Skip to content

AEG has spoken with five teams about purchase, relocation

Press Conference Held To Annouce Name Of NFL Stadium In LA Getty Images

As Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times recently said during an episode of PFT Live, the biggest threat to the push for a new stadium in L.A. comes from a slowing of the momentum toward a deal.

The momentum train received a hot salsa enema on Thursday night, when AEG president Tim Leiweke said that his boss, Philip Anschutz, is prepared to purchase majority interest in a team — and that AEG has spoken to five franchises about this possibility.

According to the Orange County Register (via SportsBusiness Daily), the teams are the Vikings, Chargers, Rams, Raiders, and Jaguars.

“St. Louis, Jacksonville, not extensively, certainly Oakland, San Diego, Minnesota are still in the mix,” Leiweke said.  “We’re not packing any [moving] vans right now.”

Leiweke also said that AEG is prepared to pay any fees associated with a team getting out of its current lease.  “Just as an example, if it’s San Diego, they would have to pay $24 million under their agreement to get out of the lease,” Leiweke said.  “We would pay that.”

In our view, that helps make the Vikings the top candidate, given that after the 2011 season the cost of getting out of the lease at the Metrodome will be zero dollars, and zero cents.

Leiweke undoubtedly made the disclosure in order to build momentum toward the finalization of a “memorandum of understanding” with the Los Angeles City Council.  Leiweke has said that the so-called “MOU” must be finalized by July 31 in order to keep the project on track.

“If it [the council] goes away for the summer without the MOU we’ve got to rekindle this again in mid-September and we’re not going to make 2016,” Leiweke said.  “If we get the MOU by July 31st, what it proves to the NFL is that we could in fact get a deal done here.”

Meanwhile, anyone in Minnesota who hopes to keep the Vikings from going the way of the Lakers should realize that, if they don’t get a deal done for a new stadium in Minnesota soon, the time for packing the moving vans could be coming.

Permalink 76 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
76 Responses to “AEG has spoken with five teams about purchase, relocation”
  1. comeonnowguys says: Jun 10, 2011 9:31 AM

    So when the Vikings move west, are they going to swap divisions with the Rams?

  2. thephantomstranger says: Jun 10, 2011 9:35 AM

    Ugh. The lockout will end and then the stadium deal will fail. No positivity allowed in Minnesota.

  3. airraid77 says: Jun 10, 2011 9:36 AM

    I will bet M-flo live savings( I am just doing what all libs do, spending other peoples money) that the same people who say the vikings can move, will be the first to be clamoring for new stadium so they can get a new team……in the year 3035. Thats not a typo 3035.

  4. umrguy42 says: Jun 10, 2011 9:41 AM

    Leave my Rams out of your LA talk, dammit! (Hey, I’m a homer in support – if they move out of town, they’re not “my” team any more.)

  5. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 10, 2011 9:43 AM

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second. I thought AEG was meeting with the Vikings about building an LA-like entertainment district in the heart of the old Arden Hills Ammunition plant, not about moving the team to LA. I’m shocked, shocked I tells ya.

  6. airraid77 says: Jun 10, 2011 9:45 AM

    my thumbs up is not with my thumb, but my middle finger to those giving me the thumbs down.
    whats wrong….Maybe it should be your life savings?

  7. whitecastleisafoodgroup says: Jun 10, 2011 9:49 AM

    Sorry, I lost interest in the article right after reading “The momentum train received a hot salsa enema on Thursday night”. And we we’re going out for some Tex-Mex for lunch too :/

  8. mightymightylafootball says: Jun 10, 2011 9:50 AM

    “hot salsa enema”?

    Wow…

  9. johnsticle says: Jun 10, 2011 9:59 AM

    If the Vikings move out of Minnesota, I will never support or watch professional football. Ever. Again.

  10. minnesconsin says: Jun 10, 2011 10:02 AM

    airraid77 — I agree. 1,024 years should be about how long it takes for the people of MN to develop an appetite for football again. They’ve had all they can stomach until then.

  11. aznredneck says: Jun 10, 2011 10:11 AM

    IF, IF the Vikings are sold and then moved, it will be the faults of the politicians in the MN govt, the faults of unwilling taxpayers/so-called “fans” (bandwagon fans), and the Wilf’s.

    I’ve been a lifelong Vikings fan but this is not looking good. Budget deficit in MN, special sessions, taxpayer referendums, and so-on and so-forth. Not looking good for Vikings fans……

  12. Derty Ernie says: Jun 10, 2011 10:14 AM

    Based on what I read its obvious AEG does not want the Vikes. I mean they know fully well that a big decision regarding the Vikes is due next week and people are Waffling.

    If you had you sites set on the Vikes, why announce something that will scare people in Minnesta to do something that cements the team in Minnesota.

    I’m not a betting man but my bet would be that the Raiders already have a moving van hidden in a warehouse with the engine on idle. All these other teams are smoke screens.

    Davis isn’t thrilled with Oakland and the Stadium is old and outdated so its Al making the move with AEG in the drivers seat.

  13. clintonportisheadd says: Jun 10, 2011 10:16 AM

    Relax Viking fans….

    The Chargers are the team thats most likely to end up in LA. They already have a fan base in SoCal and the owners have been upfront (to a point) about moving/selling out.

  14. burntorangehorn says: Jun 10, 2011 10:19 AM

    Having the Lakers and Vikings in the same locale again would definitely be efficient for fans and team colors, no?

  15. sabeybaby says: Jun 10, 2011 10:31 AM

    I wonder if the new LA team will keep the name Vikings like they did with the Lakers?

  16. fwippel says: Jun 10, 2011 10:40 AM

    I’d hate to see the Vikings move west, but honestly, the team has been stuck in a sub-par stadium for 20 years, and owners from the gang of ten (lead by Roger Headrick…thank God those days are gone) to McCombs to Wilf have tried getting the state to assist with a new stadium.

    The state’s fallback position was the letter from the NFL guaranteeing the Vikings would be playing in the Metrodome through 2011 (unless a new stadium in Minnesota was built sooner); because of that letter, getting a new stadium wasn’t important to the state.

    Time is up. Either the state of Minnesota steps up and works to get a deal done, or the Vikings are gone. Zygi Wilf is a business man, just like all the other owners. He shouldn’t be expected to turn up his nose at a more lucrative offer from another city while the state of Minnesota continues to give the Vikings the cold shoulder.

    The Los Angeles Vikings? Until now, I thought it was not really a possibility.

  17. clintonrb says: Jun 10, 2011 10:53 AM

    why cant the people and politicians in minnesota
    take the long view on this, how much revenue will be lost over the decades without the vikings?
    how much money will be lost?
    im always shocked when rabid football cities like this lose teams, that sad part it that the people and politicians of Minn can prevent it!

    los angelas doesnt give a crap about football,
    theyve had chance after chance to support a team and yet continually lose teams to smaller cities..
    st louis, oakland,san diego,etc

    jarred allen and co will be in shock after the honeymoon wears off and he and the team see the huge difference in the rabid minnesota fans vs the lukewarm LA fans

  18. njtitan says: Jun 10, 2011 10:56 AM

    This franchise game never ceases to amaze me. I followed the ongoing battle with my beloved Oilers between Bud Adams and Houstons mayor even as games were being cancelled at the Astrodome because the field was actually coming apart. Back and forth, back and forth, end result…Oilers move and become the Titans(yes, still my team) and lo and behold….brand new stadium for the Texans in Houston !! Seriously !? Relocating messes with traditions this league thrives on…No Vikings in Minnesota ?!!…next will be no Steelers in Pittsburgh and No Dolphins in Miami ……and I’ll start watching Golf !!!

  19. nahcouldntbethat says: Jun 10, 2011 11:00 AM

    You can’t stop the movement towards the large markets, particularly from states like Minnesota that have their priorities for public spending in order.

    There’s no reason that a mid-sized economy should be spending hundreds of millions of dollars financing the construction of new stadiums and facilities for professional sports teams.

    You can make a good argument that large metropolitan areas benefit from having super stadia in their vicinity. There are lots of tourists in those venues and the money invested in the site will likely return fairly quickly in revenues to the municipality and state.

    Those arguments just don’t work for an area that is generously tagged at about 3.5 million people, about a million of whom live in Wisconsin, making the sharing of costs between the several municipalities and two states necessary but hard to sell.

    Indianapolis is smaller overall, however the Colts venue is part of a large convention center designed to draw tourists and businesses into the state. It was specifically designed as a revenue producer and enhancer in a much bigger picture. Since the dome and convention center was completed Indianapolis has become one of the fastest growing cities in the US.

    Unless Minneapolis/St Paul has a grand plan in mind to grow business/tourism/marketing via a complex with the Vikings as it’s centerpiece they really should pass on this and let the Vikings go.

  20. alphabetazeta says: Jun 10, 2011 11:04 AM

    If the Vikings move, just become Bear fans. You know you want to.

  21. dontouchmyjunk says: Jun 10, 2011 11:05 AM

    @umrguy42
    “Leave my Rams out of your LA talk, dammit! (Hey, I’m a homer in support – if they move out of town, they’re not “my” team any more.)”

    Was the irony in your comment intentional?

