Minnesota United are in advanced talks to play games at US Bank Stadium; Vikings are PISSED

BossNYC

Registered
Apr 10, 2014
490
457
63
33
Minneapolis
Vikings threaten lawsuit over possible Minnesota United soccer games at U.S. Bank Stadium

United owners and the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority have been in discussions about an exhibition game — and perhaps more — at the stadium.
— Brian Peterson, Star Tribune

By Rochelle Olson , Star Tribune
December 03, 2016 - 7:25 AM

A Minnesota United spokesman, however, indicated the talks went well beyond a single exhibition game and included the possibility of home games at the stadium.

While U.S. Bank Stadium was under construction, Vikings owners Mark and Zygi Wilf tried to lure an MLS expansion franchise into the building. But the Wilfs lost out to a rival group led by former UnitedHealth executive Bill McGuire, Twins owners Bob and Jim Pohlad, Wendy Carlson Nelson, who is on the board of the Carlson Cos. and Glen Taylor, who owns the Minnesota Timberwolves, the Star Tribune and other businesses.

In 2015, when MLS Commissioner Don Garber announced the decision to go with the McGuire group, he praised their plan for a “downtown, outdoor, soccer-specific stadium, 20,000 seats, playing on grass.” In other words, the MLS didn’t want to play in the Vikings’ 66,000-plus seat football emporium with a giant roof and synthetic grass.

In August, the St. Paul City Council approved a plan to build a $150 million, 20,000-seat soccer stadium in the Midway area of St. Paul, although construction hasn’t begun. The Minnesota United is set to play 2017 and part of 2018 at TCF Bank Stadium at the University of Minnesota.

About six weeks ago, McGuire contacted Kelm-Helgen, according to United spokesman Eric Durkee.

McGuire asked “in general about opportunities to play home games in U.S. Bank Stadium. There has been no discussion of specific dates or whether we would host MLS game or friendlies,” Durkee said, adding that the United was interested in general availability, price and field alignment.

“It’s certainly possible that we’d look at playing games at U.S. Bank Stadium whether due to snow or wanting to be able to draw a larger crowd for big games,” Durkee said.

To Durkee’s knowledge, United has not received a definite response from anyone at this point.

Lawyers for the MSFA and the Vikings have exchanged sharp letters. The Vikings have threatened to sue to enforce what they believe are their rights in the use agreement.

Kelm-Helgen said the terms of a soccer game have not been finalized, but the MSFA has the full legal right to host an exhibition game without consent from the Vikings.

In a letter Wednesday to Vikings counsel Karin Nelsen, MSFA attorney Jay Lindgren said the stadium use agreement doesn’t prevent an exhibition match. He also dismissed the Vikings’ “threats of litigation,” saying the team has no legal basis to stop it.

But Bagley said that up until recent weeks, the Vikings and the MSFA agreed on the soccer policy. “They knew what the language intended,” he said of the legislation and the use agreement. “We were surprised when they interpreted [it] differently. We’ve been good partners.”

It’s unclear how the disagreement will be resolved.

Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Vernon Center, was the author of the stadium bill and said the legislation is “absolutely clear” that the Vikings have an exclusive right to bring in an MLS team to U.S. Bank Stadium in any scenario.

Kelm-Helgen said, “The Vikings have clearly not established an MLS team at the Stadium, but they still have the legal right to attempt to do so. ... We’re just doing our job of bringing high-quality events to the stadium.”
 
Minneapolis

Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Vernon Center, was the author of the stadium bill and said the legislation is “absolutely clear” that the Vikings have an exclusive right to bring in an MLS team to U.S. Bank Stadium in any scenario.
And this is why people question politicians. Why in the hell is there even legislation regarding this?

And please, no one actually attempt to answer the question. It is rhetorical.
 
Last edited:
And this is why people question politicians. Why in the hell is their even legislation regarding this?

And please, no one actually attempt to answer the question. It is rhetorical.
I'm not sure I understand.

I read that the Vikings put up $600+ million for the stadium's construction. If that's one of the rights they secured with the city in the agreement, I see no problem with it if the agreement also essentially turns over the rest of the control of the stadium to the City.

I have no doubt though that the language makes it clear that a permenant tenant soccer club can only be from their ownership for the first 5 years. I think the Vikings are screwed if they try to litigate it because I'm sure they played no part in signing off the big European soccer clubs that have already played there so there's a certain precedence for this.
 
I'm not sure I understand.


I have no doubt though that the language makes it clear that a permenant tenant soccer club can only be from their ownership for the first 5 years. I think the Vikings are screwed if they try to litigate it because I'm sure they played no part in signing off the big European soccer clubs that have already played there so there's a certain precedence for this.

this was the feeling as well i read in reddit, since there was precedent to it and since MUFC is not claiming it to be a home venue just an exhibition or maybe a "big game" MLS regular season venue. if they play 2 or 3 games there then they may no win it.
 
They could have gone with where the Golden Gophers play.

A lot less hassle too.
They are playing there.

But you have this massive, space age beauty sitting next door. Why not play some games there, too?

If they reach MLS Cup, they better play at US Bank stadium.