Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

Really think so ?
I think 30k expandable to 40k is damn near perfect.
Don't like the fixed roof though.

I believe the Stampeders had 20 seasons in a row of 30K+ average attendance until around 2012 or 2013. Getting rid of TV blackouts might be impacting attendance but I would think a nice new covered stadium would attract a lot of new fans. A capacity of just 30K would price a lot of fans out of the market which I don't see as being a good thing if they're trying to get the public to contribute big bucks to building this facility.

Yeah, a retractable roof would be the best but given the choice between no roof or a fixed roof I believe the vast majority of people would take a fixed roof.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Stadium is way too small.

Why would you build a stadium much bigger than they draw?

[king10]

30k is fine. Better to have ticket scarcity than over supply of tickets. Teams can raise the prices and make a better profit.

Still hate the idea of a fieldhouse. Really limits the things they can do with a new stadium.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by elly63

Why would you build a stadium much bigger than they draw?

Would a much better experience not draw more people? I think it would especially having a covered stadium.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by king10

30k is fine. Better to have ticket scarcity than over supply of tickets. Teams can raise the prices and make a better profit.

Still hate the idea of a fieldhouse. Really limits the things they can do with a new stadium.

The CFL is never going to be able to charge the prices the NHL, etc. charge for top seats. Better for them to have more butts in the stands and get people to buy merchandise, etc.

I agree with you about the fieldhouse. I also don't believe the city doesn't have the money to build it on their own. They're building some very nice rec centers right now a few of which I believe are costing ~$200m each. This is one of them: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Pa...new-Rocky-Ridge-recreation-facility.aspx. If the complex ends up looking as good as the rendering the Flames should hire whoever designed it to redo all of CalgaryNEXT.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by king10

30k is fine. Better to have ticket scarcity than over supply of tickets. Teams can raise the prices and make a better profit.

Still hate the idea of a fieldhouse. Really limits the things they can do with a new stadium.

It would also suck for the people in the community who would want to use the fieldhouse.

Fieldhouse without Stamps/some minor pro soccer team as tenants - available to public 300+ days a year.

Fieldhouse with Stamps/some minor pro soccer team as tenants - available to public only 200+ days a year.

The facility would be closed to the general public on gamedays, the day before and after games, and practices. Much less public use if King and company had their way and piggybacked onto the fieldhouse the city is planning to build for the public.

For shame Mr. King!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

It would also suck for the people in the community who would want to use the fieldhouse.

Fieldhouse without Stamps/some minor pro soccer team as tenants - available to public 300+ days a year.

Fieldhouse with Stamps/some minor pro soccer team as tenants - available to public only 200+ days a year.

The facility would be closed to the general public on gamedays, the day before and after games, and practices. Much less public use if King and company had their way and piggybacked onto the fieldhouse the city is planning to build for the public.

For shame Mr. King!

Well, that's what a compromise is... both sides give something up to get something in return.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ The point is that, as a matter of fact, Saddledome will not be the oldest rink in the NHL next season. There will be two that are older.

So the Saddledome isn't the oldest, not sure about McMahon respectively but would any of you rather one of these in your metro area to replace the equivalent that you have now - NHL or CFL capable venues?

[king10]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The CFL is never going to be able to charge the prices the NHL, etc. charge for top seats. Better for them to have more butts in the stands and get people to buy merchandise, etc.

I agree with you about the fieldhouse. I also don't believe the city doesn't have the money to build it on their own. They're building some very nice rec centers right now a few of which I believe are costing ~$200m each. This is one of them: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Pa...new-Rocky-Ridge-recreation-facility.aspx. If the complex ends up looking as good as the rendering the Flames should hire whoever designed it to redo all of CalgaryNEXT.

Never said they would charge NHL prices. Just said they can charge higher prices than what they are charging now and still sell out. Simple supply and demand. Most of the merchandise is purchased outside of gameday anyways. Theres 9 games a year, sports apparel stores are open and selling their merchandise over 300 days a year.

Out of the new Reno's / new builds in the CFL only one team has increased capacity. It's the trend for a reason. Let demand outstrip supply. The bottom line will reflect that.

Capacity Reduction
Ivor Wynne (29,000) > THF (24,000)
Molson (25,000) >(23,500)
TD Place (30,000)> (24,000)
Rogers/ BMO (50,000) > (27,000)
Commonwealth (60,000) > (56,000)
BC Place (60,000) >(54,500)

Capacity Unchanged
Mosaic (33,000) > Mosaic 2.0 (33,000)

Capacity Increase
Canad Inns (30,000) > IGF (33,500)

Capacity reduction is hardly out of the ordinary.

[esquire]

^ Even CanadInns is sort of a lateral move as for years it held 33,675 except for the last 15 years or so when seat replacement drove capacity down to 29,500.

I do think corndogger has a point though, I think there is some merit to charging an affordable price point and filling the joint vs. attempting to charge a premium ticket price. I get that maximizing revenue (and by extension profits) is the name of the game for teams, but encouraging people to come out and become a fan has to factor in there somewhere. Plus there is the fact that a full house does wonders for atmosphere and perception.

I guess I'm old school in that attending live games is a big part of the deal for me. I'd rather watch from even the nosebleeds in person than on TV. Making tickets harder or more expensive to come by just drives down my interest.

[big W]

Originally Posted by king10

Never said they would charge NHL prices. Just said they can charge higher prices than what they are charging now and still sell out. Simple supply and demand. Most of the merchandise is purchased outside of gameday anyways. Theres 9 games a year, sports apparel stores are open and selling their merchandise over 300 days a year.

Out of the new Reno's / new builds in the CFL only one team has increased capacity. It's the trend for a reason. Let demand outstrip supply. The bottom line will reflect that.

Capacity Reduction
Ivor Wynne (29,000) > THF (24,000)
Molson (25,000) >(23,500)
TD Place (30,000)> (24,000)
Rogers/ BMO (50,000) > (27,000)
Commonwealth (60,000) > (56,000)
BC Place (60,000) >(54,500)

Capacity Unchanged
Mosaic (33,000) > Mosaic 2.0 (33,000)

Capacity Increase
Canad Inns (30,000) > IGF (33,500)

Capacity reduction is hardly out of the ordinary.

Also one thing to consider is how many of the Stadiums are in the 30K range. All but Edmonton and Vancouver. Which means that the 30K seems about right when compared with the rest of the league.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by speedog

So the Saddledome isn't the oldest, not sure about McMahon respectively but would any of you rather one of these in your metro area to replace the equivalent that you have now - NHL or CFL capable venues?

I would definitely take the Saddledome over the Corel Centre if it was that close to downtown (we'll find out in two hours if the Corel Centre's location will be an issue for much longer). And I like the retro look and feel of McMahon. I'm fine with what we have now though.

What are the top 10 reasons why everyone is so keen on trading up these venues though?

[esquire]

^ I think it's just a matter of keeping up with the Joneses. i.e. Edmonton got a new rink, so we need one too. For what it's worth I don't find the Saddledome to be any worse than the MTS Centre in terms of the game experience, although the MTS Centre is obviously not among the most opulent new NHL arenas.

Even McMahon I don't find to be that bad. It's obviously the more outdated of the two venues slated for replacement with cramped corridors and unsheltered bench seating, but really... the same could be said for Lambeau Field and they don't seem to have a hard time moving tickets. If you just want to watch football then McMahon is a fine place to do it.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by esquire

Well, that's what a compromise is... both sides give something up to get something in return.

The issue is that the compromise on the public side is huge. Pay way more for the two facilities together and get less usage out of one of them. Compromise generally means everyone is unhappy because they both gave something up. What is King actually giving up in this compromise? Its certainly not public money because he stands to get more with this than if he did both separately at a cheaper total cost as well.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

The issue is that the compromise on the public side is huge. Pay way more for the two facilities together and get less usage out of one of them. Compromise generally means everyone is unhappy because they both gave something up. What is King actually giving up in this compromise? Its certainly not public money because he stands to get more with this than if he did both separately at a cheaper total cost as well.

I don't know enough of the details of the project to answer that. But if it's all government money to build a fieldhouse that the Stamps get to use as their home venue too, then I guess it's easy to turn that deal down.

I'm assuming that there would have to be some meaningful contribution by CSEG to the project to make it worthwhile, otherwise yes, the city could just build its own fieldhouse.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I would definitely take the Saddledome over the Corel Centre if it was that close to downtown (we'll find out in two hours if the Corel Centre's location will be an issue for much longer). And I like the retro look and feel of McMahon. I'm fine with what we have now though.

What are the top 10 reasons why everyone is so keen on trading up these venues though?

Retro huh? If aluminum seats, cramped concessions and endless lines are considered retro then McDump is a winner!

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I think it's just a matter of keeping up with the Joneses. i.e. Edmonton got a new rink, so we need one too. For what it's worth I don't find the Saddledome to be any worse than the MTS Centre in terms of the game experience, although the MTS Centre is obviously not among the most opulent new NHL arenas.

Even McMahon I don't find to be that bad. It's obviously the more outdated of the two venues slated for replacement with cramped corridors and unsheltered bench seating, but really... the same could be said for Lambeau Field and they don't seem to have a hard time moving tickets. If you just want to watch football then McMahon is a fine place to do it.

True, but the challenge is trying to draw new, younger fans to the games. There has to be a better fan experience or people will just stay home and watch the games on their hi-def tv's.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

True, but the challenge is trying to draw new, younger fans to the games. There has to be a better fan experience or people will just stay home and watch the games on their hi-def tv's.

I dunno... the Stamps have had a good run going for a while. 2 Grey Cups in 8 years and above .500 during that entire stretch with lots of great players and entertaining football played.

Under those circumstances, I'd say if you still don't want to go to watch the Stamps, then you're probably not ever going to want to go to a CFL game regardless of where it's being played.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by esquire

I dunno... the Stamps have had a good run going for a while. 2 Grey Cups in 8 years and above .500 during that entire stretch with lots of great players and entertaining football played.

Under those circumstances, I'd say if you still don't want to go to watch the Stamps, then you're probably not ever going to want to go to a CFL game regardless of where it's being played.

I forgot you live in Winnipeg.

Yeah they've been good but IMHO I still think you need more to get people in the seats. Plus, they can't be making too much money off the limited so-called "luxury boxes" (I've seen them and they aren't that great).

[Riise]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't know enough of the details of the project to answer that. But if it's all government money to build a fieldhouse that the Stamps get to use as their home venue too, then I guess it's easy to turn that deal down.

I'm assuming that there would have to be some meaningful contribution by CSEG to the project to make it worthwhile, otherwise yes, the city could just build its own fieldhouse.

It certainly doesn't sound like CSEC is looking to bear much or any of the financial burden.

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

True, but the challenge is trying to draw new, younger fans to the games. There has to be a better fan experience or people will just stay home and watch the games on their hi-def tv's.

Sports Entertainment is pricing out a lot of people from attending live events and there is a growing market of disillusioned spectators both young and old who are interested in attending live events. However, does CSEC have any interest in this market?