Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
Just a few things to keep in mind:
1) The Bell Centre lost a ton of money. In fact the only privately funded arena that turned a profit is the ACC. Preaching that smart businessmen should lose money on a venture because, well because others did it, isn't a good argument.
2) I don't believe the alternative to a new rink is the team moving. The alternative is the team remaining in the Saddledome, with free agents passing due to the lack of amenities and the Flames turning into (or remaining) a team that has poor on ice results but puts dollars in owners pockets.
3) Sports isn't your standard business. There are two goals, to make money, and win championships. The two are linked but not mutually interdependent.
4) An arena is a public good. This isn't an office tower with restricted access, it's a venue for the community. Or at least the new rink should be.
There's a balancing at here. It's a matter of finding the sweet spot (mind you given Calgary's factors I wouldn't be surprised if the sweet spot is $0, but no one has presented that argument, only "oil companies should build hockey rinks because they have money")
|
Do you have a source that the Bell Centre lost money? (Legitimate question, not doubting it).
And regarding profits and losses of related companies, there is a lot of tricks out there to move profit and losses around to limit taxes. In the case where the team owns the arena, they can shift the money every which way to try to lower taxes.
The building has also been sold with the team at a giant gain which offsets any losses they may have (particularly with the lower taxes on capital gains).