HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


View Poll Results: Rate Winnipegs New Stadium, Investors Group Field
1-Poor 5 6.49%
2-Below Average 5 6.49%
3-Average 16 20.78%
4-Better than Average 33 42.86%
5-Great 18 23.38%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 3:25 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
I don't disagree with you....I just think that we didn't ever really decide if this was something we needed and to what level?....it was rammed down our throats by asper who then walked away with a massive payment and left us with the bill for the whole thing.....did the bombers need a $240m stadium?....who made the case for that?.....they just raised the PST, we have a huge deficit....its nice to have it, but was it the right thing to build?....did we need a $40m canopy?....will servicing the cost of that wiggly piece of metal really help the bombers be more sustainable?...I liked being in the sun in the old stadium...now i'm always in shadow...and when it rains, the 35 minute walk from where I have to park will counteract any protection I get from the canopy.
And that was point where I take issue with the old boys club. Who made all the decisions and who is held accountable? No one knows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 3:28 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
the jets do different things for the city and the economy....their existence has huge spin off that would not be here if not for the government...that isn't true for the bombers.....they could have worked very nicely in a nice new stadium that didn't come with a $140m noose around the team's neck....or a massive payment from the government.

its fine to pay for a new stadium...did we need this one?...does it do what is best for the bombers?...they desperately want to be seen as 'big league'...it had nothing to do with fan experience or long term sustainability....I question the motives of the project.
I think you might have the Jets rose coloured glasses on. The Bombers needed a new stadium plain and simple. The old place was falling apart. Was it really that unreasonable for the Bomber braintrust to go from the $120M base model to the $200M deluxe version given that this asset will have a life of at least 40 years (judging by other Winnipeg sports venues)? When you start looking at the incremental cost over the life of the facility it doesn't seem that unreasonable.... when Commonwealth Stadium was built in 1978, it cost $21M. Do you think it was a wise investment? In hindsight, should they have built a 25,000 seat metal-bleacher stadium for $10M instead? Of course not... in the big picture, the difference in price was trivial and in the end Edmonton got a jewel of a stadium that has lasted for decades.

If the Bombers go for something "big league" it's because that's what fans want. Winnipeggers travel, they go to other cities and see nice new stadiums and demand the same here. Of course, IGF is not Cowboys Stadium... it's certainly not a lavish palace but I don't think the Bombers can be faulted for building something up to modern pro football standards. Of course, a lot of the amenities are moneymakers for the team... the clubs, the boxes, the restaurants, the shops... virtually everything except the roof. I just don't see what the problem is with the motive behind the new stadium...how can the Bombers be faulted for wanting something "too nice" for Winnipeg?

As for government assistance, I think that's just a reality of pro football. How many football stadiums anywhere are built with private money? Even in the obscenely wealthy NFL, which makes the NHL look like the Manitoba Junior Hockey Legue, stadiums are mostly government funded - look at Minnesota's new stadium project, for example. The only difference with the CFL is that the stadiums are 1/5 the cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 3:55 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,458
its not too nice for Winnipeg.....but it might be too expensive for the bombers.

the province of alberta built commonwealth for the eskimos...they were not saddled with a crushing debt.

if we as a society decided that our quality of life was improved with a $40m wiggly metal canopy, that's great...then we should have paid for it.....the bombers are paying $140m for this stadium...it isn't a government freebie...that is my point....

you might be fine with it all being a scam and eventually we will pay it off for them...but that should have been discussed with the taxpayers...we were sold that the bombers would pay half and the tax revenue from the old stadium the other half.

I believe in government paying for quality of life amenities...but I expect honesty about it....there should have been a real plan for its location based on fan experience...there should have been a real architect hired so they didn't have to take out a huge loan to pay for cost overruns....the building should have been tendered to get the best price.

none of this happened....there was no discussion about what was the best thing to build and where...it wasn't because we as citizens demanded the best....there was no discussion about what was most appropriate....what was the best for the bombers and the taxpayers....sure I'd love the new cowboy's stadium in Winnipeg, but is it the best thing for a small revenue sports league like the CFL?....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 4:00 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,458
I also think their zeal for something 'big league' hurt the actual fan quality....as I have said many times before a 30,000 seat stadium in a bowl configuration is not the best solution for actual viewing of the game itself...is that not the end goal?

does that canopy really do anything other than make it fell more expensive?

it seems to me they were drawn to making it feel big league and forgot about the actual experience or the economic sustainability of those decisions as a team and business....

