could we have built to a 70K or 80K capacity right away?

Donate To GopherHole
I hate to re-start an old argument, but I still think there's a very real possibility that the Vikings and Gophers will be arm-twisted by the legislature to work something out and there will be an associated expansion to at least 70,000. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but I know some of you have some real venom for the Vikings.
 

howeda7 said:
I hate to re-start an old argument, but I still think there's a very real possibility that the Vikings and Gophers will be arm-twisted by the legislature to work something out and there will be an associated expansion to at least 70,000. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but I know some of you have some real venom for the Vikings.
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen. The Vikings already came out and said that they can't make enough money playing permanently at the New Brickhouse, so it's New Digs or Bust for them.
 

Can the legislature force the Gophers to share TCF? I would be surprised if that were the case.

On the other hand, Bruininks has gone on record as being open to at least an agreement to a short term lease to the Queens. I would be concerned if they agreed to share TCF with the Gophers long term.

I like to watch the Queens but I support the Gophers. The Queens can have the damn dome and their own digs.
 

The legislature could force the U to let the Vikings play at TCF. But it would be only a temporary arrangement, the Vikings would want a stadium with far more bells and whistles. The Gophers will still be playing at TCF for many decades to come. If the Vikings get another new stadium, we will be playing at TCF long after the Vikings are demanding yet another stadium to replace the new new stadium.

I'm happy with the capacity for now. This was about as big as we could build and still get the project approved. But playing in a 50K stadium packed full is going to make a great game day atmosphere. Playing with 60K in an 80K stadium would feel empty. Expand when the demand fits. When there are 10,000 people getting shut out of the stadium, add 10K more seats.
 

If they Vikings do get a new Stadium what would probably happen is like what the Chicago Bears and Univ of Illinois did, share Memorial Stadium in Champaign. The Vikings would play for 2-3 years at TCF while the new Vikings Stadium would be built. In regards to liquor sales you never know what the Board of Regents would decide.
 


As others have noted, the Vikings would never permantly move to TCF for a TON of reasons. The concern I have is that a temporary sharing of TCF with the Vikes could involve an expansion before the Gopher season ticket demand warrants it (though I really doubt this would happen).

As for the legislature, I can see the U fighting back hard on any forced marriage between the two teams at TCF (not to mention its probably a big overreach in terms of the legislature's power).
 

GoAUpher said:
As others have noted, the Vikings would never permantly move to TCF for a TON of reasons. The concern I have is that a temporary sharing of TCF with the Vikes could involve an expansion before the Gopher season ticket demand warrants it (though I really doubt this would happen).

As for the legislature, I can see the U fighting back hard on any forced marriage between the two teams at TCF (not to mention its probably a big overreach in terms of the legislature's power).
Click to expand...

exactly. i could see the U pushing back even harder against any more crap the legislature tries to pull on them. especially after the bullsh!t stunt they pulled against their wishes this year with the alcohol sales/service amendment that oh so conveniently only impacted TCF Stadium and tied the U's hands to some extent.
 

While I think it is ridiculous to spend money on two seperate football stadium a few miles apart that will get used a total of 16-18 times a year, I do concede that this is largely water under the bridge as I'm not sure the Vikings would be better off in TCF then simply staying in the Dome. However, they're going to have a hard time getting funding for thier new stadium, and as much as some of you might like it, they're not moving anytime soon-both because they don't really have anywhere to go, and because the NFL isn't stupid enough to abandon the #13 tv market that sells out every game when they are already in many much weaker markets. Because of this, you cannot dismiss the possibility of an expansion to TCF that would include enough ammenities to make the Vikings happy with the state and Vikings splitting the cost. Can the legislature force the U to do this? Maybe not technically, but don't kid yourselves, this is still a state university, and if they want it bad enough, it will happen.
 

Game day festivites

I think before they are able to expand, they need to perfect their game day activities. Sconnies don't pack their stadiums just because they are fans. They pack their stadiums because they are great places to party for a day and a half. I've been to several Viking games at Lambeau, and it was o.k., but the tailgaiting is phenomenol. All the great venues have great game day atmosphere, not just game atmosphere. When people can have a great time even if the team loses, then the demand for tickets will go up and we can expand.
Right now, nobody knows how parking will work. What type of tailgaiting will be allowed, how many bars are going to have tents, etc..
 



Vanilla Gorilla said:
I think before they are able to expand, they need to perfect their game day activities. Sconnies don't pack their stadiums just because they are fans. They pack their stadiums because they are great places to party for a day and a half. I've been to several Viking games at Lambeau, and it was o.k., but the tailgaiting is phenomenol. All the great venues have great game day atmosphere, not just game atmosphere. When people can have a great time even if the team loses, then the demand for tickets will go up and we can expand.
Right now, nobody knows how parking will work. What type of tailgaiting will be allowed, how many bars are going to have tents, etc..
Click to expand...

This is a good point.
 

howeda7 said:
that will get used a total of 16-18 times a year
Click to expand...

No. TCF (and any potential Vikings stadium) will be used much more often than just for football games.

howeda7 said:
they're not moving anytime soon-both because they don't really have anywhere to go
Click to expand...

Los Angeles? Portland? San Antonio? Sacramento? Columbus? Las Vegas? None of these other than LA are very realistic, but they're all possible if the league and the city wants a team there badly enough.

howeda7 said:
the NFL isn't stupid enough to abandon the #13 tv market
Click to expand...

Riiiight. Just like they weren't stupid enough to abandon the #2 (LA), #6 (Oakland), #10 (Houston), #17 (Cleveland), and #21 (St. Louis) markets in the recent past. Never, ever underestimate the greed of owners and league executives. By the way, we're #15, not #13.

howeda7 said:
that sells out every game
Click to expand...

Huh? Were you even paying attention last year? If not for Fox, the Vikings wouldn't have sold out a lot of their games last year. It has been this way ever since they idiotically traded Moss away for nothing.

howeda7 said:
you cannot dismiss the possibility of an expansion to TCF that would include enough ammenities to make the Vikings happy with the state and Vikings splitting the cost
Click to expand...

Actually, I can dismiss it, because the Gophers will never, ever share TCF with the Vikings on a permanent basis. Ever.

As much as I would hate to see it, the Vikings moving somewhere else is a real threat. If they don't get funding assistance in the next 2-3 years, they will start looking around. I vehemently disagree with pro teams sticking their hands out, while putting all the profits right back into their pockets, but that's the way the world works now. Team owners are, with few exceptions, underhanded, greedy bastards, and that's largely how they got to where they are. But you can guarantee the U won't lend them a hand by offering to share the stadium, nor should they. The move to the Metrodome was regretted almost immediately, and we've all been waiting for decades to have our own on-campus stadium again. That's not going to be taken away by the Vikings or anybody. And if that means the Vikes end up leaving, I, for one, will never watch the NFL again.
 

howeda7 said:
While I think it is ridiculous to spend money on two seperate football stadium a few miles apart that will get used a total of 16-18 times a year, I do concede that this is largely water under the bridge as I'm not sure the Vikings would be better off in TCF then simply staying in the Dome. However, they're going to have a hard time getting funding for thier new stadium, and as much as some of you might like it, they're not moving anytime soon-both because they don't really have anywhere to go, and because the NFL isn't stupid enough to abandon the #13 tv market that sells out every game when they are already in many much weaker markets. Because of this, you cannot dismiss the possibility of an expansion to TCF that would include enough ammenities to make the Vikings happy with the state and Vikings splitting the cost. Can the legislature force the U to do this? Maybe not technically, but don't kid yourselves, this is still a state university, and if they want it bad enough, it will happen.
Click to expand...

