Minneapolis and the Metrodome's Mojo (Buffalo, Lake City: real estate, house, layoffs)

[Ghengis]

Hopefully a Twin's Win culminates with what must be one of the most successful and watched five-day period in and around downtown Minneapolis tonight. Between the four Twins games and the Monday Night Football madness, I believe the attendance at the Dome will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 260,000 for the past five days. Probably a good weekend for Hubert's staff don't you think? They deserve it.

Anyone out there make it to all 5 games and what was that like?

On top of that, you had probably close to 15,000 runners and 5,000 volunteers in the area for the TC Marathon along with their families and spectators. The Gophers also drew 50,000+ for their game on Saturday just down the road at the U of M campus.

Lots of positive national press coverage and nary a word about frostbite, snow-emergencies or jammed-up wood chippers. Most of that wouldn't be possible in the future if the Twins would have been allowed to leave or been contracted. Glad we had a handful of politicos that were willing to stick their necks out and do what was needed. Hope they find a way to do the same for the Vikings at some point in the not too distant future.

[MplsTodd]

I was at the Gophers-Badgers game on Saturday. Despite the light rain, it was a great event in a beautiful stadium. The Gophers killed themselves by having too many penalties, but it was a reasonably close game.

Didn't make to any of the Metrodome games (I went to 2 Twins Games about 2 weeks ago (vs Cleveland and detroit)). While the Metrodome leaves a lot to be desired, I always said "you get what you pay for" and left it at that. I'm definitely looking forward to Target Field, which I think has a great semi-modernist kind of design (rather than the retro look of so many other new stadiums), but you have to wonder what would they do on a day like today when its pouring rain and the winner is supposed to be in NYC tomorrow???

Torii Hunter said it best "It wasn't a good place to play baseball, but there was great baseball played in that place"

[Minnehahapolitan]

I look forward to Target Field, and have always supported a new Twins stadium. The Metrodome doesn't get the love it deserves, though. It has lent itself to creating lots of good traditions and to our home records. Furthermore, only Dodger stadium can fit more people than the Dome. That's pretty nice when you have big games that everyone wants a ticket for (ahm, ahm. Today, 2006, 1987, 1991). Even when it doesn't fill up, it means that we have some of the cheapest tickets in baseball. We aren't some boutique team. That's democratic, utilitarian...Minnesotan.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Here is my plan for the Vikings. With the Twins and Gophers gone, the Vikings are the only tenants left. If Wilf decides to leave because he doesn't get a piece of the pie, the thing would be demolished. Why not sign ownership of the Metrodome over to Wilf and the Vikings? The thing is paid off (right, I hope), so it wouldn't cost the state the millions that they are looking for. While it was bad for baseball and college football, it is still a pretty good place for an NFL team. The contribution that Wilf would have put towards a completely new stadium can go to sprucing up the Dome. If Wilf still wanted to develop Elliot Park as more of a neighborhood, he would be able to benefit from the increased value of the stadium.
The fact of the matter is that the NFL subsidizes us about $15 to 20 million a year. Signing over the dome would cover most of that cost -- naming rights, real estate value, rights to club seats. Also, threats of them leaving are exaggerated. Los Angeles and California don't have the money to hand over either. Even if they did, that would leave Minneapolis as the biggest market without a team.

[Slig]

Either do that or demolish the dome and build a new stadium at the same site. While the new stadium is being built the Vikes can play at the Gopher stadium.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Here is my plan for the Vikings. With the Twins and Gophers gone, the Vikings are the only tenants left. If Wilf decides to leave because he doesn't get a piece of the pie, the thing would be demolished. Why not sign ownership of the Metrodome over to Wilf and the Vikings? The thing is paid off (right, I hope), so it wouldn't cost the state the millions that they are looking for. While it was bad for baseball and college football, it is still a pretty good place for an NFL team. The contribution that Wilf would have put towards a completely new stadium can go to sprucing up the Dome. If Wilf still wanted to develop Elliot Park as more of a neighborhood, he would be able to benefit from the increased value of the stadium.
The fact of the matter is that the NFL subsidizes us about $15 to 20 million a year. Signing over the dome would cover most of that cost -- naming rights, real estate value, rights to club seats. Also, threats of them leaving are exaggerated. Los Angeles and California don't have the money to hand over either. Even if they did, that would leave Minneapolis as the biggest market without a team.

I still think that the Vikings either need a stadium or they'll be gone by 2015. It's just the nature of NFL. NFL is the biggest of all sports in North America and arguably the world, and in today's world it's more about the Franchise as a package. The team, the stadium that make up the product. With all the AMAZING new stadiums out there - Dallas, NY, Seattle, Indianapolis, Detroit, (Rennovated Lambeu and Soldier Field), Houston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Phoenix, and New England all have had new stadiums built in the past decade.

The Vikings WILL need to keep up. From a business standpoint, the Vikings make ZERO dollars from stadium revenues. Right, a move to LA wouldnt work since 2 teams have already failed there, and USC seems to be more popular than NFL. It's sad that this is what it has come down to.

