Sid: TCF Bank Stadium was a big revenue producer for the Gophers athletic department

[BleedGopher]

per Sid:

• TCF Bank Stadium was a big revenue producer for the Gophers athletic department last year. For the second year in a row, the Vikings paid $300,000 per game for rent, so with two preseason, eight regular-season and one postseason game, that’s a total of $3.3 million. The NHL paid $800,000 to hold last week’s outdoor game between the Wild and Blackhawks. Last summer there also were some big concerts at the stadium: The Rolling Stones brought in $450,000 in income, Luke Bryan $693,000 and One Direction $283,000. That’s total income of more than $5.5 million from those events.

http://www.startribune.com/wolves-towns-has-look-of-a-future-superstar/370394141/

Go Gophers!!

 

[Some Day...Is Coming!]

Put it towards the new athletic facilities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gophmeister]

Put it towards the new athletic facilities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or retire the debt to construct it.

 

[Ski U Mah 55]

Makes up for the reduction in revenue in hockey.

 

[bottlebass]

give it back to season ticket holders.

 

[GopherRock]

So how much of that goes away when the new Humpty Dump opens?

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

So how much of that goes away when the new Humpty Dump opens?

Obviously the Vikings income. Another source they didn't mention is the HS football championships will move (not that they were a huge source of income, but I'm guessing they made a couple bucks).

I don't think the concerts will move. Those were outdoor concerts most (if not all) other places, so those would already either be there or Target Field. But three in a year is probably unusual.

The outdoor NHL game probably won't come back here anytime soon.

So yeah, going forward probably not nearly as much income.

 

[tikited]

I'm surprised they didn't find a way to lose money on all of it.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

I'm surprised they didn't find a way to lose money on all of it.

Well, they are the same people who somehow managed to lose money on selling 3.2 beer for $9 a glass that first season of suds sales. I didn't read Sid's "column" but I'm guessing he only reports on the revenue side of the equation. There is probably a decent chance if someone added up all the expenses, the bottom line would require red ink.

 

[Spoofin]

Well, they are the same people who somehow managed to lose money on selling 3.2 beer for $9 a glass that first season of suds sales.

IALTO

 

[beavergopher]

I'm surprised they didn't find a way to lose money on all of it.

LOL. If they had an independent auditor, they would probably find out they did.