Skip to content

10 things to know about the Vikings stadium situation

Dallas Cowboys v Minnesota Vikings Getty Images

With the situation in Minnesota going from simmer to full boil over the past few days, and with Commissioner Roger Goodell and Steelers owner Art Rooney II, chair of the league’s stadium committee, planning to meet with legislative leaders on Friday, now is as good a time as any to get up to speed regarding a controversy that could result in a relocation of the Vikings, only a year after the 50th anniversary of their arrival to the NFL.

So here are 10 things to know, in a question-and-answer format.  (Why do it that way?  Because we want to.)

What’s wrong with the Metrodome?

It has been regarded as a given for years that the Metrodome is outdated, and that it can’t be modernized in a manner that unlocks the high-end revenue streams that will keep the Vikings competitive with other franchises.  Even though the Vikings have used the 30-year-old stadium roughly 300 times, the team believes that renovation isn’t an option.  No effort to contradict that claim has ever gained any serious traction in Minnesota.

Didn’t I read last month about a deal to build a new stadium?

You did.  But the agreement for a “People’s Stadium” represented only an understanding between the team, Governor Mark Dayton, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, and legislative leaders.  The deal calls for a $975 million facility, which would be built with $398 million from the state, $150 million from Minneapolis, and $427 million from the Vikings.  It still needs to be approved by the Legislature, and by the Minneapolis City Council.  For now, the proposed stadium bill died in a House committee on Monday night, and it has seen no progress at all in the Minnesota Senate.

The Vikings’ reaction to the current failure of the bill to even get a full legislative vote — the team says “there is no next year” — and the NFL’s direct involvement in negotiations represent a last-ditch effort to revive the deal that previously was reached.

What are the Vikings’ options?

If the stadium bill fails, the Vikings have to decide whether to try again, perhaps with a greater private contribution and/or a cheaper stadium.  If, as it appears, they aren’t inclined to try, owner Zygi Wilf can then try to move the team to a new city, sell the team to someone who would later apply for permission to move the team, or sell the team to someone who would keep the team in Minnesota.

Relocation could occur, with league approval, because the Vikings currently have no lease at the Metrodome.  In fact, if a decision to relocate after 2012 comes soon, the impact on the relationship between Minnesota and the Vikings could make it difficult for the Vikings and the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission to work out a one-year lease.  And no one at this point knows what would happen next.

Since there’s no lease, can the Vikings just pick up and move?

No.  Art Modell tried that in 1995, creating a huge mess that resulted in the Browns names and colors and records being left in Cleveland and a commitment to an expansion franchise.  The Vikings already are following the steps outlined in the league’s relocation policy, which requires a team to “diligently [engage] in good faith efforts” to “obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs” before informing the league of the existence of a “stalemate.”

The fact that the league directly is involved in the negotiations suggests that the Vikings have indeed informed the league that a “stalemate” exists.  If the situation can’t be resolved, the Vikings can then provide formal notice of an intention to relocate, sparking a process that could eventually culminate in a vote by the full ownership.  If 24 of the 32 owners agree, the move will be approved.

Along the way, the other owners would impose a transfer fee on the Vikings, which would be recommended by the Commissioner based on factors like the income streams in the new location, the income streams in the old location, the expenses in the new and old location, the differences between the new and old stadium, the demographics of the new and old markets.  It’s believed that a relocation to Los Angeles would result in a nine-figure transfer fee.

Would the Vikings leave behind the team name, logos, colors, and records?

Probably not.  As mentioned above, the deal to keep the Browns in Cleveland resulted from Art Modell’s unconventional, unilateral effort to move.  Also, the NFL planned to expand from 30 to 32 teams at the time the Browns moves to Baltimore.  The NFL currently doesn’t plan to expand, especially not in North America.

Most important, Minnesota wouldn’t get an expansion team without a new stadium.  And the reluctance to build a new stadium is what could cause the Vikings to leave.  So if they’re not going to build a new stadium now, there’s no reason to think they’ll do it later.

In other words, no matter how poorly the nickname may fit with the team’s next location, the Vikings will most likely remain the Vikings.

Why have the Vikings suddenly become so aggressive about possibly moving?

The Vikings had practiced patience for years.  Some think that the “Minnesota Nice” approach was selected under the theory that it would work better than a more blunt, matter-of-fact, anti-Field of Dreams “if you don’t build it, we will leave” strategy.  Others believe the Vikings simply wanted the media to do the team’s dirty work, reading the tea leaves and supplying the “or else” without the team having to do it.

The truth is that the language of the relocation policy, which expressly requires good-faith efforts to resolve the situation, forced the Vikings to try to get a new stadium deal without making threats or being unreasonable.  But to the extent that folks in Minnesota government believe that the Vikings haven’t taken a strong stand because they’ll eventually kick more and more (and more) money onto the table until the two circles of the Venn diagram kiss, a league source with knowledge of the dynamics explained to PFT on Thursday that Zygi Wilf, a successful real estate developer, can’t afford to cave when dealing with a public body; if he does, the public bodies with whom he routinely deals in other contexts will pounce on that high-profile show of weakness.

Why does the NFL build new stadiums with public money?

Because it can.

Some call it leverage.  Others call it extortion.  As NFL executive V.P. Eric Grubman told PFT Live on Thursday, the league regards it as competition.

Regardless, if one place won’t kick in significant public money to keep the NFL, someone else will kick in significant public money to get the NFL, either directly through cash contributions or indirectly through tax credits and other incentives.  Or through that Private Seat Licenses and/or higher ticket prices that a larger metropolitan area has the population density (i.e., enough really rich people) to support.

Notwithstanding the label applied, it’s a basic business reality of dealing with the most popular sports league in America.  With 32 teams and little or no chances at expansion, places that don’t have an NFL team but that want an NFL team will have to target an NFL team that already has a home.

Should public money be used to build NFL stadiums?

That’s for the people of a given city/state and their elected representatives to decide.  Public money gets spent on all sorts of things.  Sometimes, it’s a good investment.  Sometimes, it isn’t.

The presence of the NFL carries with it prestige and national legitimacy, along with an influx in local hotel, parking, and restaurant revenue on game days.  If that’s important to a given area and public money is necessary to make that happen, then the use of public money can be justified — especially if the facility will attract non-football events like concerts and conventions and a Final Four and other major activities.

Would a new Vikings stadium host a Super Bowl?

Probably, but the NFL can’t commit to that in advance.  Only the owners can award Super Bowls; that said, a habit has emerged over the past 35 years.  A new domed stadium (or an open-air venue in a warm-weather location . . . or New Jersey) results in a Super Bowl, if the city otherwise has the infrastructure to host the event (or, in the case of Jacksonville, even if it doesn’t).  The Metrodome hosted Super Bowl XXVI, the Silverdome and Ford Field in Detroit each got a Super Bowl.  Most recently, Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis hosted Super Bowl XLVI.

The money and the prestige coming from the hosting of a Super Bowl would help justify a large chunk of the public money devoted to the project, if the people in Minnesota choose to do that.

Where is this heading?

At this point, it’s unclear.  But the NFL and the Vikings will push for an answer now, before the current legislative sessions ends.  And the league and the team are prepared to interpret no answer as a “no” answer.

The biggest problem with the current deal arises from the effort to avoid the Minneapolis City Charter, which requires a public vote for any contribution in excess of $10 million to a sports facility.  The House committee that recently killed the deal was troubled by the apparent circumvention of the charter provision.  Even if the stadium bill becomes law and the Minneapolis City Council officially signs off on the plan, any taxpayer in Minneapolis could challenge in court the funding mechanism as a failure to comply with the charter.

And so, just as the Governor and the Mayor of Minneapolis and the legislative leaders underestimated the willingness of the Legislature to reject their deal now, the folks who came up with this plan possibly have given too little consideration to the possibility that a judge could kill it later.

The simple reality seems to be that the people in Minnesota either don’t want to kick in enough money to get it done, or they don’t realize that the NFL is serious about leaving.  If it’s the former, that’s their prerogative.  If it’s the latter, they need to wake up, now.

Permalink 141 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Features, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
141 Responses to “10 things to know about the Vikings stadium situation”
  1. textexington says: Apr 20, 2012 12:00 AM

    This whole situation is absolutely hilarious!!!LOLZ. What will Syd Davy and the other VWO Larpers do!?! Bye bye Viqueefs!

  2. idolized1 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:03 AM

    This was a very well written article and gives people an idea what is going on through all this confusion and flip-flopping.

    Thanks for this.

  3. briang123 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:06 AM

    The Republicans want the Vikings to move Southey cn blame the Democrats for losing the Vikings, so they can say, look they care more about California Democrats than their own people. Just another example of Republican dirty tricks and lack of concern for the fabric of society. Don’t fall for it people.

