Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
If there is so much more revenue available in a new building, then I guess it should be worth it for the owner's to build one themselves. I'd imagine the flip from revenue sharer to receiver has more to do with the exchange rate than anything.
It really distasteful to hear how Calgary taxpayers should put a bunch of money into a new building so the owners can make more revenue. More revenue means they are getting those same taxpayers to spend more money to enjoy watching the Flames in that new building they paid for.
Let's see how those revenue sharing teams do once the gravy train of cable carriage fees runs dry in the next few years and they have to rely on tv rights based on actual viewers and now how many millions in their DMA pay for a sports channel they no longer watch.
Bettman can't see it, because he's always been incredibly short sighted, but the future of the NHL and other sports are in cities where people actually care about spending time supporting and watching the team.
|
Except that lets say that the Flames say we're going to pay for the whole building $200 million bucks.
It would probably take them 30 years to recoup that based on even an profit of lets say 20 million bucks.
Its an over simplification to say, let these owners build the buildings.
In the NFL it makes sense when you see a team realizing a profit of about 350 million bucks like the Cowboys.