NDVikeFan wrote:
To be honest i wouldn't even be mad at Ziggy if he took the team to LA. Its been the same song and dance with this new stadium plan since what '98? This is a business, he owns the team, has to do whats right for him, and this Stadium issue should have been taken care of long ago. There is absolutely no reason the Vikings should not be in a new Stadium in Minnesota starting in 2012. I hate to agree with you but the Los Angeles Vikings (or whatever they will be if they leave the colors and logo's and name in Minnesota) are looking like a real strong possibility.
How can you even say that? He may "own" the team in the sense that he makes the business decisions and gets the money from the team...but the Vikings belong to Minnesota. It's a cultural icon, and you can't take that away. I like Zygi. I don't think he'll ever move the team. Sell it to someone who will...maybe.
Even if they do get this deal done this summer what year could the Vikes have a new Stadium ready to go? 2014? 2015? Looks like Minnesota is playing with fire and imo they are going to get burnt. Can you imagine the 2012 season starting and after 51 years the Vikings not being part of Minnesota?
What difference does it make if they don't get the stadium done until 2015? If they have a deal in place, they're not going anywhere. I don't think you understand the concept of a contract if you think that they can sign a deal...and then just up and leave. They'll play a couple/few seasons at the U of M stadium while the thing is being built.
Cleveland lucked out and got there Browns back. Betting on the same thing with the Vikings if they were to leave is a horrible idea.
They're not even the Browns in my book. They're just a new team with the same name to me. Such a disgrace to ever move any team that's obviously a big part of a society.
"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it." ~Thucydides
NDVikeFan wrote:Cleveland lucked out and got there Browns back. Betting on the same thing with the Vikings if they were to leave is a horrible idea.
I think one thing is for certain. The NFL won't see an expansion in the foreseeable future. There are already too many teams in marginal markets and 32 is an ideal number for divisional play. So if a team leaves Minnesota or Buffalo or wherever, there will not be an expansion team taking its place. It would require another team to move into town.
thatguy wrote:
How can you even say that? He may "own" the team in the sense that he makes the business decisions and gets the money from the team...but the Vikings belong to Minnesota. It's a cultural icon, and you can't take that away. I like Zygi. I don't think he'll ever move the team. Sell it to someone who will...maybe.
What difference does it make if they don't get the stadium done until 2015? If they have a deal in place, they're not going anywhere. I don't think you understand the concept of a contract if you think that they can sign a deal...and then just up and leave. They'll play a couple/few seasons at the U of M stadium while the thing is being built.
They're not even the Browns in my book. They're just a new team with the same name to me. Such a disgrace to ever move any team that's obviously a big part of a society.
Disagree. Ziggy Owns the Vikings. They are a cultural icon no doubt but if Ziggy wants to move, and the other NFL owners are ok with that there gone. Been done before and it could happen to us....I understand contracts fine and dandy. What i meant (and i probabley didnt express it right) is that it should have never come to the Vikings playing a few seasons at TCF, let alone all this talk of them leaving. I would be alot more comfortable if all the Vikings had to do was play out another season at the Dome and move into there new Stadium. Now really all Ziggy has to do is play out this season and he is free to move. Like i said should have never came to this. Stadium should have been ready and done for the 2012 season when the Dome lease is done. I am really sure when it comes down to it Ziggy would rather make money than keep the Minnesota people happy. It would be one thing if he was actually from Minnesota but he's not. I doubt a New Yorker is going to care if he moves a team to LA and makes a boatload of cash. Same goes for all the other owners. Do you think when it comes down to it the Jerry Jones of the World care about the history of the Vikings or the fans of Minnesota? All they see is Minnesota seemingly not wanting to build a stadium, and $ signs in LA.......I agree about the Browns. If the Vikings leave and for some reason we do get another team there will always be that void.
Eli wrote:I think one thing is for certain. The NFL won't see an expansion in the foreseeable future. There are already too many teams in marginal markets and 32 is an ideal number for divisional play. So if a team leaves Minnesota or Buffalo or wherever, there will not be an expansion team taking its place. It would require another team to move into town.
