Quote:
Originally Posted by questionmotives
Just an honest question, but why would a Flames/Stampede partnership be so unattainable/out of the question? It would seem to benefit both parties in my opinion. Is sharing revenue the worst thing if it keeps the arena downtown and benefits both parties? More Stampede headline concerts, same accessible location to watch the Flames, on a currently existing LRT line, and the inevitability of imploding the Dome and rebuilding infrastructure in it's spot?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime
This was one of the earliest ideas that was out there, probably well before talk of a new arena was even being discussed on here. We did discuss this option a little bit over on Skyscraperpage. I think the plan would have been to eliminate both the Vic Park and Erlton station and just have the one stop inside the building proper on the Big 4 site.
I think it was a great idea, and could have also integrated 17th avenue into the park and stadium proper.
We did hear that the Stampede pushed back on the idea, the reason I heard was that they "needed" the Big 4 building for the big petroleum show every other year and were pushing back based on that. Stupid I know, but when it comes to the Stampede and their board it wouldn't surprise me.
|
I think that the Big 4 location would have many benefits, but I honestly feel that it all comes down to one thing : control over parking revenue. I can't even imagine the amount that the Stampede makes from parking, and the Flames would love to have in their pockets. And at McMahon, the parking revenues go straight to the University.
I also think that, as mentioned earlier in the thread, that the scope changed a few years ago when the Flames bought the Stampeders. It makes a lot of sense to have both an arena and a stadium in close proximity, but I don't think that the Stampede can part with that much land.
Assuming, of course, that we're going to get an arena + stadium combo. But at this point I'd be surprised if it were anything less.