BigJim®
Footballguy
All due respect, unless your lease as parents to your daughter expires in 2011, it's not even remotely akin. This is a free enterprise which will have met it's 30 year lease obligation, whether during a good or down fiscal era. I can think of no reason the Vikes are obligated to sign an extension to play in the dome when their obligation to play there terminates. It's a real problem, not one the Vikings are creating. If you cut through the BS, that's all they are saying. They are absolutely right about Pawlenty. I skipped sides and voted for him primarily because he claimed to be willing to resolve stadium problems, and in fact he was part of the Twins solution. If he truly has not lifted a finger for the Vikes, I find that disappointing.Beyond ridiculous. It's akin to my daughter complaining that she doesn't get an allowance since I've been laid off.
I fear this will be the general Minnesotan response. It's unfortunate, because I don't think it's a particularly constructive response if some other metro area will pony up funds to host an NFL team in a new stadium. Like it or not, that IS how it works in other cities. The state is hard pressed to explain why they've resolved stadium situations for the Wild and Twins. This state got a lot of mileage from its own finger-ponting to the 30-year lease during times of fiscal surplus, and now it chooses to ignore it? Ok, pooh-pooh the problem but be prepared to live with the consequences. Some people are fine with that, I understand. However, anyone who doubts that collective machismo will result in a North Stars/Wild situation, where the state ends up paying ten fold years down the road to replace the relocated team, needs a reality check and a history lesson.Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya, Lester.