|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Mar 2, 2005 17:51:00 GMT -5
Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton is only accessible during warmer months, and they have winters as cold as we have. Yet, they'd never settle for a dome. Edmonton has led the league in attendance for most of the past 15 seasons, and they play OUTDOORS. Coincidence? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by jetblood on Mar 2, 2005 21:26:32 GMT -5
I understand thats part of the reason why I think Winnipeg needs a dome for it's harsh climate. Sure for people in our age groupes dont have much of a problem sitting in the rain or the cold. But when you have the elder and smaller chilldren that wanna go to games they may not be able to go strickly due to the weather we have. If we want to make this stadium as fan friendly as possible it should be a dome. Like you said Edmonton and BC dont have the harsh weather we have, meanning it would make sence for them to play outside, but in Winnipeg it just makes sense to have a dome.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on Mar 2, 2005 21:32:47 GMT -5
Winnipeg has a dry-cold, too. We're nowhere near an open body of water like Montreal or Toronto would be. The wind is probably stronger here, though, and we don't have the warming chinook effects that Edmonton may receive a little, though nothing like Calgary. Any city that, in the last 20 years, has recorded temperatures in the -40 degree range www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/weather/longterm/historical/data/edmonton_alberta.htm deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Winnipeg as far as temps go. Anyways, we're talking maybe 2-3 games a year where the temperatures for a home game will reach the zero mark. Hardly justifies depriving Winnipeggers of those balmy Friday nights in July playing under a full moon.
|
|
|
Post by jetblood on Mar 3, 2005 2:23:46 GMT -5
in any case, football is a competitive sport which is supported purely by the fans and Winnipeg is one of the top fan based markets out there. BC, Edmonton, Montreal (over 1 million in quebec and can only fill a college stadium...so think) who are these jokers? THis JOel guy talks about them being good market players....THEY ARE TURNING INTO THE NHL SITUATION so maybe he should look it up on his time and do sum reasearch. Obviously winnipeg and saskatchewan and ottawa have a good market and dont BUY THE CHAMPIONSHIP....therefore we have the money because we dont have huge named players. SO a DOME in all respect is a proper development which can benefit the olympics....tennis...and many other events. WHICH GENERATED REVENUE AND THINK just like the stamps and flames...the bombers and jets can buy a share of whoevers corp. or w/e.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on Mar 3, 2005 2:44:02 GMT -5
We would if we could.
Yeah, I hear Winnipeg is thinking of bidding for the 2014 Olympics... and that's a big reason why we need a domed stadium.
All kidding aside though, I'm pro-dome *but* I also love sitting outside on a warm summer evening watching a Goldeyes game at Canwest Global Park. That's the best thing to do in Winnipeg in the summer.
So either a "partially enclosed" facility (like the prototype drawings) or a dome would suit me just fine.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on Mar 3, 2005 11:49:31 GMT -5
Montreal (over 1 million in quebec and can only fill a college stadium...so think) What? The choose to only fill a college stadium because their only other option is a cavernous, hollow Olympic Stadium, and we've all seen how well that investment has turned out (bye bye Expos). Once in a while they will play the O, and draw 50,000 plus. Football in Quebec is huge right now, and if Montreal built a new 40,000 outdoor stadium, and Quebec City got itself a team, I have no doubts that both would be at 95% capacity each and every game. Btw, the rest of your post seems to drift off into nonsense... the Olympics in Winnipeg? Also, puncuation and spelling are your friends.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Mar 3, 2005 15:41:56 GMT -5
I understand thats part of the reason why I think Winnipeg needs a dome for it's harsh climate. Sure for people in our age groupes dont have much of a problem sitting in the rain or the cold. But when you have the elder and smaller chilldren that wanna go to games they may not be able to go strickly due to the weather we have. If we want to make this stadium as fan friendly as possible it should be a dome. Like you said Edmonton and BC dont have the harsh weather we have, meanning it would make sence for them to play outside, but in Winnipeg it just makes sense to have a dome. Now you are just grasping at straws... The Olympics? Edmonton not having harsh weather? You actually contradict yourself when you mention: "Edmonton and BC don't have the harsh weather we have, meaning it would make sense for them to play outside." Newsflash: BC PLAYS IN A DOME. It makes perfect sense for a Dome to be built here if you want your taxes to skyrocket.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Mar 3, 2005 15:49:36 GMT -5
in any case, football is a competitive sport which is supported purely by the fans and Winnipeg is one of the top fan based markets out there. BC, Edmonton, Montreal (over 1 million in quebec and can only fill a college stadium...so think) who are these jokers? THis JOel guy talks about them being good market players....THEY ARE TURNING INTO THE NHL SITUATION so maybe he should look it up on his time and do sum reasearch. Obviously winnipeg and saskatchewan and ottawa have a good market and dont BUY THE CHAMPIONSHIP....therefore we have the money because we dont have huge named players. SO a DOME in all respect is a proper development which can benefit the olympics....tennis...and many other events. WHICH GENERATED REVENUE AND THINK just like the stamps and flames...the bombers and jets can buy a share of whoevers corp. or w/e. Spellcheck, my friend...try it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jetblood on Mar 3, 2005 18:55:11 GMT -5
I dont believe in spell check if you cant read muaahhhh english too bad then. If you dont understand whiskey talk then dont right back. Besides were I come friend most people cant spell just drink so have a couple and relax there all right thannnnkkkkk you. (now leave me alone to my bottle, I got bingo in an hour)
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Mar 5, 2005 15:03:09 GMT -5
LOL....
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 7, 2005 13:10:19 GMT -5
Well, isn't it interesting that after getting a better deal, Toronto now wants to stay in the SkyDome.
If Winnipeg is going to sink a bunch of money into a new stadium, it BETTER be fully enclosed. It just makes the most economic sense.
Don't forget it will be built specifically for CFL football, which the other domes in Canada weren't. With this in mind, there is no reason whatsoever to believe fan interest in the Bombers would dwindle in a few years. As long as the team is competitive, the fans will be there.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 7, 2005 19:57:49 GMT -5
I totally agree. It's all about $ too, and the Bombers lose a TON if they're hosting a home game and the weather is lousy. Maybe they could make it a GLASS dome, just to keep everyone happy?
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 7, 2005 21:51:05 GMT -5
I totally agree. It's all about $ too, and the Bombers lose a TON if they're hosting a home game and the weather is lousy. Maybe they could make it a GLASS dome, just to keep everyone happy? Lots of glass is a definite possibility. Something like Ford Field in Detroit, for example. Building a new stadium in Winnipeg without it being enclosed would be as big a waste as having a brand new downtown arena with only a lowly AHL farm team as its anchor tenant.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 8, 2005 17:06:25 GMT -5
I totally agree. It's all about $ too, and the Bombers lose a TON if they're hosting a home game and the weather is lousy. That is definitely false. Weather has never affected Bomber attendance.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 8, 2005 17:56:05 GMT -5
That is definitely false. Weather has never affected Bomber attendance. Of course it does. Last year being a perfect example. Bad weather certainly does affect the walk-up.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 8, 2005 21:53:30 GMT -5
Yep. That's about one of the dumbest things I've ever read...
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 9, 2005 8:04:06 GMT -5
Of course it does. Last year being a perfect example. Bad weather certainly does affect the walk-up. Do the extra millions of dollars associated with a dome as opposed to a partially-covered stadium make up for at most maybe an extra 15,000 tickets sold a year?
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on May 9, 2005 8:19:25 GMT -5
Do the extra millions of dollars associated with a dome as opposed to a partially-covered stadium make up for at most maybe an extra 15,000 tickets sold a year? No they don't, it would take may years to cover that. I have changed my opinion on this, dome is not the way to go, I can't see the stadium being used that much more because there is a dome, it just doesn't make financial sense to me
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 9, 2005 12:50:17 GMT -5
Do the extra millions of dollars associated with a dome as opposed to a partially-covered stadium make up for at most maybe an extra 15,000 tickets sold a year? It's not just the extra people it would attract for football. It's being able to use the facility for other events year-round.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 9, 2005 12:51:35 GMT -5
No they don't, it would take may years to cover that. I have changed my opinion on this, dome is not the way to go, I can't see the stadium being used that much more because there is a dome, it just doesn't make financial sense to me That's exactly the kind of backward, negative thinking that kept us from getting a new arena when the Jets were here.
|
|