Wilfs blast Metrodome lease proposal

MSFC Thatcher Letter 11-18-09 - Vikings owners Zygi Wilf and Mark Wilf sent a scathing letter Wednesday to Paul Thatcher, chairman of the finance committee of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, a day after Thatcher's committee approved a resolution threatening to penalize the team if it doesn't agree to extend its lease at the ... Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
More bars in more places

Sparta, WI

#21 Nov 19, 2009
Just give the Vikings the dome....in return for a 20-year no-leave contract!

I think if Ziggy actually owned the dome it might suddenly seem a lot more attractive to him, and somehow remodelling might make a lot more sense.

An immediate effect would be to get the Mike Lynn shadow off of the private box revenue.
Mia

United States

#22 Nov 19, 2009
Let's not compare the Vikings to Dallas. Dallas consistently ranks on the top of the list as the most valuable team and has the most fans. New England ranks right up there to. Heck, GB is a smaller market, but basically can sell itself. Of course, it helps that they have 2% debt (Forbes) and can just sell more Packer stock if they want to build bigger and better.

The Wilf's indeed have built a bonafide team, but that means squat if the state won't back you. I see them going the way of the Minnesota North Stars.
Chuck

Minneapolis, MN

#23 Nov 19, 2009
The issue I have is why couldn't a deal be worked out with the U of M? There is no reason they could not have shared a stadium considering the amount of games.
MN Observer

Saint Paul, MN

#24 Nov 19, 2009
More bars in more places wrote:
Just give the Vikings the dome....in return for a 20-year no-leave contract!
I think if Ziggy actually owned the dome it might suddenly seem a lot more attractive to him, and somehow remodelling might make a lot more sense.
An immediate effect would be to get the Mike Lynn shadow off of the private box revenue.
That won't work. They haven't paid any rent in years, that's what this whole stink is about, the Vikings said in return for no rent, they need to sign a two-year lease, otherwise they have to pay up for their last two full seasons in the dome. A better idea would have been to give the dome to the U and then build a Vikings stadium.
Nick

Longmont, CO

#25 Nov 19, 2009
Scenario:

1. The Vikings leave town.

2. The Dome is finally torn down
.
3. Federally funded low cost housing is erected.

4. The Minnesota welfare state brings in 75,000 more Democrat voters from Somalia, Chicago, Detroit, Gary, East Saint Louis etc, etc etc.

5. Many more businesses leave the state.

6. Taxes are raised dramatically on the few that actually work.
welfare viking

Princeton, MN

#26 Nov 19, 2009
I won't pay my way to see the Vikings, you pay for me.
Rumblebee

Saint Paul, MN

#27 Nov 19, 2009
Childress wrote:
<quoted text>Now tell me about the other 31 teams.I'll save you the time.They deserve a new stadium.The one they proposed in Blaine a few years back would have brought jobs.Hello,jobs.What is the unemployment rate?Plus it would have dumped millions into the state treasury.
Again the Vikings need a new stadium and Wilf is ready to use his money,the State needs to help.It helps them in the long run.
The other 31 teams? OK, for starters there are still about 6 in stadiums similar to the Vikings (Jacksonville, San Diego, New Orleans, Oakland, San Francisco, St. Louis). The Dolphins and Patriots paid for their stadiums, I believe Washington's owner did as well. That's eight!

As to the other 22 that perhaps received government support, most were not nearly as expensive as what the Vikings want. Green Bay, Chicago, and Pittsburgh all have new or remodeled stadiums that cost taxpayers $200-300 million. The Vikings are asking for closer to $700 million. Don't you see the problem there?

The problem is the Wilf's want us to give $700 million so they can bring in an extra $40 million per year. They refuse to consider the remodeling proposal that would cost taxpayers $200 million and give them an extra $20 million per year.

I stated in my original post that I was OK with provided government assistance, just need to be reasonable and realistic.
Rumblebee

Saint Paul, MN

#28 Nov 19, 2009
steve tellers wrote:
Goodbye, greedy jews, and take your team with you. i would miss the Vikings, but not enough that i would kiss your **** and shell out all kinds of taxes for them.
Red McCombs wanted the same deal. I guess it is OK if you're a red headed Irishman eh??
MN Observer

Saint Paul, MN

#30 Nov 19, 2009
MN Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
That won't work. They haven't paid any rent in years, that's what this whole stink is about, the Vikings said in return for no rent, they need to sign a two-year lease, otherwise they have to pay up for their last two full seasons in the dome. A better idea would have been to give the dome to the U and then build a Vikings stadium.
I meant to write the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission said in return for no rent...
Chuck

Minneapolis, MN

#31 Nov 19, 2009
4Ofor6O wrote:
if my tax payer money is helping pay for this stadium then we shoud have a few perks. maybe we could have accessable web cams in the vikings locker room so we can feel like we are a part of the team.
How about just in the cheerleader locker room.

