ChrisCooleyFan
Footballguy
It has been rumored the Vikings want a new stadium, and would move to Los Angeles. After what has transpired, I would say a new stadium is needed. So does this help Los Angeles get a team back????
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Los Angeles has to be happy with what happened at the Metrodome (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ChrisCooleyFan
- Start date
mr roboto
Footballguy
This didn't do ANYTHING to show anyone a new stadium was necessary. We've known that for years.Problem is, voters don't want to help pay for it.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Where would they go in Los Angeles? The Rose Bowl doesn't want an NFL team; the Coliseum dinosaur has way too few luxury boxes and is hugely antiquated and is fat and happy with USC, and the City of LA won't pay for an upgrade. So what does that leave? Garfield High School?
LA's not going to get a team for quite some time.
LA's not going to get a team for quite some time.
Maelstrom
Footballguy
I saw it in another post from a Minn. resident - why is it that voters continually vote this down? Has it really been horrible deals for the voters? Seems like they would want to support their local team. Is it strictly that the voters feel the NFL and the Vikings have enough money to do it themselves and just won't?
Educate me, please.
BTW - here is a decent link with the various proposals and news about the Vikings attempts to get a stadium:
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/Minnesot...gs/newindex.htm
Educate me, please.
BTW - here is a decent link with the various proposals and news about the Vikings attempts to get a stadium:
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/Minnesot...gs/newindex.htm
Jobber
Footballguy
Why should taxpayers pick up the tab?
Masked Vigilante
Footballguy
It would be silly to have the LA Vikings play in the NFC North. Maybe they swap divisions with the Rams.
LargeMouthBass
Footballguy
LA people are smart enough to know not to pay for a stadium to make the owners of NFL teams richer. I don't know why they just don't get corporate sponsors to pay rather than try to use tax payers. Greedy bastards!!!!!!!!
this isn't going to get built?http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/2Squirrels1Nut said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Stadium
Bill Brasky
Footballguy
ChrisCooleyFan said:
at rumoredblizzard doesn't change anything.Recent word on the AEG plan said if they could get the Vikings or Chargers to commit by March, they could open the stadium by 2015.
Two separate stadium proposals here. The one Rudnick linked to is about 30 miles east of downtown LA. It is a group led by billionaire Ed Roski. They pretty much have everything in place(including private financing) and can start construction as soon as they get a commitment for a team to move to LA that they also have an ownership stake in.The AEG proposal that Philo is talking about is in Downtown LA right next to the Staples Center and LA live. This would be build by the group that operates Staples Center, LA Live and the LA Kings. They would likely have no problems with private financing. They built Staples Center 10 years ago with private money.
Bottom line is a stadium is not the hang up with a team moving to LA right now. It is much more about the NFL and which franchise would move there. They are not going to be adding teams and need all the factors to fall into place for a team to move (current stadium leases, ownership desire to move, community support)
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
So they would have to play as lame ducks for 4 years at their current homes? I can't imagine any team agreeing to that.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Startlingly close to Irwindale.
The problem is that if you compromise on location - which is what this project is doing explicitly by trying to make it "convenient" to LA, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, then it's convenient to nobody. That location is sheer misery to get to if you live on the West Side, the San Fernando Valley, the South Bay or Long Beach. It's no picnic to get to if you live in Central LA, Orange County (especially farther south) and frankly even Riverside and San Bernardino counties. It's also a not-yet-built stadium which people should view with suspicion.If you want a credible stadium plan, you need to have it city center or close to it, and with mass transit nearby. The Coliseum and Rose Bowl locations, especially the former, work very well in that regard. Even people out in Riverside or San Bernardino can take the Metrolink trains in and out. Putting out towards West Covina or Chino Hills is a joke. Trouble is, to do that you need to have the cooperation of the cities of Los Angeles or Pasadena, respectively, and LA has no money and the voters aren't in favor of bond measures or increased taxes to do it, and Pasadena doesn't want an NFL team due to environmental impact. Game, set, match.
It's going to be a while for LA, folks, unless the NFL and a given franchise are willing to completely foot the bill, which they should be given the profitability. Funny thing is, though, that the NFL doesn't "need" an LA team because I'm certain TV ratings aren't sagging in the LA area on NFL broadcasts from lack of a team.
I just don't see where the impetus will come from to get a team back here.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
This is a more realistic location. If it's privately financed, they've got a chance . . . but then, they need a team too.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This.NFL owners can pony up for their own new stadiums.Jobber said:
az_prof
Footballguy
I wouldn't be surprised if the Vikings sabotaged the Dome. Convenient that they had the empty stadium on camera so that they can play the video over and over. Given what the Vikings have done and haven't done I could care less if they go to LA and suck. Let the tax payers there waste their money on corporate welfare.ChrisCooleyFan said:
CowboysHomer
Footballguy
Seriously? The cameras that were there were from Fox, who was covering the game. They always have cameras in the stadium to capture activities from several hours before the game right up until kick. Further, a part of their production crew narrowly escaped being caught under the roof when it caved in.Hopefully the black helicopters leave their orbit over your house long enough for you to get this.
mr roboto
Footballguy
Txns8
Footballguy
Tennessee Titans played in Memphis before moving to Nashville. I could see an NFL team playing somewhere else awaiting the new stadium.
thatguythere
Footballguy
Here it is in case you missed it. Doesn't look good.
Johnny Rock
Footballguy
It'll get done in MN this legislative session. The roof collapsing will marginally help the Vikings as it will be a talker.
MN knows the Metrodome is crap and now that the Twins have had a year under their belt in the beautiful Target Field, the public has a taste for how much better the fan experience can be in a state of the art venue.
MN knows the Metrodome is crap and now that the Twins have had a year under their belt in the beautiful Target Field, the public has a taste for how much better the fan experience can be in a state of the art venue.
Latest insta polls have pubic going from 60% to 71% in favor of new stadium on the tax payers dime.
tombonneau
Footballguy
While the Metrodome was collapsing, it was 80 and cloudless in LA. I'm sure someone let Zygi know.
TheRegulator
Footballguy
I think the roof caving in will actually help convince more of the casual stay at home fans the need for a new stadium. Makes the venue show more age + the need for a more durable dome structure. Whether there is the political will to provide public financing given the state's budget deficit is another story.
faulkfan
Footballguy
Exactly!I love that the taxpayers are holding out against this. Ziggy has cash and he's the one who makes more with a new stadium. Why in the world should taxpayers have to pay for a stadium and then pay to use it all while a billionaire gets richer? It's his freakin hobby so if he wants a better place to store it then pony up the cash. Indy did it for the Colts and now they are trying to pay for it and finding it difficult to do.Jobber said:
All I know is that several years ago I started a small business and the taxpayers sure as heck didn't pay all my overhead through a referendum so I would be guaranteed to succeed. If Ziggy is smart enough to make all that cash in the first place then he should be able to make this work without the people of Minny footing the bill.
Last edited by a moderator:
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
LA cared about the Rams, a lot actually . . . until they moved them to Anaheim. Idiotic. But yeah, there's no huge move for a team here now.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Where? Edison Field was renovated from a multipurpose stadium that the Rams and Angels shared into a baseball stadium only.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
No natural disasters ever hit LA. This is true.-QG
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
the LA Latinos
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
gueros
Last edited by a moderator:
THE SNOWMAN
Footballguy
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
A roof was a stupid idea. If you're a hearty, thick blooded winter people like Minnesotans, then have a stadium that keeps that home field advantage.
As soon as the collective bargaining agreement is reached, the two competing NFL plans will be pushing hard to get teams. Especially the Los Angeles Stadium/Roski plan for the City of Industry, which already has gotten clearance and is ready to build. It is just waiting for a team. Roski wants to buy all or part of a team and move it to Los Angeles. If he gets a team, he will immediately break ground on the stadium and the team would likely play at the Coliseum for two years until the stadium is finished. The downtown plan still has to clear a lot of hurdles and won't be ready for longer. Neither of the plans would use any tax payer money.
Last edited by a moderator:
Incogneto
Footballguy
Stallions!:JimmyDix:
griff321
Footballguy
I'm sure all of the people the Vikings draw to the Twin Cities from, SD, ND, MB, IA, and SK would come here anyway to spend boatloads of cash right? The Guthrie and the T-Wolves are a good enough draw to keep our economy afloat in the winter right?
Remember to remove head FIRST.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
One reason it's been a hard slog here the last couple years is that we've also built the TCF Stadium for the Gophers as well as Target Field for the Twins.
How many cities have ever built three brand new venues in the space of 5-ish years?
Plus, finding a location to build the thing has also been a big problem.
How many cities have ever built three brand new venues in the space of 5-ish years?
Plus, finding a location to build the thing has also been a big problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maelstrom
Footballguy
I get that taxpayers are reluctant to pony up the cash, but I guess I would look at the benefits of having an NFL team. They provide revenue back to the state in the form of taxes, they boost the local economy (or so they tell us) and bring in tourists to watch the games. I don't think any of the deals were calling for completely tax financed stadiums, but maybe I'm wrong on that. I get that people think that the NFL and the owners are all rich and shouldn't need any help, but I'd say two things to that -
1) if the local economy is going to benefit, it is to their advantage to pitch in a bit;
2) it is possible that the area cannot actually support an NFL team that is completely privately financed, does that mean that all of the history and tradition associated with a team should just up and move? That is part of the reason for collective bargaining, to help teams in weaker regions, but that doesn't (as far as I know) help with getting stadiums built.
I know those who are against it will immediately say yes to #2 and say if the area can't support a team without public assistance then the team should leave, but personally I think there is some worth in the tradition and history and in having a local team.
1) if the local economy is going to benefit, it is to their advantage to pitch in a bit;
2) it is possible that the area cannot actually support an NFL team that is completely privately financed, does that mean that all of the history and tradition associated with a team should just up and move? That is part of the reason for collective bargaining, to help teams in weaker regions, but that doesn't (as far as I know) help with getting stadiums built.
I know those who are against it will immediately say yes to #2 and say if the area can't support a team without public assistance then the team should leave, but personally I think there is some worth in the tradition and history and in having a local team.
Jobber
Footballguy
You make some good points. In regard to 1)...I have serious doubts on the true benefit to the local economy for 8 home games a year. I guess that cost-benefit is determined by just how much the taxpayers are kicking in for the stadium and infrastructure. I think a better case can be made for an MLB park since there are 80 or so games in a season.
Won't come to that the Vikings new field will be approved by the end of May. I have done work for the MN House before and come June they are gone for the summer! If bill is not passed by than the Vikings will be gone and everyone in house and Senate jobs that come up in the next election will be too. You don't piss off 70% of your voter base. With Republicans wining the house and senate they will get it done. And the new governor is willing to support the bill, I have as much hope as I had when I knew that Target Field deal was going to get done.
Jobber
Footballguy
Won't there be a definite go/no-go on the season before May?I'll vote against any politician supporting a publicly funded Vikings stadium. Whether Republican or Democrat.
