Ed Sheeran is at the absolute height of his popularity...let's see how many girls want to go watch him in his 50s or 60s. Metallica/GnR were playing sold out shows when MC Hammer/Vanilla Ice were the pop counterpart.
Anyway, regardless of genre a new building would bring more events to the city and pump money into the economy.
nobody is saying we will never miss a show again don't be stupid
Ed Sheeran is at the absolute height of his popularity...let's see how many girls want to go watch him in his 50s or 60s. Metallica/GnR were playing sold out shows when MC Hammer/Vanilla Ice were the pop counterpart.
Anyway, regardless of genre a new building would bring more events to the city and pump money into the economy.
nobody is saying we will never miss a show again don't be stupid
Stop it
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
Is the assumption being made by the sad Sheeran fans that a new Flames arena would steal concerts from Edmonton, or is it that these acts would make both stops?
Would any big star on a world wide tour even make two stops in podunk Alberta, Canada?
Is the assumption being made by the sad Sheeran fans that a new Flames arena would steal concerts from Edmonton, or is it that these acts would make both stops?
Would any big star on a world wide tour even make two stops in podunk Alberta, Canada?
Of course, they've been doing so for decades.
Over the years, I'd say it's less common for a major act to only play an arena show in one of Calgary or Edmonton than it is for them to play both.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
For decades most major acts used to make a couple million on a long tour. In the last 15-20 years, a 40-50 show tour can net $50 million + for big acts since they can make between $1.5 million and $2 million gross per show. 40-50 show tour usually means only 4-5 Canadian stops, and with Toronto and Vancouver as givens and Montreal as likely, that leaves 1-2 shows leftover. And if you believe the rumours, Edmonton promoters are easier to work with than Calgary promoters. So forget building issues, that's probably a much bigger issue for Calgary getting skipped. If bands can only play one, and they can make more money and have an easier go of it in Edmonton, a new arena in Calgary is not going to change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir
If acts are performing in Edmonton it makes no geographical logistical sense to not also perform in Calgary. If anything Calgary should be making far more sense as a tour stop to generate some revenue travelling between the west coast and the Midwest. Edmonton is far more remote and more often than not requires going through Calgary to get to or out of anyways if touring by bus. If acts are performing in Edmonton and skipping Calgary there has to be something outright preventing them from doing it, it makes no sense for them to skip a more conveniently located, bigger city by choice.
If a band is coming from the east, it's most likely coming from Winnipeg so it makes literally no difference time wise going to Edmonton or Calgary (Edmonton is technically like 30 kms shorter distance). Coming from the west it's more time, but like 90 minutes and not like say 4 hours. It's not like Edmonton is Yellowknife. Big bands are exactly that, big bands. They don't need to play both, they have dozens of other markets they can play, mostly in Murica where they can make more money. Just how it is. Adding a new arena isn't making bands play an extra show in Canada.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 04-13-2017 at 07:29 AM.
Interesting that the Rams are suing the NFL and claiming the city lost $100 million and annual state revenue of $15 million. All this for a team that only plays 8 home dates a season. Doesn't that go against the naysayers argument that professional sports provide no economical benefits to a city?
The city obviously has paperwork in order to be able to prove their estimates. Really this is as much evidence for or against you will ever see regarding this argument. It's one thing for politicians or news columnists to posture or say this or that but St. Louis is going to open the books.
And yet 20 years into the life of the stadium they were 140 million in debt on an initial 280 million dollar injection
Funny how that works. Strange economic benefit. No matter how desperate you are for the numbers to work, they just don't, sorry.
Quote:
To cover costs, the city paid about $6 million for annual debt service and maintenance for the stadium but collected only about $4.2 million in direct revenues from Rams games, according to the Mayor's office. The state, which paid $12 million annually, made $12.4 million in revenues from NFL activities, Missouri Department of Economic Development estimated. The county paid $6 million annually; it's unclear how much of that was offset by Rams-related revenues.
All three entities will continue paying their share until the debt is paid off in 2021.
Lawsuit will likely be thrown out, the courts found the city of St. Louis in violation of it's lease agreement with the Rams several times. They are suing because of what nik said, because they building is still $140 million in debt and they are hoping to get the NFL to pay for that. Highly unlikely, but no harm in rolling the dice with a frivolous lawsuit. If anything LA should be suing to get an actual NFL team and not the Rams.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I'm not suing the NFL so I don't need to make the numbers work, that's up to St. Louis. Yet after all that $140 million debt there's a net annual revenue of $15 million made. It seems like you can spin these numbers any way you want to support your argument doesn't it?
Quote:
The failure to approve a new stadium in St. Louis, the suit says, cost around 2,750 construction jobs and more than 600 jobs per year.
So building new stadiums and arenas does create jobs and provide economical benefit eh?
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 04-13-2017 at 08:19 AM.
So building new stadiums and arenas does create jobs and provide economical benefit eh?
So does building new corporate office towers. You think we should throw a couple hundred million at Shell to keep them in Calgary? They provide more jobs, better paying jobs, and longer lasting jobs. Giving money to Shell actually makes more economic sense than an arena, so surely you support it right?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