[knke0204]

Great VIDEO for all Minnesotans

Farewell, Metrodome - ESPN Video - ESPN

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by MplsTodd

While the Metrodome leaves a lot to be desired, I always said "you get what you pay for" and left it at that. I'm definitely looking forward to Target Field, which I think has a great semi-modernist kind of design (rather than the retro look of so many other new stadiums), but you have to wonder what would they do on a day like today when its pouring rain and the winner is supposed to be in NYC tomorrow???

Torii Hunter said it best "It wasn't a good place to play baseball, but there was great baseball played in that place"

Part of the reason for the white, inflatable roof, is that the state cheaped out when building the Metrodome. They could have had a hard roof (like the Kingdome, Astrodome, etc.), but they couldn't afford it. The result is a roof that baseball teams have come to revile.

Well, the process cheaped out AGAIN on Target Field with regards to the roof. And yeah, it's a VERY good question what would have happened yesterday -- they don't play baseball in pouring rain and 46°F. Pretty hard to delay all the playoff games.

The question has been basically laughed off in my opinion. The Pohlads won't suffer if it's cold and rainy -- only the fans will suffer.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Part of the reason for the white, inflatable roof, is that the state cheaped out when building the Metrodome. They could have had a hard roof (like the Kingdome, Astrodome, etc.), but they couldn't afford it. The result is a roof that baseball teams have come to revile.

Well, the process cheaped out AGAIN on Target Field with regards to the roof. And yeah, it's a VERY good question what would have happened yesterday -- they don't play baseball in pouring rain and 46°F. Pretty hard to delay all the playoff games.

The question has been basically laughed off in my opinion. The Pohlads won't suffer if it's cold and rainy -- only the fans will suffer.

The fans are going to suffer? The extremely few games that might actually be bad weather. I doubt fans are going to "suffer". We are Minnesotans. If being outside for 3 hrs in 46 degree Weather is making you suffer, then you have some issues.

I am so sick and doggone tired of hearing about the roof debate. There are going to be 82 games played at Target Field per season. Maybe , maybe 10 might be 'bad' weather games. The only reason the Twins are playing this late is because of the playoffs, and they already stated that the Twins will more than likely start their seasons on the road to allow for weather to get a little better into April.

There have been times in Early October where the weather is amazing, 60s and sunny. The same goes for April. My bday is early april and i have had some good weather on my bday.

The extra money that would have cost to put the roof on doesnt add up to the very very few days that it would actually help for. Its not like the season is played in march or November, its April and October we have to be worried about for Pete's sakes.

If you "suffer" from weather in Early April or October, maybe you should stick to watching the game in your house or move to Florida, because you are embarassing us Minnesotans.

Dont you remember Met Stadium? Did that have a roof? IS there anything in Twins history that mentions any horrible experiences from not having a roof? They played there for over 20 seasons and the cloudy April days and the 40 degree October weather sure as heck didnt scare anybody.

Compare April and October weather to Boston, NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Denver...8 stadiums with nearly the same weather all without roofs. Quit your crying.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by knke0204

I still think that the Vikings either need a stadium or they'll be gone by 2015. It's just the nature of NFL. NFL is the biggest of all sports in North America and arguably the world, and in today's world it's more about the Franchise as a package. The team, the stadium that make up the product. With all the AMAZING new stadiums out there - Dallas, NY, Seattle, Indianapolis, Detroit, (Rennovated Lambeu and Soldier Field), Houston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Phoenix, and New England all have had new stadiums built in the past decade.

The Vikings WILL need to keep up. From a business standpoint, the Vikings make ZERO dollars from stadium revenues. Right, a move to LA wouldnt work since 2 teams have already failed there, and USC seems to be more popular than NFL. It's sad that this is what it has come down to.

Where? Where could they go? Los Angeles and California don't have the money of a City of Industry stadium. Even if the stadium itself is private, the infrastructure costs are prohibitive. Plus, they have had teams and they left for a reason. When Saint Louis can get a team that Los Angeles had, it should say something about the market for the NFL in Los Angeles. Las Vegas? The NFL would be tickled-pink to have a team in a city where they gamble on sports. Salt Lake City is a smaller market. San Antonio is Cowboys territory, and only has a million or so people. The most viable move would be to Canada, and that just gets uncomfortable for the NFL. Different laws, different rules. Not worth it.
Fact of the matter is that we have sold out most of our games for decades. The Vikings reach one of the largest geographic areas in the country for their fan base. Rivalries have been well established. It would not be in the best interest of the Vikings to move. I can see how they are bitter about being shut out of stadium proceeds, but that is why we should just sign over the Metrodome.
Plus, for however bad the Vikings think they have it, there are many other teams that are just as likely to move: Jacksonville, Oakland, Buffalo.
Talk of moving the Vikings is a bluff. They want everything. I say we give them something.