Quote:
Originally Posted by DJones
If they spent 300M on a place for concerts that couldn't handle sporting events and as such had no consistent tenant, they'd be crucified.
|
Sorry let me clarify, if they built an event centre and concert hall which could do everything that they wanted the new building to do minus the Sports. If they would be crucified for that then they should be crucified for the current deal and we will never get a new event centre.
I believe the best for both sides is for the city to build what they want and the Flames to build what they want. This might even lower the cost of the building the City builds but might increase the cost of the building the Flames build. The added benefit of this would be that they would have the ability to hold more events because they would not be competing for space.
If the City can’t make a concert hall & event centre work where they new building was planned in close proximity to the Stampede grounds and Bell National music centre then they are admitting they need the flames to make a new building work. This would mean that they need the flames and can’t build a new building without them and thus should not make the flames the scape goat/bad guy.
The flames want a new place for them, their CFL team and their WHL team to play out of. If they can’t make a combined building work then they are admitting they need the city and as stated in the previous paragraph they should not make it look like it is the city’s fault. The biggest problem with the original Calgary next was the cleanup which needed to take place and I think if the city was taken out of this responsibility it could make the project viable.
That is my take from a distance without being closer to/in the room. Bottom line is they either build a building together or two/three separate buildings (field house).