Dayton extends a hand for Vikings stadium

[Tornado man]

The NFL needs to step in to these situations and tell owners that they bought a team in Minnesota and it needs to stay in Minnesota. Sick of these owners moving teams around. They are the Minnesota Viking and have been for 40 years. It's not like Jacksonville who have been there a very short time.
Wilf needs to suck it up and pay for it.

Why is the world should Wilf have to pay for it, when most of his fellow owners got their stadiums paid for by the public? That doesn't make sense.

[Mr Janny]

Why is the world should Wilf have to pay for it, when most of his fellow owners got their stadiums paid for by the public? That doesn't make sense.

This. Most stadiums are, at least in part, publicly paid for. That's not going to change with Minnesota. There are two outcomes here:

1) The State of Minnesota commits public funds to a new stadium
2) The Vikings move to another city.

Those are the two options. Wilf paying 100% by himself is NOT happening. the league does not want that precedent to be set.

[Frak]

Yes, when you read something like this:

"Meanwhile, Zygi Wilf reiterated Monday that he is opposed to a stadium with a roof of any kind, including a retractable one. 'Football should be played outdoors,' Wilf said."

Maybe it's just me, but the only way I'd vote for something like this is if it included a roof, and could be used for events other than football all year round.

And there's the catch. He can't really build one with a retractable roof and leave it open in FB season...the fans would go nuts over an owner that is forcing them to sit in the cold when it COULD be heated.

I'm not quite sure why using what Detroit and Indianapolis did as a template wouldn't work, they are both very nice stadiums. But obviously he wants to play outdoors. IMO (conspiracy theory) he is saying that because he KNOWS that the state won't fund an outdoor FB stadium. He gets to move the team to LA without being the bad guy because it's the city/state's fault for not kicking in some money.

[illinoiscyclone]

Anyone who is interested in this stuff should read this if they have access.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It pretty much says that communities get screwed pretty hard in these stadium deals.

EDIT. not sure if the link is going to work but the paper is titled, "The economics of sports facilities and their communities," written by Siegfried and Zimbalist

[clone52]

Jerry's stadium ended up costing about $1.15 billion, and Arlington put up about $325 million. That was $325 million too much in IMO, but at least Jerry bore the majority of the costs, and not the public.



Agree completely. The only way to get a reasonable paypack is to run the stadium year round, and that's what Jerry does with his new stadium. Any non-FB winter events are most likely going to require heating, and many summer events will require AC. If Wilf likes outdoor FB, he can open the place up for Vikings games.

You're opinion that the public shouldn't support any part of the cost is very shortsighted. I would wager that the economic impact on the state far outweighs the cost of helping to finance a stadium.

First off, there is the impact of fans coming to the cities for games. A University of Minnesota study showed that the economic impact for a single playoff game was 9.1 million. Regular season games would be less, but thats a pretty good loss.

Add in the income tax for players and staff, sales tax for purchases, property taxes for those that buy property and rent for those that rent places, I imagine the impact to the Minnesota economy over 30 years of having the Vikings far outweighs the cost of helping to build a stadium.

[TykeClone]

This. Most stadiums are, at least in part, publicly paid for. That's not going to change with Minnesota. There are two outcomes here:

1) The State of Minnesota commits public funds to a new stadium
2) The Vikings move to another city.

Those are the two options. Wilf paying 100% by himself is NOT happening. the league does not want that precedent to be set.

3) The State of Minnesota commits public funds to a new stadium but the Vikings move anyway.

There should probably be at least a 30 year commitment for the usage of the stadium by the team and the NFL if public funds are used.

[Stormin]

Any proposed new Viking Stadium MUST include a retractable room IMO. Think about it.

In 1982, the Vikings had about 41,000 fans at their previous last outdoor game. On Monday night the Vikings had about 40,500 fans at a "Special" Outdoor game honoring the 50th Anniversary and the FIRST outdoor game in Minnesota in 28 years.

And remember that the Vikings even REDUCED their prices down to $79 and $29 to even get the attendance that high. The economic loss on this game was HUGE.

IF the Vikings build a completely outdoor stadium with NO retractable roof, the Vikings could fully expect season ticket sales to PLUMMET. The Vikings would sell a base amount of season tickets. But the balance would just express their demand for the early season games and forego the purchase of season tickets. That way they would NOT have to pay the SAME inflated price for Pre-season games in their season tickets.

PUT a retractable roof on the stadium and on nice days it would be like playing outdoors. In bad weather you close the roof. Think of the enormous costs of snow removal and prepping the outdoor stadium for this game. Plus factor in the lower attendance that would inevitably happen with an outdoor stadium because of the many games played in winter months.

LOOK at what happens to our own attendance at ISU when the weather turns cold and bitter. Think about it.

[clone52]

3) The State of Minnesota commits public funds to a new stadium but the Vikings move anyway.

There should probably be at least a 30 year commitment for the usage of the stadium by the team and the NFL if public funds are used.

Don't worry, there would be some sort of lease on the new stadium. Probably 30 years.

When was the last team that got a new stadium that moved away?

[alarson]

Any proposed new Viking Stadium MUST include a retractable room IMO. Think about it.

In 1982, the Vikings had about 41,000 fans at their previous last outdoor game. On Monday night the Vikings had about 40,500 fans at a "Special" Outdoor game honoring the 50th Anniversary and the FIRST outdoor game in Minnesota in 28 years.

IF the Vikings build a completely outdoor stadium with NO retractable roof, the Vikings could fully expect season ticket sales to PLUMMET. The Vikings would sell a base amount of season tickets. But the balance would just express their demand for the early season games and forego the purchase of season tickets. That way they would NOT have to pay the SAME inflated price for Pre-season games in their season tickets.

