Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
LMITOUT

Favre = Zygi selling Vikes?

20 posts in this topic

Could the Vikings’ decision to acquire quarterback Brett Favre mean that the team is for sale? At least one sports money expert thinks so.

Mike Ozanian of Forbes.com believes that the arrival of Favre means that Zygi Wilf wants to unload the franchise.

The organization has been a laughingstock for the NFL and Wilf desperately wants to create some positive buzz for his team,” Ozanian writes. “The Vikings play in the antiquated Metrodome and Wilf’s gamble was that he would get taxpayers to build him a new stadium. Taxpayers repeatedly said no way.”

Ozanian thinks that Wilf has waited to long.

“He could have gotten around $850 million for the team a year ago,” Ozanian opines. “But with at least seven NFL team owners looking to sell their teams right now Wilf will be lucky to get $750 million for his debt laden team. Let the laughing continue.

We’re not ready to agree with the notion that Favre’s presence will result in the placement of a “For Sale” sign at team headquarters. If Favre were a decade or so younger, having him under contract over a period of several years might make the team more attractive to a potential buyer.

But this move — even though Favre’s contract might have a two-year duration for cap purposes — is most likely a one-season arrangement. Whoever buys the team wouldn’t have Favre on it.

So we think Favre’s arrival arises from the reality that coach Brad Childress is on the hot seat, and that Favre gives Childress a better chance to remain employed into 2010.

That said, there’s a chance that Wilf has agreed to pay Favre because Wilf has decided to load up the cannon and aim for a league title in 2009. Then, he can try to leverage the success into a new stadium, and he can sell the team if it doesn’t happen.

Still, while winning a championship would definitely create some positive buzz, the Vikings seem to be on the short list of favorites to play in the Super Bowl every three or four years — and when they are they consistently underachieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you write that? crazy

That sounds pretty out there if you ask me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be shocked if Zigy would try to sell the Vikes at this time. After a couple good seasons, then maybe. I do believe the Vikes will have a new stadium in 3 years.

I also believe that in a few years, he could get the money he wants for a huge profit. At this time, maybe not.

Now, I have been wrong before but I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Ziggy is a big real estate guy. With all of the loses in real estate these days I could see that as motivation to sell the team. I don't think adding Favre would have anything to do with selling the team. He would want the stadium sold out regardless of whether he is trying to sell or not. I hope he keeps the Vikings. He's willing to spend the $$ and take risks. There aren't any other pro franchises in town that do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these owners all fall into two categories. those that run the organization to win and those that run the organization to make money. only a few have figured out how to do both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have NFL mobile on my sprint phone and got the same update sent to me. Who knows? Probably someone feeding the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a Dude that writes for Forbes Magazine that wrote it. What would he know about football....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does not even make sense. Who would win a championship and just sell the team. If the Vikings win the big one this year that "antiquated" staduim will be stuffed to the gills for at least two more seasons, that equals BIG money two MR. Wilf.

What does Favres presence have to do with the marketability of the franchise? NOTHING. His salary will be paid for by all the sold out games this year, Minnesotans will want to watch this guy play, especially FOR Minnesota. Even if not to win a championship signing Favre is a great Business move, it will fill our "antiquated" stadium, and "drum up excitement."

I was not aware that Forbes had entered the tabloid market. Their sales must be down as of late, becuase that is a bunch of bull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First they are moving to LA, now they are going to be sold. Someone wake me when the season starts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy who wrote this, Michael K. Ozanian, is the laughingstock around anyone who covers sports.

Yawn....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have?