I think you're discounting the most important factor. Money. The Vikings won't make nearly enough if they play in TCF...why? Because the U owns it. Think of all the revenue the Gophers didn't get access to at the Dome and then think about an NFL team not getting that money. Parking money all to the U. Ad money all to the U. Suite/premium seat money. Etc. Etc. Plus, you're suggesting that the #1 sports brand in the US is going agree to having one of their franchises forced into playing in a stadium designed for a college team. Not a true shared stadium where the NFL team gets first billing but a B10 stadium where the Gophers are the true hometeam. The M logos EVERYWHERE. Maroon and Gold EVERYWHERE. Think of all the pictures you've seen of the suites. The M logo is even in the sinks!

And what upgrades could the possible make with the expansion that would make it worth the Vikings while? More suites and premium seats doesn't generate revenue for the Vikes as the U owns the stadium. Where are you going to put the Vikings locker room? Are you suggesting that NFL players are going to get put into a locker room with a giant M on the floor and ceiling?

The time for a permanant shared stadium has passed. I think it is completely possible to dismiss the possibility because there are way too many simple money, branding/image, and logistical issues that would make this completely unfeasible.
 

LA is the one that really stands out. The NFL would like to get back there, but LA has shown no interest in building an NFL stadium. The other markets, Oakland, Houston, Cleveland and St. Louis all have teams back again. If the Vikings were to leave, we'd probably have another team here again sooner or later. And we'd probably build this new team a stadium that gave them all they wanted anyway.
 



I enjoy both the Vikings and the Gophers, but I have to admit that the thought of the Vikings playing at "The Bank" and having to hang tacky purple banners over the permanent Gopher stuff on game day makes me chuckle a little.
 

RodentRampage said:
LA is the one that really stands out. The NFL would like to get back there, but LA has shown no interest in building an NFL stadium.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced that it's not just the stadium thing that's keeping the NFL out of LA. I think the NFL likes having LA as a bargaining chip anytime they need some city to build a new stadium to keep their team. If the brand/league is flourishing and flat-out dominating all other pro leagues without having a team in LA, it clearly doesn't NEED a team in LA. But the threat of moving to LA is something the NFL and its owners can hold over any community unwilling to play by their rules.

Conspiracy theory aside, my thoughts on stadium expansion have all been touched on here.

(1) If demand doesn't indicated you can sell out the new expansion, don't build it. I'm guessing the U will largely be on its own to fund the expansion of the stadium (unless help comes through corporate sponsorship/naming rights agreements) and they'll want to guarantee they have the revenue in line to fund the project in advance of getting started. If the Vikings/NFL intervene and offer to help expand the stadium, consider that there might be things (like game day experience for GOPHER fans over the next 50+ years) that are more valuable than getting a couple 10,000 seats added to the stadium at a bargain price.

and

(2) If the Vikings want to use the stadium for any reason, I hope Prexy B sticks it to them as hard as he feels like he can. The U got hosed over at the Dome for almost 30 years. Make sure the agreement is on the U's terms, which includes keeping a lion's share of the revenue from ads, suites, parking, etc. Let the Vikings hang temporary signage all over the stadium and play on a Maroon and Gold field.
 

parkinglotgopher said:
I'm convinced that it's not just the stadium thing that's keeping the NFL out of LA. I think the NFL likes having LA as a bargaining chip anytime they need some city to build a new stadium to keep their team. If the brand/league is flourishing and flat-out dominating all other pro leagues without having a team in LA, it clearly doesn't NEED a team in LA. But the threat of moving to LA is something the NFL and its owners can hold over any community unwilling to play by their rules.

Conspiracy theory aside, my thoughts on stadium expansion have all been touched on here.

(1) If demand doesn't indicated you can sell out the new expansion, don't build it. I'm guessing the U will largely be on its own to fund the expansion of the stadium (unless help comes through corporate sponsorship/naming rights agreements) and they'll want to guarantee they have the revenue in line to fund the project in advance of getting started. If the Vikings/NFL intervene and offer to help expand the stadium, consider that there might be things (like game day experience for GOPHER fans over the next 50+ years) that are more valuable than getting a couple 10,000 seats added to the stadium at a bargain price.

and

(2) If the Vikings want to use the stadium for any reason, I hope Prexy B sticks it to them as hard as he feels like he can. The U got hosed over at the Dome for almost 30 years. Make sure the agreement is on the U's terms, which includes keeping a lion's share of the revenue from ads, suites, parking, etc. Let the Vikings hang temporary signage all over the stadium and play on a Maroon and Gold field.
Click to expand...

