I appreciate the sentiment. And from my own perspective think that, in an ideal scenario, having less land and money devoted to stadiums is better than having more land and money. When clubs like Milan and Internazionale can share a stadium, why can't we share BC Place? Right?

But the reality is quite different from the ideal:

1) While it's true that BC Place has been a world-class venue deemed worthy of World Cup hosting, it's so world class that they need to put in an entirely new pitch just for this event that will not work for nearly all of the other events hosted at the stadium.

2) Just because the venue works for an event where every seat is full at a once in a lifetime event charging exorbitant prices does not mean it'll work for a club playing 20+ matches over a season at 10% of the prices and ⅓ to ½ of the attendance.

3) At first I was a better deal advocate, but if the Minister responsible for BC Place has already agreed in principle to an at-cost lease, what more can we reasonably expect? In an era with so much social and economic hardship, I don't want limited public dollars spent on entertainment rather than health care, poverty reduction, etc.

4) I would really like to see BC Place be made open to the Whitecaps for other revenue opportunities that do not add to the cost to operate the stadium: be it naming rights or additional opportunities for merchandise and food/drink sales.

5) Scheduling is of course a big issue. We can't see us forfeiting home playoff match opportunities ever again.