  22. purpleguy says: Jun 10, 2011 11:05 AM

    The only way the Vikes move is if the Wilffs sell, which, like anything, certainly is possible. However, it can very simply be stated, which apparently is necessary for some of the posters above (most from our eastern border) — the Vikes won’t be moving with the stadium momentum that’s building in the legislature. The comments from Lieweke, a former Minnesotan, are nothing more than a subtle poke in the rear to the Minnesota legislature to address the stadium deal once the budget deal is reached in the upcoming special legislative session. The only things Viking fans should realistically be worrying about is getting squashed by the Pack for the next couple years.

  23. crumpledstiltskin says: Jun 10, 2011 11:06 AM

    The LA Rams? Genius!

    Why didnt they ever think of that before?

    Oh, wait…

  24. schmitty2 says: Jun 10, 2011 11:07 AM

    Los Angeles police officers looking for good overtime pay would wholeheartedly support the Raiders moving back

  25. jacksaysfu says: Jun 10, 2011 11:19 AM

    The business world is so dirty.As a dedicated philly fan I would be heartbroken if the eagles just up and left ! If its gonna happen I guess San diego seems to me to be the most logical place to move, although the vikes players would probably welcome the change , but how can the NFL let
    one evil corporation dispell the tens or hundreds or millions of its citys fans ? Come on , The next thing your going to tell me is the league profits $10 billion a year but shuts its doors cause they are so greedy they think deserve more !!! You greedy pigs dont deserve our $
    let

  26. tumsman2 says: Jun 10, 2011 11:22 AM

    Minneapolis is short sighted. Yes, times are tough now, yes there are budget short falls; BUT you can’t wait until times are “good” to do a deal. If the world worked that way, no new development will happen for the next 5-7 years.

    MN should pony up the dough — as the LONG TERM BENEFITS CLEARLY OUTWEIGHT THE CURRENT SHORT TERM PROBLEMS.

    By the time the stadium is actually built, the economy will certainly be better and well on its way to a stable recovery.

    THE TIME IS NOW. USE YOUR BRAIN!
    P.S. the people of MN will lose more tax revenue, more jobs when the Vikings leave! That’s a short term and long term problem!

  27. airraid77 says: Jun 10, 2011 11:29 AM

    those of you who think the rich get rich by stuffing their money under matress, have no clue….If that were the case, we would all be rich after our first tooth fairy came.

  28. sourdough says: Jun 10, 2011 11:31 AM

    What I want to know is will AEG pay the, likely, $1 billion relocation fee imposed by the NFL? Not likely, which is why I don’t foresee any NFL team moving to LA.

  29. jimmysee says: Jun 10, 2011 11:41 AM

    Minnesota had Pawlenty of chances to get a stadium deal done.

    Now it’s goodbye rosie.

  30. lovesportsandsurfing says: Jun 10, 2011 11:42 AM

    I personally know the Spanos family,..the ones still remaining in lovely Stockton, Ca.,….let there be no mistake, the Chargers will relocate to where they began,..L.A.,…they are all over the deal, its a done deal, even if San Diego offered them a new house they would reject it,..the Spanos family have wanted L.A. for years and will make it happen,…its a lock, no doubt about it.

  31. Deb says: Jun 10, 2011 11:49 AM

    Great … for a second there, I confused AEG with AIG. Now I have to pick up the pieces from my head exploding when I thought those dirty dogs were buying a football team with our bailout money.

  32. steelernfl says: Jun 10, 2011 11:52 AM

    I have a good idea. Start two new divisions. The UFL division and the CFL division. Every major city in north america will have a team and relocation will be a thing of the past. Teams could then just fold if their community wont support them, it would be on their sholders.

  33. upperdecker19 says: Jun 10, 2011 11:52 AM

    Prepared to buy a majority interest in the Raiders? Does that mean Al Davis is finally out of the mix? But as a SoCal resident, I wholeheartedly agree w/ “schmitty2″ on this. The new stadium would instantly become a gangsta’s paradise (ever seen footage of Staples Center after a Lakers championship? and those fans are considered tame locally).

    As a SoCal, my personal wish list is for an NFC team to become an instant rival with the Chargers (staying in S.D.). Just would prefer it not to be the Vikings. That franchise belongs in Minnesota.

    Further, anyone in L.A. knows that the chances of getting that “memorandum of understanding” prior to summer from the LA City Council are about as good as a “hot salsa enema” being pleasurable. LA City Council is where beat down, unqualified politicians go to die. If these bitter, old timers gave the thumbs up on anything being built in under a year, it’d be a miracle.

  34. catman72 says: Jun 10, 2011 12:02 PM

    The Vikings will fail in LA, there is already an well established Raiders fan base there that will not accept the Vikings.

    It would make perfect sense to move the Raiders back to LA and at Al Davis’s age it would make perfect sense for him to sell a large interest in his team for someone to carry it on in the future.

  35. randysavage4ever says: Jun 10, 2011 12:11 PM

    Raiders

  36. theytukrjobs says: Jun 10, 2011 12:21 PM

    I like that this article is worded to say the Rams and Jaguars are the top candidates, yet since the Vikings have the most degenerate rivals the entire thing takes an omg it will be the Vikings spin.

    $24 million is an inconsequential amount of money when you are talking about having to buy a team for $750 million AND a new $1 billion stadium at the same time. You should pretty much disregard that because it won’t factor into the equation. Kind of idiotic to mention it like it is a deal maker/breaker. But this is PFT and giving retarded people a reason to hate on the Vikings is kind of their thing here.

    The Vikings have an outside shot of moving ONLY if they don’t get a stadium done. I’d put their odds lower than the other teams and still think over 50% says they don’t get any team at all for at least a few years.

    In the end our idiotic lawmakers will be saved by the simple fact that moving the Vikings to LA makes zero sense for the NFL. (something they are probably fully aware of unfortunately)

  37. wozzmann1955 says: Jun 10, 2011 12:29 PM

    PackerBacker here.Most Packer people I know do not expect or want the Vikes to move.Packers/Bears-Packers/Vikings,rivalry is the most exciting thing about ProBall.I think that if it would come down most people in Wisconsin would be every bit as mad as those fans in Minn.Real football fans here in Wisco(not blog trolls)respect and welcome tradition,and without we realize it would not be as exciting.

  38. goombar2 says: Jun 10, 2011 12:35 PM

    The revenue that will be lost? Before someone says this lie again, how ’bout some support?

    The economy will pick up in 3 years? Really? Ha ha ha! Do people that write stuff like this ever pick up a newspaper? Japan has been in recession for 20 years! Now economists say there’s another housing bubble that’s bursting. Energy cost are high, dragging down the economy.

    Here in Mn we can’t get a bridge built that we desperately need. The government is going to shut down because there’s no budget, and folks are talking stadium? STADIUM!

    You’re talking stadium! I’m just hoping the government doesn’t shut down and more bridges don’t collapse, you guys are talking STADIUM!

  39. saxmachine69 says: Jun 10, 2011 12:58 PM

    Wait a second, how does this make the Vikings more likely to be the top candidate? AEG is willing to pay fees of other teams, which now makes other teams more likely to be willing to move. Vikings have no fees, and thus doesn’t change their status for a move at all. Maybe it’s what AEG wants the most so they don’t have to pay fees, but the fact their willing to pay fees is actually good news as a Viking fan, because now we know we’re on level playing field with the rest of the clubs. We had no fees, now they have no fees

  40. saxmachine69 says: Jun 10, 2011 1:03 PM

    AEG may want the Vikings more since they won’t have to pay the fees. But that means absolutely nothing. AEG doesn’t have a choice, they’ll take any team that comes calling, and thus why they’d be desperate enough to pay these kind of fees. Now stop trying to twist every little fact about LA or AEG into a reason that the Vikings will move. It’s very tiresome

  41. sandiegobuffalo says: Jun 10, 2011 1:03 PM

    Vikings should not leave Minnesota
    Chargers Should Not leave San Diego
    These are teams with large, loyal long time fan bases.
    Jacksonville is barely an NFL Franchise-No Tradition, No fanbase, No Winning history or players of any historical significance, no Hall of Famers, cant sell out ever-half the stadium is tarped to avoid blackouts and that doesnt even help. It is a college football town, and they will always have that when the NFL leaves. It is such a no brainer that they should be relocated…and no one would care.
    Minnesota cares, San Diego cares.
    If not Jacksonville you move The Rams back to where they belong, maybe Oakland since they have a fan base too (and the worts stadium in all of pro sports). Vikings or Chargers leaving their towns would be so wrong-but it is probably going to hapen with both teams unfortunately.

  42. shackdelrio says: Jun 10, 2011 1:04 PM

    “theytukrjobs says:
    Jun 10, 2011 12:21 PM
    I like that this article is worded to say the Rams and Jaguars are the top candidates, yet since the Vikings have the most degenerate rivals the entire thing takes an omg it will be the Vikings spin.”

    It doesn’t say anything about the Rams and Jaguars being the top candidates.

  43. spikeit2times says: Jun 10, 2011 1:05 PM

    Non-sense!!

    Trying to spark fear into the Minnesota politicians or what?

