The Lambeau Field Expansion Rolls On

by Brandon on Jul 7, 2010 12:32 AM CDT in Green Bay Packers News

Since Green Bay Packers president Mark Murphy appears to be doing a speaking tour to build support for an expansion of Lambeau Field, I'm guessing it's a done deal. It's probably a question of "when" instead of "if". The first report came back in May, and now the Business Journal of Milwaukee has a further update (via Pro Football Talk).

More seating at Lambeau, and potentially more eager fans becoming season ticket holders, sounds like a good idea. It would make the neighborhood around the stadium even more of a post-game mess with an extra 10%+ fans at each game, and I'm not sure they could do anything about the additional traffic. I hope they don't expect Brown County residents to shoulder the burden, but it's almost inevitable that they'll ask for some government dollars.

What do you think? Should they just leave the stadium alone, or is it time to add more seats.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

let the packers

pay for the expansion if they want it. if people remember correctly, the last referendum wasn’t exactly a landslide victory. i believe it was 53% yes and 47% no. i voted yes the first time, but if they ask for more money——- i will vote no. i’m guessing the majority of the residents in brown county will also say no considering the state of the present economy.

as it stands now, that stadium tax is still on the brown county residents and will probably never come off. the residents of brown county not only help build the renovations at lambeau, but also are replenishing “the packers pool of money” year in and year out, so we can compete with the rest of league in the signing bonus of players.

by hermitcrab on Jul 7, 2010 12:59 AM CDT reply actions

Come on if you think your tax dollars are going to pay for aaron rodgers signing bonus you are nuts. NFL gives each team roughly the salary cap around $120m from the TV contract. That money goes to the players and pays their salary/signing bonus/roster bonus ect.

To say that your tax dollars are going towards that is just stupid. Now if you are talking about going forward with no salary cap (which wont happen with a new CBA) then perhaps you have a point. However the tax is due to expire so dont vote yes on a new tax unless there is a salary cap.

The tax dollars were to expand lambeau field, something that has only helped to raise more taxes and help out brown county. Trust me brown county is better off having a newer, better stadium than before. Now adding 10% more seats from what I understand is not going to cost that much money and will be worth it for the county to pony up a few more mill for it. However the Packers might just foot the cost themselves. 10% more seats should equal 8-9% more revenue (not quite as expensive as the other seats) which can help the packers remain pretty freaking good.

by Graham H on Jul 12, 2010 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions

stadium

Honestly, the Packers should have anticipated this and renovated it w/ more seating in the first place! While I no longer live in GB, my family does, and I think they would have went for more in renovation, but won’t likely to so now… IMO, the Packers should have made it about 85 – 90,000 when the renovation was done. I have heard the expansion is being paid down more quickly than anticipated, so in that respect it is being managed well. Although w/ the economy the way it is, it may no longer be ahead of projections. Anybody know where it stands?

Only thing I can think to further expand is to remove the skybox’s and add a 2nd deck of 10,000 or so, and then add the skybox’s on top of that. It seems the bowl itself is about as large as it could be.

by Strohman on Jul 7, 2010 6:16 AM CDT reply actions

I think they are looking at what to do with the open end of the stadium…not a major renovation as you are mentioning.

by TrevorR on Jul 7, 2010 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Apparently someone does not listen to Bob Harlen. He planned on it but built the stadium how it is now because with the extra seats it was too expensive. The space is there to expand BECUASE they were planning on putting the seats in someday. They are going to fill the open end of the stadium with more seats right? That wont cost that much money and brown county should put up a few extra mill in the next few years to make that happen. 10% more fans on game day meants 10% more tax revenues for brown county from the Packers. Probably a pretty good sum if you add it up over the next 5-10 years.

by Graham H on Jul 12, 2010 8:22 AM CDT up reply actions

one advantage...

Since the team is basically owned by the city, the team and the stadium profits would go back to the city ultimately, right? So at least they will actually see the results come back unlike most stadiums. I live in Minneapolis, so I won’t be paying for this no matter what (and since I am in the suburbs I won’t be paying much toward any future Vikings stadiums either!) I guess I am not shocked they want to expand more, but I felt like they should have taken it to that next level the first time around and gotten it over with.

by TrevorR on Jul 7, 2010 8:51 AM CDT reply actions

owned

The team is owned by the shareholders, not the City of GB. So any profits goes back to the Packer Organization. If they figure out what to do w/ the open end of the stadium, the Packer Organization will likely have to pay for it. I don’t think it just gets tacked on to the renovation that was passed and is paying for the renovation.

Admittedly I am not as up to date on this as I used to be, since moving to AZ from GB over a decade ago.

by Strohman on Jul 7, 2010 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions

Where the money goes

The Packers are owned by the shareholders, but the type of organization it is is basically a form of non-profit. The shareholders don’t get dividends, some of the them do get some voting rights though.

Basically the Packers take the money that they earn and then reinvest it into the organization with some liquid assets available for emergency situations.

The city does benefit from the Packers in the form of taxes, employment, and tourist dollars. That’s basically it.

by PackApologist on Jul 7, 2010 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions

But my point in all of this is that its not going into the pockets of a billionaire…its staying with the team. I think that gives them a distinct advantage when they do try to raise money. One of the big arguments the Vikes have against them up here is that the owner is getting his stadium paid for and HE is the one who stands to benefit.

by TrevorR on Jul 7, 2010 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions

True true…I guess I should have put that differently…see my post below.

by TrevorR on Jul 7, 2010 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions

I really don't have a problem with it

Right now the Pack has a lot of good will in my mind, so an expansion isn’t a bad thing. It should keep the Packers competitive with the rest of the league and let them have a bit more capital to work with.

I know that doesn’t quite sound right, but the Packers as an organization need to be concerned with how much money they bring in. Since the Packers do not have an owner there is a basic limit to how much money can flow through organization. Take a look at the Vikings, in this franchise there have been reports that the owner has sank $50 million or so of his own money in to keep the ship afloat. This is a revenue source that the Packers just don’t have, and so to be able to keep up with the billion upon billionaires every revenue source must be looked at.

Right now the Packers are good enough. We are around the middle of the NFL in how much made, but one bad turn and they could be at the bottom and struggling. An expansion should keep us a float and help the Packers well into the future.

by PackApologist on Jul 7, 2010 9:26 AM CDT reply actions

I support expansion of the stadium.

I don’t support many taxes because often…nvm!! Will be off topic for too long.

But Packers are a good brand and the seats will actually fill-up quickly unlike other teams around the league. That extra revenue could ultimately help this team that does not have a revenue source like a real owner. Attracting more fans ultimately means that there will be 10,000 or so more consumers in the area to support the local Green Bay businesses as well which leads to a little bit more tax revenue for the team. Again this is if the tax revenue is used wisely and supports the Packers organization. Otherwise, taxing would not be a good idea.

I thought in the past that the Packers issued some form of a bond. This could also be a good idea for immediate financial aide.

by Bush League All Star on Jul 7, 2010 12:40 PM CDT reply actions

With the current revenue-sharing system in jeopardy (at best), it would be prudent to increase the seating capacity. Since there is no money-hungry owner pocketing any exta profits, how can it be argued that this decision would be made without the best interest of the franchise in mind? If the Packers want to be an average team that never contends for a championship but stays afloat then fine, leave it as it is, but if the Packers want to be able to pay the quality players it will take to make a title run, they have to find a way to at least be on a similar level to big market teams that are willing to spend some money.

As for the source of funds for this expansion, I don’t have enough knowledge of the scenarios to forge an opinion. On one hand, 10,000 people at each game would result in extra money being put into the local economy, via hotels, restaurants, etc. However, it doesn’t sound like this type of expansion would cost hundreds of millions, so maybe it would be a good idea for the team to fund the operation as the extra revenue from tickets, concessions, and pro shop sales could potentially pay off the expansion sooner than later.

by ACDC84 on Jul 7, 2010 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think revenue sharing is going anywhere

There are two types of revenue sharing that currently happen in the NFL. The main one involves doling out the funds from the major money makers of the NFL, the television contracts, merchandise profits, etc. The other is the supplemental revenue sharing. This is the program that was eliminated before and then was put back after the players pitched a fit. If any program is going to go then it would be this one.

Problem is that this program really doesn’t deal with a whole lot a money(only a few million dollars) and only goes to the bottom third of teams making money. If Forbes is accurate in their projections of the teams, the Packers wouldn’t be included in those teams.

Right now the Packers do alright. The bigger concern would salary caps. The Pack would have a tough time over a long term without a salary cap, even though we did okay this year.

by PackApologist on Jul 7, 2010 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Vote No to Nosebleeds!

I’ve sat in the new seats that were added after the last renovation, and the difference is noticable. You feel like you’re far away from the field, whereas I never felt that way in Lambeau before. The new seats weren’t terrible, don’t get me wrong. But, when you add seats further away, just know that you’re messing with what makes Lambeau the best stadium in the NFL.

