Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
There is nothing wrong with your post, but the Flames, and NHL's unwillingness/inability to independently meet their business needs should not the tax payer's problem. A few years after the cup run when both the team and economy were booming was the time to start planning for this, by slapping a transparent ticket tax on that would start building the kitty for this inevitable need. At least 10 years of missed opportunities to add 1-3% per ticket (doesn't get anywhere close to paying for it, but it would have been a start).
It is undeniable that the Flames provide economic and cultural benefit to the city that is hard to replicate. Placing a value on that is the big question - in the current context, I'm willing to go somewhere into 8 figures, but certainly not 9 figures.
It is a de-railment to a barely realistic fantasyland, but what I would actually see as a fair balance is to treat the Flames like a church. From my [cynical, atheist] perspective, I don't see much difference in people paying their $$ to worship red laundry or some perpendicular pieces of wood, etc.
While I'd ideally opt for no preferential treatment for either cult, I'd be happy enough with a separation of 'puck' and state, where the Flames can run their operation with fewer tax burdens, but also without any direct government subsidy. This means they've still got to own their land, build their own 'church', and operate within employment standards, etc. Sounds like a sweetheart deal that any other business owner in this city would take in a heartbeat.
|
While it's absolutely true that the city owes nothing to a private business like the Flames, it's also true that the Flames as a private business owe nothing to the city (other than the thanks to the individual fans who support the team). The business will make business decisions, and the best business case doesn't involve staying in the city, the team won't stay, regardless of what some claim about how this is one of the best markets (as I pointed out in my previous post, they are thinking too traditionally, and not taking into account the future direction of hockey as a spectator sport). So you are absolutely correct, but the people of Calgary do need to decide if they are willing to work together with the team to find a mutually beneficial cost-sharing agreement. And the cost of having a modern entertainment facility will likely be borne by the city eventually, even if the city and the team part ways. The blind belief that the team will never leave the city because it's such a "great market" fails to take into account the changes that are coming in spectator sports.