Bob,
What are the financial implications to holding a game at Gilette?
Obviously there is a much larger gate, but what about the expenses for a one-time event? If it takes three weeks to get the venue ready, it makes me wonder if the additional expense makes it profitable, even with the much larger crowd and corresponding increase in ticket and concession revenue.
Okay, just guessing here...
Since there is no real grass at Gillette, a lot of the ground materials used to carry/transport forklifts/zambonis/other heavy equipment might not be needed as the equipment would not damage the turf like it would real grass. This would include all that plywood and the white interlocking squares used to build those temporary "roads" in centerfield.
Putting together the rink, e.g., laying down the aluminum base, pumping in the refrigerant, putting up boards, developing the rink ice, would be a wash.
Weather concerns in February, as I stated in my article, might be less of a problem versus early January, but I'd consult a meteorologist on that subject. Fiscally, this issue could mean lower ice rink maintenance costs if the weather is naturally colder in February.
You can bring in other games at Gillette as well as you could Fenway. The rink could perhaps stay open through the month of February and be torn down in March. I did mention the Beanpot in my article, but the Beanpot may not work outside of Boston. Even in in Foxborough, they may not give a hoot about the Beanpot. You could perhaps bring in college teams from all over the region and not just the Beanpot schools. Maybe Maine would make the trip down just to say they got to play in an NFL stadium.
I would say that given the increased ticket revenue, parking, etc., the lower costs in using a football venue without real grass would be worthwhile in considering this.
I must admit that I am glad that Fenway got to host the first one. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, it was a marvel to see and something I'm glad happened.
Bob G
