Legislature holds public hearing to discuss stadium

**ultravikingfan** · 03-18-2006, 07:22 PM

I care about going to a Super Bowl more than I do hosting one.

**Gift** · 03-18-2006, 07:46 PM

It always made me angry to hear people say "I shouldn't have to pay for it". I mean how short sighted can you be? Anyway, if anyone can get this done it Wilf.

**whackthepack** · 03-18-2006, 07:54 PM

"Benet" wrote:

Don't get me wrong, it all sounds lovely, but there's something that caught me off-guard here.

"The Vikings are touting a $675 million retractable roof stadium with 68,500 seats"

Er.. The Metrodome has a capacity of 64,121 when the Vikings play there. And they've sold that out for every game for years. So why only the extra 4,000 seats? I understand the desire for higher revenue streams such as Corporate Boxes and the like, but why not go for 70,000 seats? Why not 75,000? I know I'm being overly simplistic and there are a whole raft of designing and planning decisions that would have to be made regarding the seating.. But I have to admit I'm a tiny-bit disappointed with the fact the Vikes seem to be low-balling (to use a phrase that's doing the rounds on here lately) their own ability to draw fans. Sure, the shops and all that stuff looks great... And I'm sure it will be fantastic. But I would say let's try and not forget the primary reason people, especially from out-of-county or even out-of-State, are going to be there: the Vikings!

Just to put this in perspective, and to make sure I don't look like a naive whining idiot, there's a stadium in Britain that has a retractable roof and is used for football, which has a pitch about 50 sqaure yards bigger than an NFL field.

The capacity?

74,500.

[size=24px]AND IT'S IN WALES!![/size]

The new Wembley Stadium in London: England's national stadium, will have a retractable roof.

The capacity?

90,000.

I just realised how long this post is; so I'll get back to the point. England is crowded with big stadiums, Old Trafford, St James's Park, City of Manchester Stadium, Millenium Stadium, Wembley, Ashburton Grove (under construction), all of these are over 60,000 capacity and are in a country a tenth of the size of the States. If we can support all these huge clubs and stadiums, why can the Vikes not push the boat out (to use a phrase I like using :grin

and up the stadium capacity?

Because the cost would be higher, and if you do not sell out 95% of the stadium then it is blacked out on local TV. Teams want to make sure they are on TV.

**Benet** · 03-18-2006, 08:03 PM

"whackthepack" wrote:

Because the cost would be higher, and if you do not sell out 95% of the stadium then it is blacked out on local TV. Teams want to make sure they are on TV.

I don't think the cost is that prohibitive, especially considering how much money is going to be put into this project already, but I completely forgot about how attendance affects the TV broadcasts.

So it's all about the high-revenue streams: Corporate and Hospitality Boxes, Luxury seating and the other ancillary benefits of a new stadium.

**Purple Floyd** · 03-18-2006, 08:13 PM

"PackSux!" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

Take off the dang retractable roof and use the money to make it bigger. What the heck do they think they need the retractable roof for anyway?

If we want to ever host a superbowl we better have a roof on it otherwise we wont ever see a superbowl in minnesota again. But it would be nice to see them make it bigger and still have the retractable roof.

The last time I looked, there has never been a team to make the superbowl in their home town and if you look back at the records of the team that hosts the super bowl each year it is not good. Personally I would rather build a stadium that plays to our strength,which is the cold, and helps us win playoff games that to design a stadium around the possibility they may play a single super bowl here that my team won't be playing in anyway. Funny you never see Dynasty teams like Dallas,Pittsburgh,Green Bay,Chicago or San Fran trying to get super Bowls but perennial losers like Detroit and New Orleans can get them all the time. Personally I know which group I would rather be included in.

**Benet** · 03-18-2006, 08:45 PM

I don't honestly think an open-air stadium would benefit the Vikings.

In the short term.

Remember, we're talking about a franchise that has played in a Dome since 1982. That's 24 years! To move the franchise outdoors again would not "play to their strengths." Green Bay, Chicago, New England, these are teams that have played in freezing tundra's, and it's something their players have adapted to as a result. To shift from indoors to outdoors would be a severe disadvantage to the Vikings.

In the short term.

However, in the longer term, you're right, it would be a great benefit. Especially if (as we all hope) the Vikings are still in the game come January. Looking at current examples: Who wants to go to Chicago, New England or Philly in January? Answer: No-one if they can avoid it. After a few years of getting reacquainted with playing in the snow, it could be a real advantage to the Vikings again.

And that's my 2 cents.

**jaymz7** · 03-18-2006, 09:15 PM

I hope they just get it done. I usually make it to two or three home games a year and I can't wait to go to the new stadium. I like the retracting roof idea. It would allow the state to use it for other revenues when the Vikes aren't playing by closing the roof. Unless it is a minus 30 degree day with 30 mile an hour winds I say the roof should never close on Vikes home games.

**collegeguyjeff** · 03-19-2006, 01:01 AM

"jaymz7" wrote:

I hope they just get it done. I usually make it to two or three home games a year and I can't wait to go to the new stadium. I like the retracting roof idea. It would allow the state to use it for other revenues when the Vikes aren't playing by closing the roof. Unless it is a minus 30 degree day with 30 mile an hour winds I say the roof should never close on Vikes home games.

yeah we could leave the roof open so people can see the beautiful sky in the wintertime for home games. and i think the roof would actually bring in more money than not having one cause of concerts and all that other junk. plus we could get one superbowl there which don't bring in enough money to justify having a roof.

**COJOMAY** · 03-19-2006, 01:17 AM

Benet:
You're right, the high priced suites and boxes are the big thing now for stadiums. They make a ton of money on them compared to just regular seating. Kinda hard for us working stiffs to afford them, but they make the owners a ton of money and that's the bottom line.

And...

Hey Benet, I want you to know how much I really enjoy all your posts. They are well thought out and you are a real asset to this board.