I've never said I don't think Houston is profitable. The question is whether it's more profitable than Calgary.
Ticket sales, TV Deals, Sponsorships & Corporate Partnerships are all likely to generate less revenue in Houston's 15 year old building than Calgary's 40 year old building.
As you rightly argue, Houston is likely to have lower operating costs, though I think that has more to do with US dollar than anything else. Is this enough to offset the lower revenue? Maybe, maybe not, but it's pretty much impossible to claim it's a slam-dunk better situation than Calgary.
At the end of the day, you are also correct that acquiring the team is their biggest obstacle. Is there any doubt the cost to acquire the Flames is more than for the Coyotes, Panthers, or Hurricanes? How desperate is Fertitta to buy? Does paying a lot more for the Flames really get him a team sooner than pursuing the aforementioned teams?
Franchise value brings us full circle to the biggest benefit that is left out of the cost vs. benefit analysis between the city and CSEC. Murray gets an instant 9 figure bump in value with a new arena.
I haven't looked into this at all, so I'm interested to hear more details: Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are often trotted out as examples of how privately funded arena deals don't work because the teams were sold shortly after. Were the teams actually sold at a loss when all things are considered? Or, were they simply sold at the optimal time?
|