Moderator: Moderators
Well, I think you can shave $67 million right off the top.dead_poet wrote:I'm still curious to learn what Zygi's commitment will be if forced into this.
HornedMessiah wrote:I wonder if the league tries to talk the Wilfs into signing a year extension on the Dome in the hope that Arden Hills or another site can become more feasible next year.
I don't see why the hell it would take 3 seasons. Bears did it in 1. Get the deal done now, take the rest of the year to get everything set, then start the day after the season is over. NFL can even "help" by giving a couple away games at the end of the season (of course, if that gets done, the Vikes will end up winning the division and getting a home game). If that's done, I don't see why it would require 3 seasons in TCF.No team has ever played three seasons at an alternative venue since the Super Bowl era began in 1966.
They're not going to do it in one season (that would be about 19 months for demolition and construction), but you're right. You'd think it could be done in two. From the end of the 2012 season (Jan 2013) until the beginning of the 2015 season (Aug 2015) would be 31 months in which to get it done, and they'd miss only two seasons.glg wrote: I don't see why the hell it would take 3 seasons. Bears did it in 1.
I think it was just Soldier Field renovations that displaced the Bears, not a new stadium being built.glg wrote:I don't see why the hell it would take 3 seasons. Bears did it in 1.
Soldier was not simple renovations. In some ways, what they did at Soldier may have been harder, because they built a new stadium while maintaining the colonnades/facade on the exterior.HornedMessiah wrote: I think it was just Soldier Field renovations that displaced the Bears, not a new stadium being built.
They didn't have to tear down their entire stadium, ensure all the proper infrastructure was in place, and build an entirely new facility like the Vikes would have to do.glg wrote: Soldier was not simple renovations. In some ways, what they did at Soldier may have been harder, because they built a new stadium while maintaining the colonnades/facade on the exterior.
i was actually thinking the same thing, but maybe the dome aspect makes it a lot harder? i mean they can't be lying about it to us...glg wrote: Soldier was not simple renovations. In some ways, what they did at Soldier may have been harder, because they built a new stadium while maintaining the colonnades/facade on the exterior.
Some clarity, finally, from the State legislature on what mechanism they will propose to fund the State portion of the cost. Gambling and electronic pull-tabs. A small step forward.Lawmakers locked in electronic pull-tabs Monday night as the funding source they'll propose for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium, but they said they're still awaiting more information from Minneapolis and Ramsey County officials before settling on a site.
YES THEY DID! Again, Soldier was not renovated. They basically built a new stadium within the existing facade (which, BTW, they had to be very careful about not destroying in the process).thatguy wrote: They didn't have to tear down their entire stadium, ensure all the proper infrastructure was in place, and build an entirely new facility like the Vikes would have to do.
http://www.kennyconstruction.com/groups ... dier-fieldglg wrote:YES THEY DID! Again, Soldier was not renovated. They basically built a new stadium within the existing facade (which, BTW, they had to be very careful about not destroying in the process).
I understand that. But with the Dome site, don't you have to account for the time of destroying the whole thing, cleaning it up, etc. etc.?glg wrote:
YES THEY DID! Again, Soldier was not renovated. They basically built a new stadium within the existing facade (which, BTW, they had to be very careful about not destroying in the process).