New Stadium?

Discussion in 'Minnesota United FC' started by Goforthekill, Nov 27, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JamieMCFC

    JamieMCFC Member

    Jan 26, 2006
    Minnesota United FC
    Club:
    Manchester City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I could never support a MLS team owned by the Wilf's or even associated with the Vikings. I would support Chivas before I support Wario FC.
     
  2. AirbornePhoto

    AirbornePhoto Member

    Jul 30, 2014
    Club:
    Borussia Mönchengladbach
    I figured he'd be out for a little while longer, but dang, that sucks.
     
  3. bullsear

    bullsear Member

    Feb 17, 2009
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    This is pretty much exactly how I feel.

    It just makes zero sense to think about piggybacking off of the Vikings. Why is there any benefit to courting Vikings fans? Most football fans do not and do not want to watch soccer. ANY Minnesota MLS team should want its fans to be fans 0f that team and its identity -- not some other team.
     
  4. soccermilitant

    soccermilitant Member+

    Jan 14, 2009
    St.paul
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    but the cheapskates pohlads are much better?
     
  5. 4four4

    4four4 Member+

    Nov 13, 2013
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Well currently the Twins have zero ownership in United FC.
     
  6. bullsear

    bullsear Member

    Feb 17, 2009
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Yes. Unequivocally yes.

    The cheapskate, awful Pohlads + Dr. Bill McGuire > the incompetent Wilfs in a cavernous stadium.

    It's important to remember that the Pohlads may control a large part of the pocketbook, but the people who run United have made a name for themselves by running soccer the right way -- and making the most out of a shoestring budget (until very recently).

    I would rather Minnesota not have an MLS team than have a purple and gold stepchild that plays in a stadium that's bad for soccer.

    I've lived in Boston. I've seen what happens when you're piggybacking off an NFL team. It ain't pretty.
     
    xbhaskarx repped this.
  7. MN Timberjack

    MN Timberjack New Member

    Mar 5, 2012
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The Vikings were trying to buy our love at the Nomad yesterday day with free Surly Furious and Pasties.
     
  8. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well Seattle changed this view. Not saying MIN would be another Seattle, but that would be the goal.

    I still think the viking talk about MLS was more to do with getting the maximum amount of tax dollars as possible. Not really much of basis on actually owning a team.
     
  9. bullsear

    bullsear Member

    Feb 17, 2009
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    An idea that is further supported by the fact that the initial plans for the stadium the Wilfs commissioned could not possibly have accommodated a regulation soccer pitch. They've since supposedly gone back and figured out a workaround that looks like it will give them literally the smallest pitch the USSF would sanction, but even then, it's not a venue designed for soccer.
     
  10. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And still no plans on the retractable roof right?
     
  11. MN Timberjack

    MN Timberjack New Member

    Mar 5, 2012
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That ship has long since sailed.
     
  12. bullsear

    bullsear Member

    Feb 17, 2009
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    There never were any. They added a sliding "window feature" from the main concourse to appease the taxpayers they screwed.
     
  13. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ah the old reach around.
     
  14. 4four4

    4four4 Member+

    Nov 13, 2013
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Well we can only hope United can figure out a way to get this done or the Wilfs have a franchise in the new stadium.
     
  15. bullsear

    bullsear Member

    Feb 17, 2009
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    4four4 repped this.
  16. JamieMCFC

    JamieMCFC Member

    Jan 26, 2006
    Minnesota United FC
    Club:
    Manchester City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is exactly why I couldn't be a fan of this team. I am a die hard Chicago Bears fan and couldn't bring myself to support an MLS Vikings team.
     
  17. 4four4

    4four4 Member+

    Nov 13, 2013
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Really?

    I see your point but really?

    I have to say that's some dedication.

    You have my respect.
     
  18. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well good thing he/she is not also a white sox fan.
     
  19. PTFCfan

    PTFCfan Member

    Mar 25, 2014
    Portland, OR, USA
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I want to know from a Minnesotan POV where do you want the stadium, any Minnesotans want to give their opinion?
     
  20. NORML

    NORML Member+

    Aug 9, 2002
    Lake Wobegon, MN
    Club:
    NSC Minnesota Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Farmers Market location, perfect spot for all the rail lines.
     
    xbhaskarx repped this.
  21. 4four4

    4four4 Member+

    Nov 13, 2013
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Farmers Market is the best location.
     
  22. bullsear

    bullsear Member

    Feb 17, 2009
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Doesn't seem particularly dedicated to me -- that's just fandom, and it's a perfect illustration of my point. If people are Vikings fans, they're still going to be Vikings fans first and fans of the stepchild club second; if they're Bears fans, though, or Packers fans, or some other type of fans, they're still going to hate the stepchild club. The Pohlads being involved doesn't have the same sort of truck because the team wouldn't share branding or a stadium.

    Several of my friends who are die-hard Yankee fans and die-hard Liverpool FC had a minor conniption when Fenway Sports bought Liverpool. They seriously questioned whether they could keep supporting the club (much the same way I've questioned continuing to support Newcastle since the Wonga sponsorship). But in the end they decided that it wasn't the ownership but the team they were cheering for.

    But a Wilf-owned club wouldn't get that same benefit: it would have no history but NFL history to bank on, and any branding it would share would work against it on multiple fronts (as branding has in New England). If United were the team, however, most United fans would remain be United fans, despite what they think of the Pohlads.

    It makes sense, when you think about it, too. We care about the team we care about, and there's no reason for us to care about a team that at this point is nothing more than an empty promise.
     
    4four4 repped this.
  23. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I just love the "This corporate entity I'm fine with; that one that is pretty much the same as this one except for some ephemeral tribal bullshit, I have a real problem with that" stuff.
     
  24. bullsear

    bullsear Member

    Feb 17, 2009
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Easy to say when you know next to nothing about the context.

    Do the Pohlads suck? Yes, the Pohlads suck. They left the taxpayers on the hook for a large chunk of their stadium, and they refuse to invest in their own product. It makes them more money that way.

    But the Wilfs have be indicted and found guilty of real estate and tax fraud. They held their own team hostage by threatening to move unless the taxpayers bought into their stadium plan for a half billion dollars, and then when they got it, they still didn't design it for mixed use (as they were legally obligated to). On top of that, they've historically mismanaged the one team they already own.

    The point is not simply "one corporate entity vs. another corporate entity." If the Pohlads buy in with Dr. McGuire, then the team will retain its identity and branding, in addition to playing in a stadium meant for soccer, under the leadership of people who know how to run a soccer team (and have proven it). If the Wilfs get a team, it's square one in a cavernous stadium, probably with NFL related branding.

    Call it ephemeral tribal bullshit all you want, but there's a clear and logical case to be made for which of these two corporate entities has the best likelihood of running a team that can be successful on and off the field.
     
    Bluesfan, 4four4 and davidrpaige repped this.

Share This Page