(12-10-2012 02:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I have never been to either so someone who has I'd like to hear how do the Super Dome and the Georgia Dome compare? I know the Super Dome is much older and it has no problems hosting Super Bowls and other big events. Is the Super Dome better or had a more recent renovation that makes it a better facility?

Never been to Super Dome but the Georgia Dome has had two renovations since it was built. The place is nice. It is not the palace that the NY and Dallas stadiums are. But its the best college stadium I have been to. Verry dissapointed in any plan which means that Atlanta's municipal stadium gets demolished.

(12-10-2012 02:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This is idiotic. Atlanta doesn't need another stadium.

Proud idiot. Thrilled with this move. Reliant is leaps and bounds better than the Georgia Dome, you have no grounds to talk about what we do or don't need.

(12-10-2012 02:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I have never been to either so someone who has I'd like to hear how do the Super Dome and the Georgia Dome compare? I know the Super Dome is much older and it has no problems hosting Super Bowls and other big events. Is the Super Dome better or had a more recent renovation that makes it a better facility?

I've only been in the Super Dome once, about 10 years back, but the Georgia Dome was certainly better back then. The most recent I was in the Georgia Dome was 2 years ago (I think) for a U2 concert, and other than being 9 miles from the stage, it's still a really nice venue.

I still don't think it's a good fit for Georgia State (for other reasons) but it's a nice stadium.

(12-10-2012 02:10 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:09 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:03 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  We'll get to play in the new facility. It's already in the proposed contract that we be on the "legacy" list.

Any word on if the rent gets jacked up?

If the Falcons are paying 2.5 mil, I can't imagine State will continue to get the sweetheart deal they're getting now. (approx $10k per game iirc).

$40k in rent just to open the doors. Still pretty cheap. I imagine it goes up, but not by much. There's already public backlash on the idea(you can see by this thread). They wouldn't want to pile it on by kicking a public university out of there or jacking up the prices to a point where it's not longer affordable.

(12-10-2012 02:38 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I have never been to either so someone who has I'd like to hear how do the Super Dome and the Georgia Dome compare? I know the Super Dome is much older and it has no problems hosting Super Bowls and other big events. Is the Super Dome better or had a more recent renovation that makes it a better facility?

I've only been in the Super Dome once, about 10 years back, but the Georgia Dome was certainly better back then. The most recent I was in the Georgia Dome was 2 years ago (I think) for a U2 concert, and other than being 9 miles from the stage, it's still a really nice venue.

I still don't think it's a good fit for Georgia State (for other reasons) but it's a nice stadium.

Its practically on campus and we didnt have to build it.

(12-10-2012 02:40 PM)panama Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:38 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I have never been to either so someone who has I'd like to hear how do the Super Dome and the Georgia Dome compare? I know the Super Dome is much older and it has no problems hosting Super Bowls and other big events. Is the Super Dome better or had a more recent renovation that makes it a better facility?

I've only been in the Super Dome once, about 10 years back, but the Georgia Dome was certainly better back then. The most recent I was in the Georgia Dome was 2 years ago (I think) for a U2 concert, and other than being 9 miles from the stage, it's still a really nice venue.

I still don't think it's a good fit for Georgia State (for other reasons) but it's a nice stadium.

Its practically on campus and we didnt have to build it.

Not going to argue with the convenience, but it's too big for you.

You know how fat chicks try to wear really small shirts and pants because it makes them feel better about what size they wear, but in reality it just makes their fat rolls pop out everywhere? That's Georgia State playing in the Dome.

(12-10-2012 02:37 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This is idiotic. Atlanta doesn't need another stadium.

Proud idiot. Thrilled with this move. Reliant is leaps and bounds better than the Georgia Dome, you have no grounds to talk about what we do or don't need.

Reliant was overkill. But in Houston's defense, there was a big difference between the Astrodome and the Georgia Dome. Feel free to borrow a ton of money if you wish. But its still idiotic IMHO.

(12-10-2012 02:42 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:40 PM)panama Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:38 PM)Klak Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I have never been to either so someone who has I'd like to hear how do the Super Dome and the Georgia Dome compare? I know the Super Dome is much older and it has no problems hosting Super Bowls and other big events. Is the Super Dome better or had a more recent renovation that makes it a better facility?

I've only been in the Super Dome once, about 10 years back, but the Georgia Dome was certainly better back then. The most recent I was in the Georgia Dome was 2 years ago (I think) for a U2 concert, and other than being 9 miles from the stage, it's still a really nice venue.

