PDA

View Full Version : New crib. Roof or no roof? Vote...



Metrodump
11-02-2006, 08:28 PM
Most here know me as a supporta of da Vikes. No question abouts dat. Howeva, most also be knowin I am of da old school like back in da dayz when we played over at what now be da mall of America (metropolatin stadium) and da Bud grant dayz. (I liked Denny also btw)

Juzz curious to know what y'all be thinkin if you could have yo way wiff regards to a new stadium crib.

Cheeseheads be havin like 70,000 on da WAITING LIST. Why caint we have a line like dat? I say it iz in part cuz of the lack of a kickass outdoor venue.

Maybe I be supa stisious because we reached 4 super bowls when playin outdoors. None since playin in an NBA type venue.

Hypotheticaly speakin - Outdoor crib or indoor crib?

BadlandsVikings
11-02-2006, 08:33 PM
anything, just as long as the team stays.
I wouldn't care if they had play in a cow pasture

singersp
11-02-2006, 08:48 PM
"Metrodump" wrote:


Most here know me as a supporta of da Vikes. No question abouts dat. Howeva, most also be knowin I am of da old school like back in da dayz when we played over at what now be da mall of America (metropolatin stadium) and da Bud grant dayz. (I liked Denny also btw)

Out of curiosity, exactly how old are you? If you are an old school fan of the Met, you should be in your 40's. I'm trying to figure out why someone in their 40's is posting in that lingo?

As far as the stadium goes, I'd prefer it to be retractable.

No matter which happens, I want to see real grass on the field.

Metrodump
11-02-2006, 08:55 PM
Retractable NOT BE AN OPTION. Retractable cribs be fo baseball playaz when the wheather look like clouds. We are talkin about football here. Cant have it boff wayz

RETRACTABLE

JellyBean2144
11-02-2006, 08:58 PM
Open. Wide M*&***** OPEN!!! I want to go to the games like I did as a kid at the Met; Frozen!! So I am voting for a wide open stadium. No retractable roofs, just wide open. Vikings, the fans, the other team, and the elements. Bring it on!!!

Metrodump
11-02-2006, 09:09 PM
Who voted for "I'm a wuss and want a retractable" ?
:P

Man up

BadlandsVikings
11-02-2006, 09:11 PM
"Metrodump" wrote:


Who voted for "I'm a pusssy and want a retractable" ?
:P

Man up


Cool you can speak English.
;D

COJOMAY
11-02-2006, 09:18 PM
Another vote for real grass and retractable!

WBLVikeBabe
11-02-2006, 09:19 PM
I will admit it, I am a wuss and I want a retractable!
But no way do I want to sit outside on a cold Minnesota January day, frickin freezing!

Metrodump
11-02-2006, 09:20 PM
I'm still be learnin the cencord words. Never would have thought "pee you ess ess why" is nawTAY My bad, my miztake. Sorry mods/adminz/whoeva/to who it may be concerin'

Whatever.......................

New word - double you ess ess

BadlandsVikings
11-02-2006, 09:22 PM
"WBLVikeBabe" wrote:


I will admit it, I am a wuss and I want a retractable!
But no way do I want to sit outside on a cold Minnesota January day, frickin freezing!



It's Minnesota, everone owns long underwear and really warm clothes.
;D

marcosMN
11-02-2006, 09:26 PM
"WVV" wrote:


"WBLVikeBabe" wrote:


I will admit it, I am a wuss and I want a retractable!
But no way do I want to sit outside on a cold Minnesota January day, frickin freezing!



It's Minnesota, everone owns long underwear and really warm clothes.
;D


You'd have to be crazy not to.

midgensa
11-02-2006, 09:27 PM
I have seen this topic a few times and contantly try and argue with the "outdoors builds character" thing. Our record prior to the dome at home was 91-55-4 (.623) and in the playoffs we were 7-4 (.636) while in the Dome we are 126-67 (.653) and in the playoffs we are 5-3 (.625). Basically it is a push on the home field thing. Since being the dome we have played .500 or better at home for 21 straight seasons (since a 2-6 1984) and ran the table at home twice (89, 98).
I don't think there is a large advantage to playing outdoors. I think that the Dome gets nice and loud and consistently has proven and advantage for us. I would like the new place to be indoors personally. I think it helps to lure free agents (worried about stats going down outside) and keeps the fans happy. But I don't care either way ... I just want a new stadium.

Metrodump
11-02-2006, 09:35 PM
midgensa,

Hey good post on awl dem statistics. I wuz not aware of how close the records was and be, indoors vs oudoorz. Man that be almost identical. Nice work yo!!

Thanks fo diggin up dem numbas, but I hopes you voted fo outdoor crib, no roof .. LOL
;D

so-cal vike
11-02-2006, 09:36 PM
I don't live in Minnesota but I have lived in cold environments.
So I know what it means to be out in the frost.
Although I voted for an open stadium, I would really like to see a retractable roof only open during games.
It keeps the field and the seats in good condition till game time.

Midgensa also brings up a good point in that having an open stadium could deter good free agents from signing.

kramer9guy
11-02-2006, 09:41 PM
Personally, I prefer ol' Muggsy and his form of antiquated bad english to Metrodump's more modern homeboy street slang.

Oh, and I also prefer an outdoor stadium.

DEVIKINGFAN!
11-02-2006, 09:43 PM
F it- get rid of the mall of America and lets go back to the Met......

sleepagent
11-02-2006, 09:44 PM
Time to pop open the top and join the "real" Nordic North Divison with Da Bears and that other team in Wisconsin.

Who needs to host a Super Bowl anyway!

Metrodump
11-02-2006, 09:50 PM
Midgensa also brings up a good point in that having an open stadium could deter good free agents from signing.


socal,

Good post...but.. as for the free agent thang, the cheezeheads have ova come that [aledgedly/percieved] problem. There are almost zero africans residing in Green bay, yet they have gotten to 2 superbowls in the mid ninetys durrin da midst of free agentcy.

MINN iz a cold climate just az GB iz. a 3 hour romp in the cold dont be factorin in too awefull much. Espesialy when the front office be handin out the big asss contract money.

(Reggie White)

ultravikingfan
11-02-2006, 10:19 PM
"so-cal" wrote:


I don't live in Minnesota but I have lived in cold environments.
So I know what it means to be out in the frost.
Although I voted for an open stadium, I would really like to see a retractable roof only open during games.
It keeps the field and the seats in good condition till game time.

Midgensa also brings up a good point in that having an open stadium could deter good free agents from signing.


I doubt it.


We got Hutch right?
Other teams get good free agents.

If you are good, they will want to come even more

Denver does not have a problem signing players.

ultravikingfan
11-02-2006, 10:20 PM
"WBLVikeBabe" wrote:


I will admit it, I am a wuss and I want a retractable!
But no way do I want to sit outside on a cold Minnesota January day, frickin freezing!



Thats ok.
We undestand.

Just do not go to any!
:D

BadlandsVikings
11-02-2006, 10:27 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"WBLVikeBabe" wrote:


I will admit it, I am a wuss and I want a retractable!
But no way do I want to sit outside on a cold Minnesota January day, frickin freezing!



Thats ok.
We undestand.

Just do not go to any!

:D


she needs these
http://www.essentialapparel.com/images/catalog/live/imageLibrary/3D057520E2B86C3A744401E3D308D83FM.jpg

singersp
11-02-2006, 10:29 PM
"Metrodump" wrote:


Who voted for "I'm a wuss and want a retractable" ?
:P

Man up


Exactly how many games did YOU watch in December - January when the weather was in the teens or less?

I'm guessing zero. IMO & it is my opinion, I'm guessing the Met was torn down before you were even born.

Metrodump
11-02-2006, 10:44 PM
Exactly how many games did YOU watch in December - January when the weather was in the teens or less.

I'm guessing zero. IMO & it is my opinion, I'm guessing the Met was torn down before you were even born.


Yeah, sitting in the cold temps of 20 or 30 degrees bothers me. That's why I started da thread. What I really want is a dome. Geeze....... :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

I wanna be a wimpy fan, sitting in the comfort of a heat building, whatchin playaz who like playin inside. Geeze
:-X :P :-X :P :P

BadlandsVikings
11-02-2006, 10:47 PM
"Metrodump" wrote:





Exactly how many games did YOU watch in December - January when the weather was in the teens or less.

I'm guessing zero. IMO & it is my opinion, I'm guessing the Met was torn down before you were even born.


Yeah, sitting in the cold temps of 20 or 30 degrees bothers me. That's why I started da thread. What I really want is a dome. Geeze....... :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

I wanna be a wimpy fan, sitting in the comfort of a heat building, whatchin playaz who like playin inside. Geeze
:-X :P :-X :P :P


First an urban accent now a norske minneysota accent.
:)

Metrodump
11-02-2006, 11:02 PM
Ya aye, da weder is gettin cold now dontcha know.

"choppin up yer friend there aye?" (Fargo movie) LOL
;D

ANYWAYS........

RETRACTABLE DUMP

singersp
11-02-2006, 11:08 PM
"Metrodump" wrote:





Exactly how many games did YOU watch in December - January when the weather was in the teens or less?

I'm guessing zero. IMO & it is my opinion, I'm guessing the Met was torn down before you were even born.


Yeah, sitting in the cold temps of 20 or 30 degrees bothers me. That's why I started da thread. What I really want is a dome. Geeze....... :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

I wanna be a wimpy fan, sitting in the comfort of a heat building, whatchin playaz who like playin inside. Geeze
:-X :P :-X :P :P


You never did answer my question. I never asked if it bothered you, I asked, "Exactly How many games did YOU watch in December - January when the weather was in the teens or less?"

You've also skirted the age question twice.

We all know you want an open air stadium & you hate the Metrodome. A lot of your posts have been about it. Even a year ago.



October 22, 2005, 04:51:15 am

hate the fact that all games are played inside ( Metrodump )

I liked Metropolatin stadium much better ( bloomington )

Outdoor crib needed..


