Personally I think the stadiums seam 'bush' league when the show a field goal and it heads toward a score board circa 1990 or a parking lot. Meaning empty endzones; tell me it doesn't look cool seeing the Lambeau leap. However, I also think that a stadium needs to have the future in mind. So my thought is to have stages to construction. I am going to make some assumptions and I could be out to lunch here but I will assume the following:
The Ti-cats can sustain themselves with 25k seats priced appropriately based on demand. Sorry no freebies or $10 end zones.
I assume that at an initial 25k seats demand will be high in the 1st 2 years regardless of on field product due to the new and shiny stadium we capitalist societies love. Dare I predict that they will sell out at 25k seats and either sustain or turn a small profit? I think so, however, ticket prices would increase. See Montreal, Seasons starting at $29/game not $12.50.
I assume that after years of sellouts expansion of the stadium would be a prudent move. Either in one or two steps add 7500 seats to both end zones.
I assume, based on Calgary, that at 40k + perhaps another 5k tucked in they could suitably host a Grey Cup
So I think that in the first 3-5 years with a 25k capacity the stadium will sellout consistently. Now although I hate to have the empty end zones, and lets face it they look horrible on tv ( Winnipeg: why is the player running towards the parking lot?) It would be necessary from the standpoint of eventually getting enough capacity. My thinking is it is easier to put the initial seats between the end zones and expand to the end zones afterwards then it is to build onto existing seats in between end zones.
I would also like a bar with a view of the field. I think that would be pretty awesome, I'm thinking like the bars at the sky Dome.
I tihnk this would seem favorable to the Ticats, if they could ever get to the point of sellouts of 40k at an avg price of $29/ticket excluding box seats and concessions they would get $10.4 mill a year revenue from ticket sales.
Ok now rip my idea apart and improve on it
Also, has a design been chosen?
Edit: This is also assuming they can find a location that they agree with AND that the PanAm commitee doesn't get fed up and gives this stadium to Burlington or somewhere else....
Brad… with a new stadium I expect that prices will go up. However, you sound as if you think that this is a good thing. Is there some advantage to the fan in having more expensive seats? Does it help kids to get to games if the seats are more expensive.
I understand economics full well. Maybe I’m responding to a minor point of yours too strongly but at times on these board there are people who seem almost gleeful that things will be more expensive. Perhaps you’re a better fan if you make more money… I don’t know?
I agree with you that empty endzones look really odd to me. Even the wall at Commonwealth looks funny on TV and that’s a big place. Nice little graphic.
Yeah, good job Brad. One thing for sure, no more rounded end zones like at IWS, any end zone seating needs to be as close to the end zone as possible and parallel to it. I'd love for the CFL to go to 15 yard end zones to tighten up the field a bit more but I know when I've mentioned this in the past I've been hit with being an NFL wannabee. But I'd still like the 15 yard end zones nevertheless.
With so few games in football, it is difficult if there are too many inexpensive seats which is a bit unfortunate as Mark mentions for kids and that. But that's life I guess.
Will they be forced to settle with a stadium that has the drawbacks for football?
Apparently the stadium has to be operational for one year prior to the games. Does this mean the Tiger-Cats move in 2014? Personally, I'd like to see it such that the 15,000 seat track stadium is expanded after the games and the Cats move in 2016. This way they can go below grade and have the extra 10,000 seats in 100 level seating closer to the field without the track.
I feel though considering the budget as it stands, the Tiger-Cats will settle for playing in a permanent track stadium so long as it has the revenue generating amenities of modern sports arenas.
Saskatchewan is proposing a nearly half billion dollar retractable roof dome with the Roughriders in mind as primary tenants. That is without even having an international event to build for. Its a shame that with the Golden Horseshoe hosting an athletics meet with more athletes than the Vancouver games that something a little more ambitious doesn't seem to be in the works for the Pan-Am Stadium.
But there's plenty left to be determined and we'll see how it goes..
Its a shame that with the Golden Horseshoe hosting an athletics meet with more athletes than the Vancouver games that something a little more ambitious doesn't seem to be in the works for the Pan-Am Stadium.
For sure joe, considering also that Canada may never get a summer-type of games for a very long time.
..and to clarify, by ambitious, I don't mean that we need a half billion dollar retractable roof dome, I'd just hope that there's a concrete plan for the stadium's future keeping in mind the Tiger-Cats will be primary tenants after the games and will probably be the facility operator. I supposed those decisions will come when private sector contributions are hammered out but I'd be really disappointed if the Cats are going to have to settle with a permanent track stadium.
I guess the onus is on the Tiger-Cats to make sure they end up with what they want.
Yup, with want they want that makes sense financially for what the stadium will have to offer particularly from a locational aspect that favours success for the team. But I won't go there in this thread, it's been discussed ad naseum elsewhere. :?
Edit: I'm probably going to sound elitist in this thread, but honestly just sharing my thoughts from my perspective.
Mark: I hear you. Money is always going to be tight for some people and the cheapest option is going to be the only option for some. I also understand you need to make the games accessible to kids( future customers). That being said, quite frankly, as peachy as things appear the Ticats are likely not sustainable. If they want to even just sustain themselves they need to make more money. If they want to grow their brand, and in turn the league and the sport, well you see where I am going; prices NEED to increase. Plain and simple, really.
I realize their are some that would be (will be?) shut out hen the new stadium arrives, but that is the cost. People that want to goto the games will find a way. How do they find a way in Montreal?
Now, I think what I've come to realize over the last 2 years with the talk of the future of the league and as I went to 11 games last year that what I want doesn't fall into line with what other want. I will probably be shunned for this but so be it: I want some of the NFL experience. That comes at a cost.
Also, a good point, the CFL is not a charity. They are a business and as such they want to prosper. Ask yourself, can they at tickets 'starting from $12.50!!!!'? We are a capitalist society, and if enough people think like me, then it's going to happen regardless. I know in my age group and even with my co workers, they want the same, I am 25, coworkers 35ish.
While I don’t want my CFL experience to be an NFL experience, I do want the CFL and its teams to mean as much to their respective communities as the Roughriders do to Saskatchewan, the Canadiens to Montreal, or as we saw Sunday, the national hockey team to the country.
That kind of popularity would inevitably come at the expense of the more affordable tickets.
Are you saying that popularity would come from affordable tickets, and then your citing a Canadian NHL team and the Men’s hockey team as affordable? If I have that right, then I present the following:
Cheapest Canadiens season ticket - Blue $1,178
Cost of men’s hockey ticket ranged from $350 to $750.
Sorry, I think I might have misread your post or you mis-worded it possibly!
To be quite honest, afford-ability has nothing to do with popularity. I could make a graph to show this? We can use the T.O. sports scene as a reference point.
That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that popularity comes at the expense of affordability. i.e. we’d lose affordability if we gained popularity, which I think is roughly in agreement with what you said.
Epperly: Wow! Now that’s the way to go.
Seats just over 50 thousand and “the overall cost to build TCF Bank Stadium is $288.5 million. The University has exceeded its initial fund-raising goal of $86 million.”
As I understand it, the initial 15 thousand seat Pan-Am stadium is supposed to cost just over 100 million…plus land remediation costs that could reach 43 million…plus whatever the Tiger-Cat consortium chips in. We could end up with a 180- 200 million dollar stadium that seats 30 thousand people. I can’t wait to see what the final plans will look like…I sure hope it’s better than BMO Field which looks like a temporary stadium.
Onknight, there is no evidence that a 25 yard end zone would increase scoring and all the does is put end zone fans that much further back.
Now is the time to move to 15 yard end zones for the fans sake, in a similar way how baseball stadiums make the foul territory smaller to get the stadium tighter for fans.
I'm not too worried about the effect on scoring one way or the other with this move.
Earl my friend,
I think 5yards would make a Heck of a Defence either way
but I don’t want anything that will push Scoring down a 15 yard endzone would do that …
25 would open it up
Personaly I’d be fine with 30 yards endzones(but I know thats pushing it)
I want to see scoring to go up
IMO The CFL Game is a High Scoring by your pants football
I love this type of game
Any thing put us closer to the NFL Game I would not support
I knew NFL is getting better for Scoring but not even close to CFL Ball
What I like about the University of Minnesota stadium is not only proximity of the seats to the field,but the more gentle slope of the bottom grandstand.I realize that there will have to be room for a track,but I’m hoping the track is only temporary and I think we would only need one large grandstand.Perhaps they could build it coloseum style and have the field and some of the grandstand built into the ground(assuming that does’nt make the field glow in the dark considering the depth of toxic earth at the Rheem site!!! )
Beyond that,the exterior is one of the best features of all.I love the brick and mortar look!I’m not the biggest fan of the Rheem site,however in that area a brick and mortar facade would look very good.If it’s some “modern art masterpiece” or a overrated pop can stadium like BMO,I’m going to be pretty disappointed…
)