Vikings' deal to play at U was a tough bargain

Donate To GopherHole
nokomismod said:
I didn't notice any fixation on transit, but I think it is a very relevant question to urban planning/stadium discussions.

Can you guys believe that the stadium price is $1billion for 10 game a year?? That is what stands out the most to me.
Click to expand...

Did something change? I was under the impression the new stadium would be in use as much or more than the current Metrodome.
 

The Metrodome had lots of revenue generating events. When three major teams played there.

The new stadium has one tenant, for ten games a year. Most of the rest of the things that the Metrodome is used for don't actually draw anyone, like college baseball.
 

nokomismod said:
I didn't notice any fixation on transit, but I think it is a very relevant question to urban planning/stadium discussions.

Can you guys believe that the stadium price is $1billion for 10 game a year?? That is what stands out the most to me.
Click to expand...

Iceland12 said:
The HHH Dome was used for over 300+ events nearly every year, at least that's the number that was thrown out there. Now how many of them brought in revenue? Throw-in 2 or 3 Monster truck and a handful of Corporate events and you've got a very good point.
Click to expand...

In the end the new stadium will be a nice asset to MN......BUT as you say it is only 10 games a year vs 82 games a year for Target Field, which was less than half the price.

Since the Twins, the Gophers and soon the Vikings, will all have left the Dome who pays the bill? It's been well documented that the remaining events can not cover the cost to keep the doors open of the Dome which is bought and paid for.

So when people say the stadium is not just for the Vikings but for all the other events, I ask; if it wasn't for the 10 dates the Vikings will use it, would there really be an outcry to build a half billion dollar stadium for these other events?
 

Location and transit are not needed in recruiting or game plan discussions, but when you are in a thread talking about the building of a $1 billion stadium, then transit and urban planning become a very necessary piece of the discussion. And just because Dpo has extrememly limited knowledge in the area of transit and urban planning, doesnt mean it isnt relevant.
 

I always love the road congestion before and after a sporting event in Minneapolis. Why the beauty of the congestion? 1960's engineering and forecasting did not foresee the massive growth of the Twin Cities metro area. I-94 is too narrow. It took a billion dollars to improve I-35W. It will take several more billion to improve 94, if it is possible at all. Putting the stadium in Arden Hills made sense from a land use perspective, if you don't buy into the "new urbanism" cult. Infrastructure improvements would be easier and cheaper to undertake. As for the false premise that Met stadium added to the decline of downtown Minneapolis is a pure canard. The reason the skyline has continued to improve since the days of the Foshay tower is that business interests have grown and located to downtown with or without a stadium present for the rich variety of business to business opportunity. A stadium does nothing to grow these connections.

As for the private funding of other stadiums, it may be that private lenders did not like the density of pro sports in this town to fund a billion dollar investment. Our demographics may also be substantially different than the Atlanta example. If our legislature paid attention to the sharks, they would have failed to provide the money since the long term attendance of the team is in doubt and the competition for retail sports to intense for the population base. If that is the case, the long term viability of the tax stream to pay for the stadium will also be in doubt. As far as that goes, the public may just default at some future point on funding the stadium and that would certainly put the whole issue to a fine point at how foolish a venture the NFL is to public financing a stadium.

Just like the legislature failed to properly forecast the electronic pull tabs, it is just as likely that they will misjudge the growth of other funding sources and the competing interests of other spending needs in the future. I will say it until I am dead, the Vikings public funding was the dumbest bill ever to pass the Governors desk and be signed. The whole thing is a sham aesthetic. It certainly doesn't qualify as a need.
 


discochris said:
The Metrodome had lots of revenue generating events. When three major teams played there.

The new stadium has one tenant, for ten games a year. Most of the rest of the things that the Metrodome is used for don't actually draw anyone, like college baseball.
Click to expand...

Ever been to a Monster Truck event or MotoCross at the Dome? Place is packed.
 