    Leases are not the only factor in the financials of it. Rivalries will be ruined if the Vikings move, and a re-alignment occurs; which will effect ticket sales in a negative way. The Vikings name an, uniforms, and history will stay; which means L.A. would have to pay to have new uni’s and logos, and everything else. Not to mention that the Vikings would cost more to move than Oakland or San Diego considering distance to L.A.

    If you’re going to look at financials, you should consider them all, not just the ones that make a pretty headline. Otherwise the story is bunk.

  44. zerored78 says: Jun 10, 2011 1:09 PM

    But, I thought the owners are struggling so much that they need to risk the upcoming season? You’d think if things were that bad, it would be impossible to sell a team.

  45. myballsmyrules says: Jun 10, 2011 1:10 PM

    Stan Kroenke just took over the Rams. Get this straight, he will NOT sell to AEG.

    Now he may move the team to L.A., but he will only do it if he can get his own stadium. The guy doesnt want or need partners, and he aint selling.
    He and his wife have more cold hard cash than ANY owner in the league

  46. ravensfan4life52 says: Jun 10, 2011 1:14 PM

    if this happens then i think the nfl would need to redo the divisions so that they make more sense geographically.

  47. vetdana says: Jun 10, 2011 1:21 PM

    los angelas doesnt give a crap about football,
    theyve had chance after chance to support a team and yet continually lose teams to smaller cities..
    st louis, oakland,san diego,etc

    Been to a Dodger game of late…..a sea of EMPTY seats !

    If the Vikes move to LA , where is the fan base of support ? This could be another financial diseater in the making.The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence doesnt it ?

  48. dspyank2k11 says: Jun 10, 2011 1:30 PM

    L.A. doesnt deserve a team.

  49. skimbell says: Jun 10, 2011 1:30 PM

    “aznredneck says:
    Jun 10, 2011 10:11 AM
    IF, IF the Vikings are sold and then moved, it will be the faults of the politicians in the MN govt, the faults of unwilling taxpayers/so-called “fans” (bandwagon fans), and the Wilf’s…”

    So what you’re saying is that everyone involved with the queens is signing off on them.

  50. celly84 says: Jun 10, 2011 1:31 PM

    I’ve been saying for the longest that I have the perfect idea that should bring a win/win for all sides: LA, fans, etc.

    1) Considering the new revelation that Hawai’i doesn’t want to pay money for the Pro Bowl anymore…and the fact that they’re attempting to build a new stadium in a location that has pretty good climate, why don’t they just play the Pro Bowl and Super Bowl in LA every year?

    2) As a way to make the Pro Bowl more entertaining, why not do something like this for the game (using this year as the perfect example): the team with the lowest record in the NFL [Carolina Panthers] should play the championship team in the UFL [Las Vegas Locomotives] for the right to be in the NFL. Whichever team wins that game gets to be in the NFL. I think this would give each team something to play for more than just money.

    3) Halftime show during this game would be a little mini skills competition. Everyone always wonders who’s the fastest RB/DB/WR in the leage; lets put them on the field and race. Who has the strongest arm or is the most accurate? Put them on the field and let them throw.

    I think doing this would help give the fans something interesting to watch instead of the walkthrough that is the current NFL Pro Bowl. It would also help give some more exposure to the UFL and would also allow fans of both teams to enjoy something with some real merrit.

    And the best thing??? No fan base would have to lose “their” team.

    Whatdya think?

    yay/nay?

  51. NoHomeTeam says: Jun 10, 2011 1:39 PM

    umrguy42 says: “Leave my Rams out of your LA talk, dammit! (Hey, I’m a homer in support – if they move out of town, they’re not “my” team any more.)”

    It’s overused to the point of abuse here on this site, but . . . really? A Saint Louis fan upset over the idea that the Rams have been mentioned as a candidate to move to Los Angeles?

    That said, I will agree with the core of your sentiment, umrgury; I wouldn’t expect you to remain a fan of a team that leaves your city. The mindset of people who do so is unfathomable to me. When the Rams left, I was stunned to see that people here would still align themselves with the team, especially given the circumstances under which it departed. My favorite team instantly became whoever was playing the Rams, and remains so to this day.

    Would I change my mind if they came back? With a new Owner . . . absolutely. I’d have to buy some new team merchandise, though, since I had a little bonfire on the beach back in ’95.

  52. vikefan says: Jun 10, 2011 1:40 PM

    goombar, come out of your hole, the vikings have been talking new stadium for 6 years, legislature & former governor failed to acknowledge.

    Pawlenty had pawlenty of time to deal with this but he thought he had pawlenty more work to do on his pres. run while being our governor.

