If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pro Football Talk)   Wilfs could end up paying a lot more for Vikings stadium. Milfs still a dime a dozen   (profootballtalk.nbcsports.com) divider line 22
    More: Obvious, Vikings stadium, Vikings, Minnesota Legislature  
•       •       •

976 clicks; posted to Sports » on 23 Jun 2014 at 6:36 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-23 02:10:17 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-23 06:44:11 PM  
It's an acronym, subby, so it should be in all-caps. MILF. It stands for Mom I'd Like to Fark. Show some respect.
 
2014-06-23 06:52:40 PM  
A whole $41 million out of, what, half a bil? Oooh.
 
2014-06-23 07:07:42 PM  
meh the Wilfs can easily afford any overages.
 
2014-06-23 07:26:15 PM  
After all the discussions we've had over stadiums and public funding, I still don't know what to think. The point about the people subsidizing billionaires has validity, but sports fandom is as much emotional as economic, as evidenced by the Colts/Browns/Ratbirds saga. Cities seem to derive some benefit from having a major league team associated with them. And owners that are putting up beaucoup dollars have a case as well, surely they would like to see the cities and the fans in them have some skin in the game, otherwise they'll be building a huge palace for nobody. Then you have the argument that cities never see any return on their money, even as they embrace the team and the fans have inordinate pride in their team's performance.

Back in the late '90s the Steelers were looking for a new stadium, and they got it even though not a soul believed that the Rooneys would move the team somewhere else. The North Shore, Heinz Field, and every bar in town is packed on game day. Virtually every radio in the city is tuned to the broadcast. Traffic is wall-to-wall on the Parkway and the Gateway Clipper Fleet boats are packed to and from the game. Is that sort of interest not sufficient justification for a stadium? I grant you that the owners should pony up more of their money since they see most of the return, but it's hard to say that a city didn't get something for their money. The cities that don't put up, or have teams with dickbag owners like Modell, suffer greatly when the teams move, almost invariably trying to get a new team as quickly as possible. If the economics are so devastating, why would they do so.

It's not really an easy thing to parse.
 
2014-06-23 07:28:05 PM  
I just had dinner with someone affiliated with the Vikings, and while we didn't discuss business too much you can be assured that the Vikings can afford the expense.

/and here's hoping that they get their first Super Bowl in Mpls!
 
2014-06-23 08:05:34 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: After all the discussions we've had over stadiums and public funding, I still don't know what to think. The point about the people subsidizing billionaires has validity, but sports fandom is as much emotional as economic, as evidenced by the Colts/Browns/Ratbirds saga. Cities seem to derive some benefit from having a major league team associated with them. And owners that are putting up beaucoup dollars have a case as well, surely they would like to see the cities and the fans in them have some skin in the game, otherwise they'll be building a huge palace for nobody. Then you have the argument that cities never see any return on their money, even as they embrace the team and the fans have inordinate pride in their team's performance.

Back in the late '90s the Steelers were looking for a new stadium, and they got it even though not a soul believed that the Rooneys would move the team somewhere else. The North Shore, Heinz Field, and every bar in town is packed on game day. Virtually every radio in the city is tuned to the broadcast. Traffic is wall-to-wall on the Parkway and the Gateway Clipper Fleet boats are packed to and from the game. Is that sort of interest not sufficient justification for a stadium? I grant you that the owners should pony up more of their money since they see most of the return, but it's hard to say that a city didn't get something for their money. The cities that don't put up, or have teams with dickbag owners like Modell, suffer greatly when the teams move, almost invariably trying to get a new team as quickly as possible. If the economics are so devastating, why would they do so.

It's not really an easy thing to parse.


I've always looked at it like this: If you want a major professional sports team in your city, you have to pay the price. Sometimes that price is higher that the city wants to pay and the team leaves. I don't fault either side.
 
2014-06-23 08:23:52 PM  
I'll take a dollar's worth
 
2014-06-23 08:26:24 PM  

Jakesta: I've always looked at it like this: If you want a major professional sports team in your city, you have to pay the price. Sometimes that price is higher that the city wants to pay and the team leaves. I don't fault either side.


It's like any top free agent in that sense. If you don't overpay for them, somebody else will.
 
2014-06-23 08:36:42 PM  
MILF thread?
 
2014-06-23 09:22:48 PM  
So is there any tax payer money going into this new stadium?
 
2014-06-23 09:28:58 PM  

ski9600: I just had dinner with someone affiliated with the Vikings, and while we didn't discuss business too much you can be assured that the Vikings can afford the expense.

/and here's hoping that they get their first Super Bowl in Mpls!


They have the Superb Owl in Minney every year.

When they watch it on TV, like everyone else.

It ain't like they'll ever PLAY in it, so I guess if y'all want subsidize a billionaire's ego-dome for a shot a hosting, have at it.
 
2014-06-23 09:29:33 PM  
AGAIN. That was supposed to be play in one again.

Stupid lack of preview.
 
2014-06-23 10:24:09 PM  

ski9600: here's hoping that they get their first Super Bowl in Mpls!


They already had the first one back in 1992.

The Bills were massacred by the Indigenous Peoples 37 to 24
 
2014-06-23 11:21:42 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: After all the discussions we've had over stadiums and public funding, I still don't know what to think.

It's not really an easy thing to parse.


It's incredibly easy.  You want a sports stadium for your team, pay for it yourself.  If you can get other teams to go in on it with you, all the better.  Not one penny from the government for your sports arena.
 
2014-06-24 05:57:08 AM  
Adolf Oliver Nipples:  as evidenced by the Colts/Browns/Ratbirds saga.

I remember several years ago watching the Colts play the Ravens in Baltimore and they wouldn't acknowledge the team in any way as the Colts , they were introduced as "the Indianapolis professional football team" and the scoreboard had them listed as Indy.
 
2014-06-24 07:21:46 AM  

Raider_dad: Adolf Oliver Nipples:  as evidenced by the Colts/Browns/Ratbirds saga.

I remember several years ago watching the Colts play the Ravens in Baltimore and they wouldn't acknowledge the team in any way as the Colts , they were introduced as "the Indianapolis professional football team" and the scoreboard had them listed as Indy.


And yet somehow they work up such indignation about the way Art Modell is regarded in Cleveland.
 
2014-06-24 07:46:30 AM  

JosephFinn: Adolf Oliver Nipples: After all the discussions we've had over stadiums and public funding, I still don't know what to think.

It's not really an easy thing to parse.

It's incredibly easy.  You want a sports stadium for your team, pay for it yourself.  If you can get other teams to go in on it with you, all the better.  Not one penny from the government for your sports arena.


Cincinnati publicly funded the new stadiums for the Reds and Bengals back in the 90's. We're still paying for them, and there's not a day that goes by that I don't think we could have done without either.
 
2014-06-24 09:48:05 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: After all the discussions we've had over stadiums and public funding, I still don't know what to think. The point about the people subsidizing billionaires has validity, but sports fandom is as much emotional as economic, as evidenced by the Colts/Browns/Ratbirds saga. Cities seem to derive some benefit from having a major league team associated with them. And owners that are putting up beaucoup dollars have a case as well, surely they would like to see the cities and the fans in them have some skin in the game, otherwise they'll be building a huge palace for nobody. Then you have the argument that cities never see any return on their money, even as they embrace the team and the fans have inordinate pride in their team's performance.

