A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
It means they will do what they said they wont do, tax. But words means nothing these days to most politians.80 PurplePride 84 wrote: Probably nothing. I think there's a Plan B type thing in the bill to get the rest of the money if they fall short.
Siefert wrote about it the other day on his blog.
@ banking on 35 million from E-Pull Tabs.I would say this is a non-issue. While it took some serious arm-twisting to get the initial stadium bill passed, it had Dayton's support. He'll veto this in a second and I highly doubt the anti-stadium crew has a 2/3 majority to pass this. Sounds more like a lame attempt at publicity. I suspect this is quietly buried in committee and never heard from again.Mothman wrote:Bill to delay Vikings stadium construction until revenue shortfall addressed:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/134083723/Nie ... gs-Stadium
Full post: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... table-roofThe Minnesota Vikings are due to deliver a preliminary stadium design in about a month, and the best guess is that will include a fixed, non-retractable roof -- a decision that would end years of discussion about the fundamental nature of how football is played and watched in Minnesota.
Nothing has been finalized, but my sense is that the cost of a fully retractable roof -- between $25 million and $50 million depending on technology, plus annual operation and maintenance costs -- will be deemed too high for a part-time feature. A relatively tight $975 million budget and ongoing revenue struggles qualify as secondary reasons why the Vikings might be headed toward shelving the idea.
I live in Dallas and it is surprising how few of the Cowboys games utilize the retractable roof, even when the weather is nice. Now the retractable side walls are sweet and gives a very open feel to the stadium. Although they are cool, I bet they are a detriment to the fan noise on the field, so I don't know how to feel about them in the Vikings stadium.dead_poet wrote:Full post: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... table-roof
Should just scrap the whole roof and play outside!!! Save money and bring back the home field advantage my father, as well as the other 'old-timers' enjoyed (I mean that in the MOST respectful way)!dead_poet wrote:Vikings stadium: Doubting a retractable roof
Full post: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... table-roof
I've posted this in another thread, but the Vikings have actually had more of a home field advantage (in the regular season) at the dome than they did the met.HardcoreVikesFan wrote:Should just scrap the whole roof and play outside!!! Save money and bring back the home field advantage my father, as well as the other 'old-timers' enjoyed (I mean that in the MOST respectful way)!
Reignman wrote:I've posted this in another thread, but the Vikings have actually had more of a home field advantage (in the regular season) at the dome than they did the met.
met: 95-57-4 (.613 win pct)
dome: 154-86-0 (.642 win pct)
However, our road record has suffered since moving indoors.
met era road record: 77-73-0 (.513 win pct)
dome era road record: 100-139-0 (.418 win pct)
Breakdown of the road record, indoor vs outdoor. Wins/lossesDavidKarki wrote:
How much of that is indoors (warm)/outdoors (cold), and how much of that is turf/grass? I very much want to see a grass field regardless of what is retractable and not, but I have a feeling it's going to be Fieldturf again, which to me makes it feel indoors no matter retractable/transparent/glass is over it. And which stands to make that .100 point drop in road record continue indefinitely...
Code: Select all
Outside 75/125 .375
Inside 25/14 .641