If there will be a new vikings stadium

Donate To GopherHole
R

Rog

Active member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Monday night will tell whether they will need a dome or not.

What will the attendance be? I know there are many factors, but these questions may be answered.

1. Are the fans "softer" than in the days of Bud Grant?

2. Has the availability and quality of good TV changed the situation of Dec (and maybe January) outdoor football.

3. Has the "Dome" had an influence on the average Viking football fan?


I bet the Vikings just might change their thoughts on having a Dome. The Bank may not be overflowing as they thought it may be Monday night.
 

I don't think mon nite will answer the stadium question.

Attendance will be interesting:
1 Cold weather
2 General admission, must get there early for good seats and wait a long time till ko.
3 Vikings out of race
4 Parking will be a mess
5 Could be snowing
6 Vike ticket holders used to being indoors
 

I agree with station19. If Monday's game has a lot of no-shows I'm sure all the people who want a dome or retractable roof will be using this as an excuse for why we need one without mentioning other factors cited above. I would also add "Christmas Holiday", "3rd string QB", "the complete absence of a secondary ticket market" and yes..."no alcohol" to that list.
 

station19 said:
I don't think mon nite will answer the stadium question.

Attendance will be interesting:
1 Cold weather
2 General admission, must get there early for good seats and wait a long time till ko.
3 Vikings out of race
4 Parking will be a mess
5 Could be snowing
6 Vike ticket holders used to being indoors
Click to expand...

I agree +1
 

Need a roof

and to be built on the dome site. Final 4, Superbowl, concerts, soccer/football high school tourneys, conventions, etc. Very short-sighted to build a billion dollar stadium for 10 days a year.
 


There will be no Vike Stadium

No money
No one really cares
Lock out next season kills everything
Los Angeles Vikings
Don't let the door hit your sorry ass on the way out
50 years of abject failure
Bye
and
Bye.
 

If a vikes stadium is built there is no doubt it will have a roof (retractable or not). Zygi a while back mentioned the possiblity of an open air stadium but that was quickly shot down by several different groups. To make the stadium more beneficial to the community they need it to have uses beyond hosting 11-12 NFL games a year. They need to be able to host multiple events like the Metrodome currently does. The number of events they had to cancel/postpone because of the roof collapse speaks volumes about this need.
 

I think the elephant in the room is whether NFL players want to play outside here. My thought is no, by and large. Build it with a retractable (or permanent roof) for that reason, and for having other events here.
 

The belief that a Viking stadium would need a roof is mostly based on a misunderstanding of what "economic impact" means and where the numbers come from. It's better to look at tax revenue numbers.

The total taxpayer contribution to the metrodome was about 1/5 the cost of a roof alone on a new stadium.

Per the MSFC's own site, the portion of the total tax income produced by the metrodome for the state of Minnesota over the last 30 years which can not be attributed directly to the Vikings wouldn't even cover the cost of a fixed roof on a new stadium. That's after thirty years of superbowls, final fours, Twins, Gophers, monster jam, concerts, and barmitzvahs.

It's going to be hard enough to come up with a way to finance the state's portion of the cost of a new stadium without adding a $150,000,000 roof.

Open air all the way.
 



Rog said:
Monday night will tell whether they will need a dome or not.

What will the attendance be? I know there are many factors, but these questions may be answered.

1. Are the fans "softer" than in the days of Bud Grant?

2. Has the availability and quality of good TV changed the situation of Dec (and maybe January) outdoor football.

3. Has the "Dome" had an influence on the average Viking football fan?


I bet the Vikings just might change their thoughts on having a Dome. The Bank may not be overflowing as they thought it may be Monday night.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean about "softer" than in the days of Bud Grant. Do you know what the attendance was at Met Stadium back in the day when it was freezing cold? I think you should look into it, because I was told (by someone who was there back in the day) that when it was cold there were major no shows and rare/no sell outs.
 

13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
The belief that a Viking stadium would need a roof is mostly based on a misunderstanding of what "economic impact" means and where the numbers come from. It's better to look at tax revenue numbers.

The total taxpayer contribution to the metrodome was about 1/5 the cost of a roof alone on a new stadium.

Per the MSFC's own site, the portion of the total tax income produced by the metrodome for the state of Minnesota over the last 30 years which can not be attributed directly to the Vikings wouldn't even cover the cost of a fixed roof on a new stadium. That's after thirty years of superbowls, final fours, Twins, Gophers, monster jam, concerts, and barmitzvahs.

