Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
As someone who actually pays for seats, I disagree. The Saddledome is very frustrating and out of date. If it weren't for the fact that I would lose out on my standing for seats when the inevitable new arena comes, I doubt I would continue spending $9k a year indefinitely.
I think it is a tad disingenuous of you to talk about false narratives unless you too are spending money, and are happy doing so for the foreseeable future.
|
You're willing to pay 9k a year to avoid being inconvenienced about where your new seats might be in a new stadium where you'll likely be paying 12k a year to watch hockey.
Can you explain to me what part of your post addresses the hundreds of millions of dollars the city of Calgary will be paying to help you avoid this inconvenience?
How do the other million plus residents of Calgary benefit from you having better sight lines and lower toilet wait times?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
There is no such thing as a good market if you don't have a good venue. How's that NHL team in Seattle doing?
|
You're becoming shrill and hysterical. How's that team in Quebec doing?
Quote:
|
Last I checked, the Flames were still announcing sellouts. Does anyone actually believe the official attendance figures?
|
I don't get it, do the flames give refunds to people who buy tickets but don't show up?
Quote:
None of that is even remotely relevant. The big money at the NHL box office comes from luxury boxes and other amenities. The Saddledome is maxed out in both those areas, and far behind any arena built in the current century. It's the revenue-generating capacity that makes the difference to the owners – as any rational person would expect.
The Saddledome was badly designed from the get-go. Nine-tenths of NHL franchises are based in arenas where the designers did not make those mistakes.
|
So why does the city of Calgary have to help a private business generate more revenue, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the city?