Thread: Vikings stadium issue eyed by NFL

"V4L" wrote:

"C" wrote:

"V4L" wrote:

Welcome to L.A

You are the definition of a post whore. Trying to get to 17,000?

Yes I am

And when I get close.. I just fuck around til I get there

If I got like 10-20 left I just post random shit

Don't really care about my totals.. But I hate being so close to another thousand for some reason

+1

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Storm" wrote:

"We recognize that the Vikings owner is out of his fricken mind to ask for a billion dollar stadium in this economy. We also recognize that we could easily cut the costs by roughly 300-400 million dollars, if we abandon the wussy retractable roof idea and ditch other bells and whistles that we don't really need. We recognize that blackmailing a state or a city into paying hundreds of million dollars has become a standard practice in sports lately, too.

But hey, we are the NFL, so please recognize that its ok for us to be greedy."

The state wants the roof, not the Vikings.
The Vikings want an open air stadium, and you are correct, it would shave $300 to $400 million off the price.
Oh yeah, and the Vikings have already committed to spending $250 million of their own money, so they aren't "asking" for a billion dollar stadium from the state.
They want to build it as a partnership.

But why let facts get in your way?
How can you keep making ignorant, incorrect posts calling the NFL and the Vikings greedy if you can't make up a few things here and there...

Source of the state demanding retractable roof. Or I call your propaganda bullshit.

"PackSux!" wrote:

"Storm" wrote:

"We recognize that the Vikings owner is out of his fricken mind to ask for a billion dollar stadium in this economy. We also recognize that we could easily cut the costs by roughly 300-400 million dollars, if we abandon the wussy retractable roof idea and ditch other bells and whistles that we don't really need. We recognize that blackmailing a state or a city into paying hundreds of million dollars has become a standard practice in sports lately, too.

But hey, we are the NFL, so please recognize that its ok for us to be greedy."

How can you be so against a stadium Storm?

I have not read one post from you that supports a new stadium.
If you are so gol 'darnit concerned about how much money it will cost YOU, then send me the bill.
I will pay my share and yours if that is what it takes to shut you up.

I am against public funding in size of roughly 750,000,000.00 dollars, especially in this economy. You wont shut me up, thanks for the offer, though.

Cut the costs, maybe also let the NFL chip in with a couple hundred millions along with the Vikings' 250 and then we're talking.

"bleedpurple" wrote:

"Storm" wrote:

"We recognize that the Vikings owner is out of his fricken mind to ask for a billion dollar stadium in this economy. We also recognize that we could easily cut the costs by roughly 300-400 million dollars, if we abandon the wussy retractable roof idea and ditch other bells and whistles that we don't really need. We recognize that blackmailing a state or a city into paying hundreds of million dollars has become a standard practice in sports lately, too.

But hey, we are the NFL, so please recognize that its ok for us to be greedy."

i don't agree with that... if your gonna build a stadium, you might as well build a nice one... it's not like the city is paying for the entire thing....

besides, with all the other things you can do with the stadium, concerts, functions, rally's etc. and with taxes, the city would make a lot more...

why should the owners build the gol 'darnit thing and not get help, after all, they are going to be taxing the living pooh out of NFL player salaries, concessions, ticket sales, sales tax on the stadium, etc. etc... the state acts like they aren't making money.. it should be a joint effort...

and the Vikings are part of the state.. the community...

why would you want to loose an NFL franchise??.. you see what happened with the lakers when they left and how long it took for you to get a team back there... don't be cheap.. the gophers should have never left campus and you got the twins a stadium when they suck jiggly butt and don't draw big crowds... the vikes sell out every game..

if you have a 128 mill cap that's roughly 51.2 million dollars in just salary tax money not to mention the revenue the owners bring in.. that's on top of the 32.2 mill the state is gonna make on just the stadium alone... that's gol 'darnit near close to 100mill a year... what / who else is gonna bring in that kind of money for the state in one year??...

they make their money back in anywhere from 5-7 years tops... it's a win win for everyone...

Your numbers are way off, matey. 100 millions per year to the state is pure fantasy. No one would be blocking this thing, if the whole investment would be returned in just 7 years. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

Vikes already have a stadium, why do we need a new one? I'm guessing it's to

A) Make sure we stay here
B) Attract more fans

Better way to attract fans would be to put out a more exciting football team but will Childress and Bevell calling the plays that won't happen until their contracts aren't renewed next year. Colts have sold out every game in the RCA Dome since '98 and sold out Lucas Oil the first year as well. I don't see why we would need to build a new one when we could do less expensive things, like strippers at halftime to attract more money. I can understand the Twins needing a new one, but not the Vikes

"Elam529" wrote:

Vikes already have a stadium, why do we need a new one? I'm guessing it's to

A) Make sure we stay here
B) Attract more fans

Better way to attract fans would be to put out a more exciting football team but will Childress and Bevell calling the plays that won't happen until their contracts aren't renewed next year. Colts have sold out every game in the RCA Dome since '98 and sold out Lucas Oil the first year as well. I don't see why we would need to build a new one when we could do less expensive things, like strippers at halftime to attract more money. I can understand the Twins needing a new one, but not the Vikes

The Vikings need a new stadium because the Metrodome is outdated and expensive.
The Vikings do not own it, they lease it.
Because of that lease, they are the lowest income team and one of (or the lowest) valuable team in the NFL.
The stadium was a major contributing factor in why the Vikings were one of only two teams to post negative gain last season (the other being the Lion, for self explanatory reasons).
We need a new stadium to remain competitive, why would an owner choose to keep the team if they lose money owning it?

"Elam529" wrote:

Vikes already have a stadium, why do we need a new one? I'm guessing it's to

A) Make sure we stay here
B) Attract more fans

Better way to attract fans would be to put out a more exciting football team but will Childress and Bevell calling the plays that won't happen until their contracts aren't renewed next year. Colts have sold out every game in the RCA Dome since '98 and sold out Lucas Oil the first year as well. I don't see why we would need to build a new one when we could do less expensive things, like strippers at halftime to attract more money. I can understand the Twins needing a new one, but not the Vikes

The Vikings are, and have been for many years, last in revenue of all the NFL teams. The primary reason for that is that the Metrodome does generate the type of income from luxury suites that other teams' stadiums do. In order for the Vikings to remain competitive with the rest of the league, they need to generate more income that does not fall under the current revenue sharing rules, and a new stadium would pretty much solve that issue.

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Storm" wrote:

"We recognize that the Vikings owner is out of his fricken mind to ask for a billion dollar stadium in this economy. We also recognize that we could easily cut the costs by roughly 300-400 million dollars, if we abandon the wussy retractable roof idea and ditch other bells and whistles that we don't really need. We recognize that blackmailing a state or a city into paying hundreds of million dollars has become a standard practice in sports lately, too.

But hey, we are the NFL, so please recognize that its ok for us to be greedy."

The state wants the roof, not the Vikings.
The Vikings want an open air stadium, and you are correct, it would shave $300 to $400 million off the price.
Oh yeah, and the Vikings have already committed to spending $250 million of their own money, so they aren't "asking" for a billion dollar stadium from the state.
They want to build it as a partnership.

But why let facts get in your way?
How can you keep making ignorant, incorrect posts calling the NFL and the Vikings greedy if you can't make up a few things here and there...

Are you suggesting the NFL is not greedy?

They are only as greedy as any other large business.
But if anyone wants to call them greedy, then at least get the reasons correct.

"Storm" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Storm" wrote:

"We recognize that the Vikings owner is out of his fricken mind to ask for a billion dollar stadium in this economy. We also recognize that we could easily cut the costs by roughly 300-400 million dollars, if we abandon the wussy retractable roof idea and ditch other bells and whistles that we don't really need. We recognize that blackmailing a state or a city into paying hundreds of million dollars has become a standard practice in sports lately, too.

But hey, we are the NFL, so please recognize that its ok for us to be greedy."

The state wants the roof, not the Vikings.
The Vikings want an open air stadium, and you are correct, it would shave $300 to $400 million off the price.
Oh yeah, and the Vikings have already committed to spending $250 million of their own money, so they aren't "asking" for a billion dollar stadium from the state.
They want to build it as a partnership.

But why let facts get in your way?
How can you keep making ignorant, incorrect posts calling the NFL and the Vikings greedy if you can't make up a few things here and there...

Source of the state demanding retractable roof. Or I call your propaganda kaka del rio.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/8503217

Wilf, 55, is the son of Holocaust survivors whose family business is among the largest owners of shopping centers in North America. He said he plans to use his real estate business acumen to move forward on a plan for a new stadium, preferably an outdoor venue that will re-establish a home field weather advantage.

"I'm a strong believer in an open venue. From the standpoint of the franchise, I think that it is a good advantage to have some of the other teams come up to our nice, warm Minnesota winters," he said facetiously, "so they can enjoy playing football up where it hurts -- a la Green Bay."

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/08/12_pugmiret_vikings/?refid=0

Wilf says an open stadium would provide a better, overall experience for fans and possibly a home-field edge for the team's defense. But that vision of a frozen turf and a return of the Purple People Eaters is giving financial chills to the operators of the Metrodome. They've seen the value of a climate-controlled venue.

Roy Terwilliger, chairman of the Sports Facilities Commission, says the loss of the Vikings to an outdoor stadium could mean the end of the Metrodome and the hundreds of non-sports events it hosts throughout the year.

http://www.abcnewspapers.com/2004/coonrapids/january/15vikingsstadium.html

The county's plan is for a stadium facility that can be used 365 days a year, not just on Viking game days. That's why a fixed roof is proposed.

The Vikings under Wilf have been in favor of an open air stadium from the very beginning.
The public partnership is the entity asking for the roof, retractable or otherwise.

"Vikes_King" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Storm" wrote:

"We recognize that the Vikings owner is out of his fricken mind to ask for a billion dollar stadium in this economy. We also recognize that we could easily cut the costs by roughly 300-400 million dollars, if we abandon the wussy retractable roof idea and ditch other bells and whistles that we don't really need. We recognize that blackmailing a state or a city into paying hundreds of million dollars has become a standard practice in sports lately, too.

But hey, we are the NFL, so please recognize that its ok for us to be greedy."

The state wants the roof, not the Vikings.
The Vikings want an open air stadium, and you are correct, it would shave $300 to $400 million off the price.
Oh yeah, and the Vikings have already committed to spending $250 million of their own money, so they aren't "asking" for a billion dollar stadium from the state.
They want to build it as a partnership.

But why let facts get in your way?
How can you keep making ignorant, incorrect posts calling the NFL and the Vikings greedy if you can't make up a few things here and there...

Having the roof would give Minnesota the power to once again host big events that bring massive revenue into the state, such as the NCAA Final Four & the Super Bowl, it would pay for itself

I would personally prefer a roof - I think that an outdoor stadium would have difficulty selling tickets, especially in the HDTV age.
But at this point, if it would save enough money to get it built, I could live with an open air stadium.


And while the Superbowl and Final Four do bring in money into the local economy, it is not as much as many believe.
The vast majority of money generated would be from the ticket sales for the Vikings regardless of the type of roof.