PDA

View Full Version : Say Hello to the STILL Minnesota Vikings


Complex
04-18-2012, 11:37 PM
wo days after a Minnesota House committee voted against the Vikings' stadium bill, the NFL responded with its own strong message to state leaders: Get it done or face the consequences.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told Gov. Mark Dayton on Wednesday there will be "serious consequences" for both the league and the Vikings if the bill isn't passed, according to a Pioneer Press report.

And with the state's legislative session likely to wrap up in the next two weeks, Dayton said Tuesday that resolving the stadium issue, which has lingered for about a decade, would probably have to wait until 2013.

ut the Vikings, who don't have a stadium lease, said Tuesday that next year isn't an option and a league executive said Wednesday the team and its ownership are "out of options" after Monday night's vote.

"In the 20 years that I've watched teams change hands, a lot of things get talked about. But until things are really ripe, nothing happens. This is getting ripe," NFL executive vice president of business operations Eric Grubman told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "You have a very dejected ownership. They've run out of options. They feel like they've done everything they've been asked to do and they can't get a vote. No one will answer the question, 'What is it going to take?' "

"The Vikings have said, 'Give us A, B and C, what would you like us to do?' They've been told A, B and C, and they've done that. And they still can't get through. So what makes anyone think it's going to be any better or different next year or the year after?"

The Vikings have no option but to play in the Metrodome in the 2012 season, but the team's lease in the 30-year-old facility is expired and officials have said they don't plan to renew it.

Grubman said Wednesday there's a lot of concern in the league office after the committee voted 9-6 to reject the $975 million plan to build a replacement for the Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis.

"The ownership and league staff have been working with the Vikings and from the league's standpoint, the Vikings have been patient, they've negotiated in good faith, they've been responsive to doing all they can do to get this resolved. It's reached a point where there may be a stalemate," Grubman told the Star Tribune. "So I would say it's very serious at this point. You have to remember this was portrayed as having support and likely to pass as recently as a couple of weeks ago when we were at the league meetings. So this will come as quite a blow. This is quite a blow."

The proposal that fell in the House committee on Monday would have split the tab three ways for a stadium proposed to be built at the current Metrodome site: $398 million from the state from taxes on expanded gambling, $150 million from the city of Minneapolis from existing sales taxes and $427 million from the Vikings with assistance likely from the NFL.

ccording to multiple outlets, Goodell and Dayton will speak again Thursday with Pittsburgh Steelers owner and chair of the league's stadium committee Art Rooney II.

Grubman said he did not think Vikings owner Zygi Wilf would be on the call, insisting the latest stadium failure has forced the league to assess the team's options.

From our perspective, the Wilfs have done everything they can," Grubman told the paper. " ... Now it's sort of time for the league to assess. I just think it's a case of the commissioner, the governor and the head of the committee needing to put their heads together and say, 'OK, this is where it could go.' "

Dayton has made it clear he believes the Vikings will leave Minnesota if they do not have a plan for a new stadium in place by next year. Los Angeles, which does not have an NFL team but is progressing in its plan to build $1.4 billion downtown stadium, remains a threat if the Wilfs become frustrated and decide to move or sell the club.

"I think the Wilfs do not want to sell the franchise, but I think there is a point where they probably would be open-minded to listening to alternatives. To my knowledge, they have not been willing to do that at this point," Grubman told the Star Tribune.

But he continued, "I think they're running out of options and running out of patience. I doubt the commissioner would put probabilities or threaten or anything like that. But I would not be surprised if the commissioner tells the governor, if he asks, what other cities are interested in the Vikings because we are aware of that."

http://cdn.cosbysweaters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Los-Angeles-Vikings.jpg

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/content_images/vikings_la_stadium.jpg

BaLLiN
04-18-2012, 11:46 PM
how would that even work? would they stay in the division?

Scotty D
04-18-2012, 11:48 PM
how would that even work? would they stay in the division?

That was my first thought. The Lions, Vikings, Packers, and Bears have always been in the same division.

Getting way ahead of myself but my first idea was to swap the Vikings and Rams.

YAYareaRB
04-18-2012, 11:49 PM
it looks like a party

Brodeur
04-18-2012, 11:49 PM
At least the Jags and their 35 fans get to keep their team!

Mufasa
04-18-2012, 11:50 PM
This is just the next move in negotiating a new stadium. The Vikings need to get a stadium figured out soon, and this is a way to put pressure on the state to approve it. I have a feeling that in the end they'll get their stadium and stay in Minnesota.

yo123
04-18-2012, 11:51 PM
Meh. I've mentally prepared myself for this. The only thing that will change is I'll have to buy Sunday Ticket.

yo123
04-18-2012, 11:52 PM
At least the Jags and their 35 fans get to keep their team!

You act like our fans aren't ridiculous bandwagoners. I have no respect for the majority of the sports fans here.

YAYareaRB
04-18-2012, 11:52 PM
That was my first thought. The Lions, Vikings, Packers, and Bears have always been in the same division.

Getting way ahead of myself but my first idea was to swap the Vikings and Rams.

pretty funny if it goes down like that. vikings going to LA and swapping divisions with the rams, who were the last nfl team in LA,iirc

nepg
04-18-2012, 11:54 PM
how would that even work? would they stay in the division?
Move them to the NFC West and StL to the North. If the Vikings aren't in that part of the map, there is no rivalry anyway. And I don't think people realize how ******* close the Rams are to those teams.

Unbiased
04-18-2012, 11:57 PM
At least the Jags and their 35 fans get to keep their team!

At least I don't spend my entire life on this message board.

I had to be vague because I don't know who your team is.

Brodeur
04-18-2012, 11:57 PM
You act like our fans aren't ridiculous bandwagoners. I have no respect for the majority of the sports fans here.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that it still beats Jags fans, who don't actually exist.

yo123
04-18-2012, 11:58 PM
At least I don't spend my entire life on this message board.

I had to be vague because I don't know who your team is.


Edit goddamnit you ninja edited and now my awesome comment doesn't work.

Unbiased
04-18-2012, 11:59 PM
Edit goddamnit you ninja edited and now my awesome comment doesn't work.

Yeah, don't sleep on the ninja edit.

WCH
04-19-2012, 12:09 AM
Well, it would be fitting if LA "stole" the Vikings from Minnesota, just like they did the Lakers. The teams even have the same colors.

Ness
04-19-2012, 12:10 AM
Move them to the NFC West and StL to the North. If the Vikings aren't in that part of the map, there is no rivalry anyway. And I don't think people realize how ******* close the Rams are to those teams.

This wouldn't happen. The 49ers and Rams have been rivals for decades and have the longest history within the division between any two combined teams.

YAYareaRB
04-19-2012, 12:12 AM
to be fair, the lakers adopted the purple and gold in LA right?

yo123
04-19-2012, 12:16 AM
to be fair, the lakers adopted the purple and gold in LA right?

Yeah, the Minneapolis Lakers had powder blue and yellow. Much better combo if you ask me actually.

WCH
04-19-2012, 12:20 AM
I know this is a bit off topic, but both names (Lakers, Vikings) make a lot more sense in Minneapolis than they do in LA.

Brodeur
04-19-2012, 12:22 AM
At least I don't spend my entire life on this message board.

I had to be vague because I don't know who your team is.

http://www.imageleech.net/data/media/1/feelsbadman.jpg

WCH
04-19-2012, 12:32 AM
This wouldn't happen. The 49ers and Rams have been rivals for decades and have the longest history within the division between any two combined teams.

Rich Eisen said that two teams will be in LA by something like 2015, and that it's basically a done deal. If that's true, then I'm guessing that the NFL just does another major realignment, where they try to preserve division rivalries while still making division lines more sensible. In this scenario, an AFC team might move to the NFC North, or something similar.

wogitalia
04-19-2012, 12:51 AM
I'd be one of the few Vikings fans who actually liked this...

West Coast is a way better time zone for their games to be in and I wouldn't mind going to LA anyway whereas I'd be going to Minny purely to see the Vikes play.

Does suck though on so many levels, kind of inevitable though, to be honest it's pretty good of Zygi to even bother negotiating with Minny, there is so much more money to be made in LA if he was that way inclined.

descendency
04-19-2012, 12:52 AM
Do you know what the most famous Viking thinks on this matter:

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5510/kluweama.jpg

prock
04-19-2012, 01:22 AM
This isn't going to happen. I have no reason for it, it's just that it can't happen unless the state wants me to go on an Archer-like cancer rampage.

BuckNaked
04-19-2012, 01:30 AM
There is so much potential for disaster with Chris Cook roaming the streets of Los Angeles past 2 AM. I'll start the odds of him getting stabbed in a Compton White Castle with a shiv made out of a potato peeler at 10:1. Let the betting commence. On a very slightly more serious note, this would create so many bandwagon fans that it would piss me off. In all reality, probably not that many at all cause they're the Vikings, but enough for me to maybe encounter one in my life. I take pride in being one of the 4 Vikings fans on the East coast. It's a comforting thought to know that if we ever win a Super Bowl (I almost had myself there) that I'll be the only person in the country streaking east of Sheboygan.

Ness
04-19-2012, 01:56 AM
I hope the Vikings stay in Minnesota. There is a lot of history with that franchise and they belong in the north with the Packers, Lions, and Bears.

Razor
04-19-2012, 03:47 AM
At least the Jags and their 35 fans get to keep their team!

I wouldn't count on it. LA is big enough for two teams...

whatadai
04-19-2012, 04:57 AM
NO. stop this nonsense and give me back my raiders.

Giantsfan1080
04-19-2012, 08:01 AM
I wouldn't count on it. LA is big enough for two teams...

And yet have never been able to support just 1 team. All of a sudden 2 teams are going there now? I don't buy it.

