HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1261  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 5:23 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 9,445
TSN has been reporting that winnipeg is 10th in revenues this season.

again...not to derail the thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1262  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 5:25 PM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,014
Just so that I understand correctly, is the operating income similar to take home value? So The Coyotes made 67 in revenue, but after operating costs, advertising, etc. etc. they ended 21 in the red? Just asking as an example.
__________________
Winnipeg's Population 708 500
Metropolitan Population 782 400
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1263  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 5:45 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisallard5454 View Post
Just so that I understand correctly, is the operating income similar to take home value? So The Coyotes made 67 in revenue, but after operating costs, advertising, etc. etc. they ended 21 in the red? Just asking as an example.
That's how I understand it.


And if the Jets are 10th I would expect them to be around the 100 mill mark, maybe a little less. It might decrease next year though; merch sales were probably through the roof with people buying their new gear. I'm guessing it will probably level off a bit next year (not drastically though). Of course that could change depending on the post-season results.

And to being it back to the topic, the Riders are definitely the outlier now in terms of CFL revenue. Most other teams probably just get those numbers when they host the Grey Cup (hopefully that will change with a new broadcasting agreement and continued improvement in the league's image). But then again, only the 3 community teams publicly report financial results. Montreal's been rumoured to be raking it in for years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1264  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 5:59 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
And if the Jets are 10th I would expect them to be around the 100 mill mark, maybe a little less. It might decrease next year though; merch sales were probably through the roof with people buying their new gear. I'm guessing it will probably level off a bit next year (not drastically though). Of course that could change depending on the post-season results.
The Jets only make money from merchandise sales that go through their own store - Jets Gear in MTS Centre and St. Vital. From what I've heard (could be wrong) it isn't a significant portion of their revenue.

Also, season ticket prices are up 3% for next year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1265  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 7:53 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by rypinion View Post
The Jets only make money from merchandise sales that go through their own store - Jets Gear in MTS Centre and St. Vital. From what I've heard (could be wrong) it isn't a significant portion of their revenue.

Also, season ticket prices are up 3% for next year.
Ah I c, yes I was looking at it from a Roughriders point of view where the majority of merch sales happens through their own stores. But I suppose when the riders sell more merch than some hockey teams, but have revenues of a little over a third of those teams, it's going to have a much more significant impact on the overall business.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1266  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 8:38 PM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,014
I would hardly say they sell more merch than some hockey teams. I would be willing to bet that the Winnipeg Jets sold more merch this year than any other team in North America, not just hockey, I mean any team overall. Unfortunately out of the hundreds of stores selling Jets Merch. Only 2 are owned by TN and count towards revenue. Fortunately for them they are making a killing in other areas. Please stop comparing the CFL to the NHL, you are sounding very silly.
__________________
Winnipeg's Population 708 500
Metropolitan Population 782 400
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1267  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 9:49 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisallard5454 View Post
I would hardly say they sell more merch than some hockey teams. I would be willing to bet that the Winnipeg Jets sold more merch this year than any other team in North America, not just hockey, I mean any team overall. Unfortunately out of the hundreds of stores selling Jets Merch. Only 2 are owned by TN and count towards revenue. Fortunately for them they are making a killing in other areas. Please stop comparing the CFL to the NHL, you are sounding very silly.
I'm not the first person to bring up NHL in this discussion, Quebec planning their arena is a valid topic to look at as we look at funding our sporting infrastructure here. Feel free to stick to the main Canadian stadiums thread if you don't like this one.

And I'm not making up the merchandise comparison; the only Canadian sports teams to outsell the Riders the last while are the Leafs and Habs. Here's an article in the Toronto Star for you to peruse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1268  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 10:00 PM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,014
If you are referring strictly to merchandise I would have agreed with you in a heartbeat. There is no doubt that Rider fans are passionate about their team. And it shows at game time. But to compare total revenues to merchandise is apples to oranges. Exemplified by the fact that 99% of Jets merchandise sales aren't sold by True North.