PUT a retractable roof on the stadium and on nice days it would be like playing outdoors. In bad weather you close the roof. Think of the enormous costs of snow removal and prepping the outdoor stadium for this game. Plus factor in the lower attendance that would inevitably happen with an outdoor stadium because of the many games played in winter months.

LOOK at what happens to our own attendance at ISU when the weather turns cold and bitter. Think about it.

yup. might as well hold games at Minnesota's stadium, as there will be plenty of room for the amount of fans that will show up to outdoor games there.

[Stormin]

3) The State of Minnesota commits public funds to a new stadium but the Vikings move anyway.

There should probably be at least a 30 year commitment for the usage of the stadium by the team and the NFL if public funds are used.

The State of Minnesota should just BUY the Minnesota Vikings and then sell PUBLIC stock to finance the purchase. Then build the new stadium with a retractable roof.

[cycub51]

The public always gets screwed in these deals because the stadiums always cost millions of dollars more than they say it will and then usually all the promised returns from the stadium ends up going to the owners.

Usually the deal is that the public will get the majority of the revenue from the non football related events held in the stadium but then when the actual lease comes out the percentage is usually between 66-100% to the owner. Thats just one example about how the public gets mislead and they never receive a return on the investment.

[clone52]

Any proposed new Viking Stadium MUST include a retractable room IMO. Think about it.

In 1982, the Vikings had about 41,000 fans at their previous last outdoor game. On Monday night the Vikings had about 40,500 fans at a "Special" Outdoor game honoring the 50th Anniversary and the FIRST outdoor game in Minnesota in 28 years.

And remember that the Vikings even REDUCED their prices down to $79 and $29 to even get the attendance that high. The economic loss on this game was HUGE.

IF the Vikings build a completely outdoor stadium with NO retractable roof, the Vikings could fully expect season ticket sales to PLUMMET. The Vikings would sell a base amount of season tickets. But the balance would just express their demand for the early season games and forego the purchase of season tickets. That way they would NOT have to pay the SAME inflated price for Pre-season games in their season tickets.

PUT a retractable roof on the stadium and on nice days it would be like playing outdoors. In bad weather you close the roof. Think of the enormous costs of snow removal and prepping the outdoor stadium for this game. Plus factor in the lower attendance that would inevitably happen with an outdoor stadium because of the many games played in winter months.

LOOK at what happens to our own attendance at ISU when the weather turns cold and bitter. Think about it.

Haha, thats funny. Season ticket sales are based on the quality of the team, period. If the Vikings suck, season ticket sales will plummet no matter where they play. If the Vikings are contenders, season ticket sales will flourish. Sure, attendance may drop for 1 or 2 really cold games, but no one is basing their season ticket purchases on weather concerns, not even ISU fans.

[clone52]

The public always gets screwed in these deals because the stadiums always cost millions of dollars more than they say it will and then usually all the promised returns from the stadium ends up going to the owners.

Usually the deal is that the public will get the majority of the revenue from the non football related events held in the stadium but then when the actual lease comes out the percentage is usually between 66-100% to the owner. Thats just one example about how the public gets mislead and they never receive a return on the investment.

The owners get the income taxes from the players? The owners get hotel room taxes and profits from fans coming to the game? The owners get a cut of the gas purchases from fans coming to the games? I didn't realize what a sweet deal it is for the owners.

[jdoggivjc]

Any proposed new Viking Stadium MUST include a retractable room IMO. Think about it.

In 1982, the Vikings had about 41,000 fans at their previous last outdoor game. On Monday night the Vikings had about 40,500 fans at a "Special" Outdoor game honoring the 50th Anniversary and the FIRST outdoor game in Minnesota in 28 years.

And remember that the Vikings even REDUCED their prices down to $79 and $29 to even get the attendance that high. The economic loss on this game was HUGE.

IF the Vikings build a completely outdoor stadium with NO retractable roof, the Vikings could fully expect season ticket sales to PLUMMET. The Vikings would sell a base amount of season tickets. But the balance would just express their demand for the early season games and forego the purchase of season tickets. That way they would NOT have to pay the SAME inflated price for Pre-season games in their season tickets.

PUT a retractable roof on the stadium and on nice days it would be like playing outdoors. In bad weather you close the roof. Think of the enormous costs of snow removal and prepping the outdoor stadium for this game. Plus factor in the lower attendance that would inevitably happen with an outdoor stadium because of the many games played in winter months.

LOOK at what happens to our own attendance at ISU when the weather turns cold and bitter. Think about it.

The problem with your assumptions is the fact that the Vikings, in both cases, weren't exactly good teams. In 1981 the Vikings finished 7-9; as of right now this season they're sitting on a 5-9 record. In both cases neither team had anything to play for, and when that happens fans typically don't show up, regardless of the fan base. You think that if the Vikings were sitting on an 11-3 record right now like last year they wouldn't have sold out TCF Stadium last night? You're nuts.

[CarolinaCy]

The problem with your assumptions is the fact that the Vikings, in both cases, weren't exactly good teams. In 1981 the Vikings finished 7-9; as of right now this season they're sitting on a 5-9 record. In both cases neither team had anything to play for, and when that happens fans typically don't show up, regardless of the fan base. You think that if the Vikings were sitting on an 11-3 record right now like last year they wouldn't have sold out TCF Stadium last night? You're nuts.

Yup, no one wants to freeze their butts off to basically watch a guaranteed loss. That isn't unique to Vikings fans either.