Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The owner is quoted as saying otherwise - that the team was only profitable for the one year they hosted the Grey Cup under the previous GC revenue-sharing platform. Every other year they lose money.

If pro sports teams depended solely on revenues exceeding expenses consistently each and every year just to survive, they'd disappear tomorrow. As you yourself have alluded, there are other financial benefits that can be realized even if the team is not profitable in the strict sense of the term. You cited growth in franchise values which is the most obvious one. I'm sure there are other possible reasons... tax shelter? As a means to other ends? Who knows, I'm not Wetenhall's accountant. But rest assured that if it wasn't in Wetenhall's financial best interest to keep the team, he would have left a long time ago. There is simply no way that a rich American guy with no known connection to the CFL would absorb losses for years and years if there wasn't some tangible benefit to him.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

If pro sports teams depended solely on revenues exceeding expenses consistently each and every year just to survive, they'd disappear tomorrow. As you yourself have alluded, there are other financial benefits that can be realized even if the team is not profitable in the strict sense of the term. You cited growth in franchise values which is the most obvious one. I'm sure there are other possible reasons... tax shelter? As a means to other ends? Who knows, I'm not Wetenhall's accountant. But rest assured that if it wasn't in Wetenhall's financial best interest to keep the team, he would have left a long time ago. There is simply no way that a rich American guy with no known connection to the CFL would absorb losses for years and years if there wasn't some tangible benefit to him.

Your guess is as good as mine.

Either way, to bring this full circle, i'd be surprised to see any team calling Olympic Stadium home in the next decade, including the Alouettes.

[osmo]

It rains in the GTA quite often in fall but it can be light. The rainfall volumes are important and Halifax and Vancouver for CFL cities would be tops.

Cities with similar rainfall volumes have fan coverings or a roof. Miami for example now has fan coverings for their outdoor facilities.

To put it in perspective, Halifax gets almost double the rain volume than Seattle which has never NOT had a facility that didn't provide fan coverings of some sort.

[someone123]

I don't think many people will argue that an uncovered stadium is better or that rain is rare and not worth thinking about. You have to put this in the context of the overall budget though and ask if trying to build a roof in the beginning would reduce the chance the whole thing will be built. Maybe it would be better to have no roof for a few years.

Seattle isn't very instructive here because it's a much larger city with facilities built for established and presumably vastly higher value sports teams. The stadium the Seahawks play in cost about $800M in today's dollars (CAD).

[esquire]

The Winnipeg (IGF) and Toronto (BMO)-type covered grandstand approach probably offers the best bang for the buck. You get a lot of coverage of the seating areas which keeps most fans dry even if it's pouring rain or a blizzard. As a fan, I appreciate staying dry even on a miserable evening.

It's obviously not the same as a dome, but you do get a pretty significant fan amenity without the massive additional expense of building a climate-controlled indoor facility.

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by osmo

It rains in the GTA quite often in fall but it can be light. The rainfall volumes are important and Halifax and Vancouver for CFL cities would be tops.

Cities with similar rainfall volumes have fan coverings or a roof. Miami for example now has fan coverings for their outdoor facilities.

To put it in perspective, Halifax gets almost double the rain volume than Seattle which has never NOT had a facility that didn't provide fan coverings of some sort.

Whether Seattle has a dome or two is not the issue. Even rainfall totals are not the issue. Providing a stadium that is suited for Halifax at a price that is justified and affordable is the issue.

Fargo, North Dakota built the Fargo dome in 1990 for under $50 million. 20,000 seats for football so a bit small, but it's a dome.

I would rather 20,000 seats out in the open than a smaller cramp dome, rainfall, snow or whatever be dammed.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Whether Seattle has a dome or two is not the issue. Even rainfall totals are not the issue. Providing a stadium that is suited for Halifax at a price that is justified and affordable is the issue.

Fargo, North Dakota built the Fargo dome in 1990 for under $50 million. 20,000 seats for football so a bit small, but it's a dome.

I would rather 20,000 seats out in the open than a smaller cramp dome, rainfall, snow or whatever be dammed.

I agree with the last point... Fargodome is interesting in that you don't see many smaller cities that can boast of having a dome, but it is a pretty drab shed of a building... almost like a hangar with grandstands. I think a well designed outdoor stadium is preferable... that's why I wince when Calgary talks about building its "fieldhouse" for the Stamps.

[Berklon]

One problem with building something similar to Fargodome is that the footprint will be bigger due to the larger field - which makes it cost more.

However, a big advantage is that the city can host larger events throughout the whole year that they couldn't host in their arena or an outdoor stadium. If possible, a partially see-through roof would bring in some much needed light during the day.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Berklon

One problem with building something similar to Fargodome is that the footprint will be bigger due to the larger field - which makes it cost more.

However, a big advantage is that the city can host larger events throughout the whole year that they couldn't host in their arena or an outdoor stadium. If possible, a partially see-through roof would bring in some much needed light during the day.

I think we are two of the very few holding that view. I think they should go that route because if all goes to hell with the football team they'll still have a decent year round public facility.

There likely have been technological advancements that would help keep costs down and make a facility like this more "outdoors like" There is that transparent roofed stadium in New Zealand for instance, and the proposed Calgary Fieldhouse went that route. Keep it 22k seats max.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by elly63

I think we are two of the very few holding that view. I think they should go that route because if all goes to hell with the football team they'll still have a decent year round public facility.

There likely have been technological advancements that would help keep costs down and make a facility like this more "outdoors like" There is that transparent roofed stadium in New Zealand for instance, and the proposed Calgary Fieldhouse went that route. Keep it 22k seats max.

I think you'd have to weigh the costs and benefits. In Halifax's case, sacrificing cost to get something done might be more beneficial.

Halifax also has an decently-sized indoor venue - Scotiabank Centre (I'm starting to struggle to keep track of all the different things Scotiabank and Rogers have slapped their branding on).

[WhipperSnapper]

Fargodome is 30 years old. It's from another era. Adjusting the cost in today's dollars isn't going to give you an accurate picture of building a domed facility today.

[esquire]

^ Not to mention the differences between a pro and amateur level facility. The Fargodome was built as a NCAA Division ii stadium.

[Acajack]

Wouldn't a facility like the Fargodome be extremely hard to expand? You're pretty much locked into your original seating capacity.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by elly63

There likely have been technological advancements that would help keep costs down and make a facility like this more "outdoors like" There is that transparent roofed stadium in New Zealand for instance, .

When I first read this I thought of a sauna or a greenhouse in warm sunny weather.

I have no idea how they control the temperature inside, though this stadium is at the southern tip of New Zealand, with coolish winters and summers cooler than Halifax's.

If anything they may be looking for the greenhouse effect to warm up the inside of the stadium.

Especially if the main season of usage (for rugby?) is in the winter.

BTW it's a 30,000 seat modern stadium in a city of 130,000 people.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Wouldn't a facility like the Fargodome be extremely hard to expand? You're pretty much locked into your original seating capacity.

Yes. Expansion is possible but difficult. I would imagine it would have to follow the Winnipeg Arena ca. 1979 model, of raising the roof and adding upper decks. But the cost of such an expensive undertaking to expand a 26 year old facility gets to the point where building a new replacement stadium probably becomes appealing. It's not as if the Fargodome is sitting on pricy urban MSG-type land, there's certainly loads of room around Fargo for a new stadium if and when the need ever arises.

(That's all theoretical, I'm sure the Fargodome will meet NDSU/Fargo's needs for years to come...)

[Jaws]

The Kibbiedome in Moscow, Idaho. Built in the early 70s. Seats 16500. I always liked the lighting in it.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by elly63

I think we are two of the very few holding that view. I think they should go that route because if all goes to hell with the football team they'll still have a decent year round public facility.

There likely have been technological advancements that would help keep costs down and make a facility like this more "outdoors like" There is that transparent roofed stadium in New Zealand for instance, and the proposed Calgary Fieldhouse went that route. Keep it 22k seats max.

I agree but I'd say make it 30 000 seats minimum. McMahon has a capacity of over 35 000 and consistently fills the seats. I'd hope for 40 000 seats especially if we went the indoor route, but that is overly optimistic. Plus we somehow need the possibility of hosting the grey cup to be... possible, which wouldn't be the case with a 22 000 seater.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I agree but I'd say make it 30 000 seats minimum. McMahon has a capacity of over 35 000 and consistently fills the seats. I'd hope for 40 000 seats especially if we went the indoor route, but that is overly optimistic. Plus we somehow need the possibility of hosting the grey cup to be... possible, which wouldn't be the case with a 22 000 seater.

McMahon does not consistently fill 35,000 seats. Not sure where you're getting that info.

Since 2010 the Stamps have averaged 30,500 or less. 2016,2017 and 2018 has seen 27,500 or less.

Only once since 2001 have the stamps averaged over 35,000 in capacity.

They do not consistently fill 35,000 seats as you indicated.

https://stats.cfldb.ca/team/calgary-...rs/attendance/

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I agree but I'd say make it 30 000 seats minimum. McMahon has a capacity of over 35 000 and consistently fills the seats. I'd hope for 40 000 seats especially if we went the indoor route, but that is overly optimistic. Plus we somehow need the possibility of hosting the grey cup to be... possible, which wouldn't be the case with a 22 000 seater.

Perhaps if there was a provision for easily expanding to 30,000, that might work.

At the outset? Nah. It's an easier sale to the public (who will be paying) to build something smaller. Then, should attendance consistently outpace the building, then do additions/renovations.

Something like BellMTS Place in Winnipeg.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I agree but I'd say make it 30 000 seats minimum. McMahon has a capacity of over 35 000 and consistently fills the seats. I'd hope for 40 000 seats especially if we went the indoor route, but that is overly optimistic. Plus we somehow need the possibility of hosting the grey cup to be... possible, which wouldn't be the case with a 22 000 seater.

30k seats is way too much and the costs of an extra say 6/8k seats would add 10s of millions to the tab if not 100 million.

I think the days of the large 40+k stadium (especially in Canada) are gone.

Also, the need for a single struggling team that may need the great revenues that a Grey Cup provides are also gone. Grey Cup revenues are now shared, they don't all go the host team, so a GC in a small stadium would possibly mean lesser revenue to all the clubs but not be one team's financial saviour every 10 years or so.