The location ultimately chosen for the new Vikings stadium had to be politically acceptable to enough parties (elected officials, appointed officials, the public, and the team) to have a chance at coming to fruition. As much as the Vikings (for the parking revenue and greater development opportunities) and many members of the public (for tailgating) wanted Arden Hills, it never really had a shot. Unlike Minneapolis, which found a path around its referendum hurdle, Ramsey County had no way to bypass its own similar obstacle. The timing and the likely outcome of that referendum were unworkable given the framework of the moment. The team persisited with Arden Hills well after it was evident that the location had no chance of happening because that was the spot it wanted most of all.

I'll add that if you look on a map, the distance from the actual proposed site to 35W, US 10 proper (not just the portion that coincides with 35W and 694), and especially 694 is considerable. Presumably connecting to 35E wouldn't even have been in the cards. The highway work and expense that connecting those three highways to the site would have entailed may have sunk the location even if the Ramsey County referendum requirements hadn't done so first no matter how much the infrastructure might be needed in that area regardless.
 





Sports_Realist said:
The location ultimately chosen for the new Vikings stadium had to be politically acceptable to enough parties (elected officials, appointed officials, the public, and the team) to have a chance at coming to fruition. As much as the Vikings (for the parking revenue and greater development opportunities) and many members of the public (for tailgating) wanted Arden Hills, it never really had a shot. Unlike Minneapolis, which found a path around its referendum hurdle, Ramsey County had no way to bypass its own similar obstacle. The timing and the likely outcome of that referendum were unworkable given the framework of the moment. The team persisited with Arden Hills well after it was evident that the location had no chance of happening because that was the spot it wanted most of all.

I'll add that if you look on a map, the distance from the actual proposed site to 35W, US 10 proper (not just the portion that coincides with 35W and 694), and especially 694 is considerable. Presumably connecting to 35E wouldn't even have been in the cards. The highway work and expense that connecting those three highways to the site would have entailed may have sunk the location even if the Ramsey County referendum requirements hadn't done so first no matter how much the infrastructure might be needed in that area regardless.
Click to expand...

That said, Ramsey County is already sinking a lot of money into the roads surrounding the site. This construction season, they did a late redesign of the 96 side of the 10/96 project, and are supposedly paying for the reconstruction of the 35W intersections at 96 and County H.
 

Infrastructure improvements for a car only dean, however there is now a variety of other transit options in the downtown area like an expanding light rail system that make it the more ideal location.
 

RochesterGopher said:
Ever been to a Monster Truck event or MotoCross at the Dome? Place is packed.
Click to expand...

That's what, 2-3 times a year. So we're building a billion dollar stadium for 13 days a year instead of 10. Okay.

I'm not anti-stadium either, but the cost seems very excessive, and the financing is a sham at best.
 



discochris said:
That's what, 2-3 times a year. So we're building a billion dollar stadium for 13 days a year instead of 10. Okay.
Click to expand...

NFL Playoffs

A finalist for a Super Bowl.

Will be a regular venue for the NCAA Tournament.

Has put in bid for new college football title game.

Wilfs want a soccer tenant.

The rollerbladers are there every day in the winter paying $6.50 a pop or $99 for season pass.

College baseball teams pay rent.

High School soccer/football playoffs plus HS baseball.

Conventions/Trade Shows

Concerts

Monster truck rallies/Motorcross
 

Maximus said:
NFL Playoffs

1) A finalist for a Super Bowl.

2) Will be a regular venue for the NCAA Tournament.

3) Has put in bid for new college football title game.

4) Wilfs want a soccer tenant.

5) The rollerbladers are there every day in the winter paying $6.50 a pop or $99 for season pass.

6) College baseball teams pay rent.

7) High School soccer/football playoffs plus HS baseball.

8) Conventions/Trade Shows

9) Concerts

10) Monster truck rallies/Motorcross
Click to expand...

Numbers added for discussion purpose.

