Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
If a building is 500 million the flames only need to be 25 million to 50 million per year more profitable then the team wanting to move. So are we 25 million dollars per year after the construction of a new arena than the Coyotes, Hurricanes, or Panthers?
The second thing around leaving is that for the flames to leave we only need to be more profitable by the difference between the other cities subsidy plus the relocation fee. So Seattle for example gives them a free building and they pay 200 million to relocate. Would Calgary be 15 to 30 million more profitable than Seattle? I would say probably. And in a Seattle scenario it really means selling the team to whoever buys the basketball team as you cant do it without the other ancillary revenues from an arena.
So until a city with a free arena that is within 15 to 30 million in additional profit potential emerges the flames aren't moving and any threat should be ignored.
|
Yearly profitability has nothing to do with major professional sports ownership. As long as they aren't losing money, no one really cares. Long term, the value of a franchise in Seattle is likely going to be more than Calgary as it builds value, and it would certainly mean more to the NHL, because people in Calgary aren't going to stop watching hockey and buying NHL merchandise when the team is gone.
If all it was about is operating profit, Toronto would have a second NHL team, and Quebec City would have had a team two years ago.