Vikings Message Board.Com

In the end, I think (the Vikings) will stay -- but not before an ugly confrontation with the state's political leaders.

The people I trust in this situation have long believed the Vikings' stadium situation won't be addressed until it reaches a crisis. That's what state leadership around the country has devolved to: crisis management. And in reality, this issue won't be a crisis until the Vikings have a legitimate option to move elsewhere.

That's simply not the case this year, and it's why their current bill has been gutted and largely dismissed by the state legislature. That option might not exist next winter, either -- especially if the NFL is focused on negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement rather than moving a troubled team (or teams) to Los Angeles.

The Vikings' lease expires in February 2012. If Los Angeles is a legitimate possibility at that point, then I think Minnesota state leaders will respond to that potential crisis. Perhaps the state's next governor, to be elected this fall, will take a different approach than incumbent Tim Pawlenty. But barring a game-changer like that, I think we're headed for a crisis that will be painful, ugly and expensive -- but will ultimately lead to a new stadium in Minnesota.

Hunter Morrow wrote:I do not think that California is on the table.

That state is billions upon billions of dollars in the hole, saying to Cali citizens that they'll have to pay out of pocket
for an NFC North team from Minnesota will not fly.

Another football team? Man, they can't even support the three that they've got.

jackal wrote:I clicked on like

but honestly I don't think the Vikings ever get a stadium for whatever reason a lot of people in Minnesota
don't support them. When I go the games I meet people from all over the midwest and other states as much
as I meet people from Minnesota IMO.

jackal wrote: When I go the games I meet people from all over the midwest and other states as much
as I meet people from Minnesota IMO.