Tom Dahlin/Getty Images
Minnesota Vikings is on the market for a new football stadium. If a building may be constructed without roof, the group says it will pay for one third of the total cost.
That sounds like a nice proposal in a situation where a roughly $ 700 million in costs involved. But is that the best solution?
For Vikings fans, the primary objective is to keep the team in Minnesota. If an outdoor stadium accomplishes this task, few would argue with return to glory of years setting — outside, like old Metropolitan Stadium.
On the other hand, if there is a lot of money should be spent on a new stage, why not just get the finishing touches? Most legislators want the building to be available for a multitude of uses, 365 days a year. If you add a roof Gets a Bill through the legislature, about how rendering retractable so that everyone wins?
Vikings head coach Leslie Frazier expressed favor (I guess there is a conflict of interests within the framework of the Organization) in keeping a lid to facilitate Group — apparently referring to the "bottling" crowd noise as an important advantage in Vikings home games.
But in an outdoor design such as the Seattle Seahawks have successfully created as one of, if not the loudest stadium in the National Championship, understanding Vikings could create a similar situation.
Vikings hire seasonal Hubert h. Humphrey Metrodome expires at the end of the season upcoming 2011, so that a decision will be made soon. Otherwise, averting threat relocating the group into another city like Los Angeles, seems like a viable — even uncomfortable — option for your organization.
This article is offensive duplicate plagiarized what is duplicate article? Why is offensive this article?, where is this article plagiarized from? why is this article poorly treated? Flagging this article
沒有留言:
張貼留言