It is funny that I was talking to some of my friends from LA last weekend and we discussed the NFL in LA and there opinion atleast was that the vast majority of fans and even the media in LA could care less about having an NFL team there. The only other town that I could see an NFL possibly moving to would be San Antonio because it is one of the fastest growing cities in the country and as we all know football is big in Texas. Also, they have the alamodome already built which sits vacant most of the year and when the hosted the Saints during the aftermath of Katrina they sold the place out and the fan support was huge.
 

No. TCF (and any potential Vikings stadium) will be used much more often than just for football games.
Click to expand...

A domed/retractable Viking stadium would get used a fair amount, but how often is TCF going to get used really? And if they both exist how much is either really going to get used. One or the other is certainly needed, but not both.



Los Angeles? Portland? San Antonio? Sacramento? Columbus? Las Vegas? None of these other than LA are very realistic, but they're all possible if the league and the city wants a team there badly enough.
Click to expand...

You don't leave MSP for any of those except LA. California is bankrupt, no one is building a stadium there. And if someone does, San Diego, Buffalo and Jacksonville would all be more logical for the NFL to move thier then the Vikings.


Huh? Were you even paying attention last year? If not for Fox, the Vikings wouldn't have sold out a lot of their games last year. It has been this way ever since they idiotically traded Moss away for nothing.
Click to expand...

Help from Fox or not, they have sold out every game for more then a decade. That's not Green Bay or Denver good, but it's better then most teams in the league. All of the teams mentioned above don't come close to doing that.


Actually, I can dismiss it, because the Gophers will never, ever share TCF with the Vikings on a permanent basis. Ever.
Click to expand...

I never said it was likely, but it cannot be dismissed. It would require concessions from the U on sharing at least the gameday revenue, and it would require major concessions from the Vikings that they won't get everything they'd like. Frankly, they're probably better off in an even moderately renovated metrodome, but I would not dismiss it.
 


GoAUpher said:
I think you're discounting the most important factor. Money. The Vikings won't make nearly enough if they play in TCF...why? Because the U owns it. Think of all the revenue the Gophers didn't get access to at the Dome and then think about an NFL team not getting that money. Parking money all to the U. Ad money all to the U. Suite/premium seat money. Etc. Etc. Plus, you're suggesting that the #1 sports brand in the US is going agree to having one of their franchises forced into playing in a stadium designed for a college team. Not a true shared stadium where the NFL team gets first billing but a B10 stadium where the Gophers are the true hometeam. The M logos EVERYWHERE. Maroon and Gold EVERYWHERE. Think of all the pictures you've seen of the suites. The M logo is even in the sinks!

And what upgrades could the possible make with the expansion that would make it worth the Vikings while? More suites and premium seats doesn't generate revenue for the Vikes as the U owns the stadium. Where are you going to put the Vikings locker room? Are you suggesting that NFL players are going to get put into a locker room with a giant M on the floor and ceiling?

The time for a permanant shared stadium has passed. I think it is completely possible to dismiss the possibility because there are way too many simple money, branding/image, and logistical issues that would make this completely unfeasible.
Click to expand...

Obviously in a long-term shared stadium, or even short-term during construction, the U would be expected to give the Vikings thier game-day revenue from these sources, and there's no reason they shouldn't. Yes, I know the Gophers didn't get some of that the last 30 years, but this isn't 'let's get even' time.
 

We've seen that a shared stadium is a bad, bad, bad deal for the Gophers. I'm not opposed to the Vikings temporarily using TCF, but a permanent shared stadium is a bad idea. The Gophers would become tenants in their own stadium. We now have a stadium that suits our needs. It does not suit what the Vikings <s>need</s> want. To borrow from Doctor Evil, the Vikings want "sharks with friggin' laser beams attached". The Gophers will be playing at the new stadium decades after any new Vikings stadium is torn down for another new stadium. If we would have built our new stadium to meet what the Vikings wanted, it wouldn't have been our stadium, we would be again reduced to temporary banners.

