Page 144 of 147
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:09 am
by PsyDanny
Julie Rosen is a Republican, and there were many Republicans such as myself, calling and emailing representatives. So, please, let's not go there.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:59 am
by Demi
PsyDanny wrote:
Julie Rosen is a Republican, and there were many Republicans such as myself, calling and emailing representatives. So, please, let's not go there.
The vote is right there.
Dem 38-21 in the house
Rep 33-39 in the house
Dem 21-22 in the senate
Rep 15-22 in the senate
So even with the occasional level headed politician, and constituents calling, there likely would not be any Minnesota Vikings past next season if the Republican politicians who were elected had their way. Much less if there had been a Republican governor!
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:40 am
by hibbingviking
Eli wrote:
IF they don't? What's up with all this discussion about a roofless stadium? They're NOT building an outdoor stadium. The new stadium
will have a roof. It
may have a retractable roof if Zygi is willing to pay for it.

i heard Zygi in the past saying football should be played in the elements .

Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:17 pm
by glg
Demi wrote:So even with the occasional level headed politician, and constituents calling, there likely would not be any Minnesota Vikings past next season if the Republican politicians who were elected had their way. Much less if there had been a Republican governor!
You're crossing the politics line here. Drop it.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:06 pm
by Hamburglar
VikingLord wrote:I was surprised by the margin of the final votes in both chambers. Going into it the leaders of both chambers were saying they weren't sure they had enough votes to get it through, and while the debates were lively enough and suggested a lot of overall opposition, in the end it wasn't all that close.
I thought the same thing. I just think a lot of the supporters didn't speak, or didn't speak for very long. And some that eventually voted yes spent the majority of their time killing the bill (Winkler, Goodwin etc.)
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:41 pm
by Vikingsfan4321
glg wrote:
You're crossing the politics line here. Drop it.
While I agree and respect your hardline on no politics. I think is is important to remember ALL the politicians (on both sides) who worked for it and the ones that didn't. I think it is really important to notice that the ones who didn't want this to pass are COMPLETELY out of touch with what Minnesotan's want. They (again any on both sides) took their election to mean a blank check to vote their opinion, not to represent their district. Everyone needs to remember this in the election and even if you have friends that don't care about football. Point this out to them as an example of the Politicians try to IGNORE the majority.
IMO the vikings are like that fishing boat you have out back that's all dinged up. Its not flashy, its not that special, you never caught the big one in it *ahem*.... but you really enjoy the time you have spent in it. Even if you are in debt up to your eye balls that boat is probably one of the last things you let go. Because no matter how often you need to bail it out or how bad it smells, Its still way better than no boat at all
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 8:25 pm
by S197
It was more or less a formality but good to hear some confirmation:
Jeff Goldberg‏ @ jgoldbergfox9 Mpls council member Sandy Colvin Roy @ Vikes bill signing, confirms it will pass city council on 5/25: "this is a good deal for Mpls"
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 8:38 pm
by dkoby
Demi wrote:
The vote is right there.
Dem 38-21 in the house
Rep 33-39 in the house
Dem 21-22 in the senate
Rep 15-22 in the senate
So even with the occasional level headed politician, and constituents calling, there likely would not be any Minnesota Vikings past next season if the Republican politicians who were elected had their way. Much less if there had been a Republican governor!
I would call this pretty much as bipartisan as a vote could go. Just remember that some didn't vote for it because they didn't agree with how it was being funded,
on both sides. I'm sure no one wanted the Vikings to move. As messy as it is and as much posturing as there was, this IS how it is supposed to work. In the end, enough voted for it, from both sides, and it is DONE. THANK GOD!!!!
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:19 pm
by CalVike
Vikingsfan4321 wrote:
While I agree and respect your hardline on no politics. I think is is important to remember ALL the politicians (on both sides) who worked for it and the ones that didn't. I think it is really important to notice that the ones who didn't want this to pass are COMPLETELY out of touch with what Minnesotan's want. They (again any on both sides) took their election to mean a blank check to vote their opinion, not to represent their district. Everyone needs to remember this in the election and even if you have friends that don't care about football. Point this out to them as an example of the Politicians try to IGNORE the majority.
IMO the vikings are like that fishing boat you have out back that's all dinged up. Its not flashy, its not that special, you never caught the big one in it *ahem*.... but you really enjoy the time you have spent in it. Even if you are in debt up to your eye balls that boat is probably one of the last things you let go. Because no matter how often you need to bail it out or how bad it smells, Its still way better than no boat at all
Let it go. It was a nice win for us Vikings fans. Every legitimate poll that was done said Minnesotans were resoundingly opposed to public funding for the stadium. That's why the referendum is feared.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 11:31 am
by glg
CalVike wrote:Every legitimate poll that was done said Minnesotans were resoundingly opposed to public funding for the stadium. That's why the referendum is feared.
That's a big reason why the pols were scared of it. I don't think one of those polls was ever phrased as "and if you say no, the team moves to Los Angeles". A lot of people out there are simply ignorant about that part of it. We even saw it from some opponents in the final debates. "where would they go?". LA, dummies, LA. While the NFL would rather keep a team in MSP as opposed to some much smaller markets that are troubled (like Jacksonville and Buffalo), without a new stadium, it wasn't going to work. Problem is, there are a
lot of people who just don't believe a move could happen and think that the LA threat is hot air and that shows up in those polls.
However, those same pols would get the blame if the team left for not doing anything about it. So, they were petrified. Vote yes, maybe lose for "giving tax dollars to a billionaire". Vote no, maybe lose for "not doing anything to keep the Vikings".
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 12:11 pm
by vikeinmontana
yikes. this thread is 74 pages deep. of that, about 73.5 pages were filled with constant negativity and proclaiming the vikes were going to california! now...the deal is done. our beloved vikes aren't going anywhere. when i take my kids to vikings games, they will be in MINNESOTA! they will be in the TWIN CITIES! this is fantastic news for all of us!
sorry to get off topic. please get back to political back and forths and finger pointing.

