Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2012 14:45:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Jan 28, 2012 15:34:18 GMT -6
I didn't realize it's been overly windy this winter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2012 15:38:55 GMT -6
I didn't realize it's been overly windy this winter. lol....I agree, what a lame excuse! They have had ideal weather conditions to work with, yet they blame 11 lost work days in January to "wind." I call BS on that.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Jan 30, 2012 10:36:25 GMT -6
I think it's been quite windy for the cranes to haul the steel up for the east side roof cover. However lots of other work is being done. I also see that although they have the preformed cement grandstand (steps or whatever you want to call them) for the west side, very few have been installed so far, again because of wind.
I am really dissapointed though in Butchko's steadfast refusal to use Canad Inns stadium until Investors Field is completely finished.
I wish Wazny would have asked more questions, like why would you want to play 9 on the road, rather than use the stadium. Is it unsafe, is that the reason Canad Inns can't be used until the other is finished? etc. Instead no questions asked, might as well have just printed the Bomber press release
I don't want to go to a game and have bare bones stadium. They get one chance in my lifetime to do this right and open it with a fully functioning stadium
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Jan 30, 2012 12:13:56 GMT -6
I think it's been quite windy for the cranes to haul the steel up for the east side roof cover. However lots of other work is being done. I also see that although they have the preform cement grandstand (steps or whatever you want to call them) for the west side, very view have been installed so far, again because of wind. I am really dissapointed though in Butchko's steadfast refusal to use Canad Inns stadium until Investors Field is completely finished. I wish Wazny would have asked more questions, like why would you want to play 9 on the road, rather than use the stadium. Is it unsafe, is that the reason Canad Inns can't be used until the other is finished? etc. Instead no questions asked, might as well have just printed the Bomber press release I don't want to go to a game and have bare bones stadium. They get one chance in my lifetime to do this right and open it with a fully functioning stadium Couldn't agree more. Yeah, in a perfect world the stadium would be open on time to play maybe 2 or 3 games on the road and then open up, but why in the heck wouldn't you just use the old stadium until the new one is truly ready to go?
|
|
|
Post by Snoopy on Jan 30, 2012 12:52:47 GMT -6
no way
|
|
|
Post by jetsfan85 on Mar 25, 2012 12:41:24 GMT -6
If anyone thought in the first place that the stadium was goin to be finished on time you're nuts.. I dont know one city that has built a stadium of this magnitude in the amount of time that was allowed. I'm fine with keeping my seats in the old stadium for anohter year or half a year..however long this takes, at least i can stand up and not be yelled at for a few more games lol.. i wonder what the value of all the framed" last game at canad inns stadium" tickets etc are going to have now.. lol haha. they need a new one that says ..OK REALLY..THIS IS FORSURE THE LAST ONE"
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 25, 2012 13:11:49 GMT -6
Every contractor involved from the bidding prosses down new this was never going to happen in time. Hell if we had a normal winter it would not have been ready at all this year. Most guys in the industry laugh when they here all the B.S. they are spewing in the new. Thats what happens when you ram a project threw for political reasons.
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Mar 25, 2012 14:32:37 GMT -6
They needed Provincal and Federal money or the stadium was never going to get built. Asper was just stalling and nothing was getting done so the bombers went with a new plan. But with gouvernment money comes the political BS and we are now seeing the result.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 26, 2012 6:03:38 GMT -6
They needed Provincal and Federal money or the stadium was never going to get built. Asper was just stalling and nothing was getting done so the bombers went with a new plan. But with government money comes the political BS and we are now seeing the result. I will put money down the Bomber default on the loan within 5 years, then we are stuck with the bill. Anybody criticizes how the arena and ball diamond got build needs a Punch in the Throat. Sorry but as much as we needed a new stadium this was a horrible deal, poorly planed, poor desighed and poorly executed!
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Mar 26, 2012 11:10:18 GMT -6
Strongly disagree with you Tim.
How was it a horrible deal, poorly planned, poorly designed and poorly executed?
I'll give you that the execution insofar as they announced a "best case scenario" time line and have never deviated from that unless they are forced to.
But horrible deal? It's always so difficult to explain to naysayers why government money for projects like this are not bad investments. Firstly, the Arena deal was very good on paper but when you did a little deeper, True North received (and continues to receive) a lot of help from the government.
In the case of the Bombers, this is a community owned team. Any capital expenses are the responsibility of the owners - the community. We needed a new Stadium, that is not in doubt. Any of the idiots out there advocating doing the bare minimum to "fix up" Canad Inns simply dont get it.
The perception that the Stadium deal is bad likely comes from the numerous proposals that were floating around the local media. But at the end of the day, the design is great, the location is great (notwithstanding the parking issue), the tie in with the UofM is tremendous, the building will be beautiful and I have no doubt we will get out money's worth.
The deal as it stands is the team will pay back the loan. So its a great deal for taxpayers. We can debate to death whether the loan will eventually be forgiven but we cant predict the future so all we know is the team will re-pay the loan. Not a "horrible deal" at all.
And quite honestly, I am in favour of forgiving the loan is the team meets certain conditions. There were a lot of idiots out there who spoke out against the MTSC and said it was a waste of taxpayers money. Those people were very quiet when a couple years later, the Premier held a media conference to announce that the Province's entire capital investment had been recouped by additional tax revenues that would not have existed had they not made the original investment.
Thats what this is - an investment. When you consider $200 million for a 50 year life span, thats a good investment. Its good for college sports. Its going to be a landmark.
PS: Asper deserves a lot of credit for his efforts. He tried very, very, very hard to get the deal done and was gracious in backing out when he couldnt. He drove the effort that eventually led to a new Stadium and deserves out thanks. You can whatever you want about the Asper's but they are very charitable and good for Winnipeg.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 26, 2012 12:09:57 GMT -6
Strongly disagree with you Tim. How was it a horrible deal, poorly planned, poorly designed and poorly executed? I'll give you that the execution insofar as they announced a "best case scenario" time line and have never deviated from that unless they are forced to. But horrible deal? It's always so difficult to explain to naysayers why government money for projects like this are not bad investments. Firstly, the Arena deal was very good on paper but when you did a little deeper, True North received (and continues to receive) a lot of help from the government. In the case of the Bombers, this is a community owned team. Any capital expenses are the responsibility of the owners - the community. We needed a new Stadium, that is not in doubt. Any of the idiots out there advocating doing the bare minimum to "fix up" Canad Inns simply don't get it. The perception that the Stadium deal is bad likely comes from the numerous proposals that were floating around the local media. But at the end of the day, the design is great, the location is great (notwithstanding the parking issue), the tie in with the UofM is tremendous, the building will be beautiful and I have no doubt we will get out money's worth. The deal as it stands is the team will pay back the loan. So its a great deal for taxpayers. We can debate to death whether the loan will eventually be forgiven but we cant predict the future so all we know is the team will re-pay the loan. Not a "horrible deal" at all. And quite honestly, I am in favour of forgiving the loan is the team meets certain conditions. There were a lot of idiots out there who spoke out against the MTSC and said it was a waste of taxpayers money. Those people were very quiet when a couple years later, the Premier held a media conference to announce that the Province's entire capital investment had been recouped by additional tax revenues that would not have existed had they not made the original investment. Thats what this is - an investment. When you consider $200 million for a 50 year life span, that's a good investment. Its good for college sports. Its going to be a landmark. PS: Asper deserves a lot of credit for his efforts. He tried very, very, very hard to get the deal done and was gracious in backing out when he couldnt. He drove the effort that eventually led to a new Stadium and deserves out thanks. You can whatever you want about the Asper's but they are very charitable and good for Winnipeg. Have no problem with Gov money being spent, construction pays my salary, but when you build something for 200 Million dollars and it will only generate money 30 maybe 40 days of the year that is dumb!!! I would rather seen a 500 million dollar combination Stadium/ convention center that has the ability to generate money 365 days of the year. That is what you call a smart investment, hence MTS CENTER.
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Mar 26, 2012 12:34:33 GMT -6
I never said that the Asper's are bad for winnipeg or anything else bad, I just said he was taking too long to close on a deal and the Bombers could see the writing on the wall. Their only other option was to turn to the goverment for funding, and to get that funding they had to agree to build a shared stadium at the UofM.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Mar 26, 2012 16:48:40 GMT -6
I have little doubt Asper would have been successful if the deal was done prior to the economy tanking. It was just too difficult to pull off.
As for the idea that spending $200 million on a stadium that wont fill a lot of dates is dumb, there is a price to the project that has to be undertaken. The cost of a stadium is the cost of a stadium. If we are to say "gee, its so expensive and because it's an uncovered football stadium, we arent getting value so lets not do it", you have to believe the city should scrap its CFL team. And I know you dont believe that.
We were not going to get a covered stadium (which also would have pushed the price tag a lot further north). There are various reasons including the cost versus use, the deal between True North and the government etc.
For 50 year life span, its not too much too spend. I have no issue with it whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Mar 26, 2012 16:53:48 GMT -6
To get a covered stadium built, they probably would have had to build somewhere like Selkirk because of the deal between the Gov and TNSE that no inclosed year round facilites over something like 3000-5000 seats can be built in a certain radius. Having the Winnipeg Convention Center in Selkirk would be very inefficant, and there is already a plan in place to expand and renovate the old Convention Center.
|
|