Skip to content

Minnesota Senate amends stadium deal to block blackouts

Test+Pattern

As the Vikings stadium bill continue to be debated on the floor of the Minnesota Senate, a stream of amendments is being proposed.

And some surprising ones are being adopted.

The latest to pass would prevent any and all local TV blackouts of Vikings games played in the new stadium, according to Tom Hauser of KSTP-TV.

The Vikings may not have a problem with that provision, but the league surely will.

Still, the idea has merit.  If significant public money is going to be devoted to the construction of a football stadium, the public should have the ability to watch from home any games played there, regardless of whether all non-premium tickets have been sold at least 72 hours before kickoff.

Permalink 110 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
110 Responses to “Minnesota Senate amends stadium deal to block blackouts”
  1. dirtierwater says: May 8, 2012 7:06 PM

    That is a real nice amendment. Kudos, Minny Senate!

  2. conormacleod says: May 8, 2012 7:07 PM

    My god Minnesota politicians are just baffoons. Why don’t they propose an amendment that fans get to vote for plays and the starting line-up?!

  3. khmer379 says: May 8, 2012 7:07 PM

    Agreed 100%

  4. 92and94and51and56 says: May 8, 2012 7:08 PM

    Great idea. If public funds are involved, no blackouts. Very smart. Someone’s got their thinking cap on in the Senate.

  5. thebraso says: May 8, 2012 7:08 PM

    Would love to see this pass. If the NFL doesnt like it then they should write the check.

  6. jharmon64 says: May 8, 2012 7:09 PM

    EXCELLENT!

  7. urcrap says: May 8, 2012 7:09 PM

    Perfectly fair!

  8. gberg09 says: May 8, 2012 7:09 PM

    Please dont think these legislators represent the common sense and intelligence of Minnesotans. With the exception of a select few, the entire state legislature is a JOKE.

  9. bearsrulepackdrool says: May 8, 2012 7:09 PM

    Oh, this is gonna get good. (eating kettle corn and checking for updates)

  10. phonymcringring says: May 8, 2012 7:09 PM

    This may be the first thing anyone has done right in this whole debacle.

  11. Justin says: May 8, 2012 7:10 PM

    Yeah not too big of a deal these stupid amendments will be removed when the bill lands in front of the Conference Committee for compromise.

  12. jjmaddog says: May 8, 2012 7:10 PM

    Legislate blackouts within the stadium deal. Hmmm sounds like these guys have the right idea !!!!!

  13. jlinatl says: May 8, 2012 7:13 PM

    It should be that way in a market with a publicly funded stadium.

  14. skoobyfl says: May 8, 2012 7:15 PM

    How bad does the league want to keep this monopoly up & running ? I think if this is allowed, there will be amendments in all the NFL cities eventually.

  15. toddm6d says: May 8, 2012 7:15 PM

    Thought I was watching a scene from the movie, Idiocracy, but turns out it was the MN Senate debate of the Vikings stadium bill.

  16. discosucs2005 says: May 8, 2012 7:15 PM

    F*ck yeah Minnesota! Stop the NFL from holding fans and cities hostage while demanding their money.

  17. biasedhomer says: May 8, 2012 7:16 PM

    This is a good idea

  18. pack4gop says: May 8, 2012 7:16 PM

    Now all the big corporations wouldn’t have to buy up the thousands of remaining tickets each week to prevent the blackouts….. with the exception of the week they play Green Bay when 50% of the fans are wearing Green and Gold

  19. nineroutsider says: May 8, 2012 7:16 PM

    Love it!!!

  20. toddm6d says: May 8, 2012 7:17 PM

    “gberg09 says:
    May 8, 2012 7:09 PM
    Please dont think these legislators represent the common sense and intelligence of Minnesotans. With the exception of a select few, the entire state legislature is a JOKE.”

    Well a majority voted these people into office.

  21. conormacleod says: May 8, 2012 7:18 PM

    Where does it all end? You all like it? Why not say that Minneapolis residents get free tickets because they are paying for the stadium? The legislature is crossing into areas they have no right. 10 days a year is what the Vioings get, all for paying half of the build! Does the legislature want a spot in deciding game rules since they are “paying for it”? Instead of looking like idiots, just vote NO so the Vikings can move to a real city without idiots.

  22. 86chawk says: May 8, 2012 7:19 PM

    Man this is getting more and more hilarious by each update. I feel sorry for the people of Minnesota having to put up with the cluster of morons that they have at the state capitol.

  23. wludford says: May 8, 2012 7:20 PM

    My guess is this comes out of the bill in Conference Committee as the NFL and Vikings will objective to the provision.

  24. steelersaresuperiorineveryway6welookdownandlaugh says: May 8, 2012 7:20 PM

    We lol at this league. We lol…

  25. sdsupersean says: May 8, 2012 7:20 PM

    Nice! If this passes then you can be sure no new stadium will EVER be built using public funds without this clause in the agreement.