It’s like a kid who steals whisky from his parents’ bottle and replaces what he took with water. You can get away with it once, maybe twice, maybe three times. But, if you get greedy, eventually they’re going to notice and you’re going to get busted. Sometimes it’s the better part of wisdom to just leave a good thing alone.

by Curly Lambeau on Jul 7, 2010 3:49 PM CDT reply actions

Packers to move to LA

all you packers fans saying vikings should pay for there own new stadium.i think packers should pay for there own stadium to be expand,if packers can’t then they should move to LA.

by subzero on Jul 7, 2010 10:28 PM CDT reply actions

Wow

Hmmm….don’t where to start dissecting this post…

all Packer fans say the Vikings should pay for their own stadium: Well I can’t speak for everyone, but I really don’t care which way that goes, and I live in the Twin Cities. Most the things that I say, and have said at DN, revolve around the fact that even the Lambeau renovations were contentious and Green Bay is more in love with the Packers than the state of Minnesota is with the Vikings.

the Packers should pay for their own expansion: Why? If the county is willing to extend the tax then why shouldn’t that pay for it as well? Especially if part of that expansion includes an expansion of the atrium (something that has been in the mix as well). [Warning to Viking fans I’m going to get arrogant about Lambeau field for a moment] See the thing is that the Packers were smart about renovating Lambeau to make it an excellent football venue, but also include enough other pieces to be able to use it year round. The main piece is the atrium, where there are restaurants and a few other businesses people go to. There are also more events going in and out of the stadium than before. Minneapolis does a good job using the Metrodome for many things, in fact that’s why the format of a dome was chosen is the rumor I hear around the cities. The problem is though is that it’s a dump. The place goes for a jack of all trades, or place for all events, sort of feel and that means that it’s not really great for any one thing…football included.

“if [the] packers can’t then they should move to LA.” Now this last part is just stupid and meant to piss people off. It reminds me of something a rabbi once told me actually. He was talking about why there hasn’t been a new temple built and he said that one of two things would need to happen: 1. The Messiah would need to come and order the Temple’s construction, or 2. every rabbi in the world would need to agree to have the Temple built. Needless to say he didn’t think it would happen. As any novice football fan knows, there is no central ownership for the Packers and those that do own the Packers are so connected to Green Bay that it’s just never going to happen. So either Lombardi and Lambeau themselves would need to come back from the grave and make a public announcement telling the faithful to move or all the people who own the team would have to lose their minds. Really don’t think that is going to happen.

by PackApologist on Jul 7, 2010 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Here’s the difference…
The Packers don’t want a new stadium. The Vikings do.
The Packers didn’t struggle to sell out their home playoff games. The Vikings have.
The Packers don’t stuggle with filling their stadium. The Vikings have.

Its not just the stadium that is the result of the LA talks…its partially the wishy washy fanbase. MN might just have too many teams…I don’t think it should be your Vikings that go, but they might just not be able to support 4 pro teams.

by TrevorR on Jul 8, 2010 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions

Which franchise should go then?

If the Twin Cities can’t support four sport teams which should be retracted or move?

I would put my money on the T-wolves. I bet they could leave town and not many would notice. After that it’s a toss-up between the Wild versus the Vikings. The Vikings have the history but there is a deep love for hockey up here.

by PackApologist on Jul 8, 2010 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions

It would have to be the Twolves. Most people around here forget that the Wolves are even here. It won’t be the Wild, they are still selling that place out even though they haven’t been relevent in years. Its a smaller fanbase for that sport but a VERY loyal one. The Twolves would make logical sense though…they really have nothing going there and NOW they have the second oldest stadium and if the Vikes get theirs they will have the oldest one with no real hope of getting a new one. Not sure what cities would want a team though…I mean the last one went to Oklahoma City for pete’s sake! I guess anyone can support a team in the NBA if that city can!

by TrevorR on Jul 8, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions

The Lakers and the North Stars.

Wait.
They already did that, and then filled the holes.
So, any ‘pure football’ fans that the ’queens have may end up having to pay for that.

-
The glass is more than half-full.

by NorthStarr on Jul 10, 2010 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions

teams or fans

I don’t think they necessarily have to lose a team… Its just the pathetic nature of their sports fans… Like you said they’re wishy washy!!!! Thats all it really is…

Lakers left and MN let them.
North Stars left and MN let them.

Its just who they are!!! I guess any team that resides there just has to deal w/ it. Maybe the viqueens need an outdoor stadium! Didn’t they sell out when the queen played at the Met?

by Strohman on Jul 8, 2010 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions

They let them because they felt they would just get another…and they did.

Honestly I think the fans here are too soft for an exclusively outdoor football stadium. You should hear the whining when the weather is iffy for the Twins games. I went to a game where the temp was in the 50s and the pissing and moaning almost drown out the sound of the game! ;-)

by TrevorR on Jul 8, 2010 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions

extend the tax?

the tax will never leave. it’s on their for good. this is how the packers in the future will be able to compete. the tax payers dollars keep pumping money into the packers funds. all the taxes are not just for the renovations.

i thought i explained it clearly in the first post, since i am a tax payer in brown county, i kinda know how it works.

by hermitcrab on Jul 7, 2010 11:09 PM CDT reply actions

basically

the tax payers will still end up paying for the renovations indirectly, since brown county residents have already sunk in millions of dollars into the packers funds. as long as murphy doesn’t ask to raise the taxes again…………no difference……….tax money will continue to pour into the packers system to keep them competitive for many many more years.

by hermitcrab on Jul 7, 2010 11:17 PM CDT reply actions