Skip to content

Presence of Wilf’s plane in L.A. increases the heat for stadium talks

minnesota-vikings-pull-back-plane-416

On Friday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Steelers owner Art Rooney II, chairman of the league’s stadium committee, will meet with legislative leaders in Minnesota in a bid to revive a stadium proposal that has otherwise died in the Legislature.  As a not-so-subtle reminder to the people and the politicians of the potential consequences, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf’s plane was spotted at a Southern California airport on Thursday, according to the Los Angeles Daily News.

The Daily News also reports that Commissioner Roger Goodell met earlier this week with L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, as confirmed by a spokesman for Villaraigosa.  “Yes, the Commissioner and the Mayor did meet this week and they had a private conversation on a number of topics,” Peter Sanders told the Daily News.

None of this should surprise anyone.  Apart from any superficial effort to make folks in Minnesota realize that relocation is a possibility, plenty of work needs to be done if the Vikings will be moving to L.A. in 2013.

And that work needs to start now.  And it apparently is.  If that also applies a little heat to the folks in Minnesota, then so be it.

Permalink 43 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill
43 Responses to “Presence of Wilf’s plane in L.A. increases the heat for stadium talks”
  1. talkintrashallday says: Apr 20, 2012 8:25 AM

    but where will the Jaguars go??

  2. draftazoid says: Apr 20, 2012 8:28 AM

    You had a Wrestling Governor and now a Comedian Senator. I think it is time to take off the Governors Clown Suite and become a regular, smart and constructive Governor.
    Get your legislature to vote Yes or siyanora Vikes.
    I do not think the NFL is playing anymore of your games for the past 10 years.

  3. taintedsaints2009 says: Apr 20, 2012 8:29 AM

    is there anyway LA can take the team right now so MN doesn’t have to watch the team go 0-16 this year?

  4. SeenThisB4 says: Apr 20, 2012 8:30 AM

    Funny. California and Los Angeles are not going to give the Vikings, or any other NFL team, a dime for a new stadium there…and last I looked, there is no new stadium there waiting for an NFL team. Can anyone say: “Bluff?”

  5. AlanSaysYo says: Apr 20, 2012 8:33 AM

    People (Vikings fans) who keep saying that no team can move to LA yet because there’s no stadium need to remember that the Coliseum basically rolled out the red carpet to any NFL team looking for a temporary lease. Any team that wants to move to LA will have a place to play until a new stadium is built.

    Write your state representatives. This thing is happening.

  6. slawsc says: Apr 20, 2012 8:35 AM

    As long as the Kismet isn’t docked offshore in the Pacific….

  7. mas151 says: Apr 20, 2012 8:45 AM

    Good people of Minnesota, when the Vikings leave don’t forget a person who shoulders much of the blame here is ex-Gov. Tim Pawlenty who did nothing, repeat nothing, to help solve this situation years ago.

    Go Pack, I’m going to enjoy seeing all the games again on TV.

  8. SeenThisB4 says: Apr 20, 2012 8:52 AM

    And people who say that the Coliseum is waiting and willing also need to remember that the State of California and the metropolitan cities of Los Angeles aren’t going to shell out a dime of taxpayer money for a new stadium. Private financiers will pay for that, if they chose to do so….maybe the NFL should get those private fianciers to build that stadium in Minnesota so that the taxpayers there aren’t saddled with that cost burden.

  9. txxxchief says: Apr 20, 2012 8:59 AM

    This just in from ESPN:

    The NFL owners have completed an emergency overnight meeting to clarify the Vikings stadium situation.

    Roger Goodell has announced that Zygi Wilf has been allowed to sell the Vikings franchise to the owners of the Tim Horton’s donut chain, effective immediately. The new owners have agreed to extend the Metrodome lease and are asking for no public funding or modifications to the stadium whatsoever.

    However, the new owners will be required to transfer the team to the CFL, and the Canadian league has aready announced a home opener in Minneapolis against the BC Lions.

    Mr. Wilf has been awarded a new franchise in Los Angeles that will begin play temporarily at the Rose Bowl ontil the new LA downtown stadium is completed. The new franchise, prelimarily named “Los Vaqueros Pupuras,” will retain the rights to all of the current Vikings players and staff.

    The historic agreement has been hailed as “victory for all” by the politicians in Minnesota.

  10. abengalfan says: Apr 20, 2012 9:08 AM

    In my best (which still sucks) country & wester twang; Turn out the lights, the party is over,,,
    Hat Tip to Dandy Don Meredith

  11. jenniferxxx says: Apr 20, 2012 9:09 AM

    Quick … we need a socialist government bailout for the billionaire. Get those bags of taxpayer dollars rolling.

  12. fearonlyhubris says: Apr 20, 2012 9:19 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.

  13. muskyhunter2542 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:19 AM

    I have a feeling that The Green Bay Packers bandwagon is to become a bit fuller once the Vikings depart for LA.

  14. gotampabay52 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:21 AM

    Will LA keep the name vikings am sure purple and yellow will stay

  15. kidpresentable says: Apr 20, 2012 9:24 AM

    Thumbs up for the Vikings plane picture. It makes me miss the days of Taco Bill and the irreverence of days past on PFT.

  16. cowhawkfan says: Apr 20, 2012 9:35 AM

    If the Vikings it any team wants to move to LA, let them. LA has already shown it will not support an NFL team. Any team that moves there will be ready to bail in 5 years. Minnesota is a great football state that supports its teams. If the billionnaire owner is greedy and stupid enough to move, so be it. Another team will appear in Minnesota.

  17. kobra71 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:36 AM

    I hate all teams that ask for state/city/county help to build a new stadium. These owner’s are suppose to be billionaire’s! Why can’t they build a new stadium out of their own pocket! They will get there money back if they have a good team on the field and able to sell out 10+ games a year every year.

  18. castleofcheese says: Apr 20, 2012 9:46 AM

    Man, I really hate the Vikings, but I don’t think I could bare to see them leave the division. I’ve spent a lot of years developing that hatred and I don’t want to have to start fresh with a new NFCN team.

  19. AlohaMrHand says: Apr 20, 2012 9:51 AM

    They can build a stadium for the Twins but not for the Vikings?

  20. pkrjones says: Apr 20, 2012 9:58 AM

    Might as well start the ball rolling in L.A., apparently the MN “leaders” are trying (unsuccessfully) to roll a triangle. Without a stadium lease there’s nothing that ties Zygi to MN… go west, young man, go west!

  21. sd5547 says: Apr 20, 2012 9:59 AM

    Maybe

    Wife in Minnesota

    Girlfriend in LA?

  22. rightwingguy says: Apr 20, 2012 9:59 AM

    If the Vikings leave I will riot!

  23. conormacleod says: Apr 20, 2012 10:13 AM

    Minnesota politicians are the worst kind of politicians. They do nothing! Too crippled by fear to pass or decline anything. The Vikings aren’t leaving because the state said no to a stadium, they are leaving because the state wouldn’t even give them an answer.

  24. garryjercia says: Apr 20, 2012 10:14 AM

    talktrashallday –} no worries, the Jags are going to London.

  25. ernie ernie says: Apr 20, 2012 10:15 AM

    Total BS. This is just smoke and mirrors. The last thing on earth the Wilfs want is to move. When they’re all but six votes from getting a billion dollar stadium for a 1/3 investment on their part, they ain’t bailing out.

    Funny that Wilfts plane was even noticed considering the size of LAX, unless a camera man was told where to look.

    Gee I wonder if the lilly livered politicians will run scared back to the capital and revote?

  26. Carl Gerbschmidt says: Apr 20, 2012 10:16 AM

    This is too funny. I love that all the Viking fans that mindlessly follow and agree with their precious kfan who repeatedly called packer fans stupid for buying that worthless stock are now sweating bullets and feeling hopeless. That worthless stock helped create jobs, improve one of the greatest football venues in the NFL, ensure that a franchise will be in Wisconsin as long as there is an NFL, all while letting the people of Wisconsin who are the fans own a piece of nostalgia and make the decision to support their team. Don’t worry Viking fans, you still have your high school hockey tournament.

  27. sportmentary says: Apr 20, 2012 10:24 AM

    Hilarious that CA has one of the worst economy’s in the US and they potentially will make Minnesohta a laughing stock in the sports world. Go Zygi Go.

