December 17, 2009
Metrodome replacement tagged at $870m
The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission today released a report it commissioned on building a new Vikings stadium on the Metrodome site, and the big story was the cost numbers:
- Tearing down the dome and building an all-new building would cost $870 million, which is actually down $84 million from estimates earlier this year, when the labor market was slightly less glutted.
- Keeping a 13,000-seat slab of the existing dome and building new around it came in at $771 million.
- Renovating the dome to add club seats and suites and widen concourses was estimated at $975 million — which sounds nuts to me, but I haven't read the actual report itself, so for all I know they included they'd want to widen the concourses into eastern North Dakota.
City Pages, meanwhile, notes that a new stadium would increase the Vikings' revenues by about $31 million a year — which, given that bonds on an $870 million stadium would cost more than twice that to pay off, implies that the state of Minnesota would be better off just handing the team cash to boost its bottom line and leave the Metrodome alone. For that matter, the Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that Forbes estimates the value of the Vikings franchise at $835 million — meaning the state could afford to buy the team itself and have it stay put in Minneapolis for less than the cost of a new stadium. And as a side benefit, taxpayers would then earn the benefits of the Vikes' $8 million a year in profits.
(Yes, I know that the NFL would never approve such a sale — it's had a "no public ownership" clause since not long after the Green Bay Packers were formed in the 1920s. But that doesn't preclude an arm's length deal — say, the state finding a local buyer willing to take on the team, and sign a long-term lease, in exchange for a cushy state loan and/or lease.)
The Vikings management, meanwhile, released a statement earlier this week attacking the MSFC for trying to "delay a stadium discussion for two years," and saying, "we are moving forward with those leaders who want to resolve this issue in 2010." Apparently it's fine to bite the hand that feeds you if you're displeased that your free lunch is going to be late.
Your discussion of the Packers ownership is a bit confusing above. The Packers are not owned by any government agency. They are owned by a group of shareholders with no individual having a majority share. It is a unique structure in that the original stock is so closely held and is still held mostly by people residing in Green Bay (many European sporting clubs are organized nearly idenitically). It is complicated ownership structure (particularly with limited stock being widely offered a few years ago) but the city of Green Bay (or any other public entity) is not an owner.
The City of Green Bay does own Lambeau Field whose most important tenant is the Green Bay Packers (a client they aim to please so much that few non Packer events are held there any more even though the city could probably use a little more revenue).
Posted by floormaster squeeze on December 18, 2009 08:55 AM
I know, I know — I'm constantly correcting other people about the Packers not being municipally owned, so apologies if I confused anyone. My point was, though, that the NFL has since then ruled out any Packers-like or genuine government-ownership arrangements, so Minnesota would no doubt be rejected if it tried to buy the team outright.
But that doesn't change the fact that it would be much cheaper to pay the team to stay put, by one means or another, than to build it a new stadium.
Posted by Neil on December 18, 2009 09:32 AM
Those numbers are cooked. The estimates used to renovate the stadium are based on assumptions that the stadium will be even more palatial than if it were new (it also factors in "costs" associated with the Vikes playing in the U of M stadium, which they may do anyway with a new stadium if it gets built over the old Metrodome site) - it's a ploy to get folks to want to build a new arena.
Posted by Ian on December 19, 2009 10:37 PM
Ian:
Damn straight it is. I can't see how a Metrodome renovation, even a very nice one, would cost anymore than about $450 million. All it would involve would be a renovation and expansion of concourses, concessions, and bathrooms, the addition of a few dozen skyboxes and some club lounges, and just maybe a new exterior. It also wouldn't wouldn't involve any land acquisition costs. If Green Bay could do it, if Miami could do it, if Kansas City could do it, why can't Minneapolis do it?
Posted by KingmanIII on January 4, 2010 01:51 PM