Skip to content

Committee deals devastating blow to Vikings stadium plan

51390802-1-e1318985062214 Getty Images

Despite two press conferences over the past years celebrating a deal to build a new Vikings stadium in two separate locations, the building of a new Vikings stadium continues to be no closer to actually happening.

On Monday night, a key committee voted down a proposal based on a deal previously struck between the team, the Governor, legislative leaders, and the Mayor of Minneapolis.  By a vote of 9-6, the House Government Operations and Elections Committee blocked the plan, due to the effort to avoid the requirement of a public vote for any expenditure of Minneapolis funds in excess of $10 million for a sports facility.

The proposal isn’t dead for the 2012 legislative session, but it’s close.  “Somebody would have to pull a rabbit out of the hat,” Rep. Morrie Lanning, the primary author of the House version of the stadium bill, said, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The Vikings continue to avoid playing the “or else” card, which may have something to do with the team’s ongoing failure to get a deal done.

“It’s a mistake to think the Vikings and the [National Football League] will continue with the status quo,” Vikings V.P. of stadium wrangling Lester Bagley said.

Though stadium proponents have believed that an end run could be engineered around the Minneapolis charter provision compelling a public referendum (which surely would block the stadium), the chair of the House Government Operations and Elections Committee, Rep. Joyce Peppin, wasn’t persuaded.  “To me, the language is pretty clear,” Peppin said. “I think [the city's residents] deserve a vote on this.”

Monday’s hearing didn’t start well, with one of the members asking a team representative, “Why should the state of Minnesota contribute to a stadium for a billionaire owner?”

It’s a good question, and a sufficiently compelling answer has not yet been provided to the citizens of Minnesota or their elected representatives.

In this regard, “elected” is the key word.  All members of the Minnesota Legislature will face voters in 2012.  And if the voters who are viewed as opposing the stadium won’t get a chance to make their feelings known directly, they’d do it indirectly by booting out of office anyone who supported the stadium.

So, just like the Vikings’ annual efforts to finally win a Super Bowl, the operative phrase when it comes to a new stadium once again will be, “Wait ’til next year.”

Permalink 147 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
147 Responses to “Committee deals devastating blow to Vikings stadium plan”
  1. talkintrashallday says: Apr 17, 2012 7:36 AM

    NEXT STOP – Los Angeles!!

  2. reconl63 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:36 AM

    No stadium for the Vikes, sorry fans. Looks like your team is packing it up to come to LA, where we actually appreciate football and will have a brand new stadium for our home team. Better overall quality of life here too.

  3. jackntorres says: Apr 17, 2012 7:37 AM

    Since you won’t mention the bounty in this article I will.

    Don’t forget McCray was flagged for “late hit out of bounds” of Favre, although Favre was standing in the middle of the field after a reverse to Harvin. The refs just didn’t like Favre being hit that hard even though he was pretending to have the ball. What a joke.

  4. sj39 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:38 AM

    Wow, they may just get want they want. No NFL franchise for you.

  5. tallguyme says: Apr 17, 2012 7:39 AM

    move the friggin’ team, and teach them all a lesson.

  6. lks311 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:39 AM

    Anytime the politicians get involved you’re screwed. And unlike the Cleveland, Minnesota will not get a second chance.

    That’s one step closer to L.A.

  7. vikingsallday28 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:40 AM

    This is sad…. We want the vikings in minnesota!!! If you don’t bleed purple then your not a minnesotan!!! THE VIKINGS MUST STAY IN MINNESOTA!!!!!!

  8. shotgungrampa says: Apr 17, 2012 7:43 AM

    This makes me cranky

  9. hack19 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:43 AM

    Why not put it to a vote? Also, when they put it to a vote, they should ask the question…Would you like the team to leave for L.A. or continue to play in Minneapolis? I think the commuity needs to understand that other communities will pay for a portion of a stadium. If they don’t want to pay that is their choice, but it should be made more clear that if they won’t they will lose their team. It is not the L.A. Lakers because there are a lot of lakes in L.A.

  10. packfaninchitown says: Apr 17, 2012 7:43 AM

    Vikings: Thanks for all the great games, hope you enjoy L.A. with the new colors and new team name. Just like the Oilers became the Titans and the Browns became the Ravens, this is the death knell of the Vikings as we know em.

    Rams: So welcome to the NFC North, bet you guys will enjoy having rival games so much closer to home!

  11. lawyermalloy says: Apr 17, 2012 7:45 AM

    GONE!
    Call Mary Tyler Moore, maybe she’ll come back!

  12. billinva says: Apr 17, 2012 7:46 AM

    Why should the public have to pay for a stadium?

  13. ajtexans says: Apr 17, 2012 7:46 AM

    “Why should the state of Minnesota contribute to a stadium for a billionaire owner?” As if the owner is the only one that benefits….. tsk tsk. Minnesota is going to screw this up and lose their team after all.

  14. txxxchief says: Apr 17, 2012 7:49 AM

    It is so much fun watching them flail about in Minneapolis. What also could one expect from a state that elected a joker like Al Fraken to the U.S. Senate.

  15. jimbo75025 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:49 AM

    Well, two thoughts on this one. In the end though, the people of the Twin Cities area should ultimately have the decision (vote) if they want to pay extra sales tax to keep the Vikes. That would be ultimately where things end up-you can increase tax rates on rental car/hotels all you want, but in the end the residents always get stuck with a .25% or so sales tax increase. Sounds minimal (a quarter for every $100 you spend) but ends up being an decent amount of extra money over the course of a year. Many Vikes fans there of course, but many who could care less also just like in any major city

  16. bigdog214 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:50 AM

    It’s refreshing to see politicians make the responsible choice in not spending taxpayer money on a building for a private business. If the Vikings (or any other team) want a building, let them build it themselves). It’s time to end the corporate welfare gravy train.

  17. nolahxc says: Apr 17, 2012 7:51 AM

    Pretty pathetic…

    Ladies and Gentlemen, your LOS ANGELES VIKINGS!!

  18. duece5 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:51 AM

    reconl63 says:Apr 17, 2012 7:36 AM

    No stadium for the Vikes, sorry fans. Looks like your team is packing it up to come to LA, where we actually appreciate football and will have a brand new stadium for our home team. Better overall quality of life here too.

    duece5 says:

    If you mean losing several teams like your LA Rams to STL, and the Raiders back to Oakland as “supporting football”, then your are correct.

    If you count blackouts in LA when the raiders played there as “supporting football”…..again…..you are correct.

    I also heard the crack you are on is in “high” demand in CA.

  19. im2fast4you123 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:53 AM

    So first off this dang thing needs to go to a public vote. Who are the politicians to turn down somthing that will employ thousands of jobless minnesotans. Who are they to tell the nfl and the vikings what is best for us and what we want when they have obviously have no clue. We vote these people into office to get things done and they dont do anything but what will help them selves. If you cause the vikes to leave you call go find a fence post and sit and spin. I refuse to vote anymore cuz all it does is bring another idiot to office so they can go on a power trip.

  20. pkrjones says: Apr 17, 2012 7:55 AM

    Good planning, Minnesota Legislature members… this isn’t a new issue, but you’ve managed to back-burner it so long now it interferes with YOUR re-election.

    “I was so busy keeping my job I forgot to do my job.” – Andrew Shepherd

    If public money for a new stadium isn’t going to happen just say so, and at least the Vikings can seriously start plan B – which won’t involve any of you.

  21. jimiinpa says: Apr 17, 2012 7:55 AM

    who cares? they have sucked ever since they moved indoors. when someone says vikings the first thing that comes to mind is ” the other team to lose 4 super bowls ” . go to La and play outside

  22. preventoffense says: Apr 17, 2012 7:56 AM

    “””Monday’s hearing didn’t start well, with one of the members asking a team representative, “Why should the state of Minnesota contribute to a stadium for a billionaire owner?””””

    Just leave. Take 3M, Cargill, and Target with you. I’m sure they recieve various abatements, incentives, etc.in order to remain. Besides, there must certainly be plenty of upper management there that are rich and we can’t have that in Minnesota.

  23. duluthvikesfan says: Apr 17, 2012 7:59 AM

    Everyone needs to relax. They will not be going to LA. This is all part of the political game and the state leaders and the team know it. Everyone knew this had little chance during an election year. What will come next will be little hints that the team is looking at other cities. Then, after the fall elections and after the season is well under way, the team will announce they will start to actively seek another city if a deal is not passed in the next session. To come out and say this now won’t help. Those facing re-election are only worried about themselves and won’t change their stance until after the elections. And to say they are looking at other cities before the season is underway would hurt ticket sales for this year. Again, this is part of the game and the team, the NFL and yes, even those who voted against it last night all know that after the election this will get done.

