Your post about the Vikings stadium was disappointing for someone in your position. It was so uninformed and naive that it was downright insulting to me as a reader. Let's take a look at your greatest hits, shall we?
Some of you may have come across this Winona Daily News article (if not you can read it here). It was so poorly written and misinformed that I felt I had to respond. You can read my rebuttal after the jump.
The Los Angeles Vikings doesn't quite fit, really. L.A. is way too laid back for the plunder and marauding Vikings are known for. Besides, Vikings aren't known for their tans. They'd kind of stick out in southern California.
This one you actually got right. Los Angeles Vikings does sound weird. But, then again, there's about a 0% chance that L.A. would want to keep the Vikings name anyway. New place, new name. That's the common theme we've seen from the latest relocations (i.e. The Oilers/Titans and The Browns/Ravens). So while it's some clever imagery you're conjuring up, the point is beyond irrelevant to whether the Vikings will move to L.A. Even if they kept the name though, no one seems to have a problem with the Lakers being in a city with all of about three lakes.
And, despite its own mediocrity, the Metrodome is still serviceable while not glitzy.
The stadium is 30 years old and has been 32nd out of 32 teams in profit for the last 5 years. Another 5 years and it won't even be breaking even. So I guess it's serviceable if you don't want to make money. But then, it also depends on your definition of serviceable. Or did you forget that the roof fell apart less than a year ago? But hey, as long as you can use it for 75% of your home games, who's counting right? I think "mediocre" is the nicest thing anyone can say about that stadium.
Still, the Vikings seem to whine that so many other locations have spent taxpayer money to build a stadium, why shouldn't Minnesota?
And in this case, so many means every stadium ever built, ever. The Vikings are offering to contribute the 3rd largest amount of their own money in NFL history. Only the Meadowlands and Cowboys stadiums received a larger contribution; one received contributions from two separate ownership groups and the other, well the other is Jerry Jones, the owner so wealthy he doesn't even sell naming rights for his stadium. It's standard practice because the Vikings provide so much tax money to the state. It's actually unfair for the state to benefit off the Vikings and not contribute, but I'll get to that later.
If we're going to make this investment literally at the expense of our roads and schools, let's get something more than has-been quarterbacks and two solid quarters per game.
It's actually not "literally at the expense of our roads and schools". They aren't using any general budget money. They're adding new taxes so the funds wouldn't even exist if they weren't allocated for a stadium. And actually, the Vikings project is spending upwards of $100 million on road improvements in the area of the proposed stadium, many of which had previously been identified by the state as roads that needed upgrading.
We make an investment in a stadium, the Vikings make a more serious investment in talent and winning.
The Vikings had to make cuts this offseason to get under the salary cap. They are in the top 5 in the NFL in salaries this season. They just made Adrian Peterson the highest paid running back in the NFL. What more of an investment do you want? Winning isn't as easy as just wanting it more or spending more money. Just ask the Yankees, who have probably spent more money than everyone else in baseball combined the last decade and have one whole World Series ring to show for it.
But let's stop pretending this is "poor Minnesotans building a stadium for a billionaire owner". The new stadium will generate over $750 million just in stadium taxes over the course of the 30 year lease. That's not counting income tax on the thousands of construction jobs the stadium is expected to create (from employees that would be draining the state's welfare/unemployment without said jobs). That's not counting income tax on the many millions that all Vikings players, coaches and employees will make over those 30 years. That's not counting the tourism money the team generates. That's not counting money that would be generated by other events at the stadium; including but not limited to a Super Bowl, the Final Four, concerts and potentially a new MLS franchise.
Why should Minnesota chip in for the stadium? Because they are gonna be making a lot of money off of this investment too. And all that money goes into the general fund for schools and roads and such.
If not, the Vikings may head to L.A.
I really hope that works out for them.
Just like it did for the Rams.
And the Raiders.
Los Angeles is the 2nd largest media market in the country. There are more people in LA county alone than in Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota combined! I think they'll be happy to take their chances.