PDA

View Full Version : No new stadium endangers Vikes i.e. Los Angeles Vikings


Hookem Horns
10-18-2011, 06:42 PM
"We're worried about a stalemate," Grubman said after the meeting. "A stalemate means there's no lease, or the lease is about to expire; there's no plan for a stadium, and there's an alternative plan in another city."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7120478/nfl-vp-says-minnesota-vikings-trouble-new-stadium

I feel for any fanbase that has to go through this. Obviously we can relate. If this happens I wonder if the LA media and fans will try to push off the guilt of stealing another city's team by making themselves believe the team had no fan support.

Vinny
10-18-2011, 06:45 PM
If LA wouldn't change the Lakers name (there are no lakes in LA), then perhaps we will have Vikings in So Cal one day.

Hookem Horns
10-18-2011, 06:49 PM
If LA wouldn't change the Lakers name (there are no lakes in LA), then perhaps we will have Vikings in So Cal one day.

Actually the whole thing fits, the Lakers came from Minneapolis and wear purple and gold. So the Vikings would fit right in. They wouldn't need to change anything.

Vinny
10-18-2011, 06:50 PM
Actually the whole thing fits, the Lakers came from Minneapolis and wear purple and gold. So the Vikings would fit right in. They wouldn't need to change anything.yeah, you're right. There is a precedent here.

IDEXAN
10-19-2011, 08:43 AM
If LA wouldn't change the Lakers name (there are no lakes in LA), then perhaps we will have Vikings in So Cal one day.
Sure there are, and they are called the "La Brea Tar Pits".

CloakNNNdagger
10-20-2011, 04:50 PM
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Just like Minni is having problems finalizing the financing of a new stadium, so is LA after all that has been said and done. At the last minute, problems have come up with both the Roski plan and the AEG plan.

This explains the dilemna.

That brings up an even bigger issue for NFL owners. The league will not allow a team to relocate to Los Angeles unless financing for the new stadium has been secured, and it would be impossible for a team to secure financing for a stadium in Los Angeles while still in its current city. Most teams with stadium issues, like the Minnesota Vikings and San Diego Chargers, are asking the public to largely finance proposed new stadiums. If they could finance a stadium without public subsidies, they would likely have done so by now.

An NFL team executive who has reviewed Roski's and AEG's plans said it would be impossible for a team to relocate unless the financing of a new stadium was nailed down and there was some kind of completion guarantee on the stadium before moving.

"You can't have a situation where you move to Los Angeles and are stuck playing at the Coliseum or Rose Bowl for 10 years because your financing plan fell apart," the executive said. "No team's going to take that risk. The league's not going to take that risk."


But the NFL is not happy with the present Los Angeles option. Phil Anschutz's AEG unit is proposing to build a stadium allegedly with AEG backed funding but the deal doesn't make any sense for an NFL owner who would be a renter and not get the revenue streams from luxury boxes and club seats that municipalities or taxpayers can offer. AEG has to pay off the debt and while the NFL has not blasted Ed Roski's City of Industry stadium proposal east of LA, the same problem exists in that plan.


These two articles are very interesting and informative.

The first (from which I pulled the 2nd quote above) actually goes into a great deal of historical facts concerning all of the California professional teams and moves, and Vikings vs. LA issues:

NFL forcing Vikings stadium deal in Minnesota, or L.A. (http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/professional/nfl-forcing-vikings-stadium-deal-in-minnesota-or-la)

The second (from which I pulled the above 1st quote) addresses the LA situation.

L.A. stadium proposal revised (http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/7088220/los-angeles-nfl-stadium-developer-ed-roski-drops-demand)

Double Barrel
10-20-2011, 05:27 PM
I wish both cities would tell the NFL to eff themselves. In today's economic climate, building an entertainment complex for the financial benefit of a small number is not the best way to spend public money.

CloakNNNdagger
10-20-2011, 07:36 PM
I wish both cities would tell the NFL to eff themselves. In today's economic climate, building an entertainment complex for the financial benefit of a small number is not the best way to spend public money.

I have the feeling that either way, the NFL WILL end up effing ITSELF by again trying to force football into a place where the maggots haven't yet finished feasting on the carcasses left behind from the other LA football failures.

brakos82
10-20-2011, 09:44 PM
I have the feeling that either way, the NFL WILL end up effing ITSELF by again trying to force football into a place where the maggots haven't yet finished feasting on the carcasses left behind from the other LA football failures.

Not to mention I'm not sure L.A. residents even know the Raiders left. :kitten:

Hervoyel
10-20-2011, 10:10 PM
Moving the Vikings to LA screws up an important division of the NFC and a small mountain of NFL history. I'll be beyond disgusted with the NFL if this takes place. There's one franchise in the league right now that's simply not pulling it's own weight and not carrying a historical "burden" with it and we all know that's the Jacksonville Jaguars. If LA must have a team and the NFL cannot continue without an LA team then this is the only team in the NFL that makes any sense at all to move there.

And even that doesn't really make sense. Jacksonville should move to St. Louis and the Rams should then return to LA where the belong and where they never should have left in the first place.

CloakNNNdagger
10-20-2011, 10:36 PM
Moving the Vikings to LA screws up an important division of the NFC and a small mountain of NFL history. I'll be beyond disgusted with the NFL if this takes place. There's one franchise in the league right now that's simply not pulling it's own weight and not carrying a historical "burden" with it and we all know that's the Jacksonville Jaguars. If LA must have a team and the NFL cannot continue without an LA team then this is the only team in the NFL that makes any sense at all to move there.

And even that doesn't really make sense. Jacksonville should move to St. Louis and the Rams should then return to LA where the belong and where they never should have left in the first place.

Just an FYI. The Rams had to leave LA. The Rams' owner Shaw was already close to $25 million into the $40 million debt limit that the NFL allowed each of its franchises. It was clear that within a couple of years they would reach that league debt limit. I don't know what the rules are now for NFL teams and debt, but, probably Jacksonville is the closest to meeting the limit if there is one.

Corrosion
10-21-2011, 04:56 AM
I feel bad for the fans of the Vikes .... They have "Needed" a new stadium for years. Its unlike the Oilers because .... they just "Wanted" a new stadium. There wasnt a safety issue for the players and fans that "Demanded" a new building.

Sure the turf sucked in the Astrodome but that could have been fixed .... and cost much less than $1billion in debt that the HSA accumulated to build Reliant .... (Actual cost to build $352 million).

Dread-Head
10-21-2011, 09:15 AM
:thinking: I do n't see the Vikings moving. Their fan base is too loyal.

Hervoyel
10-23-2011, 10:02 AM
Just an FYI. The Rams had to leave LA. The Rams' owner Shaw was already close to $25 million into the $40 million debt limit that the NFL allowed each of its franchises. It was clear that within a couple of years they would reach that league debt limit. I don't know what the rules are now for NFL teams and debt, but, probably Jacksonville is the closest to meeting the limit if there is one.

I may be in the minority here but I believe that if you own an NFL team and can't make money then you're too stupid to live. NFL owners have the closest thing to a "Perpetual-Money-Generation-Machine" in existence today and I don't buy the idea that LA is some sort of dead-zone for NFL football. If the Rams had to leave because of that then they were being mismanaged badly.

IDEXAN
10-23-2011, 10:14 AM
I'd be very surprised if the Vikings leave Minn because there's just too much political leaverage here in terms of Congress, the NFL, and the anti-trust exemption the league is granted from Wasington.

Hookem Horns
10-25-2011, 05:43 PM
:thinking: I don't see the Vikings moving. Their fan base is too loyal.

Signed,

Cleveland Browns fans

Corrosion
10-26-2011, 02:54 AM
I may be in the minority here but I believe that if you own an NFL team and can't make money then you're too stupid to live. NFL owners have the closest thing to a "Perpetual-Money-Generation-Machine" in existence today and I don't buy the idea that LA is some sort of dead-zone for NFL football. If the Rams had to leave because of that then they were being mismanaged badly.

The Jaq's cant fill their stadium when they are winning .... Its hard to make money that way.
The majority of teams , I'd agree with the above on ..... especially LA. Damn , if you cant make a buck there , you suck.
But Jacksonville is a small market .... and has two other teams in the state to compete with for TV money and asses in seats within a relatively small area.
Honestly , I'd like to see the Jaq's moved to a market that is less competetive for the sports / entertainment dollar .... while remaining in the South.
I wonder how a team would do in Alabama or Mississippi ?! ..... :boogereater:

Ranger Tom
10-26-2011, 01:19 PM
Signed,

Cleveland Browns fans

Co-signed by Baltimore Colts fans.

Blake
10-26-2011, 02:19 PM
If they do move, hopefully they realize that they need to lawyer up to keep their franchise name and history.

LA is an asshole. How do you let the Rams and Raiders leave and then poach the Vikings...