Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    BloodyHorns82's Avatar
    BloodyHorns82 is offline Jersey Retired Feed The Frog Champion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,691

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "Minniman" #1087928
    What's the B.S.? Minnesota, on average, is colder than Green Bay or Chicago during September through February.

    Detroit and Cleveland are pretty cold too, but the Lions play in a dome, and the Browns do not have it as bad as either Minnesota or Green bay. The coastal teams like New England and New York are not even close.

    The point is that Green Bay is considered the cold spot, while Minneapolis is not. People need to know that Minneapolis is colder than the coldest outdoor venue in the NFL before making a stadium choice.
    Maybe I interpreted incorrectly but my understanding of the point was that Minneapolis is too cold to host an outdoor football venue. My point was that while technically colder than GB, it's basically the same temperature in the winter despite Green Bay being next to a large body of water.

    Minneapolis is not too cold to host outdoor football. Some folks say we couldn't sell it out. Maybe this is true, but then again GB, Chicago, and Cleveland don't have any problems selling out.

    Poor folks in GB and Chicago must not have any place to host indoor winter events like the Monster Truck Rally and baseball festivals, I mean with having an outdoor football stadium and whatnot. Surely there are no other indoor options.

    I personally don't care one way or the other...both have advantages IMO, but some of the arguments for a roof seem pretty weak.

  2. #32
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "BloodyHorns82" #1088070
    Quote Originally Posted by "Minniman" #1087928
    What's the B.S.? Minnesota, on average, is colder than Green Bay or Chicago during September through February.

    Detroit and Cleveland are pretty cold too, but the Lions play in a dome, and the Browns do not have it as bad as either Minnesota or Green bay. The coastal teams like New England and New York are not even close.

    The point is that Green Bay is considered the cold spot, while Minneapolis is not. People need to know that Minneapolis is colder than the coldest outdoor venue in the NFL before making a stadium choice.
    Maybe I interpreted incorrectly but my understanding of the point was that Minneapolis is too cold to host an outdoor football venue. My point was that while technically colder than GB, it's basically the same temperature in the winter despite Green Bay being next to a large body of water.

    Minneapolis is not too cold to host outdoor football. Some folks say we couldn't sell it out. Maybe this is true, but then again GB, Chicago, and Cleveland don't have any problems selling out.

    Poor folks in GB and Chicago must not have any place to host indoor winter events like the Monster Truck Rally and baseball festivals, I mean with having an outdoor football stadium and whatnot. Surely there are no other indoor options.

    I personally don't care one way or the other...both have advantages IMO, but some of the arguments for a roof seem pretty weak.
    Monster truck rally? Really, does anyone even go to these things any more? I thought they disappeared in the 90's. Certainly not enough of a draw to make the difference between having a roof on a stadium or not.

  3. #33
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,408

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    I would not like to watch a football game in this weather.

    I can take snow and cold, and I have played in it, but this negative degree stuff sucks.

  4. #34
    vikinggreg's Avatar
    vikinggreg is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    4,763

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087861
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087806
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087797
    Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
    New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

    Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

    Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

    Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

    Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

    So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

    Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.
    Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums
    To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
    Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
    Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

    The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.
    I guess some other things to look at are Kraft owns a soocer team as well that uses his stadium, the NFL loaned him money to help build the stadium and when the Rolling Stones played at his stadium it would be money going his way, also the statium was open air and completed 9 years ago. (On a side note Kraft was going to move the team to Hartford)

    I also wonder how much of the money listed to build stadiums by owners has come from the league itself out of the stadium development funds or loans and the other revenue generator the owners are now using............PSL's inch:

  5. #35
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,262

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1088060
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1088058
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087697
    The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
    They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
    The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
    the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.
    If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

    Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

    Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

    And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

    BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?
    I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

    My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

    Caine
    I am more pro retractable, than I am a domed stadium as you have the best of both worlds & it also would be favorable for events were pyrotechnics or ventilation of toxic fumes (e.g. monster trucks, etc.) is concerned.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    78

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1088258
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1088060
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1088058
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087697
    The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
    They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
    The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
    the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.
    If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

    Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

    Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

    And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

    BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?
    I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

    My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

    Caine
    I more pro retractable, than I am a domed stadium as you have the best of both worlds & it also would be favorable for events were pyrotechnics or ventilation of toxic fumes (e.g. monster trucks, etc.) is concerned.
    I am not. Either build it with a permanent roof or no roof at all (I honestly have no preference). A retractable roof adds an estimated $200 million to the cost. For what? Is it really worth $200 million to play eight to ten games a year outside?

