MINNEAPOLIS - New Vikings Stadium (65,115)

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by HHH_Gopher

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....

[HHH_Gopher]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/...aPc:_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.

[hattingroe]

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)

[Avian001]

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.

[Benn]

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.

[desertpunk]

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

[mikasel68]

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?

[nomarandlee]

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.

[GunnerJacket]

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+

[Christopher26]

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

[nomarandlee]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...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.

.,.

[GunnerJacket]

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.

[504souldja]

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.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by 504souldja

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.

[nomarandlee]

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.

[schlaflin]

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?

[aavmarine]

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...

[nomarandlee]

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.

[1772]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

...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...

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

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.