Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I'm never going to try and convince anyone on a funding model, I think people make valid points on rich owners, and public use, and the like. I get it.
However I do see the logic in the ownership group starting with the Edmonton model. I'd do the same it's logical.
Things are a bit more muddied in the Calgary situation as well because of a few elements.
1. Nenshi said he wants the Flames downtown in his presser today. That suggests city gains in my mind.
2. He talked about the arena in his vision of East Village, which also says city gain to me.
3. The group taxed with coming up with the olympic bid analysis had a new arena as a principal piece in the bid, and went further to talk about cost savings for security in having the old and new building close together.
So this isn't just an NHL issue and with that I see city having to kick in more than if this building was going next door to Cross Iron Mills without the olympics on the horizon.
Now go ahead and rip me one!
|
In my books the Flames lose all ability to talk location, grandeur and ultimate total cost unless they are funding this building 100%. That should not even be up for debate. The Edmonton model is so completely terrible for the city you can't even make sense as to why anyone would agree to allow someone to put up so little on such a large project.
I.E. You want CalgaryNEXT - go build it 100% on your own dime and you've got it.