This offseason, NFL owners voted on a new policy that ultimately gives each team the option to lower its percentage of tickets that must be sold in order to prevent a home game from being blacked out on local television. For the first time, NFL teams are allowed flexibility to select a percentage anywhere between the typical 100% down to 85% of capacity. By lowering the ticket manifest, teams are not lowering the number of seats they can sell or the number of fans who can attend home games; rather, the decision only lowers the tickets that must be sold to allow a game to be on local TV.

In an effort to ensure as many fans as possible can experience Vikings football, the team will take advantage of the league’s new policy. The Vikings will reduce the Mall of America ticket manifest to 90% capacity, a reduction of approximately 6,000 seats.

MPLS and the TC have some of the nations most diverse entertainment options. And with the economy as it is, why would someone pony up over priced NFL tickets to watch a 3-13 team when they could spend that same money on a basketball or hockey team that has shown life recently? I can't blame the, as you losers call it, 'fair-weather fans' for opting to spend their precious money elsewhere. Things are tight, and I'm stretching to renew my Gopher tickets this year.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

MPLS and the TC have some of the nations most diverse entertainment options. And with the economy as it is, why would someone pony up over priced NFL tickets to watch a 3-13 team when they could spend that same money on a basketball or hockey team that has shown life recently? I can't blame the, as you losers call it, 'fair-weather fans' for opting to spend their precious money elsewhere. Things are tight, and I'm stretching to renew my Gopher tickets this year.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

Love that there will be 3 new stadiums in town (4 if you consider the X's 10+ years as 'new'). It just adds to the dynamics of the Twin Cities' awesomeness.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

Vikings stadium doesn't involve general fund monies. Unless I gamble via pull tabs or pay for the suites (10% tax on suites is a backup source), not a dime of my money goes toward the Vikes stadium. The Bank, while getting public monies, I'm not sure the details of.. Except that it was built on some sort of bonding/loans from the state... So the state will recoup their money.

Yes, the economy is still struggling.. but right now the state is reaping what it sowed years ago (ignoring any and all stadium bills). It is what it is.

As far as doing things on the cheap.. That's EXACTLY what they did with the Metrodump. And look what's going to happen with it 30 years later. No no, it is NEVER the time to do something 'on the cheap' because the economy is piss poor right now. You always get what you pay for, and hopefully the state will learn from it's mistakes that is the 'awesome' planning they had for the dump.

I'm also a bit of a purist. College football needs to be played on a college campus, in a college stadium. The Dome KILLED the Gophers ability to have a great college atmosphere. For those that didn't really know much about college football (which is a lot up here), they viewed the Gophs in the Dome as a high school game in an NFL stadium.. There was no atmosphere. And the awesome shuttles students had to take from campus to Minneapolis Downtown East, just killed the fickle fanbase. No no.. Screw sharing a stadium. It's cheap, tacky, and blows for one of the fanbases.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

I'm assuming you meant to quote me.

Our elected officials have decided as such because they got more calls, letters, and emails than they had EVER gotten before by far on passing this stadium bill. So, in a sense, they were mostly just following constituent 'orders'.

I never said the deal was perfect and I won't say that there won't be some sort of social cost (obviously because I just don't know).. But what I WILL say is this: The NFL is bigger than it's ever been. There are only 32 teams in the NFL and there are more cities/markets that want an NFL team than there are NFL teams. So simple economics say, there's a higher demand than there is supply. Which means the price to have an NFL team is going to be steep. If the state of Minnesota didn't pony up some how, another market/city would have gladly ponied up.

And I, for one, am happy we will pay our dues.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

Yeah, no doubt.. You ain't paying for it, and you ain't spending money to attend it's events.. So I don't get how you get to say that it isn't worth it.. =P

Originally Posted by: Formo 

Formo - I tell my friends this. It is really hard to predict what's going to happen next. The economy seems to be recovering. BUT, is this recovery real or is it propped up? I don't know. I've been lied to too many times by our government that bailed out the banks that LIED about their numbers and caused my wife and me to lose thousands in investments because of their LIES. Why the SEC never threw any of those mother fuckers in jail, I don't know. My most likely answer is that they own the government now and we're living in an oligarchy. It's probably official, just not in name yet.

SO, yes, it's more important that you have 6 months of cash, 3 months of food, and 100 rounds of ammo per person than tickets to a sports team whether they are 3-13 or 13-3. It doesn't matter.

On the flip side though, despite the Vikings currently sucking, they are still exciting to watch. You have the absolute best RB on the past 5 years. Yes, Chris Johnson had his monster year but I'd still take AP over the past 5 years. Peterson has almost twice as many TDs in just one more year than Johnson and I see AP outlasting Johnson too. It's no coincidence my wife bought me an AP action figure. Now I got 2 Brett Favre's and one AP. I wish I had a Driver or Greg Jennings but they don't make them. (McFarlane).

You also have Percy Harvin who is unarguably a Playmaker as well. You have heard me many, many times say that I hope Randall Cobb develops into a Percy Harvin.

So there's always something to watch.

You've also heard my rambles about growing up when I did. I'm too young to know about the Lombardi years (born in the 70s) and old enough to remember how the Packers sucked year after year until Brett Favre came on board. ONE time in the Playoffs from 1976 when I started watching football until Favre in the early 90s.

Still, the Packers had their bright spots. Loved watching James Lofton, a Hall of Famer. Was super bummed when he went to the Raiders but still followed him and loved to see him play in the Super Bowl with the Bills. Then of course Majik had that one magical year.

So there's always something to look forward to. Yes, you'll probably go 4-12 this year. But AP will be hot as will Percy Harvin. They're still fun to watch. Plus you got Jared Allen who is always fun to watch.

Stand by your team, amigo.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

Losers.. really you purple hued little.. [grin1]


My only point is this.. and hence the giggles.

For the last couple years all we have heard was we need to build a stadium.. we need to shell out the money of our pockets to build a college stadium and a pro stadium within what 2 miles of each other.

Instead of publicly funding a stadium that would have fulfilled both needs and saved the public millions if not billions in construction and maintenance costs.. the public and fan base demanded two independent stadiums.

But publicly, the Vikes have now taken the NFL out predicting that they not be able to fill the stadiums. Which for the benefit of their fans within the state is wise.. since they are funding part of the new stadium. Via tax base or spending money in attending games / spending money on Viking merchandise.

Don't forget, the Vikings are taking a bite of the leagues shared revenues because they are towards the bottom of the revenue earned pool. So that makes it a concern to us, as we help fill those coffers. So yes.. it is our business in a sense to raise concerns on whether you can fill your stadium and carry your share of the overall revenue pool.

So I agree that times are tough and money may be more wisely spent than on attending a game or purchasing a season package.

But where was that mindset in the planning of these venues?

That is all.. nothing more.

Quoting the "awesomeness" of that moment when cost becomes a reality... [grin1]

I love the last quote in this threads context.. apparently there is a lack of people willing to pony up. [aiee]

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

Wait.. You still on the 'sharing the stadium' bit? Dummy. That being the case, why the floop would Wisky EVER renovate that old ass ugly Camp Randall. Hell man, trash that place and give the land to the UofW's medical division for a research building and share Lamblow with the Pukers. It's a waste of space, right?

Before you respond to that, I understand the distance between Madison and Green Bay. That's not my point. As soon as you realize how idiotic my Badger/Packer stadium sharing idea was, relate that feeling to how idiotic it is to have the Gophers/Vikings share one. And it is exactly that. Idiotic.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

The point here is simple.. even prior to the economic downturn.. the Vikes struggled to fill the stadium.

Hell there are Packer games I have went to there were Packer fans easily out drew the Viking fans.

Point is simple.. when the team struggles.. the attendance dips and then the points of cause are to the stadium.

But when the Vikes are relevant in the winning football.. the stadium issues evaporate and it fills. Look back no further than 2009. To attend that Viking game in MN.. I would have had to shell out premium dollars.. this season.. probably less than face value.

I admire your tenacity.. I really do.

Flawed logic though. First the economy is to blame for the blackouts.. but it be damned in building the stadium.

And just how old is Lambeau? And how long is the waiting list?

Point is.. the Packers took the approach to renovate the stadium to keep revenues up, to expand the seating and to minimize costs. Operating in a responsible sense to the rest of the NFL in the smallest market.

At that end of the day.. for all the laughter of Packer stock.. just how much of a tax impact did it save to those that didn't want to contribute to the facility costs? Basically, we the fans could make a decision on whether to pour money into the coffers and in return get a share of stock that holds no power, but is completely unique in the professional sports landscape. I will wait for the argument on why other teams can't do the same.. but I shall point to a publicly owned franchise vs privately held entity as the answer out front.

But year in and out.. no matter the record.. we fill the joint. Hell Miller Park drew 30,000+ last night..

Next is that we in Wisconsin don't have options at our finger tips.. the Packers are it. Nonsense.. completely biased nonsense.

Really.. we have and NBA franchise, and MLB franchise, and Professional Hockey team and even draw in Indy and NASCAR events. Our franchises just happen to be distributed around the state some.. not locked into a congested location.

We have nationally relevant collegiate teams in the major sports at multiple levels.

So we have no shortage of that awesomeness in which you speak.. we just plan and finance it more appropriately and timely. :-"

Enjoy the great outdoors this weekend Jeremy.. kick back relax and wash away the stress. Yes even that building stress of the football season that is looming.. ;)

Originally Posted by: Pack93z