Have The Vikings Razed The Roof To Get A Stadium Deal Done?
by Christopher Gates on Jun 29, 2011 12:56 PM CDT
in Minnesota Vikings Stadium
Email
PrintMidnight Rambler pointed this out over in the FanPosts, but I want to bring it out here, because there's something about this that I find incredibly intriguing.
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is reporting that a deal for the Minnesota Vikings' proposed new stadium in Arden Hills is getting closer to fruition. The thing that intrigues me about this is the second paragraph of the story.
Sources reported Wednesday that stadium negotiators had dropped the cost of the $1 billion proposed project by nearly $200 million, the Vikings had upped their contribution from $407 million and the state, Ramsey County and the team had resolved who would own and operate the stadium in suburban Arden Hills.
Okay, follow me on this.
The original stadium deal, as announced, called for the Vikings to pay for $407 million of the cost of the project. They have since upped that contribution by at least $30 million, and possibly more that we just haven't heard about yet.
In addition, the deal called for Ramsey County to kick in $350 million dollars. The state then would have been on the hook for the remaining $300 million, with the costs for potential roads being a part of that contribution.
So, if the Vikings are now at at least $437 million. . .and Ramsey County is, presumably, still on the hook for the originally agreed upon $350 million. . .that gives us approximately $790 million that's accounted for.
Now, the cost for the project has reportedly (if the Star-Tribune's report is accurate) dropped by approximately $200 million dollars, which would put the cost of the project at $800 million or so. Hmmmmmm. . .$200 million. I believe that's about how much its been reported that it would cost to put a roof on this new stadium. Not to mention that Zygi Wilf has said on more than one occasion that he would love for the Vikings' new stadium to be of the outdoor variety.
I'm not saying it's likely or anything. . .but isn't it at least possible that the Vikings are tired of waiting for this to get done and are asking the state to just repair the roads, taking the roof for the proposed stadium out of play and basically making this a partnership between themselves and Ramsey County?
I don't know. . .but I'm waiting like heck to find out.
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No Roof = $200 Million Less
I don’t know where else they would cut most of a quarter billion off the cost of a new stadium.
by Midnight Rambler on Jun 29, 2011 1:02 PM CDT reply actions
Don't forget NFL may chip in $150 million in assistance
Not sure if this figure was included or not.
by VikesFanSince1967 on Jun 29, 2011 1:31 PM CDT reply actions
I believe
I’ve heard that the Viking’s share included any monies the NFL decided to pony up. Perhaps the NFL is giving more than we thought to spur on the Viking’s percentage increase? Speculation mind you.
Besides I like the deal being solely between the Vikings and Ramsey Co. It’d be nice to ‘reward’ Ramsey with any extra money and incentives possible because, quite frankly, they were the only party willing to man up the political fortitude to get the deal done.
The state and city of Minneapolis can go smoke a pole for all I care in their either half-assed or non-existent efforts regardign the needed new stadium.
by Jepp The Viking on Jun 29, 2011 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions
I think you made up for it
The state and city of Minneapolis can go smoke a pole for all I care
Skol!
I'd be surprised, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
Minnesota has repeatedly said that if the state contributes to a Vikings stadium it would have to have a roo—no take-backs, no whammiesf. Seeing that the Metrodome can’t pay for its upkeep without the Vikings there, the state would need a place to host some of the indoor stuff that they used to have at the Metrodome. Now, I’m not saying it couldn’t happen that the Vikings could get an outdoor stadium, but the state has been pretty adamant that if state funds are going to be used there needs to be a roof on this “people’s stadium”. It would be very interesting to see if that has changed.
Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge.
- Paul Gauguin
If the stadium didn't have a roof, it'd reduce the cost to be affordable by only Vikings and Ramsey.
Who needs state money, aside from the..you know…MANDATORY DUTY to maintain proper roads.
by Jepp The Viking on Jun 29, 2011 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Grrrrrr....
Makes me really cranky that the state is trying to fob road-maintenance, something that falls into government’s job description, on the Vikings. What a bunch of crap.
Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge.
- Paul Gauguin
True...no roof...no state...that's fine state of Minny...fix the roads like they're supposed to do
Think the state could prioritize that somewhere in the next 2 years? probably not if they want to be dicks about it.
Skol!
I was going to FanShot this
but then I remembered who I was dealing with here. Christopher “Lightning Post” Gates
Roberto Luongo + Game 7 Stanley Cup Final= LOLFAIL
Maybe they're losing the retractable roof
and just going with a non retractable dome.
