STL Fan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 your correct but how many cities are as large as Sacramento without a pro team in any sport ?Oh wait they do have a pro basketball team now ,,, but i'm talking a real sport I'm not saying they don't deserve one, there's just no way they get one before LA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I'm not saying they don't deserve one, there's just no way they get one before LA. They should of never let your Rams or the Riaders leave then !! They have had their share of teams but cant keep them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) They should have never let your Rams or the Riaders leave then !! They have had their share of teams but cant keep them Commish tried to stop both of them. Lost on legal challenges. BTW - Tagliabue HATES St. Louis. He single-handedly gave the expansion franchise to Jacksonville instead of St. Louis. He almost never came here, because he got relentlessly booed when he did. Not sure about Goodell, he's never been here as far as I know. Edited December 8, 2009 by STL Fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff321 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Speaking of a city full of transplants and low fan support, look at how Jacksonville is in the wild card hunt in front of a half full stadium. Move them to L.A. and then somewhere else when that fails, but for the love of god leave my Vikings alone! I think the legislature does something because the main reason for the shortfall is the large loss of income tax. I can't see the State eliminating another huge stream of tax revenue not to mention the impact on a large variety of small businesses not only in the city but the entire metro. The Vikings keep a lot more afloat during the winter then a lot of our population realizes and that could be bad. Their is a large and very vocal segment of our state that dies inside at the thought of any sort of taxes(even if it was for hotels and car rentals.... cause our residents have to pay that tax so often :confused:) going towards, "making Zygi a lot of money" but yet they dismiss the fact that Minnesota and it's businesses make a lot off the Vikings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 And according to NFL rules now, the name "Vikings" would stay with the city ?? That's a "rule?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Their is a large and very vocal segment of our state that dies inside at the thought of any sort of taxes(even if it was for hotels and car rentals.... cause our residents have to pay that tax so often :confused:) going towards, "making Zygi a lot of money" but yet they dismiss the fact that Minnesota and it's businesses make a lot off the Vikings. I completely agree with this. Minnesota residents seem to expect everything for nothing. The Twins (who had never played in a baseball stadium in 50 years) finally got theirs as did the Gophers and neither has cost the individual anything. The publicly financed portion of a stadium could be financed through car rentals, hotels, restaurants - every other city is doing it. I'm no Vikings fan but I want the NFL here. That said, Zygi has already made $200m on the book value of the franchise so I think he needs to stump up a bigger share, maybe in return for increased revenue or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 ?? That's a "rule?" Yep. That's why the Ravens are the Ravens and Clevelnad has the Browns again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) Yep. That's why the Ravens are the Ravens and Clevelnad has the Browns again. Oilers to Titans Edit: Not sure about that.....weren't they the Oilers in TN for a while? Edited December 8, 2009 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I thought that was a rule too, but somebody (Big John?) pointed out I was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Yep. That's why the Ravens are the Ravens and Clevelnad has the Browns again. throw the colts into that mix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 throw the colts into that mix I think they were the reason the rule was implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomfin2000 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Speaking of a city full of transplants and low fan support, look at how Jacksonville is in the wild card hunt in front of a half full stadium. Move them to L.A. and then somewhere else when that fails, but for the love of god leave my Vikings alone! I want to see how the fans here in Jax respond to a new regime before writing them off. The Jags may be in the wild card hunt, but under Del Rio, they have consistently been one of the most boring and vanilla teams in the NFL. They've got about as much personality as a grapefruit and until that changes, you're going to have a tough time getting fans in the seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I want to see how the fans here in Jax respond to a new regime before writing them off. The Jags may be in the wild card hunt, but under Del Rio, they have consistently been one of the most boring and vanilla teams in the NFL. They've got about as much personality as a grapefruit and until that changes, you're going to have a tough time getting fans in the seats. How about getting a QB to build a team around?? Garrard is better than Leftwich ever was, but how many seats is he gonna fill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I want to see how the fans here in Jax respond to a new regime before writing them off. The Jags may be in the wild card hunt, but under Del Rio, they have consistently been one of the most boring and vanilla teams in the NFL. They've got about as much personality as a grapefruit and until that changes, you're going to have a tough time getting fans in the