#1 will happen once in the venue's lifetime, a blip in the economic activity and therefore return to public investment.
#2 MAY get a Final Four, will likely host regional games. But the Dome was already doing this...
#3, same as #1
#4 I agree, but good for them. We're supposed to like spending $500M++ because 20 more games will be played a year for profit to the Wilfs?
#5,8 there aren't other venues in town that could adequately host these things today? Or at far lower public investment? (looking at you, Armory)
#6 So public universities (and private ones) get to pay the Wilfs/MSFC to play there after the state invested hundreds of millions??
#7 Dome already being used for these, already well over capacity. My take on using existing public facility (TCF) for these playoffs is well-documented (and contested). For argument's sake, how much would a 10-20k seat stadium that could house HS football/soccer/baseball, college baseball, etc cost to build? $80m? How many conventions and concerts could they host?
#9-10 Dome more than adequate for these events today, from a quality and capacity standpoint

Point is, the Dome and other existing local facilities handle all the non-NFL or one-off (Superbowl, CFB Championship) events more than just fine. We're spending $500M (plus interest, operating, and oppty costs) for the Vikings to have the privilege of a higher-revenue generating facility that serves the same purposes to public/private entities as the existing one.

But whatever, it's done, decided, and shovels are basically in the ground.
 

RailBaronYarr said:
Numbers added for discussion purpose.

#1 will happen once in the venue's lifetime, a blip in the economic activity and therefore return to public investment.
#2 MAY get a Final Four, will likely host regional games. But the Dome was already doing this...
#3, same as #1
#4 I agree, but good for them. We're supposed to like spending $500M++ because 20 more games will be played a year for profit to the Wilfs?
#5,8 there aren't other venues in town that could adequately host these things today? Or at far lower public investment? (looking at you, Armory)
#6 So public universities (and private ones) get to pay the Wilfs/MSFC to play there after the state invested hundreds of millions??
#7 Dome already being used for these, already well over capacity. My take on using existing public facility (TCF) for these playoffs is well-documented (and contested). For argument's sake, how much would a 10-20k seat stadium that could house HS football/soccer/baseball, college baseball, etc cost to build? $80m? How many conventions and concerts could they host?
#9-10 Dome more than adequate for these events today, from a quality and capacity standpoint

Point is, the Dome and other existing local facilities handle all the non-NFL or one-off (Superbowl, CFB Championship) events more than just fine. We're spending $500M (plus interest, operating, and oppty costs) for the Vikings to have the privilege of a higher-revenue generating facility that serves the same purposes to public/private entities as the existing one.

But whatever, it's done, decided, and shovels are basically in the ground.
Click to expand...

the dome would need renovation to hold another super bowl/ ncaa championship. But i agree, the price is toooooo damn high. We don't need a gigaton stadium like jerry friggin world.
 

RailBaronYarr said:
Numbers added for discussion purpose.

#1 will happen once in the venue's lifetime, a blip in the economic activity and therefore return to public investment.
#2 MAY get a Final Four, will likely host regional games. But the Dome was already doing this...
#3, same as #1
#4 I agree, but good for them. We're supposed to like spending $500M++ because 20 more games will be played a year for profit to the Wilfs?
#5,8 there aren't other venues in town that could adequately host these things today? Or at far lower public investment? (looking at you, Armory)
#6 So public universities (and private ones) get to pay the Wilfs/MSFC to play there after the state invested hundreds of millions??
#7 Dome already being used for these, already well over capacity. My take on using existing public facility (TCF) for these playoffs is well-documented (and contested). For argument's sake, how much would a 10-20k seat stadium that could house HS football/soccer/baseball, college baseball, etc cost to build? $80m? How many conventions and concerts could they host?
#9-10 Dome more than adequate for these events today, from a quality and capacity standpoint

Point is, the Dome and other existing local facilities handle all the non-NFL or one-off (Superbowl, CFB Championship) events more than just fine. We're spending $500M (plus interest, operating, and oppty costs) for the Vikings to have the privilege of a higher-revenue generating facility that serves the same purposes to public/private entities as the existing one.

But whatever, it's done, decided, and shovels are basically in the ground.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with everything except your #6. No money will be paid to the Wilfs....they will not own the stadium.

Like I said somewhere else in this thread, the existing events in the Dome are not able to cover the expenses to keep the doors open and the Dome is bought and paid for. Do we really need to spend another half billion to house these events?

I do expect the new stadium to host some Big Ten Champ games.

Bottom line: Zigmund should be paying a much bigger share.
 

Maximus said:
NFL Playoffs

A finalist for a Super Bowl.
- one time during the lifetime of the stadium.