  28. txxxchief says: Apr 20, 2012 10:43 AM

    I’m happy that the fans of the former Minnesota franchise are reassured that their loss of their football team prevented them from gaining “little or no economic impact” from a new facility. Now they can spend the funds on enlarging a bottomless pit of social “development” projects that are guaranteed to have negative financial impact and are no fun at all to watch. Football fans in either LA or San Antonio/Austin thank you.

  29. rajbais says: Apr 20, 2012 10:53 AM

    You know, if ESPN didn’t pollute the viewers’ homes with Tebow crap EVERYONE would realize that there’s an actual CRISIS taking place!!!!

    Also, if everyone would stop dancing around mock drafts and realize that they’re a HUGE waste of time they would finally feel concerned over something WAY more important!!!!

    Everyone wasted their time in believing in a Viking stadium fairy tale ending and other things (particularly the Tebow crap!!!) and let the politicians feel NO sense of urgency to keep the Vikings MORE secured in Minneapolis!!!!

    What a sad world we live in!!!! For Minnesotans, what a sad time to live in!!!!

  30. thankheavenfornumberseven says: Apr 20, 2012 10:54 AM

    fearonlyhubris –

    Here’s another money quote from that article:

    “A second rationale for subsidized stadiums is that stadiums generate more local consumer satisfaction than alternative investments. There is some truth to this argument. Professional sports teams are very small businesses, comparable to large department or grocery stores. They capture public attention far out of proportion to their economic significance. Broadcast and print media give so much attention to sports because so many people are fans, even if they do not actually attend games or buy sports-related products.

    A professional sports team, therefore, creates a “public good” or “externality”—a benefit enjoyed by consumers who follow sports regardless of whether they help pay for it. The magnitude of this benefit is unknown, and is not shared by everyone; nevertheless, it exists. As a result, sports fans are likely to accept higher taxes or reduced public services to attract or keep a team, even if they do not attend games themselves. These fans, supplemented and mobilized by teams, local media, and local interests that benefit directly from a stadium, constitute the base of political support for subsidized sports facilities.”

    In other words, it isn’t all about economics. Governments spend money on all kinds of things that don’t produce an equal return on investment. They spend money on things that are considered a “public good” (although they spend an awful lot of money on things that don’t benefit anybody).

  31. thankheavenfornumberseven says: Apr 20, 2012 11:01 AM

    Another comment on that so-called “study” that examines the economic benefit of publicly financed stadiums:

    – They aren’t taking into account the direct dollars that go to the public from hosting events outside of football. This money helps pay for the investment.

    – They aren’t taking into account the income tax and sales tax revenue that will be lost when dozens of millionaires are no longer making and spending money in the state.

    – They aren’t taking into account the economic activity associated with hosting a Super Bowl or a Final Four. That’s big money that we’re missing out on now.

    – A lot of Viking season ticket holders come from Canada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. They aren’t going to come spend their money here if they don’t have a game to go to.

    None of these things alone make it worthwhile to invest in a stadium, but when you combine them all and add in the intangible benefits of having an NFL team in your community, it is well worth it.

  32. northstars1991 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:04 AM

    The NFL seems to have one agenda, protecting their 32 owners who are worth billions that control the millions of sports fans in America!

    The small market model in Green Bay where their fans actually own their team seems to work!

    In Minnesota, we have been nothing but slaves over the past 10 years to out of state billionaire owners from TX and NY and I am tired of it… Even though the NFL double guaranteed that an NFL franchise would play 30 Years in the Metrodome, it was only a matter of years before the threats of relocation began!

  33. purplepridehasadownside says: Apr 20, 2012 11:04 AM

    The politicians here in MN are doing what politicians are so well known for: Nothing.
    The Vikes are probably leaving, and I say this to EVERYONE in the glorious capitol building in St. Paul: “Get ready for unemployment you worthless sh!t-he@ds”

  34. gpack22 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:50 AM

    Politicians are a joke. Let the public vote and see what happens. If they shoot down the referendum and the team leaves then they have no one to blame but themselves. Pretty simple to if you ask me.

    The Packers can get 295 million off a 1/2 sales tax increase…for only Brown County (300,000 total residents). The Vikings are asking for 100 million more in a much larger market! When talking stadiums that isn’t a huge difference.