Wodwo
04-19-2012, 08:12 AM
Vikings didn't actually ever have horns on their helmets historically. Therefore, this idea is invalid.

villagewarrior
04-19-2012, 08:16 AM
I still don't understand the dire need to get a team in LA. 1st of all, LA has failed every time they try to support a franchise. 2nd of all, LA sucks.

H.O.O.D
04-19-2012, 08:37 AM
That was my first thought. The Lions, Vikings, Packers, and Bears have always been in the same division.

Getting way ahead of myself but my first idea was to swap the Vikings and Rams.

The Chiefs are also a possibility to be moved to the NFC North with the Vikings going to the AFC West.

VernonLawson89
04-19-2012, 09:11 AM
49ers groundbreaking for the new stadium begins today!

You Jelly?

bearsfan_51
04-19-2012, 09:14 AM
You act like our fans aren't ridiculous bandwagoners. I have no respect for the majority of the sports fans here.
I don't like to spend my money on crappy teams either. If that makes me a bandwaggoner, I'd rather be that than all of my Cleveland friends who spend a good portion of their money supporting teams that do nothing but make them miserable.

BaLLiN
04-19-2012, 10:00 AM
That was my first thought. The Lions, Vikings, Packers, and Bears have always been in the same division.

Getting way ahead of myself but my first idea was to swap the Vikings and Rams.

The Chiefs are also a possibility to be moved to the NFC North with the Vikings going to the AFC West.

These were also my two initial thoughts, but I don't know if anyone would want to change.

boknows34
04-19-2012, 10:04 AM
The Chiefs are also a possibility to be moved to the NFC North with the Vikings going to the AFC West.

I don't think any of the original AFL teams would ever make the move to the NFC, and especially not the Chiefs as Lamar Hunt was the founder of the league and has the AFC Championship Trophy named after him. The last time we had realignment in 2002 it was the Seahawks (founded in 1976 after the merger) that switched conferences. A Rams-Vikings switch seems the most logical move if the NFL wanted to keep things closer geographically.

vidae
04-19-2012, 10:18 AM
I still don't understand the dire need to get a team in LA. 1st of all, LA has failed every time they try to support a franchise. 2nd of all, LA sucks.

I was with you on the first point, but I cannot support the second. I ******* love LA. I grew up near there. It's a fantastic city with a lot of history and a lot of things to do. You take that back!

The Chiefs are also a possibility to be moved to the NFC North with the Vikings going to the AFC West.

Nope, won't happen, and for this reason:

I don't think any of the original AFL teams would ever make the move to the NFC, and especially not the Chiefs as Lamar Hunt was the founder of the league and has the AFC Championship Trophy named after him. The last time we had realignment in 2002 it was the Seahawks (founded in 1976 after the merger) that switched conferences. A Rams-Vikings switch seems the most logical move if the NFL wanted to keep things closer geographically.

Splat
04-19-2012, 10:27 AM
The Chiefs are also a possibility to be moved to the NFC North with the Vikings going to the AFC West.

NO! NO! NO!

brat316
04-19-2012, 10:30 AM
The Viking will just end up somewhere else in Minnesota. Like Saint Paul

YAYareaRB
04-19-2012, 10:54 AM
I still don't understand the dire need to get a team in LA. 1st of all, LA has failed every time they try to support a franchise. 2nd of all, LA sucks.

LA does not suck. you shut your mouth when youre talkin about LA

PoopSandwich
04-19-2012, 11:01 AM
Never like to see teams lose their team (obviously being from Cleveland). Fans get the brunt end of the business part of the NFL in this case, and teams up North already don't have much to do in the fall/winter besides watch some football and tailgate.

bearsfan_51
04-19-2012, 11:39 AM
Never like to see teams lose their team (obviously being from Cleveland). Fans get the brunt end of the business part of the NFL in this case, and teams up North already don't have much to do in the fall/winter besides watch some football and tailgate.
Meh...Minnesota has college sports (albeit they suck, but could improve), as well as hockey and basketball.

There's a reason why there isn't a public outcry to do something about this: Minnesotans don't really care about the Vikings. I'd say at least 30% of the metro are Packers fans. This is a hockey and Twins town first and foremost.

bearsfan_51
04-19-2012, 11:41 AM
The Viking will just end up somewhere else in Minnesota. Like Saint Paul
They've been trying that route for years. It won't work. Every other site they can think of would be a transportation nightmare or would require huge expansions of the existing state routes (thus making it far less likely the state would ever approve of it). There is no other feasible site outside of the city of Minneapolis that could fit the transportation bill as is.

Ness
04-19-2012, 12:20 PM
49ers groundbreaking for the new stadium begins today!

You Jelly?

Finally. It's about time.

TitleTown088
04-19-2012, 12:24 PM
Meh...Minnesota has college sports (albeit they suck, but could improve), as well as hockey and basketball.

There's a reason why there isn't a public outcry to do something about this: Minnesotans don't really care about the Vikings. I'd say at least 30% of the metro are Packers fans. This is a hockey and Twins town first and foremost.


Indeed. Its awesome.

Raiderz4Life
04-19-2012, 01:16 PM
Yaaaay we get the vikings!!! I always wanted to be a vikes fan...not...unless its the raiders or even the chargers...idgaf about who they bring here

soybean
04-19-2012, 01:21 PM
I still don't understand the dire need to get a team in LA. 1st of all, LA has failed every time they try to support a franchise. 2nd of all, LA sucks.

... You live In missouri...

PackerLegend
04-19-2012, 01:45 PM
I don't want the viqueens to move! They have to stay in our division I enjoy our 2 guaranteed victorys a year.

jackalope
04-19-2012, 01:58 PM
As a Packer fan who typically enjoys every failure of that franchise, this would be rather sad to see. It's a great rivalry that would obviously lose a lot by the move. I love the way the NFC North is so close together with Wisconsin right at the center of it. Hope this doesn't happen.

Sloopy
04-19-2012, 02:04 PM
I'd call the NFLs bluff and count on having the team back in the next 5 or so years after the LA fan base fails to support another NFL team.

Brent
04-19-2012, 02:37 PM
For those claiming that LA has failed twice to support an NFL team, no modern team could ever be financially successful in LA Coliseum. That is why the Rams and Raiders failed. LA wants to build a downtown stadium that is top of the line, that will bring the people.

bearsfan_51
04-19-2012, 02:46 PM
For those claiming that LA has failed twice to support an NFL team, no modern team could ever be financially successful in LA Coliseum. That is why the Rams and Raiders failed. LA wants to build a downtown stadium that is top of the line, that will bring the people.
Eh...I'll believe it when I see it. I have no doubt that people will come to games if a nice stadium is built, but there are still serious issues of who is going to pay for it. If it's difficult to raise taxes in Minnesota, it's impossible to raise them in L.A. right now. I'm not sold on the entirely private-funded stadium.

The untold part about this is that the league likes not having a team in L.A., because it puts pressure on all 32 cities to publicly support their teams. After the L.A. market is filled, what's going to take it's place? San Antonio? Portland?

Raiderz4Life
04-19-2012, 03:08 PM
LA is just not a very good sports city. The fans here are nothing but bandwagonners and they piss me the **** off. Stupid ass *************. But...meh...I'll just sit back keep watching Da Raidas!...and laugh when whatever team they bring over(not Oakland of course) fails.

Rabscuttle
04-19-2012, 08:26 PM
LA does not suck. you shut your mouth when youre talkin about LA

Funny that you mention this. In recent negotiations with the Taliban, I offered them unlimited dirty bombing of the City of Angels in exchange for them leaving the lovely country of Afghanistan.

Bert Macklin's contacts should be able to confirm this exchange.


So what's left to do in Minnesota? Ice fishing, eating nasty norwegian cheese and watch best leg hair growth contests between the females?

I still see the state/city caving on this in the end, very few cities would take San Francisco's approach and let a team walk without making a real attempt to retain the team.

YAYareaRB
04-19-2012, 08:37 PM
well san francisco's deal is a little different. they'll still be known as the san francisco 49ers, they just moved down the highway

The_Dude
04-19-2012, 08:52 PM
The entire state legislature is up for re-election this fall & they are too chicken-**** to get this done.

But, it is time for the queens/nfl to play hardball. The "Minnesota Nice" thing has gotten them nowhere so far.

soybean
04-19-2012, 08:53 PM
Eh...I'll believe it when I see it. I have no doubt that people will come to games if a nice stadium is built, but there are still serious issues of who is going to pay for it. If it's difficult to raise taxes in Minnesota, it's impossible to raise them in L.A. right now. I'm not sold on the entirely private-funded stadium.

The untold part about this is that the league likes not having a team in L.A., because it puts pressure on all 32 cities to publicly support their teams. After the L.A. market is filled, what's going to take it's place? San Antonio? Portland?

It's already been negotiated and agreed upon by the city of council. AEG is funding the whole thing 100% no tax payer dollars. The thing that is going to suck is the traffic it will bring...

Also there will be a parking structure so no tailgating. thats going to suck.

I for one don't really want a team =/

http://i.imgur.com/AhjvJ.png

D-Unit
04-19-2012, 08:56 PM
I hope the Vikings stay in Minnesota.

RaiderNation
04-19-2012, 09:03 PM
Looks like it could be a Vikings and Raiders pair in L.A. potentially if things work out in the NFL's favor. Mark Davis was seen courtside with one of the wealthy potential stadium exectuative's not too long ago and with the way things look in Oakland I doubt a stadium will ever be built.

whatadai
04-19-2012, 09:56 PM
I for one don't really want a team =/


YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH. :grrrrrr: :grrrrrr: :grrrrrr: :grrrrrr:


GIVE ME MY RAIDERS. Minus all the trouble causing cholos.

coordinator0
04-19-2012, 10:25 PM
It's already been negotiated and agreed upon by the city of council. AEG is funding the whole thing 100% no tax payer dollars. The thing that is going to suck is the traffic it will bring...

Also there will be a parking structure so no tailgating. thats going to suck.

I for one don't really want a team =/

http://i.imgur.com/AhjvJ.png

Farmers Field? Really?

Brent
04-19-2012, 10:30 PM
Farmers Field? Really?
farmers' insurance

bearsfan_51
04-19-2012, 10:53 PM
Yeah, I still don't see it. When is construction supposed to begin? A lot of things are "agreed upon" (like the new Vikings stadium, for example) but it doesn't mean much until shovels hit the ground.

Monomach
04-19-2012, 10:54 PM
99% of you guys weren't born early enough to be in my shoes, but I have some serious deja vu going. This is getting really eerie for me. The team wants a new stadium. The Mayor and the Governor are saying "Oh, yeah, sure, no problem. Please don't leave!" The state legislature is posturing in an attempt to prove that they have a giant swinging dick...

http://oi44.tinypic.com/1zyin9j.jpg

Even the things both sides are saying to the press are almost exactly the same. I hate it, but **** has gotten real...and I can't blame the team. I've been to the Metrodome a number of times. It's a horrible dump.

Having the Rams in the division instead of the Queens is going to take some getting used to.

niel89
04-19-2012, 10:55 PM
Whatever brings Toby closer.

bearsfan_51
04-19-2012, 10:56 PM
Yeah the Metrodome is absolutely awful. I can't blame them either, but I still don't want to spend a dime of my money building them a stadium.

nepg
04-19-2012, 10:59 PM
This wouldn't happen. The 49ers and Rams have been rivals for decades and have the longest history within the division between any two combined teams.
No one gives a **** about the Rams-49ers "rivalry". WTF? Never even heard of such a thing.

kalbears13
04-19-2012, 11:34 PM
There is so much potential for disaster with Chris Cook roaming the streets of Los Angeles past 2 AM. I'll start the odds of him getting stabbed in a Compton White Castle with a shiv made out of a potato peeler at 10:1. Let the betting commence. On a very slightly more serious note, this would create so many bandwagon fans that it would piss me off. In all reality, probably not that many at all cause they're the Vikings, but enough for me to maybe encounter one in my life. I take pride in being one of the 4 Vikings fans on the East coast. It's a comforting thought to know that if we ever win a Super Bowl (I almost had myself there) that I'll be the only person in the country streaking east of Sheboygan.

I'll take that bet because there are no White Castles in socal.

I think an LA team would be successful. I can see the team having a Los Angeles Angels kind of following, with it being more of a friendy, family-oriented atmosphere. I'll be going to at least one game every 8 years to watch them play the Browns.

The stadium would be a better waste of money than a bullet train.

AEZjzsnPhnw

WCH
04-20-2012, 12:38 AM
I don't care if lawmakers tell the Vikings to go pound sand, but I hope they aren't thinking that NFL will just give them a new team in a few years. Minneapolis isn't Houston, and the Vikings aren't the Browns. If the Vikings move, Minneapolis probably goes to the back of the qeue when the NFL decides to expand.

whatadai
04-20-2012, 12:45 AM
I'll take that bet because there are no White Castles in socal.

DISNEYLAND! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

kalbears13
04-20-2012, 01:30 AM
DISNEYLAND! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

So you're saying they're going to win a Super Bowl??

shane_man
04-20-2012, 04:37 AM
Why doesn't the NFL and it's giant cash cow league simply Build the ******* stadium itself. If there is a commitment to keeping the team in Minnesota. Simply do it yourself and tell the local government to go **** itself when it wants to use the arena to attract celebrity acts to the area.

Brent
04-20-2012, 05:32 AM
Why doesn't the NFL and it's giant cash cow league simply Build the ******* stadium itself. If there is a commitment to keeping the team in Minnesota. Simply do it yourself and tell the local government to go **** itself when it wants to use the arena to attract celebrity acts to the area.
because they would rather use taxpayer money to build a stadium and then have it's ownership handed over to the team owner.

TitleTown088
04-20-2012, 09:09 AM
Yeah the Metrodome is absolutely awful. I can't blame them either, but I still don't want to spend a dime of my money building them a stadium.



Maybe they are getting started? ;)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/presence-of-wilfs-plane-in-l-a-increases-the-heat-for-stadium-talks/

bearsfan_51
04-20-2012, 10:13 AM
I don't care if lawmakers tell the Vikings to go pound sand, but I hope they aren't thinking that NFL will just give them a new team in a few years. Minneapolis isn't Houston, and the Vikings aren't the Browns. If the Vikings move, Minneapolis probably goes to the back of the qeue when the NFL decides to expand.
The qeue consisting of who? That's the primary reason why the NFL doesn't want to expand beyond 32 teams. Where, besides Europe or Canada, would you possibly go? Portland? San Antonio? Las Vegas? The list gets incredibly short, incredibly fast.

brat316
04-20-2012, 10:37 AM
Omaha I would think would be on the list.

Alabama? Utah?

Giantsfan1080
04-20-2012, 10:50 AM
Portland is a bigger tv market than some of the other NFL teams so I wonder if a team would work there.

jojo
04-20-2012, 11:07 AM
For those claiming that LA has failed twice to support an NFL team, no modern team could ever be financially successful in LA Coliseum. That is why the Rams and Raiders failed. LA wants to build a downtown stadium that is top of the line, that will bring the people.

Brent's right. The Mausoleum is a nightmare. Where they build this is critical, I saw an ESPN special about it a yr. ago. 4 different proposals were on the table, one guy wanted it in a city that has like 40 residents (all warehouses, in the filthy industrial p/o LA) & another wanted to dig half a mtn. away to put it in like San Dimas claiming to save >$400M.

At least the Jags and their 35 fans get to keep their team!
I also thought the Jags would the relo to LA team, at least they'll keep the title of worst stadium.

Bills2083
04-20-2012, 11:10 AM
Link to Goodell's press conference in Minnesota
Should be starting any minute...


http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/videos/NFL-Commissioner-Roger-Goodell---Today--1045-AM/187b7d43-bc2c-4752-943f-ff6741e34744

Jughead10
04-20-2012, 11:11 AM
Would the Vikings switch divisions with the Rams if they move west? It would make sense.

jojo
04-20-2012, 11:21 AM
Would the Vikings switch divisions with the Rams if they move west? It would make sense.

No more nostalgic Left Coast trips for the Rams vs. San Francisco, Seattle, etc. Boo-hoo!

bearsfan_51
04-20-2012, 12:18 PM
Omaha I would think would be on the list.

Alabama? Utah?
To put a team in Omaha but not in Minneapolis would be absurd, public funding or not.

bearsfan_51
04-20-2012, 12:20 PM
Portland is a bigger tv market than some of the other NFL teams so I wonder if a team would work there.
It could, but Portland is a pretty eclectic and uber-progressive city. I highly doubt anyone would even bother proposing local funding for a stadium, and I think things like basketball and soccer are more ideal for that market (and the Oregon Ducks to a lesser degree).

Smooth Criminal
04-20-2012, 12:51 PM
I won't believe they're leaving till it happens. Itll just be weird to have the league without the Vikings.

TitleTown088
04-20-2012, 12:58 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_VIKINGS_STADIUM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-20-13-35-44

A professional football void in Los Angeles came up during an urgent meeting Friday between NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Minnesota lawmakers who have struggled to pass a financing package to build a new Vikings stadium.

Donnie D
04-20-2012, 02:38 PM
The untold part about this is that the league likes not having a team in L.A., because it puts pressure on all 32 cities to publicly support their teams. After the L.A. market is filled, what's going to take it's place? San Antonio? Portland?

wasnt there talk of the NFL wanting to put a team in Canada? i remember it was the Vikings, Bills, and Jaguars that was being considered to move to Toronto. curious what came up of all that.

Monomach
04-20-2012, 06:33 PM
This wouldn't happen. The 49ers and Rams have been rivals for decades and have the longest history within the division between any two combined teams.

This can't be a real thing. C'mon. You made it up. Admit it.

WCH
04-20-2012, 06:58 PM
The qeue consisting of who? That's the primary reason why the NFL doesn't want to expand beyond 32 teams. Where, besides Europe or Canada, would you possibly go? Portland? San Antonio? Las Vegas? The list gets incredibly short, incredibly fast.

Well, considering that the league has expanded by a whopping six teams in the past 40 years, and have basically expanded in two-team increments during that span, I think you could be out of luck if you're the third city that's in line for a team.

I also don't think that the NFL is particularly inclined to expand if they can get a team to relocate to LA. Expansion would dilute talent, complicate the divisions, and it's not obvious that it would increase revenue. If a team relocates to LA, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see an expansion team until the 2020s. The 1990's were a modern-era aberration.

VernonLawson89
04-20-2012, 07:12 PM
Still jelly?

MtrGRNe8kIQ

Caulibflower
04-20-2012, 07:13 PM
That was my first thought. The Lions, Vikings, Packers, and Bears have always been in the same division.

Getting way ahead of myself but my first idea was to swap the Vikings and Rams.

This is way too ironic.

Caulibflower
04-20-2012, 07:15 PM
Well, considering that the league has expanded by a whopping six teams in the past 40 years, and have basically expanded in two-team increments during that span, I think you could be out of luck if you're the third city that's in line for a team.

I also don't think that the NFL is particularly inclined to expand if they can get a team to relocate to LA. Expansion would dilute talent, complicate the divisions, and it's not obvious that it would increase revenue. If a team relocates to LA, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see an expansion team until the 2020s. The 1990's were a modern-era aberration.

They could have an International Division with teams in Toronto, London, Mexico City and.... wait for it....

Tokyo.

bearsfan_51
04-20-2012, 07:23 PM
Well, considering that the league has expanded by a whopping six teams in the past 40 years, and have basically expanded in two-team increments during that span, I think you could be out of luck if you're the third city that's in line for a team.

I also don't think that the NFL is particularly inclined to expand if they can get a team to relocate to LA. Expansion would dilute talent, complicate the divisions, and it's not obvious that it would increase revenue. If a team relocates to LA, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see an expansion team until the 2020s. The 1990's were a modern-era aberration.
You're not disagreeing with anything I just said. The point is that Minnesota would still jump to the front of the line for any team looking to move (because, like I said, the NFL isn't expanding). There simply aren't that many markets left for teams to move.

But, either way, I don't care. Between college football, the NBA, NHL, and MLB, I don't really care if the Vikings move or not. I'd rather they open up the tv market so I can watch more Bears games on FOX.

Mufasa
04-20-2012, 07:27 PM
You're not disagreeing with anything I just said. The point is that Minnesota would still jump to the front of the line for any team looking to move (because, like I said, the NFL isn't expanding). There simply aren't that many markets left for teams to move.

But, either way, I don't care. Between college football, the NBA, NHL, and MLB, I don't really care if the Vikings move or not. I'd rather they open up the tv market so I can watch more Bears games on FOX.

Unfortunately you'd probably just get Packer games. A lot more Packer fans than Bear fans in Minnesota.

jojo
04-20-2012, 07:36 PM
They could have an International Division with teams in Toronto, London, Mexico City and.... wait for it....

Tokyo.

Uhh Tokyo? Sounds like Rollerball....that's where the Houston team member was beaten into catatonia.

I'm talking the original film version in the 70s, the one with James Caan & without Jean Reno. Actually one of the ironically prototypical futuristic scifi dystopic films. It was based on a story written by a Texas student in Austin who saw a riot break out in the late 60s after a Texas - Arkansas basketball game, the old Southwest Conference took its sports very seriously.

WCH
04-20-2012, 07:44 PM
You're not disagreeing with anything I just said. The point is that Minnesota would still jump to the front of the line for any team looking to move (because, like I said, the NFL isn't expanding). There simply aren't that many markets left for teams to move.

But, either way, I don't care. Between college football, the NBA, NHL, and MLB, I don't really care if the Vikings move or not. I'd rather they open up the tv market so I can watch more Bears games on FOX.

I think that the only thing we disagree on is the point about Minnesota jumping to the front of the line for teams looking to relocate. I think that Toronto and San Antonio still get first dibs (not counting LA), if they want the team; not to mention that the NFL and the city of LA seem to think that the city can support two teams (despite evidence to the contrary). Of course, all bets are off if an owner just wants to move his team to a specific city.

Minneapolis is obviously too big of a market to go without a team forever. I just think that they could be in for a 10-20 year wait (I think Baltimore had to wait 13 years). Cleveland and Houston were just very lucky that their teams left at a time when the NFL went expansion-crazy.

yo123
04-20-2012, 07:49 PM
To be honest I don't know what this means in the grand scheme of things, but apparently the Goodell visit has picked up the stadium deal's momentum a little bit.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/minnesota-senate-revives-stadium-bill/

WCH
04-20-2012, 07:57 PM
To be honest I don't know what this means in the grand scheme of things, but apparently the Goodell visit has picked up the stadium deal's momentum a little bit.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/minnesota-senate-revives-stadium-bill/

I was able to watch their press conference this morning, and I got the impression that Goodell said: "Guys, this is not a game." And then, the lawmakers said "Oh, we thought it was....our bad!"

It was a pretty heavy moment when the governor (?) said something along the lines of: "Mr. Goodell told us that they want a team in LA, but they don't want it to be the Vikings."

bearsfan_51
04-20-2012, 08:22 PM
The Minnesota legislature is so randomly all over the place on this. That's why it's been impossible to build any substantial coalition in support of it. Most of the urban liberal democrats are against it as a form of corporate welfare, but a lot of the labor dems are in support of it as a job creator. Most Republicans are against it because they are now apparently against any public spending for anything, but there are still a fair number of them that don't want to be held responsible for letting the Vikings leave.

Gov. Dayton has been about as supportive of the Vikings stadium as you could possibly imagine.

It's weird to see a political issue that doesn't split down party lines. Most of them are just running around like headless chickens. I disagree with Dayton on this issue, but at least he's been saying the same thing since the beginning.

jojo
04-20-2012, 08:25 PM
I think that the only thing we disagree on is the point about Minnesota jumping to the front of the line for teams looking to relocate. I think that Toronto and San Antonio still get first dibs (not counting LA), if they want the team; not to mention that the NFL and the city of LA seem to think that the city can support two teams (despite evidence to the contrary). Of course, all bets are off if an owner just wants to move his team to a specific city.

Minneapolis is obviously too big of a market to go without a team forever. I just think that they could be in for a 10-20 year wait (I think Baltimore had to wait 13 years). Cleveland and Houston were just very lucky that their teams left at a time when the NFL went expansion-crazy.

UMMMHHH, sad but true.

Goodell sounds like what he did in the press conference was what he does best, noncommittal posturing toward the most PC position.

An owner as the driving force who moves HIS team to Los Angeles, yeah sounds about like what will actually occur. We saw NFL owners behave like self-anointed demi-gods in the CBA debate a yr. ago, now we will treated even more of this.

So it comes down to Zygi Wolf to pull the trigger on the Vikings LA relo. Ball's in your court Zygi, the Commish will support you 100% on what you decide, but you're the one who will have to push all his chips into the pot as the League will take zero risk.

Harbaugh & the 9ers crushing defense await the new LA team at the pass.....

Brent
04-20-2012, 09:08 PM
I wish people would stop bringing up San Antonio. They would not support an NFL franchise.

andyjo672
04-20-2012, 10:03 PM
I think that the only thing we disagree on is the point about Minnesota jumping to the front of the line for teams looking to relocate. I think that Toronto and San Antonio still get first dibs (not counting LA), if they want the team; not to mention that the NFL and the city of LA seem to think that the city can support two teams (despite evidence to the contrary). Of course, all bets are off if an owner just wants to move his team to a specific city.

Minneapolis is obviously too big of a market to go without a team forever. I just think that they could be in for a 10-20 year wait (I think Baltimore had to wait 13 years). Cleveland and Houston were just very lucky that their teams left at a time when the NFL went expansion-crazy.

San Antonio is not nearly as attractive of a market to the NFL as Minneapolis/St. Paul. It's about 2/3 the size and only about 3.5 hours from two of the most popular franchises in the league which would result in split allegiances. Not to mention, MSP is a bit more attractive in terms of being a favorable media market:

http://www.janson.com/media/2008/12/26/top-50-us-television-markets/

I could maybe get behind Toronto being a more viable option after LA, but that's about it aside from trying to expand to London which seems highly improbable. And it's pretty evident that if any team were to move to Toronto it's going to be the Bills.

Nonetheless, this conversation is meaningless. Minnesota is going to approve this. But, LA is going to get a team sooner rather than later. Jacksonville's new owner is apparently committed to staying in Jacksonville (no idea why) so that leaves Buffalo, Carolina, Oakland, St. Louis as the only options as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'm wrong about that, I'm sure you all have better clarity on that.

descendency
04-21-2012, 01:03 AM
I wish people would stop bringing up San Antonio. They would not support an NFL franchise.

And LA will? I think San Antonio has better odds than LA.

Brent
04-21-2012, 07:49 AM
And LA will? I think San Antonio has better odds than LA.
San Antonio is Cowboys territory. More importantly, even if people bought to the idea of leaving the beloved Cowboys for a new team, San Antonio is not a city with an economy that will support two professional teams. The Spurs are successful, financially, because NBA games are affordable. Just because SA is a large metroplex, does not mean that it could support an NFL franchise.

WCH
04-21-2012, 09:23 AM
San Antonio is Cowboys territory. More importantly, even if people bought to the idea of leaving the beloved Cowboys for a new team, San Antonio is not a city with an economy that will support two professional teams. The Spurs are successful, financially, because NBA games are affordable. Just because SA is a large metroplex, does not mean that it could support an NFL franchise.

I think that a team in San Antonio would probably go over about as well as a team in Jacksonville. Jacksonville is the largest city in Florida, in terms of population, it's (theoretically) a safe distance away from from Miami and Tampa, and Florida loves football. In hindsight, it's pretty obvious that the Jags can't compete with the Dolphins, Bucs, and Gators (in some parts of Florida, the Gators are football). That didn't stop the NFL from trying it out. San Antonio faces similar problems, but they're still on the NFLs radar. Tom Benson considered moving the Saints there, before it became an obvious PR nightmare.

Oklahoma City is an interesting dark horse candidate. They've been a surprisingly strong market for the NBA, and we all know that Oklahoma loves it some football. If I owned a team and I was looking to relocate, they'd be on my short list.

Back on topic, I think that Minnesota miraculously finds enough votes to keep the Vikings. The fact is, having an NFL team is great for a city, and that's why cities without NFL teams are lining up to get one. Who the hell would ever plan a trip to Green Bay, Wisconsin; if it weren't for the Packers? Or Canton, Ohio; if they didn't have the Pro Football Hall of Fame? Would anybody ever willingly go to Detroit if they didn't have the Lions and host the Super Bowl every so often? An NFL presence turns a city into a destination. The NFL and the Vikings just called a political bluff, IMO.

Asteinebach
04-21-2012, 09:32 AM
Would anybody ever willingly go to Detroit if they didn't have the Lions

No. Absolutely not. There's only 2 reasons to go to Detroit. Tigers and Lions.

jojo
04-21-2012, 11:14 AM
San Antonio is Cowboys territory. More importantly, even if people bought to the idea of leaving the beloved Cowboys for a new team, San Antonio is not a city with an economy that will support two professional teams. The Spurs are successful, financially, because NBA games are affordable. Just because SA is a large metroplex, does not mean that it could support an NFL franchise.

