Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46
That's because it's the cheapest option that lets Montreal keep a stadium. My understanding is that the roof is in such a state that it will need significant repair regardless of what they do.
Which makes sense, when looking at the other options, which are:
1. Tear it down and don't replace it. Which involves spending money and getting nothing out of it except some land.
2. Tear it down and replace it with a new stadium without a tenant. That's the most expensive solution and the silliest IMO.
With this option, Montreal keeps a large venue operating for the few times a year they need it. It's the least bad option.
How much does the Big O get used? A few days a year?
|
The sunk cost fallacy comes to mind here. But that said, all of the choices are bad and very expensive. I can see the appeal of a city like Montreal wanting to maintain a stadium that it can use for occasional large scale events, but man, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do that (the roof will be quarter of a billion alone) when there isn't even a tenant seems like a tough pill to swallow.
Has there ever been a stadium anywhere in the world that has been as financially catastrophic as the Big O? I love the architecture of the place but in terms of its effects on public finances it is an absolute cancer.