|
Post by USApegger on May 12, 2005 18:29:48 GMT -5
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. Also, no dome team has ever won the Super bowl, look at Indy when they go and play in the cold, Vikings every year as soon as the get out of the dome, they lose (except for Green Bay this year)
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on May 12, 2005 18:32:46 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. I have asked you previously and you haven't replied, what type of events could possibly be held in a facility of this size to provide the revenue to make a domed stadium feasible. If it is built with private money, I could care less what it is, but once it is tax money, I am opposed to it.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 12, 2005 18:36:08 GMT -5
Edmonton is cold too. However, they consistantly finish in the top 2, in terms of CFL attendance for the last 20 years. Irrelevant. You can't say whether or not an indoor stadium would positively or negatively affect attendance. So? Again, so? WHAT'S YOUR POINT? Really? Then I guess they don't negatively affect attendance either, eh? So why shouldn't we build a year-round facility again? Then again, you're the guy that claims miserable weather has ZERO affect on attendance. So what? The Detroit Lions average over 62,000 fans in their enclosed stadium. Your arguments have no merit whatsoever. The ONLY possible reason for a new stadium in Winnipeg to not be enclosed would be a cost-benefit analysis, which presumably the Bombers are doing now.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 12, 2005 18:38:32 GMT -5
Also, no dome team has ever won the Super bowl, look at Indy when they go and play in the cold, Vikings every year as soon as the get out of the dome, they lose (except for Green Bay this year) Many CFL "dome" teams have won Grey Cups. Please.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 12, 2005 18:42:43 GMT -5
Give it up, Kehler. You lost this argument many posts ago. I see no need to argue with someone who can't produce any evidence, whatsover on Indoor Staduims increasing demand for football tickets.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 12, 2005 18:48:08 GMT -5
I have asked you previously and you haven't replied, what type of events could possibly be held in a facility of this size to provide the revenue to make a domed stadium feasible. If it is built with private money, I could care less what it is, but once it is tax money, I am opposed to it. Again, the exact same events which are held in other cities with stadiums. Concerts, other sporting events, trade shows etc. At least an enclosed facility will not limit these events to 6 months out of the year. Taxpayer money is a different argument completely, but I would certainly want the best possible value for taxpayer dollars. To me, a year-round facility provides the best value.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 12, 2005 18:55:08 GMT -5
Give it up, Kehler. You lost this argument many posts ago. I see no need to argue with someone who can't produce any evidence, whatsover on Indoor Staduims increasing demand for football tickets. Saying I lost the argument doesn't make it so. I've provided far more to this discussion than you have. Obviously, your so-called points dried up right about when you resorted to insulting me. You are EXACTLY the same as the ROTJ naysayers. No real arguments, just naysaying. Chew on that for awhile, boy...
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 12, 2005 19:00:49 GMT -5
Again, the exact same events which are held in other cities with stadiums. Concerts, other sporting events, trade shows etc. At least an enclosed facility will not limit these events to 6 months out of the year. There isn't an overwhelming demand for more open indoor space in this city; I don't see the Convention Centre (even at present dimensions) nor the MTS Centre being used to their full capacities at this point. Why sink more money into another facility, thereby taking away business from the other two? Give me two decently-used buildings over three that are used well below their potential any day.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 12, 2005 19:07:14 GMT -5
Anyways, to me it comes down to me, the fan. I'm from Winnipeg; I come prepared and can sit in the rain or the cold for three hours to watch a football game, especially knowing that those games of less-than-ideal conditions are more than made up for by the warm summer evenings under clear skies or brightly sunny afternoon games where temperatures are hardly uncomfortable. Sure, during s h i t t y weather many may wish they were in a dome, but on the other hand in beautiful weather it sure sucks entering an artificially-lit, recycled air filled building.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 12, 2005 19:12:06 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. I don't see them clamouring to remain indoors, either. Weather-wise they have just as much reason to build an indoor stadium as we do. Yet it isn't discussed because Lambeau Field is fine the way it is - outside.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 12, 2005 22:33:18 GMT -5
Anyways, to me it comes down to me, the fan. I'm from Winnipeg; I come prepared and can sit in the rain or the cold for three hours to watch a football game, especially knowing that those games of less-than-ideal conditions are more than made up for by the warm summer evenings under clear skies or brightly sunny afternoon games where temperatures are hardly uncomfortable. Sure, during s h i t t y weather many may wish they were in a dome, but on the other hand in beautiful weather it sure sucks entering an artificially-lit, recycled air filled building. Nope. In the end it'll come down to whatever makes the most economic sense, not your or my personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 12, 2005 22:40:33 GMT -5
I don't see them clamouring to remain indoors, either. Who? The Vikings fans? Why would they when they're already indoors? Or is there some secret open air stadium project in the works? Are they building a new open-air stadium in Green Bay? Winnipeg is discussing a new stadium because the current one is NOT fine the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on May 12, 2005 23:13:09 GMT -5
Who? The Vikings fans? Why would they when they're already indoors? Or is there some secret open air stadium project in the works? The Vikings have wanted out of the Metrodome for years and have wanted the taxpayers to build them a new open air stadium, it is not a secret, there have been many proposals, all so far have failed, perhaps when the team puts up some of it's own money it may happen or of course they can always threaten to move the franchise if they don't get a stadium
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on May 13, 2005 1:44:39 GMT -5
Personally I find it difficult to determine whether it does affect attendance or not, sure you can look city to city... But some cities have more football fans, better teams, etc... which all affect attendance.
