HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 12:56 AM
grumpy old man grumpy old man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedub1170 View Post
BTW the new multipurpose facililty in Regina is reported to make a profit. You can't have it both ways, Bucko.
Care to translate for me bucko? WTF you talkin' about? Can't have what both ways, bucko?

...
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 1:12 AM
Rottie Rottie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary formerly Regina
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by babo View Post
Not that you asked me, but I will go out of my way to not be a patron. This new stadium, when it is built, will show the world that we, too, are gullible enough to believe in the false promise of economic activity.
You will go out of your way to not be a patron. You really are a buzzkill. With that attitude the welcome wagon will never hire you.
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 1:30 AM
Rottie Rottie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary formerly Regina
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
By the way, we're well in the CFL season and there have been a lot of great games so far. Mosaic Stadium has been nearly sold out for most of them, but demand hasn't been enough to create standing room tickets or anything like that. It would appear the current size is fairly appropriate for the demand.

So far this year I've yet to see a single game that would be enhanced by being played indoors. The only games with a lacklustre crowd atmosphere have been those held in BC Place domed stadium.

When it gets right down to it, this roughrider stadium might really only mean maybe 1 or 2 late season games are "better" than they would have been if played in the open air. Are we really going to drop $350 million for the sake of 1 or 2 games per year? Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to spend a few million sprucing up the current stadium and turning that downtown corridor into something productive?
What do you think a few million " sprucing up" the current stadium is going to get you? A splash of paint and new urinal pucks for the troughs maybe. Keep throwing fix up money at an outdated and one of these days obsolete facility instead of starting anew and giving fans better seating, washrooms, concessions etc. and incorporating restaurants, bars, maybe a movie theatre in or around a new complex which you can't do now with the existing stadium.
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 2:00 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
That was a pre-season game. Its 1 game out of 25 where there hasn't been excessive demand. But this is how you typically manipulate facts to forward your "fiscally sound" thinking.
Actually I believe both the pre-season game against Calgary and game 1 vs BC fell short of selling all seats. Here's some stats:

http://www.saskriders.com/schedule/year/2009/4

Regardless of whether a game was "nearly sold out", "virtually sold out", "practically a sell out", "technically sold out" or whatever kind of qualifier you want to put on it, it's proof that demand is slightly less than supply. You flood the supply side and jack up prices, what do you think will happen? The balance is tenuous. A losing streak, a price hike or general economic downturn could definitely threaten attendance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
If you were a bit more informed on the issues, you would know that this "giant cement donut" will probably be heated by geothermal sources. And there is a good chance it will be LEED certified as well.
I suggest you research geothermal a bit. I've seen it implemented. Have you? It's hardly free. And with regard to LEED I can tell you that even with efficiencies, this giant stadium will still cost a mountain more to operate than Taylor Field does.
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 2:17 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rottie View Post
What do you think a few million " sprucing up" the current stadium is going to get you? A splash of paint and new urinal pucks for the troughs maybe. Keep throwing fix up money at an outdated and one of these days obsolete facility instead of starting anew and giving fans better seating, washrooms, concessions etc. and incorporating restaurants, bars, maybe a movie theatre in or around a new complex which you can't do now with the existing stadium.
Movie theater? You want a movie theater why not push for that then. Keep in mind the last one in that location died off when the casino ate the parking. It's now a dollar store. Besides, city council has special treatment and control over movie theater locations.

Regarding the concessions I have some more enlightened ideas about that, and they don't require a $350 million fiasco either.

People with no real sense of money or costs throw out nonsense like claiming that millions of dollars will only buy urinal cakes.

I'm curious to know what it cost to bring in the temporary bleachers. Clearly it's quite possible to add 2000 seats and have it cost far less than even 1 million. I think it's possible to order some that are better suited to the site, at both ends. Add in some reasonable costs for building washrooms and you've got yourself an expanded stadium.

I'd love to get the job to improve the stadium with a multimillion budget. Most of the people slamming me here would be delighted with the outcome. But that's not how this project is going. The conclusion has already been dictacted. There's been no public tender, deals and money are just being handed out in secret to biased parties with zero concern over conflict of interest. When the construction comes, coordinated non-competitive practices will decide who gets to overcharge for this work and who will get to overcharge for a different project. These kind of shady gentleman's agreements have been a long standing tradition and with the leaders in place and precedent set, there's no reason to think a more open and honest process will start any time soon.
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 3:54 AM
spictacular mcluvin's Avatar
spictacular mcluvin spictacular mcluvin is offline
Chilean like a villian
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Edmonton/Regina
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
I would be happy to see that happen, however I would also know that anyone foolish enough to invest would lose all their money.

