The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

This is just great.

Roger Goodell wants stadium improvements in excess of 200 million bucks while peoples homes are being foreclosed upon at record rates in the Miami-dade county area. When are people going to say "enough is enough?".

This is nothing but a shakedown of the taxpayer. I thought that Huiezenga paid for the improvements that were needed at the stadium and now Goodell comes along and says the facilities are not adequate?

What more does Goodell want? Jet powered outhouses in the parking lot?

But knowing the lame Miami-Dade politicians that would kill do anything to get their name on something big, they will probably cave in while the homeless sleep under the Airport expressway bridge.

I don't know if he is holding Miami hostage.  He has said that unless MIA makes improvements the 30 year old stadium will have a hard time competing to get future superbowls.  Which make sense when you have stadiums like Dallas who also want to host the superbowl and they have a much more awesome stadium than Landshark.  He has told Foxoboro the only way we a superbowl is we add a roof.  How is that different? 

But didn't Huizenga make the improvements that were needed for the Sb that was held in 2006? That's just three years ago. What would be outdated? During that time, Uncle Wayne was catching grief for pouring more into the stadium than the product out on the field. When is enough good enough?

Man, talk about your industrial strength overreactions...

The title of this thread should probably be:

"Roger Goodell conducts business with Miami exactly as every other pro sports commissioner has conducted business with event host cities in the history of pro sports"

OK, it's a little long for a title, but the accuracy is spot on. ;)

That was before Dallas built the largest TV in the world.  If you think Mia is as nice as Dallas to hold a SB you gotta be kidding.  MIA can upgrade to be one of the best stadiums to hold the SB or not.  But if 4 or 5 stadiums are nice venues why the hell should the sb be held in MIA?  

^^^ Because Miami is a helluva lot nicer place for visiting NFL fans to vacation than Dallas?

So in order to host a SB you have to build a billion dollar stadium?

Personally I think the rule should be last years SB winner hosts it this year.  And if you don't want to sit outside in Feburary in Greenbay to watch a football game...watch it from home. 

But if we are going to select the stadium based on nicest place to watch....the stadium shouldn't be a run down 30 years old place when nicer ones exist. 

I would absolutely love to see a cold weather Super Bowl with a nice covering of snow.

Green bay ain't good enough to win a Super Bowl, so you don't have to worry about sitting in the freezing cold :)

I still think that I'd like to see a neutral site for the Super Bowl. A big large city that does not have an NFL team could host the Super Bowl every year and you can lead up to it every year, like, "The road to ___, 2010".

I know a big city in the USA that does not have an NFL franchise - Los Angeles!! They could build a fantastic new Super Bowl stadium with a dome and play it there every single year.

I think that having a singular site for the game would be a mistake.  The multiple city thing gives you a unique opportunity to show off the city's characteristics, something that would be lost if it were in L.A. every year.  I'd like to see the Super Bowl go more in that direction and be kinda like the Olympics, tailored around that city.

Also, this is all about money.  You're not going to get as much influx of cash in Green Bay.  They just aren't currently capable of providing for that kind of event.  Also, you want people to travel and spend money in hotels and bars and everything else.  There's going to be a lot less of that, if you're asking people to travel to the freezing cold in February.

I don't think the site makes any difference. People are going to go to the Super Bowl either way. Detroit just hosted one and that is about the most depleted city I can think of so destination isn't the driving factor (although the cold may keep a certain type pf person away I still would predict a sellout easily).

^^

Absolutely, the game would sell out.  That's not the question.

It's about the other money -- sponsorships, hotels, bars, restaurants, other events in the area, pre-game, post-game, etc.

That's the money that would get lost, and I think that's where most of the big money is spent anyway, not on the actual ticket.

Why can't they give a "neutral" site a shot and see how ti works?

They can pack 90,000 into the L.A. Coliseum...right? L.A. is a big city with clubs, shopping, bars, casinos, beaches, etc...and it's a warm-weather climate, right?

LA Can't get a stadium for a team...maybe they can get the Super Bowl stadium?

I don't get your theory. If people attend the game they have to use hotels, restaurants, etc. The less outside distraction away from those (as a city like Miami has beaches) the more time is spent in the areas you say would lose out. Can you expand on why they would lose money?

Because if you're going to Miami from Green Bay, you're likely to expand your trip to cover the week.  It would also attract people with big money to throw around.

If you're going to Green Bay, from Miami, you're more likely to only schedule time for the main event itself.

For good weather locations, you're more likely to "make a vacation out of it".  Plus, I think that good weather locations attract the corporate types who have a lot of cash, but aren't as hardcore for the sport.

Dave Stole My Thunder...It's about all the stuff that goes with the Superbowl,the NFL Experience,all the concerts and things the week of the superbowl....Then there  is the whole traveling To and from the Events....When the 49ers played in the superbowl (I think it was Detroit) The 49ers almost didn't make it to the game,because of Snow,travel delays....

I agree with Stroke,the Comments are over Blown, When a Team builds a new Stadium, the NFL likes to reward them with a Superbowl the next few years (Seattle is the only one right off the top of my head that hasn't) The new Domes,have gotten the Superbowl....


I think the Rose bowl (what ever stadium that is) has Bid on it,or has in years past....L.A. is already building anice big stadium,trying to steal a team away...I'm pretty confident there will be a Super bowl in L.A, in the next 5-10 years...

So what....  I really don't care how many hotels rooms are sold by the superbowl.  Having the game at the stadium of the team that won the prior year would reward the team that won.  Having it in Greenbay or Buffalo in Febuary would mean that real football fans would get to go to the game as opposed to the corporate types.  

The Rose Bowl has actually hosted a number of Super Bowls in the past. At last 2 or 3 that I can remember, anyway.


Proving only that your perspective and that of the NFL are not running parallel courses here...because the NFL, and the host cities (all of them) care about those filled hotel rooms quite a bit.

It's a cycle.  The city of Miami wants a big influx of money, so they're willing to pour tons of money into stadium improvements, thinking that they'll make that back (and then some) through new business because of the event.

The city of Miami gets money.
The NFL gets stadium improvements, making it easier to sell their product.

It's a way for the NFL to leverage city involvement towards their stadiums.

Yea, I can see the extended stay part of it. That makes sense.

The rest of it, the parties, concerts, etc are going to happen regardless of location.

This is exactly it..... EXACTLY.  People will stay the whole week and do football stuff in a warm weather climate.  Imagine if they spruced up the Citrus Bowl here in Orlando and held a Super Bowl here.... all the hotels and condos and time shares would be completely packed.... not to mention all the money the restaurants, bars, sporting goods stores, t-shirt shops, and other places would take in as a result of people being here.  And don't even get me started on how many tickets the theme parks would sell. 

I hate our stadium anyway ...  at least the generalism of it.  I hate the generic "Miami" that we now share with the Canes in the end zone. and the fact at any given moment you can look around and never know the Dolphins play there.  I want a Dolphins stadium not unlike the Bucs stadium. I really don't care about trying to sell it for baseball, college games, and rock concerts.

1 - the stadium was built in 1987.  It's 22 years old, not 30.  And yes, in the world of structure, eight years makes a huge difference.
2 - the stadium is constantly being upgraded.
3 - Superbowls, to my knowledge, are played early January or February.  The goal of having the game in a warm climate city, or under a dome, is so that the weather does not alter the outcome of the game and to make both teams play on "equal footing."  So having the game in New England wouldn't make any sense.  Last time I checked it gets a touch chilly this time of year around these parts.

Kansas City was awarded the rights to host the SB in 2015...as long as they have stadium with a roof by that time.  Tax payers said "no way, Jose" and KC withdrew.  This year's SB was originally supposed to be in New York.  And, again, was withdrawn due to the roof issue.  It was then moved to Miami.  Something about the climate keeps coming to mind.

So - to answer your question Hoodie - no.  It isn't the same thing at all.  Not even in the same zip code. 

If the SB can only be in new / updated stadiums then the only five cities will ever host one:

1:  Dallas
2:  Phoenix
3:  Detroit
4:  Houston
5:  Indianapolis

San Diego plays in a stadium built in 1967.  Weird...it hosted a SB only seven years ago.  The stadium was 36 years old at that point. 

The Super Dome opened in 1975.  It hosted the 2002 SB.  Scheduled to host the 2013 SB.  A lot of work was done to the stadium after the hurricane.  Will New Orleans need to do equal work in the next three years to make sure their stadium, 12 years older than the one in Miami, can maintain it's status as a landing spot for the game?

Seeing that 25 of 42 Super Bowls have been played in the greater Miami area, New Orleans or the greater L.A. area (which include San Diego)...

I think Goodell is full of it unless he plans on making San Diego and New Orleans update their vastly older stadiums and hold those cities to the same accountabilities.

Roger Goodell is the reason we invaded Iraq.   ;)

Not a dime of taxpayer money should go to support stadium improvements. There should be no special tax and there certainly should be no special bonds. If the city or county really wants to spend the money, then put it into general infrastructure improvements or schools. Either would have a larger long term economic impact than hosting a Super Bowl once a decade.

The only tax I would ever support for a city/state to help fund a stadium would be a tax on hotel rooms.   

And Miami long depended on that tourist tax to support projects like this.  Unfortunately with the economy in shambles and people travelling less, this is not a good way to raise money for the stadium.

What you can do, instead of taxing the public, is that you can waive taxes on the current stadium for X amount of years, until you'd have enough to pay for the stadium.  The idea is that the extra revenue brought in would be a net neutral (or gain) from the city's perspective, but they also have a new stadium.