PDA

View Full Version : Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings



singersp
01-16-2011, 06:15 PM
Patrick Reusse: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings


http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/113825129.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUoD3aPc:_27EQU

Minniman
01-16-2011, 08:49 PM
Last week, Lester Bagley -- charge d'threats for Red McCombs and now Zygmunt Wilf -- repeated what has become the Big Lie:

A domed stadium offers no benefit to the Vikings, so they will duplicate the Twins' deal and cap the team's cost at one-third of an outdoor stadium.

Come on, Zygmunt: I know you New Jersey guys are lot sharper than us, but we aren't complete, drooling idiots out here on the frozen prairie.
Why is Lester Bagley still getting paid to do this? He is a failure.

No one I know in the legislature likes him or trusts him. Dealing with him is like eating a pie that someone accidentally put in a quarter cup of salt rather than sugar.

A stadium without a roof? That dog just ain't gonna hunt.

Purple Floyd
01-16-2011, 11:22 PM
The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

slavinator
01-17-2011, 08:33 PM
I read the article this weekend and waited to post on it. To me this seems like a subversive article. IT has always been bandied about that the Vikes want an open air stadium as it does give us a marked advantage late in the year. The state wants an all year stadium and deservedly so. While these points need to be made in an editorial article, I just think everyone could be doing more to make this work. Put an a small hole in the roof with a retractable roof on it a la Dallas, AZ.....

Or fix the roof on the dome and keep it as the year round option and then construct an open air football only stadium on a different site. I dont have all the answers nor do I pretend to. All I am saying is present some options and get this moving forward.

This just seems like de ja vu all over again. I can only say I hope that they can figure it out and get r done or we will be watching our next pro team relocate like the Lakers, and Stars before them.

Caine
01-17-2011, 09:15 PM
I read the article this weekend and waited to post on it. To me this seems like a subversive article. IT has always been bandied about that the Vikes want an open air stadium as it does give us a marked advantage late in the year. The state wants an all year stadium and deservedly so. While these points need to be made in an editorial article, I just think everyone could be doing more to make this work. Put an a small hole in the roof with a retractable roof on it a la Dallas, AZ.....

Or fix the roof on the dome and keep it as the year round option and then construct an open air football only stadium on a different site. I dont have all the answers nor do I pretend to. All I am saying is present some options and get this moving forward.

This just seems like de ja vu all over again. I can only say I hope that they can figure it out and get r done or we will be watching our next pro team relocate like the Lakers, and Stars before them.

I agree that Reusse comes off as very condescending...and, to me, it appears that he misses some pretty obvious points.

He states in his article that the Vikings really DO want a roof, but don't want to pay for it?

Why would they?

The Vikings used to be an outdoor team full of hard nosed players who could eat concertina wire and piss napalm (Thank, Clint, for that quote). If it snowed, the Vikes won. If it was cold, the Vikes won.

Then they moved "indoors", and that edge was lost.

I know the arguments about fans not wanting to freeze their assess off, and I agree to a point, but Ruesse is WAAAAY off base if he thinks that the Vikes need a roof. They don't. In fact, I am one of those who wish they'd get rid of it.

Fact is, this isn't the first venom laden diatribe that Ruesse has published lately. Whatever his axe to grind, he's certainly grinding it hard...but he's missing a lot of facts while doing so - or rather he's simply ignoring them to make his points seem valid.

Caine

NodakPaul
01-17-2011, 09:33 PM
Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

JMHO

jmcdon00
01-17-2011, 10:39 PM
Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/1 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

JMHO
Fixed it for ya.
Just kidding 1/2 seems fair.
In the end I think the Vikings know that getting the state to pay 600million or 400million doesn't make much difference in the eyes of the taxpayer. Most taxpayers will either be for it or against it on principal alone, the dollars don't make much difference.
Of course to the Vikings that's a huge difference.

jmcdon00
01-17-2011, 11:48 PM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

marshallvike
01-18-2011, 12:01 AM
Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

JMHO

if you are including the early 60's, the Vikings formative years, after being given a franchise, the winning percentage will be skewed a bit.

NodakPaul
01-18-2011, 12:08 AM
Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/1 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

JMHO
Fixed it for ya.
Just kidding 1/2 seems fair.
In the end I think the Vikings know that getting the state to pay 600million or 400million doesn't make much difference in the eyes of the taxpayer. Most taxpayers will either be for it or against it on principal alone, the dollars don't make much difference.
Of course to the Vikings that's a huge difference.

lol. Nice. :)

I wouldnt be opposed to 1/2, but then again, I am not the Vikings ownership group. In a small market franchise with a negative revenue stream without revenue sharing, I honestly don't know if the team could afford 1/2. Jets, Giants, Eagles, Dallas - these are all large market teams and had a significant non-sharing revenue BEFORE the new stadium was built, so they could afford a larger chuck of the pie. The best comparison is AZ, which is a similar market size to the Twin Cities.

It sucks to say, but the large markets could actually absorb more of a tax total because of larger populations, yet these are the ones where the team itself was already doing pretty good in terms or revenue.

NodakPaul
01-18-2011, 12:17 AM
Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

JMHO

if you are including the early 60's, the Vikings formative years, after being given a franchise, the winning percentage will be skewed a bit.

Yes, I included all of the games, including the formative ones from the 60's. I did not pick and choose any seasons - I included them all.

There WAS a sharp decline in performance almost immediately after the Vikings moved indoors. However, there are some other things that had a pretty significant impact on the team - more so than the venue IMHO.

Two seasons shortened by labor dispute, the retirement of Bud Grant, Free Agency...

These things actually contributed more to the decline in the team's performance than anything else. Especially the retirement of Grant and hte introduction of FA. If it truely was the venue that hurt the team, then we wouldn't ahve seen the winning percentage rebound in the dome to pretty much the same state that it was in the Old Met.

To claim that the outdoor stadium played as big of a role as some would suggest is lessing the contributions that some amazing players and coaches made for this team in teh 1970's.

Purple Floyd
01-18-2011, 12:56 AM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums;)

Purple Floyd
01-18-2011, 12:59 AM
Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

JMHO

if you are including the early 60's, the Vikings formative years, after being given a franchise, the winning percentage will be skewed a bit.

Yes, I included all of the games, including the formative ones from the 60's. I did not pick and choose any seasons - I included them all.

There WAS a sharp decline in performance almost immediately after the Vikings moved indoors. However, there are some other things that had a pretty significant impact on the team - more so than the venue IMHO.

Two seasons shortened by labor dispute, the retirement of Bud Grant, Free Agency...

These things actually contributed more to the decline in the team's performance than anything else. Especially the retirement of Grant and hte introduction of FA. If it truely was the venue that hurt the team, then we wouldn't ahve seen the winning percentage rebound in the dome to pretty much the same state that it was in the Old Met.

To claim that the outdoor stadium played as big of a role as some would suggest is lessing the contributions that some amazing players and coaches made for this team in teh 1970's.

Yeah, And in the old Stadium they only got to 4 Super Bowls but since they moved inside they have been so many more.

ooooooops, I guess not.

Caine
01-18-2011, 01:14 AM
Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

JMHO

Bear in mind that those statistics will be tainted somewhat by the fact that the Vikings entered the League in 61, and went through the initial "suck" phase outdoors.

And, as Purple Floyd pointed out, it's also true that the Vikings went to four Superbowls while playing outdoors, and none after moving indoors.

And while it MAY have nothing to do with the venue, it still remains true that the Vikings don't NEED a roof...which was my point. For Reusse to imply that they're simply trying to dodge paying for one is complete horseshit...

...but then, that describes a lot of his articles of late, doesn't it?

Caine

NodakPaul
01-18-2011, 04:32 AM
Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

JMHO

Bear in mind that those statistics will be tainted somewhat by the fact that the Vikings entered the League in 61, and went through the initial "suck" phase outdoors.

And, as Purple Floyd pointed out, it's also true that the Vikings went to four Superbowls while playing outdoors, and none after moving indoors.

And while it MAY have nothing to do with the venue, it still remains true that the Vikings don't NEED a roof...which was my point. For Reusse to imply that they're simply trying to dodge paying for one is complete horseshit...

