Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
Agreed on the Oilers stupid deal giving the Flames the greenlight to push and push year after year for a deal that wasn't coming from Calgary.
But just to note, I didn't agree with the hardline stance of "just say no" to public funding, but did agree with the overall message that cities should not be paying hundreds of millions towards public stadiums while city infrastructure and programs crumble around a billion dollar stadium.
The point about Detroit declaring bankruptcy a few months before agreeing to spend $324mil towards the area project was absurd.
|
Oh! I completely agree on that point! No arguments here.
You want to see batcrap insane arena deals?
FIFA World Cup Brazil 2014. They built enormous arenas in places you can only access by boat or plane. It was nuts.
FIFA World Cup Qatar 2023. I think they have more stadium capacity than that country has residents, and more stadiums than that country even has teams to play in them. They're even supposed to be manufactured piecemeal so they can be dismantled and donated to other countries afterwards, thats nuts!
But I digress.
I think you and I are on the same page more or less.
Governments are generally not setup to function or operate as businesses, nor generally should they be. Their functions in that regard are entirely at cross purposes.
However, I acknowledge that pro sports teams provide benefits to a City and that those benefits are very difficult to accurately ascertain and quantify, which is why if a Government of any jurisdiction is going to get involved in one of these deals it isnt the funding model that has to be acknowledged, its the revenue model.
Have some method of, at the very least, being certain to get your money back over the lifetime of the investment. If you're pouring in too much and arent going to make your money back then perhaps....do not do that thing.
If your City is on the verge of insolvency then...perhaps...do not do that thing.
For example, if a City invests $500M in a major project and is in someway (ticket tax, property tax, rents, etc) is made whole by the 'End of Life' of the project then thats probably a good deal. Because ancillary property taxes in the local area have also likely increased (and existed and been paid), there has been employment, revenues to local establishments like hotels from visiting teams, real estate from local players, etc, etc, will have benefited the locality.
But it has to be reasonable and realistic. I dont think this is all that hard.
You are dealing with two entities that have an astounding access to available Capital, you just have to strike a reasonable and practical balance.