Quote:
Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner
Seems like a lot of conclusions and mudslinging from a blog based on a source that admits that "Very little Canadian sports economic research has been conducted, Matheson said, in part because many researchers in this field are south of the border, and because of the ease of access to data there."
I don't support the concept of 100% public funded arenas, but I don't support the concept of 0% public funded arenas either. Some kind of partnership between the arena owners and level(s) of government makes sense to me. I don't know what the exact numbers should be though.
|
Agreed. That article seemed to come to conclusions easily based on speculation and aging sources of research. I'd wager to say that new stadiums (and especially comprehensive sporting experiences in strategic locations) do provide an economic benefit; doesn't mean, however,they should necessarily receive public funding... but not absolutely none either, IMO.
Location, amenities and connected non-sporting infrastructure are EVERYTHING to profitable sports developments. From my work in my field, I've noticed these three elements are very critical. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the arena for the Coyotes are in a rotten location overall - even moreso for a non-traditional hockey market where fans need to be persuaded consistently to make the trip and spend their hard-earned dollars.
I, personally, do not mind my tax dollars going to sporting infrastructure - but that is also because I place value on it and the development and growth of sport is important to me. I will be the first to admit that that is not the opinion of everybody, and I'm probably in the minority.