Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Gah, Glendale would not be paying those salaries. Why do you keep working off some model of city ownership?
|
I don't. The fact is, the city will be paying a direct subsidy to the team's owners every year, and from my understanding, if the team loses money, the subsidy will be increased to help cover their losses. The fact that the subsidy is being labelled an arena management fee doesn't change what it is.
It is my contention that it would be cheaper to operate the arena without an anchor tenant than to keep paying a subsidy to cover the NHL team's losses.
Quote:
|
As for the study, it's about the impact to Glendale of the team leaving, not to team ownership.
|
I've seen studies like that before. They usually add up all the money that is spent on the team, plus some multiplier for the money being re-spent locally, and then pretend that none of that money would have been spent at all if the team were not in town. Studies of that kind are not worth the paper they're printed on.
What matters, or should matter, to the City of Glendale is the measurable effect on its own finances. If the city spends $50 million in cash to generate $100 million in economic activity, that may sound like a good deal; but if the city only recoups $5 million in taxes on that activity, then it stinks. The other $45 million has to be recovered by increasing taxes on those who do not benefit from the new activity.
Those specific numbers are not the ones in play in Glendale; I offer them as an example to make the principle clear.