NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will meet with state leaders Friday in a high-stakes effort to win a publicly funded stadium for the Minnesota Vikings.The difference between a warning and a threat is often one of semantics, but I have little doubt that a threat is on the table. Eric Grubman, who is the NFL's designated button man on such issues, had an interview with KFAN's Dan Barreiro yesterday. Grubman said two things that are worth mentioning:
The meeting with Gov. Mark Dayton and legislative leaders from both parties follows a Thursday telephone call in which NFL officials told Dayton it was urgent to resolve the stadium issue this spring. "They didn't issue any threats or anything, but it was more of a warning" that the Vikings might leave Minnesota, Dayton said on Thursday. "It was very clear that they see that the Vikings will be in play [to move] if this is not resolved or unfavorably resolved in this session."
- The NFL believes that there are now two viable sites in Los Angeles for a stadium; and
- The NFL will have a team in Los Angeles, but it may not be an expansion team. In fact, there are no plans for expansion in the near term.
Meanwhile, back at the lege, some people still don't understand the state of play:
Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, a vocal opponent of public subsidy packages for stadiums, said she wanted to know whether Goodell was coming as part of an orchestrated stadium lobbying effort or to show how serious the situation really is.
"I honestly want to know that," she said. "Is it real? Is it rhetoric?"
Now, this is some primo silliness. Of course the effort is "orchestrated." Nothing happens in government that isn't orchestrated in one way or another. And orchestration in itself signals a measure of reality. Although it might seem that way at times, random events aren't brought before the legislature.
This moment has been coming for a long time. You don't get the sort of power the NFL has unless you are willing to be ruthless. Minnesotans have been dodging the question for as long as possible, but now it's time to decide. What is having a pro football team worth to this area?
15 comments:
I would say it is worth no more and no less than the team and its fans are willing to pay for it, out of their own pockets. If you have to pick the pockets of those who don't want their pockets picked, you are a thief and I don't care how many you have in the w/l columns.
I still don't understand why a blatant public subsidy is required. We have legacy money. We have the option of "seat licenses." We have the option of GIVING them the Metrodome as our share, and the option to give them other tax breaks on top of that. A rough calculation says those two things together are more than the $400M the Vikes seem to think is their due.
J. Ewing
The comments of the previous poster are a classic illustration of how one can be right and wrong at the same time.
Public subsidies for various forms of entertainment happen all of the time. Look at the arts, and perfomance venues which would struggle without them. For that matter if there is a demand for parks and recreation, why can these facilities not too stand on their own feet?
Valid arguments all, but when the sun set and the Vikings leave, will it matter that your arguments were right. Will it matter that the odds of getting another Pro Franchise are more than likely to be nill. Will it matter that Minnesotan's will be forced to either ignore pro football entirely, or become, gasp, fans of another team that is close like the Packers?
Stadium subsidies are the price of admission to having a franchise these days. You can be opposed to it, but there is quite frankly no other option if you want to keep a team. This is a defining moment in State History, and really everyone who thinks that the Vikings are are bluffing had better take heed.
Point taken, Anon. Your comment brings to mind a widely held assumption or maybe it's a truth?
Sports teams are part of our core identity.
Insofar as that is true, perhaps there had better be subsidies because it would be foolish to lose a part of who you are just to save a few bucks.
But if the assumption isn't true, if the Vikings are merely an entertainment option among many, then the subsidy is no slam dunk.
So are the Vikings a core part of what it is to be Minnesotan?
Most public subsidies are for public projects - not for private, for-profit industries. The state/county/city/taxing authority shares some or all of the ownership of the entity being financed. None of that is true with the Vikings.
Stadium subsidies are the price of admission to having a franchise these days.
Fair enough, but that shouldn't mean that we have to accept a bad deal on the basis that it's the only deal available. I'm not opposed to doing something. I am opposed to giving $700 million to help Vikings generate only $15-20 million more in revenue a year. There are better (cheaper) ways to accomplish that goal.
for one, i am grateful that a team is having issues getting somebody else to pay for their business expenses...
there is a billionaire already willing to pay full price to build a stadium in los angeles.
its more a matter when/where to stick the shovel in the ground and for what team than a matter of if.
I've heard the trucks are loading and heading south on 35 to Des Moines.
not gonna happen. IA is too small a market.
Plus we don't want them.
"Public subsidies for various forms of entertainment happen all of the time. Look at the arts, and perfomance venues which would struggle without them."
Indeed. But pro football wouldn't struggle without subsisides, and ballet dancers don't make $10 million per year. Those fabulous salaries for athletes are brought to you by taxpayer subsidies.
It is true, today, that massive subsidies are the price of admission to pro sports. But that is only because cities and states have allowed it to be so. Stop playing the game, and the sports leagues will have to revert to private financing for their businesses. If you say that's not realistic, I would reply that such subsidies are simply immoral.
Stop playing the game, and the sports leagues will have to revert to private financing for their businesses. If you say that's not realistic, I would reply that such subsidies are simply immoral.
True, but amorality is always a growth industry.
Oh wow, I have seen this movie before. Jim Irsay wants a new stadium, LA rumors fly, Instant tax to fund new stadium.
The kicker is that you will get to show off The Stupid Bowl trophy for a year and then get to host one.
Football isn't that big of a deal.
Oh wow, I have seen this movie before. Jim Irsay wants a new stadium, LA rumors fly, Instant tax to fund new stadium.
The kicker is that you will get to show off The Stupid Bowl trophy for a year and then get to host one.
Anon, it is a very familiar movie, isn't it? The one thing -- there are a lot of folks 'round these parts who would gladly pay a billion for a Super Bowl trophy.
Worth mentioning - even LA doesn't think the Vikings are a legitimate threat to move Westward:
http://www.footballphds.com/2012/04/18/nfl-in-la-minnesota-vikings-still-not-relocation-contender-for-los-angeles/
It reminds me of the old joke:
Q. Why doesn't Iowa have a pro football team?
A. Because if they had one, Minnesota would want one, too!
And hey, the ViQueens only matter two games a year, one in Soldiers' Field, and the other in the Rollerdome.
bubba nails that one.
Post a Comment