger says: May 10, 2011 1:16 PM

    purdueman says:
    May 10, 2011 12:23 PM
    1) The Vikings owner is older than dirt and has almost as much money as God. He can easily afford to foot the bill for a new stadium and how much money do his heirs need? $100M or more a piece? (that’s what Bill Gates has said is his limit for his kids inheritance, and if it’s good enough for Gates, it’s good enough for Ziggy’s heirs too!);
    _______________

    Zygi Wilf is 61. Dirt is older.

    Wilf’s net worth is about $1.3 billion, which is $1.3 billion more than God has.

  51. drbob117 says: May 10, 2011 1:20 PM

    It’s a done deal, the Vikings have called a presser for this afternoon to announce that they chose the Arden Hills site.

  52. bordner says: May 10, 2011 1:20 PM

    Yes, so bad that they have dominated the NFCN since its inception.
    ——————————————
    Dominated?

    The inception of the NFC North was 2002. Since that time, the Packers have won it 4 times (2002, 2003, 2004 & 2007), the bears have won it 3 times (2005, 2006, 2010) and the Queens have won it twice (2008, 2009). The Lions have almost “dominated” it as much as them.

  53. suckittrebek76 says: May 10, 2011 1:23 PM

    There should be no public money for professional sports franchises. period. Studies have shown these stadiums have little economic impact on the community that it is in. They do however have a lot of economic impact on billionaire owners and millionaire players. Stay strong Minnesota.

  54. purdueman says: May 10, 2011 1:26 PM

    rcali…. I live in the greater LA area and can assure you that neither of the two proposed stadiums and sites require so much as one dime of taxpayer money with one exception.

    The downtown site proposal would require the City of LA to float an estimated $300M in bonds in order to tear down the old (and dilapidated/outdated), west wing of the LA Convention Center and rebuild it on the other side.

    With the terrific redevelopment that LA Live has brought to a very revitalized downtown LA though, this should be done regardless of whether or not the new stadium is ever built.

    The other site in suburban East LA (City of Industry), already has a legislative environmental site waiver, the land is already privately held and in the hands of the owners who want to develop it and the site already has all the necessary freeway access and parking space.

    The downtown site seriously lacks parking space, but it does have easy access to the relatively new LA subway line. In addition, the downtown site already has a stadium naming rights agreement in place from Farmers Insurance that would pay for roughly half of the proposed stadium ($700M).

    The ONLY thing holding up both proposals is a firm commitment by one or (preferably two), existing NFL franchises to break ground. The recently revamped Rose Bowl has already indicated that they are more than willing to host the NFL until the new stadium is built.

    The Vikings though aren’t the “target” teams; the Chargers and Jaguars are the target teams.

  55. spkriegs says: May 10, 2011 1:28 PM

    There are a lot of comedians on here, making fun of Minnesota and/or the Vikings. But regardless of who your favorite team is, ask yourself, “Do you want the Vikings to relocate?”

    Unless you are from the potential location they would relocate to, I can’t imagine the answer would be “Yes”. The Vikings are a traditional NFL team, so why would any fan of the NFL want to destroy that legacy? I can’t understand why even fans of NFC North rivals want want to see a rival depart.

    So yeah, joke all you want about the Vikings stadium hardship. But if you care about the tradition of the league, you should be crossing your fingers that something gets worked out.

  56. bdickey33 says: May 10, 2011 1:34 PM

    purdueman says:
    May 10, 2011 12:23 PM

    2) The Metrodome site isn’t feasible, because it would take close to two years to raise the Rollerdome and build a new stadium on the site and where would the Vikings play in the interim?

    When the Bears decided to build on the existing Soldier Field site, they had Memorial Stadium at U of I to fall back on, and that site was able to handle all of the season ticket holders. The only viable option for a temporary move the Vikings have in state is the U of M stadium, but that would leave 14,000 current season ticket holders out in the cold (so to speak!);
    ————————————————–

    I would check your numbers on Vikings season ticket holders again. Just because U of M might have 14,000 less seats doesn’t mean the Vikings fill their stadium with season ticket holders. Lots of single game / ticket packages sold to fill the stadium.

