Skip navigation
Favorites
Sign up to follow your favorites on all your devices.
Sign up

Wilfs may add retractable roof to stadium

Vikings Stadium

Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf greets fans outside the state Capitol before a news conference after the Vikings stadium bill passed in the Senate and the House on Thursday, May 10, 2012, in St. Paul, Minn. At righ tis Vikings president Mark Wilf. (AP Photo/Star Tribune, Renee Jones Schneider) ST. PAUL OUT MINNEAPOLIS-AREA TV OUT MAGS OUT

AP

MDS pointed out earlier that the new Vikings stadium may host a Super Bowl.

Given the loose, non-binding quid pro quo that the NFL applies when a city/state coughs up big money for a new stadium, it would be a surprise if it doesn’t happen.

What would be a surprise -- and a major one -- is if the new stadium has a retractable roof. Approved via the Minnesota legislative process as a venue with a fixed lid, brothers Zygi and Mark Wilf suggested in a Friday session with reporters that the finished product may have the ability with the press of a button to go topless.

“Well if it’s snowing very, very hard we’ll open up the roof,” Zygi Wilf said, jokingly.

Asked if that means the new building will have a retractable roof, Zygi Wilf said, “Well, I don’t know.”

Mark Wilf was more candid. “We’re going to try to get the maximum number of features within the budgets. . . . We’re going to want to make it something special. And to the extent retractability can get there, we’re going to try to do it.”

And here’s where a cynic (I don’t know any) would say, “Sure, now that you’ve finagled more than $500 million in public money, you can justify spending the extra money that you didn’t have to devote to the project on a retractable roof.”

Then again, how cynical is it to think that the Wilfs didn’t make any serious noise about paying for a retractable roof before the stadium bill was approved because, if they had, plenty of lawmakers would have said, “Why not just spend the money it would take to add a retractable roof on the stadium itself and reduce the burden on the public?”

OK, it’s fairly cynical. There’s also a chance it’s fairly accurate.