Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's incredibly sad to me...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I love it that people think Denver has cold weather. If everyone knew about our secret we'd turn into LA. Sure we have a couple cold games a year but we really only have 1 or 2 bad weather games meaning rain or snow. This year might be an exception that we've had two rain games. We'll see if there is a snow game left in the cards.

    Anyway dome NFL football is a joke. I seriously doubt the chief fans would approve a dome.

    I could care less really. Bring on the Jets.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Ravage!!!
      No. I wasn't in favor of the name change.

      However I know for a FACT that the largest portion of those tickets aren't sold to "corporations"..but a % certainly is. Those tickets are then given out to employees, or big clients... who THEN take their kids to the Super Bowl. Then THOSE kids grow up being bigger fans of the game because they went to a SB with their Mom and Dad when they were young.

      THe Super Bowl is more than just a "game." Its an EVENT. Its a HUGE media event. Because football, and ALL sports, is ENTERTAINMENT. See.. thats the thing. Its not fake, but its STILL entertainment.. just a different form of entertainment than a MOVIE. The NFL has made the GAME of football attractive to ALL ages AND genders during the WEEK of the SUper BOwl. WHY? Because they continue to work HARD at growing their fan base. To do that, you make the entertainment factor attractive to EVERYONE. If people are traveling Thousands of miles to see the game.. whether they are season fans, or just Super Bowl fans, they MUST have a good time while there. THey are there for the ENTERTAINMENT of the Super Bowl, and the entire week of the event that is the Super Bowl. Its not RUINING the game. Its just being sure that the Stadium is comfortable for the fans to enjoy the game. SO that the weather is good for the Huge Pre-game show. So that the weather is good for the HUGE Half-Time show. The Super Bowl is spending MILLIONS for this. It wouldn't work well for Janet's boob to be shown through a snow coat.
      Perhaps we could have a separate thread on the purpose of the SB halftime show but I can assure you it has nothing to do with the fans in the stadium who are out urinating and smoking and waiting in line for beer. Yes, there are probably some wives and kids there that are looking forward to the show but the football fans could shiv a git. The show is there to boost TV ratings because the NFL is under the impression there needs to be some kind of gay show in there or nobody will watch the game and advertisers won't buy hugely expensive commercial spots. These people are seriously confused. I can assure you that the stadium would sell out without a pregame or half time show and without reducing the ticket prices.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Ravage!!!
        No. My LOGIC isn't based on theory. Its the facts. There are tooo many things going on during Super Bowl week to just THROW to outdoor stadiums and winter elements. If you think I'm wrong, why do you th ink that all the Super Bowls are being held in nice weather locations or in domes? The Super Bowl is MORE than just the GAME that we watch on the TV screen. They still make more than if they didn't have the Bowl? They put MILLIONS into the city to be PREPARED for the INCREDIBLE large crowds during SUper Bowl week. LOSING MILLIONS and MILLIONS because of "mother nature" or "god" just isn't worth the risk. Not when you are putting THAT kind of money OUT to host the Bowl game. I'm sorry, but YOUR reasoning is wrong.
        You're still confused. Look, who puts up the money to get ready for the event? The city. The city pays for all of the infrastructure type stuff to get ready for the event. The hotels take the risk of reserving rooms that might get cancelled if the weather is bad, the city sets up for parking, security, etc. Just like the Olympics it's the city that takes the risk if given the opportunity. If the event is a bust, the NFL still makes out on the ticket sales, TV rights, marketing, etc.

        By your logic Denver shouldn't host a SB because it might only make 200M vice 400M.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SkyFlash1
          Perhaps we could have a separate thread on the purpose of the SB halftime show but I can assure you it has nothing to do with the fans in the stadium who are out urinating and smoking and waiting in line for beer. Yes, there are probably some wives and kids there that are looking forward to the show but the football fans could shiv a git. The show is there to boost TV ratings because the NFL is under the impression there needs to be some kind of gay show in there or nobody will watch the game and advertisers won't buy hugely expensive commercial spots. These people are seriously confused. I can assure you that the stadium would sell out without a pregame or half time show and without reducing the ticket prices.
          I didn't say the fans were there to care or even watch the pre-game or halftime show. I'm saying the NFL pays MILLIONS to hire and pay for these expensive halftime and pre-game shows. You can't put on a big production of shows on the field if there is a snowstorm, or rain. The NFL wants the ENTIRE week, and the game, to be a GIANT show of entertainment. That includes the entire WEEK before hand, the entering the stadium, the pregame show, the halftime show.. and anything else.

