Topic: Should the U.S. Open get a retractable roof?

[tain316]

$100 Mill is a lot of Coin to remodel a recently built structure.  Financially irresponsible if you ask me, hence cost prohibitive.

You need only look back 6 years to find financial trouble within the USTA. 
They ran in the red for 3 or 4 years around 2002 if I remember right and finally turned it around in 2004-5.

A roof over the Grandstand would certainly satisfy the requirement of having a covered court for maintaining scheduling integrity.

Can you tell I'm a fiscal conservative?

Nobody said it would be cheap.  The USTA should have realized this when they first were starting (highlighted in the opening article of this thread) to build this stadium.  They opted to go with the biggest stadium out there and not think about what may happen in the future.  Wimbledon spend greater than 100 million on their roof.  USTA can definitely afford to spend 100 million. How much do they take in from the Open each year? 

Agreed on part one.
Agree on part two, but will they 'choose' to spend 100 Mill?

With the amount of pressure they are facing and trying to maintain a decent perception (other Slams have a roof or are getting one), I am sure they will choose to do so.  Looking at what happened the last two years, it was unfortunate what the players and fans went through. 

[monstertruck]

You say it's to expensive for you Americans 
Well cut the budget for military operations and invest in sport and space adventures !

What's it like, 300 billions for wars and sh!t,  17 millions for NASA, so, are WE going forward or backwards ?

Contrary to what people may have you believing, the government is not passing out money left and right for reasons as frivolous as tennis stadium remodeling. 

Agreed.
Bonuses for CEO's of  bankrupt companies and bailouts for fools that are over mortgaged take precidence.
Oh, and let's not forget Cash for Clunkers!

[monstertruck]

You say it's to expensive for you Americans 
Well cut the budget for military operations and invest in sport and space adventures !

What's it like, 300 billions for wars and sh!t,  17 millions for NASA, so, are WE going forward or backwards ?

Contrary to what people may have you believing, the government is not passing out money left and right for reasons as frivolous as tennis stadium remodeling. 

True, but it is ridiculous to suggest that tthe U.S. Open does not have the money o build one.  If Wimbledon can build that cost at least 130 million dollars on a court as old as Centre Court, there is no reason one cannot be built on Ashe.  The engineering feat to build a roof over Centre Court was incredible without destroying the stadium in the process.  

I've been poking around but haven't been able to come up with the numbers that confirm or refute this statement.

[tain316]

You say it's to expensive for you Americans 
Well cut the budget for military operations and invest in sport and space adventures !

What's it like, 300 billions for wars and sh!t,  17 millions for NASA, so, are WE going forward or backwards ?

Contrary to what people may have you believing, the government is not passing out money left and right for reasons as frivolous as tennis stadium remodeling. 

True, but it is ridiculous to suggest that tthe U.S. Open does not have the money o build one.  If Wimbledon can build that cost at least 130 million dollars on a court as old as Centre Court, there is no reason one cannot be built on Ashe.  The engineering feat to build a roof over Centre Court was incredible without destroying the stadium in the process.  

I've been poking around but haven't been able to come up with the numbers that confirm or refute this statement.

I doubt they have to disclose what they make, but from what the chief executive has said, it seems that money isn't the issue.  They did just spend 60 million on that new indoor tennis facility (which is awesome too).

[monstertruck]

You say it's to expensive for you Americans 
Well cut the budget for military operations and invest in sport and space adventures !

What's it like, 300 billions for wars and sh!t,  17 millions for NASA, so, are WE going forward or backwards ?

Contrary to what people may have you believing, the government is not passing out money left and right for reasons as frivolous as tennis stadium remodeling. 

True, but it is ridiculous to suggest that tthe U.S. Open does not have the money o build one.  If Wimbledon can build that cost at least 130 million dollars on a court as old as Centre Court, there is no reason one cannot be built on Ashe.  The engineering feat to build a roof over Centre Court was incredible without destroying the stadium in the process.  

I've been poking around but haven't been able to come up with the numbers that confirm or refute this statement.

I doubt they have to disclose what they make, but from what the chief executive has said, it seems that money isn't the issue.  They did just spend 60 million on that new indoor tennis facility (which is awesome too).

