Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
It was not a good football stadium. It was maintained - they replaced its entire playing surface, at great expense, a few years before they destroyed it.
|
That was not maintenance. That field was so not maintained for so many years that, did you sit on it? Asphalt was softer. That field was rock hard like concrete. I was appalled that any sport organization would let their expensive players play on that field - for decades. But again, they failed to do any maintenance. Eventually spent massively to replace it.
Had that field been maintained, then no capital money was spent. Maintenance does not appear on spread sheets as 'growth'. Have done no maintenance (and hurt how many players), then they were forced to completely replace it. And that, using money games, appears on spread sheets as 'growth'.
If that stadium was bad for football, then why are so many older and "inferior" stadiums (LAs Memorial Coliseum, Chicago's Soldiers Field, or Lambeau Field) constantly not replaced? Vet Stadium was only inferior to corporations whose SuperBoxes were not big (luxurious) enough.
Veteran's Stadium suffered from near zero maintenance. Even a crappy field finally had to be replaced because of no maintenance for decades. Had that field been maintained, then it would have never been as hard as concrete. I will never forget how hard (uncomfortable is was). That started me noticing its poor maintenance.
As if blowing trash out after every game is maintenance. It was replaced because it even leaked rain throughout interior spaces. They did not even fix the roofs.
On spread sheets, doing no maintenance and then replacing what should have been a perfectly good structure is 'growth'? It isn't. It is simply spending money fixing what bean counters created. They simply replaced one perfectly good stadium with another. And even used myths that somehow proved that replacement created new profits.