Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    BloodyHorns82's Avatar
    BloodyHorns82 is offline Jersey Retired Feed The Frog Champion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,691

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    jmcdon00 wrote:
    Minniman wrote:
    BloodyHorns82 wrote:

    I have come to the conclusion that many/most of the people against it are more against it because of their own personal principles than anything else.

    In my opinion, many people simplify it as "giving public money to a rich guy" and refuse to look any deeper than that, or are blinded by their own ideology. Looking at it in a different light is inconvenient and damaging, regardless of any benefit.
    First and foremost, one must recognize that this is giving public money to the rich guy to make more money from the public. The NFL is basically asking the public to pay for the improvements and then pay more because of the improvements. The public is actually going to have to pay twice for one improved good or service.

    One can debate whether this is an acceptable situation or if it is economically viable in the long run, but to ignore that the NFL, a $5-$6 billion per year revenue organization that is in no trouble balancing the books in this down economy, is using its monopoly power to extort the public is ignoring how these leagues work.

    Should the NFL and the Vikings pay for a larger part of any new stadium? In my opinion, yes. Should the state pay for part of it? In my opinion, yes. That stated, it is my belief that long ago the United States Congress should have regulated all major league sports as interstate trade and put an end to these leagues using fear and monopolistic leverage to gain larger and larger revenue at the expense of the public. This is more so for MLB, but also for the NFL.

    Keep in mind that there were reports some years back that many NFL owners actually liked not having a team in Los Angeles, because the loss of direct fan support for one team was offset by the leverage gained in almost all of the other markets by having the second largest market in North America open for potential relocation.

    At this point, Vikings fans are in the unenviable position of being one of the low revenue teams that is now under pressure to hand over the gold to the pirates in order to keep the ship from being sent to Davy Jones' Locker.
    +1, great post. Some things I never thought of in there.
    +2

  2. #32
    BloodyHorns82's Avatar
    BloodyHorns82 is offline Jersey Retired Feed The Frog Champion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,691

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    Minniman wrote:
    BloodyHorns82 wrote:

    I have come to the conclusion that many/most of the people against it are more against it because of their own personal principles than anything else.

    In my opinion, many people simplify it as "giving public money to a rich guy" and refuse to look any deeper than that, or are blinded by their own ideology. Looking at it in a different light is inconvenient and damaging, regardless of any benefit.
    First and foremost, one must recognize that this is giving public money to the rich guy to make more money from the public. The NFL is basically asking the public to pay for the improvements and then pay more because of the improvements. The public is actually going to have to pay twice for one improved good or service.

    One can debate whether this is an acceptable situation or if it is economically viable in the long run, but to ignore that the NFL, a $5-$6 billion per year revenue organization that is in no trouble balancing the books in this down economy, is using its monopoly power to extort the public is ignoring how these leagues work.

    Should the NFL and the Vikings pay for a larger part of any new stadium? In my opinion, yes. Should the state pay for part of it? In my opinion, yes. That stated, it is my belief that long ago the United States Congress should have regulated all major league sports as interstate trade and put an end to these leagues using fear and monopolistic leverage to gain larger and larger revenue at the expense of the public. This is more so for MLB, but also for the NFL.

    Keep in mind that there were reports some years back that many NFL owners actually liked not having a team in Los Angeles, because the loss of direct fan support for one team was offset by the leverage gained in almost all of the other markets by having the second largest market in North America open for potential relocation.

    At this point, Vikings fans are in the unenviable position of being one of the low revenue teams that is now under pressure to hand over the gold to the pirates in order to keep the ship from being sent to Davy Jones' Locker.
    I've already +2'd this post, but my God...it's got to be the best post I've ever read regarding the stadium situation. Not only is it the best post, but it's probably the best statement made period. Props!

    The only problem(as you pretty much pointed out) is that the Vikings really don't need to pay for a larger part. The NFL is so huge and there are people all over the country that would LOVE to have an NFL team. Somebody will build it, and somebody will come. I just hope we give the pirates their gold because the sword is pointing at the tax payers and I love having an NFL team...not just any NFL team, but the MINNESOTA VIKINGS! It's not fair, but it's reality...the NFL doesn't need to be fair and we're already guilty of allowing that to carry on by supporting the NFL with tickets, jerseys, website hits, fantasy football, etc, etc, etc.

  3. #33
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,369

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    BloodyHorns82 wrote:
    The only problem(as you pretty much pointed out) is that the Vikings really don't need to pay for a larger part. The NFL is so huge and there are people all over the country that would LOVE to have an NFL team. Somebody will build it, and somebody will come. I just hope we give the pirates their gold because the sword is pointing at the tax payers and I love having an NFL team...not just any NFL team, but the MINNESOTA VIKINGS! It's not fair, but it's reality...the NFL doesn't need to be fair and we're already guilty of allowing that to carry on by supporting the NFL with tickets, jerseys, website hits, fantasy football, etc, etc, etc.
    The NFL is saying that the Vikings have the lowest stadium revenue, but they neglect to add that the Twin Cities has the 15th largest television market in the United States, and that brings much more revenue to the revenue sharing pool than half of the teams in the NFL bring. The only market that would be a viable alternative to move the Vikings to and keep that status quo would be the Los Angeles market.

    Once again, the NFL is using the open market in Los Angeles for leverage and then cherry picking the numbers to make their case look better.

    That is not to say that the Vikings do not have low stadium revenue, and that the low stadium revenue is not a factor in the viability of the Vikings as a high standards and high performance organization. At this time, the NFL support lower revenue teams with a fund that helps even the playing field in stadium revenue. The owners have threatened to pull that funding.

    Alas, I agree that the Vikings fans have to face the reality of the situation. At this time, our politicians have done nothing to help the public against the leverage of the monopoly power of the NFL. The courts have ruled that the NFL is a monopoly, but they have also ruled that the power to do anything about it is in the hands of the Congress, and Congress does nothing.

    As I stated in a similar topic on this board, we have to look at what should be done, what can be done, and when it can be done. I could go into where the money could come from, but I am afraid that would make this a much more political topic than I believe anyone would want.

  4. #34
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    Minniman wrote:
    BloodyHorns82 wrote:
    The only problem(as you pretty much pointed out) is that the Vikings really don't need to pay for a larger part. The NFL is so huge and there are people all over the country that would LOVE to have an NFL team. Somebody will build it, and somebody will come. I just hope we give the pirates their gold because the sword is pointing at the tax payers and I love having an NFL team...not just any NFL team, but the MINNESOTA VIKINGS! It's not fair, but it's reality...the NFL doesn't need to be fair and we're already guilty of allowing that to carry on by supporting the NFL with tickets, jerseys, website hits, fantasy football, etc, etc, etc.
    The NFL is saying that the Vikings have the lowest stadium revenue, but they neglect to add that the Twin Cities has the 15th largest television market in the United States, and that brings much more revenue to the revenue sharing pool than half of the teams in the NFL bring. The only market that would be a viable alternative to move the Vikings to and keep that status quo would be the Los Angeles market.

    Once again, the NFL is using the open market in Los Angeles for leverage and then cherry picking the numbers to make their case look better.

    That is not to say that the Vikings do not have low stadium revenue, and that the low stadium revenue is not a factor in the viability of the Vikings as a high standards and high performance organization. At this time, the NFL support lower revenue teams with a fund that helps even the playing field in stadium revenue. The owners have threatened to pull that funding.

    Alas, I agree that the Vikings fans have to face the reality of the situation. At this time, our politicians have done nothing to help the public against the leverage of the monopoly power of the NFL. The courts have ruled that the NFL is a monopoly, but they have also ruled that the power to do anything about it is in the hands of the Congress, and Congress does nothing.

    As I stated in a similar topic on this board, we have to look at what should be done, what can be done, and when it can be done. I could go into where the money could come from, but I am afraid that would make this a much more political topic than I believe anyone would want.
    Interestingly enough, I agree with a lot of what you said (minus the big greedy monopoly rhetoric). Whether or not Congress needs to step in and address the antitrust exemptions is an all together different topic. Personally, I doubt the NFL would be as popular as it is today if it didn't have the exemption.

    But like I answered the last time you asked what can or should be done - the answer itself is relatively simple. Build a stadium. Yes, the implementation of the stadium is complex, but the fact remains that there is no other viable solution for the Minnesota Vikings or the state of Minnesota. The Vikings don't want to move, and the state doesn't want to lose them. So the only answer is to get it done.

    This time, let's not go for the absolute minimum in standards, and build a stadium that will be viable for 50+ years, not 20.

    The Vikings have pledged $250 million. Now it is time for the state to get off from its ass and bring something of its own to the table. Let's start negotiating with the Vikings instead of stubbornly sitting back and doing nothing. Minnesota is masterful at procrastination, putting off the Twins stadium until after they were almost retracted; putting of a hockey stadium until after the state lost their team and they had to spend four times as much to get a new one; etc. It is time to stop procrastinating and get it done. (Actually that time was five years ago when there was a viable plan in Anoka and an owner who had pledged an additional $1 billion in surrounding development)

    The state/community IS going to have to pay for some of it. How much can't be decided until the state actually decides to address the stadium situation instead of playing ostrich.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  5. #35
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Interestingly enough, I agree with a lot of what you said (minus the big greedy monopoly rhetoric). Whether or not Congress needs to step in and address the antitrust exemptions is an all together different topic. Personally, I doubt the NFL would be as popular as it is today if it didn't have the exemption.
    The NFL does not have an anti-trust exemption. Only major-league baseball does.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34804801/ns/business-forbescom/

    Major League Baseball has enjoyed an antitrust exemption since the 1920s, but the players have successfully fought off attempts to curtail their earnings through a strong union that's gained free agency and salary arbitration while keeping a salary cap at arm's length. The NFL and NBA unions, by contrast, have put most of their blood and sweat into fighting off any similar antitrust exemptions for their leagues.
    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  6. #36
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,369

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    Zeus wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Interestingly enough, I agree with a lot of what you said (minus the big greedy monopoly rhetoric). Whether or not Congress needs to step in and address the antitrust exemptions is an all together different topic. Personally, I doubt the NFL would be as popular as it is today if it didn't have the exemption.
    The NFL does not have an anti-trust exemption. Only major-league baseball does.

    Major League Baseball has enjoyed an antitrust exemption since the 1920s, but the players have successfully fought off attempts to curtail their earnings through a strong union that's gained free agency and salary arbitration while keeping a salary cap at arm's length. The NFL and NBA unions, by contrast, have put most of their blood and sweat into fighting off any similar antitrust exemptions for their leagues.
    The NFL does have a Congressional granted exemption to negotiate television rights as a single entity because the NFL has revenue sharing.

    Major League Baseball's exemption would likely not stand up to scutiny in challenged by Congressional action.

  7. #37
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,275

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    Minniman wrote:
    BloodyHorns82 wrote:
    The only problem(as you pretty much pointed out) is that the Vikings really don't need to pay for a larger part. The NFL is so huge and there are people all over the country that would LOVE to have an NFL team. Somebody will build it, and somebody will come. I just hope we give the pirates their gold because the sword is pointing at the tax payers and I love having an NFL team...not just any NFL team, but the MINNESOTA VIKINGS! It's not fair, but it's reality...the NFL doesn't need to be fair and we're already guilty of allowing that to carry on by supporting the NFL with tickets, jerseys, website hits, fantasy football, etc, etc, etc.
    The NFL is saying that the Vikings have the lowest stadium revenue, but they neglect to add that the Twin Cities has the 15th largest television market in the United States, and that brings much more revenue to the revenue sharing pool than half of the teams in the NFL bring. The only market that would be a viable alternative to move the Vikings to and keep that status quo would be the Los Angeles market.

    Once again, the NFL is using the open market in Los Angeles for leverage and then cherry picking the numbers to make their case look better.

    That is not to say that the Vikings do not have low stadium revenue, and that the low stadium revenue is not a factor in the viability of the Vikings as a high standards and high performance organization. At this time, the NFL support lower revenue teams with a fund that helps even the playing field in stadium revenue. The owners have threatened to pull that funding.

    Alas, I agree that the Vikings fans have to face the reality of the situation. At this time, our politicians have done nothing to help the public against the leverage of the monopoly power of the NFL. The courts have ruled that the NFL is a monopoly, but they have also ruled that the power to do anything about it is in the hands of the Congress, and Congress does nothing.

    As I stated in a similar topic on this board, we have to look at what should be done, what can be done, and when it can be done. I could go into where the money could come from, but I am afraid that would make this a much more political topic than I believe anyone would want.
    +1, another great post.

  8. #38
    Dieter's Avatar
    Dieter is offline Training Camp
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    33

    Re:LA Stadium Builder will NOT attempt to move Vikes

    I dont live in Minnesota so I guess it shouldnt make a difference to me what city the Viking play in.

    But, I dont think they would be the Vikings without Minnesota in front. And if the franchise ever left the name should stay in Minnesota.

    I shouldn't even be responding to a depressing thread like this with the scumboys coming in Sunday.

    As long as teams are putting acceptable numbers of bums in the seats pro franchises shouldn't be allowed to relocate. The game should be about the fans.

    Long live the MINNESOTA Vikings...2010 Superbowl Champions
    http://www.okanagansun.ca
    https://twitter.com/Okanagan_Sun

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Stadium issue to move forward in 2009 as economic stimulus
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 430
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 07:19 PM
  2. Vikings stadium plans move forward
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 02:27 PM
  3. NFL Teams Don't Move Unless They Have Issues With Their Stadium
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 11:55 AM
  4. Vikes have the value to move up to #5
    By slinkey in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 03-19-2006, 01:33 AM
  5. If Vikes move from MN will you still be a fan
    By RK. in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 12-14-2004, 07:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •