Stupid question - would an open-air stadium be cheaper than a domed or retractable roof facility, both in construction and maintenance? I'm actually curious if the configuration impacts the bottom line at all.

If we built an open.aired stadium cost of.construction is about 200 million cheaper then one with a retractable roof or dome. And last I heard the wilfs said they would.contribute a third of the total.cost if its open aired. They can have monster trucks, concerts and other sporting events at the dome, please don't build one with another roof.

RE: Stupid Question by Ian

Not stupid at all. A fixed roof stadium, on average, add's about $150 - $200 million to the price of a stadium. A retractable roof add's $300 million or more depending on how much of the roof you want to open. So yes, overall, an open air stadium is much cheaper to build. Plus, as far as a Superbowl, who cares. Minnesota would get one token Superbowl and thats it. The place could be used alot during the summer for concerts and the truck rallies and what not as Target Field will be in use during that time.

Here's a radical idea: why don't the Wilfs (and the NFL) put up whatever stadium they can afford? Who cares if it has a roof, a dome, or an umbrella? If all they can afford is some bleachers under the open air, that's what they get.

Minnesota, home of the blizzards and snow storms that come in feet just had to cancel their game because they had so much snow they couldn't clear off their roof before it collapsed. They spent a mint clearing the snow from another stadium just so they could play their following home game as scheduled.

Miami, home of beaches and talent from Cleveland and Toronto won't see another Super Bowl in the near future since the weather in South Beach is so inhospitable at the end of January that the NFL has had it with all those ruined Super Bowls that were played in less than ideal circumstances.

Minnesota wants to go ahead and build a stadium and play in the elements; Miami needs a roof to avoid the elements or else.

Anyone else confused?

Monday's game at TCF Bank Stadium was both fun and nostalgic. But let's get real here people: a new stadium without a roof does not make sense, especially in Minnesota. I was one of those fans who braved the elements for more than 6 hours (you had to line up early, remember) to watch the game. But only 40,000 bothered to show up for the game. That's 10,000 fewer than capacity at TCF and about 30,000 fewer than the capacity of any new Vikings stadium. And let's not forget that there was excitement about playing outdoors again, because it's something that a lot of Vikings fans had never experienced. Yet they STILL could not fill the building, even after they were giving away free tickets to college students. Sure, the general admission seating kept some fans away. But let's face it: fans don't want to sit and freeze their a@@ off for a poor product. That means in a year like this one, when the Vikings have been out of the hunt for most of the season, a lot of fans would not bother going to the games. I think a majority of people who wax poetic about the good ol' days when the Vikings played outdoors are the same people who wouldn't dare brave the elements themselves and just want to watch the game in their basement. I am one of those fans who did and would brave the elements from time to time, but would prefer the comfort of a dome, where I can dress comfortably in my jersey, not in 3 or 4 layers.

As to the people who buy Zygi's "it's not worth the extra $200 Million argument, let's not forget that 1: he's saying that because he's cheap and it's an easy way of getting out of paying more for a building that benefits him (I think it's funny that a guy who would spend the game completely removed from the elements, inside a heated and covered suite, would be so passionate about how football is a game that belongs outdoors, and not in a dome). And 2: the extra events like that "1 token Super Bowl" or the Final Four (sure, the last one would probably only happen 2 or 3 times, but let's not forget you could also host different rounds of the NCAA tournament - 1st & 2nd Rounds, Sweet 16/Elite 8 - almost every other year) would more than cover the cost of adding a roof. Add to it the fact that you could host more conventions and other events, and it would be easier to sell out NFL games in bad weather, and you have a more sound investment (if there is such a thing with publicly financed stadiums).

Ben,

I tend to agree that Wilf probably wasn't really serious about the "no roof" thing. As you say, he'll be warm regardless, so why does he care?

But it does merit some consideration, not least because Minnesota already has a modern arena that can host the additional (non monster truck) events you speak of. (BTW, when sports moguls talk about all the "new" events that could come to a new facility, it's always worthwhile asking them to name five...).

If a building mortgage had to be paid on the extra $200M (if we allow that a roof in a high snow load region could cost that little - big difference between the cost of a roof in Glendale or Dallas and one in Minnesota or Regina), the state would need to generate an extra $16M from the building annually to recover the amortized cost of the roof.

Minnesota might indeed be able to put more events in a new covered football facility, but if some (or nearly all) of those events are taken from other local facilities, it isn't really a gain (financial or otherwise), is it?

I don't think it was.because of fans sitting in the weather they didn't show up, try crazy snow storm during rush hour. Let's be realistic. And by the way, u of m students are out of school now. So its not like there is thousands of kids walking the campus

beware of politicians bearing "gifts" and/or looking for a monument to themselves, thyey'll stop at nothing to get it...

Unless Wilf goes to LA (Which is what I think will happen, because of the costs involved with building a new facility in Minnesota, and the poor economic condition of the State), he and the authorities in Minnesota MUST find a way to utilize the New Stadium year-round, because of the economics involved, it must be some kind of dome.

I'm with John: I'm skeptical that the handful of events that can use a 70,000-seat dome will be enough to pay off the increased cost of a roof. (Regardless of who's paying for it.) If the economics of a roofless stadium don't work, I doubt a roofed one is going to be much better.

Just more corporate welfare for the poor billionaires to pay millionaire pampered babies with. Any stadium is a horrible investment and provides few real jobs or longterm economic gains. Just more tax money stolen.

End all stadium and arena building. The only reason the pampered players are paid what they are is that the owners don't have to pay for their own "factories". The Yankees for goodness sakes raked in a billion to build their new digs so A Rod could get paid $33 million a year. How stupid are we? From past evidence pretty stupid.

Amen, Marid

Unfortunately, our two votes won't be enough to tip the balance...

Hartman is senile. He has presided over the losing Minnesota sports scene for 70 years. He was working in the 1940's- not born in the 1940's- WORKING in the 1940's!! He just can't keep what Ziggy tells him straight. Now he- not Ziggy- tells us Ziggy wants a retractable roof. He will get it. And Hartman will seriously be the sports mouth here until he's well over 100 years old.

Let's get this straight: There is no possible chance Minnesota politicians will refuse to build as expensive a stadium as the Vikings want- none. Opponents of a publicly funded have no political voice. All the politicians in all parties secretly support the stadium and are lying about it. Big-time sports owns Minnesota.The only question is whether the league wants the Vikings in LA regardless.