Skip to content

Vikings could kick in more cash, settle for non-retractable roof

20061010_vikingfan_2 Getty Images

If the Vikings ultimately can’t get a new stadium in Minnesota, it won’t happen because they didn’t try.

With time running out for a special session of the Legislature aimed at approving a plan for a structure that would be funded by the team, the state, and the county in which the stadium would be built, the Vikings are ready to make even more concessions.

According to Rochelle Olson of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Vikings are considering increasing their contribution.  The team also is pondering the possibility of settling for a roof that doesn’t retract, which would cut the construction costs down considerably.

The Vikings currently plan to kick in $407 million, an amount that includes any contribution from the NFL.

With the team’s lease at the Metrodome expiring after the 2011 and with L.A. potentially poised to host a team in the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum as soon as 2012, the Vikings could choose to be coy.  To their credit, they’re doing what they have to do to ensure that they’ll remain in Minnesota for another 50 years, or more.

Whether the folks in Minnesota are willing to do the same thing remains to be seen.

Permalink 131 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
131 Responses to “Vikings could kick in more cash, settle for non-retractable roof”
  1. waggs12 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:10 AM

    Just build it already!

  2. grandpoopah says: Sep 1, 2011 11:10 AM

    How about they kick in ALL the cash? Why do billionaires running profitable businesses continue to get taxpayer handouts?

  3. tjacks7 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:11 AM

    As a Viking fan, Ziggy Wilf seriously needs his head examined if he’s not seriously considering relocation.

  4. jenniferxxx says: Sep 1, 2011 11:13 AM

    “Why do billionaires running profitable businesses continue to get taxpayer handouts?”

    For the same reason they don’t have to pay taxes.

  5. Carl Gerbschmidt says: Sep 1, 2011 11:13 AM

    Whether the folks in Minnesota are willing to do the same thing remains to be seen.

    _________

    We already know they aren’t willing to do anything.

  6. dickroy says: Sep 1, 2011 11:14 AM

    Come on Minnesotians, keep your beloved Vikings up north where they belong. No such thing as a Viking in LA. Would have to change their name to LA Surfer Boys.

  7. americankris says: Sep 1, 2011 11:14 AM

    Outdoor stadium or gtfo

  8. WingT says: Sep 1, 2011 11:17 AM

    I wounder where Ziggy found the extra cash to kick into the deal?

    I bet if he keeps looking he will find more.

  9. sirmixalotalotalot says: Sep 1, 2011 11:20 AM

    Minnesota is one of the least profitable franchises in the NFL so 400 million from them is A LOT of money. They are worth roughly 750 million and that number is 2/3 of their net worth as a franchise. The Cowboys are worth 1.8 billion so 400 million wouldn’t be that big of a deal for them.

    I hate the idea of Minnesota losing its team but their value would double within a few years if they moved to LA.

  10. mj5150 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:20 AM

    grandpoopah says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:10 AM
    How about they kick in ALL the cash? Why do billionaires running profitable businesses continue to get taxpayer handouts?
    ___________________________________

    FIRST of all…the Vikings pump about $50 million back into the state’s general fund-something they have never borrowed from.
    SECOND…you CANNOT compare a stadium to any other business because those businesses are open year round and aren’t used by other people for profit-would you want to pay the full loan on a building that other people use and make money off of????

  11. thephantomstranger says: Sep 1, 2011 11:20 AM

    A retractable roof is a waste of money. When you’re trying to get something as big and controversial as this passed, you have to make it as inexpensive as possible and drop unnecessary bells and whistles. I would settle for a concourse that is wider than 8 feet and a hot dog that wasn’t left over from the Clinton administration.

  12. joetoronto says: Sep 1, 2011 11:22 AM

    “Vikings could kick in more cash, settle for non-retractable roof”

    Hey, eliminating the washrooms would save a bundle on water bills.

    Seriously, if the town can’t afford an NFL team, they should just move.

  13. kenny1960 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:22 AM

    More water carrying for NBC corporate interest on this website. They are working overtime to help steal some city’s team so they can profit from it once it is in LA.

  14. robigd says: Sep 1, 2011 11:24 AM

    If you build it, they won’t come.

  15. smoothjimmyapollo says: Sep 1, 2011 11:26 AM

    “Come on Minnesotians, keep your beloved Vikings up north where they belong. No such thing as a Viking in LA”

    LA isn’t known for its lakes either, but that didn’t stop their basketball team from moving there and keeping the name.

  16. vikingsinla says: Sep 1, 2011 11:26 AM

    LA! LA! LA! LA! LA!

  17. jacunn2000 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:28 AM

    The NFL would just not be the same with out Minnesota. L.A. needs to just go away. You have had your chances.

  18. zerored78 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:28 AM

    How about not having a roof and using the insane home field advantage negative temps can give you?

  19. fargovikesfan says: Sep 1, 2011 11:29 AM

    Dayton and Co. will still screw this up.

    Brought to you by the state that let the Lakers & North Stars leave only to have to spend considerably more to get new franchises and build arenas for them than they would have had to if they’d have done it initially. The same state that pissed and moaned about a Twins stadium until there was a threat of contraction. The only stadium that they haven’t thrown a hissy about is for the U of M, and they were never going anywhere. Its not like the U of M would pack up and move to South Dakota if they didn’t get a new football stadium.

    The same people that are bitching about “handouts to billionaires” would be the same people first in line to bitch about the state not getting money from any events being held at the new stadium if the team paid for 100% of the costs.

  20. medtxpack says: Sep 1, 2011 11:30 AM

    screw the roof! open it up and play like God intended…

  21. mkepackfan says: Sep 1, 2011 11:31 AM

    Simple solution…build it with no roof at all & save even more!

    I know they want a stadium for other events but if they’re not tearing down the Metrodome, they can just hold those events there.

  22. asarabi says: Sep 1, 2011 11:34 AM

    The concessions by the Vikings are a clear sign that the Wilfs’ do not want to sell a big share of the Vikings to AEG.

    For a team to move to LA, AEG will require the current owner to sell all or a substantial share of the team to them.

  23. sterling7 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:35 AM

    Ever notice how anyone and everyone likes the idea of a “non-retractable” roof………….until it’s actually needed? If you’re going to build it do it right in the first place (with a retractable roof) or don’t do it at all. Remember how those idiots first built the Metrodome without air conditioning and had the nerve to say it was fine…………..until people walked out in droves! Don’t embarrass us-do it right!!!

  24. adsbad28 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:35 AM

    Build it already. As a viking die hard I cant see them playing anywhere else, keep them home where they belong. I dont live in Minnesota but looking in from the outside the state is screwed up. Why wait till the last minute to get things done. Example, I-35 bridge, state shut down and the list continues. But then again what can we expect out of a state that elects people like Al Franken and Jesse Ventura. With an owner like Mr. Wilf this thing should have been done years ago. PATHETIC!!!!!!

  25. danetow says: Sep 1, 2011 11:37 AM

    “Why do billionaires running profitable businesses continue to get taxpayer handouts?”
    ———————————————
    How convenient it is for you to not say anything about how much money the Vikings bring in for the city.

    Just ask all the businesses in Cleveland that were negatively affected by Lebron leaving. Now imagine the entire team leaving and what kinda impact that has on the community.

    IMO the state of Minnesota better cut their losses because whatever they would kick in for a new stadium will be chump change compared to how much they would lose in the long term by losing the Vikings.

    They need to pull their heads out.

  26. recon163 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:38 AM

    @ kenny1960:

    “More water carrying for NBC corporate interest on this website. They are working overtime to help steal some city’s team so they can profit from it once it is in LA.”

    Huh? You are really gong off the deep end Kenny. They are reporting exactly what is happening.

    It would occur to me that if they wanted the Vikings to move to LA they would not report on it and not let the Vikings fans know what is happening. Then the fans become complacent and do not rally to keep the Vikings in town.

    Is that a better scenario?

