Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
It is a terrible investment. It's a money losing venture for all involved. The City has to decide if it wants an event centre and an NHL franchise long term and if they see benefit in that or not.
If they don't, likely time to tell the CSE and the NHL that when the Dome truly stops being a tolerable solutions for the Flames to look a selling the team.
If they do, the city should do their diligence and understand exactly how much they will be willing to pay for, and try to get the private partners in this endeavor to put up as much as they possibly can.
But people need to understand, there is NO business case in the city of Calgary (or Edmonton, which is why that deal required public funds) where it makes sense for any private investor to put up close to a billion dollars investment to build an Event Centre here. I said it in another thread, but the return on investment from a basic savings account is a better business case than the capital outlay required for this new rink.
Not wanting public funds to go to an event center is 100% a viable position. But thinking this is some savvy play by Edwards or any private company to get someone else to give them a handout on an amazing business opportunity that they should just pay for themselves is completely off on the economics on this project.
|
This is all fair an reasonable, but the 640 million dollar question is what makes a hockey team so special?
Pretty much every single business in the world has capital requirements that aren't directly profitable investments, but are necessary for overall profitability.
Certainly many businesses lobby their way to major gov't subsidy/support, but there are a few key differences:
- rarely is it municipal support (and if so we certainly aren't dealing in the millions, let alone 100 millions)...
- even at provincial/federal level this scale is way out of whack...any company benefiting to the tune of 100s of millions is going to be waaaaay bigger (and more economic impact) than this itsy-bitsy little corporation that is so helpless it can't even afford its own 4 walls + roof...
- other subsidies tend to have far more tangible and reiterative benefits (moreso than a few PT jobs and civic pride)
The answer has always been simple...any 'investment' to the degree of what we'll see from the city would warrant equity in any other case. I'm fine with the city ponying up, but we should be getting a 10-20% stake in the franchise. Presumably the NHL does not want that kind of [real-life business] arrangement...ergo having their cake and eating it, too.