DWinzit Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 CALIFORNIA BILLIONAIRE WANTS VIKINGS IN LOS ANGELES Posted by Tim MacMahon on February 12, 2009, 12:19 p.m. The Vikings continue to rebuff feelers from a California billionaire who wants to build a privately financed stadium in Los Angeles, a team executive toldRick Alonzo of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Minnesota owner Zygi Wilf has said in the past that his ownership group is willing to contribute $250 million toward a $954 million stadium project. The Vikings have a plan in place that would allow construction to start in August. Vikings vice president of public affairs/stadium development Lester Bagley is emphasizing a sense of urgency in Minnesota while mentioning that the team has been in contact with a group led by California real estate developer Ed Roski Jr. since last summer. “They check in periodically,” Bagley said. “They want to meet with our ownership. I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks. But we basically said our guys are not ready to talk to them. We’ve got issues to resolve here. We’ve still got time. Our product’s ready to go.” The Vikings’ lease at the Metrodome expires after the 2011 season. Major League Baseball’s Twins will move out of the Metrodome to their new ballpark in 2010. “We have 30 games left (including exhibitions) at the Metrodome,” Bagley said. “The issue isn’t what the Wilfs will or won’t do. It’s that other NFL owners and other potential NFL markets and potential owners will come after this team. If you let the market work, it’s not going to be a favorable outcome for the Twin Cities in terms of the long-term future for the club.” Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty “hasn’t lifted a finger” about the Vikings’ stadium issue, Bagley said. http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 That would be a disaster. Vikings belong in Minnesota. This is why the NFL should have all teams owned as "clubs" by shareholders like the soccer teams in S.America work. That way, they would never move cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM916 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I really don't get the love affair with LA while there are already three teams in the state. If it is such a great town for the NFL, why has it lost two teams already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I really don't get the love affair with LA while there are already three teams in the state. If it is such a great town for the NFL, why has it lost two teams already? That's an excellent question. One of life's great mysteries I guess. But yeah, the Viking belong in Minnesota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 NO. LA already has a Minnesota team. Keep the Vikings where they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 The LA Vikings sure doesn't sound right. They weren't one of the teams I thought would move. My guess would be the Chargers, Raiders, Jags or Saints will end up in LA. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digger Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Bad idea...bad idea...bad, bad, bad idea forget the silly picture of a viking in LA forget the fact that LA is like a half-way house for teams who's owners are trying to make some fast cash forget the fact that no passes can go past 20 yards because the ball gets lost in the smog this is a bad idea on the basis that this is one of the 'old' teams in the league. it is one of the teams where there are generations of fans. Grandfathers can sit with their grandsons and watch a game and have a common thread a connection. if this guy wants a team tell him to buy and move the Jaguars. Folks don't even pay attention to them there anyway. okay, my rant is over... did I mention it was a bad ide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 When talking about such a large undertaking as building a stadium, 2011's knocking on the door. Minnesota best get their act together and come to an agreement quickly or truly face losing the Vikes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The LA Vikings sure doesn't sound right. They weren't one of the teams I thought would move. My guess would be the Chargers, Raiders, Jags or Saints will end up in LA. :2cents: LA Saints? oxymoron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I really don't get the love affair with LA while there are already three teams in the state. If it is such a great town for the NFL, why has it lost two teams already? I don't think even the most ardent NFL-in-L.A. campaigner would suggest that L.A. is a great football town, or that the NFL should be there as a reward to the loyal Rams/Raiders fans who lost their team. It's about money. L.A. is the second largest market in the NFL. Do you think there are more marketing dollars in Minneapolis or L.A.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter_R Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 When talking about such a large undertaking as building a stadium, 2011's knocking on the door. Minnesota best get their act together and come to an agreement quickly or truly face losing the Vikes.. I share the same sentiment as others around here. Good riddance. No new stadiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The LA Vikings sure doesn't sound right. They weren't one of the teams I thought would move. My guess would be the Chargers, Raiders, Jags or Saints will end up in LA. :2cents: They could dye thier hair blond and change the team colors to fuscia and black. With silicone pads for blocking who could tackle them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Los Angeles Vikings = FAIL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Los Angeles Vikings = FAIL.I dunno. As another poster commented, they also have the Los Angeles LAKERS. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I dunno. As another poster commented, they also have the Los Angeles LAKERS. :laugh:Except I'm pretty sure that there are SOME lakes in California. When was the last time you saw a viking in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 the NFL is heading for another round of relocation. All you have to do is follow the Browns model. Leave the colors,logos and records with the city you leave. Minnesota- No new stadium and the team is gone when the lease is up. New Orleans- they are negotiating for a new lease. If they don't, Saints are a candidate to leave. Jacksonville- This city never should've gotten an expansion team. They don't sell out, even during their peak years. Remember, the cover part of the stadium with Tarp and they still don't sell. A prime candidate to move in the future. San Francisco/ Oakland- they both need a stadium. NFL wants them to share a stadium. San Diego- there are clauses in their lease that let them leave by paying money. It gets lower in future years. They are another team primed to move. Buffalo- A dead town economically. When Ralph Wilson, who is 90, dies; this team is gone. LA will get a team eventually. I'd just leave the records and colors behind the old city and start anew like the Ravens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The Vikings have history and I'd hate to see them move. Jacksonville on the other hand is a **** child that never should have been. Their entire franchise existence is like the one night Tagliaboo got busted with the whore. The whore was known as franchise expansion fees. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Moving the Jags would be the least disruptive to league chemistry considering the AFCS is comprised solely of relocated, or recent expansion teams. Sorry kids in Jacksonville, but you'll still have the Gators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 the NFL is heading for another round of relocation.All you have to do is follow the Browns model. Leave the colors,logos and records with the city you leave. Minnesota- No new stadium and the team is gone when the lease is up.. There definitely does seem to be movement on the horizon and I agree the Browns model is the way to do it. I see the Jags, Saints and Raiders moving in the near future with the Raiders heading back to LA.I can't see San Fran and San Diego letting go of their teams. Buffalo won't be going anywhere now that they've signed the agreement with Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The Vikings have history and I'd hate to see them move.Jacksonville on the other hand is a **** child that never should have been. Their entire franchise existence is like the one night Tagliaboo got busted with the whore. The whore was known as franchise expansion fees. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Moving the Jags would be the least disruptive to league chemistry considering the AFCS is comprised solely of relocated, or recent expansion teams. Sorry kids in Jacksonville, but you'll still have the Gators. Actually, the time was right for expansion in 1995. Remember, the nfl was at 28 teams. So it was only natural to expand to expand to 30. It was the mistakes of that expansion that lead to some of the relocation of the mid 90's; which spawned the additional expansion in 99 and 02. The 1995 expansion teams were awarded in 1993. The final 5 cities were: 1. St. Louis- which was considered the favorite. They were building a new stadium regardless of whether or not they got an expansion team. 2. Charlotte- which was considered the second favorite. 3. Baltimore- a good alternative but there was strong opposition from Jack Kent Cooke. 4. Jacksonville- was in 4th place. 5. Memphis- they had no chance because they had no new stadium, just a remodeling of the Liberity bowl. During that summer of 1993, Jacksonville actually dropped out. Tags convinced them to fix whatever was wrong with their expansion bid and come back. During that fall, St. Louis's ownership group collasped. St. Louis was basically done. Charlotte was awarded the NFL's 29th franchise. A month later Jacksonville was awarded the 30th franchise. If the ownership group for St. Louis hadn't collapsed, the St. Louis Stallions would've been in the league. The NFL should've given Baltimore the franchise. I think it was going to be called the Baltimore Mustangs. I think Jack Kent Cooke use his powers to prevent that happening, so Jacksonville got the nod. Alas, the Memphis Hound Dogs had no shot. Just think, if Baltimore did get a franchise; maybe some of the relocation wouldn't have happened. Cleveland- maybe things would've been less heated and Art and the city could've gotten a deal together. The irony is that after Modell announced the move to Baltimore, Cleveland city voters approved a new stadium anyway. St. Louis was going to get a relocated team. Houston, LA Raiders and Rams were looking for new stadiums. So was Tampa but Tampa got approval for a new stadium. Bud Adams worked out something with Nashville. Rams with St. Louis. The NFL stupidly was pushing a 2 team stadium in LA. Al would have none of that and he stupidly made an agreement with Oakland. I think if the NFL didn't interfere, Al may have gotten some sort of deal with someone in LA. The picking of Baltimore instead of Jacksonville wouldn't have stopped all the relocation of the mid 90's but if Baltimore was picked; I think the later expansion of 99 and 02 wouldn't have happened. Remember, as part of the agreement with Cleveland; Art Modell was allowed to leave and Cleveland was promised an expansion team. I think maybe Cleveland and Modell could've worked something out. If that happened, there wouldn't have been any further expansion. You want to know one of the reasons why TAGS isn't in the HOF, it's this mess of the mid 90's. If he used some leadership; maybe some of the relocation wouldn't have happened. What the nfl does now to help facilitate new stadiums by loaning some money was done in the mid 90's. There will be another round of relocation and it will interesting to see how Goodell handles it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 If Baltimore got an expansion team here's what may have happened. Tags announces a new policy where the NFL will help in stadium construction. This did happen but this after all that mid 90's relocation. This would've aided in teams getting new stadiums instead of itching to move; which may have prevent the Browns and Oilers moving. Realignment/Expansion 1995. NFC West: Los Angeles Rams, San Francisco 49ers, New Orleans Saints, Arizona Cardinals,Atlanta Falcons NFC Central: Bears, Lions, Buccaneers, Packers, Vikings NFC East: Skins, Boys, Baltimore Mustangs, Eagles, Giants AFC EAST: Bills,Dolphins, Pats,Jets,Carolina Panthers AFc Central: Colts, Browns,Bengals,Steelers,Oilers AFc West: Chargers, Chiefs, Broncos, Seahawks, St. Louis Raiders That unpredictable Al Davis gets to St. Louis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eli to Burress Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 This is about T.V. markets and nothing else. L.A. is the second largest media market in North America and that's the only reason the NFL is wanting back in. The city already showed it won't support the franchises but Fox or CBS would pay more for NFL rights if the NFL had something in L.A. It's the same reason Toronto will never see an NFL franchise even though it's the 5th largest media market in North America. The NFL has nothing to gain from Toronto because of the regulations on T.V. It has nothing to do with saving Buffalo or NFL vs. CFL or whatever. Look how fast the NFL ran back to Houston the 4th largest media market in North America and Cleveland. It's all about T.V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 It's the same reason Toronto will never see an NFL franchise even though it's the 5th largest media market in North America. The NFL has nothing to gain from Toronto because of the regulations on T.V. It has nothing to do with saving Buffalo or NFL vs. CFL or whatever. Look how fast the NFL ran back to Houston the 4th largest media market in North America and Cleveland. It's all about T.V.The deals the NFL and the teams separately have with the networks and advertisers certainly is one of if not the driving forces.Are you in a round-about way saying you don't think the Bills stay in Buffalo now that they have the Toronto deal? Or are you saying that is their only chance for a team in Toronto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 Rdskns2000, that was a great history refresher. I had forgotten about some of the inter workings of the expansion's. Also forgot just how bad Tags did drop the ball. I won't be wondering any more why he isn't in the HOF, my bad.:doh: I can't picture Al Davis letting the Raiders move form the coast. I must admit with a name like the Memphis Hound Dogs, I'm kinda glad they weren't awarded a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eli to Burress Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The deals the NFL and the teams separately have with the networks and advertisers certainly is one of if not the driving forces.Are you in a round-about way saying you don't think the Bills stay in Buffalo now that they have the Toronto deal? Or are you saying that is their only chance for a team in Toronto? I think the only way the Bills stay in Buffalo is with the support of Toronto. If the Bills still can't make it work with Toronto paying for games than they'll move to another city in the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyKilmer Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Leave the team name and colors in Minnesota The rest is just bussiness Nn a side note i didn't think there were any billionaires left in he California real estate market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.