It's going to be hard enough to come up with a way to finance the state's portion of the cost of a new stadium without adding a $150,000,000 roof.

Open air all the way.
Click to expand...

Focusing on the tax revenue misses a TON of the economic benefit. While the taxes generated may be relatively low, the real boon comes from people who live, work and make money in other states traveling to Minnesota and bringing business to cab drivers, restaurants, hotels and other businesses in state. While that does benefit the metro area more then elsewhere, and doesn't directly fund the government, it's much more significant than the tax revenue in terms of real dollars coming into the state.
 

RedPoo said:
Focusing on the tax revenue misses a TON of the economic benefit. While the taxes generated may be relatively low, the real boon comes from people who live, work and make money in other states traveling to Minnesota and bringing business to cab drivers, restaurants, hotels and other businesses in state. While that does benefit the metro area more then elsewhere, and doesn't directly fund the government, it's much more significant than the tax revenue in terms of real dollars coming into the state.
Click to expand...

+1. Some people on this board just convinced that the stadium generates nothing and there's no changing their mind. If you want to ignore the fact that 25% of Vikings season ticket holders come from out of state and/or assume they will come anyway for great honor shopping at the 20 year old MOA, go ahead. But I'm quite certain you're wrong.
 

I hate to be a real turd hinder here, but whenever a thread is started with the word "If..." It is a lonely person that needs to get laid.
 



RedPoo said:
Focusing on the tax revenue misses a TON of the economic benefit. While the taxes generated may be relatively low, the real boon comes from people who live, work and make money in other states traveling to Minnesota and bringing business to cab drivers, restaurants, hotels and other businesses in state. While that does benefit the metro area more then elsewhere, and doesn't directly fund the government, it's much more significant than the tax revenue in terms of real dollars coming into the state.
Click to expand...

Money being pocketed by out of state hotel chains and restaurant groups tends to leave the local economy, save for the taxed portion which is already accounted for. The taxpayer should be no more interested in lining Hyatt or Marriott's pockets than they are in lining Zygi Wilf's pocket.

Philip Porter said:
(on Raymond James Stadium)Economic impact is merely sales impact. That's important when economic impact is used to justify government expenditures. The $400 million that taxpayers will pay for RJS and the several million dollars we pay to support the Super Bowl are tax dollars, and every dollar of sales impact generates only about a nickel of tax receipts for local governments.

We need $8 billion of sales impact to pay for RJS and $100 million to pay the cost of hosting the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...

Philip Porter said:
In January 1991 when Tampa hosted the Super Bowl, Hillsborough County recorded sales of $720 million. It had sales of $727 million the previous January (1990) and $742 million the next January.

In January 1984, when Tampa hosted the Super Bowl, Hillsborough County recorded sales of $472 million. The average for the preceding and following Januarys was $482 million.

And this economic impact evidence is consistent with every Super Bowl.

In Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Minn., and Detroit, and in every Super Bowl in California, sales do not respond to the presence of a Super Bowl.

The NFL's estimates are wrong and they know it.
Click to expand...


It would take a hell of a lot of economic impact to justify the cost of a $150 million dollar roof. A lot more than the Metrodome produced in its thirty years.
 

13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
Money being pocketed by out of state hotel chains and restaurant groups tends to leave the local economy, save for the taxed portion which is already accounted for. The taxpayer should be no more interested in lining Hyatt or Marriott's pockets than they are in lining Zygi Wilf's pocket.


It would take a hell of a lot of economic impact to justify the cost of a $150 million dollar roof. A lot more than the Metrodome produced in its thirty years.
Click to expand...

I think you're probably right that a significant amount of the money that's spent at an event like the Super Bowl or Final Four ends up in the pockets of national corporations with no central ties to the state. But there are plenty of local businesses that will see some of that money as well, not to mention the thousands of paid man-hours that go along with any event like that (including tractor pulls, concerts, etc).

Also, while I can't say with any authority what the actual economic impact of a roof would be, the cited numbers in the other post don't really illustrate much of anything about it. A two or three year span of gross revenue over an entire county is entirely too limited a sample to draw any reliable conclusions about how much money an event brought in.


BTW, I would rather not have a roofed stadium, if only because I enjoy football in the elements. And I hate the idea of taxpayers subsidizing a stadium for the Wilfs. But I'm confident the Vikings and the Metrodome bring a LOT of value to the metro and Minnesota, and if we have to pay for some of it, I think it would be worth our money to do so if not paying for a new stadium means the team leaves town.
 

I prefer an open-air stadium myself, if it's not obvious.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are overestimating the value of a roof. Yes, the metrodome has more than paid for itself over the years, but we've got to remember that the taxpayer contribution to the metrodome was something like 22 million dollars. A roof alone on a new stadium would cost $150 million-plus.

Over the last ten years, new open-air stadiums have been built in Denver, Seattle, Boston (privately funded, it can happen), Cincinnati, New York, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. If a roof was really likely to return on investment, I doubt this would be the case.
 

13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
I prefer an open-air stadium myself, if it's not obvious.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are overestimating the value of a roof. Yes, the metrodome has more than paid for itself over the years, but we've got to remember that the taxpayer contribution to the metrodome was something like 22 million dollars. A roof alone on a new stadium would cost $150 million-plus.

Over the last ten years, new open-air stadiums have been built in Denver, Seattle, Boston (privately funded, it can happen), Cincinnati, New York, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. If a roof was really likely to return on investment, I doubt this would be the case.
Click to expand...

Keep banging the drum. Multiple Final Fours and NCAA regionals, and a Super Bowl justify the cost of a roof almost by themselves. To say nothing of a place to hold Prep Bowl and all the other many things the Metrodome currently serves. The reality is that the Metrodome is used something like 300 days a year. An open-air stadium will be lucky if it's used 50. Even if the economic impact of all those events doesn't justify $150 million over 30 years (they do) there's a simple practice public use argument.

Do you want to contribute $500 million to a $750 million outdoor football stadium of little use to anyone but the Vikings? Or do you want to contribute $600 million towards a $900 million dome that will have hundreds of uses over the years? It's not that hard a question.

Also there are valid reason why most of those cities built outdoor venues. New England's stadium is not in Boston, so would have had less use and Kraft paid for most of it, albeit with tax breaks, etc. In Denver they piggy-backed new Mile High onto the tax that paid for Coors Field. They might have liked a roof but would probably needed other funding and were trying to keep it clean politically. New York doesn't lack for places to hold large events and doesn't need any special lure to get them. Plus the stadium cost a bazzillion dollars as it is. Pennsylvania had a lot of issues getting stadium legislation through (like MN) and IIRC, agreed to a general concept to fund the Steelers, Pirates, Phillies and Eagles stadiums of 1/3 state, 1/3 local, 1/3 team. With all 4 needing to be done at once, it was probably roofs for all or roofs for none.
 

How about we spend NO MONEY at all and don't go deeper into debt!
 


goldygo4 said:
How about we spend NO MONEY at all and don't go deeper into debt!
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting general fund tax dollars. Nice straw-man argument. Now, we're in debt. 5 years ago, we were in surplus and you would still have said no. This is a long-term 30 year issue. Not a December 2010-May 2011 issue. Do you want MN to be a big league state or are you OK becoming East Dakota and saving that $.03 on your $30 dinner?
 

“North Dakota is a sparsely populated state of less than 700,000, known for cold weather, isolated farmers and a hit movie – Fargo. Yet, for some reason it defies the real estate cliché of location, location, location. Since 2000, the state’s GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. This year the state has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion!” -Michigan management consultant Charles Fleetham...Maybe if we were East Dakota we would have the surplus to build a new stadium!
 

The State of Minnesota has zero money and a soon to be falling credit rating. The city and county have less resources than the State. The State of California and City of LA have much less money than Minnesota plus not one politician in either pace will stick his/her neck out for a professional football team! If there's a shut out it becomes not impossible but absolutely impossible. The only way it gets done is if an individual with more money than brains steps up buys the Vikings and builds a $ billion stadium in either LA or Mn. Don't hold your breath, amigos.
 

howeda7 said:
Keep banging the drum. Multiple Final Fours and NCAA regionals, and a Super Bowl justify the cost of a roof almost by themselves. To say nothing of a place to hold Prep Bowl and all the other many things the Metrodome currently serves. The reality is that the Metrodome is used something like 300 days a year. An open-air stadium will be lucky if it's used 50. Even if the economic impact of all those events doesn't justify $150 million over 30 years (they do) there's a simple practice public use argument.
Click to expand...

