Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
The Saddledome was built for the Olympics, so the Flames have already reaped the benefits of someone else's money going to build a facility for them once.
"Ah, but the revenue opportunities are much greater with our own building!" they say. Well then - if there's a business case that long-term the club will make more money with their own arena complex, then they don't need public money, do they? If there isn't such a business case, then what would be the point of construction at all?
It'd be different if the Saddledome was falling apart (like McMahon) and some kind of new facility MUST be built. However, there is no reason the Flames couldn't stay at the Saddledome for another 25 years, if your main concern is "we need a place to seat 18 000+ people to watch a hockey team" and not "the hockey team owning a new arena increases profit and value for that team immensely."
t.
|
Agreed. The flames are profitable in the saddledome, and the saddledome still works fine. I'd be happy to see the flames build a brand new shiny arena with their own money. But in no way should taxpayers be on the hook for helping the flames make even more money when our current arena is sufficient and the flames are making money.