From Minnesota to Industry?

by Anthony21 on Oct 15, 2009 9:36 PM CDT in Vikings Comment 41 comments

Look at the current most-viewed story on the Strib's website:

The developers of a proposed 75,000-seat stadium east of Los Angeles say they are casting a wide net in their search for a team to play at the venue -- listing the Vikings and six other teams they say are having trouble getting new stadiums built in their current cities.

First, the background on this storyline. Edward P. Roski, a California billionaire, wants to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles. So, he's looking to build a football stadium in the tiny city of Industry, which is located just outside of L.A. and has a population of 777. This project has been in the news recently because the California Senate just passed a measure exempting the stadium from state environmental laws, putting the bill on Ahnold's desk. We also now know which teams are being targeted as possible tenants of the 75,000-seat stadium (in addition to the Vikings, the developers are targeting Jacksonville, Buffalo, St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland and San Francisco).

So will the description of Daily Norseman on the sidebar soon change to this?

DN strives to be the best blog about the Industry Vikings on the internet, doing so with a unique blend of insight and analysis, as well as (hopefully) wit and humor. We hope you enjoy the site, and make it your home for Industry Vikings info!

I doubt it. Because Roski is ultimately doing a great service for the push to build the Vikings a new stadium and keep the team in Minnesota. If they're actually gonna build the dang Los Angeles football stadium -- and things are heading in that direction -- then every soul in Minnesota's capital building will be given a swift kick in the behind to get something done. We've had the prospect of a new Vikings stadium ignored and even laughed at by legislative leaders, but the time for games has ended. Both parties have failed to take this issue seriously -- so here's hoping Roski helps them realize that a new Vikings stadium is no joke. Get it done.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Something needs to be done!!!!!

it makes me sick to think that our state doesn’t even have enough respect to give this team what it deserves. I don’t know what i will do if the Vikes get moved, but i still trust ziggy not to let us down. GO VIKES!!!

by muffin man on Oct 15, 2009 9:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not worried.

The Chargers are in a much more precarious position to move.

Go Nevada Wolf Pack!

by BacksThePack on Oct 15, 2009 9:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i’m not up to date on the other teams situation’s, but a post about that might help everyone understand a bit more

by muffin man on Oct 15, 2009 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would also appreciate some insight on this

How are the other teams mentioned in this report handling the news? What are their staium situations like? I would really like an unbiased opinion on who legitimately has the best chance to move. Cause I don’t think we here have any idea.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 15, 2009 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Found a discussion on the Chargers official website.

Right here. Many seem legitimately worried. I’m not at all worried about Roski targeting the Vikes — I just hope this can be translated into momentum for a new stadium.

by Anthony21 on Oct 15, 2009 11:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Joe O
Minnesota Vikings Examiner
Go Vikes!

by Joe O on Oct 15, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

good find

I was reading through those forums and it’s amazing how word-for-word similar their comments are to our own. They are saying the exact same things we are which makes me think that one of thier posters had it right when he said its not a matter of who’s the best fit to move to LA, but rather who signs on the dotted line first. It sounds like all of these teams mentioned have a legitimate chance of moving, it will just come down to which owner is the most eager to leave and jumps at the opportunity first.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 16, 2009 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They were once

the LA Chargers. Then again, they also had the LA Rams and LA Raider…god that’s just funny.

by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 16, 2009 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

on the market

i think rams would be the team to move,rams on the market right now.

by subzero on Oct 15, 2009 10:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I understand the new stadium = more revenue = team stays in Minnesota angle of this story.

Is anyone aware of stats about new stadium equaling a better team? Again, I understand w/ more revenue you can pay for better players (but don’t all teams have the same salary cap, or is it based on market?), but over the last 10-15 years, have the records improved of the teams that moved into new stadiums?

That’d be interesting to compile those stats if anyone has the time.

GO (stay) VIKES!!!!!!!!!!!

by JasonAve6413 on Oct 15, 2009 10:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I am pretty sure that the nfl has slaary caps except for this upcoming year, i believe. So money for players doesn’t really matter. As for the stadium itself, it creates money for everyone involved in it.

by muffin man on Oct 15, 2009 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't matter

The paralels between the Twin’s stadium push and the Viking’s are few and far between. The Twins needed a stadium to literally bring a competitive team to play with each year. The Vikings need one because their lease is up and won’t be renewed.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 15, 2009 11:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does a new stadium automatically make teams play better? No. Do new facilities help make your team more attractive to potential free agents? Absolutely. Thats one of the reasons we didnt land TJ this year. But to address your question, a new stadium hasnt hurt either. Look at a few teams who have built new stadiums recently: New England, Arizona, Indianapolis, Denver, Philadelphia. All of these teams have played in the super bowl or won it all in the last 10 years.
Can anyone shed light on how the Twins and Gophers were able to get their stadiums while the Vikes are left up in the air?

"We Szekelys have a right to be proud, for in our veins flows the blood of many brave races who fought as the lion fights for lordship. Here, in the whirlpool of European races, the Ugric tribe bore down from Iceland the fighting spirit which Thor and Odin gave them, which their Berserkers displayed to such fell intent on the seaboards of Europe, ay, and of Asia and Africa too, till the peoples thought that the werewolves themselves had come."
-Bram Stoker

by NMVike on Oct 16, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Revenue certainly helps

I am not sure if revenue equates to a better team in the Vikings case, but we seem to always hear that it is supposed to help the Twins by giving them more money to spend. Besides, the Vikings already have an owner willing to spend money to put a winning team on the field, and therefore I say he deserves our support in helping him build a stadium. We don’t have to build the whole thing on taxpayer money, but I am willing to pay to keep the team here. I wrote a piece about it at Examiner.com if anyone is interested. Gotta keep the Vikes.

Joe O
Minnesota Vikings Examiner
Go Vikes!

by Joe O on Oct 15, 2009 10:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

------------PLEASE RESPOND--------------

Would you be in favor of a “fan tax” in order to support the building of a new Viking’s stadium? If it were somehow possible to quantify who was and wasn’t a fan (who watches games and who doesn’t), would you as a fan be willing to spend, say, $10/year to assure the Vikings dont move to California?

(This is completely hypothetical. It has never been proposed by any of the parties involved. It is merely just a way to gage how serious we as fans really are about building the stadium. Please be honest with your answers, as if answering yes actually meant an agreement on your part.)

(In case you’re curious how I arrived at the tax dollar amount. Its a rough estimate:

- 5,200,000 residents in Minnesota
- 60% of the TVs on Sundays are tuned into Vikings games
- 60% of 5,200,000 = 3,120,000 + 60,000 (in the dome) = 3,180,000

- 3,180,000 x $10/year x 20 years = $636,000,000
- enough to get the Wilf’s to build the stadium without a cent being charged to those who don’t want it)

by Jayrome007 on Oct 15, 2009 11:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Fan tax

I would definately pay $10 per year, but that is me. I question the figures though, I don’t count in that figure since I live in Florida and watch the Vikes at a sports bar with several others.

I think instead of a “Fan tax” we could do a fundraising campaign like fledgling churches do for new buildings. I can see wealthy Vikings fans and major corporations such as General Mills, Target, as well as average fans from across the country donating money online for a new stadium to supplement a tax. You could probably raise millions per year that way. Once someone donates once, you get sent a yearly donation form. That way you’re getting those fans all across the country to pony up as well as a “smaller” tax on the locals.

by TampaViking on Oct 16, 2009 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I question the figures though, I don’t count in that figure since I live in Florida and watch the Vikes at a sports bar with several others.

You are every bit a part of Viking Nation as the rest of us and we’re glad to have you. But unfortunately outstate fans like yourself won’t be responsible one way or the other if the Vikings leave or get a stadium. This is an issue for the citizens and legislature of Minnesota and the rest of you are just interested bystanders. The loss of the Vikings would hurt us both as fans, but it would destroy my state. We can’t pass a tax on “Vikings fans living in Florida” unless we straight up call it a “fan tax”. Thats why I think such a tax is so highly debatable.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 16, 2009 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You could probably raise millions per year that way.

You’re right. You might actually be able to raise millions of dollars by doing this. But we don’t need a couple million, we need hundreds of millions. Donations to a cause like this wouldn’t even put a dent in the final figures. Do you know how much a new church building costs? Our church just remodeled their building for nearly a million and that was considered high. It doesn’t even come close to comparing.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 16, 2009 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be willing to pay a little extra for the Vikings to stay

But in case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of Fox news “Tea-baggers” out there who will oppose any tax idea. Not to mention the “Welfare for millionaires” argument, non-Viking fans, etc. Too bad we couldn’t buy shares of a new stadium in exchange for seats or something like that.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett  
—Hasta la victoria siempre ¡Patria o Muerte! –Ernesto "Che" Guevara

by less cowbell, more 'neau on Oct 16, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wing Nut Here

Count me as one of the people who thinks forcing the public to contribute hundreds of million in tax dollars to build venues for billionaires (not millionaires) is crap.

by Midnight Rambler on Oct 16, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not "Nutty" at all, IMO.

I would prefer that if we do have to pay a tax for a new stadium, we get something in return besides just the Vikings not moving.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett  
—Hasta la victoria siempre ¡Patria o Muerte! –Ernesto "Che" Guevara

by less cowbell, more 'neau on Oct 16, 2009 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My money is on

In this order:
Jacksonville – Why’d they get a team to begin with?
St. Louis – Terrible attendance + Bad team + New owners = Returning to their roots?
San Diego – Not too far of a move.
Oakland – Al Davis has reached the point where nothing would surprise me.
Buffalo – Lots of history there but the franchise has fallen on hard times.
Minnesota – Lots of history + Well performing team = Least likely but certainly one of the stupidest legislatures on this list so anything is possible. Keep winning and this should resolve itself soon.

by Cobra312004 on Oct 16, 2009 12:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Jacksonville

can’t fill their stadium with a competitive team. They are definitely number 1 on the list for franchises to be moved. However, it would mess up the divisions, the the easiest to move would be the chargers and raiders. I just don’t see the 49ers moving. Too much positive history there.

by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 16, 2009 9:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Attendance isn't a factor, to a point

as long as it doesn’t affect the bottom line profit. The thing that all these other teams have that the Vikings don’t (with maybe the exception of the Raiders) is that they get a vast majority of the revenue stream monies in terms of concessions, luxury boxes, parking, etc. The Vikings do not because of the lease agreement. Like I said, the Vikings are essentially breaking even in a league where it’s almost impossible not to make a profit of $20+ million/yr, even in a bad economy. The other owners will not continue to subsidize Minnesota if there is a viable alternative to the Vikings moving elsewhere and increasing their revenue stream, because Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder don’t give two shits about team history and on field performance, they care about their bottom line.

Don’t let the ‘lots of history’ argument persuade you that they won’t move the Vikings. If the Colts can leave Baltimore and the Browns Cleveland, I assure you the Vikings can leave Minnesota.

"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."

--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre

by MilCardFan on Oct 16, 2009 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bottom Line

Unfortunately, MilCard is exactly right. New publicly-financed stadium with a better revenue stream, or good-bye Vikings.

by Midnight Rambler on Oct 16, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The bottom line in all of this

is the bottom line, and that will drive franchise relocation. The Vikings are the least profitable team in the National Football League, according to Forbes. Only the Raiders are worth less.

Over the last three years, the Vikings have turned a profit (that would be operating income) of 8 million dollars, taking a loss of $19 million in 2007. When you consider the Raiders, Chargers, and Jaguars have earned a profit of over $50 million in that time frame, it becomes apparent to me that the NFL will force the issue. They can stand a half filled stadium in Jacksonville when Wayne Weaver is turning a comfortable profit of $20+ million/yr.

In a business where you make oceans of money just by waking up in the morning, there is no way the cash cow that is the NFL will allow a franchise to stay in a location and situation that will not be profitable, and if the stadium issue isn’t resolved in Minnesota, it will be the Vikings who move. I still say London over L.A.,, but that’s just me.

I firmly believe that in the end, the Legislature will get something done, but the collective inaction is maddening.

"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."

--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre

by MilCardFan on Oct 16, 2009 12:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Last Minute

“I firmly believe that in the end, the Legislature will get something done…”

This is my gut instinct as well.

I’ve ranted on this subject before, so I won’t go in to detail again, but in a perfect world the taxpayers would not be on the hook for new stadiums. This is not a perfect world, so unfortunately we have to pay for the majority of the venues where billionaires showcase their privately-owned product.

Unfortunately, a new stadium in Minnesota will require a lot of public funding—that genie was out of the bottle long ago. Taxpayers like me don’t like it, and politicians are reluctant to make people like me mad by raising taxes in some form, especially in the current economic climate, but in the end none of them will want to be the politician who let the Vikings go to LA.

by Midnight Rambler on Oct 16, 2009 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It shouldn't be this hard

I believe since 1994 28 of 32 teams have either built new stadiums or had major renovations. If everywhere else can get it done, why is it so hard in Minnesota? I understand some people don’t want the tax increase and not everyone in Minnesota is a fan of the team, but losing the Vikings would only hurt the local economy.

In my opinion, LA doesn’t even deserve a team anyway. they had two and lost them both, so why do they need another one. Plus San Diego is right down the road.

If a team does move there, I think it should be Jacksonville, because of the low fan support. That is just not NFL football down there. I still don’t understand why they even got a team in the first place.

Maybe we just need to win the Super Bowl. Has a team that just won the Super Bowl ever been in danger of moving?

by STLVikesFAN on Oct 16, 2009 7:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Raiders

The Raiders moved to LA shortly after winning their second Super Bowl in ten years. As I recall, Pete Rozelle had to present the Lombardi Trophy to a not-yet-insane-senile-and-possibly-Undead Al Davis when Davis was suing the league to allow the move.

So, yes, teams have moved shortly after winning a Super Bowl.

by Midnight Rambler on Oct 16, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Favre

Said in a phone interveiw he does not see the big deal of a nfl team relocating.

by bleedingpurplesince74 on Oct 16, 2009 11:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Link???

Can you provide a reliable link to said Favre quote, 74? I wouldn’t want to think this was just “I-hate-Favre-so-piss-on-the-Vikings” crap.

by Midnight Rambler on Oct 16, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question for the DN commentariat and staff

Let me preface this by saying that I want the Vikings to stay where they are. I like hating them, it’s nice and convenient. Additionally, I doubt that the NFL will try to force itself onto Los Angeles, where the prospects for establishing a vibrant fanbase are lukewarm at best. So I don’t want the team to move and I don’t feel like it will move; that’s where I’m coming from.

If the team does move, will you still follow them? Will Gonzo, ericj69, and anthony21 still write about them? Does the Daily Norseman become the Daily (insert new mascot-related noun here)man? Or will you break it off and start following a new team?

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell_M on Oct 16, 2009 12:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If the Vikings Move

It has been discussed before…for my part, if they move I hope they follow the example of the old Browns going to Baltimore, and leave the team colors, records, and everything else behind. Watching AD play for the Los Angeles Extreme, or whatever stupid marketing focus group crap name they might come up with, would be easier than watching AD play for the Los Angeles Vikings.

Whether a re-located Vikings franchise kept their name and colors or changed them, I do not think my loyalty would follow them to California. Many others here said otherwise.

After a period of adjustment, I think I would choose a new team, possibly the Browns or Chiefs, to root for. Until I settled on a new team, I would just be a general NFL fan. Being a Minnesota Gopher fan in college football, I already pretty much know what it’s like to be a general fan of a major sport without a team that matters to root for.

by Midnight Rambler on Oct 16, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tough Call for me

I was a huge North Stars fan until they moved to Dalls and I can honestly say I haven’t watched a full hockey game since they relocated. I never identified with the Wild, because I haven’t lived in the Cities since their inception.

But the Vikings are different, maybe because they have been such a fabric of my life since I was a little kid and the Purple People Eaters dominated the NFC. I think if they move and keep the colors, name, and logo, I probably could, because I’ve cheered for the Vikings longer with me not living in Minnesota than I have living in Minnesota.

But if they leave and the colors stay and an expansion team starts up in a few years like the Browns, then probably not. There would be no continual emotional tie with the new team like there has been with the current franchise.

"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."

--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre

by MilCardFan on Oct 16, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Metrodome

still generates cash flow. Who has been getting the concession money from the Viking games? Who is the Metro Sports Commission and what have they been doing with the popcorn money for the last 30 years. My guess is a new Minnesota stadium would out perform the other teams on the list. Therefore if the NFL gets a new stadium in MPLS and a new stadium in LA for the Los Angeles Raiders, their total cash flow would be maximized. The raiders head coach is probably going to prision soon and Al Davis probably should join him. Problem sovled.

by BigSkyViking on Oct 16, 2009 1:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

A lot of the popcorn money goes to non-profits

It was requirement before the Dome could be built.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett  
—Hasta la victoria siempre ¡Patria o Muerte! –Ernesto "Che" Guevara

by less cowbell, more 'neau on Oct 16, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lost Revenue

So the Salvation Army and Red Cross are gonna lose a lot of cash. Have any of the whiners added up the total loss if Vikings move? An LA stadium is not going to kick into MN Non-profits. Your politicians don’t seem to get the big picture.

by BigSkyViking on Oct 16, 2009 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rent Money?

If the state kicks in 75% of the cash, shouldn’t they get 75% of the annual revenue? Issue a state Bond. All Viking Fans everywhere can buy a Bond and when you have enough money, build the stadium. Interest on the bond would be based on popcorn and beer (sorry bout dat) sales. If you don’t like making money on beer sales, don’t buy a bond. Zigi has dibs on the first 250 million (I think). Can I sign up for the next $10,000 coming off the press?

by BigSkyViking on Oct 16, 2009 2:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Mr. P.

My vote for Mr. P depends on this issue. Its a simple problem. If he can’t solve it, he has no business in Washington.

by BigSkyViking on Oct 16, 2009 2:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Industry Vikings?

I am from the LA area and a die hard viking fan is not as well accepted here as up north. And as much as i would love the vikings to move to LA, i think it would be bad for the vikes to leave Minnesota and hope that they will stay forever in Minni. I have not been to Minnesota too often, but i know that they live for sundays at the Homerdome and taking the vikes away from Minnesota would be just wrong. Long Live the MINNESOTA VIKINGS.

LAKERS!!!!!!!!!!

by alldayson28 on Oct 17, 2009 10:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not financing someone else's team

period. I don’t own the Vikings. I don’t get any profit from them. Why should I, as a taxpayer, have to foot someone else’s bill? If the Vikings want to issue bonds to finance it, fine. But I’m not going to be harassed and threatened by a billionaire to pay for something of theirs, period.

by RipHimToShreds on Oct 18, 2009 5:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs