The economy and two money-losing teams

**Purple Floyd** · 01-29-2009, 09:54 PM

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

It wasn't speculation if you were referring to me. That came first hand from the Rep who made the offer. But yes, it would not take effect until after the twins and gophers are in their new stadiums.

While I honestly take you at your word, keep in mind that your first hand knowledge is our unconfirmed second hand knowledge, so it is prudent to treat it as such.

As for the deal, I don't know what I think about it unless I knew more details.
Would the Vikings be able to restructure concessions?
Would they have to honor grandfathered contracts?
Would this exclude any public assistance in a new stadium? ETc.

Hey, no problem. If you want his name, PM me and I will get it to you and you can call him and get the story yourself. I have nothing to hide.

**Zeus** · 01-29-2009, 10:40 PM

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"marstc09" wrote:

When Wilf bought the team, he said he would not move them. In July he said he would not move them. What don't you understand? If he lied and moves them, I am sure some crazy fan will put a hit out on him.
8)

FYI, we made the playoffs this year and won the division! WAKE UP. We are on the right path. A path Red ~messed up~ up. In time we will produce a profitable team.

Wilf has said several times that he will not move the team.
But that doesn't mean that we won't sell the team to someone who will.
This is actually more of a possibility than a move IMHO.
That was Wilf recoups the millions he has lost so far.

And making the playoffs doesn't mean a new stadium.
We made the playoffs several times with Red, and went to the NFC championship twice.
Hell, our record under Red was the best since the 70's.
Now I think that Zygi is a much better business man, and he has done a good job rebuilding the bridges that Red burnt.
But we really need to have some assurances from the state that they are interested in keeping the Vikings if we expect him to continue to pump capitol into the team.

"capital"

And people seem to forget that Wilf is a football fan.
He's not Red "Buy This Jalopy" McCombs who couldn't give a shit about football.
Red wanted to own the Vikings for prestige.
Zygi wanted to own the Vikings because he - and his entire family - are football fans.

And he understands the connection between the fans of Minnesota and the Vikings.
So moving the team is a 100% last resort thing.
An option that extends wayyyyyyy beyond 2010 and when the lease runs out.

And another thing - there's no fucking way Rosski or whatever his name builds that stadium in California (I desperately wish people would stop saying "LA".
The City of Industry is no more LA than Anaheim is LA) without a team.
And, no matter what this particular article might say, the Jags, Saints, Raiders and Chargers are *all* in a worse position financially and with their fanbase than the Vikings.

=Z=

**Zeus** · 01-29-2009, 10:45 PM

"fourdoorchevelle" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"BBQ" wrote:

I hate having to do this.
No one wants to face up to it.

But we need to face the brute, harsh reality of the matter.
The Vikings WILL move to L.A.
There is no financial reason for them to stay here.
Any owner even remotely interested in operating a business would either move the team or sell it to someone who will.

Maybe L.A. wouldn't be that profitable, either, but it would still be better than staying here.

The state can't do anything about it.
Hell, it SHOULDN'T.
There's a $5.5 billion deficit to deal with.
They could have solved this issue WAY back in 1998, when the team was as exciting to watch as it had been in years, the economy was booming, and the cost was one-fifth of what it is now.
And they didn't.
In retrospect, THAT was our last chance.

And don't count on an expansion team, either.
Those days are done.
The league is not going to get any bigger than 32 teams.

Given the way the situation is unfolding, there is only ONE logical conclusion:
professional football is leaving our state.
And it is never, ever coming back.

Yeah, cali is in so much better shape financially

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28916101/

Judge: Schwarzenegger can furlough employees
Facing deficit, Calif. governor to force state workers to take unpaid days off

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A judge ruled on Thursday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can force tens of thousands of state workers to take days off without pay to help close a multibillion-dollar budget gap.

difference being that there is a stadium being built in california.

what do you think is going to happen if minnesota won't built one? they gonna just play in the parking lot ?

No there's not.
The stadium isn't being built w/out a team.
And you know that.

The Vikings have a stadium - unfortunately (and in direct conflict with what NP said earlier) their lease fucks them 10 ways to Sunday.

Well - guess what, the lease is up in 2010 and then the Vikings will have the MSFC over a barrel.

=Z=

**Zeus** · 01-29-2009, 10:46 PM

"BBQ" wrote:

I hate having to do this.
No one wants to face up to it.

But we need to face the brute, harsh reality of the matter.
The Vikings WILL move to L.A.
There is no financial reason for them to stay here.
Any owner even remotely interested in operating a business would either move the team or sell it to someone who will.

Maybe L.A. wouldn't be that profitable, either, but it would still be better than staying here.

The state can't do anything about it.
Hell, it SHOULDN'T.
There's a $5.5 billion deficit to deal with.
They could have solved this issue WAY back in 1998, when the team was as exciting to watch as it had been in years, the economy was booming, and the cost was one-fifth of what it is now.
And they didn't.
In retrospect, THAT was our last chance.

And don't count on an expansion team, either.
Those days are done.
The league is not going to get any bigger than 32 teams.

Given the way the situation is unfolding, there is only ONE logical conclusion:
professional football is leaving our state.
And it is never, ever coming back.