And I hardly ever frequent the Canadian thread, though any time someone says something you disagree with that is your first response. I frequent the Manitoba & Saskatchewan thread, because that is what I am interested in.
__________________
Winnipeg's Population 708 500
Metropolitan Population 782 400
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1269  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 10:20 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
And to being it back to the topic, the Riders are definitely the outlier now in terms of CFL revenue. Most other teams probably just get those numbers when they host the Grey Cup (hopefully that will change with a new broadcasting agreement and continued improvement in the league's image). But then again, only the 3 community teams publicly report financial results. Montreal's been rumoured to be raking it in for years.
Really? I knew they were doing well, but assumed that the Roughriders were the richest football team in the country. Edmonton Eskimos 3rd?
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1270  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 10:57 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,054
Chris that is very rarely a response I use, and when I do it's usually when people from outside of Saskatchewan try to tell us what we can and can't afford, when we are not running deficits, have low provincial debt, and when it has no financial implication on any other part of Canada as fed funding is completely out.

And I was clearly talking strictly merchandise since I said "when the riders sell more merch than some hockey teams". Hard to think I'm taking about anything else there. And if you look at the context of my comments I was talking about how merch is a very large part of the roughriders total revenue compared to how it is for hockey teams especially considering the riders outsell some NHL teams but have much lower total revenue. This was my way of agreeing with rypinion when he said any reduction in merch sales won't be a significant hit to the jets because it's comparably not as important, and why I had originally thought it could have been a fair size impact.

Let's just mark it down as a misunderstanding and move on.

And yes isaidso, from what is rumoured they have good sponsorship levels, and their tickets are by far the most expensive in the league (almost double Rider prices for the prime seats I think) which would make up for when they had lower capacity. But there's no way to know for sure since they don't have to publish their financials. Edmonton could have more banked away though since they've been a financial success for decades, not just one decade like Montreal. I think it's safe to say that the Riders, Esks, and Als are the top 3 though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1271  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2012, 11:54 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
But I suppose when the riders sell more merch than some hockey teams
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisallard5454 View Post
I would hardly say they sell more merch than some hockey teams. I would be willing to bet that the Winnipeg Jets sold more merch this year than any other team in North America, not just hockey, I mean any team overall.
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisallard5454 View Post
If you are referring strictly to merchandise I would have agreed with you in a heartbeat.
Ok then...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1272  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2012, 12:06 AM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by rypinion View Post
...



Ok then...
I was referring to the Jets in this statement, as anyone who has been aware, would know that their merch is probably the hottest merch on the market right now. I would be an idiot to say that that the roughriders don't sell merchandise well.

But yes Nathan, in your context it was a complete misunderstanding as from the last page everyone was comparing total revenue, and that is where I thought the conversation was focused.

Reading back I definitely jumped the gun there, and sound like an ass, sorry Nathan. Meant no disrespect. LOL reading back again, I don't even know what my point was.
__________________
Winnipeg's Population 708 500
Metropolitan Population 782 400
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1273  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2012, 2:56 AM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
I wrote up a big long post that turned into a rant, and I didn't want to go there... again...

But in any case, here are the revenues for the Canadian NHL teams (millions):

Toronto: 193
Montreal: 165
Vancouver: 146
Calgary: 105
Edmonton: 96
Ottawa: 100
Winnipeg: 71

and for comparison... the lowest team, the Islanders: 63


The Riders had revenues of ~$38 million last year (this years figures will be released in June, and will probably be a little lower).

So considering the much lower attendence revenue posibilities and the much lower broadcasting contract, that's not as far as you thought it would be is it? Add to that, that the Riders, due to their non-profit community ownership status, no one rich owner profits from these revenues. Everything must be reinvested either into the organization, the facility, game-day experience, or the community (which the Riders have been doing quite a bit of over the last couple years when profits started to spike; this can be seen by the large uptick in community football programs throughout the province).

And considering that TSN's TV contract (although fairly appropriate at the time) looks like a steal of a deal now, so the new contract will probably have a fair increase, so revenues will be on the rise from the league.

So is the justification all that hard to make? Especially if a good facility can be formatted to properly perform the function of an arena in terms of concert/event possibilities. (Yes... I'm still pushing for a multi-purpose facility... after living my whole life here, I want to see us take a decided step forward instead of just toeing the line and going for the cheapest available alternative).

And from your comment it seems like you're not from here (sorry if I'm making a wrong assumption, you don't have a location listed so it's hard to tell). If that's the case though, where are you from? and why are you taking such a vested interest in the project here? (I'm not meaning to be confrontational/butt-out type attitude, just more curiosity).

And well... that turned into a long post anyway.
I live in Toronto now for school but grew up in Regina. I'm very much a Regina boy as you. I get your arguments but again that number is still peanuts. The issue is not how much the Riders can and will make. My stance is that the CFLs revenue streams don't justify the public expenses we must put in towards a facility. At least in Quebec they could go to court to set a deal that would at fill a good chunk of the 30 million per year the tax payers must pay. This opportunity does not exist in the CFL and facility makeup would be unable to bridge that gap.

This is why I am more loose on Quebec because an NHL rink makes marginally more business sense. The arena will turn profits each year which the Govt can wrestle a piece of. It is not a sink like a football facility - dome or not - the opportunities and revenue potentials are night and day. The top 10 grossing sports faculties in North America are all Arenas aside from Yankee Stadium.

The Quebec example will expose us to the harsh realities of costs and the sheer size of public investments we must make for zero ROI. Again this is hockey and Quebec is nuts but even with the deficits in the Province. The City and province trump us in scope in their ability to take on a 400million project such as this (even though are books are in better shape - debt is debt - Quebec has 8-10 million to absorb it).

Quebec City with 500k vs Regina with 200k asking to take on roughly the same amount of debt. Which seems more plausible ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1274  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2012, 4:03 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,054
No worries Chris, it happens to the best of us; no harm done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmo View Post
I live in Toronto now for school but grew up in Regina. I'm very much a Regina boy as you. I get your arguments but again that number is still peanuts. The issue is not how much the Riders can and will make. My stance is that the CFLs revenue streams don't justify the public expenses we must put in towards a facility. At least in Quebec they could go to court to set a deal that would at fill a good chunk of the 30 million per year the tax payers must pay. This opportunity does not exist in the CFL and facility makeup would be unable to bridge that gap.

This is why I am more loose on Quebec because an NHL rink makes marginally more business sense. The arena will turn profits each year which the Govt can wrestle a piece of. It is not a sink like a football facility - dome or not - the opportunities and revenue potentials are night and day. The top 10 grossing sports faculties in North America are all Arenas aside from Yankee Stadium.

The Quebec example will expose us to the harsh realities of costs and the sheer size of public investments we must make for zero ROI. Again this is hockey and Quebec is nuts but even with the deficits in the Province. The City and province trump us in scope in their ability to take on a 400million project such as this (even though are books are in better shape - debt is debt - Quebec has 8-10 million to absorb it).

Quebec City with 500k vs Regina with 200k asking to take on roughly the same amount of debt. Which seems more plausible ?
I do no expect any return on investment for the stadium value (just as I don't expect any return for galleries, museums, libraries, or any other sport/cultural investment). It should also be noted that galleries, museums, and libraries require annual subsidization to continue to exist.

And I would argue that Saskatchewan (provincially and municipally) is in a much better position to absorb 400 million in debt (I'm not saying the province should pay for it all, although this is what occured in BC; the city should pay it's share, but Regina has gotten very little from the provincial government over the last few years, so I don't see why a fairly sizeable contribution can't be made).

Quebec is currently having students rebel over having their tuition fees brought up to more equitable rates with the rest of the country (although still much lower than here), they have severe infrastructure deficits that have killed people (collapsing overpasses), and their provincial debt is $183 billion compared to Saskatchewan's ~$4 billion. For Saskatchewan to have the same level of indebtedness, we would have to have ~$24 billion or $20 billion more than we have. Not to mention that Quebec is still running a deficit and spending money they do not have, meanwhile we are not.

So yes, although Quebec has a larger tax-base and net to catch revenue, they are hobbled by their astronomical debt.

If Regina's share of the Stadium is guaranteed by the province, the interest rates will be low, and a long term payment structure would definitely be doable. Regina's economy grew by 6.1% last year, and population is steadily increasing, so the "value" of such payments, although remaining monetarily the same, will in real terms drop as our fiscal capacity increases.

I'm tired of us always going with the cheapest alternative instead of trying to push forward and get something done that is actually a step forward. Why replace a stadium with a slightly newer version of itself? What are we gaining by investing that money? We can do no more with it than we currently do, so we may as well try and add value by doing something extra.

We don't need to build a new arena (that would seat 15k+) as that would be too large for the Pats, we won't be getting an NHL team anytime soon, and we just spend a fair amount of money upgrading it for the World Junior's tournament; however, we do need an indoor space that can house that many for concerts/events. If we build a new stadium, whichever type, we won't have any investment in an arena that could support those events for decades. This is why I see it as a valuable investment to go retractable. It will be the only infrastructure investment needed for at least 30 years (assuming that regular maintenance and upkeep can keep the Brandt Centre functional that long).

Commonwealth in Edmonton had a total cost of less than $100 million (in 2011 dollars), yet in today's world, Hamilton is constructing a stadium that will cost over $100 million, but only seat 22,000. Construction costs definitely have not followed normal inflation, and I don't see them beginning to anytime soon.



However, people have by this time already made up their minds about which option is the most suitable/useful for Regina/Saskatchewan. I have weighed the pros and cons, and think a retractable stadium makes the most sense in the long run. Others have decided they think that an outdoor stadium is best. It is doubtful that either camp will be convinced the other option is better, so there is really no point in debating the merits further is there?

And I'm actually a Saskatoon boy that calls Regina home now .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1275  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2012, 4:38 AM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
No worries Chris, it happens to the best of us; no harm done.



I do no expect any return on investment for the stadium value (just as I don't expect any return for galleries, museums, libraries, or any other sport/cultural investment). It should also be noted that galleries, museums, and libraries require annual subsidization to continue to exist.

And I would argue that Saskatchewan (provincially and municipally) is in a much better position to absorb 400 million in debt (I'm not saying the province should pay for it all, although this is what occured in BC; the city should pay it's share, but Regina has gotten very little from the provincial government over the last few years, so I don't see why a fairly sizeable contribution can't be made).

Quebec is currently having students rebel over having their tuition fees brought up to more equitable rates with the rest of the country (although still much lower than here), they have severe infrastructure deficits that have killed people (collapsing overpasses), and their provincial debt is $183 billion compared to Saskatchewan's ~$4 billion. For Saskatchewan to have the same level of indebtedness, we would have to have ~$24 billion or $20 billion more than we have. Not to mention that Quebec is still running a deficit and spending money they do not have, meanwhile we are not.

So yes, although Quebec has a larger tax-base and net to catch revenue, they are hobbled by their astronomical debt.

If Regina's share of the Stadium is guaranteed by the province, the interest rates will be low, and a long term payment structure would definitely be doable. Regina's economy grew by 6.1% last year, and population is steadily increasing, so the "value" of such payments, although remaining monetarily the same, will in real terms drop as our fiscal capacity increases.

I'm tired of us always going with the cheapest alternative instead of trying to push forward and get something done that is actually a step forward. Why replace a stadium with a slightly newer version of itself? What are we gaining by investing that money? We can do no more with it than we currently do, so we may as well try and add value by doing something extra.

We don't need to build a new arena (that would seat 15k+) as that would be too large for the Pats, we won't be getting an NHL team anytime soon, and we just spend a fair amount of money upgrading it for the World Junior's tournament; however, we do need an indoor space that can house that many for concerts/events. If we build a new stadium, whichever type, we won't have any investment in an arena that could support those events for decades. This is why I see it as a valuable investment to go retractable. It will be the only infrastructure investment needed for at least 30 years (assuming that regular maintenance and upkeep can keep the Brandt Centre functional that long).

Commonwealth in Edmonton had a total cost of less than $100 million (in 2011 dollars), yet in today's world, Hamilton is constructing a stadium that will cost over $100 million, but only seat 22,000. Construction costs definitely have not followed normal inflation, and I don't see them beginning to anytime soon.



However, people have by this time already made up their minds about which option is the most suitable/useful for Regina/Saskatchewan. I have weighed the pros and cons, and think a retractable stadium makes the most sense in the long run. Others have decided they think that an outdoor stadium is best. It is doubtful that either camp will be convinced the other option is better, so there is really no point in debating the merits further is there?

And I'm actually a Saskatoon boy that calls Regina home now .
No there is no need to clash heads on the issue. I am just passionate about stadiums in general and have followed extensively the boom of the 90s & 00s. See I really don't care if Quebec or etc plunges off a cliff of debt lol I do care about my hometown as it is in a position to make smart moves for the future but also can dive into something that can hurt it down the road. The trends in entertainment and sport is shifting away from the 'multi use' facility. I see no wrong in building a world class outdoor facility over a half ass dome that wouldn't even make a village in Nebraska blush.

I guess all I am trying to do is just point out the realities of sports faculties and their true costs. This is not a cultural facility as if it were access would be guaranteed for all. Transit, Libraries, Galleries all receive subsidies for this reason. If we are building something that only benefits the Riders then build them a world class (outdoor) football facility.

I urge you to search around in Toronto news as they just finalized an ordeal where 'future' costs and opportunity of a subway were challenged with the realistic costs and demand of LRT. LRT won as the demand and costs did not justify the nearly triple cost of Subways. Building for the future means building for realities down the road with legitimate resources available now. Toronto going with the Subway plan would of bankrupted the transit agency down the road even though it was the best plan for 'ahead' and the 'future' it did not acknowledge any realities that LRT did. And just like our situation this was very much a soft referendum on the Mayor. Fiacoo won't run again since he could not get the dome started, Ford in Toronto is now essentially a lane duck 2 years into his term.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1276  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2012, 5:02 AM
Baker58 Baker58 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by osmo View Post
No there is no need to clash heads on the issue. I am just passionate about stadiums in general and have followed extensively the boom of the 90s & 00s. See I really don't care if Quebec or etc plunges off a cliff of debt lol I do care about my hometown as it is in a position to make smart moves for the future but also can dive into something that can hurt it down the road. The trends in entertainment and sport is shifting away from the 'multi use' facility. I see no wrong in building a world class outdoor facility over a half ass dome that wouldn't even make a village in Nebraska blush.

I guess all I am trying to do is just point out the realities of sports faculties and their true costs. This is not a cultural facility as if it were access would be guaranteed for all. Transit, Libraries, Galleries all receive subsidies for this reason. If we are building something that only benefits the Riders then build them a world class (outdoor) football facility.

I urge you to search around in Toronto news as they just finalized an ordeal where 'future' costs and opportunity of a subway were challenged with the realistic costs and demand of LRT. LRT won as the demand and costs did not justify the nearly triple cost of Subways. Building for the future means building for realities down the road with legitimate resources available now. Toronto going with the Subway plan would of bankrupted the transit agency down the road even though it was the best plan for 'ahead' and the 'future' it did not acknowledge any realities that LRT did. And just like our situation this was very much a soft referendum on the Mayor. Fiacoo won't run again since he could not get the dome started, Ford in Toronto is now essentially a lane duck 2 years into his term.
I just want to point out that the dome has nothing to do with Fiacco not running again. In fact, one of the reasons he is endorsing the guy he is is that it will basically ensure that the stadium plan stays on course.

Also comparing a redneck hick like Ford who is arguably one of the worst mayors in Toronto's history to a guy like Fiacco who is likely the best mayor in modern Regina history shows that you may be a little out of touch out there in Toronto with what is actually happening here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1277  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2012, 5:26 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,054
The difference in cost between the subway and LRT was 3.25 billion for 8km of subway and 1 billion for 13.6km of LRT. The magnitude of the difference is over 2 billion while Regina's is 200 million or so. Not to mention that the LRT and subway both represent something that Toronto doesn't currently have (on that route) so either option provides a new service not currently being provided. As I've said above, this isn't true in the case of a new outdoor stadium here.

Also as baker said above the mayoral comparison isn't really valid. Ford's been a mess almost right from the start.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1278  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2012, 1:51 PM
micheal micheal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 330
once again as i've said in previous posts. Lets waite til' more info. comes out before we start speculating on stuff. we dont know what the plan is,who the partners are, and how this is going to get paid in the long term.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1279  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 11:19 PM
micheal micheal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 330
Update coming at the end of april.

http://www.newstalk980.com/story/ren...-stadium/51248
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1280  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 8:14 PM
Dougler306 Dougler306 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Regina
Posts: 350
On the note of that update, just making sure were on track!!!

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/S...571/story.html

Fiacco talks about the stadium project
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.