  35. txxxchief says: Apr 20, 2012 12:01 PM

    The Romans clearly realized that their citizens were happier and more satisfied when they build stadiums and held tournaments. The politicians in Minnesota area couple of millenia behind.

  36. cmtoma says: Apr 20, 2012 12:08 PM

    The Minnesota Vikings of Los Angeles

  37. theytukrjobs says: Apr 20, 2012 12:15 PM

    I love when people point out that having a state owned, multifunctional world class arena downtown has a net negative economic impact according to some, but not all, of the studies on the subject. Yet they ignore that virually any structure that the State builds has a net negative impact economically.

    These “studies” simply ignore 90% of the benefits of having a world class facility and an NFL team and what that means towards how people view you and how your people view themselves.

    What is the net economic impact of 30% of your population suddenly being embarrassed at being a Minnesotan. Or the net economic impact of 30% of your population feeling betrayed by their own government, having their hearts ripped out by politicians who are jockying for better positions in different states.

    We are talking about paying $2 per every man woman and child per year for the next 25 years to have a world class facility and a team we can enjoy free over the air 16 times a year minimum. It is so clearly better to build a stadium then to not build a stadium. Would it be nice if Zygi would build a world class facility for us, use it 10 times a year, then let the State profit from every other event there? Yes it would. Does it make more sense for the facility to be state owned, tax exempt, and available for its citizens to use cheaply outside of Vikings games?

    Why do you think 90% of states build these stadiums and host NFL teams in them? Why do you think that virtually every city who has lost a team regrets it? Are we seriously surrounded by this many retards?

  38. clintonportisheadd says: Apr 20, 2012 12:27 PM

    AlanSaysYo says: Apr 20, 2012 8:33 AM

    People (Vikings fans) who keep saying that no team can move to LA yet because there’s no stadium need to remember that the Coliseum basically rolled out the red carpet to any NFL team looking for a temporary lease.

    ———————

    Try to stay current pal. USC has that place locked up and has said NO to any other football team. PLUS the Coliseum Commission is in the midst of a huge scandal (bribes kickbacks arrests etc) and in disarray.

    And EVERYONE (but me it seems) forgets that Phil Anshutz-the guy who will build the stadium-will ONLY do so if sold a minority stake in the team that moves into it. AND he expects a discount too.

    Weaver wouldn’t do it. Kronke won’t do it. And Wilf already has 3 minority partners and can’t/won’t do it either.

    It’s time for Wilf to call up Bob Kraft and ask him how the Patriots financed their own stadium without asking for public money. Let him do the same or sell it to some locals who won’t make threats to move the team every time they don’t get their way.

  39. flannlv says: Apr 20, 2012 12:30 PM

    Minnesota* Vikings

    Adios snow and Mall of America–We’re going to the beach.

  40. kidpresentable says: Apr 20, 2012 12:46 PM

    Ugh, I don’t like agreeing with thankheavenfor…, but the study saying that publicly-financed stadiums have minimal effect is suspect. The thing you hear with studies like that is “well if they don’t spend their money at a sporting event, they’ll spend it elsewhere.” While that may be true, I’m not necessarily spending in within that local economy.

    For example. I live in Milwaukee. Outside of a Brewers-Twins game or Packers-Vikings game, there is zero reason for me to visit Minnesota. Whenever Packer fans brag about championships, a frequent Viking fan comeback is “well at least there’s other stuff to do in Minnesota” citing their art museums and performing arts center. That’s all available in Milwaukee, and if not, Chicago is a heck of a lot closer. Hunting, fishing, boating, snowmobiling – it’s all available in Wisconsin. Without those stadiums, the only thing Minnesota offers that I can’t get here is an over-sized mall, and I hate shopping. Likewise, as much as I love the Packers, without them, Green Bay doesn’t have much to offer to visitors.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the studies saying stadium effects are minimal are either performed or financed by people who are against public money being used for stadiums.

  41. beeronthefridge says: Apr 20, 2012 1:25 PM

    Wiff is bluffing. Fins to LA.

  42. briang123 says: Apr 20, 2012 3:11 PM

    Nice to see the plane-watching guy in Hattiesburg got a new job.

  43. mj5150 says: Apr 20, 2012 8:34 PM

    I just like the model plane-that is awesome-I want one-LOL

Leave a Reply

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