They most certainly have to disclose that info, but I haven't been able to lay my hands on it as of now.

[tain316]

You say it's to expensive for you Americans 
Well cut the budget for military operations and invest in sport and space adventures !

What's it like, 300 billions for wars and sh!t,  17 millions for NASA, so, are WE going forward or backwards ?

Contrary to what people may have you believing, the government is not passing out money left and right for reasons as frivolous as tennis stadium remodeling. 

True, but it is ridiculous to suggest that tthe U.S. Open does not have the money o build one.  If Wimbledon can build that cost at least 130 million dollars on a court as old as Centre Court, there is no reason one cannot be built on Ashe.  The engineering feat to build a roof over Centre Court was incredible without destroying the stadium in the process.  

I've been poking around but haven't been able to come up with the numbers that confirm or refute this statement.

I doubt they have to disclose what they make, but from what the chief executive has said, it seems that money isn't the issue.  They did just spend 60 million on that new indoor tennis facility (which is awesome too).

They most certainly have to disclose that info, but I haven't been able to lay my hands on it as of now.

Really?  They have to disclose their financial information publicly?

[Babblelot]

Any genuine information to back this claim up?

Anways, if Wimbledon can get a roof installed on its original Centre Court with demolishing everything (which was a great feat), then there is no reason that the USTA cannot do the same to Arthur Ashe.  
Money issues?  
Take a look at how many sponsors the U.S. Open has and you can tell from the various insignias that are lined in the siding and the netting of the show courts at the Open that they are in no financial trouble.  They have the most sponsor tags of any Slam and not to mention record attendance numbers yet again (as of last week). Money is NOT an issue.

A quote from an article released yesterday about this same issue:

In 2008, USTA chief executive Arlen Kantarian conceded of a prospective roof over cavernous Arthur Ashe Stadium, "I would say at this point it's a question of when as opposed to if."

Citing three feasibility studies, Kantarian said, "Our board has approved taking this concept to a more serious construction-planning stage, cost estimates, and we're in a position, unlike three years ago, where we feel this tournament would require a roof."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen09/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=4465396

That's an apples to oranges comparison.  Just because Center Court and Arthor Ashe are both stadiums doesn't make difficulty of engineering comparable.  The base architecture is completely different.  

Regarding the money issue, I was listening to US Open radio at the Open today and the USTA people said that they decided to spend the money on development of US tennis overall, rather than the construction of a roof that would only be used during one period of the year.  It seems like US tennis has been making strides as of late, so maybe it's been working out for them. 

All that said, I agree that they do need a roof.  There are always other considerations however.  It's not as clear-cut as the USTA not having brains, the brains are just scattered.

The base architecture may be different, but that doesn't mean a roof cannot be constructed.  As the chief executive of the USTA said, it isn't of matter of if but when so that is all one needs to understand about this issue.  Unfortunately, the USTA is behind the other Slams in this respect.
Also, the notion that building the roof will only lead to it being used once in a year is false and Johnny Mac himself noted various ways they could make use of the roof other than for the Open.  He specifically said the following in an interview conducted yesterday by Reuters:

"My idea was for utilising it not only when it rains but to allow for stadium use year round, and for other things, like have some kind of tennis academy and have kids stay there.

"You could have people living in those (corporate) boxes, for example. Seemed like a great thing.

"Or have rock concerts and other things there to get more income generated for the kids."
------
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldOfSport/idINIndia-42403220090912?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

tain, you missed the salient point of Cowboy's post. Whattsa'matta with you?

Of course, if you don't care about American tennis, you would blow right past that... 

[tain316]

Any genuine information to back this claim up?

Anways, if Wimbledon can get a roof installed on its original Centre Court with demolishing everything (which was a great feat), then there is no reason that the USTA cannot do the same to Arthur Ashe.  
Money issues?  
Take a look at how many sponsors the U.S. Open has and you can tell from the various insignias that are lined in the siding and the netting of the show courts at the Open that they are in no financial trouble.  They have the most sponsor tags of any Slam and not to mention record attendance numbers yet again (as of last week). Money is NOT an issue.

A quote from an article released yesterday about this same issue:

In 2008, USTA chief executive Arlen Kantarian conceded of a prospective roof over cavernous Arthur Ashe Stadium, "I would say at this point it's a question of when as opposed to if."

Citing three feasibility studies, Kantarian said, "Our board has approved taking this concept to a more serious construction-planning stage, cost estimates, and we're in a position, unlike three years ago, where we feel this tournament would require a roof."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen09/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=4465396

That's an apples to oranges comparison.  Just because Center Court and Arthor Ashe are both stadiums doesn't make difficulty of engineering comparable.  The base architecture is completely different.  

Regarding the money issue, I was listening to US Open radio at the Open today and the USTA people said that they decided to spend the money on development of US tennis overall, rather than the construction of a roof that would only be used during one period of the year.  It seems like US tennis has been making strides as of late, so maybe it's been working out for them. 

All that said, I agree that they do need a roof.  There are always other considerations however.  It's not as clear-cut as the USTA not having brains, the brains are just scattered.

The base architecture may be different, but that doesn't mean a roof cannot be constructed.  As the chief executive of the USTA said, it isn't of matter of if but when so that is all one needs to understand about this issue.  Unfortunately, the USTA is behind the other Slams in this respect.
Also, the notion that building the roof will only lead to it being used once in a year is false and Johnny Mac himself noted various ways they could make use of the roof other than for the Open.  He specifically said the following in an interview conducted yesterday by Reuters:

"My idea was for utilising it not only when it rains but to allow for stadium use year round, and for other things, like have some kind of tennis academy and have kids stay there.

"You could have people living in those (corporate) boxes, for example. Seemed like a great thing.

"Or have rock concerts and other things there to get more income generated for the kids."
------
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldOfSport/idINIndia-42403220090912?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

tain, you missed the salient point of Cowboy's post. Whattsa'matta with you?

Of course, if you don't care about American tennis, you would blow right past that... 

No I read this and I definitely care, but I think both interests can be met at once as well.  JMac did say something about the what the new roof could do for kids and the sport.

[Babblelot]

You're talking about diverting $100M from US developmental programs to the construction of one! roof. That's stupid.

[tain316]

You're talking about diverting $100M from US developmental programs to the construction of one! roof. That's stupid.

Assuming this is a fact, then I am just saying that both can be addressed at the same time. 

[Avatar]

they should at least put a covering over the court! i always found it such a joke that they had to take the time to dry the courts.  why not just put a covering over it like at wimbledon so when the rain does stop, play can resume immediately? it would not only save time but they would also save money on towels and maintaining those blower machines! 

[tain316]

they should at least put a covering over the court! i always found it such a joke that they had to take the time to dry the courts.  why not just put a covering over it like at wimbledon so when the rain does stop, play can resume immediately? it would not only save time but they would also save money on towels and maintaining those blower machines! 

That actually is a very good point!

[Babblelot]

they should at least put a covering over the court! i always found it such a joke that they had to take the time to dry the courts.  why not just put a covering over it like at wimbledon so when the rain does stop, play can resume immediately? it would not only save time but they would also save money on towels and maintaining those blower machines! 

Good question. There must be a reason. AO doesn't cover their courts, either. Perhaps it's as simple as drainage. Where's all that water going to go? Wimby and RG are played on surfaces that absorb water.

[Lugburz]

Yeah but then the dry-cleaners would lose their jobs 

[DirtyKash]

Maybe they should just build a glass dome over Arthur Ashe like the one that covered Springfield in The Simpsons Movie?

[TheEternalCowboy]

they should at least put a covering over the court! i always found it such a joke that they had to take the time to dry the courts.  why not just put a covering over it like at wimbledon so when the rain does stop, play can resume immediately? it would not only save time but they would also save money on towels and maintaining those blower machines! 

Good question. There must be a reason. AO doesn't cover their courts, either. Perhaps it's as simple as drainage. Where's all that water going to go? Wimby and RG are played on surfaces that absorb water.

They covered that in the interview that I heard.  The time it takes to cover the courts is the same as drying it because the courts only have drainage on one side. 

[TheEternalCowboy]

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2009/09/in-a-development-of-supreme-irony.html

"It would be great to have a roof today, would be great to have the money to put up a roof. . . but it's a much more difficult decision than that, and the reason is that we're a non-profit (corporation). Our mission is to grow and develop the game of tennis. We spend a lot of money we make on the Open on grass roots tennis. . . so the question is, are you going to spend $100 million or more, on a roof that you might use once a year, which would be the average. Or is the money better spent promoting the game? Because over the last five years, grassroots tennis has grown tremendously, tennis is growing more than any of the traditional sports in our contry. So it's a very difficult balance to make."

What he left unsaid is that an extravagent outlay for a roof could be interpreted by IRS officials as a violation of the USTA's non-profit status. Entire teams of lawyers at every layer of government now have divisions that scrutinize the legitimacy of non-profit organizations and how they spend their money.

[Babblelot]

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2009/09/in-a-development-of-supreme-irony.html

"It would be great to have a roof today, would be great to have the money to put up a roof. . . but it's a much more difficult decision than that, and the reason is that we're a non-profit (corporation). Our mission is to grow and develop the game of tennis. We spend a lot of money we make on the Open on grass roots tennis. . . so the question is, are you going to spend $100 million or more, on a roof that you might use once a year, which would be the average. Or is the money better spent promoting the game? Because over the last five years, grassroots tennis has grown tremendously, tennis is growing more than any of the traditional sports in our contry. So it's a very difficult balance to make."

What he left unsaid is that an extravagent outlay for a roof could be interpreted by IRS officials as a violation of the USTA's non-profit status. Entire teams of lawyers at every layer of government now have divisions that scrutinize the legitimacy of non-profit organizations and how they spend their money.

Not a problem for tain! What's it going to be, tain, sell the USTA center to China and let the Chinese build the roof. That would solve the non-profit status thingy.

[tain316]

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2009/09/in-a-development-of-supreme-irony.html

"It would be great to have a roof today, would be great to have the money to put up a roof. . . but it's a much more difficult decision than that, and the reason is that we're a non-profit (corporation). Our mission is to grow and develop the game of tennis. We spend a lot of money we make on the Open on grass roots tennis. . . so the question is, are you going to spend $100 million or more, on a roof that you might use once a year, which would be the average. Or is the money better spent promoting the game? Because over the last five years, grassroots tennis has grown tremendously, tennis is growing more than any of the traditional sports in our contry. So it's a very difficult balance to make."

What he left unsaid is that an extravagent outlay for a roof could be interpreted by IRS officials as a violation of the USTA's non-profit status. Entire teams of lawyers at every layer of government now have divisions that scrutinize the legitimacy of non-profit organizations and how they spend their money.

Not a problem for tain! What's it going to be, tain, sell the USTA center to China and let the Chinese build the roof. That would solve the non-profit status thingy.

No, if it is like this then it would be wrong to build a roof.  However, why exactly have they considered building the roof in the first place?

[TheEternalCowboy]

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2009/09/in-a-development-of-supreme-irony.html

"It would be great to have a roof today, would be great to have the money to put up a roof. . . but it's a much more difficult decision than that, and the reason is that we're a non-profit (corporation). Our mission is to grow and develop the game of tennis. We spend a lot of money we make on the Open on grass roots tennis. . . so the question is, are you going to spend $100 million or more, on a roof that you might use once a year, which would be the average. Or is the money better spent promoting the game? Because over the last five years, grassroots tennis has grown tremendously, tennis is growing more than any of the traditional sports in our contry. So it's a very difficult balance to make."

What he left unsaid is that an extravagent outlay for a roof could be interpreted by IRS officials as a violation of the USTA's non-profit status. Entire teams of lawyers at every layer of government now have divisions that scrutinize the legitimacy of non-profit organizations and how they spend their money.

Not a problem for tain! What's it going to be, tain, sell the USTA center to China and let the Chinese build the roof. That would solve the non-profit status thingy.

No, if it is like this then it would be wrong to build a roof.  However, why exactly have they considered building the roof in the first place?

Just to be clear, the entire block of text was from the link, and none of that was my original commentary.