Stadium thread
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:42 pm
by CalVike
glg wrote:
That's a big reason why the pols were scared of it. I don't think one of those polls was ever phrased as "and if you say no, the team moves to Los Angeles". A lot of people out there are simply ignorant about that part of it. We even saw it from some opponents in the final debates. "where would they go?". LA, dummies, LA. While the NFL would rather keep a team in MSP as opposed to some much smaller markets that are troubled (like Jacksonville and Buffalo), without a new stadium, it wasn't going to work. Problem is, there are a lot of people who just don't believe a move could happen and think that the LA threat is hot air and that shows up in those polls.
However, those same pols would get the blame if the team left for not doing anything about it. So, they were petrified. Vote yes, maybe lose for "giving tax dollars to a billionaire". Vote no, maybe lose for "not doing anything to keep the Vikings".
You are dead on. They would have moved them. Look no further than LA itself. They let both teams move in 1995 when the state and locals said no public money. It is taking private, non-NFL money to bring LA back. The NFL recognizes the golden goose, they got $498M for construction and Mpls money for ops. They were not going to set any precedent diminishing their handout to billionaires approach. Minnesota was wise to get it done now.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 12:06 am
by Raptorman
Valhalla wrote:Almost a billion dollar cash layout. That's a lot.
And to think, they could have done it 10 years ago for a lot less.

Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 12:34 am
by CalVike
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... get-update
Mpls City Council votes this Friday, 5/25/12
The council's Budget and Ways and Means Committee spent more than two hours Monday afternoon dissecting a staff report on stadium financing.
No official vote was taken, but a final decision on the stadium package will be made by a committee of the whole Thursday.
That vote will be formalized during the full city council meeting Friday.
Seven members of the 13-seat council have signaled their support for the stadium plan.
The council remains the last significant hurdle to the $975 million, 65,000-seat stadium that would be built at the Metrodome site by the 2016 season. While the Vikings would contribute $477 million to the project and the state would chip in $348 million, an additional $150 million would come from Minneapolis taxes.
Re: Stadium thread
Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 9:30 am
by Bill Carson
....by the 2016 season.
sigh. . hurry up and wait