Yes it's true, I grew up in that town. Essentially SA is is Cowboys territory, it's reflected in the local sports media (author Larry McMurtry was however right when he termed it the "wretched Texas press" & it applies to sports too) & Dallas fans there are proud of their multi-generational status as such. A few Texans fans have come out of hiding with their recent success, but the Cowboys basically own the place & have camps in my alma mater there, Trinity University.

SA itself is owned by the Spurs, but then again the whole LA vast metroplex itself is owned by the Dodgers & Lakers. None of them would welcome an NFL team showing up.

The fact that LA is the #2 mkt. will pull an NFL team there, probably an existing one, & Goodell's glowing speech about how the NFL wants to keep the Vikes in Minnesota will evaporate rapidly when the hundreds of millions of $ are bait on the hook to the League to support a move to LA

PACKmanN
04-21-2012, 06:55 PM
What are the chances of a team moving to Vancouver? Maybe the Rams? Could allow them to stay in the West

bigbluedefense
04-21-2012, 06:58 PM
Toronto needs a football team. Buffalo really should move to Toronto.

Buffalo to Toronto, Jaguars to LA.

Mufasa
04-21-2012, 07:20 PM
What are the chances of a team moving to Vancouver? Maybe the Rams? Could allow them to stay in the West

If Canada gets a team it's going to be the Bills to Toronto. Vancouver couldn't even support an NBA team. Toronto would be guaranteed not to fail. It's the 5th largest city in North America, and they could keep most of the current Bills fans. Buffalo to Toronto is comparable to Lansing to Detroit, Milwaukee to Green Bay, or Columbus to Cincinnati. Not that it wouldn't still suck for Buffalo fans, but they wouldn't be losing their team completely.

PACKmanN
04-21-2012, 07:28 PM
If Canada gets a team it's going to be the Bills to Toronto. Vancouver couldn't even support an NBA team. Toronto would be guaranteed not to fail. It's the 5th largest city in North America, and they could keep most of the current Bills fans. Buffalo to Toronto is comparable to Lansing to Detroit, Milwaukee to Green Bay, or Columbus to Cincinnati. Not that it wouldn't still suck for Buffalo fans, but they wouldn't be losing their team completely.
Yet this is the same fanbase that only support the Raptors or Blue Jays when they're successful.

Vancouver has great support for the BC Lions, last time I've checked. Which is a football team for the city in the CFL.

mightytitan9
04-21-2012, 07:42 PM
The divisions really aren't based on location anymore, how are the titans, texans, jaguars and COLTs in the same division.

It's always made more sense for the Dolphins to be in the AFC South and moving the Colts to the AFC East (where they originally were), but at that time they didn't want to interfer with the division rivals.

Remember when the Titans used to play the Steelers, Ravens, Browns, Bengals as division rivals? Most don't.

The NFL needs to realize that while some rivalries shouldn't be messed with, but some things are more practical and right now the division alignment isn't.

St Louis going to Seattle, Arizona and San Fran.
Dallas going to Philly, NY,and WAS.

They should have totally re-organized it when the Texans joined and not just form a new division and move seattle to the nfc

bearsfan_51
04-21-2012, 07:45 PM
If Canada gets a team it's going to be the Bills to Toronto. Vancouver couldn't even support an NBA team. Toronto would be guaranteed not to fail. It's the 5th largest city in North America, and they could keep most of the current Bills fans. Buffalo to Toronto is comparable to Lansing to Detroit, Milwaukee to Green Bay, or Columbus to Cincinnati. Not that it wouldn't still suck for Buffalo fans, but they wouldn't be losing their team completely.
???

Are you just using numbers on wikipedia or something? The Cincy metro is just as large, if not larger, than that of Columbus.

Raiderz4Life
04-21-2012, 07:56 PM
???

Are you just using numbers on wikipedia or something? The Cincy metro is just as large, if not larger, than that of Columbus.

Maybe he's talking distance??

Mufasa
04-21-2012, 08:00 PM
???

Are you just using numbers on wikipedia or something? The Cincy metro is just as large, if not larger, than that of Columbus.

I was talking driving distances. Driving from Buffalo to Toronto takes less than 2 hours and is basically the equivalent of an instate drive that other fans around the league face. They'd still be in a reasonable distance for Buffalo fans to go to games.

By what you were thinking, all three of those examples would be wrong.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
04-21-2012, 09:33 PM
With Toronto, I'm not sure they could support a team. Yeah they have the size, but looking deeper, there are some concerns. Right now, of the 3 teams in Toronto, 2 are terrible. The Leafs have been out of the playoffs for like 8 years, they still have unbelievable support. The Raptors, not so much. The Jays are actually a good team, and are fun to watch, but there's always a sense of inevitability that if everything goes right, they'll finish no higher than 3rd place. That and there being 81 opportunities to watch the team mean they don't draw a whole lot. Toronto supports the Leafs because they're the Leafs, probably the 2nd most storied franchise in NHL history, playing the game that Canadians love.

Also, Toronto and the GTA is very heavy on immigrants. 47% of people in Toronto(don't have the #s for the GTA) identify themselves as visible minorities, and 50% were born outside Canada. Many of the immigrants are from South and East Asia, not exactly places that generally produce football fans. Obviously they can learn to love football, but with so many alternatives, including Toronto FC, available, it's not a sure thing. I live in Canada, and would love to be able to go to Toronto to watch an NFL game, but I'm not sure Toronto would be able to support the Bills better than Buffalo can.

PACKmanN
04-21-2012, 10:05 PM
With Toronto, I'm not sure they could support a team. Yeah they have the size, but looking deeper, there are some concerns. Right now, of the 3 teams in Toronto, 2 are terrible. The Leafs have been out of the playoffs for like 8 years, they still have unbelievable support. The Raptors, not so much. The Jays are actually a good team, and are fun to watch, but there's always a sense of inevitability that if everything goes right, they'll finish no higher than 3rd place. That and there being 81 opportunities to watch the team mean they don't draw a whole lot. Toronto supports the Leafs because they're the Leafs, probably the 2nd most storied franchise in NHL history, playing the game that Canadians love.

Also, Toronto and the GTA is very heavy on immigrants. 47% of people in Toronto(don't have the #s for the GTA) identify themselves as visible minorities, and 50% were born outside Canada. Many of the immigrants are from South and East Asia, not exactly places that generally produce football fans. Obviously they can learn to love football, but with so many alternatives, including Toronto FC, available, it's not a sure thing. I live in Canada, and would love to be able to go to Toronto to watch an NFL game, but I'm not sure Toronto would be able to support the Bills better than Buffalo can.

Plus I don't believe support for the CFL franchise is high here in Toronto. Altough I believe if the Bills moved to Toronto, supporters would come from Hamilton and Montreal rather than Toronto. Both cities(Hamilton and Montreal) support their CFL franchises at large

It is growing upon teenagers in Toronto. As you said, it can be something in the future

I still feel as if an NFL team would fit in the Vancouver culture more so than Toronto's

Donnie D
04-21-2012, 10:54 PM
saw this article linked at profootballtalk.com: Buffalo Bills' Canadian fanbase growing rapidly (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120420/SPORTS03/304200049/Buffalo-Bills-Canadian-fanbase-growing-rapidly?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Bills).

also, the Blue Jays fanbase has been as loyal as expected in a division with the three juggernauts of MLB - Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays. with that said, Alex Anthopoulos has rebuilt the team from the ground up since he became GM in 2009, and theyre actually the darkhouse to take the wildcard this year, especially with how bad the Red Sox and Angels have been.

Raptors fans are another thing altogether. i still remember the game this season when Jeremy Lin first played there. it was pretty much a home game for the Knicks.

PACKmanN
04-21-2012, 11:13 PM
saw this article linked at profootballtalk.com: Buffalo Bills' Canadian fanbase growing rapidly (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120420/SPORTS03/304200049/Buffalo-Bills-Canadian-fanbase-growing-rapidly?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Bills).

also, the Blue Jays fanbase has been as loyal as expected in a division with the three juggernauts of MLB - Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays. with that said, Alex Anthopoulos has rebuilt the team from the ground up since he became GM in 2009, and theyre actually the darkhouse to take the wildcard this year, especially with how bad the Red Sox and Angels have been.

Raptors fans are another thing altogether. i still remember the game this season when Jeremy Lin first played there. it was pretty much a home game for the Knicks.

Blue Jays loyal? Games are never close to being sold out unless the Yankees or Sox are in the city. Even then, its the opposing team's fanbase that sells out the game.

Iamcanadian
04-22-2012, 12:40 AM
Plus I don't believe support for the CFL franchise is high here in Toronto. Altough I believe if the Bills moved to Toronto, supporters would come from Hamilton and Montreal rather than Toronto. Both cities(Hamilton and Montreal) support their CFL franchises at large

It is growing upon teenagers in Toronto. As you said, it can be something in the future

I still feel as if an NFL team would fit in the Vancouver culture more so than Toronto's

I disagree, the CFL is viewed by Torontonians as minor league football and Toronto is too cosmopolitan to watch it. The Blue Jays had 4 million fans a year attend their games till a Belgian Brewery bought the team and cut the payroll by 75 million dollars. Torontonians won't accept a franchise that doesn't try to win. The Rapters have consistently failed to retain their top players so basketball has struggled a bit and who can blame their fans.
A NFL franchise that has a local owner with bucks to spend would be in a similar position that the Jays were in when they entered the league and fill the stadium on a consistent basis with little effort as long as the fans think they are trying to be successful. They have no trouble selling out Bills game where they charge a fortune to attend.

Jvig43
04-22-2012, 12:49 AM
Why hello!

PACKmanN
04-22-2012, 12:19 PM
I disagree, the CFL is viewed by Torontonians as minor league football and Toronto is too cosmopolitan to watch it. The Blue Jays had 4 million fans a year attend their games till a Belgian Brewery bought the team and cut the payroll by 75 million dollars. Torontonians won't accept a franchise that doesn't try to win. The Rapters have consistently failed to retain their top players so basketball has struggled a bit and who can blame their fans.
A NFL franchise that has a local owner with bucks to spend would be in a similar position that the Jays were in when they entered the league and fill the stadium on a consistent basis with little effort as long as the fans think they are trying to be successful. They have no trouble selling out Bills game where they charge a fortune to attend.
Even when the year the Blue Jays went out and spent money the support by the fans was very little.

I brought up the CFL, because it is at the end of the day, a football league. It shows just how interested a city is in the sport.

Toronto sports fans are known for being bandwagoners. Very little support is given to their team unless it is successful.

Also the Bills haven't had a winning record, and haven't made the playoffs in a while now. You're bringing in a franchise that will be looked at by Toronto sports fans as a loser.

Dangermouse
04-22-2012, 01:11 PM
This wouldn't happen. The 49ers and Rams have been rivals for decades and have the longest history within the division between any two combined teams.

This. I think Seattle will go the North as opposed to St Louis.

prock
04-22-2012, 01:13 PM
This. I think Seattle will go the North as opposed to St Louis.

Yeah but Seattle is two time zones away from all the other teams. This would not fly at all. It would have to be St. Louis.

jojo
04-22-2012, 01:17 PM
Vancouver has great support for the BC Lions, last time I've checked. Which is a football team for the city in the CFL.

BC Lions are the defending Gray Cup champions too

mqtirishfan
04-22-2012, 08:13 PM
This. I think Seattle will go the North as opposed to St Louis.

This makes no sense at all. They'd might as well just keep the Vikings in the North if they were going to ignore geography this way.

YAYareaRB
04-22-2012, 09:22 PM
seattle? i always thought they had a very good fan base and a kick ass stadium

Ness
04-22-2012, 09:44 PM
seattle? i always thought they had a very good fan base and a kick ass stadium

They do. They wouldn't move from Seattle. They would just join another division. It's happened before as they used to be in the AFC (although that was a conference change more-so).

Donnie D
04-23-2012, 02:24 AM
I disagree, the CFL is viewed by Torontonians as minor league football and Toronto is too cosmopolitan to watch it. The Blue Jays had 4 million fans a year attend their games till a Belgian Brewery bought the team and cut the payroll by 75 million dollars. Torontonians won't accept a franchise that doesn't try to win.

since when does spending money automatically mean a team can win? look at the Mets and the Cubs as the perfect examples of teams that spend over $100+ million annually with nothing to show for it year after year. the Red Sox ($173 million) and Angels ($154 million) are in the top 5 for highest payroll in MLB for 2012, and theyre both bottom dwellers of their divisions. its not about how much money you spend, its about how well you spend what you money have.

last year, the Rays had the second lowest payroll ($41 million) and still made the playoffs, as well as the Diamondbacks ($53 million), despite also being in the bottom 5 in payroll. and the Brewers ($84 million) and Rangers ($92 million) had sub-$100 million payrolls. this idea that if you dont spend 9 figures in salaries means youre not trying to win is ridiculous.

the Blue Jays have a payroll of $75 million for 2012, which is respectable. but more importantly, they have great hitting, pitching, and the minor league depth to withstand injuries to starters. im calling it now, just 15 games into the season, that the Blue Jays make the playoffs this year.

Donnie D
04-23-2012, 02:26 AM
Toronto sports fans are known for being bandwagoners. Very little support is given to their team unless it is successful.

Also the Bills haven't had a winning record, and haven't made the playoffs in a while now. You're bringing in a franchise that will be looked at by Toronto sports fans as a loser.

did you read the article i posted? Southern Ontario has already surpassed Rochester as the number 1 secondary market for the Bills. clearly Canadians are capable of supporting an NFL team even when it loses.

The_Dude
04-28-2012, 03:47 PM
Just a quick update.

The stadium bill has passed through committees & will reach the House & Senate floors Monday. The current legislation session ends Monday night/Tuesday morning at midnight.

The addition of a "racino" & an extension of gambling as a/the main public funding source may make it difficult to get passed. Some people are against gambling as the main source of funding even though it really is a "voluntary" tax, as it were.

Monomach
05-07-2012, 04:45 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/07/minnesota-house-increases-vikings-share-by-105-million/

Chance of Vikings bolting for LA in light of this? 99%.

Minnesota politicians really don't want the Vikings around. They'll end up having to kick in 90% of the funding for a really nice stadium before they get their next team, just like Baltimore did.

Pay 50% now or pay virtually all of it later when the pissed off Minnesotans elect new congressmen...

Iamcanadian
05-07-2012, 06:45 PM
These rumours come up every year. Eventually, some team with a rotten owner who doesn't know squat about building a franchise and consistently hires the wrong people, will move to LA but nobody knows which team or when the dirty deed will take place.

Smooth Criminal
05-07-2012, 06:45 PM
I've always assumed that we are not too far away from a team moving to LA and at least the Bills landing in Canada. I think the Canadians would definitely respond to having an NFL team, the Bills have had a lot of support up there when they have played games, and it really isn't that big of a move for them.

League will be weird without a team in Minnesota, but it appears they are the team going to LA.

Monomach
05-07-2012, 10:03 PM
good, **** the owners. they want a new stadium? they can buy the bloody thing. if bowlen decided mile high wasn't good enough again, i'd tell him to pound sand and enjoy LA.

Sure. Then he'd go to LA and when you guys had a decade to miss having a team of your own, you'd shell out way more to build a stadium to attract someone else's team.

As long as there's always one major metro area without a franchise, there's always going to be a city out there willing to hand an NFL team a stadium.

As far as I'm concerned, Illinois can kick in 75% of the money to build a retractable dome at 35th & Shields after another 15 years or so at that miniature abomination on the lakefront. There's no excuse for Chicago to have the smallest capacity of any NFL stadium.

http://oi45.tinypic.com/2corjt1.jpg
Chicagoans who were polled approved of this thing by a 2-1 margin over what happened to Soldier Field. It was cheaper than the renovation, it was easier to get to, and it had better parking. The crappy new Soldier Field was shoved down everyone's throat instead. Hopefully we build it the next time the subject comes up.

Brent
05-07-2012, 10:10 PM
good, **** the owners. they want a new stadium? they can buy the bloody thing.
"but it's more fun to make the tax payers foot my bill!" -NFL Owners

yo123
05-07-2012, 11:10 PM
Stadium bill passes in the house, which was supposed to be the biggest hurdle.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/07/minnesota-house-passes-vikings-stadium-bill/

Monomach
05-08-2012, 12:08 AM
Stadium bill passes in the house, which was supposed to be the biggest hurdle.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/07/minnesota-house-passes-vikings-stadium-bill/

The new "biggest hurdle" is that they amended it to make the deal unacceptable for the Vikings.

The Vikes are leaving.

yo123
05-08-2012, 12:20 AM
They added the amendment but that doesn't mean that's what will end up in the final package.

Monomach
05-08-2012, 12:43 AM
They added the amendment but that doesn't mean that's what will end up in the final package.

To change the package it has to go right back through the same people who just barely passed it with the new, crappy amendment.

What's going to make them say "lol, just kidding about that" and change it back?

yo123
05-08-2012, 12:48 AM
To change the package it has to go right back through the same people who just barely passed it with the new, crappy amendment.

What's going to make them say "lol, just kidding about that" and change it back?


The bill is going to the senate tomorrow, who can make their own amendments and pass their own version of the bill. The bill then goes to a committee to come up with a compromised version. The amendment is still very much open to discussion, according to literally everyone I've been following with knowledge of the situation.

KCJ58
05-08-2012, 01:13 AM
http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47756

Read 2nd post & the date

Mufasa
05-08-2012, 01:17 AM
Less than a year ago. Not even close to a bold prediction. Everyone knew they were the most likely team.

This post was 1000x better:
Or we can just call them the Los Angeles Vikings of Minnesota

Monomach
05-08-2012, 01:18 AM
The bill is going to the senate tomorrow, who can make their own amendments and pass their own version of the bill. The bill then goes to a committee to come up with a compromised version. The amendment is still very much open to discussion, according to literally everyone I've been following with knowledge of the situation.

Yeah, but even if the Senate passes it through with the amount the Vikes agreed on and if the committee agrees with that (they can just kill it and not even allow a second House vote), it still has to pass through the House again...so, like I said...those guys who just refused to pass it under the conditions the Vikings and NFL agreed to have to change their minds. There's no end-around to pass it without them voting on it again.

What the stupid Minnesota House is doing is trying to get the Vikings to leave but with the representatives to be able to say "oh, yeah, well, we passed the bill and they still left! They're the bad guys!"

This is like the leaders of the House and the Governor agreeing to sell you a car for $1000 and then bickering about how much to raise the price on you afterward. In any case, you (the Vikings) are going to go buy the car from the guy in LA who isn't dicking you around.

fenikz
05-08-2012, 02:11 AM
Think they will rebrand them like the Ravens/Titans or just move them like the Rams/Raiders

bearfan
05-08-2012, 10:13 AM
hopefully they just move them.

While it would be easier, I think that the Vikings really fit/represented the demographic of Minnesota: Up north, cold, snowy; not really things in sunny LA. I know it isn't like that with all teams, but I would like to see the team go through a little change to fit the area that they are in.

vikes_28
05-08-2012, 11:42 AM
Think they will rebrand them like the Ravens/Titans or just move them like the Rams/Raiders

I would imagine there would probably be some re-branding. The LA vikings just doesn't make sense. Of course, neither do the LA lakers.

