Minnesotans - do you think you were well represented in the recent Vikings stadium vote?

[Egalitariat]

Slogans regarding "subsidizing billionaires" aside, are you cool with losing the team to a city who will build them a new stadium? Was it a worthwhile trade-off to avoid the new taxes?

I like to think elected representatives do a good job of repping their constituents; but I think of Vikings fans as some of the most passionate in the NFL, and I was a little surprised they weren't willing to open up the checkbooks so they could keep their team.

[spanone]

1. taxpayers should not subsidize private enterprise....nashville built a stadium for bud adams

who lives in texas. and controls the stadium.

next time, let bud build his own stadium.

that's not a slogan, it's a fact.

[Rambis]

2. The vikings are going to move to LA

Then I can quit watching american football like I did hockey when the North Stars left for Texas.

[Octafish]

3. As a Lions' fan, I feel your pain.

Seriously do as the Vikings are one of my favorite teams -- Been that way since Bud Grant was standing in the January cold at Metropolitan Stadium. They'll figure a way to keep the team in the Norris Division.

The thing is money. The issue of who pays for the stadium is a microcosm of the issues facing America. The rich don't want to pay and want to pass the cost of doing business and so do all they can to pass the costs onto the community in which they do business. Vikings fans aren't dumb, apart from that ridiculous horn that sounds after every first down and the horned blond pig tail hats.

Socialize the risk. Privatize the reward. In Washington, it's more seamless. There may be a silver lining in this dark cloud: Seems that more Murkin males pay attention to the NFL than about anything else in their lives, so maybe they'll see how things really work.

[KamaAina]

26. Norris Division? You must be a hockey fan.

A realignment that might work, geographically at least:

NFC West:

L.A. Liposuction (formerly Minnesota)
Santa Clara $49,000,000ers (formerly SF)
Seattle
Phoenix

NFC North:
Detroit
Chicago
Green Bay
St. Louis

[MineralMan]

4. In my opinion, taxpayer dollars, no matter how they are collected,

should not be spent to enrich billionaires. If the Vikings want a new stadium, let them build it themselves. They can take up a collection from fans or have a bake sale. The people who would be paying for this stadium under the current funding plans can mostly not even afford to buy a ticket to attend a game in that stadium. If the loyal fans want a stadium, let them chip in and leave the rest of us out of it.

For me, the LA Vikings sounds like a euphonious name for them. Let them move. Minnesotans can watch the games on TV.

[smoking357]

5. Let Teams Build Their Own Stadiums

If the public is to build the stadium, then let the public eminent domain the team. We must abandon this corporatist model where profits are privatized and costs are socialized.

Sports teams are always money losers for cities. Good job, Minnesotans.

[hifiguy]

6. Considering that $400 million-plus are being supplied

by the Wilfs and the NFL, I think this is about as good a deal as can be had. And the Metrodome is a dump that was built on the cheap more than 30 years ago.

Yes, I am a Vikings fan. That said, the case for a baseball stadium is much more easily made. A baseball team plays 81 games a year at home, whereas a football team plays only eight or nine, unless they make the playoffs.

I would hate to lose the Vikings, though.

[Brickbat]

15. Agreed, and well-said, with a little bit to add:

No matter what, we do need some kind of replacement for the Dome at some point; sooner rather than later. It's not just for football -- there are conventions, high school playoffs and events, March Madness games, and so on. There's money on the table now; if the team moves, we're going to have to build a stadium and pay for much more of it ourselves.

[hifiguy]

17. Good points.

I wasn't thinking about high-school football and other events that require a large space. Even monster truck rallies need a space to use, I s'pose. And it is always vastly more expensive to get a new team than to keep one that's already in town.

[FarCenter]

7. Professional sports revenues primarily come from TV, radio, internet, etc

It's not clear why you need a stadium.

[Kaleva]

9. It provides more income for the owner

Profits from tv, radio, internet are generally distributed amongst all 32 teams. An important source of income for the individual owner is the stadium.

[FarCenter]

11. All the more reason why the individual owner should pay for the individual stadium

[hifiguy]

12. You hit it on the head.

The NFL's TV revenues, which run to literally billions, are divided equally amongst the teams. I think local radio remains with the individual team, but national TV revenue and merchandising is equally divided. Owners do make considerable money from the stadium - tickets, seat licenses, concessions, etc.

