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.
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.
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.
The Vikings were trying to buy our love at the Nomad yesterday day with free Surly Furious and Pasties.
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.
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.
There never were any. They added a sliding "window feature" from the main concourse to appease the taxpayers they screwed.
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.
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.
I want to know from a Minnesotan POV where do you want the stadium, any Minnesotans want to give their opinion?
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.
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.
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.