October 28, 2005, 05:49:38 am

Say whatch you want about the packers, but they DOOO play in the elements. Dont you guys hate the fact that the vikes are percieved as a pusy team cuz of the indoors arena???

Bud grant and metropolotin stadium was the true kick silliness. I just dont get why the old school mentality doesnt prevail here on this issue.


Anyone else here agree?


Whether someone would rather watch a game in a domed stadium vs. open-air or retractable, doesn't make them a "wuss" or any less of a fan.

There are many people whose idea of fun isn't sitting in the rain soaked to their skin watching a football game or sitting in sub-zero temperatures freezing their asses off watching a football game.

Again, that doesn't make them any less of a fan or love the Vikings any less.

There are people whose body simply can't take the cold & rain. What about the elderly? Shouldn't they count for anything? They were the ones who watched & cheered their Vikings back in the day at the Met when their bodies could take the temperatures. Now that they are older, their bodies can't take the cold.

Does that make them less of a fan now or wimps now? Absolutely not.

Does that make them "Wusses" & "Whimps"? According to you it does.

You need to look at the big picture & all the fans, not just the fan you see in the mirror everyday.

Zygi himself wanted a retractable roof stadium. Is he a wuss & a wimp?

NodakPaul
11-02-2006, 11:29 PM
"Metrodump" wrote:


Who voted for "I'm a wuss and want a retractable" ?
:P

Man up


I'll man up.
I voted for retractable... but not for the reason you may think.

I am all for football outside in the winter.
But the superbowl committees aren't.
They have publically said that they will not award a superbowl to a northern venue without an enclosed stadium.

singersp
11-02-2006, 11:38 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Metrodump" wrote:


Who voted for "I'm a wuss and want a retractable" ?
:P

Man up


I'll man up.
I voted for retractable... but not for the reason you may think.

I am all for football outside in the winter.
But the superbowl committees aren't.
They have publically said that they will not award a superbowl to a northern venue without an enclosed stadium.


I didn't even vote yet, but people know where I stand.

Let's see the last three choices;

"Build a new crib, dome, roof" (You're not a wuss if you choose this one)

"Keep the metrodome" (You're not a wuss if you choose this one either)

"I'm a wuss I want a retractable" (The best of both worlds. Open air on decent days & closed during inclimate weather. But you're a wuss if you choose this one)

Doesn't make sense to me.

Ltrey33
11-02-2006, 11:39 PM
Retractable. I wouldn't mind going to a game in the cold, but I know a lot of people that wouldn't. IMO, if you build a completely outdoor stadium, you're going to hurt ticket sales. On top of that, as the post above me points out, you'll never get a Super Bowl in an outdoor stadium in Minnesota, which once again costs us money.

Metrodump
11-02-2006, 11:39 PM
singersp

Congradulations on reading waaaaaaay more into this than be needed. Nice bait job tho.

So I take it you like the dump and its comfy confines...

Fo da record, I have sat in LamBLOW stadium in JANUARY while it was RAINING. Yes 29 daygreeze and RAINING. Frozzzzzzzze my asss off but it waz a good time. Those cheezzeheads, and meself, waz lovin the experience.

Not my fave venue, but still.

So I take it you voted fo da "retractable wussy crib" Dass okay though. Be ya porogative.................

tb04512
11-03-2006, 12:22 AM
it would be snow at 29 degrees because water freezes at 32 degrees..... annnd retractable

midgensa
11-03-2006, 02:36 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"so-cal" wrote:


I don't live in Minnesota but I have lived in cold environments.
So I know what it means to be out in the frost.
Although I voted for an open stadium, I would really like to see a retractable roof only open during games.
It keeps the field and the seats in good condition till game time.

Midgensa also brings up a good point in that having an open stadium could deter good free agents from signing.


I doubt it.


We got Hutch right?
Other teams get good free agents.

If you are good, they will want to come even more

Denver does not have a problem signing players.


Denver is about 20 degrees warmer than Minny
;D Minneapolis is comfortablly the most northern team in the league. And while it does not mean we would not get ANY free agents ... logic dictates it would hurt us as players constantly preach about wanting to play in a warmer climate (in all sports). Though free agency does not seem to be a major issue in football compared to other sports ... with all the franchising and such ... major players tend not to move around too often.
None-the-less ... an outdoor stadium does not prove to offer any more of a home field advantage (by stats it offers less) and an indoor stadium does offer cozier confines for the fans (which produces more in concession sales as well).

ultravikingfan
11-03-2006, 04:15 AM
If we get a retractable roof, you know if will be closed with temps below 50.
Why even get one.
If we want it convered when its cold enough where my binky is shriveled-up and in its hole...don't even waste the money on a ret. roof...just get another worthless dome.

It's the Vikes!

We are supposed to be tough!

Look at our history!

Screw a roof you panzies!

Prophet
11-03-2006, 06:33 AM
I'm in the roof is for wusses crowd.
Play the game outside in the elements, the way it was meant to be played.

Zeus
11-03-2006, 07:03 AM
"Acumen" wrote:


I'm in the roof is for wusses crowd.
Play the game outside in the elements, the way it was meant to be played.


I waver.
Monday night is was pretty nipply outside before the game.
It was nice to go inside and get out of the wind.
And the noise in there is a definite advantage for the home team - when they are in the position to use it (unlike the other night).

But it would be awesome on a crisp and sunny early October afternoon, that's for sure.

=Z=

singersp
11-03-2006, 07:07 AM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


I'm in the roof is for wusses crowd.
Play the game outside in the elements, the way it was meant to be played.


I waver.
Monday night is was pretty nipply outside before the game.
It was nice to go inside and get out of the wind.
And the noise in there is a definite advantage for the home team - when they are in the position to use it (unlike the other night).

But it would be awesome on a crisp and sunny early October afternoon, that's for sure.

=Z=



Thus, a retractable

Zeus
11-03-2006, 07:10 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


I'm in the roof is for wusses crowd.
Play the game outside in the elements, the way it was meant to be played.


I waver.
Monday night is was pretty nipply outside before the game.
It was nice to go inside and get out of the wind.
And the noise in there is a definite advantage for the home team - when they are in the position to use it (unlike the other night).

But it would be awesome on a crisp and sunny early October afternoon, that's for sure.

=Z=



Thus, a retractable


It's cost-prohibitive.

=Z=

Prophet
11-03-2006, 07:11 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


I'm in the roof is for wusses crowd.
Play the game outside in the elements, the way it was meant to be played.


I waver.
Monday night is was pretty nipply outside before the game.
It was nice to go inside and get out of the wind.
And the noise in there is a definite advantage for the home team - when they are in the position to use it (unlike the other night).

But it would be awesome on a crisp and sunny early October afternoon, that's for sure.

=Z=



Thus, a retractable


I was coerced into the retractable crowd for a little while, but the reality, like someone else already mentioned, is that it would be closed whenever there is foul weather so what's the point other than luring a SB there once every decade.
The only way I would like a retractable roof is if it was wide open during game time.

Zeus
11-03-2006, 07:15 AM
"Acumen" wrote:


I was coerced into the retractable crowd for a little while, but the reality, like someone else already mentioned, is that it would be closed whenever there is foul weather so what's the point other than luring a SB there once every decade.
The only way I would like a retractable roof is if it was wide open during game time.


I find it highly unlikely that the Super Bowl will come back to Minneapolis.
Lots of whining about the weather afterwards on that one, as I recall (not locally, but nationally - typical).

The retractable is more about rodeos and moto-cross and concerts.
You don't see much of that at the Dome because the Twinkies are also there which is lots of revenue.

And there's no way if there's a driving rainstorm that they are going to keep it open.

I honestly think they need a place like Ford Field in Detroit.
With a non-retractable roof.

=Z=

singersp
11-03-2006, 07:18 AM
"Acumen" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


I'm in the roof is for wusses crowd.
Play the game outside in the elements, the way it was meant to be played.


I waver.
Monday night is was pretty nipply outside before the game.
It was nice to go inside and get out of the wind.
And the noise in there is a definite advantage for the home team - when they are in the position to use it (unlike the other night).

But it would be awesome on a crisp and sunny early October afternoon, that's for sure.

=Z=



Thus, a retractable


I was coerced into the retractable crowd for a little while, but the reality, like someone else already mentioned, is that it would be closed whenever there is foul weather so what's the point other than luring a SB there once every decade.
The only way I would like a retractable roof is if it was wide open during game time.


How about just open over the field, but roofed over the fans? Ultra stated that it would be closed in weather below 50. I don't know if that's true?

My impression is that it would get closed when it's below freezing, snowing, sleeting or raining.

Prophet
11-03-2006, 07:20 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


I'm in the roof is for wusses crowd.
Play the game outside in the elements, the way it was meant to be played.


I waver.
Monday night is was pretty nipply outside before the game.
It was nice to go inside and get out of the wind.
And the noise in there is a definite advantage for the home team - when they are in the position to use it (unlike the other night).

But it would be awesome on a crisp and sunny early October afternoon, that's for sure.

=Z=



Thus, a retractable


I was coerced into the retractable crowd for a little while, but the reality, like someone else already mentioned, is that it would be closed whenever there is foul weather so what's the point other than luring a SB there once every decade.
The only way I would like a retractable roof is if it was wide open during game time.


How about just open over the field, but roofed over the fans? Ultra stated that it would be closed in weather below 50. I don't know if that's true?

My impression is that it would get closed when it's below freezing, snowing, sleeting or raining.


Then what's the point?
I am without a doubt in the roofless crowd.
If people can't handle being outside they can watch the game sitting in their lazyboy.

singersp
11-03-2006, 07:28 AM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


I'm in the roof is for wusses crowd.
Play the game outside in the elements, the way it was meant to be played.


I waver.
Monday night is was pretty nipply outside before the game.
It was nice to go inside and get out of the wind.
And the noise in there is a definite advantage for the home team - when they are in the position to use it (unlike the other night).

