New Atlanta Falcons Stadium (Dallas, Madison: luxury, live, costs)

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by JPD

In no way can any of what you said be used as an argument for a new Falcons stadium.

At what point was I making an argument for a new Falcons stadium?

[JPD]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

At what point was I making an argument for a new Falcons stadium?

Fair enough, however, I have heard that line of reasoning from others for building a new stadium.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by cqholt

A hugely expensive remodel. But the same thing can be done at the Dome for a fraction of the cost of a new stadium plus retractable roof.

Well that, and weather. The NFL hasn't considered us for another Super Bowl because of the Ice Storm that happened when we had it before. We would probably get one if we build a new stadium, but that will probably be it.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Well that, and weather. The NFL hasn't considered us for another Super Bowl because of the Ice Storm that happened when we had it before. We would probably get one if we build a new stadium, but that will probably be it.

If they're not considering us due to the possibility of an ice storm, why would they consider us if we build an open air stadium? That doesn't make any sense.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by JPD

If they're not considering us due to the possibility of an ice storm, why would they consider us if we build an open air stadium? That doesn't make any sense.

They are playing in an open air stadium outside NYC.

The ice storm is not a reason they are not going to bring another SB to Atlanta. The stadium is not up to par with the newer stadiums. That is the real reason why they don't play here.

Despite the debacle in Dallas last year, I guarantee the NFL will return soon.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

They are playing in an open air stadium outside NYC.

The ice storm is not a reason they are not going to bring another SB to Atlanta. The stadium is not up to par with the newer stadiums. That is the real reason why they don't play here.

Despite the debacle in Dallas last year, I guarantee the NFL will return soon.

In what way is the Dome not up to par?

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by JPD

In what way is the Dome not up to par?

Though it's not that old, it doesn't compare to the new stadiums with regard to number of seats, number of suites, or level of amenities. The Dome seats just over 70,000, while the new stadiums are all 80,000+. The Dome has about 120 suites, while new stadiums like Metlife have over 200. The level of high-end amenities (clubs, restaurants, lounges, etc) pales by comparison- my company built the Metlife stadium, and it's got some truly incredible spaces.

An event like the Superbowl is all about attracting as many high-dollar folks as possible, and getting them to spend as much money as possible while they're in town (I know- you thought it was about the actual game). To do that, you've got to give them the level of amenities they're used to, which is what the newer stadiums offer. The Dome could be renovated to get it close to being on par with the new stadiums amenities-wise, but increasing the seating capacity and suite count would be tough.

[nrgpill]

A stagnating business is a failing business to me and I see Atlanta falling behind in this area. We tend to think that because we are in the deep south that certain events are "entitled" to Atlanta. I disagree and we need to respond as if we're about to lose every event out there to another city.

Originally Posted by cqholt

The citizens of Arlington spent hundreds of millions on the new stadium and the only event in return is 1 Super Bowl. To me that's not worth the money. And even if the SEC championship game rotates, the ACC championship will come to Atlanta also. Not to mention the 2013 Final Four will be in the Dome.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

Though it's not that old, it doesn't compare to the new stadiums with regard to number of seats, number of suites, or level of amenities. The Dome seats just over 70,000, while the new stadiums are all 80,000+. The Dome has about 120 suites, while new stadiums like Metlife have over 200. The level of high-end amenities (clubs, restaurants, lounges, etc) pales by comparison- my company built the Metlife stadium, and it's got some truly incredible spaces.

An event like the Superbowl is all about attracting as many high-dollar folks as possible, and getting them to spend as much money as possible while they're in town (I know- you thought it was about the actual game). To do that, you've got to give them the level of amenities they're used to, which is what the newer stadiums offer. The Dome could be renovated to get it close to being on par with the new stadiums amenities-wise, but increasing the seating capacity and suite count would be tough.

Thanks for the reply. I feel extremely strongly that tax dollars should not be spent in this absurd race to kiss the asses of the fabulously wealthy.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by JPD

If they're not considering us due to the possibility of an ice storm, why would they consider us if we build an open air stadium? That doesn't make any sense.

The same reason Indy got to host this past year: The NFL likes to show off it's shiny new jewels. (Trust me, Indy didn't host because of it's weather or because of it's happening nightlife.)

And for all of you saying that the ice storm isn't the reason we won't host another Super Bowl until there is another stadium, you forget that Atlanta has hosted the Super Bowl twice. Once in 1994 the year after the Dome opened, and the second time in 2000 as 1994 had been successful and we're usually warmish that time of year. But after the near disaster that was the 2000 Super Bowl because they had trouble getting things in place for the show, it's doubtful the NFL will take that chance again unless they have something bright and shiny like a new stadium to show off.

Let's also not forget that the 26 of the 45 Super Bowl's have been held in just three cities: Miami, New Orleans and Los Angeles. What do all three have in common? They're all fun and they're all guaranteed to have good, warm weather in late January/early February. And again, this isn't just a theory:

The location of the Super Bowl is chosen by the NFL well in advance, usually three to five years before the game. Cities place bids to host a Super Bowl and are evaluated in terms of stadium renovation and their ability to host.

USATODAY.com - N.Y./N.J. Super Bowl in 2008 may not come to pass

Traditionally, the NFL does not award Super Bowls to stadiums that are located in climates with an expected average daily temperature less than 50°F (10°C) on game day unless the field can be completely covered by a fixed or retractable roof. Four Super Bowls have been played in northern cities: two in the Detroit area—Super Bowl XVI at Pontiac Silverdome in Pontiac, Michigan and Super Bowl XL at Ford Field in Detroit—, one in Minneapolis—Super Bowl XXVI, and one in Indianapolis at Lucas Oil Stadium for Super Bowl XLVI. These four stadiums all have a roof. However, despite not having a retractable roof, MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey was chosen for Super Bowl XLVIII in 2014, in an apparent waiver of the warm-climate rule.

So obviously we can handle hosting a big event like the Super Bowl as we have already done so twice, but our weather is too much of a wild car. While our temperature and weather usually co-operate, if it doesn't then it can get bad like our pretty significant ice storm the day before the Super Bowl in 2000.

For the record, I would like to state that I am in the camp that believes building a new stadium just so we can host a Super Bowl is stupid.