Yep if the Vikings leave we would more than likely have to hope for another team to leave a market and than come here. That would be after building a Stadium. So basically if the Vikings would leave, you would have to build a stadium and hope a team moves here when it is done. Now what team is going to be a lame duck in there current market for 2 or 3 years while Minnesota builds a Stadium? I doubt anyone. Besides Minnesota isnt going to build a Stadium unless they are assured of a team. Again without expansion that leaves the lame duck theory which i don't see happening. So why not just build one now, keep the Vikings and all the history and pride that goes with having an NFL team and be done with it? Pisses me off we are even having this discussion. Things should have been done and i hope the ultimate prize of the Vikes leaving town doesn't have to be paid.
Eli wrote:
I don't understand. Why wouldn't a new stadium with a roof get just as much use as the old one?
A retractable roof might be cool, but I don't see much, if any, economic advantage to it. It's more expensive and can only really be used about four months of the year in a place like Minnesota where the summers can be stifling and the winters are long an brutal.
Oops ... let me clarify.
I'm not in favor of a purely open-air stadium because of the use factor.
Retractable or permanent ... I could live with either. As a fan, I'd prefer retractable so that outdoor games could be played when it's nice. But admittedly, that would be a luxury.
At this point, The organization, The State and The NFL are really behind the 8-ball in getting a stadium built in time for the 2012 Season, unless they use the existing structure. How long does it take to build an NFL quality stadium?
NDVikeFan wrote:I just dont understand how some people cant grasp the concept of the Vikings leaving. If the Vikings left, sure life would go on, but the void would be HUGE for the whole state. It would be disastorous to let the Vikings go.
I'm Iowa Viking and I would send some hate mail if the unthinkable were to happen.
A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.
Imagine spending $15 million to fix the current roof, then tearing the Metrodome down a couple years later. I suppose if a new stadium is built elsewhere then the Metrodome doesn't have to be torn down immediately, but there's little reason to maintain it except for the Vikings. I wonder how many "we just spent $15 million to fix the existing stadium" arguments will be heard when push comes to shove.
Yeah it's kind of pathetic really, such poor leadership, 15 million repair here, 10 million fix there, 20 million update here just to maintain a pile of crap. Not to mention with that awesome thing called inflation the stadium will likely cost sum 200 million more then had we just built it 3-4 years ago. But why buy today when you can buy tomorrow at a higher price I guess, sounds good too me.
Bottom line is the dome is basically that 30 year old car you have that breaks down / needs repairing so often and gets 9 miles to a gallon that it's not worth putting ANY more money into.
Unfortunately, nobody has a choice about repairs to the Met. What I worry about is that the roof collapse could in the end make it more difficult to get a new stadium rather than being the godsend that everyone anticipated. And unlike that 30 year old car, which I could go out and replace tomorrow, a stadium will be at least two to three years before design and construction are completed.
TeamChaplain wrote:At this point, The organization, The State and The NFL are really behind the 8-ball in getting a stadium built in time for the 2012 Season, unless they use the existing structure. How long does it take to build an NFL quality stadium?
Usually 2 years. Da Bears got the new Soldier done in a little less than that (using very little of the existing structure). But that's talking plans already done, money in place, etc. They knew they were using the same site and wanted to only have one season away, so pretty much the day after they were eliminated (lost their first playoff game), demolition started.
glg wrote:
Usually 2 years. Da Bears got the new Soldier done in a little less than that (using very little of the existing structure). But that's talking plans already done, money in place, etc. They knew they were using the same site and wanted to only have one season away, so pretty much the day after they were eliminated (lost their first playoff game), demolition started.
I still think the Vikings would sign a two year lease in the Dome or at TCF if needed. I just hope it gets done.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
Cleveland lucked out and got there Browns back. Betting on the same thing with the Vikings if they were to leave is a horrible idea.
