I had a twitch of excitement over this

I've certainly admitted that I am a soccer fan, and am a little disappointed that there isn't an MLS franchise here in the Twin Cities. Granted, the Major League Soccer experience is significantly less than that of their counterparts overseas. The talent level is lower in the States, the international competition is non-existent and the entire nation doesn't get involved because there is no relegation, and no opportunity for smaller markets to get involved (never mind that soccer just isn't that popular in America, though it is getting there).
Still, the announcement that the new Vikings stadium in Minneapolis may lead to an MLS franchise here in the Twin Cities is one of the better side effects of the deal. Consider the positives for the region. There is no cost to the state or city for the team, as they would play at the new Vikings stadium. It would add another crowd to Minneapolis, and perhaps an additional source of tourism.
Yes, when talking about the positive impact of tourism a new stadium provides, any football based argument is BS. There is no value added, because it would not attract any new tourists. There would be a one time bump after the city gets the Super Bowl one time, but after that? Nothing. Soccer, on the other hand, actually has a chance to provide a bump to tourism. Nothing significant enough to build a new stadium over, mind you, but again, there wouldn't be anything invested in a soccer team by the state, as this stadium is being built with or without them.
With an MLS team, there would be exhibition matches, typically with foreign opponents. While Americans likely have their own opinions of the Twin Cities and Minnesota that a new stadium wouldn't change, there are a lot of Europeans that have never heard of Minneapolis. This is where a positive first impression could be made. Consider the inverse. Residents of England know Manchester to be a dirty industrial town, not much worth visiting. Soccer fans know it as a destination, thanks to their strong soccer clubs of United and City. Getting random foreign eyes on the Twin Cities would help raise the international profile of the city. Finally, a catch-free benefit to the new stadium.

The Vikings get their stadium

After about 28 years of clamoring for a new stadium, the Minnesota Vikings have finally got their wish, it seems. I have to say, of all the possible scenarios that have been bandied about, this is not the worst result. It isn't even in the bottom half.
First and foremost, the team needed a stadium to remain viable in the NFL. Their revenues were near the bottom of all teams in the NFL If you are one that believes hat an NFL team is an enormous boon to a city, then building a stadium for the Vikings is and has always been essential.
No matter what side of the debate you were on though, rational people likely saw the Vikings proposals for what they were A fleecing of the Minnesota taxpayers for Zygi Wilf's personal profit, without regard for the Vikings at all. He, Wilf, wanted a stadium by itself to encourage people to drive there, rather than taking mass transit, and to develop his own little Zygiville. This would be fine, but cleaning the superfund site and redeveloping all the necessary infrastructure would add so much burden to the state without any tangible benefits, that it should never have been a viable option.
So the idea of building the stadium downtown, in my opinion, is the best result. The structure itself is less expensive, and there is less infrastructure that needs to be updated. The train runs right by the stadium, the team stays in the same neighborhood and any benefit is strictly for the Vikings and their fans, not for the sleazy owner who has held the town hostage for several years. There is no massive parking extortion, and the there won't bee an entire tract of terrible, Wilf run stores.
So congratulations, Vikings, fans. You look like you will be getting your new stadium, and it is less painful for people like me.

To reiterate... the Vikings do not have your best interests in mind

The Vikings have been unilaterally opposed to any plan for a new stadium that won't be built in Arden Hills on the site that they have picked out. The city of Minneapolis, the state, pretty much anyone with a brain has had other solutions that would be better for the state and for fans, only to have them shot down by the Vikings. Let's pretend for a moment that the stadium IS an important priority for the state and the Twin Cities and the economy of the region. Building the stadium in Arden Hills for a billion dollars is the worst possible solution for fans.
Here are some pros and cons for the Arden Hills site as they compare to building the stadium downtown for the average Vikings fan, and why some of those cons are unspoken pros for the Vikings.
Pros
- I have racked my brain, and I cannot think of a one.
Cons
- Site is a superfund site and will cost additional millions to clean up. I bet the Vikings don't kick in any money
- There is nothing around. The proposition is for the real estate magnate, Zygi Wilf to develop the region around it, reaping an exorbitant profit on that, as well as the stadium.
- Inconvenient. There aren't any major highways or railways near the site, like their are with the Metrodome site or anywhere else downtown. This is important for the Vikings, because it will mean more revenue on their parking lots since people have to drive and park somewhere. You had better believe there will be 20 dollar a spot parking, and that profit won't go back to the state.
- The expense of building this stadium, according to their plans, is exorbitant. They want us to spend 900 million dollars on a new stadium (before the cost of cleaning up the site and having to rebuild roads across the region) when there are sites that will cost taxpayers significantly less and will, for our purposes, be just as good.

So whether or not you think a Vikings stadium is important, I want you all to realize that what the Vikings are doing isn't in the interest of finding a solution. It's extortion, plain and simple.

The best anti-stadium summary I have read

I don't like to get into politics too often here, but this relates to the issue of the Vikings stadium. Last week, the Star Tribune ran a point/counterpoint feature in their opinion section on whether or not to provide public financing for a stadium:
You can read it here.
Now, I would like to see a stadium built for the Vikings as much as I joke. Things like stadiums or museums are points of civic pride for the towns they are built in, but they are luxuries, not  necessities as Mike Meyers, the author of the piece points out. I mostly agree with Meyers' points, but there are a few points to make.
In better times, I am totally OK with public funds going to stadiums, so long as the governing body has the authority to use the stadium for their own uses (like high school sports, conventions or what have you) in the future. Target Field has hosted U of M games and construction was begun at the peak of an economic boom. TCF Banks stadium was built for a government institution and has proven to be good for the U's bottom line.
Mostly, though, a stadium is just there for civic pride. That's the benefit to the city as a whole. In times such as these, the people that benefit from the stadium financially should be the ones that finance the stadium.