  24. citiciti says: Apr 17, 2012 8:01 AM

    Ba-Bye.

  25. musicman495 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:01 AM

    Blame the Saints.

  26. mybrunoblog says: Apr 17, 2012 8:07 AM

    Not so fast on that LA bandwagon. Their stadium proposals aren’t doing much better…..Tough time to get a bank and a near bankrupt state to loan you 1.5 billion$…..

  27. mnvikes7897 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:08 AM

    F U dumb a$$ politicians. Vote your selves down and use my money for something other than lazy a$$ welfare recipients and free everything for immigrants. You bunch of retarded self proclaimed elitist. You wast of oxygen and den of thieves. Viva la revolution starting with you scum.

  28. scrapingthefloorioforstorios says: Apr 17, 2012 8:08 AM

    but they gotta keep the vikings in minnesota! a joke of a state deserves a joke of a team!

  29. fwippel says: Apr 17, 2012 8:09 AM

    Did anyone ask the same question about the owner of the Twins before they got their new stadium? Didn’t think so. Zygi Wilf needs to start exploring other options.

    The state of Minnesota does not deserve an NFL franchise. Wilf can get a much better deal from another city, and there are multiple cities that would be willing to build or help build a new stadium, unlike the Twin Cities. The Vikings are as good as gone.

  30. NationalFlagFootballLeague says: Apr 17, 2012 8:09 AM

    What a wonderful start to my day. Surely the Saints are to blame for this????
    All that whining ….here’s your Karma. Well you still have the Timberwolves

  31. lennydpocketqb says: Apr 17, 2012 8:12 AM

    First the Lakers, now the Vikings. Los Angeles owns your sport teams.

  32. briggsisbrokeagain says: Apr 17, 2012 8:15 AM

    It will be nice to have another warm weather city to visit on a yearly basis like in the old days when Tampa was in our division. The L.A. Vikings, maybe they’ll change their colors to lavender and white? LOL

  33. orthomarine says: Apr 17, 2012 8:20 AM

    man, I thought it was hard being a Dolphin fan….

  34. orbearider66 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:20 AM

    The team most against a Vikes move to LA? The Rams. Not only would they lose that leverage in trying to get their own new stadium but an NFC team in LA would necessitate a bit of realignment with the Rams switching places with the Vikings. I don’t think the Rams would be too interested in having to face the Packers twice a year.

    Then, again, if things keep improving (and I do think they are starting to turn around), I don’t think the Vikes would want to face the NFC twice a year.

  35. santolonius says: Apr 17, 2012 8:20 AM

    all nfl owners are billionaires (ok maybe a few exceptions). so the question is why should the one in minnesota have to pay for his stadium out of pocket when the rest don’t have to do that? minnesota legislators are viewing wilf’s money as their money and saying we want to spend it on a stadium. hey, it’s not your money! their logic is bogus!

  36. ballboy48 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:26 AM

    As a Browns fan, I don’t want to see any team go thru what we experienced, as fans of the Cleveland Browns!

    This is political bs, and is coming from government that has no problem wasting money on bs! NFL game days add a tremendous amount if revenue, as well as jobs, to the local economy.

    Christ, we built a new stadium for the Red Sox down here in Fort Myers, because between them and the Twins at Hammond Stadium, they bring in anywhere from $100-$150 Miliion of revenue for the city and state over the course of a month! The local government gets it! Stop this political bs, and get it done so the city doesn’t lose money, so fathers can continue to bring their kids to the games, and the tax from the players salaries generates a large amount of cash for the government!

  37. theandy59 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:30 AM

    Let me see if I have this straight: Minnesota state law requires a public vote for this type of expenditure, and the committee essentially upheld the law, giving voice to the people who are most affected. For once, a billionaire wasn’t able to manipulate government to act to his advantage, and against the interests of the majority of taxpayers. And this is bad? If you upset Viking fans are worried, get off your asses and start lobbying your fellow voters and get the issue passed – that’s the way it’s supposed to work in this country.

  38. indpa67 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:32 AM

    Good. I hope they move. Then the idiots will find out why they should build a stadium for a billionare. Professional sports franchises (even bad ones) bring in a lot of financial activity into an area. The shame is, five years from now, the city will be begging the NFL to come back to Minnesota, and a new stadium will get built one way or another.
    I’m a season ticket holder in another city. Personally, I would rather my tax dollars go toward something I enjoy instead of going into the black hole they normally get flushed into!

  39. east96st says: Apr 17, 2012 8:36 AM

    “I refuse to vote anymore cuz all it does is bring another idiot to office so they can go on a power trip.”

    So, the people in office don’t represent your views and you view the logical way of showing your dissatisfaction with that is to NOT vote them out and, therefore, make sure your voice is never heard. Brilliant plan. You showed them. I seriously wish the founding fathers built into the Constitution a “you don’t vote, don’t complain” clause. Of course, no one back then was stupid enough to think that NOT voting punished anyone but themselves.

  40. adsbad28 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:37 AM

    Like I’ve said for months now the state of Minnesota is a JOKE! Bunch of frozen no good friggen LOSERS!!! DONT DESERVE A TEAM!!!!!

  41. theravenlives2 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:41 AM

    Everyone needs to relax. They will not be going to LA. This is all part of the political game and the state leaders and the team know it. Everyone knew this had little chance during an election year. What will come next will be little hints that the team is looking at other cities. Then, after the fall elections and after the season is well under way, the team will announce they will start to actively seek another city if a deal is not passed in the next session. To come out and say this now won’t help. Those facing re-election are only worried about themselves and won’t change their stance until after the elections. And to say they are looking at other cities before the season is underway would hurt ticket sales for this year. Again, this is part of the game and the team, the NFL and yes, even those who voted against it last night all know that after the election this will get done.

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

    Man, some of you are so naive. The above post could have been written by an Oakland Raiders fan in 1982, a Baltimore Colts fan in 1984, a Houston Oilers fan in 1985, a Los Angeles Rams fan in 1986(?), or a Cleveland Browns fan in 1995. Dude, wake up and smell the coffee! From everything I’ve seen, the Vikings would be well within their rights to move. For all of you saying that “we shouldn’t build a stadium for a billionaire,” that’s fine. You have a perfect right to feel that way. Just don’t whine and cry when the team leaves. The Vikings have leverage here, and very soon you will see them use it.

  42. thetooloftools says: Apr 17, 2012 8:42 AM

    they took the Lakers, they’ll take the Vikings too !

  43. theravenlives2 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:44 AM

    Hmmm….The Los Angeles Traffic…..kinda catchy!

  44. deeppurple23 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:45 AM

    I’ve said this a hundred times here. MN does not deserve to have an NFL franchise, they’ve been messing around with this for ten years. This same stadium would have cost $350mm at the start now it will cost $900mm+. AND they still don’t get it. So if Zigi is to pay for the WHOLE thing then he should should also get ALL the profits of the downtown businesses during the weekend of games, ALL of profits of the cab drivers, public transportation, gas stations in the state, the strippers tips, All parking profits, AND ALL the taxes inclusive of hospitality and sales for the weekend of home games.

    I guess that doesn’t mean anything to legislature and people of MN. Hence my original statement, they don’t deserve it, have fun with the Mall of America…

  45. vincentbojackson says: Apr 17, 2012 8:45 AM

    Just answer the question…

    They asked why the residents should help pay for the stadium.

    Why not start by pointing out the billions of dollars in revenue an NFL franchise brings to a city over the life span of a stadium?

    Then follow up by explaining how an NFL team gives a region national exposure, identity, and pride.

    Wrap up by letting Cleveland City Officials explain what it’s like to lose their NFL team and how much more expensive it will be to lure one back after they leave.

    How hard is it to make your case?

  46. clintonportisheadd says: Apr 17, 2012 8:46 AM

    The Vikings continue to avoid playing the “or else” card, which may have something to do with the team’s ongoing failure to get a deal done.

    “It’s a mistake to think the Vikings and the [National Football League] will continue with the status quo,” Vikings V.P. of stadium wrangling Lester Bagley said.

    ———————————–
    That sure sounds like a threat to me. Looks like Lester is upset he has failed at his job and is doing a little sabre rattling.

    I applaud the folks in Minn for taking this step. If Wilf wants a new pleasure palace then do what Bob Kraft did–BUILD IT YOURSELF!

    As far as the “LA” theory goes, there is nothing happening there that would lead one to believe a NFL team is going there. Anshutz WILL NOT build the stadium unless he gets a share of the team that moves there at a discounted price. And he has found no takers.

  47. purpleman527 says: Apr 17, 2012 8:50 AM

    “Why should the state of Minnesota contribute to a stadium for a billionaire owner?”

    Florio: It’s a good question, and a sufficiently compelling answer has not yet been provided to the citizens of Minnesota or their elected representatives.
    ————————————————————
    Why is it, that this question is ONLY asked when the Vikings need a new stadium?

    This question wasn’t asked when the Wild got their arena. This question wasn’t asked when the Twins got TCF Field. This question wasn’t asked when the U of M got its football stadium.

    This questioned was NEVER asked when the 49ers and Santa Clara voted for a stadium. This questioned was NEVER asked when the Cowboys got their stadium.

    What about ALL the other stadiums that have been built over the last five years? Not one word about “taxpayers funding billionaires”.

    It’s total hypocrisy.

  48. jimmysee says: Apr 17, 2012 8:52 AM

    Tea party wack jobs poisoning the well.

    Minnesotans voted them in.

    You made your bed — now you’re stuck with it.

  49. preventoffense says: Apr 17, 2012 8:56 AM

    santolonius – Love your jujitsu logic. Excellent point.

  50. conormacleod says: Apr 17, 2012 9:01 AM

    So many people just can’t get past the fact that NFL owners will always be more successful than you. The Wilfs will always be rich, but why should that stop the state from spending money that will be beneficial for the state? Because the Wilfs will get richer? Reminds me of a bitter divorce. I’ll give my money to a lawyer, just so long as my ex doesn’t get it! Well, the Wilfs are going to be theirs eventually, from somewhere. Will Minnesota be happy just because it didn’t come from them? Those morons up there didn’t learn a thing from losing the North Stars. BTW: I don’t recall hearing all the Politicians losing their jobs after the Twins ballpark was built.

  51. rgledz says: Apr 17, 2012 9:14 AM

    Vikings fans….find out who your representative is and send them emails to voice your support of the stadium. Put some pressure on these spineless cowards in the legislature and make them see your point of view. The 9 people that voted against the stadium bill last night are listed on the Power Trip Morning show page on KFAN.com. They have email links there as well. Email these yellow bellied pigs and tell them that creating thousands of jobs for the state of Minnesota is a no brainer. Keeping 1 of 32 NFL teams is a no brainer. Tell them to step up for a change and make a difference rather than just accept the status quo so they can keep their worthless political careers afloat. Step up Vikings fans!

  52. orbearider66 says: Apr 17, 2012 9:16 AM

    @indpa67 … you are right on the money. I just an article the other day about how devastating it will be just to SF’s Parks Department when the 49ers move to their new stadium. Apparently, even in bad years, revenue from the 49ers added approx. $3.5 million just to the Parks Dept. and now they are scrambling to figure out how to make up this shortfall when the teams moves (they hope in 2014 … but I think that might be unrealistic). Overall, I guess the team generated close to $10 million in revenue to the City. That is money that will now go to Santa Clara (I expect it to be higher to be honest). I expect that, in 10 – 12 years, Santa Clara will start to see a profit on the money they had to pay in order to get the stadium built.

  53. tentoes2 says: Apr 17, 2012 9:18 AM

    if they moved to L.A. all of us vikings fans (hopeless losers for decades of embarrassment) will find out how easy it is to transition to green and gold and finally back a winner. relax. its a win-win.

  54. r0b1b0y says: Apr 17, 2012 9:19 AM

    Its just how it goes for “losers” and “dogs”, there is just nothing that says “winner” about the Vikings or their fans…kinda sad actually

  55. mnfaninaz says: Apr 17, 2012 9:19 AM

    CC: Roger Goodell & Zygi Wilf

    Build your own damn stadiums.

    there’s more to life than a stupid football game.

  56. purpleloki says: Apr 17, 2012 9:24 AM

    “No stadium for the Vikes, sorry fans. Looks like your team is packing it up to come to LA, where we actually appreciate football”

    Yeah. That’s why you’ve been able to keep a time all these years?! Shut your mouth

  57. santolonius says: Apr 17, 2012 9:28 AM

    jimmysee – while i initially thought this vote must be the work of tea party wackos, the facts are stubbornly oriented in an opposite direction.

    from the AP: “Rep. Dean Urdahl, R-Grove City, raised a question: “Why should we help a billionaire build a stadium he can afford to build himself?” But Urdahl ultimately voted to keep the bill alive, one of five Republicans on the committee to support it along with one Democrat. Of the nine no votes, five came from Democrats and four were from Republicans.”

  58. beavertonsteve says: Apr 17, 2012 9:31 AM

    Tea party wack jobs poisoning the well.

    Minnesotans voted them in.

    You made your bed — now you’re stuck with it.

    ————————————————

    Huh? If they are so out of touch with what the voters want then why so much effort to circumvent a law that was put into place to make sure there is a vote on it… the voters don’t want to pay for this.

  59. garyman1 says: Apr 17, 2012 9:32 AM

    I totally agree with Hack19….

    Why not just put it to a vote of the citizens…. They are the ones who would be paying it.

    If they vote to spend THEIR money on it, good for them. If they don’t, the team will likely move.

    Either way, it’s their money and should be their decision.

  60. cwmorga says: Apr 17, 2012 9:34 AM

    At least this gives the Vikes fans something to whine about other than the NFC Championship game vs the Saints.

  61. jmig320 says: Apr 17, 2012 9:37 AM

    This is stupid. States/counties/cities provide tax breaks and other incentives to encourage business growth all the time, but we only complain when it’s for a sports franchise.

    While the cost is extreme, if MN doesn’t pony up, another place will. The cat’s out of the bag….virtually all new stadiums are built subsidized by the tax payers.

    Looking beyond the cost, politicians & residents of MN need to determine what they enjoy for quality of life. A team that’s been around for 50+ years, made it to 4 Super Bowls, and has been close to the Big Game numerous other times provides much to the state. More so than any other sport, football brings people together….it’s on Sunday, one game a week, during the fall when it’s a great time of year. Lose the team, then lose many economic & intrinsic value for the state.

  62. malkinrulez says: Apr 17, 2012 9:38 AM

    LA appreciates football,didn’t the rams and raiders bail from LA? That being said if the people of Minnesota elect to not do what it takes to keep the team hard to argue a move. Metrodome has been a toilet for years

  63. wethog66 says: Apr 17, 2012 9:42 AM

    I can’t see the Vikings leave Minn., but the NFL let that loser Model rob the Browns from a great fan base in Cleveland so anything is possible.

    It is interesting to see comments state Minn. does not deserve a NFL team. Well if Minn. does not then LA really does not deserve one. First the Chargers bolt, then the Rams and Raiders. Thats 3 strikes, following CA law, LA should be out.

    And the “Tea party wack jobs” comment is especially stupid. Al Frankin got elected to the Senate in Minn. I hardly think “Tea bag wack jobs” are holding up this stadium deal.

  64. trowls16 says: Apr 17, 2012 9:44 AM

    Let’s see what the positives of having an NFL team in your area as well as builing a new stadium

    -Players that live in the area buy property, houses, cars and spend a good amount of money on the local economy that’s taxted
    -When teams play in Minnesota both team’s players pay large amounts in state income tax.
    -Every beer,hot dog and Ticket sold by the vikings is taxed
    -local buisness that see’s a spike in custumors and sales because tax paying residents go watch their team play.
    -The number of employes working each game who also pay taxes on their wages.
    -The number of jobs the construction of a new stadium would create. Iron workers, concreate workers, sheet metal workers, plumbers, architects, dry wall layers and so on. I bet all those workers will pay taxes on there wages too.

    if you think that having a team in your area is worth losing because u have to give tax money to the cost of a new stadium. Just think how much in taxes that stadium/franchise produces before making your decision

  65. cags777 says: Apr 17, 2012 9:47 AM

    Only in Minnesota where you can get bipartisan failure due to either incompetence or stubbornness. If I am Zygi Wilf, I consider selling the team. They are playing without a lease at the Metrodome. And unlike the Minnesota Twins and the Minnesota Gophers football team, they have received no help whatsoever in trying to get a stadium deal done in place.

    You would think that after a bridge collapse in 2007 and a roof collapse in 2010, along with two team relocations that legislators cared about serious upgrading around the state after operating on the cheap for a number of years. Unfortunately, this type of thinking slows progress and causes teams like the Vikings to relocate in order to prosper and succeed elsewhere.

