Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
...I can't tell what you're arguing with me about. People seem to think there's zero chance they could move and I'm pointing out reasons why I think they could, most notably through just washing their hands of their 1/31 share of the NHL and collecting their massive capital gains. I don't think it'll happen, I'm reasonably confident that both parties will come to an agreement with the knowledge that Calgary is better with the Flames and the Flames are better with Calgary, but it's a possibility.
I'm a little astonished at the hardliners who are daring the team to move by not supporting the use of public funds in any way, but at the same time are morally outraged that the team would threaten to move. Pick one.
|
Because you make it sound like owning a franchise is an unpleasant, philanthropic experience, done only for the benefit of the city.
Owning a franchise is like owning a rare, classic car (that you actually want to drive). It's expensive as hell to operate/maintain, but the value continues to build. You don't do it because it's an easy, reliable source of transportation, and a hands-off investment, but because it's fun to own, exclusive, and something that few others can afford to enjoy.
When's the last time a franchise was sold for less than it was bought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RM14
Liability is a big deal. But, at least the City would maintain ownership of prime land. In that neighborhood it will be worth ridiculous amounts in 4 or 5 decades if they needed to sell it.
|
They don't even own the land right now. The idea is to trade a larger area of city owned land for this area of Stampede owned land. This parcel is theoretically more valuable, but it's hard to imagine it being anything other than event district land. I would think the Stampede might want to include a provision in any land swap deal that they get first crack at buying it back when it's time to demolish the next arena.