I do agree that on a rainy day, a dome stadium would likely increase attendance, as who likes sitting outside for hours in the rain?
As for a sunny day, who wants to be cooped up inside in a dome when you can be outside enjoying fresh air?
I guess maybe the only way to determine how it would affect attendance would be to do a short little survey.
JP
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 13, 2005 2:19:03 GMT -5
They need to build an "El cheapo" retractable roof dome. That way everyone will be happy.
I know retractable roof stadiums are very expensive, but Winnipeg could build a much cheaper version. One that's less safe and constantly in danger of collapsing on the fans below. It would add a great level of intensity to Bomber games.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 13, 2005 11:36:56 GMT -5
They need to build an "El cheapo" retractable roof dome. That way everyone will be happy. I know retractable roof stadiums are very expensive, but Winnipeg could build a much cheaper version. One that's less safe and constantly in danger of collapsing on the fans below. It would add a great level of intensity to Bomber games. LOL I believe Montreal acclompished that with the Big O, in the 70's. ;D
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 13, 2005 12:04:30 GMT -5
The Vikings have wanted out of the Metrodome for years and have wanted the taxpayers to build them a new open air stadium, it is not a secret, there have been many proposals, all so far have failed, perhaps when the team puts up some of it's own money it may happen or of course they can always threaten to move the franchise if they don't get a stadium I'll take your word for it, but you need to ask yourself why they would want out of the Metrodome. I think it probably Has more to do with their current lease/having to share revenue with the Twins, rather than the fans demanding to sit outside in the freezing cold in December.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 13, 2005 12:18:12 GMT -5
Personally I find it difficult to determine whether it does affect attendance or not, sure you can look city to city... But some cities have more football fans, better teams, etc... which all affect attendance. I do agree that on a rainy day, a dome stadium would likely increase attendance, as who likes sitting outside for hours in the rain? As for a sunny day, who wants to be cooped up inside in a dome when you can be outside enjoying fresh air? I guess maybe the only way to determine how it would affect attendance would be to do a short little survey. JP I think of it this way. There are certain number of fans who will go to the games no matter what. So these fans are really separate from our discussion. Then there are a number of fans that may not go to the games if the weather is particularly bad. Let's call them group 2 fans. Then there are a number of fans that may refuse to go to the game in an enclosed stadium because they don't like being cooped up. Let's call them group 3 fans. It would seem likely to me that there are more group 2 fans than group 3 fans. So to me, the question of attendance is at worst irrelevant with respect to having an enclosed stadium. At best, it's a clear argument for making the stadium enclosed. The only valid reason I can see to not have it be enclosed would be if it can be shown that Winnipeg cannot attract enough events to make the extra cost of an enclosed stadium viable. But if that's the case, perhaps it makes more sense to simply renovate the existing stadium.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 13, 2005 12:50:52 GMT -5
It would seem likely to me that there are more group 2 fans than group 3 fans. So to me, the question of attendance is at worst irrelevant with respect to having an enclosed stadium. At best, it's a clear argument for making the stadium enclosed. I would definitely have to disagree with that theory. I am positive there are far more group 3 fans. Just look at the facts. Toronto, Montreal, and BC built domed stadiums, only to watch attendance dwindle, after the novelty of an Indoor stadium wore off.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 13, 2005 13:06:39 GMT -5
I would definitely have to disagree with that theory. I am positive there are far more group 3 fans. Just look at the facts. Toronto, Montreal, and BC built domed stadiums, only to watch attendance dwindle, after the novelty of an Indoor stadium wore off. For about the 10th time, there are multiple factors involved that can explain the decrease in attendance in those cities. Toronto isn't leaving the dome anymore. Montréal's attendance isn't anything to write home about. For you to come on here and proclaim that being indoors is the main reason why attendance has gone down just doesn't make any sense. Who are you to say that that is the reason? In fact, I think that's a fairly ludicrous suggestion on your part. You're basically arguing that people would rather be cold, wet and miserable rather than be inside on a nice, sunny day. That's what it boils down to.
|
|