I still don't think it's a good fit for Georgia State (for other reasons) but it's a nice stadium.

Its practically on campus and we didnt have to build it.

Not going to argue with the convenience, but it's too big for you.

You know how fat chicks try to wear really small shirts and pants because it makes them feel better about what size they wear, but in reality it just makes their fat rolls pop out everywhere? That's Georgia State playing in the Dome.

Our attendance sucked this year in any venue. I want an AD who replicates the crowds of 30k and 26k we have had in past,not one who shrugs her shoulders oh well when its 12k. But it may become academic in a few years as we may end up having to build our own place.

(12-10-2012 02:27 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  and to attract an MLS franchise to the city,

I'd be very surprised if this move has any effect on the MLS. I would love to have a franchise, but would really hope they don't play at the new stadium.

If we end up with an MLS franchise, I think they need to be OTP north and even if they are ITP, I think they'll need their own stadium. Seattle seems to make it work playing at CenturyLink and they have a great environment despite only using about 50% of the stadium and I've been to USMNT matches in Nashville at LP field and the environment was pretty good, despite only using the lower bowl, but I just don't think it's the route we need to go. IF we're going to go ITP and the dome is demolished, perhaps we could put it there, but if we're going to get serious about the MLS, I think we need to model after the last few new MLS stadiums that have been built.

PPL park in Philly

Opened 2010
Cost $120 million
Capacity 18,500

Red Bull Arena in New Jersey

Opened in 2010
Cost $200 million
Capacity 25,189


FC Dallas Stadium

Opened 2005
Cost $80 million
Capacity 20,500

A MLS stadium with a capacity between 22k-30k opening where the dome currently stands would actually probably benefit Georgia State greatly. They could use that for their primary home and play games at the new Falcons stadium when they get a chance to host an SEC school.

Sorry for the slight derail to the majority of this board who I'm quite confident have no interest in soccer whatsoever.

Major League Soccer?! Huh? The Fort Lauderdale Strikers are talking about building a nice 10,000-seat stadium, but the Georgia Dome is not good enough for MLS?

The stadiums shown above would be great and perfectly-sized homes for most Sun Belt and CUSA schools. FIU was trying to interest the Miami MLS franchise in its stadium, but the Fort Lauderdale Strikers chose to move north back to their old, somewhat nasty home at Lockhart. They are now talking about rebuilding a stadium there or in the FLL area. They should consider FAU Stadium, but it might be slightly too far from the team's core fans.

As for the NFL, it's full of it. The NFL last year warned Dolphin Stadium that it needed to make costly changes to keep getting Super Bowls. The place is gorgeous and had major upgrades a few years ago!

The Super Dome was trashed after Katrina ads it seems to keep its rotation.

I don't see Buffalo, Jacksonvlle, etc. going crazy with new stadiums. New York doesn't even have a new football stadium. Its teams play in New Jersey.

(12-10-2012 03:21 PM)BMarkey Wrote:  Major League Soccer?! Huh? The Fort Lauderdale Strikers are talking about building a nice 10,000-seat stadium, but the Georgia Dome is not good enough for MLS?

As for the NFL, it's full of it. The NFL last year warned Dolphin Stadium that it needed to make costly changes to keep getting Super Bowls. The place is gorgeous and had major upgrades a few years ago!

The Super Dome was trashed after Katrina ads it seems to keep its rotation.

I don't see Buffalo, Jacksonvlle, etc. going crazy with new stadiums. New York doesn't even have a new football stadium. Its teams play in New Jersey.

Quiet You! With facts and facts based facts-like fatcs! Silence!

(12-10-2012 03:21 PM)BMarkey Wrote:  Major League Soccer?! Huh? The Fort Lauderdale Strikers are talking about building a nice 10,000-seat stadium, but the Georgia Dome is not good enough for MLS?

As for the NFL, it's full of it. The NFL last year warned Dolphin Stadium that it needed to make costly changes to keep getting Super Bowls. The place is gorgeous and had major upgrades a few years ago!

The Super Dome was trashed after Katrina ads it seems to keep its rotation.

I don't see Buffalo, Jacksonvlle, etc. going crazy with new stadiums. New York doesn't even have a new football stadium. Its teams play in New Jersey.

The Super Dome had been repaired by the opening of 2006 season. You remember that season, the Saints opened with Atlanta and rolled them in the homecoming game.

A few years ago the stadium was approved for a total makeover inside the envelope. In fact a new new facade was part of the renovation, and the place is absolutely gorgeous, and all things modern. My son was the project manager for the rewiring of the place, electrical, and data.

(12-10-2012 02:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:27 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  and to attract an MLS franchise to the city,

I'd be very surprised if this move has any effect on the MLS. I would love to have a franchise, but would really hope they don't play at the new stadium.

If we end up with an MLS franchise, I think they need to be OTP north and even if they are ITP, I think they'll need their own stadium. Seattle seems to make it work playing at CenturyLink and they have a great environment despite only using about 50% of the stadium and I've been to USMNT matches in Nashville at LP field and the environment was pretty good, despite only using the lower bowl, but I just don't think it's the route we need to go. IF we're going to go ITP and the dome is demolished, perhaps we could put it there, but if we're going to get serious about the MLS, I think we need to model after the last few new MLS stadiums that have been built.

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/football/...ike/nTQhm/

Quote:Would an MLS team play there?
The stadium will be designed to accommodate soccer. The proposed deal gives a high priority on the stadium’s booking calendar to Major League Soccer games if an MLS team “owned or controlled by the Falcons or its principals is established within 10 years” of the stadium’s opening.

That's not what this says.

Yes, the Super Dome was refurbished. That's a lot cheaper than building a new stadium and trashing a perfectly good old older one. The Miami Arena was allowed to go to seed. I'm not sure what Orlando did with its extra one.

We are headed for the "fiscal cliff", with all kinds of schools roads and transportation and other community needs, yet and our leaders want to crap out hundreds of millions of dollars to generate one or two games every few years. The community impact is nowhere as high as the promoters would like us to believe.

(12-10-2012 02:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:27 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  and to attract an MLS franchise to the city,

I'd be very surprised if this move has any effect on the MLS. I would love to have a franchise, but would really hope they don't play at the new stadium.

Gotta love all the big heaps of lack of awareness being displayed in this thread.

The move actually is partially about MLS as Blank wants an MLS franchise and this venue will be designed to host MLS games (good for us as it will be designed to host events drawing much smaller crowds, and look good doing it).

As for GSU's rent, the agreement requires the new stadium to host a specific list of "legacy events", and GSU football is one of them. I'm more worried about how they will accommodate us with signage/field logos than I am about the rent going up too much.

(12-10-2012 03:21 PM)BMarkey Wrote:  Major League Soccer?! Huh? The Fort Lauderdale Strikers are talking about building a nice 10,000-seat stadium, but the Georgia Dome is not good enough for MLS?

The stadiums shown above would be great and perfectly-sized homes for most Sun Belt and CUSA schools. FIU was trying to interest the Miami MLS franchise in its stadium, but the Fort Lauderdale Strikers chose to move north back to their old, somewhat nasty home at Lockhart. They are now talking about rebuilding a stadium there or in the FLL area. They should consider FAU Stadium, but it might be slightly too far from the team's core fans.

As for the NFL, it's full of it. The NFL last year warned Dolphin Stadium that it needed to make costly changes to keep getting Super Bowls. The place is gorgeous and had major upgrades a few years ago!

The Super Dome was trashed after Katrina ads it seems to keep its rotation.

I don't see Buffalo, Jacksonvlle, etc. going crazy with new stadiums. New York doesn't even have a new football stadium. Its teams play in New Jersey.

A few things to point out.

1) The Fort Lauderdale Strikers are NASL, not MLS. There is a big difference there.

2) The Georgia Dome would be a horrendous home for MLS. Even if we weren't getting a new NFL stadium, if we got a MLS franchise, they wouldn't be playing at the dome.

3) I still maintain that the best home for a MLS franchise would be in the burbs.

4) Miami and New Orleans always have and always will host Super Bowls, they are destination cities with warm weather and that's why they are the two most frequent hosts. Atlanta has hosted twice and the last time was 2000 and I believe we were told explicitly that without a new stadium we wouldn't be in consideration. We're a fringe destination city and a fringe warm weather city, we do not have the advantages that Miami and New Orleans do, so long as they have a semi respectable stadium, they will stay in the rotation.

Quote:Dear [Falcons Fan],

Earlier today, the Georgia World Congress Center Authority (GWCCA) Board approved a term sheet for the proposed new stadium on the GWCC campus. This is an important step toward reaching a final agreement, which we anticipate will occur in 2013.

