Roger Goodell holding the City of Miami hostage

[ethurst22]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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? 

[ethurst22]

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 What would be outdated?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?

[Sunstroke]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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 What would be outdated?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?

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?  

[Sunstroke]

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

[bsmooth]

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?  

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

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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. 

[Phishfan]

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

[jtex316]

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Phishfan]

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).

[Dave Gray]

^^

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.

[jtex316]

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?

[Phishfan]

^^

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.

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?