Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Sure, but that's irrelevant to the point - Hot Flatus was dead wrong in arguing the Flames have no building costs. They very much do.
That said, under your lease, the tenant's costs remains static and they often end up in a fight with the landlord over improvements when they become desired or necessary. (i.e.: the Flames themselves in the early 1990s). In this case, the Flames don't have the security of a consistent rent. If there is unusual damage (i.e.: anything not covered by insurance from the flood) or a desire to improve the facility (new jumbotron, power ring, new locker rooms), then they pay the higher costs to achieve that.
|
Case in point is the floods of 2013.
That building looked like it may be a candidate for demolition as opposed to being brought back to functionality.
IIRC, the Flames spent in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars when it was all said and done for clean up, replacement of equipment and seats, along with all the cursory expenses of that disaster. All at a time when they weren't bringing in a penny of revenue. It was quite a display of "get er done".