Originally Posted by Snowwy
It seemed straight forward to me. Why spend whatever Wimbledon spent on a roof that might be used once or twice a year? It just doesn't make sense, and no matter how impatient a few fans are on the internet, the majority of people in the world can wait an hour if it rains, they don't need there to be a roof.
The cost was 100 million £, that is approximately 3 times the annual profit of the tournament so the roof was not particularly expensive given it will probably be used for the next 50 years.