But it would be awesome on a crisp and sunny early October afternoon, that's for sure.

=Z=



Thus, a retractable


It's cost-prohibitive.

=Z=


If you're going to build a stadium, do it right the first time. Even if it's more expensive. The additional revenue would help pay for & justify it.

If they build an open air stadium, they are going to wish later it had a roof for extreme frigid temps & rain. Especially for the non-football events that would be there during the off-season & to raise revenue to help pay for it. How many non-football events took place at the Met stadium besides the Twins & Kicks?

If you build a domed stadium, they are going to wish it was open on nice days & for certain events that involve pyrotectics or smoke such as truck pulls.

josdin00
11-03-2006, 09:00 AM
I'm with the retractable crowd. I would prefer to see the Vikes play out-doors, even if it means a cold seat for the fans. However, even though it costs more, I still think a plan with a retractable roof is more likely to get supported by the state government, and therefore more likely to get built. The polliticians will want to see that the facility will be able to be used for more than just the Vikings, and that means the place needs a roof.

So...

I want the Vikes outside + the polliticians will want a roof = retractable.

NodakPaul
11-03-2006, 09:38 AM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


I was coerced into the retractable crowd for a little while, but the reality, like someone else already mentioned, is that it would be closed whenever there is foul weather so what's the point other than luring a SB there once every decade.
The only way I would like a retractable roof is if it was wide open during game time.


I find it highly unlikely that the Super Bowl will come back to Minneapolis.
Lots of whining about the weather afterwards on that one, as I recall (not locally, but nationally - typical).

The retractable is more about rodeos and moto-cross and concerts.
You don't see much of that at the Dome because the Twinkies are also there which is lots of revenue.

And there's no way if there's a driving rainstorm that they are going to keep it open.

I honestly think they need a place like Ford Field in Detroit.
With a non-retractable roof.

=Z=


It has beenthe NFL's policy for a little while now to award SB to venues with new stadiums... providing it has a roof (retractable or not).
The weather in Minny in Jan/Feb isn't much worse than Detroit.
There is obviously a shortage of venues they find acceptable, hence Florida and NO tradeing off every other year.
I would really like to get Minnesota into the mix.

I would like to have a retractable roof first, then a non-retractable roof second.
But if they build it open air, I will still come (and love it!).

2beersTommy
11-03-2006, 09:47 AM
Im for the open air stadium, but then again I dont have to sit in the cold & freeze my a$$ off just to watch them. I think our home field advantage was much more of an advatage at the Met, than what we have now. Hmmm, lets see.. play at somebodys house where its noisy..or where its friggen cold AND outside.

Bheadgood
11-03-2006, 11:07 AM
old time football coach !!

snowinapril
11-03-2006, 11:24 AM
I thought Webby was putting together the crib and was having a difficult time.

LOL

I am a wuss.

Retractable on days of minus 0 degree F temps only not including wind chill.
And any winter night games.

Metrodump
11-03-2006, 03:00 PM
Dead even score fo new open air and RETRACTABLE

Hay, no votes for keeping the dome. I be givin yall some props fo dat!!!!!!!

Zeus
11-03-2006, 03:16 PM
"Metrodump" wrote:


Dead even score fo new open air and RETRACTABLE

Hay, no votes for keeping the dome. I be givin yall some props fo dat!!!!!!!


Add some more bathrooms and get a better lease and the Dome would be FINE for the Vikes.

=Z=

Desertvikingfan
11-03-2006, 03:57 PM
First, I live in the desert in the winter, so maybe I don't have a say. But I did attend games at the old Met when winters were winter in Mn., freezing and screaming my ass off. Maybe if they just heated the seats you roof guys wouldn't have to worry about freezing your asses off and we could still have real outdoor football. Sheesh, if the fans to the wasteland east of Minne can take it, (but then again they're not that smart ;D, ) I would think Minnesotans could.

"From the Frozen Cowpastures of Minnesota we bring you NFL football, the way it used to be played, before everyone got comfortable"

RK.
11-03-2006, 05:17 PM
Ask yourselves why did they build the dome in the first place.
Most of those commenting have no idea because they are too young.
They built it because they did not sell out games at the Met when the weather sucked.
Someone made a comment that people could watch it from their lazy boys is wrong.
They will black out the games in MN if it doesn't sell out.
Bud Grant used to load the team up on a plane and fly them south to practice in the winter because practicing on a frozen field gets people hurt.
The rap against the Vikings for not winning a super bowl in those days was that during the playoffs the lack of practice hurt the Vikings ability to be ultimately successful.
That's why they built the dome.
It may be fun to watch people sliding around on frozen wet snowy fields but players hate it.
It screws up their stats.
Especially receivers.
Getting frost bit is not something players look forward to.
Its just a bunch of macho BS from young fans who think its cool.
Teams from the frozen north playing outside do not dominate the NFL.
Get over it.
:P

Prophet
11-03-2006, 05:21 PM
"RK." wrote:


Ask your selves why did they build the dome in the first place.
Most of those commenting have no idea because they are too young.
They built it because they did not sell out games at the Met when the weather sucked.
Someone made a comment that people could watch it from their lazy boys is wrong.
They will black out the games in MN if it doesn't sell out.
Bud Grant used to load the team up on a plane and fly them south to practice in the winter because practicing on a frozen field gets people hurt.
The rap against the Vikings for not winning a super bowl in those days was that during the playoffs the lack of practice hurt the Vikings ability to be ultimately successful.
That's why they built the dome.
It may be fun to watch people sliding around of frozen wet snowy fields but players hate it.
It screws up their stats.
Especially receivers.
Getting frost bit is not something players look forward to.
Its just a bunch of macho BS from young fans who think its cool.
Team from the frozen north playing outside do not dominate the NFL.
Get over it.
:P


I'm the lazy boy comment guy and I'm the macho guy that wants the games played outside.
Yes, I was one of the idiots that froze their ass off watching the games at the old met and I even have a chunk of the old goal post from the last game ever played there.....and yes, I am a fool.

There is no reason they can't have a state of the art indoor practice facility to complement the new stadium.
Outdoors is how the game should be played.

RK.
11-03-2006, 05:32 PM
"Acumen" wrote:



I'm the lazy boy comment guy and I'm the macho guy that wants the games played outside.
Yes, I was one of the idiots that froze their jiggly butt off watching the games at the old met and I even have a chunk of the old goal post from the last game ever played there.....and yes, I am a fool. You said it I didn't roflol

There is no reason they can't have a state of the art indoor practice facility to complement the new stadium.
Outdoors is how the game should be played.

Usually a team wants to practice on the field they are going to play on.
If they are at a practice facility it would be just like playing an away game every game for half of the season.
Where is the advantage in that?

BadlandsVikings
11-03-2006, 05:46 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


"RK." wrote:


Ask your selves why did they build the dome in the first place.
Most of those commenting have no idea because they are too young.
They built it because they did not sell out games at the Met when the weather sucked.
Someone made a comment that people could watch it from their lazy boys is wrong.
They will black out the games in MN if it doesn't sell out.
Bud Grant used to load the team up on a plane and fly them south to practice in the winter because practicing on a frozen field gets people hurt.
The rap against the Vikings for not winning a super bowl in those days was that during the playoffs the lack of practice hurt the Vikings ability to be ultimately successful.
That's why they built the dome.
It may be fun to watch people sliding around of frozen wet snowy fields but players hate it.
It screws up their stats.
Especially receivers.
Getting frost bit is not something players look forward to.
Its just a bunch of macho BS from young fans who think its cool.
Team from the frozen north playing outside do not dominate the NFL.
Get over it.
:P


I'm the lazy boy comment guy and I'm the macho guy that wants the games played outside.
Yes, I was one of the idiots that froze their jiggly butt off watching the games at the old met and I even have a chunk of the old goal post from the last game ever played there.....and yes, I am a fool.

There is no reason they can't have a state of the art indoor practice facility to complement the new stadium.
Outdoors is how the game should be played.


How many super bowls have we gone to since moving inside? 0.
I think playing ouside in the cold was an incentive to play somewhere warm for the super bowl.

cajunvike
11-03-2006, 05:57 PM
The answer is RETRACTABLE ROOF...that way, if the fans don't come and watch, you close the roof!
BUT if you want to get an advantage over warm-weather teams, then you open the sucker!!!

sleepagent
11-03-2006, 07:32 PM
How about an open air stadium with a large section of closed in (and heated) seating (at a premium of course) for those that can't stand the cold?

All this talk of it being cold has me confused though.
How come the Packer & Bear Fans can sellout and deal with it . . . but apparently not some of the Viking fans?

Free Agents?
Put together a winning team and they will come.
Everyone wants the coveted ring!

Mr Anderson
11-03-2006, 07:33 PM
Retractable roof= More money.

More Money= Better team.

Purple Floyd
11-03-2006, 07:36 PM
The reason they built the dome was to cater to the wealthy people who they thought would bring their corporate friends for an afternoon game in climate controlled comfort and to a certain degree they succeded, but they also lost alot of the loyal blue collar crowd that we used to have.

You build a fair weather stadium to attract fair weather fans and you build an all weather stadium to attract all weather fans. So you get what you pay for.

Personally I will not go to a game indoors anymore, it's just not football. But if they built an open stadium I would pay to go no matter what the temp was. I have lots of warm clothes.

BadlandsVikings
11-03-2006, 07:38 PM
"Mr" wrote:


Retractable roof= More money.

More Money= Better team.


Better team = finally knowing what it feels like to win a super bowl

ultravikingfan
11-03-2006, 07:53 PM
"Mr" wrote:


Retractable roof= More money.

More Money= Better team.


Sorry, that's kinda silly.

Are you saying if the Patriots had one they would be a better team?
If that was the case every NFL team would have a roof.
Some players like the advantage of playing in the elements.
Can you prove that statement/formula of yours?

