2060 State of the Stadiums

[Lane]

That definitely makes whether to swap out a stadium at all if you're already at 65K a totally different animal IMO because of 2 years of revenue losses.

in theory, yes. however, if we look at 2059, only NSH and SAC averaged over 55k fans per game. so i would say that "lost" revenue of having 55k seats instead of 65k seats is minimal, especially considering you'd be short 10k seats in the first season, and just 5k seats in the second season.

[Trebro]

That definitely makes whether to swap out a stadium at all if you're already at 65K a totally different animal IMO because of 2 years of revenue losses.

in theory, yes. however, if we look at 2059, only NSH and SAC averaged over 55k fans per game. so i would say that "lost" revenue of having 55k seats instead of 65k seats is minimal, especially considering you'd be short 10k seats in the first season, and just 5k seats in the second season.

But even if you only sell out 20 dates at 15 dollars that's 3 million in lost revenue without counting playoff money, where prices are even higher.

It is what it is, but I think it works counter to the intended plan of pushing to a new stadium every 30 years. That instead pushes more towards relocation every 30 years.

I don't think it's a problem per se, but I also don't think it's working as intended.

[Lane]

is that $3 million before or after revenue sharing?

i'm not sure what you mean by how it is intended to work.

and relocation can be a great benefit for the right team, but if you don't meet enough requirements for bonuses there's no advantage over building a new stadium.

[Trebro]

Fair point on gross vs net. But it's still not as mich of a no brainer as I think it should be.

I guess my feeling and I could be wrong, is that in real life, teams get new stadiums about every 30 years and it feels like the intention is to replicate that in the BBA by the stadium dues since otherwise there's no incentive. But because of the penalty for successful large stadium teams in lost revenue, it feels like the teams who are doing well have no incentive to move until Year 49.

Plus, it also feels weird to me that a team can keep expanding after building. That's not true to real life for pro teams.

Again, not saying the set up is bad. Just that it might not be working as intended, unless the stadium fee is a gentle nudge to move teams periodically. Because it always makes sense in light of a move, IMO.

[Bob Breum]

We’ve also go the option for open-air, retractable roof or domed stadium. Nine teams (BIK, HAW, LV, NO, POR, BOI, YS, SA, VAN) have opted for a retractable roof.

Ubisoft Field in Montreal has a retractable roof.

Didn't know that! Stadium tracker shows no roof. Guess you owe $16 million in back maintenance dues ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oops.

[Trebro]

Ubisoft Field in Montreal has a retractable roof.

Didn't know that! Stadium tracker shows no roof. Guess you owe $16 million in back maintenance dues ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oops.

Lane had big-time mercy on you, as you saw.

[7teen]

why would someone choose to pay money for real grass or a retractable roof? to feel better about their stadium? i read it doesn't have an impact in the game

I went retractable roof just for realism. Felt playing in Portland and up in the PACNW required some sort of coverage from weather delays/cancellations.

[DaveB]

Sorry just noticed this thread.

Is there any chance that teams can renovate their stadium in the future to lessen maintenance costs?

[Lane]

Sorry just noticed this thread.

Is there any chance that teams can renovate their stadium in the future to lessen maintenance costs?

there is not currently a mechanism for this, only by building a new stadium can you reset maintenance costs.