Neil, I have an honest question for you:

Do you personally want to see the Vikings relocate? It just seems that there is tons of negativity and a lot of irrational hatred when it comes to discussion of a new stadium for the Vikings. Please don't take my question the wrong way because it's nothing personal.

Hmmmmn. Seems like piling on, to me. Everybody and their dog is (predictably) coming out of the woodwork to say "I told you so", even though practically all of them said nothing of the sort...

Maybe, just maybe, if all these windbags wish really, really hard, a new stadium can magically appear before our very eyes. I'm sure the Natural Law party have representatives standing by to help... if they can't try the Amazing Mystico and his assistant Janet.

Lost in all this hand wringing is this: A fast, heavy snowfall like the one Minnesota experienced could just as easily have damaged a brand new roof on a state of the art facility, particularly if the attempts to remedy the build up were as ill advised as these seem to have been.

Matt: Nope, I have nothing against the Vikings - they were actually one of my favorite teams back when I paid attention to football. (Pretty sure Fran Tarkenton was still playing then, to give you any sense of how long I've been on the NFL wagon.) And in general I never want to see teams to move, as it sucks for their fans.

However, it also sucks to have to pay $700 million in ransom to keep your team. Especially when you can't be sure whether the hostage takers' threats are a bluff or not.

I hate asking the federal governments in either country to step in here, but its getting to that point. If both Canada and the US Feds agreed to shut down these cash-calls for arenas what would happen? Teams would migrate towards markets they could thrive in and leave the weak markets behind following a crazy idea from capitalism.

Teams in strong markets wanting access to more money would have to what other businesses do and invest some of their profit into their arenas thus creating jobs. Maybe not as many as a new arena paid for with a blank cheque, but some investment.

Am I missing anything?

It's no longer fun to be a professional sports fan.

"If building a stadium was a profit generating business, there'd be no need for this 'study.' Investors would be lined up for miles! NO MORE TAX DOLLARS FOR ANY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Stand on your own 2 feet or go-go-go! Don't expect taxpayers to support YOUR lavish lifestyle/bottom line! The stadium should never have been built on the Gas Plant site, it should have been built out by the dog track, as was originally proposed. Until St. Pete prevailed over the county in a lawsuit and got it downtown. We've been to 1 game, and it's NOT the stadium, it's the location. The big influx from Sarasota/Bradenton, that St. Pete counted on mnever happened. It's also a PITA for those coming from Hillsborough. St. Pete chose, let St. Pete and the tream live with the results!"

THIS SUMS UP WHAT SPORTS HAS BECOME....

It's no longer fun to be a professional sports fan.

"If building a stadium was a profit generating business, there'd be no need for this 'study.' Investors would be lined up for miles! NO MORE TAX DOLLARS FOR ANY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Stand on your own 2 feet or go-go-go! Don't expect taxpayers to support YOUR lavish lifestyle/bottom line! The stadium should never have been built on the Gas Plant site, it should have been built out by the dog track, as was originally proposed. Until St. Pete prevailed over the county in a lawsuit and got it downtown. We've been to 1 game, and it's NOT the stadium, it's the location. The big influx from Sarasota/Bradenton, that St. Pete counted on mnever happened. It's also a PITA for those coming from Hillsborough. St. Pete chose, let St. Pete and the tream live with the results!"

THIS SUMS UP FAN SENTIMENT BECAUSE OF WHAT SPORTS HAS BECOME..

I'm still waiting for someone in MSP to speak to the question of *renovating* the Metrodome rather than throwing money at a new building in the suburbs. If the example of BC Place can be trusted, you get an architecturally interesting building in the city center for half the cost and much less environmental impact. It's the sensible choice.

Unless you can't resist enabling Zygi Wilf's desire to be the next Jerry Jones...

John Bladen is right on the money as well. If Target Field had a roof, it sure as hell would have been closed during the blizzard, and there sure as hell would have been a roof collapse. The same thing would have happened at Ford Field, Lucas Oil Stadium, Cowboys Stadium, Skydome, and University of Phoenix Stadium. The reason why nothing happened at Xcel Energy Center and Target Center is because their roofs are higher and have more support. All Stadiums I listed don't have any supports and this includes Carrierdome and the Silverdome. Translation, if you don't have much in terms of support, you will lose your roof when 17 to 20 inches of heavy wet snow falls on your area.

As for the Metrodome itself, I don't blame the collapse on failure to finish clean-up work during the storm. Try standing on a full waterbed and then have somebody bring in a fan and blow it right at you. That was the type of conditions faced by workers on Saturday December 11, 2010.

Jesse, you base your assertion that the non-air supported domes would have collapsed on what exactly? Toronto gets their share of winter storms not unlike Minneapolis and Skydome has never had a failure in 21 years.

Yeah, that seems like a reach. I agree that the dome deflation was probably more about the weather conditions than the dome's age - this happened a couple of times when it was new, after all - but that's not the same as saying that a steel roof would have collapsed as well.

That said, to save $300 million I might well be willing to put up with having to relocate to another stadium once every 20 years. If it were my $300 million, that is, which I guess the Vikings are determined it won't be.

Neil, while you might be willing to put up with it I can see why the teams wouldn't. The chance, however remote, that the roof would deflate while the stadium was in use (as it did once before), is just too great a liability to ignore for a sports team. All it takes is the rights panels buckling under the strain and the roof doesn't just sag in but actually collapses on people injuring or killing them. The resultant lawsuits could ruin the team.

I find that hard to believe. Or rather, I find it hard to believe that all the existing inflatable domes would get approval under building codes if that kind of nightmare scenario were possible. (Hell, in Tokyo they have earthquakes.)

I find it very easy to believe with structures that are substandard in materials, construction, design, or maintenance being built or allowed to remain in use around this country. Minneapolis is more aware of that then most with what happened on I-35 a few years ago.

Sure, one stadium, but all inflatable domes? Also, last I checked Tokyo wasn't in this country.

Color me skeptical until I see more evidence that these domes are dangerous by design, I guess.

Actually, air supported domes are amongst the safest of roof systems to be "under" should a failure occur. This is because they deflate relatively slowly (as witnessed in the metrodome, or BC Place's most recent panel failure). When fixed roof systems come down, the results are rather more immediate and calamitous.

In such an unlikely scenario as that described (roof deflation while spectators are inside), the team might well be named in an action brought by spectators (injured or not). However, the likelihood of a failure happening while occupied is miniscule, particularly now that the Twins play elsewhere. With the facility occupied by NFL spectators for less than 5 hours every two weeks during the football season - just over 0.5% of the time, and with just three failures in 27+ years... well, do the math.

In any case, since the Vikings neither own nor maintain the facility, and bear no obligation of any kind regarding the structure, it's design maintenance, it is difficult to see how they would be found in any way responsible (much less negligent). But they might have to defend themselves (unless the lease specifically absolves them... which many do).

Having said that, if the Wilf's find the Metrodome suddenly "too dangerous", they are always free to build their own facility, or share with the Gophers...

In regards to the New Jersey owners of the Minnesota 'purplevikes' threats to move their team if they do not get their way, why is socialized debt allowing privitized profit okay?

Jerry, it isn't ok. But at least thus far, nobody seems to be moved to actually stop it.

Minnesota Congressman David Minge tried. He lost:

www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=2308

How would one here in the Twin Cities "know" that someone was attempting to stop it? Would there be a story in the local newspapers, local TV or local radio telling us? Not in this town - the collective drooling exhibited when the Carl Pohlad baseball playpen opened still hasn't dried. That stadium was financed by socialized debt that merchants in Hennepin County are still collecting.