Beerball Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Distributed to newspapers around the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Why does the NFL need a new stadium in LA when they have no team there? Guess its pretty obvious they are getting a team from somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) "The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home." I am a little scared that Miss Goodell named all the teams that need a new stadium (minus the Bills) and the first city he named (LA) doesn't even have a team, yet needs a new stadium. Considering that 4 of the 6 teams often discussed as moving to LA he listed as needing new stadiums (leaving out us and Jax), that makes me think it'll be us or Jax that will be leaving, as the other 4 are getting new stadiums. All bias aside it should absolutely be Jax. Edited February 15, 2011 by Thoner7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 "The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home." I am a little scared that Miss Goodell named all the teams that need a new stadium (minus the Bills) and the first city he named (LA) doesn't even have a team, yet needs a new stadium. Considering that 4 of the 6 teams often discussed as moving to LA he listed as needing new stadiums (leaving out us and Jax), that makes me think it'll be us or Jax that will be leaving, as the other 4 are getting new stadiums. All bias aside it should absolutely be Jax. There's absolutely no guarantee that the Vikings are getting a stadium. The public is completely against a tax-funded stadium, and the state is billions in debt right now. Dayton is now proposing to raise taxes on the rich (that was his whole campaign platform, "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes!"), and I don't think there's money available for a stadium. We'll see what happens, but it's not a done deal and many people here have thought that the Vikings might be moving to LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 "The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home." I am a little scared that Miss Goodell named all the teams that need a new stadium (minus the Bills) and the first city he named (LA) doesn't even have a team, yet needs a new stadium. Considering that 4 of the 6 teams often discussed as moving to LA he listed as needing new stadiums (leaving out us and Jax), that makes me think it'll be us or Jax that will be leaving, as the other 4 are getting new stadiums. All bias aside it should absolutely be Jax. This would make sense IF the Bills needed a new stadium. Luckily there's nothing wrong with The Ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 "The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home." I am a little scared that Miss Goodell named all the teams that need a new stadium (minus the Bills) and the first city he named (LA) doesn't even have a team, yet needs a new stadium. Considering that 4 of the 6 teams often discussed as moving to LA he listed as needing new stadiums (leaving out us and Jax), that makes me think it'll be us or Jax that will be leaving, as the other 4 are getting new stadiums. All bias aside it should absolutely be Jax. those are 4 franchises that will move without a new stadium in the immediate future. the bills do not need one in the next 5 years to stay in buffalo. to see all 4 get that stadium would be a huge surprise to me. because of that i feel safe with buffalo, unless ralph passes before those 4 situations get figured out. if that were to happen, all bets are off. the ralph does not need a new roof ala the metrodome. if the metrodome doesnt get replaced real fast, in a state thats reeeal poor, that team will be in LA real soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 "The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home." I am a little scared that Miss Goodell named all the teams that need a new stadium (minus the Bills) and the first city he named (LA) doesn't even have a team, yet needs a new stadium. Considering that 4 of the 6 teams often discussed as moving to LA he listed as needing new stadiums (leaving out us and Jax), that makes me think it'll be us or Jax that will be leaving, as the other 4 are getting new stadiums. All bias aside it should absolutely be Jax. Well, the Bills don't actually need a new stadium, at least relative to the other cities mentioned here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 Bruce Smith, Jack Youngblood send letter to Goodell In a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, Youngblood and Smith note the players' union already "pledged to not strike." They add: "By making the parallel commitment, the owners would create the breathing room for a deal to be struck." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 "The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home." I am a little scared that Miss Goodell named all the teams that need a new stadium (minus the Bills) and the first city he named (LA) doesn't even have a team, yet needs a new stadium. Considering that 4 of the 6 teams often discussed as moving to LA he listed as needing new stadiums (leaving out us and Jax), that makes me think it'll be us or Jax that will be leaving, as the other 4 are getting new stadiums. All bias aside it should absolutely be Jax. I actually read this differently. I think the mentioned teams are ones that will move if they can't build their respective stadiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 wth kind of crazy world is it where bruce has become the voice of reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I'm not really convinced by any of that. Other than Minnesota (for obvious reasons) how much do new stadiums do anything good for the fans? I'm not willing to lose a season for more luxury boxes in San Diego. A rookie wage scale is a good idea, but it's not what's holding this deal up. Nobody wants 18 games. I'm fine with the status quo, and there's no evidence yet any NFL teams are losing money under it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Goodell Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Why does the NFL need a new stadium in LA when they have no team there? Guess its pretty obvious they are getting a team from somewhere. Hush yourself. Now that LA is set, we need NFL stadiums in San Antonio, Columbus and San Jose and London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Blizzard Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 This would make sense IF the Bills needed a new stadium. Luckily there's nothing wrong with The Ralph. True. It may not be state of the art, but it is a decent stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Two years ago I was impressed with Goodell. Last year I was a bit puzzled on what he's doing. This year I am completely let down. He continues to be nothing more then a puppet for the big-market owners and his words of the Bills inspire us all that he cares about this market. What we need to hear from Goodell is pressure on the owners, as well. Him to come out and say that the owners f'd up last time and need to get their cards in order and the NFLPA needs to make damn sure they know what they're signing. I am sick of the owners whinning about 18 games, because it will happen. I do not want to hear the owners say they want to keep their own revenue any more, either. The NFLPA needs to spend less time crying to the press, leaking information and tell the players to stop whinning. It is a turn off. Plus, how can the NFL committ to paying insurance for players in 15 or 20 years by putting $XX.XX aside? Does anyone not realize the way the health system works?! For the paragraph above I look at Roger Goodell. He needs to roll up his sleeves, get dirty and grab both sides by the balls and tell them whats on the line. The problem is everyone is too arrogant to think anything is at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Without the benefit of Hindsight I dont think there is going to be football next year Edited February 16, 2011 by Captain Hindsight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 The ad is posturing for the lawsuits that are coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 There's absolutely no guarantee that the Vikings are getting a stadium. The public is completely against a tax-funded stadium, and the state is billions in debt right now. Dayton is now proposing to raise taxes on the rich (that was his whole campaign platform, "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes!"), and I don't think there's money available for a stadium. We'll see what happens, but it's not a done deal and many people here have thought that the Vikings might be moving to LA. http://www.vikings.com/stadium/new-stadium.html The stadium project is more advanced than you think. The state is working out a financing plan whereby a large proportion of the bond payment comes from the facility users. The owner of the Vikings prefers an open stadium because his portion of the payment would be less than if a more costly closed stadium is built. However, the state and local authorities are adamant in preferring a closed facility because it would then have a multi-purpose use with greater potential to generate revenue to pay the costs of the bonds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsox Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I'm sick of all this stadium talk... Let's worry about it if we have an actual team that can compete and win more than 4-6 games on a yearly basis. Besides that... why should the tax payers pay for something that's USED just 7x a year out of 365 days? Unless we're gonna start having more events at the stadium than just NFL football... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Hansen Forever Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 There's absolutely no guarantee that the Vikings are getting a stadium. The public is completely against a tax-funded stadium, and the state is billions in debt right now. Dayton is now proposing to raise taxes on the rich (that was his whole campaign platform, "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes!"), and I don't think there's money available for a stadium. We'll see what happens, but it's not a done deal and many people here have thought that the Vikings might be moving to LA. It's interesting that Mark Dayton exempts himself from the "tax the rich" theme. He has his funds tied up in "foundations" which exempt him and his family from paying any taxes. Between him and Al Frankenstein, the comedy of errors will continue uninpeached for a long time to come. But you're right, the Vikes are unlikely to get a new stadium, as they are already planning on repairing the Mall of America Dome (formally the Humphrey Dome...Hubert is turning over in his grave down at lakeside). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 http://www.vikings.c...ew-stadium.html The stadium project is more advanced than you think. The state is working out a financing plan whereby a large proportion of the bond payment comes from the facility users. The owner of the Vikings prefers an open stadium because his portion of the payment would be less than if a more costly closed stadium is built. However, the state and local authorities are adamant in preferring a closed facility because it would then have a multi-purpose use with greater potential to generate revenue to pay the costs of the bonds. They've been talking like that for years. It's no guarantee of anything. They're now examining whether a stadium should go in Arden Hills (northern suburb - actually where I work), but it's all very up in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts