[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Maybe they shouldn't spend millions on bike lanes, art work on underpasses/train stations and libraries that most people don't use or want.

Key difference being anyone has the opportunity to use them, and not just see a bunch of concrete from the outside.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You mean the tax revenues being discussed in the article?

I know that this issue went around and around already, but I love how much more faith you place in a news article than academic studies. Ever read a news story about something you know lots about? Painful. Considering the state of the media, I wouldn't put so much stock in a single source news article. There is probably some truth in there, but it's been the only (flimsy) support you've had for your argument for pages.

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

"Construction of the Saddledome was financed as part of the funding for the 1988 Winter Olympics. The City of Calgary funded ....It was the most over-budget facility built for the '88 Olympics."

Does anyone today care about that 30 million? How much would the city have lost out on by not having the Olympics and the Flames for the past 30+ years?

Vastly different time/situation. The investments (including cost overruns) have certainly paid off...no reason to believe they would again. Until the Saddledome is crumbling or Olympic bid is approved, the need will be nowhere near comparable as it was in the 80's.

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Isn't the ticket tax another 200mill contribution? How is the ticket tax minus interest charges paid for by the City not an exact definition of a contribution from the owners?

Why bring up rent in response to my point?

Look through my post history, I am very anti-CalgaryNEXT, but a ticket tax is owner money, period.

As his been stated, it's a user fee (which IMO is a good thing).

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm not as anti-Flame owner as some. Yes they want a new hockey rink, no doubt about that, but I also think they're trying to plug into what the city wants/needs as well.

Just want to point out that being anti-CNext and pro-Flames owner are not mutually exclusive. Until they play the move-card, this debacle has had a minimal impact on my opinion of ownership.

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

Disagree. There are several markets the Flames could move to if the city/province doesn't help at all. There's a brand new arena in Quebec City as well as several less appealing options. But they will seem a lot more appealing the longer this drags out. Obviously that isn't what they want to do but at the end of the day this is all mostly about money. Sentimentality, history, culture, etc. all eventually lose out to the need for more money.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry to be condescending, but nothing makes me disregard an opinion faster than buying into the 'move-card' in the slightest. Here's the list of better available markets (with or without new buildings): Southern Ontario. That's it. That's the list. No way the NHL would even let them in, and if they did, the cost to do so would be so ludicrous that it would still be less appealing than staying in Calgary.

Sadly, the moving threat is likely to happen, and some are likely to take it seriously. It would likely mark the last time I spend a personal penny on the team though, so I hope it doesn't come to pass.