Thread: Minnesota Poll: Most oppose new Vikings stadium

I believe in a biased poll, it can be made to sway one way. Also, being 2-4 isn't going to help that poll.

I say you have to look at the Cowboys stadium, that will be used for everything and it will be used to generate a ton of income.

Go big (build a monster) or go home (stay in the dome).

I don't think that the public is willing to go big.

On the other hand, "the new Arrowhead" looks nice, renovation works sometimes. I didn't see it on the inside, saw it from Kaufman and thought Arrowhead looked nice from the outside compared to what I saw a few years back when I was there.

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

In the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll, two-thirds of Minnesotans say the Vikings should stay in the Dome. An even larger majority oppose public funding for a replacement.

Minnesota Poll: Most oppose new Vikings stadium

More good news. Don't read unless you want to get madder than you already are from the game last night.

Did you notice that the never ask the question with the alternative being that, if a stadium is not built, the Vikings will move?

I sure did. This is a poll conducted simply to get the response they got.

=Z=

lmao, we don't know what the Vikings will do. Your poll question would be much more biased than this one.

7 teams in the NFL have lower operating incomes in 2009.
In 2010 the Vikings get stadium naming rights, and a new luxury suit(gridiron club), and have no lease payments. The new CBA is likely to make the Vikings much more profitable with lower salaries and more games.

No other cities have offered to build Wilf a stadium. LA will, but they want half the team, which wouldn't make sense for Wilf. Would make much more sense for Jacksonville, Detroit, Oakland, Miami to move.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html

jmcdon00 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

In the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll, two-thirds of Minnesotans say the Vikings should stay in the Dome. An even larger majority oppose public funding for a replacement.

Minnesota Poll: Most oppose new Vikings stadium

More good news. Don't read unless you want to get madder than you already are from the game last night.

Did you notice that the never ask the question with the alternative being that, if a stadium is not built, the Vikings will move?

I sure did. This is a poll conducted simply to get the response they got.

=Z=

lmao, we don't know what the Vikings will do. Your poll question would be much more biased than this one.

7 teams in the NFL have lower operating incomes in 2009.
In 2010 the Vikings get stadium naming rights, and a new luxury suit(gridiron club), and have no lease payments. The new CBA is likely to make the Vikings much more profitable with lower salaries and more games.

No other cities have offered to build Wilf a stadium. LA will, but they want half the team, which wouldn't make sense for Wilf. Would make much more sense for Jacksonville, Detroit, Oakland, Miami to move.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html

There IS a threat of them moving - pretending that there isn't is denying the possibility (a mistake we made with two other professional teams in Minnesota).

However, on the same note, I think that it is more likely that the Wilfs sell the team before they move it. This is where the real danger lies, because there are people like Ed Roski who want nothing more than to buy a team for the sole purpose of moving it.

NodakPaul wrote:

jmcdon00 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

In the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll, two-thirds of Minnesotans say the Vikings should stay in the Dome. An even larger majority oppose public funding for a replacement.

Minnesota Poll: Most oppose new Vikings stadium

More good news. Don't read unless you want to get madder than you already are from the game last night.

Did you notice that the never ask the question with the alternative being that, if a stadium is not built, the Vikings will move?

I sure did. This is a poll conducted simply to get the response they got.

=Z=

lmao, we don't know what the Vikings will do. Your poll question would be much more biased than this one.

7 teams in the NFL have lower operating incomes in 2009.
In 2010 the Vikings get stadium naming rights, and a new luxury suit(gridiron club), and have no lease payments. The new CBA is likely to make the Vikings much more profitable with lower salaries and more games.

No other cities have offered to build Wilf a stadium. LA will, but they want half the team, which wouldn't make sense for Wilf. Would make much more sense for Jacksonville, Detroit, Oakland, Miami to move.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Value.html

There IS a threat of them moving - pretending that there isn't is denying the possibility (a mistake we made with two other professional teams in Minnesota).

However, on the same note, I think that it is more likely that the Wilfs sell the team before they move it. This is where the real danger lies, because there are people like Ed Roski who want nothing more than to buy a team for the sole purpose of moving it.

Definetly a threat, but that doesn't mean it belongs on the poll question. It is definetly part of the discussion, and a real threat, but far from a sure thing.

Although I know it's not the only issue here it really pisses me off to see Jacksonville and Tampa playing in barely half full stadiums, if anyone "deserves" to go to LA LA land it's them not us.

These polls are ridiculous. The way the questions are phrased slant the answer toward the desired result.

I am absolutely positive that the citizens of Minnesota are not against a new stadium for the Vikings. They would love to have one. They are just against paying for it.

NodakPaul wrote:However, on the same note, I think that it is more likely that the Wilfs sell the team before they move it. This is where the real danger lies, because there are people like Ed Roski who want nothing more than to buy a team for the sole purpose of moving it.

One thing that Minnesota has going for it is the fact that they do well selling tickets. Most of the teams that get mentioned as potentially relocating to Los Angeles have an established ticket base in their current cities. With one exception, the Jaguars.

The Jaguars cover over 1,000 of their seats with advertisements because they cannot sell those seats. If I were to bet on Roski and/or Magic Johnson buying and moving a team to Los Angeles, I would bet on the Jaguars.

Zeus wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

In the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll, two-thirds of Minnesotans say the Vikings should stay in the Dome. An even larger majority oppose public funding for a replacement.

Minnesota Poll: Most oppose new Vikings stadium

More good news. Don't read unless you want to get madder than you already are from the game last night.

Did you notice that the never ask the question with the alternative being that, if a stadium is not built, the Vikings will move?

I sure did. This is a poll conducted simply to get the response they got.

=Z=

Of course it was a poll conducted to get the desired response. Got me to read it, got you to read it, ........Isn't that what they do them for?

purplejokr wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:However, on the same note, I think that it is more likely that the Wilfs sell the team before they move it. This is where the real danger lies, because there are people like Ed Roski who want nothing more than to buy a team for the sole purpose of moving it.

One thing that Minnesota has going for it is the fact that they do well selling tickets. Most of the teams that get mentioned as potentially relocating to Los Angeles have an established ticket base in their current cities. With one exception, the Jaguars.

The Jaguars cover over 1,000 of their seats with advertisements because they cannot sell those seats. If I were to bet on Roski and/or Magic Johnson buying and moving a team to Los Angeles, I would bet on the Jaguars.

Not sure if you knew this or not, the Jags have sold out every game this year.

NodakPaul wrote:

However, on the same note, I think that it is more likely that the Wilfs sell the team before they move it.

Never one to question your opinions on this. You know I think your the most informed poster on this site with respect to this issue, however, I have to ask.....

Why do you think they will sell first?

Atleast in our area, the housing market is on the upswing, new businesses are starting to open again, etc etc etc. Not to the level we saw pre-this-administration, but it is coming around.

The Wilfs bought the team because they wanted to be owners, but they also bought it to exploit the opportunities that come with developing the area around the stadium.

Why would they opt out of that?

If anything, I anticipate them working some sort of 2 year extension with the evil entity called the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission on the premise that stadium deal could/would get done. That would allow them a couple more years to do two things....1) Wait out the last issues with the economy and 2)Start researching alternate locations (if they already haven't).

(Marrdro whispers "Bowershill VA" under his breath)