          The City itself spends MILLIONS of dollars to HOST the Super Bowl. Meeting traffic and parking codes as well and preperations on the stadiums are just a tiny few things that need to be considered. If you can't have the MILLIONS of dollars generated for the entire WEEK of the Super Bowl, then Spending the money to HOST the Bowl, isn't worth it. There is NO WAY the NFL is going to put unnecessary risk on LOSING that type of revenue. The EVENT of the Super Bowl is MORE than just the game itself...period. The stadium seats would still be filled, but THAT isn't where the Money is made.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Meck77
            I love it that people think Denver has cold weather. If everyone knew about our secret we'd turn into LA. Sure we have a couple cold games a year but we really only have 1 or 2 bad weather games meaning rain or snow. This year might be an exception that we've had two rain games. We'll see if there is a snow game left in the cards.

            Anyway dome NFL football is a joke. I seriously doubt the chief fans would approve a dome.

            I could care less really. Bring on the Jets.
            Guess you haven't lived in Denver very long. Look around, you have turned into LA. I was a teenager when 303 was the area code........for Colorado.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by SkyFlash1
              You're still confused. Look, who puts up the money to get ready for the event? The city. The city pays for all of the infrastructure type stuff to get ready for the event. The hotels take the risk of reserving rooms that might get cancelled if the weather is bad, the city sets up for parking, security, etc. Just like the Olympics it's the city that takes the risk if given the opportunity. If the event is a bust, the NFL still makes out on the ticket sales, TV rights, marketing, etc.

              By your logic Denver shouldn't host a SB because it might only make 200M vice 400M.
              But the CITY has to agree to HAVE these thing completed and ready BEFORE the Super Bowl. The city pays? NOOoooo. Just like the KC situation. WHO do you think is going to pay for that new stadium? The PEOPLE. Who do you think is going to pay for the "infrastructure" type stuff (as you put it) for the Olympics.. The PEOPLE. See, perhaps you don't understand this, but when a city agrees to these GIGANTIC events, BILLS have to be passed first to GENERATE the revenue. The city then TAXES the people. So the people of the city, and the tourists visiting the city, PAY for the upcoming event. THe money doesn't just Magically appear by the city to pay for this. The CITY is taxing the people to pay for the upgrades because the PEOPLE and the CITY will generate the income that is BROUGHT in by the event itself. If you try to tell people that they must pay for the upgrades, and they may not make nearly 200MILLION dollars.. thats a HUGE amount of money you are talking about. If you are putting out 200 Million dollars because you are expecting to bring in 400 million, but then LOSE because of the "weather"... then you LOSE money. NO ONE wants to lose money. SO you see. MY logic isn't the one flawed. I"m the one that is actually making the sense here. I'm the one telling you how it IS. You are not really understanding how it works.

              Comment


              • #22
                There is only ONE(1) LA!!!!!!!!!
                SOMEBODY!!! ANYBODY!!!! GIVE ME A MILE HIGH SALUTE!!!!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Dome over the entire city??

                  For all those people saying Super Bowl week is an event beacuse of all the surrounding activities in the city. How the hotels, bars, restuarants, nightclubs and other attractions in the city make money..... thats why the SB should be in a good weather city..... Hence, the NFL is right in proposing a dome over arrowhead....

                  I don't follow the line of reasoning....

                  How will a dome over Arrowhead stadium change the weather in Kansas City in February??
                  [A HREF = 'http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/...williamsxt5.jpg'][/A]

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by atomicbloke
                    For all those people saying Super Bowl week is an event beacuse of all the surrounding activities in the city. How the hotels, bars, restuarants, nightclubs and other attractions in the city make money..... thats why the SB should be in a good weather city..... Hence, the NFL is right in proposing a dome over arrowhead....

                    I don't follow the line of reasoning....

                    How will a dome over Arrowhead stadium change the weather in Kansas City in February??
                    Because the EVENTS, the NFL weekly events, can still be held INSIDE the stadium.

                    And I don't think the NFL is right in proposing a rolling Dome over Arrowhead. I think its a sham. I agree with Dan Patrick and think its extortion. But the reasoning is that in good weather cities, and in domes, you can continue to hold the entire weekly events within the dome or outside in the good weather locations.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ravage!!!
                      But the CITY has to agree to HAVE these thing completed and ready BEFORE the Super Bowl. The city pays? NOOoooo. Just like the KC situation. WHO do you think is going to pay for that new stadium? The PEOPLE. Who do you think is going to pay for the "infrastructure" type stuff (as you put it) for the Olympics.. The PEOPLE. See, perhaps you don't understand this, but when a city agrees to these GIGANTIC events, BILLS have to be passed first to GENERATE the revenue. The city then TAXES the people. So the people of the city, and the tourists visiting the city, PAY for the upcoming event. THe money doesn't just Magically appear by the city to pay for this. The CITY is taxing the people to pay for the upgrades because the PEOPLE and the CITY will generate the income that is BROUGHT in by the event itself. If you try to tell people that they must pay for the upgrades, and they may not make nearly 200MILLION dollars.. thats a HUGE amount of money you are talking about. If you are putting out 200 Million dollars because you are expecting to bring in 400 million, but then LOSE because of the "weather"... then you LOSE money. NO ONE wants to lose money. SO you see. MY logic isn't the one flawed. I"m the one that is actually making the sense here. I'm the one telling you how it IS. You are not really understanding how it works.
                      I guess you thought when I said city, I meant city government. Some pot of money sitting out there waiting to be tapped. If you know of such a pot let me know. Let me state simply: City=People. Do you think that if Denver was offered the opportunity to host the SB it would turn it down? I doubt it but if a domed stadium was required I would hope they did. Do you think Denver would turn down the olympics? We did. In about 1970 we voted not to have the winter olympics because up until the LA summer games, olympics were big losers for the host cities. But SBs don't require nearly the infrastructure. We have the stadium already and don't need an athlete village and all the venues required for olympics.

                      Anyway, if Green Bay or Denver wants to have a SB it's their risk. I'm sure the NFL isn't sitting back saying "Well, if we have the SB in GB, GB will lose money so we shouldn't do it." No, they're saying GB doesn't have a dome and we're little candy arsed mommas boys so we don't want to go there.

                      You talk about the week long event but the only part of that in the stadium is the game so why is Detroit ok? There isn't anything going on the dome the week before the game except half time show practice. Only the game is in the dome. If Detroit can make money hosting a SB so can Denver and we might just get to see a real football game.
                      Last edited by SkyFlash1; 11-18-2005, 12:32 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by SkyFlash1
                        I guess you thought when I said city, I meant city government. Some pot of money sitting out there waiting to be tapped. If you know of such a pot let me know. Let me state simply: City=People. Do you think that if Denver was offered the opportunity to host the SB it would turn it down? I doubt it but if a domed stadium was required I would hope they did. Do you think Denver would turn down the olympics? We did. In about 1970 we voted not to have the winter olympics because up until the LA summer games, olympics were big losers for the host cities. But SBs don't require nearly the infrastructure. We have the stadium already and don't need an athlete village and all the venues required for olympics.

                        Anyway, if Green Bay or Denver wants to have a SB it's their risk. I'm sure the NFL isn't sitting back saying "Well, if we have the SB in GB, GB will lose money so we shouldn't do it." No, they're saying GB doesn't have a dome and we're little candy arsed mommas boys so we don't want to go there.

                        You talk about the week long event but the only part of that in the stadium is the game so why is Detroit ok? There isn't anything going on the dome the week before the game except half time show practice. Only the game is in the dome. If Detroit can make money hosting a SB so can Denver and we might just get to see a real football game.
                        I'm sorry, but you are wrong on this one. GB will never have a Super Bowl. Not only because of the weather...but because of the size of the town that the stadium is in. KC is ONLY getting the CHANCE for a Super Bowl because of Lamar Hunt...being a founding owner of the NFL/AFL merger. They are offering it as a tribute to HIM. In the meantime, they are basically saying that the KC fans must pay half a BILLION dollars in upgrades to the stadium and for the "rolling roof" or they not only will lose the Super Bowl, but may lose their team as well.

                        I'm sorry. I just completely disagree with you, and believe that the proof is on my side with the NFL.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X