exmediahack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 11,145
Bubbler said:exmediahack said:And now the "Minnesota-to-Los Angeles" noise starts to come out. Said this back in 1998, Minnesota needs to take care of this and I'm thinking it might be too late...
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/30/vikings-drop-the-l-word/
I hate the Vikings with every fiber of my being, but I'd hate it more if they left Minnesota. There's really no excuse for it.
As much as I hate the Vikings as well...
The State of Minnesota/Minneapolis-St. Paul has had a dozen years to address this, from when Red McCombs bought the team until now.
And they won't.
- The Twins get a new park -- and they were half-way out the door to North Carolina in 1998.
- Gopher stinkin' football gets a new stadium... and they are so far down on the state's pecking order behind the Vikings.
- The Wild got the St. Paul arena.
Yet nothing for the one team the entire state (except for the Packer fans who are 70 and got their allegiances before the Vikings were born) comes together for.
The Vikings should have pursued the Anoka deal five years ago but, if Wilf was truly serious about staying in MSP, he would have done it then.
I will always believe the Favre signing (and paying $20M for this year) is Wilf's way of saying, "look, I did everything I could to put a winner on the field. Everything. And, now, the state doesn't want to kick in for a new stadium."
Whether it is right or not...that's essentially what Wilf is doing and will be doing in the coming months.
Many in Minnesota will stick their noses in the air between listening to NPR in their Volvos and buying their $4 lattes at the Eden Prairie Starbucks and say, "we shouldn't subsidize billionaires and we won't".
That's well and good. I wish more cities and states were like that. But the reality is they are not.
And it makes terrible financial sense to take that approach.
Just look at the NHL debacle. How much money did St. Paul (and the state) spend to get the Wild back in 2000? I imagine a whole lot more than they would have spent on the North Stars in 1992-93 to keep them in Minneapolis.
Same with St. Louis and the NFL Cardinals. They wouldn't kick in for a new stadium. The Rams come along seven years later and St. Louis laid down like a two-dollah wart. Guaranteed sellouts? Sure. Relocation fee? Got ya covered, Ms. Frontiere.
That's the way the game is played now.
If Minnesota doesn't want to look at this seriously, that's fine. Just don't bemoan the Los Angeles Vikings every year once late October hits and there is nothing to do on Sundays in Minneapolis...but watch the damn Packers.
Unlike their neighbors in Wisconsin, Minneapolis/Minnesota has the money (Target, 3M, etc.) and the demographics (college grads with good jobs) where it shouldn't hurt that much. Minneapolis/St. Paul is rich in disposable income per capita -- yet places like Baltimore, Cleveland and Pittsburgh build new stadiums. Huh?!?
Lambeau Field is a palace, with the renovation kicked in by Brown County. Miller Park in Milwaukee? A baseball palace (albeit with an eyesore roof), paid for by the five SE Wisconsin counties with a $.10 per $100 spent sales tax. That stadium could have been paid for by clippin' coupons.