Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39
  1. #1
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Patrick Reusse: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings


    http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/113825129.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc: aUoD3aPc:_27EQU

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  2. #2
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,454

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Last week, Lester Bagley -- charge d'threats for Red McCombs and now Zygmunt Wilf -- repeated what has become the Big Lie:

    A domed stadium offers no benefit to the Vikings, so they will duplicate the Twins' deal and cap the team's cost at one-third of an outdoor stadium.

    Come on, Zygmunt: I know you New Jersey guys are lot sharper than us, but we aren't complete, drooling idiots out here on the frozen prairie.
    Why is Lester Bagley still getting paid to do this? He is a failure.

    No one I know in the legislature likes him or trusts him. Dealing with him is like eating a pie that someone accidentally put in a quarter cup of salt rather than sugar.

    A stadium without a roof? That dog just ain't gonna hunt.

  3. #3
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
    They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
    The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
    the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    952

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    I read the article this weekend and waited to post on it. To me this seems like a subversive article. IT has always been bandied about that the Vikes want an open air stadium as it does give us a marked advantage late in the year. The state wants an all year stadium and deservedly so. While these points need to be made in an editorial article, I just think everyone could be doing more to make this work. Put an a small hole in the roof with a retractable roof on it a la Dallas, AZ.....

    Or fix the roof on the dome and keep it as the year round option and then construct an open air football only stadium on a different site. I dont have all the answers nor do I pretend to. All I am saying is present some options and get this moving forward.

    This just seems like de ja vu all over again. I can only say I hope that they can figure it out and get r done or we will be watching our next pro team relocate like the Lakers, and Stars before them.

  5. #5
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "slavinator" #1087776
    I read the article this weekend and waited to post on it. To me this seems like a subversive article. IT has always been bandied about that the Vikes want an open air stadium as it does give us a marked advantage late in the year. The state wants an all year stadium and deservedly so. While these points need to be made in an editorial article, I just think everyone could be doing more to make this work. Put an a small hole in the roof with a retractable roof on it a la Dallas, AZ.....

    Or fix the roof on the dome and keep it as the year round option and then construct an open air football only stadium on a different site. I dont have all the answers nor do I pretend to. All I am saying is present some options and get this moving forward.

    This just seems like de ja vu all over again. I can only say I hope that they can figure it out and get r done or we will be watching our next pro team relocate like the Lakers, and Stars before them.
    I agree that Reusse comes off as very condescending...and, to me, it appears that he misses some pretty obvious points.

    He states in his article that the Vikings really DO want a roof, but don't want to pay for it?

    Why would they?

    The Vikings used to be an outdoor team full of hard nosed players who could eat concertina wire and piss napalm (Thank, Clint, for that quote). If it snowed, the Vikes won. If it was cold, the Vikes won.

    Then they moved "indoors", and that edge was lost.

    I know the arguments about fans not wanting to freeze their assess off, and I agree to a point, but Ruesse is WAAAAY off base if he thinks that the Vikes need a roof. They don't. In fact, I am one of those who wish they'd get rid of it.

    Fact is, this isn't the first venom laden diatribe that Ruesse has published lately. Whatever his axe to grind, he's certainly grinding it hard...but he's missing a lot of facts while doing so - or rather he's simply ignoring them to make his points seem valid.

    Caine

  6. #6
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

    Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

    Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

    JMHO
    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=

  7. #7
    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
    8,281

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087790
    Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

    Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

    Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/1 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

    JMHO
    Fixed it for ya.
    Just kidding 1/2 seems fair.
    In the end I think the Vikings know that getting the state to pay 600million or 400million doesn't make much difference in the eyes of the taxpayer. Most taxpayers will either be for it or against it on principal alone, the dollars don't make much difference.
    Of course to the Vikings that's a huge difference.

  8. #8
    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
    8,281

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
    New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

    Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

    Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

    Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

    Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

    So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

    Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

  9. #9
    marshallvike's Avatar
    marshallvike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Posts
    2,473

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087790
    Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

    Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

    Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

    JMHO
    if you are including the early 60's, the Vikings formative years, after being given a franchise, the winning percentage will be skewed a bit.
    Why must you defend everything this FO does....to the point of making your self look like a yes man.

  10. #10
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087791
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087790
    Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

    Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

    Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/1 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

    JMHO
    Fixed it for ya.
    Just kidding 1/2 seems fair.
    In the end I think the Vikings know that getting the state to pay 600million or 400million doesn't make much difference in the eyes of the taxpayer. Most taxpayers will either be for it or against it on principal alone, the dollars don't make much difference.
    Of course to the Vikings that's a huge difference.
    lol. Nice.

    I wouldnt be opposed to 1/2, but then again, I am not the Vikings ownership group. In a small market franchise with a negative revenue stream without revenue sharing, I honestly don't know if the team could afford 1/2. Jets, Giants, Eagles, Dallas - these are all large market teams and had a significant non-sharing revenue BEFORE the new stadium was built, so they could afford a larger chuck of the pie. The best comparison is AZ, which is a similar market size to the Twin Cities.

    It sucks to say, but the large markets could actually absorb more of a tax total because of larger populations, yet these are the ones where the team itself was already doing pretty good in terms or revenue.
    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=

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 45 lessons life taught me...
    By NodakPaul in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-08-2009, 12:54 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-30-2007, 07:23 AM
  3. Souhan: Vikings could take lessons from Wolves
    By COJOMAY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-12-2007, 08:53 PM
  4. Jackson soaking up lessons
    By cogitans in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 04:06 PM
  5. a Short series: lessons for packer fans
    By casper in forum Trash the Pack
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 02:33 AM

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
  •