If there will be a new vikings stadium

[howeda7]

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.

Yes, they will come back that's the point. Baltimore, Cleveland and Houston all did whatever it took to the get the NFL back. Jacksonville, Buffalo and San Diego all need places to go and if you don't think Minnesota will become the new #1 target, you're wrong. So, would you rather pay for 2/3 the cost of a $900 million stadium now, or 100% of the cost of a $1.1 billion stadium for the Jaguars in about 5 years?

 

[CentralGopher]

Definetly need a stadium with a roof after they weren't able to fill the bank last night.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Definetly need a stadium with a roof after they weren't able to fill the bank last night.

I think that the general admission and 5 win team had more to do with it than anything. The Wilf's have said they are fine with any outdoor stadium. The State of MN needs the roof on it.

 

[CentralGopher]

They have had crappy seasons before and had better attendance at the dome. If the wilf's think they can get by with an open stadium then they are poor businessmen. Simple economics should tell you that you sell more tickets at the dome.

 

[howeda7]

Definetly need a stadium with a roof after they weren't able to fill the bank last night.

I agree. And Ziggy is not helping himself by insisting otherwise. He needs to come out, acknowledge that there needs to be a roof whether he likes it or not and firmly commit to paying 1/3 of the cost. That will put the ball in the Legislature's court and probably force them to act. Anything else is a mistake.

 

[MaxyJR1]

They have had crappy seasons before and had better attendance at the dome. If the wilf's think they can get by with an open stadium then they are poor businessmen. Simple economics should tell you that you sell more tickets at the dome.

Just ask the Packers/Patriots/Bears/Chiefs/Eagles etc.

 

[MaxyJR1]

I agree. And Ziggy is not helping himself by insisting otherwise. He needs to come out, acknowledge that there needs to be a roof whether he likes it or not and firmly commit to paying 1/3 of the cost. That will put the ball in the Legislature's court and probably force them to act. Anything else is a mistake.

Ziggy owns a football team and is not going to get revenue's from other aspects of an indoor facility. I hope we have a roofed stadium, but Ziggy is one person that does not need one.

 

[RodentRampage]

It's not quite so clear. Many people stayed home because they were concerned they would be turned away. If it wasn't general admission, TCF would have appeared far more full. Certainly some season ticket holders would not renew, but others might get tickets.

 

[howeda7]

Ziggy owns a football team and is not going to get revenue's from other aspects of an indoor facility. I hope we have a roofed stadium, but Ziggy is one person that does not need one.

I understand that. But he needs to get real about the politics involved. If he's going to get a stadium funded with public money, there needs to be a roof. If he thinks the state is going to pass funding for 2/3 of an open air stadium that is of no use to anyone but him, he is crazy. Sure, there are some public uses for a large outdoor facility too, but we already have two of those and they're brand-new. What the state needs is a large indoor facility. Sorry Ziggy, you can't have everything you want.

 

[50PoundHead]

I'm guessing retractable roof.

A lot of this is going to boil down to whether the Wilfs want this to be a "temple of football" or something that can be used for the events hosted at the Metrodome over the years (boat shows, outdoor shows, monster truck rallies). Some of that stuff has moved over to the Convention Center, but the Metrodome has been used a lot and a billion dollar investment (and it will probably be all of that once public improvements not directly related to the stadium are included in the cost) for 30 to 50 days of use is a bit of a stretch. To make certain it can be used more than that, some sort of roof will be necessary.

I've always thought that the economic development arguments that go with new stadiums are a bit overstated. There are a lot of construction jobs created, but those would be created if there were bonding projects for the University of Minnesota, light-rail, or any other public projects. Much will depend on whether or not there's displacement from one public expenditure to another or if there will be a larger aggregate investment by the state. This is divorced from the current general fund budget issue to some extent, but the state will have to be careful that it doesn't bump up against sensible debt amounts (and T-Paw was complaining about that when criticizing the last few bonding bills).

There are ways to get this done and I believe it will get done during the 2011 session. I think the biggest issue will be how interested the Wilfs are in a public/private partnership and what that might entail in terms of sacrifices they may be asked to make. The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission may be an out-dated concept, but it does protect the public's interest and, after all, there is public money (lots of it) going into stadium ventures.

 

[DarrenTheGreek]

It's not quite so clear. Many people stayed home because they were concerned they would be turned away. If it wasn't general admission, TCF would have appeared far more full. Certainly some season ticket holders would not renew, but others might get tickets.

