Regina's Multi-Purpose facility

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

I have high doubts that the article is true in that it would go for plan B, mainly because the minister made it very clear that it's all in, or we get nothing. Which means that the retractable roof must be included in the stadium, and I can't blame him; another open-roof stadium? In Saskatchewan? With the winter we get if our asses get moist they would freeze shut and we'd be very "hardy" people :/, and I doubt that many big name groups like Black Eyed Peas and Bono would play in a open-roof stadium in a place where our winter is like the arctic to them.

Interestingly enough, Bono will be performing in Winnipeg this May. CanadInn's Stadium is very similar to Mosaic, in terms of size and configuration, which puts into question the argument that "big name concerts skip over Regina because we don't have an adequate facility"...

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Interestingly enough, Bono will be performing in Winnipeg this May. CanadInn's Stadium is very similar to Mosaic, in terms of size and configuration, which puts into question the argument that "big name concerts skip over Regina because we don't have an adequate facility"...

I know its Winterpeg, but I'm sure May will be warm enough for Bono.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I know its Winterpeg, but I'm sure May will be warm enough for Bono.

As I stated in my post, I was alluding to the fact that one of the top arguments for the multi-purpose facility is that "big name shows skip Regina because Mosiac isn't an adequate facility". A recent column in the Leader-Post even claimed that U2 was skipping Regina because Mosaic isn't big enough. My argument is that if U2 can play in CanadInns stadium (very similar to Mosaic for all intents and purposes), then there are other factors (ie: market size, demand) other than the stadium coming into play here...

[Regina Boi]

My guess is that the Conservatives are planning to play cheap politics with the funding of the Regina and Quebec City projects. If they have any chance of forming a majority government, they will have to keep all of their seats in Saskatchewan, while gaining seats in Quebec.

Expect the Prime Minister to make an announcement in Saskatchewan shortly before the federal budget in late February or early March. In addition, expect to hear some fear mongering that if the budget is defeated by the opposition "coalition", any funding committed by the federal government will be in jeopardy.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Bdog

As I stated in my post, I was alluding to the fact that one of the top arguments for the multi-purpose facility is that "big name shows skip Regina because Mosiac isn't an adequate facility". A recent column in the Leader-Post even claimed that U2 was skipping Regina because Mosaic isn't big enough. My argument is that if U2 can play in CanadInns stadium (very similar to Mosaic for all intents and purposes), then there are other factors (ie: market size, demand) other than the stadium coming into play here...

And people wonder why they the majority want separate Manitoba/Saskatchewan forums.

Seriously bdog, inform yourself before you try to once again pass your opinion off as fact. Neil Donnely (Vice-President Events & Entertainment for Evraz) was on newstalk980 early last year and stated that there are a few factors that resulted in U2 not coming to Regina. If I remember correctly, some of the factors were the crown surface of the playing field as well as accesibility into the stadium for the large centre field stage setup. But maybe he was lying....

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Migs

And people wonder why they the majority want separate Manitoba/Saskatchewan forums.

Seriously bdog, inform yourself before you try to once again pass your opinion off as fact. Neil Donnely (Vice-President Events & Entertainment for Evraz) was on newstalk980 early last year and stated that there are a few factors that resulted in U2 not coming to Regina. If I remember correctly, some of the factors were the crown surface of the playing field as well as accesibility into the stadium for the large stage setup. But maybe he was lying....

What opinion did I try to pass off as fact? Does "my argument" = "fact" to you?

My argument is that if U2 can play in CanadInns stadium (very similar to Mosaic for all intents and purposes), then there are other factors (ie: market size, demand) other than the stadium coming into play here...

The president of Live Nation (for Western Canada) himself said that "few acts that can sell out Mosaic Stadium" (which is related to market size, and demand). See for yourself before you call me uninformed
http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20100428/32979

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Bdog

The president of Live Nation (for Western Canada) himself said that "few acts that can sell out Mosaic Stadium" (which is related to market size, and demand). See for yourself before you call me uninformed
http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20100428/32979

What does that have to do with the real reasons why U2 didn't stop in Regina?

[thefourthtower]

i do believe we have someone on this board who suffers from penis envy hence all the arguing

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

i do believe we have someone on this board who suffers from penis envy hence all the arguing

ha....ha......great logical, thought out argument. Good analysis! That is what is missing from the Regina stadium discussion. There is far too much of.... I talked to an important person who told me....... this is already approved...... we deserve the money........ if the government wants to keep its seats in Saskatchewan..... the feasibility study is the bible......

While I would love to see the CFL get a stadium like this, my opinion is that the federal government is not in a position to fund it, and that without $125 million from the feds, there is not enough $ to build a retractable roof stadium. Proponents of this project should also post their opinions, but do not post them as gospel and avoid runnung down comments of other posters just because they do not agree with your opinion.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

ha....ha......great logical, thought out argument. Good analysis! That is what is missing from the Regina stadium discussion. There is far too much of.... I talked to an important person who told me....... this is already approved...... we deserve the money........ if the government wants to keep its seats in Saskatchewan..... the feasibility study is the bible......

While I would love to see the CFL get a stadium like this, my opinion is that the federal government is not in a position to fund it, and that without $125 million from the feds, there is not enough $ to build a retractable roof stadium. Proponents of this project should also post their opinions, but do not post them as gospel and avoid runnung down comments of other posters just because they do not agree with your opinion.

Oh for the love of God! Now we are getting preached at by Winnipeg folk....

[mike474]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

i do believe we have someone on this board who suffers from penis envy hence all the arguing

It's not all penis envy. I'm a Saskatchewanian who thinks the dome is a really really really dumb idea. I hope we move on with plan B ASAP.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Migs

Oh for the love of God! Now we are getting preached at by Winnipeg folk....

Who me . Sorry but I live in Ottawa.

[trueviking]

There are essentially no examples of football stadiums being successful catalysts for urban revitalization in north America.....I know I know. It's not a football stadium.

That article still claims they are hoping for a $150m plus investment from the feds. I thought that dream was over.

I find it really hard to believe that they have secretly found $150-200m in private investment. Companies just don't hand over money like that without some form of return on their investment. Would they operate the stadium and receive it's profit? Private funding from sports stadiums generally comes from those who are the driving force behind it. From those who will profit from it's construction. Who are these companies in this instance and what are they getting in return that would make it attractive? I am skeptical until I hear details. Raising that kind of investment is not easy.

Is the suggestion that the potash industry will simply donate that money for some reason? Are there any other rumours floating around identifying who these investors might be and what they will get in return for their money?

[1ajs]

have moved the multi purpose favility talk from regina construction here and ask for all parties to step back and chill for a second theres better issues out there to get testy over then this

so chill
1ajs

[Chaps]

Originally Posted by trueviking

There are essentially no examples of football stadiums being successful catalysts for urban revitalization in north America.....I know I know. It's not a football stadium.

That article still claims they are hoping for a $150m plus investment from the feds. I thought that dream was over.

I find it really hard to believe that they have secretly found $150-200m in private investment. Companies just don't hand over money like that without some form of return on their investment. Would they operate the stadium and receive it's profit? Private funding from sports stadiums generally comes from those who are the driving force behind it. From those who will profit from it's construction. Who are these companies in this instance and what are they getting in return that would make it attractive? I am skeptical until I hear details. Raising that kind of investment is not easy.

Is the suggestion that the potash industry will simply donate that money for some reason? Are there any other rumours floating around identifying who these investors might be and what they will get in return for their money?

If you were familiar with the potash situation here, you wouldn't think that was such a far fetched idea.

I don't mean that to say you don't know what you're talking about. I just mean that there are a lot of potash companies here competing for the publics goodwill because they know public support gives them leverage with the goverment.

[prairieguy]

I just read that the Quebec City mayor has indicated they have given up on any Federal funding for their proposed arena, and are now proceeding with 'plan B' that includes a greater contribution from the city.

Hmmmm...I think it is time Ken give up on saying the province still expects $$$ from the Feds and that Sask also pursue a plan B. A new stadium is definitely required, but lets show some restraint and fiscal prudence and build an outdoor facility. An 'inflatable dome' can be placed over the field to maximize winter use for rec and sport activities.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by prairieguy

I just read that the Quebec City mayor has indicated they have given up on any Federal funding for their proposed arena, and are now proceeding with 'plan B' that includes a greater contribution from the city.

Read what Mr Harper says about the importance of private contributions. Wouldn't surprise me at all if our proposal under the P3 program is used as a template to create a new program as suggested by the PM below (given that we have 25% in private funding). We have to remember that even though our P3Proposal hasn't be approved, it hasn't been rejected either.

http://www.canada.com/sports/Quebec+...817/story.html

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said several times that the federal government doesn't have a program to fund professional sports facilities.

"In a French-language TV interview Monday night, Harper stressed if such a program is created it would only be in support of major investment by the private sector. "It's a business, first and foremost. It's not mainly the government's business. There has to be a business plan that works," Harper said.

"It's impossible to see pro sports succeed without the private sector's leadership. It's impossible," he added.

As of now, Quebec City has no private funding on the table whatsoever. Once they have some shored up, they will likely go back to the feds.

Hmmmm...I think it is time Ken give up on saying the province still expects $$$ from the Feds and that Sask also pursue a plan B. A new stadium is definitely required, but lets show some restraint and fiscal prudence and build an outdoor facility. An 'inflatable dome' can be placed over the field to maximize winter use for rec and sport activities.

There is a possible plan B, but it includes the retractible roof facility. And as far as fiscal restraint, in my opinion if your are going to spend 200mil+ (Winnipeg) on a facility that will sit under a blanket of snow for 6 months of the year, then why not be creative and bold and spend double that amount on an indoor facility that can be used year round for many things other than football? Remember this facility can be configured to host arena concerts/events that normally bypass Regina because southern Sk doesn't have a big arena. In essence we are killling two birds with one stone. Actually we are killing 3 birds with one stone as the new indoor facility will help revitilize a 30acre vacant area of land right in the middle of the city and be used as a bridge between Regina's downtown and the Warehouse Dist. People need to be reminded that this whole project is about ALOT more than just a stadium.

(Office of Urbanism Report) http://officeforurbanism.com
http://www.cicorp.sk.ca/assets/Docum...0Design%20.pdf

ps, here is another little rumour I heard yesterday on coffee row (from a source not as 'in the know' as some of the others). Given that the PM hinted at a future program there is the possibility that our indoor facility will be constructed with the capability of adding a retractible roof at a later time. Crazier things have happend, I'm loving watching this whole drama play out

[Migs]

Originally Posted by trueviking

There are essentially no examples of football stadiums being successful catalysts for urban revitalization in north America.....I know I know. It's not a football stadium.

That article still claims they are hoping for a $150m plus investment from the feds. I thought that dream was over.

I find it really hard to believe that they have secretly found $150-200m in private investment. Companies just don't hand over money like that without some form of return on their investment. Would they operate the stadium and receive it's profit? Private funding from sports stadiums generally comes from those who are the driving force behind it. From those who will profit from it's construction. Who are these companies in this instance and what are they getting in return that would make it attractive? I am skeptical until I hear details. Raising that kind of investment is not easy.

Is the suggestion that the potash industry will simply donate that money for some reason? Are there any other rumours floating around identifying who these investors might be and what they will get in return for their money?

Mr Cheveldayoff stated in a recent interview that he couldn't name names but hinted that the private sector contribution is coming from the natural resource sector, the real estate industry, entertainment industry, as well as corporate contributions (ie naming rights for the stadium/the roof/public squares/ped bridges as well as the donation from the hotel association and possible links to the tourism industry). Also in play is a 25year home lottery and other initiatives like a wall of fame brick purchse and bond purchasing/donations.

[trueviking]

until it is announced, i will maintain my skepticism that the natural resource sector, the real estate industry and entertainment industry are going to pony up 10 figures for a football stadium. I do not see what their return on investment is.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Migs

As of now, Quebec City has no private funding on the table whatsoever. Once they have some shored up, they will likely go back to the feds.

as of now, neither does regina.

has the federal government been formally presented with the private funding as part of the request for financing?