You might as well ask the Vikings and the Timberwolves to use the same arena.
 

howeda7 said:
Obviously in a long-term shared stadium, or even short-term during construction, the U would be expected to give the Vikings thier game-day revenue from these sources, and there's no reason they shouldn't. Yes, I know the Gophers didn't get some of that the last 30 years, but this isn't 'let's get even' time.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with your premise here. Where does this expectation come from? Its pure free market. The U has the desired commodity and can set the terms it feels are appropriate. It's not about getting back at the Vikes or the Metropolitan Stadium Commission, its about keeping the maximum amount of revenue in house so that the U can meet its own goals/needs, both athletic and academic.

The U has already stated that they feel a mixed use stadium runs counter to the university's mission and that the goals of the Vikings are incompatible with the U's. They aren't going to suddenly decide to give away money.
 

GoAUpher said:
I'm not sure I agree with your premise here. Where does this expectation come from? Its pure free market. The U has the desired commodity and can set the terms it feels are appropriate. It's not about getting back at the Vikes or the Metropolitan Stadium Commission, its about keeping the maximum amount of revenue in house so that the U can meet its own goals/needs, both athletic and academic.

The U has already stated that they feel a mixed use stadium runs counter to the university's mission and that the goals of the Vikings are incompatible with the U's. They aren't going to suddenly decide to give away money.
Click to expand...

The U has the commodity, but the state paid for a lot of it. Any Vikings solution that involves TCF either short or long term will also have state involvement. As such, the state and the Vikings would expect the U to give them a fair deal. To me, that would involve the Vikings paying 'rent' to cover operating costs on thier game day, and set-up, tear down, etc. and in return getting all revenue from that game day, including suites and parking, etc. I know the U didn't have the fairest deal at the Dome, but that is not relevant going forward.
 

howeda7 said:
The U has the commodity, but the state paid for a lot of it. Any Vikings solution that involves TCF either short or long term will also have state involvement. As such, the state and the Vikings would expect the U to give them a fair deal. To me, that would involve the Vikings paying 'rent' to cover operating costs on thier game day, and set-up, tear down, etc. and in return getting all revenue from that game day, including suites and parking, etc. I know the U didn't have the fairest deal at the Dome, but that is not relevant going forward.
Click to expand...

The first 5 words are all that matter here. The U has (er, owns) the commodity. What you're suggesting is that the legislature will manage to force the university to give up a BIG revenue stream for a private company. That's not going to happen and it is the opposite of a fair deal.

I'd also point out that the legislature doesn't have the right to force that kind of concession. They could certainly try but I can see the U taking this sort of thing to the MN Supreme Court under its rights of Constitutional Autonomy. This would be well beyond the whole alcohol nonsense (which, if the U truly wanted, it could take to court). This would be undermining the U's right to make sovereign decisions affecting its revenue streams and the use of its property. You say the U's deal at the Dome isn't relevant and you are right. Like I said before, this isn't about getting back at the Vikings. It would be about the U driving what it alone considers a fair bargain for the use of its facilities. And something tells me that fair bargain would require the Vikes to pay more than just rent.

You also assume that there would be a desire by the legislature to pursue such a plan. You're ignoring the fact that before you could even talk about this deal the state would still have to pony up a lot of money for improvements to TCF. Given the other issues the state faces (and will continue to face) I'm betting this will still be a difficult sell. This also assumes that the DFL caucus (which will likely control the legislature for the time being) will be willing to overreach and steal A LOT of potential revenue from the U in order to benefit a private corporation. Not exactly moves consistent with DFL ideals.

And all of this ignores the fact that when first asked to agree to the new joint stadium the U can simply say "No" and go about their business.

The scenario you propose is possible just like its possible that Northern Iowa will win the National Title this season, extremely unlikely.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom