This is a Single Point link, or quick commentary on the article or page linked above. (Follow the title link above to the source for full background on the commentary below).
Published on March 1, 2010 7:32 PM by dbo.
- “could positively impact” province isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. You would think a directed feasibility study would put it in more absolute terms than “technically feasible”.
- “The Roughriders have indicated a strong preference for the retractable roof” is easy when you are contributing only 2% of the cost (upwards of $10 million). Why don’t you play outdoors like you have for the past century?
- Waiting for federal money sounds like a sure way to delay this project. How do they think they will get around the feds stance over funding buildings for professional sports teams?
- Using Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation revenue to fund the stadium does take away from health care and education since casinos were approved on the basis they would fund health care and education.
- Whitewashing the numbers is not the best way to present this to the public. Showing the actual capital costs, operating costs, revenue ranges and pay-back time would help avoid attacks over what the public is being sold.
I like the co-operation between the public (city and province), private (hotels and Roughriders) and other sources but I believe this project is too ambitious for any Canadian city. Winnipeg is doing a stadium for under $200 million. It seems like this is all for public perception and chest-beating, but once it is built it is more likely to become a SkyDome or Olympic Stadium than a Commonwealth Stadium.