Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[esquire]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

I don't think it's an attendance problem. I think they're suffering from an overall lack of revenue and need to find ways to increase that.

Excess capacity hurts revenue though. If the Jets played in a 20,000 seat venue they'd be getting creamed on the revenue side because ticket scarcity would be far lower, meaning the Jets couldn't count on high season ticket sales and relatively high seat prices. The odd sellout when Montreal or Chicago comes to town would hardly offset the swaths of empty seats that there would likely be for non-marquee opponents.

[Acajack]

Yeah, the Senators' average ticket price is right in the middle of the pack for the NHL, but it's by far the cheapest in Canada. It's half the average ticket price of the next-cheapest ticket, which is in Montreal. (This alone should ring a bell...)

I suppose that the Senators also think that a downtown arena will be busier with non-hockey events. Not that CTC isn't busy now, but it could be busier and I am sure there are concerts, shows and such that they might not get in Kanata that they could get downtown.

Quebec-focused acts in particular would be a much better sell at a downtown venue than out in Kanata, which is about as far as you can get from where the metro's francophone population is concentrated.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Berklon

I find that really odd.

As mentioned, the building is only 22 years old and it still looks like a really nice stadium. And I love the look of the exterior.

The obstructed seats reasoning feels kind of suspect. The stadium holds 48k seats and their average attendance in the last 10 years is around 33k. Do they have between 10,000-15,000 obstructed view seats?

They feel the stadium isn't optimal which we all know means it's not capable of generating the revenue they think they can wring out of their fans.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

They feel the stadium isn't optimal which we all know means it's not capable of generating the revenue they think they can wring out of their fans.

When someone else is paying the bill for the stadium, then who cares, right?

Imagine if the government was willing to pony up the money to buy you a new car if you needed one. Naturally you'd be calling them up soon telling them that your two year old ride is getting a little creaky, smells kind of bad, there's a weird knocking sound from the engine, etc. Replace "car" with "stadium" and that's kind of what's going on, especially in the US.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by esquire

When someone else is paying the bill for the stadium, then who cares, right?

Imagine if the government was willing to pony up the money to buy you a new car if you needed one. Naturally you'd be calling them up soon telling them that your two year old ride is getting a little creaky, smells kind of bad, there's a weird knocking sound from the engine, etc. Replace "car" with "stadium" and that's kind of what's going on, especially in the US.

I don't know if Dallas or whoever is offering them a ton of money but I highly doubt the team will be paying nothing. Also, this talk has been going on for years and still nothing has happened so the Rangers couldn't be suffering too much.

Some might find this interesting (figures are from 2008).

Venue, City, 5 mile radius population

Yankee Stadium, New York City (2,502,621)
Wrigley Field, Chicago, Illinois (1,052,689)
U.S. Cellular Field, Chicago, ILL (825,341)
PNC Park, Pittsburg, PA (388,299)
Great American Ballpark Cincinnati (305,392)
Ballpark in Arlington, Texas (282,931)

Source: http://www.dallassouthnews.org/2011/07/1...to-downtown-dallas/#sthash.U6P7oIY0.dpuf

[esquire]

^ Of course the Rangers will have to chip something in. But as we know, these stadium projects in the US tend to be on the backs of citizens with only a handful of exceptions.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Can you guys take your terminology whinefest to another thread so we can discuss stadium construction progress?

I thought of this thread last night as I was listening to a radio station out of NYC in my car (I think it was Bloomberg) and when the sports guy came on he started talking about "European football" and giving scores involving the Arsenal Gunners, etc. The announcer had an American accent.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I thought of this thread last night as I was listening to a radio station out of NYC in my car (I think it was Bloomberg) and when the sports guy came on he started talking about "European football" and giving scores involving the Arsenal Gunners, etc. The announcer had an American accent.

A professional woman originally from Northern Manitoba who I occasionally deal with referred to her son's football team... I thought she meant gridiron, but it quickly became clear she meant soccer. And she didn't strike me as some kind of chip-on-shoulder soccer fan eager to prove a point, it was said very casually.

It sort of threw me for a loop that anyone from here would actually refer to soccer as football in the normal course (as opposed to attempting to make some kind of statement).

[The Fisher Account]

This one time, someone I know through a friend of a friend referred to a sport I commonly call one thing, a totally different thing.

Yeah, it was pretty crazy.

Hey, how is Rogers Place coming along?

[elly63]

• Video Link

From Corner Gas: In "Bend It Like Brent", when Davis feels the need to use British English words ('football') over their Canadian English counterparts ('soccer'). (2:45)

Davis: Thanks for donating the footballs.
Lacey: Well, it's the least I could do for our soccer team; give them some soccer balls, to play soccer with.
Davis: The proper term is 'football'. It's good for the kids to hear some of the British terminology.
Lacey: So what's the British term for a person who uses stupid British terms?
Davis: Wanker.
Lacey: Good to know.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

If the Flames pay for everything why would you care if the project fails? Are you expecting them to invest a large sum of money to achieve what you want to see done? If the city wasn't so closed minded we could have ended up with a great project but now we're going to end up with an embarrassment that will please now one. But if they moved to Rocky View County they could at least build what they want. And not everything has to be in the core to succeed. If you have proof to the contrary start providing some cites.

If the ownership was willing to pay for everything themselves the project would have most likely gone ahead. The fact is they were only willing to pay for $200 million of the $800 million project - a pathetic amount.

Name an example of a successful suburban arena. Almost all new arenas are being constructed in and around the downtown areas of various cities. How is CalgaryNext a better proposal than building on the current Stampede grounds?

City is not close-minded for paying for 3/4s of the project themselves.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I don't know if Dallas or whoever is offering them a ton of money but I highly doubt the team will be paying nothing. Also, this talk has been going on for years and still nothing has happened so the Rangers couldn't be suffering too much.

Some might find this interesting (figures are from 2008).

Venue, City, 5 mile radius population

Yankee Stadium, New York City (2,502,621)
Wrigley Field, Chicago, Illinois (1,052,689)
U.S. Cellular Field, Chicago, ILL (825,341)
PNC Park, Pittsburg, PA (388,299)
Great American Ballpark Cincinnati (305,392)
Ballpark in Arlington, Texas (282,931)

Source: http://www.dallassouthnews.org/2011/07/1...to-downtown-dallas/#sthash.U6P7oIY0.dpuf

Pretty well all those places are near downtown and are densely populated in the surrounding areas. Texas might be the exception although it has already been pointed out that they would like to move downtown and the current stadium is located in in Arlington - another city.

As for Ottawa, I do think the arena location has hurt the team but only minimally. However, one of the supposed benefits of the arena in Kanata was the expected growth of businesses surrounding the arena - something that never came to fruition. This is more likely to happen in a central location which I'm sure is one of the reasons for the downtown proposal.

CalgaryNext is simply a terrible, poorly thought out proposal. I'm not what Ken King and company were thinking asking the city to fund 3/4s of the project..well, actually I do. They looked up North at Edmonton and eastward to Quebec City and hoped they could hoodwink the municipal government into giving them the lion's share of the costs associated with new sports facilities.

Thankfully, the calgary city council is smarter than that. They know as we do that the city has the largest corporate base in all of western Canada. Therefore, there are no excuses for a new NHL arena to not be funded by private interests..not with all the vast corporate wealth available.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Thankfully, the calgary city council is smarter than that. They know as we do that the city has the largest corporate base in all of western Canada. Therefore, there are no excuses for a new NHL arena to not be funded by private interests..not with all the vast corporate wealth available.

You can push around a smaller city into doing that, but Calgary? Come on. It's too big and prosperous, and too strong a hockey market. The "we'll move the team" threat doesn't work there because if CSEG acted upon it, everybody knows that another NHL owner would move there in a heartbeat.

There's a reason that owners in cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver had to build their rinks with private money.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

If the ownership was willing to pay for everything themselves the project would have most likely gone ahead. The fact is they were only willing to pay for $200 million of the $800 million project - a pathetic amount.

Name an example of a successful suburban arena. Almost all new arenas are being constructed in and around the downtown areas of various cities. How is CalgaryNext a better proposal than building on the current Stampede grounds?

City is not close-minded for paying for 3/4s of the project themselves.

I've stated before that the CalgaryNext proposal leaves a lot to be desired. My recent comments have to do with the City's agenda-driven report on it.

How is city paying for 75% of the proposed project? They're not paying the so-called ticket tax and if they're claiming the TIF they better start factoring that in when talking about the East Village as well.

Success suburban arena? The Palace of Auburn Hills. Are you happy or are you guys going to change your definition again?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It would be if the reason they're thinking of moving is due to the current location. The current stadium is out of date and has too many obstructed view seats. Is Dallas giving them a nice incentive to move?

The stadium is fine, obstructed seats are not an issue at the current ballpark. The issue is that you have a city (Dallas) that is willing to throw ridiculous amounts of tax money into building a new ballpark in their city. Arlington would have to match or perhaps even beat to keep the team where it is. That is exactly the reason the ballpark is located where it is now. The ownership group got local government to issue $135 million in bonds to go toward the $191 million ballpark (using the political connections of one of their owners George Bush). Dallas never offered as good of a package, and lost out on the team. The exact same thing happened with the site for Cowboys Stadium. Dallas offer was pretty good but Arlington's was better, so they got the stadium.

The Rangers' lease is up within the next 6 years, so they are already shopping around to see which community will offer them the most. The team wants a stadium with a retractable roof, and they want to see who wants to pay to build them one. Not having a retractable roof does not mean your stadium is "outdated". It just means that ownership has thought of a way to make even more money and wants someone to pay the bill

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Berklon

I find that really odd.

As mentioned, the building is only 22 years old and it still looks like a really nice stadium. And I love the look of the exterior.

The obstructed seats reasoning feels kind of suspect. The stadium holds 48k seats and their average attendance in the last 10 years is around 33k. Do they have between 10,000-15,000 obstructed view seats?

The obstructed seats they have is an intentional design feature, to make one section of the stadium have an oldtime ballpark feel to it complete with an old style roof held up by beams which create obstructed views and discounted ticket prices. The section is popular in the Summer because of the shade.

The Rangers are looking for a ballpark with a retractable roof and a reduced seating capacity, both of which will no doubt boost revenues by sheilding Summer fans from the hot Texas Summer sun and reducing the amount of available tickets. Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area is made up of a bunch of different localities that have fought over teams in the past and this time looks to be no different.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

The stadium is fine, obstructed seats are not an issue at the current ballpark. The issue is that you have a city (Dallas) that is willing to throw ridiculous amounts of tax money into building a new ballpark in their city. Arlington would have to match or perhaps even beat to keep the team where it is. That is exactly the reason the ballpark is located where it is now. The ownership group got local government to issue $135 million in bonds to go toward the $191 million ballpark (using the political connections of one of their owners George Bush). Dallas never offered as good of a package, and lost out on the team. The exact same thing happened with the site for Cowboys Stadium. Dallas offer was pretty good but Arlington's was better, so they got the stadium.

Via Wikipedia (I could provide other sources as well)

"The stadium has a large number of obstructed-view seats. In some cases, the view is cut off by an overhang or underhang, and others are directly in front of the foul or support poles. Also, the design of the upper deck leaves it one of the highest in baseball. The view from the grandstand reserved sections in left is particularly obstructed."

The current stadium had nothing to do with Dallas losing the team. The Rangers were already in Arlington. The team also just spent $30 million in improvements over the last three off seasons so it's not like they done nothing.

The Rangers' lease is up within the next 6 years, so they are already shopping around to see which community will offer them the most. The team wants a stadium with a retractable roof, and they want to see who wants to pay to build them one. Not having a retractable roof does not mean your stadium is "outdated". It just means that ownership has thought of a way to make even more money and wants someone to pay the bill

Them not having a retractable roof means fans and players suffer in the heat for the majority of the season. The Cowboys corrected that problem with their new stadium. If you think the heat isn't a problem then why I don't apply the same logic to the Flames. They've played a game outdoors before so why not play them all? Instead of building a new arena just build a new stadium that can be used for everything. It would be way cheaper and it would be unique. The Flames could say it's the ultimate in retro. Hire a top-notch architect and they could make this work.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Via Wikipedia (I could provide other sources as well)

"The stadium has a large number of obstructed-view seats. In some cases, the view is cut off by an overhang or underhang, and others are directly in front of the foul or support poles. Also, the design of the upper deck leaves it one of the highest in baseball. The view from the grandstand reserved sections in left is particularly obstructed."

The current stadium had nothing to do with Dallas losing the team. The Rangers were already in Arlington. The team also just spent $30 million in improvements over the last three off seasons so it's not like they done nothing.


Them not having a retractable roof means fans and players suffer in the heat for the majority of the season. The Cowboys corrected that problem with their new stadium. If you think the heat isn't a problem then why I don't apply the same logic to the Flames. They've played a game outdoors before so why not play them all? Instead of building a new arena just build a new stadium that can be used for everything. It would be way cheaper and it would be unique. The Flames could say it's the ultimate in retro. Hire a top-notch architect and they could make this work.

First off Wikipedia is not a credible source. Anybody can write anything there pretty much. As I already pointed out, some of the obstructed seats are an intentional design feature. i.e. they're supposed to be there. Second, even new stadiums have obstructed seats. Look to to the new Cowboy Stadium. It has some of the worst obstructed seating anywhere, and its almost brand new. Some new ballparks in the MLB have them too. Any new ballpark built will have some also. And a statement like " the design of the upper deck leaves it one of the highest in baseball." What does "one of the highest mean"? Top 5 highest? Top 25? Perhaps a better quote would be from one of the local newspapers the team has in their pocket that stated that notes the Rangers “remain one of the few teams located in a searing summer climate without a roof." Vague much?

I never said the current stadium had nothing to do with Dallas losing the team. Dallas attempted to lure the team from Arlington and it looked like it was going to happen until former president Bush & friends came forward with a deal to use taxpayer funded bonds to build a stadium for themselves.

As for the roof, those poor fans and players! How did they somehow manage to keep playing and attending baseball games in the area for the last 5 decades? Lets build them a memorial for they are truly heroes. I can see it now....THIS MEMORIAL COMMEMORATES THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO GOT A TAN & WATCHED BASEBALL OUTDOORS. MAY THEY REST IN ETERNAL PEACE

The Cowboys survived just fine without one too. But when someone offered to help pay to build them one, they went for it. Contrary to ridiculous vague statements from homer news publications, not only the Rangers, but other teams in hot climates both minor and major league, seem to manage just fine without a roof. Would it make it nicer? Sure. Is it a necessity? No Does not having one make your stadium outdated? No
But the real question is would it make you more money? YES.

[O-tacular]

I see Corndogger is defending Calgary Next and advocating for an arena in Rockyview. Funny he accuses the city of being ideologically driven with their report when he ignores all the facts and figures to support a terribly planned project.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I see Corndogger is defending Calgary Next and advocating for an arena in Rockyview. Funny he accuses the city of being ideologically driven with their report when he ignores all the facts and figures to support a terribly planned project.

I specifically said it's a horrible proposal more than once. I said the Flames should build in Rocky View to not have to deal with the city who are ideological driven. Are you denying that?! Try reading for context before attacking people.