Quote:
Originally Posted by KHOOLE
Lansdowne Park is still good for amateur and commercial sports of a lower scale than CFL. Perfect for Capital City and Fury and FIFA-W and university football and many many other exhibition sports and gatherings.
Let’s put the stadium back in shape and make full use of it as well as it being a revenue-generating enterprise for the city. Adjelian did the studies years ago. The roof is leaking and the supports have to be reinforced (clay again?)
|
Although you seem reluctant to address the issue head on, I take it from this statement that you are suggesting a scaled-down stadium at Lansdowne? However, you are citing reports on the history of negotiations, but not a single fact in support of your claims on best use of Lansdowne. If your idea is actually strong, you shouldn't have trouble defending it on all fronts.
I've already pointed out why a 10,000 seat Lansdowne is not "perfect" for the crowds drawn by Fury or Capital City FC, so I won't repeat myself. But I will take issue with your new contention that it would be a revenue-generating proposition for the City. I can't think of a single municipally-owned spectator facility for amateur sports that makes a profit, and that is without even taking capital investment into account. What makes you think this one will be any different?
I also question why we would want a 10,000 seat stadium at Lansdowne AND a 20,000 seat stadium at Bayview. That strikes me as a way to guarantee that neither will be used to its full potential, and that we are out of the running for the 2014 World Cup. It also strikes me as something that would almost certainly fail at the political level, which smacks of a delaying tactic. John Martin suggested the same thing in an early incarnation of his plan, and even he rejected that as unrealistic, which is saying something.
Threaded Mode