Marcus Blog: Vikings could pay Gophers $3 million per season to use TCF Bank Stadium

[RodentRampage]

Attendance for the Saints at San Antonio:

October 2, 2005 – Buffalo Bills vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 58,688
October 16, 2005 – Atlanta Falcons vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 65,562
December 24, 2005 – Detroit Lions vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 63,747

It looks like they sold a decent number of tickets. We could debate whether the U could have gotten more, but if the U had made demands in excess of what the Vikings were willing to agree too, the Vikings would have taken the team on the road for a season. There simply wouldn't have been any other option.

 

[GoAUpher]

Attendance for the Saints at San Antonio:

October 2, 2005 – Buffalo Bills vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 58,688
October 16, 2005 – Atlanta Falcons vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 65,562
December 24, 2005 – Detroit Lions vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 63,747

It looks like they sold a decent number of tickets. We could debate whether the U could have gotten more, but if the U had made demands in excess of what the Vikings were willing to agree too, the Vikings would have taken the team on the road for a season. There simply wouldn't have been any other option.

So your honest opinion is that after getting 500 million in public money the team would have moved to Texas for a year? It would be an unmitigated PR disaster. And again, there is no way the U would have gotten away with any demands of that nature anyway. The PR blowback goes 2 ways.

 

[RodentRampage]

So your honest opinion is that after getting 500 million in public money the team would have moved to Texas for a year? It would be an unmitigated PR disaster. And again, there is no way the U would have gotten away with any demands of that nature anyway. The PR blowback goes 2 ways.

With a stadium built in the Metrodome site, the Vikings had two choices. One was to agree to the U's terms. The other would be to play elsewhere for a year. There exists a point where the terms would be too unreasonable for the Vikings to pay, which would leave them no choice but to play on the road. That much in inescapable. There would certainly be a PR hit if this were to take place, but it most of it would fall on the University. The U would be seen as having "taken away" the Vikings by not agreeing to reasonable terms. The Vikings would hold the cards in the PR battle.

 

[station19]

With a stadium built in the Metrodome site, the Vikings had two choices. One was to agree to the U's terms. The other would be to play elsewhere for a year. There exists a point where the terms would be too unreasonable for the Vikings to pay, which would leave them no choice but to play on the road. That much in inescapable. There would certainly be a PR hit if this were to take place, but it most of it would fall on the University. The U would be seen as having "taken away" the Vikings by not agreeing to reasonable terms. The Vikings would hold the cards in the PR battle.

Especially when you consider TCF was partially paid for with State funds.

 

[GoAUpher]

With a stadium built in the Metrodome site, the Vikings had two choices. One was to agree to the U's terms. The other would be to play elsewhere for a year. There exists a point where the terms would be too unreasonable for the Vikings to pay, which would leave them no choice but to play on the road. That much in inescapable. There would certainly be a PR hit if this were to take place, but it most of it would fall on the University. The U would be seen as having "taken away" the Vikings by not agreeing to reasonable terms. The Vikings would hold the cards in the PR battle.

Which is exactly why the scenario you're proposing was never going to happen (my whole possible versus likely point). You just agreed with what I've said several times, that the U did not have the ability to ask for too much b/c of the PR backlash. What you've gone on to suggest is that in addition to the U looking bad that the Vikes would for some reason take their own PR hit and go to SA or LA or wherever instead of just taking a compromise deal that the U would be begging for after taking a licking in the court of public opinion. If the Vikes did that, then the blame would shift fully back to them for being unreasonable after getting a "win".

In the meantime, what I've been saying is that the U erred in simply not getting a more fair rate (i.e. what the MSFC has been getting). In that case, the Vikings would have had a little room to complain (we make more at the Dome then we will at TCF) but that would have been a touchy thing to argue given all the public subsidy they've gotten. It is certainly not enough money for them to leave the state for a season over.

 

[stocker08]

Attendance for the Saints at San Antonio:

October 2, 2005 – Buffalo Bills vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 58,688
October 16, 2005 – Atlanta Falcons vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 65,562
December 24, 2005 – Detroit Lions vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 63,747

It looks like they sold a decent number of tickets. We could debate whether the U could have gotten more, but if the U had made demands in excess of what the Vikings were willing to agree too, the Vikings would have taken the team on the road for a season. There simply wouldn't have been any other option.

I would be interested to see what was charged for a majority of those tickets. Clearly, playing far away from the main fanbase means seats were filled by people who were not necessarily Saints fans. I assume that they were not able to charge nearly what they could have in their own metro area. What I am trying to point out, is that these numbers are likely skewed from a revenue standpoint.

 

[Maximus]

Attendance for the Saints at San Antonio:

October 2, 2005 – Buffalo Bills vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 58,688
October 16, 2005 – Atlanta Falcons vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 65,562
December 24, 2005 – Detroit Lions vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 63,747

It looks like they sold a decent number of tickets. We could debate whether the U could have gotten more, but if the U had made demands in excess of what the Vikings were willing to agree too, the Vikings would have taken the team on the road for a season. There simply wouldn't have been any other option.

November 6, 2005 - Chicago Bears - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 32,637
December 4, 2005 - Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 34,411
December 18, 2005 - Carolina Panthers - Tiger Stadium - Attendance: 32,551

The Vikings moving home games to a Big Ten stadium in Iowa City because the Governor, Legislature, City, Board of Regents, President Kaler, the Wilfs couldn't come up with an agreement is preposterous.

 

[stocker08]

Attendance for the Saints at San Antonio:

October 2, 2005 – Buffalo Bills vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 58,688
October 16, 2005 – Atlanta Falcons vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 65,562
December 24, 2005 – Detroit Lions vs. New Orleans Saints – Attendance: 63,747

It looks like they sold a decent number of tickets. We could debate whether the U could have gotten more, but if the U had made demands in excess of what the Vikings were willing to agree too, the Vikings would have taken the team on the road for a season. There simply wouldn't have been any other option.

November 6, 2005 - Chicago Bears - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 32,637
December 4, 2005 - Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 34,411
December 18, 2005 - Carolina Panthers - Tiger Stadium - Attendance: 32,551

The Vikings moving home games to a Big Ten stadium in Iowa City because the Governor, Legislature, City, Board of Regents, President Kaler, the Wilfs couldn't come up with an agreement is preposterous.

hahaha, selective statistics there RR?

 

[DLguy]

November 6, 2005 - Chicago Bears - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 32,637
December 4, 2005 - Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 34,411
December 18, 2005 - Carolina Panthers - Tiger Stadium - Attendance: 32,551

The Vikings moving home games to a Big Ten stadium in Iowa City because the Governor, Legislature, City, Board of Regents, President Kaler, the Wilfs couldn't come up with an agreement is preposterous.

Unless the state of Iowa would be recovering from a terrible flood, this is not a relevant example. Baton Rouge got a ton of damage as well, and the fan area it would have drawn from was suffering badly from the hurricane. I dont see any fall flooding in Iowa any time soon.

 

[RodentRampage]

November 6, 2005 - Chicago Bears - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 32,637
December 4, 2005 - Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 34,411
December 18, 2005 - Carolina Panthers - Tiger Stadium - Attendance: 32,551

You're making my case for me. The only games that were poorly attended were the games played at LSU's campus. The games farther away were well attended. The claim was made if that if the Vikings played their home games at a neutral site that they couldn't sell tickets. The fact that the games at the Alamo Dome sold well refuted this claim.

The Vikings moving home games to a Big Ten stadium in Iowa City because the Governor, Legislature, City, Board of Regents, President Kaler, the Wilfs couldn't come up with an agreement is preposterous.

I never claimed that the U would ask for unreasonable conditions to let the Vikings play at TCF Bank Stadium. It is obvious that the U didn't make unreasonable demands. My point is simply that if the U made demands that the Vikings were unwilling to meet, the only option remaining would be to play on the road. Some people seem to think that the U had a blank check. They did not. Tell me, if the U had asked for more that the Vikings were willing to pay, what would have happened? The Vikings had to play somewhere. If the only stadium available locally was TCF Bank Stadium, and they couldn't come to terms with the U, they would have had no choice but to play elsewhere. It is obvious that there exists some point at which the demands were so high that the Vikings would not agree to them.

 

[GoAUpher]

Tell me, if the U had asked for more that the Vikings were willing to pay, what would have happened?

The U would get beat up in the media and court of public opinion and compromise at a number the Vikes could live with.

The Vikings had to play somewhere. If the only stadium available locally was TCF Bank Stadium, and they couldn't come to terms with the U, they would have had no choice but to play elsewhere. It is obvious that there exists some point at which the demands were so high that the Vikings would not agree to them.

That somewhere would always be TCF. There was no reason for the Vikes to take a PR hit. They'd put the pressure on the U until the U gave them what they wanted.

All of this still ignores the legitimate critique to be made here. People who are being pissy that the U didn't hold the Vikings over a barrel aren't making a reasonable argument (which is why your attempts to rebut them are equally out whack). The legitimate critique is that the U took a lowball number when there were reasonable levels above it that were not reached (with the max being the current rate the Vikes pay in the Dome).

 

[GoAUpher]

The claim was made if that if the Vikings played their home games at a neutral site that they couldn't sell tickets. The fact that the games at the Alamo Dome sold well refuted this claim.

I'd agree that some more details would be good (what ticket costs were, etc) but I agree, my thought process on games farther away was flawed. But the wider point on the Vikings (and NFL) not taking that kind of PR hit after taking huge public subsidies still holds. There is no reasonable, likely scenario under which that happens. Local/national media would have a field day (team takes public money then plays a year away = lots of easy to write scathing opinion pieces) and the Vikes would take a hit with the fanbase that they want to toss new, expensive PSL's and higher per game ticket costs at.

 

[DMB123]

November 6, 2005 - Chicago Bears - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 32,637
December 4, 2005 - Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Tiger Stadium -Attendance: 34,411
December 18, 2005 - Carolina Panthers - Tiger Stadium - Attendance: 32,551

The Vikings moving home games to a Big Ten stadium in Iowa City because the Governor, Legislature, City, Board of Regents, President Kaler, the Wilfs couldn't come up with an agreement is preposterous.

I know you were trying to prove RR wrong, but you actually just proved his point for him. Talk about a backfire.

 

[RodentRampage]

Maybe the U could have got more money out of the deal, maybe they couldn't. $3,000,000 plus heating coils for the turf looks pretty good. But it simply a fact that if the U insisted on terms that the Vikings couldn't agree to, the Vikings would have to play their games in some other city. Of course, it wasn't at all likely that the U was going to act like they had a blank check.

If I had said "If the U asked for any more money, the Vikings would have played a year out of state", then you would have a point. But I wasn't saying that the U could not get any more money out of the Vikings. Merely that if there is a point that would be too much to ask.

As to the PR hit, that's a matter of opinion. I think there is strong reason to think that the U would take much more of the PR hit than would the Vikings.

 

[GoAUpher]

Merely that if there is a point that would be too much to ask.

As I said early on, anything is possible. That doesn't make it likely or plausible.

As to the PR hit, that's a matter of opinion. I think there is strong reason to think that the U would take much more of the PR hit than would the Vikings.

First off, you're treating this like it is an either/or situation. It's not. As I noted before, the U could take a beating but the Vikes would also take a beating as soon as they moved the team for a season. In the meantime, you still haven't addressed why the Vikes (and NFL) would want the PR hit and subsequent issues with the fanbase they would be imposing PSL's and higher ticket prices on. The short term win in money wouldn't be worth the longer term damage.

 

[Weddings and Steak Frys]

Maybe the U could have got more money out of the deal, maybe they couldn't. $3,000,000 plus heating coils for the turf looks pretty good. But it simply a fact that if the U insisted on terms that the Vikings couldn't agree to, the Vikings would have to play their games in some other city. Of course, it wasn't at all likely that the U was going to act like they had a blank check.

If I had said "If the U asked for any more money, the Vikings would have played a year out of state", then you would have a point. But I wasn't saying that the U could not get any more money out of the Vikings. Merely that if there is a point that would be too much to ask.

As to the PR hit, that's a matter of opinion. I think there is strong reason to think that the U would take much more of the PR hit than would the Vikings.

You make some good point and I don't disagree with them. They are similar to me arguing that if I looked like Brad Pitt, I could date Angelina Jolie. It's true, but not rooted in reality. The bottom line is that this deal passed by the skin of its teeth. The deal with the University was largely agreed to and in place (see City Hall, Minneapolis) although not inked, prior to the votes being taken. That said, if the University had tried to drive a hard bargain, they would have faced tremendous pressure from the legislature to offer a "fair package". Like AUGopher, I personally believe they left some things on the table. I think it was done with two thoughts in mind: 1) The PR Aspect- the University looks like good neighbors, 2) At some point the University will want something from the legislature. From the Vikings standpoint, there is NO WAY they play anywhere other than the University. If that issue were not agreed to prior to the vote, there is no vote or worse for the Vikings, they lose the vote. As someone who has spent some time around there, I can tell you with certainty that neither the Democrats or Republicans would have found the votes if there was one iota of possibility of the team heading to Iowa or any other exotic locale for more than a pre-season game. Don't forget, this bill passed by the skin of its teeth as it is, without the backroom framework in place it would have never gotten passed. At the end of the day, neither side held significant cards regarding the short term playing arrangements. The Vikes were locked into TCF (which isn't ideal for them either) and the University was locked into taking them. Could the University have gotten a better deal. Yup. Could the Vikings have gotten a stadium deal done while playing out of state for a year or two. Nope.

 

[RodentRampage]

You make some good point and I don't disagree with them. They are similar to me arguing that if I looked like Brad Pitt, I could date Angelina Jolie. It's true, but not rooted in reality. The bottom line is that this deal passed by the skin of its teeth. The deal with the University was largely agreed to and in place (see City Hall, Minneapolis) although not inked, prior to the votes being taken. That said, if the University had tried to drive a hard bargain, they would have faced tremendous pressure from the legislature to offer a "fair package". Like AUGopher, I personally believe they left some things on the table. I think it was done with two thoughts in mind: 1) The PR Aspect- the University looks like good neighbors, 2) At some point the University will want something from the legislature.

You are making my point for me. My point was that gouging the Vikings was not an option.

 

[RodentRampage]

As I said early on, anything is possible. That doesn't make it likely or plausible.


First off, you're treating this like it is an either/or situation. It's not. As I noted before, the U could take a beating but the Vikes would also take a beating as soon as they moved the team for a season. In the meantime, you still haven't addressed why the Vikes (and NFL) would want the PR hit and subsequent issues with the fanbase they would be imposing PSL's and higher ticket prices on. The short term win in money wouldn't be worth the longer term damage.

I don't think it was likely that the U was going to make demands that would be too high for the Vikings. And no, I'm not treating the PR issue like an either-or situation. I simply disagree with you and think the PR problem would be much worse for the U than for the Vikings.

 

[GoAUpher]

I simply disagree with you and think the PR problem would be much worse for the U than for the Vikings.

I never said it wouldn't be. You're arguing against something I didn't say. All I've said is that I think the PR backlash for both would be bad and that the Vikes (and NFL) would never risk it after taking public money.

 

[GoAUpher]

You are making my point for me. My point was that gouging the Vikings was not an option.

Something no one rational said was possible. What you've been getting pushback on is that even if that completely unlikely thing (the U trying to gouge the Vikes happened) there still wouldn't be a scenario under which the Vikes moving is in any way likely to happen.

 

[Weddings and Steak Frys]

You are making my point for me. My point was that gouging the Vikings was not an option.

Likewise. The Vikings getting a deal done and playing somewhere else was not an option. Chicken or egg?

I say the University would have had more leverage than the Purple, given they could have been pricks and said our rules or no deal. Would have hurt but the University would have survived in Minnesota. If the Vikes took the same hardline approach and said they were going elsewhere, there would be no deal and we'd be wondering if we were part of the Packers or Chiefs TV marketplace.

 

[RodentRampage]

If the Gophers had tried to gouge the Vikings (and there have been people arguing in favor of gouging the Vikings or refusing them outright) and the legislature managed to twist the U's arm to get them to make a deal, the resulting deal might not be as favorable to the U has this one was.

 

[Go4Broke]

If the Gophers had tried to gouge the Vikings (and there have been people arguing in favor of gouging the Vikings or refusing them outright) and the legislature managed to twist the U's arm to get them to make a deal, the resulting deal might not be as favorable to the U has this one was.

There is no way the governor and state legislature would allow the U to gouge the Vikings. It is amazing that GopherHolers haven't learned by now that the U is owned by Minnesota taxpayers whose legislative representatives oversee the U, and who give the U hell when they screw up. It matters not at all what the law says. The reality is that the Board of Regents are appointed by the state legislature and they owe their jobs to them. The U is not an independent entity and never was. The Board of Regents only does what the legislature allows them to do.

 

[twinsfan21]

There is no way the governor and state legislature would allow the U to gouge the Vikings. It is amazing that GopherHolers haven't learned by now that the U is owned by Minnesota taxpayers whose legislative representatives oversee the U, and who give the U hell when they screw up. It matters not at all what the law says. The reality is that the Board of Regents are appointed by the state legislature and they owe their jobs to them. The U is not an independent entity and never was. The Board of Regents only does what the legislature allows them to do.

This is exactly true... Well said.

 

[stocker08]

You're making my case for me. The only games that were poorly attended were the games played at LSU's campus. The games farther away were well attended. The claim was made if that if the Vikings played their home games at a neutral site that they couldn't sell tickets. The fact that the games at the Alamo Dome sold well refuted this claim.

No, that is not the point. The point is that is wasn't a very viable option to play at LSU. That is not the case with the Vikings and the U. It makes most sense to play in the city in which they are based. It just didn't work that way for the saints. Apples to oranges. Further more, ticket sales would suffer heavily by moving the team. Season Tickets would be almost non-existent. By playing at TCF, season ticket holders stay, and the same people who would attend games at the Dome, can still attend. Not the case in Iowa. As for ticket prices, good luck selling 50,000 - 60,000 tickets AT FACE VALUE. You bring up the attendance numbers of the Saints in San Antonio. How many of those people were even Saints fans you think? I bet a good portion were locals who were getting those tickets at a huge discount, simply to fill the stadium. The vikings have an opportunity to retain their customer base, and go on with business as usual. In Iowa, they would have to go fishing for people to fill the stands, likely selling their tickets at a cheaper price.

The point being? The University has more leverage than you think. It just makes way too much sense for the vikings to play there.

 

[RodentRampage]

There are many reason for the Vikings not to play a season out of state, but the San Antonio results indicate that attendance isn't one of the reasons.

 

[stocker08]

There are many reason for the Vikings not to play a season out of state, but the San Antonio results indicate that attendance isn't one of the reasons.

I can agree with this. There was just no way that the Vikings didn't end up playing at TCF. It is mutually beneficial for both the Gophers and the Vikings. It wouldn't make any sense for the Gophers to try and gouge the Vikings, I was just saying that they do have some leverage. The Gophers through this deal will receive some stadium upgrades and extra revenue all while looking like a good neighbor, garnering some goodwill with the cities pro football team, and receiving some valuable exposure for the University and their football program. It is a win-win situation and I am happy that the U was willing to be accommodating.

 

[Maximus]

My point is simply that if the U made demands that the Vikings were unwilling to meet, the only option remaining would be to play on the road.

So you believe that there was even a sliver of a chance that the U would be in a position to say 'take it or leave it'?

 

[Maximus]

There are many reason for the Vikings not to play a season out of state, but the San Antonio results indicate that attendance isn't one of the reasons.

Minus the Viking season ticket holders who aren't preoccupied with basic survival like Saints STH getting screwed out of seeing their team.

 

[Killjoy]

Good Discusion

I have really appreciated the discussion and different viewpoints on the Vikings and the University of Minnesota’s agreement for leasing of TCF Stadium to the Vikings. I have been at the table negotiating large health care contracts so I appreciate the thought, analysis, and different positions that have been expressed here. The one thing I can say for sure though is that the farther away a person is from the actual negotiations the more likely it is that person will have unreasonable demands/expectation. That why we have so many experts here at the Gopherhole.

Having said that, I must admit that contract negotiations are part art, part science, and part poker. It is also a hell of a lot of fun if you enjoy puzzles.