Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

Could the Vikings be forced to stay another year?

Posted on: November 4, 2011 10:18 pm
 
Minnesota's lease with the Metrodome is supposed to end after this season (US Presswire).

Posted by Josh Katzowitz

The Minnesota Vikings clearly want to get the heck out of the Metrodome. Their lease with the 29-year-old building expires at the end of this season, and considering the roof caved in (!) last year, you could understand why the franchise would be happy never to play there again after 2011.

But the Minneapolis Star Tribune has some bad news. The Vikings might have to play in the dome for another season, because of a clause in their lease with the Metrodome.

The Vikings and L.A.
According to the paper, the clause in the lease contends that if the Vikings have to play home games at a different venue -- say, for instance, because the roof caves in -- the team has to stay in the lease for an additional season. The organization disagrees, and it appears that the two sides might have to fight it out in court, which then could stall momentum for a new stadium in the Minneapolis area.

"It is not in the state's or anyone's best interest to look for any reason to further delay a stadium solution," team vice president Lester Bagley said.

The truth is, though, the stadium solution has stagnated, because the team could wind up $350 million short to build a new stadium in Arden Hills and because that potential stadium wouldn’t be started or completed any time soon.

That discomfort caused the Vikings to release a statement on Wednesday, saying, they “are concerned about the turn of events surrounding a stadium solution in Minnesota. While we have been encouraged by the efforts of Governor Dayton and the four caucus leaders to seriously discuss this issue, these recent developments are very disappointing. The Vikings stadium issue has been heavily debated in the public for over 10 years. With less than 90 days left on the team’s lease, the urgency to act is on us.”

More from the paper on what this clause means:
The commission's 1979 lease agreement between the Vikings and the commission requires the team to play at the Metrodome for 30 years. A clause buried deep in the agreement specifies that if the Metrodome is damaged and the team is forced to play elsewhere for even part of a season, they are obligated to play an additional full season at the Dome.

Called the Force Majeure clause, it states in part that: "For each football season, or part of football season, while this Agreement is suspended, the term of this Agreement ... shall be extended by one football season."

Force majeure translates from French as a superior force. In U.S. legal parlance, it means an unavoidable circumstance or accident.

Whether a court finds that the two home games the Vikings had to play elsewhere -- one at the University of Minnesota’s stadium and one in Detroit -- constitutes that the team must stay another season could be the deciding factor. But either way, the city, state and team need to figure out how to get a new stadium built.

Otherwise, those smoggy lights of Los Angeles will continue to look mighty appealing.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnNFL on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Comments

Since: Aug 11, 2008
Posted on: November 5, 2011 11:19 am
 

Could the Vikings be forced to stay another year?

Will they be called the Los Angeles Vikings, the Los Angeles Zygi's or buy the Rams name from St Louis and be called the Los Angeles Rams?



Since: Nov 8, 2010
Posted on: November 5, 2011 8:59 am
 

Could the Vikings be forced to stay another year?

READ MY VIRTUAL LIPS...  there is virtually NO CHANCE the Vikings leave the upper midwest.  
All of these political machinations aside, the Vikings A) are the most popular sports franchise in Minny,
and B) the NFL does NOT want this franchise moving ANYWHERE.  Zygmunt and Co. must  understand that there are 
31 other owners in the league that would have to give permission for a move, and those owners aren't hip to leaving
the USA'S 14th-largest television market without a team, especially when said team is a REGIONAL MONSTER for television.  
The Wilf's would have to sell the club before they'd be allowed to move to L.A.  It's not like there's an indifference towards
building a stadium, or that the Vikings lack political support.  It just takes time to get all these Norskies to agree on 
the proper site & funding mechanisms...just ask the Twins.  Then, ask the Twins if it was worth the wait.

 



Since: Jul 17, 2008
Posted on: November 5, 2011 8:28 am
 

Could the Vikings be forced to stay another year?

Just heard.....owners of all NFL teams are forgiving this years tax breaks at .01%. Ok now Ziggy.....if he throws in all of his extended tax breaks from all of his multiple companies, he should have plenty of the 350 million he needs to build (HIS) stadium. Oh yah...what a stupid lease agreement between the vikings and the commision. This is buloney too..in 1979 this wasn't even Zygi's team. So its a non issue. An agreement that will be void. And bty....nothing is appealing in L.A. The fan base that the vikings have will not follow the team. And that is not good for the NFL. More importantly it hurts Minnesota and its people who already have supported this team for 4 decades. And again this about greed. Nothing more.



Since: May 30, 2007
Posted on: November 5, 2011 5:54 am
 

Could the Vikings be forced to stay another year?

I don't see any way the Vikings don't follow the Lakers to Los Angeles, probably switching divisions with the ex-LA now St. Louis Rams in the process.



Since: Sep 20, 2006
Posted on: November 5, 2011 12:05 am
 

Could the Vikings be forced to stay another year?

LA where shitty teams go to die.....and then move again



Since: Aug 18, 2006
Posted on: November 4, 2011 11:05 pm
 

Could the Vikings be forced to stay another year?

The building was the reason! WOW! I would tell the city FU we are going to LA. LA VIKINGSMoney mouth!!!!


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com