  4. vikingsfan1994 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:07 AM

    I am from LA and I would love to have the Vikings, my favorite team, play here. But if that means they will have to leave the NFC North and the generations of rivalry, I don’t want them to leave. I’m so split but in the end I think it would be best if the Vikings stayed.

  5. eastsideballa says: Apr 20, 2012 12:09 AM

    Its obvious that Minnesotaoans would rather watch the Timberowolves and Wild instead of the vikings. Hahaahahhahahahahahahahaha

  6. mataug says: Apr 20, 2012 12:09 AM

    1 thing to know about the Vikings stadium situation – a battle between politicians and businessmen with the public a spectator to it

  7. nukaten says: Apr 20, 2012 12:09 AM

    Im from northern Canada (Nunavut). I’ve traveled to Minnesota twice just to watch football. It would suck balls if the Vikings moved to LA, us northern folk need football to keep us going through the long ass winter.

  8. Justin says: Apr 20, 2012 12:10 AM

    Ironic timing of the post since the reports out there is that Zygi Wilf’s jet is in LA.

    http://wp.me/p1zWAl-14g

  9. jusford says: Apr 20, 2012 12:14 AM

    You forgot to mention that they could have had a stadium 6 years ago in Blaine, but Ziggy decided to try and get a better deal in Minneapolis. Open the books Ziggy let’s see how much you’re really hurting. Robert Kraft was able to build a new stadium out of his pocket, why can’t you?

  10. vikingdoode says: Apr 20, 2012 12:15 AM

    And the Vikings refuse to open the books…..I would love it if they stayed but really open your “F-ing” books “in good faith” legally they have to.. To get public money! They should have done a better job looking for private money…the peeps don’t realize is Vikings had a stadium deal in Anoka before all this happened. Godfather Zig went to Minneapolis to muck things up and Anoka peeps said “f”U and then he closed up Minneapolis by striking a deal with Arden Hills……then went back to Minneapolis and here we are. So I get the sense that Zig is just doing this on purpose to mess this whole thing so he can leave by shrugging his shoulders while the tax payers blame the politicians and politicians blame each other…but we get back to the beginning Zig open the books we’ll prolly give you the money….

  11. conormacleod says: Apr 20, 2012 12:16 AM

    Minnesota legislatures are do nothing jack asses.

  12. kliplee says: Apr 20, 2012 12:17 AM

    Number 11) Minnesota spent all they’re money on a baseball stadium.

  13. jusford says: Apr 20, 2012 12:19 AM

    Public money should only be used for the infrastructure not for constructing a building for a business.

  14. ahstoosu82 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:20 AM

    Nice work Mr. Florio. This post seems to give a very fair overview of what is going on. I see the lawyer in you shining through!

  15. bayareasportspost says: Apr 20, 2012 12:22 AM

    Didn’t the 49ers just provide a road map on how to get a stadium deal done in this economy and with private money?

    I dont’ get it. Shouldn’t Wilff and his team be on the phone with Jed York and Jerry Jones?

    These people need to be smarter.

  16. nicksaviking says: Apr 20, 2012 12:22 AM

    Will you stop questioning the will of the actual people of Minnesota? The people of the state want to keep they’re team just as much as the people in other states with an NFL team. Any city that had a referrendum to build a new stadium would fail. Every city has enough people who are uninformed and unaware what the economic impact of having or losing a franchise would be. Minnesota just has cowerdly legislators who get absolutely nothing accomplished due to fear of not getting re-elected or thoughts of revenge for a slight the other party did to them during a previous vote.

  17. raidersfreak says: Apr 20, 2012 12:24 AM

    Very good informative read thanks for sharing your knowledge of the matter

  18. ronin36 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:26 AM

    The committe that shot down the stadium earlier this week was following the rules; any large sports expenditure has to be approved by referendum.

    OK.. I get that. I even approve/applaud.

    But my question then becomes… “When’s the referendum?”

    If this were such an urgent issue, a special referendum could be put together for sometime this summer. Before the general elections. And the Stadium bill could go forward, or not, accordingly.

    I have heard no talk about scheduling that referendum.

    Without the referendum, this smacks loudly of “We don’t want to vote for more taxes and more spending until after we’re re-elected in the fall.”

    If the legislators pass a bill now, they’re afraid they won’t get re-elected. So they’ll stall and delay until after November. Then, it’ll be “really urgent” and cost more to build faster. But by then they won’t care because they’re safe in elected office for a couple years.

  19. dietrich43 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:31 AM

    In projects like these, an important part of these agreements is who pays for any cost over-runs during construction, because that can add tens of millions of dollars to the cost.

  20. pattersonconsulting says: Apr 20, 2012 12:31 AM

    The NFL can’t commit to a super bowl? Sure they can. I think you mean they won’t commit to a super bowl. Bottom line, the Vikings are making money. And they want to make more money of the backs of hard working taxpayers. If the stadium made financial sense to the state, that would have been the Vikings argument. But it doesn’t. So the Vikings make an emotional appeal to fans. All you really need to know is that the public in Minnesota doesn’t want to give the Vikings a new stadium. That’s why stadium proponents don’t want a public vote. I’m all for free markets. Let them leave. The NFL is more fun to watch on TV anyways. But if they go to LA, I will be the first one in line to picket if any federal tax dollars from MN go to help bail out the broke state of CA.

  21. djaehne says: Apr 20, 2012 12:36 AM

    After having the Oilers leave Houston in 96 or 97
    a lot of us fans said, don’t let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out. Didn’t take long at all before we all missed not having the team, even if it is owned by the biggest jerk off on the planet.
    Keep your team Minnesota, you will regret it big time within two years. The wait for Jacksonville to move to Minnesota would be around seven
    years or so.

  22. vikinganswer says: Apr 20, 2012 12:37 AM

    Anyone that laughs at the misfortune of others is a crude individual. This would be catastrophic to a lot of people. Say something nice or just be quiet. I am not a fan of the NFL, I am a Viking fan. They move and the league lost a season ticketholding lifelong football fan. Plain and simple.

  23. purpwalk says: Apr 20, 2012 12:40 AM

    stubborn germans and scandinavians who politically lean to the left might very well shun the billionaires of the nfl during a near-depression era

    better contact your reps, mn fans

  24. norcalmafia says: Apr 20, 2012 12:41 AM

    Sorry to say bjt Minnesota shouldnt have a team anyways …Tiny market with what a whole three thousand fans?There uniformsa are god awful anyways, move them to L.A. where they have a chance to be legitimate..

  25. calvikefan1 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:41 AM

    Wilf has been more than patient through this whole fiasco. Can’t blame him one bit if he chooses to move or sell the team. As a life long fan since 69′ I just don’t think I could watch pro football anymore. It kind of feels like your dog got ran over.

  26. coltsluckdynasty says: Apr 20, 2012 12:42 AM

    I agree, thanks for putting it into terms that we all can understand. That’s why I love this site.. It sucks for the true Vikings fans, but we faced this same thing in Indy, and we have a beautiful stadium, and can say we are home to an NFL franchise.. If I were a Vikings fan, I would be outraged that ownership, and politicians can’t make this happen. I think there are hidden agendas on both sides. This is what the NFL has been praying for, a chance to get a team in Los Angeles. Thanks PFT, please keep us informed.. Honestly thought for a while that the Vikings would be the team to move…

  27. jason1980 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:43 AM

    The New Orleans Superdome is 37 years old, and a state of the art football stadium. It’s not the stadium cost that’s pi$$ing off lawmakers, it’s the fact that the Vikings suck so bad. If y’all had a smash mouth team like the bada$$ Saints, that new stadium would be a no-brainer for lawmakers.

  28. norcalmafia says: Apr 20, 2012 12:44 AM

    Dont worry Minni the Niners had a stadium deal avgreed on in 98…..They just broke ground today..Once polititions get involved it screws everything up..Oking parking meters takes five years what makes you think these idiot politicians are gonna get a stadium done

  29. skylander14 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:44 AM

    I was against the Arden Hills deal because it appeared (though the Star Tribune may or may not have misrepresented some information) to be a deal that favored the Vikings tremendously. I started to warm up to the Minneapolis site but there are three issues I am concerned about:
    1.)Cost Overruns
    2.)Naming Rights
    3.)Parking Lot Fees
    All three I believe are in favor of the Vikings as overruns are supposed to be covered by the state and the Vikings collect on naming rights and parking. I think if the Vikings ceded on one of these issues, probably naming rights or overruns, then the bill would be able to pass. The proposed LA stadiums to my knowledge would not give parking lot fees or naming rights to the team but the owners of the stadium.