BTW, no matter what Cleveland does they will still blow.

Purple Floyd
11-03-2006, 07:55 PM
Dome teams = 1 SB win
Open teams = every other win

I'll take the odds.

What is all of the bantering over hosting a SB? I could care less if we host one and actually hope we never have one again. Teams that are focused on winning championships are not out lobbying for a SB to be played in their stadium and I hope that is how we approach it. While hosting a SB does bring in revenue, There is much more revenue generated by hosting and winning a championship game and then winning a SB with all of the merchandise sales generated.

PurpleRide
11-03-2006, 08:44 PM
I do want an outdoor stadium, somthing almost exactly like the gem they have in seattle.
I also understand that if anoka county is helping out, the stadium should be able to be used year around.
Retactable roofs are able to bring in year around activities like conventions, home shows, winter concerts, and so on.
If zigy and the vikings want to play outside, they can simply open the roof and......its outdoors!!!
The superbowl brings in about $500 million in local revenue for the SB week.
Put a retractable roof on the thing, let the county host the SB, let the county host the final four.
The thing will show its worth a lot faster with a roof.
I also want the field turf, most players say its the best surface to play on.
Its too bad one of the CEO's of the many fourtune 500 minnesota companies couldnt team up with wilf and get this thing done.
It took the retard in St. Paul 10 years to get the twins deal done, the vikings dont have 10 years to wait

singersp
11-03-2006, 08:50 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Dome teams = 1 SB win
Open teams = every other win

I'll take the odds.

Obviously, because domed stadiums were not that widespread during the earlier Superbowl years. Also not every open air stadium is in the North where they have the freezing cold.

How many Superbowls were won in open air stadiums where the temp was below freezing?

How many superbowls were won in a dome?

PurpleRide
11-03-2006, 09:02 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


The reason they built the dome was to cater to the wealthy people who they thought would bring their corporate friends for an afternoon game in climate controlled comfort and to a certain degree they succeded, but they also lost alot of the loyal blue collar crowd that we used to have.

You build a fair weather stadium to attract fair weather fans and you build an all weather stadium to attract all weather fans. So you get what you pay for.

Personally I will not go to a game indoors anymore, it's just not football. But if they built an open stadium I would pay to go no matter what the temp was. I have lots of warm clothes.


Hate to break it to you, the met was smaller, the met still had troubles selling warm weather games out.
The "blue collar" fans never showed up when it was an outdoor stadium.
I guess the white collar fans are better fans because they show up.
I love it when people call out us fans who go to dome games fair weather fans for supporting the team.
The dome is better than the met, it brings in more money, more fans.
If you want to grab your balls and call yourself a real man for wanting outdoor football thats fine, don't insult fans of the team for going to the dome to support the vikings.

Oh yeah i hate the dome, i still go to support my team.


Hey in a few years you can grab your balls and go to gopher games, they will be outdoors.
Go gopher football!
Where real men watch football

ultravikingfan
11-03-2006, 09:05 PM
"PurpleRide" wrote:


Hey in a few years you can grab your balls and go to gopher games, they will be outdoors.
Go gopher football!
Where real men watch football


I almost fell out of my chair!

Go Gophers in hopes on not being pasted by the rest of the Big 10!

PurpleRide
11-03-2006, 09:13 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"PurpleRide" wrote:


Hey in a few years you can grab your balls and go to gopher games, they will be outdoors.
Go gopher football!
Where real men watch football


I almost fell out of my chair!

Go Gophers in hopes on not being pasted by the rest of the Big 10!




After its built mason's excuse will go from not having an outdoor stadium to they put it in the wrong part of campus and the recruts dont like going by mariucci because all the hardware intiminates them.
Fire mason

Einar
11-04-2006, 07:02 AM
Bring back the Met...and Bud Grant, Fran, Chuck, Carl, Alan, Mick, Paul, Jim.....

SKOL football outdoors in the elements!

PurpleRide
11-04-2006, 02:05 PM
"Einar" wrote:


Bring back the Met...and Bud Grant, Fran, Chuck, Carl, Alan, Mick, Paul, Jim.....

SKOL football outdoors in the elements!


So you want to bring back people who cannot play anylonger and a stadium that never sold out?
There is a major reason they left the met, it was not a professional stadium.
Instead of talking about brining back the met, talk about brining in a gem, something the rest of the world wants to come see.
Seattle, tampa, arizona, stadiums like that.
I want the best, not some crappy put to gether hole that makes a few fans happy.

Prophet
11-04-2006, 04:36 PM
I wonder if Pink Taco is interested in sponsoring a stadium in Minnesota?

Prophet
11-04-2006, 07:19 PM
"RK." wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:



I'm the lazy boy comment guy and I'm the macho guy that wants the games played outside.
Yes, I was one of the idiots that froze their jiggly butt off watching the games at the old met and I even have a chunk of the old goal post from the last game ever played there.....and yes, I am a fool. You said it I didn't roflol
There is no reason they can't have a state of the art indoor practice facility to complement the new stadium.
Outdoors is how the game should be played.
You are a fool!
Of course it translates to the field! lmao
Usually a team wants to practice on the field they are going to play on.
If they are at a practice facility it would be just like playing an away game every game for half of the season.
Where is the advantage in that?

They put insulator mats on the outdoor field so the ground isn't frozen solid.
They will still practice on the field and their practice facility will also be utilized.
The bottom-line is execution, the 12th man isn't at the practices whether it's at the practice facility or the real field.
Gear the men up to play in a combination of the field or practice field and when it's time to play ball put them in the elements.
I'm not saying they have to go to the extreme like Bud Grant and not allow heaters on the sidelines.
Play the game outside where it's meant to be played.


For whoever said it hurts their stats, that's BS.
Who cares.
This ain't Madden and it ain't fantasy football.
It's about playin' the game.
Any person analyzing talent that has a few convulsions in their grey matter can make situational adjustments to the statistics and rate the player based on film and their relative production compared to others in the same situation.

singersp
11-04-2006, 07:41 PM
Open-air, retractable or dome. To me what's most important is real grass on real sod.

Gloried carpeting on a cement floor just doesn't cut it for me.

vikesD
11-04-2006, 09:29 PM
OPen air
all the way

crazyB
11-05-2006, 12:47 PM
retractable roof is needed so we can train well for game's be they inside or out.
plus we could catch a few team's out when they come to play inside and we open the roof.

8)
;D
:D

Einar
11-05-2006, 02:35 PM
"PurpleRide" wrote:


"Einar" wrote:


Bring back the Met...and Bud Grant, Fran, Chuck, Carl, Alan, Mick, Paul, Jim.....

SKOL football outdoors in the elements!


So you want to bring back people who cannot play anylonger and a stadium that never sold out?

There is a major reason they left the met, it was not a professional stadium.
Instead of talking about brining back the met, talk about brining in a gem, something the rest of the world wants to come see.
Seattle, tampa, arizona, stadiums like that.
I want the best, not some crappy put to gether hole that makes a few fans happy.



Do you take everything so literally?
Lighten up dude...take a pill or something...maybe you need to take a dump, or maybe you need some Pink Taco. LOL

SKOL taking everything literally!

vikes2456
11-05-2006, 02:36 PM
I don't know why, but teams that play outside and in the grass in the cold just seem tougher and more manly. Also, how the hell can the VIKINGS play indoors, sheltered from the elements?

NodakPaul
10-30-2007, 01:33 PM
Well, it's been about a year since this topic was beat to death... and there isn't anything else exciting to talk about today, so here goes... ;D

Pros for Open Air Stadium
* Home Field Advantage
* Prestige
* Connect with old fan base
* Cheapest option

Pros for Closed Stadium
* Can be used year round
* More likely to be supported with public $$
* Won't have ticket sales issues due to weather (like the met had)
* Can host a super bowl/final four/etc
* Comfort level for fans

Pros for Retractable Roof
* All of the above, with the exception of expense. Retractable is the most expensive of the three

I really see no good argument as to why we wouldn't choose a retractable roof.

Purple Floyd
10-30-2007, 01:38 PM
Nope, not going there ;D

cajunvike
10-30-2007, 01:41 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Well, it's been about a year since this topic was beat to death... and there isn't anything else exciting to talk about today, so here goes... ;D

Pros for Open Air Stadium
* Home Field Advantage
* Prestige
* Connect with old fan base
* Cheapest option

Pros for Closed Stadium
* Can be used year round
* More likely to be supported with public $$
* Won't have ticket sales issues due to weather (like the met had)
* Can host a super bowl/final four/etc
* Comfort level for fans

Pros for Retractable Roof
* All of the above, with the exception of expense. Retractable is the most expensive of the three

I really see no good argument as to why we wouldn't choose a retractable roof.


Agreed!

Metrodump
10-30-2007, 01:46 PM
Thanx fo bumpin my thread dog!!

Y'all be knowin where I stand on dis. Rip da roof

Marrdro
10-30-2007, 01:47 PM
Who cares about the cost.
You people up there need to get off some of your big bucks anyways.
If you don't spend it it will only get moldy.

Roof of any sort is what really determines homefield advantage.
How many home games a year are really affected by cold weather now because of global warming.

Connect with the old fans.
Hey shock, remember the old man and old lady that got mad at me during the Atlanta game cause I was yelling to loud for them.
Flop the old fans.
They are on fixed income anyway. (See cost comment.)

You forgot one.
Retractable roof would support natural grass.
Of course you would then have to worry about the PUKER and BORES cheerleaders grazing during the games.
Who's gonna monitor that?
Not the Chiller, he has enough to do already.

JK
;D

I agree, retractable for all the pro's you listed.
Year round events should offset the extra cost.

jmcdon00
10-30-2007, 01:50 PM
The dome works for me. I think the biggest reason they want a new stadium is so that the owner can make more money by catering to the wealthiest fans. I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.

If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.