  53. vikefan says: Jun 10, 2011 1:42 PM

    its obvious the vikings are not their first choice or they would not be so vocal & open about willing to pay any teams penalties for relocating.

  54. NoHomeTeam says: Jun 10, 2011 1:47 PM

    njtitan says: . . . “ongoing battle . . . between Bud Adams and Houstons mayor . . . Back and forth, back and forth, end result…Oilers move and become the Titans(yes, still my team) ”

    I’ll guess that you didn’t actually live in Houston. Otherwise, I don’t understand how you could remain a fan after the move, unless you were actually more of a Bud Adams fan than an Oilers fan.

  55. vikingshuff says: Jun 10, 2011 1:50 PM

    I will settle this once and for all.

    1. When the roof of the Metrodome collapsed, the state of MN lost $9 mil in revenue for the game that was moved to Detroit per the MFSC. (the group that runs the dome)

    2. In the current stadium proposal, it is said the Vikings will sign a 40 year lease in the new stadium, the first team to do that in the NFL, as all others go by the normal 30 year lease.

    3. Simple math here folks. 9 mil multiplied by 10 games per year (yes, preseason counts) equals 90 mil a year. Still with me? Now take 90 mil multiplied by 40 years and you get 3.6 BILLION

    4. So the Vikings games alone would bring 3.6 BILLION in revenue to the state of MN in comparison to the 1.1 billlion it cost to build the stadium. Which by the way, the state is only wanting to contribute $300 mil at this time with 131 million in road upgrades being the major hang up as to who pays for it.

    FINAL: 3.6 BILLION minus 431 million (Let’s say the state agrees to pay for the road upgrades, which are schedule to be made within the next 5 years ANYWAYS) equals what? 3.169 BILLION DOLLARS!!! This is the revenue the state of MN gets just from Vikings games!! This does not include Super Bowls, NCAA final fours, concerts, monster truck rallies, and the numerous other events that the stadium would hold.

    I’m not the quickest guy out there, but this isn’t rocket science here people. If this state allows the Vikings to leave, the state government deserves ALL THE BLAME! You DO NOT let 3.169 BILLION dollars leave your state! Unless your trying to win reelection because by the time the people realize the lose, the current politicians will be long gone!

    Thank you and enjoy your final season of Minnesota Vikings football.

  56. tformation says: Jun 10, 2011 1:58 PM

    Vikes to L.A. would certainly shake up the NFC North. Be curious to see if the L.A. to midwest commute would be as hard on the Vikes as the West Coast to East Coast commute is for the NFC West teams.

    And whoever said the Vikes & Rams should switch divisions: brilliant. However, it makes too much sense. So, it’ll never happen.

    Also, johnsticle is a liar. Checking an NFL rumor site in the offseason during a lockout classifies you as an ADDICT. You might stop watching if your Vikes move to L.A., but you’ll be back…

  57. dogsweat1 says: Jun 10, 2011 1:58 PM

    Los Angeles Vikings and Raiders 2012……

  58. NoHomeTeam says: Jun 10, 2011 2:02 PM

    spikeit2times says:

    “Rivalries will be ruined if the Vikings move,”

    And you are under the impression that the NFL cares?

    “and a re-alignment occurs”

    This is a league which once had the Tampa Bay Buccaneers playing in the NFC Central. The Saint Louis Rams currently play in the NFC West, and the Indianapolis Colts play in the AFC South. I doubt you will see a realignment regardless of what team moves to L.A.

    “which will effect ticket sales in a negative way.”

    [citation needed]

    “The Vikings name an, uniforms, and history will stay; which means L.A. would have to pay to have new uni’s and logos, and everything else.”

    This will be true for any team that relocates to Los Angeles. For any team to have a hope of succeeding here, it must have the impression of being an entirely new franchise. There aren’t enough fans of any of the teams on this list here to warrant retaining the name, logos, colors, etc. The new L.A. team must effectively be just that: NEW.

    “Not to mention that the Vikings would cost more to move than Oakland or San Diego considering distance to L.A.”

    Not appreciably, given the scope of the financials involved. It might cost $20k or $30k more to relocate a team from Minneapolis than from, say, San Diego. Physical distance is a cost factor when you our I move our household belongings from one area to another; with an NFL team — not so much.

    Does this mean I think it would be a good thing if the Vikings moved here? Really, no. Personally, I’m hoping for the Rams to come home.

  59. umrguy42 says: Jun 10, 2011 2:15 PM

    @dontouchmyjunk, NoHomeTeam

    Sure, I saw the irony. I’m just sayin’, I like football, I like having a home team (even if they’re more recent than some), and if they move away, they’re not my home team any more. Didn’t support the football Cardinals after they moved out (and they weren’t original to STL either). If (God forbid) some new owner should buy and move the Blues (NHL) elsewhere, I can’t see myself following them. (The idea that somebody could move the baseball Cardinals is so ludicrous at this point it doesn’t bear being examined.)

    For the people who are willing to follow their team when it moves elsewhere, more power to them. I’m just not that kind of person :)

    Oh, and NoHomeTeam – how is the idea of a St. Louis fan being upset at the idea of losing their NFL team (for the second time in their own lifetime) different than a Vikings fan being upset at the idea of losing *their* team?

  60. realkelevra says: Jun 10, 2011 2:28 PM

    to me, the most likely is the Vikings. And if it is the Vikes that go, they really need to restructure the NFC North and West. Move the Vikes to the West and the Rams to the North.

    After the division restructure they did a reasonable job at fixing some of the weird divisional structures, but if they stick with the current layout after a Vikings relocate, it’d be disappointing.

    Not to mention, the improvement in divisional talent that a restructure would create(I’m looking at you NFC West).

  61. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 10, 2011 2:47 PM

    “The Vikings name an, uniforms, and history will stay; which means L.A. would have to pay to have new uni’s and logos, and everything else. Not to mention that the Vikings would cost more to move than Oakland or San Diego considering distance to L.A.”

    This could be the dumbest reason anyone has ever given for their belief that their team might not move. It’s not like NFL teams are paying $160 for authentic NFL jerseys like the fans. Anything they would spend on moving would be chump change for an NFL franchise (even the Vikings).

    There’s a reason only the Packers opened up their books during CBA negotiations. If citizens of states saw how much money these teams made, there’s no way they’d agree to build new stadiums with taxpayer money.

  62. NoHomeTeam says: Jun 10, 2011 3:02 PM

    umrguy42 says: “Oh, and NoHomeTeam – how is the idea of a St. Louis fan being upset at the idea of losing their NFL team (for the second time in their own lifetime) different than a Vikings fan being upset at the idea of losing *their* team?”

    Because the Vikings didn’t move toMinnesota from Los Angeles. The devil is in the details. I guess the best analogy I can come up with would be Raiders fans in Southern California being upset that Al Davis took his team back to Oakland.

    I don’t mean to antagonize you personally — I can’t reasonably fault you for becoming a fan of the team that came to your city. Saint Louis should have gotten an expansion franchise before Jacksonville or Carolina; it might not have prevented the Wicked Witch of the (NFC) West from moving the Rams, but I would probably be having this exchange with somebody living in one of those two other cities.

  63. childressrulz says: Jun 10, 2011 3:14 PM

    Umm I think it is goodbye vikings. Which is a bummer. I read someones post saying LA has to many Raider fans already. I find this quite amusing first that there still are Raider fans. Second of course I find it hard to believe that people of LA would support a team like the Raiders who have been mediocre for the better part of a decade now. The Raiders will never amount to anything as long as Al Davis breathes.

  64. airraid77 says: Jun 10, 2011 3:22 PM

    the only reason anybody saw the packers books is because they had to by law.

  65. tumsman2 says: Jun 10, 2011 3:45 PM

    A lot of people have said the Vikings have a strong fan base in MN. I disagree. The team has struggled to sell tickets to home games for years.

    Since the fans prefer to watch on TV, moving to L.A. won’t impact them.

  66. dwhitehurst says: Jun 10, 2011 3:45 PM

    The real possibility of the Vikings no longer being in Minnesota is befuddling for me to believe, and I say this as a Pack fan job-transfer exile here in Minnesota. Given the past exodus of the North Stars and Lakers, maybe it shouldn’t surprise me, but it does. As much as I hate the Vikes, I do realize Batman needs the Joker to be relevant, i.e., one needs a rival to have a rivalry.

    So if love for the Vikings doesn’t serve to motivate the State to get a stadium deal and save the franchise from moving, then how about simply hatred for the Packers and Sconnyland? Perhaps putting into the minds of the state legislature the sickening prospect of having to watch the Packers on TV every Sunday, let alone watching them potentially win a 5th Lombardi Trophy would motivate them??? Whatever it takes, do it. I hate the Vikings, but I love the rivalry and would hate to see it go, even if such might mean I could get every Packer game on Minnesota TV for free. Such might be a consolation prize to me, but would only be further salt in the wounds to native Minnesotans.

  67. comeonnowguys says: Jun 10, 2011 4:51 PM

    @theytukrjobs

    “yet since the Vikings have the most degenerate rivals the entire thing takes an omg it will be the Vikings spin.”

    Which is more likely — everybody else is actually “degenerate” or you’re just mad at everybody else?

  68. goombar2 says: Jun 10, 2011 4:54 PM

    Put down a link if you’re claiming Mn lost anything when the metrodump collapsed.

    Stop making stuff up!

    Claiming monster truck rallies and concerts will pay for it is bull!

    The real skinny about the deal on the table is this.

    Ziggy will put 200 mil down. The NFL will pony up another 200 mil (a gift from franchises that actually show a profit unlike the vikings) for a grand total of 400 mil.

    The State of Minnesota will toss what amounts to 150 mil in the kitty and Ramsey county will sell it’s citizens into slavery for 350 mil more. For a stadium that will cost a billion dollars. Wait, those number don’t add up? Hmmm… There’s between 200-300 million unaccounted for… Better wear sweat pants people of Minnesota, because Big Government is going to ram something in you where the sun don’t shine!

    And what do the people get out of this? Ziggy will own the stadium, taxpayers can pay a mil a year to keep the place running and we’ll all get fat off the 20-30 mil in taxes the government can charge, but nothing from tickets to the stadium we built or the parking fees. Ziggy needs that money!

    By the way, the tax revenue won’t cover the bonds interest (at just the 350 million Ramsey is going to put on the credit card not including the 200-300 mil gap unaccounted for)!

    This will never pass…

  69. NoHomeTeam says: Jun 10, 2011 5:06 PM

    tumsman2 says: ” . . . Since the fans prefer to watch on TV, moving to L.A. won’t impact them.”

    It will when the team isn’t the Vikings, or Jaguars, or Bills, or whatever any more. Any team that relocates to Los Angeles (with the possible exception — God Help Us — of the Raiders) is going to have to abandon their existing identity entirely if they want to grow a fan-base here.

    There was a poster up the thread a ways who said that he had been an Oilers fan and was now a Titans fan, but I think that kind of bridge behavior is an aberration. Who wants to watch “their” team on TV when it isn’t for all intents and purposes the same team anymore?

  70. phantomthebusybody says: Jun 10, 2011 9:30 PM

    thephantomstranger says:
    Jun 10, 2011 9:35 AM
    Ugh. The lockout will end and then the stadium deal will fail. No positivity allowed in Minnesota.
    ___________

    Still think zygi is the greatest owner ever?

  71. airraid77 says: Jun 10, 2011 9:39 PM

    They, the state of minnesota has done it to themselves, and most assuredly if it fails in special session, wont take a week for vikings to announce they are playing their games in the rose bowl.

  72. radrntn says: Jun 11, 2011 1:23 PM

    i am sure phillip Anschutz spoke to Al Davis, but his question was “how much do I have to pay you for the rights to Los Angles” everybody can say what they want about how the NFL has the rights to LA, but I guarantee 100% that Al Davis will sue any other team than the raiders that moves to LA.

  73. recon163 says: Jun 11, 2011 2:56 PM

    @ radrntn:

    ” . . .everybody can say what they want about how the NFL has the rights to LA . . .”

    Everybody can indeed offer an opinion, but only the opinion of the court matters. And they have found that Al Davis does not own the rights to the Los Angeles market, therefore making it unnecessary to pay him anything.

    ” . . .but I guarantee 100% that Al Davis will sue any other team than the raiders that moves to LA.”

    Of course he can sue and promptly lose the case as well.

  74. dickroy says: Jun 13, 2011 10:40 AM

    Take Jacksonville. They have the least tradition and history in their town. Take St Louis. They came from there anyway. Take Oakland. Nobody cares where they are. I would never want to see the Vikings leave the north country.

  75. erikinhell says: Jun 13, 2011 1:27 PM

    spikeit2times says:
    Jun 10, 2011 1:05 PM
    The Vikings name an, uniforms, and history will stay; which means L.A. would have to pay to have new uni’s and logos, and everything else.
    ===========================
    Browns fan here.
    Spike, you have the wrong idea. When the Oilers moved to TN, they took the name, colors, and records with them. They changed their name to the Titans 2 or 3 years after the move. The name Oilers is now considered “defunct” by the NFL, as those rights are still owned by Bud Adams.

    The Browns fans and Cleveland sued model for the name, colors, records, and anything else they could think of. In the end, the fans forced model to give up everything Browns to be able to move. All he got was the players and equipment, and the equipment all had to be tossed out after his team changed their name. Just because your team might be moving, doesn’t mean your city will get to keep anything.

  76. monkeesfan says: Jun 19, 2011 11:12 PM

    NONE of those teams are going to move. The LA stories make the same mistake – they assume there is an audience for a team in LA, even through there is ZERO evidence of that.

Leave a Reply

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