Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
Talisman has a separate parkade and its access uninterrupted by a Flames game.
Again, any operating cost savings, or capital savings, are generally coming to the Flames' side, not the city. If the city operated a fieldhouse, it would likely be in a more suburban setting with standardize capital and operating costs and wouldn't be impeded by the other uses at all.
The Flames need to make it lucrative for the city and its taxpayers, not the other way around.
|
You forgot to mention the use of Foothills Athletic Park on game day. My point is that there will be some trade off of usefulness if it is all in one area, but that is no different than as it is currently. (Talisman Centre on game night was a ghost town when I was a member. Maybe everyone is at the game, maybe they just wanted to avoid the area).
Agreed that the capital and operating costs seem to be accruing to the Flames side, but that is not necessarily the end case, depending on how they land on the ownership, rental and tax situation. I have a hard time seeing how a separate, city owned fieldhouse would break even operating-wise, and I think there was a post that indicated that most city owned recreational properties are money losers, so anything to help that situation will be a gain to the city.
There should be a net gain on capital and operating costs by combining the facilities, with some loss of utility. I wish there was more information on how the revenues would be split, but the net gain should be realized by both the city and the Flames.