This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article.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.
August 30, 2011
Vikings hint at move, governor hints at stadium referendum
With the likelihood of a special session of the Minnesota state legislature this year rapidly evaporating, the Minnesota Vikings yesterday launched a new round of non-threat threats to move the team:
"I am concerned," about the future, said Lester Bagley, the Vikings vice president of public affairs and stadium development. "There is growing concern within our ownership, there is no doubt, about where this is headed and the fact that every year, we get to the end of the session and there's a different reason why (it didn't get done)." ...
"But now we're down to the end of the lease, and if we don't get it done this fall, we get to February (and) we will be the only NFL team without a lease," Bagley said. "The only one. There's already been knocks on the door about, 'Hey, we want to talk to you guys when your lease is up.'"
This kind of magical thinking about the end of the lease is widespread — one local paper wrote today that the lease ending means that after the season, "team owner Zygi Wilf is free to pack the team's bags and head out of Minnesota" — but actually meaningless, given that if the Vikings had wanted to move before this year, they would have been free to just by paying rent on the final year of their Metrodome lease. Still, it's a good opportunity for Vikings execs to rattle the move threat saber, so that's exactly what they're doing.
The response, though, may not be what they wanted. Gov. Mark Dayton responded by telling fairgoers at the Minneapolis Star Tribune booth at the state fair — yes, you read that right — that he'd "be supportive" of Ramsey County holding a public referendum on a stadium deal, saying, "In a case like this, people should have their own voice. We should do it somewhat expeditiously, like this November, so we can get it decided one way or another because the clock is ticking."
The Vikings, of course, don't want a public vote, because they're fairly certain they'd lose. So it looks pretty bad for any kind of Minnesota stadium deal in the immediate future — unless, of course, Dayton was just rattling the referendum saber.
If the Vikings 'brass' is so very "concerned", then why don't they pony up for the new stadium and remove all doubts? It is clear public funds are not (and should not be) available for an entity that is part of a multi-BILLION dollar enterprise.
Posted by Dean on August 30, 2011 12:30 PM
As a Ramsey County taxpayer and fairly large NFL fan I can say I would vote against the stadium and help organize opposition. The benefits simply do not merit the costs for the state generally or for me individually. I have been to a handful of Vikings games in my life and the experience was not worth the cost. Watching from home is a much better experience. 99.9% of my interaction with the NFL comes through the TV/internet and that won't change whether there is a team here or not.
If they want to take $50 out of my pocket for an economic development project I would hope it would be one with better chance of actually making a return for taxpayers than this (which has no chance of making a return).
If the Vikings want to sell some equity in the team in exchange for money that is fine, but just building them a facility is the worst kind of corporate welfare.
Posted by Joshua Northey on August 30, 2011 12:31 PM
Joshua, I think you just nailed on the head a problem the NFL is going to find itself having more and more that the other sports don't have. Watching football is almost universally seen as being better at home on the TV. It's a sport that has always lent itself well to TV. And in doing so it diminishes the in person experience even further due to the constant commercial stops where the little man with the orange arm sleeve comes out on field and stops the proceedings so they can advertise beer and claratin. Add in the fact these teams play 8 (10) times a year and these billion dollar palaces make even less sense.
The other 4 sports (NHL, NBA, MLB, MLS) can still make a case for being better in person. Personally I think all but the NBA are better in person. Additionally at minimum play over double the amount of games as the NFL in stadiums that cost less than half (unless you're the Yankees).
Posted by Dan on August 30, 2011 12:42 PM
Well said, Joshua.
Dan, I think Joshua's point probably applies more to the NFL than other major sports, but it is valid for the others too.
In the age of 10-20 camera coverage for even modest sport and HD TV (some productions even allow you to pick your own camera view feed), the games are simply better experienced at home.
Add to that the hassle of getting to and from the venue and the behaviour of some "fans" at the facilities and suddenly that MLS direct kick or MLB EI/mlb.com package looks better and better to most of us.
I would never say fans don't lose something by not being at the arena, but I don't think what we lose outweighs what we gain any longer.
Posted by John Bladen on August 30, 2011 12:59 PM
The key point for the fan experience, though, is this: It changes nada for all but a handful of fans that are rich and/or zealous enough to be able/willing to pay the exorbitant cost to attend games. I live in LA. Having a team here only affects me in that I would be in a home market and get all of that team's games on TV without having to pay for Sunday Ticket--which I might do anyway because the Vikings are my team.
Posted by Bob on August 30, 2011 01:54 PM
said best n monty python...
...nudge, nudge, wink, wink say no more squire...
dean got it right and the vikes knew what happened on long island
Posted by paul W. on August 30, 2011 02:53 PM
Bob;
That's very true. Some fans in LA feel they have the best of both worlds right now... they can watch all the NFL they want on tv without having to pay for a new stadium. If they want to see a game in person, San Diego is not that far away...
Posted by John Bladen on August 31, 2011 12:50 AM
Why would they pay rent on the final year just to get out of the contract? They haven't paid rent the last 6+ years anyway. ;-)
The meeting tonight of the Ramsey county charter board will be incredibly interesting. It looks like they are going to require the referendum, but let's see how effective Wilf is at bribery. He does have that New Jersey land developer thing going for him...
Posted by Geoff on August 31, 2011 08:46 AM