Will be a regular venue for the NCAA Tournament.
- We have that now, (regionals at least - the Dome doesn't qualify for Finals anymore), and the last few regionals, attendance has been way down.

Has put in bid for new college football title game.
- Unlikely, IMO. People want to go to warm weather placed.

Wilfs want a soccer tenant.
- MLS is moving towards soccer-only facilities. Plus there's no guaranteed they'd award this market a team. We're fairly sports saturated.

The rollerbladers are there every day in the winter paying $6.50 a pop or $99 for season pass.
- Bringing in a lot of money to the surrounding area are they?

College baseball teams pay rent.
- Bringing in a lot of money to the surrounding area are they?

High School soccer/football playoffs plus HS baseball.
- Bringing in a lot of money to the surrounding area are they?

Conventions/Trade Shows
- Name some recent ones that have picked the dome over the Convention Center. For that matter, most major trade shows are in places like Las Vegas, Chicago, Anaheim, Orlando and New Orleans. Not here.

Concerts
- What was the last concert at the Dome? There are VERY few acts today that can legitimately do stadium shows, and many of those (U2, McCartney) are older. Hell, there aren't even as many arena concerts as there once were.

Monster truck rallies/Motorcross
-Twice a year?
Click to expand...

There's no justification for this extravagant a stadium. None.
 

DLguy said:
Thanks for finding the one example at a stadium which is a completely different animal.
Click to expand...

The Palace of Auburn Hills is another. Detroit and Dallas are a long ways from both of those stadiums. It's not like Arden Hills is an hour drive from downtown Minneapolis or anything. Both of those examples are a good 30+ minutes away with no traffic.

I get what you're saying but I don't think an Arden Hills location would prevent NCAA tourney games. Super Bowl might be a different story though.
 

Maximus said:
NFL Playoffs

A finalist for a Super Bowl.

Will be a regular venue for the NCAA Tournament.

Has put in bid for new college football title game.

Wilfs want a soccer tenant.

The rollerbladers are there every day in the winter paying $6.50 a pop or $99 for season pass.

College baseball teams pay rent.

High School soccer/football playoffs plus HS baseball.

Conventions/Trade Shows

Concerts

Monster truck rallies/Motorcross
Click to expand...

I imagine these two things are pretty much a wash. I'm guessing the usage fee is pretty minimal and most games don't have more than several hundred people at the most attending.
 

A couple thoughts on the article and various points made in this thread:

The article was definitely written from the "U" perspective and not the Vikings. I feel like you have to take some of it with a grain of salt knowing that the "U" probably pushed for various items as well.

That said, I don't understand why the Vikings wouldn't kick in an extra million or two (especially if they can pay Josh Freeman) as simply being a good neighbor, supporter of the state University and great publicity for their organization. It's literally pinching pennies for a business like the Vikings to haggle over some of these issues. If I was the Wilf's, I would overpay the "U" for the use of TCF and make sure the public new about. The positive vibes from the Vikings being generous to the "U" would far outweigh the monetary expenditure.

The Vikings/Minnesota absolutely needed an extravagant stadium. The biggest mistake in the world would be to build a stadium that wouldn't be a top 5 or so building/revenue generator in the NFL on the day it opens. Building something on the cheap just means it becomes antiquated quicker and Minnesota is back to tackling the stadium issue sooner. I think not adding the retractable roof, and having 65K seats as opposed to 75K might both be mistakes.

I personally believe that PSL's should be part of the state's contribution not the Wilf's, and it should have been negotiated as such. It's a joke that the Wilf's get to use dollars that Vikings fans give them for the right to purchase tickets to pay a portion of the stadiums cost. The vast majority of PSL buyers will have already contributed to the state's share of the stadiums cost. Obviously, this would be easier said than done because their is no guarantee that people will pay for the PSL's (just like their was no guarantee for pull tabs..).
 

EG#9 said:
A couple thoughts on the article and various points made in this thread:

The article was definitely written from the "U" perspective and not the Vikings. I feel like you have to take some of it with a grain of salt knowing that the "U" probably pushed for various items as well.

