Back in 2007, not long after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, I tried, and failed, to convince the organisers to let me take the reigns of the opening ceremonies.
Freeing the opening ceremony from the shackles of the stadium was one, admittedly bold, innovation that I pitched.
The Commonwealth Games' opening ceremony, like the Olympic versions and most other similar occasions, will be staged in a stadium. It's often the centrepiece after all, and all of the logistics and technical requirements can be kept in one place.
Sound logic. However, if one of the ceremony's main aims is to promote Glasgow, then why not use more of the city, with its amazing architecture, heritage and people, as the stage for the ceremony?
The ceremony's enormous expense is justified largely on marketing grounds; it helps to show off Glasgow as a destination and brings to life all that's great about the region and its people.
Some would argue that the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony is mainly for the athletes and therefore needs to be in the stadium, but the athletes don't typically appear until near the end of the ceremony, and so miss most of the spectacle anyway.
There is an argument that the ceremony may need to conclude or convene at the stadium, as the presentation of the athletes is a key component. But this doesn't rule out taking the rest of the ceremony to the streets and architecture of Glasgow.
It would make the Commonwealth Games accessible to a larger proportion of the city's population, and could use some of Glasgow's architecture as stages. Such a move would really bring the city to life for the billion or so people watching on television, on their phones or any other device.
Opening ceremonies are theatre, pure and simple, so why not use the whole of Glasgow rather than just one venue as the stage? Of course, some would dismiss this approach as too challenging, the logistical and security issues being a key factor.
I agree. There would be challenges. But this is entertainment, not rocket science. These issues may be difficult but, if factored in from the beginning, they could be relatively straightforward to overcome.
One of the UK's greatest and probably least championed exports is our major event expertise: creative, technical and operational.
Travel to any city hosting a major event and you'll find the British there helping. Confining the ceremony to a stadium sees city after city trying to outdo the previous one in what amounts to the same type of backdrop, regardless of location.
Wouldn't it be better to work with what's unique to each city or region? Organisers in Glasgow are preparing to dazzle a seated audience of a few thousand and a TV audience of one billion people with a "Window on the Commonwealth": a giant, record-breaking LED screen. The majority of the audience will therefore be watching a giant TV on their TV.
I'm not belittling the idea. I think it's clever and provides the organisers with a neat, cost-effective trick to provide an almost infinite range of backdrops without having to physically create them.
However, the shelved idea of demolishing the Red Road high-rise flats as part of the Opening Ceremony shows how difficult it is to innovate in a space designed for sport rather than theatre.
The Commonwealth Games like the Olympic Games and other similar mega-events are franchises. By and large you have to do what the rights holders, the Commonwealth Games Federation in this case, tell you to do.
Given the politics involved, there is great aversion to risk, to making creativity and innovation tricky. But does that mean we shouldn't try?
Given the reputation of Scots for bravery, it would be great to see them setting a new, bolder, more creative and inclusive example to the rest of the world.