Here's a reality check:

Mosaic stadium currently brings $211,000 in annual revenue. Please note: that's THOUSAND. 211 THOUSAND. Not million. It's approximately the same as what the Neil Balkwill centre generates and a small fraction of what the Sportplex, Northwest and Schmirler Centres bring in ($2.6 million combined)

I don't know what it costs to operate Mosaic stadium in total, but event cleanup alone costs $21,000. Lights, maintenance, painting, bathroom repairs, staff, and other incidentals probably eats up a good portion of the remainder. It's probably a close to break even situation.

So the current stadium which was long since paid off can barely turn a buck. It has no mortgage and is utterly cheap to operate. Does anyone seriously expect a $350 million facility to do anything except lose megatons of money?

Interest on $350 million alone would be about $24-25 million, or nearly half of the city's $52 million police budget. Does anyone here want to cut the police force in half just to pay the interest on this dome stadium?

How much of the fire department, schools, and library budgets will have to be cut to afford the heating bill?

Is anyone here interested in jacking up property tax rates even further? Regina is already among the highest taxed cities in Canada by a July 2009 survey.

Wouldn't it make more sense to use that land for something that might generate revenue in the form of property taxes?

Sorry but it's not even a close question as to whether we can afford this. We simply can't.
WOW, I can't believe you are actually using numbers from an old outdoor basically ONE PURPOSE football stadium and comparing it to a brand new MULTI-PURPOSE facility. The whole argument FOR a domed stadium is its MUTLI-USE, meaning multiple revenue resources, meaning it wont be shut down for practically 6 months of the year. The fact of the matter is that we can't justify spending millions just to benefit one CFL team so instead we will spend more to benefit many more people and events and not just football.
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 5:36 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by spictacular mcluvin View Post
WOW, I can't believe you are actually using numbers from an old outdoor basically ONE PURPOSE football stadium and comparing it to a brand new MULTI-PURPOSE facility. The whole argument FOR a domed stadium is its MUTLI-USE, meaning multiple revenue resources, meaning it wont be shut down for practically 6 months of the year. The fact of the matter is that we can't justify spending millions just to benefit one CFL team so instead we will spend more to benefit many more people and events and not just football.
Ok back this up then. How many million per year in revenue do you say the domed stadium will generate? We can check back in a few years and see if I was right, or if you were wrong.
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 6:03 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Here's some base info on which to build a prediction. It's the published stats for the AC/DC concert at the Fargodome in Jan 2009:

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/231459/

"According to Inforum.com, AC/DC's January 17, 2009 performance in Fargo, North Dakota — which raked in more than $1.8 million — gave the Fargodome a major financial charge to start 2009.

The dome brought in about $187,282 after expenses from the 21,366 who attended the concert.

AC/DC's Fargodome show was the venue's highest-grossing concert ever in terms of ticket sales, General Manager Rob Sobolik said.

It was a huge way to start out 2009, Sobolik said. We just hope we can carry the momentum the rest of the way through 2009.

Artist/Event: AC/DC, THE ANSWER
Date: Jan. 17, 2009
Venue: Fargodome
City/State: Fargo, ND
Gross Sales: $1,870,334
Ticket Prices: $89.50, $69.50
Attendance: 21,692
Capacity: 21,692 "

Curiously they also report the Fargodome net for Jan 2009 was $152,000. Since the AC/DC concert had a net profit of $187,000 that suggests something else (vacancy?) lowered the net by $35,000
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 6:19 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Here's some interesting Fargodome info.

Looks like they had to put up sandbags to deal with flooding this spring.

Volunteers did the sandbagging, however the contract for removal and cleanup received bids ranging from $400,000 to $1.2 million.

http://www.cityoffargo.com/attachmen.../web090402.pdf

This report seems to suggest operating expenditures of $6.7 million for 2008, down from $7.5 million in 2007

http://www.cityoffargo.com/attachmen...0for%20web.pdf
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 8:24 AM
skphc08's Avatar
skphc08 skphc08 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Central
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post

I suggest you research geothermal a bit. I've seen it implemented. Have you? It's hardly free. And with regard to LEED I can tell you that even with efficiencies, this giant stadium will still cost a mountain more to operate than Taylor Field does.
Pure hilarity. You are suggesting research? I haven't started this research yet but I am surprised you haven't already criticized me for not being objective as per your usual tendency.

Serious question though: What's worse IYO, the one-time 300-500 million or the continuous cost to maintain it?
__________________
Everything is real on this concrete and steel.
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 9:55 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
Serious question though: What's worse IYO, the one-time 300-500 million or the continuous cost to maintain it?
It's an interesting question. What is your take on it?

What will probably happen is they'll use number doctoring to slush funds from the casino or a crown corporation to fund the building costs of the stadium. Only the astute will see it for the tax grab it is, and that the $350+ million that gets absorbed will have to be made up by the public somewhere. The rest will eat up the spin that it represents a "sask-a-boom" bonus or a "success dividend".

So then whomever is considered the facility owner will be left with the annual operating costs. Since the "study" covered the full range from Fargo to Grand Forks, it's a good guess the facility will be seen as the city's and thus the city will have to shoulder the operational costs. And since the city has to balance it's books a lot closer than any of the other entities, we can say that for most purposes that it has essentially a fixed budget. As the stadium operating expenses come on stream, something will have to give... so it will be either tax hikes or cuts in other services. It won't matter to the current mayor as he'll be long gone, leaving the mess for his successor. These cuts will lead to widespread pain by taxpayers and service users alike. In that respect, the ongoing debt and operational costs may be the worse of the two. What do you think?

Thinking about this topic gives me an idea. For those that want the domed stadium so badly, would you be willing to back that up through action? For example can we sign you up to work a set amount of unpaid hours at the facility each month, doing cleanup and other tasks. Working say every Saturday doing sweeping or whatever would go a long way to keeping the operating costs down.
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 10:16 AM
Chaps Chaps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Teck View Post
can't.
Where have I heard this before?

Ohhhhhh...that's right....over the first 102 years of this provinces life.

Carry on.
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 1:32 PM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaps View Post
Where have I heard this before?

Ohhhhhh...that's right....over the first 102 years of this provinces life.

Carry on.
Yes, Chaps. For the past 102 years the province has achieved nothing. Thankfully we have your brilliance now to show us the way. Jog on.
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 2:41 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,451
Reading Archietecks nonesensical and repetitive posts makes me look forward to the opening ceremonies that much more. I can just imagine what he'll be doing that night........

     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 4:53 PM
timewilltell timewilltell is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 187
to the person

Last edited by timewilltell; Sep 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM.
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 7:36 PM
newflyer's Avatar
newflyer newflyer is offline
Capitalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by timewilltell View Post
to the person using this staduim as a polictail agenda go away this is a pro board not an anti develoment board we are here to suport the building of our cities not tear them down
I am not sure how realistic it is, but I often wish other threads would follow this line of thought....
__________________
Check out my city at
http://www.allwinnipeg.com **More than Ever**
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 7:57 PM
mjpaul's Avatar
mjpaul mjpaul is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Little Chicago. (Moose Jaw)
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by newflyer View Post
I am not sure how realistic it is, but I often wish other threads would follow this line of thought....

actually not very realistic at all
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2009, 10:03 PM
mcaout mcaout is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by timewilltell View Post
to the person using this staduim as a polictail agenda go away this is a pro board not an anti develoment board we are here to suport the building of our cities not tear them down
If you or someone else can show me to the board concerning Regina development and planning I should be posting on please let me know because this is the only one I could find.
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2009, 12:31 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
Reading Archietecks nonesensical and repetitive posts makes me look forward to the opening ceremonies that much more. I can just imagine what he'll be doing that night........

I dispell a couple of your crazy exaggerations (ie:the stadium will generate "hundreds of millions" in revenue) with some basic facts and math, and you go all childish with personal shots? Grow up.

Do you have something to say about the stadium development? If not, send your insults over private message or better yet, keep your childish insults to yourself.
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2009, 12:35 AM
Archie Teck Archie Teck is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by timewilltell View Post
to the person using this staduim as a polictail agenda go away this is a pro board not an anti develoment board we are here to suport the building of our cities not tear them down
I'm a strong proponent of developing our cities. And I'm willing to bet I've done FAR more actual development than you have. However development has to be done with reason and common sense, otherwise it ultimately fails. Then you have a giant project sucking all the life and potential out of good projects. And big flop can put a chill on future development for years.

Read what I wrote, not the garbage being slung against me by people who are crying because their BS got debunked. You'll see I'm very pro-development.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.