NFL and Vikings issue ultimatum as state downs stadium deal

The big part of the Senate bill was the removal of the provision that the Vikes would get first dibs on putting an MLS team in the stadium which also would have let the team play there rent free. If that doesn't get put back in in reconciliation the idea of MLS at the new stadium is dead.

But hey that language was struck down cause the State Senators thought the Stars owners would want to bring an MLS team to the new stadium.

from IMS:

Interesting.

Another addition: the Senate bill bars TV blackouts in the Vikings media market. The NFL might pitch a fit. If they don't, it could cause a domino effect that would make NFL's draconian blackout policy meaningless.

How blackout policies pass Interstate Commerce muster is beyond me....

Remember, the NFL has an anti-trust exemption. Acceptance of blackouts may be viewed as an extension of that.

I didn't realize that. Thanks for the lesson.

The MLS clause is back in the compromised version of the bill which the House passed last night. http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/231173/

More importantly, IMO, they added language which would allow the stadium to have a retractable roof without an additional contribution by the Wilf's. Before the Wilf's would have had to pay for the entire cost of the retractable roof. Now they can simply add it to the design and pay for cost overruns. Lanning said this was added specifically because of the soccer possibility.

Apparently the Wilf's pushed hard for these MLS provisions. Pretty great news.

The Daily Norseman (SBNation Vikings site) has a live update thread.

Apparently someone in the Senate is trying to kill the bill on a technicality, based on the fact that the reconciliation occurred in a closed-door meeting.

Both the House and Senate have passed the bill, only a signature by the Governor and approval by the Minneapolis City Council remain.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/150960525.html

So, you guys have a stadium for MLS? Are the Vikings searious about MLS? Seems to me yall just nailed the most difficult of the "expansion formula" mentioned by garber.

Great, they're screwing around with the theme.

Anyway, there is still one potential obstacle. Watching the PBP on the team's SBN site, the Daily Norseman, I saw a couple people suggest opponents might sue the state to block the final deal since they bypassed the required referendum.

It should be noted that nobody bothered to sue when they did the same to get Target Field built. But we are talking about just about double the public money in this case.

Hopefully this can be avoided. The longer LA can remain without an NFL team, like the longer MLS can remain without NYC2, the better.

that.......is a very, very big deal. Minneapolis just jumped into the drivers seat IMO. Orlando and NYC2 are nothing more than ideas now. Minneapolis is going to have an actual stadium it looks like. If the Wilfs pay the expansion fee they should be in business.

And i don't think either of those will be a problem. Dayton has been a huge supporter of this and pivotal in getting a deal done. the MLPS City Council already threw it's support on this earlier and they still have the same share of the money. The MLS clause seemed to be a rather large point for the vikings so i'd be surprised if they don't use it. also, a retractable roof option will make soccer games 10 times better. Maybe garber will think about minnesota before NYC2 if he can't find a stadium there soon.

The question is, will MLS come calling before the stadium is complete? The new stadium won't even begin construction until 2014. Google Maps hasn't updated the overheads for the Twin Cities beyond 2001, so I can't do what I usually do and measure the pitch at TCF Bank Stadium with Google Earth's Ruler tool.

If Minneapolis does leap-frog NYC2, however, it will definitively open the door to 24 teams. They certainly won't stop at 20 if team #20 is not NYC2.

There's no way in Hell, Heaven or earth that they are stopping a 20. there are almost 350 million people in the US and Canada. the MLS should go to at least 24 if not 28, 30, or 32. in an interview with ESPN yesterday Garber said that expansion was a 20 year project which i take to mean that they will add more than one team and possibly more than 5. Also, where the heck did you hear that they won't start construction until 2014, the target date for completion is 2016, construction will start later this year or possibly early 2013.

The fact that the stadium wont finish construction until 2016 is probably a great thing for MLS. It gives Zygi more time to consider his [hypothetical] interest. The league will no doubt be in even better shape in 2016 then ever before, and we'll be coming off a World Cup beamed in prime time. The league will probably have 20 teams by then, and any new candidates in expansion will be further along than they are today. Personally the time frame is perfect. A 5 year window should almost guarantee Zygi to make the right decision and invest.

Debate will continue on this point, but I tend to agree. The league had 12 teams 6 years ago. Its like another dimension by comparison. 20 years even 24/28/32 teams will probably be a reality if the league wants it. I'd like to see them stop at 24 over the next ten years, and then maybe we could return to the thorny issue of pro/rel (or maybe not!)

If pro/rel comes to the US i will throw a fit. Pro/Rel is a terribly idea that only happens because of the tradition in europe. it could end in england too.

it would be sad if it ended in any league in europe given how deeply rooted it is (some european teams who spend beyond their means deserve it and it brings a smile to my face when it happens), but it is an absolutely terrible idea for a league still in its younger stages.

gonna have to disagree here. promotion/relegation would be great in our country, but it couldn't happen in MLS. The previous owners/cities would block it legally. they didn't pay franchise fees to end up in the lower leagues.

I'm only bummed that for the next 3 1/2 yrs. minimum, this is all coffee talk. Intrigued with the idea that MLS might be able to bend the owners ear a little on how this is built. It'll be a huge stadium but may get a little tweaking hopefully.

Save the pro/rel. talk for somewhere else.

We might have the population, but there isn't enough interest or US talent to populate a workable 30-32 team league. Also, a 30-32 team league would effectively end the US Open Cup (it's a joke anyways) and probably would exclude us from continental competitions.

I'd love for the MLS to be bigger, but the current environment in this country just isn't as conducive as these soccer boards allow us to believe. MLS is probably 8th or 9th on the television ratings totem pole, below even the EPL and the UCL

Those things can change. popularity is going up, and with it participation, after which comes talent.30 or 32 might be a little high but 28 seems doable.

How many games would you propose each team playing in a season? If they were to do the traditional home and away with each team you're talking 56 games. We're in America, so you can guarantee that we'll expect an end of season playoff, so the top sixteen would be in that. Potentially 7 more games for the winner there. We like national cups in soccer, so that's another tournament, say 5 more games for the best teams. Plus, the best part of soccer for me, the international club tournaments, which would add around 10 more games for our best clubs. By my horribly Michigan educated count that puts the best clubs in MLS playing over 70 games. That's just too many games in a season. So we'd have to cut something, or make the squads massive. Cut the USOC and the Continental stuff, and we're still talking over 60 games. That's way more than most clubs in the world play in a season.

Not to say a league that size couldn't be formatted in a manner that might work. Use the American model of two conferences of 15, play each of your conference teams twice and then the other conference just once, alternating home and away annually. That might work. Cut's out fifteen games.

I just don't see it working. Even in a sport that's tremendously popular here, basketball, we have trouble populating a league with talent that's capable of creating a watchable product for 30 teams. The quality players are spread too thin in basketball, and that's a game where only 5 people are on the court at a time, now imagine 11.

I guess what I mean to say is that more =/= better in my mind. It's a fun discussion though.

ps. coys