Since when did Spiral, (aka VancouverMLS (already banned), Towerguy3 (banned), playball2 and other pseudonyms (which he needs when he gets banned from everywhere)) ever ask a smart question?
When the Retractable Roof does get cancelled, I will have been proven correct and won't have to ask any more smart questions. BTW, I'm not a Spiral. You must be seriously paranoid and having awful dreams
So justify why the Government should spend $ 300 million on this Retractable Roof with Reinforcing towers when the Whitecaps intention is to only play at BC Place for 5 years. After the Caps leave in 2015, then we have a Retractable Roof for a Lions team to play 9 games under, half of which will be played in bad weather
I could be mistaken, but I think a retractable roof could be closed during said bad weather... A retractable roof and renovations makes the venue more attractive for the other countless events held at BC Place Although the Whitecaps may wish to move to a more intimate outdoor venue in 5 years - they may not if BC place is up to their standards. Having a 60,000+ seat stadium for any international games/friendlies is also kind of a bonus. The Provincial Government NEEDS to replace the roof as it has exceeded its life expectancy, and I doubt they want too many more winters of it falling apart. Tearing the place down wouldnt make any sense, putting the Lions out of commision, and losing the revenue stream.
Last I checked it was the governments responsibility to justify the need for a retractable roof and not the people on this board's responsibility. But last I checked, the baggy is at the end of it's life and the cost of keeping it inflated and the interior climate controlled is quite a bit of money. Probably not enough to offset the cost of the retractable roof, but it sounds like the roof needs to be replaced anyways...
Then if the Whitecaps are so committed to BC Place, why didn't they sign a 15 or 20 year lease? Why only 5 years? Could the hold up be the Government wanting Kerfoot to sign a longer term lease?
why would they do that when the whitecaps main focus has been the waterfront stadium this is just something to get into MLS but I think they still want the Waterfront stadium over BC place, but are stuck with BC place for now.
Then put yourself in the Provincial Government's shoes. They're going to spend a whole gob of taxpayer money to appease a soccer club that won't commit to playing more than 5 years in BC Place. Once the Whitecaps leave, the revenue stream for the Stadium ends. If the Whitecaps and Pavilion Corporation can put forth a sufficient business case why this Retractable Roof makes business sense long term (especially for beyond the Caps leaving in 2015), then the roof has a chance. Otherwise, it's just a matter time before Cancellation. Still waiting for an answer from Bill about the planted question.
Because we all know nothing else ever takes place at BC Place stadium, right? Man you are an idiot and clearly a troll.
The BC government could care less about long term maintenance costs. In a recession year, and huge gap in this year's budget, they are thinking about this year and next year. The cheapest alternative is to replace the inflatable dome with another one. The dome is just one big tarp - much cheaper to replace, than build something complex like a retractable roof.
It is probably true that the BC government doesn't care about long term maintenance costs, but PavCo does. One of the fun things about government is that there are often competing groups within the government that want two diametrically opposed things. In this case, the BC government is looking at their bottom line for the next two or three years and see that taking the cost of the roof off their books would help them balance their budget and keep other "more important" things funded. On the other hand, PavCo is more interested in keeping their yearly budget as low as possible which means replacing the baggy with an insulated hard roof (retractable or not) is preferable to another baggy. Should be interesting to see which direction it goes. Right now, it is still on the books and unless that changes, it looks like the interests of PavCo are winning over the do it as cheaply as possible group.
Krammerhead, nothing much else takes place at BC Place that may benefit from a Retractable roof other than a few Lions games. The BC Lions have been playing under a dome for 26 years; they survived didn't they? And a lot of conventions and trade shows will leave BC Place and go to the new convention center. If they spend a billion dollars on it, they want to make use of it. Pavco runs both BC Place and the Convention Centers so it's neither here nor there for them if the conventions and trade shows move. Conventions and trade shows don't need to be in the sunshine, and looking at the Budget papers, that's where almost all of BC Place's revenue comes from
I assume you're American? PavCo has little influence in Campbell's cabinet. They are a crown corporation that reports to the government, not the other way around. The budget is determined by Campbell and his cabinet, which ultimately trickles down to PavCo.
American = Yes. Know what a Crown Corp is = Yes. From what I've seen of the relationship between Crown Corporations and the government in BC is that while they don't have a lot of pull in overriding government decisions (as in none at all), they are given quite a bit of deference in the forming of those decisions.
Tourism BC is another Crown corporation and the Government got rid of that crown corporation in one big swoosh of their claws; fired the entire Board of Directors and the CEO. If they want to get rid of Pavco, they can. The Legislature resumes in Victoria Monday
actually BC needs to be renovated and if so would help a lot, and why wait and keep the old dangerous roof when we can get a new one now and help out vancouver in a lot of ways go back to following Aberdeen because your getting annoying.
Unless private money kicks in, it'll be another dome: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/Sports/2009/09/10/10816211-sun.html