    The way it should be.

  26. thegame2love says: May 8, 2012 7:21 PM

    Makes perfect sense, not just for Minny but in all of these cities that are subsidizing these new stadiums.

  27. seenoland54 says: May 8, 2012 7:22 PM

    Now there’s Obama think if I ever saw it. next comes free beer and tickets for everyone…oh, and free birth control.

  28. snap0179 says: May 8, 2012 7:23 PM

    Rumor has it they are calling this the ‘Bucs’ clause

  29. skolvikesskol says: May 8, 2012 7:23 PM

    The blackout policy is about 20 years out dated now… Gj senate!!!

  30. sea3369 says: May 8, 2012 7:23 PM

    Very nice

  31. jimmysee says: May 8, 2012 7:23 PM

    They are having a grand old time with this!

  32. binkystevens says: May 8, 2012 7:23 PM

    What a great idea. It would be too bad if they couldn’t sell out the stadium, but don’t get me wrong, this just makes so much sense given the public money going in to finance the thing.

    The only thing I wish they’d fix now is the stupid roof on top of the stadium. Football is meant for the elements. No self respecting football fan should be forced to watch a game indoors. It’s just anti-American…like killing bald eagles.

    Think of all the most storied franchises in the league…Packers, Bears, 49ers, Steelers, Raiders, Redskins, Giants (and don’t say Colts because they were in Baltimore, and don’t say the Cowboys because Jerry effectively ruined them) – they all play outside. Coincidence?

  33. bostroff says: May 8, 2012 7:24 PM

    Vikings fans will be able to watch each game. The team will be playing in LA, however. While this seems like a great idea in theory, it seems to me like they are doing everything possible to piss the team and the league off into moving.

  34. kane337 says: May 8, 2012 7:27 PM

    Smart thinking Minnesota! Great idea.

  35. rushbacker says: May 8, 2012 7:28 PM

    I love that SO much! I’ve said for years now that municipalities should include a no blackout provision if the NFL wants them to pony up public funds for the stadium. What’s right is right, and anyone whose taxes went towards building the barn should get to watch the team on Sundays.

    Personally, I think they need to take it a step further, and include a provision that the resident team will play 100% of its available home games there– not ship any valuable game days off to London, Mexico City or anywhere else.

    Heck. . . I wish some of these city councils had the guts and foresight to band together and demand a re-vision of the Super Bowl rules to open the bidding for all stadiums and locations. If local governments are forking over hay bales of taxpayer money to help fund stadiums to house NFL teams, they should have the chance to attract the league’s marquee event. It kills me that there have even been whispers of playing the game in London some day (unlikely, but still!), when historic venues like Lambeau and Soldier Field aren’t eligible. Ah, well, wishful thinking.

  36. Gordon says: May 8, 2012 7:29 PM

    I don’t know how anyone can criticize this amendment. Other states/cities who provide public funding for NFL stadiums should feel like idiots for not thinking of this first.

  37. danielcp0303 says: May 8, 2012 7:30 PM

    seenoland54 says:
    May 8, 2012 7:22 PM
    Now there’s Obama think if I ever saw it. next comes free beer and tickets for everyone…oh, and free birth control.

    ———————————-

    You’re a dumb person

  38. jimmysee says: May 8, 2012 7:31 PM

    How ’bout requiring the games to be on public television!?

  39. mgmcomputer says: May 8, 2012 7:33 PM

    I’m a Vikes fan, have been since I was a child.
    I was watching this House ‘so called’ debate. Wow, I would be embarrassed to be from Minn. These people are clueless about many things, keep changing or adding amendments, silly ones at that. They all talk of the sure fire way to support this stadium without public funding, yet they have all voted those options down.

  40. shyamuw says: May 8, 2012 7:34 PM

    Great job Minnesota politicians! Love the move and hope the NFL goes along with it.

  41. bigjim50010 says: May 8, 2012 7:35 PM

    the senator who came up with this non blackout idea is a genuis…hence must not be a native of mn

  42. Carl Gerbschmidt says: May 8, 2012 7:37 PM

    It’s going to take a lot more than that to prevent blackouts.

  43. pack4gop says: May 8, 2012 7:38 PM

    What gives government the right to tell a private business what it can and cannot do? I don’t care what team this is or what team you cheat for, government does not have the right to do this… Whether it help get it passed or not. Abe government will tell the NFL that everyone should have a record of 8-8 next year and everyone gets a ring.

  44. johnnyjagfan says: May 8, 2012 7:39 PM

    A State law against preventing blackouts? This is AWESOME! If this sticks, get ready, states…other teams are coming calling! Support the blackout amendment!

  45. tinbender2000 says: May 8, 2012 7:40 PM

    steelersaresuperiorineveryway6welookdownandlaugh says:
    May 8, 2012 7:20 PM
    We lol at this league. We lol…

    And when we’re not urinating on all things Steelers we feel sorry for them to have you as a fan.

  46. seeingwhatsticks says: May 8, 2012 7:44 PM

    “conormacleod says:
    May 8, 2012 7:18 PM
    Where does it all end? You all like it? Why not say that Minneapolis residents get free tickets because they are paying for the stadium? The legislature is crossing into areas they have no right. 10 days a year is what the Vioings get, all for paying half of the build! Does the legislature want a spot in deciding game rules since they are “paying for it”? Instead of looking like idiots, just vote NO so the Vikings can move to a real city without idiots.”

    Then don’t ask for public financing. Simple as that. If stadiums were such profitable projects why don’t the owners and the league pay for each and every one themselves? Surely it wouldn’t be hard to find financial institutions that would invest in a projects that is guaranteed to make money.

    You want public help, you accept public input. That should be the deal in all of these stadiums bills.

  47. pack13queens0 says: May 8, 2012 7:45 PM

    This right there goes to show they don’t deserve a new Stadium. They are the only team in the NFL that has blackout threats while the other 31 teams sell out every home game with no problem.

  48. sourdough says: May 8, 2012 7:48 PM

    About time a city & its citizens stood up to the NFL.

  49. tanfarkenton says: May 8, 2012 7:48 PM

    bostroff says:
    May 8, 2012 7:24 PM
    Vikings fans will be able to watch each game. The team will be playing in LA, however. While this seems like a great idea in theory, it seems to me like they are doing everything possible to piss the team and the league off into moving.
    ————————————————————–

    Tell me this moron is joking, seriously is this the best comment you could come up with? Makes a ton of sense bro- I’m sure this will get removed when it moves to committee (look that up) but you can’t hate on them for trying!

  50. donnymacjack says: May 8, 2012 7:50 PM

    In this day and age it is absolutely stupid to have any kind of blackout policy. There is simply way too much money to be earned from television ad dollars compared to tickets sold.

  51. vikingsfanintexas says: May 8, 2012 7:51 PM

    Dumb move. The Vikings themselves need the stadium full to get the required return on investment. Without the blackout threat they won’t support the stadium. This could be the last straw!!

    Don’t hate the messenger!!

  52. Gordon says: May 8, 2012 7:52 PM

    pack4gop

    What gives government the right to tell a private business what it can and cannot do? I don’t care what team this is or what team you cheat for, government does not have the right to do this… Whether it help get it passed or not. Abe government will tell the NFL that everyone should have a record of 8-8 next year and everyone gets a ring.
    ————————————————-

    I’d say when a private company asks for half a billion taxpayer dollars is a good time for government to impose restrictions on that private business.

  53. crabboil says: May 8, 2012 7:52 PM

    That means you can build a smaller stadium. Much smaller. Cut the price in half and don’t put in any seats…

  54. tanfarkenton says: May 8, 2012 7:54 PM

    pack13queens0 says:
    May 8, 2012 7:45 PM
    This right there goes to show they don’t deserve a new Stadium. They are the only team in the NFL that has blackout threats while the other 31 teams sell out every home game with no problem.

     ————————————————

    Ha! Good one man, wow where have you been living the past 3 years? Tampa, San Diego, Buffalo, Oakland , Miami, Cinci just to name a few haven’t sold out a game in like 3 years!

  55. jpb12 says: May 8, 2012 7:54 PM

    These guys are telling the NFL to leave.
    Some other community (LA or elsewhere) will see this as economic development and build them an adequate stadium.

    Minnesota can’t afford this team. That’s what it comes down to.

    I’d like a Porsche.

  56. petedutcher says: May 8, 2012 7:57 PM

    While I love the idea…the NFL will just force the team to move to another state rather than accept that idea.

  57. minnysoda says: May 8, 2012 7:58 PM

    They can’t do that then Minnesota and or the Vikings should be liable to all visiting teams for the revenue lost because they don’t fill the Stadium

  58. realitypolice says: May 8, 2012 8:01 PM

    Whoever sponsored this amendment is either:

    A) Too stupid to know that the blackout rule is part of the TV contract and not changeable by individual franchises or,

    B) Smart enough to know this and wants the Vikes to leave.

  59. pftstory says: May 8, 2012 8:20 PM

    You pressing like don’t see where this is going?
    The NFL simply says we can’t or won’t agree to this and is gone or the team is gone. The blackout rule is part of the TV deals. Those are set for years to come.
    The Legislature can say “we will give the team money for the stadium if ____________” and fill that blank with anything. The NFL can then tell the team they can’t agree to that, and the team relocates to a city without said provision.
    The biggest thing this does is give the Vikings ownership an out.
    “We tried to stay, but its the Legislature that insisted on this and the NFL said no.”
    Actually the Legislature has an out to. “We voted for the stadium, but the NFL insisted on their unfair blackout rule. Don’t blame us (or me come election time). We tried.”