I want to live in the biggest bestest house I can, but if I cant afford the mortgage, I am not going to buy the house just so I feel rich....if the government wants to give me a mansion for free, I guess i'll take it, but that isn't what was supposed to happen here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 6:26 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,197
I was just curious after quickly scanning the last few pages of posts TV..what really irks you about the stadium? I mean really tell us? As it appears you are not happy about the result and the burden it has placed on tax payers and fans for decades to come?

Is it, tax payer's contributions? Non-Consultation with residents or the public on location and what fans really wanted? Is it the architect? Is it the wavy roof design? Bowl Design? Poor Location? Seat Price Increase? Poor sight Lines? The upcoming Bomber Gate Scam? Cost over runs coming soon?Incompetance of the BB organization...etc...etc...etc...

Or all of the above? I'm sensing from you this was a travesty to all fans/taxpayers but I wasn't sure if you felt this way.I just wanted to know how you really feel and what you would have done differently? Thx.
__________________
♥ ♥
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 8:13 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ontario's feel good town
Posts: 4,029
^^^ Seriously? Maybe you should re-read his posts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 10:43 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
Ledehowski's proposal was not a PR stunt I can promise you that....he was legit....except he needed it to be overwhelmingly paid for by the government, just like asper did.....asper was never going to put a cent of his own money into it....he may or may not have more money than leo does but that did not make his plan any more feasible....leo had a better location.

i cant stand when people give asper any credit for this stadium.....he was the cause of a huge number of the cost overruns...he was the reason the building was not competitively tendered...he is the reason we got an architect who had never done even a high school sports field.

asper screwed us all....he sold us all a bill of goods and then by the time we realized it, it was too late and now we are all on the hook for it.....and the story isnt over....in my opinion this will be an albatros around the bomber's neck.....the province will eventually take over their $100m loan and will have to pay the $40m cost overruns caused by asper and his crew.

i have a hard time believing that the bombers who used to celebrate annual profits of $200k have increased their revenue enough to pay back a $100m loan and the massive cost overruns which are not even public yet...yeah they solved the traffic issue, but it costs them $100-150k per game to do it....you cant tell me that was part of the budget.

mark my words, they will come hat in hand looking for big dollars from us very soon.
I seem to remember Leo's proposal for a domed stadium called for $200 million in public funding and $100 million in private funding for a total of $300 million. That also included the indoor waterpark. Even if the city or province decided to go with Leo's proposal, I have my doubts it would have ever been built.

First, because that $300 million figure seems to be underestimated. Saskatchewan's retractable roof proposal was $450 million or so while their dome proposal was $350 to $380 million. I'm sure that's what a domed facility would have cost here as well...and there's no way the province would have given such an exhorbitant amount for a facility that would have received minimal use outside of football.

Second, the operating costs of a domed stadium are substantial compared to an outdoor facility. I believe the study on the proposed Regina domed stadium was estimated at $7 million annually. Not surprising. Heating and cooling something that big can't be cheap! Compare that to an outdoor facility which is..what? 1 - 2 million per year?? Would Leo be willing to pay that or would the taxpayer be stuck paying that for 50 years.

Third, the surrounding road infrastructure. Is the proposed St. Boniface location really any better than the current site? All I see are two shitty 4- lane roads (marion and archibald) leading to and from the stadium - hardly an ideal scenario for traffic. How much money would be required to construct 6 lane roads instead?? Tens of millions??

At least Pembina has 6 lanes and Bishop Grandin is capable of handling high levels of traffic. Can't say that about Marion and Archibald. Also, there's very little parking in that area compared to the university and Pembina where there are thousands of spots. Leo's proposal only called for 1000-2000 parking spots. IMO, the parking and traffic situation would be just as bad in St. B as it would at the current site.

I certainly don't care for the way things were handled with Asper (including the payout he was given), but I have my doubts about Leo's stadium plans as well.

Last edited by blueandgoldguy; Aug 23, 2013 at 11:28 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 10:51 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
commonwealth is nicer.
Is it? Having a track around the field keeps the fans further from the action than any other stadium in the league. The sightlines for those people in the first several rows must be brutal! Commonwealth only has one concourse too. Imagine how crowded that gets at halftime! Way worse than Investors Group Field I'm sure.

