Vikings Message Board.Com

Eli wrote:Yes, it would.

The problem there is that the NFL is highly unlikely to see any expansion in the foreseeable future. Existing owners don't gain by expanding (or staying) in the smaller markets, and the same sized pie gets cut up into smaller pieces. Competitiveness goes down, as it always does when the talent pool gets spread out across more teams. The product itself suffers.

So a stadium would have to be built totally on spec, in the hopes that a team would be willing to relocate there. Minnesota now seems like the last place in this country where that could be expected to happen.

No, you could easily have a situation like what happened with the Oilers/Titans. A team agrees to move in return for a stadium being built. Team then plays at TCF while that happens. It'd take time but you can't say that it will NOT happen. That did happen (though with expansion, not a move) with the Wild. North Stars left due to no new stadium. Years later, a stadium was finally built for a team. While the Vikings may very well have the worst stadium situation right now, they're not in the worst market by far (I'd say that's Jacksonville, where the NFL never should have gone or Buffalo).

glg wrote: No, you could easily have a situation like what happened with the Oilers/Titans. A team agrees to move in return for a stadium being built. Team then plays at TCF while that happens. It'd take time but you can't say that it will NOT happen. That did happen (though with expansion, not a move) with the Wild. North Stars left due to no new stadium. Years later, a stadium was finally built for a team. While the Vikings may very well have the worst stadium situation right now, they're not in the worst market by far (I'd say that's Jacksonville, where the NFL never should have gone or Buffalo).

I dont agree that situation could "easily" happen. Im not sure what the cost difference is between recruiting a new team to come to Minny vs keeping the one already here, but Im sure its lopsided. If the Vikings leave, of course there is a possibility the state would get an NFL team back, but it would be a long, long time. Not only would a current team need to move, the owner would have to view Minny as the best place to relocate to, a state that already lost an NFL franchise. If Jacksonville or Buffalo end up have to move out of their small markets, Im not sure why they would view MN as the best location.

purple guy wrote:I dont agree that situation could "easily" happen. Im not sure what the cost difference is between recruiting a new team to come to Minny vs keeping the one already here, but Im sure its lopsided. If the Vikings leave, of course there is a possibility the state would get an NFL team back, but it would be a long, long time.

That's my point. You guys are throwing around absolutes like "never" and "won't happen". Never is a long time.

purple guy wrote:Not only would a current team need to move, the owner would have to view Minny as the best place to relocate to, a state that already lost an NFL franchise.

Took 13 years in Baltimore.

purple guy wrote:If Jacksonville or Buffalo end up have to move out of their small markets, Im not sure why they would view MN as the best location.

Like I said upthread, if the Vikings moved to LA, MSP would be the largest market without a team.

glg wrote: I'm not completely convinced of that, because if they moved to LA, MSP would become the largest market without a team. It would, of course, take a stadium being built to get a new team.

You are right, never is too extreme and I'm a big believer in the market issue. I think the NBA is crazy to abandon the much larger market in Seattle for the much smaller market in Oklahoma City. I think the NBA is making a mistake if they abandon the large market in Sacramento for a third team in close proximity to the two teams at Staples Center.

Here are TV market sizes for reference:
http://m.twincities.com/twincities/db_2 ... rV&src=cat


Similarly I think the NFL is treading dangerous ground if they abandon Mpls #15 market for #2 in LA. The Vikings fans often put up a 50 share in that market, which is remarkable. The Vikings were in 4 of the top 20 TV programs (not just football games; Dallas had the most with 7 and only Green Bay also had more with 5) of the fall last year despite their lousy record.

Here is a link to the stadium bill.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls87

I am changing my tune from my earlier negative reaction, pre-intro of the bill. For the most part, I think it is actually a good bill because it gives the stadium a fighting chance even in a tough economy. It still has a tough road ahead to pass and a local partner is needed and not in place. But the fundamental premise seems workable. 1/3 State 1/3 local partner 1/3 team. On the local partner, I hope Hennepin County comes on board because the alternatives seem less likely to raise the necessary funding.

Edit: Unfortunately, latest article suggests the county thinks the current plan is flawed: http://m.twincities.com/twincities/db_2 ... rV&src=cat

One reason I stated it would be near impossible to get a team back is expansion fees. The Wild paid $80M in the late 1990s. But that is chump change compared to the $1B the NFL is likely to want.

Here are the recent expansion fees for the NFL:
http://www.profootballhof.com/history/r ... se_id=1286

Note the increase from $140M in mid 90s to $700M in 2002. Minnesota cannot raise this money from a new owner on top of a stadium. With the sport more popular than ever $1B seems realistic.

Relocation to Minnesota is a possibility but it seems more likely to me the NFL will exhaust every turn before leaving Minnesota given the challenges associated with reopening a dormant market in 2010 versus the past. Getting a $1B stadium built will be very tough if the team leaves given the magnitude.

CalVike wrote:Relocation to Minnesota is a possibility but it seems more likely to me the NFL will exhaust every turn before leaving Minnesota given the challenges associated with reopening a dormant market in 2010 versus the past. Getting a $1B stadium built will be very tough if the team leaves given the magnitude.

I've thought for a long time that a stadium deal would eventually get done, because the NFL doesn't want to leave MN. They'd rather leave one of the smaller markets for LA.

Owner Zygi Wilf made the rounds in St. Paul in support of the stadium bill.

http://m.startribune.com/topic/1556-Pol ... /206286095

San Antonio is another huge market without a team. Don't know if that'll ever happen but its a possibility I would think.

if the vikings leave Minnesota would the court cases between players union and league be forced to move outside the state? that's one potential reason that the league could actually be ok with the vikings going elsewhere.

TrenchGoon wrote:San Antonio is another huge market without a team. Don't know if that'll ever happen but its a possibility I would think.

Then Red McCombs could get his team back for his home city.

if the vikings leave Minnesota would the court cases between players union and league be forced to move outside the state? that's one potential reason that the league could actually be ok with the vikings going elsewhere.

I don't think it matters. The case is in federal district court. A lot of the original impetus came from Madison if you read the history of how it ended up in Minneapolis.

Edit: For the history, see this article for one:
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/03 ... r_universe

More on the Site debate.
http://m.startribune.com/articles/206313023
It sounds to me like the Vikings are blowing smoke when they say agreement on a site is imminent any day now.

TrenchGoon wrote:San Antonio is another huge market without a team.

San Antonio isn't that big, it's #37. Only Jacksonville, Buffalo, and New Orleans are smaller markets with teams.

LA is #2, MSP is #15. Other markets with > 1M TV homes without NFL teams are #19 Orlando, #20 Sacto, #22 Portland, #25 Raleigh-Durham and #30 Hartford.

Note: in my analysis of TV markets, I combine Green Bay with Milwaukee, because Milwaukee is very much a part of the Packers' TV market. ie, I don't buy into the whole "OMG! Packers have a tiny market! It's so cool that they thrive!"

glg wrote: San Antonio isn't that big, it's #37. Only Jacksonville, Buffalo, and New Orleans are smaller markets with teams.

LA is #2, MSP is #15. Other markets with > 1M TV homes without NFL teams are #19 Orlando, #20 Sacto, #22 Portland, #25 Raleigh-Durham and #30 Hartford.

Note: in my analysis of TV markets, I combine Green Bay with Milwaukee, because Milwaukee is very much a part of the Packers' TV market. ie, I don't buy into the whole "OMG! Packers have a tiny market! It's so cool that they thrive!"

I'm probably not clear on what is being used to measure the size of these TV markets, but in terms of actual population San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the United States...How do they measure the TV market and what is its relationship to population?

TrenchGoon wrote:I'm probably not clear on what is being used to measure the size of these TV markets, but in terms of actual population San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the United States...How do they measure the TV market and what is its relationship to population?

I use nielsen's rankings since that's what advertisers use:

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corp ... 0Ranks.pdf

That's based on the metropolitan area population, not just the city itself. San Antonio is indeed a very big city, but its surrounding population (ie its suburbs) isn't very big. By contrast, Minneapolis and St Paul aren't all that big by themselves (<700k combined), but the suburbs are pretty big.

glg wrote:Note: in my analysis of TV markets, I combine Green Bay with Milwaukee, because Milwaukee is very much a part of the Packers' TV market. ie, I don't buy into the whole "OMG! Packers have a tiny market! It's so cool that they thrive!"

True, in the TV market analysis, Milwaukee gets great Packer ratings. But when it comes to building stadiums it is often a more local entity asked to contribute, Brown County including Green Bay in the case of the Packers. Brown County passed their referendum for their portion of a $300M renovation of ancient Lambeau Field in the early 2000s (built in 1957, they still have bench seating for the masses, totally out of date) at 53%-47% a couple years before a certain Vikings team decimated their hopes of glory in the opening of that renovated venue. My point is that the size of the Milwaukee market matters little in terms of the actual funding of the stadium itself even though it is a big factor in why the Packers have a viable NFL market that should be preserved. The Vikings have a similar large market, but the battle for the stadium depends on two local counties that don't want to be played against each other, Hennepin and Ramsay. And there is no workable solution coming out to date, increasing the odds that a move may occur despite the TV market arguments.