Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinit47
I think it's fair to wait and see as the revenue sharing (to my knowledge) hasn't been detailed.
I know it's incredibly unlikely, but if all non CSEC event revenue, parking revenue, and naming right revenue accrues to the city would you feel differently?
What if the new diateict includes significant public areas for day use that we won't see until the design phase? Will the $300mil in infrastructure upgrades benefit the entire area, or just the arena?
I think there is so much we don't know that making a decision either way is premature. Although I will say my guy reaction is the deal is bad, but I don't know how bad.
|
Yeah, if the details come out that there’s a bunch of non-CSEC event revenue going to the city, including something like naming rights, it makes the deal better to me. Do I think they would have left those major benefits to the city out of the initial announcement? No, unless they’re saving them to announce with some other details that aren’t so flattering to provide some balance. But it’s not like I have any personal stake in the perception of this deal, so if it looks better than it is now that’s nothing but good to me.
I’ve said it before, but I really like the Rivers District. I’ve read through the plans and with or without an arena I think it’s going to be awesome. Do I think it requires an NHL team as the anchor? Absolutely not, so most of my view of this (aside from the POV that there’s just more urgent ways to spend the money atm) is how does this compare to something like a world-class concert hall, or theatre, or something more geared toward how it’s going to be used the other 250-300 days per year.
I think that’s missing from the discussion. Could the deal look better for this specific kind of deal? Yeah, I hope it does. But is this even the best project for this area in this category? I don’t know, I’d like some strong justification for that being true if we’re going to be stuck with a bad deal for it.