Next week after Favre is officially announced as a member of the team you'll see this in front of the Dome:

C21_Yard_Sign.jpg

grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it just seems fitting to me that a PACKER will lead the vikqueens to the promise land. "GO FARVE NATION"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhh....Farves not a packer. Used to be, but no more. deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it just seems fitting to me that a PACKER will lead the vikqueens to the promise land. "GO FARVE NATION"

You must of forgot, the cheese didn't want him anymore! So he is not a Cheesehead anymore. Anyways its good to let your feelings out, it helps with the grieving process!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that Zigy would sell the team for twice the money when they get a new stadium. Until then, no sale as the Farve is not a selling point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may inflate the price for a month or two but beyond that there is no way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the guy the packers didnt want around anymore?? LOL. Please, if Favre were to take the vikings to the superbowl the joke is on the packers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Meh. We were right there during the disintegration of Lebanon. It caused Reagan to cut and run.    We took out the leader of Iran and installed our own guy. That led to the revolution.    We taught the terrorists ( bin laden etc ) everything they knew when we fighting side by side with them against the Russian army in the 80's.    The common denominator seems to be us and just maybe we are reaping some of what we sewed. 
    • let me know what ya think. we also use this process with turtle!!!!!!!! but somehow moms turtle is always just a bit better!!!!
    •   Those folks in the Middle East got rich, starting in the 70's with the oil embargo and the take over of the oil companies in the Mid East.   The disintegration of Lebanon and the Iran revolution were steps in the progression of Radical Islam in the Middle East which, through modern media, has begun to spread world wide.     The middle east strain of radical Islam has evolved their tactics and adopted terrorism as a main line tactic in that period.    It is aggravated by the great division and conflict between Shia with Iran as their leader, and Sunni with the Saudis.     Throughout history Islam has gone expansionist and violent, either as a cause or an excuse.  Christianity did the same thing back in history, but it has been quite a while.    That's what happened.   At least that is the way I see it.      
    • He was confused. "Last night in Sweden" was probably a chickpea film he watched the other night at Mara Lago with the boys. 
    • And yet through the 60's,70's and 80's there was a broad wave of conversion to Islam because it was a religion of peace.  You didn't see Lou Alcindor, Cassius Clay, Mike Tyson (save the ear thing) Reggie Rutland and a host of other prominent athletes doing terrorist things or going on jihads.    So what exactly happened that over a decade a religion went from peaceful to radical and what's to say another one won't follow suit when history already shows it has in the past? 
    • the only way I was not happy with rabbit was when I smoked some.  did that with a "tree rat" and that I thought was good smoked.  enjoy your feast!!
    • How about supply and demand? People are coming here because there is a demand for them and in the free market that Goppers have been preaching for half a century at least the level of immigration will be determined by the need for them. Government should merely be responsible for providing the mechanism that they need to become citizens in a timely manner that satisfies the marketplace.     
    •   That is my concern regarding wild rabbit. I don't want to dry the hell out of them so grilling is out. Gonna try Smurfy's  recipe tonight. I haven't eaten  rabbit in ages but remember them being tasty.    Appreciate and thanks to all that responded
    • @Jim Uran they are coming out with bigger batteries. I am going to get the 6 amp batteries and you can get  a car charger to keep your batteries charged up. I am running 3 amp batteries but I have 3 of them
    •   That's what I thought. Thank you for being honest once.     How do you figure? The average minimum wage in Mexico is around $5.00 per day so my guess would be that anything above that would be prosperous to those people.     That's the cost of freedom, and it's not a tax. That sounds like fake news.     So, your above point is moot. Got it.     Who wants to increase immigration? Allowing immigrants to become legal through the political process and the law is the exact answer to the problem that I am proposing but you just won't see it because Trump told you you need a wall. Open your eyes.     You and I know that "stealing" from your fellow man is a completely different situation than the victim less crime of crossing a political border. You admitted you would do it too if you needed to. Needing a coat or a better car is the reason most cross the border in the first place. That argument doesn't apply unless you passed laws to make it impossible to get a car or a coat but that's not the case, is it? You're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those illegals you hate would never be able to enter at all or it would take many years, sometimes decades and the costs would be prohibitive. I don't condone the actions but they are living in poverty and I can see how you would take that chance in order to provide a better life for your family.     Now it's your turn.
  • Our Sponsors