seats. And the Rams have been one of the worst teams in the league many times and we almost always fill the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I thought that was a rule too, but somebody (Big John?) pointed out I was wrong. It was part of the settlement allowing the franchise to move to Baltimore. It is not a NFL rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 It was part of the settlement allowing the franchise to move to Baltimore. It is not a NFL rule. Well, call it a "policy" then, but I remember Tags being quoted as saying that no team would move unless they leave the name behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Well, call it a "policy" then, but I remember Tags being quoted as saying that no team would move unless they leave the name behind. He may have had personal insistence on that, but not an "official" policy. And the commish can wield that power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) LA residents are comprised in large part of transplants from all over the country, and they are traditionally not very supportive of local pro teams other than the Lakers, and that's a trendy, see-and-be-seen, front-runner kind of crowd. The Rams had some good success out there as did the Raiders and the fan support was ridiculously bad for a market of that size. The Dodgers traditionally do OK, but again, considering the size of the market the fan support is not great. Los Angeles has been Dodgertown for 50 years-- to say that the fan support is not great is completely ignorant. Since the team has moved to Dodger Stadium in 1962, they've averaged more than 1 million more fans a season than the National League average. They set the yearly attendance record in 1962, and in the next 20 years they were the only team to beat that record (and did so three times). They've had 23 seasons with over 3 million fans, including the first such season in MLB history in 1978. Do 'OK'? Fan support 'not great'? Put down the crack pipe. As for football, the Rams were the team in LA for a long time but some bad decisions ended up costing them. They technically moved from LA to Orange County (out of the Coliseum) at the same time the Raiders moved to LA and into the Coliseum which split the fan base a bit (back then Orange County wasn't really considered LA) right after their Super Bowl loss. The team then ended up in a bit of a rebuilding mode while the Raiders won it all in '83, and the Dodgers ('81, '88) and Lakers ('80, '82, '85, '87, '88) had a decade of success. By the time the Rams were good again in the late 80's, they got crushed by the 49'ers juggernaut. All the while Frontiere mismanaged the team into the ground, blamed everything on the city not helping her out, and essentially blackmailed Tags to move the team to St. Louis. I guess having your experience with the NFL involve teams run by Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere just leaves a bad taste in your mouth for the NFL. If you had a decent team here, with ownership smart enough to make the experience an 'it' thing to do you could make football work in L.A. You could sure as hell one-up Miami with the celebrity parade. Edited December 8, 2009 by Deathpig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) Los Angeles has been Dodgertown for 50 years-- to say that the fan support is not great is completely ignorant. Since the team has moved to Dodger Stadium in 1962, they've averaged more than 1 million more fans a season than the National League average. They set the yearly attendance record in 1962, and in the next 20 years they were the only team to beat that record (and did so three times). They've had 23 seasons with over 3 million fans, including the first such season in MLB history in 1978. Do 'OK'? Fan support 'not great'? Put down the crack pipe. As for football, the Rams were the team in LA for a long time but some bad decisions ended up costing them. They technically moved from LA to Orange County (out of the Coliseum) at the same time the Raiders moved to LA and into the Coliseum which split the fan base a bit (back then Orange County wasn't really considered LA) right after their Super Bowl loss. The team then ended up in a bit of a rebuilding mode while the Raiders won it all in '83, and the Dodgers ('81, '88) and Lakers ('80, '82, '85, '87, '88) had a decade of success. By the time the Rams were good again in the late 80's, they got crushed by the 49'ers juggernaut. All the while Frontiere mismanaged the team into the ground, blamed everything on the city not helping her out, and essentially blackmailed Tags to move the team to St. Louis. I guess having your experience with the NFL involve teams run by Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere just leaves a bad taste in your mouth for the NFL. If you had a decent team here, with ownership smart enough to make the experience an 'it' thing to do you could make football work in L.A. You could sure as hell one-up Miami with the celebrity parade. With regard to the Dodgers, I said the fan support was not that great considering the size of the market. I was speaking more historically. It has been very good with this manager and team. They led the league in 2009, bringing in a few more fans than the Cardinals, who are in a market that is considerably smaller. As for the NFL, Georgia was in charge here, too, and we filled the place. And Bidwill was worse and we filled the place for him, too. And I think your point is exactly correct, if they can somehow make it the "in" thing to do, it will be successful. Once it becomes yesterday's news it will be over in a heartbeat. No loyalty to the NFL there. Edited December 8, 2009 by STL Fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Is that close enough that they would still be called the "San Francisco 