"In 2006, the stadium (Gillette) was used for events 360 days out of the year."

http://www.shoppingcenterbusiness.com/articles/DEC07/story1.shtml

These probably aren't all "big money" events, but have you seen the Metrodome's schedule?
8 days of football, 292 days of crap.

Here's December:

Dec 1 2010 5:00 PM Rollerdome
Dec 2 2010 5:00 PM MDRA Dome Running
Dec 2 2010 5:00 PM Dog Day at the Dome
Dec 3 2010 5:00 PM Rollerdome
Dec 4 2010 12:00 PM Rollerdome
Dec 5 2010 12:00 PM Vikings vs Buffalo
Dec 6 2010 5:00 PM Rollerdome
Dec 7 2010 5:00 PM MDRA Dome Running
Dec 8 2010 5:00 PM Rollerdome
Dec 9 2010 5:00 PM MDRA Dome Running
Dec 11 2010 Rollerdome-CANCELLED
Dec 12 2010 VIKINGS VS GIANTS - GAME MOVED TO FORD FIELD DETROIT
Dec 13 2010 Vikings vs NY Giants at Ford Field Detroit
Dec 14 2010 MDRA Dome Running -CANCELLED
Dec 15 2010 Rollerdome-CANCELLED
Dec 16 2010 MDRA Dome Running-CANCELLED
Dec 17 2010 Rollerdome-CANCELLED
Dec 18 2010 Rollerdome-CANCELLED
Dec 18 2010 All American Bowl Information
Dec 20 2010 7:30 PM VIKINGS VS CHICAGO - AT TCF BANK STADIUM
Dec 21 2010 Rollerdome-CANCELLED
Dec 21 2010 5:00 PM MDRA Dome Running-CANCELLED
Dec 22 2010 Rollerdome-CANCELLED
Dec 23 2010 MDRA Dome Running-CANCELLED
Dec 27 2010 5:00 PM Rollerdome
Dec 28 2010 5:00 PM MDRA Dome Running
Dec 29 2010 5:00 PM Rollerdome
Dec 30 2010 5:00 PM MDRA Dome Running
Click to expand...

How many out-of-towners are flooding in for "Dog Day at the Dome" and "Rollerdome"?


Do you want to contribute $500 million to a $750 million outdoor football stadium of little use to anyone but the Vikings? Or do you want to contribute $600 million towards a $900 million dome that will have hundreds of uses over the years? It's not that hard a question.
Click to expand...

I want taxpayers to be on the hook for the minimum possible for a modern, open-air stadium that will be used for hundreds of event over the years anyway. They need to get creative with funding.

After Zygi pays for one third of the open air stadium's cost, a $150,000,000 roof would be a huge addition to the state's portion.

Also there are valid reason why most of those cities built outdoor venues. New England's stadium is not in Boston, so would have had less use and Kraft paid for most of it, albeit with tax breaks, etc. In Denver they piggy-backed new Mile High onto the tax that paid for Coors Field. They might have liked a roof but would probably needed other funding and were trying to keep it clean politically. New York doesn't lack for places to hold large events and doesn't need any special lure to get them. Plus the stadium cost a bazzillion dollars as it is. Pennsylvania had a lot of issues getting stadium legislation through (like MN) and IIRC, agreed to a general concept to fund the Steelers, Pirates, Phillies and Eagles stadiums of 1/3 state, 1/3 local, 1/3 team. With all 4 needing to be done at once, it was probably roofs for all or roofs for none.
Click to expand...

So these are valid reasons? How about trying to build a stadium with budget deficit in the billions and a broken economy? Is that valid?
 

Here's a grim assessment for the stadium in general:

MSFC claims that the tax revenue produced by the metrodome over 30 years has totaled $245,600,000. The Vikings were responsible for the largest portion, $126,200,000. This leaves $119,400,000 from things other than the Vikings including a Superbowl, two Final Fours, the Twins, and the Gophers.

Is there any reason to assume a new stadium - without the Twins or Gophers playing there about 90 times per year - would be as productive as the Metrodome?
 

ncgo4 said:
The State of Minnesota has zero money and a soon to be falling credit rating. The city and county have less resources than the State. The State of California and City of LA have much less money than Minnesota plus not one politician in either pace will stick his/her neck out for a professional football team! If there's a shut out it becomes not impossible but absolutely impossible. The only way it gets done is if an individual with more money than brains steps up buys the Vikings and builds a $ billion stadium in either LA or Mn. Don't hold your breath, amigos.
Click to expand...

I guess you know better then the incoming governor and several state legislators. It's not the easiest time to be doing it. But putting blinders on when it comes to 30-year projects is foolish. Times were better in 2006 when Target Field and TCF were passed, but they are both being paid for in 2010 and 2011 just as much as they were in 2007 and will be in 2025.
 

13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
Here's a grim assessment for the stadium in general:

MSFC claims that the tax revenue produced by the metrodome over 30 years has totaled $245,600,000. The Vikings were responsible for the largest portion, $126,200,000. This leaves $119,400,000 from things other than the Vikings including a Superbowl, two Final Fours, the Twins, and the Gophers.

Is there any reason to assume a new stadium - without the Twins or Gophers playing there about 90 times per year - would be as productive as the Metrodome?
Click to expand...

My point was, a lot of those events may indeed not have much economic impact, but that doesn't mean there's no value to the state to having a venue for them.

With regards to the direct tax revenue, you're right, it will likely not directly generate enough revenue to pay for the state's share. But again you are choosing to ignore the sales tax collected on the hotels, restaurants, etc. Will the direct and indirect taxes collected on the additional events in a domed stadium generate $100 million over 30 years to cover the state's share of the roof? I'd say it's likely.
 

goldygo4 said:
“North Dakota is a sparsely populated state of less than 700,000, known for cold weather, isolated farmers and a hit movie – Fargo. Yet, for some reason it defies the real estate cliché of location, location, location. Since 2000, the state’s GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. This year the state has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion!” -Michigan management consultant Charles Fleetham...Maybe if we were East Dakota we would have the surplus to build a new stadium!
Click to expand...

North Dakota has something we don't. Oil fields. That's the main reason for the financial windfall the state is currently seeing.
 

goldygo4 said:
“North Dakota is a sparsely populated state of less than 700,000, known for cold weather, isolated farmers and a hit movie – Fargo. Yet, for some reason it defies the real estate cliché of location, location, location. Since 2000, the state’s GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. This year the state has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion!” -Michigan management consultant Charles Fleetham...Maybe if we were East Dakota we would have the surplus to build a new stadium!
Click to expand...

North Dakota has something we don't. Oil fields. That's the main reason for the financial windfall the state is currently seeing.
 

howeda7 said:
I guess you know better then the incoming governor and several state legislators. It's not the easiest time to be doing it. But putting blinders on when it comes to 30-year projects is foolish. Times were better in 2006 when Target Field and TCF were passed, but they are both being paid for in 2010 and 2011 just as much as they were in 2007 and will be in 2025.
Click to expand...
If ncgo4 is a functional 5-year-old, there is no doubt in my mind that he/she knows better than the majority of "buy it now and pay for it with magic unicorn dust later" sh1t-for-brains sociopathic narcissists a.k.a. politicians. Continuing that line of thought, IMNSHO, the absolute best 30-year economic project imaginable would be to take the budget that would have been allotted to yet another new stadium, and cut taxes by that amount on small businesses, entrepreneurs and similar socially-useful classes. The economy improves; unemployment drops; tax revenue soars; Minnesota's bond rating strengthens, making financing future necessary projects that much less expensive; and another multimillionaire teat-sucking klepto-oligarch (whose name rhymes with "piggy") bites the dust.

Or you can blow up the already f*cked-eight-ways-from-Sunday state budget building yet another massive corporate welfare project and argue over whether it will have broken even by even the most liberal of metrics in 30 years' time.
 

howeda7 said:
No one is suggesting general fund tax dollars. Nice straw-man argument. Now, we're in debt. 5 years ago, we were in surplus and you would still have said no. This is a long-term 30 year issue. Not a December 2010-May 2011 issue. Do you want MN to be a big league state or are you OK becoming East Dakota and saving that $.03 on your $30 dinner?
Click to expand...

Having no Vikings wouldn't make us "East Dakota" or generally affect our way of life. The NFL doesn't make you or break you on "Big League Status". Do you think Jacksonville or Nashville are "Big League"? I don't even consider Indianapolis as "Big League". We've lost 2 pro teams and will likely lose a couple more over the next few years. Did Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston or even Los-frickin'-Angeles go to minor league status after losing their NFL teams? They eventually come back. It's what happens now days.

A billion dollar stadium in the Twin Cities is a joke, and un-necessary.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom