Quote:
Originally Posted by StrykerSteve
Watched King's conference just now. There are obviously two sides to every story, but I think agree with the Flames on this one. The amount of money the team brings into the city, be it through taxes, charitable endeavours, international tourism, etc. certainly needs to be considered when talking about what's in it for the city to be contributing something.
This isn't a restaurant we're talking about here. This is the Calgary Flames. They are the epicentre of this city. Do what needs to be done and get this done, for goodness sake.
|
What about the amount of money calgarians bring to the flames? When I pay for my season tickets, I get to watch hockey games and the flames make money. It's a straightforward transaction. With an arena, if my tax dollars are paying for it my return is I get the opportunity to spend money at the arena and the flames make money. If no tax dollars are used, tax payers get the exact same return, an arena to pay to watch events at which will make the flames money. The flames don't need us to pay anything, they want us to because not paying for something is cheaper than paying for something. I wasn't completely opposed to some public money going to the arena, but the way the flames have approached this whole negotiation has been cringe worthy. They need to come up with a better excuse for why we should pay for it than "Edmonton paid for the Oilers' new building"