ATLANTA - New Falcons Stadium (65,000)

[soup or man]

Originally Posted by Jericho-79

If the Falcons want a new stadium, can't they build one next to Turner Field?

According to Google Maps, directly north of Turner Field is a long stretch of parking lots. An NFL stadium there would create a nice sports complex south of downtown.

Wouldn't that be better than building one north of the Georgia Dome?

And maybe they could extend the MARTA to that area.

I know what you're talking about. That parking lot is the site of the old Atlanta-Fulton County Baseball Field.

image hosted on flickr


And I agree that that would seem like a more logical place for a stadium.

[GaForce]

Originally Posted by soup or man

I know what you're talking about. That parking lot is the site of the old Atlanta-Fulton County Baseball Field.

image hosted on flickr


And I agree that that would seem like a more logical place for a stadium.

That is a perfect place for a stadium. It's easily accessible to both I-20 and I-75/85. Marta is nearby. However, I believe the city and ACOG (Atlanta Committe for Olympic Games) who built the stadium own the in and around Turner Field and they have prohibitted anything (especially another stadium) being built there. I could be wrong, but i remember hearing that from somewhere.

[will101]

Originally Posted by soup or man

That parking lot is the site of the old Atlanta-Fulton County Baseball Field.

Actually both the Falcons and Braves played there. It was one of the worst examples of the multi-purpose cookie cutters that came out of the mid 60s.

[Benn]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

I wouldn't call it stupid. As was said earlier its more about time frame. The newer stadiums are making a killing. A new stadium really doesn't have to be that great or super expensive to make a ton on revenue. Especially if the Falcons don't own the Georgia Dome or have a good negotiable contract on what revenues they keep.

My point is that they are making money because of fancier/more diverse VIP seating, which would not be a hard retrofit. If they renegotiated the Georgia Dome contract and refitted it in terms of vip, concession and sales areas the revenue levels would be almost the same. And its only more profitable when the Taxpayer fronts most of the bill, which I heard they did not all that long ago.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by Benn

My point is that they are making money because of fancier/more diverse VIP seating, which would not be a hard retrofit. If they renegotiated the Georgia Dome contract and refitted it in terms of vip, concession and sales areas the revenue levels would be almost the same. And its only more profitable when the Taxpayer fronts most of the bill, which I heard they did not all that long ago.

nah. Jerry is doing fine and he fronted 3/4 of the bill. The Georgia Dome looked at extensive renovations a few years ago. They were expensive and they were not going to give the Falcons the type of control they want. Not surprised they want a smaller, inexpensive, but complete with the type of revenues they want. The thing is, the Cowboys could still make a killing with half the stadium they built. Jerry is just Jerry. If you compare it to the Vikings, then the Falcons simply want a Falcons venue that's more profitable. Not looking for extra events. Plus they're in a cheaper parts and labor market. Just a different animal. Not all stadium deals are bad. Not all need to be jack of all trades. Especially given that the Georgia Dome still exists and wouldn't really be challenged for events because of its roof.

[Jericho-79]

Originally Posted by soup or man

I know what you're talking about. That parking lot is the site of the old Atlanta-Fulton County Baseball Field.

And I agree that that would seem like a more logical place for a stadium.

I take it back. According to Wikipedia, the footprint of the old stadium is still there.

The fence and wall display commemorates the spot at which Hank Aaron's 715th home run landed on April 8, 1974.

I don't think Braves fans will tolerate a piece of history being demolished in favor of a new NFL stadium.

[sweet-d]

yeah i feel like it's to early for a new stadium unless the plan is to keep the george dome and build a new stadium off site. But I don't really see a problem with it hopefully the new stadium has a good design.

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by GaForce

The Georgia Dome was built before the boom of luxury suites and club seats in these NFL stadiums. It just missed the boat.

It actually has about 200 suites and 5,500 club level seats.

I personally believe it can be salvaged with a state of the art renovation that would include a retractable roof. As a falcons fan, I would prefer them to play outdoors. Anybody who's been to a game in a dome will tell you that it is a sterile and bland atmosphere. Also the parking in and around the Dome is spread out.

I agree. The Georgia Dome has a superb infrastructure. It just needs a bit of a refresh -- nothing $200M couldn't fix.

[will101]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

I agree. The Georgia Dome has a superb infrastructure. It just needs a bit of a refresh -- nothing $200M couldn't fix.

Wouldn't it make more sense in this economic climate to try to fix it for around $20 million?

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by GaForce

Could be possible. Georgia State University just started their football program last year and is playing games there now.

Originally Posted by IamRohit

Yeah, chances of GSU using it are greater than GT using it for their games

GSU are delusional if they believe they can even fill the lower tier of a 70,000-seat stadium.

They're better off playing at nearby 15,000-seat Herndon Stadium, which is going to waste.

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by will101

Wouldn't it make more sense in this economic climate to try to fix it for around $20 million?

Good point...$100 mil.

[en1044]

I just can't see why adding a retractable roof is out of the picture. I've been to the Georgia Dome, and it's solid.

[Bobby3]

Originally Posted by Archbishop

Georgia Tech won't move off-campus. They've been playing at Bobby Dodd since 1912 I believe. Bobby Dodd has the worst concourses I've ever seen, but it's got a beautiful location and has good atmosphere.

More importantly, GT controls every dollar spent at Bobby Dodd.

It also would allow the Falcons to downsize the stadium, an industry trend. The idea is to offer fewer seats at a higher premium.

*shakes his head*

[Jim856796]

Still ain't gonna support a new white elephant stadium for the Atlanta Falcons even if it means spelling doom on a good domed stadium.

[Benn]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

nah. Jerry is doing fine and he fronted 3/4 of the bill. The Georgia Dome looked at extensive renovations a few years ago. They were expensive and they were not going to give the Falcons the type of control they want. Not surprised they want a smaller, inexpensive, but complete with the type of revenues they want. The thing is, the Cowboys could still make a killing with half the stadium they built. Jerry is just Jerry. If you compare it to the Vikings, then the Falcons simply want a Falcons venue that's more profitable. Not looking for extra events. Plus they're in a cheaper parts and labor market. Just a different animal. Not all stadium deals are bad. Not all need to be jack of all trades. Especially given that the Georgia Dome still exists and wouldn't really be challenged for events because of its roof.

Jerry is also in a Market that can support the ticket/suite prices they have plus an obscene number of psl's. A market like Atlanta tends to be so apathetic when it comes to pro sports that most people won't spend that kind money on an NFL game and Minnesota isn't nearly big enough to sell 300 suites and 15,000 club seats (or 200 suites and 10,000 club seats for that matter). That sort of economic model might work in Dallas and New York (possibly DC and maybe one or tow others) But the vast majority of markets in the country aren't going to fill up that many seats at those prices.

[Jericho-79]

I found the following AP article on the new stadium proposal.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2011/...a-falcons.html

I would like to point out the following statement:

Falcons officials have made it clear they want a new open-air stadium, saying that is the only way to stay competitive financially. They have rejected plans for a renovated Georgia Dome or adding a retractable roof to it, pointing out that 22 teams have moved into new or completely rebuilt stadiums since the dome opened in 1992.

It's worth mentioning that the Rams and the Lions moved into 100% indoor stadiums. And both Edward Jones Dome and Ford Field are relatively new.

If the Rams and the Lions can be satisfied with domed stadiums, why can't the Falcons be content with one as well?

EDIT: EJD and Ford Field were built after the Georgia Dome had opened in '92. The Superdome was renovated after Katrina, but it still looks outdated to me.

[slipperydog]

Not to be contrarian, but the Rams are not happy with their stadium. It's a bare-bones convention hall that was quickly built to lure the witch from LA, with a terrible atmosphere that brings in among the lowest revenues in the league. Detroit made a bit more sense to be indoors, and it's a lot newer than the EJD. The Superdome was also among the worst before it's recent renovation. Teams are trying to get out of domes.

[Jericho-79]

Originally Posted by slipperydog

Not to be contrarian, but the Rams are not happy with their stadium. It's a bare-bones convention hall that was quickly built to lure the witch from LA, with a terrible atmosphere that brings in among the lowest revenues in the league. Detroit made a bit more sense to be indoors, and it's a lot newer than the EJD. The Superdome was also among the worst before it's recent renovation. Teams are trying to get out of domes.

Sorry to get all off-topic...

But does that mean the Rams and the Saints would be looking forward to moving into new (open-air) stadiums if given the opportunity?

I saw a rendering of a proposed new Saints stadium a few years ago. I don't know what happened to that.

The Rams are stuck in the EJD from what I can tell. And they're one of the teams being eyed to move to L.A.

I guess the Lions are fine with Ford Field, as it's new and not ugly.

[Bobby3]

They want out because they want a stadium that makes more money -- for the Falcons.

The Georgia Dome is wonderful for Atlanta and Georgia, but only decent for the Falcons. An outdoor stadium would be excellent for the Falcons, probably not so much for Atlanta and Georgia.

Also worth noting, the Falcons don't operate the Georgia Dome, the GWCC does.

[GaForce]

Originally Posted by Bobby3

They want out because they want a stadium that makes more money -- for the Falcons.

The Georgia Dome is wonderful for Atlanta and Georgia, but only decent for the Falcons. An outdoor stadium would be excellent for the Falcons, probably not so much for Atlanta and Georgia.

Also worth noting, the Falcons don't operate the Georgia Dome, the GWCC does.

You are spot on with all of that said. AB wants control and profit of everything that happens on Sundays at Falcons games. From concessions to parking, etc. The Georgia Dome makes money hand over fist, but when it comes to the Falcons, they take little of that home.