[Kaleva]

16. Ford Field, completed in 2002, cost about 430 million.

The Ford family covered 49% of the cost while the city of Detroit paid for the rest. I'd have to do some digging to find how much Detroit and the Fords get in annual net revenue from the stadium.

[libinnyandia]

8. Is the Green Bay Packer model valid anywhere else ?

[Kaleva]

10. No. League rules prohibit it but G.B. was grandfathered in.

[libinnyandia]

13. Would it work anywhere else if the rule was changed?

[Kaleva]

14. Maybe. I really don't know the reason why the NFL prohibits publicly owned teams.

[99Forever]

18. Honestly?

You don't see that the 1%er ownership and management of the NFL, is as most 1%ers do, protecting their own by screwing the rest of us? It's pervasive through our entire society.

I live in Minnesota and find it absolutely disgusting that ANY professional sports team has the unmitigated gall to try to coerce vast sums of money from those of us who are barely surviving to further enrich 1%ers that already have more wealth that they could spend in a hundred lifetimes. Screw the greedy bastards, move your GD loser of a team to freakin' China for all I care. Take your porcine owners with ya.

You ain't gone yet?

[Kaleva]

19. One of my brothers owns stock in the Green Bay Packers.

There's no financial benefit to it. It just gives him some bragging rights.

[Uncle Joe]

21. It's just another face of the corporate supremacist hydra,

put another way corporate or oligarch domination over government and in turn the people.

By not allowing publicly owned teams, they can more easily play cities or states, basically the tax paying people, against each other in bidding up and paying for stadiums, getting tax breaks for the owners from those governments, and I believe more easily commercializing the game, naming stadiums after some corporation instead of the city or state which the team is based in, increasing the cost of tickets, all to honor the almighty dollar.

The greed has gotten to the point of being repulsive.

Growing up I used to enjoy watching football, the Vikings under Bud Grant were actually my favorite team, today I'm more likely to support the Titans but I'm still fond of the Vikings.

Having said that I've lost a great deal of affection for watching football period, too damn many commercials which has all but ruined the game for me.

[Kaleva]

22. But Green Bay is the only team in the NFL owned by a corporation.

All the rest are privately owned.

I'm doing some searching to find out why the NFL prohibits teams from being incorporated.

[Uncle Joe]

23. I always thought Green Bay's was a public corporation tied to the city

and that all the other "private owners" are incorporated, I would be highly surprised if they weren't.

[Kaleva]

25. William Clay Ford Sr. is the sole owner of the Detroit Lions.

The Green Bay Packers are owned by Green Bay Packers, Inc..

I looked at the NHL and a number of teams in that league are owned by corporations. Such as the New York Rangers are owned by Madison Square Garden, Inc..

[AngryAmish]

28. I always thought Anita McCambridge was the best owner

[mnmoderatedem]

20. You wouldn't be interested in the viewpoint of

a Packer fan living in Minnesota would you?

I honestly hope a stadium deal gets done. Would hate to lose the rivalry.

Both sides of public funding for stadiums seem to think their arguments are cut and dry. They're both wrong. But they both have salient points too.

Stadium opponents act is if it's just a money grab and communities don't benefit from a sports franchise. They do, and there's legitimate argument for public funding. Factor in the cost of LOSING your franchise as a result of not getting a stadium deal done. Stadium proponents seem to want to ignore that billionaire owners get something for, comparitively, nothing.

In Minnesota's case, there's stadium fatigue, as both the Gophers and Twins got stadiums with a lot of public money very recently. Not much of a public appetite for another.

Los Angeles is trying to get a stadium deal done in order to lure a team, but they're having difficulty as well. Plays into the hands of the anti-stadium crowd.

Wilf has been ratther comparitively generous with the money he's ponying up. Hope it gets done.

[Odin2005]

24. Fuck, NO! I am opposed to any new stadium paid for by the taxpayer.

Fuck corporate welfare!!!

[AngryAmish]

27. This has to stop

1. In Illinois the White Sox and Bears suck at the public teat. They should not.
2. The Cubs are trying to get the city and state to help pay for renovations. Go pound sand.
3. In ten years football as we know it will not exist - too dangerous. I love violent sports but my boy will not play and I am trying not to have it shown in the house. I don't see how any person informed of the risks would allow their kid to play football if they love their kid and are concerned about their cognitive function. It may end up as a white elephant.