Skip to content

Partial public ownership of Vikings doesn’t mesh with league rules

rsz_wall_street_bull_spencer_platt_getty_images Getty Images

As the push for a new Vikings stadium in Minnesota continues, folks who are opposed to the use of public money to build a publicly-owned structure in which a wide variety of events would be staged have an idea for raising money.

Have the public buy a portion of the Vikings.

Representative Phyllis Kahn said Monday she’ll introduce legislation requiring the Vikings to sell 70 percent of the team via shares of stock, with a portion of the proceeds being used to pay for a new stadium.

“Dayton asked for all ideas to be put on the table and that’s exactly what I’m doing here,” Kahn said, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.  “No single idea [for funding a new stadium] has gained enough traction to pass the Legislature.”

This one won’t either.  In part because league rules don’t permit it.

“It is not permissible under our ownership policies,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT via email.  “There is no public ownership permitted.”

The Packers are publicly owned because they became publicly owned at a time when league rules permitted it.  Besides, it would be hard for one person to go out and buy up all the stock.  Under current rules, no public ownership is permitted, regardless of how much the majority owner retains.

Permalink 52 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
52 Responses to “Partial public ownership of Vikings doesn’t mesh with league rules”
  1. ammarradhi says: Nov 7, 2011 2:18 PM

    they just continue to delay, just approve it!

  2. 7ransponder says: Nov 7, 2011 2:19 PM

    Kahn tried to offer this non-solution up with the Twins when they were seeking a new ballpark too. No one here thinks this is viable, with or without league rules.

    Moving on…

  3. dtrb10 says: Nov 7, 2011 2:19 PM

    Only the Packers can. Go figure.

  4. fwippel says: Nov 7, 2011 2:20 PM

    It would have been nice if Kahn had talked to the Wilfs about this, huh? Nice of her to recommend he sell his majority interest in the team. Talk about presumptuous.

  5. winkandthegun says: Nov 7, 2011 2:22 PM

    The Patriots tried to do this years ago (when Sullivan owned it), and sued over not being able to. They lost. No chance the Vikings are able to do it, regardless of how much sense it does or doesn’t make to do so.

  6. neovenator250 says: Nov 7, 2011 2:22 PM

    Why is public ownership no longer allowed? I feel like a system like that can provide some serious stability in franchises with special bonds with their cities. Green Bay does it effectively and I think the system could work with the Saints. I don’t know enough about the Minneapolis/St. Paul region to guess if it would work there.

  7. davikes says: Nov 7, 2011 2:23 PM

    I wonder if it’s occurred to any of our brilliant politicians to ask the Vikes to open their books. Seem’s reasonable when they’re asking for $650M.

  8. johnnyb216 says: Nov 7, 2011 2:24 PM

    Why would anybody want a piece of that joke of a team anyways?

  9. choisbois says: Nov 7, 2011 2:24 PM

    This is a cute idea…but it will never happen!

  10. jutts says: Nov 7, 2011 2:27 PM

    L.A. Vikings: That might be the last straw for old Ziggy.

  11. steelerchicken says: Nov 7, 2011 2:28 PM

    Goddell tries to change every other rule. Why not this rule? This rule change would actually make sense.

  12. nevertola says: Nov 7, 2011 2:29 PM

    I have $5. Can I buy McNabb?

  13. buhbay1c says: Nov 7, 2011 2:33 PM

    Yes, that lady is not smart.

  14. nebster21 says: Nov 7, 2011 2:38 PM

    why is it that the NFL is trying to keep its fans from owning a part of the NFL. Is it because they have something to HIDE? I THINK SO!

  15. coleman121280 says: Nov 7, 2011 2:38 PM

    Lets just get to L.A. and let the state say it was our fault because I don’t really care anymore. L.A. sounds good to me….

  16. suhnum1fan says: Nov 7, 2011 2:41 PM

    The rules makes sense for a community to publicly own a team; however, because it makes sense, it will never happen.

  17. nebster21 says: Nov 7, 2011 2:41 PM

    another thing. if a person in Green Bay talk smack about the refs does that mean they can be fined like any other owner of the NFL?

  18. vikinghooper says: Nov 7, 2011 2:43 PM

    The Vikings just want us to buy their house, not live in it.
    The perfect solution to all stadium issues would be for the teams to sell stock like any other business has to when they need money. Duh.
    Oh, it can’t work that way since then they would have to SHARE profits.

  19. fitzmagic1212 says: Nov 7, 2011 2:44 PM

    it would be so great if they allowed cities to own parts of the teams. places like buffalo pittsburgh baltimore cleveland all the great nfl cities with the best fans should have an option for this.

