Vikings Message Board.Com

At this state of NFL football, I can't see why the NFL can't pay for the stadiums themselves. I mean it's a 9 Billion dollar a year business and is in ALL the owners interests to keep the product intact. The NFL could easily borrow the money and loan it to the Wilf's for whatever the Wilfs can't provide for themselves. The NFL can easiily borrow a half billion dollars and charge 1% more to the vikings.

dkoby wrote:At this state of NFL football, I can't see why the NFL can't pay for the stadiums themselves. I mean it's a 9 Billion dollar a year business and is in ALL the owners interests to keep the product intact.

No, it's in the NFL owner's best interest to have a product that makes the most money. If that means allowing a marginally profitable club with an antiquated stadium to move from a smaller market to a larger market with a new stadium, I don't think they'll hesitate.

Eli wrote: No, it's in the NFL owner's best interest to have a product that makes the most money. If that means allowing a marginally profitable club with an antiquated stadium to move from a smaller market to a larger market with a new stadium, I don't think they'll hesitate.

Exactly. Los Angeles would be a much better market for the owners, more money, more attendance, bigger PR, etc. They would jump on a team from Minnesota moving to California. I hope it doesn't happen though.

vikesman21 wrote:Exactly. Los Angeles would be a much better market for the owners, more money, more attendance, bigger PR, etc. They would jump on a team from Minnesota moving to California. I hope it doesn't happen though.

But on the other hand, L.A. has always been a very difficult market, so it's certainly not without risks. I think the success of a team there is going to depend on a lot of factors, including the success of the team, the commitment of the owner, and more than a little bit of marketing savvy. The Minnesota market is a good one, it's just not terribly profitable with the current stadium situation.

vikesman21 wrote:
Exactly. Los Angeles would be a much better market for the owners, more money, more attendance, bigger PR, etc. They would jump on a team from Minnesota moving to California. I hope it doesn't happen though.

1) Bigger market - yup
2) More money - maybe initially
3) more attendance - false
4) Bigger PR - They can try all they want. The Dodgers try hard too.

I don't know what it takes for the NFL to see that they just can't win in LA. They DO NOT care out there.

Eli wrote: No, it's in the NFL owner's best interest to have a product that makes the most money. If that means allowing a marginally profitable club with an antiquated stadium to move from a smaller market to a larger market with a new stadium, I don't think they'll hesitate.

Umm.... if they build a new stadium (in Minnesota), they won't have a marginally profitable club. The Packers are in a TINY market and are quite profitable. Don't forget, LA has had a couple of teams of which both have moved. Just because it's a big market doesn't mean success.

dkoby wrote:Umm.... if they build a new stadium (in Minnesota), they won't have a marginally profitable club.

And...? Isn't that the point of all of this?

vikesman21 wrote: Exactly. Los Angeles would be a much better market for the owners, more money, more attendance, bigger PR, etc. They would jump on a team from Minnesota moving to California. I hope it doesn't happen though.

Some of you guys are not taking account the fact of tradition. I'm curious how many people would go to see or tune in for the big LA Vikings and San Diego Charger rivalry, since there isn't one. It takes years/decades to build these things. The game where Favre returned to Lamblo to face the Packers as a Viking was one of the most watched games ever, which equals money. Moving a team changes history and our American culture. It's a big risk moving a team and one that the NFL should recognize.

Living on the west coast all I hear on LA radio shows is that there is no huge desire in LA for a pro football team, as was the case when the Raiders were playing there.

Another thing you hear on the radio stations is that if LA does get a team it will most likely be the Raiders or Chargers. Since the NFL is not hurting economically it behooves them to keep the Vikes in Minny if they can. The Raiders are far more attractive to LA than the Vikings and now that Davis is gone it can happen.

I really don't think the Vikes will move and from the look of things maybe the state doesn't either...the way they seem to be lo-balling this whole deal.

In any event, if it ever does happen I've decided to remain a fan of the franchise.

The Breeze wrote:if it ever does happen I've decided to remain a fan of the franchise.

Whew, I was worried you might decide otherwise. You make it sound like you are picking a parking spot, not something you have followed for years.

dkoby wrote: Whew, I was worried you might decide otherwise. You make it sound like you are picking a parking spot, not something you have followed for years.

Actually, I've followed the team since the early 70's but not because they played in Minny. I grew up in a region that had no NFL team and I was attracted to the Purple People Eater name. Plus I liked purple. Still do. Plus they had a great team.....not that I really comprehended that at such a young age. I'm also a Reds and a Suns fan.....for similar reasons.

But as I weigh the issue I see the franchise really working hard to keep the team where it is and the effort seems legitimate.....if the Wilfs move the team it doesn't really change my ability to follow them or not. I've never been to a game and would hate to see Minny lose the team( I don't think they will)....but I don't have the same visceral connection to where they are located. Nor, am I negating the legitimacy of that connection for those who live up there....just sharing how it effects me as a satellite fan. I realize it's not going to be a popular opinion here....but it's one that I've come to just recently.

I suppose I should amend one thing though: if they change the name and uniforms then I'd probably stop watching football from a favorite team perspective and just try and enjoy what the game has become if I watch it at all.

vikesman21 wrote:They would jump on a team from Minnesota moving to California. I hope it doesn't happen though.

Not really. They'd rather a team move from a smaller market than MSP to LA.

I have not been able to read all of the details of the Minneapolis sites that have come up in the last couple of days, so I have a question. Are they realistic? Better? Worse? Why didn't they come up before?

PurpleMustReign wrote:I have not been able to read all of the details of the Minneapolis sites that have come up in the last couple of days, so I have a question. Are they realistic? Better? Worse? Why didn't they come up before?

Because legislators finally realized that the Vikings WOULD move out of the Minneapolis area, several of them have tried to whip up some shoddy plans to not only make their bid for the Vikings but also to block the Vikings from leaving the city itself. Arden Hills should be the spot simply because the legislators in Minneapolis waited so long to do something about the Vikings.

andrew luck as our qb in a new stadium with cowher as head coach.
doesnt hurt too dream.