Vikes' stadium push takes step back -- Rethug politics

[Auggie]

5-1-12 / AP

Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has sharply rebuked GOP lawmakers for not taking the stadium debate seriously amid word Republicans are working out a deal to authorize a roofless stadium.

The altered proposal surfaced Tuesday and drew a rushed press conference from Dayton, Democratic lawmakers and the mayor of Minneapolis. Each acknowledged a stadium without a roof would be cheaper but said it would defeat the intent of building a venue that could be used for more than just football.

FULL STORY: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7878524/minnesota-vikings-stadium-drive-takes-step-back-capitol

The article mentions the Rethug run legislature hasn't even committed to vote on the $975 million propoal favored by Dayton.

Feet dragging. It's not about the stadium. It's about making Dayton look bad.

[Scuba]

1. There's a couple stadiums in the LA area available, and they don't need roofs.

[Auggie]

3. As I posted earlier,

I think the NFL would really miss the Vikings in the NFC North. Do I really care? Heck, let them move to L.A. -- it would mean the Raiders stay in the Bay Area. Move the St. Louis Rams to the North and put the Vikings in the NFC West. My 49ers have one less trip back east every season.

[Goblinmonger]

4. Moving the Vikes out of the NFC North would be horrible for the NFC North.

It would be horrible for the Packers, even though most of their fans wouldn't admit that.

The Rams in the NFC North makes me puke in my mouth a little bit.

I'll still be a Vikings fan if they move to LA, but I will admit to being pissed if LA gets both the pro basketball team and the NFL team (even if the moves are decades apart and the basketball has been replaced).

[Auggie]

6. L.A. has stolen nearly everything

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Dodgers, Rams, Lakers ...

On edit: How could I leave out the Raiders?

[Goblinmonger]

9. Thieving Bastards n/t

[Goblinmonger]

2. As a Vikings football fan, I'm all for a roofless stadium.

Remind the great people of Green Bay that it actually gets colder in other places than in does in Wisconsin.

BUT, why would you spend money on something that:
1. would limit the multi-function of the building, and
2. would make it so that you could never host a Super Bowl and get the tax revenue from that event.

[Auggie]

5. The Browns built a roofless stadium

15 years ago (cost: $487 million in 2012 dollars, according to Wikipedia).

Even though that's recent history, a lot has changed how football is perceived as a spectator sport. Despite freezing my butt off many Sundays in old Municipal Stadium, I'm glad the new stadium is open air. But as you mention, Cleveland will never host a Super Bowl.

I wonder if the Browns regret their decision not to build a roof?

[Goblinmonger]

7. Plus it's a shit-ton colder in Minneapolis.

I'd be interesting to see if they still like that decision. I think it's a cool looking stadium. I imagine it gets chilly and breezy right off the lake.

The Packers certainly like theirs. And I've been to several games in Green Bay and it's a great experience even when it is frigid.

[madinmaryland]

12. Is Bud Grant still alive? He would probably come back to just to coach in the tundra there.

[JonLP24]

8. Roofless stadium could save around $200 million

but taxpayers would still be on the hook for half a billion dollars.

[Auggie]

10. Yeah, but as Goblinmonger points out

you get that back by hosting other venues during the lifetime of the stadium.

As for the Super Bowl, here is what was written about Indianapolis in 2012:

The windfall for Indianapolis will be closer to $150 million, according to Jack Ablin, an economist and the chief investment officer at BMO-Harris Private Bank, based in Chicago. “That’s based on 150,000 people spending a thousand dollars each,” he says. “And hopefully those numbers are a little conservative for Indianapolis.”

He points to Dallas, which enjoyed a $200 million boost from hosting the Super Bowl last year just as the city was recovering from a damaging ice storm.

[$150 million] is a pretty nice number,” says Victor Matheson, a professor of economics at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. “Over the past decade we’ve had an escalation of these economic impact figures. Consultants dueling with one another to get a higher number, $400 or $500 million. That number is much more honest.”

According to Dr. Matheson, Indianapolis has a few things going for it that mean the Super Bowl will be a welcome boost. For one, it isn’t normally a winter destination, so the influx of tourism is actually a bonus. In warm weather destinations, like Miami, the tourism that comes from the Super Bowl would generally be replacing tourism that was already there.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0204/Super-Bowl-cities-Is-hosting-a-boon-or-a-bust

[JonLP24]

11. Sounds like a tradeoff

It is interesting though the topic shifted from to does a stadium happen to what kind of stadium to build. There are still questions to how to pay for this and is it worthwhile use of public funds.