Decision Time on Stadium

Donate To GopherHole
MaxyJR1

MaxyJR1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
13,013
Reaction score
7,784
Points
113
Things are needed to move fast after Jan 1 on the stadium issue. Is it worth 15 million to put a new roof on the Metrodome? Will the Vikings sue the metropolitan sports commission for failure on the lease of a building 7 years past the expectancy of the roof.

Will TCF bank need to be used in 2011 for the NFL? Will the High School football format need to be changed to get the season done earlier with Championsips played out side? Not to mention anything else that leaves due to this mess.

Why spend a dime on a place that will have no tenants after 2011 or sooner when lawyers get involved.

Mona sit by the phone, PR needs are a coming. :)
 

Of course they need to put a new roof on the dome!!

F*ck if i'm missing out on Twinsfest!!
 

I was thinking about checking out my very first monster truck pull at the dome. What if I never get that chance?
 

Doesn't it cost a lot of money just to keep the roof inflated? If the speakers and lights weren't suspended from the roof, the roof would be far lighter, would require less air pressure to lift, thus less engery, plus the roof would be under less strain, so there would be less chance of ripping.

If they redid the roof, is there a way to mount lights and speakers do they aren't attached to the roof?
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Is it worth 15 million to put a new roof on the Metrodome?
Click to expand...

It is 5-million (not 15-million) according to Bill Lester in radio interviews. And yes, it is worth it. If you can't justify the cost of a new roof for 1-5 years of use, then there is obviously no chance in hell a new stadium can ever be justified because that will cost 50-million+/year.
 



I thought 15 M was high. Problem I have is the most likely spot for the new stadium might be the dome's current spot.
 

Yank the roof off for good and have an open-air stadium.
 




metrolax said:
Yank the roof off for good and have an open-air stadium.
Click to expand...

The pipes have already started to burst and there is no drainage for precip. I think it is inevitable that TCF will be hosting the Vikings on a regular basis very soon.
 


MaxyJR1 said:
The pipes have already started to burst and there is no drainage for precip. I think it is inevitable that TCF will be hosting the Vikings on a regular basis very soon.
Click to expand...

I agree, I believe the next Vikings season (whenever it is) will be at TCF while a new stadium is built on the dome site.
 

goldengophers said:
I agree, I believe the next Vikings season (whenever it is) will be at TCF while a new stadium is built on the dome site.
Click to expand...

Just making sure I understand. You think that the Metrodome has seen its very last event?
 



MrGopher said:
Just making sure I understand. You think that the Metrodome has seen its very last event?
Click to expand...

I think last Viking's game as I think the bill will pass and if the roof is going to take $15M to replace that it may have hosted its last event.
 

It's always possible that a Vikings stadium will be built, but not at the Metrodome site. If so then a decision needs to be made what to do with the dome. There is some value in an indoor venue that is larger than a basketball or hockey arena. But without the Vikings, you probably don't need 60,000 seats. If the Metrodome is kept without the Vikings, I would reduce the seating in the upper deck, and move the lights and speakers to the upper deck, rather than being attached to the air supported roof.

This would lighten the load on the roof by removing tons of lights and speakers. Because the roof isn't supporting all this weight, the energy bills for inflating the roof would be reduced, and it would probably be less inclined to tear.
 

goldengophers said:
I think last Viking's game as I think the bill will pass and if the roof is going to take $15M to replace that it may have hosted its last event.
Click to expand...

People have been writing-off the Metrodome for over 10 years. It may very well stand for another 10 years before it is put to rest. And even then, it will be only 38-years old.

Everyone always wants a shiny new toy, but no one ever wants to do the math.
 

RodentRampage said:
It's always possible that a Vikings stadium will be built, but not at the Metrodome site. If so then a decision needs to be made what to do with the dome. There is some value in an indoor venue that is larger than a basketball or hockey arena. But without the Vikings, you probably don't need 60,000 seats. If the Metrodome is kept without the Vikings, I would reduce the seating in the upper deck, and move the lights and speakers to the upper deck, rather than being attached to the air supported roof.

This would lighten the load on the roof by removing tons of lights and speakers. Because the roof isn't supporting all this weight, the energy bills for inflating the roof would be reduced, and it would probably be less inclined to tear.
Click to expand...

If operations can be paid for this is a good idea.
 

Goldmember said:
People have been writing-off the Metrodome for over 10 years. It may very well stand for another 10 years before it is put to rest. And even then, it will be only 38-years old.

Everyone always wants a shiny new toy, but no one ever wants to do the math.
Click to expand...

People who do the math will be doing so without an NFL team in town. Some are okay with that and some are not.
 

goldengophers said:
I think last Viking's game as I think the bill will pass and if the roof is going to take $15M to replace that it may have hosted its last event.
Click to expand...

I would agree. The only way the Dome gets fixed is if the following things happen.

1. The Vikings get a deal done for a stadium.
2. It is more advantageous for the Vikings to play in the Dome than TCF from a revenue standpoint. I would assume that as a tenant they can force the dome to be fixed or they would be compensated for lost revenue for the remaining period of the lease.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
People who do the math will be doing so without an NFL team in town. Some are okay with that and some are not.
Click to expand...

:eek::eek::eek::eek:Oh no! They might leave!?! By all means, give them the farm!

Yet another "only-in-Minnesota" moment: I had a great time cheering for Don Beaver's Winston-Salem Twins this summer. LOL.
 

Metrodome Capacity: 64,000
TCF Capacity: 50,500
Difference: 13,500

13,500 x $75 x 10 games = $10.125MM a year in lost ticket revenue. This does not count for lost revenue for the suites.

If a new stadium is going to be built on the Metrodome site then I think the Vikes are done there and they'll play at TCF for a few years but if it's going to be built in Arden Hills or Brooklyn Park than I think it will be in the Vikings best interest financially to repair the roof of the dome since they will have at least 2 and probably 3 years before the new stadium would be done.
 

But the Vikings won't be the ones paying for repairing the roof, so their profitability doesn't mean that much. Maybe if the Vikings pay for part of it. The dome should only be repaired if it will be kept even without the Vikings.
 

RodentRampage said:
But the Vikings won't be the ones paying for repairing the roof, so their profitability doesn't mean that much. Maybe if the Vikings pay for part of it. The dome should only be repaired if it will be kept even without the Vikings.
Click to expand...

Sure the Vikings profitability matters. They are a tenant with a singed lease. They can either force the dome to repaired or compensated for any loss in revenue they experience. Why would the Vikings pay for part of it?
 


Goldmember said:
:eek::eek::eek::eek:Oh no! They might leave!?! By all means, give them the farm!

Yet another "only-in-Minnesota" moment: I had a great time cheering for Don Beaver's Winston-Salem Twins this summer. LOL.
Click to expand...

Totally different situation - MLB is not NEARLY as popular as the NFL. If we don't build a stadium for the Vikings, they'll be gone in a heartbeat. There are many other cities who would jump at the chance to build a brand new stadium for an NFL team.

Now, I'm not passing judgment on whether the Vikings leaving is a good thing or a bad thing, but there's no question they'll be on their way soon if they don't have a stadium on the way, probably immediately after the 2011 season.

And the minute they move, we'll be building a bigger and better stadium with no team contribution whatsoever to bring a different NFL team in, so building a stadium would actually save money in the long run.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
The farm was already given to less popular sports teams in this town.
Click to expand...

"The farm" was not given to either the Twins or the Gophers, if that's who you mean. Ironically, the Gopher got almost nothing out of the state. And all the Twins got was for Hennepin county to levy a sales tax.

The last Vikings proposal basically amounted to a request for a cash payment of $750,000,000 to the Vikings organization. This isn't even an apples-to-apples comparison. Maybe the Vikings come-down to Earth someday, but right now they are not even serious about "engaging the state".

Also, popularity means absolutely nothing. Straw-man argument. If the Vikings are soooooo popular, why do they need a larger subsidy than teams with piss-poor fan support in small markets? Just wondering.
 

2727Gopher said:
And the minute they move, we'll be building a bigger and better stadium with no team contribution whatsoever to bring a different NFL team in, so building a stadium would actually save money in the long run.
Click to expand...

Bigger and better? No. The Vikings are already shooting for the moon right now.

Again, why haven't these other markets tried to lure one of the half-dozen disgruntled NFL teams yet? I just want to know, and no one can tell me.

Where will they go? Play at USC for three years before giving away 1/3 of the team to Ed Roski?
 

Goldmember said:
Again, why haven't these other markets tried to lure one of the half-dozen disgruntled NFL teams yet? I just want to know, and no one can tell me.
Click to expand...

Because the NFL hasn't allowed it yet? I'm actually asking because I don't know. But it seems logical that the NFL would need to approve a move.
 

GoAUpher said:
Because the NFL hasn't allowed it yet? I'm actually asking because I don't know. But it seems logical that the NFL would need to approve a move.
Click to expand...

The NFL wants the Vikings to get a stadium in Minnesota.
The NFL would (probably) allow the Vikings to move if they don't get a stadium by the time their lease runs out.
The NFL would prefer a handful of other teams relocate before the Vikings (Bills and Jaguars).
The NFL will not issue an expansion team if the Vikings move.
The NFL would prefer not to have a team move from MN to LA, then move another team to MN just to get a stadium.

I predict that once the Vikings get a stadium deal worked out (which will probably happen in the next year) that a team(s) will announce they are moving. Most likely Buffalo to Toronto (appears owner will be forced to sell as he didn't die this year) and then Jacksonville to L.A. (also involving a partial sale of the team. I also think that the L.A. stadium will end up being used by both Pro and College teams.
 

GoAUpher said:
Because the NFL hasn't allowed it yet? I'm actually asking because I don't know. But it seems logical that the NFL would need to approve a move.
Click to expand...

What I mean, is why hasn't Oklahoma City or Salt Lake City, or Portland (or wherever) said "let's see if we can build and NFL Stadium."? (Not why hasn't a team relocated).

So far .... nothing. Not a peep. Not even a ridiculous, Don Bevaer-like inside job that makes the town's locals laugh. There has been, literally, nothing. And there are at least 4 NFL franchises there for the taking for 3-4 years now.

People who want to throw out the whole "the Vikings are gonna leave" logic bear some responsibility for having an explanation for this one.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom