NFL
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/Minnesota_Vikings_logo.svg/100px-Minnesota_Vikings_logo.svg.png
Minnesota Vikings


Ellerbe Becket just released the first conceptuals for the latest stadium proposal for the Vikings, officially from the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (not the Vikings) requested these. The Vikings are believed to be working on a different proposal for the same location, probably with HOK, those plans should be available some time in August.

This plan involves using much of the infrastructure from the Metrodome, and possibly some of the existing structure. This is somewhat cheaper than the last plan, at about $850 million (still high, although $100 million less than last year's, and a little over half of the price of the new Meadowlands)

Expected details
- capacity 72,000
- Retractable roof
- +/- 150 suites
- +/- 8,000club seats
- Uses existing infrastructer
- Large commercial/residential development
- Large public plazas
-Completion summer 2012

I am not entirely sure about the exterior, but if this idea does end up going through it will probably change a fair bit.

Interior render
http://www.ellerbebecket.com/images/cms/5a46019ad12d53b9b8688e7e7e9ffccb.jpg

http://www.minnpost.com/client_files/alternate_images/4153/mp_main_wide_StadiumClosed452.jpg

exterior perspective
http://www.ellerbebecket.com/images/cms/Vikings_Exterior-Money_NR.jpg

Areal
http://www.ellerbebecket.com/images/cms/Vikings_Exterior-Aerial_NR.jpg

Link to Ellerbe plan
http://www.ellerbebecket.com/success/newsitem/454/Metrodome_Designers_Unveil_Extreme_Makover_Stadium_Edition_.html
There have already been 4 serious proposals in the last seven years, so it's no sure thing, but the Metrodome lease expires in 2011 so something will probably be underway by then.

Very nice, but how many attempts are they going to have before one gets built? Are they having a competition with Anfield to see who can abort the most projects?

very nice, will be very interesting to see how it looks when finished

Oh I don't know that they could beat Liverpool, they are on stanley park version 8 or something. But this is more promising than the previous proposals because it is getting cheaper than last years. Now if the Wilf's will contribute $250 million and leave control of the naming rights to the state plus some from the NFL then it starts to look more probable. Asking the state for $700 million is a lot different from asking the state for $300-400 million. What is really standing in the way is the current state of the economy and number of large projects currently going up in the state (including a 50,200 stadium and a 40,500 seat ballpark).

can somebody post the old proposals?

Very nice, but how many attempts are they going to have before one gets built? Are they having a competition with Anfield to see who can abort the most projects?

That's funny and amazing someone from England would have so much knowledge of the subject. I was thinking the same thing yesterday though when I read about this. This is Minnesota however and I thank my lucky stars it isn't the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and their various state governments.

can somebody post the old proposals?


some older ones
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/vikings900.jpg

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/vikings901.jpg

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/vikings902.jpg

so the current projecz isn't really a new one
just a newer version of this one

No it is an entirely different design from a different architect (the last one was from HOK/ROMA), just on the same site. This one has apparently been sitting on the shelf at Ellerbe Becket for a couple years sort of as a pet project, supposedly the vikings weren't as interested in this idea at the time (maybe during their Blaine proposal). However the MSFC (who own and operate the Metrodome) really do like this idea, especially since it reuses portions of the dome. The idea is to tear down 3 sides of the Metrodome, rotate the field 90 degrees and use the east sideline as an endline stand, while new stands are constructed on the other sides. because they are planning to use the same site and rotating the field the west endzone has a very small stand, to avoid rerouting the road and light rail line on the northwest edge of the site.

are the Vikings going to play at Minnesota's new stadium while they build this one?

glad to see the vikings are building a stadium with a retractable roof. i couldn't imagine a team that far north playing in an outdoor stadium.

Can you imagine Green Bay playing outdoors, or does that blow your mind? The weather in Minneapolis isn't any worse, and not that much different from Chicago.

The Vikings could still draw fine without the roof, Zygi Wilf the owner doesn't want it, a large portion of our fan base does not either. However to host Super Bowls and Final Fours this is the type of facility needed, which is probably needed to secure state funding.

are the Vikings going to play at Minnesota's new stadium while they build this one?

Yes the assumption is (and it's pretty safe to assume) that they would spend the two or so seasons playing at the U of M.

I'm not sure I understand, does U of M have a new stadium too? If so could not both teams share the same facility?

That exterior is mindblowing.

I'm not sure I understand, does U of M have a new stadium too? If so could not both teams share the same facility?

The University is currently building a stadium (TCF Bank Stadium), scheduled to open in '09. The Vikings could play there for a year or two during construction, but that's all. TCF will have a capacity of ~50k, and will be far short of the necessary suites the Vikings would require for a permanent stadium.

what's awesome is how open that one end would be with the roof and glass wall open. Its what I was hoping they would do with one end of the Cowboys new stadium

it needs a bigger stand (two tiers) on the side that's open otherwise it looks great

the stadium looks amazing. Just hope that I dont have to see Brett Favre starting for the Vikings in it.

it needs a bigger stand (two tiers) on the side that's open otherwise it looks great

I am sure they would ,however they are rotating the field 90 degrees and trying not to extend past the current site boundary because a major road as well as a light rail line run along that side of the site, and moving them would cause a mess of congestion while they were rerouted, not to mention the LRT line is just a couple years old.

I'm envious, this is almost the same exact type of stadium I envisioned the Bears should have built in almost every facet.

Very nice, but how many attempts are they going to have before one gets built? Are they having a competition with Anfield to see who can abort the most projects?

These are proposals, not projects. Huge difference.

I'm envious, this is almost the same exact type of stadium I wish the Bears had built.

you wanted the Bears to be in this? Soldier with its modifications is better.

Soldier is better for your average fan but, the 11,000 more seats would be nice for the Bears they have a good fan base. And the ability to host Final Fours and Super Bowls is something many people consider important. The New Soldier is really nice, just kind of on the small side for an NFL venue.

When will contruction start

This is still just a proposal by the MSFC, and there will probably be a competing proposal submitted by the Vikings themselves, however if approved by the legislature, they could start dismantling most of the Metrodome in 2009 (assuming the university of Minnesota allows a ground share at their new stadium). If they do not secure funding from the state (and it looks kind of unlikely this year) it may not start until 2010 or 2011. The current lease on the dome runs through 2011, so that is seen as the deadline for new project to commence or else the team could threaten to move.
This puts the opening date between 2012 and 2014 in all likelyhood.

These are proposals, not projects. Huge difference.

I think you're splitting hairs by invoking a technical definition of project. Given that these proposals were all made public, with the pursuant risk of credibility loss, it's a safe bet to say that they have all been expected by someone to come to fruition. That to me is still their project, even if I use that word in the more generic sense - as defined by a dictionary* (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/project).


* Ironically, there is a second definition: (US) An urban low-income housing building.

Here is a link to the MSFC website's page on the reconstruction proposal. The bottom PDF has Ellerbe Becket's analysis and conceptual design (including larger renderings).

http://www.msfc.com/tour.cfm

Apparently however, the MSFC has commission HKS and Mortenson Construction for another reconstruction proposal, so will have to wait and see what happens with that.

The proportions on those drawings are very inconsistent from interior to exterior. The outside looks about half the size of what it contains.

Yeah they are very conceptual, I think it has to do witht the scale of the people and cars used in the exterior renderings, they are probably 15 feet tall given the scale of the buildings.

Why do the Viking want to have a roof on their stadium? They are losing such a big advantage by covering things up.

Why do the Viking want to have a roof on their stadium? They are losing such a big advantage by covering things up.

It might have something to do with the avg. temp plummeting below 40 (http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USMN0503) by November. Possibly.

I suspect that the chance of this getting public funding in the current political and economic climate is pretty close to zero. Nobody should hold their breath waiting for this to be built.

I would expect that if the economy picks up, something will get under way by 2011, most likely a redevelopement, but I don't expect anything to be completed before 2013 at any rate.

It might have something to do with the avg. temp plummeting below 40 (http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USMN0503) by November. Possibly.

You realize that before the Metrodome, the Vikings did play outside. This is a HUGE advantage they are losing, perhaps the best advantage a team could have. You take dome teams and teams from warmer climates and out them outside and it's a big advantage for the home team.

You realize that before the Metrodome, the Vikings did play outside. This is a HUGE advantage they are losing, perhaps the best advantage a team could have. You take dome teams and teams from warmer climates and out them outside and it's a big advantage for the home team.No doubt, and personally I'd rather see them outside. Ditto my in laws who live in Coon Rapids, Mankato and Anoka. (Twin City suburbs, for those unfamiliar) But even they acknowledge the clientele for NFL games these days have a preference for kinder climates. So the Gophers will do fine in their new outdoor stadium, filled largely with students and playing maybe 2 games after 10/31, likely both in the daytime. The Vikings, meanwhile, could have 3 or 4 more games beyond that date, including a few at night. To say nothing of play-off dates in January. I just don't know if the corporate fans would be willing to go the Green Bay/Chicago route having already enjoyed the HHH Dome. We'll see.

More importantly, though, is likely the convention factor. Surely the dome is a hook for the public financing, enabling the facility to host far more events besides football, even in cold weather. And heaven knows if they do this they'll get the standard NFL guarantee of 1 Super Bowl, no matter how small the venue or cold the climate.

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/vikings901.jpg

I like the buildings on the two sides of the endzone

that would be an awesome proposal. Whats the news on this?

ugh, if only the vikings and lions played outside, then the nfc north would be the best division in football, no matter how mediocre/shitty the teams may be, no one would want to play up here after mid-november. And it would produce loads of awesome late-season battles for the division title

^^^^
That's true just see the record that the packers used to have when they played below 0°.
Is more than just cold is a enormous advantage for these teams.

so is this stadium goin to be built?

Maybe, another plan submitted by the Vikings/HKS should be submitted for the next legislative session, however at the moment the State isn't in much of a state to put down $700 million on a stadium

Any news?

I have 1 question. Whose going to pay for this? The Vikings can't do it alone and if Minnesota is like most other states then their money is pretty tight at the moment. Plus there is also the Twins new stadium which will probably need government money (if it hasn't taken some already). If I were a Vikings fan I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to come to fruition.

I have 1 question. Whose going to pay for this?

The taxpayers, as always.

It will probably be 25% from the Vikings ownership and 75% from state and local taxes. Although I don't expect much to get done until late in the 2010 legislative session. Although we will appearently going to see the Vikings/HKS plan for the Metrodome site in the next couple of month. Then they get to fight it out with the MSFC/Ellerbe Becket plan on page one with the legislature and see if anyone wants to pay for it.

I have 1 question. Whose going to pay for this? The Vikings can't do it alone and if Minnesota is like most other states then their money is pretty tight at the moment. Plus there is also the Twins new stadium which will probably need government money (if it hasn't taken some already). If I were a Vikings fan I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to come to fruition.

It was funded 75% by Hennepin County.

It looks like a nice stadium and I hope the Vikings could build it asap.
But I always thought the franchise was moving to Los Angeles for some reason... Well given that the new LA stadium also has Purple seats. I certainly hope not, they better approve this stadium quick and reassign themselves as Minnesota-loyal team.

Zygi is in no hurry to leave town, to the contrary has shown a lot of dedication to the community and is seriously trying to mend relations gutted by Red McCombs. He knows that there is a solid fan base, and a solid chance of pushing this through in the next couple years, funding doesn't need to be in place till 2011 when the lease at the Metrodome expires.

I hope they find a way to make this happen. It would be great thing for Minne to get rid of the Dome. Its a huge eyesore on such a beautiful city. I cant even imagine how much better the Minneapolis skyline would look with one of these proposals in place of the Dome. If it does get done the Twin Cities will have a damn good collection of sporting venues though. With the Twins and U of M getting their new stadiums as well as the Excel in St. Paul. This project and a good renovation of the target center would have to put them pretty high on the list. (is there a list? there should be?) Anyway i like the plan to build downtown on the site of the Dome. I especially like the idea of turning the field and leaving the west endzone open to the views of downtown. Pretty much the same idea they used on the Gophers new football stadium which i love. The retractable roof is a good idea so they can host final fours and the superbowl, but my vote goes to leaving it open for all vikings home games regardless of the weather for some homefield advantage. If not then they should just build a fixed roof and save some money. Just keep with the open endzone and leave a large bank of windows so you still get sunlight and a view.

the stadium looks amazing. Just hope that I dont have to see Brett Favre starting for the Vikings in it.


hahahahaha well .... i dont know what to say about this one really ... he simply won't retire ;)

To this day, I've never quite understood why the renovation proposals for the Metrodome have been dismissed as rapidly as they have by the Vikings. While I understand the gamesmanship and the organization's desire for a new, publicly-funded (primarily) facility, the reality is that the Dome was built for the Vikings (the Twins and the U were afterthoughts...and continued to be for 27 years).

I've always maintained that the Dome was a horrible, horrible facility for college football and baseball, but that it worked fairly well for the Vikings. While I believe that football should be played outdoors, the Dome has been a relatively good homefield for the Vikes.

There obviously are serious limitations to the facility in terms of premium seating revenue, concourse size and other fan amenities, and the size of the site, let alone the ugly exterior. However, if I'm Zygi Wilf right now and I look at the political reality of trying to get a $1 billion stadium approved, I would really consider a renovation as the only viable option.

This is what I would do:

- Maintain the general seating bowls. The sightlines for football have always been really good. Just replace the blue seats with new purple ones.

- Blow out the sides of the stadium, especially on the north and south sides to accommodate larger concourses and other fan amenities (Restaurants, Hall of Fame, Party Pavilion, etc).

- Build clubs on the main councourse above both sidelines (maybe 25 yd. line to 25 yd line) with club seating then on the lower level below the clubs. Press box would then need to be relocated.

- Remove all concourse level suites on the east and west ends of the stadium (behind the endzones) to open up the concourse the field and put in more general seating.

- Build a new premium level above the upper deck (as is being done at Arrowhead) on both the north and south sides (mostly suites, but also to accommodate press & operations). This might result in the need for a new roof, but I'm sure that could be done. The current one is so damn dirty as it is. (Although my ideal scenario would be to remove the roof, build a European Football stadium-type roof, and keep it open air....that just takes away the possibility of using the facility for other events in the winter).

- Figure out a way to build fieldlevel suites behind the east endzone (similar to Qwest Field). I think this could be done rather easily because it is where the current visitors baseball dugout is located.

- Enhance the video board and sound system. Pretty awful right now.

I have no idea what this would cost, but I can't imagine it would be that high. More importantly, I think it would be somewhat well-received by the Legislature and the public. The dome has been good to the Twin Cities and the state. Finding a reasonable plan for the long-term just makes sense to me.

^^ You forgot one other key money-saving benefit of renovation:

NO LAND COSTS :D

Agree with everything you posted. I'm confident a Metrodome upgrade would cost NO MORE than $500 mil, if that.

^^ You forgot one other key money-saving benefit of renovation:

NO LAND COSTS :D

Agree with everything you posted. I'm confident a Metrodome upgrade would cost NO MORE than $500 mil, if that.
If its gonna cost half a billion to renovate then it will be a waste of money! now that you have a college football stadium near by, it would be easy to tear down the Metrodome and build a state-of-the-art stadium in the same place that would last you for years to come. Seattle spent millions renovating Key Arena in the 90's and where did that get them?

http://www.minnesotamomentum.com/index.jsp
How far has this gotten?

BC Place is almost an exact copy of the Metrodome, just slightly longer for CFL football. Pavco is renovating BC Place for $350 million CDN, including a retractable roof.

If its gonna cost half a billion to renovate then it will be a waste of money! now that you have a college football stadium near by, it would be easy to tear down the Metrodome and build a state-of-the-art stadium in the same place that would last you for years to come. Seattle spent millions renovating Key Arena in the 90's and where did that get them?

http://www.minnesotamomentum.com/index.jsp
How far has this gotten?
Hello? they're talking about this new stadium carrying a $1 billion price tag. A renovation, in most cases, gives an older stadium everything a new stadium offers, for hundreds of millions less.

Seattle got screwed by greedy ownership that would never have been satisfied with the city's efforts. Think about it: they had just spent more than $1 billion on new stadiums for the Mariners and Seahawks, and now the Sonics want a $500-million arena to replace one that was upgraded not too long ago and is more than adequate by NBA standards? Seattle was justified in telling them to piss off.

It is completely assinine for the Vikings to build a new stadium, when the Gophers have completed an absolute palace of a football stadium that was constructed to be expandable to as large as 80,000 seats. The walkway above the second level would act as a concourse to access a third level. All the Vikings would have to do is fund an expansion to 65,000, including more suites, and they would have an outstanding stadium. This could like be done for $100-$150 million instead of $700 million. The TCF Stadium is all ready set up for it. It would be one of the best venues in the league. Some of you may find this a stretch, but I think the TCF Stadium at the University of Minnesota is the best football stadium in America today college or pro. It's simple, elegant, and intimate; the perfect football stadium. It's not a gaudy monstrosity like the new Dallas Stadium

It is completely assinine for the Vikings to build a new stadium, when the Gophers have completed an absolute palace of a football stadium that was constructed to be expandable to as large as 80,000 seats. The walkway above the second level would act as a concourse to access a third level. All the Vikings would have to do is fund an expansion to 65,000, including more suites, and they would have an outstanding stadium. This could like be done for $100-$150 million instead of $700 million. The TCF Stadium is all ready set up for it. It would be one of the best venues in the league. Some of you may find this a stretch, but I think the TCF Stadium at the University of Minnesota is the best football stadium in America today college or pro. It's simple, elegant, and intimate; the perfect football stadium. It's not a gaudy monstrosity like the new Dallas Stadium

wo wo wo.... I think there are about 100 other stadiums i would take over TCF in this country.

Gillette in Boston, Tiger Stadium in LSU, Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Royal Stadium in Austin, Reliant in Houston, Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Land Shark in Miami, Rose Bowl in Pasadena, UofP in Phoenix, Kyle Field in College Station, Ben Hill Griffen for the University of Florida, Super Dome in New Orleans, and the list goes on. You have a nice one up there but dont get so high on the Snow Cones.


Also do the Vikings wanna take the "We are a Pro team playing at a University Stadium" crown from Phoenix now that they dont have it???

I think it looks better than most of those, but it would be a bit of work to get it to NFL functionality in terms of aminities, and that might hurt the look.

I have sketched out a renovation for the Dome keeps most of the bowl (which has just about perfect sightlines for football) that included replacing the current retractable seating with club seats, removing the last five rose of the current upper deck to make way for a new press box and replace the current press facilities with suites, as well as a new cantilivered third deck along the sidelines, escalator towers in the corners and a retractable roof. Working with plans and sections I found online I worked out a scheme not far off from the numbers they are looking for at about $450-550 million at my best guess.
My scheme had;
-70,337 seats
-142 suites, all at least 50% larger than the current ones
-6,928 club seats
-83,000 sq ft club concourse
-possibly 45 open boxes
-4 Beer Gardens overlooking the Field
-A press box with 15 booths and 230 working press seats
38'-54' concourses
-Twice the number of restrooms (The biggest complaint among fans about the current structure)
-1 119'-50' Video board, 2 48'-23' boards,
-A retractable roof similar to Reliant Stadium in Houston
-15,000 sq ft for a Hall of Fame
-10,000 sq ft for a team store
-4 twin escalator towers
-MSFC Offices
-Team Offices

Since it basically reuses the existing bowl (minus the retractable seating and 5 rows of the upper level) as well as much of the plumbing/electrical/mechanical infrastructure the costs can be substantially reduced.
The only real downside of this type of reuse I can see is that the current seating bowl has a 31" deep treads, whereas 33" is the general minimum in new facilities, but other than the legroom I think this sort of thing would be the best way to go about.

Then Zygi could redevelop all the land he owns around the site into shiny new mixed use whatever and everyone could be happy.

Hello? they're talking about this new stadium carrying a $1 billion price tag. A renovation, in most cases, gives an older stadium everything a new stadium offers, for hundreds of millions less.

Seattle got screwed by greedy ownership that would never have been satisfied with the city's efforts. Think about it: they had just spent more than $1 billion on new stadiums for the Mariners and Seahawks, and now the Sonics want a $500-million arena to replace one that was upgraded not too long ago and is more than adequate by NBA standards? Seattle was justified in telling them to piss off.

The $500mil stadium was proposed for the near by suburb of Renton, WA, and they were asking for $300mil from the state of Washington, not the city of Seattle. The city had proposed a $300mil renovation of Key Arena ($150mil provided by the city, $150mil from private investors), but the owner of the Sonics balked at that idea.

Benn -

I love your analysis. A lot more thought than I have put into it.

To me, the bottom line is that this stadium was built for the Vikings and could reasonably be improved to house the franchise for another 25 to 30 years.

Benn -

I love your analysis. A lot more thought than I have put into it.

To me, the bottom line is that this stadium was built for the Vikings and could reasonably be improved to house the franchise for another 25 to 30 years.

But would it not be a better investment to build a new stadium at double the renovation price tag that will last 60 to 80 years with all the current commodities, new look for the city and new technology to make it last longer???

But would it not be a better investment to build a new stadium at double the renovation price tag that will last 60 to 80 years with all the current commodities, new look for the city and new technology to make it last longer???
</sarcasm>?

No, i honestly hate this blow up ball we call a dome. Demo it and build a true Stadium for the Vikings with all the modern material, tech and commodities.

But would it not be a better investment to build a new stadium at double the renovation price tag that will last 60 to 80 years with all the current commodities, new look for the city and new technology to make it last longer???

When was the last time a team lasted more than 30-40 years in building besides Green Bay? If Dallas gets more than 50 years out of Cowboy Stadium I'll be suprised. And when has a mid market kind of team ever signed a lease longer than 35 years?

And like I said in my little analysis the only major differences with the ellerbe becket proposal on the numbers were 2" of legroom, no big retractable wall and a couple feet narrower in the concourses (not to mention the back row on mine stayed substantially closer to the field and the sightlines were better as well). Does that really seem work $300+ million?

And a 110' video board, 360 degree ribbon boards, a Reliantesque retractable roof and then all of the suites, club seats, beer gardens ect. wrapped in a tan stone and glass facade doesn't sound high tech and high end, especially for a market of 3.5 million?

No, i honestly hate this blow up ball we call a dome. Demo it and build a true Stadium for the Vikings with all the modern material, tech and commodities.
Or just add the modern material, tech and commodities to the old one for less than half the price.

Or, if you hate the place so much, figure out a way to fund the $800 million construction of the new stadium yourself, because I guaran-damn-tee you the Minnesota taxpayers won't.

Ask the tax payers before you think for them

He has the majority down pretty well at the moment, economy in the tank, T-Paw vetoing anything involving basic human decency, and a huge amount of infrastructure work either just completed or about to go up. There is a sensability among a lot of people here that you take care of basic needs (schools, health care, roads, rails ect.) before big entertainment venues, and the fact that outstate Minnesota is so reluctant to pay in on anything in or around Minneapolis.

I would expect some funding resolution in 2011 before the lease is up, but not muxh sooner

The price tag for this thing is ridiculous. With the money it would take to build a new Vikings stadium Minnesota could do a lot of things that are much more important. This could pay for most of the central corridor or southwest light rail lines for example, the U needs more funding to keep higher education affordable, basic infrastructure needs work. I don't see it happening in the current economic/political climate, and that is a good thing.

get rid of the retractable roof and you're golden. No football should ever be played indoors, its blasphemy to think otherwise

get rid of the retractable roof and you're golden. No football should ever be played indoors, its blasphemy to think otherwise

Could not agree more. Especially in a place like Minnesota. They are losing a big home field advantage by shielding the game from the cold weather up there.

The city is adimant about having one so we can continue to host NCAA tournament finals and the like as well as superbowls. Though neither the team, owner (Zygi grew up watching Giants games in the elements) or the majority of the fans wnat one, but it will almost certainly include one.

Billion-dollar industries like the NFL rely on the casual fan more so than the die-hard who wants to sit in the snow for four hours.

The city is adimant about having one so we can continue to host NCAA tournament finals and the like as well as superbowls. Though neither the team, owner (Zygi grew up watching Giants games in the elements) or the majority of the fans wnat one, but it will almost certainly include one.

That's a shame. This should be about those that care most about the team. Revenue streams are important, but shouldn't always be the sole determining factor.

Building a new stadium is going to be a big issue whether or not people see it that way. The thought of building a big expensive stadium seems to always bother people who feel its a waste of their tax dollars that should be going to things like roads and schools ect. Though the fact of the matter is Infrastructure like this plays a vital role in paying for such things over the long run. Cities like the Twin Cities rely on the fact that they have all the cultural amenities like theaters, museums, and sports facilities to attract people and there fore business. When you can attract more business and people with such amenities you then increase your tax base that can pay for all the schools and roads ect. So you cant just look at what revenue the team itself is generating for the city or state. You have too look at what cultural advantage having a team can bring to you city. Although some of you might not care about having a football team a lot of other people do and look at such things when looking to relocate. I know i do. Who would want to move to a place that didn't have theaters, museums, or sports teams? So for me i think it would be a good idea for the state of Minnesota to do what ever is necessary to keep the Vikings there. It shouldn't necessary cost them a billion dollars but what ever they feel they need to stay competitive needs to be done. Although the bigger and nicer you build a stadium the more attention your city gets. Look at the cowboys new place. I can also see why they want a retractable roof but if it were me i would want an open air stadium, not only to keep the cost way down but i like being in the elements even if its -30. But if not they should just build a permanent roof. Is it really necessary to spend that much for roof that will be open 5-6 times a year? Either go the Green Bay way or go the way Detroit did. Just my 2 cents or maybe 10...

The new stadium looks awesome I would love to see it built, one way to raise the money dump brett farve (not hating on the vikings just farve)

That's a shame. This should be about those that care most about the team. Revenue streams are important, but shouldn't always be the sole determining factor.

If the city/state is to contribute money to the project, they need to make sure that the stadium holds enough events to make it worthwhile for their investment. The city/state is right for demanding a roof.

Looks like the Vikings are heating up their "Possible Move" rhetoric.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_13458646

Looks like the Vikings are heating up their "Possible Move" rhetoric.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_13458646

The only current NFL team that should be moved is the Jacksonville Jaguars. That team has proven to be a complete failure for the NFL entering into a small market. Los Angeles needs a team and moving to Jaguars to Los Angeles would be a great move by the NFL.

Side note: The Green Bay Packers are located in a small market, but they are also the team for the state of Wisconsin. The Jaguars, in addition to being i a small market, have to compete with the Dolphins and the Buccaneers.

Can't the Vikings build a retractable roof stadium but construct it in a way that it is able to handle precipitation if the roof is open? This way they can keep the roof open during NFL games irrespective of how the weather is like but utilize it for events that truly require it like the NCAA tournament and what not.

You mean so that the seats are all covered even when the roof is fully retracted?

It's pretty clear that the Vikings want something equivalent to Lucas Oil Stadium, which does have most of the seats covered even when the roof is opened.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=207888

I'm hopeful that the ability to host baseball in any potential facility will be maintained. The HHH Dome has been a huge help to my Golden Gopher baseball team.

While I'm definitely more in favor of a renovated dome or a classic, outdoor football stadium, a multipurpose facility that can host final fours, super bowls (although northern Super Bowls are ridiculous), and all the other indoor events in this town would be a positive in the long-term. From a cost perspective, it probably would make sense to just scrap the retractable roof and build something like Ford Field. Sad to say, but the Vikes are no longer identified by the glory days of playing outdoors at the Met.

The only current NFL team that should be moved is the Jacksonville Jaguars. That team has proven to be a complete failure for the NFL entering into a small market. Los Angeles needs a team and moving to Jaguars to Los Angeles would be a great move by the NFL.

Side note: The Green Bay Packers are located in a small market, but they are also the team for the state of Wisconsin. The Jaguars, in addition to being i a small market, have to compete with the Dolphins and the Buccaneers.

In all fairness to Jacksonville, it is the largest city in Florida and it's attendence is no where near the bottom of the leauge, at least 11 teams are below them, including the Vikings, Bears, Cowboys, and Steelers.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?year=2008

The only current NFL team that should be moved is the Jacksonville Jaguars. That team has proven to be a complete failure for the NFL entering into a small market. Los Angeles needs a team and moving to Jaguars to Los Angeles would be a great move by the NFL.

Side note: The Green Bay Packers are located in a small market, but they are also the team for the state of Wisconsin. The Jaguars, in addition to being i a small market, have to compete with the Dolphins and the Buccaneers.
If the cheapest ticket in the house didn't cost $55 maybe attendance wouldn't suck.

I'm hopeful that the ability to host baseball in any potential facility will be maintained. The HHH Dome has been a huge help to my Golden Gopher baseball team.
The NCAA should seriously consider moving the season back to about mid/late March in the interest of fairness to Northern schools, even if that means shortening the season by a few games or so. I'm in favor of moving the CWS back to 4th of July week(end), personally.

While I'm definitely more in favor of a renovated dome or a classic, outdoor football stadium, a multipurpose facility that can host final fours, super bowls (although northern Super Bowls are ridiculous), and all the other indoor events in this town would be a positive in the long-term. From a cost perspective, it probably would make sense to just scrap the retractable roof and build something like Ford Field. Sad to say, but the Vikes are no longer identified by the glory days of playing outdoors at the Met.
Many people disagree; I think a Super Bowl in Chicago or Green Bay would be awesome -- only REAL fans would show up for such a game. Screw the elaborate, overly diversionary halftime performances and pampered corporate pantywaists, this is FOOTBALL, dammit! http://www.ultimatesportsboards.com/forums/img/smilies/mad.png

I also wouldn't mind seeing one of those juggernauts from the mighty SEC travel to Columbus or Happy Valley in December for a postseason playoff game, but that's another discussion for another forum. :D

But, like you and I have been saying, a upgraded Metrodome would be the most cost-effective option. It would likely cost less than half of Wilf's proposal, plus Final Fours and other indoor events would remain on the table.

The NCAA should seriously consider moving the season back to about mid/late March in the interest of fairness to Northern schools, even if that means shortening the season by a few games or so. I'm in favor of moving the CWS back to 4th of July week(end), personally.

The costs will not allow for it. The season has already been shortened and the season moved back, but playing even further past the end of school would require the schools to pay even more money to house and feed the students. That won't fly for a sport already threatened at many schools by the financial crunch.

In all fairness to Jacksonville, it is the largest city in Florida and it's attendence is no where near the bottom of the leauge, at least 11 teams are below them, including the Vikings, Bears, Cowboys, and Steelers.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?year=2008

Only because their stadium is (was for the cowboys) bigger then all those teams stadiums.

Many people disagree; I think a Super Bowl in Chicago or Green Bay would be awesome -- only REAL fans would show up for such a game. Screw the elaborate, overly diversionary halftime performances and pampered corporate pantywaists, this is FOOTBALL, dammit!

You dont understand making money then do you? Also Everyone hated the Detroit super bowl. Nothing to do there for the 2 weeks leading to it because of the shitty weather.

I also wouldn't mind seeing one of those juggernauts from the mighty SEC travel to Columbus or Happy Valley in December for a postseason playoff game, but that's another discussion for another forum.

They would still win.

But, like you and I have been saying, a upgraded Metrodome would be the most cost-effective option. It would likely cost less than half of Wilf's proposal, plus Final Fours and other indoor events would remain on the table.

Its just an ugly building that should be demolished. I dont think there is any true amount of upgrades that will make it look good.

nm

Only because their stadium is (was for the cowboys) bigger then all those teams stadiums.

but they still had more butts in the seats...

In all actuality, I don't see any teams moving, maybe a trade, like what happened with cleveland/ baltimore, but nothing like what happened when the colts moved to indy.

Jacksonville cant compete with College ball down there. I am hearing ESPN sport writers talk more and more about the Jags moving to LA.

You dont understand making money then do you? Also Everyone hated the Detroit super bowl. Nothing to do there for the 2 weeks leading to it because of the shitty weather.
There's really not much to do in Destroit when the weather is good, either.



They would still win.
Trust me, they'd become very familiar with the term "lake effect" pretty quickly...


Its just an ugly building that should be demolished. I dont think there is any true amount of upgrades that will make it look good.
Look at the proposed renovations for Copps Coliseum in Hamilton; it can be done.

http://www.fan590.com/images/2009/05/Copps_Renovation_Plan/view_of_existing_exterior.jpg
http://www.fan590.com/images/2009/05/Copps_Renovation_Plan/view_of_renovated_exterior.jpg
http://www.fan590.com/images/2009/05/Copps_Renovation_Plan/interior_view_of_seating_bowl.jpg
http://www.fan590.com/images/2009/05/Copps_Renovation_Plan/interior_view_of_club_lounge.jpg
http://www.fan590.com/images/2009/05/Copps_Renovation_Plan/interior_view_of_main_lobby_atrium_2.jpg
http://www.fan590.com/images/2009/05/Copps_Renovation_Plan/interior_view_of_main_lobby_atrium.jpg
http://www.fan590.com/images/2009/05/Copps_Renovation_Plan/interior_view_of_party_deck.jpg

Jacksonville cant compete with College ball down there. I am hearing ESPN sport writers talk more and more about the Jags moving to LA.

First of all, ESPN is far from an authority and their analysis into potential relocation for all sports over the last 15 years has been awful at best.

Second, Jacksonville is not the college town people are led to believe. The ratings for NFL games there are far better than those for college games. The issue is that the market has been conditioned to watching games on TV and feel no urgency to attend games when in fact, the franchise's future is dependent on it. The market is also filled with transplants who have adopted the Jaguars as their second team so they will watch them, but won't shell out the money necessary to attend.

Kingman....I think that comparison is actually pretty valid. I just can't imagine that if you gave a great sports architecture firm a budget of $400 to $500 mil to transform the Dome into a great professional football stadium, it couldn't be done in a fan-friendly, aesthetically-pleasing way.

Believe me, as a Twin Cities guy, I love our new venues. TCF Bank Stadium and Target Field are absolutely phenomenal and will stand the test of time. But the Dome was built for the Vikes and I still believe could be made into a good home for the organization for the next 30 years.

if they do a huge renovation on the Metro Dome, will they remove the bubble for a more modern roof like Lucas, Reliant or Cowboys Stadium...s?

Thats sort of the idea, look at link to the Ellerbe Becket anlysis PDF I posted on page 2, that will be sort the plan HKS is working with the Vikings, though there may be some competition with Ellerbe in the long run. Much of the bowl will likey be torn out as well, though I'd prefer to reuse it for one.

Much of the Bowl!? In that proposal barley one sideline of the stadium will be left standing. Shit, it might as well be a new stadium all together.

They would reusing foundations, plumbing and other high cost infrastructure as well as one sideline. Personally I would much rather see the current bowl reused as previously stated but its pretty unlikely.

Looks very nice. Saw the game against Green Bay Packers yesterday. Good game.

Regarding the possibility of renovation, the element of the current facility that I have always liked least is the roof. While I truly believe that football should be played outdoors, there's no doubt that a stadium with a roof is an asset in this town. From a cost perspective, it would make much more sense to renovate the existing facility with a new fixed roof (or build an entirely new stadium with a fixed roof). Scrap the retractable component.

Although you remove the weather from the equation, we're light years away from the purple people eater days of the '70s. It just isn't this franchise's identity any longer. If we could eventually build something along the lines of Ford Field that incorporates a lot of natural light, I'd be happy, especially if it still allowed for amateur baseball.

Regarding the possibility of renovation, the element of the current facility that I have always liked least is the roof. While I truly believe that football should be played outdoors, there's no doubt that a stadium with a roof is an asset in this town. From a cost perspective, it would make much more sense to renovate the existing facility with a new fixed roof (or build an entirely new stadium with a fixed roof). Scrap the retractable component.

Although you remove the weather from the equation, we're light years away from the purple people eater days of the '70s. It just isn't this franchise's identity any longer. If we could eventually build something along the lines of Ford Field that incorporates a lot of natural light, I'd be happy, especially if it still allowed for amateur baseball.

I'm not entirely convinced that the Ellerbe-Becket redesign cost analysis that was posted on page two is the best we can do. I mean, it's only a $100 million shave-off of the Vike's original $1 billion proposal.

I say, the MSFC and the Vikings need to sit down, and PRIORITIZE the Vikings' needs for a new facility. As a taxpayer, I don't care what it is-- retractable roof, wider concourses, more suites, more press boxes, more seats, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. But figure out what their #1 priority is, and gaurantee them that. Keep assessing their needs and meet as many as you can before you go over I'd say $500 or $600 million in your budget. Then draft a proposal.

If the Wilfs reject that, so long Vikings!

I know that it's not that simple, but it seems like it should be....

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/72080222.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ

Things are definitely heating up between the Vikes and the MSFC. This article talks about a tour yesterday with legislators of the Dome and speaks in more detailed terms about the state of the current facility than we've heard in the media. While it certainly doesn't tell me that a renovation plan couldn't be done, this does raise questions about the ability to retrofit all of the things that you would need to do to modernize the facility.

I still think the idea of maintaining the seating bowl, which is a really good one for football, and building a new envelope around it is the way to go. That would have to be the best approach when looking at it from a cost/benefit perspective.

What we'll probably see, however, is a new stadium approaching $1 billion when it's all said and done. It will be interesting to see the new designs unveiled at the December 17 meeting of the MSFC.

This plan involves using much of the infrastructure from the Metrodome, and possibly some of the existing structure. This is somewhat cheaper than the last plan, at about $850 million (still high, although $100 million less than last year's, and a little over half of the price of the new Meadowlands)

The new Vikings stadium plan is heating up even more. The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission is touting a new $870 million plan that includes saving a small portion of the Metrodome:

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_14016673

The Vikings are not on board with it though. They prefer an entirely new stadium.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8611/metrodomeremodel01.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/i/metrodomeremodel01.jpg/)

That is just awful, like they layered line drawings of the Cowboys Stadium and Lucas Oil and just watercolored it in. The last few certainly have had their flaws, but this is hideous.

Could be a winner but this first impression is a bit vague.

Why didn't Minneapolis do what Philly (Eagles and Temple) did with Lincoln Financial? instead of building two stadiums they should have built a big one for both teams. Was it because the Vikings want a retractable roof (like Indy) so they can host a Superbowl?

^^ I don't know the situation real well but I think the university wanted a stadium closer to campus. They also probably wanted something a bit smaller then a 70-80k until attendance warrants having a building that large I am guessing.

University wanted:
- On campus
- bleachers
- control of their own scheduling and advertising
- smaller size (50k)
- Outdoor venue okay, somewhat desired

Vikings/NFL want:
- Not on UM campus
- control of their own scheduling and advertising
- Better/more suites
- Need a dome (Gophers home season ends in Nov., NFL playoffs go through Jan.)
- Need at least 64k+

Hopefully this stadium gets built then the vikings can lure a superbowl to be played in the twin cities.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ap8GYvyXrljJQNBUFDmkrw1DubYF?slug=ap-vikingsstadium

Vikings stadium bill suffers setbacks
Updated 14 hours, 14 minutes ago
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP)—A legislative proposal to build a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings is on shaky ground.

The team is seeking a $791 million new stadium to get out of the aging Metrodome.

A committee in the Minnesota House voted against the plan and a Senate committee overhauled the bill Wednesday before approving it. The new version would still rely on the team for a third of the cost while raising an unspecified amount by selling permanent seats.

Top lawmakers have said the plan was a long shot to pass this year. It calls for the Vikings, whose lease expires after the 2011 season, to sign a 40-year lease and would require the NFL to host a Super Bowl in the new venue.

.,.

I don't think luring the Super Bowl will be the problem, as the NFL has been pretty forthcoming about using that as the final reward for such investments. Granted it will probably just be one but at least it's something.

Based on the latest news linked above I wonder what would be the new figures for construction costs and how much would then fall to the team? This is where I wish the NFL would be held to providing a larger share. They already have a fund to supplement stadium construction, but it's no where near adequate to influence $1B projects.

Why dont they just do a renovation similar the the one being done on BC Place? They could save so much money and really spruce up the place.

Why dont they just do a renovation similar the the one being done on BC Place? They could save so much money and really spruce up the place.
Actually for what the owners/team wants the costs for the renovation wouldn't bear out, or at the least not yield near the return desired. The big issue is mitigating the conflicts between construction time and use of the facility. If you are doing something substantial enough that the team needs to play at TCF Bank field (U of Minn) for a spell then you might as well get the new facility with even more bells and whistles and (supposedly) a longer lifespan. Conversely, if you do the renovations piecemeal then the costs will grow by comparison and you'll likely be unable to do anything substantial. So, it can be done but essentially what you'll be doing is adding suites and concourse space at the expense of overall capacity, and doing it for only a marginal increase in revenues and no substantial increase in asset value or ability to compete with other teams financially. And you'll likely be back looking for some upgrades again within 15-20 years.

Granted, all this assumes NFL owners have a right to certain team valuations and rates of return. :ohno:

I would be so jealous as a Bears fan if the Vikings got what the renders a few yeares ago showed. At least the Bears would play there once a year.

Such a nices stadium would almost surely guarentee the stadium to be in the Final Four rotation again as well get as get a few Super Bowls.

Poll: No tax dollars for Vikes' stadium, most Minnesotans say
By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune
Last update: May 21, 2010 - 10:51 AM

Sorry, Zygi.

A new poll shows that Minnesotans overwhelmingly don't want their tax dollars spent on a new Minnesota Vikings stadium.

The resounding thumbs-down comes in the wake of a last-gasp attempt to craft a bill that would have paid for a new stadium during the last legislative session.

The poll, conducted by Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) and the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, found that 64 percent of the state's residents oppose public funding for a stadium.

Thirty percent support the idea of a taxpayer subsidy.

Even given the poll's relatively large margin of error -- plus or minus 5.8 percentage points -- that degree of opposition is "very robust and significant," according to the institute's Larry Jacobs, according to MPR.

The day after the legislative session ended earlier this month, with no stadium bill enacted, representatives of team owner Zygi Wilf issued a statement saying that a stadium funding plan has to be completed next year.

The Vikings' lease at the Metrodome expires after the 2011 season.


If LA gets the Jaguars, i really don't see the Vikings moving even if they don't get a new stadium. I mean besides LA, what current non-NFL city can build a new billion dollar stadium in this economy?

If LA gets the Jaguars, i really don't see the Vikings moving even if they don't get a new stadium. I mean besides LA, what current non-NFL city can build a new billion dollar stadium in this economy?

San Antonio. Don't you remember when Katrina happened an the Saints played their game in their? There was even a little talk about the Saints not going back to New Orleans. They already have a stadium, but promising the people an NFL team will get the support to build a brand new stadium. It worked for Indianapolis, St Louis, Baltimore, Browns...

^^ What is the newest status on the Jags? I agree it should be the Jags who should move.

If the Vikings move the name without a doubt HAS to be stripped.

I wonder if we will ever get to a point in this country where we will make it against the law for municipalities to throw money and teams extort citizens.

...I wonder if we will ever get to a point in this country where we will make it against the law for municipalities to throw money and teams extort citizens.

Agree. It feels extremly un-american for the state to build stadiums for private enterprises...

I wonder if we will ever get to a point in this country where we will make it against the law for municipalities to throw money and teams extort citizens.As someone who deals with public sector involvement in land development, and to use 1772's reference, this is the angle that would be more "un-American." And recall that these deals are not simply framed as giving tax-money to a private development: If the venue isn't owned by a government or public Authority receiving direct revenues from operations, then the funding used for private venues is usually packaged as extremely favorable loans whereby the government is expecting increased tax revenues to offset the opportunity costs of the loan. (I realize some of these practically amount to gifts but as legal tender that's not how they're crafted, so...)

Anyway, parameters like you're supposing would also cut into other forms of development incentives, like the $300M Alabama used to lure a Mercedes manufacturing plant, or the funding Georgia used to lure a recent bio-medical facility, and so on. Plus some of these investments actually play off. The issue is less that the government is making these loans that banks often cannot, but rather that the local governments have been pushed into a corner whereby they're expected to pay such egregiously large shares by comparison. When Mercedes came to Alabama as mentioned above, they still invested $500M+ into the development and the returns on tax investment were more easily tracked. The other issue is that these discussions are very emotional and thus favor team owners in the political arena: No one likes wasting tax dollars, but no one likes seeing their beloved team move, either. Thus, rare is the politician willing to sit on that grenade. But I digress.

Want a cure? Encourage your local governments to use modern cost-efficiency modeling software designed exactly for these types of development sponsorships. REMI has a popular one available through licensing fees and most reputable universities have variations for their public policy courses (like the one devised by Georgia Tech for Georgia governments). Bottom line, it's easier for taxpayers to more accurately gauge the literal value of their investment.

It would also help if we as fans championed our pro leagues to back up their promise to mitigate expenses. The NFL is doing better but needs to put more into their funds for this purpose, while the MLB has yet to move beyond lip service. At the least they should each pledge to make sure taxpayers are never asked to leverage more than 1/3 of any project.

But so long as the league also has a carrot out there (Los Angeles) with which they can threaten and extort the other cities, and so long as some governments cave in to their outlandish requests (DC -> Nationals ballpark), then the beggars will continue to ask for handouts.

Sorry. Rant off.

If the Vikings move the name without a doubt HAS to be stripped.

Amen. I think I would almost be more disgusted by the idea of them moving to LA and keeping the Vikings name than I would be by the actual move itself. If it ever comes to that, I would hope it would be a repeat of the Baltimore Ravens-Cleveland Browns maneuver.

I always thought it seemed somewhat artificial and contrived for the NFL to declare Baltimore an expansion team, and the new Browns a continuation of the old Browns. However, I do think it was essential for Cleveland to be reunited with their rightful colors and team name.

This way I could at least feel reasonably optimistic that an expansion or relocated team would eventually fill in the 16th largest market (which is extremely provincial - I think most Vikings fans would pick up the Winnipeg Blue Bombers before adopting the Packers or Bears). I would much rather restart the old Vikings heritage than root for a team with some stupid expansion era nickname like the Renegades, Swarm, or whatever is fashionable in 2020.

wow
they should build this thing

Any thoughts on how the roof collapse at the dome may impact the Vikings getting a new stadium built?

Any thoughts on how the roof collapse at the dome may impact the Vikings getting a new stadium built?

I'm guessing none, just sew up the tear and air the stadium back up, its not the first time its happened.

I'm guessing none, just sew up the tear and air the stadium back up, its not the first time its happened.

That statement is a big problem. Vikings need to turn that in to a new stadium, but at this point I think Minnesota is going to lose the vikings. I have never heard a good thing about the infrastructure in Minnesota. They seem to have bridges falling down and other issues that can only be fixed by state spending. For the state to spend, they need to raises taxes, and they is no way that seems like it's going to happen and that's for infrastructure (the things the people of the state need to work). It really doesn't seem like the people Minnesota are going to pay for a stadium to keep there team. And if that's the case then we can't feel bad for them if the Vikings pick up and leave. They told them, that they needed a new stadium, Minnesota said no, then they said please, and Minnesota said no again. Normally that means it's OK to pick up and leave.

Please find a way to get this thing built. I do not want the Vikings moving to LA.

^ If for no other reason other than the fact that Minnesota will be hating Los Angeles forever. I can see the headlines in the news paper if the Vikings move here: 'First the Lakers, now the Vikings.'

I'd be okay with Adrian Peterson. Plus if people don't like the name I'm sure they can change it. I would prefer the Rams, but the Vikings wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. They just need to find a damn quarterback. How long has it been since Culpepper?

Now that there is no roof on the Metrodome, could something be done to rennovate or partially rebuild it? Leave the stadium roofless and keep or rennovate the existing 3 sides. Demolish the side adjacent to the parking lot and rebuild it so that it is stuffed full of boxes and resteraunts (which, I presume, is what the current building lacks and why the owners want a new one). It probably wouldn't be as good as building a new stadium but it would be cheaper. Since funding seems to be one of the problems with building a new stadium it could be a viable alternative (and keep the Vikings in Minnesota).

They didn't take the roof off, it's just deflated.

They didn't take the roof off, it's just deflated.

True, but this could be the spur that is needed to take some action, be it rennovation, rebuilding or demolition in favour of a new stadium elsewhere.

Now that there is no roof on the Metrodome, could something be done to rennovate or partially rebuild it? Leave the stadium roofless and keep or rennovate the existing 3 sides. Demolish the side adjacent to the parking lot and rebuild it so that it is stuffed full of boxes and resteraunts (which, I presume, is what the current building lacks and why the owners want a new one). It probably wouldn't be as good as building a new stadium but it would be cheaper. Since funding seems to be one of the problems with building a new stadium it could be a viable alternative (and keep the Vikings in Minnesota).

The Vikings are hell bent on not playing in the Metrodome anymore. Period. Nothing short of a brand new "Taj Mahal" of stadiums will do for them.

True, but this could be the spur that is needed to take some action, be it rennovation, rebuilding or demolition in favour of a new stadium elsewhere.

In 4 or 5 years if/when a new stadium opens, this event could be looked back upon as a great blessing. The Commissioner is meeting with the new Governor-elect on monday. Funding ideas will definitely get thrown around.

The Vikings are hell bent on not playing in the Metrodome anymore. Period. Nothing short of a brand new "Taj Mahal" of stadiums will do for them.

Let the Vikings move. It would be good for the Gophers and good for the Big Ten.

Let the Vikings move. It would be good for the Gophers and good for the Big Ten.

It would be good for the B10 to have another powerhouse team. But if the Vikes leave and I don't see how that's going to improve the Gophers.

I hate the thought of the team leaving and the state being without a NFL team for 5-10 years. Eventually a new team will relocate or form and it's going to wind up costing us taxpayers even more money.

Interest rates are low and construction costs are down, but the state also has a $6.2 billion deficit. So the two kind of cancel each other out.

In 4 or 5 years if/when a new stadium opens, this event could be looked back upon as a great blessing. The Commissioner is meeting with the new Governor-elect on monday. Funding ideas will definitely get thrown around.
However when members of the legislature say the following, meeting with the governor-elect, current governor, or former Gov. Ventura, does not mean much.

"A lot of people want things," Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, an incoming assistant Senate majority leader, told the Star Tribune. He said the Metrodome's roof collapse "doesn't elevate this to a crisis."

It will be stupid if the State of Minnesota pays for that Stadium. Atleast other stadiums can hold multiple events, conventions to pay for it.

The Vikings might as well just move. It is not cost effective for the Tax-Payers of the State when services are been cut.

We'll have to wait and see what the serious funding proposals entail. Up to this point it's been all generalities. Nothing specific. The talk is now mostly user based fees/taxes (parking, ticket sales, memorabilia). But I'm skeptical as to how much money can be raised with that route. Naming rights on an NFL stadium could help out tremendously though.

If Ziggy really doesn't like domes, then the solution is obvious: upgrade TCF Bank Stadium.

1. Replace the benches with seats (reducing capacity), and then...
2. Close in the Western end to increase seating capacity
3. Build a suite tower on the North for Vikings revenue
4. Buy out the contract from TCF and resell naming rights

If the Giants and Jets can share a new stadium, so can the Vikings and University of Minnesota.

you forgot to add heating coils to the playing surface.

If Ziggy really doesn't like domes, then the solution is obvious: upgrade TCF Bank Stadium.

1. Replace the benches with seats (reducing capacity), and then...
2. Close in the Western end to increase seating capacity
3. Build a suite tower on the North for Vikings revenue
4. Buy out the contract from TCF and resell naming rights

If the Giants and Jets can share a new stadium, so can the Vikings and University of Minnesota.

The stadium is owned by the University so first of all, you need the University to want an expansion. You also still have to find financing for all these improvements. You would also have to figure out a revenue deal with the University, who would surely want a cut of Vikings game revenues and would likely keep all, if not most, of all stadium sponsorship revenues, concession and many other revenue streams. The University would also get all the revenue from any non-gameday events. Financially, it would be very, very difficult for it to be an option for the Vikings and it's hardly obvious because the four things you listed are just the beginning of what would have to be done.

If the Giants and Jets can share a new stadium, so can the Vikings and University of Minnesota.

I doubt that is possible. It's never happened before, and that kind of relationship can't possibly exist. Especially in Minneapolis. . .:nuts:

I doubt that is possible. It's never happened before, and that kind of relationship can't possibly exist. Especially in Minneapolis. . .:nuts:

Never happened before anywhere, or just in Minneapolis?

I doubt that is possible. It's never happened before, and that kind of relationship can't possibly exist. Especially in Minneapolis. . .:nuts:
http://k53.pbase.com/o3/53/688553/1/107772624.ogLy1uRR.IMG_0016.jpg

Interesting discussion in today's Mpls Star Tribune about the current Dome and all of the things housed in the facility, including Gopher baseball and other amateur baseball, prep sports, and community recreation.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/112784089.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3iUHc3E7_ec7PaP3iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

Leads one to ponder how this will affect the discussion about a new Vikings stadium. I'm of two minds on this one. The first approach, and most likely, is a facility with a roof, retractable or not (though aesthetically I prefer a fixed roof facility). You build it with a moving stands system so that baseball can be played there. This would also accommodate the ability to play host to Final Fours/NCAA Regionals and/or a Super Bowl. I think this is the most likely option.

A second approach, which I don't believe I've heard anyone espouse, is to build a new open-air football stadium for the Vikings on the current Dome location. A true, NFC-North stadium, with 65-70K seats, adequate premium seating, a heated grass field, purple seats, etc. This, is what I believe, the Vikings would truly want in the end. The cost of this would probably not be more than $650 to $700 million, especially if the designers were creative in using existing infrastructure, including the existing lower bowl of the dome. Along with this approach, I would couple it with the construction of an approximately 15K seat indoor arena....similar to Telenor Arena in Norway. Basically, all you would need is a large warehouse/hangar style building that could be used for amateur baseball, prep sports including the prep bowl and other state championships, minor league soccer, and other community uses. It wouldn't need to be fancy, and if built correctly and structurally well, could serve the community for years to come. This would replicate every feature of the current dome except the ability to host a Final Four or Super Bowl, which is such an infrequent thing that I don't believe it to be a major sticking point. Cost wise, it looks like Telenor was built for approximately $100 million U.S. Even if it was $150 million, throwing that on top of an outdoor stadium probably still wouldn't equal the price tag of a new facility with a retractable roof.

There you have it....fire away at my idea.

http://estadiosdomundo.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/telenor_arena-2.jpg

needs a roof to justify uses. I'd imagine the players don't like freezing either. Packers 2008 at home at the NFC championship just looked like miserable people with a home disadvantage to me. It is not fun playing football in the snow.

Its tons of fun playing football in the snow, its been my favorite way to play since I was a kid. Its not as fast and its harder to cut, but its all sorts of fun. Extreme cold that gets to be an issue from time to time, not the snow. 20 degrees and snowing is perfect, -5 or -10 is never any fun though.

needs a roof to justify uses. I'd imagine the players don't like freezing either. Packers 2008 at home at the NFC championship just looked like miserable people with a home disadvantage to me. It is not fun playing football in the snow.

I disagree. Playing in the snow is fun. Sledding, skiing, snowboarding, skating, snowball fights. If players don't like snow they should've chosen an indoor sport like bowling or checkers.

I disagree. Playing in the snow is fun. Sledding, skiing, snowboarding, skating, snowball fights. If players don't like snow they should've chosen an indoor sport like bowling or checkers.

Playing football in the snow is not fun. Go outside in the cold and slap a skinny metal bar bare handed. Now repeat over and over. Stand in the wind without your coat and go to the batting cages. Not fun. With the little clothes on, kick your shin a few times on something. Not fun.

Playing football in the snow is not fun. Go outside in the cold and slap a skinny metal bar bare handed. Now repeat over and over. Stand in the wind without your coat and go to the batting cages. Not fun. With the little clothes on, kick your shin a few times on something. Not fun.

Not fun for some, fun for others. I've played football and soccer dozens of times in sub-freezing weather--several times in a snow conditions and I, and almost everyone I was playing with and against, had a good time. It was definitely the minority of players who whined about being cold but they just came off as sissies to the rest of us, and yes, we told them so and often. :lol:

I doubt that is possible. It's never happened before, and that kind of relationship can't possibly exist. Especially in Minneapolis. . .:nuts:

Yeah, they couldn't even share a hockey/basketball arena. :nuts:

There you have it....fire away at my idea.
Baseball would need a very high roof to be indoors. Doubtful that could be funded mostly by a University.

I doubt that is possible. It's never happened before, and that kind of relationship can't possibly exist. Especially in Minneapolis. . .:nuts:
Sarcasm? Anyone?

They were sharing the stadium between a college and pro team in Minneapolis just 2 years ago.

Playing football in the snow is not fun. Go outside in the cold and slap a skinny metal bar bare handed. Now repeat over and over. Stand in the wind without your coat and go to the batting cages. Not fun. With the little clothes on, kick your shin a few times on something. Not fun.

Its great fun. Notice your location says texas and the other guys says minneapolis. :banana:

Its great fun. Notice your location says texas and the other guys says minneapolis. :banana:

Grew up playing football, and yes it gets below freezing in Texas. Played plenty of game in the 20s and 30. Even in ice storms and a couple of snows. 1994 Thanksgiving weekend comes to mind. I have friends in the NFL. I have a cousin who plays for Iowa State who lived his life in Iowa. He doesn't like it. I have a cousin playing for Utah State who grew up in Logan. In fact, I went to his last home game. I said nothing about the temp or snow(19 degrees), just said wow, we don't get too much of this. Sorry, but it was miserable and no one looked like they were enjoying the weather. Lots of people in the stands shaking and jumping around despite their huge coats. His roommate said, GD frozen field then he yelled, ahhhhhhhh. My cousin said you never get used to playing in it. None of them or their teammates enjoy playing in the cold. You do it because you have to. Does it bother a professional? Not really until you're talking really cold, but do they enjoy it, or does it make for a home field advantage? Hard to tell when the best team usually has home field advantage. That's why it was funny for the media to be so willy nilly nostalgic a few years ago about Green Bay having home field and watching balls bounce off of their stone hands and watching Favre bundle up like he was freezing his ass off. I hate the Giants and that was funny to me. Again, not saying don't play in the cold, I'm saying it aint fun, especially at that level where the QB are really spinnin' it and the hits are at NFL level.

Seriously, you go indoors if you can if you are using public funds. Give tax payers additional revenue streams if they are going to pay such a high price. Especially if its downtown and will take up significant urban space. You need to maximize that dollar per acre. Face it, stadiums without roofs are expensive too. I'm not just talking about the Final Four or Superbowl. But Cowboys Stadium has kind of been a revelation as to how many events the DFW area simply did not have the option of hosting before.

Say what you want about my location, but most NFL players come from the southern half of the US these days. You want to know what's just as miserable as playing in the cold? Playing and practicing when its 103 with a head index of 110. Its downright deadly. You won't find anyone saying they enjoy that either. Difference is, we admit it and build a damn roof.

;) Thats why alot of soccer stadiums have roofs over here. But only in wales they have a stadium that can shut the roof fully wembley just has a roof that moves around but does not do anything

Grew up playing football, and yes it gets below freezing in Texas. Played plenty of game in the 20s and 30. Even in ice storms and a couple of snows. 1994 Thanksgiving weekend comes to mind. I have friends in the NFL. I have a cousin who plays for Iowa State who lived his life in Iowa. He doesn't like it. I have a cousin playing for Utah State who grew up in Logan. In fact, I went to his last home game. I said nothing about the temp or snow(19 degrees), just said wow, we don't get too much of this. Sorry, but it was miserable and no one looked like they were enjoying the weather. Lots of people in the stands shaking and jumping around despite their huge coats. His roommate said, GD frozen field then he yelled, ahhhhhhhh. My cousin said you never get used to playing in it. None of them or their teammates enjoy playing in the cold. You do it because you have to. Does it bother a professional? Not really until you're talking really cold, but do they enjoy it, or does it make for a home field advantage? Hard to tell when the best team usually has home field advantage. That's why it was funny for the media to be so willy nilly nostalgic a few years ago about Green Bay having home field and watching balls bounce off of their stone hands and watching Favre bundle up like he was freezing his ass off. I hate the Giants and that was funny to me. Again, not saying don't play in the cold, I'm saying it aint fun, especially at that level where the QB are really spinnin' it and the hits are at NFL level.

Seriously, you go indoors if you can if you are using public funds. Give tax payers additional revenue streams if they are going to pay such a high price. Especially if its downtown and will take up significant urban space. You need to maximize that dollar per acre. Face it, stadiums without roofs are expensive too. I'm not just talking about the Final Four or Superbowl. But Cowboys Stadium has kind of been a revelation as to how many events the DFW area simply did not have the option of hosting before.

Say what you want about my location, but most NFL players come from the southern half of the US these days. You want to know what's just as miserable as playing in the cold? Playing and practicing when its 103 with a head index of 110. Its downright deadly. You won't find anyone saying they enjoy that either. Difference is, we admit it and build a damn roof.

PUSSY. I went to a NFL game where the wind chill was (-12) about 2 years ago, I dressed appropriately and enjoyed the game.....
They do need to be careful when practicing during the summers heat, you always hear about high school players dieing from heat every year it seems.

PUSSY. I went to a NFL game where the wind chill was (-12) about 2 years ago, I dressed appropriately and enjoyed the game.....
They do need to be careful when practicing during the summers heat, you always hear about high school players dieing from heat every year it seems.

Well there ya go. That's two different extremes. Some people would hate to play in 80/90+ degree weather, but we can handle it... at least, better than most places. High School boys in Texas have to do so. I did. Go out to Midland during early September when it's still reaching the high 80's on artificial grass where it feels you're on an oven.

I went to New York this past summer and the hottest it got was like 88. There were guys dropping like flies in that, and I wasn't even breaking a sweat. I even thought of them as pussies for it, but I can't because they're just not used to it. So ya can't really blame Southerners for not liking the freezing cold that much.... that's why they're living in the South.

Well there ya go. That's two different extremes. Some people would hate to play in 80/90+ degree weather, but we can handle it... at least, better than most places. High School boys in Texas have to do so. I did. Go out to Midland during early September when it's still reaching the high 80's on artificial grass where it feels you're on an oven.

I went to New York this past summer and the hottest it got was like 88. There were guys dropping like flies in that, and I wasn't even breaking a sweat. I even thought of them as pussies for it, but I can't because they're just not used to it. So ya can't really blame Southerners for not liking the freezing cold that much.... that's why they're living in the South.

i've spent alot of time in louisiana and texas and it gets very hot especially in LA. but the hottest places i have ever been were central Germany and NYC, both in summer 2006!

i've spent alot of time in louisiana and texas and it gets very hot especially in LA. but the hottest places i have ever been were central Germany and NYC, both in summer 2006!

I'm not into the pissing contest. I'm talking about people playing professional football, which is not fun or enjoyable in extreme heat or cold. Watching is fine(actually it isn't sometimes), but we're talking about players.

New Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has appointed Ted Mondale as the head of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (MSFC), which operates the Metrodome.

This is a strong signal that a new stadium deal will be worked out. Mondale (son of former Vice-President Walter Mondale) was instrumental in getting the LRT system built when he was chair of the Metropolitan Council.

Quote by Governor Dayton: "His exceptional dedication to public service, his business experience, and his established relationships with key decision-makers will enable him to represent the best interests of the people of Minnesota in attempting to negotiate a new 'People's Stadium.'"

New Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has appointed Ted Mondale as the head of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (MSFC), which operates the Metrodome.


Even Ted Mondale appears to be more skeptical (resigned?) than in previous interviews about the possibility of crafting a stadium bill that would be palatable to all parties involved.

MPR Midmorning discussion regarding Vikings stadium situation (2/2/11) (http://www.fieldofschemes.com/audio/MPR-2011-02-02.mp3)

I think the public is feeling too much public-funded-stadium "fatigue". Folks are just tired of paying for one stadium after the other, ie TCF Stadium, Target Field most recently. Its just one right after the other.

The St. Paul Saints want one, the Wild want some relief on their rent, the T-wolves want to renovate Target Center. No matter how popular the Vikings are compared to the other teams, eventually people are going to put their foot down and say ENOUGH.

It'll be interesting to see the financing that the legislature and team/NFL comes up with. We'll find out in the weeks ahead.

I think the public is feeling too much public-funded-stadium "fatigue". Folks are just tired of paying for one stadium after the other, ie TCF Stadium, Target Field most recently. Its just one right after the other.

The St. Paul Saints want one, the Wild want some relief on their rent, the T-wolves want to renovate Target Center. No matter how popular the Vikings are compared to the other teams, eventually people are going to put their foot down and say ENOUGH.

It'll be interesting to see the financing that the legislature and team/NFL comes up with. We'll find out in the weeks ahead.

Then say goodbye to your NFL team.

It'll probably go to either LA or Toronto, Canada.

Then say goodbye to your NFL team.

It'll probably go to either LA or Toronto, Canada.

I think Toronto will eventually get the Bills. I think the Chargers or Jaguars will go to LA. But then that opens those cities up to get a team in the future. I always thought Las Vegas would be a prime city to get a NFL team at some point. But I've heard the gambling stigma is too ingrained in the NFL. Weird since that city hosts so much other sports (college, minor league baseball, Nascar).

If the NFL and players hammer out a CBA quickly it would be a good sign to the politicians to get something done quickly. At least Gov. Dayton is taking a role in the stadium talk. Not like Pawlenty who just passed the buck to everyone else. There's still hope for a deal.

I think Toronto will eventually get the Bills. I think the Chargers or Jaguars will go to LA. But then that opens those cities up to get a team in the future. I always thought Las Vegas would be a prime city to get a NFL team at some point. But I've heard the gambling stigma is too ingrained in the NFL. Weird since that city hosts so much other sports (college, minor league baseball, Nascar).

If the NFL and players hammer out a CBA quickly it would be a good sign to the politicians to get something done quickly. At least Gov. Dayton is taking a role in the stadium talk. Not like Pawlenty who just passed the buck to everyone else. There's still hope for a deal.

I agree.

Bills --> Toronto
Chargers --> LA
Jaguars --> Montreal

Montreal is a 3.5+ million market of sport addicts. I think the city could very well support a NFL team. The fan support is there. Yes there is no plan of bringing a team to Montreal right now, but if Toronto gets a team, I think Montreal could be next.

I agree.

Bills --> Toronto
Chargers --> LA
Jaguars --> Montreal

Montreal is a 3.5+ million market of sport addicts. I think the city could very well support a NFL team. The fan support is there. Yes there is no plan of bringing a team to Montreal right now, but if Toronto gets a team, I think Montreal could be next.

This is of course overlooking the bankruptcy of Montreal's CFL team in 1982 and the near bankruptcy of the Expos in the early 2000s.

I agree.

Bills --> Toronto
Chargers --> LA
Jaguars --> Montreal

Montreal is a 3.5+ million market of sport addicts. I think the city could very well support a NFL team. The fan support is there. Yes there is no plan of bringing a team to Montreal right now, but if Toronto gets a team, I think Montreal could be next.

Hehehe.. its funny when you read all these posts and it just seems like people are pulling these wild fantasies out of their "you know whats".. Minnesota WILL find a way to keep the Vikings in the Twin Cities. They did it with the Twins, they found the money somehow, and they will find a way with the Vikes.

I live in Los Angeles, let me sum this up... The ONLY WAY that the NFL would return here again, is if AEG builds that stadium with NO public money, which the NFL DOES NOT want. The people here are used to not having the NFL. Hell we get an extra game on TV every week, most of the fans here love going to the bars on Sundays to watch the games or get Sunday Ticket to see their favorite teams so honestly, if its not the RAIDERS (unfortunately) no one wants the Chargers and DAMN sure dont want the vikings or jags either.
A lot of fans like other teams from other cities and there is another problem... USC FOOTBALL. As long as they keep getting top recruiting classes (like again this year, even on probation) the people of L.A. are satisfied with college football here.

Toronto getting the Bills is FAR FROM a lock and what makes people think this?? what because they play ONE....ONE game there?? Hockey will ALWAYS rule Canada especially in Ontario and especially Quebec. Montreal is "iffy" at best as far as a sports town. If the teams aren't winning, they wont come. Thats why the Expos are in D.C. The Alouettes draw 60,000 to perhaps the deadest stadium in North America, Olympic Stadium for playoff games!! So do you honestly think that Montreal is just gonna let the NFL move in without a fight?? I think if the NFL was even serious about Canada they would have put a team there already. The Toronto game is nothing but a quick money grab for the Bills organization and I seriously doubt the NFL would allow such a move. If the Bills return to the their early 90s glory, that annual game will STOP..

I also believe the NFL respects the CFL's business and boundaries enough not to make a move into Canada. The CFL also gives a lot of Americans jobs in the league and the NFL knows that and takes that into consideration as well. So anybody moving to Montreal is ludicrous....:lol:

Simply put, The NFL NEEDS Los Angeles, we dont need the NFL. Also, the NFL wants to return the Super Bowl to California, especially the L.A. Area. Look at Dallas this year.. NFL Loves South Beach but they have to make some renovations to Sun Life to get more SBs. Another point, Super Bowl host also have to be a place people would want to go and spend some time and money. I love Canada but going to Toronto or Montreal in the dead of winter for Super Bowl is UNATTRACTIVE.. SORRY.

Ben
Voodoo

This is of course overlooking the bankruptcy of Montreal's CFL team in 1982 and the near bankruptcy of the Expos in the early 2000s.

Who cares? That was in the past.

The Canadiens is one of the healthiest franchises in the league, with the second-best attendance, long sellout streak and is at the top in terms of revenue and operating income.

The Alouettes sell out every game and are very successful.

The Impact is selling out and will join the MLS in 2012.

Hehehe.. its funny when you read all these posts and it just seems like people are pulling these wild fantasies out of their "you know whats".. Minnesota WILL find a way to keep the Vikings in the Twin Cities. They did it with the Twins, they found the money somehow, and they will find a way with the Vikes.

Toronto getting the Bills is FAR FROM a lock and what makes people think this?? what because they play ONE....ONE game there?? Hockey will ALWAYS rule Canada especially in Ontario and especially Quebec. Montreal is "iffy" at best as far as a sports town. If the teams aren't winning, they wont come. Thats why the Expos are in D.C. The Alouettes draw 60,000 to perhaps the deadest stadium in North America, Olympic Stadium for playoff games!! So do you honestly think that Montreal is just gonna let the NFL move in without a fight?? I think if the NFL was even serious about Canada they would have put a team there already. The Toronto game is nothing but a quick money grab for the Bills organization and I seriously doubt the NFL would allow such a move. If the Bills return to the their early 90s glory, that annual game will STOP..

Simply put, The NFL NEEDS Los Angeles, we dont need the NFL. Also, the NFL wants to return the Super Bowl to California, especially the L.A. Area. Look at Dallas this year.. NFL Loves South Beach but they have to make some renovations to Sun Life to get more SBs. Another point, Super Bowl host also have to be a place people would want to go and spend some time and money. I love Canada but going to Toronto or Montreal in the dead of winter for Super Bowl is UNATTRACTIVE.. SORRY.



To answer your last point first (about the attractiveness of Montreal), Montreal is one of the most attractive cities in North America and very tourist-friendly and surely a better draw than bland, soulless cities like Dallas, Indianapolis who are getting Super Bowls this year and in 2012. As for the temperature, the stadium will likely have a retractable roof... so there you go. Problem fixed. Plus, the NFL has shown it is welcoming colder temperature with a Super Bowl in NYC in 2014.

As for the Olympic Stadium, I agree with you, but it will be torn down or a new stadium will be constructed Downtown. Like the Rogers Centre is not good for the NFL. So either cities will have to build something new to poach an NFL franchise.

Montreal iffy at best as a sports town? It's probably one of the best in North America alongside Philly, Boston and Chicago. It's certainly a lot better than cities like Miami or Jacksonville. You're saying that people don't show up if a team is not winning. This is true, but it's true for 99% of cities, except for like Green Bay because the team is such an integral part of the city. Miami's sports teams are hurting, except the Heat. Nobody cares about The U, the Dolphins, the Panthers and the Marlins. It was so pathetic to see a division game in Miami with the stands half empty.

Who cares? That was in the past.
Less than six years ago? These are the same fans who abandoned the Expos back then. Those facts really stick a big sharp pin in your claim of a city full of sports fanatics. Kind of like a voodoo doll.

The Canadiens is one of the healthiest franchises in the league, with the second-best attendance, long sellout streak and is at the top in terms of revenue and operating income.
And they will always remain the one and only favorite of Montreal fans. But I couldn't help but notice that you left out the Raptors in your description of how sports-mad the city is.

The Alouettes sell out every game and are very successful.
In a 20,000 seat stadium. Stade Olympique is a horribly designed stadium, and not up to NFL standards in several respects. So where would this mythical new NFL franchise play?

I agree.

Bills --> Toronto
Chargers --> LA
Jaguars --> Montreal

Montreal is a 3.5+ million market of sport addicts. I think the city could very well support a NFL team. The fan support is there. Yes there is no plan of bringing a team to Montreal right now, but if Toronto gets a team, I think Montreal could be next.

HAHAHAHAHA, sports addicts eh? Is that why the expos were drawing 5,000 a game and your CFL team moved out of the dome and into a smaller stadium?

HAHAHAHAHA, sports addicts eh? Is that why the expos were drawing 5,000 a game and your CFL team moved out of the dome and into a smaller stadium?

You have to blame the owner for the 5,000 attendance. Baseball is actually very popular in Quebec and the Expos were huge in the mid-1990s. Once they changed owners at the end of the 90s, the decline began. They let their young risings star go for nothing...

As for a stadium, lots of big corporations in Montreal (BCE, Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, Quebecor, SNC Lavalin, Yellow Pages, etc.) and the local governments and the federal ARE NOT broke, like 95% of all governments in the USA. Money wouldn't be a problem, I think.

In Quebec City (~700,000 inhab.), they have secured $400m to build a brand new hockey arena, with the city and the state government being the main contributor. Quebecor, the media empire also joined in as a private investor (and prospective owner of the new/relocated franchise).

They had plans, before the Expos left, to build a stadium in Downtown Montreal. They would need to find a new spot to build it, but I don't think it's totally irrealistic for Montreal to be building one. If Montreal wants to have the Olympic Games once more, they will need to either torn down the Olympic Stadium or build a brand new one.

Montreal is the 6th best sports city in North America according to a recent survey.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OPxKGDa6Fvo/Shs6Mz9RVNI/AAAAAAAAADI/wN2YBvKZljw/s1600-h/abebb33f45abb0814d83e46e242f.jpeg.jpg

http://thesportsbizblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/whats-best-sports-city-in-north-america.html

Less than six years ago? These are the same fans who abandoned the Expos back then. Those facts really stick a big sharp pin in your claim of a city full of sports fanatics. Kind of like a voodoo doll.


And they will always remain the one and only favorite of Montreal fans. But I couldn't help but notice that you left out the Raptors in your description of how sports-mad the city is.


In a 20,000 seat stadium. Stade Olympique is a horribly designed stadium, and not up to NFL standards in several respects. So where would this mythical new NFL franchise play?

The Canadiens have fun all across North America. You can argue that they probably have the largest fanbase of all hockey teams, including the Leafs.

The Raptors were in Toronto, by the way, not Montreal. Seriously, who cares about them? Local support is so weak...

Stade Olympique sucks. They would need a new stadium. Point is, people care much more about the NFL than the CFL. If only Montreal could have a team, it would easily fill it out week in week out.

To answer your last point first (about the attractiveness of Montreal), Montreal is one of the most attractive cities in North America and very tourist-friendly and surely a better draw than bland, soulless cities like Dallas, Indianapolis who are getting Super Bowls this year and in 2012. As for the temperature, the stadium will likely have a retractable roof... so there you go. Problem fixed. Plus, the NFL has shown it is welcoming colder temperature with a Super Bowl in NYC in 2014.

As for the Olympic Stadium, I agree with you, but it will be torn down or a new stadium will be constructed Downtown. Like the Rogers Centre is not good for the NFL. So either cities will have to build something new to poach an NFL franchise.

Montreal iffy at best as a sports town? It's probably one of the best in North America alongside Philly, Boston and Chicago. It's certainly a lot better than cities like Miami or Jacksonville. You're saying that people don't show up if a team is not winning. This is true, but it's true for 99% of cities, except for like Green Bay because the team is such an integral part of the city. Miami's sports teams are hurting, except the Heat. Nobody cares about The U, the Dolphins, the Panthers and the Marlins. It was so pathetic to see a division game in Miami with the stands half empty.

Shady, you just don't get it...
You think that building new stadiums is gonna solve the problem??
You missed my whole point. Look, Montreal is a WORLD CLASS city.. no doubt. I've been there and I love Montreal. My analogy is pertaining to the Super Bowl FESTIVITIES not the game itself. Super Bowl week is a non stop party and people dont go to the super bowl city to catch the sites and take in the museums and art galleries.. they go to PARTY!!!

My thing is the NFL or nobody in fact wants the Super Bowl in a city with the weather in the low teens. Dallas was an absolute nightmare for all involved this year. You seen the interviews from Dallas last week where it was so cold you could see the commentators breath.

The only reason Indy has a Super Bowl is because of the stadium. It probably wont be there again...

The optics of moving another Minnesota franchise to LA would be unbearable.

I say play in an outdoor stadium - call it (Bud) Grant's Tomb:lol: - like they used to at the old Met. Every team, even the Packers, hated it.

Shady is correct when he says Montreal would support an NFL team. Been there many times on business - with your Quebecor boys, Shady, biggest printing firm in N.America. The NFL is huge there, great TV coverage, very well followed.

Just need the stadium.

Maybe if Toronto gets the Bills moved and properly housed, the time would be right for Montreal. With the NFL looking to grow its global audience and its TV rights fees, both cities offer bigger market places than many current NFL cities and major amounts of corporate support, too.

Something the NFL will consider seriously if the owners do away with revenue sharing.

The Canadiens have fun all across North America. You can argue that they probably have the largest fanbase of all hockey teams, including the Leafs.

The Raptors were in Toronto, by the way, not Montreal. Seriously, who cares about them? Local support is so weak...

Stade Olympique sucks. They would need a new stadium. Point is, people care much more about the NFL than the CFL. If only Montreal could have a team, it would easily fill it out week in week out.

Funny... I know the NFL is popular but MORE popular than a Championship winning football team like the Als?? Are you telling me the if the montreal franchise goes 2-14 they will still be there to support them??

This is another thing that bothers me.. The CFL is NOT A BAD BRAND OF FOOTBALL. I love this league because of it's wide open style of play. Are you telling me that Rider Nation would drop the Riders if an NFL team came to town??? CFL fans love the CFL because it's NOT the NFL. Besides I like what Mark is doing with the league and all they need is to expand 2 teams and they will be fine.. For me, football season starts on CANADA DAY!!

The NFL is becoming softer and softer every year. Every hit is OVER analyzed and before you know it Opie Goddell is gonna make the NFL the largest flag football league in the world.

Shady, you just don't get it...
You think that building new stadiums is gonna solve the problem??
You missed my whole point. Look, Montreal is a WORLD CLASS city.. no doubt. I've been there and I love Montreal. My analogy is pertaining to the Super Bowl FESTIVITIES not the game itself. Super Bowl week is a non stop party and people dont go to the super bowl city to catch the sites and take in the museums and art galleries.. they go to PARTY!!!

My thing is the NFL or nobody in fact wants the Super Bowl in a city with the weather in the low teens. Dallas was an absolute nightmare for all involved this year. You seen the interviews from Dallas last week where it was so cold you could see the commentators breath.

The only reason Indy has a Super Bowl is because of the stadium. It probably wont be there again...

Montreal is one of the biggest party cities in North America. Easily the best in Canada. Strangely, I have much more fun when it's freezing outside than during the Summer.... Dallas is just a really boring city where everything is closed past 5pm in the CBD. Montreal is nothing like that. Bars close at 3. We have beautiful women and a lot of strip clubs. So much that hockey players call it "Sin City" when they come play here.

Montreal is one of the biggest party cities in North America. Easily the best in Canada. Strangely, I have much more fun when it's freezing outside than during the Summer.... Dallas is just a really boring city where everything is closed past 5pm in the CBD. Montreal is nothing like that. Bars close at 3. We have beautiful women and a lot of strip clubs. So much that hockey players call it "Sin City" when they come play here.

You just described Dallas except for the CBD thing. You don't go out in the CBD in Dallas. You go Uptown.

The optics of moving another Minnesota franchise to LA would be unbearable.

I say play in an outdoor stadium - call it (Bud) Grant's Tomb:lol: - like they used to at the old Met. Every team, even the Packers, hated it.

Shady is correct when he says Montreal would support an NFL team. Been there many times on business - with your Quebecor boys, Shady, biggest printing firm in N.America. The NFL is huge there, great TV coverage, very well followed.

Just need the stadium.

Maybe if Toronto gets the Bills moved and properly housed, the time would be right for Montreal. With the NFL looking to grow its global audience and its TV rights fees, both cities offer bigger market places than many current NFL cities and major amounts of corporate support, too.

Something the NFL will consider seriously if the owners do away with revenue sharing.

I'm still not convinced that they can.. like i said before, If the NFL wanted to be in Canada they would already BE THERE!! if the Canadian cities is so "attractive" to the NFL, then why do they got "goo goo eyes" for London, England??? They have a brand new 80,000 seat stadium they know they can fill every game from day one. Canada is not even a thought to the NFL right now.

Like I said in a previous post, The NFL respects the CFL business enough not to go there full time. If the NFL wanted to take the CFL out, explain why the NFL would put the CFL ON THEIR NETWORK??

The Owners would not even think about getting rid of revenue sharing because of the simple fact that they don't want the mess that is Major League Baseball!! One of the great things about the NFL is any team, with a few breaks and a little luck, could end up playing on Super Bowl Sunday. You think Royals Fan have dreams of a World Championship heading into spring training right now??

If Montreal and Toronto or Canada for that fact was so attractive for an NFL franchise, why did they choose Jacksonville, Florida and Charlotte, North Carolina as their last two expansion cities??

Lastly, I highly doubt that Minnesota would return outdoors because the weather would affect top Free Agents' decision to come there. These guys already complain about playing in inclement weather (which is so damn ridiculous its laughable) IT'S FOOTBALL!!!! The Grey Cup in Edmonton was played in 4 degree weather this past November??...

Minnesota already lost the Lakers, could possibly lose the Vikings, to Los Angeles. They lost the North Stars to of all places, Dallas. They couldn't afford to lose the Twins and I think they will come through and retain the Vikings, even if they build the stadium (which they should) on the current Metrodome site. I would love to see the Vikes play outdoors again.. stay tuned..

ben
voodoo

Montreal is one of the biggest party cities in North America. Easily the best in Canada. Strangely, I have much more fun when it's freezing outside than during the Summer.... Dallas is just a really boring city where everything is closed past 5pm in the CBD. Montreal is nothing like that. Bars close at 3. We have beautiful women and a lot of strip clubs. So much that hockey players call it "Sin City" when they come play here.

Nevermind.. i mean you still don't get it. Who will wanna go to a place in the teens, especially if they are LIVING in a place with the same weather?? Why would someone from Florida, California, Arizona, Texas, whatever, want to go somewhere with extremely cold weather?? Especially for a week to 10 days??
You're only gonna be in a stadium for 3 hours 4 tops..

I don't think the Bills are ever going to Toronto full time. Keep in mind that after Ralph Wilson dies and the team goes up for sale, a lot more cities than just Toronto will be trying to get the team. Also, getting the Bills into Toronto will be a $2.5 BILLION investment ($1 billion for the team and another $1.5 billion for an NFL caliber stadium) and the NFL is just not that hot in Toronto. It may be TV viewership hot, but it is not "show up at the game" hot. The Bills in Toronto series has been a total bust and a major money loser for Rogers Communications. None of the games sold out and most tickets were sold way below face value. For a comparison, Carolina sold out every exhibition game and the fans bought 62,000 psl's to help finance the stadium. Carolina is a much bigger NFL market than Toronto will ever be, and that is why they got the expansion franchise.

Who is going to invest $2.5 BILLION in a team that is going to have lackluster fan support and always play second fiddle to the Leafs. Montreal is much more of a football town, but I think even they would have a problem drawing 65-70,000 week in and week out at NFL prices. Plus, the Canadian government is not going to build a free stadium for any NFL team. Any new stadium will have to be privately financed without PSLs. No CFL team has even remotely tried selling PSL's to finance new stadiums because of fan resistance. PSL's are not going to fly north of the border. Personally I think the Bills are headed to LA or San Antonio/Austin.

You just described Dallas except for the CBD thing. You don't go out in the CBD in Dallas. You go Uptown.

CBD or Uptown is similar. Texas is similar to most of the Bible belt cities + Midwest.... no fun cities. No nightlife whatsoever. Suburbia.

Unlike coastal cities (Miami, New Orleans, LA, San Diego, San Francisco, NYC)

I don't think the Bills are ever going to Toronto full time. Keep in mind that after Ralph Wilson dies and the team goes up for sale, a lot more cities than just Toronto will be trying to get the team. Also, getting the Bills into Toronto will be a $2.5 BILLION investment ($1 billion for the team and another $1.5 billion for an NFL caliber stadium) and the NFL is just not that hot in Toronto. It may be TV viewership hot, but it is not "show up at the game" hot. The Bills in Toronto series has been a total bust and a major money loser for Rogers Communications. None of the games sold out and most tickets were sold way below face value. For a comparison, Carolina sold out every exhibition game and the fans bought 62,000 psl's to help finance the stadium. Carolina is a much bigger NFL market than Toronto will ever be, and that is why they got the expansion franchise.

Who is going to invest $2.5 BILLION in a team that is going to have lackluster fan support and always play second fiddle to the Leafs. Montreal is much more of a football town, but I think even they would have a problem drawing 65-70,000 week in and week out at NFL prices. Plus, the Canadian government is not going to build a free stadium for any NFL team. Any new stadium will have to be privately financed without PSLs. No CFL team has even remotely tried selling PSL's to finance new stadiums because of fan resistance. PSL's are not going to fly north of the border. Personally I think the Bills are headed to LA or San Antonio/Austin.

1 - Toronto is a GODAWFUL sports cities. No offense, but nothing except the Leafs works well down there.

2 - The Canadiens' ticket prices are more expensive than a lot of NFL teams' prices (Bills, Raiders, Jaguars, etc.). And they have 41 home games, and they have no trouble at all selling them out. There is so much demand that the prices on the secondary markets are not very affordable.

3 - Quebec City, as I said previously, will build a state-of-the-art C$400m 18,000 seater, financed by the city government, the provincial government and Quebecor Inc. (which will actually own the arena, operate it and likely own the team as well). Quebecor will invest tens of millions into the project, though much of the money will come from taxpayers. The Federal government is also expected to provide tens of millions as well (to gain voter support in the region).

4 - Montreal, while a smaller market, has a much better chance of actually selling out a 65,000-70,000 stadium "at NFL prices" than Toronto. However, I wouldn't blame Toronto for the failure of the Bills in Toronto series... The Bills are GODAWFUL and I sure as hell wouldn't pay hundreds of dollars to see a bad team playing against an equally bad opponents (matchups haven't been stellar in Toronto, have they?).

1 - Toronto is a GODAWFUL sports cities. No offense, but nothing except the Leafs works well down there.

2 - The Canadiens' ticket prices are more expensive than a lot of NFL teams' prices (Bills, Raiders, Jaguars, etc.). And they have 41 home games, and they have no trouble at all selling them out. There is so much demand that the prices on the secondary markets are not very affordable.

3 - Quebec City, as I said previously, will build a state-of-the-art C$400m 18,000 seater, financed by the city government, the provincial government and Quebecor Inc. (which will actually own the arena, operate it and likely own the team as well). Quebecor will invest tens of millions into the project, though much of the money will come from taxpayers. The Federal government is also expected to provide tens of millions as well (to gain voter support in the region).

4 - Montreal, while a smaller market, has a much better chance of actually selling out a 65,000-70,000 stadium "at NFL prices" than Toronto. However, I wouldn't blame Toronto for the failure of the Bills in Toronto series... The Bills are GODAWFUL and I sure as hell wouldn't pay hundreds of dollars to see a bad team playing against an equally bad opponents (matchups haven't been stellar in Toronto, have they?).

I agree that Montreal is a better city for the NFL than Toronto and I live in Toronto. However filling a 20,000 seat arena for hockey is not the same thing as filling 70,000 seats for NFL football week in and week out. No sell out = a blackout in the NFL. Also, no PM/Premier is going to push funding for an NFL stadium and thus kill the CFL. It all about votes remember. Paying for a NHL arena is one thing. Paying for something that will kill our home league is another. And last... outside of Jacksonville and Detroit, most NFL cities sellout their stadiums even when they have a bad team and are playing another bad team. If Montreal is going to wait until their team is successful before they pay hundreds of dollars each game to support them, they are not NFL ready. Most NFL teams sell out even when the team is losing (kind of like the Leafs). Kansas City draws 78,000 a game even when they go 4-12. Montreal is a great city, but it is not NFL ready.

Why would the NFL put the Super Bowl in Canada anyway? Remember the outcry when they were thinking about putting one in London, England. Think the NFL want LA more than Canada and would not want to move the bills because of the history of the team.

CBD or Uptown is similar. Texas is similar to most of the Bible belt cities + Midwest.... no fun cities. No nightlife whatsoever. Suburbia.

Unlike coastal cities (Miami, New Orleans, LA, San Diego, San Francisco, NYC)Your post is a completely off topic tangent but I would like to point out that your stereotype of the Midwest is not very accurate. Chicago has great nightlife. Minneapolis has better nightlife than a lot of cities on the coasts, it would probably be #3 on the west coast after LA and SF and is as good as Boston or Philladelphia. This is a Minneapolis thread, so you should expect someone from Minneapolis to rebut that; we have one of the best underground music scenes in the US, nightlife comes with that. Milwaukee also has good nightlife. Not all of the midwest is like it is portrayed in Hollywood.

Anyway here is something on topic:

Mondale laments stadium glut
The head of the sports facilities commission wants a broader approach to overseeing all the stadiums.

By Mike Kaszuba, Star Tribune

Last update: February 9, 2011 - 11:19 PM

Gov. Mark Dayton's point man for shepherding a new Minnesota Vikings stadium wants to create an umbrella agency that would have jurisdiction over all professional sports arenas in the Twin Cities.

As a draft copy of legislation for a Vikings stadium is about to be circulated at the State Capitol, Ted Mondale, the new chair of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, said the Twin Cities area has built too many duplicative stadiums, all controlled by separate governing agencies.

"Everyone's thinking that if a bill goes through this year, that we definitely got to look at that," Mondale said.

As for the Vikings' current home, Mondale's sports commission will vote Thursday on a plan to restore the Metrodome's storm-damaged roof. It would cost up to $18 million to install a new roof.

Once that issue is resolved and the push for a new Vikings stadium takes center stage, a new commission with broader authority could have far-reaching implications: It could serve as a taxing authority and assume the debt of existing facilities -- such as Xcel Energy Center -- in exchange for governing them.

Just as importantly, it could end the city-vs.-city competition to build sports arenas in the Twin Cities metro area that led to Target Center in Minneapolis and Xcel Center in St. Paul. Such an agency, he said, could revolutionize the way stadiums and local arenas are built and financed.

In his most expansive comments since being appointed by the governor, Mondale said that too often in the past professional teams wanting stadiums have driven the debate, leading to inefficiencies and likely higher public costs.

"I think there's a pretty broad consensus that we, as a region, have not done well," he said.

The individual requests are piling up: St. Paul wants help retiring the Xcel Center's debt; the St. Paul Saints want money for a new ballpark; Target Center has asked for a $150 million face-lift and the Vikings want a new home that would cost at least $700 million.

"Would it be complicated? Yeah. Anything you do, it's always complicated," said Bill Huepenbecker, senior director of planning and public affairs for the St. Paul Arena Co., a subsidiary of the Minnesota Wild hockey team, which plays at the Xcel Center. "[But] if they're looking at a global solution, we want to be part of that discussion."

An array of public officials view the proposal with caution and skepticism, but some are already firmly on board.

"I think that's a good idea," said Minneapolis City Council President Barb Johnson. The city is struggling with a costly renovation plan for the aging and dowdy Target Center, which it owns. "You get to the point that these facilities compete against each other."

Hennepin County Board chair Mike Opat, who was instrumental in assembling a public subsidy package for Target Field, new home of the Minnesota Twins, was noncommittal. "Anything's theoretically possible," Opat said. "[If they] come up with something with some detail, at that point, we'll react."

The proposal is also gaining leverage as the Vikings seek -- unsuccessfully so far -- to find a local government partner that could provide a public subsidy revenue stream. Mondale said it is too early to decide whether a broader umbrella agency would have taxing authority or could assume the public debt of existing facilities, but the idea is being seen as a possible assist for the Vikings stadium.

"It is an important issue," said Lester Bagley, the Vikings' vice president for public affairs and stadium development, referring to a governing authority.

Target Field is run by the Minnesota Ballpark Authority, which was created in 2006 by the same bill that authorized the ballpark. The authority is a five-member board appointed by the governor, Hennepin County and Minneapolis. The county has two seats on the board and levies a county-wide sales tax that provides the bulk of the financing.

Last year's Vikings stadium plan, which was defeated in a House committee, would have created a separate, 13-member Minnesota Stadium Authority that could have raised taxes for the project. That authority would have replaced the sports facilities commission, which owns the Metrodome.

Ted Johnson, a senior vice president with the Minnesota Timberwolves, said a broader stadium agency would benefit the public. "The state Legislature over 18 years has faced a stadium or arena issue [every year], and could face it for another 20 years," he said, as existing stadiums need remodeling.

"I don't think that's so much [of] a leap," he said.

The proposal could prove hard to resist for cash-strapped local governments. Minneapolis still owes $57.5 million on Target Center. Two years ago, St. Paul tried to get the state to forgive its $48 million loan on the Xcel Center but failed.

David Olson, president of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, said Mondale recently expressed his frustrations with the existing situation.

"You got the Saints coming, you got the Timberwolves lining up," Olson said. "I'm sure [Mondale's] just thinking, you know -- man."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/115690934.html?page=1&c=y

Anyway my guess is that nothing happens. The Vikings don't get a new stadium in the short run and they don't go anywhere.

Some of you are thinking like the recession we just went through never happened. States are facing huge budget deficits. In Minnesota there is no way a stadium is getting built with public money when we are cutting education, health care for the poor, infrastructure, etc. Try justifying a stadium to the electorate right now - it is impossible to do. If the Vikings threaten to move who is going to build them a stadium? What state is in any kind of fiscal shape to do that - California? Nevada? Not going to happen. Anyway I doubt the NFL wants the Vikings to move, it screws up their rivalries and marketing narritive for the NFC North; and any open city besides LA or TO would be a smaller market than MSP. I don't doubt that they want to be in those cities but I don't think the Vikings are the team they want to move.

Anyway my guess is that nothing happens. The Vikings don't get a new stadium in the short run and they don't go anywhere.

Some of you are thinking like the recession we just went through never happened. States are facing huge budget deficits. In Minnesota there is no way a stadium is getting built with public money when we are cutting education, health care for the poor, infrastructure, etc. Try justifying a stadium to the electorate right now - it is impossible to do. If the Vikings threaten to move who is going to build them a stadium? What state is in any kind of fiscal shape to do that - California? Nevada? Not going to happen. Anyway I doubt the NFL wants the Vikings to move, it screws up their rivalries and marketing narritive for the NFC North; and any open city besides LA or TO would be a smaller market than MSP. I don't doubt that they want to be in those cities but I don't think the Vikings are the team they want to move.

Dude, where have you been? L.A. already has a stadium picked out, the money, the location and they already have a 30 yr deal to call it "Farmers Field". They just need a team. And its probable going to come down to 3 teams. San Diego, the Vikings or Jacksonville. Back click out of the thread and go up 2 spots to the L.A. Stadium thread.

Dude, where have you been? L.A. already has a stadium picked out, the money, the location and they already have a 30 yr deal to call it "Farmers Field". They just need a team. And its probable going to come down to 3 teams. San Diego, the Vikings or Jacksonville. Back click out of the thread and go up 2 spots to the L.A. Stadium thread.

This thing? Maybe...

There remain a locker room full of “ifs,” however. A plan has not yet been submitted, for one, and hoped-for assistance from the L.A. City Council – an exemption from the state’s environmental quality act and a $350 million bond – might not materialize.

Not to mention the fact that the developer, sports and entertainment giant AEG, is pushing forward without any commitment from the National Football League that L.A. will ever get a pro football team.

Backers say these are problems that easily be overcome. Skeptics suggest it could make AEG's bid to bring pro football back to L.A. merely the latest in a long line of failures.

'Just a PR ploy'?
“I think this is just a PR ploy to keep this idea on the public radar,” says Rick Eckstein, author of “Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle over Building Sports Stadiums.”

He and others note that ideas for NFL teams and new stadiums pop up here regularly every two years or so and then fizzle out. "They make the announcement, journalists write about it, and the idea stays on the map to live a little longer,” says Mr. Eckstein, also a professor at Villanova University in Pennsylvania.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0202/Farmers-Field-L.A.-edges-closer-to-building-1-billion-football-stadium


Does LA have $350 million to spend on a stadium right now? I have no idea what it's budget situation looks like.

Dude, where have you been? L.A. already has a stadium picked out, the money, the location and they already have a 30 yr deal to call it "Farmers Field". They just need a team. And its probable going to come down to 3 teams. San Diego, the Vikings or Jacksonville. Back click out of the thread and go up 2 spots to the L.A. Stadium thread.

Jacksonville is locked up until 2030 so they are not part of the equation. I really don't see the other owners letting one of their poorer teams step in and scoop up the riches of LA. LA will be an expansion team and the fee will be well over a billion dollars (which gets divided up among the other owners). The Vikes or Chargers might end up in San Antonio-Austin, but the NFL is not going to just let them slide into LA. When it is all said and done, everyone will pretty much just stay where they are except for the Bills, which are probably headed to Texas.

Your post is a completely off topic tangent but I would like to point out that your stereotype of the Midwest is not very accurate. Chicago has great nightlife. Minneapolis has better nightlife than a lot of cities on the coasts, it would probably be #3 on the west coast after LA and SF and is as good as Boston or Philladelphia. This is a Minneapolis thread, so you should expect someone from Minneapolis to rebut that; we have one of the best underground music scenes in the US, nightlife comes with that. Milwaukee also has good nightlife. Not all of the midwest is like it is portrayed in Hollywood.

Very well stated. It's funny how people think that just because the weather turns cold, people stop enjoying themselves. Or that all the women talk like Frances McDormand did in Fargo.

Although work took me mainly into Bloomington, my colleagues had us out on several memorable nights through the Twin Cities great clubs and bars. As for the west coast, Seattle's night life is very good, too.

Jacksonville is locked up until 2030 so they are not part of the equation. I really don't see the other owners letting one of their poorer teams step in and scoop up the riches of LA. LA will be an expansion team and the fee will be well over a billion dollars (which gets divided up among the other owners). The Vikes or Chargers might end up in San Antonio-Austin, but the NFL is not going to just let them slide into LA. When it is all said and done, everyone will pretty much just stay where they are except for the Bills, which are probably headed to Texas.

The NFL has no power to stop a team from moving. Al Davis killed that when he took the NFL to the court about moving to LA and won.

The NFL has no power to stop a team from moving. Al Davis killed that when he took the NFL to the court about moving to LA and won.

...and after going through all that, where are the Raiders now???:lol::lol::lol:

The NFL has no power to stop a team from moving. Al Davis killed that when he took the NFL to the court about moving to LA and won.

Al Davis was never a team player and that was back in 1982. The NFL is a different league now and nobody is moving anywhere without Goodell's or the leagues approval. Back in 1982 you could buy an NFL team for $100 million or less. Now it is a multi-billion dollar business and LA is the prime jewel. Just like Houston, it will be expansion, not re-location.

Al Davis was never a team player and that was back in 1982. The NFL is a different league now and nobody is moving anywhere without Goodell's or the leagues approval. Back in 1982 you could buy an NFL team for $100 million or less. Now it is a multi-billion dollar business and LA is the prime jewel. Just like Houston, it will be expansion, not re-location.

Al Davis won in court. That is president. That is why since then numerous teams have moved since then with absolutely no resistance from the NFL because they couldn't stop them from moving even if the NFL wanted to. That and the NFL owners have pretty much said that expansion isn't in the cards anymore because of the ease of scheduling a 32 team league.

Al Davis won in court. That is president. That is why since then numerous teams have moved since then with absolutely no resistance from the NFL because they couldn't stop them from moving even if the NFL wanted to. That and the NFL owners have pretty much said that expansion isn't in the cards anymore because of the ease of scheduling a 32 team league.

From The Sun Sentinel November 2010: "Although he wouldn’t talk about his team’s front office or rath of injuries, Miami Dolphins owner Steve Ross was pretty chatty about a variety of topics Tuesday, when he was the featured interview speaker at the SportsBusiness Journal’s Sports Media & Technology conference in New York.
On expansion: Ross said he believe there needs to be a team in Los Angeles, and perhaps two to make the economics a stadium there work".

Al Davis won in court. That is president. That is why since then numerous teams have moved since then with absolutely no resistance from the NFL because they couldn't stop them from moving even if the NFL wanted to. That and the NFL owners have pretty much said that expansion isn't in the cards anymore because of the ease of scheduling a 32 team league.

The difference is any stadium in LA needs Super Bowl guarantees to make it financially viable and the NFL can say that if a team they don't want to move to LA moves to LA then LA doesn't get Super Bowls. Legally they cannot stop a team from moving, but all they have to do is withhold Super Bowls so yes, the NFL can stop any team it doesn't want to move to LA from moving there.

Mark my words:

Chargers move to San Antonio, TX.
Raiders move back to Los Angeles, CA.
Vikings move to Toronto, Canada.
Bills move to Montreal, Quebec.

There's no way the Vikings will continue to play in that dump that is the Metrodome. Same for the Chargers in Qualcomm. The Raiders have 2 options; either play in that dump they play in or move to the 49ers' stadium, but they will be selling out by doing so.

Once Ralph Wilson dies or transfers ownership, there's no way the Bills will stay in Buffalo when there is a far more lucrative market 90 minutes North of Buffalo (or let's say there's already a team in Toronto, then Montreal would be a good option (over 5 million people in a 100-mile radium)).

No way that an NFL team moves to the pretty small Skydome and to the horrendous Olympic Stadium.

No way that Canada builds a new stadium for an NFL team.

The Alamo Dome is not old but it's not desirable for a NFL team.

LA is the only threat as of now

Mark my words:

Chargers move to San Antonio, TX.
Raiders move back to Los Angeles, CA.
Vikings move to Toronto, Canada.
Bills move to Montreal, Quebec.

There's no way the Vikings will continue to play in that dump that is the Metrodome. Same for the Chargers in Qualcomm. The Raiders have 2 options; either play in that dump they play in or move to the 49ers' stadium, but they will be selling out by doing so.

Once Ralph Wilson dies or transfers ownership, there's no way the Bills will stay in Buffalo when there is a far more lucrative market 90 minutes North of Buffalo (or let's say there's already a team in Toronto, then Montreal would be a good option (over 5 million people in a 100-mile radium)).

You can always count on a canadian for a good laugh.

No way that an NFL team moves to the pretty small Skydome and to the horrendous Olympic Stadium.

No way that Canada builds a new stadium for an NFL team.

The Alamo Dome is not old but it's not desirable for a NFL team.

LA is the only threat as of now
Skydome has lots of VIP boxes, but yeah, it'd be the smallest NFL stadium, by far.

The Alamodome could use about a $150-200 million remodel.

Yeah the Alamodome would need a serious remodel, try to find space for 100 more suites, a bigger press box and redone club seats without reducing the seating capacity while working in a retractable roof. Cause thats what an owner will demand. Sounds like more than $200 million to me, at least $300, a retractable roof on its own would run $125-175 million assuming it could be retrofitted on to the existing structure in a simple and elegant manner.


And getting back to the topic at hand, some Ramsey County (St Paul and surrounding suburbs) lawmakers have started privately talking about a half cent sales tax increase that would cover around $300 million for a new Vikings stadium in Arden Hills (north of St Paul in the Metro area), so things are quietly starting to develop, even if that would need voter approval and there would still likely need to be some state contribution, unless the NFL is looking to toss in some cash.

Mark my words:

Chargers move to San Antonio, TX.
Raiders move back to Los Angeles, CA.
Vikings move to Toronto, Canada.
Bills move to Montreal, Quebec.

There's no way the Vikings will continue to play in that dump that is the Metrodome. Same for the Chargers in Qualcomm. The Raiders have 2 options; either play in that dump they play in or move to the 49ers' stadium, but they will be selling out by doing so.

Once Ralph Wilson dies or transfers ownership, there's no way the Bills will stay in Buffalo when there is a far more lucrative market 90 minutes North of Buffalo (or let's say there's already a team in Toronto, then Montreal would be a good option (over 5 million people in a 100-mile radium)).

STOP...JUST STOP with the nonsense..
Now Mark THOSE WORDS!!!

ben
voodoo

You can always count on a canadian for a good laugh.

Didn't we tell another psychic on this board the NFL is not gonna ALLOW a move into a 20 year old stadium with poor sitelines (The Skydome Rodgers Centre in TORONTO)????

STOP...JUST STOP with the nonsense..
Now Mark THOSE WORDS!!!

ben
voodoo

Think the NFL will put a team in London, England before it puts one in Canada :cheers:

Think the NFL will put a team in London, England before it puts one in Canada :cheers:

I think the NFL will put a team in LA, San Antonio, a 2nd team in Green bay, etc before we see an international team

I think the NFL will put a team in LA, San Antonio, a 2nd team in Green bay, etc before we see an international team

LOL LA maybe BUT SA and another in Green Bay LOL

Think the NFL will put a team in London, England before it puts one in Canada :cheers:

Yes!!!

And getting back to the topic at hand, some Ramsey County (St Paul and surrounding suburbs) lawmakers have started privately talking about a half cent sales tax increase that would cover around $300 million for a new Vikings stadium in Arden Hills (north of St Paul in the Metro area), so things are quietly starting to develop, even if that would need voter approval and there would still likely need to be some state contribution, unless the NFL is looking to toss in some cash.

That's great news! Are they planning to build the same type of stadium that has been depicted in the early renderings?

No one outside of the Vikings and HKS have any idea what is in store. Based on what Zygi has said about Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy I would guess the seating bowl will have some similarities. It will be interesting to see if Ramsey County residents are willing to pony up the $300-400 million that some legislators are supporting. It could get Minneapolis and Hennipen County riled up enough to put forth a counter proposal, but that has yet to be seen. I know that R.T. Rybak (the mayor of Minneapolis) is trying to talk everyone into keeping with the Metrodome site, but Minneapolis isn't in a good spot financially to be throwing around that sort of money.

That's great news! Are they planning to build the same type of stadium that has been depicted in the early renderings?

Don't get too excited yet.

Bennett said a stadium project could cost more than $1 billion, including some $150 million in improvements to the highways that would feed the 450-acre parcel, as well as $15 million to $18 million to clean up pollution on the land.

Also, Republicans in the area (of which there are many) are going to put this thing on the ballot, in which case it will probably fail:

Led by state Rep. Alice Hausman, a St. Paul Democrat, 11 members of the county's state legislative delegation signed a letter to commissioners calling the idea "foolhardy." Legislative approval undoubtedly will be necessary to help pay for any new stadium. Meanwhile, the head of the St. Paul Republican Party demanded any stadium plan be put to a voter referendum.


Ramsey County OKs bid for Vikings, but legislative opposition surfaces (http://www.twincities.com/ci_17397345)

This is still very preliminary, and the economy is still in a bad way to say the least. But this is a positive start if nothing more. And it does seem likely to get some response out of Minneapolis and Hennipen county, where it will likely be cheaper given very little need for infrastructure changes

It seems highly unlikely that voters in St. Paul will agree to increase their sales tax by 0.5 cent on the dollar (a sizable sales-tax increase) to build a stadium in Arden Hills.

Unless they can skirt the vote, like Hennippen did with Target Field.

Unless they can skirt the vote, like Hennippen did with Target Field.

True, but Target Field was paid for with a 0.15% increase in the sales tax, a far cry from the 0.5% sales tax that would be needed in smaller Ramsey County to finance the Vikings venue.

Unless they can skirt the vote, like Hennippen did with Target Field.

The public got duped once, opponents are not going to let it happen again.

A New Stadium Ain''t happening anytime soon.

Politics.
The cost to compete in the modern arena for a state of the art stadiums is
$500 million to 1.4 Billion easily.

Threaten to move.
However fans would not tolerate a move of the VIKINGS.
Nor would the NFL. Too much history in the franchise. It would be awful.

I see the team the team playing in that stadium another 7 years easy.

Threaten to move.
However fans would not tolerate a move of the VIKINGS.
Nor would the NFL. Too much history in the franchise. It would be awful.


The Cleveland Browns were allowed to move after 50 seasons in Cleveland.

The Cleveland Browns were allowed to move after 50 seasons in Cleveland.
That was a special case. It was actually a mediated settlement, to prevent the court battle to end all court battles. The team was allowed to move, but left the name and records behind. Cleveland was guaranteed an expansion team as soon as the new stadium was ready. Minnesota can never claim (as the Browns did) that the stadium is older than the team, and that the city refuses to rebuild or replace it with something less that 60 years old. All of which were points raised by the old Browns. The NFL likes having a 32 team league, and is not willing to dangle an expansion team to settle a case again.

That was a special case. It was actually a mediated settlement, to prevent the court battle to end all court battles. The team was allowed to move, but left the name and records behind. Cleveland was guaranteed an expansion team as soon as the new stadium was ready. Minnesota can never claim (as the Browns did) that the stadium is older than the team, and that the city refuses to rebuild or replace it with something less that 60 years old. All of which were points raised by the old Browns. The NFL likes having a 32 team league, and is not willing to dangle an expansion team to settle a case again.

The only reason Cleveland got an expansion team is because they ponied up public money for a new stadium.

If Minnesota doesn't offer public money, the league will not prevent the Vikings from leaving.

But, having said that, the Vikings have nowhere to go at the present time. Both L.A. options are severely problematic.

I hope the Vikings don't leave, but I can't see a stadium deal getting done any time soon. Why is renovating the Metrodome (including a new roof) not an option?

I hope the Vikings don't leave, but I can't see a stadium deal getting done any time soon. Why is renovating the Metrodome (including a new roof) not an option?
It is. It's just not appealing to this group. The LA folk want a team in either or both of their new projects, and since the NFL is unlikely to expand anytime soon, the Vikings are one of the teams bandied about. And some people here are in favor of anything new and exciting, and the Metrodome doesn't qualify there.

From today's Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Vikings stadium opponents hold fire for now
Once a bill is introduced at the Capitol, the game is on.

By KEVIN DUCHSCHERE, Star Tribune

Last update: March 21, 2011 - 1:38 AM

Stadium fatigue. Target Field's allure. A sense of inevitability that giant sports stadiums are always built in the end. So why try to fight it?

All these factors have conspired to mute vocal opposition so far to the Minnesota Vikings' push for a publicly subsidized stadium.

With a stadium bill anticipated this week, though, Chris David expects that to change quickly.

"It's hard to get people into the cause when there isn't an official piece of legislation out there," he said. "Then we'll be able to get after it."

NoVikingsTax.com, David's website, is part of the latest effort to turn back a stadium tide that has ebbed and flowed since the mid-1990s, when the Twins and Vikings first got restless in the Metrodome and began looking for new digs.

It's a lopsided match. On one side are the Vikings -- media magnets with money, backed by power brokers from the political and business worlds, not to mention the NFL.

On the other side are the likes of this foursome:

•David, an unemployed caretaker and customer service worker from northeast Minneapolis who's using his own money to pay for and host the anti-stadium website.

•Dr. Laura Lehmann, a soft-spoken Edina physician who volunteers to help the uninsured at a Minneapolis clinic.

•Dave Bicking, an auto mechanic and former Minneapolis City Council candidate.

•Will Shapira, a retired Roseville news and public relations man who shoots weekly e-mails on "stadium extortion" to politicians and journalists.

In years past, the liberal group Progressive Minnesota led the charge against publicly funded stadiums. But its successor organization, TakeAction Minnesota, is "staying out of this one," said Greta Bergstrom, TakeAction's communications director. "We just have a lot of things we're engaged on -- health care, GAMC (medical assistance), photo ID legislation."

That leaves things in the hands of people like David, who unveiled his website in late December. He has held a series of small meetings at private homes.

"The core group comes from various political perspectives, from right-wingers to the Green Party," he said.

On their side are polls showing broad opposition among Minnesotans to stadiums built with tax dollars.

Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, ranking member on the House Taxes Committee, said stadium opposition in the Legislature -- including Democrats and Republicans -- will emerge as soon as a bill is introduced.

"I expect we'll begin working together" to defeat a stadium plan, she said. "The preponderance of the subsidy accrues to the owner of the team. ... There's value in the quality-of-life argument [for a stadium], but the economic argument fails completely."

Estimates suggest a new stadium would cost $700 million to $900 million, depending on whether it has a roof. Under the three-legged funding model, the Vikings would pay one third of the cost of a roofless stadium. The rest would come from the state and a local government partner.

According to the Star Tribune's Minnesota Poll, opposition to public funding for a Vikings stadium has hardened over the years. When the question was asked in January 2004, 65 percent of poll respondents said they were against it; last fall, it was 75 percent.

That last poll also showed that the success of Target Field, built with a Hennepin County sales tax, had changed some minds about publicly financed stadiums. While 29 percent approved of a public subsidy in 2006 for Target Field before construction began, 48 percent last fall said they approved of it.

A feeling that the fix is in

Bicking, an outspoken critic of the Target Field deal, said the ballpark's popularity is mainly a media creation.

"If you only talk to the people who go there and whose tickets are being heavily subsidized by Hennepin County taxpayers, of course you're going to think that's a success," he said.