49ers?" about 45 miles from downtown SF which, I would imagine is not much, if at all, further than other suburban stadium sites are from their big city. The interesting thing though is that the Raiders play much closer to downtown SF than that and you can even catch a subway there. So a SF resident would have to travel more than 2x as far to see the Niners play than the Raiders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) I want to see how the fans here in Jax respond to a new regime before writing them off. The Jags may be in the wild card hunt, but under Del Rio, they have consistently been one of the most boring and vanilla teams in the NFL. They've got about as much personality as a grapefruit and until that changes, you're going to have a tough time getting fans in the seats. Again with the talk about blaming the lack of fan support on the product in Jax. When is everyone going to realize that market simply won't support a team? I ask you, how much should a market expect from it's team? They made the play-offs their second year in existence, became a top team in the AFC by like the 4th or 5th year, had a 3 year bad stretch and have been above average since. If you take away their first year (which is really only fair), I would bet their overall record puts them in the top 25% over that stretch. OK, so they haven't won it all, that puts them in league with a lot of teams and they've won 5 play-off games since the last time the Cowboys did. On top of that, they never flat-out suck. They bottom out at simply "pretty bad" Their worst record since their 1st year is 5-11. Certainly nothing great, but it's a far cry from 2-14 or what have you. Edited December 8, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Again with the talk about blaming the lack of fan support on the product in Jax. When is everyone going to realize that market simply won't support a team? I ask you, how much should a market expect from it's team? They made the play-offs their second year in existence, became a top team in the AFC by like the 4th or 5th year, had a 3 year bad stretch and have been above average since. If you take away their first year (which is really only fair), I would bet their overall record puts them in the top 25% over that stretch. OK, so they haven't won it all, that puts them in league with a lot of teams and they've won 5 play-off games since the last time the Cowboys did. wisdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I completely agree with this. Minnesota residents seem to expect everything for nothing. The Twins (who had never played in a baseball stadium in 50 years) finally got theirs as did the Gophers and neither has cost the individual anything. The publicly financed portion of a stadium could be financed through car rentals, hotels, restaurants - every other city is doing it. I'm no Vikings fan but I want the NFL here. That said, Zygi has already made $200m on the book value of the franchise so I think he needs to stump up a bigger share, maybe in return for increased revenue or something. I wonder if it's not just the typical knee jerk reaction to "wanting something for nothing", but rather that Wilf was given what appeared to be a very nice option to build a stadium in Anoka (or was it Blaine), and was going to get public financing for part of it, and he pretty much told them to go pound sand while he assumed he would get a better deal with Minneapolis. It's not like he hasn't been given a chance. And any new stadium should not have a roof on it. Bring it on back to the good old days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff321 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 This isn't true at all. Anoka County was looking to help the Vikes build. The fact of the matter is Blaine does not have the infrastructure to support a large sports franchise. They were planning on building it off of Hwy. 65 near the National Sports Center. Have you ever tried driving on 65 during the USA CUP or during the 3M Championship at the TPC Twin Cities right next door? It's insane and that stretch of hwy 65 is already considered one of the deadliest roads in MN. Not to mention it'd easily be over an hour from the south suburbs and they really don't have anything close to the number of hotels needed within a short driving distance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 My point was he was going to be allowed to develop an area however he saw fit. Along with the stadium they could have built hotels, restaraunts, and other ancillary businesses in that area. If they needed to rework the infrastructure for 65 (which I agree is a total cluster), then so be it. Go ahead and improve that highway while you're at it and make it a safer drive. If it's too far for some of the southern suburbs, consider that extra drive the tradeoff for the possibility of not having a team to watch at all. That offer was out there before the entire market crash, so the time to strike was then. I hope they do get something worked out and the Vikes stay put. I just don't know what they plan on doing. Wilf does not want a renovated Dome, and I think that's a pretty cost-prohibitive option anyways, not to mention the fact of the age of the dome. Suppose they want to build on the existing site where the dome is now? Could they demo one stadium and build a new one on the same location in the span of a year? If not, where do the Vikings play in the meantime? Possibly the new stadium at the U? The Anoka site is long off the table. I haven't heard anyone else willing to step up outside of Minneapolis. Maybe the legislature can claim Eminent Domain and get rid of Target Center for a new football stadium. The Wolves could barely fill a small high school gym with fans right now anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.