  30. duluthvikings says: Apr 20, 2012 12:44 AM

    Ya, real hilarious when instead of getting excited for the draft many of us fans are calling and emailing our idiot legislators to get something done. I’ve already contacted about 15 this week. I don’t think many peple in Baltimore, Cleveland, or Houston are laughing much at our situation. If you think this is funny and haven’t ever had to experience the threat yourself, do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

  31. ndstacken says: Apr 20, 2012 12:47 AM

    I’m a diehard Vikings fan and am absolutely sickened and embarrassed with the whole ordeal. Lately I’ve been asking myself, “why am I a Vikings fan?” I’m nervous, irate, upset, perplexed, depressed and possibly going to have an anxiety attack over this whole situation. Just build a stadium please. I’m praying and begging for it to happen.

  32. boltdaddy says: Apr 20, 2012 12:48 AM

    As an inducement for MN voters I propose the following for any city that needs a new stadium to keep their NFL team. Before the proposal for a stadium be put to vote the NFL guarantees one SB before the new stadium is built and one after it is built. This approach provides a needed flow of cash and a good faith demonstration on the part of the league. This is a reasonable accommodation considering the league will realize a solid ROI and provide team stability the league claims it values.

  33. vtopa says: Apr 20, 2012 12:51 AM

    You forgot No. 11

    How are they going to move the new stadium to Los Angeles?

  34. raider8er says: Apr 20, 2012 12:51 AM

    A very educational article here. I second the thanks from idolized1.

    I’m a Raider fan and my gf is a Viking fan. I hope both teams stay in their cities and get new stadiums in the next few years.

  35. criticaldsj says: Apr 20, 2012 12:55 AM

    It has been regarded as a given for years that the Metrodome is outdated, and that it can’t be modernized in a manner that unlocks the high-end revenue streams that will keep the Vikings competitive with other franchises.

    And once again, this is complete nonsense. BC Place, built at the same time, of the same architectural structure and on a larger footprint than the Metrodome, was remodled into a state of the art facility with a partially retractable roof last year for less than 75% of the cost a brand new facility proposed for Minneapolis or the suburbs.

    This myth that you can’t reuse this structure needs to stop. The truth of the matter is that Wilf, like Red McCombs before him, bought the team with the expectation that they would profit off of the real estate surrounding a new facility surrounding a suburban location built on public funds. When McCombs couldn’t get it done, he cashed out.
    If Wilf can’t get it done, he’ll do the same.

    This isn’t about the physical facility. It’s about generating as much ancillary revenue as possible with the least amount of expense. Selling the real estate around the facility does that, playing in a renovated, publicly owned centrally located facility does not.

  36. sportmentary says: Apr 20, 2012 12:56 AM

    Great article. another issue is the fact that their are bunch of clowns in the legislature. Each side wants credit for this and the Repubs don’t want to take a vote, because they don’t want the public to know who voted the bill down.

  37. patsaintsbroncoscheat says: Apr 20, 2012 1:09 AM

    Is it possible the Vikings filed an intent to move by the February 15 deadline and the NFL is just sitting on it and keeping it quiet? I mean if they passed the stadium bill no one would ever have to know the vikings filed that paper work. Now you have the vikings saying there is no next year. This makes me think the vikings are ready to move sooner rather than later.

  38. 7ransponder says: Apr 20, 2012 1:10 AM

    The simple reality seems to be that the people in Minnesota either don’t want to kick in enough money to get it done, or they don’t realize that the NFL is serious about leaving. If it’s the former, that’s their prerogative. If it’s the latter, they need to wake up, now.

    ———————

    This doesn’t have to do as much with the people as you might think – the MN legislature frequently makes decisions (or doesn’t act at all), that don’t have the people’s best interests in mind. They are woefully inept, see: the gov’t shutdown last year.

    There have been polls and surveys and the vast majority of them say they want to see a deal and want to see the Vikings stay. A lot don’t want general fund tax dollars used, and the most recent bill to die didn’t even use that, so that argument is a moot point. The vocal ones really are a minority – don’t let the Star Tribune comments section fool you. I work and live here, and everyone I know and talk to wants a deal to get done and the team to stay here. Sure, that’s anecdotal, but it’s more real than some of the misinformed opinions you see in the comments here from people who don’t even live in this state.

    This really is about politicians politicking in an election year. They’re afraid to make a decision because they don’t want it to hurt their election chances, which is idiotic because people like me watching their inaction and cowardice have me thinking I won’t vote for ANY incumbent come Nov, regardless of their party.

    In the end, I still think a deal will get done, in large part due to Zygi finally growing a pair and bringing in the big guns and starting to throw around a little weight. An NFL team is a state asset, it’s high time the politicians start treating it like one.

  39. wipurplepride says: Apr 20, 2012 1:11 AM

    Somebody (textexington) is jealous because they’ll never be half the fan Syd Davy is let alone most other Viking fans. Say what you want about the team and it’s players, the state and it’s legislators, but leave the fans out of it. There is no fanbase that has been through more in the NFL. We loyally support our team through all the hard times and there’s been many! The playoff chokes (98′, 09′), the scandals (love boat), and other mishaps (time ran out in the 03′ draft) but we’re still here supporting our team through all of it. That says something and we should not be mocked for it. What has tested your fandom Tex? What have you had to endure to prove your a true fan? Half of us don’t even live in Minnesota. Syd Davy himself is from Canada but the majority of Viking fans are spread across the midwest. Places like South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and yes even Wisconsin (like myself). Two of the bigger fans I know of are from Virginia and North Carolina even. Viking Nation is world wide and if we all had a say trust me the stadium would be built by now, even though we don’t live in Minnesota we understand it’s where they belong! But it’s the not up to us, it’s up to those Minnesotans.

  40. tweeter75 says: Apr 20, 2012 1:14 AM

    Yes, thanks for the clarification. For Vikings fans, the gravity of this situation has become abundantly clear. It’s not looking good for us.

  41. vikingsinla says: Apr 20, 2012 1:17 AM

    If one NFL host city resists funding a new stadium when their team’s owner wants it, and actually get away with it, expect future NFL cities do follow suit. This would seriously jeopardizing the profitability of owning an NFL team.

    The leauge cannot allow the threat of moving a team to ring hollow. The Vikings MUST be moved, if not to LA, then somewhere else. Every day Minnesota gets to keep their team weakens the NFL’s leverage over the rest of their cities.

  42. rhcpvikings says: Apr 20, 2012 1:30 AM

    Do the people of Minnesota want it? Yes they do definitely want it, but only a part of Minnesota (Minneapolis) gets to vote on the stadium which is unfair to the rest of Minnesota if it were to come to a referendum. I know they are the ones who are paying for it, but it still sucks because if you had a statewide vote on the issue we would surely have a stadium.

  43. cesquire says: Apr 20, 2012 1:31 AM

    It has been regarded as a given for years that the Metrodome … can’t be modernized in a manner that unlocks the high-end revenue streams that will keep the Vikings competitive with other franchises
    ——————–
    It has nothing to do with being competitive. The Packers and Ravens don’t have an ultra fancy stadium, yet they remain plenty competitive. The Vikings were competitive in 2009, when they finally had a decent qb. The metrodome squabble is about money, nothing more. The Vikings feel the public owes it to them to spend a billion dollars on a tool (stadium) that will allow Vikings ownership to make even more money on their investment than they already are making. The public feels the money would be better spent on something else, or nothing at all. The politicians are afraid of getting voted out of office if they build the thing.

  44. staffordsyear says: Apr 20, 2012 1:32 AM

    Call me crazy but i got a feeling there is a very hungry city out there laying low keepin all eyes on this story and it isnt los angeles.

  45. staffordsyear says: Apr 20, 2012 1:37 AM

    Call me crazy but if the vikings move i got a feeling there is a very hungry city out there laying low with all eyes on this story and it isnt los angeles.

  46. staffordsyear says: Apr 20, 2012 1:39 AM

    Oops,the first one DID post..my bad.

  47. prplpuzzetrz says: Apr 20, 2012 1:44 AM

    Great Post!
    As a Viking Fan through & through and a true fan of the overall game of football, i feel sorry for the direction of the fanbase!
    The majority of the comments on here used to be well thought out , intelligent thoughts about the league! Now it seems it’s a 3rd grade section for idiots to rant about incoherent nonsense!
    Anyone who is a fan of the game, would hate to see the Vikings leave the state, anymore than I would be bothered if the Lions left Detroit or the bears in Chicago! I think if our Country weren’t in such a poor economic state, ( verge of breadlines, in certain communities!) I think more people would support this! I am certainly a proponent for the stadium and am willing to pay my share to keep the team. Seriously, to read another LA Vikings comment or another Moronic statement from some goon out in Podunk middleamerica, please give me
    An advance notice , so I can pour Gorilla glue on my eyelids!

  48. southridge23 says: Apr 20, 2012 1:50 AM

    “1 Thing You Should Know About The Vikings Stadium Situation”
    1. NO ONE CARES.

  49. joenash72 says: Apr 20, 2012 1:54 AM

    This is a result of the bad karma the Vikings created when they stole Steve Hutchinson from Seattle with that poison-pill contract.