A bigger problem for those who oppose subsidized stadiums, Bicking said, is feeling that the fix is in and that opposition is fruitless.

Still, speaking out can "change the terms of the debate, change the compromises or negotiations that eventually happen,'' he said. "If we wind up with something not quite as bad, it's still worth the work."

Lehmann, an organizer for Citizens for a Stadium Tax Referendum during the Twins ballpark debate, admitted the process has made her cynical. "The people with the power and the money and the connections are going to be the ones who rule the day," she said.

She added: "It will not keep me from going to the Capitol and saying what I have to say."

Since 1997, bills have been before the Legislature practically every year seeking public money for a pro sports facility.

"There's never going to be an end to this," Bicking said. "We are constantly going to be discussing stadiums and refurbished stadiums as long as there is money the owners think they can get from us. Why would they stop?"

Opponents prefer renovating the debt-free Metrodome (the new roof bought with insurance money guarantees another 20 years there, they say).

Another idea making the rounds: selling TCF Bank Stadium to the Vikings to rent back to the University of Minnesota and expand as needed.

The Vikings reject the first idea as a non-starter. The second appeals to neither the Vikings nor the U.

No matter, said Shapira, who constantly hammers team owner Zygi Wilf to reveal his net worth (it's $310 million, according to the current issue of Sports Illustrated).

"Let him get rich off of his own stadium," snapped Shapira. "I don't want to have to pay for his stadium."

Until a bill emerges, David said, opponents are identifying where legislators stand and are targeting those on the bubble for constituent phone calls. If and when the time comes to testify at the Capitol, he'll be there.

"We've already given them two stadiums, the Met Stadium and the Dome," David said. "I don't want the Vikings necessarily to leave. But if it means we have to make corporate welfare donations to them every year, then they have to leave."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/118340754.html

Strange. AFAIK the tone around here was the new Vikings stadium was dead. And these guys are talking like it's a done deal.

Strange. AFAIK the tone around here was the new Vikings stadium was dead. And these guys are talking like it's a done deal.

It's far from dead. Lockout or no lockout, Zygi and supporters are going to push hard for a new stadium deal. The devil is in the details though. It's time to lock down a site once and for all, a final design, the specific financial plan, everything.

It's far from dead. Lockout or no lockout, Zygi and supporters are going to push hard for a new stadium deal. The devil is in the details though. It's time to lock down a site once and for all, a final design, the specific financial plan, everything.
And hope that the money magically appears, despite a rather pissed off electorate?

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/119034939.html

Legislators' letter details plan for roofed Vikings stadium

A letter outlined plans for a roof and funding details to be introduced next week. The team called it a good start.

By MIKE KASZUBA, Star Tribune
Apr 1, 2011

"...would be built with up to $300 million in state money raised from an assortment of new fees and taxes, under a plan that will be introduced at the Legislature next week."

"...says the state's share of the project -- at least $30 million a year -- would come from a variety of fees, including a sports memorabilia tax, stadium naming rights, a lottery game and a pro football player income tax surcharge."

"Local governments could submit bids to host the new stadium and would be permitted to levy a half-cent sales tax to cover their costs in providing a stadium site."

"...Hennepin County would be permitted to use excess public subsidies from Target Field, the year-old home of the Minnesota Twins, and Minneapolis would have the option of diverting excess public subsidies from the city's convention center. Officials for both the city and county however have expressed a continuing reluctance to use those funds..."

"The Vikings welcomed the bill as a good start... the team is concerned about financing provisions that include the creation of a NFL player income-tax surcharge and a sales tax on luxury boxes, as well as a proposal to turn over stadium naming-rights revenues to the state -- as opposed to the team."

"...The team, according to the plan, would be required to pay $1 for every $2 paid by state and local governments."

Given the deep spending cuts that have just been proposed in the legislature it will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Republican majority wants to mothball parks, and allow timber harvesting in them, slash aid to central cities, cut spending on education, infrastructure, and health care; they want to raid the metro area transit tax fund and use all sorts of smoke and mirrors accounting to balance the budget because they wont raise taxes. Yet when it comes time for the stadium they have no problem with new taxes to pay for it. I don't see how this is going to fly considering that everything else in the state budget seems to be going into extreme austerity.

But does sound exactly like the GOP, especially around here; Gut Minneapolis, St Paul & Duluth, push as much development as possible to the suburbs and generally gut education on the state level, and throw in some fun big money bit for fun, Because the how Minnesota will look in 10 or 20 years really doesn't matter as long as acting politicians can cut taxes to keep themselves in office for another term.

Vikings stadium options dwindle (http://www.startribune.com/local/west/121351714.html)

"Hennepin County took itself out of the running on Thursday as a potential funding partner for a new Vikings stadium, a decision that appears to narrow the list of possible locations to Minneapolis' Metrodome and the former munitions plant site in Arden Hills."

* Essentially this means the proposed site near the Farmer's Market and Target Field is off the table. Looks like it down to the Metrodome site or Arden Hills.

As for the Arden Hills site...

Minnesota Vikings 'very, very close' to Arden Hills stadium deal (http://www.twincities.com/ci_18003590)

"The Minnesota Vikings are "very, very close" to reaching an agreement with Ramsey County to build a new stadium in Arden Hills, a Ramsey County commissioner involved in negotiations told the Pioneer Press on Thursday."

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site569/2011/0505/20110505_081934_110506VikingsDealTCAAP.jpg

The agreement is one thing. The funding is another altogether.

While I certainly don't want to see another stadium overly funded by taxpayers, Vikings fans and Minn. in general deserve to keep the team. It's for the best for the NFL to keep these core fan groups involved, and especially to keep the "Black and Blue" division together. Modern fans forget how storied this team is, even without a glorious Super Bowl history.

Are the Vikings owners not that wealthy?

The Patriots had their stadium built with zero public funds (the state kicked in for some surrounding infrastructure improvements that were needed anyways) why can't the Vikings do the same?

^^My thoughts exactly.

Maybe their owner isn't as loaded as Jerry Jones?:shifty:

Are the Vikings owners not that wealthy?

The Patriots had their stadium built with zero public funds (the state kicked in for some surrounding infrastructure improvements that were needed anyways) why can't the Vikings do the same?

Zygi Wilf is apparently not the billionaire some believe him to be. Sports Illustrated's March 14th issue revealed the net worth of all the owners. Zygi's was reported at "only" $310 million. His net worth is largely tied up in strip mall-like real estate. Which has likely nosed dive in this recession.

But even for every owner like the Patriots, there are the Paul Allen's. Allen's worth is $13.5 billion and the majority of the Seahawk stadium was paid for with public money. On a public referendum that just barely passed.

What stinks is the legislature is not going to force a public vote on any public tax increases. I want a new stadium for the Vikings, but passing tax hikes on the public without their say is flat out un-American.

Are the Vikings owners not that wealthy?

The Patriots had their stadium built with zero public funds (the state kicked in for some surrounding infrastructure improvements that were needed anyways) why can't the Vikings do the same?

Millionaires and billionaires didn't that way by writing a lot of checks, Zygi may not be the richest owner, but its an ownership group in which he is the majority owner. If they really wanted to build a stadium through largely private funds they could, that just would not be nearly as profitable from their standpoint.

Latest rendering of the Metrodome site proposal:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/hold/67e99229.jpg
http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/1stadium051011.jpg

New Vikings Downtown Stadium Plan Unveiled
(http://goo.gl/0zRlp)

http://i51.tinypic.com/2a8lz40.jpg

^^So this proposed stadium will be built on the current Metrodome site or in Arden Hills?

The article mentions Arden Hills.

^^ Arden Hills.

Amazing looking stadium. To bad its now in downtown Minneapolis or St.Paul but 10 miles isn't that far out. Plus having a stadium on the outskirts for foortball has its advantages as well.

Surely this stadium will get a Super Bowl or two. :)

^^ As of now, Arden Hills is the site, but there are three parties who have to agree and currently only the Vikings are officially on board. The State of Minnesota has told the Vikings and Wilfs that the state's share will be no more than $300M, but until the money is approved by the end of thier legislative session (Midnight on May 22) I still do not believe it. The state still has a $5B budget deficit to address in the next 12 days too.

In addition, Ramsey County needs to approve a half cent sales tax increase as well.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/05/10/sports-fbn-vikings-stadium_8459512.html

^^So this proposed stadium will be built on the current Metrodome site or in Arden Hills?

The article mentions Arden Hills.

This image is of the competing proposal by the City of Minneapolis on the Metrodome site. There is no design yet for the Arden Hills site.

Vikings, Ramsey County announce agreement to build new stadium in Arden Hills
By Dave Orrick
dorrick@pioneerpress.com

Proclaiming "It's football season in Arden Hills," Ramsey County Commissioner Tony Bennett stood arm in arm with Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf on Tuesday to announce that the team and the county had reached a deal to build a $1 billion stadium complex in the northern suburb.

The vision that would give the team its new home for decades to come - and permanently transform the bedroom community - faces hurdles as backers now must persuade Gov. Mark Dayton and a majority of lawmakers to pay at least $300 million and sign off on a plan that raises a number of taxes to pay for it, as well as for improvements to nearby roads and highways.

Their lobbying efforts will come as the Legislature's attention is focused on closing a projected $5 billion hole in the state's two-year budget cycle, a dilemma that's forcing fierce debates on tax policy and cuts to human service programs, not pro sports.

Several of Ramsey County's own lawmakers, all Democrats, came out strongly against the plan Tuesday, while others said they supported it. Influential outstate Republican lawmakers, whose party holds the majority of the votes in the Legislature, also offered mixed reviews, ranging from outright opposition to open-mindedness.

The announcement of the Arden Hills deal also comes a day after Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak rolled out a $1 billion plan to build a mostly new stadium on the site of the Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis. The dueling plans are bound to prompt
countless debates over the advantages of a snug urban stadium with access to mass transit versus a sprawling suburban complex with acres of tailgating-friendly asphalt.

"I like 'em both," Dayton, a Democrat, said Tuesday after Wilf briefed him in a phone call. "They're both in Minnesota."

Wilf said keeping the team in Minnesota was always a priority for him. Wilf's announcement Tuesday made it clear: He likes the Arden Hills plan over the Minneapolis one.

The selection of Arden Hills as a site is the culmination of talks that began more than a year ago to convert the former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant - the largest undeveloped parcel in the county and the largest polluted Superfund site in the state - into a football mecca.

Wilf said as talks progressed, he gradually came to believe the place was "the ideal site" for his vision. "This is what our fans want," he said.

The news conference was staged with a theme of Vikings pride, with costume-clad fans arriving by bus and applauding as speakers like former coach Bud Grant, who took the microphone and boomed "Bring on Green Bay!"

Wilf recalled his own childhood memories of pro football outings and asked Vikings fans to remember the old Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington.

"We're going to go back to the old traditions of tailgating and an all-day NFL experience," he said.

Under his vision, the retractable-roof stadium would be located near U.S. 10 and Highway 96 on a high point of land - perhaps the highest in the county - that affords a view of the skylines of both Minneapolis and St. Paul. A team "hall of fame" and bars and restaurants would likely be sprinkled nearby, he said, but from the sky, the most visible aspect would clearly be its 21,000 parking spaces.

The retractable roof, Wilf said, was "very important" not just for pleasant fall days but also for his desire to bring a professional soccer team there, as well as high school and amateur sports year-round - attributes of the Metrodome that Dayton has said must be included in a new stadium.

The 21,000 parking spaces, flanked by grassy fields where families could "throw a ball," would be integral to tailgating, a point he repeatedly returned to. Tailgating is limited currently for Vikings games, and the team could stand to make hundreds of thousands, if not more than $1 million, per game by charging for the right to crack open beers and fire up a barbecue "before and after" a game. In all, Wilf said, the experience should be "as memorable as the whole game itself."

The stadium would be publicly owned and governed by a commission similar to the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission that owns the Metrodome. The Vikings would commit to a 30-year lease and pay construction cost overruns and 90 percent of the operating costs.

The stadium would take three years to build, during which time the team would continue to play at the Metrodome.

In all, some 430 acres of the 2,400-acre TCAAP site would be affected. The stadium complex would take up more than 200 acres, while the Vikings would retain development rights to the remainder, perhaps to build hotels and restaurants. Wilf also said he hoped the team could retain lucrative naming rights to the stadium.

Wilf, Bennett and Ramsey County Commissioner Rafael Ortega refused to say whether the team and the county had signed a written document. Instead, they released a number of key details of what they all described as "an agreement."

The 65,000-seat retractable-roof stadium would cost $884 million, a number, Wilf emphasized, that is strikingly close to the roughly $895 million price tag for the Metrodome to undergo a massive retrofitting as called for by Minneapolis' plan.

Parking and other on-site improvements would cost $173 million, bringing the total project cost - not including off-site roadwork - to $1.057 billion.

The funding, under the plan, would be split three ways:

l Ramsey County would pay $350 million, or roughly a third, by raising its countywide sales tax by 0.5 percentage points, or a half a penny for every dollar spent. Under legislation likely to be proposed, state law guaranteeing county residents a chance to vote on such a tax hike would be removed.

l The team would pay $407 million, or roughly 39 percent of the total project cost.

l The state would pay $300 million, or 28 percent of the total cost, via a series of sales taxes, including taxes on sports memorabilia and satellite TV, and a sports-themed lottery. The $300 million figure is significant because it's what Dayton and key lawmakers have said is the maximum the state should pay.

And there lies the most obvious obstacle: All the other road and highway improvements.

Ramsey County and the team are proposing the county borrow money to pay for between $80 million and $120 million in improvements they say are needed for the stadium. The state and the federal government would pay Ramsey County back. The state's share would amount to $7 million a year for 20 years, Bennett said.

Dayton said Tuesday morning he would consider such costs as counting against the state's $300 million share.

Potentially more troubling for the Arden Hills plan, however, is that Dayton released Minnesota Department of Transportation documents concluding that more road and highway improvements would be needed than the team and Ramsey County say. That price tag, according to the Transportation Commissioner Tom Sorel, should be $175 million to $240 million.

An hour before the Vikings news conference started Tuesday, Ted Mondale, Dayton's point man for the stadium and the chair of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, released a long-awaited cost comparison of the Minneapolis and Arden Hills sites. He included Sorel's transportation figures. He omitted $100 million from the Minneapolis plan that would go toward Target Center renovations.

Mondale's conclusion: "upfront funding" for the Arden Hills stadium would cost at least $319 million more than the Minneapolis site. In other words, the Arden Hills site is currently, according to the administration, too expensive - unless the Vikings are prepared to pay more than $700 million.

"Let the negotiations continue," said Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, the chief sponsor of a framework proposal in the Legislature that will likely now be amended to include the Arden Hills plan. Rosen said she was "encouraged" by the news of an agreement, but she cautioned: "There will be no additional transportation dollars. The governor has made that very clear."

But Sen. Joe Gimse, R-Willmar, who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee and was briefed on the plan last week, said he believes the transportation issues can be resolved. "I don't think this has to be an obstacle," he said. "They've got until 2015 to work it out, and 21,000 vehicles on a Sunday afternoon, that's what, 20 percent of a typical rush hour?"

Bennett said that the highway improvements to the interchange of Interstates 694 and 35W are needed and will benefit the entire region, not the team.

But neither Bennett, a former lawmaker, nor Wilf, who has seen previous stadium visions turned away from the Legislature before, predicted an easy road ahead as the clock ticks toward a May 23 adjournment.

"I know we have a lot of work to do," Wilf said.
LINK (http://www.twincities.com/ci_18033192?nclick_check=1)

(I here by refuse to use the Strib for this issue.....)

This deal is still a long way from reality.

so cap. will be 65k?

Here's the Arden Hills proposal:

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6382/vikingsardenhills01.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/823/vikingsardenhills01.jpg/)


http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1691/vikingsardenhills02.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/vikingsardenhills02.jpg/)


http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2834/vikingsardenhills03.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/vikingsardenhills03.jpg/)


http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7673/vikingsardenhills04.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/vikingsardenhills04.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

so cap. will be 65k?

Ostensibly it will be 65,000 with temporary expansion to 72,000 for Superbowls, Final Fours, possible World Cups ect. Thats been the Vikings ideal number for the last couple years now, but we have yet to see anything final involving this proposal past the funding plan and some site planning, so I would guess somewhere between 64,000 and 68,000 permanent seats but we will have to see first if the project gets state funding and then some concrete numbers and architectural drawings.

Here's the Arden Hills proposal:


So the Metrodome site proposal is now dead?