Monday, April 16, 2012

State committee votes down Vikings stadium bill, inertia reigns

The Vikings stadium saga is my least favorite topic to write about. I'd rather write about Fred Smoot's finest moments in a Minnesota uniform than the stadium issue. But tonight's events leave me with little choice.

I have no deep analysis on this one at this point. But I think Kevin Seifert has a good take on it here as the state of Minnesota's House Government Operations Committee voted 9-6 against the stadium bill on Monday.

If the Vikings are going to get a taxpayer-funded stadium built in Minnesota, they are going to have to use a different strategy than the one they've employed up to this point. The Vikes will play the 2012 season in Minnesota, but where they will be beyond that will cast a large shadow over the team in the coming months – just as it did last season and the season before that and the season before that.

The Wilf's haven't played the relocation card in many months. But as Seifert points out, that could change after Monday's development.


  1. Pretty disappointing. do you have strong feelings about the tax payers carrying the load? I know VG does. I still can't see the Vikings moving. we'll see, I guess.

    1. PP:

      It is disappointing. But that is purely selfish on my part. I want to see the Vikings stay in Minnesota so I can have an NFL team to root for. But I can see why using taxpayer's money to build a sports palace for a rich guy will arise some hackles. Personally, I'm not a big fan of it myself. But a lot of cities have done it, so every owner is going to try to get the same kind of deal.

      See TBird's post on this at this link:

    2. I will check out tue new post. I'm split on the issue also. There are public benefits to the deal, but meg. I just want to keep the Vikings around. Your Smoot joke made me laugh, at least.

    3. Anon 2:27:

      Happy to provide a little humor to an otherwise humorless topic.