Posted on 02/13/2005 11:35:38 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
The Minnesota Vikings are on the verge of being sold in a deal that would transfer the franchise from Red McCombs to the NFL's first black owner, Arizona businessman Reggie Fowler, according to several media reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at sportsline.com ...
I'm surprised, I've never really followed 'nfl' news before, I never knew all the franchises were owned by nonblacks.
He must have had to overcome incredible racism in order to be able to buy a team. Move over, Jackie Robinson.
I guess I just don't get it. What difference does the color of the owner make? For that matter, what difference does color make in any given setting? Why does anyone ever make an issue of "color"?
It might have made a difference at one time, when there was real, open discrimination against people of color. But that, thanks to the essential goodness of the American people, is now a thing of the past. Nowadays, calling someone the "first black" anything, to my mind, is nothing less than a form of racial slur.
Wasn't Emmitt Smith also going to be a partial owner?
Good for Fowler. Then *he* can discipline Randy Moss.
His second order of business will be to make the team the Los Angeles Vikings.
RACIST NFL RESPONSIBLE FOR FRANCHISE FAILURE!!
if it means we here in MN .don't have to build another millionaire a stadium, fine by me.
I've seen Mr. Fowler many times over the years on the old Johnny Carson show and on David Letterman, showing those cute animals he brings in from his zoo, but he never looked all that black to me. Do you think maybe he's Irish and was just hoping no one would notice?
Methinks you've nailed it. Paying $25 million more than the competition without having the "build-me-a-new-stadium" string attached tells me that football in Minnesota is as dead as the NHL.
As a Packers fan, I only hope that the NFL finds a team to replace the Vikings in the NFC North (and please, not the Rams; the Pack plays as badly there as they do in the Rollerdome).
It is indeed interesting that Taylor was willing to buy the team and put up money for a new place to play and this new guy (Fowler) according to reports, is putting nothing towards a new place. That may mean they are moving. But I lived in Texas when Mcombs bought the team and Texas was sure that they were getting the Vikings at that time.
The New York Post today denounces a Moss-to-Jets trade rumor and I saw on TV that the Ravens (Billick) may swing a deal for him. As far as LA, it is all dependent on the stadium situation in Minnesota. The Vikings have a tremendous fan base and hopefully that will carry some weight.
I didn't hear that one but Fowler does have other investors so maybe it is accurate.
The Flagstaff Vikings? That's what I'm worried about.
In today's Boston Globe story, there is a mention of Los Angeles but Fowler is saying all the appropriate things right now about a long and happy future in Minnesota.
What's interesting is that many moons ago, back in the 1970's, the Baltimore Colts owner, Carroll Rosenblum, and the LA Rams owner, Rober Irsay, swapped teams, because the other NFL owners pressured them to, as Rosenblum was believed to be more stable in running what the league believed was it's most important franchise. Of course, Rosenblum drowned and his wife, Georgia Frontiere ended up with the Rams, who moved to St. Louis. Ever since then, the NFL has been desperate to get a franchise back there. However, there isn't THAT much fan interest, and no owners capable of making it work. If Fowler decides to take the Vikings to LA, he'll get a rubber stamp approval from the league faster than a J-Lo/Ben Affleck movie tanks at the box office.
The Professional Sports scene in MN looks bad and is fixing to get worse...
...or Mexico City 'Vikings'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.