A new stadium in Atlanta is important to the Falcons for a number of reasons: It will allow us to provide a league-competitive game day experience to our fans, and it will help the team remain competitive on the field over a long period of time. In addition, it puts into place a long-term solution following the expiration of our lease at the Georgia Dome.

But this new stadium is not just about the Falcons. It will be an iconic asset owned by the state that will provide economic benefits to our city, region and state. During the construction phase alone, the new stadium will add more than 4,500 new jobs to the state’s economy and generate more than $400 million in total economic impact, including more than $160 million in personal income.

In addition, a new stadium allows the city and state to remain competitive with other venues across the country in areas such as attracting new convention business, retaining events currently held in the Georgia Dome, hosting new marquee events in the future, and possibly adding Major League Soccer to Atlanta’s professional sports team mix.

All of these opportunities provide significant positive economic impacts for Georgia. For example, four of the Dome’s largest annual events – the SEC Championship Game, Chick-fil-A Bowl, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game and Bank of America Football Classic – generate a combined annual economic impact of more than $100 million. And hosting marquee events such as a Super Bowl, World Cup and BCS Football Championship Game would have a combined potential to generate more than $450 million in economic impact.

The proposed financial arrangement for the new stadium is also beneficial to the state. Unlike the Georgia Dome, which was financed 100 percent with public money, the Falcons have agreed to fund about two-thirds of the cost of construction, as well as any cost overruns, with private dollars. In addition, the Falcons will take on the operating and capital risks that the state currently bears at the Georgia Dome. We are willing to do these things to ensure a great game day experience for our fans, and to be part of providing new opportunities to the city and state.

The public funding for the remaining one-third of the stadium construction costs will be covered by the existing hotel-motel tax, which is largely paid by visitors, not local residents. So, unless a Georgia resident stays in a hotel in the city of Atlanta or certain other parts of Fulton County, he or she will pay nothing in taxes to build the new stadium.

We are encouraged by today’s vote, and will continue to work in partnership with the GWCCA to reach a final agreement that is beneficial to all stakeholders, including the neighborhoods surrounding the new stadium. You can stay informed regarding our progress by visiting atlantafalcons.com and clicking on the link to the new stadium site.

We will strive to keep you informed of our progress along the way. Thank you for your support this season, and best wishes for a happy holiday season.

Sincerely,


Arthur M. Blank
Owner & Chairman
Atlanta Falcons

(12-10-2012 03:47 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I'd be very surprised if this move has any effect on the MLS. I would love to have a franchise, but would really hope they don't play at the new stadium.

Gotta love all the big heaps of ignorance being displayed in this thread.

The move actually is partially about MLS as Blank wants an MLS franchise and this venue will be designed to host MLS games (good for us as it will be designed to host events drawing much smaller crowds, and look good doing it).

As for GSU's rent, the agreement requires the new stadium to host a specific list of "legacy events", and GSU football is one of them. I'm more worried about how they will accommodate us with signage/field logos than I am about the rent going up too much.

Heaps of ignorance, eh? I know that Blanks wants an MLS franchise, he was one of the last to withdraw a bid on one of the last rounds of expansion. Look, I know the stadium will be designed to "accommodate" an MLS franchise, but I do not think we would be setting up a new franchise for success letting them play in a stadium they'd be unlikely to ever fill to even 50%. I'm a big soccer fan, I want to see it happen, but I do not see us replicating the environment the Sounders have playing in a NFL stadium. I adamantly believe that playing MLS games in the new NFL stadium will be setting this city up to lose another sports franchise. I believe that Arthur Blank is a smart man and that's why, despite what the article says, I do not believe we'll see the MLS playing in the new stadium.

Heaps of ignorance...

MLS in a big empty dome would suck. I want to see it here but it would be so much better in a smaller, outdoor stadium.

(12-10-2012 03:47 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 02:27 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  and to attract an MLS franchise to the city,

I'd be very surprised if this move has any effect on the MLS. I would love to have a franchise, but would really hope they don't play at the new stadium.

Gotta love all the big heaps of ignorance being displayed in this thread.

The move actually is partially about MLS as Blank wants an MLS franchise and this venue will be designed to host MLS games (good for us as it will be designed to host events drawing much smaller crowds, and look good doing it).

As for GSU's rent, the agreement requires the new stadium to host a specific list of "legacy events", and GSU football is one of them. I'm more worried about how they will accommodate us with signage/field logos than I am about the rent going up too much.

This

Images of Houston at Reliant or Cinncinnati at Bengals Stadium come to mind.Ugghhh