If I could directly respond to Micheal.

If you read my full comment I said nothing about leaving taxpayers on the hook.  I think that you would agree that any luxuries (and a dome is a luxury) should be paid for with cash.  If you read my very last comment it refers to the "extent of the risk" and "those studying feasibility" because none of us are there to know the exact situation.   I am not so quick to dismiss the idea and here is why.  Our stadium in Winnipeg is to be levelled and another stadium built at the University of Manitoba; the rationale is that it would cost 52 million to refurbish the old stadium and at that price tag why not just build a new one.  One of our journalists in the Winnipeg Sun poured over the report and found that out of the 52 million 38 of it was discretionary i.e. corporate boxes...new press boxes etc.  The old Winnipeg stadium could be refurbished for 14 million without the extras.  According to Colin's article Mosaic could be fixed for less.

So this 52 million dollar number brings me to the 430 million.  I definitely acknowledge your concern "the extent of the risk"; 430 million is alot of money.  Given that the Fargodome was build 17 years ago at a cost of 48 million brought forward for inflation it would be 70 million in today's dollars.  Say that the cost doubled OK 140 million it is still quite a bit less than 430.  How much of the 430 million is discretionary and how much is necessary?  Wouldn't a lower risk level brought on by a lower cost attract more private money?  All I am saying is look at this from two other angles, the dome will have other uses besides the Riders and is 430 million a hard number or can that be reduced.  If the former is real and the anticipated revenues won't make it then the provincial public in co-operation with their government will have to decide how badly they want a dome; will they save and raise funds privately or is it worth going into debt for (which will be tomorrow's taxes). 

Respectfully Submitted,

Wade.    

If I may respond directly to Wade.

I took some time to look into what you are saying and gave some thought to your points.  In principle I agree with what you are saying.  An indoor dome would provide a myriad of uses for other organizations in and around Regina.  That said, I do not necessarily believe that taxpayers should be on the hook for a stadium that will be primarily identified with a business like a CFL team.  Given that the Riders have the ability to put bums in seats and the ability to maintain the stadium themselves, I think that they should foot the bill themselves. (Foot bill?? hahahahaha) 

I believe that the Queen City needs to decide apart from the Riders if a dome is feasible, if it is and there is demand, and if maintenance of the dome is something they can do then they should.  I don't think the Riders should be the primary motivator.

The best point comes right at the end of the article

"Most importantly, if there is such demand for a $430 million dome, extending the life of the current facility by a decade would give the pro-dome crowd a full decade to round up the necessary private funds to build a dome."

Michael Davison