Monomach
05-08-2012, 02:41 PM
I think they'd be better off letting Minnesota hang onto the "Vikings" stuff for the future. LA could so something the people would get behind a lot easier.

I'm thinking "The LA Earthquake." Where other teams have specially-named seating sections (i.e. Dawg Pound), they could have "The Fault Line."

Or they could play it really safe; "LA Knights" with a straight rip-off of USC's colors in an attempt to tag along with the Trojans' popularity. We already know that the Knight imagery works well for football logos.

http://chrisonrails.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/rutgers.jpg
http://www.leaguelineup.com/shadowhillsknights/images/knights.jpg
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_ucf/files/2010/07/ucflogo.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg/180px-USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg.png
http://www.frederick.com/images/main/knightsLogo200.jpg
http://ballcharts.com/teams/files/S/SouthGeorgiaKnights/team_photo7022.jpg
http://media.hometeamsonline.com/photos/htosports/HVILLEKNIGHTS/homepic1.jpg

Raiderz4Life
05-08-2012, 02:49 PM
Gonna be honest, those are pretty bad.

Sound like AFL names.

yo123
05-08-2012, 02:54 PM
Yeah, but even if the Senate passes it through with the amount the Vikes agreed on and if the committee agrees with that (they can just kill it and not even allow a second House vote), it still has to pass through the House again...so, like I said...those guys who just refused to pass it under the conditions the Vikings and NFL agreed to have to change their minds. There's no end-around to pass it without them voting on it again.

What the stupid Minnesota House is doing is trying to get the Vikings to leave but with the representatives to be able to say "oh, yeah, well, we passed the bill and they still left! They're the bad guys!"

This is like the leaders of the House and the Governor agreeing to sell you a car for $1000 and then bickering about how much to raise the price on you afterward. In any case, you (the Vikings) are going to go buy the car from the guy in LA who isn't dicking you around.


They don't have to agree on the same amount, just a different, compromised one. The senate just agreed on a 25 million dollar increase for the Vikings. It's up to the committee to come up with a compromised amount acceptable to both. Is 75 million a pretty big difference? Sure, but that's the point of conference committees, to iron out differences. It's not the done deal you're making it seem to be. You're the only one saying that, and it's the opposite of what the actual experts are saying.

cmd34
05-08-2012, 03:03 PM
Saw some earlier posts about what division the Vikings would go to. My feelling is that the NFL is so damn popular now they don't really need the old school rivalries anymore.

I'm a Cowboys fan and I loved the Redskins/Eagles/Giants games but they have no business being in the NFC East. It would be better for fans who want to travel (more) to have geographically closer division opponents. It would also cut down travel expenses for the teams creating an even bigger profit margin for the NFL.

bearsfan_51
05-08-2012, 03:03 PM
This is like the leaders of the House and the Governor agreeing to sell you a car for $1000 and then bickering about how much to raise the price on you afterward. In any case, you (the Vikings) are going to go buy the car from the guy in LA who isn't dicking you around.
Except that person doesn't exist, because the NFL uses LA as a boogeyman to scare the other 32 cities to fall in line.

I really don't want the Vikings to stay, but you're presuming far too much here. There's a reason the Vikings haven't threatened a move; they really don't want to.

bearsfan_51
05-08-2012, 03:04 PM
Also, people are really presuming a lot if they think most Minnesotans would miss the Vikings all that much. Minnesota isn't like a lot of other midwestern states; football is only one of many sports that people like, and the Vikings are barely more popular in the metro than the Packers are.

I lived in Cleveland when the Browns moved. This is NOTHING like that. Clevelanders identified with the Browns on a personal level as if they were dying. Most Minnesotans will shrug and then go do something else.

WCH
05-08-2012, 03:45 PM
Except that person doesn't exist, because the NFL uses LA as a boogeyman to scare the other 32 cities to fall in line.


I agree. You can't as get much leverage against current NFL cities if the next best options are San Antonio, Toronto, Mexico City, London, Minneapolis, or Oklahoma City (and Mexico City and London are pipe-dreams). LA gives them leverage.

I don't think the NFL would oppose a team moving to LA, but I don't think they mind not having a team in LA.

Monomach
05-08-2012, 04:04 PM
They don't have to agree on the same amount, just a different, compromised one. The senate just agreed on a 25 million dollar increase for the Vikings. It's up to the committee to come up with a compromised amount acceptable to both. Is 75 million a pretty big difference? Sure, but that's the point of conference committees, to iron out differences. It's not the done deal you're making it seem to be. You're the only one saying that, and it's the opposite of what the actual experts are saying.

It doesn't matter if the conference committee goes for the low figure and says 25 million more than what the NFL agreed to. The house still has to pass it again afterward, and they barely passed it the first time with 105 million tacked on.

Even if it miraculously gets through with the Vikes paying 25 mil more than they originally agreed to pay...why would they? They were doing that no-ticket-buying fanbase a favor by agreeing to the terms they had in the first place. Why bend over backwards to keep the team there when they have trouble selling out home games?

This thing still has to get out of a conference with the Senate and House leaders agreeing to a new sum, then agreeing to even allow it to go to vote again, then has to get through the full voting bodies of both houses, then has to get through the Vikings and NFL, who've already said they don't want to pay any more than they already agreed to.

...and what "experts?" Every schoolkid knows how the legislature works. The only "experts" are the Vikings since they have the final say, and they just said they're not cool with paying more.

Except that person doesn't exist, because the NFL uses LA as a boogeyman to scare the other 32 cities to fall in line.

I really don't want the Vikings to stay, but you're presuming far too much here. There's a reason the Vikings haven't threatened a move; they really don't want to.
That person definitely exists. There are people who have already spent millions of dollars just for the chance to be considered to move a team there. They've offered to put a billion toward a stadium in exchange for the opportunity to buy a minority share of a team.

http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/nfl/post/_/id/820/aeg-releases-3d-video-of-farmers-field

That has to look pretty damned tempting right now.

yo123
05-08-2012, 05:12 PM
...and what "experts?" Every schoolkid knows how the legislature works. The only "experts" are the Vikings since they have the final say, and they just said they're not cool with paying more.




You know, the ones who follow and write about this story for a living? Who know how congress is likely to work out and get paid to make accurate assessments of the situation? People who I'm much more likely to trust the opinion of than a random rival fan on the internet.

Not a single one of them has expressed even the slightest thought that the Vikings are 100% leaving. I've been pessimistic about this situation since the beginning, I wouldn't put a dime on the Vikings staying, but there is no clear answer right now and the fact that you think there is is strange. You're claiming that basically you know something that no one else does, even including everyone closely involved in the situation which makes no sense.

Monomach
05-08-2012, 05:27 PM
You know, the ones who follow and write about this story for a living? Who know how congress is likely to work out and get paid to make accurate assessments of the situation? People who I'm much more likely to trust the opinion of than a random rival fan on the internet.

They don't know any more about the legislature than anyone who paid attention in poli sci 101. C'mon now. Everything I outlined there has to be done. That's just how it is. Me being a rival fan doesn't mean that I'm making up the fact that the exact same people who a couple of days ago barely managed to pass the bill with 105 million extra coming from the Vikings will somehow have to pass it again with less coming from the Vikings. IF this thing gets out of committee, both houses have to vote on it all over again. I'm not making up the goddamned legislative process. It's fact.

If they could barely agree to pay 293,000,000 out of state funds, what makes you think they'd agree to even the Senate's better willingness to pay 373,000,000? What makes you think that the Vikings, after months of negotiating with house leaders and the governor to come to an agreement for the state to pay 398,000,000, are about to agree to pay a big chunk of change more, which even the Senate's 25,000,000 represents?

...and for the record, I don't want the Vikings to leave. I want them to get a nice shiny new stadium and stay in Minny and the NFC North forever. I like our division the way it is. Every team's home is within driving distance for me, so I can see the Bears on the road a lot. I'm just a realist who recognizes a legislature trying just hard enough to cover its own ass when I see it.

yo123
05-08-2012, 05:36 PM
They don't know any more about the legislature than anyone who paid attention in poli sci 101. C'mon now. Everything I outlined there has to be done. That's just how it is. Me being a rival fan doesn't mean that I'm making up the fact that the exact same people who a couple of days ago barely managed to pass the bill with 105 million extra coming from the Vikings will somehow have to pass it again with less coming from the Vikings. IF this thing gets out of committee, both houses have to vote on it all over again. I'm not making up the goddamned legislative process. It's fact.

If they could barely agree to pay 293,000,000 out of state funds, what makes you think they'd agree to even the Senate's better willingness to pay 373,000,000? What makes you think that the Vikings, after months of negotiating with house leaders and the governor to come to an agreement for the state to pay 398,000,000, are about to agree to pay a big chunk of change more, which even the Senate's 25,000,000 represents?

...and for the record, I don't want the Vikings to leave. I want them to get a nice shiny new stadium and stay in Minny and the NFC North forever. I like our division the way it is. Every team's home is within driving distance for me, so I can see the Bears on the road a lot. I'm just a realist who recognizes a legislature trying just hard enough to cover its own ass when I see it.

Please stop re-explaining the process to me, I know the process. I'm actually a political science student. Am I looking at this with a glass-half full perspective? Maybe, but I've been a Vikings fan for 21 years what do you expect? Would it be somewhat surprising if it passed through the house after an increase in public funding? Sure, but the point is there's still a conceivable chance there is a magic number somewhere in the middle that can be agreed upon.

What really is the bigger obstacle is that the senate passed an amendment requiring a public referendum, and as bf has stated multiple times the twin cities don't care about the Vikings, comparatively to the rest of the country at least.

descendency
05-08-2012, 06:03 PM
Just call them the LA Condoms. They'll be about as popular as that.

yo123
05-10-2012, 07:50 AM
Final version of the bill got out of the conference committee, Vikes agreed to the 50 million dollar increase, and it passed the house this morning. Wow, its almost like they were never a sure thing to move after all.:njx:

bearsfan_51
05-10-2012, 02:13 PM
Yup. It's all but a done deal now.

The majority of the state funding will come from new sources of gambling, and I don't live in Minneapolis so I won't have to fund the city aspect of it.

Still don't like the idea of public funds going to private buildings, but whatever, let the drunk gamblers pay for it.

bearsfan_51
05-10-2012, 02:14 PM
So who is the new city to get bullied with the threat of L.A.?

vikes_28
05-10-2012, 02:30 PM
i'm assuming it will be the raiders/ chargers/ rams. I don't see any other teams moving.

vikes_28
05-10-2012, 02:35 PM
http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/New-Stadium-Clears-Both-House-and-Senate-Awaiting-Gov-Daytons-Signature/f84a31c8-4bed-4f24-b7a1-8380e6a5a840 Here is the link

D-Unit
05-10-2012, 02:43 PM
So who is the new city to get bullied with the threat of L.A.?
Jaguars aren't out of the red are they?

djp
05-10-2012, 07:17 PM
Very happy today. Not sure what I would have done.

boknows34
05-10-2012, 11:46 PM
The Vikings are staying in Minnesota and a new $975m stadium should be completed by 2016.

The state Senate approved the deal on Thursday night having already been passed earlier by the House and now only needs a signature from the Minnesota governor to become official. Gov. Mark Dayton has already said he'll sign the measure, meaning last night's 36-30 Senate vote in favour of a new stadium was effectively the final hurdle.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828ff66f/article/minnesota-senate-passes-vikings-stadium-proposal-3630

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829025de/article/minnesota-vikings-owner-zygi-wilfs-patience-pays-off?module=HP11_headline_stack

The Vikings had to pledge $50 million more to close the deal. They will put $477 million toward the project, the state has pledged $348 million and the city of Minneapolis will chip in $150 million. Under the the terms of the deal the Vikings will sign a new 30-year lease on a stadium to be built on the site of the Metrodome.

"The Stadium Bill just passed the Minnesota Senate. The only thing left to do is have the Governor sign it!" the Vikings Twitter account said.

Vikings vice president Lester Bagley hugged another team official when the news happened and shouted, "Let's build it!" Bagley has been pushing for this moment for more than a decade. So has Vikings owner Zygi Wilf. Longtime Vikings beat reporter Kevin Seifert, now with ESPN.com, says that Wilf "saved the franchise."

http://oi50.tinypic.com/wbujkm.jpg

Raiders or Chargers for LA?

7DnBrnc53
05-11-2012, 05:39 AM
What about the Rams going back to LA?

prock
05-11-2012, 09:57 AM
**** you Monomach!

bearsfan_51
05-11-2012, 10:28 AM
People frequently mention the Rams, but their dome is only 17 years old. Unless the city has an awful lease with the Rams, I don't see how they could get out of it for at least another 3-5 years.

bearsfan_51
05-11-2012, 10:29 AM
I tend to agree that at this point the Raiders and the Chargers are going to be the two most obvious targets, and probably the ones that would please the league the most, as neither would cause a huge disruption in the league.

yo123
05-11-2012, 11:53 AM
**** you Monomach!

He is noticeably absent from this thread. Shocking.

Zygi says the Vikes are going to try to put a retractable roof on the new stadium. Interesting.

ArkyRamsFan
05-11-2012, 12:08 PM
People frequently mention the Rams, but their dome is only 17 years old. Unless the city has an awful lease with the Rams, I don't see how they could get out of it for at least another 3-5 years.

The issue is not how old the dome is but if it is what considered to be a "first tier" NFL stadium. The language in the lease with the Rams and the CVC (management company for the Jones Dome) requires that the stadium be kept up to certain standards.

The Rams' lease requires the St. Louis stadium authority to provide a first-tier facility by 2015. The Edward Jones Dome is not close to first tier by NFL standards. It's debatable whether a re-design could meet the Rams' likely demands without the project becoming cost-prohibitive.

In the meantime, the Rams have recently rejected the stadium authority's offer (their list of possible improvements) as a matter of course. The stadium authority is expected to reject the Rams' counter proposal which includes a retractable roof among other goodies. Once that happens, an arbitrator will begin deciding what constitutes a reasonable upgrade. That process, scheduled to begin June 15 and conclude before 2013, would produce a compromise proposal for the city to accept or reject.

If the city accepts, the Rams would be bound to the proposal, keeping in place their lease through 2025. If the city rejects the arbitrator's proposal, the Rams would be free to consider their options in St. Louis or elsewhere starting in the 2015 season.

The Rams and the city of St. Louis are in uncharted waters. Nobody knows how the arbitration process will play out and what the consequences of all this will mean.

Finally, our new owner, Stan Kroenke, has been quite silent and is keeping his cards close to his vest. Many wonder if one of those cards includes the move to LA one.

Stay tuned.....

Monomach
05-11-2012, 12:28 PM
He is noticeably absent from this thread. Shocking.

Zygi says the Vikes are going to try to put a retractable roof on the new stadium. Interesting.

Shocking that I didn't call off of work so I could constantly refresh the Vikings website every 5 minutes just to check whether anything happened when as far as I knew nothing was scheduled?

Now I'm kind of wishing you'd lost your team. I was pretty damned happy to be wrong until I came here and read this douchiness.

yo123
05-11-2012, 01:07 PM
Shocking that I didn't call off of work so I could constantly refresh the Vikings website every 5 minutes just to check whether anything happened when as far as I knew nothing was scheduled?

Now I'm kind of wishing you'd lost your team. I was pretty damned happy to be wrong until I came here and read this douchiness.


Lol u sound mad. I was just giving you a hard time for the most part.

vikes_28
05-11-2012, 03:45 PM
Zygi says the Vikes are going to try to put a retractable roof on the new stadium. Interesting.

How is this going to work? would the state even go for that after this?

marshallb
05-11-2012, 03:52 PM
How is this going to work? would the state even go for that after this?

It was put in the bill that the Vikings could add a retractable roof, but the Vikings would have to pay for it entirely.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-11-2012, 03:52 PM
Hello non existent LA Vikings.

Glad Vikings are staying in Minnesota.

yo123
05-11-2012, 05:29 PM
It was put in the bill that the Vikings could add a retractable roof, but the Vikings would have to pay for it entirely.

Yup, Wilf said they really want to put one on, we'll see though.

PackerLegend
05-13-2012, 11:22 AM
Hello non existent LA Vikings.

Glad Vikings are staying in Minnesota.

So its 100% certain the Vikings will remain in Minnesota? I have a deep hatred for them but I absolutely don't want to see them leave. I like are hate we have for eachother.

bearsfan_51
05-13-2012, 11:41 AM
It needs to be approved by the Minneapolis City Council, but they've been saying they have the votes for a while.

WCH
05-13-2012, 12:23 PM
So its 100% certain the Vikings will remain in Minnesota? I have a deep hatred for them but I absolutely don't want to see them leave. I like are hate we have for eachother.

Me too. Sometimes I still have a hard time not thinking of the Bucs as a rival.

prock
05-13-2012, 12:46 PM
Shocking that I didn't call off of work so I could constantly refresh the Vikings website every 5 minutes just to check whether anything happened when as far as I knew nothing was scheduled?

Now I'm kind of wishing you'd lost your team. I was pretty damned happy to be wrong until I came here and read this douchiness.

If by douchiness you mean fans being ecstatic that we didn't lose our team and calling out the douche bag rival fan who was guaranteeing the opposite result.

You have a weird definition of douchiness.

prock
05-13-2012, 12:48 PM
So its 100% certain the Vikings will remain in Minnesota? I have a deep hatred for them but I absolutely don't want to see them leave. I like are hate we have for eachother.

Our*. But yes, it is close between my love for the Vikings and hate for the Packers.

stlouisfan37
05-15-2012, 04:08 AM
The issue is not how old the dome is but if it is what considered to be a "first tier" NFL stadium. The language in the lease with the Rams and the CVC (management company for the Jones Dome) requires that the stadium be kept up to certain standards.

The Rams' lease requires the St. Louis stadium authority to provide a first-tier facility by 2015. The Edward Jones Dome is not close to first tier by NFL standards. It's debatable whether a re-design could meet the Rams' likely demands without the project becoming cost-prohibitive.

In the meantime, the Rams have recently rejected the stadium authority's offer (their list of possible improvements) as a matter of course. The stadium authority is expected to reject the Rams' counter proposal which includes a retractable roof among other goodies. Once that happens, an arbitrator will begin deciding what constitutes a reasonable upgrade. That process, scheduled to begin June 15 and conclude before 2013, would produce a compromise proposal for the city to accept or reject.

If the city accepts, the Rams would be bound to the proposal, keeping in place their lease through 2025. If the city rejects the arbitrator's proposal, the Rams would be free to consider their options in St. Louis or elsewhere starting in the 2015 season.

The Rams and the city of St. Louis are in uncharted waters. Nobody knows how the arbitration process will play out and what the consequences of all this will mean.

Finally, our new owner, Stan Kroenke, has been quite silent and is keeping his cards close to his vest. Many wonder if one of those cards includes the move to LA one.

Stay tuned.....

It looks to me like the Rams are really hoping for a brand new stadium. Their counterproposal to the CVC came in at over $700 million. People will seriously question whether or not it is worth throwing that kind of money at a renovation project when you can build a brand new facility for $1 billion. I think this one gets ugly.