|
Post by hatrick007 on May 13, 2005 13:40:16 GMT -5
You can argue about things all you want, but there is no way to back up the argument of if there are more group 2, or group 3 fans without doing a survey/study.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 13, 2005 14:56:28 GMT -5
Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver don't have built-for-CFL domes! Ours would be SPECIFICALLY built for CFL football. Meaning no "curtained off" sections. A new Bomber stadium that's a DOME would be a smashing success. If people want fresh air that bad, they can go outside during halftime.
And the Vikings don't want out of the Metrodome because it's enclosed! They want out because it's obselete, and there's not enough ways to generate revenue from it.
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on May 13, 2005 15:35:57 GMT -5
How about instead of a retractable roof we build a glass dome, that we can smash whenever we want fresh air inside.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 13, 2005 15:37:37 GMT -5
Better yet... how about the Bombers build TWO new stadiums.. one open-air and one domed. They can alternate games between each stadium. You may think that's crazy, but it makes sense the more you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 13, 2005 16:18:15 GMT -5
You can argue about things all you want, but there is no way to back up the argument of if there are more group 2, or group 3 fans without doing a survey/study. Maybe. But I don't think you need to do a survey to have some sense of the likelihood of which group is greater. Being inside on a nice day is nowhere near as likely to turn people off as being outside on a miserable day. In my opinion, of course.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 13, 2005 16:20:08 GMT -5
Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver don't have built-for-CFL domes! Ours would be SPECIFICALLY built for CFL football. Meaning no "curtained off" sections. A new Bomber stadium that's a DOME would be a smashing success. If people want fresh air that bad, they can go outside during halftime. And the Vikings don't want out of the Metrodome because it's enclosed! They want out because it's obselete, and there's not enough ways to generate revenue from it. When you're right, you're right. ;D
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 13, 2005 17:26:45 GMT -5
Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver don't have built-for-CFL domes! Ours would be SPECIFICALLY built for CFL football. Meaning no "curtained off" sections. A new Bomber stadium that's a DOME would be a smashing success. If people want fresh air that bad, they can go outside during halftime. That's exactly what they said about Olympic stadium in Montreal (1976), BC Place (1983), and Toronto Skydome (1989). IN the 80's the Alouettes played to 50,000 empty indoor seats. The Lions rarely ever get over 25,000 fans (40% capacity) for their games in their INDOOR stadium. From the getgo, the Argonauts never sold out Skydome, with crowds averaging 22,000 for the last 10 years. Seems Kehler is one of those people that will never admit he is wrong about anything. He likes to argue for the sake of arguing. He is a small child in a man's body...
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 13, 2005 18:42:50 GMT -5
That's exactly what they said about Olympic stadium in Montreal (1976), BC Place (1983), and Toronto Skydome (1989). IN the 80's the Alouettes played to 50,000 empty indoor seats. The Lions rarely ever get over 25,000 fans (40% capacity) for their games in their INDOOR stadium. From the getgo, the Argonauts never sold out Skydome, with crowds averaging 22,000 for the last 10 years. See? You are just like the Jets naysayers who bleat on about how pro hockey has never worked in Winnpeg while ignorantly ignoring the details of why and how things can work given proper planning. Hypocrite. Sounds like a perfect description of you, actually. Just keep on repeating the same things over and over that have already been proven to be false or at least open to discussion. Here's a clue for you. Just because the event B comes after the event A doesn't mean that A is the cause of B. Can you not grasp that simple fact?
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 13, 2005 21:42:10 GMT -5
(sigh)... well as long we get a new stadium it doesn't really matter to me... I'm sure they'll make a very comfortable, fan-friendly facility.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 14, 2005 13:18:14 GMT -5
Yeah, no kidding. I didn't claim otherwise. I clearly stated it was my opinion, what it came down to to me.
It is actually quite serviceable. It isn't the best, but it certainly is better than many stadiums football is played in in North America.
The Vikings want out of the Metrodome for several reasons, including leases and revenues. Fans aren't necessarily asking to sit outside in December, but if it really was such a huge concern, why aren't any of the ideas for a new football-only stadium in the Twin Cities for another dome?
True, but how many truly miserable days do the Bombers have to endure during a season? Maybe two? The short-term comfort of a few fans vs the long-term enjoyment of a facility for the rest of us - who should win out?
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 14, 2005 13:29:05 GMT -5
See? You are just like the Jets naysayers who bleat on about how pro hockey has never worked in Winnpeg while ignorantly ignoring the details of why and how things can work given proper planning. Hypocrite. I keep asking you to give examples of when a Indoor stadium increased demand for CFL tickets, as you claim. However, you keep waffling, and dodging the question outright. You should be in politics, laddy!
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 14, 2005 14:14:53 GMT -5
If the Bombers built a new, state-of-the-art indoor football stadium designed SPECIFICALLY for CFL football, I bet my left kidney attendance would increase.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 14, 2005 14:15:18 GMT -5
I keep asking you to give examples of when a Indoor stadium increased demand for CFL tickets, as you claim. However, you keep waffling, and dodging the question outright. You should be in politics, laddy! Please provide evidence that I made the claim "Indoor stadiums increase demand for CFL tickets". I have done no such thing. I have said that bad weather is a factor (among others) that has an effect on attendance. I have also said an enclosed stadium would allow it to be used for other events year-round. Both of these are rather obvious, admittedly, yet you continue to seemingly not grasp/accept them.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 14, 2005 14:29:26 GMT -5
It is actually quite serviceable. It isn't the best, but it certainly is better than many stadiums football is played in in North America. Which is why I say if we don't build an enclosed stadium, we might as well renovate the existing one. Well, again, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Perhaps they feel they'll sell out regardless. That's never been the case here, however. You're presuming one cannot enjoy an indoor facility, which is debatable. But again, I'm looking beyond just using it for football, although I would agree that it should be optimized for CFL football.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 14, 2005 14:36:48 GMT -5
Which is why I say if we don't build an enclosed stadium, we might as well renovate the existing one. Yes, after you said it is "NOT fine". It can be enjoyable, but some of my favourite football moments have been enjoying warm summer nights in the Stadium with a nice southerly breeze to keep the kickers honest and thus the game more interesting. Lose all that in an indoor stadium. Question: Would Goldeyes' fans ever accept an indoor ballpark?
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 14, 2005 14:50:47 GMT -5
Yes, after you said it is "NOT fine". Saying it should be renovated is consistent with it NOT being fine as is. Again, it's more than about the football to me. The Goldeyes' park is a single use facility. If that's what you want for a new stadium, I'd say it's a waste of an opportunity for Winnipeg.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 14, 2005 18:26:28 GMT -5
Last time I checked, the Goldeyes aren't playing baseball in October and November...
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 14, 2005 20:43:58 GMT -5
The Goldeyes' park is a single use facility. It wouldn't have to be; if it were indoors, it could be used at all times of the year. But they get rained on quite a bit. Rain will actually cancel a baseball game; cold won't. For football or baseball, I'd much rather sit in -15 degree weather under the sun than sit a +25 degree rain pelting rain.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 14, 2005 22:44:25 GMT -5
I have said that bad weather is a factor (among others) that has an effect on attendance. Both of these are rather obvious, admittedly, yet you continue to seemingly not grasp/accept them. Can you give some examples of attendance being adversely affected by bad weather? It certainly does not adversely affect attendance in Green Bay, Chicago, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Buffalo, Cleveland, Seattle,etc. Can you back up your claim, or will you continue to dodge the question?
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 14, 2005 23:00:24 GMT -5
Can you give some examples of attendance being adversely affected by bad weather? It certainly does not adversely affect attendance in Green Bay, Chicago, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Buffalo, Cleveland, Seattle,etc. Can you back up your claim, or will you continue to dodge the question? Just how do you expect me to prove that aside from asking every person? You'll claim other factors. Can you prove attendance in those cities you mentioned would've been worse in a dome? Same thing. Attendance was down last season here, in part due to the weather. Deny that all you want.
|
|