We have the best outdoor facility in the CFL regardless of the roof or not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 11:03 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
For a guy who once made a very eloquent case about why the NHL would thrive in Winnipeg, you seem uncharacteristically bearish on the Bombers, TV.

The Bombers have a lot of revenue streams open to them now that they didn't have in the old place, not the least of which is a sold-out complement of luxury skyboxes, and a sold-out complement of club seats at some of the highest ticket prices in the league. Factor in signage, naming rights, higher ticket prices overall, dramatically increased food and beverage sales, higher merchandise sales (used to be nearly impossible to find a Bomber jersey for sale, now half the crowd is wearing them at $200 a pop), higher league TV revenues, and suddenly the picture doesn't seem so dire.

Whether you love it or hate it, the reality is that the Bombers have a long time to pay the stadium off and as long as the league remains in operation I don't see the taxpayers having to step in to pay it off. But frankly, even if they did I don't think I'd be terribly concerned about it... when you consider that True North will be getting about $11 million a year from the province just for operations (which is on top of the contributions made when the MTS Centre was built), a capital investment in a long-term community asset like a stadium just doesn't seem so bad.

As for the seating layout, I think it's great. The fan atmosphere is markedly better than in the old place, and I think part of that can be chalked up to the fact that it's closed in without having the yawning gaps at either end of the field. The "number of seats between the goal lines" count definitely isn't everything... in my view there is no practical difference between the upper deck corner seats (which line up with the end zone) and the old upper deck seats on the 15 yard line. If anything the upper deck corner seats are better in the new place because they are so much lower than the old ones were.

The only problem as far as I'm concerned is the terrible management of the Bombers' football operations. Continued ineptitude on that front will drive the fans away and hurt team revenues. But apart from that I think the Bombers have done well with this project.
Well said. I don't understand some of the comments about Hamilton's stadium and how they have a chance to learn from Winnipeg's mistakes. It's a $140 million stadium so they have considerably less to work with there. Also, the size of the facility (22,500) with virtually all of the seats between the goal lines will shut out many families looking for affordable tickets. At least with the Bombers you can purchase tickets for under $40. I doubt that will be the case in Hamilton once prices skyrocket after the first season (guaranteed the same price for comparable seat in new season as Ivor Wynne).

I enjoy the intimacy of our new stadium with the added creature comforts that weren't available at the old digs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 11:17 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
they should push the rum hut back to the north on to the exterior concourse to give it more room.
That and telling all the people who congregate in the middle of the concourse to move to the sides or GTF back to their seats. Security does this at NFL stadiums to allow for the flow of traffic on the concourse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2013, 12:18 AM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexrae View Post
Your argument notwithstanding, the original point of my response regarding seat prices having doubled for equivalent seats, in the absence of a Canad Inns seat chart, remains proven. North End Zone seating (aka IGF Seating) has doubled and Section S equivalent seating has doubled. In price, quantity remains to be seen, this appears true.
Doubled? No. Increased? Yes. I sat in section S and had to scratch and claw at the Bombers to not be placed in the endzone. I'm at the same yardline I was at in Canad Inns, but way closer to the field (meaning I mostly watch the jumbotron). My seats at Canad Inns were $47 a game for season tickets, my seats at IGF are $52 a game.

If you are arguing that the Bombers have any chance of profiting the approximately $4 million a year they need to over 40 years to service the stadium debt, you won't have much of an argument. The only time they made that profit or more was 2006 when the Grey Cup was in Winnipeg. I'd be impressed if they could do it this year, but of course they have an extra $10 million they need to pay back first before they even start paying the province back. The NDP is probably hoping that they can eek out another election before they wear the stadium egg on their face with the Bombers defaulting. The thing about the TV money is that the CBA is up after this season and the players will get their cut of that revenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2013, 6:16 AM
hexrae's Avatar
hexrae hexrae is offline
Armchair urbanist
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny D Oh View Post
Doubled? No. Increased? Yes. I sat in section S and had to scratch and claw at the Bombers to not be placed in the endzone. I'm at the same yardline I was at in Canad Inns, but way closer to the field (meaning I mostly watch the jumbotron). My seats at Canad Inns were $47 a game for season tickets, my seats at IGF are $52 a game.

