New retractable roof stadium in Arden Hills

[candiru]

Change the tax law so that a luxury box at a stadium cannot be written off as a business expense, or a trip to a spendy resort or SD pheasant lodge. See how that changes things.

[PurpleFloyd]

More cut and paste from a vikings backs HSOforum.

Tell you what- If you strongly believe this design and this price tag is viable then run all of the numbers and present them to me because I have been looking and asking for a projected P&L and interestingly enough I haven't uncovered one yet. Only in major sports can you hold a government body hostage over a requested handout and not even have to offer a business plan, projected P & L, or any other information that shows the numbers work.

The simple fact is this plan with the number of seats the stadium will have will not generate enough revenue to pay for a facility of this scale. Period. If the plan was more modest and was in line with seating capacities, construction costs, and population density I would not be opposed to it.

[toughguy]

Looks like you were onto something PF. Vikings and state appear to have struck a deal that reduced the price by $200M to $800M. They don't say what we're loosing for $200M but I hope it's the roof!!!

star trib story

[zepman]

Sounds like they may have come to an agreement as to who or how the road infrastructure will be paid for.

The stadium will need a roof...I can't imagine them not putting one on it for the lack of revenue in the winter months. As much as I like outdoor football...that just makes no sense at all.

[LMITOUT]

When is the last time Lambeau didn't sell out?

Don't need a roof, just need fans that have a pair.

[toughguy]

for once I agree with you LMIT. I went to the Monday night game at TCF against the Bears. It was one of the best times I have ever had at a football game and we got destroyed by the Bears. NUKE THE ROOF!!!!

[PurpleFloyd]

Looks like you were onto something PF. Vikings and state appear to have struck a deal that reduced the price by $200M to $800M. They don't say what we're loosing for $200M but I hope it's the roof!!!

star trib story

That was a good move. The sliding roof, while cool to watch open the first one or 2 times is really irrelevant in the NFL because the league dictates when it can and cannot be open. Why spend that kind of money only to have the league dictate how it is used?

Back to the topic though the price drop will make it easier to fund but if you take the emotion of being a fan away from it and look at what the design is going to mean in terms of the cost of a seat, parking, a glass of bad beer etc, it is still going to put attending a game on a regular basis out of the reach of a whole bunch of fans. But I guess that is progress.

[FISHINGURU]

I'd be fine with no roof, I'm putting my arms down ice holes when it's -40.

[Steve Foss]

I'd be fine with no roof, I'm putting my arms down ice holes when it's -40.

Best one I've read here in awhile. Gave me a nice chuckle.

[Getanet]

I'm not a fan of putting so much public money towards the stadium right now, but if we're going to invest in it the only way this makes sense is to have a roof on it. Whatever economic impact this stadium is expected to have is dependent on ancillary businesses built around the stadium that will be able to survive and thrive. Otherwise it will only be used 10 times a year for Vikings games and perhaps one or two major concerts. Bars, restaurants, hotels etc can't survive on a dozen big nights a year.

This stadium needs to be able to host major events throughout the year (and not so major) in order to provide the added jobs and tax revenue that is supposedly the big benefit to the public.

[Surface Tension]

"This stadium needs to be able to host major events throughout the year (and not so major) in order to provide the added jobs and tax revenue that is supposedly the big benefit to the public. "

Getanet thanks for bringing up that point.

Where did folks get the idea this was just a stadium for the Vikings?

While we think of this new stadium as a home for the Vikings, just like the Dome, it should be fit the needs to hold other events.

If this was a stadium just for the Vikings then I'm not for it.

A multiuse use stadium only makes sense here when you think that it'll be funded by sales taxes. Not to mention it'll be owned by the state and should be available to residents as a year round stadium.

No roof = Less events. The idea is to bring people in and have them spend money at the stadium and offshoot of new surrounding businesses.

Designing an outdoor stadium then later putting a roof will be wasted money in that there are unnecessary special needs in construction of an outdoor stadium that are not needed for an indoor stadium.

[PurpleFloyd]

First off I thought the the sales tax revenue that will fund the stadium will be generated by the stadium itself and that there will be some sort of huge excess above the cost of the stadium construction and operation that will be generated by the stadium so really if that indeed is the case then the tax issue should be a moot point.

Secondly, the roof will cost 200 million dollars or more to put on just to host indoor events when we already have the dome and could keep that for those events as well as the Target Center, Excel and various other indoor facilities in the metro that were already built and funded with taxpayer money to also host "Indoor events".

The roof is a luxury that the team doesn't need to do their job and the area doesn't need because there is no shortage of facilities to host indoor events.

The most important thing is to have a design that football operations can financially support without additional public funds not generated by the facility and leaving the roof off gets the stadium closer to that figure.

[Scott K]

PF while I agree with you on all of that, but I am not clear that they were going to keep the Dome open. I think when the Vikings leave, the Dome will become abandoned, it cost to much to keep inflated and heated year around when there isnt any big revenue coming in. Music concerts suck big time in there, so you can rule them out. I think it would be a waste of tax payers money as well to keep the Dome operational after the Vikings leave. unless they can find a private firm to buy it, and use it, and rent it out.

[Getanet]

First off I thought the the sales tax revenue that will fund the stadium will be generated by the stadium itself and that there will be some sort of huge excess above the cost of the stadium construction and operation that will be generated by the stadium so really if that indeed is the case then the tax issue should be a moot point.

[Scott K]

Why dont they approve an onsite casino, that all proceeds will go to paying for the stadium. All problems solved

[reinhard1]

that would be a great idea. a source of revenue instead of draining our wallets. good luck.

[Getanet]

The State GOP would never go for it. Its leader gave R's a tongue lashing earlier in the year about gambling. Here's a snippet, and a link to a PDF of the full letter that was sent to legislators:

Republican Party chair Tony Sutton had a Valentine's Day message for GOP lawmakers: Any revenue increases would violate your principles.

"Please resist any “revenue enhancement” proposals like raising taxes, raising fees, expanding gambling, expanding the sales tax, or any other such schemes that not only violate our principles, but are also bad politics and bad public policy," Sutton wrote in a Feb. 14 letter to legislators.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/116977973.html

[PurpleFloyd]

Why dont they approve an onsite casino, that all proceeds will go to paying for the stadium. All problems solved

That has actually been my stance for the last several years. I just took it a little farther and came up with the idea of having a video poker game on every seat. Can you imagine the revenue that would have been generated for the past several years while the KAO was on the field and the fans needed something to entertain themselves?

But seriously the racino was the only sensible proposal to come down the pike.

[PurpleFloyd]

I could certainly be wrong, but to this point all plans were for a stadium with a roof so I would imagine to this point any economic analysis would have been based on a stadium that could host events besides football.

[zepman]

If term limits were passed into law so would the racino or the on-sight gambling...it's that simple.

Our law-makers are as dirty as they come.

[Getanet]

Purple Floyd, let me start by saying we’re basically on the same side here, just for different reasons. You seem to be against the stadium because at the end of the day new stadiums are rarely as good of investments as they're touted to be. I’m against the public funding of the stadium because with our current economy and budget deficit it doesn’t seem smart to put $600+ toward a stadium. Still, Dayton has said the state will put $300 million into the kitty and Andover/Anoka Cty has agreed to chip in roughly $350 million. That’s the reality of the situation. But that money was based on a retractable roof and having an open air stadium dramatically shifts the usefulness of the stadium. In my line of thinking the State & County should either decrease their offer or put pressure on the Vikings to come up with a solution for a roofed stadium for far less than $200 million. Essentially the public is getting far less for their $600+ million than was originally described.

Economic Analysis: Of course I don’t have the actual figures, it's not like saying, "show me the CarFax." But it stands to reason that the revenue of a building designed to host large events is dependent on the number of events it can actually host. Without a roof there are 6-8 months out of the year it will sit empty beyond Vikings games. Dallas Stadium was built with a retractable roof for this exact reason. They have the heat, we have the cold, but the fact remains you can’t host non-football events in bad weather.

Team record vs. hosting a SuperBowl: This is such a silly argument it hardly warrants a response. This isn’t baseball, basketball or hockey where the teams competing for a championship play at their home stadiums. As you know, SuperBowls are awarded to cities years in advance and is completely unrelated to that year’s team record. Estimates range in the 100’s of millions of dollars cities bring in for hosting a SuperBowl. Although those figures are likely highly inflated, there’s no denying hosting the biggest event in the USA is good for the local economy. Yes, I’m sure I would rather have the Twin Cities host a SuperBowl than not host one. And there’s zero chance of getting a SuperBowl with an open air stadium.

You brought up Lucas Field, well guess who's hosting the 2012 Super Bowl?

Benefit to Anoka Cty & State: Again, of course I don’t have the figures, as you point out nobody does. But the fact remains without a roof the Vikings stadium won’t be hosting anything in Andover besides football from November - May. Anoka County and the State of MN should say, “our offer for Retractable Roof stadium is X, our offer for an open air stadium is significantly less (perhaps $200 million less).” We shouldn’t be kicking in the same amount of money for less of a stadium.

At the very least I hope you’ll agree the debate about a retractable roof vs open air stadium has implications that go far deeper than how “tough” Vikings fans are.

[Surface Tension]

Lets say the new stadium's operating costs put it in the red to the amount of 1 million dollars per year.

Think of the stadium as a hub of a wheel with spin off businesses centered around it.

Tally up the sales tax revenue from the new business centered around that new stadium. State income tax from the new jobs and with those jobs are consumers paying more sales taxes. In the end your not in the red.

Without a roof its a Vikings Stadium and no longer a hub.

With a roof it is a Vikings Stadium and more,

Gambling was mentioned.

If the state of MN can't swing this donate the land to one of the bands and let then do it.

[LMITOUT]

Think of the stadium as a hub of a wheel with spin off businesses centered around it.

Tally up the sales tax revenue from the new business centered around that new stadium. State income tax from the new jobs and with those jobs are consumers paying more sales taxes. In the end your not in the red.

After tallying that up, then start subtracting the exact same from the losses around the MetroDome since it is being replaced.

You're just taking from one place and putting it into another. Essentially a shell game. There is no gain.

[Scott K]

Thats assuming the Vikings will stay if they dont get a stadium. If they leave, then you would need to subtract that altogether.

[Getanet]

After tallying that up, then start subtracting the exact same from the losses around the MetroDome since it is being replaced.

You're just taking from one place and putting it into another. Essentially a shell game. There is no gain.

I'll agree when we're talking this kind of money and this kind of projected "economic impact" it's all a bit of a shell game, but there is very little business left in the immediate area of the Metrodome. Anything built along Washington Ave is getting the majority of its business today from Guthry visitors and the new housing developments.