“HHhhhoooowwwlll”

Since: Feb 08

Craigville

#32 Nov 19, 2009
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>How about just in the cheerleader locker room.
Now some knothead has decided to pass themselves off as me again. Instead of using zero's in 40for60, they are using the letter O, like this 4Ofor6O
Some people have no scruples whatsoever.
More bars in more places

Sparta, WI

#33 Nov 19, 2009
I have an even better idea. According to Forbes, the Vikings are currently worth $835 million. The teams with new stadiums in similar markets seem to be worth about $3-400 million more, so let's build a stadium with the proviso that, if the team is sold, the state gets back the difference due to the increase in value from the new stadium. That way it would just be a loan. There is no reason the taxpayers should increase the value of the team to the sole profit of the Vikings. If we invest we should split the profits. It's just good business.
speedy

United States

#34 Nov 19, 2009
Backwards logic.
It appears we have an awesome team this year. I am following football for the first time in over 20 years.
I see an interesting conflict. If they win a super bowl, it shows that the stadium has nothing to do with winning and all the crabbing about the dome is meaningless.
If they lose they may or may not cite the facility as the reason? Not likely.
So, we are left to decide the REAL reason they want a new facility. The reason? Profit for team owners. I am a sports fan, but leave it to dumb jocks to lose thier grasp of this concept.
GBPfan

Fountain, CO

#35 Nov 20, 2009
MN Observer wrote:
I think the Wilf's reaction is a set up so they can leave Minnesota. They're using the line "we acted in good faith, the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission pushed us away and treated us like dirt". The dome was built for the Vikings. I understand that if Minnesota wishes to have an NFL team, a new, publicly-funded stadium must be built. We're in the deepest recession in over 65 years. There's no money for a stadium right now, nor in the forseeable future.
If California can do it, so can Minnesota. As a Packer fan it doesn't matter much to me if the Vikings move. However, as a football fan, I would hate to see Minneapolis make the mistake that Cleveland made when they chased Art Modell out of town. Cleveland fans said the same kind of things you are saying. They refused to build Modell a stadium because they couldn't or wouldn't come up with the money. AFTER Modell left town with the real Browns, Cleveland built a new stadium for the replacement Browns. A new stadium would be for the fans and the community. That is how Minneapolis should think of it.

I have lived in Colorado for years. There were people that opposed building the new Mile High stadium. I'm not a Broncos fan so I didn't care. I have been to games at the new stadium. It is a MUCH nicer experience than going to a game at the old stadium. It would have been foolish for the people of Denver to refuse to do what other cities would have been happy to do. The Wilfs and Minneapolis should be able to reach a mutually beneficial arrangement. If not, it is the Viking fans that will lose.
MN Observer

Saint Paul, MN

#36 Nov 20, 2009
GBPfan wrote:
<quoted text>
If California can do it, so can Minnesota. As a Packer fan it doesn't matter much to me if the Vikings move. However, as a football fan, I would hate to see Minneapolis make the mistake that Cleveland made when they chased Art Modell out of town. Cleveland fans said the same kind of things you are saying. They refused to build Modell a stadium because they couldn't or wouldn't come up with the money. AFTER Modell left town with the real Browns, Cleveland built a new stadium for the replacement Browns. A new stadium would be for the fans and the community. That is how Minneapolis should think of it.
I have lived in Colorado for years. There were people that opposed building the new Mile High stadium. I'm not a Broncos fan so I didn't care. I have been to games at the new stadium. It is a MUCH nicer experience than going to a game at the old stadium. It would have been foolish for the people of Denver to refuse to do what other cities would have been happy to do. The Wilfs and Minneapolis should be able to reach a mutually beneficial arrangement. If not, it is the Viking fans that will lose.
If California can do what?

What's the difference between Green Bay and yogurt?
what

Saint Paul, MN

#37 Nov 21, 2009
Chris wrote:
I do understand that we are in a recession. and I understand that we do not have a billion in the "coffers", but I think if we can get a stadium built for the Twins and Gophers we should be able to get one built for the best team in Minnesota. I think it is obvious to everyone that the Dome is not what the Vikings need to make the team competitive. The Vikings with Wilf have done everything they can do to bring in talent and make the Vikings winners. Without a new stadium they will move, and we will no doubt regret our lack of action. Does anyone remember when the North Stars left to Dallas, shortly after they won a Stanley Cup as the Dallas Stars. Does anyone want the Vikings to leave, and become the second Minnesota team to win a championship outside Minnesota. Football is now the new "America's Past Time", it generates big money for the economy. I believe that if we get a deal done for the good of Minnesota we would not be disappointed. I can not imagine what Minnesota would be like without our beloved Vikings.
----------
Even better... How many Championships have the Lakers won since leaving Minnesota.
WHo is "we" ? you live in Virginia.

“HHhhhoooowwwlll”

Since: Feb 08

Craigville

#38 Nov 21, 2009
MN Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the difference between Green Bay and yogurt?
Inquiring minds need to know!
MN Observer

Saint Paul, MN

#39 Nov 21, 2009
Yogurt has an active culture.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Antoine Winfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is it Tarvaris Time in Minnesota? (Dec '06) Apr '14 Magnum Man II 33
Extra Points: CUT-ting through the NFL (Sep '13) Sep '13 viking nation 2
10 Early Winners and Losers of Minnesota Viking... (Jun '13) Jun '13 Bleeds Purple 1
Minnesota Vikings need Xavier Rhodes to turn th... (Jun '13) Jun '13 viking nation 1
Vikings have a slot for Robinson (May '13) May '13 viking nation 1
Five areas of correction for the Vikings (May '13) May '13 Harry 3
Could Vikings' Jared Allen bolt after this season? (May '13) May '13 bill 1
More from around the web