A city in waiting, L.A. works hard on returning to NFL

  • Article by: JIM RAGSDALE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 30, 2011 - 10:49 AM

One of the nation's largest television markets has been without an NFL team since the Rams and Raiders left town in the 1990s.

  • 133
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
twincitizen1Oct. 29, 11 9:06 PM

Assuming we got to keep the Vikings name and history, would anyone really mind that much if Zygi moved his team to LA and a different ownership group brought the Bills or Jaguars to MN? (They would still be called the MN Vikings in this hypothetical situation). We might end up with a better team in the short-term and certainly a better ownership group, even if it meant no football for a year or two.

vegas2112Oct. 29, 1110:32 PM

I find Ragsdale's "article" to be a cleverly disguised press release. ------- If LA can privately fund a stadium, why the hell should Minnesota taxpayers gift Wilf hundreds of millions of dollars. Surely, principled Republicans who refuse to raise taxes to assist the poor won't allow this to happen.

west336Oct. 29, 1110:43 PM

The NFL Commish is shamelessly greedy if he's leaning on Minneapolis, Hennipen/Ramsey County, and/or the state of MN to sacrifice services to build ANOTHER (yes, there's plenty) new stadium. This is so wrong it's not even funny! We're a 50 year old franchise with TONS of fans all over the country. I'm in Cleveland right now and I run into Vikings fans at any sports bar when trying to catch a Vikes game. The city and state have adopted the Vikings like their own, and our culture is reflective of that. Buffalo as well.....and please don't touch the 49ers, 'cause that may be even worse! Chargers and Jags....they can go. Nobody will shed a tear. San Diegons can travel 50+ miles to catch their team, and Florida loves highschool, college, AND another pro team. St. Louis is a great city with great fans and they don't deserve to move either. I say after 50 years in the NFL teams should be allowed to be "legacied", so they can't be controlled by the league and they can be bought/financed by the public to which they are now a firm part of. That's what SHOULD happen.....if the Vikes, Bills, or 49ers move, I will BOYCOTT NFL football for the principal of the matter!!!

laker4115Oct. 29, 1110:48 PM

California is more broke than Minnesota, good luck with your dreams.

rockanatreeOct. 29, 1110:50 PM

"Whoever comes here is going to be printing money.." lol yeah, you betcha!

samiamOct. 29, 1110:58 PM

I see this as the beginning of the end for the Vikings as we know them. It will be a rally sad day when they leave.

cncodyOct. 29, 1111:09 PM

Los Angeles is without a team for a strategic reason: Teams can threaten to move to Los Angeles if their demands are not met. It's a bluffing game.

belascoOct. 29, 1111:22 PM

Can you imagine the outrage from the other NFL owners if the league allowed one of its host cities to NOT supply public money for a new stadium? Fair or not, Vikings tradition or not, the NFL cannot back down here, or they'll have established a precedent, and have zero leverage in the future. They HAVE to play hardball, and move this team.

flogicOct. 29, 1111:37 PM

If they play hardball, the only city the team can move to is one being build by private funds and 700Mil in naming rights by Farmers. I say let them let the Vikes move and SET that NEW precedent in a team moving to a city building a team WITHOUT tax payer money. It's a long over due precedent for sure.

georgthOct. 30, 1112:32 AM

If taxpayers have to cough up nearly a billion dollars in subsidies to keep the Vikings, then they should move to L.A. Just think, they could rename the team the "LA Losers." Has a certain ring to it.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters