Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Do you think even if Kansas City built a new arena with taxpayer money, that team would earn more money than the Flames in Calgary would?
|
Kansas City did build a new arena with taxpayer money.
The funny thing is, when the Vegas and Seattle expansion talks started, someone asked one of the insiders (I think Friedman) how come we weren't hearing KC's name as a potential expansion target, and he said it was because the city has basically decided they're better off not having a major league tenant in the building. It's better for them to run the building themselves and keeping the money it generates.
When the new building first opened, a bunch of NHL and NBA teams did the whole tour of KC thing to threaten their existing cities into building them new arenas (the Penguins and Islanders both did it, as did Sacramento in the NBA, and possibly a few more), and the city got mad at being used by teams who were never serious about moving there.
Ultimately, the building opened without a major league tenant and quickly became a high-demand concert venue and a good spot for one-off sporting events like the Big-12 Basketball tournament.
Other than paying AEG a building management fee, the city gets all of the money generated from these events... and the public parking lots around the arena. If an NHL or NBA team moved in, they would want all of that money for themselves (and not just from their own games, but the concerts and other events as well). As it stands, the city is fine not having a major league team in the arena because the events actually generate money for the city, which help pay off the construction costs of the building.