Vikings Message Board.Com

dead_poet wrote:Zygi Wilf Saves Franchise
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... -franchise

That's an excellent piece by Siefert and he's right, we lucked out. Wilf's dedication to keeping the team in Minnesota has been admirable and he's really showed class throughout this process. I'm grateful to him because we Vikes fans easily could have lost our team. Instead, it looks like they'll be in Minnesota for a long time and hopefully, the team's current rebuilding efforts will pay big dividends and the Vikes will be able to christen their new stadium with a championship. Better yet, maybe they'll enter it as defending champions!

I'm happy for everybody involved but especially for all the Vikings fans who would have been absolutely heartbroken if the team had relocated.

It sure will be nice not having this emotional roller coaster hanging over us any longer!!! I really didn't think this day would come, seemed like too many tug o wars, poison pills, and overall negetivity. But alas, it is finally over I hope. I don't see Mpls. screwing this up, as they really gain more than they risk. No deal was ever going to be loved by all, including me, I desired as a ticket holder, an outdoor venue. And as a ticket holder, I fear PSLs, they could price me out, or I may be too stubborn to buy those. But one thing, all else aside, I can say is: IN YOUR FACE L.A!!!

Not keeping close tabs on the details of the new deal...but when is the new stadium supposed to be ready to play in?

NextQuestion wrote:Any other voting process it needs to pass? Can Dayton sign this mother and can we get the ball rolling?

Minneapolis city council will vote next month (aprox 30 days), but I believe this is a formality. And there will be certain legal challanges, but the crux of the bill is concrete, small adjustments may or may not be made.

The Breeze wrote:Not keeping close tabs on the details of the new deal...but when is the new stadium supposed to be ready to play in?

2016, but I am blurry about when they break ground, and if it affects HHH dome in 2012, might be too many prior commitments, and TCF may take awhile to be NFL worthy.

RIP stadium thread, gonna miss ya!









Not really!

Love to see an outdoor stadium again.

hibbingviking wrote:Love to see an outdoor stadium again.

We will, 2014, and 2015 TCF, after 2 seasons at metrodump.

But yeah, I wish it was for decades after that too, can't stand Lions football, I envy the Bears and Packers, even tho I hate the cold.

Here's an article discussed previously in this thread, published February 5th of this year:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 21284.html

The latest proposal would have the Vikings play at the Metrodome through 2015. By that time, a new stadium next-door would be 75 percent complete. The Metrodome would be torn down and turned into a large plaza for pregame activities, according to both Mondale and a Vikings spokesman. The space would be large enough to accommodate a $19 million parking ramp for the team.

"I would think 2016 would be the 'go live' year," Mondale said. "Maybe the first two games you play" at the university's TCF Bank Stadium, "but before it gets cold, you'd be ready to go."

Playing at the smaller university stadium, "would be much more of a temporary thing," he said.

I'm not positive, but I think this is still the current plan, where part of the new stadium's footprint overlaps the existing stadium. They'd begin demolition of the Metrodome immediately after the 2015 season ends, then scramble to finish it and open in the early part of the 2016 season. They'd only play a few games in TCF, which would mean that while it may need some upgrades, it wouldn't need to be winterized.

I'm really happy for the stadium and all (always said they would get it done besides what cry babies in stadium thread said) but a retractable roof would have great advantages. Open that baby up when we play teams from south or west and freeze them.

Decker85 wrote:I'm really happy for the stadium and all (always said they would get it done besides what cry babies in stadium thread said) but a retractable roof would have great advantages. Open that baby up when we play teams from south or west and freeze them.

I'm a huge supporter of the retractable roof, HOWEVER I don't believe it will have a significant outcome on the game. During super cold game days it would likely be closed anyway to attract more fans and sell more tickets. Even if it was open, it's not as if Vikings players will have a significant advantage unless they commit themselves to practicing outdoors like the days of yore. I'd stay, as it stands, the Vikings being in a dome is a disadvantage when we have to go play in Lambeau or at Soldier Field in December. Not exactly "in our element." As far as "home fields" go, I think sheer volume and the ability to disrupt communications, cause false-starts, etc. plays as as much (or greater) factor for us, at least as it currently stands. YMMV. I know I'd LOVE to go to a brisk home game in October or November. Never have. I can't imagine there's much like it. Jim, you're a Soldier Field guy, what's your take? How do you like the dome vs. outdoor environment?

Decker85 wrote:I'm really happy for the stadium and all (always said they would get it done besides what cry babies in stadium thread said) but a retractable roof would have great advantages. Open that baby up when we play teams from south or west and freeze them.

Which is exactly how a retractable roof would not be used. It would only be opened when there is no chance of rain or snow and when the temperature is not too hot and not too cold.

Per NFL rules any retractable stadium must be closed 90 minutes prior to kickoff, when the outside temp reaches 40 degrees, or when inclimate weather is likely.

I also interpret that verbage to mean, if it is 45 at kickoff, but likely to fall to 39 or below later on, that would fall under inclimate weather.

Somewhere in LA, the guy who used to post 1-2 blogs on the Yahoo! contributor network a month declaring "no hope" for a Vikings stadium and referring to the Vikings as the "Las Angeles Vikings" is doing a search on "Vikings" and replacing it with "Rams". Which is as it should be.

I subscribe to a Vikings rss feed...and I hate it when that guy's blog is the only one I haven't read yet and I'm craving Vikings info.

Well, I'm betting the Wilfs will just give up and take the offer after 12 years of this nonsense (including McCombs time, of course) and figure they can get some of the things that the politicos cut out later on. I'd hate to see them do so much, only to have the team decide that they're giving up too much. These things they omitted were all things that had caused previous stadium bills to be tanked by the organization...just hoping a lot of fatigue takes it the distance.

Mothman wrote: I'm happy for everybody involved but especially for all the Vikings fans who would have been absolutely heartbroken if the team had relocated.

It wouldn't have been the same team, not at all. It's like saying the Ravens are really the Browns, but they're wearing deep purple disguises.

The Vikings are far too ingrained into Minnesota's culture to simply tear them out and dump them in some big media market and just expect that market to fill up a stadium to watch a cellar dweller rebuild itself. I read that the league would own the Vikings name and trademarks after this stadium agreement...but if Wilf were to relocate, I'm betting the NFL would have had serious reservations against them keeping those trademarks. It would probably be a better marketing move even if the bill hadn't passed if the Wilfs had changed the team name and started fresh with something very "California-centric".

Hallelujah! After all these years the Vikings will now finally get their new home. I can now go to my grave knowing the Vikings will still be in Minnesota. Trust me, I 'aint living another 30 years.