    You can't please everyone. Go with one or the other. There's a very good reason why neither the state nor the team is seriously considering a retractable roof.
    "I can't stand burnt toast. I loathe bus stations: terrible places, full of lost luggage and lost souls. And then there's unrequited love, and tyranny, and cruelty. We all have a world of our own terrors to face."
    - The Doctor

  7. #37
    Dibbzz is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    297

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    I'm definitely not an expert when it comes to economics. However, to me it makes more since to have an indoor stadium (not even one with a retractable roof ala Lucas Oil Stadium) for pretty much all of the reasons posted previously. One thing to add that I don't think I've seen argued yet would be to host a Super Bowl. I mean, couldn't hosting the big game (in theory) be used to pay off a lot of the fees needed to fund the stadium? Again I'm no stadium or economics expert but I would think being able to have an indoor stadium, despite the fact that it'd be more expensive to build, would be better in the long run to host other sporting events that otherwise wouldn't be possible (or at least feasible).

    I would personally would be a happy fan if we ended up getting something similar to what the Colts ultimately built. It has a fixed roof, isn't anything too elaborate like Cowboys Stadium, and it's going to keep the team around for the foreseeable future. Simple, yet effective is my logic. Oh, and they're also hosting Super Bowl XLVI next year.

  8. #38
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,262

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "bbqplatypus318" #1088307
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1088258
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1088060
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1088058
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087697
    The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
    They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
    The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
    the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.
    If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

    Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

    Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

    And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

    BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?
    I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

    My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

    Caine
    I more pro retractable, than I am a domed stadium as you have the best of both worlds & it also would be favorable for events were pyrotechnics or ventilation of toxic fumes (e.g. monster trucks, etc.) is concerned.
    I am not. Either build it with a permanent roof or no roof at all (I honestly have no preference). A retractable roof adds an estimated $200 million to the cost. For what? Is it really worth $200 million to play eight to ten games a year outside?

    You can't please everyone. Go with one or the other. There's a very good reason why neither the state nor the team is seriously considering a retractable roof.
    First off, it would be 8-10 games a year, every year. Secondly the stadium would be used for more than just football. Many other events could be scheduled there where the event may opt to have the roof open, but if rain or in-climate weather happens, the roof can be closed.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  9. #39
    vikinggreg's Avatar
    vikinggreg is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    4,763

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1088344
    Quote Originally Posted by "bbqplatypus318" #1088307
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1088258
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1088060
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1088058
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087697
    The Vikings are right on the money on this one. They know full well that the economics of a 900 million dollar stadium don't work in this market.
    They only care about the football team and not whether someone has a place to power walk.
    The economics are much more realistic when the cost is in the 600,000,000 range and imho that is what both sides should be working towards.
    the other thing that should be done is to disband the MSFC which crates more problems than it solves.
    If an open air stadium gets built, it will be regretted by the Vikings & the state of MN within 5 years from the loss of revenue it would have generated as a year around facility.

    Twins have a brand spanking new stadium, but guess where they want to host Twins Fest?

    Hint: It's not in the new Twins open air stadium or in the new Gophers open air stadium.

    And there are hundreds of events like that that use the domed stadium now.

    BTW, how much revenue are those two stadiums generating since their seasons ended?
    I agree with this too...I also agree that a Dome may be a better idea for the team as it negates weather entirely...and it's better from a fan point of view.

    My ENTIRE point previously was the Ruesse claimed the Vikings NEEDED a roof...I simply pointed out that they don't NEED one.

    Caine
    I more pro retractable, than I am a domed stadium as you have the best of both worlds & it also would be favorable for events were pyrotechnics or ventilation of toxic fumes (e.g. monster trucks, etc.) is concerned.
    I am not. Either build it with a permanent roof or no roof at all (I honestly have no preference). A retractable roof adds an estimated $200 million to the cost. For what? Is it really worth $200 million to play eight to ten games a year outside?

    You can't please everyone. Go with one or the other. There's a very good reason why neither the state nor the team is seriously considering a retractable roof.
    First off, it would be 8-10 games a year, every year. Secondly the stadium would be used for more than just football. Many other events could be scheduled there where the event may opt to have the roof open, but if rain or in-climate weather happens, the roof can be closed.
    Yeah they could play baseball, soccer, basketball and football but soccer folded and Twins, Wolves and Gopher football all moved to their own venues; add to that the Wild also have a venue. The ole multi use dome lost most of its year round tenants and concerts and events now have other venues to look at to hold events whether its Xcel Energy Center, Target Field, Target Center or even TCF. I'm not so sure some boat/RV shows and monster trucks do much to pay the bills on power and heat during the off season if they had to pay the true costs and there are other options. It could have been an easier sell to have one big domed stadium with a movable roof and one hockey/basketball stadium for smaller events but that isn't the direction things went. The Twin cities has turned into the stadium cities and the budget and been spread out.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. 45 lessons life taught me...
    By NodakPaul in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-08-2009, 12:54 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-30-2007, 07:23 AM
  3. Souhan: Vikings could take lessons from Wolves
    By COJOMAY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-12-2007, 08:53 PM
  4. Jackson soaking up lessons
    By cogitans in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 04:06 PM
  5. a Short series: lessons for packer fans
    By casper in forum Trash the Pack
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 02:33 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •