|
Post by USApegger on May 9, 2005 13:30:05 GMT -5
That's exactly the kind of backward, negative thinking that kept us from getting a new arena when the Jets were here. How is this negative backward thinking? It is fact it will cost far more to build a dome, for what 10 football gamea a year? What other events could they have there that the convention center or the MTS center couldn't handle? Concerts? how many big name bands tour that could fill it (U2 maybe, who else) so that might be one more date, What else (motocross, a heritage game, some truck show whatever they are called). I don't think it is viable to use for maybe 30 events a year so I guess that is backwards thinking in your mind
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 9, 2005 13:37:39 GMT -5
How is this negative backward thinking? It is fact it will cost far more to build a dome, for what 10 football gamea a year? What other events could they have there that the convention center or the MTS center couldn't handle? Concerts? how many big name bands tour that could fill it (U2 maybe, who else) so that might be one more date, What else (motocross, a heritage game, some truck show whatever they are called). I don't think it is viable to use for maybe 30 events a year so I guess that is backwards thinking in your mind Using this logic, why would any city need a dome? A new stadium is going to cost millions of dollars. They might as well do it right and have it enclosed. With our climate, if any city needs a dome, it's us. Otherwise, they might as well just renovate the existing stadium.
|
|
|
Post by senner on May 9, 2005 14:12:18 GMT -5
I'm all for using the existing space. I still think the area it's in is perfect. Traffic gets out of there in ALL directions, restaurants & bars/lounges all around for miles. pretty central (less Transcona), more than one hotel for outta towners to choose from. (plus shopping & everything else within walking distance). They would be absolutely nuts to leave where they are.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on May 9, 2005 14:32:45 GMT -5
Using this logic, why would any city need a dome? A new stadium is going to cost millions of dollars. They might as well do it right and have it enclosed. With our climate, if any city needs a dome, it's us. Otherwise, they might as well just renovate the existing stadium. You never answered what other uses it would or could have to make it viable, also most teams that play in domes right now want new stadiums (example: Vikings and Twins)
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 9, 2005 16:25:15 GMT -5
You never answered what other uses it would or could have to make it viable, also most teams that play in domes right now want new stadiums (example: Vikings and Twins) What other uses make any stadium viable? Concerts, trade shows, other sporting events etc. And before you say it, other cities have convention centres and arenas in addition to stadiums as well. So that's not an excuse. The Vikings and the Twins problem is probably that they share the Metrodome and thus the revenue. Do you really think the Vikings would want to go back to an outdoor stadium? And our climate is colder than theirs. Again, the Detroit Lions just recently built an enclosed stadium, so it's not like everyone agrees that domed stadiums are bad. Which is what you seem to be implying.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 9, 2005 20:03:38 GMT -5
Of course it does. Last year being a perfect example. Bad weather certainly does affect the walk-up. Bad weather has no affect on Bomber attendance. In 2001, the Bombers sold out many of their remaining games, including a mid November game vs Hamilton in the playoffs. The reason? The Bombers were hot, going 14-4. Last year, they were pitiful. I've been attending games since 1983. If the Blue are competetive going into october, attendance actually INCREASES despite the cold weather. Does the 1991 Grey Cup Game ring a bell? Temp: -16C, windchill: -25C, attendance: 51,000+.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 9, 2005 20:36:44 GMT -5
Bad weather has no affect on Bomber attendance. In 2001, the Bombers sold out many of their remaining games, including a mid November game vs Hamilton in the playoffs. The reason? The Bombers were hot, going 14-4. Last year, they were pitiful. I've been attending games since 1983. If the Blue are competetive going into october, attendance actually INCREASES despite the cold weather. Does the 1991 Grey Cup Game ring a bell? Temp: -16C, windchill: -25C, attendance: 51,000+. *sigh* Obviously, the Bombers' record plays a part. But the weather does, too. Which is all people are saying. The 1991 Grey Cup was a novelty because we had never held it before. The 1998 Grey cup was an embarrassment, attendance wise. Last season, attendance was down over 27,000, in large part due to the terrible weather last summer. And we were right in the thick of the playoff race until the very end of the season. www.kenn.com/sports/football/cfl/
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 9, 2005 21:52:57 GMT -5
Last season, attendance was down over 27,000, in large part due to the terrible weather last summer. And we were right in the thick of the playoff race until the very end of the season. www.kenn.com/sports/football/cfl/You're joking, right? Finishing 7-11(?) isn't competetive. It had nothing to do with terrible summer weather. Goto the Blue Bomber forum and ask that question. Nobody cares what the weather is like, unless there is a tornado.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 9, 2005 22:06:23 GMT -5
Oh for God's sake Joel... the ppl. posting at the Bomber forum are the die-hard fans who'll go no matter what.
Weather is a BIG factor on Bomber attendance! It's ALWAYS been that way.
I personally wouldn't buy tix for a Bomber game if the weather was lousy... I'd see more games if they played in a DOME.
