LA Vikings?

They'd re-join the Lakers.

Commissioner Roger Goodell has warned the state of Minnesota of "serious consequences" if legislators cannot pass a bill this year to fund a new stadium for the Vikings.

Can someone in the know explain these "serious consequences" in which Goodell is speaking? How much power does an NFL commissioner have?

*I mean I get the city might lose money with the revenue an NFL team brings (parking, tourism, etc). Is that what he's referring to?
 
I think they would have to change the name, Vikings. After all, did the Vikings sail to Los Angeles, California? But then again, they probably filmed the "What's in your wallet" commercials in LA.
 
kevinhickey;4513847 said:
I think they would have to change the name, Vikings. After all, did the Vikings sail to Los Angeles, California? But then again, they probably filmed the "What's in your wallet" commercials in LA.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense at all. What are you talking about? Also, the Lakers didn't change their name when they left Minnesota for L.A.
 
What is the deal with LA? It is like the NFL Gods do not want a franchise there. When the Texans came into the league LA was talked about. And I believe I heard San Diego was going to move this offseason. I am wondering what the problem is.
 
CashMan;4513913 said:
What is the deal with LA? It is like the NFL Gods do not want a franchise there.
Click to expand...
It's the NFL owners who don't want a franchise there.

The deal with L.A. is that it's absolutely perfect blackmail material for teams to use against their communities. "If you don't give me $400M for a stadium, I'll move the team to L.A." It has the plausibility that smaller markets lack.

Given that the TV deal and CBA are locked in for years and so much of the NFL's revenue is national, not local, I suspect that L.A. is more valuable to them without a team than with one.
 
So sad for the poor NFL teams. They must be doing pretty poorly, since they apparantly can't fund a stadium, and have to go suck on the government teat.

I hope the spirit of Jesse Ventura lives on enough for them to tell the Vikings to 'go fish'.
 
kevinhickey;4513847 said:
I think they would have to change the name, Vikings. After all, did the Vikings sail to Los Angeles, California? But then again, they probably filmed the "What's in your wallet" commercials in LA.
Click to expand...

Would be another meaningless name... Vikings were named for the Nordic population in Minnesota and Lakers were named such for "Land of 10,000 Lakes"...
 
There's a reason pro teams leave LA, it's a dump for football and USC is the hometown team.

The most popular team in LA is the Dallas Cowboys, followed by the San Diego Chargers and patches of raider and Niner fans when they're doing well.

One reason LA will likely never be able to get a great following for an NFL team should they get one is that 70 percent of the city is born out of state and brings their sports allegiances with them.

USC and the Lakers are their constants, everything else is fairweather and the football allegiances are the most visibly divided thing.

For crying out loud LA County just made it ILLEGAL to throw a football on the beach, punishable by a 1000 dollar fine, and you want an NFL team?

No dice.
 
Part(and only part) of the reason it has been a dump for football is that they haven't had a nice stadium there in quite a long time. L.A. just like Minnesota will need a new stadium in order to have an NFL franchise. If L.A. doesn't follow through to build a new stadium they won't be getting a team. Just like Minnesota won't keep a team without a new place to play.

There are some other better options the NFL can choose to put a team, but L.A. is a better option than Minnesota in an old stadium or Jacksonville. Minnesota in a new stadium may be a better option than L.A..
 
Cowboys&LakersFan;4513885 said:
Good. L.A. needs a football team. They only have one legit franchise in the Lakers. Need another one.
Click to expand...

Lol @ the Dodgers who just sold for $2B not being legit.

LA is less likely to dish out public funds for a new stadium than Minneapolis. they know thye have one of the largest media markets in the world and the windfall that an NFL team gets from going there.

They rejected the Rams and Oaklands attempts and with Californias money problems, the NFL needs LA more than LA needs the NFL.
 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...px-Zygi_Wilf_and_Edward_Masso_cropped_(1).jpg

The NFL wants LA back in the mix. Goodell is priming the pump. He has Zygi Wilf on speed dial, whispering in his ear about all the benefits of the LA market and the brand spankin' new stadium options available for his team on the West Coast.

Zygi may become a dual-coast NFL team owner presence. NY condo w/ LA privileges. Looking more 'n' more likely w/ every Minnesota Congressional whiff ... to me, anyway.
 
Rynie;4513828 said:
They'd re-join the Lakers.

Commissioner Roger Goodell has warned the state of Minnesota of "serious consequences" if legislators cannot pass a bill this year to fund a new stadium for the Vikings.

Can someone in the know explain these "serious consequences" in which Goodell is speaking? How much power does an NFL commissioner have?

*I mean I get the city might lose money with the revenue an NFL team brings (parking, tourism, etc). Is that what he's referring to?
Click to expand...

I would guess that's what he's talking about.

It was a warning to the state legislature that they had either make a move to keep their football team or just lose it.
 
Rynie;4513863 said:
This makes no sense at all. What are you talking about? Also, the Lakers didn't change their name when they left Minnesota for L.A.
Click to expand...

I think they'd change the name.

If the name sounded good they'd probably keep Vikings but "LA Vikings" just sounds horrid.

Maybe they can be the "LA Brahs"

Honestly, it's kind of hard to come up with a decent sounding name for a team.
 
Hoofbite;4514340 said:
I think they'd change the name.

If the name sounded good they'd probably keep Vikings but "LA Vikings" just sounds horrid.

Maybe they can be the "LA Brahs"

Honestly, it's kind of hard to come up with a decent sounding name for a team.
Click to expand...

LA La-La.s...
 
LA's never had an original NFL team. The Rams moved were originally in Cleveland before moving to LA.
 
I thought part of the rationale for the owners needing a bigger chunk of the pie was so that they could fund more stadium developments.

I hate NFL teams soliciting millions of dollars from communities to build the money making palaces for them.

I hate the Vikes, but LA can't keep a team there, so why is that market so desireable?
 
CashMan;4513913 said:
What is the deal with LA? It is like the NFL Gods do not want a franchise there. When the Texans came into the league LA was talked about. And I believe I heard San Diego was going to move this offseason. I am wondering what the problem is.
Click to expand...
The league wants a team in L.A. but the problem is that no individual owner wants to be the one to bite the bullet and go there. Why go to a place where you have to build your own stadium when there are plenty of communities in the country willing to give you your own stadium on a silver platter? Especially when that area is one which, historically speaking, has not done well in supporting NFL teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 6,681 (members: 62, guests: 6,619)
Robots: 1,177

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,003
Messages
14,505,770
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top