There's not one ounce of logic in the above post.
It's all opinion and whining.

=Z=

**Zeus** · 01-29-2009, 10:52 PM

God - this thread is fucking pissing me off.
Buncha fucking whiners.

Why did the Vikings lose money this year?
BECAUSE OF A $30 MILLION DOLLAR CASH CALL TO SIGN JARED ALLEN.
PERIOD.

Some dipshit yahoo starts babbling about losing money and moving and all the whiny bitches come out.
Waaaa!
Waaaaaa!
They're moving to LA!
Tomorrow!
I read it in the peanuts I dug outta my shit!!

Give me a fucking break.

=Z=

**Mikecarter81** · 01-29-2009, 11:00 PM

"Zeus" wrote:

God - this thread is fricken pissing me off.
Buncha fricken whiners.

Why did the Vikings lose money this year?
BECAUSE OF A $30 MILLION DOLLAR CASH CALL TO SIGN JARED ALLEN.
PERIOD.

Some dipshit yahoo starts babbling about losing money and moving and all the whiny bitches come out.
Waaaa!
Waaaaaa!
They're moving to LA!
Tomorrow!
I read it in the peanuts I dug outta my pooh!!

Give me a fricken break.

=Z=

Zeus, thank you.

Mike

**fourdoorchevelle** · 01-29-2009, 11:09 PM

"Zeus" wrote:

God - this thread is fucking pissing me off.
Buncha fucking whiners.

Why did the Vikings lose money this year?
BECAUSE OF A $30 MILLION DOLLAR CASH CALL TO SIGN JARED ALLEN.
PERIOD.

Some dipshit yahoo starts babbling about losing money and moving and all the whiny bitches come out.
Waaaa!
Waaaaaa!
They're moving to LA!
Tomorrow!
I read it in the peanuts I dug outta my shit!!

Give me a fucking break.

=Z=

HAHA your toooooo easy

i wouldn't worry about it. it's obvious the legislation wants to keep the vikings. hell they are building new stadiums for the gophers and twins. so the vikings have to be at the top of the list

**singersp** · 01-30-2009, 05:36 AM

"Zeus" wrote:

God - this thread is fucking pissing me off.
Buncha fucking whiners.

Why did the Vikings lose money this year?
BECAUSE OF A $30 MILLION DOLLAR CASH CALL TO SIGN JARED ALLEN.
PERIOD.

Some dipshit yahoo starts babbling about losing money and moving and all the whiny bitches come out.
Waaaa!
Waaaaaa!
They're moving to LA!
Tomorrow!
I read it in the peanuts I dug outta my shit!!

Give me a fucking break.

=Z=

The Vikings, for one, bring in the least gross revenues of any team in the NFL, according to Forbes magazine. The situation is mostly attributable to the lack of club seats at the 27-year-old Metrodome.

You could argue Wilf made his own bed by devoting so much cash to signing high-priced free agents like defensive end Jared Allen and receiver Bernard Berrian. But it's not as if the Vikings' expenditures were outrageous relative to the spending habits of other NFL teams.

Were not the Vikings losing money every year since the Wilf's took over the team? JA has only been here for 1 of those 4 years.

Also, just to note, Forbes rated the Vikings the lowest on bringing in gross revenues, not net income, so the low rating has nothing to do with paying out JA $30 million. His presence on the team however, would only help boost that gross revenue.

**singersp** · 01-30-2009, 05:44 AM

"Zeus" wrote:

Why did the Vikings lose money this year?
BECAUSE OF A $30 MILLION DOLLAR CASH CALL TO SIGN JARED ALLEN.
PERIOD.

=Z=

Probably because the Vikings shelled out a few bucks for "trinkets" to appease some whinny fan(s).

:P

[size=1pt](That's sarcasm for those who didn't pick up on it from the smiley face)[/size]

**Zeus** · 01-30-2009, 06:32 AM

"singersp" wrote:

"Zeus" wrote:

God - this thread is fucking pissing me off.
Buncha fucking whiners.

Why did the Vikings lose money this year?
BECAUSE OF A $30 MILLION DOLLAR CASH CALL TO SIGN JARED ALLEN.
PERIOD.

Some dipshit yahoo starts babbling about losing money and moving and all the whiny bitches come out.
Waaaa!
Waaaaaa!
They're moving to LA!
Tomorrow!
I read it in the peanuts I dug outta my shit!!

Give me a fucking break.

The Vikings, for one, bring in the least gross revenues of any team in the NFL, according to Forbes magazine. The situation is mostly attributable to the lack of club seats at the 27-year-old Metrodome.

You could argue Wilf made his own bed by devoting so much cash to signing high-priced free agents like defensive end Jared Allen and receiver Bernard Berrian. But it's not as if the Vikings' expenditures were outrageous relative to the spending habits of other NFL teams.

Were not the Vikings losing money every year since the Wilf's took over the team? JA has only been here for 1 of those 4 years.

Also, just to note, Forbes rated the Vikings the lowest on bringing in gross revenues, not net income, so the low rating has nothing to do with paying out JA $30 million. His presence on the team however, would only help boost that gross revenue.

I don't recall that the Vikings have lost money every year since the Wilfs bought the team.
Do you have articles that link to that information?

=Z=