Vikings Message Board.Com

dead_poet wrote:Check out this debate at the end of the article. Caution: it will anger you: http://www.savethevikes.org/2011/05/12/ ... bsolutely/

Rep. Greiling said she's getting calls 9:1 against the stadium. Her number is 651.296.5387 if you would like to give her a call. She can also be reached on twitter at http://www.twitter.com/mgreiling
Representative O'Driscoll deserves a note as well: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tim-ODris ... &filter=12

Well..........that money certainly would go somewhere if not to the stadium?????????? In the current financial state, it is certainly a legitimate question and reason to challenge the passing of the state giving the Vikings money. IMO, certainly a fair point of view.

https://secure.gimigo.com/campaign/save ... /petition/

SavetheVikes.org has set up something where you can send your state representative an e-mail by filling out your e-mail address, name, home address, and then click send. You can read the email that will be sent to them. Out of state fans are also welcome!

purple guy wrote: Well..........that money certainly would go somewhere if not to the stadium?????????? In the current financial state, it is certainly a legitimate question and reason to challenge the passing of the state giving the Vikings money. IMO, certainly a fair point of view.

The money won't EXIST without the Vikings. The tax, fees, or whatever, won't be implemented "just because". The county wide sales tax will not be increased for "somewhere else".

There isn't a pot of money sitting there, and we have the choice to give it to starving 6 year olds, or build a stadium. There is also a VERY large chunk of money already going to those "somewhere else". "Somewhere elses" that don't affect nearly as many people directly OR have any real return on investment.

Demi, I dont think I implied there was a magical pot of money, or that the option is to either fund a Vikings stadium or feed starving children. Only that the 300+ mil, HAS to come from somewhere, period. Since there is not a magical pot of money, SOMEONE will be paying that money, and any representitive should question the decision IMO, not to, would be foolish. Im not saying they should pass it, or not pass it, but to just say "Ok, sounds good, where do we sign?" would be just plain stupid.

I personally hope it doesnt pass, I, myself think the state could better spend 300 million, just my opinion. I understand those who support spending the money, weather I agree or not, I understand. Of course the 300 mil would exist, it would be spent by those who earned it, as they want to, not taken in small pieces by the govt and spent as they see fit.

To my knowledge, every city that has ever lost an NFL team has always later on wished they had done something to keep the team there. Most have been lucky enough to get a new team. Los Angles lost the Rams years ago and they are still trying to get one back. Washington DC hemmed and hawed until Cooke took them out of the city, now the city wants them back even though they play only miles away from DC.

Can anyone name one city that has lost an NFL team in the last 50 years and are happy they did?

purple guy wrote:Debut to just say "Ok, sounds good, where do we sign?" would be just plain stupid.

Of course it would. That'd be wildly irresponsible. Nobody is suggesting that's happening. This debate has been going on for years with the Vikings patiently waiting their turn while others get their shiny new stadiums.

I personally hope it doesnt pass, I, myself think the state could better spend 300 million, just my opinion

I understand your position. But there's always better ways to spend $300 million. Which is why the stadium has been pushed off by legislators for years (that and "let someone else deal with it" mentality because they didn't want to be the one's responsible for either letting the Vikings go or being politically unpopular and being voted out of office.). If this issue would've been addressed 10+ years ago the costs would be considerably less on everyone's end. The bottom line: there's never enough money. Yet cities continually build stadiums because they have a value outside of football and contribute revenue in the long term and jobs in the short and long term.

It appears to matter little. Looks like you may get your wish.

The proposal to build a Minnesota Vikings stadium in Arden Hills might seem like a coup for Ramsey County and the east metro, which has long endured in the shadow of the larger west metro.

But state lawmakers from Ramsey County overwhelmingly oppose it, according to a survey of the delegation.

Of the county's 22 state representatives and senators, 18 responded to a Pioneer Press survey asking whether they supported the current county-Vikings proposal to build a $1.1 billion stadium complex on the site of the abandoned Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant near Interstate 35W and U.S. 10.

Only one, freshman Sen. John Harrington, DFL-St. Paul, supported it, although Rep. Tim Mahoney, DFL-St. Paul, said he's "strongly considering it." Two lawmakers said they hadn't decided.

Fourteen said they oppose it, with many responding via email with capital letters: "NO."

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_18053937

dead_poet wrote: Of course it would. That'd be wildly irresponsible. Nobody is suggesting that's happening. This debate has been going on for years with the Vikings patiently waiting their turn while others get their shiny new stadiums.
I understand your position. But there's always better ways to spend $300 million. Which is why the stadium has been pushed off by legislators for years (that and "let someone else deal with it" mentality because they didn't want to be the one's responsible for either letting the Vikings go or being politically unpopular and being voted out of office.). If this issue would've been addressed 10+ years ago the costs would be considerably less on everyone's end. The bottom line: there's never enough money. Yet cities continually build stadiums because they have a value outside of football and contribute revenue in the long term and jobs in the short and long term.

It appears to matter little. Looks like you may get your wish.
http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_18053937

Not a "wish" I guess. But I think its the right decision, especially in the location they chose. They should have stuck with the Metrodome site IMO. I dont see anyway a stadium bill gets passed this year. They'll wait until the 12th hour in next years session and throw together another half baked plan, and pass it in place of losing the Vikings. Adding another 50-100 million by waiting. At this point, Id just as soon they leave, as you said, the longer they delay it, the more it will cost. IMO, they either need to pass it this year, or just let the Vikings go instead of wasting another bunch of money delaying it. If Wilf was smart, he would threaten to sell or relocate. Maybe not threaten, but strongly hint, and if the state blinks, follow through.

Eli wrote:I'm having a hard time seeing how the mayor of St. Paul has anything to do with anything when Ramsey county is already committed to the project and has pledged $350 million toward it.

If Coleman comes out hard against this proposal, and can get the St Paul reps and senators to oppose it, it'll be a big strike against the county getting a waiver from the legislature on the referendum requirement.

Looks like the Governor and the rest of Ramsey County may have to settle on having the new venue on the current Metrodome site. Construction would be quick if there is not an NFL season to play this fall.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 16644.html

dead_poet wrote:Vikings' share includes NFL, PSL money

I think the article assumes to much with the bolded (emphasis mine) statement. I think they are failing to consider that MOVING the team might be more difficult when the team is in ongoing negotiations for a stadium. In my mind this just gives Wilf a chance to negate the deal (at his discretion - remember it is an "opt out" clause - it doesn't mean that they have to. So Wilf could terminate the negotiations, as I read it, at any time after July 1 - just not before then) if a better option (either selling or moving the team) presents itself after July 1.

Of course, I could be mistaken....

glg wrote: If Coleman comes out hard against this proposal, and can get the St Paul reps and senators to oppose it, it'll be a big strike against the county getting a waiver from the legislature on the referendum requirement.

For the record, I don't think Norm Coleman is the mayor of STP any more. I could be wrong though.

For the record, I don't think Norm Coleman is the mayor of STP any more. I could be wrong though.

Chris Coleman, no relation to Norm, is current mayor of St. Paul. He is the son of former Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman.

Goodell: NFL will reveal soon how much it will pay toward Vikings stadium

ST. PAUL, Minn. - NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says he'll reveal details in the next few days about the league's contribution toward a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings.

Goodell met Tuesday morning in St. Paul with Gov. Mark Dayton and the legislators sponsoring a stadium bill.

The Vikings prefer a $1.1 billion stadium in Arden Hills, but there's dispute over how much it will cost to build roads to the site and who will pay for them. Dayton, Sen. Julie Rosen and Rep. Morrie Lanning all say the state won't pay any more than $300 million for a stadium project.

Transportation Commissioner Tom Sorel (soh-RELL') says his agency will have a more exact figure on road costs for the Arden Hills site by Wednesday.

http://www.startribune.com/local/121992644.html

dead_poet wrote:Goodell: NFL will reveal soon how much it will pay toward Vikings stadium
http://www.startribune.com/local/121992644.html

Woah, this is unexpected. Didn't think that the NFL would ever help.

Wow, that was something I wasn't expecting to hear!