Skip to content

Wednesday’s leak may have slowed down Vikings stadium progress

90400_crop_340x234 Getty Images

It’s close, but it’s still no cigar in Arden Hills.

On Wednesday, a report emerged that a Vikings stadium deal could be announced before the end of the day.  And the mere existence of the report may have prevented the announcement from happening.

Per the St. Paul Pioneer Press, a Wednesday afternoon meeting involving officials from the team, Ramsey County, and the state of Minnesota was canceled.  Per the report, some believe the meeting was scrapped because the media was aware of it.

The thinking is that it could be perceived as unseemly for legislative officials to be spending time on the Vikings stadium deal when the state government is about to shut down if a new budget isn’t worked out by Friday morning.  Regardless, the process once again seems to have taken a step back.

Just like the other NFL-related process that currently is playing out in Minnesota.

Permalink 45 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
45 Responses to “Wednesday’s leak may have slowed down Vikings stadium progress”
  1. p4hbiz says: Jun 30, 2011 1:17 PM

    Please get a deal done, cause the ppl of Los Angeles would hate to see this loosing franchise come to town.

  2. CKL says: Jun 30, 2011 1:17 PM

    Wed’s leak may have slowed it down but Dec’s leak made it vital.

  3. thephantomstranger says: Jun 30, 2011 1:21 PM

    Both deals will get done, but it will require a little more patience.

  4. sterling7 says: Jun 30, 2011 1:21 PM

    The truth of the matter is, as die hard Minnesota Vikings fans we’re used to being slowed down and downtrodden. We’ll come through though… it’s our nature!

  5. carlgerbschmidt says: Jun 30, 2011 1:28 PM

    How’s your stadium coming?

  6. Robert says: Jun 30, 2011 1:30 PM

    Grab the chips and beer, watching the Vicodins destroy themselves is better than a reality show.

    lol

  7. shaggytoodle says: Jun 30, 2011 1:33 PM

    Maybe Minny. can get the Dodgers in exchange for the Vikings?

  8. fwippel says: Jun 30, 2011 1:37 PM

    The main reason I’m rooting for this to get done is to FINALLY put an end to the built-in profit Mike Lynn put in place for himself when the Metrodome was built. In addition, it will also be nice to see the Minneapolis give up the notion of long-held notion of rebuilding the Dome.

    The Wilfs will get this done, delay or no delay.

  9. rkjacobson says: Jun 30, 2011 1:50 PM

    Who wants to bet they’ll finally win a Super Bowl within the first 5 years of moving to LA? It would be the cruel irony many Minnesota fans have grown to expect.

  10. skoobyfl says: Jun 30, 2011 2:04 PM

    Sure, I’ll attribute the state related shutdown as more of a reality than spending hundreds of millions for football. Just move the team to a state that can handle their finances correctly, like CA (LOL).

  11. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 30, 2011 2:04 PM

    Given how many types the Vikings have kicked their fans in the proverbial groin, said fans shouldn’t feel comfortable about getting a new stadium until they are seated in the stadium and the opening kickoff for that first game is in the air.

  12. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 30, 2011 2:29 PM

    D’oh. I meant “how many times” after I switched it from “how many types of ways have the Vikings…”. I don’t want to get busted by the occasional spelling/grammar nazis around here.

  13. krow101 says: Jun 30, 2011 2:46 PM

    Hurry up serfs. The billionaire is demanding his ‘too bog to fail’ socialist wealth transfer. Do whatever you have to do. Close daycare centers … cut back on healthcare … whatever. Zigy needs to add some taxpayer dollars to his 10 figure bank balance. Chop chop …

  14. myeaglescantwin says: Jun 30, 2011 3:22 PM

    take off the damn roof and make Minn an open air stadium.

  15. vikefan says: Jun 30, 2011 3:26 PM

    Hurry up serfs. The billionaire is demanding his ‘too bog to fail’ socialist wealth transfer. Do whatever you have to do. Close daycare centers … cut back on healthcare … whatever. Zigy needs to add some taxpayer dollars to his 10 figure bank balance. Chop chop …
    ___________________________________
    be smart & mute yourself when u dont have a clue

  16. thephantomstranger says: Jun 30, 2011 3:37 PM

    p4hbiz says:
    Jun 30, 2011 1:17 PM
    Please get a deal done, cause the ppl of Los Angeles would hate to see this loosing franchise come to town.
    ________________

    The Vikings all-time winning percentage is .551, which is fifth among all franchises. That’s better than your beloved Raiders.

    And, with apologies to smoothjimmyapollo, it’s spelled “losing.” If anyone should know how to spell that, it’s you.

  17. Robert says: Jun 30, 2011 3:46 PM

    The worship of Zygi continues……

  18. seals1 says: Jun 30, 2011 3:49 PM

    The state is about to shut down on the biggest holiday weekend of the the summer,,,,,,,,,,,i bleed purple but at some point even Wilf has to realize other things need to get done first. I

    Lock Out, Stadium, Gov Shut down. I already have the beer on ice and I’m not coming up for air until Tuesday. Let’s hope things look better by then.

  19. granadafan says: Jun 30, 2011 4:03 PM

    We’ll trade you the Clippers for the Vikes. The Clips are even led by one of the most exciting young players in Blake Griffin. The catch is you have to take the owner, Donald Sterling with you.

  20. carlgerbschmidt says: Jun 30, 2011 4:06 PM

    thephantomstranger says:
    Jun 30, 2011 3:37 PM

    The Vikings all-time winning percentage is .551, which is fifth among all franchises. That’s better than your beloved Raiders.
    ________

    You’re going to make me do it, aren’t you? The vikes all-time winning (Super Bowl) percentage is .000, which is tied for last among all franchises (with at least one Super Bowl appearance).

  21. carlgerbschmidt says: Jun 30, 2011 4:16 PM

    thephantomstranger says:
    Jun 30, 2011 3:37 PM

    The Vikings all-time winning percentage is .551, which is fifth among all franchises. That’s better than your beloved Raiders.

    _______

    And, if you look at it by ppg in the Super Bowl, your vikes come in dead last at 8.5 ppg. Way to show up for the big game. Hate to beat a dead horse here, but man, your team is terrible!

  22. danimalk82 says: Jun 30, 2011 4:17 PM

    Wow, can you people do anything right?

  23. danimalk82 says: Jun 30, 2011 4:24 PM

    PS

    @thephantomstranger

    How much longer are you going to play the “we have more regular season wins than you” card? All that means is that you should have had many chances to get to the superbowl and win… yet your trophy case remains empty.

    Incase you were wondering, the Raiders have 3 Super Bowl rings.

    Boom! Roasted…

  24. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 30, 2011 4:33 PM

    “The Vikings all-time winning percentage is .551, which is fifth among all franchises. That’s better than your beloved Raiders.”

    Not to start something because you were courteous enough to not call me out earlier, but I figure, what the heck, it’s almost July, the lockout appears like it could end, and Packer and Viking fans will be giving each other a hard time anyway.

    If you include postseason, the Raiders all time winning percentage is .550 and the Vikings drop down to .544. If we just go regular season, then yes, the Vikings are better than the Raiders by .002 percentage points which is really splitting hairs. Now you could go just NFL and not count the AFL numbers which puts the Raiders at .544 which is still hair-splitting, but then Raider fans can always point to their 3 Super Bowl championships and the fact that they have been operating without a living owner for the past 15 years.

  25. carlgerbschmidt says: Jun 30, 2011 4:34 PM

    thephantomstranger says:
    Jun 30, 2011 3:37 PM

    The Vikings all-time winning percentage is .551, which is fifth among all franchises. That’s better than your beloved Raiders.

    ______

    Oh, and by the way, guess who has the highest overall winning percentage in the post-season, wait for it…the Green Bay Packers, .644.

  26. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 30, 2011 4:42 PM

    Also, if you go just NFL and include the post-season, the Raiders winning percentage is .547 to the Vikings .544. In conclusion, if you exclude AFL stats, if you exclude Super Bowl Victories, and if you exclude post season winning percentages, the Vikings are a microscopically better team than the Raiders.

    Skol Vikings, I guess.

  27. thephantomstranger says: Jun 30, 2011 5:01 PM

    Give me a break. I was just pointing out that the Vikings aren’t a “loosing” franchise and I think I made that point. Anyone attacking me is just trying to deal with their own insecurities. I know the Vikings will never win a Super Bowl. I still like them.

    Boom. Roasted.

  28. purpleguy says: Jun 30, 2011 5:10 PM

    Anyone with half a brain knows the stadium deal will get done and the Vikes will be sticking around. Just like the Twins, everyone will whine about it till the opening day, and then all will be fine.

    As to the Raiders comparison, all I can say is that present day, I’d rather be a Viking fan than the fan of a team run by a corpse that clearly is now clueless.

  29. vikes8480 says: Jun 30, 2011 5:23 PM

    When comparing the Vikings to the Raiders, it really doesn’t matter how many Super Bowls the Vikings have won. Drafting JaMarcus Russell first overall and following that up with Darius Heywood-Bey in the first round automatically makes the Raiders the laughing stock of the NFL. JaMarcus Russell with the first overall pick makes the Herschel Walker trade look like a great deal for the Vikings!

  30. mediasloppy says: Jun 30, 2011 5:23 PM

    God the media in Minnesota sucks on all levels.

  31. purpleman527 says: Jun 30, 2011 5:36 PM

    Well, so much for the June 30 prediction date for the lockout to end and a deal to be struck.

    Or did you mean June 30, 2012?

  32. p4hbiz says: Jun 30, 2011 5:38 PM

    @thephantomstranger – I was too busy laughing at that percentage thing.

    5 Sb Apperances and 3rings… Go Raiders!!

    Thanks for one of those 3rings Viking fans.

  33. superdanlp says: Jun 30, 2011 6:06 PM

    At least MN got one thing right. Minnesotans are pissed as hell that they wasted their time debating a stadium bill that no one in the state wants, rather than negotiating a budget to avoid a shutdown. Send the team to LA, and send everyone in our government there with them. Worthless.

  34. smoothjimmyapollo says: Jun 30, 2011 6:30 PM

    “Drafting JaMarcus Russell first overall and following that up with Darius Heywood-Bey in the first round automatically makes the Raiders the laughing stock of the NFL. JaMarcus Russell with the first overall pick makes the Herschel Walker trade look like a great deal for the Vikings!”

    Please, the Vikings have had their share of stupid draft moves (every team has if you cherry pick enough). But how about Troy Williamson to replace Moss (or trading a 3rd rounder for a month of an older, fussier Moss). What about Dimitrius Underwood?

    Also, I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “you can’t shine s#!t,” but that’s exactly what the trade was. Russell being crappy in no way makes trading a boatload of draft picks and a hockey team for Hershel Walker a good idea.

    Just because Russell was a bust, doesn’t mean it was a bad pick at the time – others thought he would be good. Picking Christian Ponder at number 12, most people outside of the Vikings front office thought that was a reach.

  35. paulbrownsrevenge says: Jun 30, 2011 6:34 PM

    I was too Young to remember the Colts leaving Baltimore, but I know how they had to feel, because my Browns left to Baltimore. it’s a terrible thing for a city to loose a team. The Oilers left Houston. I know Raiders fans in L.A. prob feel the same, but that franchise Started in Oakland. The Rams were LA’s team. I think if the Vikings left minnesota i would seriously consider not watching Pro Football despite the fact I’m a huge fan. I love the Browns almost as much as my daughter. NFL stands for (No F***ing Loyalty)

  36. paulbrownsrevenge says: Jun 30, 2011 6:36 PM

    If L.A. gets a team it should be the Rams. St louis should end up with the deadend jaguars, who cant fill half their stadium. the only thing that will save the jags, is Elway trading Tebow there to sell tickets.

  37. firemarshal1 says: Jun 30, 2011 6:40 PM

    Shouldn’t we really call the new Viking stadium, the Roman Coliseum, since we’re using millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize cost to build a new stadium and infrastructure in the surrounding community? The Billionaire NFL owners (Roman Senators) need taxpayer public financing to showcase their sport with their hired help (NFL players) (Gladiators). Well, does the new stadium financing pass or die. In today’s political climate, its thumbs up, they shall live. The poor and middle class don’t any public programs. They shall die; have no descent healthcare and/or education. Let them starve.

  38. thephantomstranger says: Jun 30, 2011 7:04 PM

    Picking Christian Ponder at number 12, most people outside of the Vikings front office thought that was a reach.
    _________

    And they were wrong. Go Christian Ponder!

  39. brewdogg says: Jul 1, 2011 2:00 AM

    As to the Viking/Raider comparisons…..

    I believe the original point was an LA airhead calling the Vikings a losing franchise, with the reply being that the Vikings have been, historically, a successful franchise (in the regular season anyway) and consistently competitive. If you want to be a knob and say that any season that ends without a big shiny trophy is a losing season, then I guess that’s your prerogative….

    Then again, since many of you know my penchant for metaphor, I might as well use one now.

    I’d rather always be a bridesmaid (and therefore have a lot of friends) than have been married 3 times and spent half my life in jail. Just saying…..

  40. brewdogg says: Jul 1, 2011 2:06 AM

    carlgerbschmidt says:
    Jun 30, 2011 4:16 PM

    And, if you look at it by ppg in the Super Bowl, your vikes come in dead last at 8.5 ppg. Way to show up for the big game. Hate to beat a dead horse here, but man, your team is terrible
    ——————————————

    And, if you look at 1968-1991, your Packers AVERAGED about a 6-10 record. And I thought just one year of being that bad was miserable. I hate to beat a dead horse here, but man, your team is terrible.

    Aw, what’s wrong, Carl? Same period of time, same use of past performance coupled with present tense judgement of franchise….. I just changed a few words on you. It’s no ones fault but your own that a dead horse has more synaptic activity than you do.

  41. dd393 says: Jul 1, 2011 8:27 AM

    Leaks in the press, leaks in the roof, what’s next, leaks in the boat?

  42. carlgerbschmidt says: Jul 1, 2011 8:32 AM

    brewdogg says:
    Jul 1, 2011 2:00 AM

    I’d rather always be a bridesmaid (and therefore have a lot of friends) than have been married 3 times and spent half my life in jail. Just saying…..

    __________

    Well, that’s quite convenient then because I’m going to go out on a limb and say you’d never find three women who would marry you.

  43. carlgerbschmidt says: Jul 1, 2011 8:35 AM

    brewdogg says:
    Jul 1, 2011 2:06 AM
    carlgerbschmidt says:
    Jun 30, 2011 4:16 PM

    And, if you look at it by ppg in the Super Bowl, your vikes come in dead last at 8.5 ppg. Way to show up for the big game. Hate to beat a dead horse here, but man, your team is terrible
    ——————————————

    And, if you look at 1968-1991, your Packers AVERAGED about a 6-10 record. And I thought just one year of being that bad was miserable. I hate to beat a dead horse here, but man, your team is terrible.

    Aw, what’s wrong, Carl? Same period of time, same use of past performance coupled with present tense judgement of franchise….. I just changed a few words on you. It’s no ones fault but your own that a dead horse has more synaptic activity than you do.

    __________

    Why don’t you quit stealing phantom’s bit and come up with your own stuff? Yeah, there was a pretty big dry spell during those years, but things were pretty good before and after. I’ll take the downs to enjoy the incredible highs. You guys be happy with your unswerving mediocrity. by the way, judgment only has one “e.”

  44. thephantomstranger says: Jul 1, 2011 11:36 AM

    This thread is dead but I know Carl will check back. This “loosing” franchise has only had three consecutive LOSING seasons one time. When was that? The first three years of their existence! It’s nice to follow a team that you know won’t be down for long. Meanwhile, between 1973 and 1992, the Packers made the playoffs ONE TIME, and that was during the 9-GAME STRIKE SEASON! Twenty years of never really making the playoffs, and you’re criticizing Viking fans for following a losing team? I suppose while you were growing up following that terrible team you consoled yourself with the knowledge that the Packers won some championships before you were born. Congratulations on winning your Super Bowls. I’d rather follow a team that gives me hope every season.

  45. thephantomstranger says: Jul 1, 2011 11:37 AM

    You guys be happy with your unswerving mediocrity. by the way, judgment only has one “e.”
    ____________

    This from a guy who has never posted a comment that didn’t have at least one mistake in it. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Leave a Reply

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