Quote:
Originally Posted by dustygoon
I would like to think that too, but that old group which were very community minded also threatened to move the team in the 90's unless it got support. There were better alternatives to losing money. Now they are alternatives that make more money.
Reality is Calgary is a smaller market team. Private funding the whole load is tough especially when economics are better elsewhere.
There is no doubt that there is a net economic benefit to the team being in Calgary vs not. What that number is? Construction jobs of new building vs not building. Employment of ushers at games vs not. Taxes collected etc. The city should 100% pay up to that net benefit (contribution to local economy). Tough to measure I know but it's doable. If the team needed $300m to stay, then is there net benefit of anywhere between $200-400m? If so then you add the public funding. If the benefit is less, then adios flames.
|
There is doubt. In fact most economists agree that there is a negative benefit. Having the community spend their entertainment dollars on sports keeps about the least amount of that money in the community when compared to spending on just about anything else.
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/...winners-cities