NFL NFL Stadiums Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Looks more like an office building

I was thinking airport departure lobby or a new Westfields.

Regarding public funding there will always be a consulting firm retained that pulls out the spreadsheets showing the long term financial benefit to a city in investing in major sporting events.

The worst part about the public contribution is that the owners get an instant bump in the value of their football team with a new stadium. I reckon they should provide some sort of tax regime, similar to how capital gains tax works, that if the owner ever sells then part of the increased value of the franchise should be retuned to the public.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

On these stadium designs, what is it with the reduced capacities and all these "fan experiences"?

It seems teams are trying to reduce capacity, making it more exclusive and including other elements of the game day experience so they can charge a premium price.

I reckon they have worked out they can make more money, more predictably, by packaging up catering, special seating and exclusive privileges at a premium price rather than just selling tickets and hoping fans use the concession stands for food and drinks.

Sort of flies in the face of the argument to keep the AFL GF at the MCG when the NFL are signing off stadiums to bid for a SB with a 60K stadium. In fact, the proposed capacity is 9K less than the current stadium.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hot showers are overrated anyway.

Changed to cold showers about a year ago and can't imaging ever going back. Stayed in London for a week in September and our shower could only do hot water (literally could not produce only cold water) and it was hell
Whats the benefit or advantages of cold showers?
 
Gonna try it tomorrow morning
First week or so will likely be tough but then you will get used to it

We were renovating our shower so I was forced into it - it was the middle of winter and I would shower outside with the hose before work in the morning. Would be like 7 degrees and genuinely painful, but the buzz it would give me was unreal
 
There are definitely big health advantages.

Can get them from even finishing your shower under cold water for a minute or two.
I started this initially back when I played footy. After games would always turn to cold for the last few minutes and it helped with recovery big time. Felt way less sore the following few days just by standing under cold water for a couple of minutes
 
Big believer in starting day with cold shower.

As I work night shift i sleep all day when I wake up to head to work I always take a cold shower makes me feel alert and awake gets the blood flowing. Plus since I switch to this about 2 years ago I tend to feel less drain/tired from doing night shift.

When I get home in morning I tend to take a hot shower to relax before I head to bed.
 
A really, really good article on the underlyingly optimistic idiocy behind the numbers supposedly supporting the Oakland As move to Vegas in baseball. FWIW, not in this article but from my industry NFL sources, allegedly ("allegedly") the Vegas Raiders have already had to go 3x past their supposed upper limit of "incentive and marketing" (ie freebie giveaways) to keep crowd numbers up this year.

Joseph Sikora Starz GIF by Power Book IV: Force


Vegas is far less of an automatic moneymaker than the betting house driven social meejia lines would make you think - and playing any sport there in any stadium without a full roof and aircon/spectator facilities is likely to be prohibitive within the next ten years, just from a player and fan safety point of view.

Why Oakland A's move to Las Vegas is still facing an enormous hurdle after MLB owner approval


Speaking of which, the ballpark the A's are aiming to build will have a seating capacity of just 30,000 – the smallest in MLB by a substantial margin. In part, this probably reflects the realities of the Tropicana site, and it hints at a larger problem for the A's and their efforts to get money for all of this – attendance. In their public presentations, the A's projected average attendance of 27,000 at the new ballpark, 30 percent of which would be out-of-town visitors, or tourists. That's more than 8,000 tourists at every one of the A's 81 home games per season. As Brodie Brazil pointed out back in June, that's about 8% off all daily Las Vegas tourists. Given all the other ways to spend discretionary income in Las Vegas, this is an absurdly high figure. Overall, they're projecting 90% capacity for those home games. In 2023, just two teams reached such a threshold, the Astros and Red Sox, and that's according to quite-possibly-inflated official attendance figures. The Astros were the defending World Series champs, and the Red Sox are a venerable brand with nationwide appeal that plays in a small ballpark.
Those attendance estimates become even more ludicrous once you consider that we're talking about, you know, the A's. This is the team that has lost 214 games over the last two seasons and, despite pawning off every remotely useful veteran on the roster, has one of the worst farm systems in baseball. The present is dismal for the A's and so is the next half-decade or so, at the very least. This is not a team people will be clamoring to see anytime soon, particularly in a market that offers so many other ways to spend one's time and money. In that sense, maybe it's a good thing that the proposed ballpark wouldn't be open for business until 2028.
That's another issue. The A's lease at the Oakland Coliseum runs through 2024, which at the very least means the team needs to find a place to play its home games for 2025-27. At least some of those games over those three seasons – and maybe most or even all of them – figure to be played at the home of the A's Triple-A affiliate in Sumerlin, Nevada, just outside Vegas. This all means there's a high chance that the A's play a significant number of games in metro Las Vegas across multiple seasons in advance of the move into their new ballpark. They're also very likely to be terrible across that stretch. Stated another way, the momentum that a relocated team would normally enjoy from the sheer newness of it all will have been eroded by the A's clocking a bunch of losses in a nearby minor-league park.
The Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals, the last MLB franchise to relocate, provide something of a model in this regard. They moved from Montreal to D.C. in time for the 2005 season, but for the first three seasons they played in R.F.K. Stadium while waiting for Nationals Park to be constructed. The Nats moved into Nationals Park in time for the 2008 season and they did so as a losing team. For that 2008 season, they ranked 20th in total home attendance and 19th in average home attendance. Bear in mind a couple of things about those figures: the Nats weren't as bad as the A's are likely to be if and when they move in, and D.C. is a much larger and stronger market for baseball than Vegas.


On these stadium designs, what is it with the reduced capacities and all these "fan experiences"?

It seems teams are trying to reduce capacity, making it more exclusive and including other elements of the game day experience so they can charge a premium price.

I reckon they have worked out they can make more money, more predictably, by packaging up catering, special seating and exclusive privileges at a premium price rather than just selling tickets and hoping fans use the concession stands for food and drinks.

Sort of flies in the face of the argument to keep the AFL GF at the MCG when the NFL are signing off stadiums to bid for a SB with a 60K stadium. In fact, the proposed capacity is 9K less than the current stadium.

Yep, the smaller size is all about profitability of every seat. Pro sports profit is now about exclusivity, not broad fan access. Charge an ultra premium and make it available only to a few, and then have any bad local events (weather, natural disaster, security etc) mean you can hold the thing fan free but still make mega millions from the streaming rights.​
The Gabba rebuild is likely to be the last big stadium done in Australia IMHO. Optus will be seen as the peak of the modern large stadiums, with the benefot of 30 years hindsight. Just MHO though, what would I know.​
 
Last edited:
Without getting into the public/private money thing I personally think this is great news. Stadiums in the heartbeat of the city are important in my opinion and Chicago is a really fantastic city so it's great they're staying in there.
Gotta say as a Bears fan myself I’m pleased to be staying in the city and getting out of soldier field as well.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top