Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
My statement was explaining that even if the city gets the profits - they very likely won't be very high (i.e. likely not even enough to cover the property tax they could collect otherwise if the Flames owned it).
The Flames and/or arena manager/food services company will get all or a very high majority of most of the revenue:
Ticket revenue for all their events
All the in-building advertising
Concession sales
Merch sales
The city will have to pay the Flames (or another company) to manage the arena which isn't cheap. Concerts and most events don't generate a ton of profit for the arenas, unless you get lucky with some cheap concert selling way more than expected. Anything that is going to sell-out the place is going to take a huge portion of ticket sales (i.e. you aren't making much money off Taylor Swift being there despite the huge ticket sales).
|
I was adding to your post, not disagreeing. Add to that the Flames would get the profits as the manager of the arena and I'm not sure what, if anything, the city gets.
People have this imaginary benefit of the city owning the arena, like if you or I were given a house. It's free equity in a nice big building. Except for a city out doesn't work like that. The city cannot sell it to anyone except the tenant who clearly doesn't want to own it. They are also more responsible for all upkeep, disaster relief and demolition. All expenses with no benefit. In fact, tax paying buildings could've been built there so the cost of actually even greater