Decision Time on Stadium

Donate To GopherHole
Goldmember said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the Big Ten Network has taught us anything it is this, you only expand/relocate if you can't get a large TV Market as TV $ drives the machine. Baseball isn't nearly as driven by TV money as the NFL is. Plus they don't need to make up something so ridiculous when they already have L.A. in play.
 

Silvio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Toronto doesn't have a stadium to play in.
Rogers Centre (Skydome) is too small in capacity by NFL standards, and nobody is going to pony up the cash in Canada to build an NFL spec stadium. I don't know what's going to happen to the Bills - Ralph Wilson is a million years old, and that stadium is one of the oldest in the league. It would be really sad to see the Bills leave. They're a huge part of the identity of the city.

Jacksonville to LA makes the most sense. There never should have been a team there to begin with.

Other teams with bad stadium situations are San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland. I'd also heard a rumor of the Rams wanting to move back to LA.
 

Silvio said:
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.
Click to expand...


Hit the nail on the head with this post, everything is basically spot on.

The NFL wants to keep the NFC North together as best they can because it is the oldest division in football. These teams have been together forever and taking one team out of the North to move would cause quite of bit of reshuffling within the divisions and the NFL went to this divisional system so they can have a little more continuity geographically and rivalry wise.

I do think the Vikings are going to get a stadium, probably this legislative session. They'll probably roll over funds from the convention center tax and maybe levy a statewide/countywide consumption tax of some sort, maybe a memorabilia tax as well. This plus seat/ticket licenses will get the funding together to build it. That being said, if they build a straight open air stadium in Minneapolis they are fools, they should look at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy as their model. It might cost more but the ability to host Final Fours would be great, and with a retractable roof you could hold special events such as the Winter Classic, possible Olympic events if the games were to come to the US, etc.

I've lived through the North Stars moving, and frankly I don't want to risk losing another sports franchise. It diminishes the stature of the Twin Cities because frankly we are going to look like a joke if we are the ones who let our team get up and leave. The Metrodome fiasco has made the state look like a joke and I couldn't stomach the embarrassment of having the Vikings pack up for LA.
 

If it was up to me I wouldn't bother fixing the dome. Save the 15 million or what ever the number is. Just build a new stadium on the spot of the Dome. And dear God do it right, they didn't with the Metrodome and Minnesotan's are paying for it now. The Vikings can play the 2-3 season at TCF, and pays for any upgrades they want/need-of course the U approval is needed.

The NFL is going to locate any team at all until they get a new CBA, just like nobody is going to build a stadium. It kinda sounds like the Downtown LA stadium next to the Staples Center is gaining some support. My guess is that the NFL moves either the Bill or Jags. Outside shot at either San Diego or Oakland. I don't see San Francisco moving.
 

Voters just approved a proposition to build a beautiful new stadium in Santa Clara so the Niners are staying in the Bay Area.
 


westcoastgopher11 said:
That being said, if they build a straight open air stadium in Minneapolis they are fools, they should look at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy as their model.
Click to expand...

So Seattle, Denver, Green Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NYGiants/NYJets, Cleveland and New England are all fools? All these northern climates have either renovated or built new stadiums in the last 15 years or so with open-air stadiums and it's working just fine for them. Seattle used to host final 4's in the Kingdome but they are doing just fine with an open-air stadium now.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
So Seattle, Denver, Green Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NYGiants/NYJets, Cleveland and New England are all fools? All these northern climates have either renovated or built new stadiums in the last 15 years or so with open-air stadiums and it's working just fine for them. Seattle used to host final 4's in the Kingdome but they are doing just fine with an open-air stadium now.
Click to expand...

+1. People in Minnesota have just gotten used to the idea that it's somehow a requirement to have a domed stadium anywhere there is winter. These other cities do just fine without a dome, and the Vikings fans did just fine without a dome. I remember watching Jim Marshall's last game, it was a great way to watch football. If the Vikings get an open air stadium, some people will give up their tickets, but others will simply take their place. An dome stadium makes opponents too comfortable in December and January.
 

Ding! Dong! The Dome is Dead!!
boo122_19.jpg
 

Goldmember said:
"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.
Click to expand...


The Vikings have said they don't need a roof. It doesn't make sense as a state to build a stadium without. I don't think the Vikings are asking too much.
 



Silvio said:
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?
Click to expand...


Costs involved and who pays what, will most likely be impacted by how much the Vikings Business Interruption Insurance covers. My guess is that the insurance will at minimum cover the bulk of the expenses related to relocating any games to Detroit/ TCF bank stadium in the short term. Other than making sure that all 64k(?) Vikings season ticket holders are happy, I'm thinking that the insurance(s) may cover the loss of revenue related to TCFs lower capacity.

My guess is the Vikings won't take that big of a hit in the short term.
 


DarrenTheGreek said:
So Seattle, Denver, Green Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NYGiants/NYJets, Cleveland and New England are all fools? All these northern climates have either renovated or built new stadiums in the last 15 years or so with open-air stadiums and it's working just fine for them. Seattle used to host final 4's in the Kingdome but they are doing just fine with an open-air stadium now.
Click to expand...

Lambeau and Soldier were built well before domed stadiums were popular, not a fair comparison obviously. I would say from a practical standpoint it makes much more sense to have a multipurpose facility for Final Fours other events etc as a selling point then something you are only going to use 8 games + playoffs a year. Those kind of events aren't going to cities you mentioned for that reason. Very few cities (Phoenix, Atlanta, Indy, Houston, St. Louis) have the kind of arenas to host those caliber of events and therefore its definitely in the Twin Cities best interests to have the capability.

Short of us getting another Super Bowl having NCAA basketball and other competitions is the main source of revenue for venues such as this. And having a retractable roof gives you the best of both worlds. Is it going to cost more? Sure it will, but I can guarantee you if you actually spend the money and build it right the first time you aren't going to have the roof literally caving in when inclement weather hits. Also, no worries with thunderstorms or rain for a delay, just close the roof up and keep playing.
 

westcoastgopher11 said:
Lambeau and Soldier were built well before domed stadiums were popular, not a fair comparison obviously. I would say from a practical standpoint it makes much more sense to have a multipurpose facility for Final Fours other events etc as a selling point then something you are only going to use 8 games + playoffs a year. Those kind of events aren't going to cities you mentioned for that reason. Very few cities (Phoenix, Atlanta, Indy, Houston, St. Louis) have the kind of arenas to host those caliber of events and therefore its definitely in the Twin Cities best interests to have the capability.

Short of us getting another Super Bowl having NCAA basketball and other competitions is the main source of revenue for venues such as this. And having a retractable roof gives you the best of both worlds. Is it going to cost more? Sure it will, but I can guarantee you if you actually spend the money and build it right the first time you aren't going to have the roof literally caving in when inclement weather hits. Also, no worries with thunderstorms or rain for a delay, just close the roof up and keep playing.
Click to expand...
What's another $100 mil anyway, if the public is footing it? Might as well pull out all the stops....... How about a heliport..... I mean.... why not??

In all seriousness, we all know what's going to happen with a retractable roof: all the pansy a$$ Minnesota manginas will hem and haw and do whatever it takes keep it closed unless the temp is between 70 and 80 and sunny....... but not TOO sunny, because I might get sunburn......
 




STPGopher said:
Costs involved and who pays what, will most likely be impacted by how much the Vikings Business Interruption Insurance covers. My guess is that the insurance will at minimum cover the bulk of the expenses related to relocating any games to Detroit/ TCF bank stadium in the short term. Other than making sure that all 64k(?) Vikings season ticket holders are happy, I'm thinking that the insurance(s) may cover the loss of revenue related to TCFs lower capacity.

My guess is the Vikings won't take that big of a hit in the short term.
Click to expand...

Your right the Vikings won't for two reasons. They will be compensated for their losses by insurance and or their landlord.

You don't think that the insurance company will try to recoup funds from the sports commission?
 

Domed stadiums are not that popular. People are not begging for domes in Green Bay, Chicago or New England.
 

RodentRampage said:
Domed stadiums are not that popular. People are not begging for domes in Green Bay, Chicago or New England.
Click to expand...

Stadiums without domes are not that popular. People in Indianapolis, Dallas, Phoenix, Saint Louis, Detroit are not begging for their roofs to be removed.

People in those places have also never had a enclosed stadium to watch the game in. If you gave any logical person the choice they would chose to watch a game in a more comfortable atmosphere.

What is your point.
 

I stand corrected. Obviously, domes must be very popular, since most NFL teams have domed stadiums. People in Green Bay, Chicago and New England must be too stupid to know how wonderful a domed stadium is.
 

If I recall correctly, the Vikings offered to build a stadium without a roof. It's the City of Minneapolis who is insisting that there be a roof.
 

RodentRampage said:
I stand corrected. Obviously, domes must be very popular, since most NFL teams have domed stadiums. People in Green Bay, Chicago and New England must be too stupid to know how wonderful a domed stadium is.
Click to expand...

Just like people in MN are too stupid to know that supporting the wait of lights and speakers on a roof is a financial boondoggle.

Well Green Bay and Chicago were built before the time of roofs and domes. Both have storied venures and the cost to retro fit them with a roof was exorbant.

New England....hmmm.. if only there was some sort of large body of water near by that influenced the weather pattern and kept the general tempature cool but considerably warmer than the what is experienced in the midwest.

I bet that if Foxboro wasn't a Robert Kraft didn't put a dome on Gillete because he doesn't capture the majority of the benefit from hosting a Final Four. I bet if holdign a final four wasn't a logistical impossibility if Foxboro, MA you would have seen goverment funds used to put a roof on it.

If you told the average Vikings fan that they Minnesotan that Zygi would build an exact replica of Gillete in say Buffalo that would be an unacceptable solution to them.
 

SickAndTiredOfLosingToWI said:
I guess anything is possible when you can pay for stuff with IOUs.

Are they going to build it next to the unicorn stable?
Click to expand...

What in this country now isn't being built with IOUs? I'll tell you what they did though, kept the Los Angeles 49ers from becoming a reality.

Look like it or not (and I don't like it, using state/local money to build stadiums goes against my politics) we as a state/county/city are going to have to pony up, that's the reality of it. If we don't others will. I'm not willing to play chicken with this issue considering we've already tried that and lost before, and frankly we were starring down Bud Selig and almost lost the Twins back to Washington. Look what we did with TCF, who honestly can't say that it wasn't the right thing to do to build it? If we take the time and do it right Minneapolis (or whatever site they choose) and the state will be better off.
 

BBQ Platypus said:
If I recall correctly, the Vikings offered to build a stadium without a roof. It's the City of Minneapolis who is insisting that there be a roof.
Click to expand...

The Vikings did not offer to build a stadium without a roof. They are saying they are willing to go roofless, so the formula for what they are responsible for paying should be based on a roofless stadium.

This is a classic negotiating bluff. They know that Minneapolis (and to a lesser extent, the state) sees having a large, covered venue similar to the Metrodome as a significant asset.

Of course, the Vikings really want a retractable roof. If the state were to agree to pay for half of an outdoor, $350-million "NFL-program" facility for the Vikings in Shakopee, the team would have no interest.
 

westcoastgopher11 said:
Lambeau and Soldier were built well before domed stadiums were popular, not a fair comparison obviously.
Click to expand...

You missed a key word in my original post when I said "built or RENOVATED". Today's Soldier Field is not connected whatsoever with the original. They could have easily put a roof on that spaceship and actually gave it serious consideration. But in the end they felt that an open-air stadium was just fine.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
You missed a key word in my original post when I said "built or RENOVATED". Today's Soldier Field is not connected whatsoever with the original. They could have easily put a roof on that spaceship and actually gave it serious consideration. But in the end they felt that an open-air stadium was just fine.
Click to expand...

The architects of soldier field wanted to keep the building's historical landmark status so they obviously did not include a roof. Ironically enough they still ended up losing it after they completed the renovation as a panel voted unanimously to take it away.
 

Goldmember said:
The Vikings did not offer to build a stadium without a roof. They are saying they are willing to go roofless, so the formula for what they are responsible for paying should be based on a roofless stadium.

This is a classic negotiating bluff. They know that Minneapolis (and to a lesser extent, the state) sees having a large, covered venue similar to the Metrodome as a significant asset.

Of course, the Vikings really want a retractable roof. If the state were to agree to pay for half of an outdoor, $350-million "NFL-program" facility for the Vikings in Shakopee, the team would have no interest.
Click to expand...

Well, like I said, if I recall correctly. Apparently, I don't.

The main point is, an outdoor stadium ain't happening.
 

Goldmember said:
The Vikings did not offer to build a stadium without a roof. They are saying they are willing to go roofless, so the formula for what they are responsible for paying should be based on a roofless stadium.

This is a classic negotiating bluff. They know that Minneapolis (and to a lesser extent, the state) sees having a large, covered venue similar to the Metrodome as a significant asset.

Of course, the Vikings really want a retractable roof. If the state were to agree to pay for half of an outdoor, $350-million "NFL-program" facility for the Vikings in Shakopee, the team would have no interest.
Click to expand...

When you say 'Vikings', do you mean the organization or do you mean Zigy Wilf? Because Zigy has been pining for an open air stadium ever since buying the Vikes.

Anyway, the Vikings are willing to go with a retractable roof, but would rather have an open air home. The state is pissing and moaning about a roof.

I say, go with open air. Cut out all the pansy 'fans' and I'll take over their seats.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom