Skip to content

Vikings stadium agreement allows for “off site” home games

FBN Vikings Stadium AP

The preliminary agreement to use public money to help build a new Vikings stadium includes a provision that sets the Vikings up to host games away from the new stadium.

Mike Kaszuba of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that the Vikings and the NFL want the team to have the ability to play up to four regular season and two exhibition home games “off site” over a 10-year period. That site could be London or anywhere else that the NFL wants to play games in the coming years as they try to spread their wings internationally. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told Kaszuba that the language is necessary “in the event the team plays in a game as part of our International Series.”

Ted Mondale, the state’s chief stadium negotiator, said the same thing, but also said that it would “not likely” involve a regular season home game. It might not be likely, but the league’s commitment to playing regular season games overseas and the presence of language allowing them to have the Vikings play host to those games will mean that it is always a possibility.

With the flap over whether or not the Rams’ lease allowed them to play a home game in London earlier this year, it’s not surprising to learn that the league wants this kind of language in the agreement before the start of a proposed 30-year lease in Minneapolis. The funding package still needs the approval of the Legislature, which is expected to take up the issue in the next few weeks.

Permalink 41 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill
41 Responses to “Vikings stadium agreement allows for “off site” home games”
  1. cags777 says: Mar 8, 2012 5:21 PM

    “Off site” home games? Seriously? If that’s the case, I say no deal. It would not only be a bad investment for taxpayers. It would also give the impression to season ticket holders that the NFL is not serious about keeping professional football in Minnesota.

    Goodell needs to stop expanding America’s NFL teams overseas. Is NFL Europe gone by the wayside or am I missing something?

  2. blaz0037 says: Mar 8, 2012 5:24 PM

    No deal. There are only 8 home games a year for god’s sake!

  3. tombradysponytail says: Mar 8, 2012 5:26 PM

    Why don’t they just play all of their home games off site? Zygi really seemed to like Ford Field when they played their home game there last year? Save Minny the price of building a new stadium, it’s got to be cheaper to just rent Ford Field 8 times a year…

  4. cotts1 says: Mar 8, 2012 5:30 PM

    That picture looks like they copied the Ford Field stadium design. Solid choice.

  5. greengayfackers says: Mar 8, 2012 5:33 PM

    Looks like i’ll have to make a pitstop to Amsterdam on my way to London.

  6. dbreinki says: Mar 8, 2012 5:37 PM

    “Is NFL Europe gone by the wayside or am I missing something?” Ahhhhhh…. It’s been gone for years now.
    Sorry Dude, but you just invalidated your own comments with your surprisingly ignorant knowledge of the League.

  7. pattersonconsulting says: Mar 8, 2012 5:39 PM

    Sure, I say leave it in there. But the vikings still owe the state and local governments its share of the revenue for those games.

  8. wpgvikings28 says: Mar 8, 2012 5:39 PM

    Whatever, that’s not very many games over a ten year period. Up to 4 home games over 10 years only?

    80 home games in 10 years… 5% of home games MIGHT be played elsewhere?

    Who cares, just get this stadium built already!

  9. thankheavenfornumberseven says: Mar 8, 2012 5:39 PM

    cags777 says:
    Mar 8, 2012 5:21 PM
    “Off site” home games? Seriously? If that’s the case, I say no deal. It would not only be a bad investment for taxpayers. It would also give the impression to season ticket holders that the NFL is not serious about keeping professional football in Minnesota.
    __________

    It’s part of a 30-year lease. I don’t think we have to worry that they’re moving to London after their new stadium is done.

  10. deconjonesbitchslap says: Mar 8, 2012 5:46 PM

    so we are going to pay for a billionaires playground and not play all the games there?

    nice try, vikings.

  11. dbreinki says: Mar 8, 2012 5:47 PM

    “blaz0037 says: Mar 8, 2012 5:24 PM

    No deal. There are only 8 home games a year for god’s sake!”

    There will be 10 home games a year. Plus hundreds of community use events every year. The MetroDump is booked every day of the year for; concerts, weddings, graduations, seminars, major shows such as the Golf Show and the Home and Garden Show, Truck/Tractor Pulls, etc…
    This new stadium isn’t just for the Vikings, it will replace the current “Peoples Stadium” – Gov. Dayton calls it – with a modern version which won’t be vacant of events 365 days a year. Many of those days it will host multiple events – all bringing in revenue for the City/State.

  12. jenniferxxx says: Mar 8, 2012 5:57 PM

    The taxpayers get to pay for someone else to watch their team.

    This is seriously funny stuff. Vikings fans have to be the biggest chumps in the NFL. I bet up there there’s 2 born every minute.

    Zygi says thanks for the handout.

  13. dmartin17 says: Mar 8, 2012 5:59 PM

    It’s ridiculous to be asking for public money for any privately owned stadium.

    These guys want their cake and eat it too.

    Let them leave, save the hundreds of dollars…

  14. klemj says: Mar 8, 2012 6:03 PM

    Incase the new ‘dome’ collapses…not reading the exact proposal; if the team plays those 6 games at TCF Stadium during construction, wouldn’t that count for the next decade?

  15. knew8411 says: Mar 8, 2012 6:12 PM

    ya know all this ancillary talk about the Vikings stadium is nice, but as a Vikings fan, I really only need to know when the damn thing gets approved. Let’s get it done already!!!

  16. lombardihero says: Mar 8, 2012 6:15 PM

    No doubt this a bad deal International series are you kidding me…

    If this stuff continues where they plan on expanding to an international market they had better put in place a lost revenue fund for the Cities that are screwed out of lost revenues.

    I am so ashamed with the economy in the state it is in that the NFL would be worried about an International market.

    Nothing like taking more dollars away from American soil Rodger Bad Deal.

    OMG That is why he wants to expand the league to 18 games:) That is Just sick……

  17. theace18 says: Mar 8, 2012 6:22 PM

    “WE WANT A NEW STADIUM, WE WANT A NEW STADIUM!”

    “YAY! A NEW STADIUM!”

    “WE WANT TO PLAY LESS AT OUR NEW STADIUM!”

    Seriously…as a Minneapolis resident, a Packersfan who loves the rivalry, get the Vikings out of this state!

    Go play in 7 games in LA and play your 1 offsite game at TCF Bank Stadium.

  18. mnfaninaz says: Mar 8, 2012 6:30 PM

    Well, we already play home games in Arizona when they’re on the schedule so this doesn’t surprise me!

  19. tweeter75 says: Mar 8, 2012 6:38 PM

    Does that mean Minnesota taxpayers will get a tax break for Vikings “home games” played overseas? I support he Vikings and the stadium effort, but we live in one of the highest taxing states in the U.S.. So I find it ridiculous that we have to go through all of this to get a new stadium, only to have “home games” taken away and played overseas!!!

  20. josiewales69 says: Mar 8, 2012 6:41 PM

    roof no roof I don’t care. but please put in 4 stripper poles I mean cheerleader poles! like in dallas

  21. johnnyb216 says: Mar 8, 2012 6:41 PM

    Oh yeah!! This makes a Hell of a lot of sense!! Yeah, let’s shell out over half a billion dollars to give the NFL’s traveling circus to hang their hats for those six games a year when they’re not trotting all over the globe. Are you kidding me? I was not for the project before and now I’m considering organizing protests against it after reading this. If this gets put to a public vote, which it should, then look out.

  22. mnfaninaz says: Mar 8, 2012 6:47 PM

    Vikes play home games when they’re in Arizona so as long as the Cards are on the schedule during those seasons, I’m good with it. It all balances out.

    I love Mall of America Field West!

    Skol Vikings!

  23. theytukrjobs says: Mar 8, 2012 6:48 PM

    Thanks for kicking in 120 mil for the new digs, NFL, but seriously? Can’t you send a team that can’t sell out their home field overseas?

    Lame if it ends up happening in reg season. It is a competitive disadvantage to play a home game on the road.

  24. cashisking4life says: Mar 8, 2012 7:33 PM

    The vikings are such a joke. Half the stuff the state of MN does in general makes me not want to admit that I’m originally from there. Zygi is such a worthless owner. If you really cared about winning you would have interviews first over who your head coach is going to be, not just hire the first idiot that comes along or the people from with in.

    Frazier stalls their offense worse than Childress did. Tice was a joke. There was many other coaches available at the time and they just interviewed one guy at the time and hired Brad Childress. Goodluck with that Cleveland lol.

    The economy is hurting bad enough as it is in Minnesota and everywhere else in the U.S. The only way the state of MN should agree to fund a new stadium is if the Vikings pay back 100% of the money the state gives with interest. If not let them walk. If they went to LA they would be better off. LA fans wouldn’t take to kindly to losing and stupid decisions. They haven’t won a superbowl. At least the Twins won two world series, so that justifies Target Field which is amazing. If they are going to build a new stadium in MN make it retractable so you can open it up and have cold weather games. Its just my preference that I like how GB and Chicago play outdoors.

  25. ernie ernie says: Mar 8, 2012 7:42 PM

    I think they meant 4 off site games over a ten year period, not each year for ten years.

  26. maulpccartney says: Mar 8, 2012 7:58 PM

    At first glance I thought this sounded like a terrible idea…but actually I think I like it. It says it would be “up to 4 games over 10 years”, pretty much a game every other year. Not too bad, definately not going to kill or put a extreme burden on
    Also, as a Viking fan, I think it would be a really good thing to possibly (a huge possibly) get a fan base elsewhere …the NFL apparently really wants to become global. This is a very successful, leauge and could very well become successful elsewhere if given enough exposure….so why not have them foreigners cheer on the Vikings? Overall it is generally a good thing to have your name known globally, right?

  27. gb4mn0 says: Mar 8, 2012 8:06 PM

    So what’s worse vikequeef saps, bountygate or knowing you’ve been duped by Ziggy and his head shill the Right Dishonorable Gov. Dayton.?

  28. johnnyb216 says: Mar 8, 2012 8:41 PM

    Maul pccartney,
    It’s not a good idea because everybody overseas already cheers for the packers. They already hate the queens.

  29. finsfrontofficeisajoke says: Mar 8, 2012 8:52 PM

    dbreinki says: Mar 8, 2012 5:37 PM

    “Is NFL Europe gone by the wayside or am I missing something?” Ahhhhhh…. It’s been gone for years now.
    Sorry Dude, but you just invalidated your own comments with your surprisingly ignorant knowledge of the League.
    —————————————————–

    Sorry [Dude], but you just invalidated your own comment with your surprisingly ignorant knowledge of obvious sarcasm.

    They don’t make a facepalm hard enough.

  30. gb4mn0 says: Mar 8, 2012 9:31 PM

    greengayfackers says:
    Mar 8, 2012 5:33 PM
    Looks like i’ll have to make a pitstop to Amsterdam on my way to London.

    —————————————–

    With all the thumbs up your comment is getting it seems that Amsterdam is a common point of destination for you gender bending Helga hat wearing vikequeer dope heads.

  31. conormacleod says: Mar 8, 2012 9:34 PM

    This is just canned language you morons! It is not the end of the world. It merely states they “might” have the Vikings play an international game or two in 10 years. Everybody settle the F down! Jeez, anything to bitch about “paying” for a stadium. I say “paying”, because almost none of you here will pay a penny.

  32. conormacleod says: Mar 8, 2012 9:36 PM

    Many people are so short sighted that all they can think about is giving “rich guys” free money. The truth of the matter is, Zygi Wilf is paying for 50% of a building his team will only use 10+ days a year. I’d turn over my house to anybody for 10 days a year if they paid for half the damn house. Instead of crying about Wilf getting richer, start thinking about how the state of Minnesota can get money by using this new facility for 355 days a year.

  33. henryholland666 says: Mar 8, 2012 10:30 PM

    as they try to spread their wings internationally

    Nobody outside of American borders or ex-pats abroad really gives a damn about the NFL. I wish I could find it online, but there was a great SI story years ago where the writer went to various places around the world to get the locals impression of the NFL. From Europe to South America to Australia, they just laughed. “It’s a bunch of people standing around for most of the time, it’s only got a few people touching the ball, the coaches have too much influence” etc.

    The best part was they showed highlights on the BBC and it was pretty popular but as soon as they started showing full games, the interest plummeted.

    Just because they can sell out one game a year in London or Mexico City doesn’t mean squat.

  34. northstars1991 says: Mar 8, 2012 10:47 PM

    WTF???????????????? Greedy creepy ultra controlling owners want public money to pay for their team and now, part of the deal includes NOT playing in the new stadium WTF? I am so F__ing tired of being controlled by billionaire owners. NFL teams should be owned by the fans like in Green Bay, not by Billionaire owners who like to hold communities hostage. Politicians are so stupid.

  35. northstars1991 says: Mar 8, 2012 10:52 PM

    Maybe it’s time to tell the NFL to ____ off!

  36. lnfinite says: Mar 9, 2012 1:44 AM

    ohnnyb216 says: Mar 8, 2012 8:41 PM

    Maul pccartney,
    It’s not a good idea because everybody overseas already cheers for the packers. They already hate the queens.

    ______________________________________

    Crawl back into your hole retarded sconnie. If the Vikings are chosen to play overseas consider it a credit to the worthiness of the NFC North division instead of a team that posts the best record the the NFL and craps their pants in their 1st playoff game.

  37. flyminkus says: Mar 9, 2012 2:04 AM

    Anywhere! As long as the Vikes stay in Minnesota I’ll be happy.

  38. bobnelsonjr says: Mar 9, 2012 4:18 AM

    Here is a big chance for the NFL to have its first international team. Move the franchise to Guadalajara.

    The Guadalajara Vikings.

  39. bjtmeyer says: Mar 9, 2012 1:34 PM

    This just rubs me the wrong way.

  40. lombardihero says: Mar 9, 2012 3:00 PM

    conormacleod says:
    start thinking about how the state of Minnesota can get money by using this new facility for 355 days a year.

    LOL:))))))))) Yeah that is realistic because there are so many people beating down a door to rent a stadium:)

    Small event would not work the cost to rent or even pay the light bills and I guess you would have to factor in heat for every rental and about a 100 other things:)

    355 days a year renting a Stadium:) Okay lol.

  41. oldcracker says: Mar 10, 2012 12:16 AM

    What is the NFL’s obsession with London? And, meanwhile, one of the largest markets in the world (LA) is ignored!

    Billionaire Wolfy gets his business costs subsidized at state expense. Meanwhile, the state is taxing me and my business out of existence. Now, Wolfy and the other NFL billionaires wants my state to pay them, at my expense, to play overseas! WTF???

    At least move some of our “home games” to LA so that my fellow AMERICANS can enjoy the fruits of my taxes….as I put my trucks up for sale and go file for unemployment.

Leave a Reply

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