+1000

There are numerous reasons why the stadium wasn't full last night. A guaranteed full refund for a meaningless game is one big reason. I personally wouldn't pay to attend a game in the Metrodome every again but if they move outside I'd gladly buy tickets to a couple games.

 

[howeda7]

It's not quite so clear. Many people stayed home because they were concerned they would be turned away. If it wasn't general admission, TCF would have appeared far more full. Certainly some season ticket holders would not renew, but others might get tickets.

Last night is not a great sample for all of those reasons. But there are likely also many who showed up for the curiousity of it all. If they had another game next week against the Lions would those folks come back? I doubt it. An open-air stadium for ho-hum December/January games will be 2/3 full more often then not.

 

[jovs]

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.

I was a kid back in those days, usually not a problem to pick up a ticket free, season ticket holders just did not want to go.

In all fairness I wouldn't pay to see a game in the cold now either. It just isn't that enjoyable. Yesterdays weather wouldn't have been that bad, 23 degrees is tollerable. When the windshield gets into the -20's range it wasn't any fun. Usually by halftime I wouldn't care who was going to win, I just wanted the game to be over. I wouldn't do it again.

 

[howeda7]

I'm guessing retractable roof.

A lot of this is going to boil down to whether the Wilfs want this to be a "temple of football" or something that can be used for the events hosted at the Metrodome over the years (boat shows, outdoor shows, monster truck rallies). Some of that stuff has moved over to the Convention Center, but the Metrodome has been used a lot and a billion dollar investment (and it will probably be all of that once public improvements not directly related to the stadium are included in the cost) for 30 to 50 days of use is a bit of a stretch. To make certain it can be used more than that, some sort of roof will be necessary.

I've always thought that the economic development arguments that go with new stadiums are a bit overstated. There are a lot of construction jobs created, but those would be created if there were bonding projects for the University of Minnesota, light-rail, or any other public projects. Much will depend on whether or not there's displacement from one public expenditure to another or if there will be a larger aggregate investment by the state. This is divorced from the current general fund budget issue to some extent, but the state will have to be careful that it doesn't bump up against sensible debt amounts (and T-Paw was complaining about that when criticizing the last few bonding bills).

There are ways to get this done and I believe it will get done during the 2011 session. I think the biggest issue will be how interested the Wilfs are in a public/private partnership and what that might entail in terms of sacrifices they may be asked to make. The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission may be an out-dated concept, but it does protect the public's interest and, after all, there is public money (lots of it) going into stadium ventures.

Good points. Just going from a fixed roof to retractable adds something like $50 million to the cost. Is it really worth that to have the roof open 4-5 times a year? I'm also guessing it makes heating/cooling the place more expensive.

 

[DarrenTheGreek]

An open-air stadium for ho-hum December/January games will be 2/3 full more often then not.

But a domed stadium for a ho-hum December/January game will be full of no-shows as well. That's what I don't get about the retractable-roof angle. The stadium will be empty unless the product is good. IMHO the best way to get a quality product in MN is to use the elements to your advantage.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Good points. Just going from a fixed roof to retractable adds something like $50 million to the cost. Is it really worth that to have the roof open 4-5 times a year? I'm also guessing it makes heating/cooling the place more expensive.

I agree that a retractable roof makes 100% no sense. If should be like a Ford Field

 

[howeda7]

But a domed stadium for a ho-hum December/January game will be full of no-shows as well. That's what I don't get about the retractable-roof angle. The stadium will be empty unless the product is good. IMHO the best way to get a quality product in MN is to use the elements to your advantage.

Purely from the Vikings standpoint, sure. But it makes no political or economic sense for the state. If Ziggy's building it himself, it probably should be open-air. But if he wants state money, it will need to have a roof. The chances of an open-air stadium bill passing this session are about 0% and Ziggy needs to get a clue.

 

[50PoundHead]

Good points. Just going from a fixed roof to retractable adds something like $50 million to the cost. Is it really worth that to have the roof open 4-5 times a year? I'm also guessing it makes heating/cooling the place more expensive.

I agree a retractable roof would be $50 million worth of public relations. I wasn't arguing for one as it really doesn't make sense for football in this climate. I just think it will be on the table.

A dome would make it a multi-use facility and I don't see how the state would invest huge dollars in something that would only be used 30 times a year. So, if one pushed me into a corner, I'd say "dome it will be."

As I alluded, the biggest issue in all of this will be how much control the Wilfs are willing to surrender. One similarity between the Wilfs and Red McCombs is that they both hail from parts of the country where governments (especially locally) tend to fall all over themselves for their sports franchises. Minnesota, for good or ill, has a bit of a different tradition and the Metrodome experience only reinforced many of those beliefs.

