|
Post by blackthorne on Jan 31, 2005 15:36:49 GMT -5
This is a toughy...
Personally, anything except an "Open-air"- Canad Inns-style of stadium would be fine with me.
Just as long as it doesn't look like a toilet seat.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on Jan 31, 2005 16:26:27 GMT -5
It can't be totally closed.
I like the open air Stadium now; the winds play a role in games (would Bob Cameron have been such an asset if we played in a dome?), the temperature on a summer night makes for a beautiful atmosphere, the actual sun on the field is wonderful (which is why I hate even watching games in SkyDome or BC Place because it's all artificial lighting), and in the winter, football is just that much more intense. People in Winnipeg have to know how to dress for the cold--sitting in a dome in November is the easy way out.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 31, 2005 17:56:31 GMT -5
I'm beginning to debate whether we need a new stadium at all. I mean if it's 100% privately funded, then I would go for it (unless it's domed). As a taxpayer, I would not be pleased to foot the bill for a new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by whiteout on Feb 2, 2005 2:25:15 GMT -5
Just not a dome. I know Winnipeg is freezing in the winter, and yeah it sometimes sucks being out in the freezing cold in November, but its part of the game. Plus, games on warm summer days/nights are awesome, and cold games can be fun too...gotta suck it up, wheathers part of the game! I wouldnt HATE a dome I guess, but I'd prefer outdoor.
|
|
|
Post by KillerBrew on Feb 2, 2005 5:41:39 GMT -5
No dome. While cheering for the blue n gold I want to freeze my Go Jets Go off. Football is meant to be played outside.
|
|
|
Post by Ducky on Feb 2, 2005 21:06:07 GMT -5
Football is made for the outdoors period.
The design of the new stadium has overhanging roof over the bleachers so rain should not be an excuse for not going to games.
But I think the football season should be moved about one month back for better football climate. Having a frozen football is not real way to play football. But I guess this will never happen b/c of NFL players signings castoffs will conflict this.
THe question I have will a roof really generate more revenue for whats its worth? In the offseason will there be more concerts and other functions coming here, I don't see that happen.
Don't get me wrong a retractable roof would be nice to have but maybe the engineers should see if a golf dome (like on wilks) type roof would work, probably be cheaper.
Myself I sure would like to see more use of the new stadium for example if they can add to the building a practise arena for the moose (the moose/jets would pay part of the bill) or how about an arena in the football field. Also how about a massively bigger golf dome so people can golf in the winter. Maybe for tourism attraction sake there could be an exotic aquarium. I would also like to see the red river ex actively pursue again in buying out the manitoba stampede (the 2nd biggest rideo circuit) as in the meantime the rodeo would be hosted in the new stadium (as for chuckwagon races they could modify the assiboine downs to hold these races). If the red river ex don't take advantage in using this stadium then I don't see why have the stadium on there land to begin with, the stadium might as well be near waterfront drive at higgins and main.
|
|
|
Post by bigchris on Feb 5, 2005 0:54:30 GMT -5
Under NO circumstances can the stadium be a dome. No dome has had success in the CFL except for a few seasons. (Toronto, BC and Montreal lost 75% of their fans within 3-4 years of building their domes.) Domes are impersonal and have no atmosphere at all. I don't care about the Winnipeg weather, this is FOOTBALL, it is made to be played in the COLD.
I also don't like the idea of putting it in an open field outside of town like Assiniboia Downs because the wind gets pretty and the cold is much more bitter out there than in the city. I would want to keep it in the city limits and preferably close to downtown but not in the downtown area.
|
|
|
Post by Yar on Feb 7, 2005 1:59:50 GMT -5
Under NO circumstances can the stadium be a dome. No dome has had success in the CFL except for a few seasons. (Toronto, BC and Montreal lost 75% of their fans within 3-4 years of building their domes.) Domes are impersonal and have no atmosphere at all. I don't care about the Winnipeg weather, this is FOOTBALL, it is made to be played in the COLD. I also don't like the idea of putting it in an open field outside of town like Assiniboia Downs because the wind gets pretty and the cold is much more bitter out there than in the city. I would want to keep it in the city limits and preferably close to downtown but not in the downtown area. i agree with absolutely everything you said.
|
|
|
Post by dreamcatcher on Feb 10, 2005 12:13:37 GMT -5
Me too...me too! Unless, it ressembles a toilet...
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on Feb 10, 2005 14:03:07 GMT -5
This is about MONEY...
The Bombers lose around 8,000 fans a game if the weather is lousy.
And a dome could be used year-round.
I wouldn't mind it being a dome.
There were about 10,000+ empty seats for a Bomber playoff game in November a few years back. 10,000 seats that WOULD have been filled if we played in a dome.
Now before you say "Football is meant to be played outdoors!!", think about that.
And remember that "the bottom line" is REVENUE.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Feb 10, 2005 16:28:11 GMT -5
The Bombers lose around 8,000 fans a game if the weather is lousy. Not true. It depends how the Bombers are playing, whether they are contenders. In the 91' Grey Cup game, over 51,000 people sold out the stadium in -17C weather. Besides, we will always get over 27,000 fans in November if the Bombers are making a run at the top of the division... Not for too many events. Not enough to jusify shelling out taxpayers money into it. that's why we have the new arena. Not true. A dome would drive away fans in droves after the novelty wore off. Examples: Montreal Alouettes, BC Lions, Toronto Argonauts. Football is meant to be played outdoors... That's correct. however, building a indoor stadium would be the biggest "white elephant" Winnipeg has ever seen. And that includes Portage Place...
|
|
|
Post by MOC on Feb 11, 2005 15:28:46 GMT -5
How much revenue would really be generated when a dome would cost much, much more than non-dome?
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on Feb 11, 2005 17:22:50 GMT -5
Well I'm sure the "feasability study" they're conducting right now will figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by Ducky on Feb 11, 2005 19:44:38 GMT -5
Do you guys think if a golf dome (like on wilks) type roof would work, probably be cheaper.?
|
|
|
Post by MOC on Feb 11, 2005 20:26:21 GMT -5
If CanadInns and the Ex want to fund a dome on their own, let them go for it.
However, if taxpayers' money is to be involved, which we haven't heard either way, I'd much prefer it not to be a dome - less money spent from the taxpayers' pockets, and maybe a few thousand tickets less for the Bombers a season.
They play outside in Green Bay in January... and they sell out. No one wants a dome there, do they?
I'm not usually one to Go Jets Go about tax money going into projects, but this is one that I don't really want to finance, especially if it's a dome.
|
|
|
Post by jetblood on Feb 13, 2005 17:33:18 GMT -5
A dome is the safest bet no excusses of rain or the cold. Overall thats how they would benifit the most of building a dome. If there's no dome then atleast have the seats covered so no one gets rained on either way it'll work.
|
|
|
Post by Ducky on Feb 13, 2005 22:04:58 GMT -5
hopefully they will add floor heating to the bleachers, to keep those feet warm.
|
|
|
Post by Ducky on Feb 13, 2005 22:07:32 GMT -5
Do you guys think if a golf dome (like on wilks) type roof would work, probably be cheaper.?
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Feb 15, 2005 19:44:45 GMT -5
A dome is the safest bet no excusses of rain or the cold. Overall thats how they would benifit the most of building a dome. If there's no dome then atleast have the seats covered so no one gets rained on either way it'll work. Yes, but it would drive many fans away. I also think it would take away something from the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Feb 16, 2005 23:16:13 GMT -5
How can people be saying 'well if its taxpayers money I don't a dome'? Give me a break. If someone suggested a few years ago that we MIGHT be building a new Stadium and we MIGHT make it a dome, we'd all call that person crazy.
I support a dome. Yes, i love outdoor football. But I also love year round entertainment acts.
As for taxpayers money, it's called an investment. Goverment invests in pro sports teams and stadiums because they get a return. The direct return is taxes. The indirect return is a lot more (economic spinoffs that I don't need to list here).
As a taxpayer, I WANT my money going to things like this. It's good.
|
|