This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
July 19, 2011
Vikings stadium dead again?
After a two-week government shutdown, the state of Minnesota finally has a budget deal, albeit one that mostly kicks the tough decisions into the future by closing the budget gap by borrowing from future revenues. Still, that means that the Vikings can finally stop waiting and get moving on that stadium bill that, we were promised, would be the next thing on the legislative agenda once the state's checkbook was back in operation.
Only now it turns out it won't be:
Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, said that the stadium bill could be acted on during a special session later this year, perhaps in the fall. She said that she remains "strongly committed" to the bill, along with Gov. Mark Dayton and House sponsor Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead.
"We will have a vote on [the stadium bill] and we'll work to get it passed," Rosen said. "But if I tried to get a vote on it right now, I'd be strung up."
Rep. Michael Nelson, one of Rosen's co-authors on the stadium bill, elaborated on why Rosen was worried about a lynch mob: "There's not a lot of support for cutting people off health care, cutting jobs, then turning around and authorizing bonding for a stadium."
Rosen's boundless optimism aside, the odds on a Vikings stadium bill passing this year are getting pretty long: There's no guarantee that Gov. Mark Dayton will even call another special session this fall, for one thing; for another, there's still a $231 million funding gap; for third, there's still the threat of a referendum campaign to force a public vote.
If I'm the Vikings owners, I start drawing up plans for a short-term lease extension at the Metrodome for beyond this year; it's not like a new stadium would be ready for 2012 anyway, so they're going to need to play somewhere. Just don't tell the voters or legislators — that'll take away one of your best meaningless deadlines.
So little coming from the Vikes on this that I'm starting to suspect that the LA Coliseum will have a second tenant next year.
Posted by Ben Miller on July 19, 2011 10:36 AM
They're not going to move to L.A. without a new stadium being under construction there, and that's moving just as slowly. Add in that either AEG or Majestic would require some pretty stiff lease payments, and I wouldn't worry about Wilf rushing into any decisions - it's the Sacramento-vs-Anaheim Kings choice all over again, really.
Posted by Neil deMause on July 19, 2011 10:48 AM
So is it time to say goodbye to the Vikings within the next couple of years or is there still some hope left for the future Neil?
Posted by Matt on July 19, 2011 12:30 PM
My theory is that Wilf will give equity to either AEG or Majestic based on the franchise increasing in value by playing in L.A. That could solve the lease payment problem.
Also, I think Wilf saw the Kings plight compared to the Thrashers. By keeping quiet, Atlanta Spirit got out of there without too much blowback. I think the Maloofs wish they'd have just shut up until about it and then dropped the Anaheim bomb on March 1.
Posted by Ben Miller on July 19, 2011 12:47 PM
minneapolis is cheering at this news
Posted by b on July 19, 2011 08:05 PM
Perfect way out of this mess for Wilf...sell the team to the State. The cost of a new stadium (total) will be far more than what the Vikings are worth...and with the State currently lined up to pay for $300 million, they could double it and buy the entire franchise. This means they could keep the dome and all revenue from the team. Certainly keep the profits to pay for a new stadium. After the new stadium, is paid off, they could then sell the team and make a profit, or keep the team running (kind of like green bay)
Posted by Chris on July 19, 2011 10:43 PM
If the vocal portion of the fan base is really that rabid & committed... the Wilfs could simply float 25,000 seat PSLs at $12k (on avg) and raise the missing money.
They could add a second 25,000 PSLs for $5k (avg) and raise enough to build their own open air, no frills stadium. I'm pretty sure the county/city would grant them a 99 year lease for a token amount if they were willing to do that.
But I'm sure there are plenty of reasons ($500+m in public money) not to do that...
Posted by John Bladen on July 19, 2011 11:13 PM
I have said it before, and I will say it again, with the exception of the New York Islanders, no other pro or college sports teams are getting new Stadiums or Arenas (Unless they already have shovels in the ground, or have the funding in place (Penn State Ice Hockey Arena and Linciln, Nebraska)). In fact, even a hundred million $$$ renovation (Like Husky Stadium)is not in the cards, this of course, includes the Vikings. The economics of this are obvious, but perhaps more important is the timing. Next year, is a Presidential Election (With Senate, House, and local seats up as well), so politicians slipping up and voting for sports related projects, could end up on the straight path to defeat. Why? Because of cuts coming to stuff like school construction and transportation, higher taxes, and the fear of massive debts that cannot be paid, So how can they justify spending on sports? Gov. Cuomo (D-NY), vetoed a bill about BORROWING for school construction because of the debt issue, Gov. Scott (R-Fla), said NO to high-speed rail $$ from the Federal Goverment, because he felt (Correctly so) that the State cannot afford it. Think about it. Saying NO to the Teachers Union and free $$$$$$$$$ from Uncle Sam. When does that ever occur? This is the future, and we will have to face it. The Vikings playing in the Metrodome for at least, five more years will be just one example of this.
Posted by David Brown on July 20, 2011 05:42 AM
Chris- That is a fantastic idea, and while I in no way support using government money to fund a stadium, I would support the government purchasing the team (or a portion of the team commensurate with their investment) and setting it up as a non-profit like the Packers (assuming the electorate was behind it).
Unfortunately the NFL passed a rule in the 60s? saying that no other teams can be run like the Packers.
Here is the hilarious part: It is supposedly because the shareholder model won't work for a professional sports franchise and would compromise its ability to be competitive. The Packers have seemed pretty competitive to me..
Posted by Joshua Northey on July 20, 2011 11:01 AM
The Packers are not state owned. And the Packers' ownership structure is illegal under NFL rules.
The whole thing disappoints me because I don't want an NFL team here in L.A. It's great getting the best games on TV each week without having to pay for the package.
Posted by Ben Miller on July 20, 2011 12:45 PM
I know a good deal of people who support a stadium, but very few who are impassioned over it. There's a sort of a non-commital "Oh, it'd be nice... but I don't know how they would pull it off." Then, there's a big chunk of the state, including myself, who just want Wilf and his organization to STFU about it right now.
Posted by Nick J on July 20, 2011 10:31 PM