...but then, that describes a lot of his articles of late, doesn't it?

Caine

I agree that the Vikings don't NEED a roof. I honestly don't think that a roof would make a difference one way or another for the quality of the team. I want a roof because outdoor stadiums in Minnesota are horrible for the fans. Even in the 70's when the Vikes were super bowl favorites, they had a hard time selling out the much smaller Met in December.

And I agree - Reusse's article, like usual, is shit.

V4L
01-18-2011, 04:50 AM
I think if we had Bud Grant.. PPE's.. Fran.. Etc in the dome we would have same success

I don't think it helps us as much as others do

And like many pointed out a room is benefit for FANS.. Mostly...

I can't say one way or another if we would or ever will be good again outdoors.. We've sucked outdoors for years

Minniman
01-18-2011, 08:16 AM
Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

JMHO
Bear in mind that those statistics will be tainted somewhat by the fact that the Vikings entered the League in 61, and went through the initial "suck" phase outdoors.

And, as Purple Floyd pointed out, it's also true that the Vikings went to four Superbowls while playing outdoors, and none after moving indoors.

And while it MAY have nothing to do with the venue, it still remains true that the Vikings don't NEED a roof...which was my point. For Reusse to imply that they're simply trying to dodge paying for one is complete horseshit...

...but then, that describes a lot of his articles of late, doesn't it?
I agree that the Vikings don't NEED a roof. I honestly don't think that a roof would make a difference one way or another for the quality of the team. I want a roof because outdoor stadiums in Minnesota are horrible for the fans. Even in the 70's when the Vikes were super bowl favorites, they had a hard time selling out the much smaller Met in December.

And I agree - Reusse's article, like usual, is shit.
Minnesota is the NFL's coldest market. Green Bay and Chicago have the advantage of having a water mass next to them. The east and west coastal teams are not even close.

Fans want an indoor venue in November and December, and so will quite a few free agents. The Vikings did not have modern free agency to deal with in the 1960's and 1970's, and the league did not have 32 teams either.

BloodyHorns82
01-18-2011, 05:04 PM
Minnesota is the NFL's coldest market. Green Bay and Chicago have the advantage of having a water mass next to them. The east and west coastal teams are not even close.



Gotta call B.S. on this.

Average December Temp:

Minneapolis: 19 degrees
Green Bay: 20 degrees

Chicago is a bit warmer at: 26.6 degrees

tastywaves
01-18-2011, 05:55 PM
Minnesota is the NFL's coldest market. Green Bay and Chicago have the advantage of having a water mass next to them. The east and west coastal teams are not even close.



Gotta call B.S. on this.

Average December Temp:

Minneapolis: 19 degrees
Green Bay: 20 degrees

Chicago is a bit warmer at: 26.6 degrees

Just did a comparison on weather.com of the two cities. They are pretty damned close. Green Bay is a couple degrees warmer on the high and low for the months of December and January and their precipitation is higher. Green Bay is a little cooler in the summer's than Mpls, no doubt partially due to the lake effect.

In western MN where I grew up it's 7-8 degrees colder in these months than GB.

jmcdon00
01-18-2011, 06:45 PM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums;)
To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

NodakPaul
01-18-2011, 07:51 PM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums;)
To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).

jmcdon00
01-18-2011, 08:41 PM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums;)
To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).
No it is a whole lot different. The lease payments are used to pay for the costs of owning and operating a stadium, no Vikings lease payments to the dome ever went back into the general fund or to pay off state bonds. The taxpayers share of the dome was paid for with higher taxes.
I don't think anyone wants the state to own a stadium. I'm sure Wilf can manage a large commercial property better than any state government(that's why he's a billionare and the state is insolvent).

tastywaves
01-18-2011, 11:52 PM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Not sure the Cowboys stadium info is correct. Here's what I had read on it:


Originally estimated to cost $650 million, the stadium's final construction cost was close to $1.3 billion, making it one of the most expensive sports venues ever built.

Jerry Jones and his family paid nearly $241 million of their own money toward the cost of the new stadium.

To assist them in paying the construction costs of the new stadium, Arlington voters approved an increase of the city's sales tax by 0.5 percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent.

The City of Arlington provided over $325 million (including interest) in bonds as funding.

Also, the NFL provided the Cowboys with an additional $150 million, as per their policy for giving teams a certain amount of money for stadium financing.

Dallas Cowboys New Stadium Facts (http://www.stadium-advisor.com/CowboysNewStadiumFacts.html)

This source must be right, the title says "Facts".

Minniman
01-19-2011, 06:40 AM
What's the B.S.? Minnesota, on average, is colder than Green Bay or Chicago during September through February.

Detroit and Cleveland are pretty cold too, but the Lions play in a dome, and the Browns do not have it as bad as either Minnesota or Green bay. The coastal teams like New England and New York are not even close.

The point is that Green Bay is considered the cold spot, while Minneapolis is not. People need to know that Minneapolis is colder than the coldest outdoor venue in the NFL before making a stadium choice.

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

61.0 48.7 32.5 18.7 13.1 20.1 Minneapolis

58.8 47.4 34.0 21.2 15.6 20.5 Green Bay

63.8 52.1 39.3 27.4 22.0 27.0 Chicago




Why do linemen insist of wearing short-sleeve jerseys when it's 20 degrees?

ESPN.com

This is all about image. Linemen want to prove their toughness to the players lining up across from them and there's no better way to do that than by baring the biceps in the middle of winter. Some teams, like the Kansas City Chiefs, even have a code among their blockers. The colder it gets, the less insulation they all have to wear.

However, this doesn't mean that everybody believes in this mentality.

"I personally don't agree with it," Chiefs (now Vikings) Pro Bowl defensive end Jared Allen said. "A lot of guys do it to show they're tough and they're unified but I look at it differently. I'd rather be warm and kick your ass all over the field. That's how I'll prove that I'm tougher than the other guy."

Allen, who grew up in Los Gatos, Calif., said he let some teammates talk him into going without sleeves in a loss to Oakland on Nov. 25. He's since vowed to never do it again because he was freezing when temperatures eventually dipped into the 20s (game-time temperature was 43).

"I definitely take a lot of crap for it," Allen said. "But I want to be comfortable so I can perform out there." -- Jeffri Chadiha

Freeze Frames: ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/news/story?id=3199028)

NodakPaul
01-19-2011, 10:58 PM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums;)
To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).
No it is a whole lot different. The lease payments are used to pay for the costs of owning and operating a stadium, no Vikings lease payments to the dome ever went back into the general fund or to pay off state bonds. The taxpayers share of the dome was paid for with higher taxes.
I don't think anyone wants the state to own a stadium. I'm sure Wilf can manage a large commercial property better than any state government(that's why he's a billionare and the state is insolvent).

I know the metrodome wasn't paid for like that, I was referring to Kraft and his tax repayment deal.

As far as the state owning the stadium, I think that is the general plan. I have not seen anything that indicates that the stadium would be owned and operated by the Vikings, but rather the state would own it and the Vikings would sign an extended lease (last I saw was 35 years).

Personally, I would LOVE to see the Vikings pay for 1/3 of the stadium cost upfront, with the rest paid for by a no-interest loan paid for by the state and repaid by the Vikings, with repayment scheduled for 30 years. The public would be on the hook for the interest on the loan (as well as opportunity cost of not investing the same money elsewhere), but the direct tax benefit would offset the interest (not the opportunity cost though). The Vikings would then own and operate the stadium. Hey, I would do the happy dance if the state would agree to that. I just don't see it happening.

Purple Floyd
01-20-2011, 03:11 AM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums;)
To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).
No it is a whole lot different. The lease payments are used to pay for the costs of owning and operating a stadium, no Vikings lease payments to the dome ever went back into the general fund or to pay off state bonds. The taxpayers share of the dome was paid for with higher taxes.
I don't think anyone wants the state to own a stadium. I'm sure Wilf can manage a large commercial property better than any state government(that's why he's a billionare and the state is insolvent).

I know the metrodome wasn't paid for like that, I was referring to Kraft and his tax repayment deal.

As far as the state owning the stadium, I think that is the general plan. I have not seen anything that indicates that the stadium would be owned and operated by the Vikings, but rather the state would own it and the Vikings would sign an extended lease (last I saw was 35 years).

Personally, I would LOVE to see the Vikings pay for 1/3 of the stadium cost upfront, with the rest paid for by a no-interest loan paid for by the state and repaid by the Vikings, with repayment scheduled for 30 years. The public would be on the hook for the interest on the loan (as well as opportunity cost of not investing the same money elsewhere), but the direct tax benefit would offset the interest (not the opportunity cost though). The Vikings would then own and operate the stadium. Hey, I would do the happy dance if the state would agree to that. I just don't see it happening.

I am not sure they would agree to it either but one thing I would put money on is that the team would be looking for a new stadium again long before the 30 year lease was up.They didn't even get 15 years into the last one and they were looking for something different.

Also, in regards to the financing percentage of Heinz Field, I get this-
The Steelers paid $123 million and $158 million was paid by the state, through parking and amusement/entertainment taxes, and the Regional Asset District. Not quite 83% according to those numbers.

Personally i would love to see the Vikings Build the stadium using PILOT money like the patriots did and to own it privately. Then they could build it to their specs and leave the state out of it.

One thing nobody seems to grasp is that every time the state gets involved, the cost increases by a significant amount that ends up offsetting any benefit of a state contribution.

NodakPaul
01-20-2011, 02:54 PM
I am not sure they would agree to it either but one thing I would put money on is that the team would be looking for a new stadium again long before the 30 year lease was up.They didn't even get 15 years into the last one and they were looking for something different.

Also, in regards to the financing percentage of Heinz Field, I get this-[quote]The Steelers paid $123 million and $158 million was paid by the state, through parking and amusement/entertainment taxes, and the Regional Asset District. Not quite 83% according to those numbers.

Personally i would love to see the Vikings Build the stadium using PILOT money like the patriots did and to own it privately. Then they could build it to their specs and leave the state out of it.

One thing nobody seems to grasp is that every time the state gets involved, the cost increases by a significant amount that ends up offsetting any benefit of a state contribution.

Yes, the team was looking for a new venue less than 20 years after moving into the dome. But a big reason for that is the metrodome was designed and built as cheap as absolutely possible. They used outdated designed (it was the very last inflatable roof stadium ever built for professional sports) and skimped on the options (toughs, limited concessions, narrow concourses). It was not designed to last more than 20 years, much less 20, and that was a mistake. There are a lot of older stadiums in the NFL, but not a single one that is less equipped to be the home to a NFL team than the metrodome is. Hopefully we don't make that same mistake again with the new stadium.

I agree that involving the state drives up the bill. But at the same time, we have to recognize the possibility that the Wilfs might not be finacially able to privately finance a new stadium, with or without PILOT funds. Just because he is rich doesn't mean he has unlimited resources.

singersp
01-20-2011, 03:25 PM
The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?

Caine
01-20-2011, 03:38 PM
The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?

I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

Caine

jmcdon00
01-20-2011, 05:12 PM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums;)
To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

It might also be worth looking into who owns the stadium, and how it was financed. For instance, Gillette was partially financed with tax money, and paid back by Kraft. Kraft owns the stadium outright, so the public tax base simply regained its initial investment. This isn't a whole lot different than keeping the stadium publically owned and the team under lease for 30 years. Granted, Kraft repaid the tax base fairly rapidly (less than 10 years).
No it is a whole lot different. The lease payments are used to pay for the costs of owning and operating a stadium, no Vikings lease payments to the dome ever went back into the general fund or to pay off state bonds. The taxpayers share of the dome was paid for with higher taxes.
I don't think anyone wants the state to own a stadium. I'm sure Wilf can manage a large commercial property better than any state government(that's why he's a billionare and the state is insolvent).

I know the metrodome wasn't paid for like that, I was referring to Kraft and his tax repayment deal.

As far as the state owning the stadium, I think that is the general plan. I have not seen anything that indicates that the stadium would be owned and operated by the Vikings, but rather the state would own it and the Vikings would sign an extended lease (last I saw was 35 years).

Personally, I would LOVE to see the Vikings pay for 1/3 of the stadium cost upfront, with the rest paid for by a no-interest loan paid for by the state and repaid by the Vikings, with repayment scheduled for 30 years. The public would be on the hook for the interest on the loan (as well as opportunity cost of not investing the same money elsewhere), but the direct tax benefit would offset the interest (not the opportunity cost though). The Vikings would then own and operate the stadium. Hey, I would do the happy dance if the state would agree to that. I just don't see it happening.
I think a plan where the state simply loaned the Vikings funds to build a stadium would be tremendously popular with voters. I don't think the Vikings would go for it though, if they did I'm guessing they would change there mind on the importance of a roof.

BloodyHorns82
01-20-2011, 05:55 PM
What's the B.S.? Minnesota, on average, is colder than Green Bay or Chicago during September through February.

Detroit and Cleveland are pretty cold too, but the Lions play in a dome, and the Browns do not have it as bad as either Minnesota or Green bay. The coastal teams like New England and New York are not even close.

The point is that Green Bay is considered the cold spot, while Minneapolis is not. People need to know that Minneapolis is colder than the coldest outdoor venue in the NFL before making a stadium choice.


Maybe I interpreted incorrectly but my understanding of the point was that Minneapolis is too cold to host an outdoor football venue. My point was that while technically colder than GB, it's basically the same temperature in the winter despite Green Bay being next to a large body of water.

Minneapolis is not too cold to host outdoor football. Some folks say we couldn't sell it out. Maybe this is true, but then again GB, Chicago, and Cleveland don't have any problems selling out.

Poor folks in GB and Chicago must not have any place to host indoor winter events like the Monster Truck Rally and baseball festivals, I mean with having an outdoor football stadium and whatnot. Surely there are no other indoor options.

I personally don't care one way or the other...both have advantages IMO, but some of the arguments for a roof seem pretty weak.

Purple Floyd
01-22-2011, 01:29 AM
What's the B.S.? Minnesota, on average, is colder than Green Bay or Chicago during September through February.

Detroit and Cleveland are pretty cold too, but the Lions play in a dome, and the Browns do not have it as bad as either Minnesota or Green bay. The coastal teams like New England and New York are not even close.

The point is that Green Bay is considered the cold spot, while Minneapolis is not. People need to know that Minneapolis is colder than the coldest outdoor venue in the NFL before making a stadium choice.


Maybe I interpreted incorrectly but my understanding of the point was that Minneapolis is too cold to host an outdoor football venue. My point was that while technically colder than GB, it's basically the same temperature in the winter despite Green Bay being next to a large body of water.

Minneapolis is not too cold to host outdoor football. Some folks say we couldn't sell it out. Maybe this is true, but then again GB, Chicago, and Cleveland don't have any problems selling out.

Poor folks in GB and Chicago must not have any place to host indoor winter events like the Monster Truck Rally and baseball festivals, I mean with having an outdoor football stadium and whatnot. Surely there are no other indoor options.

I personally don't care one way or the other...both have advantages IMO, but some of the arguments for a roof seem pretty weak.

Monster truck rally? Really, does anyone even go to these things any more? I thought they disappeared in the 90's. Certainly not enough of a draw to make the difference between having a roof on a stadium or not.

Minniman
01-22-2011, 02:51 AM
I would not like to watch a football game in this weather.

I can take snow and cold, and I have played in it, but this negative degree stuff sucks.

vikinggreg
01-22-2011, 03:25 PM
Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.

Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums;)
To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

I guess some other things to look at are Kraft owns a soocer team as well that uses his stadium, the NFL loaned him money to help build the stadium and when the Rolling Stones played at his stadium it would be money going his way, also the statium was open air and completed 9 years ago. (On a side note Kraft was going to move the team to Hartford)

I also wonder how much of the money listed to build stadiums by owners has come from the league itself out of the stadium development funds or loans and the other revenue generator the owners are now using............PSL's :pinch:

singersp
01-23-2011, 05:44 PM
The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?

I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

Caine

I am more pro retractable, than I am a domed stadium as you have the best of both worlds & it also would be favorable for events were pyrotechnics or ventilation of toxic fumes (e.g. monster trucks, etc.) is concerned.

bbqplatypus318
01-24-2011, 01:44 AM
The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?

I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

Caine

I more pro retractable, than I am a domed stadium as you have the best of both worlds & it also would be favorable for events were pyrotechnics or ventilation of toxic fumes (e.g. monster trucks, etc.) is concerned.

I am not. Either build it with a permanent roof or no roof at all (I honestly have no preference). A retractable roof adds an estimated $200 million to the cost. For what? Is it really worth $200 million to play eight to ten games a year outside?

You can't please everyone. Go with one or the other. There's a very good reason why neither the state nor the team is seriously considering a retractable roof.

Dibbzz
01-24-2011, 08:01 AM
I'm definitely not an expert when it comes to economics. However, to me it makes more since to have an indoor stadium (not even one with a retractable roof ala Lucas Oil Stadium) for pretty much all of the reasons posted previously. One thing to add that I don't think I've seen argued yet would be to host a Super Bowl. I mean, couldn't hosting the big game (in theory) be used to pay off a lot of the fees needed to fund the stadium? Again I'm no stadium or economics expert but I would think being able to have an indoor stadium, despite the fact that it'd be more expensive to build, would be better in the long run to host other sporting events that otherwise wouldn't be possible (or at least feasible).

I would personally would be a happy fan if we ended up getting something similar to what the Colts ultimately built. It has a fixed roof, isn't anything too elaborate like Cowboys Stadium, and it's going to keep the team around for the foreseeable future. Simple, yet effective is my logic. Oh, and they're also hosting Super Bowl XLVI next year.

singersp
01-24-2011, 12:50 PM
The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?

I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

Caine

I more pro retractable, than I am a domed stadium as you have the best of both worlds & it also would be favorable for events were pyrotechnics or ventilation of toxic fumes (e.g. monster trucks, etc.) is concerned.

I am not. Either build it with a permanent roof or no roof at all (I honestly have no preference). A retractable roof adds an estimated $200 million to the cost. For what? Is it really worth $200 million to play eight to ten games a year outside?

You can't please everyone. Go with one or the other. There's a very good reason why neither the state nor the team is seriously considering a retractable roof.

First off, it would be 8-10 games a year, every year. Secondly the stadium would be used for more than just football. Many other events could be scheduled there where the event may opt to have the roof open, but if rain or in-climate weather happens, the roof can be closed.

vikinggreg
01-24-2011, 04:16 PM
The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.

If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?

I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

Caine

I more pro retractable, than I am a domed stadium as you have the best of both worlds & it also would be favorable for events were pyrotechnics or ventilation of toxic fumes (e.g. monster trucks, etc.) is concerned.

I am not. Either build it with a permanent roof or no roof at all (I honestly have no preference). A retractable roof adds an estimated $200 million to the cost. For what? Is it really worth $200 million to play eight to ten games a year outside?

You can't please everyone. Go with one or the other. There's a very good reason why neither the state nor the team is seriously considering a retractable roof.

First off, it would be 8-10 games a year, every year. Secondly the stadium would be used for more than just football. Many other events could be scheduled there where the event may opt to have the roof open, but if rain or in-climate weather happens, the roof can be closed.

Yeah they could play baseball, soccer, basketball and football but soccer folded and Twins, Wolves and Gopher football all moved to their own venues; add to that the Wild also have a venue. The ole multi use dome lost most of its year round tenants and concerts and events now have other venues to look at to hold events whether its Xcel Energy Center, Target Field, Target Center or even TCF. I'm not so sure some boat/RV shows and monster trucks do much to pay the bills on power and heat during the off season if they had to pay the true costs and there are other options. It could have been an easier sell to have one big domed stadium with a movable roof and one hockey/basketball stadium for smaller events but that isn't the direction things went. The Twin cities has turned into the stadium cities and the budget and been spread out.