    The Vikings have done all they have been asked to do. The only remedy, at this point, is to move the team elsewhere and make Minnesota politicians suffer the consequences.

  66. racksie says: Apr 17, 2012 9:48 AM

    Yes, face painters are what represents the best of NFL fans. And the guy is from Canada.

  67. jacks40 says: Apr 17, 2012 9:50 AM

    Of course all the people that visit this site are NFL fans who think the Minn. state legislature screwed this up.

    In reality though they said the funding issue of a new stadium should be put to a vote. If the majority of citizens, aware of the possible consequences, doesnt want to pay good for them.

    Sports are luxuries and not every community wants to build billion dollar stadiums during bad economic times like these.

  68. effedinLA says: Apr 17, 2012 9:50 AM

    Hey Vikings, we don’t want you here in LA either.

  69. racksie says: Apr 17, 2012 9:58 AM

    So…How did the Wilfs make all their money? Real estate. Why wouldn’t the Wilfs be more than happy to put all their money in their own investment? I have been a Viking fan long enough to still hate Drew Pearson. I see no reason to fund real estate developers, to develop, real estate, in my state. IF you want to move, move. If you want to build a stadium, build it. This is about parking dollars. It always has been, and always will be. But as a life long Vikings fan, I am not paying for your stadium.

  70. cosmoman11 says: Apr 17, 2012 10:00 AM

    Everyone should get used to it. Never again will there be significant public money spent on a sports stadium.

  71. racksie says: Apr 17, 2012 10:00 AM

    Oh and they blew it when they didn’t see the reality of the Brookdale site. The only thing going for it was great property, and access from every direction, via every major freeway in the city.

  72. mnomalley says: Apr 17, 2012 10:02 AM

    To everyone on here saying that Minnesota doesn’t deserve a franchise. What team has sold out every single game for 13 years, in a crappy stadium with a crappy team, most years? These are loyal fans in MN and they also have TOP 5 ratings for TV in the league. Better raitings that the Giants, Eagles, Ravens, etc. MN needs a team and the NFL needs a team here.

  73. bearsfan4life says: Apr 17, 2012 10:03 AM

    Why not just ask helicopter ben to print up some frns?

    Whats a couple hundred mil when fed.gov is frivolously spending billions per day they don’t have?

    Seriously, a 1 1/2+ trillion frn deficit every year where fed.gov just digitizes >20% of that….. do you wonder why the price of everything keeps going up? That is your answer.

    The citizens of Minnesota will be paying for a stadium, its only a matter of where the stadium is built and if it is paid directly via taxes or indirectly via dollar devaluation.

  74. minnesconsin says: Apr 17, 2012 10:04 AM

    im2fast4you123 says: Apr 17, 2012 7:53 AM

    So first off this dang thing needs to go to a public vote. . . . If you cause the vikes to leave you call go find a fence post and sit and spin. I refuse to vote anymore cuz all it does is bring another idiot to office so they can go on a power trip.
    ——-

    So you’re begging for a public vote that you’ll refuse to participate in? That’s just rich.

    By the way, if you want a vote, you should be happy. This is exactly what the house committee just reinforced: the legal requirement for a public referendum to spend this kind of dough on a stadium.

    But let me whisper something in your ear: if you want the Vikes to stay, you don’t want a public vote. It will fail miserably.

  75. chuck550 says: Apr 17, 2012 10:07 AM

    This reminds me of the battle to get Miller Park built here in Milwaukee. After state senator George Petak changed his vote in the final hours to support the building (wouldn’t have happened otherwise), he was recalled from office by his constituents. I have to wonder how many of the people who voted to recall Petak were at Miller Park last season having the time of their lives during the Brewers’ great season and playoff run.

  76. ernie ernie says: Apr 17, 2012 10:09 AM

    Here’s a very simple explanation for all this. Minnesota, like its neighbor Wisconsin, is a political pissing contest.
    We have a democratic governor and a republican legislature so between the two of them fighting for ground, nothing gets done.
    Governor vetoes all republican passed bills and the legislator disses’ all the governor’s initiatives.

    The state is just getting back in the black and now they are reluctant to spend $398 million of tax payer dollars in an election year. Go figure.

  77. dobberdubinsky says: Apr 17, 2012 10:17 AM

    I’m a longtime Canadian Vikings fan starting in 1987 when I was 10 years old. I have made the journey to the Minneapolis or a visiting stadium every year to take in a Vikes game since 1998. I used to think that the people of Minnesota were crazy passionate fans who would step up to the plate and support the Vikes in any situation because the Vikes were #1 in the state. Boy was I wrong, the fans turned out to be a bunch of thumb sucking crybabies who whenever things go south for a bit, pack it up and bail on their team. If this whole thing goes to vote and the stadium is rejected, then I say by means, MOVE THE TEAM because this state full of part time fans sure as heck doesn’t deserve one!!! If they move it’ll just show what a state of losers Minnesota truly is. Minnesota/LA Vikings, what do I care? I can fly to LA for $99 bucks V.S. $650 to Minneapolis…..I can get a suntan during December games in LA unlike in Minnesota. Still hoping the Vikes stay in Minnesota just for the integrity of your state, get the vote approved people!!!

  78. ruvelligwebuike says: Apr 17, 2012 10:17 AM

    “It’s time to end the corporate welfare gravy train.”
    ———————-

    The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. In addition, Minnesota has a 9.8% corporate tax rate, fourth highest in the country. Your welcome for the actual facts…now back to your meaningless life where you expect other people to pay for you to live.

  79. isu1648 says: Apr 17, 2012 10:19 AM

    Too many people just dont understand how this works…

    The Vikings bring money to the state via taxes. LOTS OF MONEY. From income tax on players/staff, sales tax on tickets/merch/etc, and from the business it creates in the local economy such as bars/restaurants/hotels/etc. Therefor, the state benefits VERY MUCH from the Vikings being in Minnesota. To the tune of $26 mil per year just on the income taxes and stadium revenues alone. That will be doubled within 10 years due to the NFL’s increased revenue, half of which goes to the players.

    That is why the state/county should want to partner with the Vikes to get this done, because that HUGE lump of cash will be gone if the team leaves. So how does the state get the money to drum up its portion of the costs? they tax you. the money doesnt go to Zygi, or to the Vikings. it goes to the state/county, so they can pay their fair share.

    On top of those losses, think of the other tax dollars not being considered. Think of every single one of the 10,000+ bars/restaurants in MN. Lets compare their sales numbers during the bye week, to every other week during the Vikings season. You think that isnt a decent chunk of change, that strung out over the next 50 years that the state/counties will miss?

    It will cost this state 10 times more to run the Vikings out of town than it will be to build them a stadium.

    People need to learn about this topic before spouting of their nonsense opposing this stadium. And these legislators need to be run out of office come November. These short sighted politicians are so selfish it makes me sick.

  80. drbob117 says: Apr 17, 2012 10:20 AM

    I would definitely look into whether LA wants the Vikings if I’m Zygi. I mean they gave Minnesota chance after chance after chance. If they want to vote against a stadium, that’s fine, there are more important things in life than football, but they have NO right to complain when the Vikings move. And the fans have no right to whine about the people on this site who are calling them the ‘LA Vikings’, you elected these idiots , you live with the consequences. Enjoy building a 2 billion dollar stadium at 100% taxpayer expense 10 years from now if you ever want to see football in your town again some day.

  81. fground says: Apr 17, 2012 10:22 AM

    at least when the Browns packed up and left – they did so having won numerous championships. The Vikings on the other hand will leave behind over 50 years of never winning a league championship.

  82. grandsonofcoach says: Apr 17, 2012 10:24 AM

    As a Packer fan, who lives in Minnesota the last thing I want to see is the Vikings move. While there is angst and rivalry between Packer and Viking fans, that is what makes it fun. I have a lot of Viking fan friends who would be devastated by a move. At this point tho it seems at least a full on threat from the team to move is inevitable. Your move Vikings (figuratively and perhaps literally).

  83. trojan33sc says: Apr 17, 2012 10:25 AM

    Time to stop being nice, pack your shyte and move to L.A., tired of this nonsense and over an Extremely extended period of time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don’t even care to see this post anymore, day in and day out. Move !!

  84. brianjoates says: Apr 17, 2012 10:28 AM

    Cleveland fans need to stay out of this, Cleveland was given a new franchise within months of Art moving to Baltimore. Cleveland began building a new stadium for the Browns after Art left. Cleveland didn’t play professional football for three seasons. Oh no…poor Cleveland fans. Cleveland is at fault for not taking care of Art.

    Go talk to fans in cities that had to wait more than a few months to find out they were getting an NFL team back. Baltimore, Houston, St.Louis, Oakland, LA.

    Minnesota should go talk to the state of Maryland. Maryland spent well over 200 million ,which at the time would have built a new stadium in ’83-84 for the Colts, to lure a team back to Baltimore. Nobody wants to pay for the rich to get stuff for free, but big picture you will destroy a community by not giving into a new stadium.

  85. purpleguy says: Apr 17, 2012 10:35 AM

    Not looking good for now, but then what would the oh-so original “LA Viking” posters have to do without this story? The Wilffs should now threaten to leave with these stuffed shirts playing the political cover-your-posterior game. And to the dude that made the tea party crack, the majority vote in the committee was by Democrats.

  86. upperdecker19 says: Apr 17, 2012 10:40 AM

    they’d do it indirectly by booting out of office anyone who supported the stadium.

    People would actually have to vote for this scenario to play out. Not likely.

  87. vikingsinla says: Apr 17, 2012 10:44 AM

    What are the Wilfs waiting for? Why did they even wait this long?

    LA can provide at least 1 privately funded NFL stadium. Minny cannot, and their elected reps won’t take any risks with their political careers.

    The LA Vikings would be selling gear and season tickets months ago if I ran the Vikes.

  88. vikesfansteve says: Apr 17, 2012 10:44 AM

    Let’s take the Cowboys stadium for example. Arlington paid over 360 million dollars on that stadium. They still forked over the money for Jones who is worth billions. When the Cowboys hosted the Super Bowl people spent in excess of 200 million dollars there in 1 week. The state of MN will get there money back in 1 week. The stadium is a year round draw that earns 150 million just as an attraction. What kind of ghost town is downtown Minneapolis going to be on Sunday’s after the Vikings leave? Even the sports bars? Will fans in the state flock to watch NFL football when they have no team any longer? There are only 32 teams and MN has 1 of them. They are basically forcing the Vikings to leave and are sinking themselves in the mundane facts instead of looking at the big picture. The Vikings should leave because MN doesn’t deserve them. Idiot’s in legislature. The 9 fools who forced the Vikings out of MN. Good luck getting another job in politics or any field really after being known forever as the people who cost MN an NFL franchise. FOOL’S.

  89. belichickrulz says: Apr 17, 2012 10:49 AM

    As a resident of Massachusetts, where we do it right (all of our teams play in privately funded stadia), I say “Good for you, Minnesota!”. This should definitely be voted on by the citizens. If they’re persuaded that this is a good way to spend their tax dollars (as the citizens of Texas were in building the Jerry Dome), then so be it. But it’s time for the owners and the NFL to foot the bill for their new buildings and stop bilking the taxpayers… many of whom couldn’t care less about a sports team.

  90. chatham10 says: Apr 17, 2012 10:54 AM

    The Vikings will probably move and the people who voted against the stadium will all probably lose their election bid so this will all be in vain. I lived in Minnesota for many years and traveled to Minneapolis to see the Vikings and stayed in hotels, ate in their restaurants, bought gas, etc and paid tax on all of this, Minnesota will lose all that income as well as income tax from all the players but it is such a liberal state this will give them additional money to help out the unemployment and homeless or maybe not but they will be able to give themselves a raise and better health care and retirement.

  91. lknbroker says: Apr 17, 2012 10:56 AM

    There is such a simple solution that its pathetic no one has tried it

    The NEED—new stadium

    The Problem–How to pay for it

    The Solution–Everyone that enjoys it–pays for it
    No need for tax revenue or politians

    PSL’s=permanent seat license. You support the team, you buy your “New” Seat in Your “New Stadium” and you agree to buy season tickets every year- You dont like the direction the team is going–sell you PSL’s

    PROBLEM SOLVED

  92. carlismyname says: Apr 17, 2012 11:01 AM

    Ziggy sell the team to Glen Taylor, a Minnesota guy and the stadium deal gets done, it’s the only way to keep the vikings in Minnesota.

  93. mvp43 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:07 AM

    At some point Vikings fans must realize that there’s only a small group of hard core fans that will support a new stadium and this team. This is not Green Bay or Dallas. The Vikings are not that relevant anywhere. Its a tough pill to swallow….but its the truth.

  94. paullambie says: Apr 17, 2012 11:10 AM

    News flash: The Vikings are profitable playing in the Metrodome. So, why again is it that the taxpayers should pay to build a new stadium? Why not just write the owner a check every year as a thank you for not moving the team?

  95. ballboy48 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:12 AM

    @brianjoates,

    You sound like a typical Baltimoran, that gladly accepted another city’s franchise, while having their own franchise ripped away from them! Go back to your dumb purple uniforms, male cheerleaders, a fake fans!

    Art Modell had Cleveland’s full support, he just chose not to wait for the city of Cleveland to vote on a new stadium which was held a few weeks after he decided to bolt! The residents voted unanimously to build a new stadium, and it still wasn’t good enough! Why do you think the chump hasn’t been back? Because he knows he was in the wrong, and wouldn’t dare step foot in Cleveland again!

  96. csmit44 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:12 AM

    I blame the mean old Saints!

  97. tomtravis76 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:14 AM

    Cleveland complaining, come on. Cleveland got a new team along with their history almost right away. Cleveland missed three seasons in the NFL while they had a new stadium built.

    The Browns stayed in Cleveland. Baltimore lost its history of football to Indy. The Old Colts didn’t want to be Colts anymore because the league tarnished what they did for the NFL and continue to do it even today.

    Minnesota is going to cave in or lose a team and have no NFL. In cities with not alot to do, the NFL is very important.

  98. fertacrit says: Apr 17, 2012 11:15 AM

    This is so frustratinng. First, LA hasn’t been able to hang on to ANY NFL team they ever had, so get over yourself, LA is more diseased than the MN government. a previous poster had a great suggestion. Bring in some city officials from cities that lost team (except for LA, they clearly don’t get it) and have them tell MN government what it was like duriong and after the teams left. It is funny how Cleveland, Baltimore, St.Louis, Chicago all had teams leave and subsequently wanted teams back almost immeditately. But I digress. I love how the MN government only looks at one side. They are only looking at the immediate cost. NOT THE LONG TERM INCOME. State taxes from players (visiting and home), the jobs created state taxes from those jobs, other events held in the staduim. Indy MADE $400 milion in JUST 2 weeks for something held at their NEW stadium called…THE SUPERBOWL . HELLO?!?!?! Am I missing something? What part of that is a bad thing? Potential Final Four site, a fantasic facility for State HS events, maybe other events, like Olympic qualifying events. you have to spend money to make money….all you rich polititions should know that by now. To the stadium opposition: Just imagine all the lost income. Whether you like it or not opposers, the Vikes and a stadium do help your quality of life in MN if not by entertainment, then by income from taxes and events held onsite. To Politicians AND Opposers: YOUR NOT BUILDING A STADIUM FOR A BILLIONAIRE OWNER. YOUR BUILDING A STADIUM FOR THE STATE AND PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA. They will be paying 90% of operating costs YEAR ROUND. So any events held on-site, are paid for from PRIVATE money. So your state tournaments are basically paid for. How bout them apples? Kinda funny how the polititions and opposers never bring that up. Wilf and the NFL are paying well over half the building cost. If the team leaves and 5-10 years from now we are begging for a team, the price will be much, MUCH HIGHER and more than likely will need tax dollars to build it. If this would have been done 10 years ago, the cost was $300-$400 million. That looks like a heck of a bargain at this point. In 10 years $1 billion will look like a bargain. Stop acting like a bunch of ostriches and get your head out of the sand and look at the bigger , long term picture.

  99. buffaloviking says: Apr 17, 2012 11:16 AM

    This Just In, Minnesota lets the Vikings leave. Now they cant figure out where all the revenue went and are in a special session to raise taxes after all. Maybe all the politicians looking to save their ass by letting the Vikings leave should pack there bags too!!!!. Because even the citizens against the stadium will have to pay higher taxes, them same citizens will still have a tax increase to pay for. NO REVENUE, HIGHER TAXES, it shouldnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. These same politicians will be voted out for two reasons, letting Vikings go, and for raising taxes on people that voted to not build a stadium afterall.
    I am sure there is a City that would love to have a NFL team, and Ziggys tax payment,

    Minnesota you think you have a problem now, wait until you have to fill the void, hell you shut the government down last year, and that was over everyday business, WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  100. emoney826 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:17 AM

    This is amazing that Minnesota doesn’t appreciate how lucky they are to have a pro football team. They don’t deserve having this team. With that said, neither does LA.

  101. calvikefan1 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:23 AM

    The argument : why should we build a stadium for a billionaire ? Why should taxpayers fund government employee pensions? Why should taxpayers fund healthcare for illegal immigrants? Why should taxpayers fund welfare for people who have been on it for ever? Why should taxpayers fund college grants to students who don’t even attend college ? There is so much fraud and waste in this state that if identified dollar for dollar their would be more than enough money to help with financing a stadium ( since the state benefits from other venues of the facility is why they should pitch in ) If I were Ziggy I would tell the state and the citizens to stick it and move the hell out of there. The people of Minnesota are truly a bunch of idiots as witnessed by everyone that has followed this fiasco throughout the years. Lose the team , you will not get another one!!!

  102. browns627 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:24 AM

    we all know the jags are LA bound. vikes need to be out doors, period!

  103. Bar None says: Apr 17, 2012 11:27 AM

    I hope the Vikings get something done (I am not even a fan of Minnesota), they refuse to build stadiums and then lose teams (Lakers, North Stars), hopefully they don’t make the same mistake 3 times.

    And I laugh at people saying L.A. is a place to move an NFL team. Not true. If it were true, the Rams, Raiders and Chargers all would have stayed.

  104. buffaloviking says: Apr 17, 2012 11:27 AM

    I read all the comments about letting the Wilfs building the stadium buy themselves, WOW, that would be great, then he can charge what he wants for tickets, when the State of Minnesota needs to have a convention Ziggy can charge them rent, gee Ziggy still makes $$$$$$, something you nasayer are jealous of.

    Or how about this let the team move and then will hear all the bitchin about higher taxes.

    Then you can hope the Twins and Wild make up that revenue, seems to me the suck too but they got new buildings, oh by the way, the fans that come to YOUR state to Viking games that wont come anymore, thats REVENUE too the state will lose,

    Get off your pitty pots and use your heads.

  105. bleedsoe9mm says: Apr 17, 2012 11:27 AM

    the good part for vikings fans , LA can’t get a stadium built either

  106. foreverlsu says: Apr 17, 2012 11:27 AM

    Go ahead and blame the Saints, ViQueen fans. See ya in LA with the Lakers, losers!

  107. paullambie says: Apr 17, 2012 11:39 AM

    fertacrit says:
    Apr 17, 2012 11:15 AM
    Indy MADE $400 milion in JUST 2 weeks for something held at their NEW stadium called…THE SUPERBOWL . HELLO?!?!?! Am I missing something?

    Paul Lambie says:
    Yes, I think you’re missing a few things. Indy (the government) did not make $400 million. They might have come close to breaking even, but didn’t make anything. The vast majority of the tax revenue brought in during the SuperBowl either goes to the NFL or to payoff the $700 million of bonds that built Lucas Oil Stadium. Did Indianapolis businesses bring in some additional revenue? Sure, but not $400 million worth, and one should remember that the vast majority of people spending money in downtown Indianapolis in the ten days leading up to the Super Bowl were locals, who would in most cases spend their money elsewhere in town anyway. This isn’t new money. Just like when local fans buy hotdogs and beer and pay a tax, isn’t it newly found money that wouldn’t have otherwise circulated in the metro area.

    It’s true that pro sports teams do bring in additional revenue for local governments through player salaries and some additional sales/user taxes from out-of-town/out-of-state fans, but I’ve never seen a study showing that these revenues more than make up for the vast sums of money that the teams extort from the taxpayers in the form of rent-free (or negative rent when the teams are allowed to capture revenue from other events) publicly built stadiums. If anyone has such a study, please share it. Otherwise, please stop the false economic arguments.

  108. muskyhunter2542 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:41 AM

    As a Packers fan I can only say that for The Vikings to move would suck!!!!

  109. gmen1987 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:42 AM

    Just move the friggin Vikings. Having an NFL franchise in your area is a privelage, not a right. LA and San Antonio are more deserving of an NFL franchise then the Vikings.

    Maybe if the Viking move, the pols and citizens of Minnesota can get a slap of reality and get another relocated NFL team later on.

  110. muskyhunter2542 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:42 AM

    reconl63 says:
    Apr 17, 2012 7:36 AM
    No stadium for the Vikes, sorry fans. Looks like your team is packing it up to come to LA, where we actually appreciate football and will have a brand new stadium for our home team. Better overall quality of life here too.

    _________________________________

    Smog does not lead to a better quality of life!!!

  111. ruvelligwebuike says: Apr 17, 2012 11:43 AM

    “There are only 32 teams and MN has 1 of them. They are basically forcing the Vikings to leave and are sinking themselves in the mundane facts instead of looking at the big picture. The Vikings should leave because MN doesn’t deserve them.”
    —————–

    Big picture? Yeah…to the normal human. But this is Minnesota. It is basically an entire culture built around “penny-wise, pound-foolish” posers. They drop $100M in a blink to pretty up the crack stacks off of 94…Minneapolis ALWAYS needs to LOOK pretty. They’ll throw away hundreds of millions on art, theatre renovations and museums just so they can say they are a more elite society, more sophisticated than the rest of the midwest.

    But when it comes to action, you see very quickly that they are gutless cowards who wouldn’t know a real man’s business deal if it slapped them in the face. Keep in mind, this is the same state that despite being 50% barren prairie land, actually had several groups push to keep the very few tourists OUT of Minnesota so that out of staters didn’t crowd their lakes, eat their walleyes, catch their muskies or shoot their deer. Nice business model.

  112. randomguy9999 says: Apr 17, 2012 11:46 AM

    how much public money the NFL and their owners have received over the last 50 years is staggering….

    inflation adjusted, building on average 2 stadiums each at $1B 2012 dollars each?

    they have scammed each and every one reading this column into thinking it’s our burden to pay these business expenses….. and that’s not only wrong… it’s outrageous

  113. mediasloppy says: Apr 17, 2012 11:56 AM

    Monday’s hearing didn’t start well, with one of the members asking a team representative, “Why should the state of Minnesota contribute to a stadium for a billionaire owner?”
    ——————————–
    I’d like to ask these same idiots why it is becoming a growing reality that they get elected into office and do everything in their power to make themselves richer while screwing over everyone.

  114. tqaztec says: Apr 17, 2012 12:01 PM

    Arden Hills was ready to go but NOOOO, Minneapolis wants everything in its city as long as the people don’t vote on it.

    Let them leave, they might finally win a Super Bowl. I have no problems watching them on TV. The whole organization has a whining attitude, not a winning one.

    I wanted Tomlin as a HC, nope.
    I wanted Harbaugh as a HC, nope.

    The QBs we’ve had to deal with:
    Steve Dils
    Wade Wilson
    Brad Johnson
    Tavarus Jackson
    Brett Favre
    Gus Frerotte
    McNabb
    McMahon
    Moon
    Salisbury
    Culpepper
    Cunningham
    George

    Enough! Enough! Enough!

    See? Now I’m whining.

    Give us something to root for.

  115. butlers91 says: Apr 17, 2012 12:08 PM

    Well, they really should just let the people vote on this. Then if they vote no, they lose the franchise.

  116. shlort says: Apr 17, 2012 12:13 PM

    Why should the people have to buy something for a Billionaire? That is the question here. Wilf putting out the money out for this stadium would be equal to “Joe Football Fan” forking the money out that he has in his wallet at any given time.

    Wilf can afford to pay for the whole thing himself. Wilf will make money off of the team and the stadium. He’ll hav even more money if the taxpayers pay for it. Either way, Wilf will laugh all the way to the bank.

    Move them to Los Angeles. Then, in a couple years, the NFL can approve another move somewhere else. That is what happened to every other team that tried to play in L.A.

  117. glac1 says: Apr 17, 2012 12:14 PM

    Welcome to Omaha!

  118. cleonslamminsalmon says: Apr 17, 2012 12:19 PM

    This feels as good as a preseason win. Go Pack Go!

  119. chatham10 says: Apr 17, 2012 12:23 PM

    I have a solution. Minnesota does not want to invest in the stadium and let the rich owners build it since they do not believe the Vikings generate any revenue for the state. Here is my solution, the owners build the stadium with their own money but Minnesota does not make them pay personal income tax, property tax or sales tax. I lived in Minnesota and we would be talking some big bucks they would be losing each and every year.

  120. dukemarc says: Apr 17, 2012 12:25 PM

    jimmysee says:
    Apr 17, 2012 8:52 AM
    Tea party wack jobs poisoning the well.
    ————————

    Only 1 DFLer – one of the bill’s sponsors mind you – voted in favor of the bill going to floor for a vote & 5 Repubs did.

    So much for your tinfoil hat crack pot theory of the ‘Tea Party” poisoning the well.

    Where was all the Metro area support(mostly DFL territory) on this? You know, those people who stand to gain the most from a downtown stadium?

  121. thankheavenfornumberseven says: Apr 17, 2012 12:25 PM

    So many people whine about spending public money on a stadium that benefits the public, but the fact is public money is going to be spent on a stadium. Now we know that it will cost about $200 million more than it would have cost if they got it done this year. And if the team moves, you know darn well they’re going to be building a stadium to lure a new team here and the public will be paying 100% of a much higher cost then. These politicians don’t care one bit about doing the thing that makes sense.

  122. fertacrit says: Apr 17, 2012 12:27 PM

    The vast majority of the tax revenue brought in during the SuperBowl either goes to the NFL or to payoff the $700 million of bonds that built Lucas Oil Stadium

    Thanks, your making my point for me. Since there is currently no bond proposed, the income from something like a Superbowl, would make up for the taxpayer money spent. With just one two-week event. Add other events held there, and wuh-lah…Minneapolis starts making money from a new stadium. Money that will not be there if there is no stadium. Like another post said, without a team, Minneapolis on Sunday’s will be a ghost town compaired to if there is a stadium and team here. It doesn’t matter if it is 100% local money spent. It is simply money spent, money that is already taxed. You cannot say that the majority of people going to minneapolis for sundays are from minneapolis. I feel confident in saying at least 75% of the people going to minneapolise for gameday do not reside in minneapolis. So yes, minneapolis would be getting more income with a stadium than without. I am not a CPA nor do I claim to be. But income is income. Whether it is local or from visitors. All money spent in MN is taxed. So if there are no jersey’s, hot dogs, nachos, liquor, game tickets, concerts, entertainment, etc. on sundays or other major events a new stadium would bring, no money will be spent, thus no tax dollars made. Like Feild of Dreams…”If you build it, they will come”. When you say “extort” money from taxpayers for this, then they are extorting me for the Gutherie, Capitol Renovation, Light Rail, Roads, Target Field, Xcel center, Target Center, TCF Stadium and so on. But ALL of those make MN a better state beacuse of ALL the income from them, big or small. Private or state owned, I am still taxed for all that. Or in your words I am being “extorted” by those. But I CHOOSE to live here. Taxes are needed for alot of things I will NEVER use, like welfare, Buses, Library’s, Art Museums. Do I bitch about it? No. Because I know others do partake in those things. It is a part of living in MN. If they don’t like state taxes move to one of the states that don’t have state taxes and shut up.

  123. dukemarc says: Apr 17, 2012 12:28 PM

    reconl63 says:
    Apr 17, 2012 7:36 AM
    ………….. Looks like your team is packing it up to come to LA, where we actually appreciate football ……………
    ——————————-

    The L.A. Rams and Raiders and an empty Coliseum would beg to differ.

  124. tomtravis76 says: Apr 17, 2012 12:45 PM

    ballboy48,

    Cleveland waited too long to satisfy Modell. It is Clevelands fault they lost the Browns. Modell took his business and moved to Baltimore. Hate Modell all you want, you have a team, get over it. Cleveland was only “deactivated” for three seasons. Nobody missed anything. In other communities there is a lost generation of football fans who grew up without a hometown team.

    You’re missing the point, the NFL leaving any community is devastating. Minnesota will regret not building a new stadium. The NFL is a community event.

  125. racksie says: Apr 17, 2012 12:52 PM

    fertacrit: Yes, Ziggy should spend his money to make his money. Not mine.

  126. fourthand20 says: Apr 17, 2012 1:11 PM

    As soon as the stadium gets built, Wilf will sell the team with a handsome profit. The should be a clause where the public get reimbursed for 50% of the profit made when Wilf sells.

  127. purpwalk says: Apr 17, 2012 1:35 PM

    no more mr. nice guy

    the threat to leave will now be used, and if there’s no deal, the team will pursue alternatives and file to leave by next year’s deadline

  128. th56 says: Apr 17, 2012 1:39 PM

    This is not necessarily a bad thing. This was too rushed to work. The Vikings are committed to playing here in 2012, so they can start again after the election where they can come up with a better finance plan and the politicians can concentrate on something other than being re-elected.

  129. paullambie says: Apr 17, 2012 1:52 PM

    Bottom line: There are 32 teams, but more than 32 communities that are large enough to sell 50,000+ tickets that would like to have one. In a free market, where governments didn’t subsidize these businesses, the NFL would choose to locate in the 32 most profitable metros (which would likely be roughly the top 30 or so markets, with a few areas having multiple teams).

    Since smaller local/regional/state governments do see a benefit in luring a team, they will choose to subsidize it, which then distorts the free market. As long as governments can use other people’s money to subsidize these businesses/teams, there is no need for an actual, factual cost-benefit anaysis and there is no end to the amount of subsidy that will be provided. Where is the solid, accurate analysis of tax revenue that would be lost to the entities (Mpls and Minnesota) that would be funding this subsidy, if the Vikings were to leave Minnesota?

    I presume it isn’t out here for consumption, because it would show that there is a wide gap between what the public is being asked to finance versus the return in tax revenues. If that’s the case, people would be confronted with the stark choice of whether to give an annual subsidy of $X to Zygi/NFL/players for the intangible benefits of community pride and national television exposure.

  130. cheesewizz says: Apr 17, 2012 2:00 PM

    Cry me a river. The people of MN have spoken, and they’re telling their Reps not pay public money for a Stadium for a billionaire owner and millionaire players to play a game in.

    Teams have left cities before and those cities have survived.

    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out Vikes.

    Besides the Wylf’s will never move. The CA market is brutal to underachieving cheapskates. They have a swet deal in MN where they stink and the fans still love them.

  131. jdubkc says: Apr 17, 2012 2:11 PM

    The real discussion here should be a name “Vikings”. Seeing how the Norse never set foot in Cali and there is not a historically large settlement I think a more appropriate name, sticking with a somewhat nautical theme if you will, especially for erm.. LA would be the LA Seaman. I am ignoring the most obvious choice, the LA Gayla.

    You Go Gayla, beat those big broad shoulder sweaty muscular faiders, emmm thats hot.

  132. smokeabowedrinkaforte says: Apr 17, 2012 2:12 PM

    What happens when the Vikes eventually say enough and leave?

    Where will the state make up the lost tax revenue from the team leaving?

    Think they will raise taxes? The revenue generated from the Vikings is used somewhere, when they leave you will be stuck with having to make up that revenue.

  133. fertacrit says: Apr 17, 2012 2:15 PM

    racksie says:
    Apr 17, 2012 12:52 PM
    fertacrit: Yes, Ziggy should spend his money to make his money. Not mine.

    ——————————————-

    Target Center, Target Field, Excel, all had taxpayer help. Why is it so difficult for the Vikings? The Twins situation was bad, but it was never this difficult for the Wild or the T’Wolves. Prob because they were new franchises. So let the Vikes go and in 10 years spend twice, if not 3 times more, with the help of tax dollars. Yeah, cuz that makes financial sense. Lets pay 2-3 times more in 10 years cuz right now the opposers refuse to see the long term benefit. Typical fast-food mentality, only worried about the present and we will deal with the future when it comes. Same reason we have freeway road issues and the Dome was also built on the cheap with no forward thinking. All because there was no future proofing ourselves. Look, it is never a good/convenient time to spend a LOT of money…for anyone. But sometime you just have to bite the bullet to better your situation and future proof yourself. Now is the time for the state to future proof itself and guarentee itself tens of millions in tax revenue on a yearly basis. Like another poster put, if they leave we will lose revenue streams not just from the team but from the stadium too and end up raising taxes anyway. But at least we will not hafta pay for a stadium now. Again, makes NO sense. But the nay-sayers will have won. No Stadium. Just don’t bitch when taxes go up to make up for the vacant tax revenue. Idiots.

  134. petersonisthepurplejesus says: Apr 17, 2012 2:37 PM

    what all the politicians fail to realize is that the Vikings would only use the stadium 10-13 days a year…the rest of the time it would be used as a convention center bringing in millions both in terms of revenue for local businesses and sales/income taxes….so they’re not paying for a billionaire owner, the facility will barely be used for Vikings games and he’s willing to contribute over 400 million dollars! so frustrating! typical that all the Republicans on the committee voted it down…god forbid we pay pennies on the dollar to have an NFL franchise….if they leave, I will never watch another NFL game, I’ll be done…

  135. mdd913 says: Apr 17, 2012 2:38 PM

    Well, if anybody deserves to have their team taken away, it’s Vikings fans. Can’t say I feel sorry for any of them.

  136. mskmadison says: Apr 17, 2012 2:45 PM

    To all who are using words like “pathetic” or “losers” or whatever… You blow my mind. The politicians are blocking a ‘ram through’ bill (my words) and refusing to allow it because they want the people who are footing he bill to have a vote on it. Last time I checked, democracy was a good thing. Y’all need to chill the heck out and thank politicians who actually represent the people for once. Whatever the politicians intentions are, I am amazed that people here disagree with letting taxpayers vote on it.

  137. racksie says: Apr 17, 2012 2:50 PM

    vikesfansteve: And we have snow plows!

  138. th56 says: Apr 17, 2012 2:52 PM

    mdd913 says:
    Apr 17, 2012 2:38 PM
    Well, if anybody deserves to have their team taken away, it’s Vikings fans. Can’t say I feel sorry for any of them.

    ——————————–
    Good for you, does that make you feel better about your sorry ass life? Now go home from your minimum wage job, if you even have a job, and kick your dog, loser.

  139. eegwaybeegway says: Apr 17, 2012 3:30 PM

    I applaud the Minnesota House for sticking to its guns and taking a stand against these billionaire owners looking for a handout. The state of Minnesota is practically broke, the NFL is making billions and the owner of the team is a billionaire. You tell me how wrong the scenario is for the Wilf brothers to even ask for a nickel from the state’s taxpayers.
    Florio came up with a great plan on a local Minneapolis sports talk show this morning. He said the Wilfs should consort with their billionaire peers in coming up with a financial package that could pay for the stadium. If it’s such a lucrative deal, they will reap a tremendous amount of profits, while the people of Minnesota will still have one of the fabrics of their quality of life by being able to go see a Vikings game. Sure they’ll still have to pay for that option, but at least they won’t have to pay for it twice!

  140. toolkien says: Apr 17, 2012 3:51 PM

    As a Packer fan, who lives in Minnesota the last thing I want to see is the Vikings move. While there is angst and rivalry between Packer and Viking fans, that is what makes it fun. I have a lot of Viking fan friends who would be devastated by a move. At this point tho it seems at least a full on threat from the team to move is inevitable. Your move Vikings (figuratively and perhaps literally).

    ——————————————

    For this Packer fan, if the Vikings leave? We’d have a decent rivalry with the Rams soon enough, so no sweat. If it were the Bears? That would be different.

    Wisconsin teams will have a two-way connection with rivals in Chicago and St. Louis via the Packers and Brewers.

    Pretty much swapping one bottom tier dome team for another. I’m sure all our old, washed up Super Bowl champions can move to St. Louis as well as they could have to Minneapolis, so not much difference at all. The Rams already got a head start with Wells.

  141. vikingamericann says: Apr 17, 2012 4:16 PM

    Just let us vote none of this bypass the voter crap

  142. mdd913 says: Apr 17, 2012 5:56 PM

    th56 says: Apr 17, 2012 2:52 PM

    Good for you, does that make you feel better about your sorry ass life? Now go home from your minimum wage job, if you even have a job, and kick your dog, loser.

    —————————————————————

    I don’t have a sorry ass life, I have an OK job, and why would I kick my dog when I have such happy news as the sorry pathetic whiner Vikings fans probably losing their team?

  143. cryomark says: Apr 18, 2012 1:18 AM

    “And unlike the Cleveland, Minnesota will not get a second chance. ”

    Hey, they got Wild after the North Stars left.
    And why would Minnesota want the Browns anyway?

  144. corey375 says: Apr 18, 2012 6:53 AM

    So much to correct, so little time …

    1. Committee chair Dean Urdahl’s comment has been completely misrepresented. He wasn’t asking that question (the one about tax money for billionaires , he was pointing out that he gets asked that question frequently by constituents.

    2. Don’t blame Republicans. Five of the six “yes” votes came from their side of the aisle.

    3. It’s unfortunate that so many people lack the brainpower to understand the math involved. When you talk about millions and billions, most people can’t comprehend that kind of money. But once you get into the per-year costs (about $25 million for the state and roughly $8 million for Mpls.) vs. per-year tax revenue generated (about $10 million just in taxes on player salaries, plus taxes on everything from concession stand beer to Adrian Peterson jerseys), and it doesn’t sound quite so ridiculous. Throw in a few other money-making events on the 30-plus weekends the Vikings aren’t using the stadium, and the finances tip even more in the Vikings’ favor.

    4. A bunch of people seem to be morally outraged at the thought of someone else (the government) telling them how to spend a few hundred bucks of their money (on a sales tax), but feel like it’s their God-given right to tell someone else (the Wilfs) how to spend millions of dollars of their money? Does that sound like hypocrisy at its finest to anyone else?

    5. The Wilfs are never, never, never, ever going to agree to pick up 100 percent of the bill for a new stadium. Why? Because they don’t have to. Instead they’ll move the team to a city where they’ll get the deal they want. And anyone in their shoes would do the exact same thing 100 times out of 100. If Wal-Mart has the TV you want for $1,000 and Target has the exact same TV for $700, which store are you hauling the TV home from that afternoon? (FYI, if the “huge” sales tax increase happened, that $1,000 TV would cost you $1,005.)

    6. Finally, my favorite is when people try to characterize this as politicians sticking up for everyday Minnesotans by not supporting a sales tax increase without a referendum. People don’t want to help buy a stadium, but will buy that load of crap. Unbelievable.

  145. dickpoundsit says: Apr 18, 2012 11:16 AM

    east96st says:
    I seriously wish the founding fathers built into the Constitution a “you don’t vote, don’t complain” clause.

    That clause should read “if you don’t pay taxes, don’t complain” because as long as it is my money being spent, I’ll complain long and loud whether I voted in the last election or not!

  146. eaglesw00t says: Apr 19, 2012 11:54 AM

    corey375 says:
    Apr 18, 2012 6:53 AM
    So much to correct, so little time …

    3. It’s unfortunate that so many people lack the brainpower to understand the math involved. When you talk about millions and billions, most people can’t comprehend that kind of money. But once you get into the per-year costs (about $25 million for the state and roughly $8 million for Mpls.) vs. per-year tax revenue generated (about $10 million just in taxes on player salaries, plus taxes on everything from concession stand beer to Adrian Peterson jerseys), and it doesn’t sound quite so ridiculous. Throw in a few other money-making events on the 30-plus weekends the Vikings aren’t using the stadium, and the finances tip even more in the Vikings’ favor.

    4. A bunch of people seem to be morally outraged at the thought of someone else (the government) telling them how to spend a few hundred bucks of their money (on a sales tax), but feel like it’s their God-given right to tell someone else (the Wilfs) how to spend millions of dollars of their money? Does that sound like hypocrisy at its finest to anyone else?

    ———————————————

    3. The state gets the stadium for 42 weekends every year, and 355 days. I dont understand why people seem to think the state gets nothing out of this deal other than taxes and jobs.

    4. I had never thought about it that way, but you are absolutely right. but, in this country, people lately seem to want to fight for their own rights and not be told what to do, but yet loudly voice their opinions on what others should do. We live in a society of hypocrites now. Its disgusting.

    People are complaining about $20 a year they would put out for the extra sales tax, but just as quickly are telling the Wilfs they should have no problem putting out another $400,000,000.00

    And that comes back to the fact that the Wilfs are using the stadium for 10 days a year. The state wants to use it a whole lot more. Please tell me why the Wilfs should pay the brunt again?

  147. peelmybatwings says: Apr 22, 2012 7:20 AM

    To all of you on here who say it’s so simple, that this is a good investment for taxpayers and that it will make a profit very quickly, I ask if you have researched anything to back up your claims. I read this post and decided to look into this, and I found a NY Times article that takes four decades of data on public financed stadiums and came to this conclusion: they rarely pay for themselves. Many of the stadiums demolished are still being paid for long after they are gone. Would this be the case with the Metrodome? I haven’t seen anything about that, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Here is the article

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html?pagewanted=all

Leave a Reply

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