Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
One other thing that bothered me about King's flippant response to the low capacity is that it's been well documented that fans are staying away by the thousands due to how remarkably awful the game experience is at McMahon.
So to suggest a capacity of 1k less than the Stamps lowest attendance in decades is acceptable when most game are 3 - 4k higher than that AND presumably a new stadium would likely increase attendance significantly is asinine, imo, and clearly shows that the stadium/field house combo is a thrown together mess in an attempt to sell the city/public on funding necessity.
|
I don't see any issue with a smaller stadium. It would likely be expandable and it would keep interest high. Less seats with more boxes is all the rage and I'm sure the stadium would have plenty of boxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
I think this one is very debatable. Look at BC Place for instance, they had that nice, expensive reno and most of the time when you see an afternoon, indoor game, there are tons of seats in the lower bowl available. Playing inside almost killed Montreal, and has killed Toronto who now is leaving their cavern to get outside. An indoor stadium for an outdoor sport I think is going to hurt attendance long term. If it's the middle of July and nice, how many people are going to spend good money to sit in air conditioned room with maybe a hint of sun? I know I'd be on the golf course and would never consider going inside. If people are going to stay inside, might as well stay home, which is another problem for a new football stadium: football is primarily a TV sport where almost all of the new revenue for the league is being driven.
|
Comparing the situations in Calgary, BC, TO and Montreal isn't accurate. BCs attendance hasn't changed much. Skydome and Olympic stadium weren't desirable places to watch games.
A fancy new stadium with glass roof etc may be popular.