Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Based on what?
They own the Flames, Hitmen, and Roughnecks. And it's in their interests to book as many concerts and events as possible.
|
Then they should be able to cover the loan themselves, shouldn't be a need for the city to take on any risk whatsoever if it is this much of a slam dunk, right?
It's in their interests to book as many as they can, but what happens if there's another lockout and 800,000 tickets don't get sold?
Quote:
Please site an example where a ticket tax didn't cover the payments.
(And no, St Louis doesn't count - they simply didn't have a long enough tenant agreement, which would obviously be mandatory in this case)
|
Why would it be mandatory in this case? Just because? What if the Flames don't want a mandatory one and instead want more flexibility? We can take it on their word that as arena managers it is in their best interest to keep the Flames around as long as the arena is there. Just like how people seem to trust that the CRL idea is a good funding idea and not a laughably terrible one.
I'd point right back to Glendale but you'd probably try to move the goalposts on that one, so there's:
Newark's ridiculous mess
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/0...nd-like-crazy/
And there's the fancy accounting of the American Airlines Arena
http://deadspin.com/for-the-first-ti...ent-1469960778
And just for good measure because it came up in the search, North Bay Ontario
http://www.nugget.ca/2015/01/29/team...harge-increase
$250M is also unusually large for a ticket tax. Twice as much as Edmonton's and most American funding models package them with a variety of other taxes like sales and tourism taxes (that counties and cities can impose down there, but not up here).