    Just because they get funding approved, does not mean they have to stay in MN. If the funding conflicts with NFL rules or contractual obligations.

  60. scytherius says: May 8, 2012 8:22 PM

    Wow. A great idea from a Legislature. Let’s have that one in all cities and let the courts decide.

  61. bordner says: May 8, 2012 8:23 PM

    Well, that should help ticket sales. Does this mean they’ll be broadcasting all of the concerts that will be held there as well?

  62. cliffordc05 says: May 8, 2012 8:27 PM

    This is really unnecessary. I doubt that the NFL has any intention of blacking out any future Los Angeles Vikings home games in the State of Minnesota.

  63. vikingsinla says: May 8, 2012 8:29 PM

    Other amendments added to the Viking stadium bill by the MN Senate:

    Vikings must cure cancer (no fair using Brett Favre’s tears)
    Flying cars in every garage
    Monkeys flying out of butts

    Minny obviously elected reps who refuse to take this matter seriously. They need to be made an example of, or any future stadium subsidies will be similarly laughed at. The Vikings MUST be moved, for the continued financial well-being of the league.

  64. mqcarpenter says: May 8, 2012 8:29 PM

    Why isn’t everyone yelling that the nfl is promoting socialism? Why is the public funding a private company that makes billions? What a joke.

  65. commandercornpone says: May 8, 2012 8:30 PM

    many states and fedgov should be using austerity measures but are not.

    wilfie/rog, u want the money, werk with the state.

    u wont get more real fans in LA. the most popular sport there is futbol.

  66. kokomike says: May 8, 2012 8:32 PM

    Minnesota won’t have to worry about blackouts soon, since they won’t have a team.

  67. gpclaw says: May 8, 2012 8:38 PM

    pack4gop says:
    May 8, 2012 7:38 PM
    What gives government the right to tell a private business what it can and cannot do?
    ————————————————–
    If the Vikings organization, and the NFL were putting up 100% of the funds for the new stadium, you would have a point. The state of Minnesota earned the right to make these types of demands, when the NFL demanded that the public finance a portion of the stadium cost.

  68. sevensixtwonato says: May 8, 2012 8:40 PM

    skolvikesskol says:
    May 8, 2012 7:23 PM
    The blackout policy is about 20 years out dated now…

    —————————————————

    No kidding, a blackout is not really a threat anymore. Nothing a high speed internet connection, a good video card, and an HDMI cable can’t fix anyway.

  69. meandjuliojonesdownbytheschoolyard says: May 8, 2012 8:46 PM

    Amazing idea. If my tax dollars are funding a stadium I still have to pay $50 per game to see my team play? BS.

  70. surly1n1nd1anapol1s says: May 8, 2012 8:46 PM

    Kudos. All cities and or states providing any public funding should adopt this, pronto.

  71. veence69 says: May 8, 2012 8:48 PM

    I’m so sorry for calling you out on your lazy, sensationalized “reporting”, PFT. Does this mean I’m going to go another 6 months before I see one of my posts make it past your “mods”.

    Not only are you an inept and second-rate “news source”, you’re also catty little girls. Nice.

  72. thurstonblogging says: May 8, 2012 8:51 PM

    Goodbye, Minnesota Vikings and Hello Mighty Vikings of Anaheim.

    Minnesota – look to Baltimore and Cleveland to see what you’re future holds.

  73. cowboyscanada says: May 8, 2012 8:52 PM

    Great idea!!

  74. tmb333 says: May 8, 2012 8:58 PM

    realitypolice says:May 8, 2012 8:01 PM

    Whoever sponsored this amendment is either:

    A) Too stupid to know that the blackout rule is part of the TV contract and not changeable by individual franchises or,

    B) Smart enough to know this and wants the Vikes to leave.
    —————————————-

    WRONG..the NFL can lift any blackout they want. It is a rule to try to sell tickets. What many don’t get is that most of the people that will pay for the stadium cannot afford to attend a game.

    For everyone whining about the government being involved in a private business…the private business opened the door. If you don’t want stipulations on the money you are given, don’t take it.

    It will end up that the team will get a deal like the Colts….all the revenue and none of the expenses from all events. It is time for people to demand a return on their investment of tax dollars just like the private business owner does. Stadiums are losers. If they were great investments more teams would build them themselves. I hope Minnesota sticks to their guns. No blackouts or no money. Perhaps a smaller stadium is in order too.

    No team is moving to LA because then what will the league have to hang over all the other teams heads?

  75. vikingsinla says: May 8, 2012 9:06 PM

    tmb333 says: May 8, 2012 8:58 PM

    No team is moving to LA because then what will the league have to hang over all the other teams heads?

    ———————————————–

    LA has more than 1 group of interested suitors, and the LA area has more than enough population to bring profitable TV ratings to more than 1 NFL team.

    I hereby call dibs on the ‘jagsinla’ moniker.

  76. Little Earthquake says: May 8, 2012 9:08 PM

    Well played, Minnesota. The NFL should not always get what the NFL wants just because it is the NFL. Teach it to heel.

  77. realitypolice says: May 8, 2012 9:09 PM

    @tmb33:

    Read my comment again, and try to understand it this time.

    I said that the blackout rule is “not changeable by individual franchises”.

    I never said that the NFL couldn’t change it.

    So my point, since you missed it, is that putting pressure on the Vikings to lift the blackout rule is stupid, because they have no say over it.

    And the league, which can lift it, never will because they will:

    A) Never set the precedent of allowing a state legislature to dictate league policy and…

    B) They want the Vikings to move to LA.

  78. bostroff says: May 8, 2012 9:15 PM

    tanfarkenton says:
    Tell me this moron is joking, seriously is this the best comment you could come up with? Makes a ton of sense bro- I’m sure this will get removed when it moves to committee (look that up) but you can’t hate on them for trying!
    ———————————————————-
    You’re so right, what could I have possibly been thinking. I mean, the idea of any team moving from Minnesota to LA is crazy. No team could possibly be successful making a move like that.

    Try to be a little more objective. I said that it was a great idea in theory. But in theory, communism would work. All of the things your “leaders” have done is show that they are not serious about getting this deal done and are hoping to call the league’s bluff. But what if the league isn’t bluffing?

  79. 7ransponder says: May 8, 2012 9:18 PM

    Those of you speaking out against this are obviously not football fans. This is a great amendment and could actually start a snowball effect with other cities whose stadiums are funded by public money. We’d likely see a legal challenge and some major public support on it as well. The NFL has been able to call these types of shots for far too long, GREAT job potentially bringing it to the forefront Minnesota!

    I say “potentially” because by the time this thing actually gets voted in, it could be out of the bill :P

  80. thankheavenfornumberseven says: May 8, 2012 9:23 PM

    I don’t think a state can make a law to overturn an NFL rule, but I like the idea. I can watch nearly every Twins and Timberwolves home game on TV even when they don’t sell out. Why should it be different with football? Still, I don’t see any trouble with blackouts once this football palace is built. We’ve sold out the Metrodump for 14 years in a row and that’s the worst fan experience in the NFL.

  81. Hoosier Gooner says: May 8, 2012 9:27 PM

    That’s great… if the only purpose is for playing football. Would the amendment extend to non-football events in the publicly funded stadium?

    Wouldn’t the taxpayers want the same free-to-television for concerts, Monster Jam and whatever else they might use the stadium for?

    My tax dollars help fund public transit, but they still make me buy ticket each time I ride.

  82. SeenThisB4 says: May 8, 2012 9:30 PM

    I hope this amendment sticks, and sets a precedent for the rest of the NFL cities. If the taxpayers have to fund the stadium construction cost every time a team wants to improve its revenue stream, then the tax payers should get something in return, and banning blackouts could be just the beginning, next could be banning PSLs, or requiring free parking, etc. etc. etc.

  83. codiablo says: May 8, 2012 9:34 PM

    Now you got em’ right in your pocket Minnesota, if you’re pocket is in LA. And as a Native now living in NY, with my time off I will follow the team as well, with my LA wife, skipping any money we would have spent there visiting family and friends, they can come out here, and I can go fishing in Canada…if these schmucks think they’re making their careers or getting one over on the NFL, its a huge joke, but everyone thought slipping in the $500 for that undercoating was a joke, too.

    “Ah, yeah, yah gottah have dah undercoating.”

  84. thurstonblogging says: May 8, 2012 9:37 PM

    To the people who elected Jesse The Body – “You are all stupid and do not deserve the NFL.”

    Why? If you are too cheap to go to the games, you don’t deserve to watch them on TV. That in and of itself doesn’t make you stupid. What makes you stupid is that you think you can keep the Vikes, while the MN legislature is making sure that doesn’t happen.

    They want to tax jerseys, tickets and condoms sold nearby. Good luck – come root for the Lions as we still have a little room left on our bandwagon.

  85. blantoncollier says: May 8, 2012 9:38 PM

    “Another fine mess you have gotten us into Ollie”Minnesota State Senate meet the Three Stooges.

    I am sure to get lots of thumbs down, but the fine State of Minnesota can not make laws that contridicts the contractural agreement between the teams and their television partners. They can sue and challenge the antitrust nature of the Contract but they cant void the contract. Maybe the idea of ending blackouts has come, but its not up to some part time State Senators to make that decision.

    All of you fans should put your emotion aside and realize this is just another way of saying “dear Ziggy take your ball and go to LA–we dont want your income tax dollars in Minnesota.”

    Can you say Minnesota Lakers? How about NorthStar?

  86. mediasloppy says: May 8, 2012 10:46 PM

    They tried to adopt that in the House too. It went even further though. They wanted every game to be on a local channel for people who only have basic TV. That means, Monday Night Football and Thursday Night Football on NFL network…

  87. sixburghrules says: May 8, 2012 10:49 PM

    I could see where this would be detrimental because I for one would not go out in freezing ass temps to watch a Vikings game (wouldn’t even go to see my Steelers under those conditions) . That is definitely going to draw down game day attendance.

  88. thermalito says: May 8, 2012 11:02 PM

    @Hoosier Gooner: That is a terrible analogy. There are thousands of people who rely on public transit in their daily lives. Comparing public works such as public transit to NFL football games is absurd.
    Concerts and Monster Jam events also do not force local taxpayers into spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund stadiums. NFL football teams do.

  89. drunkwino says: May 8, 2012 11:12 PM

    As great as an idea as is, Minnesota can’t pass laws affecting how a company based in New York works it’s television deals with New York and L.A.(?) based TV networks.

    Who knows, maybe the NFL will laugh at that clause and then dare Minnesota to take them to court? On the other hand, if you’re serious about keeping the Vikings in Minnesota, now might not be the best idea to go puff out your chest and make a point. Considering the cards the NFL has, this is kind of like a jogger playing chicken with Grave Digger.

  90. tanfarkenton says: May 8, 2012 11:12 PM

    bostroff says:
    May 8, 2012 9:15 PM
    tanfarkenton says:
    Tell me this moron is joking, seriously is this the best comment you could come up with? Makes a ton of sense bro- I’m sure this will get removed when it moves to committee (look that up) but you can’t hate on them for trying!
    ———————————————————-
    You’re so right, what could I have possibly been thinking. I mean, the idea of any team moving from Minnesota to LA is crazy. No team could possibly be successful making a move like that.

    Try to be a little more objective. I said that it was a great idea in theory. But in theory, communism would work. All of the things your “leaders” have done is show that they are not serious about getting this deal done and are hoping to call the league’s bluff. But what if the league isn’t bluffing?
    ———————————————-

    Pretty sure history has shown that moving to LA has been “SUPER”successful, as about as successful as being a wide receiver and going to the Seattle Seahawks.

    Yes it is a great idea in theory, but anyone that understands politics and football also understand that this will be one of the first things out when they go to committee too. I’ll be honest and agree with you about our “leaders”, I haven’t been too impressed with them, but the last time I checked it passed the house and will soon pass the senate.

    Then they have a lot of work to do to get it done, but I do think it will and your theory about LA will be moot!

  91. pigskin28 says: May 8, 2012 11:14 PM

    Does’nt the government build ports, raolroads etc? Yet private compamies use/operate them? NFL teams play 8 games per year in their stadiums…8!

  92. majbobby says: May 8, 2012 11:18 PM

    If this sticks.

    Say goodbye to your football team and all the millions of dollars that having an NFL bring into your local economy Minny.

    There is a reason the blackout rule exists. Now if you want to talk about the long term impacts in your local economy losing a team long term over the taxes supporting the stadium go ahead.

    I think you will find out that the short term tax support of 400 Million is offset in the long run by the stimulus a NFL team has on the local economy.

    If you lose this team it will severely hamper your local economy and if you do not see that you are naive.

  93. lknbroker says: May 8, 2012 11:18 PM

    this is actually a really great debate—lots of folks agreeing with the amendment; that government should have a say if they put tax payer money at risk for a no black out rule

    on the other hand; this is a TV rights deal, the NFL has the rights to……

    My take is there really is not a winner or a loser on either side.

    Minn do you want a team or not
    NFL do you want to stay or not–thats the question

    I do not support government involvement with private enterprise. I do not support a government holding a business (ie Minn Vikings) hostage.

    I own a business, I get no help from the government to pay rent or PAYROLL–but I’m small.

    I also understand the ecomomic impact these games have on our local economy

    I also helped build our stadium here in Carolina by purchasing PSLs to the Panthers.

    This is a very fine line between ecomomic development and future tax revenue and a sustainable business model.

    I wish my small fish in the pond company had as much to offer a city as an NFL franchise does.

    Good luck Minny

  94. conormacleod says: May 8, 2012 11:26 PM

    What most of you morons fail to understand is that this isn’t going to be the Vikings new stadium, it is going to be Minnesota’s stadium that the Vikings happen to play in. The state is asking the Vikings to pay for half the price of their stadium that that will allow the Vikings to play in 10 days a year. It is the state that is raping the team. The state gets to use the stadium 355 days a year. Scenario: you and I split the cost of building a house. I get to live in it 10 days a year, and you get it 355 days a year. Who is getting screwed here?

  95. majbobby says: May 8, 2012 11:26 PM

    The other thing. I am sure that the government gets a portion of the in stadium profits. So my question is why does the government want to get rid of the mechanism that allows to maximize the in stadium revenue.

    Be better way to do this would be ok Vikings we will kick in 400M tax payers money to the stadium. But anything outside of normal home games we want more of the revenue split. IE let’s say the normal split for home games is 80/20 to Vikings. Well for concerts and a Super Bowl it goes to a 50/50 split of in stadium revenue until the tax payer investment is paid off.

