Vikings Message Board.Com

purple guy wrote:I can see why the Vikings dont have a deal in place. They cant make up their mind on location or style of stadium. This stuff should have been in place long ago. Bagley seems to be in over his head. IDK, just seems they are a bit clueless for being this far into the sitaution.

I'm amazed that the Wilfs continue to employ Bagley. What has this guy accomplished?

glg wrote: I'm amazed that the Wilfs continue to employ Bagley. What has this guy accomplished?

In the end, probably be largely responsible for the relocation of the Vikings. I agree, its confusing he is still employed. Head scratcher.

Eli wrote: I'd be amazed if that's true with the current stadium situation.

Alright just a little bit off. He bought it a $600 million, and it's worth $774 million right now (according to Forbes). At its height under Wilf, it was worth $835 million. It's important to realize that the majority of those teams on the list have lost value over the past year. Either way, he's made a huge amount of money off the Vikings thus far.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/foo ... _Rank.html

thatguy wrote: Alright just a little bit off. He bought it a $600 million, and it's worth $774 million right now (according to Forbes). At its height under Wilf, it was worth $835 million. It's important to realize that the majority of those teams on the list have lost value over the past year. Either way, he's made a huge amount of money off the Vikings thus far.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/foo ... _Rank.html

Just remember that, you cannot "make" the money until you sell the asset. What it is "worth" is not always what you can get for it. With the loss of the dome and the lease in question and the uncertainty surrounding this issue, I would bet that at this moment, no one would pay what it is "worth"

dkoby wrote:
Just remember that, you cannot "make" the money until you sell the asset. What it is "worth" is not always what you can get for it. With the loss of the dome and the lease in question and the uncertainty surrounding this issue, I would bet that at this moment, no one would pay what it is "worth"

Sort of true, on the other side of it, you move the team to some where that will build you a big stadium for free and suddenly it's worth a billion. I guess I just don't see the point in selling such an asset when literally 2 years from now you'll have a big new stadium in place one way or the other skyrocketing the value over night practically. In other words, in 2-3 years they would likely make you 250 million if you could get the vikings for 774 mill. Not a bad RoI, really.

dkoby wrote:
Just remember that, you cannot "make" the money until you sell the asset. What it is "worth" is not always what you can get for it. With the loss of the dome and the lease in question and the uncertainty surrounding this issue, I would bet that at this moment, no one would pay what it is "worth"

I can think of a few out in LA that would pay MORE than it's worth.

It is absolutely ridiculous that the official stance of the Vikings is that a roofed stadium does them no good. They would, I expect, have control of all concessions for the stadium, regardless of the event. That would have to be a fairly lucrative revenue stream, especially if it gets comparable usage to what the Metrodome has. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fact that the Vikings had a poor deal on concessions revenue in the Dome one of the primary reasons they wanted out of the lease?

Additionally, Wilf's whole push for a downtown stadium was to develop a shopping/restaurant complex. Why scrimp when the payday could be huge?

And honestly, considering the political atmosphere in Minnesota, insisting on only paying for one-third of a ROOFLESS stadium is suicidal. The anti-stadium comments on the Strib site were overwhelming.

This has to be the most out-of-touch push for a stadium i have ever seen.

This has to be the most out-of-touch push for a stadium i have ever seen.

I don't know...Lester and Red's efforts were pretty out-of-touch as well...

BGM wrote:The anti-stadium comments on the Strib site were overwhelming.

Please keep in mind that regardless of what the topic is, Strib commentators are easily the most cynical, nasty, and unfriendly people as a whole. Don't take too much stock into what they say. They must feel real important because they can essentially leave comments anonymously without ANY repercussions.

That is a major problem in this country right now IMO, they only think short term because they are only elected for the short term, in some cases like the presidency you only get 2 terms or 8 years max by rule, obviously pros and cons to any set up though, don't want the same jerk for 50 years either.

I think this is a problem everywhere, not just in government. Just look at the NFL. If a coach doesn't win in 4 years, he gets canned. If a rookie QB doesn't do well in one season, he is benched and never given a chance again.

Anyway, back to the topic, I hope the Vikings stay in Minnesota. Doesn't even sound logical to me. I guess if the Vikes move to LA, then the Bears can move to Sacramento, the Lions to San Antonio, and the Packers to Portland. My point is that the NFC North wouldn't be the same without the Vikings. When it lost Tampa in '01, it wasn't that bad but to lose any of the others would be horrible.

I really wish the Vikings go back to an outdoor stadium and playing on real grass but ANY stadium is better than losing the team. I do feel that the Willf's should pay HALF the cost of the new stadium, especially if they do not want to help pay for a roof over it. It seems to me that a 50/50 split between owners and the state would be more easy to sell the people that in the end are going to be the ones paying .

Lash Man wrote:I do feel that the Willf's should pay HALF the cost of the new stadium, especially if they do not want to help pay for a roof over it. It seems to me that a 50/50 split between owners and the state would be more easy to sell the people that in the end are going to be the ones paying .

Problem is NO ONE else does it that way. Even Jerry Jones didn't put up half the bill for his new stadium, actually I don't think he put up ANY THING but would have to look that up. As much as it would improve the value of the team for Mr. Wilf it ultimately helps the state significantly more because even the money Mr. wilf or the team makes, gets taxed by minnesota.

thatguy wrote: I can think of a few out in LA that would pay MORE than it's worth.

Up until about a year ago I put relocation at around a 5% chance. Today, with all that has happened and under current circumstances, I'd say it's at least 20%.

There HAS to be some movement from the bureaucratic side, and I haven't seen any sign of that taking place any time soon.

headless_norseman wrote: Up until about a year ago I put relocation at around a 5% chance. Today, with all that has happened and under current circumstances, I'd say it's at least 20%.

There HAS to be some movement from the bureaucratic side, and I haven't seen any sign of that taking place any time soon.

The legislature just refuses to look at things in the long-term view and seem to only think that the upfront cost is what is on the table.

mondry wrote:
Problem is NO ONE else does it that way. Even Jerry Jones didn't put up half the bill for his new stadium, actually I don't think he put up ANY THING but would have to look that up.

Jerry Jones spent almost $800 million on the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium. The total cost of the stadium was $1.15 billion. Arlington voters raised taxes and provided $325 million and the NFL kicked in $150 million. Jones covered the rest.