Falcons Quote of the Day: Goodbye Dome Advantage

by James Rael on Feb 3, 2012 11:56 PM EST

Apparently the Falcons still want an open air stadium. Rich McKay - who I once shared an elevator with - had this to say today:

"A retractable roof stadium has always been one of the options, but our first preference has been to focus on an open-air stadium ... [o]ur discussions have, to date, primarily focused on an open-air stadium. There are no new developments to share, so it's not appropriate for me to comment further than that."

I'd be surprised if McKay isn't in-the-know, thus it appears the team is anti-dome and anti-retractable roof. Retractable roofs are sketchy at best. I live in Milwaukee, and I frequent Miller Park during baseball season. While the beer is plentiful and the brats are delicious, that roof is a maintenance nightmare. From time to time, it just gets stuck. While fitting the Dome with a retractable roof is the cheapest option, the lost revenue during construction and the maintenance costs may prove prohibitive.

Here is the article where he's quoted.

Discuss!

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Didn't know you lived in Milwaukee

noice

by Mattyice318 on Feb 4, 2012 1:47 AM EST reply actions

Who cares anymore?

They come out saying this shit the same time every season. They’re gonna do what they want. I’m down for whatever , an out door field would toughen these guys up.

Rule #1: Double tap.

by Ball Hawk on Feb 4, 2012 2:08 AM EST via mobile reply actions

Ball Hawk sometimes I feel like you're inside my head

This is pretty much the exact comment I was going to make

by FLA_Falcon on Feb 4, 2012 7:26 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

It sure has toughened up the Browns

Atlanta will win a championship....someday

by maxxj3 on Feb 4, 2012 10:49 AM EST up reply actions

lol

by leonw92 on Feb 4, 2012 8:29 PM EST up reply actions

The never were indoors

by brotherbrown on Feb 5, 2012 12:39 PM EST up reply actions

Duff_Man's travel plans may have been pushed back into October!

OH YEAH!

Twitter: twitter.com/edgrohl Google+: Ed G

by Duff_Man on Feb 4, 2012 10:11 AM EST reply actions

As long as Arthur Blank pays for it.

I still disagree with this because there’s nothing wrong with the dome except that the league doesn’t like it to host the SB, even though we’ve hosted two of them. A lot of people said that the NFL is weary of letting ATL hosting another one because of the ice storm in 2000. If that’s true then this proposed stadium makes no sense and the SB being held in Indiana makes no sense.

Atlanta will win a championship....someday

by maxxj3 on Feb 4, 2012 10:47 AM EST reply actions

This

Cities just don’t make the windfall they suggest they will when hosting SBs. Moreover, the site that has hosted the most SBs is none other than the SuperDome, which is 17 years older than the Georgia Dome and will host again next year.

It’s difficult enough keeping fans’ butts in the seats of Falcons games as it is. The inherent higher ticket costs (and probable PSLs), public disdain for having to fund any portion of a single-use site (ie, football), and loss of assurance of comfortable viewing environment will almost certainly drive fans away. Back to the days of blackouts I presume.

by Monduj1 on Feb 4, 2012 11:26 AM EST up reply actions