If you are arguing that the Bombers have any chance of profiting the approximately $4 million a year they need to over 40 years to service the stadium debt, you won't have much of an argument. The only time they made that profit or more was 2006 when the Grey Cup was in Winnipeg. I'd be impressed if they could do it this year, but of course they have an extra $10 million they need to pay back first before they even start paying the province back. The NDP is probably hoping that they can eek out another election before they wear the stadium egg on their face with the Bombers defaulting. The thing about the TV money is that the CBA is up after this season and the players will get their cut of that revenue.
I wasn't arguing anything, I took exception to my inference of trueviking's comparison of Canad Inns Section S seating to IGF End Zone Seating. Section S was sideline seating around the goalline to 15-20 yards in, which he stated he paid $40 for. Equivalent seating at IGF would net you $84, yet he questioned whether prices have doubled. 84 / 40 equals...

But if you read my posts, I did make reference to the quantity of seats in particular price ranges, so all is well in the universe.
__________________
[Insert profound statement here]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2013, 9:25 AM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
^^^ Seriously? Maybe you should re-read his posts.
For clarification, Nope, I wasn't being serious.Thanks for asking though.
__________________
♥ ♥
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2013, 1:58 PM
Migs Migs is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
commonwealth is nicer.
IMO bigger isn't always better. I've been to Commonwealth quite a few times and it is definitely nice but I hate the fact that spectators are so far away from the action. From what I've seen of IGF thus far online & on TV it looks much more modern, comfortable & condusive to football. Just my 2 cents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2013, 2:11 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migs View Post
IMO bigger isn't always better. I've been to Commonwealth quite a few times and it is definitely nice but I hate the fact that spectators are so far away from the action.
So true.
__________________
♥ ♥
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2013, 6:52 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,458
i agree about the track in edmonton...it does reduce intimacy.

to clarify i didnt mean that hamilton's stadium will be better than ours...far from it...i just think that their layout may be better....they have the concourse that we have, which is a nice feature, but it still puts most of the seating between the goal lines where you want them...we simply have waaaay too much seating not between the goal lines....its a poor design....i think with some creativity we could have gotten the same intimacy that we have now while maintaining good site lines.

i will admit that i have warmed up to the stadium.....now that they spend a pile of cash to make sure i can get there easily....my routine is generally spend the first quarter in my seat for the first couple of beers...when i need a refill, I head up to the top of my section and stand behind the last row on the concourse in the north-east corner...the view is great from there, i'm within 20' of the beer table and the washroom....i get to mix with the people on the concourse while watching the game.....we usually stand there for the last three quarters....or at least from the half.

i actually wish they sold standing room seats behind that last row...i would be there for sure.....i guess being in section S all those years i learned to like watching football while standing....i wish the roof didnt block the sun completely...i liked being in the sun at the old stadium.

and i still don't like saddling the bombers with a crushing debt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2013, 6:29 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,808
I was in Winnipeg last month and was very impressed with the stadium. If the CFL wants to think long term and build the league this is exactly the type of infrastructure investment that needs to happen. I'd kill for the Argonauts to have a place as nice as that.

The CFL needs to look big league and that costs money. Too much? I don't think we have a choice in todays 100 channel universe. You get better or lose relevance. Two thumbs up from me!
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2013, 2:41 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 996
The price of the end zone seats is probably a bonehead move. Supposedly part of the reason the BOD canned Buchko was because they only sold out one game. I sat in the upper deck, last section and it was a $17 seat. I'd rather do that than pay $40+ to sit in the end zone.

The Stadium was absolutely needed. No question.

I do have a concern about what happens when it's pouring with rain and/or is -20 degrees. It's awesome right now to see so many people walking from Pembina or farther but in late October/November?

Once that transit loop is in next door to IGF, that will also help a lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2013, 5:34 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,197
Just when I was ready to forget the BB season.....ouch.....

Bombers raising ticket prices in five ticket categories

Prices in five of seven ticket categories at Investors Group Field are going up in 2014. Four of those price increases are in the 2-3 percent range, but the fifth category -- 4,400 of the club’s cheapest seats -- are going up a whopping 26 per cent next season, from $199 this year to $250 next year.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...228797121.html
__________________
♥ ♥
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2013, 11:18 AM
Reed Solomon's Avatar
Reed Solomon Reed Solomon is offline
Celebrating 50 Years
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: WIN A PIG, MAN A TUBA
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster View Post
but in late October/November?=
well we wont be finding out this year how November games would go..
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:05 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.