Sid: Vikings could play on U campus again

Donate To GopherHole

Sid also wrote that we have 11 recruits visiting this weekend. I imagine we'll be getting some commitments this weekend to fill out the class.
 

I think we will know by the end of March if the Vikings will get a new stadium. That will dictate what will happen. I think it is at least 95% that pre-season games are played at TCF. If new stadium has a roof, they will play next two seasons at TCF. If the new stadium is without roof, they will fix the dome for the Vikings to play in and our indoor state use.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
I think we will know by the end of March if the Vikings will get a new stadium. That will dictate what will happen. I think it is at least 95% that pre-season games are played at TCF. If new stadium has a roof, they will play next two seasons at TCF. If the new stadium is without roof, they will fix the dome for the Vikings to play in and our indoor state use.
Click to expand...

A new Viking stadium without a roof is not even in the discussion. If a new stadium is located on the present dome site they will play at TCF. If new stadium is at a different site the Vikes will play at the dome until the new stadim is complete.

2011 preseason games at TCF are possible.
 

What are the reasons the Dome's roof repair is being delayed? I would have thought the sports commission would have moved quickly to get it fixed.
 


Whatever happens, there better not be any purple crap put up in my stadium.

Does charging them $10MM a game sound about right?
 

WAGopher said:
What are the reasons the Dome's roof repair is being delayed? I would have thought the sports commission would have moved quickly to get it fixed.
Click to expand...

I think they are waiting for results of intense testing of the roof. I'm guessing they may be facing replacement of part or all of the roof superstructure. Replacing only panels should not take six months IMO.
 

WAGopher said:
What are the reasons the Dome's roof repair is being delayed? I would have thought the sports commission would have moved quickly to get it fixed.
Click to expand...

Officially weather is delaying the anlaysis of what needs to be done. I think they are dragging it out on purpose to see what the Legislature does. If a new stadium is passed and built on the Dome site, it makes zero sense to spend any money fixing/replacing the roof only to tear it down next Spring and start construction.
 

station19 said:
A new Viking stadium without a roof is not even in the discussion. If a new stadium is located on the present dome site they will play at TCF. If new stadium is at a different site the Vikes will play at the dome until the new stadim is complete.

2011 preseason games at TCF are possible.
Click to expand...

I agree there will be no stadium without a roof. However, even if a different site is chose (Arden Hills, etc.) I don't think it's a given they will fix the Dome. As long as the MSFC is the landlord of the new stadium (not a given, they have nothing to do with Target Field) then they could likely use the insurance money from the Dome for the new stadium either way. The Dome is not viable without the Vikings and not needed long-term if there is an enclosed stadium elsewhere. Is it really worth spending $15 + million to extend its life for 2-3 years? Maybe, but that's not a given.
 



howeda7 said:
I agree there will be no stadium without a roof. However, even if a different site is chose (Arden Hills, etc.) I don't think it's a given they will fix the Dome. As long as the MSFC is the landlord of the new stadium (not a given, they have nothing to do with Target Field) then they could likely use the insurance money from the Dome for the new stadium either way. The Dome is not viable without the Vikings and not needed long-term if there is an enclosed stadium elsewhere. Is it really worth spending $15 + million to extend its life for 2-3 years? Maybe, but that's not a given.
Click to expand...

If it's 15 mill to fix the roof I would think insurance would cover a large part of that. Could the msfc just take the money? I'm not sure. Might depend on the policy.

The Vikes have a lease for 2011, but the msfc also has an obligation to provide services. The Vikings would have a lot less revenue playing at TCF and could sue for loss of income damages. I would think the Vikes would rather play in the dome during construction of stadium at a different site.

Hennipen County was the funding partner for Target Field and therefore controls the ballpark. The dome was funded with a metro wide sales tax and is therefore managed by msfc. New stadium, depends on the funding partner.
 

Has it been disclosed what the Vikes paid the university for the one game played there? This could be a nice revenue stream for the U for at least a short period of time.
 

station19 said:
If it's 15 mill to fix the roof I would think insurance would cover a large part of that. Could the msfc just take the money? I'm not sure. Might depend on the policy.

The Vikes have a lease for 2011, but the msfc also has an obligation to provide services. The Vikings would have a lot less revenue playing at TCF and could sue for loss of income damages. I would think the Vikes would rather play in the dome during construction of stadium at a different site.

Hennipen County was the funding partner for Target Field and therefore controls the ballpark. The dome was funded with a metro wide sales tax and is therefore managed by msfc. New stadium, depends on the funding partner.
Click to expand...

I would assume MSFC could just take the money and put it towards a new stadium. Could the state transfer the money to the 'Ramsey County Stadium Authority' though? I'm not sure, but I would think so. Despite MSFC not being involved in Target Field there was talk of allocating the MSFC reserves if both Twins and Vikings stadiums were passed that session.

It's true that the Vikings would probably prefer to play in the Dome during contruction if they are building elsewhere, but frankly, they'll be in no positon to raise a fuss at that point. If using the insurance funds is part of the funding plan, tough beans, shut up and play at TCF.
 

howeda7 said:
I would assume MSFC could just take the money and put it towards a new stadium. Could the state transfer the money to the 'Ramsey County Stadium Authority' though? I'm not sure, but I would think so. Despite MSFC not being involved in Target Field there was talk of allocating the MSFC reserves if both Twins and Vikings stadiums were passed that session.

It's true that the Vikings would probably prefer to play in the Dome during contruction if they are building elsewhere, but frankly, they'll be in no positon to raise a fuss at that point. If using the insurance funds is part of the funding plan, tough beans, shut up and play at TCF.
Click to expand...


Not if you are talking about 2011. The mftc has a contract to honor also.
 



TAW said:
Has it been disclosed what the Vikes paid the university for the one game played there? This could be a nice revenue stream for the U for at least a short period of time.
Click to expand...

They pay 650,000 per game to play at the dome. x 10 games = 6.5 mill.
 

Tee09 said:
Whatever happens, there better not be any purple crap put up in my stadium.

Does charging them $10MM a game sound about right?
Click to expand...

The ribbon & the scoreboard was purple for the Chicago game. Nothing else was changed.
 


station19 said:
[/B]

Not if you are talking about 2011. The mftc has a contract to honor also.
Click to expand...

Technically yes. But we keep talking about the MSFC like they are some independent being. If the State Legislature says, 'part of the deal is you play 2011 at TCF and the Dome is not repaired' the Vikings will say no choice but to say 'no problem.' The MSFC is a government body too, the renegotiated of the 2011 lease can be taken into account in whatever is decided. And the U can join in and say 'we will let the Vikings play there rent free and serve booze. We want to be helpful. Please include one basketball practice facility in bill, thank you.'
 

howeda7 said:
Technically yes. But we keep talking about the MSFC like they are some independent being. If the State Legislature says, 'part of the deal is you play 2011 at TCF and the Dome is not repaired' the Vikings will say no choice but to say 'no problem.' The MSFC is a government body too, the renegotiated of the 2011 lease can be taken into account in whatever is decided. And the U can join in and say 'we will let the Vikings play there rent free and serve booze. We want to be helpful. Please include one basketball practice facility in bill, thank you.'
Click to expand...

Yes, negotiations can change anything. I wonder if Adam Kelly(aka m2s) wants a 'seat at the table'.;)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom