Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
^^ I think that isn't necessarily a fair statement, Bunk. As there are more than two opinions on this. Generally speaking:
Some think the City's offer is more than fair, and the city should not budge.
Some think the Flames' offer is fair, and the Flames should not budge.
Some think there is room in the middle, and negotiation should continue.
Some think the Saddledome is fine; or that the cost of the new arena would not be worth the benefit.
I'm in that latter group, as I know in a new arena I will be priced out of being able to afford tickets. So the longer the Flames play at the Dome, the longer I can afford to attend live hockey played at the highest level.
|
I certainly understand why you would feel that way. The problem is that is a dead-end street. If the Flames remain in the Dome indefinitely, their ability to generate competitive revenue will slowly, steadily deteriorate until they aren't viable any more.
The choice, long term, for the average hockey fan is: do I want a local team that I can root for, but only afford to watch on TV and maybe see live once or twice a year, or do I want no team at all?
And the simple fact of the matter is that, right now, more than 90% of the fans are watching on TV every night already.