  27. jamiebuf12 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:38 AM

    I hate the idea of Minnesota losing its team but their value would double within a few years if they moved to LA.

    i do not get how a team that moves to l.a. automatically doubles their value within a few years? yes they are in the 2nd biggest market,but didnt the rams and raiders leave l.a for a reason? they have no fan base out there…the people just don’t go to the games…it seems everybody wants a team in l.a except for the fans in l.a…

  28. salmen76 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:39 AM

    Vikings don’t deserve a new stadium. If they did, they’d have one. Besides, if i lived in Minn i wouldn’t want to waste my money on a team that ain’t never won anything of signifigance. They went to like 4 SBs and lost ALL of them. Ha Ha. And ole man favre threw the vikings recent SB run season by throwin that int to a Saint when he shoulda ran about 5 yards and went down and then let the kicker put them in the SB again so they could lose it again. Ha Ha. Thanks Vikings. Thanks to yall and your then 67 year old pervy QB us Saints fans can now boast something yall vikings fans can’t. A SB championship. Drew Brees beat 3 future hall of fame QBs in a row to that title. Geaux Saints!

  29. tjacks7 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:39 AM

    If you build it, they will come.

  30. pistolsmoke says: Sep 1, 2011 11:40 AM

    Keep them in Minnesota where there are true fans. LA is full of fake, bandwagon fans. Just like Miami.

  31. dannymac17 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:40 AM

    funny how minnesota is just willing to keep throwing money on the stadium, and dean spanos has stuck at a figure that is no where near as big as what zygi is willing to chip in

    just lets you know where the chargers stand in this whole LA thing

    they have never ONCE said they would be willing to up their dollar amount, they have never said they would be willing to sacrifice parts of a project just to have it built so they can stay in the region

    they just have the mouth of the south Fabiani explaining to people the same thing over and over

    the vikings WANT to stay in Minnesota.

    its clear as day.

  32. indianheadmeatpackingcompany says: Sep 1, 2011 11:41 AM

    True, teams need to be responsible for some of the cost. ALTHOUGH the state, city and county need to take some responsibility BECAUSE NFL teams bring in lots of money to the areas they reside in. When you consider all the jobs that are in exsistance because of NFL teams and all the tax money brought into the area because of the teams along with the economic stimulus the area gets each game day, the city, county and state all are raking in more. When an NFL team relocates it’s lost home loses tax money, jobs, and LOTS of business from the area. I know Minneapolis would lose a lot of money and jobs. Take Minneapolis for example. The light rail is PACKED for hours before the game. Most of the parking and parking attendants wouldn’t be needed. All the business that is brought into the area on game day adds up to A LOT of money. An NFL team profitable to the government too. It is in their best interest to keep the team. A new stadium would create so many new jobs for several years while it’s built. Those jobs create tax revenue. The additional jobs take people off of unemployment and government assistance along with some more dollars being injected into the local economy. Teams should be responsible for a large percentage, but the city, county and state need to help out some as they will profit from the team for as long as it is there.

  33. recon163 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:41 AM

    @ jacunn2000:

    “The NFL would just not be the same with out Minnesota. L.A. needs to just go away. You have had your chances.”

    Funny.

    They said the NFL would not be the same without being in the number two market in the nation in 1995.

    They said the NFL would not be the same without the Colts in Baltimore.

    They said the NFL would not be the same without the Oilers in Houston.

    Guess what? Not an iota of difference. So how is Minnesota different? It isn’t.

  34. mhalt99 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:42 AM

    Maybe Minn should just grow a pair like Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago….or GREEN BAY and play outside? (or the Golden Gophers 2 miles away)

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/weather-snow-storm-lifestyle-travel-winter-snowfall_slide_11.html

    Oh and I can’t wait until a team finally moves to LA just so we can see what teams threaten to squeeze more tax dollars out of us.

    Of course it would never ever ever ever ever have made any kind of sense to build a stadium jointly with the state university right next door if you absolutely HAD TO HAVE a roof. That of course is senseless as it would save tax payers too much money and could possibly result in lover hot dog and admission prices for fans.

  35. row60 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:42 AM

    If they were serious about saving money, they would drop the roof altogether and play outside like plenty of other cold weather teams (GB, CHI, BUF, NE, etc.). The potential to host other events isn’t worth the investment of an extra $200M, given how few the Metrodome currently hosts.

  36. pasqualwisdom says: Sep 1, 2011 11:42 AM

    mkepackfan says: Sep 1, 2011 11:31 AM

    Simple solution…build it with no roof at all & save even more!

    I know they want a stadium for other events but if they’re not tearing down the Metrodome, they can just hold those events there.

    ________________________________

    I think that’s the best idea. Don’t need a dome for football, just ask the champs. Now that they spent all that money to repair the Metrodome, they might as well use the thing. It’s a landmark here – albeit an ugly one. The TC needs to keep the Vikes as their games are huge for business (for me at least).

  37. thingamajig says: Sep 1, 2011 11:46 AM

    “Vikings could kick in more cash, settle for non-retractable roof”

    Or they can do nothing, save a bundle and move to L.A.

  38. thephantomstranger says: Sep 1, 2011 11:48 AM

    mkepackfan says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:31 AM
    Simple solution…build it with no roof at all & save even more!

    I know they want a stadium for other events but if they’re not tearing down the Metrodome, they can just hold those events there.
    _______________

    They could hold high school football, college baseball, and tractor pulls there, but you aren’t going to get a Super Bowl or a Final Four at the Metrodump.

  39. clintonportisheadd says: Sep 1, 2011 11:49 AM

    Minnesota is broke. They can’t repair their infrastructure. They can’t fund their schools. They can’t afford to provide basic services to the residents of the state.

    Why would any person with an IQ over 75 not realize that funding ANY portion of “Ziggy Stardust’s Pleasure Palace” is out of the question? Not withstanding the fact the state can’t afford it, numerous academic studies have proven that cities/counties/states that partner up for stadiums end up losing money. Lots of it. The “benefits to the local economy” never balance out with the funds spent to build it (and most times then not tax it).

  40. dmq13 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:49 AM

    WHY SHOULD THE VIKINGS HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING FOR A STADIUM THEYRE GOING TO BE PLAYING IN AND USING TO MAKE MONEY!?!?!?! Oh…wait….that doesnt make sense at all.

  41. fargovikesfan says: Sep 1, 2011 11:49 AM

    Its the state thats requiring a roof, not the team. Zygi has said multiple times that he would like an open air stadium, but in order for the state to go along with it, they want a roof on it so it can be used for other things besides football.

  42. spungy says: Sep 1, 2011 11:50 AM

    Real men play outside.

  43. dannymac17 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:50 AM

    @thingamajig

    you dont save any money when you move, tard.

    it costs more to move. do you have down syndrome?

  44. frankgarrett says: Sep 1, 2011 11:51 AM

    I live 15 min from where the Vikes play now .. This State doesn’t deserve them . If anything the STATE OF MN . NEEDS TO FIX THERE ROADS AND BRIDGES BEFORE A STADIUM IS BUILT FOR A TEAM THAT WILL PLAY 8 GAMES IN IT .. AND WIN ONLY HALF OF THEM

  45. krashie21 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:53 AM

    medtxpack says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:30 AM
    screw the roof! open it up and play like God intended…
    _________________________________

    I don’t want to get into a religious debate, but THE COWBOYS are God’s Team……always have, always will be.

    That’s why our last 2 stadiums have holes in the roof……..

    LOL!

  46. packalltheway1 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:56 AM

    To those of you with your taxpayer comments – use your head before you speak. Shame on Ziggy for getting an education and working hard for his money. Guy probably pays more in taxes in one year than you make in a lifetime. And why should he??? I always love it when people think that rich people get a tax break. if it wasnt for rich people, this country would be significantly more broke and there wouldn’t even be football.

  47. cosmoman11 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:00 PM

    Saying that it would be partially funded by the state and the county is not exactly correct. It will be funded by the taxpayers of the state and county. Have a referendum, see if the people want to pay. I’m guessing that the majority would not. But that wouldn’t stop the politicians from pushing it through anyway.