That said, I don't understand why the Vikings wouldn't kick in an extra million or two (especially if they can pay Josh Freeman) as simply being a good neighbor, supporter of the state University and great publicity for their organization. It's literally pinching pennies for a business like the Vikings to haggle over some of these issues. If I was the Wilf's, I would overpay the "U" for the use of TCF and make sure the public new about. The positive vibes from the Vikings being generous to the "U" would far outweigh the monetary expenditure.

The Vikings/Minnesota absolutely needed an extravagant stadium. The biggest mistake in the world would be to build a stadium that wouldn't be a top 5 or so building/revenue generator in the NFL on the day it opens. Building something on the cheap just means it becomes antiquated quicker and Minnesota is back to tackling the stadium issue sooner. I think not adding the retractable roof, and having 65K seats as opposed to 75K might both be mistakes.

I personally believe that PSL's should be part of the state's contribution not the Wilf's, and it should have been negotiated as such. It's a joke that the Wilf's get to use dollars that Vikings fans give them for the right to purchase tickets to pay a portion of the stadiums cost. The vast majority of PSL buyers will have already contributed to the state's share of the stadiums cost. Obviously, this would be easier said than done because their is no guarantee that people will pay for the PSL's (just like their was no guarantee for pull tabs..).
Click to expand...

1. The Vikings won't kick in an extra million or two because it is not in their dna - check with their partners in NJ. They will pinch every penny and then some, no matter who it costs.

2. The idea of a retractable roof is downright asinine. It's like having a sun-roof on your car and pretending it is a convertible, or as Gov Dayton said 'it's like sitting in your living room and taking off your roof. It is not like being outside'. The current design, with transparent wall/doors/ceiling panels is excellent. Retractable roof stadiums look like erector sets.

3. 75,000 seats? No way. Long story short.....way too many TV black-outs
 

GophersInIowa said:
The Palace of Auburn Hills is another. Detroit and Dallas are a long ways from both of those stadiums. It's not like Arden Hills is an hour drive from downtown Minneapolis or anything. Both of those examples are a good 30+ minutes away with no traffic.

I get what you're saying but I don't think an Arden Hills location would prevent NCAA tourney games. Super Bowl might be a different story though.
Click to expand...

In order to get a Final Four, the stadium has to be within reasonable distance of 10k hotel rooms. Now what type of distance that is can probable be up for debate, but Arden Hills would not have met that.
 

DLguy said:
In order to get a Final Four, the stadium has to be within reasonable distance of 10k hotel rooms. Now what type of distance that is can probable be up for debate, but Arden Hills would not have met that.
Click to expand...

Where did you see this? I didn't know this was part of the bid packet.

And is that why Cardinal Stadium in Glendale, AZ not getting any love for hosting from the Committee?
 

RailBaronYarr said:
Numbers added for discussion purpose.

#1 will happen once in the venue's lifetime, a blip in the economic activity and therefore return to public investment.
#2 MAY get a Final Four, will likely host regional games. But the Dome was already doing this...
#3, same as #1
#4 I agree, but good for them. We're supposed to like spending $500M++ because 20 more games will be played a year for profit to the Wilfs?
#5,8 there aren't other venues in town that could adequately host these things today? Or at far lower public investment? (looking at you, Armory)
#6 So public universities (and private ones) get to pay the Wilfs/MSFC to play there after the state invested hundreds of millions??
#7 Dome already being used for these, already well over capacity. My take on using existing public facility (TCF) for these playoffs is well-documented (and contested). For argument's sake, how much would a 10-20k seat stadium that could house HS football/soccer/baseball, college baseball, etc cost to build? $80m? How many conventions and concerts could they host?
#9-10 Dome more than adequate for these events today, from a quality and capacity standpoint

Point is, the Dome and other existing local facilities handle all the non-NFL or one-off (Superbowl, CFB Championship) events more than just fine. We're spending $500M (plus interest, operating, and oppty costs) for the Vikings to have the privilege of a higher-revenue generating facility that serves the same purposes to public/private entities as the existing one.

But whatever, it's done, decided, and shovels are basically in the ground.
Click to expand...

I'm with you Mr Baron.
 

stocker08 said:
I don't mind them negotiating either, but it seems as though the Wilfs are snake oil salesmen. From issues with some previous partners to the new stadium deal looking less and less fair for the state. They really don't have the leverage yet they act as though they hold the cards.
Click to expand...

I truly believe they think they're east coast wolves that are going to devour the midwest lambs, and they're frustrated and ticked off that we can be this savvy and tough at times. They might have fleeced the politicians, but they're going to have a harder time dealing with institutions, business interests and generally rank-and-filers.
 

DLguy said:
In order to get a Final Four, the stadium has to be within reasonable distance of 10k hotel rooms. Now what type of distance that is can probable be up for debate, but Arden Hills would not have met that.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize we were talking about the Final Four specifically since you just mentioned NCAA tournament games.

Either way, I imagine there would have been a few hotels go up in the area if a stadium were built there.

Reliant Stadium in Houston is another stadium that isn't downtown and is hosting a future F4.
 

Regionals they would still prefer a downtown location. A lot of factors play into their selection. Stadium location and surrounding amenities are very much a part of the process. Reliant Stadium was built on the site of the Astrodome and is very much built up. It would be similar location to where the NY Giants once planned on building a stadium in St Louis Park where the West End is now located. Still close to the downtown area. Easy access, and tons of hotel rooms.
 

discochris said:
Wilfs want a soccer tenant.
- MLS is moving towards soccer-only facilities. Plus there's no guaranteed they'd award this market a team. We're fairly sports saturated.
Click to expand...

I am sorry if this isn't your quote but I need to get my three cents in.

Yes, MLS is moving towards a soccer only facility but I am under the impression MLS would rather see a strong ownership group who owns their own building to make up for not having a Soccer specific stadium. We currently have 6 professional teams and a Big Ten school in our market. So how would it be fairly saturated? The market wouldn't be adding pro soccer. Currently, NASL's Minnesota United FC could upgrade to MLS without a hitch. Since, the new ownership came around the average attendance has gone up to 5,000. They have done research and have found out only 3% of adults know their is a pro soccer team in our market. With a little marketing that could easily go up to 8,000 to 12,000 fans per game especially since soccer is the number two sport in the 12 to 24 year old age demographic. More over, don't be surprised if we see talk of a soccer specific stadium next to the Farmer's market in MPLS. Here is the Link Like everything around here who is going to pay for it? How much? My guess 75 million to 200 million will be the cost.
 

4four4 said:
I am sorry if this isn't your quote but I need to get my three cents in.

Yes, MLS is moving towards a soccer only facility but I am under the impression MLS would rather see a strong ownership group who owns their own building to make up for not having a Soccer specific stadium. We currently have 6 professional teams and a Big Ten school in our market. So how would it be fairly saturated? The market wouldn't be adding pro soccer. Currently, NASL's Minnesota United FC could upgrade to MLS without a hitch. Since, the new ownership came around the average attendance has gone up to 5,000. They have done research and have found out only 3% of adults know their is a pro soccer team in our market. With a little marketing that could easily go up to 8,000 to 12,000 fans per game especially since soccer is the number two sport in the 12 to 24 year old age demographic. More over, don't be surprised if we see talk of a soccer specific stadium next to the Farmer's market in MPLS. Here is the Link Like everything around here who is going to pay for it? How much? My guess 75 million to 200 million will be the cost.
Click to expand...

It was my quote, yes.

I still think MLS is, for now, a long way off for several reasons.
I did say that the sports market is fairly saturated for a market our size. There is only so much discretionary entertainment spending to go around and with four major league teams, Big Ten Football and Basketball, Gopher Hockey, and even the Lynx, that's spread pretty thin.

The argument that soccer is popular with kids has been around since the old NASL days, and it didn't hold water then, and it doesn't now. Playing the game doesn't translate into following the sport as an adult. The Gophers don't even have a men's team.

Also 8000 fans would put them rock bottom in attendance in the MLS. 10,000 would be second to last. I would think MLS would want at least league average of 18,000 - more than the Wolves, and about what the Wild draw. I don't see it.

Finally, MLS teams are legally owned by the league, though are transitioning to more of an investor model. Hard to say if they would want the Wilfs in the club.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom