I voted early and now I am voting often- ROOF ROOF ROOF ROOF! If only for sound and sun then so be it- but something should be said to the angle of the sun to the North End...............
I don't know what the renderings looked like or don't really care anymore...I just want the stadium!! I don't care about the price too much anymore, after driving 2 1/2 hrs to get there, I am watching the game no matter what the price is (plus I am a STH),...So I say put the roof on and let's blast the noise level to the max and let 'em hear us over in Kansas and at Arrowhead. So... PUT A LID ON IT!!
The more I think about it, the more I'm conflicted on this. I still want a roof, but only if it's actually designed to keep the sound inside the stadium. If the roof is there just for the sake of having a roof then I say scrap the roof.
Have we heard or seen anything that indicates the roof is for anything other than amplifying the sound?
No, but do the roofs at any of the other SSS currently keep the sound in? From the ones that I have visited, no. I'm just saying that if it isn't going to be designed specifically to keep the sound in, it's a waste of money for the stadium.
Exactly. Chicago, Colorado, LA's roofs are all useless. I haven't been to RSL yet, but I can't see how that was designed with the primary purpose of capturing sound and focusing it towards the field. Even last week's sold out Cauldron sounded like no one was there on the broadcast, partially because of how they level the audio on the broadcast, place the mikes on the field, and partially because the stadium is not helping at all.
I would agree...we need the sound projection!!! If they dont put the roof on, then maybe the STH could get an extra incentive .
Granted this might have changed, but Rob said in the meeting way-back-when, that they did not like any of the current roofs in MLS and if there is going to be a roof on the new stadium it would be a fully functional roof; not a wind-sock (Rio Tinto), a cutesy ascetic with no functionality (The Dick) or just insufficient (HDC). Even though there were not plans for the entire stadium to be covered, the sections that were look like they are going to have a full-fledged, flat roof that covers to the touch-line.
the free beer that robb brought up in the other thread. EDIT: wouldn't that be awesome, though? sth's get one free beer every match (or soda pop for those who don't drink).
ESPN Zone = 810 = (LOSERS!) Roof = FREE BEER A MATCH = see above BEST STADIUM IN MLS = PRICELESS Hopefully by then I'll be a Cauldron regular, and no longer a bleacher bum. With all that said, keep in mind the World Cup 2010 and how that would affect the Hillcrest Road Grand Opening. Also, not a big fan of mid-season openings, but willing to be open minded. (Not saying that anybody said it would be, just saying)
Thanks for including us boring, non-beer drinking handsitters. Agreed! Let's not do a Home Depot Center type opening where the season is in the tank before ever stepping foot on the nice, fresh, well-manicured sod.
ROOF.....ROOF.....ROOF!!! But then again I'm not one of the people that was run off by the price difference between the berm and the Cauldron. They'd be the better people to guage depending on your thoughts on what the average Cauldronite can afford. Some of us will pay whatever you set the prices at (seriously) and others would fade away as the price increased. If it's $5 per game difference, my opinion is add the roof and if people have to spend $75 more a year to be in the Cauldron they will find a way to save the money.
Good thread, I've purposely stayed out to date. Hmmm, I have not seen an exact number yet, so it's hard to quantify and approximate what the cost/benefit is in order to make a truly informed decision. Good to know that a roof is better. That's something. Keep reading. I agree. The primary value is acoustic. Also, The Cauldron has always been open air. Continuation of open air equals no change with a suitable brand new stadium. Still win/win seemingly. Change equals whatever benefit and apparently now it means more cost to you, read on. Excellent. So with that, if correct, we now know for certain that the roof is in the plan and not really an option in need of Cauldron approval. Apparently the approval is more for group tacit approval for the FO to charge roughly $5 more every ticket forever for something already planned anyway. Interesting. Beer sucks. A vodka and whatever...that's another story. Tell me more about this scoring more goals thing. To more tangible numbers, thoughts, and other observations: The actual value of the theorhetical, don't-hold-us-to-it, $5 difference Mr. H threw out there is roughly $6300 for a lifetime fan. Six thousand three hundred actual today dollars, not future dollars, but dollars in today terms. MATH: You're an STH, you miss maybe one or two games a year OR maybe there's a discount of some sort that lowers the per game price...whatever. At a highly conservative 6% cost of capital, $5 a game times 15 home games a season over a fan life of only 30 years (some will continue to purchase tickets much longer presumably) is a present value of almost $6300. This $6300 is without a more realistic cost of capital likely to exist over he next 30 years outside today's market conditions and the purely delirious assumption of no ticket price increases...ever! A more realistic cost of capital over the next 30 years and inclusion of inevitable price increases obviously drives the number much much higher very quickly. If you got lost in that, just know voting for $5 extra cost every game in exchange for a roof that is already part of the plan is a decision to give, at a minimum, well over $6300 ADDITIONAL today dollars per ticket over time to those that benefit form such things. Again, those are dollars over and above what the $15 seat will run you anyway. So there is the real cost number of your decision, not just a meaningless $5 a game throwaway number. Iss the value of that cost worth it to you? ROOF = $6300 today dollars for the "Lifer Cauldronite" + effects of ticket increases over time. If you don't have $6300 real spendable dollars in an account today that you don't need to invest in your retirement or anything else, then the price difference over time is signifigant to you and it should enter into your personal decision process. This "choice" being given to The Cauldron is, to me, much like the "choice" given last year at this time, where two options were given to leadership regarding CAB. Both of them palatable enough to mgmt. One of those two not coincidently being the easily forseen "choice" to be predictably selected. It's the illusion of actual choice. These gentlemen have the stadium planned and paid for, but now the choice is on this group to rubber stamp the FO's ability to overcharge; this in favor of something planned into a paid for project in the first place. Good thing Robb posted at an odd hour so it didn't look like business... BTW, is there something wrong with $12 end seats and a roof, especially as quite a good chunk of public money has the stadium paid for already? Oh, that's right, that isn't one of the options presented. Yep, I'm the bad guy. Anyway, if either/or then I can do without the roof though not for cost as tickets will continue to get expensive quickly beyond year 1. I truly enjoy the KC post-sunset sky on clear spring and summer nights. The nighly darkening of the blues in the sky is a nice compliment to the outline of any stadium and you see less of that with any roof. For me I value the positive of that above the negative of getting wet or windblown or both the 1-2 times that might happen each year. The accoustic value might make up the difference, but then it's an even trade for me, which means spending less still barely wins. Other: I'm guessing a "4-stand design" is a staudium with open corners and all seats facing 90 degrees to the immediate field line? If so, much better to have seats in those corners and improve overall viewing angles everywhere before any kind of roof is involved. How is sound supposed to stay "enclosed" if there are open corners? Beyond acoustical miracles like making air bounce sound back to the field, it isn't going to happen efficiently is the point. This at least not as well as a stadium with enclosed corners. Like everyone, I have not seen the design, so maybe that issue is or is being solved. I'd also like The Cauldron in at least a corner if not a side rather than an end. If it is an end, roof or not, then those seats should be the cheapest in the park by a longshot. Better to have The Couldron on the side of a standard 4-stand than removed on an end. Thinking long-term the average age of The Cauldron will gradually rise for some time. It isn't always going to be a majority of 20-ish drunks or the like. No need to be banished to the proverbial back 40 of the lot. Someone also astutely mentioned that either price would be among the better professional values in town. I would agree completely if MLS was considered on par with the world level of excellence found in the NFL or Major League Baseball. Also if much cheaper seats were not widely available many nights at The K. Not coincidently The K also has had massive amounts of public funding rolled into it. If you are of the view that either is affordable or if a night out is a night out is a night out, then yeah. Cheers.
How is sound supposed to stay "enclosed" with open corners? The same way Stoke City has with open corners and become the home of the"loudest fans in the Premiership". So you're against the price raise for the Cauldron for the roof, how would you then feel about the price you'd likely have to pay for a side seat then? Because there's no way you're going to get seats on the side of the field for anywhere close to the cheapest seat in the stadium (which is what most people want to help grow the section). This isn't like the situation at Arrowhead that saw us move to a side. As for the corners, those are the worst seats in the stadium, they were terrible when the Cauldron was there, it's no coincidence that the section started to grow by leaps and bounds when we were moved out of the corner (yes there were other factors but the corner was part of it). And you're wrong in your presumption that the Cauldron's average age is going to gradually rise over time. Sure the old guard will get old, and with getting old, will become less involved in the leadership of the section, but they're going to be replaced by current teenagers, or even the kids that are in the section now that some people don't like. An area like the Cauldron is always going to draw the 20 somethings that like to go to games get drunk and yell.
Well, that would make a difference if KC was Stoke City, sellouts could be presumed, and if by that picture at least 2 of the 4 corners were pretty much enclosed. Good for Stoke. Seeing the design would be better than arguing the hypothetical at any great length. Not so much against it as just being OK witout one. The framing of the presentation of a cost increase is vastly more annoying. I'd rather be on the side so if the value of that seat is more accurately worth a few dollars, I'm probably paying it. I certainly would if the Cauldron was there. terrible? I can't agree. I thought htere was always some value in harassing the visitiors and the close proximity to entry and exit of everyone. Plus, at Arrowhead, almost all seats point within a few degrees of the exact center or very close to it. In a perpendicular 4-stand, it's probably a better visual to be way over on a side than anywhere on an end. All of that ignores that the current seat pricing schedule has turned out to be overpriced for this market. Put together some paperwork and get a Fed. grant to study this. I'm OK with being wrong. The easy argument here is that you've presumed Cauldron growth. I agree, but true growth means retention and maybe picking up some collegiates. I might be late 30s, but I'm not planning on dying soon. I'm guessing Ockk feels similarly, as would many others on this board. The math is every cauldronite gaining 1 year of age every year regardless vs the new twentysomething additions dropping the average. If a 300 person Cauldron at the new digs, at an average of, I dunno, 28 years of age; that's sixty additional people in 2010 with an average age of 23 that would have to be present to offset aging to a net zero state. Sixty is 20% growth, 23 is pretty young, and I certainly noticed older new people in the Cauldron this year as well. It couldn't be less important, but I'm guessing the Cauldron proper is aging slightly on a net basis. Maybe not.
At the risk of overstepping my bounds... There's A LOT of assumption in that paragraph. All we "know for certain" is that people have seen renderings with roofs over the two sidelines, and that (according to Rovert) acoustic engineers have been consulted about those roofs to determine the kind that best hold in sound. And we also "know for certain" (because Robb stated as much in the original post) that a roof over the Cauldron is at this point not "already planned." Hence the hypothetical question... It's a big leap to take one statement about acoustic engineers and suddenly decide that the hypothetical Cauldron roof is already planned, and that the big, bad wolf/FO is just looking to blow down your house/gouge you out of money.
What is more interesting is how you can believe that and still be a Wizards fan. If I believed that scenario, not only would I not be a Wizards fan, I would suggest to anyone who would listen to take in a baseball game instead, or take the kids to the park or something. Doesn't make one bit of sense. It's clear at this point that you have an extremely low opinion of our owners, and I suspect most everyone if the truth were known. This is coming from someone who considers himself to have a healthy sense of skepticism; in fact I have been accused of outright cynicism on occasion. But even I have a hard time seeing how a group of proven entrepreneurs could mistake MLS for an opportunity at risk free money. There are too many things that could have gone wrong along the way, and may still go wrong. A sure thing it wasn't. You think it's remotely possible their motives were not quite as sinister as you're making them out to be? Maybe they got stuck on a figure in negotiations and so he runs the idea of not having a roof up the flagpole, something along those lines?
I love it when people read posts with their own predisposed slant on things. If you are considering adding a room to your house, would you consult contractors to discuss options, without knowing 100% that you are going to add the room? Of course you would, you want to "test the waters", see if it's something you really want to do or not. Same situation here, if it's actually legit. Working with Acoustics Engineers to weigh roofing options does not mean it's a done deal....I'm not even sure how you made that leap. Try reading posts for what they are, rather than what you want them to be...everything is not a conspiracy.
How bout we sell Lopez back to Mexico, Take 300k of his salary to get a serviceable player, and use the other 500k to build a roof over the Cauldron? Don't get me wrong, I like Lopez, he is just a bit overpriced IMO.