If they do build a new stadium, it should have a retractable roof. Outdoors just doesn't make economical sense because they will need to use it year round to get full value. If they just put a roof on it, how is it better than the dome(other than better bathrooms and amenities).

Metrodump
10-30-2007, 01:53 PM
Retractable to me translates to = outdoor venue in the summer & early fall. Indoor venue after dat.

Retractables are for the poosays that play baseball

ballhog27
10-30-2007, 01:54 PM
I vote for a retractable roof. Great idea and it can play to our advantages if we want it too.

Metrodump
10-30-2007, 02:03 PM
I'd be remiss ifn I didnt admit da fact dat a retractable would be mo privy to earning some outside jack durring da offseason. But we're talkin bout a football crib, exclusively/hypotheticaly

They can let the metrodump stand and still do all the extra caricular stuff like motocross bike racing in it.

Can rename the place tractorpulldump.....

NodakPaul
10-30-2007, 02:05 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


The dome works for me. I think the biggest reason they want a new stadium is so that the owner can make more money by catering to the wealthiest fans. I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.

If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.

If they do build a new stadium, it should have a retractable roof. Outdoors just doesn't make economical sense because they will need to use it year round to get full value. If they just put a roof on it, how is it better than the dome(other than better bathrooms and amenities).


Actually, the reason you got a ticket for $15 is because the Vikings are playing like crap and the tickets aren't selling very well.
The average ticket price in the dome is between $75 and $100 (depending on what report you believe).
This is among the highest in the NFL.
The reason ticket prices are so high is because of the lack of premium seats available.
If there were more premium seats and suites, they could lower the standard ticket prices.
Yes, in the end it would be more profitable for the owners, which is good - since Zygi lost about $10 million on the team last year even with selling out every game.

I do agree with you about the retractable though.
And I think the idea of combining with the Gophers met most of the resistance with the U.
The U wanted a smaller stadium than the dome and not as many luxury seats as the Vikings wanted.
TCF Stadium will only seat about 50,000 - even though it leaves open the possibility of closing off the horseshoe in the future for more seats.

NodakPaul
10-30-2007, 02:07 PM
"Metrodump" wrote:


I'd be remiss ifn I didnt admit da fact dat a retractable would be mo privy to earning some outside jack durring da offseason. But we're talkin bout a football crib, exclusively/hypotheticaly

They can let the metrodump stand and still do all the extra caricular stuff like motocross bike racing in it.

Can rename the place tractorpulldump.....


LOL.
Unfortunately, if we are talking about football exclusively, then we are also talking about football money exclusively.
I would be all for an open air stadium if Wilf decided to fund it himself.
But if public money is involved, then the general public needs to benefit from it financially as well.

Purple Floyd
10-30-2007, 02:12 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


The dome works for me. I think the biggest reason they want a new stadium is so that the owner can make more money by catering to the wealthiest fans. I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.

If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.

If they do build a new stadium, it should have a retractable roof. Outdoors just doesn't make economical sense because they will need to use it year round to get full value. If they just put a roof on it, how is it better than the dome(other than better bathrooms and amenities).


Actually, the reason you got a ticket for $15 is because the Vikings are playing like crap and the tickets aren't selling very well.
The average ticket price in the dome is between $75 and $100 (depending on what report you believe).
This is among the highest in the NFL.
The reason ticket prices are so high is because of the lack of premium seats available.
If there were more premium seats and suites, they could lower the standard ticket prices. Yes, in the end it would be more profitable for the owners, which is good - since Zygi lost about $10 million on the team last year even with selling out every game.

I do agree with you about the retractable though.
And I think the idea of combining with the Gophers met most of the resistance with the U.
The U wanted a smaller stadium than the dome and not as many luxury seats as the Vikings wanted.
TCF Stadium will only seat about 50,000 - even though it leaves open the possibility of closing off the horseshoe in the future for more seats.


LOL

Like that would ever happen.

NodakPaul
10-30-2007, 02:13 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


The dome works for me. I think the biggest reason they want a new stadium is so that the owner can make more money by catering to the wealthiest fans. I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.

If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.

If they do build a new stadium, it should have a retractable roof. Outdoors just doesn't make economical sense because they will need to use it year round to get full value. If they just put a roof on it, how is it better than the dome(other than better bathrooms and amenities).


Actually, the reason you got a ticket for $15 is because the Vikings are playing like crap and the tickets aren't selling very well.
The average ticket price in the dome is between $75 and $100 (depending on what report you believe).
This is among the highest in the NFL.
The reason ticket prices are so high is because of the lack of premium seats available.
If there were more premium seats and suites, they could lower the standard ticket prices. Yes, in the end it would be more profitable for the owners, which is good - since Zygi lost about $10 million on the team last year even with selling out every game.

I do agree with you about the retractable though.
And I think the idea of combining with the Gophers met most of the resistance with the U.
The U wanted a smaller stadium than the dome and not as many luxury seats as the Vikings wanted.
TCF Stadium will only seat about 50,000 - even though it leaves open the possibility of closing off the horseshoe in the future for more seats.


LOL

Like that would ever happen.


LOL.
OK, fair enough, they wouldn't lower it.
They could but they wouldn't.
Maybe it is more appropriate to say that there wouldn't be as much incentive to raise them every year, and we could ease our way back into the national average over the years.

jmcdon00
10-30-2007, 02:34 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


The dome works for me. I think the biggest reason they want a new stadium is so that the owner can make more money by catering to the wealthiest fans. I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.

If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.

If they do build a new stadium, it should have a retractable roof. Outdoors just doesn't make economical sense because they will need to use it year round to get full value. If they just put a roof on it, how is it better than the dome(other than better bathrooms and amenities).


Actually, the reason you got a ticket for $15 is because the Vikings are playing like crap and the tickets aren't selling very well.
The average ticket price in the dome is between $75 and $100 (depending on what report you believe).
This is among the highest in the NFL.
The reason ticket prices are so high is because of the lack of premium seats available.
If there were more premium seats and suites, they could lower the standard ticket prices.
Yes, in the end it would be more profitable for the owners, which is good - since Zygi lost about $10 million on the team last year even with selling out every game.

I do agree with you about the retractable though.
And I think the idea of combining with the Gophers met most of the resistance with the U.
The U wanted a smaller stadium than the dome and not as many luxury seats as the Vikings wanted.
TCF Stadium will only seat about 50,000 - even though it leaves open the possibility of closing off the horseshoe in the future for more seats.

The tickets for 15 have a face value of 20. A new stadium probably wouldn't have as many seats and demand for them would go way up, so even if the face value didn't go up(my guess it that they would go up significantly), the price scalpers would be asking would be much much more.
Zygi has not opened up his books so it is really hard to believe that he is really losing money. McCombs was constantly playing the role of the poor owner that can't make any money, then he sells the team for a 450 million profit. Zygi is going to make alot of money on the vikings, if they buy a stadium it should be because the state wants it, not so Zygi can make more. (Please don't say we will lose the vikings because it is just not true, there are many other teams that would move before the vikings(JAGS).
So the vikings want a new stadium so they can have more luxury boxes, but the gophers don't want as many so they need a new stadium. How many seats will the Vikings stadium have? 60,000, I think they could have worked something out for 1/2 billion in savings. The Dome is only like 40 years old, come talk to me in 20 years and then maybe the I will think about it.

Prophet
10-30-2007, 02:50 PM
Football is a game that was meant and designed to be played outdoors.
If you want to sit inside go a bowling tournament, or, perhaps, curling.
The conservative thinking behind a retractable roof decision has to go by the wayside.
Outdoors.
The only way the game should ever be played.

Storm
10-30-2007, 02:54 PM
Roofs are for pussies.

jessejames09
10-30-2007, 02:54 PM
"Storm" wrote:


Roofs are for pussies.

BloodyHorns82
10-30-2007, 02:57 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


The dome works for me. I think the biggest reason they want a new stadium is so that the owner can make more money by catering to the wealthiest fans. I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.

If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.

If they do build a new stadium, it should have a retractable roof. Outdoors just doesn't make economical sense because they will need to use it year round to get full value. If they just put a roof on it, how is it better than the dome(other than better bathrooms and amenities).


Actually, the reason you got a ticket for $15 is because the Vikings are playing like crap and the tickets aren't selling very well.
The average ticket price in the dome is between $75 and $100 (depending on what report you believe).
This is among the highest in the NFL.
The reason ticket prices are so high is because of the lack of premium seats available.
If there were more premium seats and suites, they could lower the standard ticket prices.
Yes, in the end it would be more profitable for the owners, which is good - since Zygi lost about $10 million on the team last year even with selling out every game.

I do agree with you about the retractable though.
And I think the idea of combining with the Gophers met most of the resistance with the U.
The U wanted a smaller stadium than the dome and not as many luxury seats as the Vikings wanted.
TCF Stadium will only seat about 50,000 - even though it leaves open the possibility of closing off the horseshoe in the future for more seats.

The tickets for 15 have a face value of 20. A new stadium probably wouldn't have as many seats and demand for them would go way up, so even if the face value didn't go up(my guess it that they would go up significantly), the price scalpers would be asking would be much much more.
Zygi has not opened up his books so it is really hard to believe that he is really losing money. McCombs was constantly playing the role of the poor owner that can't make any money, then he sells the team for a 450 million profit. Zygi is going to make alot of money on the vikings, if they buy a stadium it should be because the state wants it, not so Zygi can make more. (Please don't say we will lose the vikings because it is just not true, there are many other teams that would move before the vikings(JAGS).
So the vikings want a new stadium so they can have more luxury boxes, but the gophers don't want as many so they need a new stadium. How many seats will the Vikings stadium have? 60,000, I think they could have worked something out for 1/2 billion in savings. The Dome is only like 40 years old, come talk to me in 20 years and then maybe the I will think about it.


Isn't the dome only 25 or 26 years old?

NodakPaul
10-30-2007, 02:58 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


The dome works for me. I think the biggest reason they want a new stadium is so that the owner can make more money by catering to the wealthiest fans. I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.