People have already seemed to have forgotten that the Wilfs pulled out on a deal with Anoka County (and it was the Wilfs who pulled the plug) regarding a new stadium. What, if anything, does that portend for the next round of stadium negotiations?

 

[howeda7]

I agree a retractable roof would be $50 million worth of public relations. I wasn't arguing for one as it really doesn't make sense for football in this climate. I just think it will be on the table.

A dome would make it a multi-use facility and I don't see how the state would invest huge dollars in something that would only be used 30 times a year. So, if one pushed me into a corner, I'd say "dome it will be."

As I alluded, the biggest issue in all of this will be how much control the Wilfs are willing to surrender. One similarity between the Wilfs and Red McCombs is that they both hail from parts of the country where governments (especially locally) tend to fall all over themselves for their sports franchises. Minnesota, for good or ill, has a bit of a different tradition and the Metrodome experience only reinforced many of those beliefs.

People have already seemed to have forgotten that the Wilfs pulled out on a deal with Anoka County (and it was the Wilfs who pulled the plug) regarding a new stadium. What, if anything, does that portend for the next round of stadium negotiations?

Screwing it up with Anoka county was an epic failure by Wilf. I know he wasn't around for most of the Twins 10-year quest, but it's as if he learned nothing from it. Lester Bagley has done a horrible job so far as lead on the stadium. If they had simply let it go and agreed to come back in 2007, they'd have their stadium. The deal Anoka County had on the table was basically the same deal Hennipen County was making with the Twins. There was zero reason for the state legislature to block it, the Vikings were simply 3rd in line and their plan had a few holes that needed to be ironed out. Instead they torpedoed the whole thing in a desperate attempt to jump on the Twins back and almost sunk the whole thing.

What does it mean, going forward? I'm not sure, but they're not starting from a good place. We know the stadium won't be in Anoka County. We know they really want it on the Dome site, and Hennipen isn't willing to help, and the city of Minneapolis would sooner fund a new mission to Mars. Therefore, if they're going to build it anywhere in Hennipen County it will need to be done via the state with some creative user fees or the Racino. It would be much easier to pass if they had a plan similar to what they had in 2007 and had a willing local government to partner with.

This is why Wilf needs to drop the 'no roof' act, and also make a firm commitment to how much he's willing to pay. Right now they have no agreement on what kind of stadium, where it will be built, or how much they are willing to pay. Yet they want it done this session. They need to get those questions answered, and soon.

 

[DarrenTheGreek]

Purely from the Vikings standpoint, sure. But it makes no political or economic sense for the state. If Ziggy's building it himself, it probably should be open-air. But if he wants state money, it will need to have a roof. The chances of an open-air stadium bill passing this session are about 0% and Ziggy needs to get a clue.

What if the State had told the University that "if you want funding for your football stadium, you need a roof on it so it can be a multi-use facility"? We'd have all been howling at the moon. This is the same thing. A football stadium should not have a roof. If the state is going to insist on funding it (which I'm not onboard with but that's another discussion) then make it open-air.

 

[howeda7]

What if the State had told the University that "if you want funding for your football stadium, you need a roof on it so it can be a multi-use facility"? We'd have all been howling at the moon. This is the same thing. A football stadium should not have a roof. If the state is going to insist on funding it (which I'm not onboard with but that's another discussion) then make it open-air.

It's not even close to apples-to-apples. As many on here are quick to point out, TCF is owned by the U and not the general public. The state gave money straight out of the general fund to help fund a project at the U's request, as they have for many other things. They will never fund a Vikings stadium with general fund money. Aside from after-the-fact meddling on the booze, they basically just complied with the U's request for funding and let them do what they wanted on the project itself. Further, having a large covered stadium for things like the Super Bowl and NCAA touraments on the campus would never work.

If you don't want the state to fund it in the first place, why would you be more in favor of open-air? You'd rather they spend $600 million on a stadium they'll get almost no use out of then $700 million on one they will? From a purely political standpoint, where's the logic in that?

 

[DarrenTheGreek]

If you don't want the state to fund it in the first place, why would you be more in favor of open-air? You'd rather they spend $600 million on a stadium they'll get almost no use out of then $700 million on one they will? From a purely political standpoint, where's the logic in that?

I think the financial benefits from a retractable/dome roof is miniscule compared to an open-air stadium, thus if the plan is going to proceed I want my preference to be the choice.