Back in the late '90s the Steelers were looking for a new stadium, and they got it even though not a soul believed that the Rooneys would move the team somewhere else. The North Shore, Heinz Field, and every bar in town is packed on game day. Virtually every radio in the city is tuned to the broadcast. Traffic is wall-to-wall on the Parkway and the Gateway Clipper Fleet boats are packed to and from the game. Is that sort of interest not sufficient justification for a stadium? I grant you that the owners should pony up more of their money since they see most of the return, but it's hard to say that a city didn't get something for their money. The cities that don't put up, or have teams with dickbag owners like Modell, suffer greatly when the teams move, almost invariably trying to get a new team as quickly as possible. If the economics are so devastating, why would they do so.

It's not really an easy thing to parse.


When citizens are given the chance to vote, very often they vote against stadium funding, so politicians are now doing away with that step, finding every trick possible to obligate the government to thirty years of subsidizing some billionaire's for profit company. It doesn't matter if they get the boot during the next election because the public is still obligated to pay the billionaire, who will take care of the politician who lost their office. The team owner and the politicians are both on the same side. No wonder these deals are so terrible and they get away with insane claims about what a great deal it is for the public. There is no one at the negotiating table representing the public.

Maybe if every stadium came with the requirement of a public vote and of honest financial studies done by an independent analysis, the public benefit argument would hold water. But you can't find economists not on a sports team's payroll that will say it is a good investment. So the public is cut out of the process most of the time because they're no longer the suckers they used to be.
 
2014-06-24 10:40:51 AM  

buckeyebrain: MILF thread?


Thats what I came to this thread for. Leaving dissappoint.
 
2014-06-24 05:40:00 PM  

EngineerAU: Adolf Oliver Nipples: After all the discussions we've had over stadiums and public funding, I still don't know what to think. The point about the people subsidizing billionaires has validity, but sports fandom is as much emotional as economic, as evidenced by the Colts/Browns/Ratbirds saga. Cities seem to derive some benefit from having a major league team associated with them. And owners that are putting up beaucoup dollars have a case as well, surely they would like to see the cities and the fans in them have some skin in the game, otherwise they'll be building a huge palace for nobody. Then you have the argument that cities never see any return on their money, even as they embrace the team and the fans have inordinate pride in their team's performance.

Back in the late '90s the Steelers were looking for a new stadium, and they got it even though not a soul believed that the Rooneys would move the team somewhere else. The North Shore, Heinz Field, and every bar in town is packed on game day. Virtually every radio in the city is tuned to the broadcast. Traffic is wall-to-wall on the Parkway and the Gateway Clipper Fleet boats are packed to and from the game. Is that sort of interest not sufficient justification for a stadium? I grant you that the owners should pony up more of their money since they see most of the return, but it's hard to say that a city didn't get something for their money. The cities that don't put up, or have teams with dickbag owners like Modell, suffer greatly when the teams move, almost invariably trying to get a new team as quickly as possible. If the economics are so devastating, why would they do so.

It's not really an easy thing to parse.

When citizens are given the chance to vote, very often they vote against stadium funding, so politicians are now doing away with that step, finding every trick possible to obligate the government to thirty years of subsidizing some billionaire's for profit company. It doesn't matter if they get the bo ...


And that's what I said. But that ignores all the other benefits I brought up. Cities and states have more to consider than the absolute cost of the stadium.
 
2014-06-24 09:27:20 PM  

Crewmannumber6: JosephFinn: Adolf Oliver Nipples: After all the discussions we've had over stadiums and public funding, I still don't know what to think.

It's not really an easy thing to parse.

It's incredibly easy.  You want a sports stadium for your team, pay for it yourself.  If you can get other teams to go in on it with you, all the better.  Not one penny from the government for your sports arena.

Cincinnati publicly funded the new stadiums for the Reds and Bengals back in the 90's. We're still paying for them, and there's not a day that goes by that I don't think we could have done without either.


I got to see the Packers-Bengals game at Paul Brown last year (better yet, during Oktoberfest). Nice facility, but I get it about buyer's remorse when it's your taxes paying for it. But I also saw a Reds-Cubs game at Riverfront back in '87; what a shiathole! But still not as bad as watching baseball in the old Metrodump.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report