That would remove some cost
but not $200 million worth I don’t think
Roberto Luongo + Game 7 Stanley Cup Final= LOLFAIL
by NorthernStar on Jun 29, 2011 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm conflicted about this
What i’m conflicted about is I really want a roof on the stadium to get some Super Bowls up in here and keep that whole “loudest stadium in the NFL” thing going on.
On the other hand, removing the roof is basically the Wilfs holding up their middle finger to Dayton and the state legislature for being so flaky about this. Thought it was a pretty dick move on Dayton’s part to basically force the Vikings to pay for the road infrastructure upgrades anyway, so it’s probably warranted.
Though, now that I think about it, if they build the stadium without a roof but one in mind, I don’t see any reason why they can’t use a couple seasons worth of revenue a few years down the road to add a retractable roof to it.
This also could be a good way to force the state into putting in some extra money. But even if the state doesn’t like the plan, there is nothing it could do to stop it. Because if they state isn’t contributing money, then the legislature wouldn’t have to vote right?
by VikingsForever on Jun 29, 2011 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Only if Ramsey wants to raise taxes to pay for it without waiting for the next election
The legislature has to approve any increase in taxes that’s not done through voting on a ballet
That makes way too much sense
the gopher did i thought, they built the structure in a way to support growth (I guess they thought they’d have a winning team or something, someday….someday)
Hmmm, if the VIkings and Ramsey County
can get the cost of the stadium to the point that the state money isn’t required…why would this bill need to be voted on by the Legislature?
The only reason I can think of is because Ramsey County wants to impose their sales tax without a voter referendum, which is what Hennepin County wanted to do with Target Field. And to do that, the Legislature had to approve it.
Very potentially interesting turn of developments.
"Lord I pray for the eyes of an eagle, the heart of a lion and the balls of a combat helicopter pilot."
Same math I did in my head when I first read it
I just want A stadium in Minnesota. It would be amazing to get it approved seemingly out of nowhere after such a slow, plodding process.
Proud contributor to Daily Norseman and SB Nation Minnesota
by Eric J. Thompson on Jun 29, 2011 3:12 PM CDT reply actions
and
an average of 3 degrees colder in December
Roberto Luongo + Game 7 Stanley Cup Final= LOLFAIL
by NorthernStar on Jun 29, 2011 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Argh
I’m sick of speculating
ANNOUNCE THE DEAL ALREADY!!
Roberto Luongo + Game 7 Stanley Cup Final= LOLFAIL
but, but, but...
doesn’t No Roof = No Superbowl hosting in the future?
Seems like one of the biggest draws (especially financially) with this new stadium was the possibility of Minnesota hosting a future Superbowl.
Maybe they are at the stage where they just don’t give a crap about that anymore and just want to get it done? Even though it saves money now, it leaves a lot of revenue on the table later… right?
by Odin'sDrunkenSon on Jun 30, 2011 8:38 AM CDT reply actions
Well, the roof is the state's idea
If the state wants the stadium to have a roof, then they can pony up for the roof. Zygi has said he’s quite happy with an outdoor venue.
SBNation Minnesota - For the greatest sports fans in the world.
The Daily Norseman - The greatest Vikings' site on the Internet!
by Christopher Gates on Jun 30, 2011 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions
True, the state has said
their contribution is contingent on the stadium having either a fixed or retractable roof. If that goes away, one would think the state requirement would also go away.
"Lord I pray for the eyes of an eagle, the heart of a lion and the balls of a combat helicopter pilot."
Host Schmost...
Get in and Win. That’s all I want.
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Jun 30, 2011 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
No Super Bowl? Maybe, Maybe not
It has generally been accept that non-domed cold weather stadiums would not get the opportunity to host a Super Bowl, but I think the NFL allowing a Super Bowl at the new Meadowlands stadium has kind of opened a can of worms; I mean, if Wilf finally does manage to get a new stadium in Minny (something they’ve been fighting for since McComb owned the team), it seems like the NFL would almost HAVE to put at least one Super Bowl there…
by JJL on Jul 1, 2011 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Save the money
I say forget the roof and save the $200m. Just give every season ticket holder an Arctic Cat snowmobile suit and a couple of pints of snowshoe grog and we’re good to go. Players can have sideline heaters – finally – sorry Bud.
by Siegfried59 on Jun 30, 2011 4:41 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Screw the roof
Best to leave off the roof anyway, since that pretty much leaves the stadium at a fixed size, meaning if/when they inevitably want to expand on it in the future, they have to blow it up and build another one, instead of just expanding it a la Soldier Field or Lambeau.
by JJL on Jul 1, 2011 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Daily Norseman
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
