Vikings Message Board.Com

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 50375.html

Mark Craig: Vikings, NFL are past stage of bluffing

Laserman wrote:if the vikes were to move to LA they wouldn't stay " the Vikings" for long. Just as when the Oilers move and became the Titans. I would stay a Fan until the name "vikings" was gone. Never been North Of Philly, and that was just a visit. I'm a southerner who as a 7 year old kid fell in love with the name Minnesota Vikings and the uniforms.

What about the Chicago/St Louis/Arizona Cardinals? They never changed their team name. Nor did the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts. When Baltimore got their team back it became the Ravens. (who are actually the old Browns - I'm sooo confused )

Just Me wrote: What about the Chicago/St Louis/Arizona Cardinals? They never changed their team name. Nor did the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts. When Baltimore got their team back it became the Ravens. (who are actually the old Browns - I'm sooo confused )

Those are both older moves. Nowadays when teams move, they "rebrand".

glg wrote: Those are both older moves. Nowadays when teams move, they "rebrand".

Yes, there's too much money in it not to re-brand.

Mothman wrote:
Yes, there's too much money in it not to re-brand.

I agree about the money thing, but there's nothing that will force Wilf/whoever owns the L.A team to re-brand. Modell left the Browns name and colors because he was forced to because of the uproar over his actions. Wilf is under no such guidelines... the Vikes are franchise free agents. Thinking vindictively, If forced to move. I'd offer to sell the name and colors to the State for keeping in case they get another NFL franchise down the line... if they won't pay, keep it and mothball it.

I have no ties to the state of Minnesota but as a 20 year Viking fan I don't want them to move. But the more I read from the detractors and the anti stadium Trolls, the Idea of Wilf giving them all the Stone Cold Salute and moving the team makes me grin a bit. Then, reality sets in that these people aren't the ones who are going to get hurt here. It's the silent legions of real Viking fans who will be crushed to see the Mayflower trucks. Wilf by no means has handled this perfectly throughout the years(Anoka), but he has been obscenely patient with this process. It's a credit to him that he's still there trying to make it work, when he could've made massive sums of money moving the team to L.A. or selling it to someone who would. The minute that lease expired there are several other owners around the league, who if in the same position would've been out the door... We know Red McCombs would've had the truck company on speed dial with the phone in his hand and his finger poised over button at 11:59pm

Looking at it objectively I even find myself asking why he hasn't packed it in. The benefits of the L.A. market are pretty attractive.
More money, Bigger market: The team would move from a bottom dweller in terms of profit up with the Cowboys and other big time franchises. The franchises profile would also raise because of the bigger market.
Free Agents / Talent retention: It would be easier to attract high end talent to the warm weather and bright lights. Admittedly it's been a pain getting the real high end free agents to come to Minnesota. It's cold, it's relatively small, it's not a major media market. With pro athletes wanting to maximize their earning/marketing potential, L.A beats Minnesota hands down.

I'm sure Wilf has other motives for trying to keep them in Minny other than loyalty but still, it is a credit that he trying to make it work when the gates have been open for him to bolt for greener pastures.

glg wrote:Those are both older moves. Nowadays when teams move, they "rebrand".

Rams, Browns, Raiders, Oilers moves all happened mid-1990s. Only the Browns re-branded in the sense that the "history" stayed in Cleveland. The other franchises, to my knowledge, switched locales, changed names in some cases, but kept the history with the new location. This was true of the hockey moves in the 1990s I think (North Stars to Stars, Nordiques to Avalanche, Jets to Coyotes, Whalers to Hurricanes). Am I mistaken? Are there other examples of the history being left with the old City?

Mothman wrote:http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 50375.html
Mark Craig: Vikings, NFL are past stage of bluffing

Good article. Thanks for posting.

CalVike wrote: Rams, Browns, Raiders, Oilers moves all happened mid-1990s.

Raiders doesn't really count since they moved back to their original city and the Browns are a special case as noted.

The difference I see between the Rams and Oilers is that "Rams" wasn't LA specific (franchise started in Cleveland), where "Oilers" was Houston specific, so it made more sense for the Oilers to change names. The same would almost certainly apply with the Vikes. This would be opposed to some of the nonsensical names in the NBA like the Lakers (originally Mpls) and Jazz (originally NO).

CalVike wrote:Only the Browns re-branded in the sense that the "history" stayed in Cleveland. The other franchises, to my knowledge, switched locales, changed names in some cases, but kept the history with the new location. This was true of the hockey moves in the 1990s I think (North Stars to Stars, Nordiques to Avalanche, Jets to Coyotes, Whalers to Hurricanes). Am I mistaken? Are there other examples of the history being left with the old City?

I think the Browns is the only case and that was an extreme case as well.

My latest thinking:
0. Gov Dayton is the pivotal player
1. Goodell and Rooney made it clear NFL wants Vikings in Minnesota and another team in LA.
2. Kudos to Bagley and Wilf's for ably and quickly shifting from Arden Hills to Minneapolis, sub-kudos to Mayor Rybak.
3. I have more hope for Speaker Zellars after listening to KFAN on Friday, with him a guest on Barreiro.
4. The budget battle in 2013 session means it must pass now.
5. While failure means the Vikes could go to LA or Toronto, I think it will play out another year because Chargers and Raiders have worse stadium situations, no chance of any state or local funding, and a history in LA.
6. I think it's 60-40 against passage now because of tepid support of the Mpls City Council, legislators who favor a referendum, and opposition to gambling as source of state share.
7. If it fails, we fans are in for a year of rhetoric far worse and more negative than this year, something I hope is avoided.
8. No doubt the team has full blessing of the NFL to relocate if it fails this year.

CalVike wrote:My latest thinking:
0. Gov Dayton is the pivotal player
1. Goodell and Rooney made it clear NFL wants Vikings in Minnesota and another team in LA.
2. Kudos to Bagley and Wilf's for ably and quickly shifting from Arden Hills to Minneapolis, sub-kudos to Mayor Rybak.
3. I have more hope for Speaker Zellars after listening to KFAN on Friday, with him a guest on Barreiro.
4. The budget battle in 2013 session means it must pass now.
5. While failure means the Vikes could go to LA or Toronto, I think it will play out another year because Chargers and Raiders have worse stadium situations, no chance of any state or local funding, and a history in LA.
6. I think it's 60-40 against passage now because of tepid support of the Mpls City Council, legislators who favor a referendum, and opposition to gambling as source of state share.
7. If it fails, we fans are in for a year of rhetoric far worse and more negative than this year, something I hope is avoided.
8. No doubt the team has full blessing of the NFL to relocate if it fails this year.

well stated. I did not hear Zellars on KFAN. Do you know of a link? From what I've heard so far, I'd guess the guy already took a day off to help them make the move.

bigskyeric wrote: well stated. I did not hear Zellars on KFAN. Do you know of a link? From what I've heard so far, I'd guess the guy already took a day off to help them make the move.

Try this link

http://www.kfan.com/cc-common/podcast/s ... ed_podcast

CalVike wrote: Try this link

http://www.kfan.com/cc-common/podcast/s ... ed_podcast

Zellars is a tool. The worst part is je lives in Maple Grove, which is where I grew up. I hate that he is associated with my home city.

Zellars is a tool. The worst part is he lives in Maple Grove, which is where I grew up. I hate that he is associated with my home city.

I just hope it gets done on his watch, something until last week I really thought had no chance, because of him. Now I at least have more hope even with lingering doubts. Go Vikes! Go Legislature! Make it happen.

CalVike wrote: Try this link

http://www.kfan.com/cc-common/podcast/s ... ed_podcast

Thanks for that. Zellars isn't as big of a tool as I was expecting. But still a tool. Why does he talk in circles so much. He is the Speaker, and people from his party obviously listen to him. Why won't he just speak up and state the obvious..."this new stadium would be good for our state". After listening to this, he appears to be for it. "the metrodome has served it's purpose." "Twins new target field is an amazing venue to watch baseball and I'm glad it doesn't have a roof.." "Pawlenty publicly was against a new stadium for the twins but it got done on his watch".... Seriously Mr. Speaker...Just say you're for it already.. Jeeezzz

bigskyeric wrote:Zellars isn't as big of a tool as I was expecting. But still a tool. Why does he talk in circles so much.

Because he's a politician and that's what they do. They talk and talk but hardly say anything with substance.

We all know that basically it all boils down to this being an election year, and no elected official wants to support a stadium because they're afraid they'll get voted out. I wonder if they've considered that if the stadium deal doesn't get done and the Vikings move, how many people will show up to the polls to vote against those incumbents...?