    Politicians kill me. I wish they would use a little common sense instead of pushing their agenda.

  96. conormacleod says: May 8, 2012 11:30 PM

    Let’s forget about the fact that Zygi Wilf is rich and will get richer. That is going to happen no matter what. The real question is; what options does the state have vs. what options do the Vikings have? The Vikings WILL play somewhere in 2013, does Minnesota want them to play there? If the answer is yes to the last question, then stop jerking around.

  97. majbobby says: May 8, 2012 11:38 PM

    My last thing on the topic.

    Minny you want Ziggy to foot 100% of the Bill. Get ready for min 10K PSLs. And min 150 dollar cheap seats.

    The smart play here would have been instead of going at the blackout rule would have been to say ok we will give 400M in taxpayer money to your new state of the art stadium but ticket prices will be fixed at a certain dollar for an agreed on time period.

    Your politicians are going to cost you your team. Coming from an economist Bills fan.

  98. 7ransponder says: May 8, 2012 11:39 PM

    mediasloppy says:
    May 8, 2012 10:46 PM
    They tried to adopt that in the House too. It went even further though. They wanted every game to be on a local channel for people who only have basic TV. That means, Monday Night Football and Thursday Night Football on NFL network…

    —————–

    Uhhh, this is already the case. If the Vikes have MNF, for example, it airs on ABC.

  99. xx4zu1 says: May 9, 2012 12:17 AM

    Gotta agree with this one if they are using $1 of public funds blackouts shouldn’t exist. Would like to see legislation like this passed in all states.

  100. nflpasux says: May 9, 2012 1:21 AM

    This idea is so unbelievably stupid that it seems that Minnesota is actually trying to eliminate NFL football. The NFL will never, ever allow the Vikings a blackout exception. The blackout rule has been a large factor in the NFL’s financial growth and replacing baseball in popularity, to become the national past time.

    Accordingly, even if the Vikings wanted to sign on to this absurdity, they could not. This dumb idea will be D.O.A.

  101. rollteal says: May 9, 2012 1:26 AM

    For once a good move done Minnesota !!

  102. discosucs2005 says: May 9, 2012 3:18 AM

    @majbobby

    “Get ready for min 10K PSLs. And min 150 dollar cheap seats.”

    You should know that banning blackouts will not increase or decrease ticket prices (although it may be used as an excuse to increase ticket prices). They should have banned blackouts as well as requested fixed ticket prices.

    “Your politicians are going to cost you your team.”

    The politicians wouldn’t be the ones to move the team out of Minnesota. The league and the ownership are both capable of funding this stadium.

    “Coming from an economist Bills fan.”

    So your interests are the economy, and the Bills? No wonder your comments are always so gloomy.

  103. allbucdup says: May 9, 2012 7:53 AM

    I applaud the Senate for trying to defend the taxpayers on this. I wont shoot this down because previously negotiated TV contracts because Im fairly certain TV networks would love this clause. It gives them a reliable foundation to pitch marketing. I mean how many companies do you think are getting in line for marketing for the 1pm rerun of Cops spots? Just saying. Gg

  104. exboomer says: May 9, 2012 8:18 AM

    All I have to say is, “Good luck with that!” The NFL will sue the state till hell freezes over before they let that stand.

  105. rdbucfan says: May 9, 2012 8:30 AM

    This is a great idea!

    As a buccaneer fan, I have to agree with this. When a team’s stadium is financed using public funds, the team should be required to purchase the number of tickets that it takes for the game to be televised.

    I know that people are going to say that the fans should pony up the money and go watch their team play.

    I was a Buccaneers season ticket holder until the 2008 season. I chose not to renew my season tickets when the product on the field did not warrant the price of the ticket and the per game increase that the team was trying to place on me. My season tickets went up approximately 33% from 2007 to 2008. Yes, the team did make the playoffs but there were other issues. Like cooking the books as I call it, siging players to rediculous contracts to meet the salary floor.

    Reed Alberqotti of the WSJ stated in an article

    “A person familiar with the finances of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers says that last season the team signed two free-agents, running back Noah Herron and defensive end Patrick Chukwurah, for contracts that totalled $25 million. Under the rules of the salary cap, the Buccaneers were charged that full amount for the players. But to actually earn that money, each player had to, among other things, block six punts apiece—an exceedingly difficult prospect. In the end, neither player ended up taking a single snap. Mr. Herron was paid $157,000 and Mr. Chukwurah $71,000, although the team’s salary-cap number reflected the full value of their contracts. Tampa Bay, which ranked among the lowest teams in spending last season, has lost all six of its games. Tampa Bay and NFL officials declined to comment. ”

    I know some of you will say that the league minimum is this or that, but you’re not seeing the whole picture. Their contracts were totalling 25 million between the 2 of them which is way above the league minimum, it’s not the league’s fault they didn’t get 6 punt blocks each to earn that rediculous salary.

    Now look at the teams record after the 2002 superbowl.

    2003 5 – 11
    2004 5 – 11
    2005 11 – 6 – first round playoff loss
    2006 4 -12
    2007 9 – 8 – first round playoff loss

    All of this with one of the lowest payrolls in football. Not much of a committment to winning if you ask me.

    Then the 33% increase after the 2007 season was the last straw for me. I’ve refused to spend 1 dime on the Buccaneers since that season and I’m starting to come around now that it looks like they are committed to winning again.

    The sweetheart stadium deal that the Bucs have is just outright disgusting. Would I be willing to vote yes on another tax for a new stadium. I would with stipulations that the Team be required to insure there is never another blackout.

    Some of you will say that the Government can’t make a single team change the League’s rules. But you are wrong. The NFL allows team to purchase the unsold tickets for pennies on the dollar and that’s where the no blackout rule can be circumvented. Require the team to purchase the unused tickets (they could give them to charities or do whatever they like with them). That would be a win/win. The fans that can’t afford to go to games but are paying for the stadium in taxes can still watch, the team has some goodwill in the community by giving the tickets to Veterans, or schools or whatever.

    There is a way around the blackouts without making the NFL change their policy.

  106. applecool1981 says: May 9, 2012 10:07 AM

    “What most of you morons fail to understand is that this isn’t going to be the Vikings new stadium, it is going to be Minnesota’s stadium that the Vikings happen to play in. The state is asking the Vikings to pay for half the price of their stadium that that will allow the Vikings to play in 10 days a year. It is the state that is raping the team. The state gets to use the stadium 355 days a year. Scenario: you and I split the cost of building a house. I get to live in it 10 days a year, and you get it 355 days a year. Who is getting screwed here?”

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

    During the season the teams do practice in their stadiums; right? Logically, it would seem to be during a given year the team uses the stadium more than the municipality that helps build it.

  107. seenoland54 says: May 9, 2012 10:48 AM

    danielcp0303 says:
    May 8, 2012 7:30 PM
    seenoland54 says:
    May 8, 2012 7:22 PM
    Now there’s Obama think if I ever saw it. next comes free beer and tickets for everyone…oh, and free birth control.

    ———————————-

    You’re a dumb person

    ———————
    I’m dumb? and YOU think the League will roll over for that bill? They’ll just say “thanks but no thanks, we have other takers for that team…good luck filling your new palace.”

  108. granadafan says: May 9, 2012 1:11 PM

    “conormacleod says: May 8, 2012 7:18 PM
    Where does it all end? You all like it? Why not say that Minneapolis residents get free tickets because they are paying for the stadium? The legislature is crossing into areas they have no right.”
    ===========================================

    Actually, the legislature has every right since they are VOTING on using taxpayer money to build the working place for the owner of a multibillionaire. Even Herr Goodell stomped over to the Minnesota House to demand that they fork over taxpayer money to build the stadium. The legistlature is not demanding that people get free tickets, just not PREVENTED from watching the game at a stadium the people paid for. So, yes, the Minnesota has every right to step in.

    Have some common sense instead of the knee jerk and brain-dead extremist far right wing rant against the “evil government”.

  109. granadafan says: May 9, 2012 1:20 PM

    “Hoosier Gooner says: May 8, 2012 9:27 PM
    That’s great… if the only purpose is for playing football. Would the amendment extend to non-football events in the publicly funded stadium?

    Wouldn’t the taxpayers want the same free-to-television for concerts, Monster Jam and whatever else they might use the stadium for?

    My tax dollars help fund public transit, but they still make me buy ticket each time I ride.”
    ====================================

    Your analogies are patently false. The public transportation system is not BANNING you from riding the buses when they’re not full. Nor is the Minny state legislature saying you get a free ticket. Also, your Monster Jams that you are so fond of watching are not being banned on TV like the NFL does.

  110. jimmylions says: May 9, 2012 2:02 PM

    jpb12 says:
    May 8, 2012 7:54 PM
    These guys are telling the NFL to leave.
    Some other community (LA or elsewhere) will see this as economic development and build them an adequate stadium.
    ————————————–

    Economic development? LA isn’t a fly-over city, it’s a fly-to city! LA does not need the NFL to draw people into downtown. The citizens of Los Angeles don’t see any benefit in buying a stadium for a billionaire. That’s why we don’t have a team.

    For the record, AEG is ponying up the costs for the LA stadium. There’s a small amount of taxpayer cash, but not much (the original deal was zero taxpayer cash). The proposal for a stadium in the City of Industry (Orange County) is also based on private dollars building the stadium.

    I also agree with others who are saying that if you don’t want the public telling you how to run your stadium, then don’t ask the public to buy you a stadium.

    I love this ammendment! Kudos MN!

Leave a Reply

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