The Minnesota Vikings' lease at the Metrodome may require them to play one more season there, possibly erasing the team's claim of urgency in assembling a new stadium deal.
"We believe that the use agreement, because of the shortened season, calls for another year at the Dome," Metropolitan Sports Facilities Chairman Ted Mondale said Friday.
Shortened season? What does that mean?
The collapse of the Metrodome roof last winter in a freak blizzard forced the Vikings to play two of their 2010 season home games elsewhere. That, Mondale said, triggered the lease extension clause.So in essence, because the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission couldn't provide a suitable place for the Vikings to play at the end of last season, the Vikings are required to spend another year in the same place that was unsuitable.
As you'd have guessed, the Vikings are not amused:
The Vikings disagree and say the agreement with the commission, which owns the Metrodome, expires by Feb. 1. If the National Football League team tries to leave, the dispute could land in court, a scenario similar to the commission's successful 2002 legal fight to keep the Minnesota Twins in the Metrodome.Think about this for a minute -- a freak blizzard is what is known in the legal biz as force majeure, also known as an "Act of God." As mentioned in the link I provide here, the key is that a force majeure provision, which is typically part of most contracts, binds both parties:
Vikings Vice President Lester Bagley said the team's view is based on legal analysis of the lease. "It is not in the state's or anyone's best interest to look for any reason to further delay a stadium solution," he said.
Typically, force majeure clauses cover natural disasters or other "Acts of God", war, or the failure of third parties--such as suppliers and subcontractors--to perform their obligations to the contracting party. It is important to remember that force majeure clauses are intended to excuse a party only if the failure to perform could not be avoided by the exercise of due care by that party.I'm not a lawyer, but in most cases that means the cause that is beyond the control of either party doesn't change the terms of the agreement. What Mondale is arguing is that the Vikings are responsible for non-performance because they couldn't play the agreed number of games at the Dome and that therefore they owe the MSFC another year. Really? If that were true, the lease is potentially perpetual. Suppose the Vikings were actually forced to play 2012 in the Dome under the terms of the existing lease. Now suppose that, the night before the last game of the 2012 season, there is a massive power outage in downtown Minneapolis and Xcel Energy can't restore power for a week. Would the Vikings then be obliged to play 2013 in the Dome, too? If Mondale's reading is correct, the answer is yes. Then in 2013, we could have a water main issue that would keep them until 2014. And in 2014 maybe another blizzard might do the trick. Heck, why negotiate at all?
I would imagine that the force majeure clause that Mondale believes binds the Vikings is related less to weather than it is to work stoppages -- remember that in 1982, the NFL had a strike that wiped out a big part of the season. A work stoppage is a force majeure event, but weather is a different matter.
The MSFC is probably looking for the equivalent of another Judge Harry Crump to enforce this provision. Crump is the now-retired county judge who stopped the Twins from getting out of their lease in 2002. And I have little doubt the MSFC would have no trouble forum-shopping the issue and finding a modern-day Crump.
So is this a win for those who want to keep the Vikings in Minnesota? Hardly. Do you suppose the Vikings and the NFL would be interested in making an agreement with anyone in Minnesota if they use this approach? I could easily see enforcement of such a provision leading to a sale of the team, which would pretty much guarantee that the Vikings would be gone in 2013. The NFL may value the eyeballs and greenbacks the Vikings generate in this market, but the NFL's business model is contingent on always winning in the end, so they wouldn't be willing to accept a loss. If Minnesota wants to be the place that stops public subsidies for billionaires, I think that's great. I support the notion wholeheartedly. But we need to understand one thing: if Minnesota stands firm, Minnesota won't be part of the NFL's future until it gets its mind right, at least as far as the NFL sees it.
13 comments:
The Vikings CAN move, sometime, but the urgency still puzzles me. These things take time to arrange; stadia must be built before they can be used. Even if the Vikes stay here, they'll be playing in the Dome 2-3 more years while their new pleasure palace is built. So, the question is, why can't they play in the Dome for 4-5 years?
We know what Zygi wants, but why should be pay for it?
J. Ewing
Even before the snag in the lease came to light, it was unlikely the Vikings would have been elsewhere in 2012. Not impossible, but unlikely.
We know what Zygi wants, but why should be pay for it?
I'm not saying we should. Personally, I don't think we should. But we have to be prepared to lose the team if we refuse. The NFL does not want to lose its business model in re new stadia. If Minnesota refuses to build Zygi what he wants, my sense is that the NFL will choose to make an example of Minnesota.
Zygi Wilf isn't from here. The Pohlads, for all the vilification they've faced over the years, are from here. That makes a big difference.
Brad, I agree it was unlikely the Vikings would have left. But if they are held another year against their will, and Minnesota doesn't cough up what Zygi wants, they will be gone in 2013.
the lavishness of stadiums today is kinda puzzling when you stop to consider they are only used for their purpose 10 days out of the year.
maybe 12 if you get to the playoffs.
But if they are held another year against their will, and Minnesota doesn't cough up what Zygi wants, they will be gone in 2013.
No dispute here.
Have we no smart people in Minnesota that can figure out a way to get Zygi more income without making him a welfare Viqueen? What is it, other than the direct tax subsidy, that will result in more income for him, and can we replace that with something else, like a tax break? It works for other companies we want to entice to stay or come here.
J. Ewing
Given that a tax break simply costs the other taxpayers to take up the slack, ixnay on the tax cut for Wylf, too, IMO. Gino's comment is also spot on to get a reasonable ROI on a new stadium, you have to assume that those in attendance are spending some enormous amounts of money that they wouldn't have ordinarily spent in town.
Given that most football fans are from the metro area, that's an iffy proposition at best. The ViQueens had a great chance to work with the Goofers on a multi-team stadium, and blew it.
No, the Vikings didn't blow it with the shared stadium idea with the Gophers. That was a non-starter from the get-go. What the Vikings want from a stadium and the Gophers wanted in a new stadium were very different, and I don't think the differences could have been reconciled. The Gophers don't need what the Vikings need out of a stadium, not least of which being about 20,000 seats.
No, where the Vikings blew it was in Anoka County. They could've had this done in the north metro years ago, but then Ziggy Piggy decided to play footsie with Minneapolis and blew the deal. Not sure if it was because of Minneapolis business interests, or their SW metro fanbase bellyaching about having to cross 694, but I think that was their best chance at a stadium in recent years.
Mike, I tend to agree with your take on this. They'd already be in their new home if they'd been willing to take the deal with Anoka County.
I would like to not pay attention to this, and frankly have not. So what was this Anoka County deal, and can it be resurrected? So long as the statewide taxpayer is kept out of it, I'm OK with whatever it is.
I have to confess, I lived here for 25 years before I became interested in the least in Vikings football. If they leave I can always go back to being a casual Bears fan.
J. Ewing
The Anoka deal is off the table since most of the county commissioners who backed it got burned by Wilf and have either left or been defeated.
Quite frankly, even the Anoka experience, I'm a little surprised that Ramsey was so willing to work with the Vikings.
Quite frankly, even the Anoka experience, I'm a little surprised that Ramsey was so willing to work with the Vikings.
I was, too, but Tony Bennett really wants this thing.
Of course the Viqueens sharing witht he Goofers was a non-starter, just like the Bears sharing a stadium with the Cubs.
Which they did for about 40 years, including a few times in the 1930s when the Cubs won the pennant. And are we somehow under the impression that the Goofers would have objected to 20,000 more seats to fill when the Wolverines, Cornhuskers, Hawkeyes, or Badgers come to town? Let's be serious here. They blew it.
Post a Comment