|
Post by blackthorne on May 17, 2005 20:36:53 GMT -5
Umm... didn't the Bombers have a home PLAYOFF on a very, VERY cold November night where only 22,000 bought tickets (actually, only about 15,000 showed up). Enough Joel. You know you're wrong. Weather plays a BIG part on Bombers attendance. I would like a DOME as the new Bombers home, so I'll always be comfortable watching Bomber games. It almost sounds like you'd prefer to be freezing or rained on during a Bomber game.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 17, 2005 20:40:11 GMT -5
Umm... didn't the Bombers have a home PLAYOFF on a very, VERY cold November night where only 22,000 bought tickets (actually, only about 15,000 showed up). Yup and a bunch of those drove from Saskarchewan.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 17, 2005 21:25:53 GMT -5
Lucky for me I'm not a Mennonite, then. Don't you ever tire of being wrong? It was a pretty darn good assumption, one I made to myself. If Winnipeg gets a dome, there goes a good chunk of our home field advantage. Bob Cameron, for one, wouldn't have done half the things in a dome as he did at the Stadium where he knew the wind better than anyone. Just as an aside. Continue berating each other with the phrases "you know you're wrong", "provide proof of your statements" and "just give it up".
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 17, 2005 22:47:42 GMT -5
It was a pretty darn good assumption, one I made to myself. If Winnipeg gets a dome, there goes a good chunk of our home field advantage. Bob Cameron, for one, wouldn't have done half the things in a dome as he did at the Stadium where he knew the wind better than anyone. Just as an aside. Continue berating each other with the phrases "you know you're wrong", "provide proof of your statements" and "just give it up". Nevertheless, it was an incorrect assumption, therefore not a "good" one. And last time I checked, Bob Cameron had retired. The anti-dome reasoning is just getting sillier and sillier. Guys, I've already given you the best reason to attack my position. I.e. if you can prove that Winnipeg cannot attract enough events during the extra dates that a dome would provide to make the extra cost of a dome justifiable. THAT is the cornerstone of your argument.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 17, 2005 23:39:33 GMT -5
Nevertheless, it was an incorrect assumption, therefore not a "good" one. And last time I checked, Bob Cameron had retired. The anti-dome reasoning is just getting sillier and sillier. Guys, I've already given you the best reason to attack my position. I.e. if you can prove that Winnipeg cannot attract enough events during the extra dates that a dome would provide to make the extra cost of a dome justifiable. THAT is the cornerstone of your argument. We just built a $133 million arena. Why on earth do we need a dome so soon after the completion of the MTS centre. Can you say "White Elephant"?
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 17, 2005 23:41:29 GMT -5
Umm... didn't the Bombers have a home PLAYOFF on a very, VERY cold November night where only 22,000 bought tickets (actually, only about 15,000 showed up). Enough Joel. You know you're wrong. Weather plays a BIG part on Bombers attendance. I attended that game. All 22,000 showed up. The reason so few bought tickets was because it was a division semi-final game, with the winner destined to lose to Edmonton, which they did. Go back to 2001. The Bombers sold out the place, in arguably the same weather conditions. Reason? They were the best team in the league.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 18, 2005 1:29:12 GMT -5
Ok... so those 8,000 empty seats had NOTHING to do with the freezing Winnipeg November cold?
Ok Joel, I can't take much more of this.
|
|
|
Post by Trent Steele on May 18, 2005 10:17:20 GMT -5
First, to defend Joel a little here, a "theory" does not need proof, hence it being a theory, if it had proof it wouldn't be a theory anymore, it would be fact. How many times can you say theory in a sentence.
Second, both weather and quality of team play a factor in attendance, but the quality of the team trumps the weather. If we have a good team, we will sell out every game, regardless of the weather. I've been at many a soldout game where the weather was well below 0. Weather does keep people away, but they are quite literally the fair weather fans who just go for something to do on a nice summer/fall night.
That being said, I do not want a dome. Part of the appeal of going to a football game is being outside. And playoff games in Winnipeg at -20 temperatures are like nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on May 18, 2005 11:36:18 GMT -5
First, to defend Joel a little here, a "theory" does not need proof, hence it being a theory, if it had proof it wouldn't be a theory anymore, it would be fact. How many times can you say theory in a sentence. Second, both weather and quality of team play a factor in attendance, but the quality of the team trumps the weather. If we have a good team, we will sell out every game, regardless of the weather. I've been at many a soldout game where the weather was well below 0. Weather does keep people away, but they are quite literally the fair weather fans who just go for something to do on a nice summer/fall night. That being said, I do not want a dome. Part of the appeal of going to a football game is being outside. And playoff games in Winnipeg at -20 temperatures are like nothing else. i would agree with everything here.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 18, 2005 12:43:07 GMT -5
First, to defend Joel a little here, a "theory" does not need proof, hence it being a theory, if it had proof it wouldn't be a theory anymore, it would be fact. How many times can you say theory in a sentence. Second, both weather and quality of team play a factor in attendance, but the quality of the team trumps the weather. If we have a good team, we will sell out every game, regardless of the weather. I've been at many a soldout game where the weather was well below 0. Weather does keep people away, but they are quite literally the fair weather fans who just go for something to do on a nice summer/fall night. That being said, I do not want a dome. Part of the appeal of going to a football game is being outside. And playoff games in Winnipeg at -20 temperatures are like nothing else. Your buddy Joel was the one who started with the "prove your claims" game and so I just gave him a taste of his own medicine. And I also provided evidence to back up my statements at his request. When I asked him to do the same he said, "no thanks". Listen, until we sell out every single game and whether you like it or not, weather does have an effect on attendance. You even admitted as such. Therefore, it stands to reason that everything else being equal the overall attendance will be higher in an enclosed stadium than an open one in Winnipeg because we never sell out every game. There is absolutely no justification to think otherwise. Unless you want me to believe that a bunch of these super diehard fans that love the Bombers so much that no amount of bad weather can keep them away will suddenly no longer feel that way about the team if they have to sit in a brand new state-of-the-art climate controlled facility? Please ... So again, better attendance over the long-term is pretty much a given. The question is whether that increased attendance in addition to the extra dates available that an enclosed facility provides is enough to justify the extra cost of enclosing the new facility. Needless to say, I think it does.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on May 18, 2005 14:55:00 GMT -5
The question is whether that increased attendance in addition to the extra dates available that an enclosed facility provides is enough to justify the extra cost of enclosing the new facility. Needless to say, I think it does. Impossible to say without further studies, but I personally thing, in my opinion only, that at best you may get an extra 20 dates a year out of it not counting football, and never a Grey Cup game as it would only hold 35,000 or so and with a dome, no temp seats. Football should be played outdoors, in rain, snow, sunshine, whatever, period.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 18, 2005 15:35:58 GMT -5
Impossible to say without further studies, but I personally thing, in my opinion only, that at best you may get an extra 20 dates a year out of it not counting football, and never a Grey Cup game as it would only hold 35,000 or so and with a dome, no temp seats. Football should be played outdoors, in rain, snow, sunshine, whatever, period. No doubt the number of extra dates that would be used is debatable. That is the true crux of the matter. However, I don't think there's any reason why there couldn't be temporary seats in an enclosed stadium. If I remember correctly, the prototype drawings that were shown a while ago was a partially enclosed stadium (in other words, the roof was not covered) that would hold about 35,000 normally, but could be expanded temporarily for things like the Grey Cup. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be the same for an enclosed stadium. You could take the same design and simply cover the roof, for example. And while it's nice to wax poetic about the virtues of doing battle in the harshest of weather, in reality, as often as not, it just takes away much of the skilled aspect of the game when the weather is really bad. For a recent example, remember last year's first home game against Saskatchewan. It was cold and rainy and no one could hang onto the ball. It was just one error after another and truthfully, it was a miserable game to watch. Not entertaining in the slightest in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on May 18, 2005 18:35:52 GMT -5
No doubt the number of extra dates that would be used is debatable. That is the true crux of the matter. However, I don't think there's any reason why there couldn't be temporary seats in an enclosed stadium. If I remember correctly, the prototype drawings that were shown a while ago was a partially enclosed stadium (in other words, the roof was not covered) that would hold about 35,000 normally, but could be expanded temporarily for things like the Grey Cup. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be the same for an enclosed stadium. You could take the same design and simply cover the roof, for example. And while it's nice to wax poetic about the virtues of doing battle in the harshest of weather, in reality, as often as not, it just takes away much of the skilled aspect of the game when the weather is really bad. For a recent example, remember last year's first home game against Saskatchewan. It was cold and rainy and no one could hang onto the ball. It was just one error after another and truthfully, it was a miserable game to watch. Not entertaining in the slightest in my opinion. First off, I love the fact that this thread has been viewed over 1200 times. I know nothing about the Sask game (as I was not up here at the time), however, the Colts played the Patriots in less than ideal conditions in the playoffs in Boston. Peyton Manning and the Colts (again) could not perform in those conditions, yet Tom Brady and the Patriots (didn't seem to be a problem). This debate could go on forever, Winnipeg is frigid in the winter, yet the CFL season is over at the end of November, so again the debate, can the stadium be filled for other dates (if a dome)? Actually how many other events are at the current stadium right now, not Bombers that draw a crowd? I prefer outdoors for football, (sorry dkelher and The Sith (love the new nickname). I also don't think that you could expand a dome with temp seats for a Grey Cup game (although I am not an engineer)
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 18, 2005 20:00:43 GMT -5
Some of the better football games, the "classics", have been played where the weather has played a significant factor. Of course there are duds that may be weather-related, but I love watching a team drive in the last few minutes, with a blowing snow, the guys in the trenches more muddy than not and the quaterback trying to keep his hands warm in order to make those crucial passes to win.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 18, 2005 20:54:45 GMT -5
Your buddy Joel was the one who started with the "prove your claims" game and so I just gave him a taste of his own medicine. And I also provided evidence to back up my statements at his request. When I asked him to do the same he said, "no thanks". Dodging a question is not considered "proof".
|
|
|
Post by Trent Steele on May 20, 2005 10:02:17 GMT -5
According to the free press, they are going to do yet another feasability study for a dome/dome with retractable roof. I guess they are going to try to determine how much money they would make on the added year round dates.
To be perfectly honest, cost aside, the retractable roof makes the most sense for Winnipeg, since our summers are (usually) nice, and the harshness of our winters. Hell, we could even open up the roof for those late November playoff games, just for fun.
But I wouldn't want a dome without the option of opening it up. Football should be played outside.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 20, 2005 11:34:18 GMT -5
Well well well ... I trust everyone read the article in the Free Press today. Here's what Lyle Bauer had to say:
"I'm a purist at heart when it comes to football... I love it outside," said Bauer yesterday. "If the facility is going to be used strictly for football, that's one thing. But the economics of it just isn't going to work. So we have to look at either a covered or retractable roof. Obviously, that gets into the issue of more dough and then you have to justify it through usage. But with an open air you definitely minimize the number of dates you can use it. "Look at last year... we were absolutely hurt badly by that with rain dates."
You took the words right out of my mouth, Lyle.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 20, 2005 12:38:53 GMT -5
Well well well ... I trust everyone read the article in the Free Press today. Here's what Lyle Bauer had to say: "I'm a purist at heart when it comes to football... I love it outside," said Bauer yesterday. "If the facility is going to be used strictly for football, that's one thing. But the economics of it just isn't going to work. So we have to look at either a covered or retractable roof. Obviously, that gets into the issue of more dough and then you have to justify it through usage. But with an open air you definitely minimize the number of dates you can use it. "Look at last year... we were absolutely hurt badly by that with rain dates."You took the words right out of my mouth, Lyle. I don't know how he plans on coming up with the money for an indoor stadium, but it better be at least 2/3 privately funded. There are more important things to build in the city with taxpayer $$$ than a Dome stadium.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 20, 2005 12:42:59 GMT -5
I don't know how he plans on coming up with the money for an indoor stadium, but it better be at least 2/3 privately funded. There are more important things to build in the city with taxpayer $$$ than a Dome stadium. Absolutely. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on May 20, 2005 12:58:22 GMT -5
|
|