This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
February 15, 2012
Could Minnesota use lease expiration to force Vikings to stay?
As expected, the Minnesota Vikings owners didn't announce they're seeking to move the team by yesterday's NFL-imposed deadline, and ESPN's Kevin Seifert thinks that's a missed opportunity:
If they wanted to enjoin a ruthless and cutthroat issue with a similarly cold strategy, the Vikings could have sought out a relocation agreement with one of the Los Angeles groups and at least used it as leverage to apply substantial pressure to state leaders who have said "no" far more often than "yes" when faced with this issue.
That approach would have hurt some feelings and caused some rage, but it's also a proven formula for bringing such debates to a productive conclusion. As we noted Tuesday, the Vikings will allow the deadline to pass without ever seriously considering relocation or even using the option as leverage. Now stripped of that tool for the next 365 days, the Vikings have exposed themselves to an equally ruthless and cutthroat move from state leaders.
Now, what's to stop state leaders from flipping the leverage of the Vikings' expired Metrodome lease? Now that we know the Vikings want to play in Minnesota this season, why not require them to sign a five-year lease extension at the Metrodome while politicians continue mulling and/or delaying the project? What choice would the Vikings have? They need to play somewhere, right?
That's a pretty calculating way to look at it, but Seifert has a point: With the Vikings stuck playing in Minnesota this season, the state has an excellent opportunity to drive a hard bargain in lease talks. It's not infinite leverage — presumably if the state actually held a (metaphorical) gun to the team's head and demanded an exorbitant rent, the NFL would let them move regardless of yesterday's deadline — but leverage it is. Three guesses whether the state actually uses it in stadium talks, though, or whether it continues its "How can we give the Vikings exactly what they want?" epic haggle fail.
The national coverage about stadium the past two weeks has been sickening. So many articles from the Atlantic, and sportswriters criticizing the lack of alacrity state and local leaders are showing when the issue is handing out billions to private businesses for the benefit of a few (including those very same writers).
It is like they have no conception of where the money comes from. Like the state is just hoarding the money and is going to instead light it on fire.
Posted by Joshua Northey on February 15, 2012 02:34 PM
Well, I'm all for municipalities using all he leverage they have. But in this case, the Vikings do have another local option. It's imperfect, but they could always play 5 or 6 home games at the college stadium (who's corporate name escapes me at the moment). That should carry them through to the end of November or so - maybe even more if the league helps them with creative scheduling options.
It's not an "ideal" option, but then, as the Vikings keep telling everyone, the Metrodome is "awful" and must be replaced. So how bad could it be?
That stadium is owned by the state, too, though. (Technically by the University of Minnesota, but same difference in the end.)
I don't really think the state will play hardball here, but it's certainly within their power. And fun to think about.
Posted by Neil deMause on February 15, 2012 06:29 PM
I had a link that was expressed in Minnesota that if the Vikings don't get a stadium by April he will put the team up for sell.
I know it is remote because he seems to be in it for the year at least. 2013 rolls around and there has been no movement I think they really can bring a case to the league about where they want to play.
They should play @ the TCF bank stadium just to piss off the NFL and the state but they will bow down and play in the metro slum.
We hear the Commissioner of the NFL talk pessimistically towards LA publicly but I think he wants to reserve his true tactics and thoughts behind closed doors. No need to make the League appear unsound. Also how would it make host city's feel about their team if they knew their was that possibility of then leaving. It would definitely create a negative impact on fan base and ticket sales. Good tactic played here and I think the LA groups have direct communication on what is going to possibly happen if it does at all.
One thing that caught my attention if you listen to Costa's live the state of the commissioner he stated "we are building a stadium in LA" and then was cut off by Costa's for another question. Take a look at that if you get a chance.
I had a link that was expressed in Minnesota that if the Vikings don't get a stadium by April he will put the team up for sell.
I know it is remote because he seems to be in it for the year at least. 2013 rolls around and there has been no movement I think they really can bring a case to the league about where they want to play.
They should play @ the TCF bank stadium just to piss off the NFL and the state but they will bow down and play in the metro slum.
We hear the Commissioner of the NFL talk pessimistically towards LA publicly but I think he wants to reserve his true tactics and thoughts behind closed doors. No need to make the League appear unsound. Also how would it make host city's feel about their team if they knew their was that possibility of then leaving. It would definitely create a negative impact on fan base and ticket sales. Good tactic played here and I think the LA groups have direct communication on what is going to possibly happen if it does at all.
One thing that caught my attention if you listen to Costa's live the state of the commissioner he stated "we are building a stadium in LA" and then was cut off by Costa's for another question. Take a look at that if you get a chance.
It would be a wonderful thing to see the state play a little hardball, make some assumptions about team income and demand they sign on for 2-3 years at an appropriate rent.
Sadly, it's much more likely that they'll agree to 1 year at $0 as a sign of "good faith" in the ongoing new stadium negotiations.
Posted by Keith on February 16, 2012 08:46 AM