25% in the first 10 years of the lease. 15% in years 11-15. 10% in years 16-20. Also, the first 5 years the Vikings ownership group can also bring/buy a MLS team. Which is another reason why they are seriously looking at a retractable roof.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

So it takes a Major League Soccer team for them to consider a retractable roof? More proof that Minnesota doesn't have a National Football League team.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Football, American Football should played outdoors, in the elements. So damn lame to play in a cozy little dome or indoor stadium or whatever flippid sissy name you have for it.

Detroit had a chance to fix their sissification and failed. Minnesota will fail too.

Economically, I think both Detroit and Minnesota should have retractable roofs for the venue to be used for concerts or whatever during the winter months BUT by rule the roof must be open during ALL NFL games!

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Taken posts out of context. It's ONE of the reasons they are seriously considering it.



I agree 100%. If I had any control over this issue, I would build a retractable roof and have it in contract stating EXACTLY what your last sentence says (with the exception of the SuperBowl... but that's an NFL rule, not a stadium's rule).

Originally Posted by: Formo 

.... (yes, the Packers averaged 40+ points at home last season I am aware)

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Not quite bucko.

The Packers averaged 37.88 points per game at home last season.

You seem to have forgotten to add in that last "little game" at Lambeau on January 15th.


:-"

Originally Posted by: vikesrule 

While I am extremely pleased that this has been passed and the Vikings should be staying put, I still find it as silly as hell that the U of M and the Vikings didn't share the facility and minimize the overall cost to the state as a whole.

I guess it is just a sign of current Americana... indulge our hearts out no matter the cost. What the two facilities are what 10,000 feet apart from each other.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

While I am extremely pleased that this has been passed and the Vikings should be staying put, I still find it as silly as hell that the U of M and the Vikings didn't share the facility and minimize the overall cost to the state as a whole.

I guess it is just a sign of current Americana... indulge our hearts out no matter the cost. What the two facilities are what 10,000 feet apart from each other.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

While I am extremely pleased that this has been passed and the Vikings should be staying put, I still find it as silly as hell that the U of M and the Vikings didn't share the facility and minimize the overall cost to the state as a whole.

I guess it is just a sign of current Americana... indulge our hearts out no matter the cost. What the two facilities are what 10,000 feet apart from each other.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

Tried that once. It failed. Hard.

Love that there will be 3 new stadiums in town (4 if you consider the X's 10+ years as 'new'). It just adds to the dynamics of the Twin Cities' awesomeness.

Not that any of you would understand, anyway.

Originally Posted by: Formo