    Ain’t karma a b*tch.……

    Are they really gonna be called the Los Angeles Vikings?

  50. sportssince85 says: Apr 20, 2012 2:08 AM

    I’m quite tired of reading about the Vikings stadium situation..yall been chronicling this for about a year and they still at square 1, let me kno when they reach a solution..they either staying in Minnesota or moving

  51. gbspottedcow says: Apr 20, 2012 2:12 AM

    Florio, that was a very objective approach to a team that we all know that you are emotionally attached to. Good work.

    Being a Minnesota native that frequented the dome and also involved in venue management, it is clear that the team needs a new stadium. PFT discusses the various ways that NFL teams generate new revenue streams (PSLs in San Fran and New York or the Saints’ Superdome premium seating fiasco a few years back). The metrodome cannot generate this type of revenue. It was built in 1982 on a shoestring budget with little room for long-term financial success. As early as the late 90′s, there were calls to move the Twins, Gophers and Vikes from the dome. It is just not a feasible option for a team that needs to create “premium” revenue streams to keep up with other franchises.

    Vikings fans need to hammer their legislators to get this deal done. Forget that ownership and the league will try hold the city and state hostage; they will move if there is no public funding. THEY WILL MOVE. I don’t understand why, but Minnesota’s local politics have gotten it wrong too many times and the taxpayers still ended up coughing up funding for a team to come back (Target Center, Xcel Energy Center) or to stay (Target Field).

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m a diehard Packers fan that despises the Vikes on Sundays and happened to grow up on the wrong side of the St. Croix. But this would rip a great tradition and the legacy of a solid franchise apart.

  52. redrifle14 says: Apr 20, 2012 2:22 AM

    Its quite sad since their are NFL fans all over the country that would love a local team to cheer for, yet Minnesota has one and doesn’t give a crap. I hope they leave and find a community that fully backs them.

  53. commonsensedude says: Apr 20, 2012 2:23 AM

    A note to the leaders of Minnesota and Minneapolis from a guy who grew up near Baltimore when the Colts bolted back in 1984:

    Once you lose an NFL team, there is NO GUARANTEE that you’ll get one back. And if you do, it’s likely to be a very long time before you do.

    Lose your team and you’ll lose one of the few reasons for the national media to have an interest in Minneapolis. You’ll lose some of your tourism. You’ll force financial hardship on the restaurants, vendors, hotels, etc., that make part of their revenue from the Vikings. You’ll put a lot of people who work in and around the stadium out of work.

    And you’ll sever the relationship between your fan base and the great history of the Vikings franchise. They’ll take their records, their history, etc, with them and they won’t belong to Minnesota anymore – ever.

    Build the stupid stadium and pick your next battle.

  54. usuallysneeringatyou says: Apr 20, 2012 2:29 AM

    Should public money help build a privately-owned stadium? You decide:

    Let’s say a stadium holds 90,000 attendance. Let’s say 60,000 actually attend a game.
    Let’s say the average ticket price is $60.
    That’s $3.6M in ticket sales for that game.

    Let’s say the suburb city that captured the stadium location with its public contribution – you know, the city in which the stadium is located – has a 2% sales tax.

    Does the city charge sales tax on the $3.6M ticket sales? That would be $72,000 in city income.

    From that one game.

    Before the sales tax applied to the food, drink, paraphernalia, and programs bought by the fans at that game.

    I don’t know about your city, but in my city $72,000 would pay a year’s salary for two public school teachers.

    From that one stadium event, on that one day in the year.

    DUH!

  55. artvandelay84 says: Apr 20, 2012 2:30 AM

    It’s a requirement in Minnesota that one must be an invertebrate in order to be a state legislator.

  56. daaabears says: Apr 20, 2012 2:31 AM

    How ’bout this…? Whatever percent the taxpayers ante up, they get that much of the profit. Likewise to Wilf, on revenue generated in the stadium other than football.

  57. fertacrit says: Apr 20, 2012 2:32 AM

    It would be nice to have the legislators come out and actually say why they are on the side they are on. We have heard nothing as far as that is concerned just a bunch of waffling. I am a stadium supporter, and I would LOVE to see the actual numbers of TOTAL yearly income from an NFL franchise/stadium vs the up front costs. Should the people vote? Probobly. BUT, lets educate EVERYONE on the REAL numbers first. That is what is wrong with politics IMO. They are so stuck on spitting out their views and propaganda that they refuse to LISTEN to the other side. There are alot of things politicians pass through their cute little commitee’s that the public doesn’t get any say in, granted on a smaller financial scale, and you rarely hear about it. If having a stadium, truly does make my life in MN better…where’s the problem? The worst part is we have the option of revenue generated from a Racino, but the MN government is terrified of expanding gambling, despite having the Native American tribes blessing’s. But yet they turn around and add Mega-Millions Lottery just a few years ago, is that not expanding gambling? It is basically FREE money. Our society in MN will not flounder because of a Racino. I am kind of happy that threats are gonna start coming out. It has felt all along that the legislators have been of the mindset “They will never leave”. Well, legislators, here it is, right in front of you. Time to nut up, or shut up.

  58. RavenzGunnerz says: Apr 20, 2012 3:01 AM

    They talk about the stimilous plan etc. but what a better way to stimulate the economy with a new stadium.

    1. Gives jobs to locals building the stadium.
    2. Once stadium complete, keeps revenues coming in.
    3. You keep a great team.

    Do it.

  59. zhuang1 says: Apr 20, 2012 3:05 AM

    So if the Vikings move to LA I assume they would stay in the NFC Norris Division for 1-3 years and then move to the NFC West?

    Then NFC West would be: Seattle, LA, Arizona, San Franciso

    NFC North would be: Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit, St. Louis?

  60. rallard29 says: Apr 20, 2012 3:08 AM

    A Minnesota Viking’s fan; one who appreciates the history of the game, a person who can appreciate the competition between those that are in the division and also is willing to deal with the turbulence of a winning or losing team. As a Minnesota Viking’s fan it is difficult to read posts about the stadium stalemate. I remember when the Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas. I was a young hockey player at that time. My love for hockey died when the team left the state of Minnesota. The team I grew up to watch with family and friends was interrupted by an inability to follow my favorite team. NFL ticket may have existed but as a young fan I had no ability to follow my favorite team. For me, if this team moves to another city, my love of football will most likely move on as well. The history of this franchise and the memorable moments it has offered throughout the years will fade, much like that of the Northstars team that I loved to watch growing up. If nothing else, I am simply stating that this will leave a hole in my fall routine that will not be replaced. Minnesota, lets get a deal done so that I can continue to share the Minnesota Vikings experience with my children.

  61. dallasfan89 says: Apr 20, 2012 3:14 AM

    This situation is disappointing. I am not a Vikings fan nor do I live in MN, but the money infused into the economy in my area is immense for our size when those games are played. I strongly believe the legislature is under estimating the multiplicity effect of a sports venue with national events.

  62. jonny42671 says: Apr 20, 2012 3:32 AM

    As much as I rip on the cheating Taints and toothless Packer fans, at least they care about their team. As a die hard Viking fan, this is more embarrassing than wide left and 12 men in the huddle!

  63. 49erdynasty says: Apr 20, 2012 3:40 AM

    Things to do in Minnesota now: 1
    Things to do in Minnesota after the Vikings leave: 0

    Seems like a no-brainer to me…

  64. truthserum4u says: Apr 20, 2012 3:41 AM

    Mike,

    You’ve been all over this situation with exstensive and comprehensive coverage. What’s YOUR gut tell you how this ends?

    When this all started way back when, I didn’t think there was a chance the team was leaving. Now, I don’t think there’s a very good chance they’ll stay.

  65. teamnorsecore says: Apr 20, 2012 3:47 AM

    textexington says:
    Apr 20, 2012 12:00 AM
    This whole situation is absolutely hilarious!!!LOLZ. What will Syd Davy and the other VWO Larpers do!?! Bye bye Viqueefs
    ……
    textexington, gb4mn0 or pack13queens0……whatever screen name you are using nowadays, you are a pathetic football fan. Wishing ill will on fans because you hate for no reason. Get a life, get out of Sconi and Syd Davy would crush you or any other fat a$$ Packer fan out there you Sconi lard!!!

  66. savvysearch says: Apr 20, 2012 3:53 AM

    LA basically said “Screw the NFL if I have to pay for it.” So, in LA, their stadium is being proposed with nearly 100 of it covered by private investors with no cost to LA taxpayers.

    Why is the public in Minnesota planning to fork over $548 million dollars? That’s insane.

    Minnesota is proud of saying how loyal they are to their team/NFL, but maybe they should take a page from LA and be a lot less loyal. Loyalty can often mean extortion.

  67. cuffhimbanano says: Apr 20, 2012 4:08 AM

    Arizona’s stadium opened in 2006 at the construction cost of 455mil. Less than a decade later the leaders of the Vikings and Minnesota believe it’s going to take 975 mil to build a stadium that will in all likelihood be inferior to Pink Taco Stadium.
    Good to see wage has kept up to those expotentially increasing cost levels. Oh wait.

    Yeah, I can see why politicians are saying, “get bent.”

  68. hodag54501 says: Apr 20, 2012 4:43 AM

    …and the University of Minnesota has a brand-new stadium that could be adjusted to meet NFL needs at a much lower cost. The taxpayers also would see some revenue going to the university, helping to offset public costs there.
    But, like all things American, you can’t work together…WE NEED OUR OWN FACILITY AND THE TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT!

    Being a Packers fan, I don’t care. It would be better to play the Rams twice a season than the Vi-Kinks, but this is hilarious, truly laughable.
    Yes, Packerland taxpayers agreed to pay for it. But then again, the Packers are a different situation.

  69. fijabbersman345 says: Apr 20, 2012 4:44 AM

    Very well written, thanks for doing this.

    As a side note, the Vikings have stated that the state of Minnesota has claimed the name of the Vikings officially, so if they move they’ll have to change their name.

  70. norcalirish says: Apr 20, 2012 5:27 AM

    Great article

  71. davetrembley says: Apr 20, 2012 6:13 AM

    To Mike Florio: Thanks for articulating this. You have become the best source of football information around. Having that law degree also makes you the most sagacious commentator around.

  72. seattlesuperchronic says: Apr 20, 2012 6:32 AM

    My sympathies to Minnesota fans, it’s not fun having your team leave you. Clay Bennett, may your dirty Thunder never win a championship and I hope you step in dog doo everyday for the rest your life. Bunghole.

  73. 4thandnone says: Apr 20, 2012 6:38 AM

    If they do move to LA then the team should have to leave behind the Viking name. Viking is way too tough a name for LA. They would need to be called the LA creampuffs, or LA metrosexuals.

  74. pestilence1972 says: Apr 20, 2012 6:55 AM

    I live in Minnesota. Impressive recap.

  75. Pets to Go says: Apr 20, 2012 7:05 AM

    This is one of The Best articles I have ever read on PFT. Thank You!

  76. longdrive2011 says: Apr 20, 2012 7:13 AM

    Not often included in the discussion of why there should be at least some public funding of stadiums, is the reflective benefit factor. There is absolutely a benefit to the community, both tangible (monetary), and intangible by having a NFL team, so why shouldn’t they have some skin in the game. The arguments that the public would not pay a penny are ridiculous.

    Not surprised to see a lot of the comic book political comments on here. Sad, though to see the shallow “the other side are rats, and we know better just because” comments.

  77. nflofficeadmin says: Apr 20, 2012 7:34 AM

    I’m agnostic on the whole thing, but I think team names and colors should stay with cities – especially when the name is somehow attached to the city itself. The Mineapolis Lakers (Land of 10,000 lakes). Are there any lakes in LA? The New Orleans Jazz, The Vikings – because many of the settlers in Minn were or Northern European decent. Maybe I’m just overthinking this, but some names seem to belong with the cities themselves. (eg. Trailblazers)

  78. Rockets GM says: Apr 20, 2012 7:40 AM

    Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Portland, Las Vegas, Birmingham, Salt Lake City, Alberquerque and even Toronto and Mexico City would like to have an NFL team. Plenty of viable metro areas in North America for the Vikings to land.

  79. fearonlyhubris says: Apr 20, 2012 7:51 AM

    On the off chance anyone here is interested in the actual research on the topic, the seminal paper can be found


    here
    .

    Here’s the money…ha, ha…quote:

    “In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.”

    The sport stadiums most likely to have a (small) positive effect on tax revenue? Baseball. The stadiums most likely to have a (large) negative effect? Football.

    For what it’s worth, I love football and hate baseball. But I also love science, unbiased research and facts.

  80. kingfish4242 says: Apr 20, 2012 7:53 AM

    jason1980 says:
    Apr 20, 2012 12:43 AM
    The New Orleans Superdome is 37 years old, and a state of the art football stadium. It’s not the stadium cost that’s pi$$ing off lawmakers, it’s the fact that the Vikings suck so bad. If y’all had a smash mouth team like the bada$$ Saints, that new stadium would be a no-brainer for lawmakers.

    —————————————————
    No Jason, I’m a Saints fan also,but this isn’t right. The state of Mn. is facing a very difficult decision here. Our Saints were in the same situation 6 years ago and if not for the efforts of former commissioner Paul Tagliabue,Jerry Jones,and Bob McNair,they would have relocated to San Antonio.

    The Democratic senator who said having an NFL in your city is not economically feasible was spot on. Tulane Economics professor Stefano Barbieri was a guest on WWL radio many times during those turbulent years following Katrina. He made many of us mad by outlining the numbers that showed NFL teams were actually bad investments for cities and states. The real question is do the States and city want to pay the price for the prestige of having that team.

    The Super Bowl does have a small economic impact,but it pales in comparison to other events such as Mardi Gras and Jazzfest. Most of that money stays within the small inner circle of NFL owners. The biggest revenue stream is the price of commercials and the broadcast rights from the networks. The city doesn’t see a dime of that money. In many stadiums the owners also receive 100% of the parking and concession fees.

    That said, I hope Minnesota finds a way to keep the Vikings there. Fan support isn’t the issue. The teams last blacked out game occured in 1997. The Browns sat 80,000+ per game,but still moved to Baltimore.

    NFL football belongs in Minnesota and it belongs outdoors in my opinion. I love NFL history and I believe the Vikings lost their identity when they moved indoors into the generic HHH metrodome. Bear Weather? Blah!!! Chicago was a trip to the tropics compared to the conditions we used to see in old metropolitan stadium in Dec. and Jan. The Vikes went to 4 Super Bowls between 67-76 and a big reason for that was the home field advantage at the Met.

    I also believe Domes have a place,but they should only be in cities to protect fans from the early season heat,not the late season cold. I started attending Saints games when I was a kid. I don’t miss those days of sitting in 95 degree heat at Tulane Stadium in September at all.

  81. davikes84 says: Apr 20, 2012 7:58 AM

    This whole situation is absolutely hilarious!!!LOLZ. What will Syd Davy and the other VWO Larpers do!?! Bye bye Viqueefs!

    -go do your homework before your parents ground you

  82. davikes84 says: Apr 20, 2012 7:59 AM

    The New Orleans Superdome is 37 years old, and a state of the art football stadium. It’s not the stadium cost that’s pi$$ing off lawmakers, it’s the fact that the Vikings suck so bad. If y’all had a smash mouth team like the bada$$ Saints, that new stadium would be a no-brainer for lawmakers.

    are you saying the vikings should start breaking the rules like the new orleans taints?

  83. mooseknuckle says: Apr 20, 2012 8:11 AM

    Tex is a p*ssy.
    Go change your overalls. It is sad that taxpayers have to fund your worthless life instead of a stadium. A stadium is much more valuable to this planet than you.

  84. gmen1987 says: Apr 20, 2012 8:23 AM

    Stop with the political correctness and move the Vikings already.

  85. snaponrules says: Apr 20, 2012 8:29 AM

    usuallysneeringatyou says:
    Apr 20, 2012 2:29 AM
    Should public money help build a privately-owned stadium? You decide:

    Let’s say a stadium holds 90,000 attendance. Let’s say 60,000 actually attend a game.
    Let’s say the average ticket price is $60.
    That’s $3.6M in ticket sales for that game.

    Let’s say the suburb city that captured the stadium location with its public contribution – you know, the city in which the stadium is located – has a 2% sales tax.

    Does the city charge sales tax on the $3.6M ticket sales? That would be $72,000 in city income.

    From that one game.

    Before the sales tax applied to the food, drink, paraphernalia, and programs bought by the fans at that game.

    I don’t know about your city, but in my city $72,000 would pay a year’s salary for two public school teachers.

    From that one stadium event, on that one day in the year.

    DUH!

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    Do your math. Divide the $550,000,000 the NFL and team want the taxpayers to kick in by your $72,000 per event tell us what year the taxpayers break even. Better yet multiply your 72,000 by 10 and tell us what year they break even.
    I will give you a hint, its LONG after the new stadium turns 30 years old and needs to be replaced because it is modern enough to the rich owner.

  86. cbass59 says: Apr 20, 2012 8:35 AM

    Why isn’t Bachmann out there fighting for the taxpayer? Why do taxpayers have to fund the building of stadiums for a private business?

  87. peytonmanningsneck says: Apr 20, 2012 8:44 AM

    The govt in MN is F’d up. The same people that won’t go to bat for a new stadium will be the first ones bitching about them leaving!

  88. Reggie's Bush says: Apr 20, 2012 8:54 AM

    Number 11 – Florio will cry on Paul Allen’s shoulder if it doesn’t happen.

  89. drowins1 says: Apr 20, 2012 8:55 AM

    There is no such thing as MInnesota nice, people here are arrogant hard heads who would rather keep every nickel in their pockets than think they are helping out a ” billionaire owner”. Same people will be life long Packer fans as soon as the moving trucks leave town.

  90. kingfish4242 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:10 AM

    Do your math. Divide the $550,000,000 the NFL and team want the taxpayers to kick in by your $72,000 per event tell us what year the taxpayers break even. Better yet multiply your 72,000 by 10 and tell us what year they break even.
    I will give you a hint, its LONG after the new stadium turns 30 years old and needs to be replaced because it is modern enough to the rich owner.

    0 0

    ————————————————–

    So true,but die hard fans don’t like hearing this. Here is a good unbiased article from Forbes stating the true economic impact from Super Bowls.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/01/30/why-the-economic-impact-of-super-bowls-is-so-controversial/

    ll that said, many studies overstate the economic impact of events because they:

    - Fail to properly sort “locals” from “non-locals”…and though the “vacationing at home” argument has validity, some over-estimate the degree to which this effect is applicable;

    - Fail to account for the fact that ticket revenue, NFL merchandise, and similar itemized expenditures don’t stay within the host city because that revenue is ultimately slated for the NFL’s pockets or that of some non-local supplier;

    - Fail to account for monetary leakages of various types…non-local suppliers taking money out is one example, and any restaurant or hotel with a national headquarters based outside of the host city yields some additional leakage which reduces the impact of the Super Bowl;

    I quoted some of the key points the author made. Indy hosted the last Super Bowl,but try as they might, they”ll never be a hot bed of tourist activity long after the Super Bowl is over.

    The Marriot Hotel in New Orleans is a great example of the last paragraph. Many offsite activities occur there when NOLA hosts the Super Bowl. It’s a baseball throw from the Superdome,but most of the money eventually winds up in their Maryland headquarters.

    If Mn. ever builds a new stadium and hosts a Super Bowl,the short term economic benefit won’t come close to helping offset the costs of building that stadium.

    Our country is currently in a very bad economy. The days of dot com billioniares and tech stocks through the roof during the 1990′s are long gone. NFL stadiums are bad investments. Once again,it all boils down to how bad does the State and the Twin Cities want it.

  91. enetpartners says: Apr 20, 2012 9:13 AM

    Well written article but it basically comes down to the people funding a project that will net the Vikings and the NFL money. Flat out extortion and this should become a national issue so that the “leverage” the league and team has can be diminished.

    A $823K expenditure for an agency is in the news for weeks but the robbery of public funds for personal gain gets no traction?

  92. zaggs says: Apr 20, 2012 9:14 AM

    Isn’t Minnesota dealing with a 5 or 6 billion dollar deficit? Shouldn’t the state’s finances be one of the 10 things?
    Also, why aren’t the Vikings kicking in more? Shouldn’t they be paying at least half?

  93. kirbylaw says: Apr 20, 2012 9:17 AM

    Great article Mike. Some logical comments from readers too (along with the silly ones that think this is half-time of a game).

    No football fan wins if the Minnesota Vikings Leave Minnesota, period. The NFL “Shield” will take an insurmountable hit that will leave a large chip across its face where the “Vikings” were.

    Football history and the “Shield” will take no smaller hit by the arrival of the “Los Angeles Vikings” than they would by the arrival of the “Los Angeles Bears”; or the “Memphis Dolphins”; or the: “Paducah Cowboys”.

    I have not studied the studies on the impact of public funding on the funding public; but common sense dictates that some tax revenue stream is created or protected such that some public money in the equation is only fair.

    We have, as a national community, truly allowed ourselves to become so politically angry that it drives our sports decision.

    Now is the time for the real men in the room to step forward.

  94. gdeli says: Apr 20, 2012 9:24 AM

    As vince neil sang, don’t put the %^$# on me. Ziggy gets what he wants or he’s gone. He holds the cards. If they go it will be sad but what can a humble guy like me do? MN needs the money for other more functional projects. MN is still much in the hole.

  95. fordman84 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:26 AM

    Hmm, a vote going to the owners and needing 24 of 32? I can think of two NFCEast owners that probably will not go along with anything for a little whiel, so guess that means they need 24 of the remaining 30 owners.

    Nothing against Minny, but would be funny if the owners decided not to allow the team to move yet the team can’t get a new stadium.

  96. musicman495 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:37 AM

    staffordsyear says: Apr 20, 2012 1:32 AM

    Call me crazy but i got a feeling there is a very hungry city out there laying low keepin all eyes on this story and it isnt los angeles.
    ——————————————-
    Perhaps San Antonio, which already has the Alamodome?

  97. mikesonline says: Apr 20, 2012 9:38 AM

    “In other words, no matter how poorly the nickname may fit with the team’s next location, the Vikings will most likely remain the Vikings.”
    Not necessarily, when the Oilers moved to Tennessee, the league retired the Oilers name so no other team else could use it other than the Oilers/Titans. Then they became the Tennessee Titans.

  98. kingfish4242 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:40 AM

    fordman84 says:
    Apr 20, 2012 9:26 AM

    Nothing against Minny, but would be funny if the owners decided not to allow the team to move yet the team can’t get a new stadium.

    That would just be a mere formality. Unfortunately, holding states and cities hostage has become the norm for teams in todays era.

    The poster that said nobody wins when a team relocates is also spot on.

  99. bigpurple72 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:56 AM

    Minnesotan and Vikings fan here. Why does the stadium have to be SO expensive? I’m looking at other new stadiums (Phoenix $525M, etc) and except for NY and Dallas, seems like you can still build a very nice stadium for < $600M. Also, I think it should be open roof – if that shaves $400M off the prices, then problem solved. Is the team really going to move because it can't get a top 3 stadium (in terms of price/luxury)? How about a little less nice, open air and stay here…Zygi's $450M pays for 80% of that.

  100. 7ransponder says: Apr 20, 2012 9:57 AM

    @fearonlyhubris – That study was conducted in 1997 when the economic climate was MUCH different. There is no modern equivalent research. So while this may be relevant, it’s by no means conclusive.

  101. das14 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:59 AM

    Minnesota is a joke

  102. trollhammer20 says: Apr 20, 2012 10:18 AM

    OK, if they do go to LA, ditch the “Vikings” name. It would be ridiculous to have a team with a Nordic-themed named playing in Southern California.

    Bring back the name of the former LA soccer team: The Aztecs. Build a pyramid in the end zone and every week behead the effigy of an opposing player. The kids’ll love it.

  103. shadeforourbattle says: Apr 20, 2012 10:30 AM

    One thing the author of this article forgot to mention is a citizen, or a group of citizens, filing a lawsuit citing that the NFL is violating the Sherman Act. I bet the NFL would not want that one to go to court as it would originate in Minnesota. Say bye bye to your Antitrust Exemption NFL. Time for Billionaire Owners, Billionaire Corporations, and the Ruling Class of Politicians to demand that Joe Public pay his fair share for their stadium that they will make billions on and put into their pocket directly, and Joe Public does not have any money that goes directly back into his pocket from that stadium. The NFL Billionaire Owners want the Ruling Elite Politicians of Minnesota to force a stadium on the people and subvert the rule of the people. When you have the TEA Party and the Occupy Wall Street Group’s agreeing on an issue such as forcing public money to build stadiums so that Private Corporations can be bailed out and Billionaire Owners can make more money because Joe Public is not paying his fair share, then you have a potential political and PR nightmare ready to explode in an already volatile political election year landscape. I wonder if Congress would like to hold hearings about this issue and possibly revoke the Antitrust Exemption of the NFL if enough bi-partisan voters demanded it from them? Considering that Minnesota is a swing state nationally, I don’t see ANY Political Figure Nationally on either side of the isle wanting to anger the citizens of Minnesota. Keep it up NFL. You will be before Congress very soon.

  104. farmmbig says: Apr 20, 2012 10:32 AM

    Like us (Minnesota Viking fans) or not— This is simply a ridiculous situation for any NFL fan to endure.

    Our politicians are selling-out the Vikings in order to protect Native American (Casino) Gaming… Simple as that!

    LA can write their thank you to Minnesota Tribes and the politicians that support them.

  105. vetdana says: Apr 20, 2012 10:35 AM

    The House committee that recently killed the deal was troubled by the apparent circumvention of the charter provision.What can Ziggy & the NFL do today to augment legally circumventing this charter ?

    How could this whole process of building in the city proper, have gotten this far without first addressing the city charter issue ?…Gov. moves very slow.Getting a referendum scheduled and passed in a timely manner is very unlikely ! Why don’t they revisit the Arden hills location ?

    This smells of poor planning from the start, or a great fear that the public would vote this whole stadium issue down !……Fans …there is big trouble in the Land of 10000 Lakes !

  106. dcpowergator says: Apr 20, 2012 10:42 AM

    Ten questions was still one too few…

    11. Whatever happened to the Arden Hills stadium plan? Thought that was nearly ready to go until the city got involved with the agreement at the old metrodome site?

  107. danoj14 says: Apr 20, 2012 10:51 AM

    @textexington:

    Hey everybody! textexington made a funny!

    “Viqueefs”… Sorry, I cannot stop laughing long enough to type a gem as witty as yours.

    You sir are a genius. Pure gold there!

    Keep at it, and kudos to you!

  108. dtrb10 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:07 AM

    Great Artical Mike!!! This guy knows his stuff I listen to him every Tuesday with PA and he cares about this situation and has for years.

    Thanks Mike!

  109. squared80 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:08 AM

    What’s wrong with the Metrodome? Every game has been a sellout for over 15 years… and the Vikings are 31st in the league in revenue. Simple.

  110. squared80 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:12 AM

    LA steals every other team name that makes no sense out there… so why not steal the Vikings name, too?

  111. technovike says: Apr 20, 2012 11:12 AM

    “Public money gets spent on all sorts of things. Sometimes, it’s a good investment. Sometimes, it isn’t.”

    Like concert Halls or convention centers, that a small % of the population uses, a stadium would be no different. a bit of a higher cost, but a much larger investment with a much larger upside.

    The no roof idea would be great, but the politicians dont want to pay for a stadium without a roof. and so Wilf’s contribution is as high as its going to get, because an open air stadium would be around 500-600, with the possibility of bringing in a MLS team (something Wilf has mentioned in the past). So if politicians dont want to fund 400-600 mil, they can agree to take the roof off cutting funding down significantly.

    If Wilf does not want to go the Kraft way, i think he needs to team up with the White Earth Tribe, and get the state to agree to build a casino down town in block E, which would be a significant upgrade.

  112. jmsieli says: Apr 20, 2012 11:34 AM

    Maybe they can just whip up some of those shares like the PACKERS!!!! and then they could own shares in absoultey NOTHING. I’d rather spend my money like W C Fields, women, booz, and GAMBLING, so build the damn thing.

  113. diehardtwinsfan says: Apr 20, 2012 11:49 AM

    I fail to see how the Vikings were acting in good faith when they couldn’t seem to work something out to share a stadium with the Gophers….

    Seriously, there’s no reason to build 2 football stadiums, especially when one team plays on Saturday and the other on Sunday.

  114. rarson says: Apr 20, 2012 11:50 AM

    “So here are 10 things to know, in a question-and-answer format. (Why do it that way? Because we want to.)”

    I see what you did there. By the way, that’s technically 11 things.

  115. tformation says: Apr 20, 2012 11:52 AM

    Great article. Well done, Flo.

  116. pappageorgio says: Apr 20, 2012 12:00 PM

    The minny politicians can whine all they want in the newspapers and try to make the NFL/Vikings look like the bad guys. The truth is that an NFL team is a commodity, other cities want it and are willing to pay the price. The NFL is not a non-profit organization….if they can get a deal somewhere else that they can’t get in minny why shouldn’t they leave?

    The politicians in this case are acting like entitled/spoiled children. Acting as if the Vikings owe them something…..they don’t. If the team can get the deal somewhere else then they should go. The politicians can point to private financing deals in other cities and say “why can’t we do this?”. Fine…..where is it? Show me the money……where are the private entities willing to finance the new stadium? There aren’t any, so stop talking about fairy tales and get it done.

    The politicians can say that the metronome can be refurbished…….but the vikes don’t want to reside in that ****hole anymore and have offers other places for a new stadium. They can complain that the vikes won’t open the books……again, other places aren’t requiring this.

    If they really want it they will have to pay.

  117. vikingpurple says: Apr 20, 2012 12:04 PM

    Sorry Cheeseheads – Purple Power Will Reign in MN for many years to come!

    It’s all about leverage, everyone knows the deal will get done, but pushing it to the last possible outcome creates a situation where political deals get made. For the first time in 40yrs the legislature is run by the GOP and the Gov. is a Dem. So it’s “let’s make a deal time”

    The NFL commish comes to town and says “get it done or else” and Ziggy flys out to LA to see if that can show some leverage from his standpoint.

    Keep in mind, LA is broke! Where are they going to come up with a billion $ to make it work there?
    They’re already taxed to the hilt and they’re more liberal than MN about stadiums for rich owners.

    To me the best deal is the White Earth Indian Casino deal. They put in $400 Million of the States share and get a casino in the Twin Cities. They’re the largest reservation in MN and the poorest – it’s a win for everyone and the State gets to share in the future revenue!

  118. Bar None says: Apr 20, 2012 12:09 PM

    IF and I do mean IF the Vikings move to LA would they move to the AFC West and KC move to NFC North? I can’t think of any really logical unilateral moves that would save the travel of teams involved.

  119. kriswd40 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:16 PM

    Anyone that’s ever been to the Metrodome knows it’s a dump.

  120. pcoisma says: Apr 20, 2012 12:17 PM

    This is a CALL OUT to the LA Fans! You got the Lakers next…… ‘
    Leave my Rams outta this mess… Enjoy the dance//

  121. toolkien says: Apr 20, 2012 12:22 PM

    Sorry Cheeseheads – Purple Power Will Reign in MN for many years to come!
    —————————————–
    And 50 more years in a fruitless effort to win a championship.

    To a Southeast WI Packer fan it’s a draw between the Rams and the Vikings. Same distance either way, as of now both poor-to-bad teams who play in domes. Perhaps a new stadium will change that for the ‘queens. The only thing that goes in the Vikings’ favor versus the Rams is the Rams have shown the ability to actually win a championship so who would need that in the division? Otherwise, I like visiting St. Louis way more than the Twin Cities, so if attending an away game, it’s the same distance and a better city. Advantage Rams.

  122. theytukrjobs says: Apr 20, 2012 12:25 PM

    Having people vote on individual topics is retarded. If that was done, we wouldn’t have anything. Because no matter what, 50% of people won’t want their hard earned money going to topic X.

    Welfare would be voted down. Medicare. Art centers. Etc.

    Enough people like the Vikings and get enjoyment for it to be best overall to keep them. It is just such a small amount of money, most of which comes back in taxes and out of state dollars spent in state.

    Minnesota routinely gives vastly larger sums of money to companies like 3M, Target, etc. The problem is you have a bunch of democrats that want to play the “we’re not giving billionaires money” game for their ignorant followers, ignoring the fact that the State is better off with the Vikings than without them.

  123. clintonportisheadd says: Apr 20, 2012 12:41 PM

    Should public money be used to build NFL stadiums?

    That’s for the people of a given city/state and their elected representatives to decide. Public money gets spent on all sorts of things. Sometimes, it’s a good investment. Sometimes, it isn’t.

    PFT—

    ________________

    So can we assume you have “seen the light” and are willing to allow the taxpayers to actually vote (as the City Charter says they MUST) on being involved in this process? That you no longer are carrying water for the league?

    As much as I (and anyone with a sharp pencil and calculator) know this proposed deal is lop sided in favor of the Vikings I would not object to public funds being used IF AGREED TO IN A VOTER REFERENDUM. Settle it once and for all. The only problem is that the NFL and the Vikings have refused to go along with the idea as they know it will be defeated.

  124. kake1972 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:43 PM

    I am a die-hard, life long Vikings fan. I have a room dedicated to them, including purple walls with gold trim. I also live in WI about 20miles from Lambeau. As such, I am surrounding by packer backers, and the majority of them don’t want to see the Vikings move. The rivalry is too much fun!! Ex MN governor Pawlenty suggested scratchers to help with funding. What ever happened to that idea? Then the people of MN would have a choice if they wanted to contribute or not. Hell, my family is in MN and I’d have them send me scratchers!
    I have to agree with some of the others, if the Vikes leave, I’d have to be done with football.
    And for you jerks that think it’s a funny situation and are dissing the fans, it’s a serious issue that needs to be treated as such. You’re obviously not fans, so why the hell are you reading and commenting on a Vikings article? Go to another site to spout your idiotic, childish crap.

  125. canadianvikingsfan45 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:45 PM

    the vikings belong in Minnesota period and not LA or anywhere else
    from a die hard fan do not let them leave
    your neighbors to the north love coming to your state and believe me the vikes would be sadly missed
    get this approved and built it already

  126. NoHomeTeam says: Apr 20, 2012 12:46 PM

    pattersonconsulting says: . . . But if they go to LA, I will be the first one in line to picket if any federal tax dollars from MN go to help bail out the broke state of CA.

    The “broke” state of California has a negative cash-flow with regard to federal funding — it sends more money out of state to the federal government than it takes in. Not sure about the status of your state, but you might want to look into that before you get all Occupyish.

  127. NoHomeTeam says: Apr 20, 2012 12:50 PM

    jason1980 says:The New Orleans Superdome is 37 years old, and a state of the art football stadium. It’s not the stadium cost that’s pi$$ing off lawmakers, it’s the fact that the Vikings suck so bad. If y’all had a smash mouth team like the bada$$ Saints, that new stadium would be a no-brainer for lawmakers.

    If the Metrodome were to be all but destroyed in a natural disaster and rebuilt using uncountable millions of federal dollars, it too could be a State of the Art football stadium.

  128. mcdeez22 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:50 PM

    Man, it’s gonna be funny when they move to LA. First the Lakers, now the Vikings too. Two teams whose names make sense in Minneapolis, but not in LA. People from Minny probably despise LA.

    It’s like seeing your ex-wife living a lavish lifestyle with her new husband… in a house that you paid for. I can’t imagine the bitterness they feel.

  129. NoHomeTeam says: Apr 20, 2012 1:02 PM

    usuallysneeringatyou says:
    . . . Let’s say the suburb city that captured the stadium location with its public contribution – you know, the city in which the stadium is located – has a 2% sales tax.

    Does the city charge sales tax on the $3.6M ticket sales? That would be $72,000 in city income.

    From that one game.

    OK, let’s say the municipality’s contribution is — for the sake of argument — $100,000,000. At your figure of $72k return per game, that means it takes roughly 1,400 games to break even. Assuming a team makes the playoffs and gets a Home Game every season, the city will recoup it’s investment in 150 years.

    You Are Not Helping.

  130. ybo1 says: Apr 20, 2012 1:09 PM

    Minnesota has some very stupid people living here… I love it here, love the state, but hate who runs it and a lot of the morons, who by the way were not raised here, that live here. They throw tons of money at the arts, not against the arts, but museums, theaters and gardens do not attract nor bring in the kind of revenue the Vikings bring in. The Vikings are a business. In this day with high unemployment and rising taxes the stupid people of Minnesota are willing to let them leave is just beyond me. The Vikings bring in millions if not billions of (future) dollars, supply thousands of jobs and keep the quality of life high. We would turn into a snobby Omaha if they left!! If they really want to not throw money away, go after welfare fraud. The money that is lost through fraud would pay for a stadium, probably 3 times over. Go after waste in general and take that money and invest it in Minnesota by keeping a proven money making organization here. I don’t want my taxes going sky high to make up for all that money lost if they leave, but there are morons out there who have no problem with it! Thanks dumb a$$es!!

  131. shadeforourbattle says: Apr 20, 2012 3:06 PM

    @pappageorgio
    Go ask Ma Bell how much they like an antitrust suit brought on by the Department of Justice on behalf of the citizens because of the Sherman Act. Oh wait, Ma Bell does not exist, that’s what happens when you lose your antitrust exemption and are declared a monopoly. You become extinct. I wonder if the politicians and citizens of Minnesota would consider filing a similar lawsuit with the DOJ against the NFL? What do you think. I wonder if the NFL wants that scenario to EVER occur? What do you think?

  132. ettas2 says: Apr 20, 2012 6:32 PM

    Im a South African that recently started following the NFL. I had no idea what this issue was about and found this very informative article when googling. The comments made actually give you more perspective than the article itself. But I need to ask a question and I am sure people on here can answer it.

    Am I wrong when I say I get the impression that not only is the owner, but the NFL self, eager for this to be used as an excuse to relocate the team to a city in a state(LA) that, if it had been an independent country, it would have been in the top 10 if not top 5 economies in the world.

    To be honest, it seems that the NFL and the owner is seeing $$$$$$ bill ya all

  133. northsidesteel says: Apr 20, 2012 6:50 PM

    I feel for Vikings fans, and the state of Minnesota, but I remind them to look back at what the city of Cleveland lost. While the situation that Art Modell faced in 1995 was much different, the end result was that the city lost a great team that they had to watch win the Super Bowl that they had coveted for son long in another city, albeit under another name.

  134. pftstory says: Apr 20, 2012 8:40 PM

    If you don’t go to games does it really matter where your team plays? Jet and Giant games were not any different to me last season vs past seasons.
    Cowboy’s, Redskins, Broncos, Seahawks, the stadium change has zero effect on me. Game looks much the same on TV.
    Granted those teams did not move far, some only about ten feet. But if you are a Vikings fan and dont go to the games, you can see them on TV every week if you like, and you probably get most of your news about them from the internet or ESPN. You can do that no matter where you play.
    So if you don’t go…Do you really have a dog in the fight? Should you really complain if Zig wants tax-payer help for the stadium? You want him to make a financial decision based on you wanting the team located in a spot you don’t /won’t even go? And you want him to pay extra for that and protest the use of tax dollars to pay for it?
    The ticket holders, I agree..complain and be upset.
    But TV Viking fan., you should be willing to accept tax dollars are fair to help support your silly notion that stadium location, (the team plays in a stadium nearby that you never go to, instead of one far away that you never go to) amounts to a hill of beans in today’s American sports landscape.

  135. kingfish4242 says: Apr 21, 2012 6:55 AM

    Why does the NFL build new stadiums with public money?

    Because it can.

    Some call it leverage. Others call it extortion. As NFL executive V.P. Eric Grubman told PFT Live on Thursday, the league regards it as competition.

    Regardless, if one place won’t kick in significant public money to keep the NFL, someone else will kick in significant public money to get the NFL, either directly through cash contributions or indirectly through tax credits and other incentives. Or through that Private Seat Licenses and/or higher ticket prices that a larger metropolitan area has the population density (i.e., enough really rich people) to support.

    ————————————————-
    ‘A Rose by any other name would smell just as sweet”

    It’s extortion no matter how you slice or dice it.

    I just wanted to add to this otherwise good point. Higher Ticket prices and PSL’s Paid by Joe Fan isn’t what the NFL is after. They want the big money that comes with luxury suite rental. The Super Dome was able to add several during renovation because the original design allowed them to do it. This couldn’t be done in the Metrodome from what I understand.

  136. justasecond1 says: Apr 21, 2012 8:26 PM

    To build a better stadium, start with a better team….

  137. emoney826 says: Apr 22, 2012 10:17 AM

    As a packer fan, I don’t get excited over the thought of playing the rams twice a year. No offense to st. Louis fans, but it would take a good 20-30 years for me to build up the hate for your team as I have for the Vikings. Plus, when I think of “North”, I don’t think of the city of st. Louis. I think of the cold northern states/cities.

    Plus, I don’t want Contra, Pervy, and all of the other annoying but hilarious Viking fans rooting for my team if they lose their team. It keeps things interesting.

    And to the annoying packer fans on here who like to give us a bad name, grow up. You think its all funny now but if they their team, it just won’t be the same. I hate Chicago too just as much as Minnesota, but I would never want the bears to leave either.

  138. keeley2 says: Apr 23, 2012 10:58 AM

    A few people are dancing around the real issue here but no one has come out and said it.
    Who is capable of funding this enterprise? Casino gambling. Problem is that the local casinos are controlled by the ultra-powerful Indian gaming lobby.
    Not wanting to be booted out of office, the legislature says “no expansion of gambling” (code for – Indian gaming says we don’t want any competition).
    So they come up with very weak funding ideas (enter electronic pull tabs which isn’t going to generate nearly enough revenue).
    Find a way for Indian gaming to get their share (fair or not), and this deal gets done in a heartbeat.

  139. northstars1991 says: Apr 24, 2012 2:30 AM

    We are so thankful to be owned by billionaire owners from TX and NY! Woun’t it be great if the next owner is from Cuba! Thank God Viking fans don’t own the team like the Packer fans own their team. How awful would that be! When fans own their own teams, you end up with ugly mustard and puke green uniforms and that’s not good for league marketing!!

  140. electionconfidential says: Apr 26, 2012 7:56 PM

    I think the NFL should bless Minn / SP holding a referendum on whether they won’t to pony up the municipal monies included in the proposal. If not, then the team should feel free to move.

    That said, I’m not sure where they’re going to move and do better… Los Angeles has lost every NFL team they ever acquired including the Chargers, Raiders and Rams, so that doesn’t really sound like a long term solution for the Vikings.

    Also, the public is likely to sympathize with the people of Minneapolis / St. Paul, because they’re just a mid-sized market, the team has been there forever and it looks like a community that loves it’s team has a gun to it’s head.

  141. imko4t says: May 6, 2012 7:36 AM

    I whole country is trillions in debt Minnesota is millions in debt all the taxes your grandchildren well-paid in their lifetime is already spent this is madness I love the Vikings but play in the old dome. Well we ever stop spending money the biggest Vikings fan should say Stop the whole thing is Nuts stop the spending there is absolutely nothing wrong with the dome making that taxpayer pay is crazy nuts find private money or get out ! end of story

Leave a Reply

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