NFL exec: Minnesota Vikings "out of options"on stadium

[Auggie]

espn.com / 4-187-12

Two days after a Minnesota House committee voted against the Vikings' stadium bill, the NFL responded with its own strong message to state leaders. Get it done or face the consequences.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told Gov. Mark Dayton on Wednesday there will be "serious consequences" for both the league and the Vikings if the bill isn't passed, Dayton reported to the Pioneer Press.

And with the state's legislative session likely to wrap up in the next two weeks, Dayton said Tuesday that resolving the stadium issue, which has lingered for about a decade, would probably have to wait until 2013.

But the Vikings, who currently don't have a stadium lease, said Tuesday that next year isn't an option and a league executive said Wednesday the team and its ownership are "out of options" after Monday night's vote.

CONTINUES: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7830779/nfl-exec-says-minnesota-vikings-options-stadium-bid

"Get it done or face the consequences." Is the NFL really serious in this extortive-sounding threat? Is this the franchise they'd love to see in L.A.?

"The Los Angeles Vikings"

[HuckleB]

1. Sounds about right.

[KamaAina]

2. A Minnesota team moving to L.A.? How original!

[JonLP24]

3. The answer is yes

the reason I provided is a long winded explanation in a Coyotes thread.

It's a threat that works in which cities/states finance majority of construction costs and then give the teams favorable lease agreements where the city ends up in debt because the team will find a city/state that will if the current state/city doesn't agree to the team's terms. It works especially because the Governor of Minnesota is arguing the NFL/Viking's case for them(what kind of negotiator adopts the other side's biggest talking point?).

*****************
“We can’t not do a new stadium and have the Vikings remain here very long,” Dayton said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/vikings-stadium-bill-in-doubt-after-house-committee-votes-to-reject-backers-face-long-odds/2012/04/17/gIQABtR9MT_story.html


Dayton: 'Duck this, and the Vikings can leave'

"Some things don't look good, but they're best for the future. That's the responsibility of leadership," Dayton said. "We can duck this, and the Vikings can leave, and that won't look so good, either."
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/18/dayton-vikings-can-leave/

************************
Also Chargers, Falcons, and Raiders are looking for new stadiums w/ Goddell using the Super Bowl extortion in San Diego & Atlanta(not sure about Oakland). Buffalo & St. Louis are looking for renovations. Buffalo's are somewhat modest but strangely, a Buffalo local sports radio guy suggested the city should build a new stadium when the owner hasn't even suggested that. St. Louis wants renovations that will have the Dome resemble "Jerry World" including, the field-length score/video board. Both San Diego & Oakland publicly threatened to relocate to LA.

[Auggie]

4. I can see Minnesota caving

Granted, I'm not that close to it, but the Vikes seem to have a huge, fanatical following, great history, and play in a great division. I don't think the NFL is that crazy about losing Minneapolis/St.Paul either. I think they'll find a way to get it done, with tax payers' support (Minnesotans -- chime in if you think otherwise).

The Raiders, back in L.A.? That, I imagine, the NFL would love. It makes too much sense.

[JonLP24]

6. They have til early 2012 to decide (perhaps longer)

I can't find the link(finding articles that addresses other things) but I believe the Vikings either signed a 1-year lease or intend to play in the Metrodome. Lease expired in 2011. Either way, the deadline to relocate has passed(Feb 15) so they will play in Minnesota for 2012.

This stadium plan has failed multiple times and still breathes. Last year the Timberwolves & Vikings thought it was a brilliant idea to tack on arena renovations to the plan which failed miserably. Public opposition has been strong so, 3-1 against so the Vikings have been desperate to avoid a referendum and in one case they were but in another they weren't. I'm getting confused but it seems they started at city level, then county, then a different county, to now state level. They've been getting help from the governor who attempted deadlines which didn't work, in the latest case a waiver was granted which led to the latest vote which you posted. Now previously failed plans are back on the table -- http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/04/%E2%80%98death%E2%80%99-one-vikings-stadium-plan-gives-new-life-alternate-proposals

Connection went out while I was typing this, I saved the text to notepad but not the links before I rebooted so I'll get back w/ the rest of the links tomorrow. I'll get back to post #5 as well to show when a stadium is privately financed, the city/state is still providing massive benefits.

[bluedigger]

5. Sounds okay to me.

Of course, if the owners really are committed to their fan base, they could always get their hands out of the taxpayer's pockets and do it themselves. It's been done before, and pretty successfully.

[RockaFowler]

7. Is this some sort of threat??

Well now NFL - why don't you pay for the new stadium??