If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.

If they do build a new stadium, it should have a retractable roof. Outdoors just doesn't make economical sense because they will need to use it year round to get full value. If they just put a roof on it, how is it better than the dome(other than better bathrooms and amenities).


Actually, the reason you got a ticket for $15 is because the Vikings are playing like crap and the tickets aren't selling very well.
The average ticket price in the dome is between $75 and $100 (depending on what report you believe).
This is among the highest in the NFL.
The reason ticket prices are so high is because of the lack of premium seats available.
If there were more premium seats and suites, they could lower the standard ticket prices.
Yes, in the end it would be more profitable for the owners, which is good - since Zygi lost about $10 million on the team last year even with selling out every game.

I do agree with you about the retractable though.
And I think the idea of combining with the Gophers met most of the resistance with the U.
The U wanted a smaller stadium than the dome and not as many luxury seats as the Vikings wanted.
TCF Stadium will only seat about 50,000 - even though it leaves open the possibility of closing off the horseshoe in the future for more seats.

The tickets for 15 have a face value of 20. A new stadium probably wouldn't have as many seats and demand for them would go way up, so even if the face value didn't go up(my guess it that they would go up significantly), the price scalpers would be asking would be much much more.
Zygi has not opened up his books so it is really hard to believe that he is really losing money. McCombs was constantly playing the role of the poor owner that can't make any money, then he sells the team for a 450 million profit. Zygi is going to make alot of money on the vikings, if they buy a stadium it should be because the state wants it, not so Zygi can make more. (Please don't say we will lose the vikings because it is just not true, there are many other teams that would move before the vikings(JAGS).
So the vikings want a new stadium so they can have more luxury boxes, but the gophers don't want as many so they need a new stadium. How many seats will the Vikings stadium have? 60,000, I think they could have worked something out for 1/2 billion in savings. The Dome is only like 40 years old, come talk to me in 20 years and then maybe the I will think about it.


The face value is actually $19.61 in honor of the year 1961.
That is a new promotion that Zygi put in place this year, and it is only for a rather limited number of high upper deck seats.
FYI, those were the season tickets that sold out first - because the scalpers bought them all.
As for the number of seats, the new stadium proposals have all had the same number of seats.
The point is to make the stadium large enough to be able to host a superbowl, but small enough not to risk blackouts in a small market like Minneapolis.
If the Vikes are playing well, demand is high regardless, so scalper tickets will be high when the Vikes are good, and low when they are bad.
The actual price of the ticket would not go up though.
If anything, they would install PSLs for season ticket holders, which would generate extra money but not affect single game ticket prices.

And it is fairly well documented that Zygi Wilf lost money on the Vikes last year.
Not sure if this is even up for debate.

"Prophet" wrote:

'nother take on the same article:

===========================================

VIKINGS LOSING MONEY, AND SPENDING IT
Mike Florio (http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm)

Kevin Seifert of the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the Vikings lost $10 million in 2005 (http://www.startribune.com/510/story/361128.html), following three straight years of profit under former owner Red McCombs.

New owner Zygi Wilf, who ponied up $600 million for the franchise, has put out a cash call to his partners in order to cover expenses due to contracts signed in the waning months of the McComb era, a renovation project at team headquarters, and increases in player and coaching payrolls.

Wilf expects to lose money again in 2006.

"I bought this team with the intent of enjoying football," he said.
(If that's the case, Zyg, we would have sold you our DirecTV hookup for only $595 million.)

"Revenue sharing will buffer us from further losses," Wilf said.
"We're hoping that building a new stadium will allow us to become profitable.
But right now, you really have to love your football.
You have to love your football, because on the financial side it will become more and more difficult.

"We've felt we've needed to spend the money to be competitive, and we did that," Wilf said.
"We will continue to do that.
We know it will continue to eat away at our profitability until we're able to get into a new stadium."

And because the question of whether the team will get a new stadium in Minnesota is still up in the air, the fact that the organization is spending more money than it is earning will make the team a candidate to be the franchise that gets into a new stadium . . .
in Los Angeles.
I am not sure what your hang up with the wealthy is, but you act like it is wrong for him to want to make money.

And again, the gophers were the ones who backed out of the stadium talks with the Vikings, and it made sense for them.
The U of M only had to spend about $100 million for this stadium, the rest is financed through the public.
If they went in on a stadium with the Vikes, they would spend two and half to three times that.
That would be a horrible move for the U.
http://www1.umn.edu/stadium/why.html

The other two options—sharing a facility with the Minnesota Vikings or taking over sole financial responsibility for the Metrodome when the Twins and Vikings leave in 2011—just don't make financial or programmatic sense.

The Vikings want a professional sports/entertainment complex that would be twice as large and cost twice as much as a Gopher campus stadium and would be incompatible with the University's mission and needs. And the University can't afford to stay in the Metrodome as sole tenant after the Vikings and Twins leave in 2011.

NodakPaul
10-30-2007, 03:02 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


Isn't the dome only 25 or 26 years old?


Yup.
The dome opened in 1982.

Marrdro
10-30-2007, 03:02 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


The dome works for me. I think the biggest reason they want a new stadium is so that the owner can make more money by catering to the wealthiest fans. I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.

If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.

If they do build a new stadium, it should have a retractable roof. Outdoors just doesn't make economical sense because they will need to use it year round to get full value. If they just put a roof on it, how is it better than the dome(other than better bathrooms and amenities).


Actually, the reason you got a ticket for $15 is because the Vikings are playing like crap and the tickets aren't selling very well.
The average ticket price in the dome is between $75 and $100 (depending on what report you believe).
This is among the highest in the NFL.
The reason ticket prices are so high is because of the lack of premium seats available.
If there were more premium seats and suites, they could lower the standard ticket prices.
Yes, in the end it would be more profitable for the owners, which is good - since Zygi lost about $10 million on the team last year even with selling out every game.

I do agree with you about the retractable though.
And I think the idea of combining with the Gophers met most of the resistance with the U.
The U wanted a smaller stadium than the dome and not as many luxury seats as the Vikings wanted.
TCF Stadium will only seat about 50,000 - even though it leaves open the possibility of closing off the horseshoe in the future for more seats.

The tickets for 15 have a face value of 20. A new stadium probably wouldn't have as many seats and demand for them would go way up, so even if the face value didn't go up(my guess it that they would go up significantly), the price scalpers would be asking would be much much more.
Zygi has not opened up his books so it is really hard to believe that he is really losing money. McCombs was constantly playing the role of the poor owner that can't make any money, then he sells the team for a 450 million profit. Zygi is going to make alot of money on the vikings, if they buy a stadium it should be because the state wants it, not so Zygi can make more. (Please don't say we will lose the vikings because it is just not true, there are many other teams that would move before the vikings(JAGS).
So the vikings want a new stadium so they can have more luxury boxes, but the gophers don't want as many so they need a new stadium. How many seats will the Vikings stadium have? 60,000, I think they could have worked something out for 1/2 billion in savings. The Dome is only like 40 years old, come talk to me in 20 years and then maybe the I will think about it.


The face value is actually $19.61 in honor of the year 1961.
That is a new promotion that Zygi put in place this year, and it is only for a rather limited number of high upper deck seats.
FYI, those were the season tickets that sold out first - because the scalpers bought them all.
As for the number of seats, the new stadium proposals have all had the same number of seats.
The point is to make the stadium large enough to be able to host a superbowl, but small enough not to risk blackouts in a small market like Minneapolis.
If the Vikes are playing well, demand is high regardless, so scalper tickets will be high when the Vikes are good, and low when they are bad.
The actual price of the ticket would not go up though.
If anything, they would install PSLs for season ticket holders, which would generate extra money but not affect single game ticket prices.

And it is fairly well documented that Zygi Wilf lost money on the Vikes last year.
Not sure if this is even up for debate.

"Prophet" wrote:

'nother take on the same article:

===========================================

VIKINGS LOSING MONEY, AND SPENDING IT
Mike Florio (http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm)

Kevin Seifert of the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the Vikings lost $10 million in 2005 (http://www.startribune.com/510/story/361128.html), following three straight years of profit under former owner Red McCombs.

New owner Zygi Wilf, who ponied up $600 million for the franchise, has put out a cash call to his partners in order to cover expenses due to contracts signed in the waning months of the McComb era, a renovation project at team headquarters, and increases in player and coaching payrolls.

Wilf expects to lose money again in 2006.

"I bought this team with the intent of enjoying football," he said.
(If that's the case, Zyg, we would have sold you our DirecTV hookup for only $595 million.)

"Revenue sharing will buffer us from further losses," Wilf said.
"We're hoping that building a new stadium will allow us to become profitable.
But right now, you really have to love your football.
You have to love your football, because on the financial side it will become more and more difficult.

"We've felt we've needed to spend the money to be competitive, and we did that," Wilf said.
"We will continue to do that.
We know it will continue to eat away at our profitability until we're able to get into a new stadium."

And because the question of whether the team will get a new stadium in Minnesota is still up in the air, the fact that the organization is spending more money than it is earning will make the team a candidate to be the franchise that gets into a new stadium . . .
in Los Angeles.
I am not sure what your hang up with the wealthy is, but you act like it is wrong for him to want to make money.

And again, the gophers were the ones who backed out of the stadium talks with the Vikings, and it made sense for them.
The U of M only had to spend about $100 million for this stadium, the rest is financed through the public.
If they went in on a stadium with the Vikes, they would spend two and half to three times that.
That would be a horrible move for the U.
http://www1.umn.edu/stadium/why.html

The other two options—sharing a facility with the Minnesota Vikings or taking over sole financial responsibility for the Metrodome when the Twins and Vikings leave in 2011—just don't make financial or programmatic sense.

The Vikings want a professional sports/entertainment complex that would be twice as large and cost twice as much as a Gopher campus stadium and would be incompatible with the University's mission and needs. And the University can't afford to stay in the Metrodome as sole tenant after the Vikings and Twins leave in 2011.

This is exactly why I never ever ever get into a debate with NP on the stadium issue as I think he (above all others on here) has a pretty solid grasp on this complex situation.


Thanks for the insight NP.

Metrodump
10-30-2007, 03:03 PM
Isn't the dome only 25 or 26 years old?

That sounds about right to me. 1980 or 81 ish IIRC

Prophet
10-30-2007, 03:04 PM
"Metrodump" wrote:



Isn't the dome only 25 or 26 years old?

That sounds about right to me. 1980 or 81 ish IIRC




I was at the last game in the other stadium and I think that was in 1982 or thereabouts.

Metrodump
10-30-2007, 03:04 PM
Thanks paul.

You was postin while I was still typin
8)

ultravikingfan
10-30-2007, 03:06 PM
"singersp" wrote:


Open-air, retractable or dome. To me what's most important is real grass on real sod.

Gloried carpeting on a cement floor just doesn't cut it for me.


Have you even been on the new style field turf?
It is not like the thin turf they put on concrete years ago.
The new turf is awesome.
Our team plays on it all the time.
Rain, snow, etc....it kicks major ass!
You cannot tell the difference when you are on it and you do not lose your footing.

NodakPaul
10-30-2007, 03:07 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Metrodump" wrote:



Isn't the dome only 25 or 26 years old?

That sounds about right to me. 1980 or 81 ish IIRC




I was at the last game in the other stadium and I think that was in 1982 or thereabouts.


I remember wanting so bad to take a piece of the met with me like all you other drunken fools, but my Dad (I was still a kid) wouldn't let me.
Too bad we lost that game to the Chiefs.

BloodyHorns82
10-30-2007, 03:07 PM
And I be lookinz all fly in my sweet purpa tie, da ladeez neva lie...
::)

In other words, the dome suits me just fine.
I think the Twins needed a new facility much more than the Vikings.
I won't complain if they get one, and I wouldn't even bitch if I had to pay more taxes, but I do have a blast inside the dome, so I don't really care if anything gets build soon.

jmcdon00
10-30-2007, 03:48 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


The dome works for me. I think the biggest reason they want a new stadium is so that the owner can make more money by catering to the wealthiest fans. I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.

If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.

If they do build a new stadium, it should have a retractable roof. Outdoors just doesn't make economical sense because they will need to use it year round to get full value. If they just put a roof on it, how is it better than the dome(other than better bathrooms and amenities).


Actually, the reason you got a ticket for $15 is because the Vikings are playing like crap and the tickets aren't selling very well.
The average ticket price in the dome is between $75 and $100 (depending on what report you believe).
This is among the highest in the NFL.
The reason ticket prices are so high is because of the lack of premium seats available.
If there were more premium seats and suites, they could lower the standard ticket prices.
Yes, in the end it would be more profitable for the owners, which is good - since Zygi lost about $10 million on the team last year even with selling out every game.

I do agree with you about the retractable though.
And I think the idea of combining with the Gophers met most of the resistance with the U.
The U wanted a smaller stadium than the dome and not as many luxury seats as the Vikings wanted.
TCF Stadium will only seat about 50,000 - even though it leaves open the possibility of closing off the horseshoe in the future for more seats.

The tickets for 15 have a face value of 20. A new stadium probably wouldn't have as many seats and demand for them would go way up, so even if the face value didn't go up(my guess it that they would go up significantly), the price scalpers would be asking would be much much more.
Zygi has not opened up his books so it is really hard to believe that he is really losing money. McCombs was constantly playing the role of the poor owner that can't make any money, then he sells the team for a 450 million profit. Zygi is going to make alot of money on the vikings, if they buy a stadium it should be because the state wants it, not so Zygi can make more. (Please don't say we will lose the vikings because it is just not true, there are many other teams that would move before the vikings(JAGS).
So the vikings want a new stadium so they can have more luxury boxes, but the gophers don't want as many so they need a new stadium. How many seats will the Vikings stadium have? 60,000, I think they could have worked something out for 1/2 billion in savings. The Dome is only like 40 years old, come talk to me in 20 years and then maybe the I will think about it.


The face value is actually $19.61 in honor of the year 1961.
That is a new promotion that Zygi put in place this year, and it is only for a rather limited number of high upper deck seats.
FYI, those were the season tickets that sold out first - because the scalpers bought them all.
As for the number of seats, the new stadium proposals have all had the same number of seats.
The point is to make the stadium large enough to be able to host a superbowl, but small enough not to risk blackouts in a small market like Minneapolis.
If the Vikes are playing well, demand is high regardless, so scalper tickets will be high when the Vikes are good, and low when they are bad.
The actual price of the ticket would not go up though.
If anything, they would install PSLs for season ticket holders, which would generate extra money but not affect single game ticket prices.

And it is fairly well documented that Zygi Wilf lost money on the Vikes last year.
Not sure if this is even up for debate.

"Prophet" wrote:

'nother take on the same article:

===========================================

VIKINGS LOSING MONEY, AND SPENDING IT
Mike Florio (http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm)

Kevin Seifert of the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the Vikings lost $10 million in 2005 (http://www.startribune.com/510/story/361128.html), following three straight years of profit under former owner Red McCombs.

New owner Zygi Wilf, who ponied up $600 million for the franchise, has put out a cash call to his partners in order to cover expenses due to contracts signed in the waning months of the McComb era, a renovation project at team headquarters, and increases in player and coaching payrolls.

Wilf expects to lose money again in 2006.

"I bought this team with the intent of enjoying football," he said.
(If that's the case, Zyg, we would have sold you our DirecTV hookup for only $595 million.)

"Revenue sharing will buffer us from further losses," Wilf said.
"We're hoping that building a new stadium will allow us to become profitable.
But right now, you really have to love your football.
You have to love your football, because on the financial side it will become more and more difficult.

"We've felt we've needed to spend the money to be competitive, and we did that," Wilf said.
"We will continue to do that.
We know it will continue to eat away at our profitability until we're able to get into a new stadium."

And because the question of whether the team will get a new stadium in Minnesota is still up in the air, the fact that the organization is spending more money than it is earning will make the team a candidate to be the franchise that gets into a new stadium . . .
in Los Angeles.
I am not sure what your hang up with the wealthy is, but you act like it is wrong for him to want to make money.

And again, the gophers were the ones who backed out of the stadium talks with the Vikings, and it made sense for them.
The U of M only had to spend about $100 million for this stadium, the rest is financed through the public.
If they went in on a stadium with the Vikes, they would spend two and half to three times that.
That would be a horrible move for the U.
http://www1.umn.edu/stadium/why.html

The other two options—sharing a facility with the Minnesota Vikings or taking over sole financial responsibility for the Metrodome when the Twins and Vikings leave in 2011—just don't make financial or programmatic sense.

The Vikings want a professional sports/entertainment complex that would be twice as large and cost twice as much as a Gopher campus stadium and would be incompatible with the University's mission and needs. And the University can't afford to stay in the Metrodome as sole tenant after the Vikings and Twins leave in 2011.

We will have to disagree about whether or not ticket prices would go up if a new stadium is built, I am pretty confident that they would.

I have no problem with Zygi making money, I think he is a great owner, but my problem is that people make it sound like he is losing money, and while on paper that is true in reality, when it is all said and done he will make a boat load of money from his investment.

I just think that a business decision such as building a new stadium should be done by business men not politicians and voters. It seems to me to be a huge waste to build 2 football stadiums, in the same city that will host a combined 20 football games a year(and tear down a structurally sound stadium that is only 26 years old). Get rid of the city's involvement and let private investors do something that really makes sense.

Maybe they could just paint the dome like a giant viking helmet, that would be cool and wouldn't cost a billion dollars.

ultravikingfan
10-30-2007, 03:52 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"Metrodump" wrote:



Isn't the dome only 25 or 26 years old?

That sounds about right to me. 1980 or 81 ish IIRC




I was at the last game in the other stadium and I think that was in 1982 or thereabouts.


I remember wanting so bad to take a piece of the met with me like all you other drunken fools, but my Dad (I was still a kid) wouldn't let me.
Too bad we lost that game to the Chiefs.


1982

http://www.ballparkwatch.com/visits/metrodome.htm

PurpleGator
10-30-2007, 04:17 PM
Since I wont be the one at the games, I say no roof.


Be men and sit out in the cold.


You want to talk about an advantage?
That is an advantage.


Man up!

Overlord
10-30-2007, 04:37 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


If they absolutely need a new stadium they should have combined it with the Gophers stadium. Both are football stadiums, both are in Minneapolis, they play on seperate days.


The Gophers' new stadium isn't a football stadium.
I've been watching.
I'm not sure what that team has been playing, but it isn't football.

Seriously, the problem with combining the Gophers stadium with the Vikings is that the Gophers can't get people to show up.
It's not a fun environment and it's hard to recruit talent when they visit an empty stadium.
The new Gophers' stadium will only hold about 45,000 people.

Anyways, I voted for a retractable roof.
I'm not in the area anymore, so I'm not going to sit and tell everyone they need to play outside in the cold.
I also don't think it's that big of an advantage unless your team is built with a certain type of players to play a certain way.
It's definately fun to watch a game played when the elements are a factor though.

singersp
10-30-2007, 05:18 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:



Connect with the old fans.
Hey shock, remember the old man and old lady that got mad at me during the Atlanta game cause I was yelling to loud for them.
Flop the old fans.
They are on fixed income anyway. (See cost comment.)



LOL! Not at the comment, but at you for making it. Don't you realize that you will be one of those flopping old fans in just a few years?

;D

singersp
10-30-2007, 05:22 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:



I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.



You got screwed. I bought a pair for $5.50 for that game. LOL!

singersp
10-30-2007, 05:24 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Open-air, retractable or dome. To me what's most important is real grass on real sod.

Gloried carpeting on a cement floor just doesn't cut it for me.


Have you even been on the new style field turf?
It is not like the thin turf they put on concrete years ago.
The new turf is awesome.
Our team plays on it all the time.
Rain, snow, etc....it kicks major ass!
You cannot tell the difference when you are on it and you do not lose your footing.


Nope not on the new stuff. The new turf they have in the dome looks much better, but that crap they had a few years ago was glorified indoor-outdoor carpet,

singersp
10-30-2007, 05:26 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


Football is a game that was meant and designed to be played outdoors.
If you want to sit inside go a bowling tournament, or, perhaps, curling.
The conservative thinking behind a retractable roof decision has to go by the wayside.
Outdoors.
The only way the game should ever be played.


Played yes, but watched, not necessarily.

singersp
10-30-2007, 06:02 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:



Actually, the reason you got a ticket for $15 is because the Vikings are playing like crap and the tickets aren't selling very well.
The average ticket price in the dome is between $75 and $100 (depending on what report you believe).
This is among the highest in the NFL.
The reason ticket prices are so high is because of the lack of premium seats available.
If there were more premium seats and suites, they could lower the standard ticket prices.
Yes, in the end it would be more profitable for the owners, which is good - since Zygi lost about $10 million on the team last year even with selling out every game.

The face value is actually $19.61 in honor of the year 1961.
That is a new promotion that Zygi put in place this year, and it is only for a rather limited number of high upper deck seats.
FYI, those were the season tickets that sold out first - because the scalpers bought them all.
As for the number of seats, the new stadium proposals have all had the same number of seats.
The point is to make the stadium large enough to be able to host a superbowl, but small enough not to risk blackouts in a small market like Minneapolis.
If the Vikes are playing well, demand is high regardless, so scalper tickets will be high when the Vikes are good, and low when they are bad.
The actual price of the ticket would not go up though.
If anything, they would install PSLs for season ticket holders, which would generate extra money but not affect single game ticket prices.

And it is fairly well documented that Zygi Wilf lost money on the Vikes last year.
Not sure if this is even up for debate.



I think you might be a tad high on the averages. The ticket prices range from $9.99 for limited view to $116.00 for front row 50 yd line (excluding the few suites). Use the map below as a guide.

I don't want to take the time to calculate it all out.

The $19.61 price you mention is only a whopping savings of about $0.40 from last year & he did extend some of those to go down an extra row or two.

Zygi may have lost $10 million on the Vikings, but I don't think lack of selling tickets had much impact on it. Whether scalpers, season ticket owners or individuals bought them, they still sold for the same price, based on how they were bought (See map).

Scalper tickets might be high when the Vikings are doing good, but again the Vikes don't make money off of scalpers or loose any when tickets go below face value.

I have been going to every home game since 2000 & have missed perhaps 4 games in that time span. I was a season ticket holder for three of them, but still bought & sold tickets over those years. Rarely ever, did I pay more than face value for any of those tickets with the exception of the Packers & Bears games & over those 7 years it's been fairly consistant. Those two games plus one other game during the year generally go high. The ones that do generall go high are the premium lower level seats.

I don't like to pay more than face value & rarely have, but that is not to say some people don't because I know they do. A lot have gone for less also. I know, I lost about $2,500 last year alone.

Scalpers have been buying less & less of the tickets because a lot of them are losing money every year. The same goes for season ticket holders who go to a few games a year & try & sell the rest.

Since you see a lot of tickets going for a lot less than face, there are those who can afford to go & buy them, which is actually helping the games to sellout.

http://www.vikings.com/DAM_public/9721.swf

http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/Stadium prices.jpg (http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/Stadium prices.jpg)

BloodyHorns82
10-30-2007, 06:39 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.



You got screwed. I bought a pair for $5.50 for that game. LOL!


yeah, but jmcdon00 and I were sitting in row 2 at the 50, upper level.
They were fantastic seats!
8)

PurpleGator
10-30-2007, 06:40 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.



You got screwed. I bought a pair for $5.50 for that game. LOL!


yeah, but jmcdon00 and I were sitting in row 2 at the 50, upper level.
They were fantastic seats!
8)


Don't be babies sit outside.
Its not that cold.

singersp
10-30-2007, 08:00 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.



You got screwed. I bought a pair for $5.50 for that game. LOL!


yeah, but jmcdon00 and I were sitting in row 2 at the 50, upper level.
They were fantastic seats!
8)


Where you at the tailgate party? Why didn't you wave to me when I walked right by you going up to my seat?
;)

BloodyHorns82
10-30-2007, 08:14 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.



You got screwed. I bought a pair for $5.50 for that game. LOL!


yeah, but jmcdon00 and I were sitting in row 2 at the 50, upper level.
They were fantastic seats!
8)


Where you at the tailgate party? Why didn't you wave to me when I walked right by you going up to my seat?
;)

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39189.0;attach=2730;image

I was there but your big melon is hiding me. Bloody Horns is the one in the sunglasses next to me.
Oh yeah, i'm jmcdon00 logged in as bloodyhorns, too lazy to switch.

singersp
10-30-2007, 08:18 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.



You got screwed. I bought a pair for $5.50 for that game. LOL!


yeah, but jmcdon00 and I were sitting in row 2 at the 50, upper level.
They were fantastic seats!
8)


Where you at the tailgate party? Why didn't you wave to me when I walked right by you going up to my seat?
;)

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39189.0;attach=2730;image

I was there but your big melon is hiding me. Bloody Horns is the one in the sunglasses next to me.
Oh yeah, i'm jmcdon00 logged in as bloodyhorns, too lazy to switch.


I remember you being there along side of Bloody Horns. I wasn't sure who it was & didn't ask. My appologies.

LOL! I thought you & Marstc09 were going to rumble!
:P

My season tickets were 16 rows behind you over your left shoulder.

marstc09
10-30-2007, 08:20 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.



You got screwed. I bought a pair for $5.50 for that game. LOL!


yeah, but jmcdon00 and I were sitting in row 2 at the 50, upper level.
They were fantastic seats!
8)


Where you at the tailgate party? Why didn't you wave to me when I walked right by you going up to my seat?
;)

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39189.0;attach=2730;image

I was there but your big melon is hiding me. Bloody Horns is the one in the sunglasses next to me.
Oh yeah, i'm jmcdon00 logged in as bloodyhorns, too lazy to switch.


jmcdon00 I did not know that was you. I thought you were just Bloddys buddy and not from the site. It was nice to meet the both of you.

jmcdon00
10-30-2007, 08:28 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:





I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.



You got screwed. I bought a pair for $5.50 for that game. LOL!


yeah, but jmcdon00 and I were sitting in row 2 at the 50, upper level.
They were fantastic seats!
8)


Where you at the tailgate party? Why didn't you wave to me when I walked right by you going up to my seat?
;)

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39189.0;attach=2730;image

I was there but your big melon is hiding me. Bloody Horns is the one in the sunglasses next to me.
Oh yeah, i'm jmcdon00 logged in as bloodyhorns, too lazy to switch.


I remember you being there along side of Bloody Horns. I wasn't sure who it was & didn't ask. My appologies.

LOL! I thought you & Marstc09 were going to rumble!
:P

My season tickets were 16 rows behind you over your left shoulder.

I'm alot quieter in person, plus it is kinda a gay name to introduce yourself as. My real name is Jake.
The tickets we bought were actually in the upper corner, we just saw some empty seats and sat down, no one ever showed up so we sat there the entire game. ;D

michaelmazid
10-30-2007, 08:35 PM
I am down with a retractable roof. Its just way too cold in January in minny. get it? january!!!!!!!

singersp
10-30-2007, 08:52 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:



I was able to buy a ticket to the last game for $15, I'm sure a new stadium would demand at least $100 a ticket.



You got screwed. I bought a pair for $5.50 for that game. LOL!


yeah, but jmcdon00 and I were sitting in row 2 at the 50, upper level.
They were fantastic seats!
8)


You did, but the tickets you bought for $15 were for the upper corner. You just scarfed some empty seats at the 50.
:P

Metrodump
10-31-2007, 09:10 PM
Looks like da masses have spoken - 55 voted for a new outdoor
crib, ....and 37 voted for yet another indoor wussified indoor venue.


There inlies da answer we been lookin fo......

COJOMAY
10-31-2007, 09:22 PM
I haven't read this entire thread but don't forget the stadium is a money maker for the Metropolitian Sports Commission. Do you think they are going to be happy just using the facility 8 times a year? And no chance for a Super Bowl?

DustinDupont
10-31-2007, 09:23 PM
Retractable- i want a superbowl

tb04512
10-31-2007, 09:23 PM
i am a wuss and want a retractable, because then we can hold more events there when it isnt in use in feb-july

BadlandsVikings
10-31-2007, 09:25 PM
Is putting a retractable roof over Minnesota in the winter time a bad idea?

DarrinNelsonguy
10-31-2007, 09:25 PM
We are only going to get 1 Super Bowl even with a new stadium with a roof, because the NFL does not want to come to Minnesota in Feb. So taking that into account we should forget the roof! Open air stadium will bring back the true fans and eliminate those who sit on their hands all game and those who leave mid 4th quarter with the game still in doubt!

PurplePeopleEaters
10-31-2007, 09:38 PM
I never feel a domed stadium has the same atmosphere as an outdoor game. I love going to games at the dome but football just needs to be played outdoors. Now does it need to be played in -1000000 degrees in Minnesota outdoors? Not all the time. That's why I went with the retractable roof.

I know singer mentioned that some fans (kids, elderly) wouldn't be able to take going to a game in extreme cold temperatures. That would be the time to cover up the stadium and play it indoors. When it's a good temp then you can go ahead and play outside. Sure, It'll be more money but I see a state legislature to be more likely to approve a retractable than a straight up open air because of the added benefit that the stadium can be used for other activities.

I would honestly be fine with either one personally but I think retractable is the way to go.