  57. suckittrebek76 says: May 10, 2011 1:34 PM

    Shocking. I can’t believe that 75 percent of people don’t want to pay for somebody else’s property. Unreal

  58. clownburger says: May 10, 2011 1:34 PM

    People forget to ask the question “Why can’t the owner pay for it?”

    He paid more for the team, and the tax payers didn’t have to chip in for that.

    “It will help the community etc etc etc….” Sure, but asking someone to pay for something and then pay to get into that something seems a bit ridiculous when you think about it.

    Here, help me pay for this car. Then for 20 bucks, I’ll drive you around in it. Kind of ridiculous right?

    These owners COULD pay for stadiums themselves.

    At the VERY least, people should have a say in the matter.

  59. mjkelly77 says: May 10, 2011 1:41 PM

    It figures. Just when the Lions beat the Vikes and they swap prospective direction, they may leave Minny. L.A.? Who knows. If it results in a realignment, the Lions may lose a future divisional patsy they can now slap around.

  60. mvp43 says: May 10, 2011 1:51 PM

    I wonder deep down if the NFL really wants the Vikings in Minnestota at all? I have a feeling they wouldn’t be too upset if they went to LA.

  61. ruvelligwebuike says: May 10, 2011 1:51 PM

    locustus says…
    “Yes, so bad that they have dominated the NFCN since its inception”
    ——————–

    What a Minnesotan! Dominated? You’ve won it HALF as many times as the Packers have. Norwegians and football knowledge just don’t mix.

  62. pervyharvin says: May 10, 2011 1:59 PM

    Man , I love living in MN and love the Vikings. As a transplant here from Iowa 20 years ago i will say this though…..you are some cheap bastards living here if that poll is true. Pathetic!

  63. canadianvikingfaniii says: May 10, 2011 2:00 PM

    I’ve been to the Metrodump a few times for games, how could anyone possibly want the Vikings to stay there? The poll must be rigged.

  64. purdueman says: May 10, 2011 2:05 PM

    bdickey33 says:
    May 10, 2011 1:34 PM
    ————————————————–
    I would check your numbers on Vikings season ticket holders again. Just because U of M might have 14,000 less seats doesn’t mean the Vikings fill their stadium with season ticket holders. Lots of single game / ticket packages sold to fill the stadium.
    ********************
    bdickey:

    1) My numbers come directly from the NFL network, but it really doesn’t matter to me one way or the other how accurate they are because:

    2) There’s no way that Ziggy will willingly give up 14,000 or more paying customers for an entire season by even temporarily moving into a much smaller stadium.

  65. locutus says: May 10, 2011 2:08 PM

    ruvelligwebuike says:
    May 10, 2011 1:51 PM
    locustus says…
    “Yes, so bad that they have dominated the NFCN since its inception”
    ——————–

    What a Minnesotan! Dominated? You’ve won it HALF as many times as the Packers have. Norwegians and football knowledge just don’t mix.

    Maybe that cheese is hardening those arteries to that already atrophied brain.

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

  66. locutus says: May 10, 2011 2:11 PM

    suckittrebek76 says:
    May 10, 2011 1:34 PM
    Shocking. I can’t believe that 75 percent of people don’t want to pay for somebody else’s property. Unreal

    What’s shocking is the ignorance regarding something so simple. It is NOT their “property” but that of the state and city. Otherwise if it were just like any other property, they would sell it when they wanted to move. Just how many stadium have you seen sold recently?

  67. schemefactory says: May 10, 2011 2:11 PM

    why can’t they just play in that america’s mall thing?

  68. theytukrjobs says: May 10, 2011 2:16 PM

    If 25% want to pay for it then that is actually a high number. Since online polls given as options on websites are grossly inaccurate as representations of a population, I’d say we don’t read too deeply into it though.

  69. ruvelligwebuike says: May 10, 2011 2:29 PM

    “Maybe that cheese is hardening those arteries to that already atrophied brain.”
    —————

    The NFC North was formed in 2002. Since then, the Packers have won the division four times. The Vikings have won it twice. Also, the Packers have appeared in two NFC Championships to the Vikings one.

    Oh, and won the Super Bowl once to the Vikings obvious zero.

    So again….they have won HALF as many division championships, appeared in HALF as many championship games and HAL…well, what is half of zero?

  70. ubummer says: May 10, 2011 2:43 PM

    Only an idiot could believe the Vikes are moving to LA. The NFL is going to use LA to threaten every city it possibly can in order to extort as much money from as many cities as possible.

  71. JSpicoli says: May 10, 2011 2:47 PM

    Nevis says:
    May 10, 2011 11:54 AM
    Been saying it for months…Vikes will be LA before long.

    _________________________________

    It has been years for most of us. Welcome aboard there Nostradamous.

  72. dogsweat1 says: May 10, 2011 2:48 PM

    The Minnesota Norwegians have all moved to California, they have been replaced by the Somalians.

  73. locutus says: May 10, 2011 2:48 PM

    Maybe you need the “link” actually read to you? The term NFC north is analogous (yes big word there) to NFC central.

    The NFC North is a division of the National Football League’s National Football Conference, based in the Upper Midwest region of the United States. It currently has four members: the Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, and Minnesota Vikings.

    The division was created in 1967 as the Central Division of the NFL’s Western Conference and existed for three seasons before the AFL–NFL merger. After the merger, it was renamed the NFC Central and retained that name until the NFL split into eight divisions in 2002. The four teams have been together in the same division or conference since the Vikings joined the league in 1961.

    Don’t you have any Packer sites to frequent? Lmao!

  74. thephantomstranger says: May 10, 2011 3:00 PM

    NFC Central/North championships:

    Minnesota – 18
    Chicago – 10
    Green Bay – 9
    Detroit – 3
    Tampa Bay – 3

    Packer fans like to talk about their great history, but they conveniently forget about 1968 to 1994. Man, that’s a long time. And they make fun of the Vikings because they had ONE bad year in a row.

  75. purdueman says: May 10, 2011 3:14 PM

    thephantomstranger says:
    May 10, 2011 3:00 PM
    NFC Central/North championships:

    Minnesota – 18
    Chicago – 10
    Green Bay – 9
    Detroit – 3
    Tampa Bay – 3

    Packer fans like to talk about their great history, but they conveniently forget about 1968 to 1994. Man, that’s a long time. And they make fun of the Vikings because they had ONE bad year in a row.
    ************
    thephantom… you make an excellent point, but I need to add a couple of things to your post:

    1) I’m sure that there are a lot of posters out here who don’t really remember any NFL seasons that pre-date Super Bowl 15; and

    2) Unfortunately, the thing that the Vikings are best remembered for are coughing up a hair ball on FOUR different Super Bowls.

    I live in the LA area, and there’s little sentiment to raid another city like Minnesota who clearly supports their team. In addition, aside from us transplanted mid-westerners there’s very little connection to the NFC North (which is seldom aired on free TV out here).

    The sentiment here is that:

    1) The Jaguars don’t support their team, are in too small of a market to remain viable and will soon need a new stadium which they won’t be able to afford; and

    2) The San Diego Chargers were originally the Los Angeles Chargers and an estimated 40% of their season ticket base comes from Orange County (which for those of you who don’t know if basically halfway between downtown LA and downtown San Diego as the crow flies).

    In other words, Jacksonville doesn’t deserve an NFL franchise and it really wouldn’t be robbing San Diego to relocate the Chargers to LA because they still would be within easy driving distance from their new LA home (regardless of which stadium site ultimately prevails).

  76. ruvelligwebuike says: May 10, 2011 3:36 PM

    Maybe you need the “link” actually read to you? The term NFC north is analogous (yes big word there) to NFC central.

    The NFC North is a division of the National Football League’s National Football Conference, based in the Upper Midwest region of the United States. It currently has four members: the Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, and Minnesota Vikings.
    Oh my God, Locutus!
    The division was created in 1967 as the Central Division of the NFL’s Western Conference and existed for three seasons before the AFL–NFL merger. After the merger, it was renamed the NFC Central and retained that name until the NFL split into eight divisions in 2002. The four teams have been together in the same division or conference since the Vikings joined the league in 1961.

    Don’t you have any Packer sites to frequent? Lmao!
    —————–

    Oh, you mean pre-2002? Let me get this straight. A VIKING fan wants to talk about the historic glory days?

  77. suckittrebek76 says: May 10, 2011 3:50 PM

    suckittrebek76 says:
    May 10, 2011 1:34 PM
    Shocking. I can’t believe that 75 percent of people don’t want to pay for somebody else’s property. Unreal

    What’s shocking is the ignorance regarding something so simple. It is NOT their “property” but that of the state and city. Otherwise if it were just like any other property, they would sell it when they wanted to move. Just how many stadium have you seen sold recently?

    Sure, the city or state may own a portion of the facility. However, it really isn’t available for public consumption like a public park. How many other private businesses have the luxury of getting public money so they can increase revenue streams. Poor people should shoulder the burden so the rich can get richer.

  78. didiwags says: May 10, 2011 3:51 PM

    Obviously the small poll that the Star Tribune did was NOT known around MN by ppl. I never heard of it and am online a lot!!! It seems that all these polls are “fixed” and only those who do not care about football are voting on them!!

    The Vikings need a stadium and they deserve one! My husband makes less then 30K a year and I would be more then willing to pay taxes for a new stadium. I didnt want a Twins stadium but they got one…. it is all about what sport you are in to. I do not complain about the Twins stadium. The Twins have a stadium and it is now the Vikings turn!!!

    GET IT DONE!!!!!

  79. purdueman says: May 10, 2011 5:08 PM

    I’d rather see my taxes used to help fund a new municipal stadium than to have my taxes go to help fund some left wing liberal kook cause, some right wing bible thumper cause or to increase public teachers pensions again… and again… and again!

    Ever notice how whenever there’s money earmarked for EDUCATION that the teachers union is ALWAYS the first one in line with their hands out crying poverty?

    Now before any of you do-gooders jump all over me for my stance, do you have ANY idea how big the pensions are that retired teachers pull down for LIFE?

    They may not be the highest paid going into the work force, but they’re among the fortunate lucky chosen few who retire on top of huge nesteggs, compliments of us taxpayers!

  80. gbfanforever says: May 10, 2011 8:58 PM

    What I don’t get is this, the vikings are asking for an ultra expensive stadium by most standards. Target field probably cost half the price, if not less. Why aren’t less expensive alternatives that still hold the same amount of fans and have a permanent roof presented to the tax payer? Instead they get just one choice, get shafted for the most the vikes can squeeze out of their wallets. No wonder the citizens are mad and won’t bend over eagerly.

  81. purdueman says: May 10, 2011 9:42 PM

    gbfans…. the entire NFL’s legacy was built on charter franchise NFL teams playing like real men… outdoors and on grass (be it frozen or not).

    The one thing that the NFC North DOESN’T need is yet another domed or retractable roof NFL stadium; that’s for wussies!

    Only Detroit has caved in to the perceived need to pamper fans in indoor comfort. Pulh-ease! No more indoor or retractable roof NFL stadiums… ANYWHERE! They should be banned!

  82. carlgerbschmidt says: May 10, 2011 10:35 PM

    thephantomstranger says:May 10, 2011 3:00 PM

    NFC Central/North championships:

    Minnesota – 18
    Chicago – 10
    Green Bay – 9
    Detroit – 3
    Tampa Bay – 3

    Packer fans like to talk about their great history, but they conveniently forget about 1968 to 1994. Man, that’s a long time. And they make fun of the Vikings because they had ONE bad year in a row.

    ______________

    That’s cute. Now let’s compare Super Bowl wins.

    Packers: 4
    vikes: 0

    Looks to me like they vikes are built for the regular season, but fold like a cheap h**ker who’s been punched in the gut during the post season. Have fun sewing those division title patches on your sashes.

  83. granadafan says: May 11, 2011 1:36 AM

    “Ever notice how whenever there’s money earmarked for EDUCATION that the teachers union is ALWAYS the first one in line with their hands out crying poverty?”
    ——————————————————————————

    Yeah, because increasing funding for the education of our children is much much much worse than paying for a billionaire’s stadium so he can sit in a nice taxpayer-funded suite box drinking champagne while your children become dumber.

  84. sneaky1632 says: May 11, 2011 7:43 AM

    Maybe they can use some of those millions they are fighting over to go twards new stadiums.

  85. purdueman says: May 11, 2011 8:25 AM

    granadafan says:
    May 11, 2011 1:36 AM
    “Ever notice how whenever there’s money earmarked for EDUCATION that the teachers union is ALWAYS the first one in line with their hands out crying poverty?”
    ——————————————————————————

    Yeah, because increasing funding for the education of our children is much much much worse than paying for a billionaire’s stadium so he can sit in a nice taxpayer-funded suite box drinking champagne while your children become dumber.
    *****************************************
    grana… you totally missed my point. Teachers having their hands out doesn’t in any way change the quality of our kids eductation, as (especially in these economic times), they ain’t going anywhere (so our teachers remain the same).

    The tenured teachers would rather grab a raise at the expense of budget cutbacks elsewhere, including the layoff of other teachers, school supplies, physical campus needed improvements, etc..

    Teachers unions are all about ME, ME, ME, not about our children. How is that any different than NFL owners?

  86. crowdedtrophycase says: May 11, 2011 9:09 AM

    In order to pay for the stadium, why don’t you mud ducks just tax Sunday liquor sales.

    Oh, wait…

  87. carlgerbschmidt says: May 11, 2011 9:22 AM

    @ted1sheckler says:

    It’s a common condition shared by most Packers, Bears and Saints fans.
    Cranial rectosis. You can’t help that you were born with it.
    Carl g did manage to cram a gerbil in there too. He’s got that going for him, which is nice.

    —————

    Wow, you vikes fans are angry and bitter. It must be caused by 50 years of coming up short in the post season.

  88. s2t2seattle says: May 13, 2011 5:19 PM

    I’m sure these are all just idle threats and you have nothing to worry about, Viking fans.

    Remember how it felt when Dallas won that Stanley Cup in ’99?

    I can tell you with the “Sonics” one series win away from the NBA Finals, it hurts. Pisses me off to no end. Don’t let it happen, Minnesota.

  89. purdueman says: May 13, 2011 6:15 PM

    s2t2…. While I share your sentiments, Minnesota and Washington State have one thing in common… they’re both liberal states which means that they have a lot of “do gooders” who will fight tooth and nail to block any public money being used for a new stadium for the Vikings.

    The Twins timing was much better, because at the time their new park got finally approved, the economy was still good and the Twins were coming off of years of winning. It’s a big difference; timing is everything.

    As for the Supersonics? The Key Center was like the Forum in LA… too long in the tooth and lacking luxury boxes that owners covet to peddle. The city and state though had PLENTY of advance warning that they would move without a new arena being approved, yet did virtually nothing to try and retain them (as Sacramento has done this year).

    What would have made sense to me would have been to put up a new arena near the nearby University of Washington campus and make it a “shared” facility with the Sonics. Such a proposal (i.e., including a state college in the plan), I think would have had at least a shot at getting approved at the time.

Leave a Reply

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