  20. purpleman527 says: Nov 7, 2011 2:47 PM

    Just another clueless Minnesota politician.

    These people are incapable of understanding business.

  21. jonscoit says: Nov 7, 2011 2:50 PM

    Deliberate ignorance is fun, as is trolling your own blog. But it does work!

    If there were money to be made from holding the wonderfully non-specific “wide variety of events” in the supposedly “publicly-owned stadium,” every NFL team would own their own stadium. Forbes estimates the value of the least-valuable team to be $725 million dollars. You tell me why the owner of a company worth $725 million dollars could not use their ownership to leverage a loan of that amount to build a stadium.

    No, the NFL way is to socialize the risk and privatize the gains. The city gains a wonderfully depreciating concrete block that they have to work to fill with events only to lose money on maintenance regardless of what they do. The NFL team gets a reusable condom.

    And of course, shills are very good at reversing cause and effect. NFL teams speak in code; when they say “we need a new stadium,” what they actually mean is “some joker in some other city has suggested we can screw them for a while.” Teams will always “need” new stadia, it is the opportunity to GET a new stadium that drives the market here. All NFL stadia, being huge, expensive buildings, have flaws, become quickly outdated, accumulate deferred maintenance costs, etc. etc. But we only hear about this crap when the team has another place to go.

  22. The Phantom Stranger says: Nov 7, 2011 2:51 PM

    Phyllis Kahn is well known for introducing ridiculous bills. How about this? Zygi owns the team and pays $437 million toward a stadium owned by the state. Both parties benefit. Oh, wait. That is the plan.

  23. glac1 says: Nov 7, 2011 2:53 PM

    That whistle we’re hearing is the ship that’s left the dock. The game is over. It’s too late as the vikings are as good as gone.

  24. smoothjimmyapollo says: Nov 7, 2011 2:56 PM

    “Only the Packers can. Go figure.”

    It’s not like Packer “owners” have any influence on anything. They can’t hire or fire GMs or coaches. They can’t weigh in on draft picks or free agency signings. If they had any influence, the lockout would have ended with a vote of 112,000 to 31.

    The only reason to own stock in the Packers is to be able to somewhat legitimately use the word “We” when discussing the team’s performance.

  25. packerjb says: Nov 7, 2011 2:56 PM

    I own one share of the Packers, and it has zero value, other than looking nice on my mantle. I can vote for the board of directors each year, and can attend the shareholder’s meeting, but it pays no dividends, has no trading value, and if the team is sold all of the proceeds after expenses go to charity.

    When the Packers had their last stock sale after their Super Bowl win in the 90′s, they raised $20 million. That is a far cry from the $650 million the Vikings are looking for in financing.

  26. packerjb says: Nov 7, 2011 2:59 PM

    When I received my Packer stock, I did receive a letter that outlined what I could not do, and one of the provisions (believe it or not) was that I could not publicly call out the officiating.

  27. nflofficeadmin says: Nov 7, 2011 3:01 PM

    Maybe they should change the rule so that teams like MINN, BUF can stay where they forever should be.

  28. azpackerbacker says: Nov 7, 2011 3:11 PM

    Kahn was the same lady who complained about a high school stadium being built in her own backyard. So her ignorance on all things sports is not surprising.

    Minnesotans will end up deserving whatever they get in this. Let your elected officials build it and reap the financial and cultural benefits of having world class events on a regular basis in your back yard. Dont build it and enjoy life the cold wasteland without NFL football to keep you entertained. Time for minn to bleep or get off the pot on this.

  29. skolvikings7 says: Nov 7, 2011 3:20 PM

    Maybe Representative Phyllis Kahn should do some research before she throws comments out. Quit talking from your a-hole. Stadium will be built in Minnesota

  30. knew8411 says: Nov 7, 2011 3:23 PM

    Of effing course this is not a viable option for this team….are they ever going to get a break. The politician’s dont seem to want that team to stay in MN….the NFL doesnt seem to want to help them stay in MN. This is CRAP!!!!!! Give them a brak & lets get this stuff done!!!!! The state gave the TWINS a deal…..U of M got a deal, WTH. I know if there was a way for the fans to kick in I’d do it.

  31. vikesfansteve says: Nov 7, 2011 3:25 PM

    Kahn! In my best Shatner voice.

  32. theduuuuuuuuuude says: Nov 7, 2011 3:44 PM

    So they want Wilf to sell his majority share of the team to keep them in Minnesota, or he can keep the team and presumably make a lot more money by relocating. Sounds like a no-brainer for Wilf, and also a no-brainer of an idea from Kahn to think that he would actually sell a majority of the team to make the Minnesota legislature’s job easier. If these politicians are serious about keeping the Vikes in Minny (which by now it seems clear that they are not serious at all about it) they need to come up with real solutions instead of harebrained schemes.

  33. snarkzilla says: Nov 7, 2011 4:07 PM

    >Only the Packers can. Go figure.

    Yeah, really. The team should be sold to a single owner and then moved to a larger market because you’re bitter about its success as a franchise.

  34. lar271 says: Nov 7, 2011 4:30 PM

    I know of six times that either the various communities around Minneapolis/ Saint Paul and the Minnesota Legislature have voted down a Stadium Bill. The Vikings tried to buy the property across from the HHH Metrodome, that is owned by the Minneapolis Star Tribune for roughly $950 million. That deal fell through as is the current deal going to fall apart to keep the Vikings in Minnesota. Public ownership of the team wouldn’t work because there’s too many tax-payers that could care less if the Vikings played here or in Los Angeles. All Zygi Wilff cares about is how many people can fill the seats every Sunday. The previous owner, Red McCombs threatened to move the team to San Antonio Texas. It’s too bad that the lease runs out after 2011. The Minnesota Sports Commission and the Legislature should have their heads examined.

  35. bvanbvan says: Nov 7, 2011 4:41 PM

    No ‘grandfather clause’ for purple johnny-come-latelys!

    That being said, I’d love to see more public ownership for real fans and their cities. Only one of us knows the security of not having some richardhead owner in a position that threatens ‘our’ team.

    AND… I will be buying more stock when it’s available.

  36. The Phantom Stranger says: Nov 7, 2011 4:57 PM

    lar271 says:
    Nov 7, 2011 4:30 PM
    I know of six times that either the various communities around Minneapolis/ Saint Paul and the Minnesota Legislature have voted down a Stadium Bill. The Vikings tried to buy the property across from the HHH Metrodome, that is owned by the Minneapolis Star Tribune for roughly $950 million. That deal fell through as is the current deal going to fall apart to keep the Vikings in Minnesota. Public ownership of the team wouldn’t work because there’s too many tax-payers that could care less if the Vikings played here or in Los Angeles. All Zygi Wilff cares about is how many people can fill the seats every Sunday. The previous owner, Red McCombs threatened to move the team to San Antonio Texas. It’s too bad that the lease runs out after 2011. The Minnesota Sports Commission and the Legislature should have their heads examined.
    __________

    I think your number might be a little off. The StarTribune property is not worth $950 million. You could build a stadium for that.

  37. technovike says: Nov 7, 2011 5:15 PM

    lol if thats the case, why would Wilf put up the 437 mil? the state would have to come up with 1.1 billion. Great idea Khan!

  38. gb4mn0 says: Nov 7, 2011 5:27 PM

    You aren’t going to like this but what would the NFL be today without the GB Packers? There are 3 maybe 4 other teams that have the historical significance that the Pack has and you can be assured that the vikequeens aren’t on that list. They are on the ugly bull dike aunt on the C list to your Christmas party.

  39. drexelvol says: Nov 7, 2011 5:30 PM

    To be clear though, Packers’ stock is not publicly traded. You can only buy it from the Packers and sell it back to them.

    Also, you can only buy it from them when they choose to offer it. The value of the shares never appreciates either.

  40. thatswhatimsayin says: Nov 7, 2011 6:26 PM

    Hey gb4mn0, I liked you in the State Farm, “Discount double check” commercial. was that a walk on role or were you cast for it? That cheese head looked nice on you.

  41. jimmysee says: Nov 7, 2011 6:46 PM

    smoothjimmyapollo says:
    Nov 7, 2011 2:56 PM

    “Only the Packers can. Go figure.”

    It’s not like Packer “owners” have any influence on anything. They can’t hire or fire GMs or coaches. They can’t weigh in on draft picks or free agency signings. If they had any influence, the lockout would have ended with a vote of 112,000 to 31.

    The only reason to own stock in the Packers is to be able to somewhat legitimately use the word “We” when discussing the team’s performance.

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

    Actually, the main reason for owning Packers stock to assure that the team can never move anywhere, ever, under any circumstances.

    It is tied to the community in a way that no other professional sports franchise can claim.

  42. Derty Ernie says: Nov 7, 2011 6:56 PM

    Wrong. You can only buy Packer stock but they do not buy it back, consider it a soveneer. Consider it a gift to the packers

  43. randomjim says: Nov 7, 2011 9:02 PM

    nevertola says:
    Nov 7, 2011 2:29 PM
    I have $5. Can I buy McNabb?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    What are you going to get with your change???

    Kahn was caught taking her opponent’s flyers off doors. How she is still in office is beyond me.

  44. northstars1991 says: Nov 8, 2011 3:45 AM

    NOTHING could ever make more sense than public ownership. My god, I can own stock in Target, 3M, Best Buy, Costco, BUT I CAN’T EVEN OWN STOCK IN MY BELOVED MINNESOTA VIKINGS??!! ABSURD! If the league rules don’t allow for public ownership THEN CHANGE THE RULES. The Rights for billionaires is the least of my concerns, I’m tired of being a hostage to owners from TX and NY threatening to move my team! The Best run NFL franchise is the Green Bay Packers and they don’t have some billionaire owner threatening to move their team! WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!

  45. northstars1991 says: Nov 8, 2011 4:01 AM

    Why would any community be dumb enough to built a stadium for a team that can easily leave down the road; the Packers don’t have this problem. Seriously, they are the Minnesota Viking but they are Owned by someone from NY or TX Get Real. If you don’t want to be a slave to Greedy Billionaire owners you come up with this plan to take the wheels of the franchise.

  46. sevensixtwonato says: Nov 8, 2011 9:12 AM

    gb4mn0 says:
    Nov 7, 2011 5:27 PM
    You aren’t going to like this but what would the NFL be today without the GB Packers? There are 3 maybe 4 other teams that have the historical significance that the Pack has and you can be assured that the vikequeens aren’t on that list. They are on the ugly bull dike aunt on the C list to your Christmas party.

    ————————————————–
    You have an ugly bull dike (its dyke btw) Aunt? That’s unfortunate….

  47. blackbelt4d says: Nov 8, 2011 10:13 AM

    Phyllis needs to get back to what she does best, making proposals that are nonsensical to the rest of us.

    Oh, wait…

    In that case, she should go back to trying to get three bike lanes on every street in Minneapolis, thus putting her back at the level of kooky irrelevance she has to anybody outside of her district.

  48. The Phantom Stranger says: Nov 8, 2011 12:22 PM

    northstars1991 says:
    Nov 8, 2011 4:01 AM
    Why would any community be dumb enough to built a stadium for a team that can easily leave down the road; the Packers don’t have this problem. Seriously, they are the Minnesota Viking but they are Owned by someone from NY or TX Get Real. If you don’t want to be a slave to Greedy Billionaire owners you come up with this plan to take the wheels of the franchise.
    ___________

    When you build the stadium, the team signs a lease so they can’t easily leave down the road. The Vikings have played in the worst stadium in the NFL for 30 years and they haven’t left. They can leave when the lease is up, though.

  49. blowtorch1964 says: Nov 8, 2011 4:52 PM

    The league rules are in place to keep out the riff-raff. This is a billionaire’s club, and you are not invited. You can buy a PSL and a jersey, but that’s as close as you are allowed. The rarified air would make you pass out anyway.

    The game needs coaches, players and fans. The owners do not actually contribute to the game. We could do without them, which is why their cartel (NFL) has ownership rules. Get it? Good, now shut up.

  50. brewdogg says: Nov 8, 2011 11:22 PM

    gb4mn0 says:
    Nov 7, 2011 5:27 PM
    You aren’t going to like this but what would the NFL be today without the GB Packers? There are 3 maybe 4 other teams that have the historical significance that the Pack has and you can be assured that the vikequeens aren’t on that list. They are on the ugly bull dike aunt on the C list to your Christmas party.
    —————————-

    And where would the NFL be if they didn’t have teams like the Vikings to keep the fans interested while the Packers were the joke of the league for 25 years? While Fran Tarkenton and Joe Kapp were piloting the Vikings to yearly success, the Packers were suffering through embarrassments like 1st round QBs Don Horn, Jerry Tagge, and Rich Campell, with the pathetic John Hadl trade mixed in for good measure. While every offense in the league went in fear of the Purple People Eaters, the only thing feared in Green Bay was frostbite. The most historically significant thing about the Green Bay franchise is the fact that they were the ones who caused the league to place the rule against public ownership of teams. If that hadn’t happened, Green Bay would be a footnote along with Akron, Dayton, Hammond, and all the other little towns who couldn’t keep their teams as the NFL’s popularity rose.

    The only real insignificant thing at work here is your opinions. Now go pull out that picture you took on your latest pilgrimage to the most holy site in your world and polish your “trophy”.

  51. thirdandgoal says: Nov 9, 2011 2:26 PM

    OF COURSE, it’s not allowed… the billionaire owners never have, and never will do anything to disrupt or divert the flow of money they take in. It matters not whether their team finishes with a championship or dead last, they pretty much are completely happy with their cut of billions of dollars in network, merchandise and gate receipts, year after year after year.

  52. dd393 says: Nov 10, 2011 8:14 PM

    Monkey see, monkey do.

Leave a Reply

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