If I want to get my "outdoor pro sports" fix, I'll go to Goldeye games.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 9, 2005 22:09:58 GMT -5
You're joking, right? Finishing 7-11(?) isn't competetive. It had nothing to do with terrible summer weather. Goto the Blue Bomber forum and ask that question. Nobody cares what the weather is like, unless there is a tornado. Come on, dude! You're making no sense. Yes, the hardcore fans (like at ourbombers.com) will go regardless. But to suggest bad weather has NO EFFECT on walk-up is, frankly, laughable. But besides that, we're talking about more than just football here.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 9, 2005 22:23:23 GMT -5
As Big Chris says it best: LICK MY BALLS, Go Jets Go!Well, that was completely uncalled for.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 11, 2005 19:52:00 GMT -5
Why wouldn't they want to? Lambeau Field in Green Bay gets pretty damn cold in December, yet tickets are snatched up as soon as possible. The Edmonton Eskimos, a city just as cold as Winnipeg is in October or November, have consistently held the largest CFL attendences by a long shot for their games for years now.
An enlarged Convention Centre as is being discussed and the opening of the MTS Centre have and will continue to provide ample space for the large trade shows, concerts, exhibitions, etc that come through here.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 11, 2005 21:35:06 GMT -5
Why wouldn't they want to? Lambeau Field in Green Bay gets pretty Go Jets Go cold in December, yet tickets are snatched up as soon as possible. The Edmonton Eskimos, a city just as cold as Winnipeg is in October or November, have consistently held the largest CFL attendences by a long shot for their games for years now. A question is not an answer. Are you trying to imply that the people of Minnesota are clamoring to sit outside in the middle of December? Sure, buddy. And I guess the fans of the Green Bay Packers would all just disappear if they were to play indoors. Do you suppose Edmonton's attendance has anything to do with the fact that they haven't missed the playoffs in who knows how many years? I suppose all their fans would dry up if they were playing indoors also, right? Again, Winnipeg wouldn't be the first city to have a convention centre, Arena and enclosed stadium.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 12, 2005 12:10:42 GMT -5
Why wouldn't they want to? Lambeau Field in Green Bay gets pretty Go Jets Go cold in December, yet tickets are snatched up as soon as possible. The Edmonton Eskimos, a city just as cold as Winnipeg is in October or November, have consistently held the largest CFL attendences by a long shot for their games for years now. Game, Set, Match!Good job, MOC!
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 12, 2005 12:12:00 GMT -5
A question is not an answer. Are you trying to imply that the people of Minnesota are clamoring to sit outside in the middle of December? Sure, buddy. And I guess the fans of the Green Bay Packers would all just disappear if they were to play indoors. Do you suppose Edmonton's attendance has anything to do with the fact that they haven't missed the playoffs in who knows how many years? I suppose all their fans would dry up if they were playing indoors also, right? Again, Winnipeg wouldn't be the first city to have a convention centre, Arena and enclosed stadium. The fat lady has sung, Kehler. Give it a rest....
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 12, 2005 12:24:36 GMT -5
The fat lady has sung, Kehler. Give it a rest.... Sorry, dude. Your credibility is long gone after your immature insult. I've refuted every argument against an enclosed stadium thus far, so if the game is over, I've won easily.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 12, 2005 13:27:23 GMT -5
I've refuted every argument against an enclosed stadium thus far. Anyone can refute an argument. However, it takes facts to substaniate your claim. You have yet to do that.
|
|
|
Post by dreamcatcher on May 12, 2005 13:39:20 GMT -5
I don't think complete open air...or enclosed is the solution...I think a happy medium...such as partially enclosed is the best solution. This way, it's still open air, but the harshest parts of the winter storm may be kept outta there...it isn't the cold that bugs me......(since having lived here most of my life, I should be used to it...lol) it is the 6 striaght months, and whatever is left over for the other 3 seasons...lol...
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 12, 2005 15:15:08 GMT -5
Anyone can refute an argument. However, it takes facts to substaniate your claim. You have yet to do that. What the heck are you talking about? What "facts" have been presented in opposition to the idea of an enclosed stadium? Attendance figures in other cities? Teams with bad leasing agreements? I've already offered alternative explanations which at the very least prove that more than one explanation is possible. Here's a fact for you. Winnipeg is very cold, and an enclosed facility is a REQUIREMENT if the facility is to be used year-round, which it would need to be to have the most revenue generating opportunities. That is indisputable. Now, that being said, there's no doubt in my mind that the city of Winnipeg will do its usual half-assed job (if a new stadium is even built) and make it partially enclosed.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 12, 2005 18:07:11 GMT -5
Here's a fact for you. Winnipeg is very cold, and an enclosed facility is a REQUIREMENT if the facility is to be used year-round, which it would need to be to have the most revenue generating opportunities. That is indisputable. . Edmonton is cold too. However, they consistantly finish in the top 2, in terms of CFL attendance for the last 20 years. Montreal is cold in late fall, yet when they played in the "warm and snug" Olympic Stadium, they averaged 10,000 fans per game, before folding in 1987. Toronto is cold in late fall, yet they can barely fill 20,000 fans into a 54,000 seat INDOOR stadium. Vancouver has cordoned off the eintire upper deck, and averages around 25,000 fans per game in their INDOOR stadium, or roughly 1/2 of capacity. Indoor stadiums have no bearing whatsoever on attendance figures. MOC pointed it out best, when he mentioned Green Bay as an example of a team with an outdoor stadium, which consistantly sells out, and that includes games in mid January, where temperatures dip below -20C.
|
|