MINNEAPOLIS - New Vikings Stadium (65,115) - Page 4

HHH_Gopher · August 27th, 2009, 04:09 PM

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.

Ganis · August 28th, 2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HHH_Gopher

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???

KingmanIII · August 28th, 2009, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganis

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>?

Ganis · August 28th, 2009, 04:36 AM

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.

Benn · August 28th, 2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganis

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?

KingmanIII · August 28th, 2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganis

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.

Ganis · August 30th, 2009, 08:17 AM

Ask the tax payers before you think for them

Benn · August 30th, 2009, 08:57 AM

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

Somnifor · August 30th, 2009, 10:35 AM

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.

zdaddy233 · September 16th, 2009, 05:28 PM

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

massp88 · September 16th, 2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zdaddy233

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.

Benn · September 16th, 2009, 10:33 PM

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.

krudmonk · September 17th, 2009, 08:03 AM

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.

isaidso · September 17th, 2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benn

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.

MillerTime · September 17th, 2009, 08:47 PM

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...

Iggmasta · September 17th, 2009, 09:55 PM

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)

ryebreadraz · September 17th, 2009, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

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.

HHH_Gopher · October 1st, 2009, 06:03 PM

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

http://www.twincities.com/ci_13458646

massp88 · October 1st, 2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HHH_Gopher

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.

koolio · October 1st, 2009, 08:48 PM

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.

August 30th, 2009, 10:35 AM	#69
Somnifor Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 2,595 Likes (Received): 111	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. Last edited by Somnifor; August 30th, 2009 at 10:45 AM.

September 17th, 2009, 08:47 PM	#75
MillerTime MillerTime Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Minneapolis, MN - Dallas, TX - Chicago, IL - Phoenix, AZ - Madison, WI - San Diego, CA Posts: 172 Likes (Received): 0	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... __________________ "Don’t commit the vulgar error of confusing size with significance"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

August 27th, 2009, 04:09 PM	#61
HHH_Gopher Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 17 Likes (Received): 0	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.

August 28th, 2009, 04:36 AM	#64
Ganis BANNED Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas / Amarillo Posts: 1,783 Likes (Received): 0	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.

August 30th, 2009, 08:17 AM	#67
Ganis BANNED Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas / Amarillo Posts: 1,783 Likes (Received): 0	Ask the tax payers before you think for them

August 30th, 2009, 08:57 AM	#68
Benn Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 1,405 Likes (Received): 5	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

September 16th, 2009, 05:28 PM	#70
zdaddy233 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 103 Likes (Received): 0	get rid of the retractable roof and you're golden. No football should ever be played indoors, its blasphemy to think otherwise

September 16th, 2009, 10:33 PM	#72
Benn Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 1,405 Likes (Received): 5	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.

September 17th, 2009, 08:03 AM	#73
krudmonk sucks Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sannozay Posts: 1,645 Likes (Received): 4	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.

September 17th, 2009, 09:55 PM	#76
Iggmasta Chaka Kahn Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Philly, NYC, Seattle Posts: 74 Likes (Received): 0	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)

October 1st, 2009, 06:03 PM	#78
HHH_Gopher Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 17 Likes (Received): 0	Looks like the Vikings are heating up their "Possible Move" rhetoric. http://www.twincities.com/ci_13458646

October 1st, 2009, 08:48 PM	#80
koolio Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,763 Likes (Received): 249	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.