  48. reachmylevel says: Sep 1, 2011 12:00 PM

    For those of you who keep commenting thoughout this whole ordeal that the owners should contribute the whole cost, do you really understand the revenue that a new stadium such as this brings to the state economy. It is an investment for all stakeholders involved. Concerts, games, etc. all will be able to utilize the facilities. Jobs, vendors, other businesses also will benefit. Are you really that inept with your ability to rationalize such a positive venture for the state? Zigi is valued at one billion dollars. You do not think that contributing half of that is a fair contribution? Seriously? Really?

  49. krashie21 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:05 PM

    I’m with Bud Grant on this one……..

    This team has never been the same (and has never been to a Super Bowl) since they opened the doors at the Metrodome.

    Minnesota = football outdoors

  50. packalltheway1 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:07 PM

    Well said. Not too often you get a single person willing to pay 1/2 of a bill on something that will generate revenue for the entire state for many years to come!

  51. pistolsmoke says: Sep 1, 2011 12:07 PM

    I like this whole “Vikings should man up and build an outdoor stadium, if not then they should leave”. You mean leave to a perfect weather city like LA? I guess that’s more manly?? Stupid.

    Plus it’s not about the players being “manly or ballsy” to play outside. It’s about the fans. You think people in MN who freeze their ass off 3/4 of the year want to continue to freeze their ass off at the games? They want to be comfortable, especially when they are paying a lot for a ticket.

  52. vikefan says: Sep 1, 2011 12:11 PM

    ….a great way to start the funding process is eliminate all the deadbeat positions in the state legislature that cant get anything done anyway. every other business has lost jobs, time to cut some at capitol hill, that will also automatically decrease per day per diems (@ over 100/day/person), salaries, benefits, etc. If the legislature needs to play hardball with the budget, time to start looking in the mirror first b4 trying to kill our quality of life & entertainment events.

  53. packalltheway1 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:19 PM

    If they play outside in GB and sell-out every game they can play outside in Minnesota. I don’t think that is an issue for the players or the fans!

  54. managod777 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:23 PM

    Why do billionaires get public money handouts and don’t pay taxes? So that they can create jobs…at least that’s what Republicans tell us…

  55. terrellblowens says: Sep 1, 2011 12:25 PM

    There’s no reason Minnesota should have a retractable roof. Either no roof or dome. I sincerely doubt with the weather that they get up there that the roof would be open for more than 2 games anyway. Plus in important games, most teams with retractable roofs close the roof to make it louder for opposing teams. So just give them a dome. If they’re worried about the snow on the roof again then just make an open stadium. Retractable roofs cost too much and aren’t worth it for a small market team who struggles to sell out games

  56. fwippel says: Sep 1, 2011 12:29 PM

    What roof? The hell with the roof! Build and open air stadium like you used to have, and like your division rivals Chicago and Green Bay have.

    Good grief, this team played it’s first 21 seasons outside, and went to four Super Bowls. In the 29 seasons since then? Zero. I know that’s not all due to the weather, but it is an advantage late in the year against warm weather teams. You think Atlanta would have come up to Minnesota in January 1999 and won the NFC Championship? Uh, no.

  57. rodgerthat says: Sep 1, 2011 12:31 PM

    mj5150 says:
    SECOND…you CANNOT compare a stadium to any other business because those businesses are open year round and aren’t used by other people for profit-would you want to pay the full loan on a building that other people use and make money off of????
    ________________________________
    I cant speak for/or about any of the other stadiums but Lambeau Field operates 12 months a year with several revenue generating businesses within the confines of the stadium as well as a heck of a lot of meeting/convention space which has revenue generating venues all off season. I know for a fact that the stadium itself generates a very tasty profit outside of gameday.

  58. shea801 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:34 PM

    Just to counter all of those saying “the Vikings bring millions to the state so they shouldn’t have to contribute all the costs to the stadium”, please stop.

    There are lots of companies that bring in lots of money to states and cities alike that don’t get to have tax payers foot the bill for upgrading their facilities. The only difference is the publicity the teams get.

    The argument about the amount of money and “jobs” that are brought to the area (if you beleive that a bunch of minimum wage jobs will create vast economic impact and growth) is better felt with a company who’s going to bring R&D facilities, textiles, and technical skill based labor. Not employ a bunch of part timer and a handful of full-timer non-skilled workers.

    The taxpayers shouldn’t be obligated to pay for the stadiums just because the team makes a lot of money, just like any town isn’t obligated to help build buildings for big companies. They both use infrastructure equally, provide revenue, and utilize other services offered by the state/town they reside in. They get tax breaks and benefits alike, so stopping asking for a handout because your team can’t finance a new home.

    And if the Vikings (and any other team for that matter) provides $50 million in kick backs to the state, then they can afford the mortgage on a stadium over its lifetime (or every 20 yrs even). They’ll still make money. And if the owner doesn’t like the idea, then don’t own a sporst team, or move it.

  59. kevpft says: Sep 1, 2011 12:36 PM

    salmen76 says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:39 AM

    Ha Ha. Thanks Vikings. Thanks to yall and your then 67 year old pervy QB us Saints fans can now boast something yall vikings fans can’t. A SB championship. Drew Brees beat 3 future hall of fame QBs in a row to that title. Geaux Saints!

    Yes, the Saints can now stand proud and tall alongside such other one-time SB winners as Kansas City and Tampa Bay. I’d say that’s just about where they belong. A perpetually second-class team that backed into a title thanks to luck and bad officiating.

  60. rodgerthat says: Sep 1, 2011 12:40 PM

    PS: I am not opposed to public assistance for the new stadium. It may have sounded like I was in my comment.

  61. knew8411 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:41 PM

    I agree with other posters that it is blatently obvious that the Wilf’s are not incloned to sell a % of this franchise. I am glad that is the case.
    It should be obvious to the people & state govt. that the Wilf’s want to keep this franchise in the state of Minnesota. I am also glad of this.
    So with all the concessions that the Wilf’s have made, I ask. Why are they still getting jerked around?
    Build the stadium already, and lets keep the Vikings where they belong, while at the same time creating economic opprotunity for the people of the state of Minnesota, and a facility they can be proud of, and a place the Vikings can call home, for the next 30 yrs.

  62. nbcstinks says: Sep 1, 2011 12:42 PM

    The tired old “taxpayer handout” and “billionaire bailout” argument is a losing one especially considering the fact that the same tax paying community who would be sharing in the investment of a stadium would also be reaping a share of the economic and entertainment benefits. Why not save the class warfare schtick for one of your losing left-wing political arguments.

  63. chris6523 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:42 PM

    I just don’t get the obsession with putting a franchise in LA. The NFL obviously has done just fine, thank you, without a team there. Put a team in LA and after a couple mediocre to down seasons, we’re talking blackout baby. Hell, their beloved Lakers were playing to crowds of 8,000 in the post Magic/pre shaq and kobe era.

    Regarding the help from the taxpayer for the funding, they should just put it in a binding referendum and let the taxpayers decide what they want to do.

    If the Vikings were to leave, there will be other businesses that will be impacted. That’s just a simple fact. I’m not wild about subsidizing private enterprize, but at some point people have to be practical. Using 8 years of hindsight, I’m guessing that a strong majority of Green Bay residents are pleased that Lambeau is bigger and better and will agree that the .5% sales tax kicker was a wise investment.

  64. chris6523 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:43 PM

    Regarding the retractable roof, indoor football sucks.

  65. grandpoopah says: Sep 1, 2011 12:45 PM

    EVERY business asset – whether it’s a factory, a shopping mall, a hospital, a stadium, whatever – adds to the local economy. But that doesn’t mean that it is up to the government to take money from taxpayers and hand it over in the form of subsidies/corporate welfare to the people who stand to profit from it. If the venture is projected to be a profitable one, then the private sector will build it. The Minnesota Vikings are profitable and if they built a new stadium, they’d be even more profitable. So why is the public helping to finance an someone else’s profit machine? That’s called socialism, folks. Do you really think a couple thousand part-time, $8/hour jobs is worth a half billion dollars of taxpayer funds?

  66. kevpft says: Sep 1, 2011 12:47 PM

    I think everyone involved in this stadium needs to think seriously about the long-term implications of a retractable roof.

    A retractable roof would allow the Vikings to selectively make use of their chilly winter climate as a competitive advantage. Chargers or Falcons coming to town in December? Crank it open. It could mean one or two more wins per season.

    It would also have the reverse effect – better preparing the Vikings to deal with other teams in outdoor stadiums. For the most part, dome teams seem to be at a disadvantage when it comes to winning it all. They get sabotaged by the different environments they usually have to face in the playoffs. A retractable roof would better prepare the team for whatever comes along in the critical winter months.

    And all of this isn’t just for show. Competitive advantages mean more wins. More wins means more attendance, more merchandise, more money. Lots more money. I don’t think it’s too much to suggest that the retractable roof could pay for itself in about 10 years of increased team success.

    And though a lot of different factors are involved in success, look at who’s traditionally dominant in this division: Green Bay and Chicago. two outdoor teams.

    Going with no retractable roof is a sure way to hobble the team in the long term.

  67. granadafan says: Sep 1, 2011 12:47 PM

    Giving taxpayer money to a billionaire’s business is just absurd, no matter where. Cities and states need to take a stand against sports leagues, especially in this bad economy. Taxpayer money is not used to help build skyscrapers, which create many many more jobs and kick in local money to the tax cofers. The jobs created by larger corporations are full time as opposed to the mainly part time jobs by sports teams (security, parking lot attendendts, concession, maintenance, etc).

  68. knew8411 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:47 PM

    It would be one thing to ask the Wilf’s to pay the entire cost of the stadium, if they were the only one’s who would profit from it, once it is completed.
    Truth be known though the community & state will profit from taxes generated by the team, as well as from other events booked for the facility in the off season.
    Why should the Wilf’s foot the entire bill, when soo many other’s will profit off a new facility?

  69. schemefactory says: Sep 1, 2011 12:48 PM

    yeah, bud grant is right: if they play without a roof, they may get to lose more superbowls….? huh?

  70. thofy says: Sep 1, 2011 12:50 PM

    If the commenters on this site were educated on the issue AT ALL, they would know that the Vikings would love to build the stadium with no roof but the state has said they will not participate if that is the case.

    The MN government will find a way to screw this up…

  71. grandpoopah says: Sep 1, 2011 12:53 PM

    And if you don’t think the uber wealthy get better tax breaks than the rest of us, then you are deluded. Warren Buffett paid just 17.4% of his 8 figure taxable income in taxes last year. I made six figures last year and paid an effective tax rate of around 30%. Hedge fund managers – many of whom earn over one Billion dollars a year – pay just 15% on their income, thanks to a well known loophole. So before you start preaching, at least know what you’re talking about.

  72. theytukrjobs says: Sep 1, 2011 12:53 PM

    I’m too lazy to pull out the comments but I’ve pointed this out several times and media outlets oddly have never picked up on it themselves.

    A big portion of the stadium cost is for the unnecessary retractable roof. A fixed roof or open air roof would be adequate and would save a lot of money.

    This has been Zygi’s ace in the hole all along. He knows MN politics enough to know that they will reneg at the last moment, pulling out some BS excuse, so when they do that he can simply drop the stadium cost $120 mil and kick in an extra $30 and leave the politicians with their pants on the ground.

  73. ejmat2 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:57 PM

    terrellblowens says:
    Sep 1, 2011 12:25 PM
    There’s no reason Minnesota should have a retractable roof. Either no roof or dome. I sincerely doubt with the weather that they get up there that the roof would be open for more than 2 games anyway. Plus in important games, most teams with retractable roofs close the roof to make it louder for opposing teams. So just give them a dome. If they’re worried about the snow on the roof again then just make an open stadium. Retractable roofs cost too much and aren’t worth it for a small market team who struggles to sell out games
    —————————————-
    Great post up until the last sentence. The Vikings have sold out every single home game since 1998. I am not sure where people get the idea they have trouble selling out games. If you’re going to say that professionals sometimes buy tickets to see out games that may be true at times but that happens with most NFL teams. But those same NFL teams can’t say they’ve sold out every game over the past 13 years.

  74. glac1 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:58 PM

    looking at ticket demand it looks like they could get by with a much smaller stadium… Not much support from their fan base.

  75. cosmoman11 says: Sep 1, 2011 12:59 PM

    Within the past few months there was a story on PFT, with a link, about how the positive economic impact of sports stadiums is overstated in order to sell the project to the public. For it to work the state/county/city have to negotiate from a position of strength and not desperation.

  76. purplereign28 says: Sep 1, 2011 1:01 PM

    salmen76 says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:39 AM

    Vikings don’t deserve a new stadium. If they did, they’d have one. Besides, if i lived in Minn i wouldn’t want to waste my money on a team that ain’t never won anything of signifigance. They went to like 4 SBs and lost ALL of them. Ha Ha. And ole man favre threw the vikings recent SB run season by throwin that int to a Saint when he shoulda ran about 5 yards and went down and then let the kicker put them in the SB again so they could lose it again. Ha Ha. Thanks Vikings. Thanks to yall and your then 67 year old pervy QB us Saints fans can now boast something yall vikings fans can’t. A SB championship. Drew Brees beat 3 future hall of fame QBs in a row to that title. Geaux Saints!

    _____________________________________
    The Metrodome may be a Sh*thole, but at least it doesn’t have to provide housing for our whole city. You guys have fun with that Superbowl win, but in the end, you still have to live in New Orleans, so I think we win that one. Hope you guys have fun this hurricane season. Douche.

  77. udontknowjaq says: Sep 1, 2011 1:02 PM

    jamiebuf12 says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:38 AM
    I hate the idea of Minnesota losing its team but their value would double within a few years if they moved to LA.

    i do not get how a team that moves to l.a. automatically doubles their value within a few years? yes they are in the 2nd biggest market,but didnt the rams and raiders leave l.a for a reason? they have no fan base out there…the people just don’t go to the games…it seems everybody wants a team in l.a except for the fans in l.a…

    —————————————-

    Those LA Teams left because of stadium issues just like the Vikings.. Now years later them same teams are linked to going back also cause now they will actually build a stadium there.

  78. tjacks7 says: Sep 1, 2011 1:02 PM

    Why do people think an outdoor stadium gives the Vikings some sort of an advantage? They’ve been indoors for decades and suddenly because the fact they’re a cold weather state, they are used to playing in freezing temps.

  79. mel1sharples says: Sep 1, 2011 1:09 PM

    salmen76 says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:39 AM
    Vikings don’t deserve a new stadium. If they did, they’d have one. Besides, if i lived in Minn i wouldn’t want to waste my money on a team that ain’t never won anything of signifigance. They went to like 4 SBs and lost ALL of them. Ha Ha. And ole man favre threw the vikings recent SB run season by throwin that int to a Saint when he shoulda ran about 5 yards and went down and then let the kicker put them in the SB again so they could lose it again. Ha Ha. Thanks Vikings. Thanks to yall and your then 67 year old pervy QB us Saints fans can now boast something yall vikings fans can’t. A SB championship. Drew Brees beat 3 future hall of fame QBs in a row to that title. Geaux Saints!
    —————————

    I read this 4 times and I still can’t figure out what this girl is trying to say. I do think its cute she has a pink saints jersey…makes her fell part of the game.

  80. krashie21 says: Sep 1, 2011 1:18 PM

    schemefactory says:
    Sep 1, 2011 12:48 PM
    yeah, bud grant is right: if they play without a roof, they may get to lose more superbowls….? huh?
    __________________________________

    Actually, the point being made here (that you’ve obviously missed), is that the old Metropolitan Stadium was a clear advantage for the Vikes of yesteryear.

    That place had its own aura and any Viking fan will tell you (I’m not a Minny fan) that games at The Met intimidated a lot of teams……summer and winter.

    The Metrodome took away a big chunk of the mystique the Vikings had.

  81. geogibso says: Sep 1, 2011 1:22 PM

    Looks like the Vikings are about to become the Los Angeles CHiPs…I can’t wait to see Ponch and Baker crusing around the stadium as mascots!!!

  82. glac1 says: Sep 1, 2011 1:26 PM

    Vikings are offering 50% discounts on second level seats for the Detroit and Tampa games. Sluggish ticket demand is the reason. Certainly not a good sign for a team on the verge of moving west to the left coast region.

  83. clintonportisheadd says: Sep 1, 2011 1:26 PM

    reachmylevel says: Sep 1, 2011 12:00 PM

    For those of you who keep commenting thoughout this whole ordeal that the owners should contribute the whole cost, do you really understand the revenue that a new stadium such as this brings to the state economy. It is an investment for all stakeholders involved. Concerts, games, etc. all will be able to utilize the facilities. Jobs, vendors, other businesses also will benefit

    reachmylevel says: Sep 1, 2011 12:00 PM

    For those of you who keep commenting thoughout this whole ordeal that the owners should contribute the whole cost, do you really understand the revenue that a new stadium such as this brings to the state economy…

    ========================

    The FACTS do not support your opinion. There are many many many examples we can look at where government entities fell victim to extortion (give us money or we move the team) and did what the Vikings want Minnesota to do. These deals have been studied very carefully and every person who has done the research (usually an economics professor) finds out the team wins. And wins big. Those are the FACTS. For those of you with your heads still stuck in the mud take a ride over to the Meadowlands. Former home to the Giants and Jets and built at taxpayer expense, its now an empty shell. But guess what? The taxpayers of New Jersey will still be paying for it for decades to come.

  84. vadog says: Sep 1, 2011 1:26 PM

    If I were Zygi, I would cut the state of Minnesota completely out of the deal. I would build the stadium that I want with my own money and keep all the revenue. I would make it a Minnesota politician free zone. If any politician form the state of Minnesota set foot on the property, I would have them arrested for trespassing. Maybe the politicians fines could go to pay the state budget deficit!!!

  85. duece5 says: Sep 1, 2011 1:29 PM

    salmen76 says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:39 AM
    Vikings don’t deserve a new stadium. If they did, they’d have one. Besides, if i lived in Minn i wouldn’t want to waste my money on a team that ain’t never won anything of signifigance. They went to like 4 SBs and lost ALL of them. Ha Ha. And ole man favre threw the vikings recent SB run season by throwin that int to a Saint when he shoulda ran about 5 yards and went down and then let the kicker put them in the SB again so they could lose it again. Ha Ha. Thanks Vikings. Thanks to yall and your then 67 year old pervy QB us Saints fans can now boast something yall vikings fans can’t. A SB championship. Drew Brees beat 3 future hall of fame QBs in a row to that title. Geaux Saints!

    duece5 says:

    Well I can see the saints fans are STILL in a fog from 2009. Much like their team, partied all of 2010, and now are just another team…..predicatble.

    I would say most Vikings fans have something you don’t have….INTELLIGENCE, CLASS, and proper hygene!

    Thanks saints fans, you NEVER disappoint!!!

  86. thephantomstranger says: Sep 1, 2011 1:29 PM

    kevpft says:
    Sep 1, 2011 12:47 PM
    I think everyone involved in this stadium needs to think seriously about the long-term implications of a retractable roof.

    A retractable roof would allow the Vikings to selectively make use of their chilly winter climate as a competitive advantage. Chargers or Falcons coming to town in December? Crank it open. It could mean one or two more wins per season.

    It would also have the reverse effect – better preparing the Vikings to deal with other teams in outdoor stadiums. For the most part, dome teams seem to be at a disadvantage when it comes to winning it all. They get sabotaged by the different environments they usually have to face in the playoffs. A retractable roof would better prepare the team for whatever comes along in the critical winter months.

    And all of this isn’t just for show. Competitive advantages mean more wins. More wins means more attendance, more merchandise, more money. Lots more money. I don’t think it’s too much to suggest that the retractable roof could pay for itself in about 10 years of increased team success.

    And though a lot of different factors are involved in success, look at who’s traditionally dominant in this division: Green Bay and Chicago. two outdoor teams.

    Going with no retractable roof is a sure way to hobble the team in the long term.
    _________

    First, NFL teams make money no matter how successful they are. A new stadium means huge money, retractable roof or not. Second, the Vikings have been just as dominant in the division as Green Bay and Chicago since they moved indoors. Since 1982, Chicago has 10 division champions and Green Bay and Minnesota have 7 each. Minnesota has 15 playoff appearances since 1982, Green Bay has 14, and Chicago has 12. I know the Vikings haven’t won a Super Bowl (I heard that somewhere) but you don’t play the Super Bowl at home.

  87. briang123 says: Sep 1, 2011 1:32 PM

    Minnesota is a victim of the Bush economy and if the Vikings are forced to move, just remember that George W. Bush’s fealty to Big Oil and Halliburton caused you to lose your team.

  88. theduuuuuuuuuude says: Sep 1, 2011 1:39 PM

    Anyone who says that the Rams and Raiders left L.A. because of lack of fan support is speaking out ignorance. Do your homework before you start spouting nonsense.

    And to the guy who said there are no Vikings in L.A…. there haven’t been any Vikings anywhere for over 500 years. Furthermore, there are no Bengal tigers in Cinci, no Bears in Chicago, no Lions in Detroit…. I could go on and on. What a stupid argument.

  89. skinsrock says: Sep 1, 2011 1:40 PM

    How about they kick in ALL the cash? Why do billionaires running profitable businesses continue to get taxpayer handouts?
    _____________

    JOBS/Economy… You know how many jobs & money a stadium brings to a location? IF they let Vikings go, MN will become completely irrelevant of anything.

  90. NoHomeTeam says: Sep 1, 2011 2:04 PM

    dickroy says: “Come on Minnesotians , keep your beloved Vikings up north where they belong. No such thing as a Viking in LA. Would have to change their name to LA Surfer Boys.”

    As an Angeleno with Midwest roots, I’m in favor of the Vikings remaining in Minnesotia [sic] That said, if this is the team that relocates, I would be surprised to see them retain the name. The Browns => Ravens model seems to be the overwhelming preference of fans when it comes to team movement. There aren’t many Vikings fans here (I know), and it’s highly doubtful that there would be many left in Minnesota and the Dakotas if the team moved to L.A. There’s no real incentive to retain the name. Personally, I’d suggest that the Wilfs and Phil Anschutz offer Jerry Buss a stake in the team in exchange for the use of the name Los Angeles Football Lakers.

  91. 2ruefan says: Sep 1, 2011 2:05 PM

    I will NEVER understand the “Why should people pay ANYTHING for a stadium, the owners are billionaires, blah, blah, blah” argument.

    Always the locals who use this argument. The ones who WANT attractions in their city, but don’t want to pay a dime for it.

    Since WHEN does it work that way? People pay taxes and fees for EVERYTHING.

    The owners aren’t the only ones who benefit from team..

    Folks who say this are the FIRST ones to whine when the team leaves town.

    If you don’t want a team, then shut up, and root for a team in another city where you won’t have to pay for it.

  92. kevpft says: Sep 1, 2011 2:14 PM

    tjacks7 says:
    Sep 1, 2011 1:02 PM
    Why do people think an outdoor stadium gives the Vikings some sort of an advantage? They’ve been indoors for decades and suddenly because the fact they’re a cold weather state, they are used to playing in freezing temps.

    You’re right that it wouldn’t be an immediate advantage. It would probably take a couple years for the benefits to start showing, because the team would have to get used to it. That’s why I think it’s a good long-term investment. If the Vikes want to keep playing arena football and providing a cushy, comfortable environment for their opponents, it’s their choice.

    But having that X-factor in a venue, like so many top teams do, would make them a more dangerous opponent. To have the choice between being closed up and loud, or open and freezing, and opponents not knowing which they’re going to get, would be a powerful tool.

    And I say this as someone who’s always liked the Vikes and who wants them to do well.

  93. david7590 says: Sep 1, 2011 2:24 PM

    danetow says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:37 AM
    “Why do billionaires running profitable businesses continue to get taxpayer handouts?”
    ———————————————
    How convenient it is for you to not say anything about how much money the Vikings bring in for the city.

    Just ask all the businesses in Cleveland that were negatively affected by Lebron leaving. Now imagine the entire team leaving and what kinda impact that has on the community.

    IMO the state of Minnesota better cut their losses because whatever they would kick in for a new stadium will be chump change compared to how much they would lose in the long term by losing the Vikings.

    They need to pull their heads out.
    ————————————————-
    Go ask the small businesses in Cleveland how much it hurt them when the Browns left altogether in 1996. In small markets like Cleveland or Minneapolis, these teams bring in a lot of revenue to the state not only through their own revenues, but through the independent businesses that their presence in the area support.

    Plus why should the Vikings have to build a stadium that the State of Minnesota will own?

  94. brewdogg says: Sep 1, 2011 2:24 PM

    Q. Why should billionaires running sucessful companies get public money?
    A. Ask every Fortune 500 company in America that gets tax breaks from the states they operate in.

    Q. Why shouldn’t the people get to vote on whether their tax money will go to fund this stadium
    A. Great idea. And while we’re at it, let’s let the people vote on the DNR budget, or have a public referendum for each road construction project, or let the people decide whether the state should fund field trips for developmentally disabled adults….Or maybe, since we hired them to collect all the necessary information and make the best decision for their constituents, we should just shut up and let them do their job.

    Q. Why would any state or city consider funding a stadium, when, as many have pointed out, every single study ever done shows that stadiums generate no revenue and never ever match their cost.
    A. Because these “studies” are objective and dismiss much of the information pertinent to making an unbiased judgement. Aside from the fact that most of them only target local spending (which has very little to do with the state….try to remember that Minnesota has a state income tax, people), they dismiss almost all of it as “discretionary income” that would be spent at other ventures in the area. This ignores people travelling from outside the area or the possibility that someone would choose to use that “discretionary income” outside of the area. Really, if you didn’t have to spend $1000 on season tickets, you’d just go bowling a lot, right? You wouldn’t, oh, I don’t know, go see your favorite team play in a different city, of go to Vegas or Hawaii…..

    Q. Why do stupid people feel the need to post their ignorance on the internet?
    A. Because they can just change their screen name and pretend to be someone else…..who isn’t stupid……

  95. packalltheway1 says: Sep 1, 2011 2:25 PM

    First – Whoever said the Vikings are profitable, how do you know? Most NFl teams are not and I personally know the Vikings are on the bottom of the list.

    Second – Shea801, there are many companies that are in Minneapolis that get significant tax breaks for being here so in essence, we are paying for that. Additionally, all of the minimum wage jobs would be a substantial improvement to the economic environment because it would be that many less people off of taxpayer welfare support, again, less $$ out of our pocket.

    Are you one of those believers that College’s shouldn’t give out athletic scholarships? if it wasn’t for the revenue generated from Sports, we wouldn’t have a higher education!

    OPEN YOUR EYES!

  96. kevpft says: Sep 1, 2011 2:25 PM

    theduuuuuuuuuude says:
    Sep 1, 2011 1:39 PM

    And to the guy who said there are no Vikings in L.A…. there haven’t been any Vikings anywhere for over 500 years. Furthermore, there are no Bengal tigers in Cinci, no Bears in Chicago, no Lions in Detroit…. I could go on and on. What a stupid argument.

    It’s not a stupid argument in this case, because there’s a long tradition of Scandinavian presence in Minnesota. There’s still a considerably large population there (about a third of the state’s total) with Scandinavian roots, and it’s recognized around the country as a focal point of Scandinavian cultural heritage. (And on a more superficial note, the climate in Minnesota is much more akin to Scandinavia than, say, L.A., so it makes an intuitive sense.)

    So nice try, dude, but you’re wrong on this one.

  97. brewdogg says: Sep 1, 2011 2:29 PM

    Oh yeah, and to the sconnies taking shots at Minnesota’s education system…..

    Did you know that, if Minnesota applied the same percentage of tax revenue to their schools that Wisconsin does, the state would save $2 billion per year. They could build two new stadiums every year if they only short-changed the public schools like their neighbors to the east…..

  98. vikingsinla says: Sep 1, 2011 2:35 PM

    Its too bad LA already has a team called the Kings. When Minny lost the North Stars, the were renamed the “Stars”. Similarly, when the Vikings move to LA, they could be renamed the Kings.

  99. tombradysponytail says: Sep 1, 2011 2:46 PM

    @brewdogg

    Q. Are people who ask and anser their own questions morons?
    A. Yes

  100. brewdogg says: Sep 1, 2011 2:52 PM

    salmen76 says:
    Sep 1, 2011 11:39 AM
    Vikings don’t deserve a new stadium. If they did, they’d have one. Besides, if i lived in Minn i wouldn’t want to waste my money on a team that ain’t never won anything of signifigance. They went to like 4 SBs and lost ALL of them. Ha Ha. And ole man favre threw the vikings recent SB run season by throwin that int to a Saint when he shoulda ran about 5 yards and went down and then let the kicker put them in the SB again so they could lose it again. Ha Ha. Thanks Vikings. Thanks to yall and your then 67 year old pervy QB us Saints fans can now boast something yall vikings fans can’t. A SB championship. Drew Brees beat 3 future hall of fame QBs in a row to that title. Geaux Saints!
    ——————————

    Is anyone else amused by the fact that no one seems to care that an apparent Louisiana resident is so clearly undereducated?

    btw….Deauxncha kneaux how meauxronic it is to derive some feauxrm of eauxriginality from eauxccasionally misspelling words that eauxriginate is a nationality that you likely deauxn’t belong too? Seaux geaux bleaux me.

  101. tunescribe says: Sep 1, 2011 2:53 PM

    I don’t understand why the Vikings don’t embrace the competitive advantage of playing outdoors like they did in the ’60s and ’70s.

  102. joelvis72 says: Sep 1, 2011 3:02 PM

    brewdogg:

    Super Bowl wins:
    Saints: 1
    Vikings: zereaux

    Seriously, that “eaux” crap gets beaten to death down here, and I personally hate it.

    I may be (am) ignorant of architectural materials, but has someone come up with a way to construct a dome out of something that is translucent as glass, giving the effect of open air? The roofs themselves may be too large to be built out of such a substance.

  103. purpleisreallypinkyouknow says: Sep 1, 2011 3:03 PM

    brewdogg says:Sep 1, 2011 2:29 PM

    Oh yeah, and to the sconnies taking shots at Minnesota’s education system…..

    Did you know that, if Minnesota applied the same percentage of tax revenue to their schools that Wisconsin does, the state would save $2 billion per year. They could build two new stadiums every year if they only short-changed the public schools like their neighbors to the east…..
    __________________________________

    Unfortunately for you guys, we weren’t inept enough to elect pro wrestlers and stand-up comedians into public office. Maybe your dire fiscal situation would’ve be in better shape with Vince McMahon and Howie Mandel instead.
    Congrats on your education system. Good luck getting your ass handed to you in every capacity by your “neighbors to the east” over the next 7 to 10 years.

  104. sandycratch says: Sep 1, 2011 3:08 PM

    Willing to do the same thing. People from Minnesota pay and support this team. With a reduction in tax payers/money taken in and an increase in the costs of healthcare and services needed for everyday living (our roads cost a bit more than your!) we have to prioritize spending. This year it took a special session to find agreement on these services. So to the author, your article and job is a PASTIME. Getting to work and living healthy lives take priority over any entertainment here. We will continue to love our team. I hope the North Vikings understand.

  105. thephantomstranger says: Sep 1, 2011 3:08 PM

    tombradysponytail says:
    Sep 1, 2011 2:46 PM
    @brewdogg

    Q. Are people who ask and anser their own questions morons?
    A. Yes
    ______________

    It’s beneath me to even point it out, but since you’re the guy who always calls me the “grammar cop” (when all I ever point out is spelling errors in comments that insult the intelligence of another commenter), I feel I must.

    It’s “answer.”

  106. tombradysponytail says: Sep 1, 2011 3:10 PM

    joelvis72 says:
    Sep 1, 2011 3:02 PM
    I may be (am) ignorant of architectural materials, but has someone come up with a way to construct a dome out of something that is translucent as glass, giving the effect of open air? The roofs themselves may be too large to be built out of such a substance.

    _____

    It better have really big windows that we could roll down on a hot, sunny day…

  107. brewdogg says: Sep 1, 2011 3:38 PM

    purpleisreallypinkyouknow says:
    Sep 1, 2011 3:03 PM
    brewdogg says:Sep 1, 2011 2:29 PM

    Oh yeah, and to the sconnies taking shots at Minnesota’s education system…..

    Did you know that, if Minnesota applied the same percentage of tax revenue to their schools that Wisconsin does, the state would save $2 billion per year. They could build two new stadiums every year if they only short-changed the public schools like their neighbors to the east…..
    __________________________________

    Unfortunately for you guys, we weren’t inept enough to elect pro wrestlers and stand-up comedians into public office. Maybe your dire fiscal situation would’ve be in better shape with Vince McMahon and Howie Mandel instead.
    Congrats on your education system. Good luck getting your ass handed to you in every capacity by your “neighbors to the east” over the next 7 to 10 years.
    ——————————————-

    a) We were smart enough to get rid of Ventura. Arnold still holds office in Cali…..

    b) Ventura has been out of office for over 8 years now. I think maybe the career politician who was more concerned with his future presidential bid than the welfare of the state may have had something to do with our current situation….

    c) So are you really saying you are in full support of your state’s congress? You might not want to say that around any union folk….

    d) Congrats on your SB victory. Good luck separating your personal quality of life from the Packers success.

  108. vicpetro says: Sep 1, 2011 3:38 PM

    The team WANTS an open air stadium. The POLITICIANS made it clear they will not contribute to a FOOTBALL-ONLY stadium. Don’t blame the Vikings, blame the GUTLESS DOPES the good people of Minnesota elected.

  109. schemefactory says: Sep 1, 2011 3:41 PM

    brewdeauxgg!!

  110. anarchopurplism says: Sep 1, 2011 3:41 PM

    Screw the roof.

    MN is one of the world’s best at de-icing planes, getting airport runways, streets & side-walks cleared.

    We can certainly get a field cleaned off and die-hards can get bundled up while others get cozy in their luxury suites.

    Wouldn’t a heating sub-system underground and foot/seats in the stadium be cool?

  111. Derty Ernie says: Sep 1, 2011 3:47 PM

    This fight is no longer about IF the vikings get a stadium its a power play between two forces as to where the stadium will be built. Ziggy wants it out of town where there is lots of room for malls and parking concessions and the power players with the tax money are waving red flags saying no deal unless its downtown.

  112. broncobillie says: Sep 1, 2011 3:50 PM

    Outdoor stadium in Minneapolis?
    The math is easy:

    Green Bay = outdoor => 4 Superbowl rings
    Minnesota = indoor => 0 rings

    Why again do the Vikings need a roof?

  113. childressrulz says: Sep 1, 2011 3:53 PM

    packalltheway1 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:56 AM

    To those of you with your taxpayer comments – use your head before you speak. Shame on Ziggy for getting an education and working hard for his money. Guy probably pays more in taxes in one year than you make in a lifetime. And why should he??? I always love it when people think that rich people get a tax break. if it wasnt for rich people, this country would be significantly more broke and there wouldn’t even be football.
    ___________________________________
    Hang on turbo! I think most would agree that the elite wealthy use this country’s infrastructure a little more than the average middle class, small family. There is a reason the rich should pay more; and it’s the loop holes and bail outs that most of us have grown tired of.

  114. brewdogg says: Sep 1, 2011 3:55 PM

    schemefactory says:
    Sep 1, 2011 3:41 PM
    brewdeauxgg!!
    ————————

    I also accept Leauxrd Brewdeauxgg the Heauxly

  115. choisbois says: Sep 1, 2011 4:06 PM

    Minnesota built new parks for the Gophers & Twins before they built for their most popular team that plays in the most popular league in sports. What? It’s called priorities Minnesota! If you lose the Vikings it’s your own fault.

  116. rka3 says: Sep 1, 2011 4:14 PM

    @ jacunn2000:

    “The NFL would just not be the same with out Minnesota. L.A. needs to just go away. You have had your chances.”

    @dickroy

    Come on Minnesotians, keep your beloved Vikings up north where they belong. No such thing as a Viking in LA. Would have to change their name to LA Surfer Boys.
    __________________

    Don’t approve the 1/2 cent tax increase and don’t worry about the L.A.Vikings Minnesotans, we’ll turn them into 16x Champions just like the last team we got from you.

    Signed
    Los Angelenos

  117. salmen76 says: Sep 1, 2011 4:16 PM

    kevpft says:

    Yes, the Saints can now stand proud and tall alongside such other one-time SB winners as Kansas City and Tampa Bay. I’d say that’s just about where they belong. A perpetually second-class team that backed into a title thanks to luck and bad officiating.

    And i now say. Ha ha again. You took the bait hook, line and sinker! You guys are still bitter over getting your butts sent home with a loss to the Saints in the Superdome. Yea, thats right, we got a dome. The Saints are the second most profitable team in the NFL. Our QB is a future hall of famer. We will win 2 out of the next 3 SBs. But even if we don’t and even if we are second class, we’re still ahead of you losers. Yall have zero SB championships. One is more than none pal. Do they teach math in Minn. Fans that complain their team lost because of luck and bad calls are just simply “cry babies”. Geaux Saints!

  118. yizudien says: Sep 1, 2011 4:46 PM

    “Minnesota built new parks for the Gophers & Twins before they built for their most popular team that plays in the most popular league in sports. What? It’s called priorities Minnesota! If you lose the Vikings it’s your own fault”

    Gophers was paid for by private money. Twins is a little easier on tax payers when you consider the cut off sales for 80+ games as opposed to 8 Football games a season.

    Seriously an outdoor stadium in Minnesota, isnt the market for selling tickets reduced for a game in January when its -20 out with a good wind chill coming from the temp difference between inside and outside of the stadium?

  119. david7590 says: Sep 1, 2011 5:23 PM

    @brewdogg says: Arnold is not the Governor of California, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is. He’s no better though.

  120. paulharghis says: Sep 1, 2011 6:08 PM

    don’t worry about the L.A.Vikings Minnesotans, we’ll turn them into 16x Champions just like the last team we got from you.

    Signed
    Los Angelenos

    =============================
    Dummy, they had 5 titles before they moved out there. it’s nice that you know the history of the team you root for.

    There will be a huge thud when all of your turds hop off the bandwagon once the rapist retires.

    Prior to Rapist/Shaq years- attendance was around 8,ooo. This being after magic and kareem retired.
    LA sure supports teams as long as they are winning- What was the article on PBT?
    Maybe the least fans to ever see a MLB game?
    That was the Dodgers recently. You are an idiot.

  121. kevpft says: Sep 1, 2011 6:27 PM

    salmen76 says:
    Sep 1, 2011 4:16 PM

    Ha ha again. You took the bait hook, line and sinker! You guys are still bitter over getting your butts sent home with a loss to the Saints in the Superdome. Yea, thats right, we got a dome.

    We will win 2 out of the next 3 SBs. But even if we don’t and even if we are second class, we’re still ahead of you losers. Yall have zero SB championships. One is more than none pal. Do they teach math in Minn. Fans that complain their team lost because of luck and bad calls are just simply “cry babies”. Geaux Saints!

    Uh, if you’re referring to me as the Vikings, I’m a few states away from there and the Cowboys are the team I follow. The Cowboys that have five Super Bowl wins (8 overall appearances), whose shoes the Saints franchise isn’t fit to shine.

    But unless you play or work for the Saints, you’re just another loser who refers to a professional sports team as “we”, when in fact you have nothing whatsoever to do with their success and no one on the team even knows you exist, or cares. “You” aren’t winning any Super Bowls, pal – the highly-paid professionals you idolize are. “You” don’t have any bragging rights – you’re just some chump living vicariously, which is fine – it’s why sports exists – until you start bragging and thinking you have any part in it.

    So you just keep your “bait”, and enjoy the Saints’ time in the spotlight. But remember that all-time NFL bragging rights take a lot more than one SB win.

  122. theduuuuuuuuuude says: Sep 1, 2011 10:14 PM

    It’s not a stupid argument in this case, because there’s a long tradition of Scandinavian presence in Minnesota. There’s still a considerably large population there (about a third of the state’s total) with Scandinavian roots, and it’s recognized around the country as a focal point of Scandinavian cultural heritage. (And on a more superficial note, the climate in Minnesota is much more akin to Scandinavia than, say, L.A., so it makes an intuitive sense.)

    So nice try, dude, but you’re wrong on this one.

    ————————————————–
    Oh are there a lot of people of Scandinavian descent in Minnesota? I’d never heard that before, thanks for enlightening me!
    #sarcasm

    I don’t think I ever said that L.A. Vikings is a great team name. Just meant that a team’s nickname really doesn’t matter. You could call them the Minnesota Puppies and it wouldn’t matter, because all team nicknames are pretty much irrelevant. If they did move to L.A. (Which I don’t think they will), I doubt anyone in L.A. would care if they kept the Vikings name or changed it, they’d just be happy to have a team once again.

  123. dwhitehurst says: Sep 1, 2011 11:49 PM

    “Anything but an outdoor stadium! If that’s all we can afford, then forget it. Why, I don’t want my cappachino getting cold on the way back from the vendor! No way! Just move the team to LA!”

    Minnesota Pansies

  124. recon163 says: Sep 1, 2011 11:53 PM

    @ brewdogg:

    “A. Great idea. And while we’re at it, let’s let the people vote on the DNR budget, or have a public referendum for each road construction project, or let the people decide whether the state should fund field trips for developmentally disabled adults….”

    Uh why not let them vote? After all if it such a great deal for everyone and with all the economic benefits you tout, it should easily pass public scrutiny.

    “Or maybe, since we hired them to collect all the necessary information and make the best decision for their constituents, we should just shut up and let them do their job.”

    More like the public will see through the hype and vote no. Better not take that chance Vikings fans.

    “A. Because these “studies” are objective and dismiss much of the information pertinent to making an unbiased judgement.”

    Wow. I have heard of studies being rejected for being subjective but never for being objective. Shall we use this study to make a decision? No it is too close to the truth and it is too balanced. Reject it.

    “This ignores people travelling from outside the area or the possibility that someone would choose to use that “discretionary income” outside of the area.”

    How many people is that? The stadium only holds 76k. Are you saying that the local area can’t get 76k locals to the game?

    “You wouldn’t, oh, I don’t know, go see your favorite team play in a different city, of go to Vegas or Hawaii…..”

    You just might. But then again you might not. They might spend that money near home. But I find the argument rather silly. Take my family to Hawaii or buy season tickets?

    Hmmmm…..what are your priorities brewdogg? I am thinking lots of things take a back seat to the NFL. Just because you feel that way doesn’t give you license to tax your neighbors to support your pasion.

  125. brewdogg says: Sep 2, 2011 12:46 PM

    Okay, recon, I could go point by point, but instead I’ll just ask a very simple question. First to set the table…..

    If the public is against using tax money to build a new stadium, then any state congressman who votes for it would risk not being re-elected. Do you disagree? I’ll assume you don’t.

    Then why would any politician approve a plan that would not only cost the state more money than it brought in, but would also get them voted out of office?

    So I say once again, let the people who were hired to determine what is in the state’s best interests do their job, and leave the public out of it. Seriously, when put to a public vote, local school levies fail as often as not.

    And I ask once again, if the people deserve the right to vote on what their taxes go to, let’s discuss the federal pension payouts. They have doubled in the last 15 years, and are at nearly $950 billion. $950 BILLION for PENSIONS!! Do you think that would pass?

    Why don’t you concern yourself with the real government largesse and stop obsessing about what is down to a few million a year to keep the tax revenue of a $200 million business with $150 million in payroll in the state.

  126. NoHomeTeam says: Sep 2, 2011 12:49 PM

    theduuuuuuuuuude says: ” . . . I doubt anyone in L.A. would care if they kept the Vikings name or changed it, they’d just be happy to have a team once again.”

    I, for one, must disagree strongly with this. I firmly believe that any team that moves here must completely reinvent itself, leaving behind the name, the logos, the records — anything associated with its former identity — if it’s going to have any chance of being widely embraced. The relocated franchise is going to need to functionally present itself as an “expansion” team.

    And that includes teams that presently play in California.

  127. rka3 says: Sep 2, 2011 2:19 PM

    @paulharghis
    Dummy, they had 5 titles before they moved out there. it’s nice that you know the history of the team you root for.

    There will be a huge thud when all of your turds hop off the bandwagon once the rapist retires.

    Prior to Rapist/Shaq years- attendance was around 8,ooo. This being after magic and kareem retired.

    LA sure supports teams as long as they are winning- What was the article on PBT?
    Maybe the least fans to ever see a MLB game?
    That was the Dodgers recently. You are an idiot.

    I know they had 5 rings before they moved I see the banner hanging every time I go to games.

    You wanna talk attendance and bandwagons, over the past decade only this year in 2011 has the Twins had a better attendance then the Dodgers or Angels and both are still in the top 10, and the dodgers have been bad for atleast a decade. When it comes to the T-Wolves attendance it’s not even in the same ball park as the Lakers winning or losing. Your tears make me smile and I would like to give a preemptive thank you to all Minnesotans for the Vikings.

    THANK YOU COME AGAIN :)

  128. recon163 says: Sep 2, 2011 4:05 PM

    @ brewdogg:

    “If the public is against using tax money to build a new stadium, then any state congressman who votes for it would risk not being re-elected. Do you disagree? I’ll assume you don’t.”

    They indeed would risk not being re-elected.

    “Then why would any politician approve a plan that would not only cost the state more money than it brought in, but would also get them voted out of office?”

    Except for the Ramsey County supes, they haven’t have they? In fact, it is the politicians calling for a referendum isn’t it?

    I would assume they are looking for political cover. Fails as a referendum, they won’t take the blame for the team moving. Passes as a referendum, they won’t be blamed for the tax increase. Either way they win with a referendum.

    “So I say once again, let the people who were hired to determine what is in the state’s best interests do their job . . .”

    Well it would appear that those who were hired to put the states best interest forward are punting on the issue. What does that tell you about the proposal?

    “And I ask once again, if the people deserve the right to vote on what their taxes go to, let’s discuss the federal pension payouts. . . Do you think that would pass?”

    Probably not.

    “Why don’t you concern yourself with the real government largesse and stop obsessing about what is down to a few million a year . . .”

    Is this the complain about public largesse forum? Or are we commenting on the story as posted by PFT? Shall I go on a rant about something completely unrelated to the story that we are commenting on? How does that make sense?

  129. dwhitehurst says: Sep 3, 2011 8:23 PM

    Phew! Glad Ziggy is pitching in for a roof. For a minute there I thought we Vikings fans would have to settle for an outdoor stadium, you know, like the Packers and Bears currently have. Oh wait, come to think of it, also our own team prior to 1982. What were we thinking? And what are the Packer’s and Bears fans thinking? I mean, it gets just as cold there as it does in Minneapple. But they’re just paleo-football fanatics. Everyone knows the we Vikings fans are above having to dress warm and watch football games outdoors on natural turf. Yuck! How barbaric!

  130. bigjim50010 says: Sep 3, 2011 8:32 PM

    I dunno…long term I think a retractable roof could attract a Superbowl. W/o it..no chance.
    I dont mean a Superbowl for the Vikings… I mean another venue for the game to be played. MN in the winter cant be any worse than what Dallas was this year.

  131. mlblogsyankeeblogspot says: Sep 17, 2011 7:57 PM

    So here is what I dont understand … I am tired of Rubes in this state that dont see the profit of a publicly funded stadium. A half a cent increase will increase the profitability of the area exponentially. It will increase team revenue, and increase the vikings experience for fans. Anyone that cant see this in minnesota needs to take their you betcha backwards flap hat wearing arse back to the iron range…. get with the program and the rest of the country

Leave a Reply

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